Debating Seminar

Asian Parliamentary Format

Asian Parliamentary Debate
Asian Parliamentary Debate is a competitive debate format
used in World School Debating Championship and majority of
Indonesia High School Debating competitions. It is composed
of two teams affirmative and negative with three speakers and
one replies each
JUDGING
the Elements of Speeches

 Matter (40%)
 Manner (40%)
 Method (20%)
JUDGING
Matter

 Speaker Role Fulfillment

 Arguments
 Rebuttals
JUDGING
Manner

 Following general etiquette; respectful, not racist, etc.

 Elements of persuasive speeches; vocal clarity, eye contact,
humor, etc.
 Assessing manner is subjective, however there are certain
line. Overly aggressive debaters or monotone debaters
should have their point reduced.
 Overly polite opening introduction and thank you speeches
are not part of manner assessment.
JUDGING
Method

 Structure of Speeches
 Responses towards previous speakers
 Time Management
 POIs
 Judging
Score Interpretation
RANGE OF SPEAKERS SCORE
69-70 Content is almost never relevant, and is both
confusing and confused. No structure or fulfillment of
role is, in any meaningful sense, provided.
71 The speech rarely makes relevant claims, only
occasionally formulated as arguments. Hard to follow,
little/no structure; no evident awareness of role.
 Judging
Score Interpretation
RANGE OF SPEAKERS SCORE
72 The speaker is often relevant, but rarely makes full
arguments. Frequently unclear and confusing; really
problematic structure/lack thereof; some awareness
of role.
73 Relevant arguments are frequently made, but with
very rudimentary explanation. The speaker is clear
enough to be understood the vast majority of the
time, but this may be difficult and/or unrewarding.
Structure poor; poor attempt to fulfill role.
 Judging
Score Interpretation
RANGE OF SPEAKERS SCORE
74 Arguments are generally relevant, and some
explanation of them given, but there may be obvious
gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or
irrelevant material and simplistic argumentation. The
speaker mostly holds the audience‟s attention and is
usually clear, but rarely compelling, and may
sometimes be difficult to follow. There is a decent but
incomplete attempt to fulfill one‟s role on the table,
and structure may be imperfectly delivered.
 Judging
Score Interpretation
RANGE OF SPEAKERS SCORE
75 Speaker generally fulfills basic speaker roles, good
structures and mostly relevant argument. Matter
however, might not be original and creative, often
lacking on details such as extra explanations and
examples
76 Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and
frequently persuasive. The speaker holds one‟s
attention, provides clear structure, and successfully
fulfills their basic role on the table.
 Judging
Score Interpretation
RANGE OF SPEAKERS SCORE
77 Relevant and pertinent arguments address key issues
in the round with sufficient explanation. The speech is
clear in almost its entirety, and holds one‟s attention
persuasively. Role is well-fulfilled and structure is
unlikely to be problematic
78 Very good, central arguments engage well with the
most important issues on the table and are highly
compelling; sophisticated responses would be
required to refute them. Delivery is clear and very
persuasive. Role fulfillment and structure probably
flawless.
 Judging
Score Interpretation
RANGE OF SPEAKERS SCORE
79-80 Brilliant arguments successfully engage with the main
issues in the round. Arguments are very well-
explained, always central to the case being
advocated, and demand extremely sophisticated
responses. The speech is very clear and incredibly
compelling. Structure and role fulfillment are executed
flawlessly.
81 Probably one of the best speeches ever delivered,
very compelling and hard to argue against. The
speech may change your life.

Reply is scored half of the substantive

speaker scores
Speaker Roles
Government Team Opposition Team

Prime Minister Leader of Opposition

Deputy Prime Minister Deputy Leader of Opposition

Government Whip Opposition Whip

Reply Reply
Speaker Roles
Prime Minister
 Defining the Motion
 Setting Parameters and Mechanism
 Giving the Context
 Team Stance
 Give a substantive arguments
Speaker Roles
Leader of Opposition
 Giving a response toward the settings brought by Prime
Minister
 Giving rebuttals for the arguments of prime minister
 Giving Context
 Team Stance
 Giving a substantive argument
Speaker Roles
Deputies
 Restate team stance
 Rebuilt cases
 Giving rebuttals toward the arguments of previous opposing
speakers
 Giving an extention
Speaker Roles
Whip Speakers
 Summarize and defend team arguments
 Identify clashes
 Give rebuttals, analysis, and comparison
 Glorifying arguments
Speaker Roles
Replies
 Provide a summary or overview of the debate
 Identify the issues raised by both teams
 Explain why the Government’s case and response are better
than the Opposition’s
Rights and Obligations
Government
 Government has the right to define the motion, set the
parameter, and mechanism of the debate
 Government is allowed to assume that the motion will be
implemented (Proposition’s Fiat)
 In return, the government is expected to ensure the debate is
clear and debatable
Rights and Obligations
Opposition
 The Opposition has the right to respond toward the set up
brought by the government by either accepting, broadening,
or challenging said set up
 The opposition also has the right to make a counter proposal
 In return, the opposition is expected to give a substantive
arguments of why the status quo or the counter proposal is
preferable
Rights and Obligations
Definitional Taboos
 Truism
 Tautological
 Squirelling
 Set in time and place unfairly
Right and Obligations
Definitional Challenge
 Opposition is highly discouraged from making a definitional
challenge
 Both teams are obliged to justify their definitions
 In the case of a still somewhat debatable definition (i.e.
squirelling or time and place set unfairly) both teams are
encouraged to debate on ‘even if’ scenario
Substantive Speeches
Structure
 Assertion
 Reasoning
 Example
 Linkback
Substantive Speeches
Principles of Arguments
 Arguments should be distinct from rebuttals
 Elaborate the arguments, avoid one liner. Use the general
guideline of ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘so what’
 It is more strategic to choose a simple good to understand
headings
Substantive Speeches
Types of Arguments
 According to what they address :
 Efficacy arguments
 Justification arguments
 According to the subject :
 Immediate causation
 Further implication
Substantive Speeches
Principle of Rebuttals
 Rebuttals should not be a repetition of previous speakers
rebuttals
 Rebuttals can be given preemptively
 On the AREL linkage, the higher you can rebut (from L to A)
the better
 Make sure to firstly highlight the arguments being rebutted
Substantive Speeches
Types of Rebuttals
• According to the subject of the rebuttals :
• Logical fallacy
• Morally flawed
• According to the content of the rebuttals :
• Contradiction
• Negation
• Even ifs
• Relevancy
• Defensive
Substantive Speeches
Picturization, Contextualization, and Charactarization
 Picturization is the addition of analogy, statistics, case
studies, and other things that increase the gravity into your
speech
 Contextualization is the elaboration on the concept the
arguments or the rebuttals are based on (i.e. social contract)
 Charactarization is the analysis of the entity involved and
why he/she/they/it fits with the arguments and/or rebuttals
Case Construction
Case Building
• There are no set rules of what should be done during case
building, however the commonly used guideline for beginners
are :
• 10 Minutes of brainstorming and discussing the definitions
• 10 Minutes of prioritizing arguments and fleshing out the
arguments
• 10 Minutes on converting it to written format
Case Constrution
Types of Motions
 Resolution of Fact
 Policy Debate
 Value Judgment

 While a debate generally mix all three, it is important to

classify a motion correctly as some motions are skewed to
one of the three
Case Construction
Team Stances
 Team stances are the position your team will take in the
motion
 The government should always support the motion, however
there are varieties of proposal or models that can be run
 Opposition has more freedom as long as they reject the
motion, however they are not to run a negative case
Case Construction
Team Stances
 Government
 The status quo is problematic
and the motion is needed
 The motion is the next logical
improvement from the status
quo
 The status quo is alright, but
the motion stood on a higher
moral ground
 Both status quo and motion
are problematic but motion is
necessary for short term
solution
 Opposition
 The status quo is better
than the motion
 The status quo is constantly
improving and the motion
will hamper the progress
 Both status quo and motion
are problematic but motion
is worse
 Both status quo and motion
are problematic and a
different counter proposal is
needed
Case Construction
Hard Line and Soft Line
 Hard line and soft line are the spectrum in which a team
stance may fell into
 A government soft line is close to the status quo while a
government hard line is a radical change
 An opposition will have the soft line of almost agreeing to the
motion and a hard line of motion is completely unnecessary