INTRO TO BRITISH

PARLIAMENTARY
STRATEGY!
Presented by Imran Ilmam
 Starter Stuff
This workshop assumes that you are aware of the basics of debating and
have been to some 3v3 (AP, WSDC) tourneys, so we won’t cover the
beginner debating skills

These are tips and approaches to think more critically and strategically
about BP Debating, hopefully this will help you get a handle on how the
format works at a deeper level than just role fulfilment

Don’t try to totally change how you speak, you still need to make
arguments the same way in BP like you would in 3v3

BP Debating has no rigid “correct” strategy, these are guidelines yes, but
every debate is different and will require different strategies and
approaches, you have to be flexible.
What is
BP?
7 Minute Speeches, POI’s at
the 1st - 6th Minute Mark
15 Minute Prep
Only One Motion
 Opening Half
(FYI, literally the same as 3v3 format)

Opening Government Opening Opposition

Prime Minister
What’s this debate about?
What are we going to do?(Setup,
Characterisation, Framing,
Modeling, etc)
What’s our stance/What do we
seek to prove? (Burden)
Arguments (Premise, Mechanism,
Impact, Conclusion, reasons to
support the motion you get it)
Leader of Opposition
What’s our stance? Why are we
opposing? (e.g, opposing because
there’s no problem, there is a
problem but gov makes it worse,
counter-prop as to how we fix
problem, why is our stance better?)
Arguments like usual
Rebuttals (DO NOT SPEND TOO
MUCH TIME ON THIS)

Deputies
Builds on the government/opposition case by adding new material, taking
material away from closing
Heavy Responses and engagement to opposing house
Weighing your case (explain why it is important)
Same as 2nd Speakers in 3v3
Prep time for Opening
DO NOT PANIC, IT IS LIKE NORMAL PREP BUT SHORTER
Two Questions
1. What is the most important thing to prove in this debate?
2. Who are the most important stakeholders in this debate?
Be clear on characterization
Make the arguments in full (prioritise one solid argument with
rigourous logical links, you’ve proven it to be true and important,
impacting etc etc)
 Opening Strats
Matter Dump
Run as many points as you can
Pros: cuts out extension material
Cons: sometimes cover too much but
not enough detail so closing picks 1-2
things and beats you because you
haven’t proven anything really well
When to use: when there aren’t many
arguments in a debate (a “shallow”
debate) so you cut out closing
Deep Dive
A few core ideas that you substantiate really
deeply
Pros: very hard for closing teams to beat you
on that argument so they need to go
horizontal
Cons: if your arguments get rebutted or out-
weighed, hard to place highly
When to use: when there are too many
arguments for a side for you to cover all of
them effectively so you narrow your focus OR
when you have a really cracker idea that you
think can win on its own
 PM/LO
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, DO NOT JUST JUMP INTO YOUR ARGUMENTS!
1st Speaking in Opening is intimidating but also the most stable role:

1. Setup --> what’s the context of the motion, what problems exist etc, who are
stakeholders
2. Framing --> VERY IMPORTANT! Framing is explaining why the debate should happen in
a specific context, or why we should care about certain stakeholders. (e.g: in a motion
where a practical benefit/harm is too speculative to be weighed, you should frame
why the principle argument is important) --> burdens are part of this
3. Arguments --> Run them as usual, but keep in mind that you have to be in the mindset
of “how can I make sure this argument remains relevant in the round”, but nothing
wrong with running a simple substantive case (what is the problem, how we fix it, why
it’s the only option)
 Deputies
Similar to 2nd Speeches in 3v3 but with a little extra spice
Pivot the case if needed in response to the other side
Defend or rebuild material from 1st
Advance the case with new material

What approach should I use?

Simp --> defend, impact and weight leader’s material. Use your case is in
danger and you need to rebuild it (or you have nothing new to say)
Matter Dump --> run lots of new material. Use when you know your 1st has
smashed the other side and your new target is your closing team. (still pls
respond first obviously)
Rebuttals --> completely take down the opposing case. Use if your case feels in
danger and you can’t defend so you need to attack, OR if your case is solid
and you feel that your opening opponent is the threat
 Deputy Tips
Structure --> up to your comfort style of speaking, but you can do “clash by
clash speech” or “rebuttals into extension”
You are at an incredibly powerful position to solidify the strategic
positioning of your team, because you can rebuild, respond and weigh!
The goal of your speech boils down to explaining to the judge why (i) your
case as it is in the opening half weighs up against all other material in the
round (ii) why the responses and engagement you’ve done also contributes
to your path of victory and takes down other team’s path to victory
Weighing is underrated but extremely goated in deputy speeches, so please
do it heavily because you need to make sure your team’s case remains
important in the room esp when closing starts
Winning from Opening
Opening Government Opening Opposition
1. Don’t overcook. Simple & 1. Same tips as OG, but
Strong is the formula always make sure you are
2. Cover your bases --> clashing against OG as
have your proven all links much as possible
to be true? Have you 2. Forward a substantive case
proven your case to be with its own harms and (if
Important? relevant) own ways to solve
3. Always seek to remain the problem.
relevant in the round. 3. AGAIN PLEASE BE
4. PLEASE BE CHARITABLE CHARITABLE
 POI’s
During opening half
First objective – take 1-2 POIs from your diagonal closing (if you are OG, take CO, OO take CG)
Why? To give yourself a chance to rebut them and try to pull out the extension. You also don’t
get to directly respond to them so you have to use POIs.
Points of Clarification – always take them at PM and OL because you don’t want to risk your
case being unclear
During closing half
Respond: rebut stuff the closing half is saying to you can have impact. Useful if closing 1⁄2 is
really strong
Inject: bring your own material back into the debate. Really useful if you’re being ignored in
the closing half and you want to remind the judge of what you said and force the other team
to respond
The Closing Half!
But first opening the floor for questions
 Closing Bench
Member
Overview of the debate (not
necessary but helps with introducing
extensions)
Strategic Positioning (new pieces of
setup, a new frame or context
Introduce the extension --> THE
MOST IMPORTANT STEP.
Respond if necessary obviously
Whips
Similar to standard 3v3 whipping but
you have a lot more ground to cover.
What does this debate boil down to?
You are your extension’s biggest
simp. Defend it with your life and
explain why it wins
ENGAGE AS MUCH AS HUMANELY
POSSIBLE. EXPLICITLY TAKE DOWN
OTHER HOUSES
 Extensions
An extension is a new contribution of material put forward by closing teams that
aims to be the most important material in the context of the debate.
An extension can be a radically new piece of material, or it can take an existing
piece of material and developed further. It is basically anything new.
Teams can run multiple points of extension, and these points can be new
substantive or new rebuttal (in the same way a second speaker might make a piece
of rebuttal into a new point of substantive).
When an extension is indistinct from material brought by an opening team, the
extension is considered “derivative” and is unlikely to be debate-winning. Make sure
you emphasise what is new/different
What does an extension need to do?
1. Present a novel contribution to the debate
2. Prove itself to be the most important thing in a debate
 How to Closing?
The way you think about being closing is how you can L + ratio opening with either proving
new links of plausibility that were crucial or bringing a completely new discussion into the
debate.

Aim to do these How to come up with one?

1. Either a new argument
to shift the focus of the
debate
2. An argument that aims
to decisively win the
existing clash of the
debate
1. Create a new argument (new
stakeholders/contexts/areas)
2. Flip the opening argument (if they said what’s great
about something push what happens If this motion
doesn’t happen)
3. Deeper analysis of opening’s arguments (make sure
this is clearly new and highlight the importance of
the contributions)
4. New rebuttal (should be framed as a key argument
that disproves key parts of the opposition case)
 Horizontal Extensions
You run an argument that is entirely different to your opening
Pros: definitely new
Cons: sometimes it will be hard to prove how important it is, or maybe it will be
low impact --> need to extensively comparatively weigh with opening’s
discussions
When to use: when your opening team has left you space (ie used “deep dive”)
or when your opening has missed key information.
 Vertical Extensions
Take an argument your opening has run but they haven’t run it very well, or
have missed key parts of the argument
Pros: if successful it will get you above your opening team because you’ll be
better than them + Directly clashes with OO rebuttal. Hopefully very relevant
to the debate
Cons: will it be a deep enough extension? Some judges are very critical.
Incredibly high demand to ensure that your extension isn’t derivative
When to use: when your opening team has left you no new arguments to say, or
has used scorched earth
Pro-Tip --> DO NOT DISCREDIT YOUR OPENING TO TRY AND MAKE YOUR
VERTICAL SOUND SEXY (unless you can get away with it’
 Filling in the gaps
Similar to Vertical but it’s focused on the main issues being discussed in the
debate
If opening is discussing a big issue but there’s a deadlock, usually you try
findind the thing missing in top half to break this
Pros: finding a missing piece of analysis can make the whole debate fall into
place, make your judge feel very happy, and allow you to take credit-ish for
other team’s claims
Cons: it has to be important otherwise it might be punished for not being
enough --> weighing comparatively in terms of contributions extremely
important, also have to sound like you’re not reliant on your opening
When to use: when top half misses something in the debate
 Responsive
Can be vertical or horizontal as well
NO OTHER TEAM CAN WIN BECAUSE THEY SUCK
Pros: can be a great way to knock out your diagonal opening and your opposite
closing (you are CG and you decide to shit on OO & CO)
Cons: without a substantive contribution you might not get over your opening.
Rebuttal may also be derivative. Judges percieve your case to be purely
negative so incredibly high demand to highlight why the teams you rebut
literally cannot win. Incredibly risky to run because some judges are stupid and
say “you had no extension”
When to use: if you don’t have any new arguments and/or you woke up and
chose violence. Can be useful in out-rounds
 Member Speeches
My Favourite Role in BP!

PRIORITISE GIVING YOUR EXTENSION! PLEASE I’VE SEEN TOO MANY MEMBER
SPEECHES WHERE THEY SPEND 1 MINUTE RUNNING THE EXTENSION
Ironically though, don’t immediately jump into your extension unless you have
full faith in your extension to win the debate. Assess what’s happened in the
debate so far and explain to the judge why opening is kinda meh and how
you’re going to fix the problems, or what did opening miss that was crucial.
Responses ONLY IF NECESSARY (if your diagonal opposition has a
rebuttal/argument that pre-emptively screws over your case)
You need to get the extension into the debate and take control of the debate.
Make sure your responses link back to your extension and is not just
extraneous.
Novelty is key. Why is the case you are running a unique and important
contribution to the debate?
 Whip Speeches
Similar to 3v3 whipping but more spice
Kind of mix between 3rd speaker and reply. You need to
whip/summarise/defend your extension, but also do the meta weighing and
explanation, like a reply. HOUSE. BY. HOUSE. COMPARISONS.
Cheerlead - you have to show why your extension has won the debate. Lead
with it, integrate responses to it
Attack - especially at gov whip, only chance to respond to other side’s
extension
Only 7 minutes - much more a question of what gets cut than what goes in
In general - target your biggest threats/most likely victims
Do the meta work - weigh it, describe how it interacts with the restof the
debate
 Whip Strategies
If your extension has been clobbered
Is recoverable? Lead with it, and smash it out!
Is it beyond repair? Pivot, rebut, pull off a Raymond Kimura and sneak in new material

Your opposite closing doesn’t have an extension

Call it out and move on, prioritise opening teams/your own extension

Your opening is really strong and your biggest threat

Can you beat them? Show how your extension is more important - focus on the weighing
Are you their closing because the door to victory has been closed on you? Fight for the second, pretend they
aren’t there

Your extension hasn’t clearly come out at member

Lead with. Re-explain it but as if you’re defending it against rebuttal. Don’t make it obvious that your member
cooked it. Pull off a Raymond Kimura and sneak in new material if you know you can get away with it

Your extension slayed it at member and not been responded to at all

Don’t need to defend the extension. Summarise, then explain why the lack of responses is important and then
move on to rebuttal. HEAVY AHH REBUTTAL SPEECH
 Prep Time (Closing)
For the start, prep like normal and just list all the most obvious arguments - they
are the obvious because they are good and you want to run them if your opening
doesn’t
Next, think outside the box and what isn’t obvious.
Come together and rank all your ideas. During the debate, cross of what is said and
run what is left
Talk about strategy - what to do with certain arguments, how you’ll approach
different teams --> much more important to think on how you can win rather then “i
guess we’ll run this because. we can”
No time to write out speeches - has to be done during the debate --> just write
down ideas
Hard to talk on the bench during the debate, so it’s really important you’re on the
same page in prep
 POI’s (Closing)
During opening half
Don’t give away your extension until DLO
Can be useful to ask questions that don’t
give away your extension immediately but
are good traps that you’ll explain later in
your extension
Mainly focus on rebuttal
Red herrings can be fun (trap the poor
bastards)
During closing half
Push your extension
Ask about their extension (a question
more for the judge than the other
team)
Rebuttal (really useful if newer
rebuttal is coming out at whip)
Winning from Closing
Strategic Resource Allocation. You only have 14 minutes to explain
stuff that wins you the debate, but this is INCREDIBLY dependent on
how the debate has gone so far.

DO NOT JUST SAY “oh opening didn’t explain this, so we did” Judges
are tracking the debate so make sure you’re incredibly clear with what
opening did, and then explain clearly what you did differently/why
your contribution is more meaningful (opening missed mech X and only
had impact Y, we provide mech Z and show how it impacts ABC, more
important bcz scale of impat)

Your extension needs to have a purpose in the round and your

responses and engagements all have purpose; EXPLAIN WHY THE
THINGS YOU ARE SAYING IS CRUCIAL TO THE DEBATE. WEIGHING IS
NECESSARY IN CLOSING.
BONUS: Advanced
Tips
Judge BP debates more. Gives you a good perspective on
how BP debates are assessed which trickles down to your
debating skills
Sometimes, logical rigour isn’t the path to victory
especially in top rooms. Strategy becomes upmost
importance because teams realistcally cannot cover
EVERYTHING in BP debating, you have to figure out what
is missing in the debate.
Other skillsets like illustration, spec knowledge and
knowing how to frame & meta really help, the “aha”
moments which have purpose usually makes you relevant.
Question
Time
Sources:

Advanced BP Introduction & Strategy - Andrew Moore

https://youtu.be/bO1HgXFjwOo?si=uDvddfMFa3krjtd4

Introduction to BP Debating Strategy

https://youtu.be/K9z5kSm9Jwc?si=V247nqRlrsY-hw5s