A ‘squirrel’ is an invalid definition of a motion. A definition is only invalid in one of two circumstances：

The first is if it is literally inconsistent with the words of the actual motion that was set. If, for example, the motion is “This House would place tolls on all roads” and OG suggest they would place tolls only on major motorways, this is clearly invalid, since the motion specifically says “all roads”. Such blatant deviations from the motion are uncommon.

The second circumstance that leads to a definition being invalid is where it excludes a large number of cases to which the literal reading of the motion would appear to apply, whether by caveating them out, or narrowly setting the policy to catch only a small number or certain type of those cases. Such definitions may seriously unbalance the debate to the advantage of Government. For example, if the motion is “This House would use community service as a punishment in place of prisons”, and the Government bench states that it will only do this for young non-violent offenders, this is a severe restriction of the motion, excluding the considerable majority of cases to which a literal reading of the motion (which mentioned no limits to specific categories of prisoner) would seem to apply.

A common form of squirrelling is called ‘place-setting’ – where the motion is restricted to one particular location (such as the United States of America, or European capital cities). Worlds is an international tournament, and such narrow place-setting is prohibited – motions should be assumed to apply to at least the bulk of the world’s states unless the motion specifies otherwise. However, many motions may be considerably more relevant in some states than others: for example, if the motion is “This House would allow citizens to sell their votes to others”, this is only going to have application in states that are minimally democratic, and OG may specify this without being accused of place-setting.

A much less common form of squirrelling is ‘time-setting’ – setting a motion in some particular time. For example, if the motion is “This House would allow abortion”, OG cannot define the debate as being about whether the judges in the key US case of Roe v Wade should have reached the decision they did at the time of that case. Unless directly implied by the motion, time-setting is also an invalid definition of a motion, and motions should be set in the present day. However, proposing a specific time scale for a motion does not constitute time-setting provided it keeps implementation reasonably close to the present day. So saying “we will allow a two year transition period for businesses to adapt to the proposed changes our policy creates before we proceed to full implementation” is legitimate, whereas saying “we believe this policy should eventually be implemented, perhaps in one or two decades, once all countries will have fully harmonized to its requirements” is not.

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

世辩赛BP新规|辩手守则-定义篇（上）

世辩赛BP新规|辩手守则-定义篇（中）

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