Debatability

Today's tip is intended to clear up the question, "Can you debate that?"

Some things simply are not debatable. As a Government team, you do not want to tiptoe into the dangerous waters of an undebatable case, and present the Opposition with an immediate victory. So, how do you stay out of such a murky predicament?

Here are few rules to follow in determining the "debate-ability" of your cases:

TRUISM: Truism simply means: "Fact". A truism is an argument which is in, and of itself, inherently true and undebatable. It is a fact that two plus two equals four. You cannot debate this. Any proven fact, cannot be debated.

MORALLY REPUGNANT: You cannot debate anything which forces the other team to oppose their own values, or defend a reprehensible position. You cannot force the opponent to support cruelty to others, for instance. Further, you cannot debate whether or not God should do something. Only God can decide this. Debating the role of the Supreme Creator would be morally repugnant as it would force the other team into a reprehensible position.

INAPPROPRIATE SUBJECT MATTER: Some topics are simply inappropriate to discuss in an open debate. Topics of personal or private nature, for instance, should not be debated. If the topic could potentially make a debater, member of the audience, or judge, uncomfortable, you should avoid such subject matter.

SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE: You cannot debate information within the realm of specific knowledge. There are two basic rules to follow in determining whether or not information is specific knowledge:

a) Was it reasonable for the other team to assume others would share the same knowledge? If so, it is not specific. If not, it is specific. For instance, teams would not know that one's father loves to eat green beans unless they just happen to be good friends with one another's families. However, teams could reasonably assume that each had observed wrecks on the highway. Teams should not assume that each shares the others passions for trivia about Bangledesh. However, a team can assume that each would be aware of recent news events which had received major press coverage. Anything that is accessible and likely to be known by all teams is fair. Information taught in a traditional education including areas of history, science, literature, mathematics, etc., are fair to debate, assuming the likelihood that each shares the knowledge is probable and reasonable.

b) Does the entire argument crumble with the removal of the potentially 'specific knowledge'? For instance, if I claim that people do not vote on rainy days, and the Opposition argues that a devoted voter would use umbrellas, raincoats, etc., and venture out to vote. Refuting their argument with the claim, "Well, my friends didn't vote in the rain," would be 'specific knowledge.' If I were correct, my point would be proven and I would win. If I were wrong, I'd lose. It all hinges on whether my statement is true, something the other team could not know or prove.

Specific Knowledge is prohibited, primarily, for the purpose of eliminating the opportunity to exaggerate or create dishonest claims. If claims did not have to be logically proven or supported, this would grant too much opportunity for an unreasonable debate. Further, specific knowledge may be presented if the Government team is willing to explain and present ALL necessary knowledge in an easy-to-understand manner so that the Opposition may be equipped to fairly compete.

I hope this helps!
-Kristina