04. Definitions, Defining the motion

Objectives: Creating the basic setup of a debate team’s framework of their case

Materials and tools: Snippets of paper with motions printed on them

Learning outcomes:  Students are able to get a clear understanding of the motion at hand, as well as setting a logical framework, in which the debate will take place

What you need to know about definitions

‍

Side proposition will need to, but also will have the chance to, set up the content framework of the debate in which they wish to operate in. Part of this is covered by the arguments used, but these arguments also only work in the context of that certain framework.

‍

Defining the motion must be conducted by the 1st speaker of side proposition.

‍

Examples:

The motion reads ‘This house would make it compulsory for corporate boards to be 50% female.’

‍

For the debaters, as well as the audience addressed, a few details need to be made clear in proposition’s first speech:

1. Where in the world will corporations have to do this?
2. Which entity will enforce this (i.e. who is ‘This house’)?
3. What is the proposition’s understanding of ‘compulsory’?

‍

1. It is fairly safe to assume that not every government in this world will easily pick up on the idea of devoting political capital into enabling women to forcibly be members of a corporation’s board, let alone constitute 50% of it. Forcing countries like China, Russia or regions like the Middle East to do this, are very likely lost causes. 
   
   In this case, it would therefore be a very heavy burden for side proposition to stage this debate as a ‘global’ value debate. Although, it is admittedly a very global issue to pursue women’s rights, even the most optimistic minds will understand that reality wouldn’t allow such a motion to pass in countries like Saudi-Arabia, Iran or Afghanistan.
   
   A common distinction that is made here is to locate this debate in ‘western liberal democracies’ as part of the motion’s definition. Like this, it is most fathomable to assume that political frameworks exist, as well as societal acceptance is sufficiently present, to make this a legal concept.

‍

2. In most cases, countries’ governments and parliaments will implement laws and distribute these to the companies. It will be the government’s responsibility to find measures of enforcement.

‍

3. ‘Compulsory’, just to make sure that the term is understood, is synonymous with ‘mandatory’ or ‘will be forced to do something’. It is advisable to make this clear, particularly in countries where English is not the native language.
   
   It is perfectly acceptable to therefore reasonably limit the motion like this. However, you must avoid being too restrictive. The debate’s definition must be fair and debatable and understandable for a broad, averagely educated audience.
   
   In your research on this particular topic, you may come across the fact that Scandinavian countries are fairly successful in achieving female equality on various levels, according to known metrics of assessing gender equality.
   
   If you were to set the debate in ‘just Scandinavian countries’, where you would be closest to achieving the motion’s goal, you are at the same time avoiding areas and countries, in which achieving these goals is more challenging. 
   
   This restrictive behaviour in defining a motion is called ‘weaseling’. Like a weasel, you are shying away from the tougher questions and challenges. Should the judges observe weaseling, your team will be marked down in strategy. 

‍

Challenging the definition as side OPP

‍

However, for the opposition to point at this unfair behaviour, and to win this debate, they must challenge the definition. If they don’t do this from the 1st speaker of side opposition onwards, they automatically take on the motion as defined by side proposition. This may, in return, be a too heavy burden on themselves as well.

The instrument of a definitional challenge by side opposition is rare, but sometimes necessary to win the debate. If they detect an unfair restriction of the definition, they must challenge it and bring it back to a fair and debatable level. 

‍

Example for an unfair restriction: 

The motion reads ‘This house would make voting compulsory’

‍

The proposition restricts compulsory voting to just first-time voters, so that they get an understanding of how the principle of voting works.

‍

Side opposition should challenge this motion, as it is reasonable to assume that the averagely educated audience expects this debate to be about a society-wide initiative.

‍

Example for a fair restriction: 

The motion reads 'The march of science has gone too far’

‍

The proposition restricts science to just genetic engineering. They explain this by not being able to win a debate where medical and technological advances can be framed as detrimental to human progress. The only area in which this takes place in a harmful way, is genetic engineering.

‍

The restriction is plausible and well founded. Side opposition is also expected to mainly consider genetic engineering as the most essential problem for society coming from the scientific community.

‍

The overwhelming number of debates are laid out just fine by side proposition. The universal understanding of definitions do cater to what can be most expected from the motion’s intention, as well as be suitably understandable for the averagely educated audience. 

‍

In most cases, defining the motion is compacted to just a few sentences and takes no longer than a few seconds to half a minute.

Tips and tricks

‍

To adapt this lesson to your curriculum, it is advisable to produce motions of your own. Or you can use these known sources of motions online:

• ‍https://idebate.net/resources/debatabase‍
• ‍https://debate-motions.info/‍
• ‍https://bestfoundation.bg/debate-motions-archive

‍

Assessment

‍

Your feedback should be, as always, positive and constructive. Point out things that the student ‘did well’ and things the student ‘can improve on’. Avoid negative criticism.

‍

As the (adult) tutor in the room, it will be your responsibility to assess the quality of motion definitions based on these conditions. 

‍

As far as you can tell: 

• Did the student identify the most vague parts of the motion?
• Did the student identify the terms that can potentially cause misinterpretation?
• Did the student frame the motion in a way that it creates a recognisable area in which the debate will take place, geo-politically or in other ways, like restricted to certain age groups, quotas, gender, social groups etc?
• Is the given definition fair and debatable for both teams?

‍

Ultimately, the validity of a motion definition is proven only in combination with presenting the case and arguments. Refer to other sources for case and argument building.

Motion snippets

‍

Beginners

• THBT public transport should be free
• THBT there is too much advertising in sports
• THBT all pupils should wear school uniforms

‍

Juniors

• THBT advertising should not aim at children
• THW not eat meat
• THW make teacher evaluation mandatory
• THB in patchwork families
• THW ban same-sex marriages
• THBT comprehensive schools are the solution
• THW ban private health insurance
• THBT the EU is a model for the world
• THW ban carnival
• THB in patriotism
• THW limit immigration
• THW lower the voting age
  
  

Seniors

‍

• THBT gay couples should be allowed to adopt children
• TH disapproves of cloning
• THW legalise prostitution
• THBT cultural treasures belong at home
• THBT the welfare state should be scrapped
• THW negotiate with terrorists
• THW punish sports teams whose fans misbehave
• TH supports the international trading of pollution quotas
• THW limit media reporting of terrorist atrocities
• THBT doctors should report evidence of marital abuse to the police
• THW stop sending humans into space
• THBT public services are best run by private companies
• THW ban strikes by those working in essential state services
• THW expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council
• THBT governments should never bail out big companies
• TH supports missile defence
• THBT professionalism has ruined the Olympic Games
• TH supports quotas for women in national parliaments