Interpreting Resolutions

The most intimidating part of debating for the first time tends to be figuring out how to start your speech. This is especially intimidating if you are the very first speaker in a debate and have never debated before. Fortunately, there are some predictable expectations that most audiences have for how a first speaker ought to start and meeting those is not difficult. All audiences typically expect the first affirmative speaker to begin by interpreting the resolution that debaters have been asked to argue. But even this simple task might prove difficult to the beginning debater. So in this lesson we will discuss three common tactics that people include when interpreting resolutions in debate. The first tactic is to define the type of resolution. Second is defining the terms of the resolution, and finally we will explore the tactic known as parametrasizing.

There is broad agreement amongst many debate instructors that there are three distinct types of resolution. This means that for any resolution that is assigned as a topic of debate one could classify that resolution in one of three distinct categories. Resolutions of fact, resolutions of value, and resolutions of policy. In many circles these three categories have become to be known as the trichotomy. Even though there is widespread agreement, that does not mean there is a universal agreement. For instance Hilary Putnam famously wrote the collapse of the fact value dichotomy. Regardless of this significant disagreement it is useful to know the three categories of resolutions. Fact resolutions are described as those that dispute what is and what is not. For instance, the United States is headed toward another recession. This is one of the clearer examples of a factual resolution. A debater on the affirmative would do well to recognize that they are under no obligation to present a solution to this problem in order avert a recession nor do they need to provide evidence that recessions are inherently good or bad. The only burden is to simply show that the current trajectory of our economy is that of a country headed toward recession. Fact resolutions could further be divided into categorical and causal claims. A categorical resolution is a factual resolution that disputes the essential characteristics of any one thing. For instance, baseball is no longer America’s pastime this is clearly a factual resolution. But it specifically calls into question what it means to be the national pastime and whether or not baseball meets those particular standards. The arguments about whether or not Americans ought to value sports as much as they do or proposals to better regulate performance-enhancing drugs would be out of place for this resolution. Another factual resolution are causal resolutions. These dispute the cause-effect relationship between two things. Many historians engage in this type of debate arguing about what caused the Civil War or French Revolution. Scientists argue about what is causing global warming, economists argue about what caused the Great Depression. Needless to say there is a lot of value in understanding a fact resolution when you see it because it helps debaters to know what arguments they need to make and perhaps even more importantly what arguments they don’t need to make.

But when a resolution is fundamentally making a claim about the inherent worth of something then this is what is known as a value resolution. Value resolutions are typically phrased in one of two ways, first as a dispute about the inherent value of something and second as a dispute about the comparative value of something. A resolution about the inherent value of a thing sounds like “using Native American mascots for sporting events is immoral,” or “it is a personal obligation to donate to charity.” Notice that these resolutions don’t make any claim to objective reality like the factual resolutions mentioned previously. The arguments that are implicitly required for these resolutions have a decidedly different tone than a purely factual topic. Likewise there is no necessity to propose a plan to prove the resolutions true. In fact mandating that people donate to charity would actually defeat the purpose of charity in the first place. These resolutions simply claim that there is an identifiable inherent value in certain things. But value resolutions can also be phrased in terms of comparing the worth of one thing to another. For instance, cats are better pets for humanity than dogs. This is an example of comparison. There is no claim that cats are the best pets only that they are better than dogs it might also be true that dogs are very good pets just that cats are slightly better. This is important because an affirmative debater actually has a lot of flexibility when composing arguments for these comparative value resolutions. They are capable of granting significant ground and still arguing that one is better than the other even if it is only just barely.

The final type of resolution is by far the most popular in competitive debate some of the largest debate associations in America focus entirely on one policy resolution all year long. A policy resolution has at the center of contention a proposed plan of action. The affirmative argues that the plan will yield significant benefits whereas the opposition argues that there are no benefits to enacting the plan. In fact there might be significant disadvantages. Examples of policy resolutions are many, “the US should provide defensive weapons to Ukraine,” “we should raise the minimum wage,” “the UN Security Council ought to be abolished,” “guns ought to be subject to more restrictions,” and the list goes on. Any time a resolution claims that something ought to be done that is a policy resolution. Deciding what type a resolution is could be very important. But it doesn’t always clarify the topic, specifically in terms of the resolution. Take the following resolution for example, the US should increase is constructive engagement with Cuba. While this topic is easily identified as a policy topic the term constructive engagement is not immediately apparent.

It becomes necessary to define terms found in the resolution there are at least two schools of thought when it comes to defining terms. The first is to simply go through the resolution word by word and provide a definition. So for the Cuba topic, a debater might define the US as the Congress, and constructive engagement as lift the trade embargo. This is a fairly straightforward strategy when defining terms. It helps to guide the audience from the resolution to your specific advocacy. Some people even go so far as to say that plugging the definitions into the terms within the resolution ought to maintain the original meaning. For this example the resolution after definition would be that the US ought to lift the embargo with Cuba. Not every word needs to be defined as if it were a religious ceremony. For instance Cuba might never be formally defined in this debate because doing so wouldn’t really affect the arguments that either side makes. Still some people feel an obligation to offer an absolutely complete set of definitions as a way of being comprehensive. The other school of thought is to define the language of the resolution as a term of art. What is a term of art? In legal circles a term of art is a word or phrase that has special meaning in particular context. This approach to definitions allows the affirmative great latitude when defining because there may be recent developments that add context to the topic thus allowing the affirmative to define the resolution in ways that were at first not entirely predictable. If we extend the Cuba topic to this approach then the affirmative may just define constructive engagement with Cuba to mean closing the detention center in Guantanamo Bay casually known as “Gitmo.”

Mini Glossary

Parametrasize– An affirmative can choose to defend one particular instance where the resolution is true.

The word by word approach to defining terms might not come to this interpretation because decreasing US presence in Cuba might seem like the opposite of engagement. But viewing constructive engagement as a term of art allows the affirmative to explore the fact that Gitmo has been a point of contention between the two countries for a long time and closing the detention center might be very constructive to the relationship. The final tactic wort mentioning in terms of interpreting resolutions has come to be known as parametricization. This invented term basically means that an affirmative can choose to defend one particular instance where the resolution is true without needing to defend every single example that might be topical. It is derived from the word parameter which means a border or limit to something. So a debater essentially limits what material is subject to debate for the particular topic. This is a very popular tactic when the resolution is especially vague or metaphorical. If you were given the topic an apple a day keeps the doctor away is the resolution literally talking about eating habits and personal health or can it be used as a figurative statement about maintaining discipline in general. If it is more figurative in nature what is to stop someone from interpreting this resolution to mean that we ought to show consistent fiscal discipline in order to avoid financial collapse like recessions or depressions. Affirmative debaters love to exploit this vagueness for strategic benefit. But there is also academic justification for interpreting topics by way of placing parameters on them and it is known as the case study. A case study is an accepted method of academic study that attempts to answer a significant question through the analysis of a single representative example or case. This tradition easily translates to the activity of debate where people argue through the construction of cases the argument goes it is an unreasonable burden to assume that the affirmative must in the limited time that they are allotted, typically seven to eight minutes, defend any and all instances of the resolution being true. It is far more reasonable to expect the affirmative to present a debatable albeit limited case where the resolution is true. Therefore an apple a day keeps the doctor away could be interpreted to mean the US should show fiscal discipline by enacting Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. Even if the opposition presents examples where discipline in other contexts results in disadvantages, those examples would fall outside the parameters of the case study presented by the affirmative and therefore be irrelevant. Interpreting resolutions is not a daunting chore as many debaters make it out to be.

The tactics discussed here defining the type of resolution, the terms within the resolution, and using parameters strategically help to simplify the planning that goes into the first few minutes of the affirmative. Hopefully these suggestions actually motivate you to seek out the role of the first affirmative speaker in a debate.