The definition of the debate is a statement about the subject the parties will discuss, and it is the duty of the government's first speaker to provide it. The degree of detail of the definition varies from one proposal to another, but there is no doubt that the definition will determine the quality of the entire debate, where a good definition creates an interesting debate and a bad definition will leave the speakers without content to argue about. that an unclear definition may lead to a situation where both sides take part in two separate debates when it is not possible to identify a source of disagreement between them. Even worse is a situation where the parties have to argue about what the definition actually is.Two files are attached - one is general and deals with what a definition is, the other is more advanced, and gives more advanced techniques
Analysis debate versus policy debate (Policy Vs. Analysis)
Debates are divided into two basic types called in the professional language debates of analysis versus debates of policy, respectively. An analysis debate looks at the state of affairs that prevails in the world today or that prevailed in the past, and strives to analyze it and reach some kind of conclusion from it. On the other hand, a policy debate aims to decide whether a certain proposed policy is desirable or not. It can therefore be said that analysis debate deals with the past while policy debate deals with the future.
Analysis debate
Such a debate tries to analyze the correctness of a value claim, and to see if it applies to a defined state of affairs. Simply put, the goal is to prove a claim about the present or the past, for example whether the sanctions against Iraq were wrong, or whether Israel is a corrupt state. Such a debate can be reached from a relatively open motion of order such as "This House believes in the sincerity of Yasser Arafat's intentions". Quite clearly, the government will claim that Yasser Arafat is a reliable person, while the opposition will claim the opposite - there is no need to define too much in this debate.A slightly more complex example, from the 1999 university hall championship, is the proposal:This house believes that globalization marginalizes the poor” or in a free translation “this house believes that globalization pushes the poor to the margins”. In this case, when we come to do an analysis debate, there are some concepts that we must define. First, what exactly is globalization? The concept is so broad that the government is allowed and even needs to lower it a little to the ground level. The discussion can revolve around the activities of multinational companies such as Microsoft or McDonald's, alternatively it can deal with the deregulation of economies as a source of danger from speculators as happened in the currency crisis in Russia.
In addition, is the discussion about marginalization economically, where the poor become poorer, or politically, for example due to underrepresentation and dominance of the poor by the rich. And who are the poor? The poor in Israel? The hungry third world countries? their inhabitants?In theory, it was possible to put all these issues into one debate, but in practice, given 14 minutes of speech to each group, to talk about multinationality, international economy, self-determination, the debt burden of the third world and the labor market in Israel, will be extremely stressful. If the government insists on talking about all these issues, it will in no way be able to give an in-depth analysis with serious reasons. Therefore, in such a situation, the first speaker is required to reduce the debate to a narrower frame.
Therefore, the role of the first speaker is to clarify two things: delimiting a framework and defining concepts. Delimiting the framework of the debate clarifies the concepts of time and place of the debate. In the debate on "this house believes that sanctions are harmful" it is appropriate to define which place is being discussed - only Iraq or all the sanctions of the UN, or perhaps the Arab boycott. The broader the topic, the greater the risk that the debate will drift into unwanted channels and will not be able to deepen the topic in question. Definition of concepts is desirable when any concept can have several meanings. In the previous example about the scenes we saw that there are several very different types, and therefore about the speaker to choose In what definition does he want to engage.
On the other hand, there are cases where the concept is elusive and it is desirable to define it precisely. For example, in the debate on the topic "This house despises sequels to action comedies" (it used to be like that, really) it is necessary to define precisely what exactly is a sequel and what is an action comedy. It was also possible without a precise definition to agree on the series "Stolen Father" or "Police School", but what is the exact line between action comedies and witty action films such as "Lethal Weapon"? And if so, then maybe also "Star Wars"? In short, a prime minister who wants to conduct an analysis debate should clarify every concept that can be interpreted in several ways, and delineate the definition in place and scope so that an in-depth debate can be held.
Policy debate
In a debate dealing with a specific proposal, the government proposes some change in policy or some other type of new trend, which they would like to see implemented. In a debate of this type, as in an analysis debate, it is important to maintain the delimitation of the framework and the definition of concepts, but in addition it is of critical importance that the program is also defined in a very clear and clear manner.Let's take for example the proposal "This house supports the coronation of a king in Israel". It is not enough to list the definitions of the role of a royal institution and state that it will apply in Israel. Some content must be poured in, and the government must define what kind of content it will be. What will be the powers of the king? Will it be possible to depose? Will he be appointed, in which case the appointment mechanism and criteria for appointment must be defined, or will he be elected, in which case it must be decided by which election method he will be elected. Will it completely replace the existing institution of the presidency or will it coexist with it?Each of these questions is critical to the debate. It is simply not enough to identify the problem without offering a better alternative. Since issues of public policy are almost always a matter of compromise, then the current way of doing things, however flawed, may still be the lesser of evils, which will result in a loss for the government.Weak definitions can create a murky debate, where the teams chase each other's tails and try to win simply by finding holes that haven't been covered. In the example taken from England on the topic "This house believes that the institution of the House of Lords should be abolished", the opposition attacked the abuse on the part of the upper house appointed for life. The government responded by stating that the problem almost does not exist in the lower (elected) House of Representatives. The opposition then attacked the paralysis resulting from a balance between the two houses of representatives as happens in the USA and the government attacked back by pointing out that this has no meaning in the case of an elected house appointed for life.As can be understood, there was no head-on collision in this debate. The platform on which the offer is spread was not spread, and thus the two sides simply tried to flank each other without coming into contact. The government's role in debating a specific proposal should be to come up with a solid case, and be prepared to defend it both ideologically and practically and pragmatically.It is important for me to repeat and point out, for those who have forgotten, that the rules regarding humorous debates are different. At the World Championship in Sydney, there was an offer to settle This house would club baby seals (This house will hit seal pups) and the opening government (a Dutch group) proposed to use seal pups for golf training, because they are heavier than normal balls... In this situation the opposition did not attack the horrific moral side of the proposal but chose to go with its humor and claimed that Seals are not a good workout for golfers because regular golf balls do not bounce into their hole after they land on the ground…