2016年初，希腊世辩赛发布了15-16年全球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。 

以下外研社思辨精英平台将为大家带来BP新规中对于定义相关的解析与案例（上）（第二部分-辩手守则）：

Debates are about the motion as defined by OG, not about what other debaters or judges in the room thought the words in the motion meant. The definition forms the subject matter of the debate. If the motion “This House would privatize education” is defined as “making all universities independent companies”, (a fair definition) then that is what the debate is about for the remainder of the eight speeches. Teams would still be entitled to make general arguments against privatization (e.g. “privatization of all public services is bad”) provided that those are still relevant to the model. General arguments, like any arguments, must give the judge reasons to support or oppose the policy. To the extent to which they do so, they are successful. In many cases, the motion itself is sufficient to “define the debate”. On the other hand, other motions may be usefully defined in a number of ways, producing different legitimate debates.

Debaters should debate at the level of generality implied in the motion. It is legitimate for OG to exclude anomalous examples (“we’re banning cosmetic surgery like the motion says, but not for burns victims”). It is not legitimate to include only anomalous examples (“we’re banning cosmetic surgery like the motion says, but only for children”). If adjudication cores wish a debate to be narrowed down in some specific and radical way, they will state this in the motion. 

Motion for the debate. They usually consist of a short explanatory paragraph about the motion. They can serve several purposes, from simple clarifications of words in the motion to giving context and relevant information about potential issues in the debate.

The extra information does not alter the motion. Think of it as an additional page of information in the resources (or matter file) of all teams at the tournament. Just like any other facts or claims a team may want to rely on, they must be proved and justified and may be disputed. Adjudication cores tend to avoid including anything that may be seriously contestable within topic slides to avoid confusion.

Where the extra information comes in the form of a definition of a word or term in the motion, it should be read only as if it were an agreed dictionary definition of that term. Its inclusion does not change the usual roles, rules and responsibilities with respect to defining the motion.

世辩赛权威发布BP新规解释与辩手裁判守则系列：

英辩资讯|世辩赛权威发布：BP规则最新说明-精华摘要之赛事规则篇

英辩资讯|世辩赛权威发布：BP规则最新说明-精华摘要之辩手守则篇

【英辩资讯】面对不同类型辩题，世辩赛教你见招拆招

宏辞论道，纵横天下

————————————

思辨精英：china_debate

外研社和沃动联合推出
思辨训练APP

Pop on

在pop on上一键呼叫
找到各路思辨高手，探讨辩论技巧