Squirrel this!

[David Bean]

Here's a fun little game for debaters of all ages. We who are or used to be participants in the IV circuit will recall being sternly and repreatedly admonished not to "squirrel" a motion; that is, to define it in terms other than those for which it was clearly intended. Why IV organisers seem pathologically incapable of expressing this instruction in terms other than the hackneyed old non-joke "squirrels will be shot on site" has never quite been explained, but that's a question for another day. On this thread I should like to invite people to let loose their creative juices by coming up with a motion and then writing the definition part of their speech so as to squirrel it like mad.

Here's my attempt. I remember being at a competition once, I believe it had something to do with schools, where there was tabled the astonishingly badly worded motion "This House Would Enforce Kyoto". It's been a constant source of regret to me that the plucky first proppers didn't come out with the following unstintingly precise, yet still abomnably squirreled definition:

"Mr Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Kyoto is a small city in Japan, by all accounts a pleasant, picturesque place subsisting mainly on rice, with a lucrative sideline in hosting international summits. Now, as we should all know, the word 'reinforce' generally refers to supplying a place with arms and soldiers to allow it to be defended against an attack. The city of Kyoto is, by all accounts, a peaceful one facing no great external military threat; and, indeed, the Japanese post-1945 constitution prohibits its military from being used in aggression.

We of the Proposition want to change all this. We believe that the time for vaccilation has ended, and that the only way to rid our world from the dark forces of hegemony, corruption and strife, and to create a new utopia - nay, a new Jerusalem! - is for a city like Kyoto, fine, unpolluted and Japanese, to throw aside its mild mannered humility and assume its rightful place on the world stage, a world re-shaped in its image.

We would, therefore, enforce Kyoto. We would send to this city the arms and the manpower necessary for the successful completion of this new great crusade, one that would sweep aside our religious, ethnic and economic disparities, and issue forth a new era of democracy and peace, purging this wounded world of ours, for a safe and secure society. Our mechanism is simple: all we require is the simultaneous unilateral disbandment of the world's five most powerful armies, and a unanimous vote of assent in the United Nations General Assembly..."

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Mr Comedy]

A brilliant one that I was in when I was IV debating was "This House Would Catch the Clap". Poor Shona from Cambridge thought that this referred to music, and started talking about music lessons in school...

However, with a prop like that (Kyoto one) I'd cut you to shreds with some argument about the UN, and then we'd have an even worse debate about UN peacekeepers - there's a motion that is best left as it is.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung

[exnihilo]

I've never understood the sciurophobia. Certainly the motion should not be utterly ludicrously defined but nothing leads to more unmitigated tedium than a strict, literal interpretation of a stock motion.

Oh, but that's IV debating, isn't it?

[Kizzy]

Quoting David Bean from 17:50, 21st Nov 2006
Here's a fun little game for debaters of all ages. We who are or used to be participants in the IV circuit will recall being sternly and repreatedly admonished not to "squirrel" a motion; that is, to define it in terms other than those for which it was clearly intended. Why IV organisers seem pathologically incapable of expressing this instruction in terms other than the hackneyed old non-joke "squirrels will be shot on site" has never quite been explained, but that's a question for another day. On this thread I should like to invite people to let loose their creative juices by coming up with a motion and then writing the definition part of their speech so as to squirrel it like mad.

Here's my attempt. I remember being at a competition once, I believe it had something to do with schools, where there was tabled the astonishingly badly worded motion "This House Would Enforce Kyoto". It's been a constant source of regret to me that the plucky first proppers didn't come out with the following unstintingly precise, yet still abomnably squirreled definition:

"Mr Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Kyoto is a small city in Japan, by all accounts a pleasant, picturesque place subsisting mainly on rice, with a lucrative sideline in hosting international summits. Now, as we should all know, the word 'reinforce' generally refers to supplying a place with arms and soldiers to allow it to be defended against an attack. The city of Kyoto is, by all accounts, a peaceful one facing no great external military threat; and, indeed, the Japanese post-1945 constitution prohibits its military from being used in aggression.

We of the Proposition want to change all this. We believe that the time for vaccilation has ended, and that the only way to rid our world from the dark forces of hegemony, corruption and strife, and to create a new utopia - nay, a new Jerusalem! - is for a city like Kyoto, fine, unpolluted and Japanese, to throw aside its mild mannered humility and assume its rightful place on the world stage, a world re-shaped in its image.

We would, therefore, enforce Kyoto. We would send to this city the arms and the manpower necessary for the successful completion of this new great crusade, one that would sweep aside our religious, ethnic and economic disparities, and issue forth a new era of democracy and peace, purging this wounded world of ours, for a safe and secure society. Our mechanism is simple: all we require is the simultaneous unilateral disbandment of the world's five most powerful armies, and a unanimous vote of assent in the United Nations General Assembly..."

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

Strange...speaking as the CA of that event, I distinctly remember that the wording was in fact 'THW enforce the Kyoto protocol'. It may not have been what was debated in the room you saw, but that's what I set!

[David Bean]

Must've been a different debate. I've lost count of the number of Kyoto debates I've been through...

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Guest]

OK, seriously mate, what is the massive problem that you have with IV debating?

[i hate hacks]

To exnihilo.
We have gathered you dislike IV debating. Well guess what, there are people who do like it. These people take part in the IV debates. If you don't like IV debating then take no involvment in it and please give us all a rest.

I as much as anyone dislike it when IV format is applied to LPH however don't be so disrespectful as to complain about people who have to stand in last minute with little time to prepare. They are IV debaters which is why they speak like IV debaters, and they have been kind enough to help out when LPH is a speaker short. Would you prefer to have a speaker missing?

Quoting exnihilo from 00:43, 22nd Nov 2006
I've never understood the sciurophobia. Certainly the motion should not be utterly ludicrously defined but nothing leads to more unmitigated tedium than a strict, literal interpretation of a stock motion.

Oh, but that's IV debating, isn't it?

[k]

Just to say that I think the line betwween boring IV debators and funny non-Iv speakers isn't always clear cut. I only started going to debate this year and i don't know much about IVs except it involoves being technical. Last night, even though i presume all the debators were IV, i was, along with everyone else, laughing aloud at some of the speeches. Everyone i spoke to agreed it's one of the most entertaining debates we've seen for a while and that's exactly how a debte like that should be... lighthearted and fun. So we should give IV speakers more credit,i for one had a great night and wish that debate could be that entertaining more often! PS.. i voted opp but i definitely agreed with the 1st speaker when he stood up and said the oposition were giving neds too much credit, neds can't destroy policies because they can't spell!

[exnihilo]

Quoting i hate hacks from 11:56, 22nd Nov 2006
To exnihilo.
We have gathered you dislike IV debating. Well guess what, there are people who do like it. These people take part in the IV debates. If you don't like IV debating then take no involvment in it and please give us all a rest.

I as much as anyone dislike it when IV format is applied to LPH however don't be so disrespectful as to complain about people who have to stand in last minute with little time to prepare. They are IV debaters which is why they speak like IV debaters, and they have been kind enough to help out when LPH is a speaker short. Would you prefer to have a speaker missing?

Quoting exnihilo from 00:43, 22nd Nov 2006
I've never understood the sciurophobia. Certainly the motion should not be utterly ludicrously defined but nothing leads to more unmitigated tedium than a strict, literal interpretation of a stock motion.

Oh, but that's IV debating, isn't it?

Editorial snort.