Both teams argue their side of this point equally persuasively.

Theory Questions

Please delete all answers except your choice.

1. The motion is: THW Ban all prisoners from voting.

First proposition argue that prisoners are generally bad people and will vote for immoral

policies. First opposition neither agree nor disagree with first proposition’s claim that

prisoners will vote for immoral policies. Instead, first opposition claim that prisoners have a

fundamental right to vote, regardless of whether or not prisoners vote for immoral policies.

Second opposition’s extension speaker argues that first proposition are wrong and that

prisoners will vote for moral policies if given the chance. He makes NO mention of rights

during his speech. During his speech, the Prime Minister offers a POI, which is accepted.

The Prime Minister claims that second opposition has just ‘knifed’ (contradicted) the team

in first opposition.

Which of these is true?

a. It’s not a knife. Second opposition have added another line of attack against the

proposition case.

b. It is a knife, but it’s too late to point this out. Knife calls can only come in the first

two teams (‘top half’) of BP debating.

c. It depends. If second proposition’s summary speaker makes reference to the knife

in her speech, then you can declare that there has been a knife. Otherwise, no.

d. The motion is irredeemably flawed as it asks first proposition to affirm the status

quo. Under such circumstances, the judge should attempt to rebalance the motion’s

fairness and give special consideration for the position the opposition teams were

in. It was a knife, but it was a forgivable one.

2. The motion is: THW Ban all private healthcare.

First proposition argue that banning all private healthcare would be beneficial as it would

decrease inequality. First opposition concede that inequality in healthcare is bad but argue

that this policy will only reduce inequality to some extent rather than entirely. Inequalities,

they explain, will still exist.

Both teams argue their side of this point equally persuasively.

Which of these best describes your reaction to this exchange?

a. First opposition must come fourth in the debate, as their concession of inequality

as problematic surrenders the philosophical debate. It is a structural squirrel3 which

must be heavily penalised.

Definition: A ''squirrel'' is an invalid definition of a motion.

b. On this particular point, first opposition are winning as their response defeats the

proposition argument.

c. On this particular point, it’s a complete tie. Both sides can claim credit for their

contributions, but neither is in any way winning this particular issue at this point in

time.

d. On this particular point, the opposition argument mitigates the proposition argu-

ment but does not defeat it entirely.

3. The motion is: THBT The state should pay for cosmetic surgery.

First proposition offer a model under which states should give any cosmetic procedure for

free to any of its citizens above the age of twelve.

The leader of the opposition accuses the proposition of squirreling on two counts. Firstly,

the model proposed does not give cosmetic surgery to foreigners or children which are

clearly examples of the state paying for plastic surgery. Secondly, the model does not

make clear how the state will raise money for the scheme. Nonetheless, the leader of

opposition argues, the opposition will debate the motion as proposed.

Which of these is true?

a. This definition was not a squirrel. The leader of the opposition was wrong to com-

plain.

b. This definition was not quite a squirrel, though it was clearly not in the spirit of the

motion. The leader of the opposition did the right thing in complaining about the

debate but debating it nonetheless.

c. The motion is a squirrel, but only for the first reason listed above.

d. The motion is a squirrel for both of the reasons above taken together.

4. The motion is THBT: The Middle East should be a nuclear-free zone.

Second opposition’s summation speaker suggests that the Palestinian Authority currently

possesses a large nuclear arsenal, which it must preserve for its own defence. This sugges-

tion has not appeared yet in the debate, though second opposition’s extension has made

ample reference to the fact that many non-state actors would benefit from possessing

nuclear weapons.

What should the judge do?

a. Give the argument no credit. Unfortunately, new examples are not allowed in sum-

mation speeches.

b. Give the argument no credit. An average intelligent voter would find this argument

completely false.

c. Give the argument partial credit. This is a new argument, but it should have been

anticipated by the other side, so they are also to blame if they failed to address the

issue.

d. Give the argument full credit. As it is a new line of analysis rather than a discrete

argument, the summation speaker has brought to light an important example and

deserves credit for it.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16