A Briefing For BP Debate 9/22/2018 Prepared by Jason Hong, David Miko and the University of Calgary Debate Society A Briefing For BP Debate A Comprehensive Introduction To British Parliamentary Debate

Tournament Notes Name of Tournament # of Rounds Open/Closed Adjudication

So, how about BP? This Brief Presentation Will Cover Five Talking Points That Will Train You To Be Great. Style of Debate Role Of Each Team Role of Each Debater Notes on judging Other Important Stuff Prepared by the CA Panel of the 2008 CSDF National Seminar Edited by the CA of the UCDS HS BP Tournament, 2010 & 2011

British Parliamentary Style 9/22/2018 British Parliamentary Style

What’s the Difference? There are 4 teams in one round Teams are Ranked 1 through 4 Decisions Are Made by Consensus

9/22/2018 The Order of The Debate Understanding the proceedings of the debate is key to understanding BP debate. The basic structure of all debates remains consistent and is very simple. Opening Proposition Opening Opposition Prime Minister 1st Speaker 1st Speaker Leader of Opposition 2nd Speaker Deputy PM 2nd Speaker Deputy LO All Speeches are Five Minutes, except break rounds, 7 minutes. Protected time will be 30 seconds in prelims, and 1 minute in break rounds Closing Proposition Closing Opposition Member of Crown 1st Speaker 1st Speaker Member of Opp 2nd Speaker Proposition Whip 2nd Speaker Opposition Whip

9/22/2018 Role of Each Team

Opening Government Defines the Terms of the Debate If necessary introduce a model Opens the Case for the Government Opposes the case of the Opening Opposition when it is presented

Opening Opposition Opposes the case of the Opening Government Opens the Case for the Opposition (Definition Challenge) Definitional challenges are discouraged

Closing Government Extends the Government Case Opposes the cases of the Opening and Closing Opposition teams Summarizes the debate

Closing Opposition Extends the Opposition Case Opposes the cases of the Opening and Closing Opposition teams Summarizes the debate

9/22/2018 Role of Each Debater

Prime Minister Defines the Resolution Presents a Model Introduces the Government Case It is the role of the Prime Minster to present a clear, coherent and contentious case that is in spirit of the resolution. If required, the Prime Minister must also outline a clear and sensible model to support the resolution. Example : TH Supports Carbon Taxes While the burden of the government is to prove that Carbon Taxes will be beneficial, the government must provide us with the 5Ws Who, What, When, Where, and Why Difference between definitions and model Models next slide

Models Models or plans are used to determine how the team is going to take the action they are advocating Not always necessary Are useful in defining the pragmatics of the case Does not need to address Funding Timelines Legislative information Only deals with how in an ideal world the Government would follow through THBT v THW

Leader of the Opposition Refutes what PM said Introduces the Opposition Case Possible Definitional Challenge If the opposition feels the definitions set out by the PM are unfair, the definitional challenge must be provided during this speech The leader is responsible for refuting the PM’s model, as well as his points. Unlike Canadian Parliamentary, it is not enough to simply refute the Government’s case. A good team will present its own case with its own burdens and prove this in the round.

Deputy Prime Minister Refutes what LO Said Continues the Government Case Sums up the Debate thus far The DPM is responsible for refuting the case presented by the LO The DPM may also choose to rebuild some of his partner’s case before continuing New points supporting the Government’s Case must be introduced in order to close the Government case It is important for the DPM to conclude the OG’s case in a memorable fashion An effective DPM will provide a brief crystallization of what happened in the first half of the debate.

Deputy LO Refute what the DPM said Continues the Opposition Case Summarizes the debate thus far The DLO continues the attack on the Government’s case DLO should focus his/her refutation on the remarks of the DPM New points supporting the Opposition Case must be introduced and the Opposition case should be closed It is just as important for the DLO to conclude the Opposition’s case in a way that the judges will still remember them by the end of the debate An effective DLO will provide a brief crystallization of what happened in the first half of the debate.

Member of the Opposition Member of the Crown Refutes the DLO / Opening Opposition (limited) Introduces the Government Extension Member of the Opposition The Member of Government may take a brief part of his/her speech to quickly summarize, and attack loose ends left by the first opposition team Focus of the MoG should be on the Government Extension Extensions on next slide. Refutes Government Extension Introduces Opposition Extension

What is an extension? New or Distinct Material Not Contradictory (knifing) New Argumentation New Analysis Detailed – Stand-alone Case Can Be Radical and Change the tone of the debate Extensions should not contradict anything that was brought up during the first half of the team’s speeches (otherwise knifing, “auto-loss”) Extensions should bring new analysis to the debate, reiterating points is not a good extension Extensions may however expand in detail of a point that was briefly touched on by the first half (not recommended) Extensions should be detailed. Although we may call it a 4th point, an extension is a case of its own Extensions can be radical and change the tone of the debate Example : THW ban convicted criminals of publishing accounts of their crimes. First-half focuses on – the rights of the criminal Second half can extend to talk about protection of the victims

Government Whip Refutes the Opposition Extension Summarizes the Debate (New contentions may be introduced, but not recommended) This is the only time the Government has to attack the Opposition extension However the main role of the whip is to summarize the round Whip speeches should be well summarized, thematic speeches Should cover everything in the debate, but focus on the 2nd half, especially the government extension (slightly biased summary) Whips in 2 slides.

Opposition Whip Refutes the Closing Government (GW) Summarizes the debate (No new contentions may be introduced) The opposition must finish its attack on the government However the main role of the whip is to summarize the round Whip speeches should be well summarized, thematic speeches Should cover everything in the debate, but focus on the 2nd half, especially the opposition extension (slightly biased summary) Whips next slide.

What is a Whip Speech? Primary goal of a Whip is to summarize the round Should not be a chronological summary of the debate “He said, she said” etc Summary should focus on themes, questions, or actors Highlight the overarching concepts of the round Does not need to cover everything, but must cover everything that is important Strong Whips will prove the extension to be the winning point in the round Primary goal of a Whip is to summarize the round Should not be a chronological summary of the debate “He said, she said” etc That’s bush-league shit, and up with it I shall not put. Summary should focus on themes or questions 3 themes or 3 questions are the most common Highlight the overarching concepts of the round Does not need to cover everything, but must cover everything that is important Strong whips can identify the important or relevant arguments Strong Whips will prove the extension to be the winning point in the round This is because of teamwork

9/22/2018 Notes on Judging

The Decision - rankings Role Fulfillment Argumentation Clash Manner Done in Tandem unlike in the other styles you have done; first the win, then assigning the speaker points based on the components that comprise the victory Consider these factors more holistically than in other styles. Important to determine rankings first, since speaker score totals for the team must match the rankings (i.e. second place can’t have a total team score higher than/equal to the first place team, and so on).

Leader of the Opposition Member of the Opposition Role Fulfillment Prime Minister Personally Responsible for Definitions Case Construction Opening Proposition Provides a Clear and Fair Model Is Responsible for Messiness of Debate Staying Relevant Opening Opposition Effectively Deals with Proposition Case Puts Forwards Important Arguments Staying Relevant Leader of the Opposition Personally Responsible Introducing Case Responsible for First Line of Clash Deputy Prime Minister Personally Responsible for Laying out Clash Case Completion Deputy Prime Minister Personally Responsible for Doing All Clash Case Completion Member of the Crown Personally Responsible for Extension Proper Clash Closing Proposition Provides a Strong, Distinct Extension Effectively Clashes Planting Flag Summation Speech Member of the Opposition Personally Responsible for Extension Proper Clash Closing Opposition Provides a Strong, Distinct Extension Effectively Clashes Planting Flag Summation Speech With BP particularly it is very important to the quality of the round that each speaker fills their role. (And for each team to fill it’s role as laid out earlier.) There is a fairly strong emphasis on role fulfillment in BP that is unique to the style. Proposition Whip Personally Responsible for the Quality of Summation Speech Opposition Whip Personally Responsible for the Quality of Summation Speech

Argumentation When judging teams on argumentation there are two criteria: Structure of arguments Clear, concise, easy to understand, logical Content of the arguments Factually strong, well supported with evidence, valid arguments Internal logic: supports and validates the argument itself External logic: connects argument back to the case Also: How to use evidence – an example might be pertinent, even obviously so, but it still requires analysis to make it relevant/connect. Also: Janna hates feasibility arguments (principles versus pragmatics) Engagement: it’s important for each team to choose relevant arguments (opposition should use their arguments to directly counter prop arguments/address the key issues in the round.

Clash When judging teams on clash the criteria is the same as arguments: Structure of clash Clear, concise, easy to understand, logical Content of the clash Factually strong, well supported with evidence, valid clash As a judge, try to track the connections between clash and opposing arguments (notes or what have you). This is where we are hoping to see the most back and forth engagement between sides/teams.

Manner Least important in BP in regards to the Rankings Should be used as a last resort for deciding winners Manner is the way in which debaters spoke Relevant for their Individual Speaker Points Well organized, well spoken, and well presented You would only penalize a debater if their manner detracted from the persuasiveness of the arguments. Structure and organization may affect coherence for instance.

Please refer to the backside of your ballot Scoring Please refer to the backside of your ballot Minimum Score : 67 Average Score : 70 Maximum Score : 73 67 – Poor 68 – Work Needed 69 – Satisfactory 70 – Average 71 – Good 72 – Excellent 73 – Exceptional Matter 27-29 The content of the debate including: argumentation, examples, logic, clash and reasoning. 28 Average   Manner 27-29 How the debater presented the speech – the verbal and non verbal communication that made the speech effective or not effective. 28 Average Strategy 13-15 Use of the style, points of information, structure of speeches including time, strategic placements of clash and arguments. 14 Average Totals have to match rankings. It’s helpful to start with either the top or bottom speaker, place them relative to average, and work down or up from there, respectively. The reason the range is restricted is due to the fact that we’re using human individuals to judge and each one has their own take on what scores are deserved – by restricting the range we protect the debaters from the extremes of that subjectivity.

Other Important Stuff 9/22/2018 These will be used to review a host of judging criteria key to debating Worlds Style, and will flow into the future rounds you judge

Points of Information Also a component of strategy Used to ask questions in the middle of speeches Pertinent Should illustrate a flaw in the other teams arguments, or reposition one of their own arguments Short, and Clear The “Give Two, Take Two” Rule. Each debater should make their best effort to give two POIs to the opposing side, and take two POIs during their speech. They should not be penalized if this is not reasonably possible (they weren’t offered two POIs at times they were willing to take them, or tried to offer many POIs but they weren’t accepted i.e. freeze-out). POIs should be about 10 seconds/1-2 sentences. They can be questions or leading statements. The purpose of POIs is for debaters to engage when it is not their speaking time, and for the speaker to demonstrate control of their speech and an ability to deal with attack-points as they go.

Points of Clarification May be asked near the beginning of the Prime Minister’s speech. A non-partisan question seeking clarification of the definitions, model, or other context-providing point. Should be short and to the point as it’s being accepted as a courtesy. Should be accepted if offered. Not considered part of anyone’s quota for POIs. PMs should take them – if the round ends up being unclear, but they were offered a chance to clarify early on…

Impacting Statements S tatement E xample E xplanation Substantiates arguments Provides more evidence for the judges Makes your points harder to bring down Wins debates

Questions?