In debating, not all motions are created equal. Different motions require you to prove different things to win the debate – this is called your burden. It’s important to understand the three types of motions and your burden for each.
Identifying Motions
In debating, not all motions are created equal. There are three main different types of motions:
- Policy
- Analysis
- Actor
You can tell your motion type simply by looking at it. Each motion has distinct wording that lets you know its type.
| Type | Policy | Analysis | Actor |
| Motion Examples | This House Would (THW) | This House Believes That (THBT) This House Supports (THS) This House Opposes (THO) This House Regrets (THR) |
This house, as [person/group/organisation], would This house, as [person/group/organisation], supports |
| Present Model? | Yes | No | Sometimes |
| Burden | Prove change good/bad Prove change will/won’t work |
Prove world with is better/worse than world without | Prove something is good/bad for the given actor |
Make sure your burden is always met!
Your Burden
A burden is the set of requirements given by the motion that your team must meet to win a debate.
Policy Debates
Policy debates propose changes or actions, such as new laws, policies, or organisations. Your job is to prove whether or not that change will actually work, and whether that change is beneficial or harmful.
Example of common policy debates:
- This house would abolish ATAR;
- This house would ban smoking;
- This house would pay stay at home parents;
- This house would conscript Australians to WWIII.
The affirmative team must present a model.
| Policy Debate | |
| Affirmative Burden | Negative Burden |
| Prove the change is good, will work, and will be beneficial overall | Prove the change is bad, won’t work, and will be harmful overall |
| Example: “This house would ban cigarettes” | |
| Must Prove:Banning cigarettes will work, and;A ban on cigarettes will be beneficial overall. Aff Cannot: Only claim that smoking is bad — Need to also explain that a ban is necessary and will work |
Neg must prove: Banning cigarettes won’t work, and;A ban on cigarettes will be harmful overall. |
Example: [A great model is this!!!!! wiejfoiwejfweoisudfhsaufh wioejfapoiejfpaoij asd;klfajdfie]
Models
In a policy debate, the affirmative team must present a model. A model explains the affirmative team’s change – what it will look like and how it will work. The affirmative team always presents their model at 1st affirmative, during setup.
The negative team may also choose to present a counter-model. The negative team should present a counter-model when they agree that the status quo (current world) is flawed, but believe there is a better solution than the affirmative team’s model.
The negative team doesn’t always need to present a counter-model. Instead, the negative side can argue that the status quo is perfectly fine, or simply better than the other team’s.
Analysis Debates
Analysis debates require you to make an overall value judgement. Your job is to compare two worlds, one with and one without something, and then prove that your world is better.
Example of analysis debates:
- This house regrets valentines day;
- This house supports conscription;
- This House believes that teachers should always sugarcoat academic performance. (ie. providing compliments, not scolding);
- This House believes that democracies should make voting mandatory;
- This house opposes fracking.
The affirmative team does not present a model.
| Analysis Debate | |
| Affirmative Burden | Negative Burden |
| Prove a world with x is better than a world without x | Prove a world with x is worse than a world without x |
| Example: “This house supports conscription” | |
| Prove that a world with conscription is better than a world without Aff Cannot: Present a model |
Prove that a world with conscription is better than a world without Neg cannot: Only claim conscription won’t work -Need to also claim why conscription is harmful |
