100 likes | 129 Views
PHSSL Style Parliamentary Debate. October 11, 2010 To listen to the audio, Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter 511898# Or dial 951-262-4343 and enter 511898#. Motions. That this house believes that the use of nuclear energy should be expanded.
E N D
PHSSL StyleParliamentary Debate • October 11, 2010 • To listen to the audio, • Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter 511898# • Or dial 951-262-4343 and enter 511898#
Motions • That this house believes that the use of nuclear energy should be expanded. • That this house believes that the minimum wage should be abolished. • That this house will presume consent for organ donation. • That this house believes that the US should abandon the war on drugs. • That this house believes that the filibuster is a useful tool in government. • That this house believes that the Federal Government must have an expanded role in the face of disasters.
The Speeches • First Proposition- 6 min • First Opposition- 6 min • Second Proposition- 6 min • Second Opposition- 6 min • Third Proposition- 6 min • Third Opposition-6 min • Opposition Reply- 3 min • Proposition Reply- 3 min • Replies may not be given by the third speaker. • When time has elapsed, the speaker may finish her thought, then must sit.
Points of Information • Questions asked by opponents during speeches • Opponent may stand between the first and last minute of constructive • To be recognized: stand up (some do teapot, some say “Point of Order”) • Speaking debater has complete control, may decline • Customary to take 1 or 2 per speech • No follow up questions
The debate • Pounding in support of arguments • Conversational tone • Rhetorical style is good, humor is good
The Proposition Case • Plans are not necessary, but allowed • Definitions are not necessary, but a plan which outlines burdens is good
Constructive Speeches • May introduce new arguments • 1 & 2 should have independent points, 3 should be refutation • Clash is necessary, but not all points are created equally • Arguments should have warrants and data, with impacts
Reply speeches • Should crystallize the round & re-frame the arguments • Don’t need to talk about everything • No new arguments
How to Judge a Round • YOU MUST FLOW • Blend the importance of argument and rhetoric • Weigh “heavy” impacts (nuclear war) against “light” impacts (freedom of speech) • No personal beliefs are allowed.
Other places to look • www.parlidebate.com has good rounds online • Don’t bother with the “cosmetic surgery” sample round from PHSSL • Feel free to send us an email