Module 3 Exercises: Motion Types
Please use an email address that you access regularly - we will use it to correspond if needed, as well as track your responses across different modules.
Please refrain from using different email addresses for the exercises in different modules, as we won't be able to uniquely identify your submissions (or in plain English, you'll look like several different people)!
Why is it important that judges understand the differences between types of motions?
For the motion 'TH, as Singapore, would end compulsory military service':
OG can validly set up a model where both Singapore and its traditional regional enemies would all demilitarise together
OO can validly argue that the Singapore government would never permit this policy to pass
The debate must be judged from the perspective and with the knowledge of the actor (Singapore)
The government teams can argue that even though this would be bad for Singaporean government officials, it would be good for other demographics in the country, which are collectively more important.
For the motion 'TH regrets the glorification of soldiers and veterans as heroes':
It is strategic for OG to explain what would have happened without the glorification of soldiers and veterans as heroes, and why that was a likely scenario.
Assuming OG does the above, OO cannot challenge this because OG has fiat in this format of debating.
CG can expand on the counterfactual OG provides, but not contradict it (with supporting reasons).
CO can also expand on the counterfactual OG provides, but they can also contradict it (with supporting reasons).
For the motion 'THBT the notion of journalistic objectivity has done more harm than good':
Neither side in the debate is required to defend any policy action to reform or increase journalistic objectivity.
If OG argues that journalistic objectivity is self-correcting because it identifies and remedies flaws in journalism, that is acceptable provided they argue how this is linked to journalistic objectivity as it has occurred.
If OO concedes that the most important facet of good/harm is the reliability of news and journalism, then CO cannot argue that the effect of journalistic objectivity elsewhere in society is actually the most important issue in the round.
It is a valid but unwise strategy for opposition to argue that journalistic objectivity has produced exactly the same amount of harm and good.
For the motion 'THW subsidise feminist pornography':
It is a relatively good strategy for opposition to argue that, regardless of OG's definitions or model, pornography is inherently anti-feminist so the motion falls.
It is a relatively good strategy for opposition to argue that this would lead to massive backlash from socially conservative countries.
Even though not explicitly included in the motion, prop has the fiat to defend a policy in which a representative body of feminist leaders decide on what constitutes feminist pornography.
It is a relatively good strategy for opposition to argue that the money would be better spent producing a COVID-19 vaccine.
For the motion 'THBT ASEAN should transform itself into a political union':
Prop does not have fiat to decide what type of political union ASEAN would be transformed into.
Prop does not have fiat to expand the type of union ASEAN would be transformed into (e.g. including massive economic integration).
Prop does have fiat to presume that the ASEAN countries would consent to this change.
The debate is wholly about what is good for ASEAN and its constituent member states.
Send me a copy of my responses.
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.
Terms of Service