How to Debate

What follows is a guide to British Parliamentary debating, written by Jon Simons, a former WUDC
finalist and Durham Schools’ Chief Adjudicator 2009. It gives some basic information about debating,
and what will be expected of you in each of the debates. This is by no means an exhaustive list of
everything that may occur in a debate, but should be a good starting point; it is also very important
that you listen to the feedback that you get back from our judges after each round, and use it to help
you in later rounds.
Good luck in the competition!
INTRODUCTION
The most basic definition of debating is that it is the statement of contrasting arguments and ideas.
The type of debating at Durham Schools’ is loosely based around the conventions of the Houses of
Parliament and is referred to as ‘British Parliamentary’, usually abbreviated to ‘BP'. There are two
sides in British Parliamentary debate, the proposition and the opposition. The participants in the
debate speak in turn: 1st proposition speaker, then 1st opposition speaker, and so on. Each speaker
makes one speech only. There are two teams (meaning four speakers) per side in BP debates.
Within a debate speakers should always be courteous and heckling is frowned upon. At the end of a
debate the conflict between speakers should be forgotten. Speakers should take care to note that
within debating there is no assumption of a particular world-view: you should be prepared to explain
and justify through logic and argument everything that you include in a speech.
DEFINITIONS
Definitions are very important in debating because it is necessary at all times to make it clear what
you mean and what you are talking about. Nowhere in a debate is this more important than for the
1st speaker for the proposition who must define the parameters and scope of the whole debate. While
the motions that will be debated are given to you, the precise nature of the policy to be implemented
is down to the 1st speaker.
ARGUMENTS
Once you have defined your motion – said what you want to do – you should give arguments in
support of your case. If you are in opposition, you need to give arguments against the case that has
been put forward. Arguments give reasons why the side you are on should win the debate. This
means that there has to be a connection between the argument you are giving and the case you are
arguing for.
Good arguments are relevant, internally consistent, consistent with your side’s other arguments, fully
explained and properly justified.
All of these things combine to make an argument persuasive – above all else debating is about
convincing other people that what you are saying is right. Arguments should be appealing and
compelling.
Arguments can focus on various areas, of which the most important are: results (what will happen if
the proposal is enforced?); principles (what values underpin the proposal, and do they make sense?);
precedent (has anything similar been tried before, and if so what happened?); and enforceability (is it
practically possible to do what is being proposed?).
REBUTTAL
Rebuttal is your response to claims and arguments made by the other side – a way of showing that
the other side is wrong in what they are saying, independent of the substantive arguments you want
to make to prove that your side is right. A good way of distinguishing between rebuttal and argument
is to say that rebuttal is destructive, while arguments are constructive. In other words, good rebuttal
is enough to suggest that the other side should lose, but is not yet enough to show that you deserve to
win.
TEAMWORK
Working together with your partner is very important, especially as this is the only person in the
debate who you may co-operate with. The task for you and your partner in the debate is to try to
ensure that that your team has the best arguments and is seen as the most persuasive. So, not only are
you trying to beat the two teams on the other side of the house, you are also trying to beat the team
that shares your side of the house. However, you may not attack the arguments given by your side of
the house, nor offer your side points of information, nor contradict what they say. You must simply be
better than them.
THE ROLE OF THE THIRD SPEAKER

When the 1st Prop and 1st Opp teams have finished, the debate is only halfway through. The 2nd
Prop and 2nd Opp teams have to add something new and distinctive to the debate while remaining
consistent with everything which has already been said on their side. As the third speaker on your
side, you are the first speaker on your team, with an equally important agenda-setting role to the first
speakers on either side in the debate. Indeed, as the next speaker on your team will be summating,
and will therefore not be aiming to add any new arguments at all, you have a particularly important
role in ensuring that your team makes a meaningful contribution to the debate.
POINTS OF INFORMATION [POIs]
Points of Information are direct interjections made during speeches by other speakers in the debate.
They are subject to the following rules:
>You may only offer points of information to the side opposite to you in the debate (i.e., you are not
allowed to offer points of information to your own side of the debate).
>You may only offer points during unprotected time.
>To offer a point of information you must stand up and indicate that you wish to give a point of
information by stating “On a point of information” or simply “Information”.
>If the principal speaker declines your point of information you must re-take your seat and you may
not give a point at that time.
>Points of information should last no more than fifteen (15) seconds and ideally should be as short as
possible.
If you are the principal speaker it is expected that you will take some but not all points of
information that are offered to you. As a rule of thumb in a five-minute speech, you should always
take at least one and never take more than two.
Points of information are crucial to gaining ascendancy in a debate. If you do not deal with them well
in your own speech, you will look unconvincing, and if you do not offer good points of information
you will look weak. A good point of information is short, succinct and puts the main speaker off
balance. You should try to offer points that will expose the other side of the debate’s weaknesses.
SUMMATING
in British Parliamentary debating the 4th speaker on both sides of the debate fulfils a unique role:
that of summater. Put simply, the summater summarises the debate from the perspective of their side
of the house. The are subject to the rule that they may not introduce new arguments (although new
examples are acceptable). Summaters analyse the debate and present it in such a way as to show the
strength of their own side, and to deconstruct the side that they are against. A summation should:
have a clear structure; explain clearly all the main arguments of the debate; rephrase arguments to
make them more persuasive; clarify and hone arguments that have become confused during the
debate; and show why your side has won the debate and why the other side has lost.