PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE

by

Robert Branham
Professor of Rhetoric & Director of Debate
Bates College

and

John Meany
Director of Forensics
Claremont McKenna College

Spring, 1998

Debating has long been a vital part of American education. Training in debate improves
valuable analytical and speaking skills, and enables the discussion of important issues,
whether scientific, historical, religious or political. It contributes to the intellectual and
ethical development of its participants by challenging them to make defensible
judgments in which they must critically investigate complex issues, question given
assumptions, evaluate the reliability of data and consider alternative perspectives.
Debate stimulates and refines communication skills that empower individuals to speak
for themselves, to discover and use their own voices. But most students debate
because it is also fun. Debating provides a unique intellectual challenge and excitement,
as Malcolm X reflected in his Autobiography:

Standing up there, the faces looking up at me, the things in my head coming out
of my mouth, while my brain searched for the next best thing to follow what I was
saying, and if I could sway them to my side by handling it right, then I had won
the debate--once my feet got wet, I was gone on debating.1
Academic debate takes many forms, some highly specialized and others less formal,
some that emphasize research and prepared arguments, and others that stress
extemporaneous speaking and analytical skills. Parliamentary debate has long been the
predominant form of competitive academic debating in most English-speaking nations. It
is now the most widely practiced type of intercollegiate debate in the United States and
many American secondary and middle schools have also begun to develop
parliamentary debating programs. This guide explains the formats and procedures of
parliamentary debate for use in classes, public debates, and competitive tournaments.

Based loosely on the deliberative discussions of the British House of Commons,

parliamentary debate is lively and audience-oriented. The House of Commons, unlike
the U.S. Congress, permits no written speeches from its members. Similarly, no
speeches, briefs, or quotations are read in parliamentary debates. The debaters speak
extemporaneously in parliamentary competition, using only the notes they have made
during the debate and preparation period.
Parliamentary debate differs from other forms of competitive debate in several
additional ways. Parliamentary debates are more oratorical, witty, and accessible to
general audiences. They are shorter than traditional policy debates, making them well-
suited to classroom use. Parliamentary debates have relatively few rules; they feature
less jargon and fewer theoretical arguments. The rules of parliamentary debating are
primarily designed to ensure that debates are evenly matched and enjoyable. Because
parliamentary debating is less technical than other forms of debate and easier to learn,
most students are able to begin debating in this format almost immediately.
Formats

The specific formats, rules and conventions of parliamentary debating vary in different
nations and leagues.2 One of the virtues of parliamentary debate is its flexibility.
Speaking times. numbers of speakers, judging and other elements of the debate format
may be altered to accommodate particular needs and purposes.

In competitive parliamentary debating, each round of debate has a different topic

announced just before the debate begins. The amount of preparation time varies,
allowing from ten minutes to (in British secondary school tournaments) one hour of
preparation between the announcement of the topic and the beginning of debate. 3
Fifteen minutes is the most common allotment.

During preparation time, the participants analyze the proposition and outline their major
arguments. They ask themselves: What does this proposition mean? What important
issues are raised by it? How may it be affirmed or denied? What examples and events
are relevant to its discussion? The answers to these and other questions will serve as
the foundation for the government case and prepare the opposition for its refutation.
Some tournaments and competitive leagues permit the use of dictionaries, texts and
other prepared materials during preparation time. Others limit or even prohibit coaching
and use of prepared materials prior to the debates.

The first speaker for the proposition must use some of the preparation time to organize
the main issues of the case into a logically complete and persuasive form to convey the
best possible impression of the their case. The first speaker therefore uses preparation
time to arrange the essential elements of the case into a brief outline. The argument
outline should clearly bring the major elements of the case into relation with each other
and constitute a complete case on behalf of the motion.

A standard American tournament format for parliamentary debate consists of six

speeches:

First proposition constructive speech 7 minutes

First opposition constructive speech 8 minutes

Second proposition constructive speech 8 minutes

 Second opposition constructive speech 8 minutes

Opposition rebuttal 4 minutes

Proposition rebuttal 5 minutes

The speakers for the proposition (sometimes called the government), open and close
the debate in defense of the motion. Unlike other forms of American team debate,
parliamentary debate features just one rebuttal per side. The rebuttal is given by the first
constructive speaker for each team.

The presiding officer of each debate is the Chair, or Speaker of the House (usually a
judge or moderator). The Speaker of the House manages the debate, recognizes the
speakers, and rules upon any disputes that arise in the course of the round.4 The
Speaker introduces each debater in turn. There is no preparation time between
speeches. After one speech is finished, the Speaker of the House calls upon the next
debater to proceed.

In most American tournament debating, there are two persons on a team, with one
person on each team speaking twice. Public debates often feature three-person teams,
with a different person giving each speech in the debate. Three-person teams allow
more people to participate and provide more variety for audiences.

Topics

Parliamentary debates may either have set topics, known days or weeks in advance of
the debate, or be conducted extemporaneously. In American parliamentary debating,
set topics are used primarily for one-on-one debates between two schools and for public
debates, so that the topic can be announced and publicized. Set topics permit advance
research, brainstorming and practice debates. In the debates themselves, however,
minimal notes are used and no speeches or briefs are read. Written quotations are used
sparingly or not at all. Parliamentary tournament debating is generally
extemporaneous., with a different topic announced a few minutes before each round. 5

Most propositions in parliamentary debate begin with either the phrase "Be it resolved
that. ." (often abbreviated as "B.I.R.T.") or "This House believes. . ." (or "This House
would The "House," unless otherwise specified by the first proposition speaker, refers to
the judge(s) and audience attending the debate, who serve as a deliberative parliament.
The proposition or topic in a parliamentary debate is usually referred to as the motion.

Two types of motions are commonly used in American parliamentary tournament

debating: straight motions and linkable motions.

Straight motions are meant to be debated literally. They may be drawn from current
events (e.g., "Be it resolved that the United States should lift its economic sanctions
against Cuba"; or "This House would support the admission of Russia to N.A.T.O."), or
they may be broader statements of historical judgment or philosophy ("Be it resolved
that the American dream has become an American nightmare"; "This House believes
that the United States has been more sinned against than sinning"). Some motions
require value comparison ("This House believes that the local is preferable to the
global"; "This House despises flattery more than slander"). Such debates rely upon
examples to prove or disprove the proposition, but the proposition itself is still the focus
of the debate. In motions used for tournament competition, the proposition team is
sometimes permitted to choose which side of a given issue it will defend (e.g., "The
United States should/should not extend Most Favored Nation trade status to China").
Their choice is announced at the beginning of the debate.

Linkable motions need not be debated literally, but may instead be linked to specific
policy proposals selected by the government team and not known by the opposition until
the first constructive speech is heard. A linkable motion may be drawn from a pithy
quotation ("B.J.R.T. It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees") or a
song lyric ("B.I.R.T. freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose"). The proposition
team may define the terms of the motion in most any way they choose, generally linking
the abstract motion to some specific controversy through the use of metaphors. For
example, the last topic ("freedom's just another word ) might be linked to a case
statement in favor of restoring the eligibility of legal
immigrants (who came here seeking "freedom") for welfare benefits (without which, they
have "nothin' left to lose"). The topic "it is better to die on one's feet might be linked to
the case statement that "the United States should not extend Most Favored Nation
status to China," arguing that America should "stand up" for its principles rather than
remaining on its knees to placate China.

The link between the motion and case is often quite loose, although some leagues and
tournaments insist upon tight links. Topicality arguments, common in other forms of
American competitive debating, are highly unusual in most parliamentary debating
leagues, in part because they are regarded as less interesting than talking about the
issues of the case. On the other hand, as the authors of the English-Speaking Union's
guide to secondary school debate in Great Britain explain, "intelligent and
straightforward definitions are expected and rewarded" by adjudicators.6 In
parliamentary debate, the linkable motion is generally less important than the case,
which must provide the basis for a good, evenly matched, debate.7

Speaker Style and Responsibilities

Although adjudicators of parliamentary debates generally pay more attention to content

and strategy than to style, speaking skills do receive more attention in parliamentary
debate than in most other forms of debate competition. Good parliamentary debaters
speak at a rate of speech comprehensible to the layperson untrained in debate.
Physical and vocal delivery, humor, passion and persuasiveness are important
elements of parliamentary debating. A parliamentary debater should maintain eye
contact with the audience and develop a speaking style that is fluent and expressive.
Parliamentary debaters do not read written speeches, briefs, or evidence. Instead,
parliamentary debaters speak from a few notes that record the arguments that other
speakers have made in the debate and outline their own main points. Each of these
points should be signposted, explained, supported by relevant facts and examples, and
given impact. Because there is no preparation time between speeches, parliamentary
debaters must learn to think on their feet, adding and elaborating upon arguments while
speaking.

Each speaker position in parliamentary debate also involves specific responsibilities for
the discussion of the motion.

First speaker, proposition

The opening speaker establishes the framework for the debate and establishes a
logically complete case for the proposition. This involves an expository presentation in
which the speaker may define any ambiguous terms of the motion, interpret the motion
through a clear case statement, offer a history of the issue in controversy, and disclose
any limitations for the discussion. After such preliminaries, the first speaker should state
and support the main arguments of the case.

Interpretation of the motion. The motion should mean the same thing to all
participants in the debate. To that end, the proposition team has the responsibility to
clarify the ground for debate by defining any distinguishing, technical or ambiguous
terms of the resolution. Debates in which ambiguous terms are not clearly defined in the
opening speech often go astray, lacking clash and clarity. A debate on welfare reform,
for example, in which the opening speaker failed to explain what the government meant
by '~welfare" (food stamps or farm subsidies?) and 'reform" (abolish, reduce or
expand?), for example, would probably be a waste of time. Clear definitions permit clear
debate.8

In addition to defining any unclear terms of the motion, the first speaker should offer a
concise case statement. The case statement should plainly express the government's
interpretation of the motion in one sentence, such as "federal income tax should be set
at a flat rate" or "high schools should not conduct warrantless searches of student
lockers." The wording of the case statement is very important; it will frame the
discussion and determine the relevance of arguments. It should be carefully transcribed
by ail participants in the debate. Once presented, the case statement may not be
changed.

The case statement should clearly advance a controversial claim, capable of affirmation
and denial, susceptible to proof and disproof. The case statement can be based on a
narrow construction of the motion or an understanding that is creative, unusual or
enterprising. Any narrow construction should have a link to the resolution or serve as an
appropriate analogy for the motion. In support of the motion, "This House would expand
N.A.F.T.A.," for example, the government might define "This House" as the government
of Chile and "expand N.A.F.T.A." as the adoption of internal economic reforms likely to
secure Chile's admission in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Here is an example of how the first proposition speaker might provide definitions and
case statement for the motion, "This House would further restrict free speech":

We support the motion, "This House would further restrict free speech." By "free
speech." we mean currently legal expressions that vilify groups of involuntary
association (that is, race, gender, and ethnicity). We believe that public high
schools in the United States should adopt hate speech codes prohibiting speech
that vilifies groups or individuals on the basis of their race, gender or ethnicity.

The government must, at the beginning of the debate, define the motion and provide a
clear and debatable statement of their position.

Providing Opposition ground. The duty of the proposition team is to provide the basis
for a good debate. The first speaker must accordingly present a case that is highly
debatable. This requirement is very different from other forms of competitive debating,
in which the affirmative team attempts to secure a strategic advantage by devising a
case that is so strong and so obscure that the other side will have nothing of
consequence to say against it. In parliamentary debate, however, this approach is
unacceptable.

The first proposition speaker must provide a case against which there are strong and
principled arguments. Some interpretations of a motion do not provide for effective
debate. The government's interpretation must not constitute a truism, a claim (e.g.,
"Murder is reprehensible") that no reasonable person would oppose. In parliamentary
debate, the opposition may argue that a given case is not sufficiently debatable. The
second proposition speaker is then expected in the next speech to demonstrate that
strong opposition arguments do exist, or else lose the decision.

Moreover. the case must not require specific knowledge to debate. Because there is no
opportunity to research the case topic prior to the debate, cases must concern issues
with which the opposition could reasonably be expected to be familiar, or sufficient
background information must be provided at the beginning of the first proposition
speech to make strong Opposition possible.

Burden of proof

In most debates, the first proposition speaker supports the motion by advocating
something new, challenging established ideas, or attempting to settle an issue in public
controversy. It is the obligation of the person who affirms the motion to prove the case.
In a criminal court case, the defense may file a motion for dismissal if the prosecutor
has failed to provide a well-substantiated case for conviction. Similarly, the first speaker
for the proposition has the burden of establishing a case for the motion. As Raymond
Alden explained in his 1900 treatise on The Art of Debate, there is an "obligation resting
upon one or other parties to a controversy to establish by proofs a given proposition,
before being entitled to receive an answer from the other side." This responsibility rests,
he concluded, "upon the side that would be assumed to be defeated if no progress at all
were made in the consideration of the case."9 The government's burden of proof is met
through the presentation and support of its major arguments, or case.

The case.

The first proposition speaker should establish interest in the motion and case through
an introduction. The introduction should demonstrate the timeliness of the case,
perhaps by recounting a recent story or contemporary context for the controversy. A
case for the abolition of capital punishment might be introduced by recounting the
story of a recent or pending execution, for example. The introduction should persuade
the judge and audience that the issue is of importance and interest to them.

After providing necessary definitions and a clear case statement, the first proposition
speaker should outline from two to four major points in support of the case statement.
Each of these points should be signposted as clearly and concisely as possible. Each
point should be fully explained and supported by examples, complete in itself and
distinct from the other main issues. In support of the motion, "This House believes that
good things come to those who wait," for example, the government might argue that the
"good thing" is the burial, after seven decades of waiting, of the body of Vladimir Lenin.
Lenin's preserved corpse has been on public display in Moscow since his death in 1924.
In order to make this case debatable, the first speaker would be expected to provide
sufficient background information.

To support the case statement that Russia should bury Lenin, the government might
offer three main points. By burying Lenin, Russia will:

I. Bury an obsolete symbol of the communist past;

II. Save the enormous expense of storing the body; and

III. Fulfill Lenin's own wishes for the disposal of his remains.

Each of these points would be supported with reasoning, facts, stories and illustrations.
The first proposition speaker should also explain why each of these arguments is
significant; why, for example, it is important that one should have control over the
disposition of one's own body after
death.

In support of the motion, "This House would abolish capital punishment," the first
speaker might offer the following major points:

I. The death penalty fails to deter crime;

II. Innocent people are executed; and

III. Capital punishment is discriminatory by race and class.

The first speaker should offer a complete and compelling case for the motion. The
opening speech should be concluded by a restatement or summary of the main points
of the case.

First speaker, opposition

The duty of the opposition is to provide clash, promoting a choice between the proposal
advanced by the proposition team and some other course of action or position. The
Opposition should make clear why the motion before the house should be defeated.
The job of the Opposition in extemporaneous debate is very challenging. When a
linkable resolution is used, the opposition will often have no idea of what the proposition
team 5 case will be until the first speaker begins. But the Opposition's job is made
easier by the requirement that the proposition team advance a case that provides strong
and principled ground for the opposition. If the proposition team has met its burden, the
opposition should be able to discover good arguments on first hearing the case.

The Opposition speaker may choose to contest the definitions or case statement that
the government has established for the debate. If these are not disputed in the first
Opposition speech, they are presumed to be tacitly accepted for the remainder of the
debate. Definitions should only be disputed when the fairness and debatability of the
proposition are at stake. Debates that center on definitional disputes are almost always
less enjoyable than those that center on the issues of the
case.

The first opposition speaker attempts to weaken or nullify the case for the proposition,
usually by refuting the main points of the case. This is called direct refutation. The
Opposition analyzes the first proposition speaker's arguments, pointing out logical
fallacies, factual inaccuracies or inconsistencies in the main lines of proof. The first
Opposition speaker should also identify any of the common errors of case construction
that the proposition team has committed, including ignored exceptions to case
examples, the improper combination of arguments, and overdrawn conclusions.
The opposition is not obliged to dispute or disagree with every argument, or even every
main point, of the proposition team's case. In fact, many debaters miss important
Opportunities for winning arguments because they feel compelled to negate each of the
ideas their Opponents introduce. It may be to the advantage of the opposition to agree
with or concede one or more elements of the proposition team's case. An opposition
speaker may choose to agree with an argument by the team defending the proposition
in order to simplify or focus the discussion on more salient issues, to reveal a
contradiction or inconsistency, or to use an argument from the proposition side to
support the opposition's position. A speaker should, however, address the vital issues of
the other side, whether by strategically agreeing with them or contesting them.

Although the Opposition often defends existing policies against the proposition team~s
proposal for change, the first Opposition speaker may choose to present a countercase,
defending a new course of action mutually exclusive with that presented by the
proposition.10 The countercase is often designed to address a problem area identified
in the case. For example, on the topic, 'This House believes in pacifism," the proposition
team might support a position of complete military nonintervention. Rather than
defending current patterns of military intervention, the Opposition might instead defend
a position of limited or conditional intervention -- supporting intervention only against
overt acts of territorial aggression or only in cooperation with multilateral Organizations,
for example. The countercase is not a defense of current national security policy, nor is
it compatible with the proposition team's complete prohibition of military intervention.
The proposition team's case maintains a universal principle of nonintervention, while the
opposition case allows selected use of military intervention. The countercase is
designed to resolve many of the examples of bad military intervention cited in the
proposition case and to provide the Opposition's own worthy exceptions to the motion.

Second speakers, proposition and opposition

The second (also called 'member") constructive speeches for each side have similar
responsibilities. They should effectively refute the important arguments of the opposing
side and amplify the strong arguments initiated by their colleagues. The member
speeches are the last for each side in the debate in which new arguments and issues
may be introduced.

The member speakers should concentrate on sustaining the core arguments for their
side. The second speaker for the proposition should advance the main lines of the case
presented in the opening speech so that they cannot be convincingly disputed in the
remaining speeches. To this end. the second proposition speaker should refute all
important objections presented by the preceding opposition speaker and provide new
examples or other forms of additional support for the main points of the proposition
team's case.

The second speaker for the opposition may support the objections of the first Opposition
speaker, present additional objections, defend and expand the opposition's countercase
if one has been presented, and evaluate inconsistencies between the arguments of the
first and second proposition speakers. For both second speakers, the primary duties are
extension and amplification--ensuring that all major issues for both sides have been
covered and that the important arguments for their side have been expanded with
additional support.

Rebuttals

Most good debates are won or lost in the rebuttals. The rebuttals are the summary
speeches for each side of the debate, the last opportunity each side will have to explain
why they should win. Rebuttals are a final opportunity to contrast the major positions
and philosophies of the proposition and opposition. Skilled rebuttalists in parliamentary
debate do not attempt to cover every minute issue that has been discussed in the
debate, but rather to deal in depth with those issues that will have a substantial bearing
on the decision to uphold or defeat the motion. The shorter time of rebuttal speeches
necessitates selectivity. Rebuttalists should paint the "big picture" of the round, sorting
out the decisive issues from those that are less important.

New arguments may not be introduced in the rebuttal. Arguments presented in the
rebuttal must have a foundation in the constructive speeches. The proposition rebuttalist
is entitled to answer new arguments made in the second opposition speech, because
the final rebuttal is the first Opportunity that the proposition team has to refute these
issues.

The opposition has the first rebuttal speech. This speech should offer an effective
summation of the main issues of the debate, demonstrating how important points for the
opposition undermine support for the motion. The opposition rebuttalist should carry
through important issues from the constructive speeches, illustrating the significant
dimension of each issue in qualitative or quantitative terms. The opposition should
generally avoid "putting all its eggs in one basket" by offering several independent
reasons to reject the motion.

The proposition has the final speech in the debate. This speech should summarize the
entire debate from the perspective of the proposition, focusing the discussion on a
group of powerfully unified ideas. The final rebuttalist should extend the important
arguments from the constructives, offer multiple, independent proofs of the motion, and
contrast the main arguments of the Opposition with those in favor of the motion.
Points

In parliamentary debate, a debater may rise to make a point while another person is
speaking. There are three types of points that may be made: points of order, points of
personal privilege, and points of information. Points of order and points of personal
privilege are rarely used and should be reserved for important violations of debate
protocol. Points of information are a regular part of most parliamentary debates and are
much more common than the other two.

Points of order.

One may rise to a point of order when a member of the other team has violated
the rules for debating. There are few rules in parliamentary debate, so a point of
order is usually called only when (1) an opponent has introduced a new
argument in rebuttals or (2) an Opponent has gone significantly Overtime.

A point of order is addressed to the Speaker of the House. The person making
the point rises from his or her seat, interrupts the person speaking, saying,
"Madame/Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order," and then states the violation.
The clock is stopped while the point of order is under consideration. In most
parliamentary competition, a point of order is not debatable; the Opposing team
is not permitted to comment upon it. 11 The Speaker of the House rules
immediately upon the completion of the point and says, "Point well taken," "point
 not well taken," or "point taken under consideration," if no immediate ruling is
possible. The Speaker of the House may take the results of the point of order into
account in their deliberations, penalizing the team or speaker that has committed
the violation.

Points of personal privilege.

A debater may rise to a point of personal privilege during an opponent's speech

when his or her position or argument has been seriously misstated by the
Opposing speaker. A point of personal privilege is addressed to the Speaker of
the House, who then rules upon it. A point of personal privilege is not debatable.
Points of information.

Points of information are a dynamic and enjoyable part of parliamentary debate. They
take the place of the cross-examination periods used in other American debating
formats. Unlike cross-examination, however, points of information are raised during the
speech of the person questioned. The point of information is a brief rejoinder (fifteen
seconds or less) to the point then being made by the person speaking. It may be a
concise statement or a pointed question. A point of information is also sometimes used
for purposes of clarification. Unlike the point of order or personal privilege, the point of
information is directed to the person speaking rather than to the Speaker of the House.
To make a point of information, the debater rises, faces the person speaking and
signals his or her desire to speak. either verbally (saying, for example, "Point of
information, Madame/Mr. Speaker!" or "And on that point, Madame/Mr. Speaker") or
nonverbally, by holding a hand out. The person speaking may then allow the point to be
stated or refuse to take the point. If the person speaking declines your point, you must
sit down. If recognized, you make the point and then sit down. The speaker then
responds to the point and continues her or his speech.
Points of information are not permitted during rebuttals. Nor are they allowed during the
first or last minute of any constructive speech. The timekeeper should offer a signal
(using a bell or a knock on the table, for example) at the end of the first minute and at
the beginning of the last minute of each constructive speech. Points of information are
permitted only between these two signals.

Each constructive speaker in the debate should both offer and accept points of
information. A speaker who declines to accept any points may seem to fear the
opponent s arguments. On the other hand, a speaker who accepts too many points of
information loses control of his or her speech. Usually, a constructive speaker will
accept two or three points of information. Points of information are an integral part of
parliamentary debating. The English-Speaking Union's guidebook explains that "offering
points of information, even if they are not accepted, shows that you are active and
interested in the debate. Accepting them when offered shows that you are confident of
your arguments and prepared to defend them. A team that does neither of these is not
debating."12
Types of Cases
There are several distinct types of cases in parliamentary debate. Some are similar to
those used in other forms of debate, others are quite different. Because the proposition
team is given great latitude in its selection of cases, debaters have the opportunity to
discuss issues of particular interest for them, whether drawn from current events,
sports, popular culture, literature, science, history or ethics, for example. So long as the
case provides the basis for a good debate, the proposition team on a linkable motion
may talk about virtually anything. The most common forms types of cases used with
linkable motions are these:

Current national or international policy controversies

Russia should be admitted to N.A.T.O.

The U.S. should end its embargo of Iran.

Nepal should close Mt. Everest to climbing.

Local controversies of broader interest

Dade County, Florida should permit concerts by Cuban musicians.

The Eye of the Needle (a 200-foot natural sandstone arch in Montana destroyed by
vandals) should not be repaired.

Sports and popular culture disputes

Baseball should eliminate the designated hitter.

Vinyl records are better than compact disks.

Literary cases

You're Cinderella. Don't marry the prince.

You're Dorothy. Don't go back to Kansas.

Personal decisions

You should not eat meat.

You're the parent of a five year-old boy. Don't buy toy guns for him.

Time-space cases

Time-space cases stipulate an alternative identity for the adjudicator (as a specific
person, group, or Organization) and an alternate time and/or place at which the debate
is conducted.

It's August 6,1945, and you're Harry Truman. Don't drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.

It's June 1936 and you're Franklin Roosevelt (or, alternatively. the U.S. Olympic
Committee). Boycott the Berlin Olympics.

When debating a time-space case, the participants must restrict themselves to

arguments based on what was known at that time and not on later events. A debate on
the Hiroshima topic. for example, could not include the fact that the war would end
within two weeks of the bombing. Similarly, the Olympics debate could not include
details that only became known after the specified date, such as the number of medals
that African American track star Jesse Owens would eventually win in the 1936 games.
Time-space debates must be restricted to what was known at the time and, if an
individual persona (such as Harry Truman) is assigned to the judge, to the attitudes and
interests of that historical figure. Time-space cases are used both in competitive
parliamentary debates and as a classroom exercise for the discussion of historical
events and figures.

Floor Speeches

In public parliamentary debates and in the final rounds of tournaments, floor speeches
by members of the audience are sometimes permitted between the constructives and
rebuttals. A floor speech is a brief address (often limited to one minute) offered in
support of the proposition, the opposition, or some third position (a "cross-bench"
speech).~3 At the conclusion of the constructive speeches, the speaker of the house
calls for speeches from the floor. The speaker of the house may begin by asking for a
floor speech in favor of the government, then ask for one in favor of the opposition, and
continue to alternate. The speaker of the house may close the floor after a certain
number of speeches have been delivered for each side, or after some set period of time
(usually ten or fifteen minutes). The speaker of the house then calls upon the opposition
rebuttalist to begin.
Good floor speeches are limited to a single important point. The floor speaker may
address some point that has already been raised in the debate, or introduce a new point
that has not been raised in the constructive speeches. The rebuttalists should take
important points raised in the floor speeches into account, respond to them when
necessary and use them when possible.
Floor speeches add a great deal to debates. They permit more people to participate and
increase the diversity of perspectives on issues considered. They are a good
Opportunity for novice debaters to offer brief speeches (a less intimidating prospect
than being asked to deliver a full-length debate speech) and for experienced debaters to
think about what one issue could win the debate for their side. They transform passive
listeners into active participants in the debate, more attentive and engaged during the
principal speeches.

Public Debates
In an increasingly polarized and fragmented society, more individuals need the
opportunity to engage each other and contest ideas about the common good. By
participating in public debates, students may promote community discussion of
controversial issues and encourage democratic participation and expressions of
difference in the public sphere.

Public debates may be held in schools, primarily for audiences of students and
teachers, or at non-academic sites in the community for wider audiences. Parliamentary
debate, with its combination of issue analysis, rhetorical skill, humor, and lively
interaction, is enjoyable for general audiences. The debate format helps frame the
discussion of current controversies and educates audiences in different ways of
approaching social and political concerns.

A good public debate will promote the desire of those attending it to speak for
themselves about the issues raised. The standard parliamentary debate format is easily
modified to include public participation in the discussion. Public parliamentary debates
often provide an opportunity for floor speeches from the audience between the
constructives and rebuttals. Some public debates feature questions from the audience
or open discussion after the debate.

Public debates can become an important forum for communities with few existing
opportunities for public expression. They also encourage student participants to
consider community perspectives on issues and to adapt their own persuasive appeals
to community interests and concerns.

REFERENCES

1 Malcolm X (with Alex Haley), The Autobiography of Malcolm X (New York: Grove
Press, 1965), 184. See also Robert Branham, "'I Was Gone on Debating': Malcolm X's
Prison Debates and Public Confrontations," Argumentation and Advocacy 31 (Winter,
1995), 117-137.

2 In Canada, the leader of the opposition gives the second opposition constructive
speech and the rebuttal. In British tournaments, there are four different two-person
teams in each debate, two defending the proposition and two opposing it.

3 Most American parliamentary tournaments provide fifteen minutes of preparation time.

4 In some debate leagues, it is the Speaker of the House who announces the topic once
the debaters have arrived in the room where the debate will be held. The Speaker then
times the preparation period.

5 Some British secondary school tournaments, such as those sponsored by the English-
Speaking Union, feature several rounds of debate, some with set topics drawn from a
list of possible resolutions announced in advance of the tournament, and at least one
round of extemporaneous debates, in which students have one hour to prepare after the
topic is first announced.
6 Trevor Sather, The Schools Mace 1997-98 Official Handbook (London: English-
Speaking Union, 1997), 17.

7 Parliamentary debate tournaments sometimes issue two topics for each round, one
linkable resolution and one straight resolution. The government team may choose
between these two, with their choice of resolutions announced at the beginning of the
debate.

8 Robert Branham, Debate and Critical Analysis (Hill sdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum,
1991), 38-41.

9 Raymond Alden, The Art of Debate (New York: Holt, 1900), 61-62.

10 Branham, Debate and Critical Analysis, 150-176.

11 This rule is not applicable in the National Parliamentary Debate Association,

prominent in the Western United~States, in which many judges permit the disputation of
points of order.

12 Trevor Sather, The Schools Mace 1997-98 Official Handbook (London: English-
Speaking Union, 1997), 14.

13 The Speaker of the House usually recognizes cross-bench speakers after floor
speeches for the Opposition and proposition have been completed. Cross-bench
speeches do not support either of the two sides in the debate, but instead support some
third position or perspective. In a debate in which the proposition team argued for lifting
all economic sanctions against Cuba and the opposition supported keeping current
sanctions in place, for example, a cross-bench floor speaker might support a partial or
condi