Preparation for Debates

Definitions are the foundations of debates. In a good debate they are rarely mentioned about but nevertheless they shape every single argument that is put forward. Definitions provide the framework in which the debate takes place, establishing what the debate is supposed to be about, and thus restricting the playing field – different arguments are permissible under different definitions.

Interpreting and defining motions is often straightforward. However, for the cases when it might be more complicated, it helps to understand that it is an amalgamation of simpler steps. If you are aware what you are doing when trying to come up with a definition, you are more likely to come up with satisfactory definitions that will provide for a good debate.

Step 1

Identifying the issue

This is usually the easiest part but it is also the most crucial part in the sense that it does most harm to your team and the debate as a whole if you go wrong here. Every motion refers to a particular issue that is either being considered in the real world or could hypothetically be considered. It is vital that the two teams who are about to debate turn up to the room to debate the same issue. Otherwise, the debate stops being about an issue but rather turns into a metadebate about which issue should have been debated.

In most cases identifying the issue is very straightforward. However, the motion may be ambiguous, and point to more separate issues.

Ambiguous motions are typically more troublesome for the opposition than the proposition. (Hopefully, this shows why opposition must spend time on definition, although it is not required to bring it into the debate.) The reason for this is that provided all of the possible issues are fairly debatable (a concept which I will explain further in step 3), the opposition may have to prepare for all different alternatives.

An example of this problem would be the motion: THBT religious symbols in schools should be banned. This was an impromptu motion at Eurasian Schools Debating Championship 2011 in Istanbul. At the time there were two real world issues to which the motion could correspond – it could have been about removing religious symbols from the classroom walls, where they had been put by the government, as were Christian crosses in Italy, or it could have been about banning students from wearing religious symbols on their person, such as the ban on Islamic headwear in Turkey. These issues are similar enough but the value of religious freedom falls to the proposition in the former case, while in the latter case, it falls to the opposition. This means that the opposition must be prepared for both alternatives. The proposition can simply pick the one they fancy more.

In other cases the ambiguity can be resolved by the context and a little common sense. Let us look at a bunch of motions related to piracy. Piracy, in modern usage can mean both the act of illegal use of someone's intellectual property, and the act of attacking a vessel at sea. Suppose the motion before the house is: THW decriminalise piracy. It seems much more reasonable to say that this is a motion about Internet piracy, not only because such a policy is in reality sometimes considered, but also because the other alternative does not seem to have good chances of succeeding in the debate. Again, let us suppose that we have a different motion before the house: THBT pirates should be tried by the International Criminal Court. It seems that this motion is more related to piracy at sea then online piracy.

Remember that the judges will be looking for a common sense understanding of the motion. Do not try to overthink this step, but at the same time, do not underestimate it either.

Where Preparation Starts

Interpreting the Motion

PROJECT VIDEO: Renown debate coach Geetha Creffield from Singapore speaks on Motion Analysis at WSDA 2014

Step 2

Identify the type of motion

Different motions require different kinds of definition, and so knowing, what sort of motion you are debating can help you if you are trying to figure out what needs defining and what does not. As always, in general it will be obvious what needs to be defined, but in case it is not, this is a way to figure it out.

Sometimes motion classifications can get quite complex with as many as 6 (or even more) different types recognised. However, to accomplish our goal when defining the motion, we need to distinguish two types: evaluative motions and policy motions.

As their name suggest, evaluative motions ask the teams to rate a phenomenon in the world. Typically these will have the schematic form: THBT X is Y, where X is a phenomenon such as abortion, recreational drug use, religion, and so on. The Y is an evaluative term such as, good, bad, right, wrong, success, failure, or something similar. An example of an evaluative motion might be THBT abortion is murder. Abortion is a phenomenon in the world, murder is an evaluative word. The issue at stake is whether abortion ought to be considered morally reprehensible in the same way as murder is.

In evaluative motions you need to explicitly define the phenomenon that is to be evaluated (unless it is something painfully obvious). You also need to know what criteria you are using to measure this phenomenon up to. However, these are likely to be disputed by the other team, and so they are in fact part of your case, rather than part of the framework of the debate which should be shared by the teams. A debate about whether abortion is murder could be entirely about whether abortion as defined by the proposition in fact falls under the definition of murder provided by the proposition. However, it could also be about whether murder is better understood by the criteria of the proposition, or by a different set of criteria provided by the opposition.

Policy motions require the teams to debate the merits of a plan provided by the proposition. They typically come in the form THW do X, or THBT X should do Y. In the first case X is a policy, in the second case X is an actor, while Y is the policy. An example of this type of motions would be THW legalise the recreational use of marijuana, or THBT the US should carry out a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.

Policy motions are defined by proposing a model. The model is a more in depth statement of the policy, which outlines how exactly the proposition intends to go about doing what the motion asks them to do. There are many ways in which prostitution can be legalised, and in order for the debate to be possible, it must be clear, which of them the proposition in fact proposes. Many arguments will be stronger or weaker depending on the precise way in which a policy is implemented.

A good model is concise, gives a clear idea of what is to be accomplished and in what ways it is to be done. It is not supposed to be a draft bill, nor an elaborate plan with solutions to each potential contingency.

Let us look at an example to see what is meant by this. Suppose the motion we are debating is THW legalise prostitution. Firstly, we need to figure out who the Agent is, who the entity legalizing prostitution is in this case. For reasons which will be discussed later, let us say that we decide the Agent to be „western liberal democracies“.

Next we need to know what the Policy is. Legalising prostitution can have different meanings – it could be that every kind of prostitution by persons over the age of majority is to be allowed. Or it could be restricted to certain establishments regulated by the government. These could even be owned by the state. Perhaps prostitution would be legal only if income taxes were paid. Perhaps it would be illegal to engage in prostitution in certain places such as residential areas, or in the vicinity of schools.

An important point about this part of the model – it can become important in the debate to show that your Policy is in fact feasible, that your Agent has the capacity to enforce the new legislation or to carry out certain actions. You cannot just assume that everything will just work the way you said it would. You need to have arguments to support that assumption.

Lastly, we need to know what Resources will be used to implement the policy. They say that in the fictional Debateland money is infinite, and that is in some sense true. It would be ridiculous to ask the proposition to come up with a detailed budget statement.

However, common sense still applies, and in common sense, huge building projects cost a lot of money, natural resources, and labour. Economical attacks are usually perceived as weak; however, sometimes they can become very strong, if for example, the debate is set in developing countries. You then need to have arguments ready to show that the Agent can either afford to implement the Policy, or that they can give it higher priority than other areas which would be affected. The bottom line is this: stay reasonable. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Two notes of caution when it comes to motion classification: there is always a lot of grey area and the categories are not set in stone. This is just a guideline, do not be surprised if a motion which looks like an evaluative one, feels like a policy motion or vice versa. If you think that it makes more sense to approach a motion differently than suggested by the schematics provided here, you are probably right. Go with your common sense. Secondly, all policy motions encompass an evaluative element in them. For example, if we are proposing that something be banned, the reason generally is that we think it is bad for some reason or other.

Step 3

Define Key Terms

This is the last step and the most important. It is time to see what criteria a definition should comply with according to the rules of World Schools format. Hopefully, after reading this part you will be more aware of what counts as a good definition and what does not.

There are some general considerations which apply to all motions and definitions. First, something about the rather unstraightforward way in which common words are used in motions. I am referring especially to the use of quantifiers such as: „all, never, every, no...“ and so on. These should not be taken literally. Rather, they should be understood somewhat along the lines of: „in an overwhelming majority of relevant cases“. This has a very sound reason – if these quantifiers were taken in their literal meaning, the burden of proof on the opposition would be way too easy. Just one obscure case in which the motion does not hold and all the painstaking work of the proposition is ruined. However, in the abovementioned correct interpretation, the sides are much more closely matched. The opposition must now show that there is a serious systemic problem with the motion, which will bring about relevant negative consequences.

PROJECT VIDEO: Filip Dobranic gives a lecture on How to Frame a Debate at WSDA 2014

PROJECT VIDEO: Rhydian Morgan speaks about How to Research a Case at WSDA 2013

A second note about the way in which motions should be understood is that they should be taken globally that is, that they should apply to the whole world. It is considered against the rules to limit the scope of a motion to a single country, or a group of countries that your team just happens to know a lot about. So, if we are debating about the abolition or reinstatement of the death penalty, arguments that are brought into the debate should have universal validity, and the motion should not preclude these arguments from being run. If the motion reads: THBT death penalty should be allowed, it is not OK to say that we are only debating this motion in context of Japan. It would be even worse to then argue that the high public support for the death penalty is the main reason why this should hold.

As always there are exceptions to this rule. Sometimes the motion itself tells you that it should only apply to a certain country or a group of countries. So if the motion in the previous paragraph said THBT Japan should retain the death penalty, then debating about Japan is obviously what would be required. Some motions may refer to developed or developing countries, the EU, or for example authoritarian regimes. In these cases, debating the motion outside the countries specified would be unacceptable. Another exception is a little trickier. In cases where the issue that is to be debated provides for a fairly matched debate only in a certain group of countries, it is legitimate to narrow the scope of the motion to these countries. That is the reason why we chose „western liberal democracies“ as the Agent in our prostitution example. In the Middle East, for example, it seems quite impossible to consider this issue, and not restricting the motion would bring in a lot of irrelevant arguments about public outrage, and feasibility of the Policy. Restricting the motion makes for a fairer debate and so it is permitted.

Now the very final part of this article will round up certain very important concepts that have been explicitly or implicitly referred to in the preceding sections. We will see what the properties of an ideal definition that you should strive towards are.

The central notion to be kept in mind when defining a motion is that of fairness. Definition is setting up the boundaries for the debate, and it should not be used as a way to give yourselves an advantage in the debate, or put your opposition into disadvantage. If your definition wins you the debate, it is bad and you should not run it. The other team will notice and make a fuss about it, and so will the judges.

Definitions serve primarily to enable a debate to take place. Therefore, other ways how to make an unacceptable definition have to do with the concepts of controversiality and reasonability. These are in fact subcategories of fairness.

A motion is controversial if both proposition and opposition have an opportunity to present persuasive arguments in support of their position. There are two ways how to go wrong on this one. Firstly, you can define the motion in a way that there is nothing to disagree with. Such fool proof definitions tend to result from an overcomplicated model, and the desire to pre-empt every possible attack on your position. Secondly, the motion ought to incite strong feelings of assent or dissent. If the reaction you provoke in an observer who is mildly interested in the issue is „Whatever. Both of these positions look kind of the same.“ then there is a problem with controversiality. The motivation for making this sort of mistake is pretty much the same as above – fear of clash, mistrust of your own arguments (although, of course, it can be the result of a simple error).

Reasonability, for the purposes of defining motions, means expectability. If you define a motion in a way that a rational well educated person could not expect from the mere words of the motion, you are breaking the rules. Twisting the natural common meanings of words in the motion results in the opposition turning up to a different debate than you do. If a rational well educated person could not attribute your meaning to the motion, how can the opposition do so? This principle is broken (if not by honest mistake) from the desire to take the opposition by surprise, and win the debate before it even started. Judges will be annoyed.

P.S.

What if it goes wrong?

Sometimes you will be in a situation when the proposition brings a definition that does not conform to the requirements discussed in the previous section. In that case, the solution is simple – tell the judges and propose a suitable definition of your own. This needs to happen in the very first opposition speech if it is to be taken seriously. You should also take care to be as explicit as possible so that judges have no doubt that you are challenging the definition.

There is a slight technicality having to do with challenging definitions. This is the difference between what is called an „exclusive right of definition“ and a „non-exclusive right of definition“.

Under „exclusive right of definition“ the concept of fair, controversial and reasonable definition is treated as a binary. The proposition is required to provide a definition that is fair, controversial and reasonable, and the opposition can challenge only in case that the definition is NOT fair, controversial, or reasonable. There are no degrees of fairness – the definition either is fair, or is not fair.

Under „non-exclusive right of definition“, fairness, controversiality, and reasonablity come in degrees. The proposition is still required to provide a definition that is fair, controversial, and reasonable, but this time the opposition can legitimately challenge the definition anytime, when they can bring another which is MORE fair, controversial, or reasonable.

Each competition can choose which of these standards to follow, although the prevalent mind-set is in favour of „exclusive right of definition“. Anyway, this distinction does not come into play too often, but it is useful to keep in mind, and should it bother you, do not feel afraid to ask the organizers which standard is used.