Parliamentary Style of Debating

and its Mechanics

Parliamentary Style of
Debating
Evolved from the British
Parliament.
Viewed as the best type of debate
in the contemporary times.
Used worldwide since it sharpens
the mind and the tongue and
makes one critical of the issues
of the day.

The Important Skills Derived from

Parliamentary Debate Type
1. Critical Thinking Skills
2. Development of Leadership
Potentials
3. Open-Mindedness
4. Investigation and Analysis
5. Thinking on Ones Own
6. Speaking Skills

House Rules
There are usually certain house rules
followed in the parliamentary debate
type. These are:
Presence of a timer.
Each debater is given 7 minutes to
develop his constructive speech. After
the first minute, the timer puts up a
time and this signals a Point of
Information. During the last minute, the
same sign is put up but no Point of

 The audience is not allowed to

applaud.
Creating noise might distract the judges and
the debaters and might drown out speeches.
If the audience signals an approval, they just
simply tap the arm chair and if they strongly
agree they say hear! hear! If they disagree,
they say shame! shame! These are usually
done in the normal speaking voice.

 If the audience becomes unruly, the

chief adjudicator calls the house to order
and says: Order in the House!
The audience is given a chance to react
to the speeches of each of the debaters
whether government or opposition
sides. In this way, there is active
audience participation. This feature is
not present in the Oxford-Oregon type of
debate.

The Typology of Subjects in the

Parliamentary Debate Type
1. The subject that involves some
forms of comparison and contrast.
For example: That
important than peace.

justice

is

more

2. The subject that must be

scrutinized for key words or
phrases since they lead the
argument to a precise decision.

For example: That the Filipino value of

pakikisama is not a problem.

3. The subject that concerns the

truth of the proposition.
For example: That poverty is related to
corruption in Government.
That violence is justified.

4. The subject that turns on

should.
For example: That priests should get
married.
That the preservation of the natural
resources should give way to progress
and development.

5. The subject that requires

interpretation.

For example: That grapes are sour.

That Las Vegas is the happiest place on
planet earth.

6. The subject that is metaphorically

light.
For example: That all women are
fickle-minded. That all men are twotimers.
7. The subject that is controversial.

How to Construct your case

Using the Parliamentary Debate Type
An apt saying runs: Always make it a point
to remember the SAY GO formula.
S - Know your Subject
A Know your Audience
Y Know your Self
GO Go for It!
A similar quotation says:
Never make it easy for your opponent

 Have a thorough preparation, stressing in

quality than quantity.
Never place yourself in a defensive position.
Always be on the offensive.
A case that is not well defended offers a
perfect excuse for the opponent to strike
you when you are not most prepared and
for which you have no supporting evidence.
When making assertions, always have the
necessary grounds. It is the duty of the one
who asserts to prove the assertions not of
the one who denies.

Organization During the Period

of Restricted Preparation
During the thirty-minute period budgeted for
the speech preparation, the Government
debate is allotted the following time frame:
Essentially, in the first period, the team must
come up with a decision regarding definition,
interpretation of the subject or topic or the
proposition. This includes the opposing team
and the manner of handling them. Added to
that is the time allocation and material sharing
between the first two speakers.

 In the period that follows, the entire team

will review the whole case so that each
speaker knows what his colleagues will be
arguing about in order to avoid undue
duplication or overlapping of arguments. This
is also aimed at ironing any difficulties that
may arise.
On the other hand, the negatives division or
that of the opposition may differ to the way
of giving extra time in the first period for
deeper analysis of the groups possible
strategies.

All Argument Require Proof!

The basic rule in debate is: if you cannot
present proofs to what you claim, do not
bother to say it.
For every claim, there must be a fitting
support. Avoid doing the following:
Making a hasty generalization;
Giving an unfounded assertion;
Making a sweeping assumption; and
Making an overstatement or understatement.

One last thing about the

parliamentary form of debate:
In this debate type, the is basically no burden
of proof. Both the affirmative and the negative
sides must summon and marshal all
evidences and proofs. The affirmative team
must assert positively that the proposition
under the debate is simply and basically true.
And all negative must do is to assert positively
that it is untrue or false. It is not just sufficient
for the opposition or negative team to rely
solely on rebutting the arguments of the
government side.

The Parliamentary Style as

Differentiated from the OxfordOregon Style
1. Since topics are revealed thirty
minutes before the debate, there
are usually:

No prepared speeches
No evidence cards
Little or no use of notes;
No definition of terms beforehand.

2. The parliamentary style of debating

emphasizes the necessity of researchorientedness.
3. The parliamentary style of debating is
dynamic.
4. The parliamentary style of debating puts a
high premium on extemporaneousness,
spontaneity, speaking skills, and stock
knowledge.
5. Although one may bring reference materials
and other evidences during the debate, he is
not allowed to browse or open any of them
in the course of the debate.

6. Propositions are not merely limited to

propositions of policy and fact.
7. There are no strict adherence to the
issues of necessity, beneficiality, and
practicability. Instead, the structure of
the speeches should adapt to the
dynamics of the debate.
8. There is no strict adherence to the
affirmative side having the burden of
proof and the negative having the
burden of rebuttal.

9. The parliamentary style of debating has no

period of interpellation or crossexamination.
10.There is no strict adherence to quoting
from authorities and journals to ensure
that arguments plus evidence equals proof.
Authorities should be cited only to support
your argument not to substitute for it.
11.There is no strict adherence to the
affirmative side having the burden of proof
and the negative having the burden of
rebuttal.

12.In the rebuttal speeches, there is no strict

requirement where one must expose fallacies,
revealing incorrect answers during
interpellations, and belittling of the opponent in
terms of the quantity of evidences and proofs
presented.
13.Although the argument must be characterized
by the principles of logicality and consistency,
this type of debate is not a logical class. Simply
mentioning the fallacies and strictly adhering to
the rules of logic reduces the class into one.
14.Even if speaking skills are important, the greater
weight is given to the quality and content of the
speech.

15.The parliamentary debate style is not generally

the one following the hierarchical form.
16.In the parliamentary debate type, a debater is
evaluated using three very simple yet accurate
measures or criteria: These are: a) Matter, b)
Manner, c) Method
17.In the parliamentary style of debating, an
adjudicator does not add up the marks to
determine the winner. What is being done is he
must first evaluate the merits of the debate,
determine who is going to win, adjust the marks
accordingly whenever the need to adjust is
manifested.