Confusing Values

Many of you have asked how to handle a situation when the Gov team presents a value that may have multiple interpretations.

This is complicated:
1) The Gov't team has the right to select the value AND define the value.. .assuming it is fair. It would be wise and highly recommended that the Gov't team define their value clearly when they present it. An unclear value has a way of confusing, or sometimes even losing the round if the judge took it to mean something other than what was intended.

An example would be the Jr. final round at the last tournament...
four of the five judges heard "enjoyment" as the value and applied it to the enjoyment of Grandma's work being appreciated, the enjoyment of not wasting an expensive turkey, etc... but one of the five only applied it to the enjoyment for the children who want to eat first. Because the value of "enjoyment" and how we were to consider it was not CLEARLY explained by the Gov't team, there was room for multiple interpretations.

Soooo how do you avoid this?
The Gov't SHOULD say:
Our value is enjoyment. We're looking at the enjoyment and pleasure of everyone involved at the Thanksgiving feast.

OR
Our value is creativity: by that we mean creating something new or original.

OR
Our value is national security: by that we mean the ability to defend ourselves against other nations through the military.

2) SO what should an Opposition team do when the definition is unclear or not given? The Opposition should either a) ask the Prime Minister for a more clear definition or b) assume they understand it and they should try to use the most logical or first thing that comes to mind.. whatever they think is MOST LIKELY what the Gov't team meant. THEN if they assume a definition in the LO speech, they should explain that to the judge. Simply say, 'The Gov was unclear what they meant by the value of creativity, we as the Opposition understand it to mean developing new and original ideas. If that is incorrect we'd like the gov't to clarify that in their next speech."

The procedure the Opp uses is important BECAUSE IF the Gov gives a value and its fair and the judge believes they understand it... then the Opp tries to twist it.. this may look poor to the judge, as though you're purposely twisting the Gov team's intention and trying to create an unfair scenario for them. From the perspective of sportsmanship, that's generally frowned upon UNLESS the Gov has been altogether vague or unfair themselves, and the Opp's suggested definitions are fair, believable, and possibly what the Gov originally intended.

The BEST thing to do is to ask the Gov during the Prime Minister's speech to clarify if their value is fuzzy.

Keep Persevering!
-Kristina