Presentation on theme: "BP Style With Cameronnnn. What is BP? Not Australian-style (3 on 3) Also known as Worlds-style 4 teams Each team has two speakers."— Presentation transcript:
BP Style With Cameronnnn
What is BP? Not Australian-style (3 on 3) Also known as Worlds-style 4 teams Each team has two speakers
Affirmative / Negative?? GOVERNMENT Team 1: Opening Government – Prime Minister – Deputy Prime Minister Team 3: Closing Government – Government Member – Government Whip OPPOSITION Team 2: Opening Opposition – Opposition Leader – Deputy Opposition Leader Team 4: Closing Opposition – Opposition Member – Opposition Whip
Relationship between the benches -Must be consistent – you are on the same side of the house! -But, you are competing against them too. -Teams are ranked 1, 2, 3 and 4. - You want to rank better than your other bench.
How to win Beat your opposition (ie: the other side of the house) Beat your bench (ie: in front/behind you). Coming up – tactics: how to do this.
Speaker roles PM (OG) – Very similar to First Affirmative – Define the topic (BP topics often require more definition) – Make substantive arguments – probably two – Try to cover the most important material in the debate
Speaker Roles Opposition Leader (Opening Opposition) – Same as OG, but with rebutal – Don’t spend too long rebutting Deputy PM / Deputy Opposition Leader? – Like a second speaker in Australian style – Rebut, then present substantive arguments
Speaker Roles The Closing Benches! Member Speakers : – Identify a what you will be bringing to the debate A ‘case extension’ or ‘case development’ – Rebut, particularly focussing on the new stuff – Present substantive arguments – ie: the stuff you said you would bring to the debate.
Speaker Roles Whip Speakers – Similar to a 3 rd speech in Australs – No substantive matter – A summary of the key issues in the debate. – But, more importantly - a summary of why your team had the best understanding of these issues. A biased summary!
What is a case extension? Differentiating yourself from your opening bench Consistent with them, but better. – Eg of inconsistency: Worlds Final abortion – Opening: “We will assume that foetuses are a life” – Closing: “There is a chance that foetuses are not a life... So, we’ll present the following arguments...” BP is about being the most relevant team in the debate – show that your stuff was more important than everyone else’s
“Our opening bench has done a fine job of.... “However, what’s been missing from today’s debate so far is a proper understanding of....”
What is a case extension? A few ways to think about it: – Very important points that were not made Eg: different stakeholders in the debate – – The children! Eg: a different set of issues – The environment! This is probably the type of case extension you should look for tonight The risk is relevance! – The third world!
Examining a big issue that hasn’t been developed properly – Eg: Importance of non-intervention Importance of individual autonomy / consent The role of the government Practical issues about the proposal – why it would / wouldn’t work
Shifting the perspective of the debate – Eg: Consequences for the region Consequences for the feminist movement Consequences in the war on terror How to choose a case extension? – What seem to be the problems with your side that are emerging?
Tactics Pick sides, buddy up Who is winning? – Opening/closing half debates – Gov’t / opposition bench debates – “Aim to come second”. First overreach
Points of Information Try to accept two in your speeches – where convenient! – Do your best to handle them. Sometimes you’ll have to fudge it. Try to ‘offer’ two POIs in each opposition speech. – 8 in the debate. Keep them brief Don’t engage in a discussion
What should they be about? Counter-example. – Eg, ‘Point of information: you say that sanctions work but sanctions have been imposed on Cuba for more than 30 years.’ Drawing attention to a forgotten argument. – Eg, ‘Point of information: when will you respond to our argument that the media won’t give the Greens favourable coverage because the Greens are too radical?’ Important tactically for opening/closing teams Bad logic/inconsistency: – Eg, ‘Point of information: your first speaker said that we should be tough on dole bludgers but now you’re saying that Work for the Dole is the best way to help them. Surely you can’t have it both ways.’ Clarification of the definition. – Eg, ‘Point of information: what sort of republic do you support?’
Adjudicating A rank 1-4 – Consider similar factors to Australs style – But, also consider: Which team was the most relevant in the debate? Which team did the best job in their role? – Take into account that opening teams have less time. Even if their closing had more material, did the opening speak well enough to make it tough for their closing? 75 is still the average score, but the range of scores is much larger! – 65 = lowest – 90 = highest Wins are not likely to be by 3 points, as in Australs, because you need to separate 4 teams from each other.