 Well, first of all, he raises the issue of the foreign secretary. Let me tell you, I think we have an excellent foreign secretary. When it comes to it, there's only one person I can remember around here knifing a foreign secretary and I think I'm looking at him. In the United States, there's a long and rich history of academic debate between students. Over the past 40 years, one of the most popular forms of debate has been the MPDA parliamentary debate. The name is a reference to the British House of Commons, where members of parliament regularly engage in spirited and often witty exchanges on issues of national interest. Parliamentary style of debate has sought to embody some of the spirit and entertainment into a formative debate that is both highly educational while still being accessible to new debaters and general audiences. In this video, we'll go over the basic information you need to know in order to participate in a parliamentary style of debate. We'll cover the basic rules, format, and quirks that you need to get started. Let's get to it. But we cannot control no outcome in this sort of debate. So let me read you the very first thing I wrote down in prep. I can finally answer the question with yes. The latest bill of debt destroys individual autonomy forever. Parli style debate is what's known as a limited preparation format of debate. Unlike CEDA and NFA policy debate formats where debaters debate the same topic for an entire season, parli debaters are given a new topic prior to the start of each debate round. Typically the way that it works is that each team is assigned a side in the debate, affirmative or negative, and then a topic referred to as the resolution is then released. This begins a period known as prep time where debaters can consult with coaches, written materials, or search the internet for information that helps them prep out their case. While there's some variation, prep time is typically 15 to 20 minutes long. When prep time ends, both teams of debaters must be ready to begin the debate, lest they risk forfeiting the round. In a debate round, the side you are assigned determines your goals in that round. When you're assigned to be the affirmative team, you'll be responsible for arguing in favor, aka affirming the topic. When you're assigned to be the negative team, you're responsible for arguing against, aka negating the topic. An important thing to realize here, this means that you will often find yourself arguing and juxtaposition to your own personal beliefs. This is an important aspect of what we call switch side debate. Know that it can sometimes be uncomfortable at first, but it is useful as it exposes you to alternative ways of thinking about controversial issues. It also tends to be helpful as it prepares you to better understand the best arguments of those who oppose your own personal stances. This makes it easier to defend your stance in real life. At the end of the day, debate is just a game. The worst thing that can happen is you leave with a more complicated understanding of complicated issues. The debate itself is organized in two different types of speeches. Constructive speeches, where debaters introduce new arguments and build their case, and rebuttal speeches, where debaters seek to summarize the arguments of the round and convince the judges and audience members that they won the debate. The key difference between the two speech types is that debaters are not permitted to make new arguments and rebuttal speeches. If they do, their opponent can raise a point of order and ask the judge to strike the new argument from being considered. The time limits for parliamentary debate are designed to give even time to both teams. In intercollegiate competition, the time limits are standardized in the bylaws of the National Parliamentary Debate Association. These bylaws are the governing document that sets the rules for the event. Should you ever watch or participate in a full-length MPDA style round, you can expect the following time structure. First affirmative constructive, seven minutes. Two minutes, negative flex time. First negative constructive, eight minutes. Two minutes, affirmative flex time. Second affirmative constructive, eight minutes. One minute, negative flex time. Second negative constructive, eight minutes. Negative rebuttal, four minutes. One minute, affirmative flex time. Affirmative rebuttal, five minutes. These times establish a round of debate that makes up approximately 50 minutes to complete. When debate is taught as part of an introductory class, it is common for instructors, like myself, to modify the speech structure in order to facilitate the time period and the modality of the course. For example, in my face-to-face classes, I cut the speech times in half, so a debate round takes only to 20 to 25 minutes. In my fully online debate classes, I modified the structure so that the debate is one versus one, opposed to the standard two versus two seen above. My personal course time limits vary from semester to semester, so if you're taking one of my classes, you can look to the assignment guide for the debates to see the specific time limits we will be following in that class. I did briefly want to mention the third type of speech mentioned above, flex. FlexTime is a relatively recent addition to parliamentary style debate. Having been used in the bulk of tournaments during the 2017-2018 season, the MPDA body voted to codify it into the rules as of the 2018 championship. According to the MPDA, flexTime may be used by the controlling team to prepare arguments, drink water, set up stands, ask questions of their opponents, etc. FlexTime may not be used as additional speech time. In practice, flexTime has been primarily used for asking cross-examination questions at tournaments. That said, it's a nice tool to have in rounds that you can have short conversations with your partner and prepare for the next speech. Now that we've covered how the debate is laid out, let's talk a little bit about how debate works. In debate, the most important component is the resolution. The resolution is the topic given to both teams prior to the start of the debate and establishes expectations of what each team will debate during the round. Historically, in parliamentary style debate, there has been three main types of resolutions debated in rounds. Fact, value, and policy. Fact resolutions are centered around empirical phenomenon. For example, consider this resolution a fact. Global warming threatens agricultural production. In this debate, the affirmative would be responsible for proving through their argumentation that global warming does indeed pose a threat to agricultural production. The negative team, however, would need to show that either the affirmative team did not present sufficient logical argumentation and evidence to support the resolution or prove that the opposite fact is true, i.e. that global warming may lead to increased agricultural production. Value resolutions juxtapose conflicting moral dilemmas. For example, consider this resolution a value. The death penalty is a justified method of punishment. In this debate, the affirmative would need to convince us that the death penalty is justified. The negative team, in turn, would seek to convince us that the death penalty is not. In debates over values, it's common for the affirmative team to propose a value criterion for the round. The value criterion acts as a lens for the judge to view the round through. For example, if the accepted criterion in this round is the protection of life, arguments about protecting privacy rights would not factor into the judge's evaluation of who won the round. In this way, the criterion acts as a means to filter through the arguments made in all the speeches of the round. The final type of resolution you see in parliamentary-style debate are resolutions of policy. In a policy debate, the resolution involves the fiated implementation of a hypothetical policy action. Consider the resolution. The United States federal government should significantly increase the federal minimum wage. In this debate, the affirmative team would choose an actor that falls under the umbrella of the United States federal government and propose that they enact a policy that significantly increases the federal minimum wage. In policy debate, this is referred to as presenting a plan text. For this example, the plan might be something like the US Congress will pass a law that increases the federal minimum wage to $20 an hour. The affirmative would then need to convince us that passing their plan would result in a net beneficial increase to the status quo. The negative team then has several options about how they can proceed. Minimally, all they need to do to win is prove that the status quo would not improve as a result of the plan. They could, however, argue that the status quo would worsen as a result of the affirmative plan. There's also a plethora of procedural arguments and counter-advocacy strategies that a more advanced negative team may choose to employ. Of the three resolution types, resolutions of policy are by far the most popular. In fact, at the NPDA national championship in 2019, every single resolution read was a resolution of policy. While somewhat controversial amongst debate scholars, this shift has been in part because it is believed that policy resolutions provide the fairest framework for a judge to unbiasedly evaluate around. Policy resolutions also seem easier for new debaters to grasp. As a result, I always start new debaters out with policy resolutions. In my introduction classes, all debates will be based in policy where members of the debate team will learn the basics of fact and value debates. And once they've grasped the basics of policy topics, great. Now that we've covered the basic format, let's cover a few quirks. As I mentioned at the start of this talk, parliamentary debate is the spiritual relative of the British House of Commons. As a result, there are several eccentricities that you should be aware of. First, the rules allow for opposing teams to ask questions during their opponent's speech. These are known as points of information or POIs for short. Be aware that a POI is a request of the current speaker and can be denied if they do not want to cede some of their time to take your question. Some judges find it rude to deny all of an opponent's question, so typically you can expect to be granted at least one. To ask a POI, simply raise your hand and wait for the speaker to either take your question or dismiss you by saying not at this time or I'll get to your question at the end of this argument. Never interrupt the speaker. It's their time. You should always wait to be called on. Note, if you are the current speaker, it is considered very rude to ignore an opponent attempting to ask a question, so either take the question or dismiss them. And partly, there is also an expectation of audience participation and engagement. During a debate, if you are a judge, audience member, or even a non-speaking debater, you can participate in the round in two unique ways. First, in order to express agreement, you can knock on your desk and occasionally say here, here. This communicates to the current speaker that you like and agree with their current argument and is generally seen as a positive sign of support. Alternatively, and far less frequently, you may wish to express extreme disgust and disapproval of an argument made in a debate. This practice also derived from the British House of Commons is known as shaming your opponent. In my experience, it is especially rare and really only occurs when someone has made an argument that is so morally apprehensible that to remain silent would seem like an endorsement. I'll be honest, these almost never happen. And when they do, even the speaker who was shamed tends to agree that they made a mistake. As a side note, shaming the opposition is occasionally practiced in the U.S. House as seen after a failed attempt at passing a bill to add gay rights protections to a piece of legislation. The last two partly specific occurrences have to do with serious violations of rules and or ethics. And partly, many of the rules are flexible and can be debated in the round. For example, the practice of speaking very fast in a debate round can be argued to be problematic and bad for education. But speaking at a conversational pace is not a formal rule. That said, there are a couple of things that are codified in the bylaws of MPDA style, partly. One, you need to adhere to the time limits. Two, you may only consult written materials, including the internet, prior to the start of the debate. Three, you must not make new arguments in the rebuttal speeches of the debate. Should your opponent break any of these rules, you have an obligation to stop your timer and say point of order. This action stops the debate. You then need to explain in a single concise statement how your opponent has violated one of the aforementioned rules. They will then be given a chance to make a concise response to your accusation. The judge then rules on the accusation. If the judge finds that they wore in violation, all argumentation or illicitly obtained evidence is stricken from the record. Sometimes, in the case of a blatant violation, like cheating by using a phone and round, a judge may even award a loss to that team. Most of the time, however, the more egregious violations are taken up with the tournament director after the debate ends. In addition to a point of order, there exists a framework for confronting direct attacks against a competitor. According to the MPDA rules, at any time during a debate, a debater may rise to a point of personal privilege when he or she believes that an opponent has personally insulted one of the debaters, has made an offensive or tasteless comment, or has grievously misconstrued another's words or arguments. Like a point of order, time stops when a point of personal privilege is called. You should note that points of personal privileges are a very serious charge and should not be raised for minor transgressions. Debaters may even be penalized for raising spurious points of personal privilege. Should a debater be found in violation here, the debate typically stops and is taken to the tournament director. An ethics investigation is launched and decides on the punishment. Fortunately, points of personal privilege are a very rare occurrence in intercollegic debate. Today we discuss the basic information you need to get started with parliamentary style debate. We covered the basic rules, the general format, and went over a couple quirky things about this style of argument. I leave you today with one of my favorite moments from the British House of Commons. Oh, yes. Is it not extraordinary? Order! Order! Order! The House must come to order. Extraordinary. Isn't it extraordinary that the Prime Minister of our country can't even urge his party to support his own position? Week, week, week! Thanks for watching. This video series is written and produced by me, Ryan Guy, with the help of a wide variety of scholarly research and open educational resources. For more information on the references and materials used, see the description page on YouTube. This video is published under a Creative Commons license. Please feel free to share these re-mix its content.