How to Prepare for a Debate
"People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." This quote by Gilbert K. Chesterton rings true when taking into consideration any domestic argument. Debating is a method used to argue a topic between individuals or team members. Generally debating is used to maintain order while the opposed argue. Here are some helpful guidelines for the preparation of a three aside parliamentary style debate.
Firstly, when preparing for a three aside parliamentary style debate you must find out what your motion is. Your motion tells what side or viewpoint of the topic you will argue; this is key to determine where you will begin researching. A good debater can see both sides of any topic. You can either be on the side of the opposition or on the side of the proposition. The 'prop' are the promoters of the motion, the 'opp' opposes against it.
Secondly, in preparing for this particular kind of debate it is necessary to know the format. Knowing the expected debate format is essential to both teams to ensure a smooth honest debate. The format for a three aside parliamentary style debate follows an alternate pattern starting with the propositions first speaker, and then the first speaker of the opposition follows. This alternation continues for the other team members as well. Each speaker has a maximum talk time of three minutes. The chairperson will conduct the debate, and is seated in the middle with the 'prop' on his right and the 'opp' on his left. During the debate the chairperson is in charge and their word is final and must be followed. The chairperson will introduce the speakers, and also thank them when their talk time has ended.
During this parliamentary debate points of information are allowed by the team that is silent while the other speaks. Any points of information that a team wishes to make are not allowed during the first and last minutes of the speaker's argument. This restricts all points of information to a one-minute window. The procedure for adding a point is critical. The team member will stand and say "Point of Information", at this time he must wait for the speaker's response of 'accept' or 'reject'. If accepted the point is limited to one short phrase of roughly 10 words. At any time the speaker can stop the point and continue on with his or her argument.
Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings. 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, 2012. Print.
Traditional argument is when one takes a side of an argument and tries to persuade the opposite side to take their side of the argument.
rhetoricians had classified oratory into three types: the epideictic, forensic or judicial and the deliberative. These can be distinguished according to the context of delivery. The epideictic rhetoric is delivered in ceremonial occasions; the ideal context of forensic oratory is in the court of law, the deliberative type is practised in electoral rallies or parliamentary meetings.
Discourse means communication or debate. (oxford dictionary). The word discourse is used to show the difference of opinions among people. Plato who was a famous philosopher has written about discourse in many of his works. In Gorgias he shows discourse among Callicles and Socrates.
Paun Akash, Robert Hazell, Andrew Turnball, Alan Beith, Paul Evans, and Michael Crick. "Hung Parliaments and the Challenges for Westminster and Whitehall: How to Make Minority and Multiparty Governance Work (with Commentaries by Turnbull, Beith, Evans and Crick)." in Political Quarterly Vol 81, Issue 2: 213-227.
In conclusion it seems that the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty as purported by Dicey is no longer an immutable part of our constitution. Although it remains a key principle of our constitution, it has now been reinterpreted in light of seminal cases such as Factortame and Jackson, from a legally unchangeable, rule of our constitution, to one in which Parliament is no longer prevented from placing limits to the content and form of itself.
Arguments are everywhere; everyone has used some sort of argumentation in their life. Whether it’s asking permission to go out, begging a professor for additional time on a due assignment, or arriving late to class. Your examining different evidence to decide which way is more dependable to use to make our stateluisament or an argument. In other words, an Argument is a sequence of statements that are used to persuade an audience with reasons for accommodating a conclusion. Creating arguments is something that isn’t hard to do, what is hard to grip on is, finding the logic in an argument. I found myself creating similar scenarios; pretty much made three comparable settings that all fight for the same point.
To argue is to attempt to convince a reader to agree with a point of view, to make a decision, or to pursue a particular course of action (Eschholz, Rosa, and Clark 429). In an argument there are three main elements: ethos, logos, and pathos. In ethos, the author tries to build his/her character to the audience. In this particular essay, Mr. Keillor does not build his credibility very well. The only information he reveals is that he is a democrat, which can be found in paragraph one of the essay. The details of Mr.
* The Aims of Argument. 4th ed Ed.Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. New York:McGraw Hill,2003, 352-355.
3) To organize a legal argument by issue rather than by a chronological narrative of the facts.
Wilhoit (2009) explains building an argument is a complex task that does not require adhering to a specific rules and methods prescribed to you throughout your high school career. Although they certainly have a place in arguments in that they provide the infrastructure, the key premised to building an academic argument is understanding and establishing the rhetorical situation. It will give you an understanding of who the writer and the audience is, what is the subject or topic, the reason or occasion and finally the purpose of why the argument it being written (p.1-4). In this essay we will take a step by step look at how to construct a reflective argument in response to Michael Hardt’s “Are we capable of Democracy” argument in Examined Life.
The purpose of this reflective essay on the debate is to analyse my team and my own personal learning style and experience of participating in the debate and in the preparation period - that started in week 7 with the mock debate - by structured and based on Honey and Mumford’s Learning Styles theory, and examine some ideas for my future practice.
Inch, Edward, Barbara Warnick. Critical Thinking and Communication: The use of Reason in Argument. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2002.
and the second is a free vote, this is when MPs are allowed to make up
This includes discussions on how decisions should be made, whether it is consensus, unanimity or majority ruled. Finally, the addition of parties makes the gathering and sharing of information much more difficult. Negotiations need to be flexible enough to allow new information into a discussion. However, by increasing the size of a group, the amount of new information grows.