ваш e-mail

Chapter 2 TOPICS AND TOPIC INTERPRETATION Parliamentary debates are usually extemporaneous events, with the announcement of a motion for debate approximately 15 minutes prior to each debate. It is also possible to have set top­ics for debating. Some debate tournaments announce topics hours or weeks in advance of a competition. Specialized debate events, for example, a public debate in a parliamentary format conducted between I wo schools or on the Internet, may have its topics announced in mlvance, usually to attract an audience. Most motions begin with the phrase, "This House •would..." or " I his House believes..." or "This House should..." The expression "This I louse" refers lo the decision makers in a deliberative parliament. In mosl cases, the decision maker is the judge or panel of judges for the debate. Proposition debaters will advance a case that is designed to convince the decision maker's that the motion is more likely to be true (him false. II the derision makers agree with the proposition team, the motion is affirmed.This agreementdemonstrate that the "The Youse" supports the ideasexpressed by the proposition taem.In other stances, the "House" includes the audience, as a substitute for or in addition to designated judges. It may be the case that the first proposi­tion speaker interprets "This House" for the purpose of advancing her arguments in the debate, providing an altogether different understanding of the phrase. Topics are fact statements, policy or value comparisons or national or international policy directives. The proposition in a parliamentary debate is also known as the topic, resolution, or motion. Motions are categorized by their language, and fall into several loose categories In one typology, motions are identified as resolutions of fact, value and policy. A resolution of fact proposes a factual claim that is subse-quently subject to debate: . This House believes that the economy of the USA is recovering from recession. • Jury nullification in drug trials is an increasingly serious problem.A resolution of value compares value claims or postulates an expres­sion of a "good" that is subject to debate: It is appropriate to sacrifice freedom to promote security.This House prefers the local to the global A policy resolution'calls for an action to be taken. The United Nations should prosecute international terrorists.The federal government of the USA should increase regulation of industries in its borders to substantially reduce their production and/or emission of environmental pollutants. Although the topics language might tip participants off as to the type of motion proposed for debate, the act of correctly categorizing the motion as a fact, value, or policy motion has little to do with the deabate's actual argumenttation.After all, debate argumentation includes elements of fact, value, and policy. Debatersinevitably offer expressions of the "good". (That is the reason debaters are convinced that others will listen to them. Debaters advocate sound or favorable ideas, proper opinions, expressions of the good and legitimate value claims, and an audience is subsequently willing to engage the speaker.) Debaters understand value claims in the context of human and insti­tutional behaviors (i.e., policy). It is nearly impossible to intelligently dis­cuss "values" in the abstract. (As a thought-experiment, try to explore any value claim — life, liberty, equality, justice, privacy, aesthetics — with­out due consideration of government, corporate or personal behavior.) For example, an advocate for liberty does not necessarily support the value of liberty in every conceivable context. A speaker defending the value of liberty is unlikely to support the freedom of individuals to kill or steal. Few debaters would argue for a liberty interest to sexually exploit children or marry neighbors' pets. Contextual understanding, the appre­ciation of specific individual or institutional policy choices, is necessary to give meaning to the concept of liberty. Of course, debaters use factual material in all their debates. In other words, fact, value and policy issues are all available to debaters on each fact, value or policy resolution. It is, in fact, largely impossible to separate issues of fact, value, and policy. In a debate, you cannot really discuss values in the abstract. When confronted with a topic such as "This House opposes discrimination against minorities," a proposition team must do more than merely argue that discrimination in the abstract is bad. Pragmatically, this argument puts them in a weak position. To oppose this sort of case for the motion, the opposition team would merely have to provide some examples of cases in which it is appropriate to pursue a policy of limited discrimination. The opposi­tion could, for example, argue that discriminatory affirmative action or I he imposition of representative quotas achieves important benefits in the long-term pursuit of equal representation and opportunity.It is important to remember that parliamentary debate comes from roots in (he processes ol governmental and other decision-making bod­ies. In parliamentary convocations worldwide, advocates are called on to do more lli.in simply argue that discrimination (or inflation, or toxic waste) is badin the abstract.They are excepted to offer a proposal to deal with the existing situations of concern. This does not mean that all proposition teams are therfore excepted to offer a specific plan for action. Proposition teams must offer specific examples of the problem identified in the motion, but may refrain from offering a plan per se. In addition to resolutions of fact, value and policy, resolutions are understood as open or closed. A closed motion is sometimes called a straight resolution. An open motion is also known as a linkable reso­lution. A closed or straight resolution is meant to be taken literally. For example, on the motion, "This House would send peacekeeping troops to the Middle East," it is expected that the proposition team would offer a relatively conservative interpretation of the motion, establishing reasons for military force intervention in the nations bordering the eastern Mediterranean Sea. An open or linkable motion is more abstract. "Bury it." "There should be a new song for America." "Don't fear the reaper." The propo­sition team may define the terms of these open or linkable motions in most any way they choose, generally linking the abstract motion to a public policy controversy. For example, a defense of the topic "Bury it" might have the proposition team call for an end to national missile defense plans in the USA, "burying" the plan for the defense program for reasons of technical and political unfeasibility. The link between the motion and case can be tenuous, although some leagues and tournaments insist upon a closer relationship between the two, even for open motions. There are some motions that can be characterized as relatively open or relatively closed. These motions provide for a range of propo­sition cases within a tightly constrained range of options. For example, on the motion "The Supreme Court should overturn the decision," the proposition team might argue for the overturn of any one of a number of decisions rendered by the court. A closed motion will normally dic­tate the subject matter for the debate, if not all of the specifics that could be part of the proposition team's case. For example, the motion "NATO should admit Russia as a member state" is a closed motion. The proposition team has some leeway to interpret the motion, insofar as they may suggest a particular plan for admitting Russia (sooner rather than later, phasing in membership, limiting influence, etc.). A relatively closed motion, on the other hand, will normally dictate a ran^e or genre of subject matter for the proposition le.uu There are other somewhat novel or experimental forms of motions.There are motions that propose a general area of investigation, for example, "Africa" or "Olympic Games." Any reasonable idea generat­ed from this kind of topic area could serve as a constructive interpre­tation of the motion and a foundation for debate. This form of motion design provides the proposition team with considerable interpretive liberty. The opposition might not be able to successfully anticipate either the issues for the debate or the direction of any suggested reform. (Will the proposition advocate more engagement with one or more African nations? Or will they suggest that nations withdraw sup­port for national and sub-national groups engaging in human rights violations?) This motion form might be used in those circumstances in which a tournament director has determined that there is a decided bias for the opposition in the outcomes of debates on more specifically worded resolutions. The director might then use a focused but more ambiguous motion to provide an equal opportunity for the proposition side to participate in fair contests. Another motion is the scenario. This motion offers an extended,It-tailed explanation of a crisis, condition, or bargaining position. Rather than a motion as a traditional single, simple, declarative seniriu'c, the scenario may use one or several paragraphs to describe, through a series of chronological events, logical claims, or personal narratives, events that might constitute the subject for debate. Scenario onstruction necessarily limits substantive debating to the specifics designed by the tournament host. This may be appropriate as an aca demic exercise, a public event, or conference project, particularly for presentations to a specialized audience interested in the finely detailed JestTiptions of a case study. One example of a case study proposition is this one, used at a parliamentary tournament in the USA: Cast- Scenario: A doctor has just learned that the patient she is healing will probably not live beyond the next day. The patient knows hr is terminal, but thinks he has at least another few weeks !•> live .nul h.is hope that (hero is a slim chance to pull through. I'.umlv members ,i.e. already near by. The doctor's dilemma is \vhelhei id ieve.il I he Itiilh about patient's anticipated time of ili.iih Tin pn ipt i mi m in h ,iiu inn .1 support (he statement "the physician must make a full and complete disclosure to the patient and his family."This kind of case study or scenario for debate may be an interesting and relevant exercise for conference debates or other kinds of public events; however, its use in intervarsity tournament competition can be problematic. Longer topics can inadvertently advantage the opposition team by providing more grist for opposition arguments, while binding the proposition team to a relatively narrower area to defend. In the example above, the opposition team could persuasively contest the phrase "and his family," arguing that the doctor only has a responsibil­ity to the patient, and that the patient (rather than the physician) should decide whether and how to inform the family.The opening speaker of the debate is responsible for interpreting the motion for debate. The speaker typically defines key terms for the purpose of clarifying the motion and establishing an understanding of the controversy for debate. On the motion, "This House would estab­lish a system of national health insurance in the USA," the speaker might define "system of national health insurance." There are many possible systems of national health insurance. Without a clear defini­tion by the proposition team, how would the opposition know which system to consider? Is the proposition discussing an expansion of the Medicare system? A requirement that all employers pay for health insurance for workers? A new, federally administered national health program? Debate cannot proceed in a meaningful way until these questions are adequately answered. There are, however, other methods to analyze a motion. Debaters should consider the following interpretive models. Examples follow each of the descriptions of interpretative models of several motions, with approximately the same amount of time devoted to the issues that one ought to use in a competitive debate. In addition to the arguments regarding the motion itself, the speaker should make sure to define any technical or difficult term in the motion and note that any issues not understood in the analysis of the proposition will be made clear" in thecase proper." It is inevitable that additional clarifications of the motion throughout an opening proposition speech will assist an understanding of the proposition team's motion. A LITERAL MODEL OF INTERPRETATION A literal interpretation is a conventional reading of a motion that pre­sumes (1) a commonly held and exclusive understanding of the motion; (2) there is no metaphorical understanding of the motion; and (3) it is possible to understand the motion objectively, that is, the statement is independent of any interpretation or contextual understanding. (This is surely an ironic moment — a definition of literal meaning. Is there no literal meaning for literal meaning?) In the example of the proposition, "This House would establish a system of national health insurance in the USA," a literal interpretation would presume a single available interpretation. A debater might intro­duce the interpretation in this way: "We are here to debate the motion, 'This House would establish a system of national health insurance in the USA.' It is evident that this resolution is discussing the ongoing controversy of a federal, single-payer system to provide universal health care coverage for all citizens and residents in the United States of America. That is the basis for today's debate." A PARAMETRIC MODEL This method of interpretation presumes that literalism is problematic. Those debaters employing this interpretive method allege to account lor I he dillu ulties with literalism. They claim to appreciate that there i-. no singular and exclusive interpretation for a motion. They admit to a range or set of possible interpretations for any given motion. The range of interpretations is always in flux and somewhat arbitrary.There are no clear parametres on the set, although the interpretating team will admit to some parametres. On the motion ," This House opposes the death penalty," a team using a parametric set or a model might acknowledge a number of rea-L-sonable interpretations: The proposition might call for an end to the administration of capital punishment, claiming that the death penalty, execution for special cir cumstances crimes and capital punishment are one and the same. The proposition might argue for the abolition of factory farms, argumenting that modern farming techniques are certainly a death sentence forany animal unfortunate enough to be bred for slaughter.The proposition team could advance the idea that animal testing in research and development for the cosmetics industry, fatal to all test­ed animals, ought to be eliminated. The team interpreting the motion might abolish the estate tax, a fed­erally imposed tax on the estate of a deceased person, often described as a "death penalty." Likewise, on the motion "This House would establish a system of national health insurance in the USA" a proposition speaker might introduce the interpretation in the following way: "The motion before the House is to 'establish a system of national health insurance in the USA.' There are a number of reasonable national health insurance proposals that have been offered by gov­ernment officials and public health experts. The most comprehensive and effective plan is the call for full expansion of the Medicare pro­gram, a position that we will endorse in today's debate." THE EXTENDED ANALOGY In this case, the debater interpreting the motion argues that the motion may be drawn, by analogy, to correspond to a target statement. The latter state­ment is the proposition speaker's interpretation of the motion for debate. On the motion, "This House would fight the power," an opening speaker for the proposition might offer a case to stop or resist (fight) the bombing campaign in Afghanistan (the power). In interpreting by analogy, a propo­sition team should adhere lo the semantic structure, grammar and syni. • On the motion "This House would establish a system of national health insurance in the USA," a proposition speaker might draw the following analogy: "The motion before the House is to 'establish a system of national health insurance in the USA.' This motion represents the value of payments for the environmental or general health needs of citi­zens. Individuals are in the best position to determine the quality of their lives. As such, the motion is understood as a call for a guaranteed annual income for citizens and residents in the USA." metaphor. Metaphors are the basis of much communication in everyday life as well as in parliamentary debates. Metaphors express a relation in which one thing stands for another ("people as plants," "life is a journey," "death is a jour­ney"). In the interpretation of a motion, the opening speaker for the propo­sition would present a metaphoric understanding of the motion simply by having a case statement represent the language of the motion. The limited restrictions previously noted on extended analogy (consistency with num-I >er, semantic structure, etc.) are unlikely to apply. On the motion "Don't fear the reaper," a proposition speaker mightargue for a policy of death education in schools. The speaker would say that to reject fear, we must institutionalize an educational policy.The relation with death comes from the speaker's connection of death • a reaper. A reaper is not an objectively accurate understanding of i K-.till. That lad is largely irrelevant to this sort of interpretation. On the motion "This I louse would establish a system of national hr.ilili insurance in tin- I ISA" a proposition speaker might introduce folowing way: "The motion is a metaphor for lilc . Consequently, we will argue that society should better serve the needs of the elderly.To be sure, there are problems with each interpretive method since it is possible to argue the merits of any of them. If one did not know this from the field of literary interpretation, surely he or she -would understand it from the world of debate. Everything is up for grabs in debate. All ideas are subject to challenge. It is extraordinarily doubtful that literalism exists, and, if it does, it would seem to be of limited application. Is it the case, for example, that debaters share the knowledge base, worldview, identity and cultural history to have a singular and exclusive understand­ing of the terms of a motion? Literal understandings are more likely to be the ego projections of the judge or the opposing side in a debate. It is nothing other than one or more of those participants advancing their own knowledge base about a topic, subsequently reaching the conclusion that their understanding or interpretation of the motion is inevitably "intu­itive," "conservative," or "better." (This suggests an insecurity that is bet­ter managed with years of intensive petting zoo therapy or "Up with People" counseling than participation in debating contests.) Parametric interpretations are nothing other than samples of liter­alism — parametrics is literalism writ larger and softer (perhaps "flab­bier" is the more accurate description). It is literalism + n, where the value of n is any non-zero number of interpretations. How any of this sets parameters in a reasonable, non-arbitrary manner has yet to be explained by its fans. The hallmark of the model is its capriciousness. Its advocates claim that it provides a predictable set of issues for debate. There is little way of knowing, however, in which direction the parameters are to be set or what they might potentially include or exclude. It is the three-card monte of interpretations, changing on the fly, scamming those earnestly playing along. Extended analogies and metaphorical interpretations might pro­vide too little focus for the debate. They seem to moot the point of hav­ing a topic for parliamentary debates. If the proposition only needs to substitute a target statement, any target statement, for the motion, and may do so by extended analogy or metaphor, then the topic itself is largely irrelevant. The proposition team will not need to adhere to any of the motion's language. They are free to abandon the motion and cre­ate their own debate resolution. Proposition teams should take care to select the appropriate interpretive model in each debate. The language of the topic and the poten­tial proposition case will strongly influence the opening speaker'schoice of interpretation. Opposition teams, particularly in the USA, are likely to argue that proposition teams have presented a case that is at odds with the motion tor debate. This situation rarely occurs outside of the USA. In British debating, for example, opposition teams that challenge the proposition team's interpretation of the topic may be booed or otherwise heckled. On occasion, it is acceptable for debaters to disagree with the defini­tion or interpretation of a motion, but it happens very infrequently. It also occurs only in circumstances in which the initial interpretation by the opening proposition speaker so violates principles of common sense that others in the debate must correct the interpretation in order to have a debate. Unless there is an egregious error by an opening propo­sition speaker, the other teams in the debate are expected to debate the motion as interpreted by the first proposition team. Deviations will likely receive a hostile reception from judges. In those circumstances in which American parliamentary teams argue that the proposition team's case is at odds with the motion for debate, they are usually making a rather different claim. They are not actually suggesting that the proposition's case is inconsistent with the motion tor debate. To the contrary, they are quite likely to ignore entiirly the proposition team's interpretation of the motion for debate. I lie opposition does not usually argue that the proposition team's inii-i pi elation is wrong or unreasonable, but that is not sufficiently riflii The opposition team typically argues that there is another, and In it- i, interpretation of the motion. They introduce the other interpre­ts i- mi and explain that it should be the basis for debate. The opposition mi/1 hi explain that their interpretation is more predictable, intuitive. The opposition team might offer one or more reasons •• h v I heir version of the topic ought to serve as the interpretation of the motion for the debate. The opposition side concludes this topicality MfMiinent (an argument about the viability of the proposition case on iht- announced topic) by establishing that when the proposition team tails lo offer a case that successfully matches the opposition interpreta-lon ol the topic, and the op posit ion mtrrpivtahon is better than that of the proposition team, the proposition has not provided a legitimate interpretation of the topic and should lose the debate. There are problems with this approach. The opposition merely offers a different interpretation of the motion. But there are always rnany possible interpretations of a given motion. The point of a fadf debate is to permit the proposition team to select the more salient and defensible interpretations from among the potential ones. Opposition interpretation of the motion undermines this fundamental principle .of equitable debating. Further, opposition interpretation of the motion is a way for the opposition team to duck the topic for debating. This is never a good way for either side to approach the debate. Just as tlhe proposition team should not attempt to duck the subject matter of tlhe motion, so too should the opposition team endeavor to confront the proposition team's case head-on. One other problem with topicality arguments is the manner in which they seem to be at odds with lived experience about textual interpretation-The claims made for the argument include the following: (1) individuals share an understanding of the language, such that word use is comm«1(rt and universal; (2) the failure to abide with syntactic construction aiul grammar rules inhibits meaning; and (3) words are not understood textually but have an objective meaning prior to their use. These are routinely made or function as the subtext of topicality argumem nts. Without considering that these arguments represent controversial stai~Hf-nfients in the fields of philosophy of language, semantics, semiology, \-~l\i-guistics and communications. There is also an entire body of literatuj \e that repudiates the claims that language must be commonly and objectively understood and used according to fairly rigid grammatical pnnjni-ples in order to produce meaning. We call it poetry.The proposition team answers a topicality argument according to tti it-following guidelines: • They may argue that the opposition team has failed to advance a tlr 11 oretically sound position in the debate. select the basis for debate? From where is the authority for an oppo­sition interpretation of the motion? The opposiWhy sholud theproposition team does not have to defend the motion during the debate. The proposition has that duty. The proposition team has legitimate authority to define the motion because it has the burden of proof for it. The opposition team does not. The proposition may investigate the legitimacy of the theo­ry supporting the opposition's topicality argument. The proposition team might argue against the construction of the topicality argument itself. In this way, the proposition speakers would consider the internal consistency of the argument, its rela­tion to other opposition positions in the debate, the analytical or causal reasoning supporting the argument, or the examples prof­fered to support the argument. In other words, the proposition team would debate the issue in the same way they would considerany other argument in the debate. The proposition team's speakers might suggest reasons that theirinterpretation of the motion is consistent with the arguments offered by the opposition. These reasons would demonstrate that the interpretations are complementary, rather than contrary. It would show that the opposition position on the topic for debate is not a reason toreject the proposition interpretation. Finally, the proposition might establish some "affirmative" arguments(also known as "offensive" arguments, that is, an argument that establishes a winning position for its proponent. It does not mean aninsulting or crude argument.). These arguments might include justi fications for their particular interpretation of the motion. The proposition team would try to prove that to endorse the interpretation sug gested by the opposition team would do violence or commit otherserious harm. For example, on the motion, "This House would have a new song for America." the- proposition team might argue for significantly expanded .illu iit.tlive adion programs to redress race and gender inequality by business The opposition could introduce a topicality argument. The proposition team might refute this statement, claiming that this oppo­sition stance expresses the same rhetorical approach traditionally used to exclude women and people of color from business. In other "words, they call for the suspension of discussion on the needs of socially mar­ginalized people for a different or other agenda, the latter set by those privileged few (in this case, the opposition team and its differing inter­pretation of the motion.). The de facto silencing of the advocates of dramatically expanded and substantially different affirmative action programs (the proposi­tion team) is the tactic of those favoring business-as-usual approaches to race, gender and human relations. The opposition team, like those interested in further marginalizing socially alienated populations, always have another agenda to discuss, as they are endlessly bored with the plight of people unlike themselves. The proposition team might be able to argue that the topicality argument is a reflection of the very problem they are attempting to both reveal and ameliorate. According to the proposition team, the topicality argument is, there­fore, not an effective reply to their opening speech. To the contrary, it produces marginalizing behavior that the proposition has proven ought to be disputed. In addition, the opposition has an enormous conflict of interest when it interprets the debate motion. The opposition team opposes the motion in the debate and has every reason to provide a bankrupt or easily defeated interpretation. This tactic simply makes the debate eas­ier for them. The debate then becomes a rigged game. The opposition side sets the agenda for the proposition and gets to argue against it. This situation would be similar to a state prosecutor autonomously set­ting the rules of procedure and evidence for a criminal trial and subse­quently arguing the case. Of course, if the opposition speaker sets the agenda for the debate by interpreting the motion is her speech, the debate technically begins with the first opposition constructive speech. It is another rigged game. The proposition will have lost a constructive speech and must now prepare to debate against the first and second opposition constructive speakers. If all this were not enough, the underlying assumption <>1 much topi­cality argument is that the opposition side in the de-bate lectures prepiration time to effectively engage the proposition team's case. To the oppo­sition, this requirement means they must have an idea about the direction or substance of the proposition case during the fifteen-minute preparation time period prior to the debate. Opposition teams seem to suggest that they are disenfranchised if the proposition presents a case they have not adequately anticipated during the preparation time period. Preparation time is primarily for the proposition and it is not nec­essarily for the opposition team. The proposition team must make a convincing case for debate. This is a challenging enterprise. It is more difficult to build than to destroy. The proposition must provide consis­tent, unifying principles for its case. It is more likely than not that the proposition team will have to maintain several different arguments to maintain its logical proof of the case. The opposition team will not need to endorse unifying or terribly consistent positions to prevail. In fact, many opposition teams win debates because they are able to identify and support a single powerful argument against their debate foes. The proposition team quite clearly and desperately requires prepa­ration before the debate begins. The first speaker for the opposition, like the second speakers for the proposition and opposition, can make do without preparation time. If that is the case, there is no reason for advanced notice or predictability of the proposition team's mterpreta-lion of the motion. The opposition should be able to successfully debate in an extemporaneous manner. They should do so to facilitate mean­ingful debate on a single, focused topic. The topic is a guideline for debate. The point of proposition interpretation is not to provide the I test or optimal interpretation of the motion for debate. Their burden is merely to provide one interpretation of the motion for debate. Does this mean that there are no occasions for the opposition side (n i hallenge the interpretation of the motion by the proposition team? ourse not. It is possible to argue that the proposition team has pro­vided au illegitimate interpretation of the motion. Or, a particularly i Irver opposition speaker could argue that the proposition team has I,nled to uphold their interpretation of the topic as presented in the I'nine Minister's constructive speech the motion for debate. There are always arguments in the opening proposition speech in support of the motion. Sometimes these argu­ments are highlighted or otherwise noted by the first proposition speaker. In many cases, the majority of the arguments involving inter­pretation of the motion are implicitly included in the substantive text of the opening speech. The fact that these arguments are not explicitly offered does not mean that they are not present in the speech. Instead of arguing merely a different or "other" interpretation of the motion, the opposition team should argue that the proposition team's case fails to meet the proposition's interpretation of the motion. On the motion "This House would starve a cold and feed a fever," the proposition might introduce a case to increase the testimony of victims in criminal sentencing decisions in the USA. The opening speaker would argue that the criminal justice system should move from the sterility of formal due process protections exclusively for criminal defendants in order to embrace the concerns and passions of crime victims. In this circumstance, however, imagine a case presentation that inad­vertently supported due process: an opening speech m which the first proposition speaker endorsed the legitimacy of established constitutional protections. The opposition team might then legitimately argue that the first proposition speaker has every right to interpret the motion but once an interpretation is offered, the proposition team must show some loyalty to their argument for the motion. In this case, the proposition speaker has failed to offer a case consistent with the established interpretation of the motion, that is, an objection to due process coddling of criminal defen­dants. This combination of proposition arguments would be a strong rea­son for the opposition side to prevail on a topicality argument in the debate. The argument might be presented as follows: "The proposition team has presented a case that is at odds with its interpretation of the motion. In the definition of the motion, the first proposition speaker explained his team's ambivalence, even hostility, to extant due process protections. This is their interpretation ol the phrase "starve a cold" in the motion. To offer a proof lor the motion, they must proffer a reduction in due process protections: iliry must starve the cold."But the proposition speaker supports constitutional due process protections later in her speech. This latter claim is at odds with their interpretation of the motion. It shows that the case does not reflect the motion. The proposition team must lose the debate, as they have presented a case that does not support the motion." The point of all this argumentation about the definition and interpretation of the motion for debate is to establish a standard for the opening propo­sition team. The standard encourages the opening speaker to create a meaningful case that might be controversial and subject to dispute by each side. In other words, debate theory on the issue of the interpretation of the motion is designed to promote argument clash. There are three additional considerations to note: the matters of specific knowledge, tru­ism and tautology. Specific knowledge refers to a violation of the principles of fair or equitable debating. The popular conception of specific knowledge is that the proposition speakers possess information that is "specific" (that is, private). This information may form the basis of a proposition case. If it does so, it wall undermine fair and meaningful debate. This argument against specific knowledge presumes that debates proceed best when based on shared information, that is, factual material, opinions and other-data available in the public sphere or generally understood by informed university students and other parliamentary debate participants. Specific knowledge claims are appeals to ignorance. They suggest that debaters should do little more than offer a least common denomina­tor approach to a world of ideas, selecting out the challenging, intriguing, paradoxical, innovative, complex, and counterintuitive ones and exclud­ing them from debates. It seems odd, indeed, that debaters might be penalised for knowledge or critical insight that goes beyond obvious, con­ventional wisdom. If debate is to accomplish anything, at least in a sophis-ik atrd way, it ought to both inform its participants and provide serious ' ritual training. In other circumstances, we call this "education" and its development. the argument claims of the opposing side are examples of sped lie knowl­edge that ought to be challenged and excluded from debates. Specific knowledge functions to secure a win for the side that lails to answer tne most arguments the fastest: "Brilliant opening speech, Prime Minister". I have never heard any such ideas before. Really. What a knowledge base! What an impressive command of the facts! Alas, it new to me. It is, there­fore, not possible for me to debate. So, the matter of this debate is now settled. I win! Thanks, everyone, for attending. On to my next challeng­ing round of debate!" Specific knowledge turns the debate world on its head, providing a theoretical defense for anti-intellectualism. It suggests that debaters prepare for their event by "dumbing down" sophisticated ideas or creative perspectives. This bankrupt theory only puts a modern spin on the concession speech, attempting to turn surrender into a win­ning ploy. That anyone falls for this ploy reveals one of the great cons of contemporary debate. The claim of specific knowledge is almost always suspect. It does not accurately describe the knowledge base of debate's participants. Debaters do not have "common understandings' of the issues introduced in debate topics. Students have very different personal knowledge, nationalities, cultural practices, identities, and histories. They concentrate their studies in different academic disciplines. (Is it specific knowledge for an eco­nomics student to exploit her knowledge against a religious studies stu­dent on an economics topic?) These differences actually serve as points of conflict and tension that ultimately produce debate. In addition, the infor­mation that students use in debates is not generated internally. Students read textbooks, newspapers, academic journals, novels, Websites, elec­tronic newsletters, and magazines. They speak with faculty, friends and colleagues. They develop considerable life experience at work or during travel. The information they possess is externally generated. In other words, it is public information and should be considered in debates. Many claims of specific knowledge are presented, paradoxically, m an attempt to censor public discourse that ought to be shared in parlia­mentary debates, including information regarding science and technolo­gy, decision theory, literature, new historicism, anthropology, art criti­cism, semiotics and postmodern geography. There is no logical reason toexclude complex and challenging ideas from contests involving sophisti­cated college students. When confronted with the presentation of facts that seem to be spe­cific knowledge, debaters should work with "what they are given rather than react by simply crying "specific knowledge." Provided that the proposition team gives all of the relevant information to support a partic­ular case, the opposition can still win the debate by referring to the infor­mation provided by the proposition team. If the proposition team with­holds some information only to drop it on the opposition team in the next speech by saying "but what you do not know is..." the opposition can respond that this particular piece of evidence was not presented to them or something to this effect. The truism, another example of a fairness violation in parliamen­tary debating, is equally suspect. The truism is an opposition argu­ment explaining that the proposition team has offered an interpreta­tion of the motion that is an objective TRUTH. As such, it cannot be debated. There are few propositions that can literally be considered truisms, and few ever appear in debate rounds. You will most likely not, for example, be asked to debate -whether or not the earth i evolves around the sun or whether two plus two equals four. Other propositions that are considered de facto truisms are propositions I hat are almost impossible to debate: "Child pornography is bad;" "Women should not be excluded from the workplace;" "The poor should not be forced to undergo involuntary sterilization." In actual debate practice, the opposition's claim that the proposition's interpretation characterizes the proposition as a truism is unlikely to get I hem anywhere. The proposition team's interpretation of the motion is not ol))eelively true. It is an argument that may be effectively refuted. Most opposition claims of truism are nothing other than hubris. The debater makes the claim that it is not possible to argue against the proposition ii.iim's case. The speaker is not arguing that she alone is incapable of argu­ing against the case. Rather, the debater is making the extraordinarily c\m;-,/'ci Mlcd claim that the case interpretation of the motion is unfair liciMir.c no one could ai^ue against it. Put another way, the debater mi nr, lo mi^/'c'.i lli.il -.he has scanned minute thought and reached the the conclusion taht no one could answer the proposition team's arguments.In debates, you may have the occasion to debate proposition cases that seem to be truistic or otherwise unable to be debated. This does not mean that you should throw up your hands and roll over, dften these cases can be refuted tyy creative opposition strategies. For icfeas, we sug­gest you learn more about the practice of criticism by reading Chapter Nine in this book. Remember that there are many ways to negate a case. One excellent strategy is to debate against the underlying assumptions of the case rather than the claims of the case itself. Here is an example. On the topic "This House regrets the injustice," a proposition team arguments that the Holocaust should be conde nned. How should you, as an opposition team, debate this case that app eirs to be a truism? You actually have many possible lines of argument a: your dis­posal. You might arg\ie that the Holocaust shouldn't be removed from the category of genocide and condemned in an individual way. ycdu could say that this creates a special status for the Holocaust, and that tb-e Holocaust shouldn't necessarily have a special status, even in the confutes of World War II (during which at least 75 million died), nor among otH««r genocides in history in which tens of millions were killed. The danger here is the exclusion of other g-enocides in order to focus on the HoLccaust. You could say that this exclusion risks causing us to ignore the genocides in our midst - we therefore do nothing about Rwanda or Bosnia-Herzegovina, or we don't do anything in circumstances in \v~hch aboriginal people are assimilated into cultures, lose their land, and simply die out in a passive rather that active way. We may actually generate victims by condemning the Holocaust or otherwise giving it a special status. You could also argue that condemnation is an inapproprmate and dan­gerous reaction to the Holocaust. You could say that it is true act of con­demnation or isolation and exclusion of the Nazis, portrayi=n? the Nazis as non-human monsters or as symbols of evil, which makes a sbelieve that it's appropriate to direct anger toward them. This portrayal means we lail to identify the similarities between Nazis and other people impositions ol power today, riskirtg the loss of our critical capacity to democratic-ally engage people who 'commit evil acts. You can claim that by presuming to position yourself as a moral authority able to condemn people for their transgressions, you act as the Nazis did, condemning the Jews and Gypsies and other minority popu­lations as sub-human and evil, allowing in turn their slaughter. The impli­cation of this argument might be that you shouldn't externalize blame for the problem; instead you should look inward to your own moral culpa­bility. If you think these arguments are long shots or irrelevant, you should think again. These are all serious arguments in the academy — for example, these arguments are made in Ward Churchill's book, A Little Matter of Genocide. If you say there's no way to debate against this case, you effectively ignore learning all these other issues. Wouldn't you be better off if you were be able to say that you might be morally culpable in victimizing oth­ers and should investigate that, or that condemnation is inappropriate as is the search for vengeance? These are important arguments to air for debate, particularly the argument that the Holocaust shouldn't be the symbol for genocide. Many researchers and advocates argue that geno­cide may be perpetuated and, paradoxically, encouraged if we focus all our energies on the Holocaust. Arguing a truism means you lose the abil­ity to learn about all these important issues. Ideally, the process of debate should force us to create and advance arguments against all positions. As I Ins example shows, you do not need to argue directly against the claims »il (he propositions case to refute it. One other bit of advice: If the proposition team presents informa-tion that is objectively accurate, that is, a claim with which there can !«• no disagreement or debate, they will have ascended to divinity. Stop illgning with them and begin praying to them. In no circumstance 'thould you argue with the divine or enlightened. suggested exercises 1. The debater selects a motion for interpretation. CThere are more than1,000 sample motions listed in Appendix 1) She is given two minutes to imagine and outline an interpretation of the motion. She has one minute tomake a verbal presentation of the motion. This exercise is repeated four or five times, with criticism from the audience regarding the following: Is the interpretation convincing for a debate judge and why? Has the speaker interpreted the motion to successfully restrict argu­ment possibilities for the opposition? What foundation is there for replies to opposition arguments about truism and specific knowledge? In a 15 to 20 minute practice period, a speaker will be able to prepare inter­pretations for different kinds of motions. With a performance evaluation for five interpretations, the speaker is likely to make more interpretations and receive more criticism on motions interpretations than at a full invitational or intervarsity tournament. 2. Individual debaters are presented with a motion for debate. The debaters have five minutes to list as many reasonable and different cases for the motion as they can. This exercise teaches debaters that language is subject to interpre­tation and recontextualization. The motion will not mean the same thing to all the assembled participants for a debate. In addition, the exercise will assist debaters in brainstorming a motion in order to select the best possible expression of opinion, the best case, for the motion.

Материалы |  О нас |  Новости |  Статьи |  Ресурсы |  Материалы турниров |  Клубы |  Консультация |  Календарь |  Форум |  Контакты

Web Hosting