120 likes | 1.11k Vues
BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM. FORMAT. Motion Teams in debate Order of speaker Speech duration 7 min with POI at the 1 st -6 th min. Onus of prove. Government support proposition and demonstrate that on balance of probabilities
E N D
FORMAT • Motion • Teams in debate • Order of speaker • Speech duration 7 min with POI at the 1st-6th min
Onus of prove • Government support proposition and demonstrate that on balance of probabilities • Opposition demonstrate that the preposition should not be accepted • There is no onus of the opposition to provide an alternative proposition
Opening government OG • Set up the debate by defining the motion and introducing arguments to support their proposition in BP definitional challenge can only be done if it’s UNREASONABLE contrast with MORE/LESS REASONABLE in Austral/Asian opposition must be more flexible, less def challenge. • Both 1st & 2nd speaker for OG present the most obvious arguments favor to the motion • Less obvious will takes risk to be count as irrelevant (and taken by CG)
Opening Opposition OO • Respond “dynamically” to the OG, provide effective opposition to the arguments of OG • They MAY introduce substantive arguments against the motion (arguments which are not rebuttal)
Note for Opposition • There is no requirements for an opposition team to provide substantive arguments but it may be strategic tactic where there are strong arguments against the motion which would not come to light solely trough rebuttal
Closing Government CG • Remain consistent with the general approach of OG • Expand / extend OG case introducing new arguments to support the motion & develop the existing OG arguments which have come under attack from opposition. • The arguments introduced by CG must be within the parameter of the debate established by the definition
Note for Closing Government (& opposition) • Continuing the parliamentary analogy the CG (&CO) occupy a similar role to a coalition partner. While the coalition broadly agrees with the approach by OG, it has additional reasons relevant to it’s constituency for it’s policy approach.
Closing Opposition CO • Remain consistent with the approach taken by OO. • Provide effective opposition to the CG (which should have extended the debate beyond the arguments of the opening team) • Provide excellent analysis of the significant issues I the debate as this team has had an ample opportunity to prepare their speech
Note for CO • CO is prohibited to introduce new matter in the same way that 3rd negative speaker in Asian / Austral is prevented from introducing new matter