Parliamentary Procedure Presentation Notes:

Introduction:

Relation between Parliamentary procedure and Argumentation and debate

- Under the parliamentary procedure Argumentation and debate is used to help the assembly
determine whether to take action on the proposal. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
(RONR) says, "Debate, rightly understood, is an essential element in the making of rational
decisions of consequence by intelligent people." One of the distinguishing characteristics of
a deliberative assembly is that it is "a group of people, having or assuming freedom to act in
concert, meeting to determine, in full and free discussion, courses of action to be taken in
the name of the entire group."
- Essentially under this context argumentation and debate is employed in order to properly
discuss a certain action or project in order to fully understand its scope as well as remove
any flaws within it.

Definitions

- Debate is defined as a structured approach of interactive and representational argument.

The scope of debate is more than that of logical argument, which only considers axiomatic
consistency, factual argument, which only considers if a claim is true or false, or rhetoric,
which is a persuasive method.
- Argument refers to claims, justifications, or evidence made by someone in writing or
verbally in order to justify anything, such as an opinion. An argument is a conversation
characterized most frequently by a dispute. This is can be seen when one presents their
arguments and tries to convince the other to agree with their viewpoint on the subject at
hand.

Topics:

Arguments; Reasons and Types

- Primary reasons why an argument may occur. (1) to solve a problem or make a judgement.
(2) to defend or explain an action/scene. (3) to communicate one’s point of view and way of
thinking to a person or group.
- A causal argument is a type of argument used to persuade someone or a group of people
that one thing has caused something else. This type of argument focuses on how something
occurred and how a problem arose as a result of that occurrence.
- A rebuttal argument is centered on refuting an idea or belief that has been present up until
this point in time. This type of argument often involves including why a particular idea or
belief is flawed and how you feel it can be fixed or changed. Most rebuttal arguments
include a statement of the counterargument, a statement regarding your position and how
it's different from the counterargument and evidence to support your position.
- A proposal argument is one in which a person proposes a particular solution to a specific
issue. This argument should include the establishment of a problem, the details of the
proposal and reasons why the proposal is a good idea.
- An evaluation argument is an argument that is used to evaluate whether a particular
element is "good" or "bad." For this argument to work, those participating in the argument
must first come to an agreement as to the criteria of "good" and "bad."
- A narrative argument is an argument in which an individual states their case by telling a
story that illustrates a point directly related to the argument. Unlike other arguments which
rely solely on figures and facts, narrative arguments allow individuals to use a narrative to
express their stance on a particular issue.
- The Toulmin argument was developed by Stephen E. Toulmin and is an argument that is
composed of six different parts: claim, grounds, warrant, qualifier, rebuttal and backing. In
this argument, the claim is what the arguer wishes to prove; the grounds of the argument
are the facts and evidence that support the claim; the warrant is what links the grounds to
the claim; the backing is additional warrant support; the qualifier is used to show that the
claim does not always apply to all situations and the rebuttal is acknowledging that there are
other valid viewpoints for the claim.
- A Rogerian argument is an argument used to determine the best possible solution to a
particular issue based on the interests and needs of all parties involved. This type of
argument is used to help those with opposing viewpoints reach a common ground by
allowing them to look at a situation from a different perspective. In a Rogerian argument,
both parties acknowledge the opposition and build trust by identifying each other’s merit.
- A classical Western argument is used to persuade a group of people of the validity of an
argument and/or reveal the truths that define or affect the argument. This is a basic type of
persuasive argument and typically includes five different components: an introduction,
narration, confirmation, refutation, and a conclusion.

Kinds of debate

- Political Debate is a debate primarily used in political spheres. Such debates include:
Parliamentary Debate, Emergency Debate, Presidential / candidacy debates.
- In competitive debates, teams compete against each other and are judged the winner by a
list of criteria that is usually based around the concepts of "content, style, and strategy".
There are numerous styles of competitive debating, organizations, and rules. Competitive
debating is carried out at the local, national, and international levels. Such debates include:
Modified Oregon-oxford, Asian Parliamentary, Model United nations, Mock trials

Competitive debates vs Parliamentary procedure: What’s the difference?

- While many of the rules and guidelines of competitive debates are carried over from the
ones used in parliamentary procedure, it should be noted that both have a differing set of
goals. Parliamentary Procedure debates focus their goal on the passing of certain
proposals and projects while Competitive debates takes on a broader and more diverse
set of topics to debate on.
 Debate terms and concepts

- Three Types of Propositions: Fact, Value, Policy

- A proposition should be worded unambiguously and neutrally.
- Three debate burdens: Presumption - the notion that one side’s position is the debate is
initially favored. Burden of Proof - The advocate for changing the status quo (present
system) must present sufficient reasons to overcome presumption that the status quo is fine
as it is. Burden of Rejoinder - The Opposition team must clash with the Government case
this means hitting each point in their case outline.

Modified Oregon oxford debate

- Today, the so-called Oxford-Oregon Debate has various modifications. In fact, what is now
commonly employed in academic debates is already a modified Oregon-Oxford which
somewhat deviates from the traditional format.

- In the original format, there are just two or three speakers on each side. On the other hand,
the format usually used today has four (4) members on each side, the 4th one being the
scribe and/or the rebuttal speaker.

- Unlike in the Parliamentary Debate, the debaters in Oxford-Oregon are not to be

interrupted while delivering the constructive speech. Instead, a debater and his match in the
opposing team have to interpellate each other at the end of their respective constructive
speeches.

- Meaning, the 1st affirmative speaker will be interpellated by the 1st negative speaker after
his (the 1st affirmative speaker’s) constructive speech. After the 1st negative speaker’s
constructive speech, he will be cross-examined by the 1st affirmative speaker as well.

- The second affirmative speaker will be interpellated by the 2nd negative speaker and vice
versa. The same holds true to both 3rd speakers. After each rebuttal speech however
(usually by the 4th speakers of both sides), there is no cross-examination.

Parliamentary Debate procedure

- Speech and time limits

Under the rules in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the right of members to
participate in debate is limited to two ten-minute speeches per day on a question. Riddick's
Rules of Procedure also specifies a default limit of ten minutes. The United States Senate has
a limit of two speeches and no time limit for the speeches. In the United States House of
Representatives, debate on most bills is limited to 40 minutes. In state legislative bodies,
Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure limits debate to one speech for each question.
 Using Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, a speaker cannot transfer the time to
another member. Also, unlike the practice in Congress, a member of an assembly in an
ordinary society cannot yield the floor to let another member speak on his or her time.

- Modification of limits
The group could modify the limits of debate to suit its needs. Modification of the speech
and time limits could be done for a particular motion, a group of motions, or for the meeting
through a motion to limit or extend the limits of debate.[10] The assembly could also
remove the limit on the number of speeches by using Informal consideration or by going
into a committee of the whole or quasi committee of the whole.[11] If the assembly wants
the change of limits to be effective for all its meetings and not just for the current meeting,
it could adopt a special rule of order changing the limits on debate.[12]

- On the merits, not the member

Debate on any question should be limited to the merits of the question.[13] Debate
should not be about other members and especially should not involve any personal attacks.
[13] To keep the debate from becoming personal, members should address the chair instead
of each other.

- No interruption of speaker
A member speaking in debate should not be interrupted unless a rule is being broken or
the urgency of the situation justifies the interruption (correcting a speaker of the facts
spoken in debate does not justify an interruption).[20] An example of an appropriate
situation to interrupt a speaker is if the speaker is starting to make a personal attack on
another member.[21]

- Not all motions are debatable

All main motions are debatable.[22] Other motions may or may not be debatable. The
debatability of motions depends on the purpose of the motion.[22] For example, the
purpose of the motion to limit debate would be defeated if this motion itself could be
debated; therefore, the motion to limit debate is not debatable.[22]

- Chairman should not debate

Except in committees and small boards, the chairman (or whatever title the presiding
officer is called) should not speak in debate to maintain the impartiality required of this
position.[23] This also means that the chairman should not interrupt a speaker so long as
that person is following the rules of the group.[24] In addition, Robert's Rules of Order
Newly Revised states that "under legitimate parliamentary procedure, there is no such thing
as 'gaveling through' a measure."[3] In other words, the chairman cannot move so quickly
through the proceedings so as to disregard the rights of members to speak on it.
- Speaking order
The member who made the motion is entitled to speak first in debate.[25] Then
members are called on the order in which they are recognized by the chair, although
members who have not spoken yet get preference over those who have.[25] If possible, the
chair alternates between someone in favor and someone against the motion.[25]