The document provides a detailed overview of British Parliamentary (BP) debating, including its structure, rules, speaker roles, and types of motions. It emphasizes the importance of preparation, persuasive argumentation, and adherence to debate conventions to succeed in competitions. Various strategies for extending arguments and challenges related to defining motions are also discussed to enhance participants' understanding and effectiveness in debates.

1. Introduction to British
Parliamentary(BP)
Debating
By
Shvabh Chakarwarti
LSR | 02nd
March, 2021

2. BP Debating
Speaking (Team
Sport)
Adjing

3. What are we going to cover?
• Introduction: Format and Guidance
• Technicalities
• How to win?
• Any and all questions you may have

4. “BPs are 40% of your hard
work, effort, and well
rest is…”
What is the point of this?
• No matter how good you are, you will lose.
• Certain losses can’t be rationalized, it’s not on you.
• Don’t forget what it is for – a. Going crazy b. Having fun!

5. Introduction: Format and Guidance
• History
• Similarities to APs in terms of rules
• Rules (Next Slide)

6. Rules
•One motion is given for each round
•After the motion is released, teams are given 15 minutes to
prepare before the debate begins
•During preparation time, debaters are only permitted to
consult their teammate (or the CA Team) – no contact with
other teams, no use of electronic devices or Internet.
•All speeches are 7 minutes long

7. Rules
4 Teams
2 Speakers
each
Government Bench Opposition Bench
Opening
Half
Opening Government (OG)
(1) Prime Minister (PM)
(3) Deputy Prime Minister (DPM)
Opening Opposition (OO)
(2) Opposition Leader (LO)
(4) Deputy Opposition Leader (DLO)
Closing
Half
Closing Government (CG)
(5) Government Member (GM)
(7) Government Whip (GW)
Closing Opposition (CO)
(6) Opposition Member (OM)
(8) Opposition Whip (OW)

8. Rules
• “Teams win debates by being persuasive with respect to the burdens their side
of the debate is attempting to prove, within the constraints set by the rules of
BP debating.”
There are two important comments to make about this central statement:
(i) One could stand up in a debate and be persuasive about anything, but this will
not help to win a debate unless it is relevant to the burdens teams are
seeking to prove.
(ii) The rules of debating constrain legitimate ways to be persuasive. For
example, in the absence of rules, the Opposition Whip could often be very
persuasive by introducing entirely new arguments, but the rules prohibit this.
As such, elements of a speech can only help a team win a round if they are
both persuasive and within the rules.

9. Rules
• Teams are ranked from 1st
to 4th
, and receive points based on
their ranking (3 points for 1st
, 2 for 2nd
, 1 for 3rd
, 0 for 4th
)
• In break rounds, 1st
and 2nd
ranking teams are considered to be
“winning” and therefore proceed to the next round.
• Any combination of 2 teams can win the debate

10. Roles of the Four Teams
(i) OG - defines the motion, advance arguments in favour of their side, and rebut arguments made by OO.
(ii) OO – rebuts OG's case (i.e. the general set of arguments they have offered) and advance constructive
arguments as to why their side of the table should win the debate.
(iii) CG must provide further arguments (Extensions) and analysis in favour of the motion, which are
consistent with, but distinct from, the substantive material advanced by OG, as well as refuting the
analysis of the Opposition teams. The Government Whip must summarise the debate as a whole on
behalf of the Government bench, and should not add new arguments.
(iv) CO must provide further arguments (Extensions) against the motion, which are consistent with, but
different from, the arguments advanced by OO, as well as rebutting arguments made by the
Government teams. The Opposition Whip must summarise the debate as a whole on behalf of the
Opposition bench, and must not add new arguments.

11. Speaker Roles
Opening Government:
• The Prime Minister (PM) should:
(a) ensure that the debate is adequately defined
- duty to ensure that the subject matter of the debate
- is clear
(b) advance constructive arguments in favor of their side
• The Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) should:
(a) defend the case presented by the Prime Minister (PM)
(b) refute arguments presented by the Leader of Opposition
(c) extend the case for their team

12. Speaker Roles
Opening Opposition:
• The Opposition Leader (LO) should:
(a) refute all or part of the Prime Minister’s case
(b) advance constructive arguments in favor of their side
- has a duty to clash with the Prop case
(case must be fundamentally mutually exclusive to Prop)
• The Deputy Opposition Leader (DLO) should:
(a) defend the case presented by the Opposition Leader (LO)
(b) refute the overall case presented by Opening Government
(c) extend the case for their team

13. Speaker Roles
Closing Teams:
•Closing teams must provide further arguments
(extensions) and analysis in favor of their side, which
are consistent with, but distinct from, the substantive
material advanced by their Opening, as well as refuting
the analysis of the opposing teams.
•Closing teams only get credit for new things brought
into the debate BY THEM

14. What is extension?
An extension is defined as anything that has not yet been said by that side of the debate.
It can take a number of forms including:
(1) new arguments (horizontal extension), whether additive to own case responsive to
material raised by the other side
(2) new examples
(3) new analysis or explanation of existing arguments (vertical extension)
(4) new application of existing argumentation
*Note – Extension is the bare minimum that a closing team needs to do in order to stand a
chance to win the debate. In the same breath, an extension does not automatically mean
that they will win, it just means now they can win.

15. My go to extensions, aka, how to
extend.
• Unless you are in a terrible room where the most basic stuff hasn’t
been done (unlikely and undesired), the matter that you have thought
in prep. should be exhausted.
• Don’t panic.
• Think.
• Be flexible- strategizing never stops.
• Don’t stop listening.

16. My go to extensions, aka, how to
extend.
• Deadlocks and rebuttals (best for CG)
• Macro and Micro
• Mechanisation
• Be wild – hit it out of the park (best forms of extension, you may lose, but you
will never forget these | Example – vote’s power to be proportionate to age)
Remember, if you can sell it, it’s an extension!

17. Speaker Roles
Closing Teams:
• Member speeches (GM, MO) should:
(a) respond to the arguments presented by the opposing bench
(b) extend the debate in favor of their side
Best strategy – Give context that your extension needs or call out
premises that you think are just plain wrong and have stagnated the
debate. A few extraneous rebuttals to your diagonal or clarifications from
your opening to better lay the ground work. Then jump right into the
extensions. If you are in a good room, you mostly won’t have to do this. You
can jump right into extensions, for example – 3 pieces of extensions from
CG.

18. Speaker Roles
Closing Teams:
Whip Speeches (GW, OW) should:
(a) respond to the arguments presented by the opposing
bench, particularly the material offered by your most
immediate previous speaker
(b) defend and highlight (weighing) the extension
offered by your Member
(c) summarize the debate from the perspective of
your own side – biased summary

19. Speaker Roles
Closing Teams:
• It is strongly prohibited for either whip speaker to add new arguments
to their team’s cases.
• The following do not count as new arguments in this sense:
- new defenses of arguments already made
- new explanations of previously-made arguments
- rebuttal
- new examples to support existing arguments
- anything the other side can reasonably be expected to understand
that team intended from their Member speech
• In short, there should be NO material that takes the debate in a
DISTINCTLY different direction as compared with the Member’s
Speeches

20. Weighing aka how to win
• It is nothing but telling why your argument matters.
• Weighing = Relevance.
• How can you do it?
• Many ways, but the top 5 are:-
a. Uniqueness
b. Quantity
c. Vulnerability
d. Depth (aka proportionality)
e. Reasonability
• Who does it? Largely, second speakers. But, a bit of weighing can exist in
first speeches too.

21. Motions
• Info-slides and word definitions will be given when necessary
• Clarify key terms
• Knowledge necessary to have a functional debate
• Any information in an info-slide is assumed true for the debate
following it
• Proposition has “fiat” – we need to assume the motion will happen for a
debate to happen. This does not mean it will be successful, for that is
about its acceptance and impact. And that is what debating is about.
• If something is still unclear, speak to the CA-Team Only
• You may not talk to your coach/friends/parents during prep
• You may not use the internet or electronic devices during prep
• You may not speak to any non-CA judges

22. Types of Motions – Policy
•Policy motions: THW…
• Motions of the form “This House Would [do X]” involve Government arguing that they should be
enacting policy X. A policy is a concrete course of action that Government teams wish to convince
the judges should be implemented. Such motions are about whether the House should do X – with
Government teams arguing that they should and Opposition teams arguing that they should not.
These debates are not about whether the entity the House represents (usually but not always
state governments) will do the policy in question in the real world, or whether they are doing the
policy at present.
• For example, the motion “THW ban cigarettes” . The debate should assume that the Government
team has the power to implement such a policy and that this policy will therefore pass the
approval of Congress or Parliament; however, the Government team cannot control reactions to
this policy, and cannot assume that everyone will behave in a compliant manner once the policy is
passed. The question of the debate is whether or not the policy should be enacted in the manner
that the Government team has set out, not just about whether or not cigarettes are good or bad.
It is perfectly possible for the Opposition team to agree that cigarettes are bad, but oppose the
government policy of banning cigarettes altogether.

23. Types of Motions – Policy
• For Policy motions, Opposition teams may choose to defend status quo,
or propose an alternative in the form of a counter-policy. It is not
necessary for Opposition teams to present a counter-policy, though it
may be beneficial in some instances. If presenting a counter-policy,
Opposition teams are granted the same amount of fiat power that
Government teams have: the debate should assume that whatever
counter-policy Opposition proposes will also be implemented, and it
would be similarly futile to argue that Opposition’s counter-policy
would never be passed by any parliament in real life. However, it is
crucial to note that Opposition’s policy should not take significantly
more resources to achieve than Government’s policy.

24. Types of Motions – Analysis
• Analysis motions: THBT/THS/THO…- value judgement debates
• Example: THBT debate robots do more harm than good to humanity
• Analyse the harms and compare to the benefits
• Example: THO the election of Jair Bolsonaro
• Does not need a policy, but still need to define the debate (e.g. a
metric/yardstick to more good than harms)
• ” The debate is about whether or not the statement is true, not about
whether or not the government should do anything about the statement
(by, for instance, banning Bolsonaro, which is in any case is implausible)

25. Types of Motions – Analysis
Analysis motions: THR… - World in the absence of…
•Example: THR the narrative that debating is necessary
for making friends and influencing people
•We ask whether the world would have been a better
place without the existence of what it is that we are
regretting
•We have the benefit of hindsight
•We need to describe and justify how an alternative
world would look, can’t simply assume that without a
debate culture everyone will not have a lot of social
capital
•We must be comparative

26. Types of Motions – Analysis
Analysis motions: THP a world in which…
•Significant Power – Imagination
•Example: THP a world in which everyone is X
•There needs to be a comparison between this new
imagined world, with the current/existing world
•The debate should not be a comparison between two
new imagined worlds

27. Types of Motions – Analysis
Analysis motions: THBT X Should…
•Example: THBT the US should not have pulled out
troops from North Eastern Syria in early October 2019
•The question is whether the statement is true from
the prospective of a neutral observer.
•Usually no model, but saying thing would be akin to a
current institution helps.

28. Types Of Motions – Actor
Actor Motions: TH, as X,…
•Look at the debate from the perspective of X and don’t ask
what is necessarily best for the world (have the values,
knowledge and interests of the specified actor)
•Example: TH, as EU, would not punish its members that export
arms to undemocratic nations
•Example2: TH, as parents, would not actively encourage their
children to adopt their own religion
•THBT X should is not an Actor Motion: THBT parents should
not actively encourage their children to adopt their own
religion (can still claim that the interest of the parent are
prioritized, but this time a neutral observer)

29. Auxiliary Things
• POIs/Clarifications
• Iron Person
• Scoring Speakers – Global Scale (50-100)
• Scoring Adjes – Global Scale (1-10)
• Contradiction and Knifing (next slide)

30. Knifing
• Closing teams should generally be consistent with their opening teams. There are some
rare exceptions, in which closing teams do not have to be consistent:
• 1. The opening team has conceded the debate, or made an extremely damaging
concession that makes the debate impossible to win from their side.
• 2. OG has squirreled the motion (or OO has made an invalid counter-prop).
• 3. The opening team has made a clearly false factual statement (e.g., in a debate about
invading Syria, OG claimed that Syria was in Latin America).
• To be clear, under these rare circumstances, closing teams still have to be consistent
with other things said by their opening – this is not a "blank cheque" to ignore everything
that an opening team has said, just the parts that it would be implausible to expect a
closing team to defend. Furthermore, proposing a different metric by which the debate
should be evaluated does not constitute a knife. For example, if OO claimed that the
most important thing in the debate are human rights, it is permissible for CO to claim
that geo-political impacts are in fact more important. If this was not the case, it would
make it unfairly difficult for closing teams to meaningfully extend over their opening.

31. Squirrelling
• A ‘squirrel’ is a definition of the motion which seeks to diminish or evade
the burden of proof the motion places on Opening Government. A
definition may be considered a ‘squirrel’ if it is literally inconsistent with
the words of the actual motion that was set.
• If, for example, the motion is “This House would place tolls on all roads”
and Opening Government suggests they would place tolls only on major
motorways, this is clearly invalid, since the motion specifically says “all
roads”.
• A definition may also be considered a ‘squirrel’ if it is structured in a way
that is itself argumentative. For instance, if the motion is “This House
would invade Crimea” and Opening Government defines “invasion” as
“successful invasion,” then this is invalid as their definition unfairly limits
the scope of the debate by removing the possibility of failure

32. Definition Challenge
The vast majority of debates are defined
legitimately
•Standard: Is the definition a reasonable
interpretation of the words in the motion?
•Challenging definition should be done as a last
resort

33. Definition Challenge
• The only grounds for claiming that a definition is invalid is if it meets
one of the two squirrelling circumstances, or if it unfairly restricts the
time and place of the debate. It is not enough for a definition to not
seem “in the spirit of the motion”, or for a definition to have not been
expected by other teams in the debate.
• This must be done during the Opposition Leader’s speech, or in a POI to
the Prime Minister’s speech.
• If a team challenges the definition, they must argue that the definition
is illegitimate and explain why. In challenging the definition, the
Opposition Leader has two choices:

34. Definition Challenge
• Firstly, they can complain about the motion having been defined
in an invalid way but proceed to debate it anyway. This is
preferable if the motion proposed is not a fair reading of the
motion but is still debateable.
• Secondly, they can challenge the definition and redefine it.
They should tell the judge and the other debaters what a
proper definition would be and should then proceed to argue
against that case. Where a team takes this option, it is
advisable (though not required) for them to present ‘even-if’
analysis engaging with the OG’s definition of the motion and the
material that stems from that definition, as well as their own.

35. Definition Challenge
• Please bear in mind that definitional challenges are incredibly rare and more
a ‘last resort’ than a first-line of defence against a Government case. Where
a definition falls within one of the circumstances outlined above, it is often
still advisable for a team to debate the motion as it has been defined, and
avoid the procedural complexity of a definitional challenge taking away from
their time to present substantive arguments.
• Whether a definition is valid or not, it is not the job of the judge to attack
the definition, and judges should only worry about the definition if teams in
the debate do. If the definition is successfully attacked as being vague, OG
should be penalised only to the extent to which a lack of detail prevents
teams from making arguments. Judges should give other teams the benefit
of the doubt relative to OG where such a deficiency poses a problem and
allow other teams to ‘read-in’ any fair and reasonable assumption about the
definition that OG hasn’t fully spelled out.

36. Gratitude, Questions, and Thank You
• I have made contributions but haven’t reinvented the wheel.
Gratitude to WUDCs CAPs, Pranav Kagalkar, and Subham
Krishna Borah.
• Any Questions?
• Well, then this is it, folks! Thank you for coming!