Common points of vagueness include, where the debate requires it to function fairly, failing to specify: exactly what groups of people a policy applies to, the circumstances where it will be implemented, the agent who will implement the policy, or the consequences for those who resist or defy it.

Crucially, a vague definition is not an invalid definition – it just undermines the persuasiveness of OG to the degree that it is unclear exactly what they are proposing to do. The proper response from Opposition teams is to identify this vagueness and its impact on the debate, via POIs or in their speeches. Later government speakers can then provide more detail on what government plans to do (though this does not eliminate the fact that it would have been better had the Prime Minister done so). Beyond prompting requests for clarification from the opposition, or criticism from them for the policy being vague and unclear, there is nothing more that should arise from a vague definition. Opposition might choose to argue that, given that the motion has been vaguely specified, a certain reasonable consequence or interpretation might be inferred from it. But they are not permitted to ignore the definition that was made, replace it with a preferred definition of their own choice, or claim that since they haven’t defined the motion clearly, OG are committed to defending very unreasonable applications of their policy.

To the extent that a government team gains an advantage over another team because a previously vague policy has been later clarified or refined in a way that impairs their opponents ability to respond, that advantage should be taken into account by the judges.

Prime Minister: “We define this motion as allowing prisoners the right to take part in elections.”

Opposition Leader: “The Prime Minister has failed to confine this motion to adults in prison. Thus we must assume that children who are imprisoned will be allowed to vote, which is wrong as children are unfit to vote.”

Deputy Prime Minister: “That's clearly silly. Obviously child prisoners won't be allowed to vote.”

The judge should conclude: The Deputy Prime Minister is correct. The assumption made by the Opposition Leader is unreasonable and must be rejected. The OO team may be penalised for making a frivolous challenge. They certainly receive no credit for their challenge.

Prime Minister: “We define this motion as allowing prisoners the right to take part in elections.”

Opposition Leader: “The Prime Minister has failed to tell us which sorts of prisoners are allowed to vote. This definition is illegitimate because it doesn't tell us which - and that might include murderers.”

Deputy Prime Minister: “That's silly! Of course our model doesn't extend to murderers and the like, that would be completely unreasonable!”

The judge should conclude: Neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Opposition Leader are correct. There was nothing wrong with the Prime Minister's definition, it merely left the opportunity for the Opposition teams to make arguments about why allowing murderers to vote would be a bad idea. It is not obvious that murderers were excluded from Prime Minister’s definition, nor is it clear that they should be.

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
语言服务APP
Pop on

认识300个英语母语者，不怕说不好英语

上Pop On,一键呼叫母语者
扫一扫，尝鲜计划即刻起航

《英语学习》杂志

扫码订购

点击订阅