Teachers' Supplementary Outline PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Friday, 18 February 2005

1. DEFINITIONS

The basic definitional rule is that the first affirmative speaker must provide a reasonable definition of the topic of the debate. It does not need to be the MOST reasonable definition, however it must be reasonable-that is, a person on the street would accept it as a fair definition of the topic. Topics in the WADL competition are reasonably self-explanatory in terms of their wording.

It is the role of the first affirmative speaker to define the topic clearly. This involves defining the issue of the debate and any potentially difficult words in the topic. Teams should come up with reasonable definitions on their own, without reference to a dictionary (unless, clearly a word is unknown to the team). Teams should not refer to the dictionary as a source.
A definition is reasonable if it is reasonably close to the ordinary meaning of the words and allows the negative team reasonable room to debate. A definition is unreasonable if it:

1. does not have a logical and relevant link to the topic;
2. is phrased as an absolute proposition;
3. is self-proving or truistic ("truism")
4. unfairly restricts the scope of the debate ("squirrelling")
4. time sets the debate; or
5. place sets the debate

ABSOLUTE PROPOSITIONS

Some debating topics are absolute propositions, or appear to require proof of every single case and admit no exceptions. For example "that all cloning should be banned".

In general, the affirmative team is not to prove the topic absolutely. It is enough to show that the proposition is a general truth. However, the onus of proof is not reduced to a mere more often than not. The Affirmative team must prove that the proposition istrue in the vast majority of cases.

The Negative team can not disprove the above topic by proving that, in an extreme case, cloning should not be banned.

TRUISMS

A truism is a self-proving statement. That is, an idea that is so widely accepted as being a truth that it is unreasonable to expect any team to debate against it. Teams will know that they are confronted with a truism when there is simply no rational argument against the definition proposed.

Examples of truisms are as follows:-

1. If the topic of the debate is that "the ends justify the means" it is unreasonable for the affirmative team to define the topic as meaning that genocide is never an acceptable tool of domestic policy. The opposition team can not be expected to argue for genocide in these terms (or at all).

2. If the topic is "That the Olympics are dead" it is unreasonable for the affirmative team to define the topic as meaning that the Olympics no longer exist - obviously they do. The opposition team can not argue that topic. The debate should be about the founding ideals of the Olympics - not limited to their mere existence.

3. If the topic is "That tomorrow is another day" it is unreasonable for the affirmative team to define the word "tomorrow" as being "the day after today" since the topic then becomes self proving and can not be argued by the negative.

SQUIRRELLING

Squirrelling refers to the practice of unreasonably restricting the scope of a topic.

For example, it is unreasonable to define the topic "that tertiary education should be free" as meaning "that tertiary education should be free for students whose parents have a combined income of less than $30,000.00 per year".

TIMESETTING

Timesetting refers to the practice of unreasonably restricting the scope of a topic to a time in the past or the future.

For example, a team could not confine a debate on the topic "that prohibition does not work" to the period of prohibition in the United States during the 1920s. Certainly prohibition during the 1920s could be used as an argument or example to support the team, however it could not be used as the arbiter of what the debate can and can not include.

PLACE SETTING

Place setting refers to the practice of unreasonably restricting the scope of the topic to a particular place, situation or organisation.

For example, the topic "that tertiary education should be free" can not reasonable be defined to mean "that tertiary education should be free in the Democratic Republic of Congo".

A more complicated example is the topic "that the state of the union is stuffed". The Affirmative Team could reasonably define the debate to be about federalism in the United States, Australia, the European Union, ASEAN or any number of national or transnational trade unions. Whilst in each case the debate would have been place set, itwould not have been done so unreasonably.

The reasonableness of place setting will depend largely upon the wording of the topic, the venue of the debate, the participants in the debate and the audience. A debate taking place in Australia with Australian teams might fairly be set as referring the Australian trade union movement. The same definition may not be fair at the World Championships, in front of a Japanese audience, with an Australian team on the affirmative and a Malaysian team on the negative.

DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE

When a first negative team is confronted with an unreasonable definition the first speaker must challenge the definition. This challenge must occur at first speaker, definitional challenges can not be left for later speakers. Moreover, the challenge should come at the beginning of the first speaker's speech.

The first speaker should challenge the definition by:

1. explaining why the affirmative team's definition is unreasonable. It is not enough just to say "their definition is truistic"-the speaker should explain what that means. Thespeaker should say that the definition is challenged by the negative team for this reason; and

2. replacing the unreasonable definition with his or her own definition, and justify this definition.

Given that the current test is whether the affirmative team's definition in unreasonable (as opposed to the negative team's definition being more reasonable) a negative team which challenges the definition should not run an "even if" argument.

The "even if" is a technique that allows teams to engage with one another while operating on different definitional grounds. The speaker, after challenging the affirmative's definition and replacing it, would say "however even if we accept the affirmative team's case for a moment, we can see that their arguments are flawed anyway." The speaker would then spend a short period of time rebutting the points raised by the affirmative team.

If the negative team decides to challenge the affirmative team's definition it must:-

1. prove that the affirmative definition is unreasonable;
2. prove that its own definition is reasonable;
3. present its arguments using its own definition.

Where a definition has been challenged by the first negative speaker, the second affirmative speaker must deal with the definitional challenge. He or she can either accept the alternative definition (which will just make his or her first speaker and teamlook foolish for defining the topic that way in the first place), or can reject the definitional challenge and prove that the affirmative definition is reasonable. The second negative speaker must similarly defend the definitional challenge.

Once a definition debate starts it invariably results in a highly technical and unappealing debate. Definitions which border on unreasonableness should be avoided. The best way to avoid definition debates is to ensure that the team uses an entirely reasonable definition. It should be remembered that the purpose of debating is to have a fair and healthy debate about a contentious topic, not to try and cleverly define the opposition out of the debate.

Teams should understand the circumstances under which definitions may be challenged. A challenge will not succeed merely because that team thinks that its own definition is more reasonable or because it has been taken by surprise. If a team challenges a definition, proceeds upon that basis and does not properly rebut the arguments of the other team, and the adjudicator rules that the definition was reasonable, it is most unlikely that the challenging team will win the debate.

2. HUNG CASES

A "hung case" is a symptom of a poorly organised case. Basically it means that the team has divided its case incorrectly, so that each speaker in the debate is not proving the topic although all of their speeches in combination may do so. In other words, the first speaker proves one premise, the second speaker proves another premise, and it isonly after the second premise that the conclusion can be drawn.

The first speech is left "hanging", awaiting the second speech to complete the case. It is impossible to allocate matter marks to the first speaker until the second speaker hascompleted the case.

Examples of hung cases are as follows:-

1. "That euthanasia is wrong". The first speaker argues that euthanasia is tantamount to killing; the second speaker argues that killing is wrong.

2. "That America is the evil empire". The first speaker argues that America is an empire; the second speaker argues that empires are by their very nature evil.

Hung cases can be easily avoided. Teams when they are preparing need only ask themselves whether each speaker in the team is proving the topic. If they are not, thenthe team's case must be structured differently.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 01 March 2007 )
< Previous   Next >
[ Back ]
Themes and Templates by dezinedepot