More
Background
On Debate Format
More on the Problem
This is more pronounced in the United Kingdom Parliament, for example – the “mother of all parliaments” – where, in many sessions, participants rise and speak spontaneously and rapidly, with cheering and heckling, creating nothing short of commotion. In a typical Parliamentary debate, parties easily talk past each other, where untruths, misdirection, evasion, flawed reasoning or assumptions and misinterpretations easily persist or distort conversations.
At the end of the day votes are expected to be cast based on how one feels about the presentations all-in-all. Yet, due to the nature of this environment and other problems with our system of governance and politics as a whole (such as the “natural” duopoly that forms), voting in parliaments boil down to predispositions. The debates only serve to reinforce pre-existing positions, hardly ever changing other parties’ minds at the end of it, and achieving little by way of creating a space for constructive engagement and dynamic outcomes.
A Lead-Up to the Solution
These observations were made in the 2023 book The Tragedy Called Democracy in the 21st Century which analyses and offers elaborate solutions to this (parliaments' poor approach to debate) and many other problems with our systems of governance as a whole. The QFA format was subsequently formally drafted in 2026 by its author, Fuseini Yakubu, to solve the problem of debate, based on the recommendations from the book; which was further based on such observations as above, and more than a decade of his personal experience in public discourse and debate.
More on the Solution
The QFA format emphasises a methodical approach: a statement-by-statement interrogation – one question for one answer, before the next question – to construct (or deconstruct) arguments, to ensure truthfulness, logic and interconnectedness or justification between each and every statement, which must all come together to justify the larger argument being made. If constituent arguments are flawed or untrue, they will not be allowed or relied on to develop dependent arguments. Its rules also require all questions in cross-examinations to be answered directly. These ensure only the soundest and most founded arguments can progress or stand. It is designed to eliminate any and all flawed reasoning, and expose all gaps in analyses, ensuring that the resulting ideas from debates – be it law, policy, structural or systems proposals – are as sound as can be and as agreeable to all as possible. The goal is to arrive at a logical conclusion or verdict on the best idea on the table, by working towards concessions and a common understanding by all parties. So, in spite of its interrogative approach, the process also encourages cooperation and listening, producing a more educative or enlightening engagement for all.
At the end of the day, due to this approach, members are inclined to vote for what is left standing as undeniably true and valuable. Mass political parties being absent from this system, further helps members or audiences to develop more independent thought and honesty, to embrace what is demonstrably the best idea for them as proven in the debates.
