Welcome Everyone!

​

Please sign in:

in.monashdebaters.com

Week 3

Monash Association of Debaters

Today and 18th of March!

MAD SGM - 21st/3rd at 4PM

13 Rainforest Walk, Auditorium, Green Chemical Futures

​

Lectures and Slides are now on the MAD Website!

Special thanks to:

​

Tim Sonnreich’s debating guide and Andrew Gaulke’s wonderful first principles coaching!

INTRO TO FIRST PRINCIPLES

(or how to generate cases when you’re not sure where to start)

WHAT ARE FIRST PRINCIPLES?

• Novices and intermediate debaters often feel like they don’t know enough to debate topics to their full potential – or maybe you feel like you don’t know where to start with a particular case
• So, we need an easy way to (a) generate ideas in prep and (b) to structure those ideas into a sound case and strong rebuttals
• It’s important not to worry too much about jargon/name checking the key clashes. Your ideas are what’s important!
• Two key elements of first principles:
1. Logic = Knowing how to show an argument is logically sound or logically flawed without knowing anything about the topic
2. Clashes = developing a good understanding of the key clashes that form the fundamental questions in each debate (there may be more than one!)

​

WHY DO WE CARE ABOUT FIRST PRINCIPLES?

• Easy way to approach topics when we have limited knowledge about that particular area or limited knowledge about debating in general
• Allow for better structured, more watertight cases – if you don’t understand the key clashes, the argumentation can be less relevant or more open to rebuttal
• Allow for cleaner, more targeted rebuttal – rebutting the core ideas rather than the example
• Quicker and simpler than keeping up with the news on every issue – try to keep up with the news as much as you can, but if you have limited time and resources, it’s much easier to just focus on key clashes

​

EXAMPLES OF FIRST PRINCIPLES

• (This is a non-exhaustive list)
• Purity vs broadness
• Big government v small government
• Retributive justice v restorative justice
• Efficiency v accountability
• Constructive engagement v sanctions
• Forced change v organic change
• Direct democracy v representative democracy

​

PURITY VS BROADNESS

• Often arises (but not exclusively) in social justice movement debates
• Basically: do we want to keep our actions and goals pure and true to our core ideology, or do we want to include a broader spectrum of people and ideas, even if that means sacrificing a degree of ideological purity?
• For example: TH, as the feminist movement, would actively try to include conservative women.
• Side Affirmative will argue that, by gaining more women (i.e. becoming more broad), the movement will become stronger and be able to enact more change by getting more voters on side.
• Side Negative will argue that, even if true, the expanded movement will mean sacrificing progress on important feminist issues (e.g. abortion, trans rights) and marginalize the most vulnerable women in the movement (e.g. women of colour, trans women)

But don’t forget to prove each step of the argument!

• As Affirmative, you can’t just assert that trying to include conservative women will mean you get more people on board with the movement – you need to provide structural reasons why this is true.
• As Negative, you can’t just assert or argue by example that trans women and women of colour will feel excluded or marginalized from the movement just because conservative women are there. Again, you need structural reasons.
• Also, you need to impact and weigh each argument, e.g. why will a larger movement necessarily get more change? Why do we particularly care about the most vulnerable women in the movement? (Don’t assume the adj’s priorities are the same as your team’s – show them why they should prioritise a certain thing).
• Tldr: first principles are not a silver bullet. You still need to practice all the other skills you are learning in debating – but first principles can help with this too!

​

COMMON ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH SIDES

SIDE PURITY

• The central idea we support is so principally important that we can’t make any sacrifices without fundamentally harming our goals.
• Side broadness will harm the most vulnerable by excluding their voices.
• A broad movement is less effective, and any change created is not particularly important.
• A broad movement will be less efficient, due to resulting division and factionalisation within the movement.

​

SIDE BROADNESS

• ‘Pure’ movements tend to get less members, less publicity and less high-profile support.
• By appealing to a broad spectrum of people, we get more voters onside and more people power to achieve our other goals.
• A diluted change/policy that gets passed is better than a great policy that no one votes for.
• More people included in the movement = less criticism of the movement from different communities
• Discourse with different groups

​

BIG GOV v SMALL GOV

• Comes up in a variety of democracy, economics and even criminal justice debates, sometimes others
• Similar (but not identical clashes): ban v regulate, harm prevention v free will, Keynesian v Neoliberal economics
• Basically, do we want the government to be interventionist and protect its citizens via regulation, or do we value the free will of the individual more?
• Make sure to model realistically and remember both sides have nuances, e.g. in most debates, you probably don’t want to impose a 1984 style dictatorship (where every action is monitored and regulated by government) and you probably don’t want to legalise all crimes. Of course, realistic modelling applies in all debates.

BIG GOV v SMALL GOV (continued)

• Example topic: THW legalise all drugs.
• Affirmative will want to argue: individuals have the ability to choose what drugs they want to take and, at the point where there is no harm to others, they should be able to do this without state intervention. Furthermore, previous attempts by the government to ban drugs (e.g. war on drugs) have been total failures – so a regulated system is better.
• Negative will want to argue: because of the addictive nature of drugs, many individuals do not have the capacity to consent to future addiction and the harms this may bring. Consequently, the government has an obligation to step in and protect vulnerable citizens. Further, there are negative consequences to others, e.g. drug addicts committing more crimes, burden on taxpayer to fund public hospitals.

COMMON ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH SIDES

BIG GOV

• Government has an obligation to protect its citizens from harm
• Negative externalities of side small gov negate freedom of choice at the point where they impact on freedom of others
• People cannot consent to certain harmful activities (e.g. long term harms from drugs) because human beings are bad at judging short term pleasure v long term risk.

SMALL GOV

• Individuals have the right to make the decision that is best for them and the state has no place intruding into that.
• The state is not necessarily a benevolent actor – so why are we letting the state make such important choices for individuals?
• Most individuals have the capacity to self-regulate and make good decisions. The ones that do not may not respond to a ban or regulation (e.g. people continue to do drugs even when they are illegal).

EFFICIENCY vs ACCOUNTABILITY

• Often comes up in democracy debates, but can also feature in debates about the judiciary, IR, even social movements
• Basically: would we rather have a system that is efficient (i.e. they get shit done quickly) or would we rather have more checks and balances on the people in power, even if that means slower change.
• Again, you need to pay attention to your model and prove why your system is going to be efficient or accountable – can’t just assert this.

EFFICIENCY v ACCOUNTABILITY (continued)

• Example topic: That we would remove all environmental restrictions and regulations for new infrastructure projects in developing countries.
• Affirmative will argue: developing countries need to create stable jobs and develop their economies fast to avoid more people dying in poverty due to unemployment or underemployment. We care about this more than negative environmental externalities, which only play out in the long term, during which time we will be better economically equipped to deal with them.
• Negative will argue: even if affirmative achieves fast change (and they need to prove this), removal of environmental restrictions is likely to result in more dangerous conditions for workers (= more sickness and death) and a poorer outlook for the country in the short and long term (e.g. due to soil poisoning so can’t grow crops, polluted water supplies).

Okay, but how do I case prep using first principles?

• Once you’ve done a few debates, you will start to notice patterns (e.g. debates about banning things) and similar arguments that teams tend to make in these debates.
• For example, we’ve gone over That we would legalise all drugs, let’s try That we would ban hate speech.
• If the government has an obligation to protect people from drug-related crime, could they also have an obligation to protect potential victims of hate speech? Why is this true? Social contract theory = citizens pay taxes and contribute to society, so government protects and provides for them.
• If the government is a bad actor to regulate/ban drugs, could they also be a bad actor to regulate hate speech? Do bans work? Has the team adequately defended the efficacy of their ban?

How do I rebut using first principles?

• Most important thing: make sure you are rebutting the core principle (or a step to proving it), not the example.
• Things to look out for:
• Assertion – where the speaker doesn’t tell us why the argument is true
• Arguing by example – using one example to prove why sometime will be true in all cases, without explaining why this is likely
• False dichotomy – presenting an either-or situation, without explaining why you can’t pursue policy A without sacrificing policy B
• Contradiction – two of the opposition’s argument’s can’t coexist, e.g. privatization can’t make medicine cheaper and more expensive
• Straw man – where the opposition blatantly misrepresents your case or sets up an argument you didn’t make to rebut it

​

​

Rebuttal (continued)

• Remember your key clashes and structure your rebuttal around them. This is usually more effective than extraneous rebuttal at the beginning of a speech.
• If a team’s case is contingent on them proving an outcome, e.g. a broader movement, have they adequately proven they will get this?
• But also, take the even if, which takes you to the very core of the clash. E.g. even if you get a broader movement/more voters onside, why are the policies you can support as a movement worse policies? Why is this not worth a concession?

​

LIMITATIONS OF FIRST PRINCIPLES

• It’s still important to be aware of specific contexts. E.g. TH, as the South Korean feminist movement, would advocate for conscription for men and women. As negative, you could argue that Aff (i.e. side broadness) is supporting a problematic institution (the military) that perpetuates violence and often excludes women from positions of power. This isn’t a bad argument per se, but you do need to be aware that attitudes to the military in South Korea, even among feminists, are likely to be different to a western feminist perspective.
• Sometimes, and particularly in the current debating meta, teams won’t necessarily run a textbook first principles case, and you might need to branch out of the key clash to be able to effectively rebut them.
• Not every topic is going to neatly fit into a key clash – but that doesn’t stop you from using them for guidance.

Safety Slide

Safety Slide

Safety Slide

Safety Slide

Safety Slide

Safety Slide

INFO SLIDE NEXT

Info Slide

A “troll” is a person who intentionally upsets people and sows discord on the internet by posting inflammatory messages with the intent of provoking readers into displaying an emotional response. A “meme” is a humorous image, video, piece of text, ect. that is copied and spread rapidly (often with slight variations) by internet users. “Online shaming” is a form of internet vigilantism in which targets are publicly humiliated for their actions.

Safety Slide

TOPIC RELEASE

Motion Release

We should encourage feminists to troll, meme and shame the patriarchy.