Excessive creativity in debate - elusiveness and truism

Debate group Anyone who comes to formulate a definition needs to avoid two main problems that bring down definitions even before the first speech is finished: elusiveness on the one hand and truism on the other. It is very important to avoid them.

A subtle or stealthy definition

Stealth (in English squirrel - "squirrel", which is known to be a rather stealthy animal) is a concept that describes a definition that is clearly opposed or unrelated to a proposal-to-order. In most competitions, vague proposals will also be given that will allow the government to define a wide range of issues. However, it is not rare at all (and in final rounds it is also very common) that offers are submitted that are quite specific, and stealth may be very problematic in them.

Truisms and tautologies

The second type of problem capable of completely overthrowing a definition is a definition that is a truism (or "truth" in the Hebrew language). Truism is a separate problem that comes in two shades.

The first is a tautological definition, meaning an axiomatic definition for example "a triangle is a polygon with three sides" or a definition that proves itself such as "a bachelor is a man who is not married". An example from the Oxford Championship in 1995, on the proposal to order "This house would heed its priests", the government defined "rabbis" not as religious leaders but in general as opinion leaders (role models). However, they were not satisfied with the definition of specific secular figures, but gave a general definition of "rabbis" as "people whose example we imitate and whose voice we listen to" such as rock stars, politicians, etc. This is of course a tautology - the definition actually became "this house will hear the voice of those whose voice it hears"! Fairness requires us to say that the actual debate was more complex, and revolved around different types of status quo in a society that listens to the right people. However, the example shows how difficult it is to pay attention while preparing for a problem like this, which of course brings down the government immediately and without a trace.

The second type of truism is called 'moral truism' and is more difficult to define. This is a situation where the government takes a moral position that requires the other side to protect things that cannot be protected. From a moral point of view, especially in a situation where the government takes an overly righteous position towards the opposition. To build a line of arguments according to which "mass murder of innocent citizens is a bad thing" is an indecent act - there is simply no chance for the opposition. The government should not try to win using a case that is true in the eyes of all reasonable people. And a government that thinks it can win like this, will be punished by an appeal from the opposition, or a low score from the judges.

For example, in the semi-finals European Debate Championship in 2001 I found myself in opposition in the debate on This house would continue to prosecute WWII criminals. (This house will continue to haunt the criminals of the Second World War). In other words, I found myself arguing that it was time to free ourselves from continuing to look for Nazis. The blame here, of course, was on the organizers of the competition who drafted the issue (Hi Duncan... I didn't forget!) and not on the first government, but the trauma for me and for all the Israelis sitting in the audience accompanies me to this day.