A Special Type of Rebuttal: Definitions

Definition debates may be the least enjoyable part of Public Forum. These debates waste time, are never neat and tidy, and will sidetrack both teams off of the resolution. Speaking as a judge and a debater, I advise avoiding definition debates unless utterly necessary.


A definition debate is necessary if:
– Your opponents’ definition unfairly limits the resolution, which removes valid arguments you want to make. If the definition removes arguments but you don’t make those arguments, don’t waste your time debating the definition.

– Your opponents’ definition skews the topic in a way that confuses the judge and muddies the round.

– Your opponents’ definition appears sneaky and may reduce the round in the Second Half. Be strategic and engage the definition early. You can identify this tactic if your opponent presses you to agree with a definition but does not apply that definition right away. This could mean they are strategically withholding the analysis or simply don’t know how to apply the definition. Therefore, pay close attention to this definition in round.

– You have an alternative definition in your case. If you have placed it in your case, this definition should matter to your arguments. If their alternate definition is different, or more than worded differently, you need to present reasons why your definition should be preferred.


In these scenarios, your opponents’ definitions must be problematic to warrant a debate. Problematic means the difference could change the judge’s decision. If you choose to enter the murky waters of definition debates, you must do so with the purpose of clarifying the round or protecting you ground. PLEASE do not waste time with the goal of “winning” a definition. Winning a definition does not gain you offense. Winning a definition gives you a tool to enhance your arguments or detract from your opponents’ arguments.