In debate, the exact wording of the resolution is important because both sides need to be sure that they understand the scope and are debating the same thing. For this reason, we need to dissect the language of the resolution by identifying keywords.
Let's look at the example of the fact resolution: Resolved: In the United States Civil Disobedience is a justified response to oppression.
Before we can debate this resolution, we need to identify and define keywords. Each keyword gives us important information about the scope of the debate.
United States - tells us that this debate is limited to action in the USA
Civil Disobedience - rather than defining "civil" and "disobedience", we need to look at the definition of "civil disobedience" since this phrase. We should consider the difference between violent and nonviolent civil disobedience and look for historical examples.
Justified - we need to define "justified" so we clarify the scope of the debate
Oppression - what does oppression entail? What is not oppression (for the purpose of this debate)? Is slavery oppression? What about marginalizing people with disabilities? What about solitary confinement for prisoners - is that oppression? We need to define oppression so the scope of the debate is clear.
To win this debate, the affirmative needs to prove that actions of civil disobedience are acceptable when there is oppression.
The negative, on the other hand, needs to prove that civil disobedience is not acceptable, even when there is oppression.
We'll get into how you prove your side in future lessons.