BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUẢN LÝ VÀ CÔNG NGHỆ HẢI PHÒNG
——————————-
ISO 9001:2015
KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP
NGÀNH: NGÔN NGỮ ANH- NHẬT
Sinh viên : Ngô Thị Hồng Nhung
Giảng viên hướng dẫn : TS Trần Thị Ngọc Liên
HẢI PHÒNG 07– 2020
BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUẢN LÝ VÀ CÔNG NGHỆ HẢI PHÒNG
———————————–
HOW TO IMPROVE DEBATING SKILLS FOR THIRD YEAR
ENGLISH MAJOR AT HAI PHONG MANAGEMENT AND
TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY
KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP ĐẠI HỌC HỆ CHÍNH QUY
NGÀNH: NGÔN NGỮ ANH- NHẬT
Sinh viên : Ngô Thị Hồng Nhung
Giảng viên hướng dẫn : TS Trần Thị Ngọc Liên
HẢI PHÒNG 07– 2020
BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUẢN LÝ VÀ CÔNG NGHỆ HẢI PHÒNG
————————————-
NHIỆM VỤ ĐỀ TÀI TỐT NGHIỆP
Sinh viên: Ngô Thị Hồng Nhung Mã SV: 1612753009
Lớp: NA2001N Ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh- Nhật
Tên đề tài: How to use improve debating skills for third year English
major at Haiphong Private University
NHIỆM VỤ ĐỀ TÀI
1. Nội dung và các yêu cầu cần giải quyết trong nhiệm vụ đề tài tốt nghiệp
( về lý luận, thực tiễn, các số liệu cần tính toán và các bản vẽ).
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
2. Các số liệu cần thiết để thiết kế, tính toán.
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
3. Địa điểm thực tập tốt nghiệp.
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………..
CÁN BỘ HƯỚNG DẪN ĐỀ TÀI TỐT NGHIỆP
Họ và tên:
Học hàm, học vị:………………………………………………………………………………..
Cơ quan công tác:………………………………………………………………………………
Nội dung hướng dẫn:………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
Đề tài tốt nghiệp được giao ngày tháng năm
Yêu cầu phải hoàn thành xong trước ngày tháng năm
Đã nhận nhiệm vụ ĐTTN Đã giao nhiệm vụ ĐTTN
Sinh viên
Người hướng dẫn
Ngô Thị Hồng Nhung
TS. Trần Thị Ngọc Liên
Hải Phòng, ngày …… tháng……..năm ….
Hiệu trưởng
CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM
Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc
PHIẾU NHẬN XÉT CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN HƯỚNG DẪN TỐT NGHIỆP
Họ và tên giảng viên: …………………………………………………………………………..
Đơn vị công tác:
……………………………………………………………… …………
Họ và tên sinh viên:
…………………………………… Chuyên ngành: ……………..
Nội dung hướng dẫn: …………………………………………………. ……………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
1. Tinh thần thái độ của sinh viên trong quá trình làm đề tài tốt nghiệp
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Đánh giá chất lượng của đồ án/khóa luận (so với nội dung yêu cầu đã đề
ra trong nhiệm vụ Đ.T. T.N trên các mặt lý luận, thực tiễn, tính toán số
liệu…)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. Ý kiến của giảng viên hướng dẫn tốt nghiệp
Được bảo vệ
Không được bảo vệ
Điểm hướng dẫn
Hải Phòng, ngày … tháng … năm ……
Giảng viên hướng dẫn
(Ký và ghi rõ họ tên)
QC20-B18
CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM
Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc
PHIẾU NHẬN XÉT CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN CHẤM PHẢN BIỆN
Họ và tên giảng viên: …………………………………………………………………………
Đơn vị công tác:
……………………………………………………………… ………..
Họ và tên sinh viên:
……………………………….. Chuyên ngành: ………………..
Đề tài tốt nghiệp:
………………………………………………………………. ………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
1. Phần nhận xét của giáo viên chấm phản biện
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2. Những mặt còn hạn chế
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3. Ý kiến của giảng viênchấm phản biện
Được bảo vệ
Không được bảo vệ
Điểm phản biện
Hải Phòng, ngày … tháng … năm ……
Giảng viênchấm phản biện
(Ký và ghi rõ họ
QC20-B19
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement .
…………………………………………………………… 1
Abstract .
……………………………………………………………………… 2
List of abbreviations .
………………………………………………………… 3
List of tables .
…………………………………………………………………. 4
List of chart
.
………………………………………………………………….. 4
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Rationale for the study
………………………………………………… 5
1.2 Aims of the study ……………………………………………………… 6
1.3 Research questions ……………………………………………………. 6
1.4 Scope of the study ……………………………………………………… 6
1.5 Design of the study
…………………………………………………….. 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The nature of debating skills ………………………………………….. 7
2.1.2 What is debating? …………………………………………………. 7
2.1.2 Structure of a debate
………………………………………………. 9
2.2 Relationship between debating skills and other skills
……………….. 17
2.2.1 Relationship between debating and speaking
……………………… 17
2.2.2 Relationship between debating and listening ……………………… 17
2.2.3 Relationship between debating and reading ………………………. 18
2.2.4 Relationship between debating and writing ……………………….. 18
2.3 Factors influencing debating skills …………………………………… 19
2.3.1 Learning environmental …………………………………………… 19
2.3.2 Basic knowledge ………………………………………………….. 20
2.4 Concluding remark ……………………………………………………. 22
CHAPTER 3: ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE DEBATING SKILLS FOR
THIRD YEAR ENGLISH MAJORS AT HPU
3.1 English teaching and learning condition at HPU ……………………… 23
3.1.1 The teaching staff …………………………………………………….. 23
3.1.2 The students
.
………………………………………………………….. 23
3.2The reality of learning and teaching English debating skills for the third
year English major students at HPU ………………………………………. 24
3.2.1The importance of debating skills …………………………………….. 26
3.2.2 Some elements in learning English debating ………………………… 27
ii
3.2.3 Causes of difficulties in English debating ……………………………. 28
3.2.3.1 The difficulties are often encountered by students when learning
English- debating skills ………………………………………………………..…. 28
3.2.4 The factors affecting the interest in English debating skills
………….. 29
3.2.5 Activities for improving English debating skills at HPU
……………… 31
3.2.5.1 The students like most in debating class ……………………………31
3.2.5.2 The activities students should do before and after debating in class
..32
3.3 Discussion ………………………………………………………..……… 34
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
4.1 Summary of the study
.
………………………………………………….36
4.2 Recommendation of the study
. …………………………………………37
4.2.1 Recommendation for the students ……………………………………37
4.2.2 Recommendation for the teachers …………………………………… 39
4.3 Limitation of the study …………………………………………………. 40
4.4 Suggestions for the further study ………………………………………41
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………… 42
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
During the process of doing this graduation paper, I have received many
necessary assistances, precious ideas and timely encouragements from my
teachers, family and friends. This paper could not have been completed without
the help, encouragemnets and support from everbody.
First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor
Dr Tran Thi Ngoc Lien, the Dean of Foregin Language Department for her
enthusiastic guidance, very helpful ideas and intructions for the preparation and
her corrections during the completion of this graduation paper.
Secondly, I would like to express my thanks to all the teachers at
Haiphong Management and Technology University for the precious and useful
lessons in my study process that helped me a lot of during graduation time.
Finally yet importantly, I would like to thank my family members who
always stand by my side while the work was in process.
Haiphong, June 2020
Student
Ngo Thi Hong Nhung
2
ABSTRACT
This study is aimed at finding out the difficulties encountered by 3rd year
English major in English debating skills and suggesting some solutions to the
problem. In order to achieve such aims, the study is set to find out reality of
teaching and learning English debating skills in Haiphong Management and
Technology University, the difficulties encountered by 3rd year English majors
in English debating skills, and the factors influencing debating skills of 3rd years
English majors.
To achieve such aims and objectives, the researcher has made use of the
combination of both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. From
survey questionnaires, third years English major students at HPU mostly agree
that debaing skills is really important. However, they come to a consensus that
there still remain some problems in class such as poor topic-related vocabulary,
pronunciation, limited practice time at class and bad basic skills, psychological
barriers, etc. It is therefore recommended that more should be done to encourage
students to improve their debating skills right at university.
3
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
HP: Hai Phong
HPU: Haiphong Management and Technology University
MUN Debate: Model United Nations Debate
NDT Debate: National Debate Tournament Debate
CEDA Debate: Cross- Examination Debate Association Debate
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Students’ opinion about the activities that they like most in debating
English class
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1: The students’ assessment of learning the debating skills
Chart 2. The students’ interest in learning debating skills
Chart 3. Students’ attitudes towards the importance of English debating skills
Chart 4. The frequency of students having problems in learning English debating
skills
Chart 5. Difficulties in students’ debating
Chart 6. Factors motivating students’ learning the debating skills
Chart 7. What students should do before debating
Chart 8. What students should do after debating
5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
It is widely known that English has been an international language which
it has become a dominant language in many countries. Currently, about two
thirds nations in the world use English as their mother tongue in variety fields of
social life: political, business, cultural exchange, education and others. In
Vietnam, the need and desire to acquire English has been increasing. With the
purpose of finding a good job with high salary or study abroad, English learners
not only master the English grammar but also hope to improve their
communication ability. For such reason, it is becoming more and more
necessary.
When it comes to learning English: listening, speaking, reading, writing
are basic skills. Most people just focus on learning these four skills, neglecting
one other very important skill in English, which is debating skill. In fact, it is not
easy to study well a skill like debating. Almost students have difficulties in
debating process such as student’s context, topic, characteristic, learning
material, etc…. In fact, there are many factors affecting the learners in English
debating process. Consequently, it is very difficult for them to master this skill.
Like students from universities, I have faced many difficulties in debating. With
four- year experience in debating the skill and from what me observed in
praticing debating other classmate, it can be found that many students failed in
practicing English debating skill. From my point of view, the next four English
language skills (listening, speaking, reading, writing), English debating is one of
important and complex skill. Although students can do grammar exercises very
well and master many new words and structures, they cannot apply them in
English debating skills effectively. Some of them complained that they felt
unconfident with debating tasks so they could hardly express their opinion. That
is the reason why I decided to do a research on How to use improve debating
skills for third year English major at Haiphong Management and
Technology University. I strong expect to find out common difficulties in
learning debating skill and suggest some solutions of the problem.
6
1.2
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The study is aimed at finding out the difficulties encountered by 3rd
year English major in English debating skills and suggesting some solutions
to the problem.
In order to achieve such aims, the following objectives are set :
Finding out reality of teaching and learning English debating skills
in Haiphong Management and Technology University.
Finding out the difficulties encountered by 3rd year English majors
in English debating skills.
Finding out the factors influencing debating skills of 3rd years
English majors.
Giving solutions to the problem.
1.3
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study is conducted to answer the following questions:
How is the reality of teaching and learning English debating
skills in Haiphong Management and Technology University?
What difficulties do HPU 3rd year English majors face in
English debating skills?
What are the factors influencing debating skills of 3rd years
English majors?
How to figure out activities to improve debating skill for
third year English major at HPU?
1.4
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
There are so many diffirent material resources and reseachers that require
a lot of time and effect while my personal experience is limited. Therefore, this
study can only focus on the third year English major to investigate the troubles
that students at this class usually encounter and then give some proposals to
overcome discovered difficulties and to improve students debating ability.
7
1.5
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The study contains of four chapter:
Chapter 1: The introduction are aims, scope, and the design of the study.
Chapter 2: Literature review are three part:
Chapter 3: Activities to improve debating skills for third year English
major at HPU.
Chapter 4: Recommendations and conclusion.
8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The nature of debating skills
2.1.1 What is debating?
Student competency in the 21st century is no longer exclusively assessed
through a final traditional examination at the end of the term. Instead, a variety
of oral, written, individual, group, and interactive assessment tasks are now
used, asking students ‘to perform real-world tasks that demonstrate meaningful
application’ (Mueller, 2005, p. 2). Therefore in-class opportunities for debating
practice should prepare students for these challenges in the real-world. What is
debating?
The debate is a process that involves formal discussion on a particular
topic. In a debate, opposing arguments are put forward to argue for opposing
viewpoints. Debate occurs in public meetings, academic institutions, and
legislative assemblies. It is a formal type of discussion, often with a moderator
and an audience, in addition to the debate participants. As an English learner,
you want to be able to understand and to discuss a subject. You also want to able
to express your opinion and to support them. You can learn these skills by
learning how to debate. Americans use the word debate to talk about discussions
among people. Another use of the word debate describes formal discussion.
Debaters work on a team to convince a judge that their opinion about a topic has
more value than the opposite side’s opinion. According to the University of the
people said that: “A debate is a structured contest where you try to win by
creating the most convincing argument. The debate is oftentimes format but can
occur in informal settings as well.”
The debate comes from a tradition that started in Ancient Greece. They
believed people needed to have certain skills in a democracy, including debating
in public in support of opinion and being able to explain that opinion. A debate
contest traditionally has this structure; Teams agree to debate a statement, such
as “Should we go to college?” One team supports the resolution. The other one
is against the resolution. Each team gives an argument for or against the
resolution. Then each team asks questions about the other team’s argument.
After answering the questions, each team makes more statements to support its
9
argument. Finally, they summarize the arguments, they talk about them again, in
less time.
Competitive debating uses the skills of argument to debate and discuss
important issues about our beliefs, government policies, and proposals on how
to improve the word or face up to problems in society. A competitive debate
should be rational, focused, and structured. Debating builds a unique set of skills
helping students to analyze problems, think critically, synthesize arguments, and
present these ideas in a cogent convincing manner.
The National Speech and Debate Association says that students of debate
research both sides of a topic. They “learn to think critically about every
argument that could be made on each side.”
2.1.2 Structure of a debate
There are several different structures for debate practiced in high school
and college debate leagues. Most of these structures have some general
features. Specifically, any debate will have two sides: a proposition side, and
an opposition side. The responsibility of the proposition side is to advocate the
adoption of the resolution, while the job of the opposition side is to refute the
resolution.
There are multiple formats a debate can follow and this is a basic debate
structure:
A topic is chosen for each debate – this is called a resolution or motion. It can
be a statement, policy, or idea. The motion is usually a policy that changes the
current state of affairs or a statement which is either true or false.
•
There are two teams of three speakers:
The Affirmative team support the statement
The Negative team oppose the statement
•
Sometimes you will be asked to take a position in the debate but in
other debates, you will be allocated your position.
•
Teams are provided with time to prepare – usually one hour
•
Each speaker presents for a set amount of time
10
•
Speakers alternate between the teams, usually a speaker in the
Affirmative team starts, followed by a Negative speaker, then the second
Affirmative speaker presents, followed by the second Negative speaker, etc. The
order of the debate:
GOVERNMENT
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
Member of the Government
Government Whip
OPPOSITION
Leader of the Opposition
Deputy Leader of the Opposition
Member of the Opposition
Opposition Whip
•
The debate is then judged.
•
There may be an audience present but they are not involved in the
debate
Once you have learned how to debate in one format you can easily switch to
another.
The resolution can take many forms, depending on the format. But in
most cases, the resolution is simply a statement of policy or a statement of
value. Some examples include, “Be it resolved, English is very extremely
necessary in the 4.0 technology age”; “Be it resolved, Should the students have a
part-time job while studying?”; “Be it resolved, should students attend extra
class after school?”; etc. In many debate structures, there is a requirement that a
policy resolution (a resolution regarding the policies followed by some
organization or government) represent a change from current policy, so that the
opposition team will be defending the status quo.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
11
Usually, there is also a judge present in the debate whose job is to decide
the winner.
There are many different types of debate known as: Academic Debate,
Public Forum; Presidential Debate; Informal Debate; MUN Debate. But
Academic Debate is the most common. Academic Debate is limited to
discussing social issues and developing students’ attitudes and abilities. So it is
widely used in school debate contests. This study will focus on Academic
Debate research.
Academic debate is simply defined as a debate conducted under the
auspices of an educational institution aimed at providing educational
opportunities for its students. The purpose of an academic debate is to allow
evenly matched opponents to present balanced arguments and evidence about
critical issues. The long tradition of Academic Debate started in about 481 to
411 B.C. and persisted in American schools as an educational method in college
and characterized by the debate tournament. A form of informal debate,
academic debate merely allows students to systematically express their opinion
and support their arguments with facts or evidence. They are designed to
facilitate the development of advanced debating skills, improve critical thinking,
and increase students’ confidence about participating in academic community
discussions and dialogue.
Some of the benefits students gained from their debate experience include
awareness and knowledge of social issues, development of critical thinking and
communication ability, appreciation of change, and respect for academic
research. The philosophy of college debate, for example, is “ to learn not to win”
because the most important thing is to be able to present both sides of the issue
and make a critical decision on matters concerning public interest.
The debate in a college environment provides students opportunities to
apply their knowledge of debate principles, develop proper attitudes and skills,
and experience almost real-life debates. More importantly, debating is to keep
12
political and public issues alive in the hearts and minds of the academic
community.
Below are descriptions some of the most common debate format: Team
Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, NDT Debate, CEDA Debate and
Parliamentary Debate.
Team Policy Debate
Team policy debate is the oldest, and still probably the most popular, the
structure of debate practiced in American high schools. The proposition side is
called the Affirmative of Aff, and the opposition side is called the Negative of
Neg. Each side is a team composed of two debates so that there are four people
participating in the debate (not including the judge and audience).
Format.
A round of team policy debate consists of eight speeches. The first four
speeches are called constructive speeches, because the teams are perceived as
laying out their most important arguments during these speeches. The last four
speeches are called rebuttals, because the teams are expected to extend and
apply arguments that have already been made, rather than make new arguments.
Here is a table of the eight speeches and their time limits:
Speech:
1AC
1NC
2AC
2NC
1NR
1AR
2NR
2AR
Time:
8 min. 8 min. 8 min. 8 min. 4 min. 4 min. 4 min. 4 min.
(A stands for Affirmative, N for Negative, C for Constructive, R for Rebuttal.)
Two things are of interest in this structure. First, the affirmative team
both begins and ends the debate. Second, the negative team has two speeches in
a row: the first negative rebuttal (1NR) immediately follows the second
negative constructive (2NC). (Why? Well, because it’s always been done that
way.)
13
In general, the members of each team alternate giving speeches, so that
the same person gives both the 1AC and the 1AR, the same person gives the
2NC and the 2NR, etc. Occasionally, the rules will allow a change in this
format. For example, affirmative teams will sometimes go “inside-outside” so
that one person (usually the weaker member) gives the 1AC and the 2AR, while
the other (stronger) debater gives the 2AC and the 1AR.
Usually, there is a 3-minute cross-examination period after each of the
first four (constructive) speeches. The person who does the cross-examining is
the person who will not be giving the next speech for his side. For instance, the
person who will give the 2NC will cross-examine after the 1AC. (An exception
to this rule is made when the affirmative team goes “inside-outside.”) When
team policy debate is done without cross-examination periods, the speech times
are often extended to 10 minutes for constructive and 5 minutes for rebuttals.
Resolutions.
Resolutions in team policy debate are always of a policy nature, usually
chairman policy. The affirmative team almost always defends the resolution by
means of a particular example, known as a “case”; if they can show the example
(case) to be true, then the general proposition is also shown to be true. For
instance, the first resolution I ever encountered in team policy debate was, ”
Should the students have a part-time job while studying?” Some typical cases
teams ran under this resolution were: a part-time job help students with more
experience; a part-time job also help students improve soft skills; etc.
Style.
Team policy debate is focused on evidence gathering and organizational
ability. Persuasiveness is not considered important — or at least, not as
important as showing plenty of evidence. The best teams give with evidence on
their own affirmative and all the possible cases they might have to oppose. If
you ever walk into a high-level team debate round, expect to see debaters talking
at extremely fast speeds, using lots of jargon. There is very little discussion of
values such as freedom, justice, equality, etc. This form of debate can be fun, it
14
encourages good research and organizational skills, and it is good for getting
novice debaters used to debating in front of people.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Lincoln-Douglas (or L-D) debate began as a reaction to the excesses of
team policy debate in high school. L-D is a one-on-one debate, and as in team
policy
debate,
the
proposition
and
opposition
teams
are
called
the Affirmative (or Aff) and the Negative (or Neg), respectively. The idea was to
have a debate focused on discussing the merits of competing ethical values in a
persuasive manner. The famed debates between senatorial candidates Abraham
Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in the 1850s inspired the name and format for
this style of debate.
Format.
A round of L-D debate consists of five speeches and two cross-
examination periods. The speeches and their times are as follows:
Speech: Affirmative
Constructive
Cross-
Ex of
Aff by
Neg
Negative
Constructive
Cross-
Ex of
Neg by
Aff
Affirmative
Rebuttal
Negative
Rebuttal
Affirmative
Rejoinder
Time:
6 min.
3 min.
7 min.
3 min.
4 min.
6 min.
3 min.
Notice that the Affirmative has more speeches than the Negative, but both have
the same total speaking time (13 minutes).
Resolutions.
Resolutions in L-D debate are usually stated as propositions of value.
Although the propositions are sometimes related to issues of policy, this is not
always the case. Unlike in team debate, the debaters are expected to
debate the resolution as a whole, not just a particular example.
Style.
Evidence was considered important, but it was not the be-all-and-end-all
that it is in team policy debate. The emphasis was on speaking clearly,
logically, and fluently.
15
Parliamentary Debate
Parliamentary debate is yet another form of debate that arose as a reaction
against the excesses of NDT and team policy debate. The emphasis in this form
of debate is on persuasiveness, logic, and wit. Unlike in other forms of debate,
where the resolution is established well in advance of a tournament and is the
same for every round in the tournament, in Parliamentary debate the resolution
is usually not established until 10 minutes before the debate round begins, and
there is a new resolution for every round of debate. Since it would be
unreasonable to expect teams to research every topic they could be possibly be
asked to debate, parliamentary debate requires no evidence whatsoever.
This form of debate is called “parliamentary” because of its vague
resemblance to the debates that take place in the British parliament. The
proposition team is called the “Government,” and the opposition team is called
(appropriately) the “Opposition.” The Government team consists of two
debaters, the Prime Minister (PM) and the Member of Government (MG). The
Opposition team also consists of two debaters, the Leader of the Opposition
(LO) and the Member of the Opposition (MO).
Format.
A round of a parliamentary debate consists of six speeches: four
constructive speeches and two rebuttal speeches. The speeches and their times
are as follows:
Speech:
Prime
Minister
Constructive
(PMC)
Leader
of
Opposition
Constructive
(LOC)
Member
of
Government
Constructive
(MG)
Member
of
Opposition
Constructive
(MO)
Leader
of
Opposition
Rebuttal
(LOR)
Prime
Minister
Rebuttal
(PMR)
Time:
7 min.
8 min.
8 min.
8 min.
4 min.
5 min.
Several things are notable about this structure. First, as in team policy and NDT
debate, the proposition (Government) team — specifically, the Prime Minister —
both begins and ends the debate. Second, again as in team policy and NDT, the
Opposition team has a block of two speeches in a row (the MO followed by the
LOR). Third, unlike in team policy and NDT, there are only two rebuttals
16
instead of four. Consequently, two people in the debate (the PM and the LO)
have two speeches each, while the other two (the MG and MO) have only one
speech each.
There are no cross-examination periods in parliamentary debate. But
there are various motions on which the debaters can rise during others’
speeches. These points are: Point of Information, Point of Order, Point of
Personal Privilege
Resolutions.
In parliamentary debate, the resolution is usually in the form of a
quotation or proverb provided to the debaters shortly before the round (say,
about 10 minutes).
The upshot is that the government team has broad latitude to run almost
any case they want. Although theoretically the government team is supposed to
devise its case only after hearing the resolution, most often a team already has
an idea what case it wants to give before then.
There is also no requirement that the government-run a public policy
case. All that is required is that the government team must establish a topic that
has two (or more) clashing sides and is debatable. Broadly speaking, there are
only three types of cases that the government team cannot run:
– A tautology.
– A truism.
– A specific-knowledge case.
Style.
Unlike CEDA, the parliamentary debate has managed to preserve its
emphasis on persuasion, logic, and humor; this success is most likely a result of
eschewing excessive preparation and evidence. The spontaneity and openness
of the structure make parliamentary debate free-wheeling and exciting, whereas
other styles of the debate can become boring because every debate round at a
tournament revolves around the same topic. The downside is that in the absence
