Joeven R.

Castro, FEU
Guidelines in defining motion 1. A definition is a clarification of the motion. The motion made more specific and debatable is a definition. 2. Dont propose a policy that exists already. For example, The Philippines must have a presidential form of government because we already have it in the status quo. 3. Determine the basic type of debate you are forwarding: policy or assessment. a. Policy: You are proposing an action to solve a particular problem. It is usually worded with a should b. Assessment: There is a problem and you want to assess whether it is true or not. 4. A definition must be delivered in one minute or less unless there are so many concepts to be clarified. 5. Also put yourself on the shoes of the opposition when defining. When the opposition has no way to oppose you, the definition must not be debatable. 6. There must always be a conflict or a problem. 7. Have a definition favorable to your team. Grounds for challenging a definition 1. Defining the motion is done by the PM only. But there are certain definitions made by the PM which can be questioned/challenged/rejected by the LO hence empowering the latter to give a counter-definition. The grounds for challenging a definition found below means that the definition is not debatable and not valid. These are the only grounds. You dont challenge a definition simply because you believe yours is more reasonable. a. Truism self proving; it is basically and inherently true. For example. Motion: Coke is it. Definition: Coca-Cola is a softdrink. This motion actually suggests a definition that We should legalize the regulated use of cocaine. Coke is actually a slang for cocaine.

b. Squirreling definition is out of the spirit of the motion. Some motions have specific concepts to be debated. For example, on the motion We should legalize prostitution, it is defined as Abortion should be legalized. c. Place set the debate is unfairly set in a location. For example, We should ban guns in Tanzania. The place is unfairly set because the issue of banning guns in this place is not a common knowledge i. Some issues about other countries are debatable. Ignorance of general information is not a valid excuse. An issue about a certain place is debatable when: 1. it has obtained international media attention 2. it threatens international peace and security 3. issues about the United States are always debatable because most world affairs revolve around the US. But when debate is limited to some states like Delaware and Arkansas, it is place set. But discussing the US in general is still debatable. 4. China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea are few of the countries with issues that are constantly discussed. Issues about these are definitely debatable. 5. ii. But other countries even if not so popular can be used as examples to support an argument. d. Time-set definition requires a debate about the past or predict the future. For example, That Andres Bonifacio should not have torn the cedula during the Cry of Pugadlawin. This is not debatable because the event could no longer be changed in the first place so it is useless to debate about it. Caveat: i. But past occurrences can be used as examples to prove an argument. A present idea can be support by past events to show that it has the likelihood to happen because it had been done before.

Caveats:

Prepared by Joeven R. Castro, FEU Department of Communication

Joeven R. Castro, FEU

e. Specific Knowledge when the debate requires expert knowledge and only those who knew the field can argue. For example, That we should prevent the conduct of amniocentesis because it causes anatomical deficiencies on the baby. Wholly unreasonable a debate should be within the intellectual reach of average reasonable persons. For example on the motion The grass is greener on the other side of the fence, it is defined as That cogon grass is better than the Bermuda grass. This is not a debate for average reasonable persons.

f.

How to challenge a definition: The following steps must be rigorously followed: 1. Explicitly cite that you are challenging or rejecting the definition 2. Cite and explain your ground for challenging the definition. 3. Give a counter-definition. You define the motion again. (This is the only instance in which the LO is empowered to define). 4. Give even-if arguments. You rebut the arguments of the PM. Why? a. The assumption that the definition of the PM is invalid and not debatable has to be decided by the adjudicator at the end of the match. The ground for definitional challenge might be erroneous. b. This is to ensure attack against the case of your opponent if you have committed a mistake in your challenge. Debates dont just rely on the definition. c. No even-if arguments if the ground for challenge is truism. Because the definition is not really true when the opposition can still disprove it. 5. Build your case opposing your new or own counter-definition. You are still in the opposition. 6. Summarize. Advise: If you can still argue against a definition, and it is favorable to your side, avoid challenging even if there are grounds. But highlight the flaws of the government in the defining process. Tell adjudicator that you still accepted their definition because you are a very dynamic team. Guidelines in Giving Team Split Motion -> definition -> team split. Team Split division of speeches or cases between the two speakers of a team. They are your responses to the inherent questions or issues of the definition. 1. It is always given by the first speakers of any side. 2. Must be independent from each other but must consistently support the stand of a team. Each team member must discuss a different perspective/idea as long as both splits support the stand. Splits cannot contradict each other. 3. Splits must not be the same for each speaker even if one speech is worded differently. When the same, it is called a hung case which is not acceptable. 4. Splits are general labels representing the arguments that fall under them. 5. Dont promise a split you cant sufficiently discuss. 6. Give splits in brief but complete sentences. 7. The split is different from the argument. Arguments fall under the split. 8. You will eventually create your own ways of responding to the demands/issues of a definition. But here are some samples: a. Nature giving a brief background of an issue. By discussing the inherent qualities of a concept, you clarify what the concept is and is not. This must be accompanied all the time by another split unless you argue that the very nature of this concept makes it unacceptable or acceptable. b. Necessity why is the proposal necessary? c. Benefits what are the benefits if the proposal is carried out? d. Disadvantages/Repercussions what will happen if the proposal is continued?
Prepared by Joeven R. Castro, FEU Department of Communication

Joeven R. Castro, FEU

e. f. Non-necessity why it is not necessary to pursue the plan? Mechanism/Feasibility necessary in a policy debate; how the plan will be carried out; how it will most likely succeed g. Non-feasibility how the proposal wont work because of some socio-cultural, economic reasons or others. h. The following may be attached to necessity, benefits, disadvantages, etc. These are aspects or areas of analysis. A split may be about disadvantages for both the speakers but the cases do not become a hung case when different aspects are discussed: i. Political ii. Economic iii. Social iv. Psychological v. Cultural vi. Micro individual level vii. Macro societal level viii. Etc. i. Standards/criteria necessary most especially in assessment debates; it is the area of analysis for comparison. For example, if the debate is about SOP vs. ASAP. You can set the following standards: which musical variety show is better in terms of: production, guests and performance, hosts, graphics, etc. j. Sample of a split. Definition: Prostitution should be legalized. Contextualization: Philippines Parameters: male and female prostitution, child and transvestite prostitution not included Government: PM: Nature of prostitution, why it cant be eradicated hence justifying the need to protect those q involved in the trade Mechanisms or processes in the conduct of the legalization. Necessity of legalization from the perspective of the sex workers in terms of the 1. health security it entails 2. economic life DPM: Benefits of the legalization to the customers in terms of 1. safe access 2. eradicating stigma involved Benefits to the government and society Benefits to sex workers by looking at their empowerment LO DLO: Non-necessity of legalization. How the goals of legalization does not meet the goals of prostitutes and their customers. Non-feasibility of the proposal in terms of: 1. socio-cultural context of the Philippines 2. political will among the lawmakers vs. public perception

Prepared by Joeven R. Castro, FEU Department of Communication