Analyzing a Resolution
When it comes to academic debate, the topic to be debated is what’s known as the resolution. For instance:
Sample Policy Debate Resolution
Resolved: The European Union should substantially reform its immigration policy.
Sample Value Debate Resolution
Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.
They always begin with the word “resolved,” as if they were being presented as a piece of legislation.
Identifying the Affirmative and Negative Positions
An academic debate consists of two opposing sides, typically called the affirmative and negative (though some particular debate styles use other terms). Sometimes these sides have two debaters each (e.g., Policy Debate), sometimes only one (e.g., Value Debate), and sometimes it varies. Regardless of the number of debaters or what the different sides are called, the first step in analyzing a resolution is to identify what the affirmative and negative positions are. Often the affirmative position is stated in the resolution itself, and the negative position is its inverse. For instance:
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of creating the United States Space Force outweigh the harms.
Affirmative Position: On balance, the benefits of creating the United States Space Force outweigh the harms.
Negative Position: On balance, the harms of creating the United States Space Force outweigh the benefits.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States.
Affirmative Position: The United States federal government should substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States.
Negative Position: The United States federal government should not substantially increase its protection of water resources in the United States.
Identifying Limiting Terms
Once you have a clear picture of what the two positions are in the debate, it’s important to identify any limiting terms in the resolution. For the sake of having a focused discussion, the resolution limits the boundaries of the debate. You don’t want to start an argument about the benefits of the International Monetary Fund, and then find moments later that you’ve wandered into debating the pros and cons of low-frequency active sonar technology. Such wandering dialogues are not as productive as ones that remain focused, and the resolution provides that focal point for us.
In addition to the general topic in the resolution itself, the resolution may also contain certain limiting terms that help to constrain the debate even further. For instance, in the sample policy debate resolution above, we’re limiting the debate to discussion of the immigration policy of the European Union, not the United States or any other country. In the sample value debate resolution, we’re only concerned with civil disobedience, not, e.g., rioting, and only concerned with it taking place in a democracy, not under any other form of government. These limiting terms are important to identify so we know what exactly we are, and are not, talking about.
Defining Terms
Once you have a good idea of the boundaries the resolution is setting for the debate, you want to make those boundaries as clear as possible by defining your terms. Confusion abounds and you fail to achieve a meeting of the minds when people converse holding alternate definitions of shared vocabulary. If you’re using the same words, but meaning different things by them, the conflict in the debate won’t be focused on the ideas at play, and you’ll instead wind up just talking past each other. Take time to identify any key terms in the resolution and look up definitions for them.
What’s Next?
Now that you’re finally completely clear on the boundaries of the debate to be had, the next step is to dig into research. Don’t worry about constructing an affirmative or negative case just yet. Before you form your arguments on either side, you need to spend some time digging into the topic itself. Check out Conducting Research for where to look and how to catalogue what you find. Once you’ve marinated in the topic for a while, you can then start to figure out what kind of arguments you might make on either side.
Applications Outside Academic Debate
So far all that we’ve talked through here has been in the context of academic debate; however, the same principles apply in any conversation with some clash or disagreement at its heart. You want to:
Be clear what the topic at hand is, and what the opposing viewpoints are.
Clearly dilineate between what you are and are not talking about.
Ensure you come to an understanding on the meanings of the terms you’re using.
Failure to do so is a recipe for frustration and confusion. Here’s a recommendation from the world of contract negotiation: “Spend about 30 seconds saying what you need to say, and then the next 30 minutes clarifying what you didn’t mean by that.”