According to dictionary.com, the verb, 'to debate' means "to engage in argument by discussing opposing points." Within the context of this definition, academic debate reigns supreme within the hallowed confines of Columbia's Morningside Heights campus. From CC to Quantum Mechanics, Columbia academics debate a variety of pertinent issues each day of their intellectual lives. Naturally, arising from this community of thoughtful academic discourse, has come a variety of debating teams. These teams and organizations standardize the rules of debate and allow for intercollegiate competition. Our team competes in three forms of debate: American, Canadian and British Parliamentary styles. Tournaments sanctioned by the American Parliamentary Debate Association use our national style.
Parliamentary debate is an off-topic, extemporaneous form of competitive debate which stresses rigorous argumentation, logical analysis, quick thinking, breadth of knowledge, and rhetorical ability over preparation of evidence. It is patterned after the style of platform debate first made famous at Oxford University. The format pits two two-person teams against each other in a contest of argument, wit and rhetoric which roughly simulates debate in a House of Parliament. The Government (proposing) team prepares and presents a case for debate based on a topic or resolution announced only 15 minutes before the beginning of the round. The Opposition attempts to rebut the Government's proposal through counter-argument and refutation. The use of recorded evidence during the debate round is prohibited. A different resolution is debated in every parliamentary debate round. Resolutions are chosen from a wide variety of political, philosophical, economic, cultural and humorous topics, and debaters often have a broad scope in which to define the specific case for debate which is drawn from the resolution. Hundreds of colleges and universities in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, and over thirty other nations participate in parliamentary debate. It is the fastest-growing form of intercollegiate debate in the world.
Parliamentary debate is yet another form of debate that arose as a reaction against the excesses of Policy Debate in the United States. Internationally, forms of parliamentary debate were practiced centuries ago. The emphasis in this form of debate is on persuasiveness, logic, and wit. Unlike in other forms of debate, where the resolution is established well in advance of a tournament and is the same for every round in the tournament, in the Parliamentary style the resolution is usually not established until 10 minutes before the debate round begins, and there is a new resolution for every round of debate. Since it would be unreasonable to expect teams to research every topic they could be possibly be asked to debate, parliamentary debate requires no evidence whatsoever.
This form of debate is called "parliamentary" because of its vague resemblance to the debates that take place in the British parliament. The proposition team is called the "Government," and the opposition team is called (appropriately) the "Opposition." The Government team consists of two debaters, the Prime Minister (PM) and the Member of Government (MG). The Opposition team also consists of two debaters, the Leader of the Opposition (LO) and the Member of the Opposition (MO).
The debate is split between the constructive and rebuttal periods. During the constructive speeches, new arguments are allowed, as are points of information. During a point of information, a member of the opposing team can rise out of their seat to attempt to ask a question. It is up to the debater with the floor to take the question or not. That debater is by no means obligated to take any questions, however, if they chose to take none, it is considered bad form.
The constructive portion of the round begins with a 7 minute speech by the PM. During this speech, he introduces the background for the case, case statement and 2-5 cited arguments as to why the judge should adopt the case. The case can be about anything, from history to IR to philosophy to TV shows to literature. During this speech, the Opp team must write out their first opposition team, rise on points and think of quick responses to the PMs points. When the PM sits down, the judge then calls the LO to give an 8 minute speech deconstructing the government case.
During the Leader of Opposition Constructive (LOC), the LO provides 2-5 independent arguments as to why the Gov case is a bad idea. He then goes back "on case" and addresses each of the PMs original points. The next two speeches, the MG and MO, the debaters follow this basic "flow" and respond to the arguments in kind. Both of their speeches are also 8 minutes long.
The debate concludes with the rebuttal portion. During rebuttals, the debaters summarize the round and 'crystallize' into 2-4 reasons why their team carries the round. Non 'new' arguments are allowed during these speeches nor are points of information. The LO gives the first 4 minute rebuttal speech followed by the PM's 5 minute speech.
The round is then completed and the judge evaluates the performance of the two teams.
Canadian style is quite similar to American. The most glaring difference are the speaking times. The Prime Minister (PM) receives 7 minutes in his PMC, the MO responds with another 7 minute speech, followed by a 7 minute reconstruction from the Member of the Crown (MC) and a 10 minute deconstructive from the LO. The round closes with a 3 minute Prime Minister's Rebuttal (PMR).
Debate north of the border focuses more on holistic speech-making than flow. Notes are taken of the round, but, manner (style) is weighed a bit more heavily than is in the United States where matter (analysis) triumphs. Canadian rounds require new analysis be brought forth by the MC and LO while the MG and MO are primarily response and deepening speeches in APDA.
British Parliamentary is a specific format, used in the UK and at the World Universities Debating Championships -- sometimes referred to as "down-the-table" debating. It involves two sides, a Proposition and Opposition (or Government and Opposition), and two teams of two people each on each side. The two Proposition teams must agree with each other, as must the two Opposition -- but every team is trying to win the debate by speaking the most persuasively.
The two sides sit down a long table, facing each other, taking after the confrontational style of the Houses of Parliament. A topic for debate is given by the society or tournament organisers in the form of a motion, which like many other features uses the phrasing of the House of Commons: "This House believes that money is the root of all evil" etc. The Proposition argues in agreement with the motion as it is phrased, and the Opposition against.
The round is divided into First and Second Proposition and Opposition. Each speaker gives one seven minute speech. The goal of a British style round is to speak persuasively and fulfill your role in the debate. Each speaker and team position have specific duties that must be performed in the round. For example, the Prime Minister (first speaker in the round) must define the resoulution and outline the case. The Member of Government (first speaker for the second Proposition, 5th speaker in the round after the last speech of the first opposition, the Deputy LO) must support the case, respond to the opp thusfar and introduce new lines of argumentation that are particular and unique to the second team.
The Columbia University Parliamentary Debate team is one of the most successful in the nation. As a team, we are members of the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) and compete at tournaments throughout the nation nearly every weekend. Our team meets every week and we encourage any Columbia student interested to attend. In addition to intercollegiate competition, the team hosts a plethora of events on campus. These events include exhibition debates, student/faculty debates as well as three tournaments a year! The Columbia team hosts the APDA Novice Tournament, Columbia University Parliamentary Debate Tournament and our annual High School Forensics Invitational (Lincoln-Douglas and Speech).
You can find full results of Columbia's debating prowess here, up until 2002. A summary of our historical accomplishments follows:
- Placed teams in the top 50 at 8 different Championships. This ranks us as the 22nd best College/University to compete at the Championship in the entire World!
- In the last 12 years, we've broken to outrounds a total of 6 times! This places us 20th amongst Colleges/Universities that have ever competed in this prestigious, world class event that draws well over 600 debaters from 5 different continents.
- The Columbia team of Jeff Williams (CC '02, Law '05) and Harry Layman (CC '02) competed in the Final Round at the 2001 NorthAms held at Cornell University. The team placed second overall.
- The Columbia team of Evan Mayo-Wilson (CC '03) and Maxim Mayer-Cesiano (CC '03) competed in the Final Round of the 2003 NorthAms held at Johns Hopkins University. The team placed second overall.
- Columbia has broken at least 5 times at NorthAms.
- Columbia won the title in 1993 & 1999. In 1993, Morty Dubin & Thanos Basdekis took home top honors for alma mater. More recently, Carissa Byrne (CC '99) and John Castelly (Law '02) won the Championship held at Fordham University in 1999.
- Columbia consistently breaks teams to outrounds in the championship and nearly always has a team in the top 20.
- Over the past three seasons (1999-2002), Columbia has broken to 31 Final rounds, 50 Semi-Final rounds and 94 Quarter-Final Rounds.
- Columbia won the Novice of the Year (NOTY) award in 1999. We placed third in Team of the Year (TOTY) in 2002 and 2000. We placed fourth in TOTY in 2001, and another team finished 5th in 2002. We placed a team second in 1999 in TOTY as well.
- Find our history of success (-2002) on the Timeline or Results Page.
We apologize, but APDA has not updated the videos on their website and they are unfortunately unaccessible at this time. (Windows Media Player format, debate resolutions highlighted)
Following is a list of articles on the Columbia team and our various past exploits, both great and tragic. You can also view our history until 2002 on the old Columbia Debate timeline.
Current members can read our current constitution by clicking here.
If you are interested in joining the team, all you have to do is come to our meetings--new people are welcome at every meeting!:
Board Meetings: Mondays at 8 PM at Hamilton some-oh-1
Meetings: Mondays at 9 PM at Hamilton some-oh-1
Practice Rounds: Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 8:15 PM at Hamilton 302
If you would like to hear from us by e-mail, you can subscribe to the team list-serv. Simply write to:
columbiaparli-subscribe@yahoogroups.comIf you wish to unsubscribe, simply write to:
columbiaparli-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.comThere are occasionally problems with unsubscribing to the list. If you try to unsubscribe and can't do so, check the following:
If you have tried the previous and still can't unsubscribe, e-mail a member of the board and we'll fix the problem.
While debating involves a certain amount of knowledge about parliamentary procedure, parliamentary debate is quite straightforward and easy to learn. Consult our novice guide (in the members' area) for more information. We also offer regular training and practice sessions at our meetings.
In addition, you can visit the following publicly available debate resources:
This is an archive of four debate videos from the 2004 National Championships. The best of them (in my opinion) is the Harvard v. Princeton round, though it is very satisfying to watch Gary and Jessee from Columbia thoroughly destroy a case from a pretty good team in the Columbia/Maryland round.