Australian Parliamentary / Australasian Parliamentary ("Australs")

This debate style used in Australia, but its influence spread to competitions held in Asia, and eventually referred to as the Australasian Parliamentary format. In this format, two-member team of three people each dealing in one debate, one team representing the Government (Government) and one team representing the Opposition (Opposition), with the following order:

1. The first speaker, the Government - 7 minutes
2. The first speaker Opposition party - 7 minutes
3. Both the Government speakers - 7 minutes
4. The second speaker Opposition parties - 7 minutes
5. The third speaker, the Government - 7 minutes
6. The third speaker Opposition party - 7 minutes
7. Opposition party closing speech - 5 minutes
8. Government party closing speech - 5 minutes

Speech cover (Reply speech) became the hallmark of this format. Closing speech was delivered by the first or second speaker from each team (no third speaker). Closing speech by the Opposition started first, the new Government.

The motion in this format is given in the form of a statement must be supported by the Government and opposed by the Opposition parties, for example:

(This House Believes that) Globalization marginalizes the poor.
(Session of the Council believe that) Globalization marginalize the poor.

The motion can be defined by the government within certain limits in order to clarify the debate to be conducted. There are rules that quite clear in terms of what can be done as part of the definition and what not to do.

There are no interruptions in this format.

Jury (adjudicator) in Australs format consists of one person or a panel of odd. In the panel, each judge gives his vote without going through the deliberations. Thus, the panel's decision can be unanimous or split decision.

In Indonesia, this format includes the first known so it is quite popular, especially among university. The competition debate in Indonesia using this format is the Java Overland Varsities Home Debate (JOVED) and Indonesian Bahasa Varsity Debate (IVED).

Asian Parliamentary ("Asians")

This format is a development of Australs format and used in Asian championship level. The difference with Australs format is the presence of interruptions (Points of Information) that may be filed between the minutes of the 1st and 6th (only for major speeches, not on the closing speech.) This format is also similar to the World Schools Style at WSDC.

In Indonesia, this format is used in the ALSA Home Competition (e-Comp) held (almost) every year by ALSA LC [[University of Indonesia].

World Schools Style Debating

This is a combination of the British Parliamentary and Australian formats, which results in a debate comprising eight speeches delivered by two three-member teams (the Proposition and the Opposition). Each speaker delivers an eight-minute speech - the first two are substansive matter and the third a rebuttal speech; then both teams deliver a "reply speech" lasting four minutes, with the last word being reserved for the Proposition. In junior debates, these limits are changed to about 5 minutes, and in some local competitions, speeches are 7 minutes.

Between the end of the first and the beginning of the last minute of an eight-minute speech, the opposing party may offer "points of information". The speaker may refuse these, but should take at least one or two points during his or her speech. No points of order or Privilege are used.

Topics can be supplied long in advance, or may be given 45 minutes or an hour before the debate begins. There is not much room for re-definition, and squirreling is strictly prohibited. The World Schools Debating Championships is attended by many countries, and is in this format.

A similar format, with 7 minute speeched and Points-of-Information, is known as the Asian Parliamentary Format and is used by the United Asian Debating Championships

British Parliamentary Debate

British Parliamentary Debate is very widespread, and has gained major support in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Europe, Africa, Philippines and United States. It has also been adopted as the official style of the World Universities Debating Championship and the European Universities Debating Championship (at which the speakers are given only fifteen minutes' notice of the motion). Speeches are usually between five and seven minutes in duration. The debate consists of four teams of two speakers, sometimes called factions, with two teams on either side of the case.

Because of the style's origins in British parliamentary procedure, the two sides are called the Government and Opposition, while the speakers take their titles from those of their parliamentary equivalents (such as the opening Government speaker, called the Prime Minister). Furthermore, since this style is based on parliamentary debate, each faction is considered to be one of two parties in a coalition. They must therefore differentiate themselves from the other team on their side of the case in order to succeed in their own right.

All speakers are expected to offer Points of Information (POIs) to their opponents. POIs are particularly important in British Parliamentary style, as it allows the first two teams to maintain their relevance during the course of the debate, and the last two teams to introduce their arguments early in the debate. The first and last minute of each speech is considered "protected time", during which no POI may be offered.

Depending on the country, there are variations in speaking time, speaking order, and the number of speakers. For example, in New Zealand, both the leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister offer a short summary as the last two speakers.

American Parliamentary Debate

American Parliamentary Debate is supported by a number of organizations in the United States at the tertiary and secondary levels. The National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA), the American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA), the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence (NPTE), the Lincoln Parliamentary League (LPL), and the National Forensic League (NFL), all offer collegiate parliamentary debate.

This style consists of two teams, with the following speakers:

1. Government
1. Prime Minister (PM)
2. Member of the Government (MG)
2. Opposition
1. Leader of the Opposition (LO)
2. Member of the Opposition (MO)

American Parliamentary style debating includes an additional speech from the Leader of each team, in which they are allowed additional time to respond to the opposing team's arguments and sum up their own case, but may not introduce new arguments. Therefore, the speaking order and timings of each debate is generally:

1. Prime Minister: 7 minutes
2. Leader of the Opposition: 8 minutes
3. Member of the Government: 8 minutes
4. Member of the Opposition: 8 minutes
5. Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal: 4 minutes
6. Prime Minister Rebuttal: 5 minutes

As with any debating style, the individual timings may vary between organizations.

In most variations on the style, Points of Information may be asked of the speaker during the first four speeches, except during the first and last minute of each speech (this is known as protected time). Under California High School Speech Association (CHSSA) rules, Points of Information are permitted in all six speeches.

Depending on the variation of the style, the opposing team may interrupt the speaker during a Rebuttal Speech in order to offer one of two kinds of point:

* Points of Order, when the speaker is introducing a new argument during a rebuttal speech, or grossly mischaracterizing arguments.
* Points of Personal Privilege, when the speaker makes offensive claims or personal attacks.

The spirit of Parliamentary Debate is debate that can be taken to the streets. This means that it is easy to understand and educational to all at the same time, no matter the audience member's expertise of the resolution.

The audience is encouraged to show their fervor during Parliamentary Debate. As in British Parliament, anyone in the room (excluding the judge) may cheer or hiss - alternatively, knock in approval or "shame" in disapproval - at any point during a round.

Asian Parliamentary Debate Teams:

There two opposing teams in an Asians format of debate:

1. Government side- proposes and defends the motion;
2. Opposition side- refute and negates the motion.

Each each side is composed of three members.

The Members of the government side are the following:

1. Prime minister (PM)- opens the debate, defines the motion and advances arguments;
2. Deputy prime Minister(DPM)- refute at first instance the case of the opposition, re-establish the government's claim, and advances arguments;
3. Government whip(GW)- makes an issue-based rebuttal of the opposition's case and summarizes the case of the government.

The Members of the Opposition side are the following:

1. Leader of the Opposition(LO)- responds directly to the case of the government by giving a direct clash, and advances arguments. May challenge the motion if the definition is challengeable;
2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition(DPL)- refutes the case of the DPM, reestablishes the case of the opposition, and advances an argument;
3. Opposition Whip (OW)- makes an issues-based rebuttal of the government's and summarizes the case of the opposition.

Time of Speeches:

Each speaker is allocated seven minutes to deliver their constructive speeches. One speaker from each side (For the Government:PM/DPM, for Opposition:LO/DLO) is given four minutes to deliver a reply speech. The speakers will be speaking in the following order:

1. Prime Minister
2. Leader of the opposition
3. Deputy Prime Minister
4. Deputy Leader of the Opposition
5. Government Whip
6. Opposition whip
7. Opposition Reply
8. Government Reply

During the constructive speeches, Point of Information (POI) may be raised by the opposing side after the first minute up to the sixth minute. POI may be refused or accepted by the speaker. During reply speeches, no POI may be raised.

Reply Speech:

Reply speech is a comparative analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the case of both sides. The aim of the speech is to give a bias judgment as to why should the people support the team's claim. The speech is first delivered by the opposition side and followed by the government side who will close the debate.

Matter, Manner, Method:

Asian Parliamentary Debate is assessed by an Adjudicator Panel composed of an odd number according to the following criteria:

1. Matter (40)- substance of the debate, the arguments and evidence presented, and the logical reasoning and presentation of said arguments.
2. Manner (40)- the style of delivery, the persuasion skills, and the conduct of the debaters.
3. Method (20)- the response to the dynamics of the debate, and the observance of the rules of debate.

General Observations About Technical Debates

Below are a few general observations independent of any specific technical debate:

a) Developers love to passionately debate and compare languages, frameworks, APIs, and tools. This is true in every programming community (.NET, Java, PHP, C++, Ruby, Python, etc). I think you can view these types of religious technical debates in two ways:

1. They are sometimes annoying and often a waste of time.
2. They are often a sign of a healthy and active community (since passion means people care deeply on both sides of a debate, and is far better than apathy).

Personally I think both points are true.

b) There is never only “one right way” to develop something. As an opening interview question I sometimes ask people to sort an array of numbers in the most efficient way they can. Most people don’t do well with it. This is usually not because they don’t know sort algorithms, but rather because they never think to ask the scenarios and requirements behind it – which is critical to understanding the most efficient way to do it. How big is the sequence of numbers? How random is the typical number sequence (is it sometimes already mostly sorted, how big is the spread of numbers, are the numbers all unique, do duplicates cluster together)? How parallel is the computer architecture? Can you allocate memory as part of the sort or must it be constant? Etc. These are important questions to ask because the most efficient and optimal way to sort an array of numbers depends on understanding the answers.

Whenever people assert that there is only “one right way” to a programming problem they are almost always assuming a fixed set of requirements/scenarios/inputs – which is rarely optimal for every scenario or every developer. And to state the obvious - most problems in programming are far more complex than sorting an array of numbers.

c) Great developers using bad tools/frameworks can make great apps. Bad developers using great tools/frameworks can make bad apps. Be very careful about making broad assumptions (good or bad) about the quality of the app you are building based on the tools/frameworks used.

d) Developers (good and bad) can grow stronger by stretching themselves and learning new ideas and approaches. Even if they ultimately don’t use something new directly, the act of learning it can sharpen them in positive ways.

e) Change is constant in the technology industry. Change can be scary. Whether you get overwhelmed by change, though, ultimately comes down to whether you let yourself be overwhelmed. Don’t stress about having to stop and suddenly learn a bunch of new things - rarely do you have to. The best approach to avoid being overwhelmed is to be pragmatic, stay reasonably informed about a broad set of things at a high-level (not just technologies and tools but also methodologies), and have the confidence to know that if it is important to learn a new technology, then your existing development skills will mostly transition and help. Syntax and APIs are rarely the most important thing anyway when it comes to development – problem solving, customer empathy/engagement, and the ability to stay focused and disciplined on a project are much more valuable.

f) Some guidance I occasionally give people on my team when working and communicating with others:

1. You will rarely win a debate with someone by telling them that they are stupid - no matter how well intentioned or eloquent your explanation of their IQ problems might be.
2. There will always be someone somewhere in the world who is smarter than you - don’t always assume that they aren’t in the room with you.
3. People you interact with too often forget the praise you give them, and too often remember a past insult - so be judicious in handing them out as they come back to haunt you later.
4. People can and do change their minds - be open to being persuaded in a debate, and neither gloat nor hold it against someone else if they also change their minds.

g) I always find it somewhat ironic when I hear people complain about programming abstractions not being good. Especially when these complaints are published via blogs – whose content is displayed using HTML, is styled with CSS, made interactive with JavaScript, transported over the wire using HTTP, and implemented on the server with apps written in higher-level languages, using object oriented garbage collected frameworks, running on top of either interpreted or JIT-compiled byte code runtimes, and which ultimately store the blog content and comments in relational databases ultimately accessed via SQL query strings. All of this running within a VM on a hosted server – with the OS within the VM partitioning memory across kernel and user mode process boundaries, scheduling work using threads, raising device events using signals, and using an abstract storage API fo disk persistence. It is worth keeping all of that in mind the next time you are reading a “ORM vs Stored Procedures” or “server controls – good/bad?” post. The more interesting debates are about what the best abstractions are for a particular problem.

h) The history of programming debates is one long infinite loop – with most programming ideas having been solved multiple times before. And for what it’s worth – many of the problems we debate today were long ago solved with LISP and Smalltalk. Ironically, despite pioneering a number of things quite elegantly, these two languages tend not be used much anymore. Go figure.

Wanna Inform You about This!!

surprise! My school web, take my blog as a continuation from the point of English Club extracurricular. Starting from now should be uploading all about English education. The most important problem is, the contents of my blog is about the secret story of my life. so now .. let's talk about English education :)

Sample of Report Text

Corroboree frog

The corroboree frog gets its name from the colors on its body. These look like the colors some Aboriginal Australians paint on themselves when they perform ceremonies called corroborees. Corroboree frogs crawl, instead of hopping or leaping.
Food
Corroboree frogs eat flying insects. They flick their sticky tongues out quickly, capture their prey, and then swallow it whole.
Habitat
Corroboree frogs live under heaps of rotting leaves in grassy wetlands or under logs and plants beside creeks in forests.
Tadpoles and baby frogs
The male corroboree frog digs a burrow by pushing soil or old dead leaves aside with its snout. It then croaks from the burrow to attract a female. She lays about twelve eggs in the burrow. The eggs are called roe or frog spawn.
Tadpoles first appear in the eggs like tiny black spots. They grow and develop in the eggs, and when water floods the burrow, the tadpoles hatch. They breathe underwater through gills, and have long tails but no legs. Then they grow strong back legs and shorter front legs. Their tails shrink back into their bodies, and their lungs develop so they can breathe air. They have become frogs.
Dangers
Corroboree tadpoles can be eaten by large water beetle and bugs, but usually some survive. Snakes, lizards, and birds eat the adult frogs. If a snake or other small animal enters its burrow, corroboree frog will try to protect itself by head-butting the attacker.
Barrie Sheppard

(Taken from English Skills in Context 4)

Panda

Because of its size and strength, a panda is a potentially frightful and awesome beast. But its clumsy and uncoordinated ways make it an awkward and defensive creature. It fumbles along, pigeon-toed, in an ungraceful, diagonal walk. It is rarely urged from this lumbering pace. Only a young panda, or a panda in desperate flight, will venture to climb a tree. And once it has reached the top, it becomes an even greater task to get down.
Despite its aloof manner and clumsiness, the giant panda has won a reputation as a loving and adorable creature. With its big, furry head, gentle, flat face, and dark-ringed, sad-eyes, the giant panda is irresistible. Its lopsided movements and its timidity have endeared it to countless friends and admirers at zoos around the world.

(Adapted from Lado English Series No. 6)