4 of 179

Overview

i’m like the other motions

Bland, bland, bland

A motion of content

Whack-a-mole

02 cont.

Setting the table

Preparing the roast beast

Getting yelled at by Gordon Ramsay

Adding a fine garnish

5 of 179

Section 1

Types of Motions

6 of 179

GENERAL

Policy

Analysis

Counterfactual

Actor

Debates about the implementation and outcomes of policies (THW, THBT)

Debates about the outcomes of policies or norms (THS, THO, THBT)

“Regrets” debates about narratives/policies and what would have happened otherwise (THR, THS, THO)

Debates about maximizing outcomes for a specific actor (TH, as X…)

8 of 179

Policy Motions

THW invade North Korea

THW allow property insurers to factor anticipated climate risks into premium assessments

THW ban political parties and force candidates to run as independents

THW never bail out banks

THW abolish cash bail

THW, in times of prolonged military operations, implement a draft

THBT the US should militarily withdraw from East Asia

THBT South Korean feminists should push for the conscription of women

THW assassinate dictators

THW implement an “automation tax”

THW raise children communally

THW, in the US, hold a Constitutional convention

THW make development aid contingent on environmental reform

THW expel Turkey from NATO

THBt universities should heavily decrease funding for departments with poor post-graduation employment outcomes

THBT the EU should cease its eastward expansion

Assuming feasibility, THW replace all soldiers with robots

THW give more votes to the poor

THW permit members of the military to unionize

9 of 179

How do policy debates work?

the status quo do be kinda messed up doe…

ooh looky looky we have a policy that we can implement!

oop oof rip it didn’t work… ruh roh

tinkle my sprinkles, we did it!

10 of 179

Problem-solution identification

Implementation conundrums

Comparative Solvency

Three thingymadoodlebobbers

“Judge, their case is like a pile of donuts: it keeps going up and up, but there’s a giant hole in the middle of it”

“Judge, before the previous speech, I hadn’t believed in the paranormal, but after they totally ghosted our case, I’m not so sure”

“Judge, our opponents are in the incredibly uncomfortable position of agreeing to the existence of a problem, but offering no solution”

11 of 179

Identifying problems

Most policy motions are generally set because there’s some problem happening right now (or, in general) that GOV teams are (partially) tasked with solving

Example: THW allow children to sue their parents for religious indoctrination

Problem: children are coerced by their parents into religion without consent!

Example: THW abolish the Olympic Games

Problem: the Olympics cause lots of harm (e.g. bloated costs, sportswashing)

Example: THBT feminists should discourage women from having children

Problem: women face pressure to have children, which is often bad for women

Knowing what the “problem” is helps guide your prep: why was this motion set? What was the purpose behind the motion? What’s currently bad enough that we need to change the world?

12 of 179

Alternatives? — GOV

Consider (1) how society is already addressing the problem you’ve identified, and (2) how an OPP team might say we could alternatively address the problem

Why is this the ONLY or the BEST way to solve? Why will alternatives inevitably fail?

Why does this matter?

1) You steal OPP’s thunder before they’ve even had the chance to throw a lightning bolt at your case
2) Optically, this strengthens your case since you’re the only side with any hope of reform!

HINT: this is especially crucial when debating very radical motions

Example: in areas of high crime, THW allow judges to significantly exceed traditional sentencing guidelines

OPP: pray tell, my jolly good sires on the Government bench, but why hath you embraced so crazy a policy when other fixes seem more suitable?

13 of 179

This House Would nationalize Amazon

14 of 179

Prime Minister

Kills off jobs

Destroys local businesses

Jacks up prices on consumers in the long term

Pays workers low wages

Bans employee unionization

Increases monopolization

Worsens wealth inequality

15 of 179

Leader

of the

Opposition

regulations

17 of 179

This House Believes That “Bruce” should become a crime-fighting vigilante

INFO SLIDE

Bruce is a billionaire, and an expert in advanced martial arts, living in a corrupt city ridden with crime

18 of 179

Prime Minister

(and also Bruce)

(and also criminals)

19 of 179

Leader

of the

Opposition

21 of 179

Takeaway: make sure you (spend time in prep and, yes, especially in pm speeches) outlining why this is the best or only way to rectify the problem with the status quo

22 of 179

otherwise…

23 of 179

ALTERNATIVES? — OPP

You get equal fiat power to do something else (“we should do this other thing”). But:

1) Make sure your counterprop (aka counterplan, for you bald-eagle-loving, F150-driving Americans) is mutually exclusive with the GOV advocacy

Example: THW implement price controls on the pharmaceutical industry. OPP counterprops with more funding for scientific research → we can do both!

2) Make sure your counterprop doesn’t knife your own arguments

Example: THW limit religious schools to religious instruction. OPP counterprops by banning religious instruction in schools, but also makes an argument about backlash from religious institutions → this happens on either side of the house, now, due to the counterprop!

**TIP: identify ongoing, positive trends and explain how GOV’s problem corrects for itself in the long term, but there policy either (1) reverses that ongoing trend, or (2) creates additional harm needlessly

Example: At the level of youth sports, THW abolish gender-segregated sports leagues and instead group athletes by ability. GOV will likely talk about sexist disparities in resources/funding, but OPP can point to positive trends, Title 9, etc

24 of 179

Practice makes perfect

THW invade Myanmar

Existing alternatives? Trends?��

THW abolish the Olympic Games

Counterprop?��

THW prohibit the media from reporting on the mental illness of those accused of crimes

Counterprop?�

�

25 of 179

Practice makes perfect

THW invade Myanmar

Existing alternatives? Trends?�Multilateral sanctions, positive incentives for reform, military aid to rebels

THW abolish the Olympic Games

Counterprop?�Reform the bidding process, institute permanent host, crack down on IOC corruption

THW prohibit the media from reporting on the mental illness of those accused of crimes

Counterprop?�Ethical standards for this sort of reporting�

26 of 179

While we’re on the subject…

27 of 179

“Fiat”

I am the singularly greatest debater of all time

Some quick notes on “fiat power”…

28 of 179

Story time

29 of 179

Once upon a time, Goldilocks was walking through the forest when she came across an empty Debate Cottage. Since she is a creepy stalker, Goldilocks chose to violate federal law and broke into the house as if she was a CIA agent in Pakistan.

30 of 179

When Goldilocks entered, she saw three steaming bowls of Porridge Motions on the table in front of her. “I love debate porridge,” said Goldilocks, and she sat down.

When she tried the first bowl of Jargony Econ Motion Porridge, she went “holy shit this tastes horrible.” She tried the next bowl of Complex Political Theory Motion Porridge, and exclaimed “jesus christ, this tastes even worse!”

Then, Goldilocks ate a spoonful of the Balanced International Politics Motion Porridge, and she screamed “hot damn, this shit slaps! This is juuuuust right!”

31 of 179

After Goldilocks gobbled up her Motion Porridge as eagerly as a parli debater copy-and-pastes the motion for their round into the Google search box, she ventured upstairs, where she came across the Chairs of Weighing.

The first two chairs—the Couch of Certainty and the Sofa of Scale—elicited responses of profanity laden horror, but the third and final chair, the Loveseat of Longtermism, made Goldilocks howl “yass slay rebuttal queen, this is juuuust right!”

32 of 179

Lastly, Goldilocks came to the bedroom, where she was confronted with three beds, each of which represented a different level of fiat power.

When she lay in the first bed, stuffed full of fiat-backed assertions, she remembered that debates aren’t supposed to be in Latin and was dropped by her judges and chided for “abusing fiat” as GOV. And when she lay in the second—skimpy and devoid of almost any fiat whatsoever—the judges responded similarly, speaking as quickly and angrily as a Spanish soccer announcer after the opposing team scores a goal.

33 of 179

Then, Goldilocks rested in the third and final bed, which had just enough fiat power for the motion to be implemented fairly, without too much fiat power as to abuse OPP out of the round or to make the round swim in the dreadful oceans of definitional quibbles.

“Finally, some good fucking fiat,” sighed Goldilocks in her best Gordon Ramsay imitation, and settled in for a good night’s rest, which she was guaranteed to have through the right proportion of fiat power.

34 of 179

Order from Amazon now!

35 of 179

takeaway?

With fiat power comes great responsibility

#1—Don’t over-extend your fiat powers as GOV. Good heuristic for this: what would the average, reasonable person think GOV is entailed to do within the spirit of the motion?

#2—Don’t under-extend your fiat powers as GOV. 99% of the time, this isn’t an issue—but if you can fiat that something will work, or that something will be done in a good way, invoke your almighty fiat power!

#3—Avoid using the word “fiat” as a response to arguments. It’s better to explain why something is protected or not protected by fiat, than to just assert it (note: this is especially important for lay judges!)

#4—When something can’t be guaranteed through fiat, it can still be warranted through likelihood analysis!

36 of 179

remember: motions are seldom implemented (or perceived) perfectly!

But the fickle tides of fate

Do come rushing forth once more

For assuming perfect implementation

Is really such a bore

Consider these faults

Ponder that risk

Evaluate the concern

And don’t be so brisk!

For the world is not so great

And flaws do abound

So think about this in prep

– else your case crashes to the ground!

For implementing is hard

And implementing is strange

So think about the motion at best

And how, in reality, it’ll change

37 of 179

Weaponizing Implementation

Let’s be clear: you can’t contest the fiat power a GOV team has… but you can contest the efficacy of their measure, and you can characterize how a policy will (1) be ineffectively implemented, and (2) will be poorly received by the public
Implementation:

Who is implementing the motion? And why might their implementation be… sketchy? suspect? questionable? problematic? Or, on the flip side, why will the implementation be good?

GOV—give 2-3 reasons that governments/corporations will do a good job implementing policies (e.g. optics, self-interest, media, etc)
OPP—gut check how this is likely to unfold in the real world—and how ineffective implementation undermines the GOV case

Reception:

Regardless of how well a policy is implemented, how will people respond? And why does the response to a policy matter?

38 of 179

THBT criminal punishments should be based only on the offenders' culpability rather than the damages caused by the criminal act or other outcomes derived from the punishment

INFO SLIDE

Culpability is a measure of the degree to which a person can be held morally responsible for an offense

39 of 179

GOV?

OPP?

Culpability is the better metric to use when sentencing

Consequences are the better metric to use when sentencing

THBT criminal punishments should be based only on the offenders' culpability rather than the damages caused by the criminal act or other outcomes derived from the punishment

40 of 179

but…

how does this get enforced in reality? what does it look like for courts to determine punishments based on culpability or based on consequences? how do the impacts on either side get affected by the way courts function?

41 of 179

GOV?

OPP?

Culpability is the better metric to use when sentencing

Consequences are the better metric to use when sentencing

THBT criminal punishments should be based only on the offenders' culpability rather than the damages caused by the criminal act or other outcomes derived from the punishment

But how do courts find these things out?

42 of 179

Winning from Opp

“Counterintuitively, this really isn’t a debate about whether it’s fairer or more utile to punish based on moral culpability (e.g. intent) or based on the consequences of a crime (e.g. outcomes). And that’s because this debate takes place in the context of the court system, and the unfortunate reality is that under their side (GOV is punishing based on culpability), we’re never punishing based on actual culpability, but rather based on the court’s understanding of an offender’s culpability, since courts can’t just read people’s minds and definitively understand how culpable an offender is. Here’s why that matters: when you punish based on culpability, you add an enormous amount of uncertainty into the sentencing process, which opens the door to bias. For instance, maybe a racist judge deems that a Black defendant had “more intent” to commit a crime than a white person! Comparatively, punishing based on outcomes is fairer since you’re scaling punishment based on objective, quantifiable information (like how much money was stolen, how much damage was done, etc).

43 of 179

THB states should focus on negotiating bilateral agreements over large, regional agreements (e.g. trade, climate change, conflict & security, etc)

44 of 179

GOV?

OPP?

Bilateral/two-country agreements are better

Multilateral/regional agreements are better

THB states should focus on negotiating bilateral agreements over large, regional agreements

45 of 179

but…

how do these agreements get negotiated in the real world? how do countries ensure they get fair terms within these bilateral or multilateral agreements?

In short: this is not just a debate about the “outcome” (bilateral vs multilateral treaties), but also the “process” (negotiating bilateral vs multilateral treaties)

46 of 179

Winning from Opp

“Look, some part of this debate is going to talk about the benefits or harms of larger-scale agreements. But remember, treaties don’t appear out of thin air—they appear after months, sometimes even years, of arduous negotiations and discussions between countries. The problem with the process of implementing this motion is that under their side, very large and very powerful countries get to bully smaller countries into accepting terrible deals since those larger countries have more soft power and more leverage over individual countries; comparatively, under our side, the process of negotiating is likely to be fairer and less imbalance since smaller, weaker nations can collectivize during negotiations and collectively challenge the asymmetric power/authority wielded by larger, more powerful countries like China or the US.”

47 of 179

THW ban the consumption and production of meat

48 of 179

they may take away our profanities, but they shall never take away our f***ing meat

49 of 179

THBT developing countries should privatize their state-owned enterprises

gov

opp

Privatization is crucially important for increasing the efficiency of services, since governments tend to be systemically corrupt and therefore manage these enterprises ineffectively and in a cronyistic manner

If GOV is right, and these governments are so institutionally corrupt, then the process of privatization will be carried out by those very same governments, which means the types of private-sector companies that get these contracts are likely to be selected cronyistically

50 of 179

THW replace means-tested welfare programs with a universal basic income

GOV

How do you implement a UBI? How do you implement welfare?

51 of 179

But enough about “implementation”… what about solvency?

Lots of teams can identify the problem, but they don’t spend time on the solution

Example: THBT the response to global pandemics should be led by the WHO rather than by national governments. Lots of teams (on either side, really!) will explain why either the WHO or national governments are bad… but do very little analysis on comparative solvency
Example: THBT the US should aggressively support anti-Taliban militias within Afghanistan. Lots of GOV teams, in particular, will spend vast amounts of time lamenting the plight of the Afghani people (and rightly so!), yet allocate far less speaking time talking about how this will make the situation better!

How do you combat this?

1) For every status-quo-problem you can brainstorm, think of how you deal with that problem—and spend more of your time in prep on this issue (since this is more likely to be contested in the round)
2) Remember: you don’t have to “solve” a problem to win the debate. Just prove you make a real, meaningful dent in the problem!

52 of 179

“Ok ryan but, like, how do we actually *prove* that we get solvency?”

53 of 179

Proving comparative solvency

Identify the underlying causes of problems and explain how the motion solves/mitigates those causes

Example: THBT protest movements in authoritarian regimes should actively incorporate religious messaging into their advocacy. GOV identifies that these movements face limited political support (problem) and explains that this is because many people feel insufficient motivation to risk their lives in the pursuit of change (cause). Incorporating religious narratives give people a much stronger reason to join the fight (solvency)
Example: THBT the EU’s import ban on Russian oil will do more harm than good. GOV identifies that the negative impact of existing sanctions on Russia has, over time, become quite minimal (problem) because large, state owned Russian companies like Gazprom have continued to profit from the energy trade (cause). Banning Russian oil cuts off much of this revenue, which puts pressure on Russia to abandon the invasion (solvency)

54 of 179

Proving comparative solvency

Explain how the signaling effect created by the motion contributes to solvency

Example: THBT central banks should embrace green central banking (e.g. targeted green lending programs, higher interest rates for pollution-intensive banks, mandatory disclosures of climate risks). GOV identifies that green central banking sends a signal from central banks to the broader economy that environmental concerns should be taken seriously

Explain how the public’s response to the motion further contributes to efficacy

Example: THBT Western social justice groups (e.g. feminist, LGBT, disability advocacy groups) should exclusively operate locally and nationally as opposed to operating globally. GOV might argue that the response to OPP’s globalized Western advocacy will be stained and tainted by perceptions of neocolonialism, which mitigates the solvency OPP is able to achieve!

55 of 179

Questions?

56 of 179

Counter

Factual

debates

Four score and seven years ago, our debate captains brought forth on this debating circuit, a new type of motion, conceived in and of the Counterfactual, and dedicated to the question of whether we ought to regret the past.

lincoln don’t go to the theater!!

oh no he has aidpods in!!

57 of 179

How do counterfactual debates work?

some thing do be kinda happening doe…

low key wonder what would’ve happened instead

oop oof rip this other thing sucks

dinkie my twinkie, this other thing kinda slaps!

yes, “this house regrets” debates are basically just intellectualized versions of 2am heartbroken historical revisionism

58 of 179

What are “counterfactuals?”

“Regrets” debates never exist in isolation: if we have a debate about whether society is better or worse off with X, we’re not comparing (world with X) to (world without X)—rather, we’re comparing (world with X) to (world without X, and presumably something else, call it Y, in X’s place)

Example: This House Regrets the glorification of soldiers. In the alternative world, how would we treat soldiers? Would we demonize them? Ignore them? Respect them?
Example: This House Opposes the glorification of happiness. In the alternative world, what other thing(s) would we glorify instead? In the alternative world, how, societally, would we view happiness as a concept?
Example: This House Regrets the portrayal of healthcare workers as “heroes” during the COVID pandemic. In the alternative world, how else would we have perceived healthcare workers? As insignificant? As respectable? As lazy?

Any time you see “This House Regrets,” you should immediately be thinking: “what’s the counterfactual? what would the alternative world have looked like?”

59 of 179

Hint

this is very similar

to the idea of

“comparative analysis!”

60 of 179

Generating effective counterfactuals

Why do you need to consider the counterfactual?

1) You need some comparative to benchmark your arguments against—if you don’t clearly identify a counterfactual, you’re comparing (X) to (Not X), rather than (X) to (Alternative to X)
2) Identifying the comparative/counterfactual is often where you can develop interesting/creative arguments
3) BP—as an opening team, don’t get beat by a closing team that identifies the counterfactual!

How do you do this? Consider who is responsible for propagating narratives; these same people/groups would likely also have constructed/developed the counterfactual narrative(s)/belief(s)

9 times out of 10, narratives are widespread and disseminated through powerful institutions in society, like media companies and the designers of educational curricula (TYPE 1)
Sometimes, though, narratives are more selective, and you need to think critically about who actually pushes narratives (TYPE 2)

61 of 179

TYPE 1

TYPE 2

THO the belief that love requires sacrifice

Who pushes this narrative? Books, TV shows, interviews, celebrities, etc.

What the counterfactual? It’s not that we say love and sacrifice are antithetical to each other—rather, society probably would instead frame sacrifice as supplementary to love, but not needed

THR the demonization of the rich

Who pushes this narrative? Leftists, anti-capitalists, etc.

What’s the counterfactual? It’s not that these people start to glorify the rich—they’ll probably still criticize the rich, but just criticize them through a less emotionally-driven lens!

62 of 179

EX 1

EX 3

EX 2

examples

TH regrets the narrative that humility is a virtue

TH opposes the glorification of non-violent protest

TH supports a belief that all people are redeemable

63 of 179

EX 1

EX 3

EX 2

examples

TH regrets the narrative that humility is a virtue

Counterfactual? Respectful acceptance of humility

TH supports a belief that all people are redeemable

Counterfactual? Some but not all people are redeemable

TH opposes the glorification of non-violent protest

Counterfactual? No one form of protest is uniquely glorified

64 of 179

and again, THIS REALLY

TRUTHFULLY

MATTERS!

Let’s do a more interesting example…

65 of 179

THR the Belt and Road Initiative

66 of 179

typical debate

BRI is bad

BRI is good

67 of 179

What if we re-envisioned this debate?

68 of 179

Chinese expansionism

Belt and Road Initiative results in the expansion of Chinese influence

Most teams make this a debate about

VERSUS

Lack of the Belt and Road Initiative results in an isolationist, closed-off China

69 of 179

But what if that wasn't the debate?

70 of 179

What is the counterfactual?

GOV will probably make lots of arguments about why China has bad incentives—and even if GOV doesn’t explicitly say “the CCP has bad interests,” heavily implicit in most GOV arguments (e.g. debt trapping) is the common premise that China has harmful interests
But… is the BRI the underlying cause of those “malicious Chinese incentives?” Or, more plausibly, is the BRI simply the manifestation of those malicious incentives?

In other words, in a world without the BRI, would China’s underlying incentives to grab power, bully other countries, etc, just magically disappear?

Flowing from this, OPP can (strategically) broaden the debate: given that China has bad incentives on either side, the question then becomes—how do those bad incentives manifest in a world with the BRI and a world without the BRI?

In other words, a clever OPP team can make lots of arguments on why the likely alternatives to the BRI will still result in abusive Chinese grabs to power… just in worse and more explicitly coercive ways, with few (if any) of the positive externalities created by the BRI!

71 of 179

Summary

Counterfactuals…

Do them…

That’s it…

72 of 179

Questions?

73 of 179

Actor

Specific

debates

74 of 179

How do actor debates work?

guess we’re taking some polyjuice potion this round

ey damn what da hell do we even want as this dude (gender neutral)

oop oof rip this thing is bad for us

crinkle my tinkle, this is freakin’ brilliant!

75 of 179

Consider: what are your interests as an actor

How do you do brainstorm what an actor wants?

1) Different types of interests? Political? Economic? Social?
2) Revealed preferences?

Think about past actions: how has this actor behaved throughout (recent) history? What is likely in their interest?

3) Think about which interests are a priority

Example: yes, Biden wants to win office, but does he really want to win office by pandering to hardline conservatives?

Keep things real

1) When “This House” is a government, remember that electability matters a damn lot!
2) When “This House” is a regular person (especially student), remember that the average person/student is not an über-competitive debater shotgunning the Ivies

76 of 179

Once you’ve figured out what an actor cares about, tie your arguments & impacts back to those interests

and do this EXPLICITLY!

77 of 179

This House, as the environmental movement, would openly embrace choice veganism*

*choice veganism refers to the practice of sometimes being vegan, and sometimes eating meat

78 of 179

What do environmentalists want?

External benefits

Attracting new members and supporters
Passing legislation, changing minds, etc.
Maximizing efficiency of resources

Internal cohesion

Satisfying people already in the movement
Keeping hardliners in check

Principled consistency

Upholding baseline principles of the�movement

This is pretty intuitive…

But lots of people forget these!

79 of 179

What do environmentalists want?

External benefits

Attracting new members and supporters
Passing legislation, changing minds, etc.
Maximizing efficiency of resources

Internal cohesion

Satisfying people already in the movement
Keeping hardliners in check

Principled consistency

Upholding baseline principles of the�movement

“First argument: this advocacy makes the moderate seem more palatable and increases buy-in to vegetarian advocacy”

“Second argument: this advocacy reduces internal fragmentation within environmentalist circles”

“Third argument: this advocacy is principally consistent”

80 of 179

Advice: prioritize!

(Especially in BP), it’s difficult to win on every single metric of the round. So, instead, it’s helpful to pick one metric (the one you think you’re most able to win under) and explain why you think that metric is most significant

BUT, make arguments that apply to other, different metrics—and, as the debate goes on, adjust your strategy accordingly!

81 of 179

This house, as china, would invest heavily into russian corporations

82 of 179

What does China want?

Economic benefits

Maintains the legitimacy of the CCP
Decreases the likelihood of internal dissent
Vindicates narratives of a “strong” CCP

Political & strategic benefits

Expands China’s international influence
Increases Chinese soft power

This is important

But maybe this is more important?

83 of 179

This House, as an altruistically-minded college graduate, would choose to follow the 80,000 hours approach*

*the 80,000 hours approach is an offshoot of effective altruism and posits that people should work in high-paying fields (e.g. finance) and donate extensively to charity

84 of 179

What does an altruistically-minded college grad want?

Doing the most good for the world

Doing what’s best for yourself

Economic well being

General happiness

Social relationships

85 of 179

Argument 1

Argument 3

Argument 2

ARGUMENTS

You make more of an impact through large donations than working directly for some charity

You are financially and personally better off when you perform a high-paying job

You are happier when you work a more conventional job where you’re more distanced from suffering/hardship

86 of 179

What does an altruistically-minded college grad want?

Argument 1

You make more of an impact through large donations than working directly for some charity

Doing the most good for the world

Doing what’s best for yourself

Economic well being

General happiness

Social relationships

87 of 179

What does an altruistically-minded college grad want?

Arguments 2 & 3

You are happier when you work a more conventional job where you’re more distanced from suffering. Plus, you’re financially and personally better when you perform a high-paying job

Doing the most good for the world

Doing what’s best for yourself

Economic well being

General happiness

Social relationships

88 of 179

Two other Comments…

89 of 179

1) dealing with morality

Often, there’s an instinct to run moral/principle arguments, even when it’s not obviously clear whether the actor specified in the motion genuinely cares about those types of arguments
How to deal with this:

Pro-morality

1) You have duties to behave morally, and people do tend to recognize and care about these duties!
2) People feel bad when they act immorally but tend to feel good about themselves when they act morally
3) Even if other arguments in the debate “wash out,” moral principles are a salient gridlock breaker!

Anti-morality

1) Lots of (or most?) people care more about outcomes than they care about morality (e.g. buying iPhones is probably unethical, but we still do it) since they are fundamentally selfish
2) Even if people care about morality, and even if that care is very real, their immediate needs/desires tend to be more proximate each day

90 of 179

2) dealing with bad actors

How do you deal with “This House as Russia,” “China,” etc?

1) Don’t dance around it—yes, the reality is, you’re being asked to defend the perspective of a problematic and immoral actor! You might as well own up to it!

NYPDL’ers—the next time you get a “TH as the USFG” motion, please for the love of everything good in this world, realize that the US government is not some utilitarian, benevolent philosopher!

2) Common mistake: don’t assume that moral arguments have no weight… because they do… just in a different way!

Example: does China care about doing immoral things, e.g. suppressing dissidence? No… but are there very real and very pragmatic consequences for doing so? Yes!

3) Common mistake: don’t assume that just because a regime or actor is “bad,” they are also wildly irrational

Example: is the Kim Jong-un government in North Korea evil? Absolutely. Are they nonsensically incompetent and wildly irrational? Absolutely not!

91 of 179

Questions?

92 of 179

Section 2

content motions

93 of 179

NEXT WEEK: specific strategies for generating and constructing effective arguments

94 of 179

environment

Stock

Sports

Narrative

Relationships

Religion

This week: What We’ll Cover

Common arguments, first principles

Tom Brady more like Tin Puljić

Societal beliefs, common values, norms

Something something Valentine’s Day

Smokey the Bear would be proud

Hail to the almighty Point of Information

95 of 179

Stock Motions

no this isn’t about finance I promise

96 of 179

What are “Stock Motions?”

For novice/newer debaters, this means nothing—every motion you debate, you’re probably debating it for the first time! And that’s absolutely WONDERFUL!! ☺️☺️☺️

For those of you who may be more of a Full Time Debater™, some arguments start to show up again… and again… and again… oh and did I mention they show up again…
The question then becomes: how can you most effectively debate motions that you already have a pretty good idea of how to argue?

In other words: for most motions you’ll debate, you’re coming into prep with… basically nothing, with little instinct, with little idea of where the debate is going to end up
But when you do have a reasonably good idea of what’s going to happen, how can you prep most effectively?

97 of 179

Focus on Weighing

Three Strategies

Don’t Stop Thinking

Post-hoc Improvement

When you know the arguments pretty well and can anticipate clash, spend more time than usual explaining why arguments should weigh heavily in the debate!

Common flaw: just because you’ve debated something before, that doesn’t mean you know everything. Keep brainstorming to see what else there is!

After you do rounds, think about them, analyze them, interrogate them. What did you miss, what could you have aced but mishandled. Never lose to the same argument twice!

98 of 179

Activity Time

You’ll get a motion and “fifteen minutes” to prep…

or will you…

MWAHAHAHA 😱😱😱

*evil cackling intensifies*

Translation: you’re going to get a topic, we’re going to see how many arguments y’all can generate in 3 (!) minutes of prep time. Then, we’ll talk about how to weaponize those arguments in prep

99 of 179

This House Believes that the rise of social media has done more harm than good

(GOV)

ryan click ~here~

101 of 179

Americans go pet your bald eagle for a second…

102 of 179

Extending on Stock Motions

If a CA team thought a motion was fair game to set, then they clearly think there’s sufficient depth—so there is probably something else out there!
The advantage of closing on a stock motion? You know what your opening will (probably) run. Two implications:

1) Think about how you’ll frame/wash those arguments out of the debate

Spend time in prep consciously thinking about how you can weigh against the obvious, stock material!

2) Focus your time elsewhere in prep—and if, on the off-chance, opening misses something, go for the obvious stock stuff!

TIP: brainstorm how you can deal with the stock material on the other side! (this can often be conducive to coming up with good extension material)

103 of 179

Narrative Motions

104 of 179

!!IMPORTANT!!

Narrative debates are debates about the consequential value of an idea or a belief — NOT (inherently) about the truth of the underlying idea!

105 of 179

THIS HOUSE REGRETS

THE NARRATIVE THAT PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE

106 of 179

THIS HOUSE REGRETS

THE NARRATIVE THAT PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE

Sorry Yoda, but this is NOT a debate about whether patience is actually a virtue!

107 of 179

Prepping Narrative Debates

Macro

How does this change society overall?

Stakeholders

Determine who is affected by a narrative

Counterfactual

Determine the alternative narrative

Micro

How does this change how individual people act?

What happens when people comply with this narrative?

What happens when people don’t comply with this narrative?

How is this narrative spun to affect change?

108 of 179

Specifics of arguing on narrative motions

109 of 179

Common Argument #1

Narratives are coercive and restrict people’s choice

NOTE: if you’re going to make this argument, you have to prove the counterfactual is choice-maximizing!

110 of 179

TH regrets the romanticization of motherhood

GOV: this narrative is actively coercive because it indoctrinates people, from a young age, to hold a disproportionately rosy view of what it means to be a mother

111 of 179

Common Argument #2

Narratives can be rhetorically weaponized (in other words, when lots of people believe in common values, those values can be used in discourse to persuasively argue for certain things!)

112 of 179

TH regrets the notion that people should “do what they love”

OPP: on either side, people might pursue careers in art, theater, philosophy, etc., but the benefit of this narrative is that it can be spun by advocates for these professions to push for more opportunities, scholarships, mentorship programs, etc.

113 of 179

Common Argument #3

Ask yourself: if people will do something anyway (e.g. forgive others, work hard), narratives can be good if they glorify the behaviors that people will do on either side!

114 of 179

TH regrets the glorification of productivity

OPP: the unfortunate reality is that capitalism exists on either side, which means that on either side, people face necessity-based pressures to be productive. The point at which that’s true is the point at which the harms of excessive productivity are likely quite symmetric, but at least we glorify the process of productivity under our side!

115 of 179

Common Argument #4

Ask yourself: what happens when people defy norms or defy social expectations? What happens to them?

116 of 179

TH regrets the narrative that a university education is necessary

GOV: the disprivileged are often unable to attend university on both sides, but the existence of this narrative is uniquely harmful to them because they get stigmatized for not achieving post-secondary education.

I'm through accepting arguments

'Cause opposition says they're so

Some things I cannot refute

But 'til I weigh, I'll never know!

Too long I've been afraid of

Losing rounds I thought I've won

Well, if that's debate

It comes at much too high a mental cost!

I'd sooner buy defying narratives

Kiss me goodbye, I'm defying narratives

And you can't pull me in

117 of 179

Conclusion: argue about the implications of narratives, and think about whether narratives really change people’s behavior

118 of 179

Questions?

119 of 179

Environment

Motions

120 of 179

Principle

Environment

Do what’s moral

Do what’s democratic

Even if it means

Earth is under attack

Do what’s green

Halt eating meat

And to morality?

We say “yeet”

121 of 179

THW transfer complete management of environmentally significant areas (e.g. the Amazon) to an international body, instead of the national government of that area

GOV: this results in better, more environmentally friendly management of these areas!

OPP: it’s principally wrong to seize control of these areas from national governments!

122 of 179

THBT environmental policy should be decided by unelected scientific experts selected by their peers

GOV: this body of technocrats will make more environmentally-minded policy

OPP: it’s principally wrong to make these decisions undemocratically

123 of 179

Economy

Environment

We like money

We heart cash

So burn some coal

As we make a splash

The real green

Hangs on trees

So drop those dollars

And save the bees

124 of 179

THS the EU’s plan to impose a carbon border adjustment tax

GOV: this decreases carbon leakage and thus incentivizes renewable manufacturing

OPP: this will increase prices and harm developing economies

125 of 179

Strategy #1

Strategy #2

Environment

Here we go

To have some fun

Saving the Earth

Through Plan Number One

Here we are

As we know what to do

So let’s save koalas

Through Plan Number Two

126 of 179

TH prefers environmental movements heavily prioritizing a local agenda over a global one (e.g. focusing on local pollution rather than climate change)

GOV: this is more effective and results in better change

OPP: this is more effective and results in better change

127 of 179

TH prefers a cap-and-trade system to a carbon tax system

GOV: this is more effective and results in better change

OPP: this is more effective and results in better change

128 of 179

THBT environmental activists should advocate for nuclear power

GOV: this advocacy is good for the environment and good for the movement

OPP: this advocacy is bad for the environment and good for the movement

129 of 179

Linking to Climate Impacts

Corporation-side arguments—how do we change corporate actions that contribute to environmental degradation?
Government-side arguments—how do we implement government policies that safeguard the environment?
Individual-side arguments—how do we reform the way individual people live their lives?
Technology-side arguments—how do we create the technological innovations

Specific Mechanisms to Monitor For:

Overcoming short-term government incentives
Lowering the price of renewable energy/green technology
Convincing single/dual issue voters to politically care more about the environment

130 of 179

Weighing on the

Environment

Environmental impacts above all else:

1) Environmental damage is maximally irreversible

Every other type of impact can be mitigated, reversed, or limited in some way, e.g. we can compensate for economic damage through stimulus

2) Environmental damage has a higher-scale magnitude than any other impact

Climate change will result in things like conflicts over scarce resources, population displacement due to rising sea levels, etc.
Warning: unless you’re living in the state with all the wildfires and overly expensive coffee, don’t seriously claim that your argument will stop extinction from happening

3) Environmental damage is uniquely long-term

Most other harms are short term—e.g., even if prices go up because of a carbon tax, commercial market pressures eventually force them back down, whereas the impacts of e.g. climate change last for far longer

4) Environmental damage harms the least well-off

Wealthy communities are most able to insulate themselves from the consequences of climate change, and the cruel irony is that the nations least responsible for climate change will suffer the most

5) Animal rights?

131 of 179

Weighing the Environment

Weighing economic harms against the environment

1) Opportunity cost: there’s finite political capital for measures that promote environmentalism, so not implementing [this specific motion] doesn’t mean we’ll do nothing vis-à-vis climate change, it probably just means we’ll do something else

Implication: environmental benefits often tend to be quite marginal, but you can win somewhere else in the debate!
Softer version of this argument: implementing X policy contributes to a “problem solved” mentality, which decreases the political support for other measures

2) Economic stability is a prerequisite to getting environmental change: people need to be prosperous enough that they can spare the empathy for future generations!

We need e.g. money for green tech R&D, but taxpayers only support that funding if they feel (financially) stable in the present moment

3) Mitigate environmental benefits (e.g. oil lobby, democratic short-termism)
4) [Riskiest] We’re kinda low key fucked anyway, might as well have a party while we all go down!

🤑

132 of 179

Weighing the Environment

Principled arguments involved:

Anti-democracy (i.e., trade off democracy for environmentalism)

1) We sacrifice democracy all the time in exchange for better outcomes, e.g. central banking
2) The right to democracy is less important than the right to life, which we need to protect through good environmental policy
3) Future generations matter! They are disproportionately affected by climate change and can’t represent themselves through voting

Pro-democracy (i.e., don’t trade off democracy for environmentalism)

Just like any other policy issue, environmental matters are subjective—e.g., how do we weigh up environmental concerns relative to economic concerns? Given the inherent subjectivity of this issue, we should defer to democratic solutions/answers

133 of 179

Questions?

134 of 179

Meme Break!

135 of 179

sports

Motions

knowing how to argue sports

136 of 179

Sports Motions

Social Justice

Sports are the one place where it’s societally accepted to loudly yell “FUCK YOU” at someone

Sports

Give your speeches like Mexican soccer announcers, trust me it’s more fun

Politics/Economics

What’s a Pirate’s favorite letter? The letter from his general manager telling him he’s been traded to the Mets

45%

10%

45%

137 of 179

Type #1

SPORTS

138 of 179

basketball

Very tall people huck an oversized orange into a small circle

139 of 179

Football

Grown men play a silly game of keep away but if they lose their brains get turned to mush

140 of 179

Debate

People pretend like they’re actually passionate about actually random stuff and scream big funny words like “comparative” at their computer screen for many, many hours

141 of 179

Why Sports?

Players

There’s a genuine sense of joy/fun that comes from playing
There’s opportunities for glory, for teamwork, for future careers
Sports are an “escape” for many people, offering a reprieve from the grueling mundanity of normal life

Fans/viewers

Sports create communities that cut across otherwise-enfixed divides
Watching sports is a mechanism of “escapism”
There’s joy/fun that comes from cheering on your team, seeing them win championships, etc
Sports are often cultural, e.g. passed down from one generation to the next

Other actors

Sports leagues—profit enormously off of sports viewership (fun fact until 2015 the NFL was legally considered a “not for profit” institution)
Media—advertising opportunity, sponsorship deals, etc

142 of 179

Barriers to Sports

FANS:

Are ticket prices affordable? Are stadiums accessible?

Example: Golden State Warriors moving from Oakland to San Francisco

Are teams giving back to their local communities?
Are teams representing their communities well?

Fans often base their identities, in part, around the teams they cheer for

ATHLETES:

Do training programs exist? Are coaches qualified to provide rising players with the instruction they need?
Are players supported emotionally and mentally? Do they feel comfortable on sports teams?

143 of 179

Nature of Sports

Different level sports have different types of focus

High school athletics: ~7% of high school athletes go on to play at the collegiate level!
College athletics: ~2% of collegiate athletes go on to play professionally! The focus is not exclusively on long-term professionalization!
Professional athletics: unknown percent go on to play in afterlife sports leagues!

Commercialization, communal ownership

Benefits of commercial ownership: more funding, owners have long-term interests (want to grow/improve the team), etc
Benefits of community ownership: principally important, people care more about the team (versus owners viewing teams as investment opportunities) so they make better managing decisions

144 of 179

Type #2

SOCIAL JUSTICE

145 of 179

Problems in Sports

Unequal funding/opportunities

Larger, wealthier teams (e.g. Real Madrid, FC Barcelona) have the most money and tend to fare better than poorer teams

Money gets you coaches, players, better stadiums, talent development networks, more equipment, etc

Disparities in resources often result in disparities in outcomes

Racism/discrimination

League officials, team owners, head coaches, etc., often tend to be white men (e.g. ~58% of NFL players are Black, ~9% of NFL coaches are Black!)
Coaches can often be biased:

1) Implicit biases, e.g. who is deemed “coachable”—this is quite subjective, and thus subject to bias!
2) Explicit biases—e.g., relatively few Black quarterbacks in the NFL

Fans are often racist, too! (e.g. blaming/scapegoating minorities on the team for losses)

Health concerns

American football: head injuries, concussions, CTE, etc

There have been large-scale cover-up efforts!

147 of 179

Sports as a Mechanism for Change

Powerful minority icons (e.g. Serena Williams, LeBron James, etc)

Cults of personality—sports heroes are idolized, they’re given massive media coverage → opportunity to leverage their position to push for change!

Increasing scrutiny of racism within sports leagues

Brian Flores—lawsuit against the NFL for racism!

NFL Rooney Rule: interview at least two women or people of color

Renaming of sports teams with inappropriate names/mascots (e.g. Cleveland Guardians, Washington Commanders)

Problem: commercial market incentives

Michael Jordan (NBA): “Republicans buy sneakers, too”

There’s a risk of being political—for instance, a risk of alienating your consumer/fan base!

Daryl Morey (Houston Rockets management): Tweeted support for Hong Kong, faced significant backlash from the NBA due to its growing presence in China!

148 of 179

Type #3

POLITICS & ECONOMICS

149 of 179

Sports Intersecting with Economics & Politics

How do sports intersect with nationalism?

Sports often rally and unite people around a singular team (e.g. 2018 France); this cuts across ethnic, racial, class, etc, lines!

Example: the Basque Country is a semi-autonomous region in Spain, and its football club has a strong Basque identity!

How do sports intersect with economics?

Impact of (pro) sports on local economy: stadiums, foot traffic, local infrastructure (e.g. pubs, bars, restaurants, hotels)
Teams have leverage over cities (can threaten to leave)—often, stadiums are subsidized or given tax breaks (~$146M annually in tax breaks, ~$2.2B in direct subsidies)

How do sports intersect with politics and society?

Sports have significant impacts on culture—pro sports players have massive influence!
Sports figures have increasingly become outspoken on political issues (e.g. NBA solidarity with BLM, NFL voting initiatives, Steve Kerr speech on gun violence after Uvalde)

150 of 179

Sportswashing

This is the political equivalent of the local school asshole being really good at, like, basketball—but, at the level of nations
Good examples to know:

Saudi Arabia—LIV Golf League, Newcastle United buy-out, etc.

Saudi Arabia has a horrible track record on human rights, and is frequently criticized for using sports to salvage/cleanse its international image

Olympics sportswashing—China (2008/2022 Olympics), Russia (2014 Olympics)

1936 Berlin Olympics—widely cited as an instance of sportswashing by Hitler’s Nazi regime

Silvio Berlusconi—Italian politician, majority owner of AC Milan, strongly boosted his popularity (despite major corruption/abuse scandals)
Gazprom—Russian (state owned) oil company, sponsors the Champions League and the German national soccer team

151 of 179

Example: THBT the Olympics do more harm than good

Harms

Economic harms to hosting country: excessive amounts of debt, bloated infrastructure projects, waste of space
Harms to vulnerable populations: gentrification, slum-dwellers are evicted in order to build stadiums
Political harms: bad actors (e.g. Russia, China) use the Olympics to “mask” their negative international reputations

Benefits

Economic benefits to hosting country: tourism (short and long term), infrastructure creation, put your name out there to the world
Political benefits: temporary global unity, people rally around sports, rivalries exist but in a different way than conventional geo-political opposition
Good for athletes (highest level of global competition!) and viewers (exciting to root for your team)

152 of 179

Two Predictions…

153 of 179

PREDICTION

Saudi Arabia-backed LIV Golf League will rear its ugly head at some tournament in the fall…

154 of 179

PREDICTION

Qatar is hosting this summer’s World Cup—lots of human rights atrocities involved (e.g. use of slave labor)

155 of 179

Questions?

156 of 179

Religion

Motions

157 of 179

Common Issue #1: Making Religion Better

How do we make religion more accepting/tolerant of different groups (e.g. women, queer people)

Why do religions tend to skew regressive/conservative?

1) Based on old, outdated texts/scriptures that often support very regressive beliefs (e.g. homophobia)
2) Religious authorities (priests, imams) tend to be quite old and lean towards the right

How can we change religions to be more accepting?

1) Natural trend towards liberalization in an era where more and more people are becoming secular (religions want to attract new members and retain old members!)
2) Progressive reinterpretation (e.g. Islamic feminism, reform Judaism, Catholic liberation theology)

How do we make religion less coercive?

Why do religions tend to be coercive?

1) Fear of going to Hell, desire to ascend to Heaven (scared to leave)
2) Dependence on your community (e.g. resources, emotional support); fear of becoming a social outcast for disobeying religion

How can we change religions to be more choice-maximizing?

1) Creating external support structures for people seeking to leave religions
2) Providing alternative interpretations (e.g. progressive Madrassas)

158 of 179

Common Issue #2: Benefits/Harms of Religion

Religion is good

Charity!

Empirically, the Catholic Church is (technically) the largest charity in the world!

Emotional/communal support!

People find meaning in religion
Religion answers scary questions (e.g. “what happens when we lose debate rounds and feel like God hates us???”)

Impetus to behavior morally

Heaven/Hell are power motivators—infinite reward/punishment

Religion is bad

Conflict (inter-denominational, inter-faith)

Good response: religion is used as cover for conflict, but is seldom the true cause!

Regressive outlooks (e.g. LGBTQ+)
Abuse, exploitation of the poor/vulnerable, autonomy-reducing

159 of 179

Common Issue #3: Intersections

How does religion intersect with government?

Different political approaches, e.g. France’s constitutional principle of secularism (laïcité) versus continued influence of religion elsewhere (e.g. “one nation under God,” swearing in on the Bible, dominance of evangelicals in certain American elections)
Religion can be weaponized by governments (e.g. Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy, Turkey’s Diyanet), but religion is also a powerful tool to use when combating oppression (e.g. liberation theology in Latin America)
Increasing trend: (some) authoritarian governments crack down on religion, since they often view religion as a potential threat to the authority of the state (e.g. CCP’s China has one of the largest irreligious populations in the world!)

How does religion intersect with culture?

Many religions are profoundly shaped by religious values and beliefs
Many religions were imposed during the era of colonial rule, but have been adjusted and re-interpreted by local populations (e.g. Latin American Catholicism)

160 of 179

Questions?

161 of 179

Relationship

Motions

162 of 179

micro

MACRO

163 of 179

Type #1

MICRO

164 of 179

Um… Yeah dude Idk???

Romantic relationships

Highly motion-specific…
Tip? Don’t forget about sex-based arguments, remember that humans are just really weird and abnormal animals but still do basically a ton of things just in the pursuit of getting laid (except, like, debate…?)

Platonic relationships

Highly motion-specific…

165 of 179

Type #2

MACRO

166 of 179

Things to Think About…

Dynamics within abusive relationships

Common misconception: it’s really fucking hard to get out of abusive relationships!

1) Unaware—abusers gaslight victims into the belief that this is “normal” and “healthy”

Pro Tip: on narrative motions, think about how abusers can spin narratives in bad ways!

2) Stuck—abused victims are often financially dependent on their partner, or face significant social retaliation for leaving/ending a relationship

Compounded by societal/familial pressure to settle down, marry, have kids, etc.

Can be very easily weighed as most important in the round!

Dynamics within healthy relationships

How do you strengthen these relationships? How do you make them more valuable? Trust, fidelity, depth, etc.

Impacts on minorities, e.g. the LGBTQ+ community!

167 of 179

Questions?

168 of 179

SECTION 3

DEBATE-O DO BE WACKO DOE

169 of 179

Approach?

Roses are red

Violets are blue

Wacky motions are fun

And that is very true

But the sad reality

Is they kinda hard

So just always ADAPT!

And don’t be off-guard

170 of 179

Type #1

HYPOTHETICAL TECHNOLOGY

171 of 179

Strat #1: Think. Really. Critically�AND ASK QUESTIONS!!!

Who uses this tech?

What are the realistic limits of this tech?

Will there be regulation?

Who will this tech be accessible to?

Where will this tech exist?

Are there any “special use” cases?

How is this portrayed in the media?

What real-world alternatives are there currently?

How will social norms change as a result?

Who is likely producing or gatekeeping this tech?

Is this going to be expensive?

172 of 179

Strat #2: Analogize!

What do we already have that’s similar? And what lessons can we learn from that?

For people who want to “do this” on either side, what other ways will they do this?

for instance, authoritarian governments?

Why do people choose to use new, or even risky, technology? What’s the real delta?