At the most basic level, a resolution is a sentence that declares something. Another word for this is a “constative.” A sentence is determined to be a constative when it can be clearly demonstrated to be true or false.
Understanding the resolution as a constative is applicable to Public Forum because every act in the round, every word and gesture, ought to prompt the judge to determine the truth of the resolution.
Resolutions tend to follow two general models of truth: positive and normative. A positive model of truth examines empirically verifiable and value-free descriptions of reality. A normative model of truth tests the ideal reality given a set of values.
The language of the resolution determines if it is normative or positive.
Normative and positive statements often address similar content but engage that content in distinctly different ways. The resolution, “Government tax cuts have increased employment,” is a positive statement: the value of tax cuts need not be assessed to prove this statement true. The resolution merely questions the causal relationship between two events.
The resolution, “The government should cut taxes,” is a normative statement: it requires debaters to assess the value of tax cuts and determine whether cutting taxes would be the ideal action for the government to take.
Both resolutions prompt an exploration of tax cuts but, ultimately, have very different focuses. The verb of the sentence usually changes the model of truth of a statement. Verbs like “should” or “ought” are associated with normative resolutions because they ask about possible courses of action or obligations for agents. Verbs like “is,” “will,” or “has” are associated with positive resolutions because they often form resolutions that exclusively describe reality, rather than advocating for a particular course of action or set of values.