世辩赛权威发布：

2016希腊世辩赛发布了全球BP赛制最新规则解释与辩手裁判守则，对BP赛事中常见的一些争议问题和灰色规则进行了明确的定义和阐释。

外研社思辨精英平台将为大家带来BP新规中对于常见辩题类型的解析及案例（第二部分-辩手守则）。

如果你不知道BP比赛里都有哪些类型的辩题，或者拿到辩题后常常不知从何下手，请速马。

↓↓↓

There is no hard and fast rule on what the opening words of motions tell us about, but here are some general guidelines：

1、This House would [do X]   

● Motions of the form “This House would [do X]” almost always involve Government enacting some sort of policy, X – a concrete course of action that they wish to convince the judges should be implemented.

● Such motions are about whether the House should do X – with Government teams arguing that they should and Opposition teams arguing that they should not. These debates are NOT about whether the entity the House represents (usually but not always state governments) will do the policy in question in the real world, or whether they are doing the policy at present.

● As such, it is NEVER a valid line of opposition to such motions to state that “but the government would never do this” or, more subtly, “but politicians would never pass this law”. For the purposes of the debate, the Government teams are that government and the politicians that make it up, and the debate is about whether they should or should not do a policy, not whether their real world counterparts will or will not.

● Motions that open “This House would, as [A], do [X]” are somewhat special. These motions are more specific about the entity (A) doing (X) and so invite a closer examination of the perspective of the entity about what they should do, with all teams arguing from actor A’s perspective.

● So if, for example, the motion is “This House would, as Turkey, intervene in the Syrian Civil War”, this debate should take place from the perspective of Turkey, as both the proposed agent to intervene in the Syrian Civil War and the proposed target of argumentative appeals. By contrast, if the motion is “This House believes that Turkey should intervene in the Syrian Civil War”, the motion does not take place solely from the perspective of Turkey – instead, the debaters are simply trying to convince the judges of the truth of the statement. In this latter debate arguments that proceed on the basis of a prioritization of Turkey’s interests over others need to justify that prioritization.

● To put it in the language of the ordinary intelligent voter, in the former type of motions, the ordinary intelligent voter takes up the position of Turkey in deciding what to do. This doesn’t strictly rule in or out certain arguments or appeals to the debate – the ordinary intelligent voter imagining themselves as Turkey is still an ordinary intelligent voter, and can, as Turkey, be persuaded by various moral appeals, predicted consequences, claims about Turkey’s key interests, and so forth. But the arguments of the sides in the debate, and the burdens they need to prove, are orientated around actor A – and a team cannot plausibly stand up and say “Turkey should intervene in the Syrian Civil War, because it will be very good for American businesses”, without explaining why what is good for American businesses ought to be a reason for Turkey to do something.

● Motions that open “This House believes that [X]” generally do not involve Government enacting a policy, but instead require Government teams to argue for the truth of the statement represented by X, whilst Opposition teams argue that X is false.

● Governments could still offer a policy as a manifestation of their belief in X – for example, if the motion is “This House believes that all individuals are entitled to a minimum standard of living”, Government could productively specify a policy they would enact to provide for this entitlement. Some “believes that” motions are more explicitly about policies, including motions of the formulation “This House believes that [actor A] should [do action X]”.

4、  This House supports/regrets [Z]       

● Motions that open “This House supports/regrets [Z]” also usually need not involve Government proposing a policy (though again, they may choose to do so). Instead, the Government teams need to argue that they would either symbolically, politically, materially or in some other manner support the person, group, institution, cause, idea, value, or statement expressed by Z. Opposition need to argue that Z should not be supported in that way.