The better I got at manipulating stands and definitions to my advantage the more I realized it was possible to create an argument that was impossible to destroy. Before you start jumping up and asking me how this can be done allow me to elaborate further.
An argument that cannot be argued (paradoxical, isn't it?) is known as a truism. In international level debates using a truistic argument is illegal. You get kicked out immediately.
At interschool level, however, most have no idea that such an argument exists.
I'm not sure that's such a good idea.
Alright, alright. Truisms aren't something you can pull off with every topic - in fact it is very, very rare. If you define a topic to be true by definition you are using a truism. An example?
Motion: Australia is an island.
Truistic Definition: An island is a mass of land surrounded by water, therefore Australia is an island.
The only truism I've seen at interschool level was used by Kolej Abdillah against St Mary's in 2005. We Thomians had actually prepared the exact same argument, but we drew Government and couldn't use it.
Motion: The best things in life are free.
Truistic Definition: Free is defined as having no form of exchange, monetary or otherwise; therefore the best things in life are not free because everything is a form of exchange.
And they went on to win after proving nothing is free (how ironic). Is it possible to defeat such a definition? I'm not too sure - though if I were in the Marian team I'll proclaim every few seconds that the motion assumes the existence of 'free', and then proceed to use an advanced debating technique called 'conditionalizing the truism'.
It is a technique I have no confidence in, nor any experience with.
I'd like to see truisms made illegal. If you're reading this don't you dare use one if the opportunity arises.
For my sake, at least. ;P
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Advanced Debating-lah: Truisms
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Let's use truism while we can;
c'mon, lah....we're Malaysians bah...
ur insidious 2nd voice,
Retired.
I am against it ... on principle.
But it's pretty cool, isn't it?
but truism is the one way u can win!!!
(btw, why ur comments keeps asking me to key in word verification? so ma fan ler?)
Okay, I'll get rid of it for you. Haiz. Times like this make me hate Blogger.
Ur previous post sounds so intimidating. That's why I don't do debate... I'm not good at rebuttal. lol. Btw, yeah the header was created using Photoshop.
Wow. I have too much to learn about PS.
And sorry if it was intimidating. I didn't realize that was the tone it gave. :S
I love truisms... if the opponent uses it, then can whack them hard with it!
I used to be known as Bastard#2 --- I was the second speaker but I rebutted more than I gave arguments, haha.
When adjudicating, what annoys me the most is when one team squirrels and the other continues on their merry way. If they do it right, they'd be arguing their own points while rebutting the opponent's... times TWO!
Marking two complete debates running concurrently does not put the adjudicator in a happy mood, I'll tell you that... Grrr...
Cedric, i'm not sure whether or not this would work but if i were in the government side in the motion the best things in life are free, facing an opposition which used a truism, i guess i would have played around with the "best things" definition. Perhaps give it an abstract definition rather than a physical one. Cedric,in the example that you gave, the second speaker of the Goverenment would have to define "exchange" which was borught up by the opposition if they wanted a chance to win. Wouldn't tht be cool, giving a definition to a definition. :)
-KOBE-
@Kenny Mah - yeah - that CAN be tough on adjudicators, especially if there's no real clash. But that's what definition debates are for, right? Arguing over what the scope of the debate actually is rather than debating points itself...
@Kobe (ARE YOU RAVIN?) - Defining their definition would mean some degree of acceptance of their def ... which doesn't bode well for us.
Naah ... I'd more likely scream bloody murder and lose. Just can't think of a way out of it.
yeah, truism actually works in interschool. we went against a team using a truistic case. they won
*cough*bastardmotion*cough*
You have to remember: when I wrote this, and back then when I was still debating, NOBODY knew what a truism was. Except probably St Thom, but then again Orlnda was never a normal debate teacher.
You know, I've just read over my old debate posts, and I realize just how arrogant I sounded.
God.
Lemme go squash that debater ego somewhere ...
Post a Comment