- 張子龍（2025年02月06日），他山之石：英辯與地板論。［貼文］，臉書。https://hackmd.io/@DebateTeddyBear/HkUIrrGtyx

# 他山之石：英辯與地板論。

<style>
.text-align {
text-align: justify;
text-justify: distribute;
}
</style>

> Q：英辯怎麼打定義戰？
> A：他們不打定義戰…。

### ▌NPDA 前主席 Steven Johnson 說：
<div class="text-align">

根據我參加英語辯論的經驗：始於 1992 年參加世界錦標賽（他說這話是 2009 年）我從未見過定義挑戰被成功執行。簡言之，絕大多數正方開場團隊都傾向以最忠於辯題的方式定義所涉及的概念，而絕大多數反方開場團隊也傾向於接受這種方法。這是英辯文化的一部分。

Certainly in my experience with BP debating—which began with a trip to the World Championships in 1992—I have not seen a definitional challenge that was executed successfully. In short, Open-ing Proposition teams overwhelmingly tend to define the terms of the debate with a great deal of fidelity to the motion provided and Opening Opposition teams overwhelmingly tend to accept that approach. It’s part of the culture of competitive BP debating.

</div>

### ▌IDEA 前主席 Robert Trapp 也說：
<div class="text-align">

在極端特殊的情況下，當定義完全不合理，以至於無法進行有意義的辯論時，反方１隊有權拒絕正方的定義。但拒絕定義的問題是，這樣的行為，最終只會導致一場非常糟糕的辯論。

對此，<font color="red"><b>反方１隊與正方１隊共同承擔責任</b></font>，儘管是後者在最初提出了不合理的解釋。因此，即使碰到不合理的定義，反方１隊應該向裁判和聽眾指出，正方１隊提出的定義和解釋不合理，隨後接受定義往下，以便當前辯論進行。

In extraordinary cases, when the definition is completely unreasonable as to preclude meaningful debate, theLeader of Opposition has the right to reject the definition. The problem with rejecting the definition is that such an action will ultimately lead to a very bad debate for which the First Opposition Team must share the responsibility with the First Government Team who introduced the unreasonable interpretation in the first place. Therefore, even in the event of an unreasonable definition, the Leader of Opposition should point out to the judge and the audience that the definition and interpretation presented by the Prime Minister is unreasonable, but then should go ahead and accept the definition for the purposes of the current debate.

這真是個「賽制」影響「文化」的好例子…。

</div>