Debating especially in the British Parliamentary Format is much more an exercise of wit and strategy than of merely expressing

one s views. The format s dynamics are simple but the ways which to take advantage of this dynamics are infinite. In discussing strategies for the British Parliamentary Debate Format is would be sufficient to explore the basic and widely used strategies which are in fact the basis of many variations and combinations. Strategies in the British Parliamentary Debate Format may be divided into 4 classifications. First strategies used in terms of speech content, second in terms of presentation or manner, third in terms of debating technique or style, lastly those used during points of information or (POI). Strategies applied to the content of a speech involve means to make a person s speech more persuasive and more reasonable. Due to the fact that debate is all about reasoning and persuasion strategies in terms of speech content area lie at the very core of debating. Moreover Speech content is the main measurement of how well a debater performs. 1. Use of Questions or the Question Method The use of questions is a common practice to get information or in inquiring into certain things. In debate a debater may use questions as a means to develop his or her speech and as a tool in disputing his or her opponents arguments. In a debater s speech the use of questions improve the logic, organization as well as the development of ideas as compared to most if not all cases. Essential in this strategy is the order the questions are raised and how the questions are addressed. Otherwise they would not make sense and worse cause more confusion in the debate. Example: In a debate about death penalty a debater may say: Death penalty deters future criminals from committing crimes which in turn reduce the incidence of crime in society. When questions are used the same discussion becomes more persuasive. What is the best way to reduce crime in society? This of course is to convince people that committing crime has a grave consequence. What is this grave consequence? It is death penalty. You might ask how does death penalty deter people from committing crimes? This happens when it serves as an assured grave consequence for doing crimes. And how does this reduces crime in society? It reduces crime by giving future criminals a reason to think twice and often decide not to commit crimes due to the consequence attached to it. As a means of disputing what your opponents say: They claimed that death penalty would reduce crime in society but they fail to show how death penalty attacks the root of crime. When questions are used the same discussion becomes more effective. What is the root of crime and criminality? This important in assessing if this cause of crime is society is directly and effectively addressed by death penalty. This leads us to the question what does death penalty does or address? Since if it does not clearly attack crime at its root then what good is it in solving the problem of crime effectively.

1. Use of Frameworks and Concepts It is always a challenge for debaters to express their ideas and develop them into concise yet persuasive discussions. It is common for debaters to base their arguments and discussions on certain concepts and frameworks of discussion. This makes it easier for them to discuss their arguments and in most cases already provide a built in logical explanation. This strategy however requires at the least sufficient knowledge about the concept or framework to be used. If a debater uses it without having a satisfactory grasp of the concept or framework he or she will be unable to effectively explain it.

Example: In a debate about death penalty a discussion may be: Death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes. These are crimes that are so grave and horrific that the death of the person or person who committed them is necessary show that society does penalize those who harm the members of society in such barbaric ways. This is better improved as follows: Death penalty as a punishment is one which is commensurate to the crime committed. Commensurate penalties for crimes is the principle that civilized society adhere to where the criminal is punished according the gravity of his or her crime. This operates on the idea that the graver the crime the graver the punishment is.

(Here the concept used is the concept of Penalties Commensurate to the Crime which is a principle in the Justice system.) 1. Use of Content Intensive Arguments Facts or pieces of information though common when used as a basis of an argument in debate is perhaps the most difficult to dispute and in most cases most persuasive means to argue. This however requires the debater to have a sufficient knowledge about certain topics, issues, current and relevant events. After all the strength of the argument would depend on his knowledge of the information he or she will use. Furthermore it also serves as an effective means of rebuttal so that you can dispute the claim of your opponents.

Example:

In a debate as to whether the United Nations has serves its purpose a discussion could be as follows:

The United Nations has provided an avenue in which countries settle disputes through diplomatic and non violent means. This shows that the United Nations through the course of its existence has served its purpose of preventing violent conflicts between members of the international community.

This discussion is improved as follows:

The United Nations has served its purpose time and again in providing an avenue for peaceful and diplomatic means to settle disputes between countries. We have seen how the U. N. negotiated the peace between Indonesia and East Timor. We have seen it settle the dispute between India and Pakistan. We in fact see its efforts in the present to settle the dispute between North and South Korea. In all this cases it is clear that it not only has but continue to serve its purpose.

As rebuttal to the idea that the United Nations has met its purpose: The United Nations has not sustained peaceful interaction among countries. It merely initial allowed for talks initially but in most cases disputes still deteriorated into armed conflicts. It did not live up to its purpose of providing for an avenue in which countries settle disputes through diplomatic and non violent means. The rebuttal becomes more effective as follows:

The Six day war that involved Israel and its neighbors, the conflict in the Balkans, the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and the dispute of Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland over Northern Ireland are some of the instances that show the United Nations has not effectively promoted settling of disputes through diplomatic and non violent means. In fact it still is trying to broker peace between North and South Korea to no avail and is failing to diplomatically settle the issue of Taiwan s statehood that China opposes. This goes to show that the United Nations has not substantially met its purpose of providing an avenue for peaceful and diplomatic means to settle disputes between countries.

In debate it is also common practice of debaters to make use of language to make their speeches more persuasive. This is merely taking advantage of a debater s good command of the language. The underlying basis of the strategies under this category is simply sounding good or making a pleasing speech. This usually serves as the packaging of the idea a debater is conveying. And in debate there are times that packaging of the speech of a debater add to its persuasiveness or misleads his or her opponents as to the real idea of his or her speech.

There are no definite strategies under this category but common in taking advantage of presentation in debate is using language and overall presentation to be more convincing and sounding as if you know a lot about the topic even if you do not.

Examples:

In a debate about the World Trade Organization s role in fair trade a debater who does not know much about the WTO can say the following and sound as if he or she knows a lot about the WTO: In reviewing the economic agenda the is prevalent in trade policies of the WTO member countries it is clear that they tend to be less equitable and fair to developing countries. In fact most if not all WTO regulated trade policies are not the prime source for unfair trade relationships. Rather it is the non WTO bilateral trade agreements that are the prime source of the ruination of local industries in developing countries.

In a debate about the conflict between Israel and Palestine a debater who does not know much about the issue can project that he or she knows enough by saying: The lack of political will on the part of the moderate members in both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership to control the radical s and the hardliners is the fundamental cause as to the absence of a lasting understanding between the Israelis and the Palestinians have not been achieved.

Debate is not purely all about speaking, arguing and having a good command of the language but more of an activity which involves a great deal of wit, imagination, creativity and strategy. This said a good debater is easily differentiated from regular debaters by his or her skillful use of strategy. In debate the use of strategy involves taking advantage of the very rules and dynamics of the format itself. 1. Concessions or Conceding

It is shocking for a debater to hear his or her opponent concede to his or her likely stand in a debate. This works not only to that effect but also deprive a debater of what to say in the form of arguments. This shows that if you still argue about what has been already conceded then you no longer are able to effectively debate. Since in most cases when a debater concedes to a certain idea or fact he or she shifts the focus of the debate elsewhere and in most cases his or her opponents are unable to adjust in time.

Example: In a debate about whether Child Labor should not be stopped a debater who is tasked to oppose this will likely argue about the detriments of child labor especially on children. A debater who is tasked to defend the continuance of child labor and not stop it may say that he or she conceded that child labor is bad and in fact does cause harm to children but further says that the debate would not revolve around that but on the idea that child labor is necessary for impoverished and developing countries. With effectively takes away the case of the opposing team since now their idea that child labor is harmful to children is something already conceded to.

1. Boxing and Framing

Boxing and framing is setting the debate in very limited scenario and forcing your opponents argue under those conditions. This either involves setting a context of a debate to a particular country or setting specific questions that the debate should resolve. This enables a team to control how the debate will progress and limit how their opponents are able to argue. Moreover in most cases a team that does this usually knows the context they will limit the debate to or how to resolve the questions the set for the debate.

Example of Boxing and Framing using a context:

In a debate about whether UN peacekeepers should pull out of conflict areas a team would limit this to their advantage by talking about not just pulling out of Peacekeepers in general but limiting it to the pull out of peacekeepers from Sudan. Here the debate is now set in the context of Sudan. This makes it hard for the opposing team since now they need to have an idea of the situation in Sudan and adjust their speeches to match how the debate was set.

Example of Boxing and Framing using Questions to be resolved:

In a debate about death penalty as the solution to reducing heinous crimes, the team that sets the debate to answer very specific questions such as: does the existence of death penalty change how people view heinous crimes? Does having death penalty create a climate of fear in society sufficient enough to deter people from doing heinous crimes? Is society left with no other working alternative to death penalty in reducing the incidence of heinous crimes? In most cases the team that sets the debate with these questions has already constructed their arguments to directly answer them. On the other hand the opposing team would have the challenge to address all the questions if not fail to effectively argue in the debate.

* NOTE: For Nos. 1 and 2 under this section are strategies usually by the Opening teams in the British Parliamentary Debate Format.

1. Comprehensive Extension

In the British Parliamentary Debate Format the 1st speaker of the Closing Team, the member is tasked to present a case of his own that is different from that presented by the opening teams at the same provides a new perspective to view the debate.

The best way to fulfill the role of a member is to provide a comprehensive discussion in favor of your side. This means that the thing that were not clear must be clarified, unexplored ideas must discussed and a comprehensive discussion of the how the debate progressed and how their side argued and ending with what was the main contribution of the closing team.

There is no definite example of the comprehensive extension since it varies depending on the debate. * NOTE: This only for the closing teams in the British Parliamentary Debate Format. A salient feature of parliamentary debate is the point of information or POI and like any part of this debate format they can be used as a tool for advantage. Thus there are strategies involving points of information. Points of Information may be used to effective disprove or weaken argument presented by a debater or ruin his speech in its entirety. Points of Information may be raised to introduce concepts to debater while he or she is speaking. This concepts or ideas may not be obviously be relevant or not but by giving to a debater he or she has to tackle it in most cases which reduced his time to discuss his case and may even confuse him. Points of Information are usually raised to ask questions which the debater who is delivering his or her speech has to answer. In most cases these questions are trick questions or questions that when answered would make the debater inconsistent or reduce the reasonability of his arguments. This in general makes him or her less persuasive and thus less effective. General Tips in Debating: 1. Relax and Stay calm you will be less persuasive if you are anxious, tense and worrisome. 2. Be Confident. You might not be sure of what you are saying but show to the adjudicator that you are and this would make you more persuasive.

3. Good debaters are not born they are made. Debaters become good at what they do because of lots and lots or practice. 4. When in doubt always give a simple and clear idea. In most cases the simplicity and clarity wins over voluminous knowledge. 5. Read as much as you can. You do not know what will be the definite topic to debate so it is better to know a little about everything. 6. Try to improve how you debate by building on previous mistakes and short comings. This is how you perfect the skills in debating. 7. Have an open mind. Debating is all about flexibility and dynamism of your mind. 8. Lastly have fun. Debating is supposed to be fun way to exercise you mind.