LESSON 5.

ANALYZING THE CONTROVERSY

INTRODUCTION

As a debater, it is important that you analyze the proposition and the area of controversy from which it is drawn.
A case in point, when a chemist analyzes a compound, he or she breaks it down to its most basic elements to
identify its makeup. Correspondingly, as a debater, you must break the proposition down into its component parts,
define the terms of the proposition, and then identify the issues involved. Words or terms in the proposition must
be defined within the context of the proposition.

Learning outcomes: At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:

a. display an in-depth understanding of defining terms in debate and recognize its

importance;
b. define important terms in a debate; and
c. identify/explore issues/stock issues in propositions.

PRE-ACTIVITY
In the proposition, RESOLVED, that Balikatan exercise should be revoked in the Philippines.
As a debater, could you defined Balikatan exercise without knowing its context? Can you define it based on
etymology alone?

CONTENT FOCUS AND INTERACTION

(SOURCE: FREELEY, A.J. and STEINBERG, D.L. (n.d.). Argumentation and Debate Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, 12th Ed. WADSWORTH
CENGAGE Learning.)

A. The definition of terms is an essential part of debate. Debaters need to be trained to understand the
importance of this so that they can enhance their communication and persuasion. In some instances, the
opposing advocates will agree right away on the definition of terms, and the debate will move on to other
issues. In other cases, the focus of the debate may be the definition of a key term or terms, and definitions
become the “voting issue” that decides the debate. In all debates, however, a shared understanding of the
interpretation of the proposition is necessary to guide argumentation and decision making.

Methods of Defining Terms

1. Example. Giving an example is an effective method of defining terms.

Example: Resolved: That playing online games is detrimental to the development of children.

“An example of an online game would be Mobile Legends.”

2. Common Usage. Common usage is the everyday meaning of the term, or “common person” or “person
on the street” definition. To qualify as common usage, a term must be commonly understood across
lines of gender, age, and culture.

Example: Resolved: That playing online games is detrimental to the development of children.

“We define children as individuals who are under the age of 18.”

3. Authority. Some terms may be defined most effectively by referring to an authority qualified to state
their meaning and usage. Dictionaries, encyclopedias, and books and articles by recognized scholars
are often used as authority for a particular definition.

Example: Resolved: That playing online games is detrimental to the development of children

“According to technopedia, an online game is…..”

 4. Operation. Some terms are best defined if the debaters (affirmative side) provides an operational
definition and explains the function or special purpose represented by the terms in a specific context.

Example: Resolved: That playing online games is detrimental to the development of children.

“Online games for us is any game that is played on an electronic device.”

5. Negation. A term may be defined effectively by indicating what it does not mean.

Example: Resolved: That playing online games is detrimental to the development of children.

“When we speak of online games, we are not talking about educational games Rather, we are
speaking of violent games such as Conan Exiles”.

6. Comparison and Contrast. Some terms may be best understood if they are compared to something
familiar to the audience or contrasted with something within the common experience of the audience.

7. Derivation. One of the standard methods of defining words is to trace their development from their
original, or radical, elements.

Thus, in a debate on fair employment practices, it would be possible to define the word prejudice by
pointing out that the word derived from the Latin words prae and judicium, meaning “before judgment.”

8. Combination of Methods. Most propositions of debate contain several terms that must be defined,
hence, no single method is likely to be satisfactory for the definition of all of the terms. If any term is
particularly difficult to define, or if it is of critical importance in the debate, the debaters may use more
than one method of definition to make the meaning clear.

Some Criteria to Prove a Satisfactory Definition of Terms

 Prove that your definition is officially stipulated or agreed as the correct one for this resolution.
The definition of the term is universally accepted in the scientific community.

 Prove that your definition is grammatically correct. You must prove that your definition considers
all the terms of the proposition and that none of the terms is redundant or contradictory.

 Prove that your definition is derived from the appropriate field. Many propositions contain
specialized terms. If the subject is nuclear weapons, you must prove that your definition is the one used
by nuclear physicists. If the subject is marijuana as medicine, make sure that your definition is the one
used by medical experts.

 Prove that your definition is based on common usage. Because debate is a public activity, you must
be able to prove that your definition is consistent with the common usage of the general public.

 Prove that your definition is consistent with policy makers’ or value makers’ usage. You must
prove that your definition is consistent with the usage of the makers of policy and value in the public
forums.

 Prove that your definition provides a clear distinction between what legitimately fits within the
definition and what is excluded by the definition. It is important that definitions clearly distinguish
between affirmative ground and negative ground.

B. Exploring the Issues

Issues are the critical claims inherent in the proposition that the affirmative must establish. They may also be
thought of as places where groups of arguments meet or points of clash subordinate to the proposition. Issues
also suggest checklists or categories of arguments to be addressed by the participants in a debate or
argumentative situation.
Stock issues are sometime referred to as on-case arguments or simply on-case or case arguments.
Example in a courtroom debate, if the proposition before the court was “Resolved: That John Doe
murdered Richard Roe,” in most jurisdictions the issues would be:
1. Richard Roe is dead.
2. John Doe killed Richard Roe.
3. John Doe killed Richard Roe unlawfully.
4. John Doe killed Richard Roe following premeditation.
5. John Doe killed Richard Roe with malice.

Similarly, in academic debate, proposition of fact or value are drawn from the two basic elements of
the affirmative case: definition and designation.

1. Definitive issues

1. Definitive Issues
a. Definitions
b. Criteria

2. Designative Issues
a. Correspondence
b. Application

a. What are the definitions of the key terms? The terms in the proposition must be defined in
order to establish an interpretation of the proposition itself. This will necessarily include
definition of the value(s) directly or indirectly identified as points of controversy.

b. What are the criteria for the values (or for interpretation of definitions)? The values provide
the points of clash for the debate, but in order to consider competing values, criteria or devices
for measurement of the values must be provided.

2. Designative issues

a. Do the facts correspond to the definitions? Examples provided in support of or in

opposition to the proposition are relevant only in as much as they are defined.

b. What are the applications of the values? At this point, debaters must apply the criteria to the
facts presented are relevant to the definition of the terms; examples should be consistent with
the definitions and interpretations that are provided.

Example: “Resolved: That watching television is more detrimental than beneficial to children.

 What are the definitions of the key terms? We will surely define watching television and
children.

 What are the criteria by which to define the value terms detrimental and beneficial? As we
consider the application of the values, we may discover additional issues. The affirmative
might argue that “detrimental” applies to academic performance whereas beneficial may
apply to entertainment. The negative side might argue that the application of the values limits
the children in terms of good and best media tool for education or learning. With no other
best and accessible media tools for learning, the parents would have to find other best and
accessible media tools for learning. Thus, the parents’ supervision becomes the arbiter of
watching television.

The stock issues for the proposition of policy are drawn from the three basic elements of the
affirmative case: harm, inherency, and solvency.

1. Harm - The harm issue addresses existing evil in our world. We would not act to implement change
unless we are convinced that there is a cost to not acting.
 a. Does a compelling problem exist in the status quo?
b. Is the problem quantitatively important? (how many people are affected?)
c. Is the problem qualitatively important? (what is the nature of the problem?)

2. Inherency - The inherency issue considers the likelihood that the absent of our positive action, the
harm will continue.

a. Are the causes of the problem built into the laws, attitudes, and/or structures of the status quo?
b. Absent a significant change in policy action, is the problem likely to continue?

3. Solvency - The issue of solvency considers the proposed solution and focuses on policy
comparison.

a. Is there a workable plan of action?

b. Does the plan solve the problem?
c. Does the plan produce advantages?
d. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages?

Additional reading material

http://www.csgwest.org/legislativeacademy/documents/PolicyControversyAnalysis.pdf