Ananya
Bose's non comprehensive guide to being cracked at DEBATE
Refresher on British Parliamentary Format
Each team is judged separately, thus there will be a winning team not a winning side
Roles and Responsibilities cont.
Deputy:
Burden pushing What does the otherside need to prove in order to win
Refutation: Analyze and compare why the other teams points do not hold up
Rebuilding: Providing more analysis for the points brought up by your partner (different & nuanced, repeating is wasting time)
Whip Speeches- Second Speakers on closing bench:
Summarizing the main points of clash into 3 themes, under which you outline why your team won on each case citing your constructive arguments and weighing each case
Roles and Responsibilities
Role fulfillment is incredibly important in debate, it is not enough to give an empowering speech!
Gov.
Prime Minister : Modeling the resolution, defining key terms and establishing a concrete understanding of their world, which acts as the basis for the debate. Provide a goal. Introduce 2-3 constructive arguments.
Opp.
Leader of Opposition : Outlining the status quo or an alternative world to that proposed by the government team.Provide a goal. Introduce 2-3 constructive arguments.
Differentiating yourself from the front half
Extension speeches:
REFUTE! REFUTE! REFUTE!
Burden placing: What did front bench need to prove in order to win? If front half did an inadequate job at fulfilling this responsibility, shift the burden to back half.
Engaging with front half through POI’s :
How to Effectively Use Prep Time/ Time Management
Back bench has significantly more time to develop their case, and has the option of referencing and rebuilding front half’s analysis. However this time advantage comes with the tradeoff of having to come up with unique and different constructive points for your extension speech.
Prep Time: Many of the points you generate during prep time will be taken by front half, instead spend the time trying to build your case, try to find as many unique points as possible.
Tip #1: Spend time during the actual debate trying to understand front half’s case, and sorting through your own points, cross off ones that have been taken, and further analyze the ones that stand out
Tip #2: Take notes and use the extra time to develop your world, and extend on any analysis front half has missed
Tip #3: Communicate with your partner! Give them sticky notes
Structure/ Style/ Content
Structure
Your judges will be assessing your speeches on a variety of different criteria, it is important that you are cognizant of
Style
Content
(easily the most important thing you will be judged on)
PAEL
Point -
Analysis -
Example-
Link-
s = social
p = political
e = economic
e = environmental
e = ethical
r= religion
m- morals
SPEEERM
Point Generation in Back Half
Ask yourself questions
Avoiding Assertions and “Intuitive Arguments”
Without the proper analysis and mechanization for an argument it is very easy to make assertions that don’t hold the necessary weight to win a debate. GET US FROM POINT A TO POINT B.
Ex. Guns are dangerous
[WHY?]
guns fire bullets at a high velocity
[SO WHAT?]
[WHY DOES THIS MATTER]
when people use guns to resolve disputes they are far more likely to seriously injure or kill one another than if no guns were present
Weighing Arguments
Understanding and comparing the worlds that were illustrated in the debate. Using the opposing team's best case, and your team’s worst case, to prove to the judges that even under those condition your side still wins.
Effective weighing strategies
Magnitude: What is the size of the harm? How severe is the impact?
Scope: How many people is the impacting?
Probability: How likely is this event? ( the scale should impact how much we care)
Timeframe: Short term/ long term? Is the harm linear or compounded depending on the time frame?
Reversibility: the harm can’t be undone
Framing as a concept feels abstract.
Make sure you prove why you prove you analysis is important, before outlining why it is true.
Ex. from last week's class:
Shorter format chess tournaments makes chess more accessible to the greatest numbers of people.
Okay?
Why is that something we want? Why is that important? How does this achieve your sides burden within the debate?
Burdens
At the beginning of your speech outlining what your side’s goal is, and what you need to prove in order to win. What grounds should the debate take place under?
Although remember burdens are subjective, and contestable
*note make sure this burden is fair, reasonable and accurate
Why is burden pushing and fulfillments so important?
Subtle Burdens pt.2
If you disagree with their framing: “Opp says the world is like this, but we think it’s not actually like this, it’s more like this other thing”.
Logically proving something is always true or never true, only requires one counter examples
Thus, debate rounds rarely take this approach. It is more likely that for non policy motion you will need to take multiple smaller burdens.
Ex. “This House believes that parents should actively instil the value of questioning authority in their children”.
1. Most authorities are illegitimate
2. This harm is likely and scalable
3. Instilling these values will make children less likely to join in on practices that harm them (ex. bullying)
4. Children will grow up to disobey illegitimate authorities
Engaging with the motion correctly!!
“This House believes that parents should actively instil the value of questioning authority in their children”.
Engage with the motion in terms of how children as children perceive and engage with values, and do not spend too much time on the long term impacts.
Some necessary framing:
Stakeholder Analysis
Outline how the motion impacts different stakeholders is also framing!
Characterization is just as important as identification
Ex. prop may want to identify individuals on welfare as financially irresponsible (through malice, or ignorance)
Moral Frameworks:Navigating the deadlock of incongruence
Most debaters rely on consequentialism, a concern with balance of harm and cost- benefit analysis, etc.
When solely using metrics like number of lives affected, or having to defend various authoritarian regimes against western hegemony, you’d be screwed if you were to defend using a utilitarian framework
Instead we probably want rely on more principled stances
Deontological vs. Teleological Ethical Systems
Deontological Ethics
“The ends do not justify the means”
Teleological Ethics
“A function of the end”
What are logical fallacies
Common errors in logical reasoning and arguments, that should help you outline refutations!!!
Formal Fallacies
Informal Fallacies
False Dilemma/ False Dichotomy
Representing a complex issue with limited actionable choices. Illustrating the solution to the problem as one of 2 extremes. This is incredibly common in debate and is largely why Opp. teams need to bring reasonable alternative to the status quo (very polarizing).
Ex. “We will go to war or do nothing”
Ex 2. “ It’s either love or hate”
Slippery Slope
This fallacy is one that new debaters often fall victim to, be careful about compounding the harm you are illustrating in your case
Logic: if A happens, then eventually through a series of small steps, through B, C,..., X, Y, Z. And thus A =Z
Ex.Paying Doctors Less Leads To Collapse Of The Healthcare System
If we pay doctors less, this will discourage people from pursuing medical degrees, which will result in fewer competent doctors and the healthcare system will collapse.
Strawmanning
Oversimplifying/ De-contextualizing your oppositions case, and then only refuting the hallowed out version of their case. This is why weighing is important we want to be engaging with their best case!
(Even if all the things opp says happen do, why are we still better off in our world?)
Ex.
Person 1: Because of the thefts in our building, I think we should add more security cameras.
Person 2: So you’re saying you don’t trust your neighbors?
Circular Arguments
Make sure you are proving your constructive arguments through analysis, and not re-stating the header.
Ex.
George Bush is a good communicator because he speaks effectively.
Hasty Generalizations
Using a few examples to derive an universal truth. Usually lacking supporting evidence, to prove the scope.
Ex. Every girl loves to wear makeup