In seven minutes, a parliamentary debater is expected to both rebut arguments made by the opposing team, as well as make strong arguments in support of their own case. This can be overwhelming if one tries to do it all in one go. In today’s individual exercises, we will break this process down analytically. In 1-2 min speeches, you will be able to practice delivering short and sharp refutations / rebuttals to specific arguments. We will also learn how to systematically create strong arguments on a variety of topics using the ‘Stakeholder Interests’ matrix available below.

This live interactive session will feature six debaters from NLS divided into two teams:

Government:
Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Government Whip  

Opposition:
Leader of Opposition, Deputy Leader of Opposition, and Opposition Whip

We will analyse the individual speeches and the overall debate in real time.

This session is highly recommended for adjudicators, and generally for those who are not familiar with the format of Asian Parliamentary debating.

Competitive parliamentary debating is akin to a sport if you think of it! Its format and rules provide a framework for arguments to be made, heard, and analysed on specific topics. In a ‘match’ or in a ‘tournament’, there are certain concepts which need to be understood and applied to ensure that the debate takes place in a fair manner.

You may already be familiar with ‘matter’, ‘manner’, and ‘method’ as critical facets of any argumentative speech. In ‘team debating’, we encounter notions of ‘role fulfilment’ and ‘fair warning’, ‘burden of proof’ and ‘points of clash’, as well as ‘specialist knowledge’ and what an ‘average reasonable person’ may be presumed to know.