The first speaker for the affirmative must define any key terms in the debate topic so that everyone knows what exactly the debate will be about. This is not an opportunity to try and define the debate in a way which advantages your team. Rather, you must provide a sensible, logical and easy-to-understand interpretation of the parameters of the debate. It can be a good idea to take a dictionary (or even better, an ‘encyclopaedic’ dictionary) into a debate.

For example, in the debate “That we should abolish homework”, the key terms would be “abolish” and “homework”. A very narrow definition of “homework” as “work done in the home, so teachers could still give students work to do and insist it is done outside, in a car, or at a library” would be unreasonable, because this is not what an average, sensible and intelligent person on the street would consider to be “homework”.

You goal should always be to provide the most reasonable definition possible. Providing a definition is an obligation that the affirmative team must fulfil. The purpose is to provide a context for the debate and to determine the parameters of what will be argued: it is not an opportunity to land a cheap blow against the negative team (or vice versa if the affirmative team fails to provide a definition).

If more than one definition is proposed (this is called a definitional challenge and a real one will be very rare) then the adjudicator will always accept the most reasonable definition that has been provided as the ‘proper’ definition for the debate. This is to ensure that the debate is conducted fairly and with good sportsmanship. However, even if you disagree with the opposition’s definition, you must still respond to their arguments during rebuttal by arguing in the alternative.

For example: “We disagree with how the opposition has defined ‘homework’. However, even if we were to accept their definition, their arguments are flawed because…”

What constitutes a ‘reasonable’ definition? The answer to this question will be found in the situation surrounding the debate, and what makes the most sense given the social, cultural, and/or political context of the moment. This question of context will be very important when determining what the focus of the debate should be, and how you will define it. Think about:

• What events have happened recently?
• What issues have been in the news?
• What is happening in Australia right now?
• What is happening elsewhere in the world right now?

Definitional Challenges

As explained above, definitional challenges should only be used in extreme circumstances. However, if you feel that a definitional challenge is appropriate in a certain circumstance, there is a process you should follow.

A definitional challenge should only ever be launched by the first negative speaker near the very start of their speech. This job cannot be left to second speaker. In order to do so, the first negative speaker should following these steps:

1.State why the definition is unreasonable

You simply need to state the grounds on which you disagree with their definition because it is unreasonable and intend to challenge it. This identifies to the adjudicator unambiguously that a definitional challenge will take place.

2.Explain why the definition is unreasonable

Explain why an average, reasonable person would not think of this when given the topic. You need to give tangible reasons to support your claim of unreasonableness. Your explanation should be clear, logical and supported by analysis and evidence.

3.State an alternative definition

Always clearly state your alternative. In doing so, you must also explain why your option is a more reasonable alternative.

.

4. Argue “Even If…”

After you have made a challenge it is up to the adjudicator to decide which definition is the most reasonable. This means that, while you disagree on their definition, you must still engage with the other team’s argument. As a result, you need to rebut and respond to their arguments just as you normally would.

This can be done by saying: “Even if we were to accept the other team’s definition, they would still be wrong because their argument is…only of marginal significance…etc…”

The worst mistake a team can make is to ignore the opposing arguments once they make a definitional challenge. Failing to do this can still cost you the debate, as you won’t know the adjudicator’s decision until after the debate.

The other side: Responding to the challenge

If a definitional challenge is launched against you as an affirmative team by the negative and you strongly disagree with it (as is almost certainly the case), you should not ignore their challenge. The affirmative team should:

• Defend their definition by explaining why it is more reasonable;
• In rebuttal, attack the opposing definition as being unreasonable; and
• Deal with opposing arguments with the ‘even if’ model discussed above.