By Rick Pecka and Michael Krupnikoff
In parliamentary debate, definitions are crucial for understanding, and pave the path to victory for both teams. At least, that’s the goal. Newer teams might not fully understand why providing definitions matter. Most notably, the first two letters of the motion: TH, standing for “this house,” which can carry considerable weight.
Whose House Is It Anyway?
So what do we mean by “this house?” In essence, this refers to the hypothetical party who could either initiate change (in a policy motion) or holds a vested interest in the topic being argued. This group or individual might believe, prefer, or regret the topic in question, and on the Government side, defining this term is absolutely crucial. As Michael mentions below, it’s about establishing perspective.
RP: When judging, if a Gov team doesn’t define “this house,” it feels like a missing piece of the puzzle to me.
MK: My take on “this house” is that this is telling the judge the perspective they should be reviewing/judging the round based upon.
For example, with the case “THBT we should bring back extinct species,” defining This House as scientists would yield a different perspective or paradigm than a businessperson. In many ways, this shapes the arguments and the round as a whole. It does put a burden on the opposition to be flexible in their contentions and prep.
“House” Rules
Let’s review the goals of both sides in a parliamentary round and how definitions play a critical role.
The Government has the burden of proof. They have to win through a preponderance of evidence, persuasion, and argumentation. In short, the arguments and information they offer must outweigh whatever the Opposition has to say. Because of this, they lay the groundwork for understanding. Therefore, they are the only ones who can offer definitions, which are intended to establish the scope for the round:
What are we arguing about?
Who is involved?
What is at stake?
Defining the terms from the motion should answer all of these questions, at least from a 10,000 foot view.
Since the Opposition doesn’t have the burden of proof, they should accept the definitions Gov provides. Unless, of course, the definitions make it difficult (if not impossible) for Opp to fairly argue.
In this case, Opp may challenge a definition, but they must provide justification for a challenge. This has to go beyond simply saying, “our opponents’ definition of ‘this house’ is abusive.” That won’t pass the smell test. One must elaborate.
That One Time it Worked (And Why)
RP: In the judges workshop, I stress that 99.9% of the time, Opp should be accepting definitions, but when I explain when a challenge is warranted, this is the example I use.
Back in 2023, we ran the following motion: “This House prefers that Ukraine pursue a negotiated peace with Russia.” In one round I judged, the Gov team defined “this house” as “the United Nations.” Sounds good on paper, right?
Opp saw it a different way. I’m paraphrasing, but here was their explanation for the challenge:
“We object to the Government’s definition of ‘this house’ as ‘the United Nations,’ because Russia is part of the U.N. Including Russia in that body creates a lopsided scale for this round, so we would like to redefine ‘this house’ as ‘NATO’ since neither Russia nor Ukraine belong to that organization.”To me, that was a fair justification and demonstrated why Gov’s definition would make it logically difficult to argue as Opp. Furthermore, Gov never objected to the reframing. They didn’t explicitly accept it, either, but without acknowledging it at all, I treated the new definition as standing for the rest of the round.
Outside of this anecdote, I’ve never heard a reasonable reframing of Gov’s definitions.MK: Unfortunately, many times I have observed Opp teams object to a Gov definition of This House because it conflicts with their preparation. This is a situation where the opp team is in the wrong. The opp team needs to work within the definitions that gov introduces UNLESS they are unarguable. In 12 years of being in CDA, I have never seen this happen. Before you make ANY objections to This House, ask yourself, “How do I adjust my contentions to address ‘this house?’”
Getting Creative
Sometimes the definition of “this house” is pretty straightforward, especially with policy motions. If the motion deals with dramatic overhauls requiring government intervention, expect to work with “the United States Federal Government” for “this house.”
However, if the words “believes that,” “prefers,” or “regrets” follow “this house,” you may be able to think outside of the box and get an extra edge for Gov while still being fair enough to Opp.
MK: In 2021, we ran the motion, “This House regrets the rise of space tourism.” My school found great success by defining “this house” as “NASA.” This is a twist that changes perspective and challenges people to think creatively. On the surface, one might think that this is an obviously abusive definition. However, if you take a moment, you can see that NASA might be very happy about the rise of space tourism. It brings attention to space which has been out of the news for a while. This in turn could increase funding or foster further innovation.
As can be seen, it allows for a more creative debate. It can be a burden on Opp to adjust “on the fly,” but that is a part of parliamentary debate. “Thinking on your feet” and making adjustments based upon arguments presented is critical. As a judge, I always found these twists and creative thinking to be refreshing and interesting.
The Road Less Traveled
October’s motion, “THBT Connecticut should make standardized testing mandatory for homeschooled students,” offered a unique opportunity to experiment with definitions. On its face, this feels like a policy motion, and the articles in the packet certainly point in that direction. With that in mind, many students would likely define “this house” as “the state of Connecticut.”
But some debaters might be bold enough to treat this as a values-based motion. It’s a gamble and potentially a big one. However, setting the standard as Gov with a fair-but-unconventional definition of “this house” could paint Opp into a corner where if they challenge, they have to bring their best foot forward, otherwise, you get into a definitional debate, which can be messy.
RP: When I first began judging, I found definitional debates fascinating as an English teacher. Now understanding the craft better, I cringe a little when it becomes clear that students will be arguing about definitions alongside contentions.
The success rate in providing unconventional definitions will always depend largely on the quality of your opponents and the capacity of your judge, neither of which you’ll have control over. But, solely as a thought experiment, here are some potential options for this particular motion:
“The Connecticut Department of Education.” This works because it comes from the perspective of the group who would enforce a mandate on standardized testing, making the round about accountability and implementation. This allows Opp equal footing because they can still effectively argue against testing as a practical benchmark.
“Connecticut taxpayers and voters.” With this, the discourse shifts from pure policy to public interest. This definition assumes that taxpayers and voters would care as community members, particularly if homeschooled children grow up to become working members of society whose education could impact their capacity for understanding. Opp still gets to work from the position of government overreach and individual freedom here, making this a fair fight.
“Connecticut employers and colleges.” Similar to the above, but now through the lens of preparation for the real world. Do homeschooled students enter the workforce or institutions of higher education fully prepared? Could standardized testing be a reasonable measuring stick? Opp can still argue other measures such as portfolios and transcripts as serving these bodies without having to admit standardized tests.
“Homeschooling parents.” This one should be reserved for truly sophisticated debaters, as it comes with the most risk. But, arguing from the position of a parent in favor of standardized testing presents a scenario in which those who choose to homeschool could see such tests as indications of legitimacy or validation for their efforts. It also protects homeschooling parents from criticism. Opp can still argue against this for all the reasons you might expect, since the word “mandatory” sets a high bar for Gov.
Risk and Reward
If you are going to be daring, you need to consider if the risk is worth the reward. Shy of a crystal ball, you’ll never know until the scores are published. Some questions to ask yourself:
Do the articles in the packet give enough flexibility to allow for a unique definition?
How can I explain the fairness of this definition in the PMC to fend off potential challenges by Opp?
Can I do all of this clearly enough to convince my judge?
One thing to consider is the fact that you don’t have to stay married to this definition all day. Split the day and try one traditional interpretation and one that’s less expected. Sometimes the best place to experiment is from the podium itself.
Rick Pecka is the coach for Fitch High School and Executive Director of the CDA.
Michael Krupnikoff is the coach for Bethel High School and Associated Executive Director of the CDA.
