This document is an introduction to Australian Parliementary debates, the motion/topics, team structure,etc. It is meant to help institutions and universities who are new to the Parlimentary debating format.
|Basics of Debate
A debate is held between two teams of three members each. These two teams will be referred to as Affirmative and the Negative. Members of each team are assigned positions as the first, second, third speakers. Team are given thirty (30) minutes to prepare for each debate.
Thus, the complete speaking order is as follows;
the first affirmative - 7 m
the first negative - 7 m
the second affirmative - 7 m
the second negative - 7 m
the third affirmative - 7 m
the third negative - 7 m
negative reply - 5 m
affirmative reply - 5 m
During the time given for speeches, no one else may interrupt/interject the speaker except the chairperson, and only if absolutely necessary.
A warning bell will be sounded one (1) minute before the end of the allowed time for each speech, and s second bell at the end of the allowed time for each speech. This means, for a subtstantial speech, the first bell will be sounded after six (6) minutes, and the second bell will be sounded after 7 minutes. For a reply speech, the first bell will be sounded after four (4) minutes and the second bell will be sounded after five (5) minutes.
ROLES OF SPEAKERS
The first affirmative speaker introduces the motion and defines the key terms in the motion. this definition is intended to limit the scope of the debate to a specific and focused area. The first affirmative then goes on to state the stand of the Affirmative, presents the strategy, or them line, that the team will use in order to justify this stand.
Definiton should be reasonabe, clear, and true to the spirit of the motion. truistic, tautological and circular definitiona are strictly prohibited. Squirreling (definitions that are in no way related to the spirit of the motion and time/place setting are also not allowed.
The negative team must not just oppose the motion, but also build a counter-case against the affirmative team. in the event that the negative feels that the definition is invalid, the first negative speaker may challenge the affirmative's definition and propose an alternative definition. however, the negative can not raise a definitional challenge simply on the basis that their definition is more reasonable.
The second speaker from both teams must further their cases by building upon the framework that has been laid otu by their the first speaker, by giving arguments that prove their them line, and supporting those argument with facts.
The third speakers from both teams have the main duty of rebutting the arguments and points brought up up by their opposing team. The third speaker on the negative team is not allowed to bring up new matter. however, new examples to support points introducd earlier are allowed.
1. This House supports censorship of the arts.
2. This House rejects a clash of civilisations
3. This house would censor hate
4. This house believes that the Internet is the greatest force for democratisation in the world
5. This house would ban books
6. This House believes that children should be protected from subversive cultural influences
7. This House believes intellectuals should play an essential role in the political reform process
8. This House believes that ASEAN has failed
9. This House would tax aviation fuel
10. This house would never send delegate to international beauty contests
11. This house would abolish national exams
12. This house would ban smack down wrestling
13. This House would legalise the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport
14. This House Would not go Hunting, Shooting, or Fishing
15. This house believes that the victory of Iraq football team in Asian champion has returned national pride
16. This house would make punishments for bribery more strict
17. This house would harden soft money
18. Radical Feminism movement should be banned
19. Women have a legal right to abortion
20. This house would bring other countries’ nukes under control
21. Polygamy remains a threat to women
22. Polygamy should be completely banned
23. This House believes that pornography magazine should be banned
24. Government should be independent from influence of international money funding
25. This house believes that government may not have the resources to provide a free education
26. This house would experiment on animals for human benefit
27. This house believes that public figures have no right to private lives
28. That we should give the president Habibi z chance
29. That Indonesia should change its constitution
30. That football is overvalued in today's sociatey
31. That cigarette companies should not be held responsible for the bad effects of smoking
32. That american pop culture is a threat to civilization
33. That long is better than short
Adjudication is the process of determining which team wins the debates. There is always a winner in a debate. There are no 'draw' or 'ties'. The speakers are assessed on MATTER, MANNER, METHOD. Matter is 40, and Manner is 40, and Method is 20, making a total of 100 points for each substantial speech. For reply speeches, MAtter and Manner are 20 points and Method is 10, making a total of 50 points.
MATTER refers to the points, arguments, logic, facts, statistics, and examples brought up during the course of the debate. MANNER is concerned with the style of public speaking - the use of voice, language, aye contact, notes, gesture, stance, humour and personality as a medium for making the audience more receptive to the argument being delivered. There are no set rules which must be followed by debaters. METHOD consists of the effectiveness of the structure and organization of each individual speech, the effectiveness of the structure and organization of the team case as a whole, and the extend to which the team reacted appropriately to the dynamics of the debate.