Specific Knowledge

Today's tips tackle two recurring questions among the teams: a) Specific Knowledge, and b) should vs.would...

A) What is Specific Knowledge?

SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE: How to know if it is specific knowledge... there are two rules to follow:

A) Was it reasonable for the other team to assume they 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 other's passion for trivia about Yugoslavia. However a team can assume that each would be aware of the submarine accident with the Japanese fishing boat because it received so much news coverage.

B) Does the entire argument crumble if the potentially "specific knowledge" is removed? For instance, if I claim that people do not vote on rainy days, and the other team argues that my claim is illogical and offers reasonable support that a sincere voter would venture out in the rain, if I attacked this by saying, "Well, my grandparents don't venture out in the rain." That is specific knowledge and should be removed from the round. If I'm right, I'd win. If I were wrong, I'd lose. And it all hinges on whether I'm telling the truth or not- something the other team could not possibly know or prove.

B) Should or Would: The resolutions I've given you all say "This House Should..." not "This House would..." The reason is simple, some debaters will disagree with me, but I don't believe 'would' to be debatable. Would means will- absolutely, positively, definitely, guaranteed to happen. You cannot guarantee anything.

When debating "This House Should..." there are two rules to follow:

1) You must convince everyone that it "should" be done, that it is a good idea and suggestion. Whoever is doing it should be ABLE to do it.

2) You must provide a motive or incentive for them to do it. You don't have to promise that they WILL do it, but you must convince everyone that it is likely, possible, and probable that they will do it because they have a strong incentive to do it.

I hope this helps!
-Kristina

PS: NEVER hesitate to ask questions! It's the best way to learn.

The reason specific knowledge is prohibited is simply that it would open too much opportunity for exaggeration and dishonesty if claims did not have to be logically proven and supported but could simply be "claimed". Allowing this would turn debate into arguing where he said/she said is the rule. UGH! Obviously something we wish to avoid! :)