Interpreting the Motion: Arguing About Definitions

1. International Debate Education Association Interpreting the Motion: Arguing About Definitions

2. Why are Definitions of Words Important?

3. Definitions in Debate

4. Definition and Substance • Arguing about definitions: Has the government team provided a reasonable definition of the motion? • Arguing about substance: Has the government team offered substantive arguments in favor of the motion?

5. Why Argue About Definitions? • Arguing about definitions provides a check against trivial interpretations of a motion. • Arguing about definitions forces the government team to focus on real substantive issues.

6. Example:Resolved: China should increase the exploration of space. • Increase = “spend 10 more RMB per year on exploration” • Space = “closets” • What kinds of arguments can you make about these definitions and how they are unreasonable or not substantive? • Why would it be important to object to these definitions?

7. Example:Resolved: The United States should adopt a policy to fight obesity. • Adopt a Policy = “to enact a new law or regulation” • Fight = “to combat or resist” • Obesity = “overweight cats” • Which terms are reasonable and unreasonable?

8. Example:Resolved: China should expand resources for rural education. • Expand = “increase in size or scope” • Resources = “school buildings and educational infrastructure” • Rural = “non-urban communities” • Education = “formal programs to improve the knowledge of the people” • What kinds of arguments can you make about these definitions and how they are unreasonable or not substantive? • Is it worth the opposition team’s time to object to these definitions?

9. Pitfalls of Arguing about Definitions • From the perspective of debate as constructive arguing • Time spent arguing about definitions is time not spent arguing about important substantive ideas. • The point of debating is to argue about substantive ideas. • From the perspective of debate competition • Unless the opposition wins this issue clearly, it will do them no good. • Arguing about definitions takes time away from other issues debaters want to argue about.

10. Achieving the Balance • Government has the obligation to discuss the substantive issues framed in the motion. • If the Government does address these issues, the debate should proceed on their terms. • Only in the rare case where the Government does not address the issues framed in the resolution, should the focus of the debate shift from substance to definition.

11. The Government’s Rights and Responsibilities • Right to define the proposition • The Government has the burden to prove the resolution true. • This burden is partially offset by their right to define the proposition as they see fit. • Responsibility to define the proposition in a reasonable fashion • The government does not have to have a perfect definition, just a reasonable one. • A reasonable definition is one that people would find acceptable in most situations.

12. Terms in the Charter

13. Truism • Definition: a statement that is, by its very nature, obviously true. If the government defined terms in such a way as to force the opposition to deny an indisputable fact, they would be offering a truism. • Resolved: “Human beings should not kill.” • Government interpretation: “People should not commit murder.” • The problem: The use of the term “murder” limits the proposition in such a way that it makes it harder to oppose.

14. Tautology • Definition: A tautology is a statement that is true by virtue of its logical nature. • Resolved: “The practice of lecturing is over-emphasized in undergraduate education.”* • Government Interpretation: The Government defines lecturing as “an instructor’s undue reliance on his own words.” • Problem: The interpretation is tautological because accepting the words “undue reliance” means the method is “over-emphasized.” * Example taken from Branham, Robert “Debate and Critical Analysis: The Harmony of Conflict” (1991)

15. Place Set • Definition: A restrictive place set restricts the topic to an unnaturally restrictive geographical or spatial location. • Resolved: The United States should increase funding for rural education. • Government Interpretation: The Government defines “rural” as “Kirksville, Missouri.” • Problem: The definition significantly limits the debate to a very specific area, with very unique circumstances, about which the Opposition or adjudicators might not have sufficient knowledge.

16. Time Set • Definition: Setting an unnaturally restrictive chronological duration. • Resolved: The air conditioning should be turned-up in all public buildings. • Government Interpretation: It should be turned-up for the duration of this debate. • Problem: The interpretation isn’t substantive. It would only allow for consideration of the immediate circumstances and not the effects of a more consistent policy.

17. How to Frame the Argument • Identify the term you feel has been defined unfairly. • Explain how the definition is either not reasonable, or does not allow for substantive debate. • Avoid being excessively critical! If the definitions chosen by the Government can still allow for a good debate, proceed with debating the substantive issues.