Motions and Definitions
A motion is a question in disguise. Before a team can argue, it has to decide what the words mean, what the debate is really about and what ground both sides can reasonably share. This page teaches that work.
Read the motion closely
Most motions contain a key term, a scope and a direction. “That schools should ban mobile phones during class time” contains a subject (schools), an action (ban), an object (mobile phones) and a boundary (during class time). Change any one of these and the debate changes.
| Part | Question | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Subject | Who is acting? | Schools. |
| Action | What is proposed? | Ban. |
| Object | What is affected? | Mobile phones. |
| Scope | When or where? | During class time. |
| Direction | Is the motion for or against? | For the ban. |
Turn the motion into a question
Rewriting the motion as a question makes the clash visible. “That schools should ban mobile phones during class time” becomes “Should schools ban mobile phones during class time?” The answer is the thesis.
| Motion | Question | Likely clash |
|---|---|---|
| That homework should be optional. | Should homework be optional? | Learning benefit versus student autonomy. |
| That social media does more harm than good. | Does social media do more harm than good? | Connection versus mental health and misinformation. |
| That we should abolish school uniforms. | Should school uniforms be abolished? | Equality and belonging versus expression and comfort. |
| That Australia should ban single-use plastics. | Should Australia ban single-use plastics? | Environmental benefit versus cost and convenience. |
| That artificial intelligence should be regulated in schools. | Should schools regulate artificial intelligence? | Academic integrity and equity versus innovation. |
These are original teaching motions, not motions from a specific competition.
What a definition does
The affirmative defines the key terms so the debate has clear ground. A good definition is fair, arguable, connected to the motion and limited enough to be debated in the time.
| Quality | What it means | Test |
|---|---|---|
| Fair | Both sides have something to argue. | Could a reasonable negative disagree? |
| Arguable | It is not true by definition. | Is there a real clash? |
| Connected | It uses the motion's words. | Does it answer the question asked? |
| Limited | It can be debated in the time. | Is the scope manageable? |
| Clear | The audience understands it. | Could you explain it in one sentence? |
The model
Many motions propose a change. The affirmative describes the model: what would actually happen if the motion passed. A model is not a wish; it is a specific policy or arrangement.
| Model element | Question | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Agent | Who acts? | The school. |
| Action | What changes? | A ban on phones during class. |
| Scope | Where and when? | Classrooms, years 7–10, during lessons. |
| Enforcement | How is it applied? | Teachers confiscate phones until the end of the lesson. |
| Exception | What is allowed? | Medical or accessibility use. |
| Funding | Who pays? | No new funding; existing staff. |
A model should be specific enough to test and modest enough to defend. If the affirmative proposes a huge, expensive scheme, it creates unnecessary burdens for itself.
The status quo
The status quo is what happens now. The negative often defends it, but not always. Sometimes the negative agrees that change is needed and argues that the affirmative's model is worse than a better alternative. That is a “counter-model”.
| Negative approach | Argument | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Defend the status quo | The current system works well enough. | May look complacent. |
| Argue the change is harmful | The model creates worse problems. | Must show the harm is serious. |
| Offer a counter-model | A different change is better. | Must explain why it is feasible. |
| Challenge the definition | The affirmative has rigged the debate. | Must offer a fair alternative. |
Definitional disputes
Sometimes the teams disagree about what the motion means. A definitional dispute should be resolved by the chair or by argument, not by shouting. The test is whether the definition gives both sides a fair debate.
- State the disputed term clearly.
- Explain what your definition includes and excludes.
- Show why the other definition is unfair or unarguable.
- Offer a fair alternative if you reject a definition.
- Accept the chair's ruling.
- Do not use a definition to avoid the real question.
Burden of proof
The affirmative carries the burden of proof: it must show that the change is justified. The negative does not have to prove the opposite beyond all doubt; it only has to show that the affirmative has not made its case, or that the harms outweigh the benefits.
A definition is a map, not a trick. If the audience cannot recognise the motion in your definition, you have probably narrowed it too far.
Activity: define three motions
- Choose three motions from the table above.
- For each, underline the key terms.
- Write a one-sentence definition and a three-part model.
- Swap with another team and test each definition for fairness.
- Revise one definition to make it more arguable.
- Explain the change to the class.
Common errors
- Defining the motion out of existence. “By schools, we mean one school ...”
- Choosing a definition that is obviously true. There is nothing to debate.
- Ignoring the scope. The debate drifts to a different topic.
- No model. The audience cannot see what would change.
- Refusing the chair's ruling. Procedure breaks down.
- Using jargon to sound precise. The audience loses the question.
Next, study building a case to turn a definition into a team argument. The evidence and research page tests the support for your claims.