In our debate club, the motion was simple: homework should be banned. Both teams arrived with statistics. Within ten minutes, they were quoting numbers that seemed to prove opposite conclusions.
在辩论社里，这次的辩题很简单：应该禁止家庭作业。两队都带着数据来了。十分钟内，他们引用的数字似乎证明了相反的结论。
Our coach stopped us. “Before you win,” she said, “define your terms.” What counts as homework? A page of maths, or reading for pleasure? Does banned mean forbidden, or replaced by something else?
教练打断了我们。“在你们想着赢之前，”她说，“先定义你们的词。”什么算家庭作业？一页数学题，还是为了乐趣而阅读？禁止是指不准做，还是指用别的东西替代？
The room went quiet. We had been arguing about answers before agreeing on the question. When we returned to the motion, our positions changed. Some of us wanted limits, not a ban.
教室里安静下来。我们一直在争论答案，却还没就问题达成一致。回到辩题时，我们的立场变了。我们中有些人想要限制，而不是彻底禁止。
The other team had made the same discovery. Their strongest evidence was about sleep, not about work. Our strongest point was about fairness, not about time. We had been shouting past each other.
对方也有了同样的发现。他们最有力的证据关于睡眠，而不是作业量。我们最有力的观点关于公平，而不是时间。我们一直在各说各话。
We lost the debate on a technicality, but we left with a better habit. Now, when an argument feels too easy, we ask what the words mean. A good question can do more than a clever answer.
我们因为一个技术性失误输掉了辩论，却带走了一个更好的习惯。现在，当一个论点显得太容易时，我们会问：这些词到底是什么意思？一个好问题，有时比一个聪明的答案更有用。