Running Opening Government

Defining the Motion

The PM's first task is to define the motion clearly and fairly. A good definition:

• Is reasonable — it interprets the motion as an informed, reasonable person would
• Is debatable — it does not make the motion truistic (so obvious no one would disagree)
• Is not a squirrel — it does not twist the motion to mean something it clearly does not intend

For example, on the motion 'This House would legalize all drugs,' a reasonable definition would include all recreational drugs being legal to purchase and consume by adults. A squirrel would be defining 'drugs' as pharmaceutical medications. A truism would be adding so many regulatory safeguards that opposition has nothing meaningful to oppose.

If the motion includes 'This House believes' (THB), the debate is about a principle. If it says 'This House would' (THW), the debate is about a specific policy and you should present a workable mechanism.

Building the OG Case

A strong OG case typically contains:

1. A clear definition and model — what exactly is being proposed, who implements it, and how
2. A principled argument — why this is the right thing to do (rights, justice, fairness)
3. A practical argument — why this produces better outcomes (welfare, efficiency, stability)

The PM should deliver the definition, model, and first argument. The DPM should rebuild against the LO's attacks and deliver the second argument. Crucially, the DPM should not just repeat the PM's points louder — they need to deepen the analysis and respond to opposition attacks.

A common OG mistake is over-defining: spending three minutes on a model so complex that the PM runs out of time for substantive arguments. Keep the mechanism simple. Judges care about the 'why' far more than the 'how.'

Going Deeper

Mastery of this topic comes from sustained practice in committee, debate room, and study circle, not from any single lesson. The most successful MUN delegates, debate competitors, and political-research practitioners treat each new concept as a building block for the next conference, tournament, or written brief.

Connecting to Practice

When you encounter this concept in committee, ask yourself three questions:

1. How does this apply to my current position? A delegate representing Brazil on UNSC reform applies political-economic concepts differently than one representing the United States. A debate competitor preparing the affirmative case on a particular topic applies analytical frameworks differently than one preparing the negative.
2. What evidence supports my application? Mastery requires moving beyond abstract concept to specific cited evidence. Build the habit of finding 2-3 primary sources that ground your application of any concept.
3. What counter-arguments would the strongest opposition raise? Anticipating opposition is the single highest-leverage skill in competitive activities. The best delegates and debaters prepare for the strongest version of opposing arguments, not the weakest.

Building Your Resource Library

Develop a personal library of go-to sources for the concepts and issues that matter most for your work. For most MUN and debate competitors, the core library includes:

• Primary documents: UN resolutions, treaty texts, government statements relevant to your committee or topic.
• Quality secondary sources: think-tank reports (CFR, Brookings, CSIS, Chatham House), peer-reviewed journal articles, recognized news outlets.
• Historical context: foundational books and articles on your topic area.
• Recent developments: news in the last 90 days that affects your position.

Why Sustained Practice Matters

The difference between bronze-level and gold-level performance in MUN and debate is not raw intelligence — it is hours of structured practice. Recognized champions typically practice 5-10 hours per week between competitions, not the night before. Build sustainable practice habits, and your performance will improve cumulatively across seasons.