Asian Parliamentary Debate Format - Seminar

Asian Parliamentary Debate Format I.

Speaker Roles Government Bench

Opposition

Bench 1 Prime Minister (PM)

2 Leader of the Opposition (LO)

3 Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)

4 Deputy Leader of the Opposition (DLO)

5 Government Whip

6 Opposition Whip

1. Prime Minister - the speaker tasked to set the pace of the debate by defining its parameters and introducing the general pace of the government bench’s case.

Ideal Speech Outline for PM: a. Definition of the motion’s key terms. b. Identification of status quo’s problem and the place setting of the debate. c. Proposed solution for the identified problem/s as indicated in the motion. d. Signposting of the arguments to be used by the PM and the DPM (optional). e. Elaboration of PM’s arguments. f. Tie-back (Wrap-up).

1

2. Leader of the Opposition – the first rebuttal speaker of the debate who sets the pace of argumentation for the opposition bench while debunking the claims and arguments made by the prime minister.

Ideal Speech Outline for LO: a. Statement of clash. b. Outline of a counter-proposal or a redefinition of the status quo. c. Signposting of the arguments to be used by the LO and the DLO (optional). d. Rebuttal on the government bench’s case. e. Elaboration of the LO’s arguments. f. Tie-back (Wrap-up). 3 & 4. Deputies – the second speakers from both benches of the house who are generally tasked to rebuild the case of their bench while at the same time introduce fresh arguments and debunk further the opposite bench’s claims and arguments. Ideal Speech Outline for DPM and DLO: a. Signposting of the deputy’s arguments. b. Rebuttals. c. Elaboration of the deputy’s arguments. d. Tie-back (Wrap-up). 5 & 6. Whips – the last speakers from both benches prior to the reply speeches. Whips are tasked to identify the different issues that transpired during the debate while establishing why their respective benches have clinched such issues and eventually, the debate based on the arguments already presented. No new arguments may be introduced at this stage but fresh analysis and examples on previous arguments are welcome and encouraged. Ideal Speech Outline for the Whips: a. Introduction. b. Statement of perceived issues. c. Comparative analysis of both bench’s arguments based on a particular issue. 2

d. Tie-back (Wrap-up). 7 & 8. Reply Speakers – the final speakers for each of the house’s benches who are tasked to give an adjudicator’s point of view summary on why their side won the debate. As to the whips, reply speeches must not present any new arguments. Ideally, a reply speech is only a brief and concise re-evaluation of crucial arguments that your side presented. Reply speakers may be any of the three members of the team but mostly the task is given to the first speaker of either side as he has the most time and opportunity to quantify all the arguments and construct the speech itself. At this point in the debate, no point of information may be raised and the speech should only be four minutes long.

II.

The Motion

The motion of the debate is the general proposition or theme in which the debate must be coursed. There are two kinds of motions as to its interpretation; a standard motion and an open motion. Standard Motion – this motion is characterized by its specificity as to what it wants to propose or establish which leaves little or no room for the government bench to improvise. Example:

THBT Divorce should be legalized in the Philippines.

Open Motion – this motion gives the Prime Minister enough leeway to define the motion creatively without losing it basic premise. Example: THBT Basic education should be prioritized by the Philippine government.

The privilege of interpretation primarily rests on the Prime Minister but in cases where the opposition bench feels that the definition has put the debate beyond the premise dictated by the motion, a definitional challenge may be waged immediately upon his turn by the leader of the opposition based on the following grounds: a. Squirrel – this happens when the definition presented by the Prime Minister has not conformed to the spirit of the motion. The spirit of the motion should be extracted from its words at the simplest possible terms that a reasonably intelligent person could associate.

3

b. Time-Place Setting – this happens when the definition and setting given by the Prime Minister are based on overly specific knowledge. Examples are setting a debate in medieval Prussia or in present day Wyoming. c. Truism - is a claim that is as obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical, e.g. This house believes that the ocean is filled with water. Clearly, this motion is not debatable at all. Upon the declaration of a challenge, the leader of the opposition must redefine the motion as he deems correct and reasonable and argue against such definition while the remaining speakers on each side would argue the validity/invalidity of each other’s definition and debate for or against accordingly. It is important to note that challenges are highly discouraged except in cases where blatant abuse of discretion has occurred.

III.

Argumentation

Arguments are the basic tools to forward your bench’s case in a parliamentary form of debate. These are primarily the reasons why you want to pursue a certain proposition or fight against it, or it could be the outcomes you desire to achieve. To illustrate, in a motion which states that THBT the Philippines should adopt a federal form of government; one argument for it could state that it incentivizes local governments to efficiently collect taxes. One technique to ease the communication of your arguments to the adjudicators is to use the CRE Model of Argumentation where: C is for Claim, R is for Reason, and E is for evidence or example. To illustrate using the case above: Claim:

It incentivizes local governments to efficiently collect taxes.

Reason:

Considering that majority of the tax money they collect are no longer remitted to the central government, the Local Governments now have more incentives to collect taxes therefore efficiency in the tax collection system is now a priority not only of the national government but also of the local units.

Evidence:

Let’s use the United States’ model as an example, each of the 50 states have developed their own revenue systems mostly independent from the federal government to suit their varied economic and cultural landscapes.

Each argument should be discussed in 2-3 minutes and each constructive speaker (PM, LO, DPM, DLO) must have at least two arguments to effectively establish a strong case. 4

IV.

Time Limit and POI’s

Every speaker except in the reply speeches is given 7 minutes to establish his case. A bell will be rung once by the panel at the first minute of every speech to indicate the availability of the speaker for Point of Information (POI) while another ring in the sixth minute will signal the end of POI opportunities. The bell will be rung twice at the seventh minute to indicate the end of the speech after which another 20 seconds will be counted before the Chair will rule the speaker out of order. Point of Information (POI) – is the opportunity for the opposing team to ask the current speaker for any clarification regarding his speech. The discretion to accept any POI’s within the time allotted solely rests on the speaker and only when recognized by him, the opposing debater can interpose queries within 15 seconds before being ruled out of order by the chair. Ideally, a debate should start within 30 minutes upon the release of the motion.

V.

Judging

Asian parliamentary debate format calls for subjective adjudication based primarily on the weight of the arguments presented by one side against the other and vice-versa but beyond the matter of the speech, a speaker would also be judged based on his manner and method. Matter

– content of the speech (arguments, definition, etc.).

Manner

– the effectivity of the speech delivery (style).

Method

– organization and speech structure.

5