Motions in the WUDC format

Freeley and Steinberg (2005) define the motion as “a statement of judgment that identifies the central issue in a debate” (p. 472). Similarly to other formats of academic debate, motions are also phrased following certain conventions in the WUDC format. Here, the motion will usually begin with the words “this house”⁷ and subsequently specify what the opening team in the debate will need to argue for. In the English as a Second Language (ESL) grand final, for example, the motion before

7 Traditionally, “this house” refers to the Houses of Parliament in the Westminster, that is, the debate supposedly takes place between Her Majesty’s government and her loyal opposition (Stris, 1996). In the 1990s, it was therefore quite common for debaters to address each other as “Honourable Members”,

the house was phrased the following way: “This house supports scientists who fabricate evidence exaggerating certainty of man-made climate change where there is low likelihood of being caught.”

The topics covered by WUDC motions tend to focus the internationality of the tournament (Flynn, 2006). Accordingly, in the previous years attendees of the WUDC have debated issues dealing with the European Union (e.g., “This house believes the EU should open its doors to North Africa.”), Japan (e.g., “This house would give Japan a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.”), Iraq (e.g., “This house supports the creation of an independent state for the Iraqi Kurds.”), or Canada (e.g., “This house supports independence for Quebec.”).

Motions in the WUDC format are usually differentiated from each other based on the scope they leave for interpretation to the individual teams. Based on this, one may talk about (a) closed, (b) open, and (c) semi-closed motions (Meany & Shuster, 2002, p. 32). Firstly, closed motions will specify exactly what the opening team has to argue for. For example, the motion “This house believes that countries where assisted suicide is illegal should prosecute those who assist others that travel abroad to receive euthanasia.” is relatively closed in so far as apart from the expression “assist others,” it is largely specific in what it requires the opening team to argue for. On the other hand, open motions are characterized by the feature that they place relatively few constraints on the opening team. For instance, the motion “This house believes that size does matter.” is one such example. In this case, the opening team may decide to argue for a range of topics, from the enlargement of the European Union, through the optimal size of the government, to the size of hamburgers served at McDonald’s.

Between the two extremes, semi-closed motions tend to place some constraints on interpretation but considerably less than in the case of closed motions. For example,

the motion “This house believes that civil liberties must be restricted in the interest of security.” does outline the general idea the opening team must argue for; however, it is still open to interpretation exactly which civil liberty should be restricted in which security interest. Teams debating this motion may debate whether the freedom of expression should be limited in a way that defamation of religion should be outlawed;

however, debating the provisions of the Patriot Act ("USA PATRIOT Act," 2001) would be an equally viable interpretation of the motion.

Because the aim of the interpretation is to provide for a fair and equal debate between the two sides, a number of rules constrain the formulation of plans (Flynn, 2006): (a) “the plan must have a clear link to the motion”, (b) “the plan must not be self-proving”, (c) “the plan must not be time set”, and (d) “the plan must not be place set unfairly.”

The first rule stipulates that there must be a clear and direct link between the motion announced and the plan that is run by the Opening Government team (Flynn, 2006). For example, if the motion in front of the house is “This house believes that we don’t need no education,” then the Prime Minister may not decide to focus the debate around the plan that “Western liberal states should legalize soft drugs,” as it would not result in a fair debate because the other three teams participating in the round had spent their preparation time preparing for a different topic.

The second rule pertaining to definitions is that they cannot be self-proving (Flynn, 2006). A definition is self-proving under two circumstances: (a) if it is truistic or (b) if it proposes the status quo and no reasonable responses exist. Firstly, a truistic definition, then, is one that is (virtually) impossible to debate because it leaves so little space for arguments on the negative side. For example, in the motion “This house believes that nationalism is a force for evil,” defining “force for evil” as “may

cause people harm or distress” would force the negative into an impossible situation and thus result in a very one-sided debate as it would be enough for the Opening Government to highlight one case in human history where a person has suffered harm or distress as a result of a manifestation of nationalism. Secondly, a status quo definition is one in which the Opening Government team is proposing to undertake an action that is already being done. For example, in the motion “This house believes that the freedom of expression should be limited,” defining the motion as “The state should censor national security documents” is already happening. (This does not, however, necessarily mean that all status quo definitions are automatically unacceptable. For example, whether the European Union should have a common currency is still a debated issue.)

The third rule that governs the scope of definitions in the debate round is that they cannot be time set (Flynn, 2006). Flynn (2006) further explains this rule as “the debate must take place in the present and that the definition cannot set the debate in the past or the future”. The following plan is, therefore, unacceptable:

It is 1945. The USA and Japan are locked in brutal struggles throughout the Pacific. This debate will examine the final stages of the war and the proposition will argue that the USA should not use atomic bombs on Japanese cities. The judge will evaluate the debate from the perspective of the decision-maker at the time, President Harry Truman.

The [government teams], as noted, will argue against the use of the atomic bombs. The [opposition] side should take the role of Truman’s military and political advisers who favoured the use of these devices.

No material information revealed after August 1945 should be permitted in the debate. (Meany & Shuster, 2002, p. 100)

The last rule that constrains the Open Government’s right to define the motion is that the debate may not be place set unfairly (Flynn, 2006). In other words, the geographical focus of the plan should not be so narrow so as to exclude other debaters from meaningful participation in the round. This usually tends to happen when Opening Government teams wish to restrict the discussion to one particular country (usually their own), which would make it impossible for the other debaters in the round to participate in a fair debate, for lack of knowledge about the geopolitical, financial, or other peculiarities of the given country or region.