member between the motion and the definition (where there is no such link, the definition is sometimes referred to as a
“squirrel”);
(b) not be self-proving —a definition is self-proving when the case is that something should or should not be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal. A definition may also be self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists or does not exist and there is no reasonable rebuttal (these definitions are sometimes referred to as “truisms”);
(c) not be time set —the debate must take place in the present and the definition cannot set the debate in the past or the future; and
(d) not be place set unfairly —the definition cannot restrict the debate so narrowly to a particular geographical or political location that a participant of the tournament could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the place.
Let’s take the motion “This House Would Ban Euthanasia” and play around with some dodgy definitions.
If Opening Government defines as “we will ban assisted sui-cide,” it may be argued that they have moved away from the intended subject matter as euthanasia involves the mortal act being made by somebody else, usually a doctor. But the average reasonable person is not supposed to be a pedant. A challenge of this definition under (a) would be ludicrous.
Compare this definition. “Euthanasia means ‘good death’ in Greek; and the ‘good death’ of the Greek economy was the 2010 bailout by Germany; so we would ban all bailouts of Eurozone economies.” That is a squirrel and could be challenged under (a).
“Euthanasia was practiced by the Nazis. It is the killing of peo-ple, by doctors, without their consent. It should be banned.” This definition falls under (b). It is implicit in the motion that we are
talking about voluntary euthanasia. There is no reasonable rebuttal to the contention that people should not be murdered by doctors.
Opposition cannot be compelled to make that case.
“By 2030, at the current rate of development, advancements in palliative care will be such that no one will ever have to live in pain.
When that happens, euthanasia should be banned.” This innovative thought experiment falls foul of (c) as it is set in the future.
Most Opening Governments would not bother setting the motion “This House Would Ban Euthanasia” in one country, pre-ferring instead to say that all countries should pursue their policy.
Others might choose to put it in a major/well-known country that has legalized euthanasia, while giving some information about the background there. These options would not give rise to a successful challenge. But consider the following: “We believe that voluntary euthanasia should be banned in San Marino. Now on to our argu-ments. First, life is sacred . . .”
San Marino is one of the world’s oldest sovereign states, a land-locked 24 square miles surrounded by Italy, and is a member of the United Nations. Its population is 97 percent Catholic and might be presumed to take a view convenient to the Government’s case. But only 31,000 people live in San Marino. There is no good reason to center your case there. It is unfair to expect a participant at a tourna-ment to have knowledge of that country.
Tactically, I would still advise debaters not to challenge this definition. You can point out that Opening Government is running scared, then use general arguments to show that euthanasia should be legal everywhere, including San Marino. But the rules afford you the opportunity to challenge.
I hope you can see how outlandish a definition must be to war-rant a challenge. But if you need to make one, let’s see how the rules tell you to do it:
Challenging the Definition
The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it vio-lates the rules above. She should clearly state that she is challenging the Prime Minister’s definition and then offer an alternative.
There is all the difference in the world between a whinge and a challenge. A whinge is when the Leader of the Opposition gets up and complains: “I wasn’t expecting to talk about assisted suicide, I don’t understand why we’re talking about San Marino, and I think Opening Government is clueless about this topic” before going on to make the case they thought up during prep time.
This is not a definitional challenge. Many times, debaters have come up to me and said, “But I challenged the definition!” when they didn’t. Complaining about the definition is not the same as challenging it.
You need to say the magic words “I challenge this definition”
and follow it up with your own —in this instance, given you are on Opposition—“We think everyone should have legal access to voluntary euthanasia.”
So, we have a challenge. How will the adjudicators respond?
Assessing the Definitional Challenge
The adjudicators should determine the definition to be “unreason-able” where it violates the rules above. The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is not on the adjudicators, however, but on the members asserting that the definition is unreasonable —they must provide a reasonable alternative.
Here’s the catch: The adjudicators don’t and mustn’t tell you what they are thinking. So, all eyes focus on the Deputy Prime Min-ister, who, in turn, will be scanning the adjudication panel for visual clues of their view on the reasonableness of the definition. He has
to decide whether to turn on his partner (and come a near-certain fourth) or stick with him and leave his fate to the judges. Unsurpris-ingly, the top half of a debate with a challenge typically features four people talking at cross-purposes.
Now for the worst case scenario in the rules:
Where the definition of the Opening Government is unrea-sonable and an alternative definition is substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing Government may intro-duce matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Opening Government and consistent with the defini-tion of the Opening Opposidefini-tion.
If the Opening Opposition has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable, the Closing Government may chal-lenge the definition of the Opening Opposition and substi-tute an alternative definition.
If the Closing Government has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable (in addition to the unreasonable definitions of the Opening Government and Opening Oppo-sition), the Closing Opposition may challenge the definition of the Closing Government and substitute an alternative definition.
The Member for the Government has a choice: Accept that Opening Opposition’s definition is reasonable and go with it, jet-tisoning Opening Government, or redefine. Here, a second choice emerges: support the original definition by Opening Government or create an all-new definition for the second half of the debate.
As Member for the Opposition, if you are still thinking about def-initions by the time the debate reaches you, something has gone hor-ribly wrong and your thoughts should turn to other, life-enriching hobbies to which your precious weekends might be devoted. Nev-ertheless, you might take a moment to consider your options. You can accept Closing Government’s definition if it is reasonable. If it isn’t, you can redefine, accepting Opening Opposition’s definition
or suggesting your own. The only option not open to you, unless Closing Government supported Opening Government’s definition, is to take the dramatically satisfying path of going back to the begin-ning and arguing against Opebegin-ning Government’s definition.
I have only witnessed the worst case scenario once, and that was more than ten years ago. There is no skill less worth your time and worry than how to challenge.
Part 1—Introduction*
1.1 The format of the debate
1.1.1 The debate will consist of four teams of two persons (persons will be known as “members”), a chairperson (known as the “Speaker of the House” or “Mister/Madame Speaker” and a panel of adjudi-cators. In the absence of a chairperson, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators will act as the chairperson.
1.1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:
Opening Government:
“Prime Minister” or “First Government member” and
“Deputy Prime Minister” or “Second Government member”;
Opening Opposition:
“Leader of the Opposition” or “First Opposition member”
and
N.B. The numbering, order and wording of these rules reflects a proposed tidy-up put to Worlds Council 2012.