 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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. The major debating organizations at Columbia are: the Parliamentary Debate Team, Policy Debate Team, Philolexian Society and the Mock Trial Team. Each of these organizations is quite successful and have fruitful histories. This web page will concentrate on Parliamentary and Policy Debate. Parliamentary Debate Parliamentary debate is yet another form of debate that arose as a reaction against the excesses of Policy Debate. 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. Policy Debate Policy Debate is probably the oldest form of debate in the United States. At the collegiate level, the National Debate Tournament (NDT) and Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) sponsor tournaments. Policy Debate has many differences from Parli. Policy focuses on intense research and pure argumentation. One resolution is given at the beginning of an academic year that is to be debated for that entire season. Thus, Policy teams become intricately familiar with the topic and are required to research it heavily. This research consists of finding evidence that they haul around tournaments in large, plastic tubs (sometimes 6-8 of them). Half of the tubs will contain their Affirmative (Aff) case evidence and the other their Negative (Neg) evidence. In addition to being focused much more on research, the round is evaluated more on argument and flow response than style, wit and logic. Thus, Policy debaters talk at speeds that are incomprehensible to the average listener. However, Policy debaters follow the same basic concept of 'flow' as their Parli counterparts. Both the Aff and Neg introduce new points and respond to points currently on the flow. The order of speeches is as follows: 1 Affirmative
Construction (AC) = 8 minutes Usually, there is a 3-minute cross-examination period after each of the first four (constructive) speeches. The person who does the cross-examining is the person who will not be giving the next speech for his side. For instance, the person who will give the 2NC will cross-examine after the 1AC. (An exception to this rule is made when the affirmative team goes "inside-outside.") When team policy debate is done without cross-examination periods, the speech times are often extended to 10 minutes for constructives and 5 minutes for rebuttals. Once again, the debate consists of two person teams and citation and quantity of responses are of supreme importance. |