I’ve seen quite a few threads that begin with “Resolved:”, but I don’t know what it is, exactly, that has been resolved.
If the issue has been resolved, then why raise the topic in Great Debates? That’s like saying almost everyone agrees with this statement, so let’s all talk about how much we agree.
If the OP has resolved the issue within their own worldview and has come down firmly on one side, then I can see how there could still be debate on the subject, but why bother to prefix the title? Doesn’t Politicians Suck mean exactly the same thing as Resolved: Politicians Suck?
Is this a custom carried over from another message board, or is it something that’s been going on forever that I’ve just somehow missed?
It is further confusing in that U.S. formal debates, (particularly those arranged for college and high school students), do use that formula while similar debates in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and a few other places use a different protocol. (I’m not sure abut Canada; “Resolved” could either be Yank or North American and I do not recall which.)
My understanding from my high school debate and University Law classes is that, in Australia and NZ, a topic is said to be “Mooted”, “Moved”, or “Proposed” when put up for discussion. Something is “Resolved” when it’s been discussed and a course of action decided upon or decision reached.
Like the OP, I’ve spent years wondering why people on the boards keep opening debates with “Resolved” when that’s clearly not true, but I’ve just put it down as a quaint Americanism now.
When I debated at school in NSW, the topic was given in the form of a statement e.g. “The pen is mightier than the sword”. There were no introductory words in the form of ‘resolved’, ‘mooted’, ‘proposed’ etc.
It wasn’t consistently done in NZ either; but my point is that the word “Resolved” was never used to denote something up for debate- rather, it was for something which had already been debated and, well, resolved.
It may have been debated many times, but most debate topics are not issues that are actually going to be resolved by the end of the debate. (Oh, how I wish they were!)
These are some current debate topics used for various purposes by the National Forensic League:
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.
Resolved: Compulsory inclusion of non-felons’ DNA in any government database is unjust.
Resolved: Current trends in American political dialogue compromise meaningful democratic deliberation.
To use the word “Resolved” is literally pretentious, but not linguistically pretentious. The team defending the statement is pretending that they are resolute that their position is the correct one. (The teams should actually be well-prepared for either side of the debate.) And there is more than one meaning for “resolve.”
Other than that, “pretentiousness” is often in the eye of the person who doesn’t use that particular word in that sense very often.
In debates, does “mooted” carry the same meaning as “resolved”, “moved” or “proposed”? I understand that saying “Resolved: Plan ABC is efficient” means that I believe Plan ABC is efficient and I’m prepared to defend that belief. If I say “Mooted: Plan ABC is efficient”, does it mean (in debates) that I believe Plan ABC is moot and no longer applicable?
Starting with “Resolved: [Statement For Debate]” says, to me “I, His Imperial Majesty And God Emperor Of The Universe, Hereby Decree That [Statement For Debate] Is The Only Correct View And No Discussion Will Be Entered Into”.
If you say (in your best Edwardian accent) “I have resolved to write a letter to my Member Of Parliament”, then you’re saying “I have decided- and am going to- write a letter to my Member of Parliament”; not “I am unsure if I should write a letter to my Member of Parliament and would like to discuss the matter further”.
