Debating and Adjudicating in

British Parliamentary Debating

Format

Rachmat Nurcahyo

Workshop on Adjudication for NHPEO 2019

 What is british parliamentary
debate?
A competitive sport whereby 4 teams in opposing sides try to
convince an audience that a point of view regarding a controversial
issue is better than the alternative provided.

Discuss – Negotiate or compromise conflicting

points of view in order to cooperate.

Debate – Highlight the opposing opinions

surrounding a topic as a tool for decision making
and analysis.
Debate Structure
Proposition Opposition
Prime Minister Leader of the Opposition
or or
st 1 2
1 1st Speaker 1st Prop. 1st Speaker 1st Opp.
1st
Prop. Deputy Prime Minister Deputy of the Opposition
Opp.
or 3 4 or
2nd Speaker 1st Prop. 2nd Speaker 1st Opp.

Member for Government Member for the Opposition

or
5 6 or
2nd 1st Speaker 2nd Prop. 1st Speaker 2nd Opp. 2nd
Prop. Opp.
Government Whip Opposition Whip
or 7 8 or
2nd Speaker 2nd Prop. 2nd Speaker 2nd Opp.
Points of Information – P.O.I
3 Types of Debates
Factual debate – Is it or is it not the case? Did it or did it not happen?
• THBT USA is to blame for global terrorism
• THBT the capitalist system is doomed to collapse
• THBT our education system is a failure

Value debate – What should our values be & why? Is it Better or Worse – for us
(and / or Society as a whole?)
• THBT this is the time for genderless identity
• THBT parents should have the final say over the medical treatment of their children
• THBT we should have more freedom

Policy Debate – What is the problem and how do we fix it?

• THW ban smoking
• THW oblige doctors to report on their patients’ domestic violence
• THW impose democracy
3 Types of Motions

• Closed Motion
• THBT there is no such thing as universal human rights
• THBT mandatory drug testing of public officials is justified
• THBT child labour can never be justified

• Semi (Opened / Closed) Motion

• This House supports privatisation
• This House would adopt a green agenda
• This House believes that art is a diversion

• Open Motion
• THBT we have no reverse
• THW gain a burst of knowledge
• THB in the long way
Names of  Opposition
Whip
Speakers  Upper
Upper House (Opening) House
(Opening)
 Prime Minister
PM 
 Leader of the Opposition
 Deputy Prime Minister
 Deputy Leader of the DPM 
Opposition

Lower House (Closing)

MG 
 Member for Government
 Member for Opposition
GW 
 Government Whip
Lower House (Closing)

LO

DLO MO OW
Speakers’ role
 1 Speaker -- Prime
st

Minister Upper House

Defines and interprets the motion

Defining ambiguous terms
Interpreting focuses the

Develops a case for the proposition in support of the

motion

Case should consist of one or more arguments

supporting the PM’s interpretation of the motion

Case must be prima facie—strong enough to be

accepted on “its first face.”
 2 Speaker: Leader of
nd

Opposition Upper House

 Accepts the definition of the motion

 Refutes the case of the first Government

 Construct one or more arguments against the Prime

Minister's interpretation of the motion
 3 Speaker -- Deputy Prime
rd

Minister

 Refutes the case of the first opposition Upper House

 Rebuilds the case of the first Government

 Adds one or more new arguments to the case of the

first Government
 4 Speaker –
th

Deputy Leader of Opposition

 Continues refutation of case of 1 st opposition.

Government with emphasis on any
new arguments introduced by the
DPM

 Rebuilds arguments of the 1 st

opposition.

 Adds new arguments to the case of the

1 st
Upper House
 5 Speaker –
th

Member for Government

 Defends the general direction and case of the 1st
Government

 Continues refutation of 1st opposition arguments

 Develops a new argument that is different from but consitent

with the case of the 1st Government (frequently called an
extension)
Lower House
6 Speaker –
th

Member for Opposition

 Very briefly defends the general direction taken by the 1st
opposition

 Very briefly continues general refutation of 1st proposition

case

 Provides more specific refutation of the MG extension.

 Develops an opposition extension.

Lower House
 7 Speaker – Government Whip
th

 Summarizes the entire debate from the point of view of

the proposition

 Defends the general view point of both proposition teams

with a special eye toward the case of the 2nd proposition.

Lower House
 Does not provide new arguments.
 8 Speaker – Opposition Whip
th

 Summarizes the entire debate from the point of view of

the opposition

 Defends the general view point of both opposition teams

with a special eye toward the argument of the MO.

Lower House

 Does not provide new arguments.

Argumentation
 What exactly is an
Argument?
An argument involves the process of establishing a claim
and then proving it with the use of logical reasoning,
examples, and research.
 The form of an argument
Reason 1
Reason 2
Reason 3
Conclusion

The key thing to remember is that a conclusion only stands if there

are reasons provided to support it and these reasons are true. An
argument may be contrasted with an assertion. An assertion is
merely a claim or a statement which is not supported by reasons and
thus gives you no basis to believe it.
Assertions are your enemy.
 How to construct an argument
When constructing an argument you will initially start with some conclusion in mi

Capital Punishment will deter Corruption

I will then need to supply the reasons that will lead to this conclusion, starting from
 How to construct an argument

I will start with the first reason:

1) Corruptors are generally rational individuals.
This seems to be a relatively good basis from
which to start. Next I will add an additional
reason:
2) A rational individual assesses the
consequences of his/her actions
before acting.
Having established this basis the next link is fairly
obvious:
3) Death penalty is a severe consequence.
 How to construct an argument
These reasons can be put together to create the final argument:
1) Corruptors, in general, are rational individuals.
2) A rational individual assesses the
consequences of
their actions before acting.
3) Death penalty (capital punishment) is
a severe consequence.
Capital punishment is
an effective deterrent
against theft.
How to construct an argument
Argumentation in practice

In practice you will not have that much time to map out the
flow of your reasonsand conclusions while you prepare your
speech.This is why you need to train your brain to think in logical
patterns of conclusions supported by reasons.The best training is to
take everyday statements and claims and try to create arguments for
these claims. Start with the most self evident reasons and gradually
work your way up until you have proved the claim. Use the
following examples to test your argument construction skills:

Torture is effective in getting information out of criminals.

Mother-tongue education allows children to learn better.
 Using examples to support your argument
The use of real-world evidence is often a powerful tool to give your arguments gr
However, an example is NOT a substitute for an argument. Examples are merely

Consider this use of an example:

Capital punishment for corruptors was used in the China and it reduced corrupt
Therefore capital punishment is an effective deterrent.
Using examples to support your argument
To use an example effectively:
1) Present a logical argument
2) Establish the logic behind the argument you are providing
3) Use the example to show how the logic has
been demonstrated in real life
Rebuttal

Rebuttals are responses towards the other team’s

arguments. Rebuttals should prove that the other
team’s arguments are not as important as they claim
to be.
Two Sphere of Rebuttal

There is offensive rebuttal which attack the oppposition’s

case

There is also defensive ot counter rebuttal which defends

your case and explains why is it a better option

In rebuttal, try to have arguments from both spheres

Types of rebuttal

1.Irrelevant to the point being proven

2.Error: argument is based on an error of fact or
misinterpreted fact
3.Proof: lack of proof and explanation in the argument
4.Illogical:Argument is illogical, does not flow, lack of
casual links.
5.involve unacceptable implications
6.Morally flawed
Types of rebuttal against team case

1.Inconsistency: there is a difference or change in argument,

stance, rebuttal or explanation between the speakers
2.Invalid case: in comparative debate, one team only
discusses the benefits of one concept e.g. reward and does
not acknowledge the other e.g. punishment
3.Hung case: Moral and practical arguments are split between
first and second speakers and the conclusioncan only be
drawn at the end of the second speaker.
 POINTS OF INFORMATION

The QUESTION Form

This format is basically delivering an argument as a question.

E.g. in the death penalty debate a POI could be phrased as,

"Don't you think that the death penalty actually deters murder by increasing the
" What do you say to the argument that the death penalty deters crime by increa
POINTS OF INFORMATION
The FACTUAL form

Often a team may be relying on a certain example or factual piece of inform

For example if a speaker was arguing …

THAt most Asylum seekers Are possible terrorists And crimiNAls And thus we
CAnnot open our borders" a POI stating that,
'80% of Asylum seekers Are genuine immigrAnts And there is no stAtisticAl
evidence thAt terrorists come to South AfriCA ViA boAts According to
immigrAtion stAts' would be devastating.
 POINTS OF INFORMATION
The EXPOSURE!

POIs are useful to

expose where a team's argument is lacking,
where their arguments are contradictory, or
where they have failed to rebut a key argument.

Suppose a team is debating that we should invade Iraq, and they are talking about a
 POINTS OF INFORMATION
1. Always RESPOND to your POI.This is the best option. If you are confident
in your case just refute the point and move on. The quicker you can do
this, the better.
2. Dodge. Sometimes you are going to be stumped by a POI - it happens
to everyone. If you are stumped don't waffle for 30 seconds.You can
restate your case line or provide token refutation.The most important
point is that you shouldn't allow a POI to make you lose your
concentration.
3. Do NOT use POIs to 'nitpick' minor examples, unless the example is
very important to their case and you have matter that will destroy
them.
Adjudication
 Golden Rule:

“Which team contributes the most to

the debate?”
 What to look for from each
team?
• OG (Opening Government: Prime Minister + Deputy PM)
• Problem – clear? is the scope realistic?
• Definition – debatable? reasonable?
• Solution/Model – sufficient to solve the problem?
• Arguments
• Rebuttals

• OO (Opening Opposition: )
• Response – clear?
• Solution/Counter model (if any) – sufficient to solve the problem?
• Arguments
• Rebuttals
 What to look for from ... ?
(cont’d)
• CG/CO
• Extension – distinct? new? relevant?
• How they present the extension
• Flag with POI?
• Mention as ‘important’/ ‘key issue’ at the start of the speech?
• Incorporate in rebuttals?
• Rebuttals
• Strong?
• Supporting extension?
• Are they successful in making their materials the most important
and relevant in the debate?
 Assessing Arguments (cont’d)
• Relevant v. Irrelevant
• Focus on contribution and consistency!
• Does the argument contribute to achieve the goal in the debate?
• Is the argument consistent with how the debate is characterized (problem/actors/etc.)?

• Strong v. Weak
• AREL
• Focus on the reasoning!
• Deductive → all premises must be proven conclusively.
• Inductive → credibility/persuasiveness of examples must be proven.
• Use of compelling supporting data/facts.
 Assessing Arguments (cont’d)
• Significant v. Insignificant
• Focus on importance!
• Is the argument substantially discussed by teams in the debate?
• Did the argument manage to stay in the debate → ‘airtime’ is usually a good
indicator.
 Assessing Rebuttals
• Does it attack the reasoning?
• Deductive
• Should not target the conclusion.
• Target the premises, prove them false – ie. through argumentations, not mere statements.
• Inductive
• Attack the credibility of the examples – ie. by arguing that the examples given are false/don’t
apply, not merely giving counter examples.
• Attack the relationship between examples and conclusion – ie. by showing there are other
factors at play.
 Handy to keep in mind…
• LISTEN!!!

• Don’t think for the debaters!

• Awareness → what happens in the
debate v. what happens in your head.
• Don’t finish their arguments for them.
• Don’t rebut their arguments.
• Handy tips: in your note, make a box for your thoughts.
 Handy to keep in mind…
(cont’d)
• Judging is not coaching!
• Don’t expect arguments.
• Don’t try to think of better arguments the debaters could have
presented.

• Manner – Matter
• Don’t automatically buy arguments just because of good manner.
• If the manner is bad, don’t strain yourself to understand the matter.
 Duties of an adjudicator…

• Confer and discuss the debate with the other adjudicators.

• The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on the adjudication of the
debate. Therefore, confer in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.
• Determine the ranking of the teams.
• Determine the teams’ grades.
• Determine the speakers’ scores.
• Provide a verbal adjudication.
• Complete documentation required by the tournament.
 Ranking
• Teams should be ranked from first place to fourth place.
• 1st – 3 points
• 2nd – 2 points
• 3rd – 1 points
• 4th – 0 point.
• Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings.
• When a unanimous decision cannot be reached after conferral,
the decision of the majority will determine the rankings.
• When a majority decision cannot be reached, the chair of the
panel of adjudicators will determine the rankings.
 Grading and Marking (cont’d)
The panel of adjudicators should agree upon the grade awarded
to each team.

Each adjudicator marks each team at their own discretion, but the
marks should fall within the agreed grade for the team.

REMEMBER : The Higher the Rank, the higher the score, but the grade
is not necessarily the Best.
 Grading and Marking (cont’d)
• Grades are interpreted as:
• A = 180 – 200.
Excellent to flawless. The standard you would expect to see from a team at the Semi Final/Grand Final of the
tournament. The team has many strengths and few, if any, weaknesses.
• B = 160 – 179
Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see from a team at the finals level or in contention
to make to the finals. The team has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.
• C = 140 – 159
Average. The team has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal proportions.
• D = 120 – 139
Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor strengths.
• E = 100 – 119
Very poor. The team has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.
 Grading and Marking (cont’d)
• Each adjudicator marks individual speakers at their discretion, but
must ensure that the aggregate points of the team members is within
the agreed grade for that team.
• Individual marks are interpreted as:
• A = 90 –100. Excellent to flawless, standard of a speaker in the final of the tournament.
• B = 80 – 89. Above average to very good, standard of a speaker in contention to make to the finals.
• C = 70 – 79. Average, weaknesses and strengths in equal proportion.
• D = 60 – 69. Poor to below average, clear problem.
• E = 50 – 59. Poor, fundamental flaws.
 Verbal adjudication
• Announce ranking.
• Provide general assessment of the debate.
• Explain the determinant considerations for the ranking.
• Go team per team:
• Explain the reasons behind their ranking (in comparison to how other teams rank).
• Explain what they did well and what they lacked.
• Provide suggestions of what they can improve in next debates.
• Keep it concise!
• Offer personal assessment outside the room.