Canadian Parliamentary Style Debate Report

This Report is Made to Fulfill The Advanced Integrated English (Speaking) Assignment Taught
by Siti Kurnia Rasyad, S.Hum, M.A.

By:
Tivana Firsta Haryono Putri (183211016)
Muhammad Ardita Hafidh Zain (183211044)
Hani Hilmalia (183211045)
Yusuf Ibrahim (183211048)
Arynaa Azzahra (183211053)
Hilmi Muhammad Fachrian (183211057)
Ayuk Prihatin (183211067)

English Letter Department

and Language Faculty
State Islamic Institute of Surakarta
2019
 A. Introduction to Canadian National Style
Canadian National Style is the new style that was inspired and used at the National
Debating Championships. In this style, each teams are consisted of two persons instead of
three, and the teams are called “Proposition” and “Opposition”. Proposition is the team that’s
favor in motion, and Opposition is simply the team against them. Meanwhile individual
speakers are referred as “First” and “Second” speakers. Each teams have special terms on
their leaders and members. The Proposition has Prime Minister (PM) as its leader and
Minister Crown (MC) as its member. This special nickname is due to their position as
government side. Meanwhile the Opposition side simply uses literal terms: Leader of
Opposition and Member of Opposition. Both of sides are given equal times on their speech
throughout the debate. To understand better, please take a look at the table below:

1st Proposition 1st Opposition (Sr. 2nd Proposition 2nd Opposition Opposition Proposition Reply
(Sr. Beg – 6 Beg – 6 min, Sr. (Sr. Beg – 6 (Sr. Beg – 6 Reply Speech Speech (1st
min, Sr. Open – Open – 8 min) min, Sr. Open – min, Sr. Open (1st Proposition)(4
8 min) 8 min) – 8 min) Opposition)(4 min)
min)
Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction -Both reply speeches summarize
Definitions If necessary, Show unity Show unity their position and point out the
challenge with caseline with caseline basic flaws of the opposition.

definitions -No new arguments can be

introduced. Although new evidence
Theme/case Theme/case line Clash with Clash with
(examples, logic, etc.) is allowed.
line Opposition Proposition
-Explain why your team should win
arguments arguments
and the other team should lose.
Model (if Clash with Additional Further
-Remind the judges of your
needed) Proposition arguments to arguments
arguments.
arguments support against
-Tell the judges why they should
resolution resolution
believe your arguments even after
Arguments in If necessary- Conclusion Conclusion the other team’s attack.
support of counter model, -Explain why the judges should not
resolution otherwise listento the other team.
arguments against -Review critical evidence.
Conclusion Conclusion
 The arguments come with a topic, and it’s presented by government side on the
beginning. Know that some topics can’t be proposed, such as: common or outdated
knowledge (earth is flat), tautology (all bachelors are unmarried men, which is true by
dictionary definition), specific knowledge (Cases constructed from material in a 5th year
Linguistic book), and a tight case (in which it’s impossible for the Opposition to propose an
argument with positive worth). Aside from that exceptions, topics or cases can be anything.
B. Canadian National Style Debating Format
1. First Proposition
a. In the first proposition speech over eighty-five percent of the speech should be
reserved for the constructive matter. The first proposition usually develops two
constructive points in their speech giving each point equal time. For example, in
an eight-minute speech:
1) The first minute would contain the introduction and definitions
2) The next three minutes would present the first constructive argument
3) The following three minutes would present the second constructive argument
4) Last thirty seconds would summarize and conclude the arguments.
b. The first speech should contain the following specific elements:
1) Introductions
Introductions can be as simple as “Mr. Speaker” and as complex as greeting all
the members of the room, or just as effective is to grab the judge’s attention by
starting the debate with some witty and pertinent information.
2) Definition and Model
Canadian National Style does not allow squirreling of the motion (that is taking
the debate out of the context in which it is supposed to be debate in). A model is an
extension of the definitions that aims to add increased clarity to the motion. The
model answers the four W’s of the debate. Who, What, When, Where. A good model
creates more contexts and makes the debate cleaner by removing much of the debate
from the implementing of a policy to the actual policy itself. The model must be fully
explained in the first speech.
3) Case Split and Case Line
 The case line and split are both elements taken directly from Worlds Style debate.
A case split is simply how the arguments are divided between the two speakers.
2. First Opposition
a. In the first opposition speech seventy-five percent of the speech should be

reserved for the constructive matter. The first proposition usually develops two

constructive points in their speech, giving each equal time. For example, in an
eight-minute speech:
1) The first two minutes would be used for refutation and rebuilding
2) The next three minutes would be used for the first constructive argument
3) The next two minutes and thirty seconds would be used for the second
constructive argument
4) Last thirty seconds would be used for a short summary and conclusion
b. The first Opposition is also ought to fully outline when presenting counter
models. It means the agreement of opposition team towards proposition resolution
but believe that the goal can be reached in more effective way.
3. Second Proposition
a. The second proposition has fewer, yet equally, as important roles. At the end of

this speech the proposition constructive case is over and no new constructive

arguments/contentions may be introduced. It is customary for the 2nd proposition

to only introduce a single new argument into the debate.
1) Introduction
2) Clash with points made by Opposition
3) Outline team’s case approach
4) Further Proposition Arguments
5) Conclusion
b. During the second proposition’s speech about thirty-five - forty percent of the
speech should be refutation and the rest is reserved for construction. For example,
in an eight-minute speech:
1) The first thirty seconds would be used for the introduction
2) The next three minutes for refutation of the opposition and rebuilding
 3) The next four minutes for construction of a single new argument
4) The final thirty seconds for the conclusion
4. Second Opposition
a. The second opposition’s speech is the last constructive speech of the debate.
National Style is designed so that as you progress through the debate there is less
and less constructive matter presented. During the last opposition constructive
speech, the elements are the same as the second proposition, excepts for the
clashing part where obviously 2nd opposition will keep fighting proposition
instead
b. The second opposition’s speech has about fifty to sixty percent refutation and the

rest is reserved for construction. It is good practice in a debate to only introduce a

single argument in the second speech. For example, in an eight-minute speech:

1) The first thirty seconds is used for an introduction
2) The next four minutes would be used for refutation
3) The next three minutes would be used for the last constructive point
4) The final thirty seconds to conclude the opposition side of the debate
5. Reply Speeches
After the constructive speeches are concluded, both the proposition and the
opposition teams get a final reply speech. The reply speech is when each team presents
their case of the judges. The reply does not contain any new constructive arguments.
Reply speeches are given by the first speaker from each team, and they will deliver a
four-minute summary or rebuttal speech. Reply speeches occur in reverse order (the
opposition replies before the proposition).
The purpose of reply speeches are to give each team the opportunity to consolidate
their ideas and review the debate. The goal of the reply speech is not so much to win the
argument, as it is to review and explain how your team won the debate. You can
emphasize the reasons why your team should won, and you can criticize your opponents’
approach, explaining why they lost. The simplest approach is to spend about half of your
reply speech discussing your opposition’s case, and about a half discussing your own.
 Ideally, when you summarize your case, you will show how it answered the
questions or problems posed by your opponents. Instead of looking at the specific
arguments that have been presented by both sides, a reply speech looks at the overall
themes within the debate. Look for reasons that your opposition may have lost the debate.
For example, your opposition may have established criteria that it has failed to meet, or
promised to support a model that has not been mentioned since the first speaker.
Similarly, your opposition may have forgotten to rebut one of your arguments. You
should keep track of this, because it can be a significant point in your favour.
Common reply speech structures are listed as follows:
Type Description
Question and Answer Summarize the debate by asking a series of 2-4 questions.
Answer these questions with a combination of rebuttal and
refutation (that is, refer to your own constructive
arguments, as well as creating new refutation arguments).
Closed Circle Remind the Speaker of themes you introduced in the PMC
(“recall our belief in the importance of individual
freedom”). Show how all Opposition arguments are
contrary to your themes. Remind the Speaker of
challenges you made (“recall that we stated the Opposition
would have to justify…”). Show how the Opposition did
not meet the challenge.
Smear Campaign Choose a negative quality, such as fear, impracticality, etc.,
and show how all Opposition arguments are traits of this
quality. Provide a compelling statement on why this
invalidates the Opposition.

Tips for reply speech:

a. A slow, controlled reply speech is much more effective. Proper use of tactics like
theme building will save you time.
b. Refer to the previous speaker’s speeches a lot
 Talk as if you have already won – be relaxed, smile, etc., unless the Opposition was
particularly harsh, in which case it is okay to act indignant, but not angry.
6. Points of Information
POI can seem unimportant in comparison to bigger issues. POI are valuable tools. If
used and dealt with effectively can greatly influence a team’s persuasiveness.
A good POI can accomplish considerable amount of below points :
a. Force an opponent to concede an argument.
b. Throw an opponent of his or her rhythm, reducing the persuasiveness of
arguments to come.
c. Force the opponent to discuss issues he/she would othewise avoid, focusing the
round onto your preffered of terms.
d. Immediately diffuse a powerfull argument.
e. Lighten up around through humour.
f. Gives the opposition the opportunity to challenge a case’s structure and
parametters at the outside round.
g. Gives a team presence in the round, allowing team to gain power in the eyes of
the judge.
Here are several types of POI commonly used in debate;
a. Clarification
e.g. “Sorry, I dont understand. Are you proposing to criminalze X , or just make
ilegal?”.
b. Fact question
e.g. “but isn’t it true that there is no chance that missile defence will work?”, it’s
purposed to direct clsh with their arguments. Interrupt debateer’s rhytm.
c. Burden
e.g. “what is your model for development?” burden purposed taking a risk to
expose opponent’s incompetence.
d. Constructive/rebuttal POIs
These will help further thr clash of debate by forcing your opponent to answer the
question. Altough there are far too many potential strategies to present in a brief
article, the debater must keep in mind the effects that choices in timing can have.
 The most important thing to remember when giving POIs is to be confident. Stand
confidently while waiting and, when recignized, also speak. Don’t be intimidated. Be
concise when giving your point. Take the time you need to present your question
effectively but don’t waste your opponent’s time. as a general frame of reference, POIs
should not take more than 15 second for effective ones.
7. Evaluation
On the evaluation, the judges will be the one who determine which side is the
winner. Each part of speeches on previous sessions are carefully written and considered.
The consideration for this style of debate contains the following criteria: content, style,
and strategy. While POI don’t get marks on their own, they are still weighted, perhaps
significantly, in a judge’s decision. The judges are expected to give a fair score and award
a final score that makes sense in both absolute and relative terms. Win-loss is critical, and
judges must weigh this very carefully in their adjudication.
C. Other Aspects to Consider in Debating
1. Moderator
While it seems highly general, moderator’s role is undoubtedly needed in the debate
session. In addition to introduce speakers in each group, the moderator is also the one
who become liaison between speeches from one end to the other. Therefore, it’s
conspicuously clear why moderator is another aspect to be acknowledge in debate.
2. Style
On debating, the fact that one will develops each of unique style in presenting their
speeches is beyond shadow of a doubt. A good style can benefit the speaker into getting
positive impression from the judges. To get a better idea, please look at the lists don’t-do
below:
a. Don’t carry anything in your hands as you speak.
b. Don’t fiddle with you clothing, hair, etc. while speaking.
c. Don’t address your remarks to your opponents; address the judges.
d. Don’t move around too much, either in gesticulation or wandering.
e. Don’t remain ramrod-still, either.
f. Don’t put all your weight on one leg or stand in any other manner which
might be distracting.
 g. Don’t speak too quickly. Give your judge time to write down all the gold
you’re spewing.
h. Don’t ever let “style” interfere with clarity—90%+ of good style is being
clear.
Those are true basics, but it can take years to iron out. Just remember to be flexible
and modulate your style. There are also certain trick, stylistic tricks, that are often
overused by beginning debaters: vicious mockery and self-deprecation, though rarely
used by same people, and almost never at the same time too. Both of these tools are
useful and fun, but use them at wrong time or too much, and you’ll be in trouble. No one
likes bully nor weakling, so strike a balance between pride and humility. Modulate and

adjust the style based on people and the situation around you. If your opponents look two

feet shorter than you do, don’t make fun of them at all if you can help it. Don’t bellow in

a small classroom, don’t whisper in a large auditorium. Move less the closer your judge

is to you. Little things like that can really help, and they become second nature after a
while.
Keep practicing, and let your style find you. Try your hardest to avoid common early
mistakes outlined above, and as you debate more and more, you will find that you
have developed your own style. Using that style to its fullest extent will come with
time.