| Navigation Bar Placeholder |
Definitions must be reasonable. There must be a clear and logical link between
the definition and the topic. A negative team may only challenge a definition on
the grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable.
Squirreling and time setting are absolutely prohibited.
Truistic, tautological and circular definitions are those that allow the
affirmative team to use indisputable truths as evidence, thereby allowing the
negative team no dispute. For example, on the topic That we should eat drink
and be merry, if an affirmative team defined this topic to mean we should eat
something because otherwise we will die of starvation, we should drink
something because otherwise we will die of thirst and we should be happy
because being sad is not a good thing, it leaves the negative team with no
grounds to debate.
Wholly unreasonable definitions are those which seek to make the
negative's arguments scarce or weak.
Squirreling is where there is a reasonably obvious issue to be debated and
one team decides to define the debate in a less than obvious way. An example
would be, if on the topic, That Elvis is alive and well, the affirmative defined Elvis
to be Elvis Martini, an Italian hairdresser known for his sideburn trims. The
obvious issue for debate here is of course Elvis Presley.
When the debate is set into a particular time, it constitutes time setting.
Debates should take place in contemporary society though evidence from the
past may certainly be used in argument.
The correct approach to definition is the 'issue-based' approach, rather than the
'individual words' approach. Many inexperienced debaters will give a careful and
detailed definition of each word in the topic, and then string those definitions
together into a sentence. It is of course frequently necessary to concentrate on
one or more keywords in a topic, but at least as frequently the topic may be
defined as a whole by looking at the context. Even with topics in which it may be
deemed necessary to consider the nature of an individual keyword, the ultimate
objective of definition is to be able to state a clear issue arising out of the
examination of the individual words.
You must not start with any preconceived notion of the meaning of the topic
(except to the extent that the average reasonable person shares such a notion).
Like all matter, you should not wait to see if the definition is attacked before
deciding whether or not it is persuasive. The definition is assessed with its
supporting arguments when it is delivered.
COMPETING DEFINITIONS
When the negative challenges the definition put forth by the affirmative (on the
grounds that it is truistic, tautological, circular or wholly unreasonable), there is
no rule that says that the proposition's definition is automatically invalid. It is just
that the affirmative faces the difficulty that an average reasonable person would
regard such a proposition as being unreasonable and unlikely to be what was in
the mind of the person who set the topic. But the onus is on the disagreeing
team to show that the unreasonable definition is heavily biased against their
case and cannot be argued against. It is not enough to utter protests which
would become a copy of self-pity. The issue is to be resolved by argument. The
speakers must argue the relative merits of the competing definitions, not merely
assert the merits of their own.
The definitional issue is not decisive of the outcome, and the team which loses
the definitional issue will still have its subsequent arguments assessed on their
own merits. When there is significant divergence of definitions, you should
expect teams to engage in an 'even if' argument.
That is:
'Our definition is correct and theirs' incorrect for the following reasons. But even
if their definition was correct (which it is not), their case does not stand scrutiny
even under their own definition."
This should be followed by an attack on the melts of their opponents' case. In
this way, a team is likely to score more matter marks, and the sterility of the
definitional debate is avoided. This issue is important enough for the absence of
an 'even if' to be penalised in method as a strategic error, if the competing
definitions are widely divergent.
REBUTTAL
Rebuttal is any argument that logically tends to the conclusion that the opposing
team's arguments should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It
may consist of:
- showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of fact or an
erroneous interpretation of fact
- showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the topic
- showing that the opposing argument is illogical
- showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves
unacceptable implications
- showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be
accorded little weight.
Matter marks should be used to indicate whether or not the rebuttal was
persuasive, irrespective of the structure of the rebuttal. On the other hand,
whether or not a speaker has structured the rebuttal so as to make it appear
that the entire opposing case, or at least the main issues, has been called into
question is an issue of method. An attack on the main issues of the opposing
team will earn more method marks than a point-by-point rebuttal of the
opposition's arguments. It is a simple case of focusing on the forest as a whole
rather than the trees.
REPLY SPEECHES
You must understand the difference between the third speeches and the reply
speeches. The replies are not merely tedious repetitions of the key parts of the
third speeches. The third speakers should concentrate on detailed rebuttal and
leave the summarising to the reply speakers. The third negative should be
especially cautious not to give anything more than a cursory summary at the
end of his or her speech because a detailed summary is about to ensue from
the reply. Third speakers who embark on extensive overviews and summaries
(especially third negatives) should generally score lower marks in matter (for
forgoing the opportunity to engage in detailed rebuttal of points) and method
(for misunderstanding the role of the third speaker).
The ‘no new matter’ rule applies with a vengeance in reply speeches. To
introduce new matter in a reply is a cardinal sin. It misconceives the role of a
reply speech, which is a broad overview and not an examination of detail. New
matter in a reply speech should be heavily penalised.
MISREPRESENTATIONS
Misrepresentations are where one speaker inaccurately sets up an argument in
order to attack it. This is a serious offence and should be penalised as it often
happens during the third speeches and leaves the opposing team little chance
to reply. Misrepresentation occurs when one speaker reiterates an opponent's
argument incorrectly or concentrates disproportionately on weaker aspects of
the opposing argument, neglecting important issues. Be cautious when
assessing misrepresentation to go through your notes and to rely less on
memory. It is therefore essential that the information you record during each
speech is comprehensive.
TEAM SLIDES
A team slide is when a team starts off arguing a theme and then widens or
narrows that theme under pressure from an opponent or in order to claim the
matter being used by the opponents. This is unreasonable. You should pay
extra attention during the first few minutes of the first speeches from both sides
so that you are able to identify a team slide later in the debate. Team slides
should be distinguished from concessions which, if not too substantial, will allow
the debate to proceed on the contentious ground. For instance, it would not be
an unreasonable concession for a negative team to concede, on the topic, That
smoking should be banned, that there is a recognised link between smoking and
disease. Such a concession would allow the debate to proceed upon the more
contentious issues surrounding prohibition.
INTERJECTIONS
Interjections must be brief and witty or pertinent. Points of order, points of
information, points of personal privilege and heckling are not permitted.
TIES
Ties must not be awarded in the tournament. There is no exception to this rule.
2. Assessing
Matter
3. Assessing
Method
4. Assessing
Manner
5. Other Issues
6. Marking Scale
7. Conclusion
