Common Mistakes of BPF

and a definition is automatically last in the debate

I agree
I

disagree

the definition given by the Prime Minister

I agree
I disagree

all their arguments in the first speaker's speech and supply

the model/ policy in the second speaker's speech.

I agree
I disagree

at a major international tournament when discussing domestic policy

I agree
I

disagree

cosmetic surgery.
First proposition offers a model under which states should

give any cosmetic procedure for free to any of its citizens above the age of twelve. The leader of the opposition accuses the proposition of squirreling on two counts. Firstly, the model proposed does not give cosmetic surgery to foreigners or children which are clearly examples of the state paying for plastic surgery. Secondly, the model does not make clear how the state will raise money for the scheme. Nonetheless, the leader of opposition argues, the opposition will debate the motion as proposed. Which of these is true?

This definition was not a squirrel. The leader of the opposition was wrong to complain.
This definition was not quite a squirrel, though it was clearly not in the spirit of the motion. The leader of the opposition did the right thing in complaining about the debate but debating it nonetheless.
The motion is a squirrel, but only for the first reason listed above.
The motion is a squirrel for both of the reasons above taken together.

have not been raised by the opening team

I agree
I disagree

an extension even if it is not presented as such

I

agree
I disagree

proposition argue that prisoners are generally bad people and will

vote for immoral policies. First opposition neither agree nor disagree with first proposition’s claim that prisoners will vote for immoral policies. Instead, first opposition claim that prisoners have a fundamental right to vote, regardless of whether or not prisoners vote for immoral policies.
Second opposition’s extension speaker argues that first proposition are wrong and that prisoners will vote for moral policies if given the chance. He makes NO mention of rights during his speech. During his speech, the Prime Minister offers a POI, which is accepted. The Prime Minister claims that second opposition has just ‘knifed’ (contradicted) the team in first opposition. Which of these is true?

It’s not a knife. Second opposition have added another line of attack against the proposition case.
It is a knife, but it’s too late to point this out. Knife calls can only come in the first two teams (‘top half’) of BP debating.
It depends. If second proposition’s summary speaker makes reference to the knife in her speech, then you can declare that there has been a knife. Otherwise, no.
The motion is irredeemably flawed as it asks first proposition to affirm the status quo. Under such circumstances, the judge should attempt to rebalance the motion’s fairness and give special consideration for the position the opposition teams were in. It was a knife, but it was a forgivable one.

as an extension.

I agree
I disagree

only repeat what has already been said

I agree
I disagree

a nuclear-free zone. Second opposition’s summation speaker suggests that the

Palestinian Authority currently possesses a large nuclear arsenal, which it must preserve for its own defence. This suggestion has not appeared yet in the debate, though second opposition’s extension has made ample reference to the fact that many non-state actors would benefit from possessing nuclear weapons. What should the judge do?

Give the argument no credit. Unfortunately, new examples are not allowed in summation speeches.
Give the argument no credit. An average intelligent voter would find this argument completely false.
Give the argument partial credit. This is a new argument, but it should have been anticipated by the other side, so they are also to blame if they failed to address the issue.
Give the argument full credit. As it is a new line of analysis rather than a discrete argument, the summation speaker has brought to light an important example and deserves credit for it.

incorrect?

They are allowed to contain new rebuttals.
They are allowed to

contain new examples.
They are the only speech, which the judge is allowed to assess using her own specific values, knowledge, and opinions as it is the last speech in the debate.
They must not present entirely new arguments.

always more important than an argument brought in rebuttal

I agree
I

disagree

defeat the proposition

I agree
I disagree

team focuses on another, then the other team is off-clash

and will lose the debate

I agree
I disagree

the middle of the speech. A point that is brilliantly

analyzed but is only presented after 6 minutes will not serve to better the chances of the team.

I agree
I disagree

physical boundaries and is thus the world's first and foremost

prospect of reaching global social cohesion" is better analyzed than the claim "facebook can bring people together who are far away from each other and because of that it has a very good chance of brining the people of the world together"

I agree
I disagree

as bringing your own substantive arguments

I agree
I disagree

a round should be rewarded.

I agree
I disagree

but those arguments are never referenced by any of the

other teams in the round, then first opposition cannot come 1st in that round.

I agree
I disagree

very good argument that begins after 7 minutes 10 seconds

of a speaker's speech.

I agree
I disagree

winner in debates, it should just be used in speaker

points

I agree
I disagree

partner, but no other team in the debate notices it,

an adjudicator can carry on as if it didn't happen.

I agree
I disagree

speech, and all other speakers accept at least one POI,

your team will receive an automatic 4th

I agree
I disagree