Question

Debate three points against the government2021

Answer 1

Explanation:

Brief Introduction to Parliamentary Debate

You are to imagine yourself in the British Houses of Parliament. The team affirming the

resolution is the government, the first speaker being the Prime Minister; the second the

Member of the Government. The team negating the resolution is the opposition, the first

speaker being the Leader of the Opposition; the second the Member of the Opposition.

The judge is addressed as Mr. or Madam Speaker.

Parliamentary debate is extemporaneous. After the topic is announced, the teams have 15

minutes to prepare. By convention, the government team may use the classroom assigned

for the debate to prepare. The opposition should prepare elsewhere. Both teams should

prepare, although it is more crucial for the government to do so since the government

must present a case in support of the announced resolution. After 15 minutes have

elapsed, the judge (a.k.a. the Speaker) should convene the debate.

Three different types of resolutions are common: policy resolutions, value resolutions,

and quotations. The three CFA tournaments will use all three: Round I, policy; Round II,

value; Round quotation; Round IV, policy; elimination rounds, quotation.

For all resolution types, the government‟s first obligation is to define terms. In general,

this task will n and the case. If the opposition can demonstrate that the

link is tenuous, then it can win the debate on that issue alone.

“Time-space cases” put all the debaters in a time and/or place different from the one they

are really in. Once placed, debaters must live with the limitations of that placement. For

example, if one is placed in 1800, one cannot talk about things that have happened or

developed since 1800. “Time-space” cases can prompt interesting debates. For example,

a Smith team once took us the Princeton opposition back to the end of the 5th Day of

Creation and argued that God ought to create men and women at the same time. In

general, NPDA circuit judges have frowned on them, making them progressively less and

less common.

AND to judges who are reading this:

As with any form of debate, you judge a parliamentary round based on what happened

during in it. Any predispositions one way or the other on the topic should not enter into

one‟s decision.

A judge should ask which team did the better job of persuading him/her. In asking this

question, a judge should recognize that in parliamentary debate both arguments and the

various aspects of delivery should be recognized as contributing to the persuasiveness of

debaters‟ performance.