Monash Association

of Debaters Guide
to Debating
Tips, Tactics and First Principles
By Tim Sonnreich
2012 Edition (Edited by Madeline Schultz)

ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips, Tactics and First Principles

Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................................... 3
µšZ}Œ[A/všŒ}µš]}v................................................................................................................ 4
Chapter One : A Review of the Three-On-Three Style ............................................................... 5
Part A : An Overview .............................................................................................................. 5
Part B: Roles of the Speakers................................................................................................ . 5
Part C : Variants on the Sty l e.................................................................................................. 6
Chapter Two: Definitions........................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Three: Constructing and Deconstructing Arguments................................................ 12
Part A : Making Arguments .................................................................................................. 12
Part B: Surgical Strike Rebuttal t Min i mal Fuss, Maximum Damage .................................. 14
Part C : Rebuttal from First Principles .................................................................................. 15
WŒšA W AZÀvA/([.................................................................................................................... 17
Chapter Four : Tactics............................................................................................................... 19
Part A : Hard/Soft Lines and Models .................................................................................... 19
Part B: Search for a Super-Model........................................................................................ 21
Part C : Slippery Slopes......................................................................................................... 23
Part D: Opposing Minority Rights........................................................................................ 25
Chapter Five: Manner.............................................................................................................. 27
Chapter Six: Secret Topic Prep ................................................................................................ 30
Part A : Steps to Good Preps ................................................................................................ 30
Part B: Making Arguments from First Principles ................................................................. 31
Chapter Seven t More Advanced Tactics................................................................................ 34
Part A : Speaking Order, Fi l ters and Tactical Concessions ................................................... 34
Part B: Trends, Norms and Tipping Points ........................................................................... 37
Part B: Classic Affirmative Mistakes and Negative Tactics .................................................. 39
Part C : General Tactical Mistakes ........................................................................................ 42
Chapter Eight t British Parl i amentary (BP) Debating.............................................................. 46
Part A : The General Format ................................................................................................. 46
Part B: Extensions................................................................................................................ 47
Appendix One t First Principles Exercises ............................................................................... 48

Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 2

ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips, Tactics and First Principles

Preface

to}uA š}A šZA D}vZA }]š]}vA }(A šŒ[A ~D A vvµoA ^Z}}o[A dŒ]v]vPA ÇXA /A
hope that you get a lot out }(Aš}Ç[A]}vAvAÁAÀŒÇAuµZAZ}‰Aš}AAuvÇA}(AÇ}µA]vA
the DAV finals!

The D}vZA}]š]}vA}(AšŒA~DAÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}Aš]vPA is designed
to complement the sessions you have seen today, and will be a great reference when you
need to refresh or update your skills, especially as you move into the finals and beyond.

dZ]AZv}}lA]AvA]šAÀŒ]}vA}(Ad]uA^}vvŒ]Z[ADebating Training Guide (2006). Tim is
one of the legends of Australian debating, having three times been crowned Australasian
Intervarsity Debating Champion (2000, 2001, 2004) and twice been named Best Speaker in
Australasia (2002, 2003). On top of this, he debated in the Grand Final of the 2003 World
University Debating Championships. As an adjudicator, Tim served as the Deputy Chief
Adjudicator of the 2007 World University Debating Championship and the 2007 Australasian
Debating Championships.

On behalf of everyone at MAD, I wish you all the best for your future debates.

--Madeline Schultz,

Editor and MAD ScZ}}o[AdŒ]v]vPAK((]ŒAîìíîA

Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 3

ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips, Tactics and First Principles

µšZ}Œ[A/všŒ}µš]}v

This is a guide to debating, written ostensibly for young debaters, but along the way I think
all but the most seasoned debaters and adjudicators should find something of interest in
here.

There are really two types of debaters. There are those who think debating is just a hobby,
}ušZ]vPAšZš[A(µvA vAo}}lA P}}A}vA ACsUA µšA ]v[šA ŒooÇA ÀŒÇA ]u‰}ŒšvšA ]vA šZA PŒvA
scheme of things, and then there is another group.

The second group think debating is more than just trophies, travelling overseas or having the
best matter files. To this second group, debating actually has some inherent meaning and
importance t not because the outcome of any given debate ever really changes much, but
because in its totality, debating changes everything. Unlike any other hobby or sport,
debating t if done well t will shape your personality, your intellect and your beliefs. And if
we ever want to live in a world where decisions are made on the basis of logic and
persuasion, not force or intimidation, then we need to take things like debating seriously.

&}ŒA šZšA Œ}vA /A šZ]vlA ]š[A Œ]š]oA šZšA ‰}‰oA oŒvA š}A šA ÁooXA šŒA šA >^hA
(Philippines) have a motto t ^ulA šZA PuA µš](µo_A t and while I doubt that my
]vÀ}oÀuvšAÀŒAuAš]vPA‰Œšš]ŒUA/[Ao]lAš}AšZ]vlA/AoÁÇAšAÁ]šZA]všegrity.
ÀŒÇAšŒAvAš}A(]vAšZ]ŒA}ÁvAšÇoUAvA/AŒš]voÇA}v[šAÁvšAÀŒÇ}vAšŒÇ]vPAš}A
sound like me in debates, but I would like to think that most debaters will eventually realise
the importance of what they are doing, and the skills that theÇ[ŒAoŒv]vPXA/A]vŒoÇAZ}‰A
this guide will go some way towards that goal.

Finally, I should thank all the people, past and present, who helped me draft this guide and
who helped me learn the skills. There were a great many people from whom I learned tricks,
or discussed ideas over the years, and they each deserve a slice of the credit (or blame, as
šZAAuÇAA(}ŒAšZ]AÁ}ŒlXA^}AAv}šAš}A}((vAvÇ}vA/Au]PZšAoÀA}µšA/AÁ}v[šAvuA
names, but I think all those former mentors, team-mates and foes know who they are.

Enjoy.

--Tim Sonnreich

Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 4

which some students do. from First Affirmative through to Third Negative. 6-8 minutes. at C-Grade. Some of these are discussed in much greater detail throughout this handbook. 6-8 minutes 4 This section was written by Madeline Schultz Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 5 . but the following is an overview of what we expect from each speaker during the debate. 5-6 minutes. at A-Grade. as follows: First First Affirmative Negative Second Second Affirmative Negative Third Third Affirmative Negative The skills of debate are formally broken down into three categories and scores are assigned on the basis of these categories: Matter (40%) t the logic and relevance of your arguments Manner (40%) t the style with which you present yourself Method (20%) t the structure and clarity of your speech 4 Part B: Roles of the Speakers There are certain things that each speaker must do. this time is reduced to half-an-hour 3 At D-Grade. in order to fulfil their role in the debate. discussed later. and the Negative. 1 This is a lightly edited version of a text written by Victor Finkel 2 If you choose to participate in University-level competitions. Tactics and First Principles Chapter One: A Review of the Three-On-Three Style tZ]oA /A ƉšA šZšA (ÁA }(A Ç}µA vA A }u‰ošA ]všŒ}µš]}vA š}A š]vPUA ]š[A (Œ‹µvšoÇA amazing how much of the basics students forget. the basic style has the following key features: there are two teams of three speakers each each team is assigned a side (the Affirmative. As such. who argue in favour of a topic. at B-Grade. 4-5 minutes. here is a useful refresher.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. 1 Part A: An Overview While there are some variations. who argue against it) a topic is set for each debate 2 teams are given one hour to prepare 3 each speaker speaks for a set period of time speakers alternate between the teams.

if necessary First {outline a team split Negative {rebut the arguments made by the First Affirmative {make 2-3 arguments in favour of the motion {resolve any definitional issues. Reply Speeches Reply speeches are four-minute half-speeches used in many university-level debating tournaments. an entirely different style of debating is discussed in Chapter Eight. as well as at the World Schools Debating Competition. if necessary Affirmative {outline a team split {make 2-3 arguments in favour of the motion {re-contextualise the debate and resolve any definitional issues {introduce a counter-model. Some of the more common variations on the 3-on-3 style are discussed here. Tactics and First Principles {contextualise the debate and define any unclear parts of the motion First {introduce a model. this is frowned upon and generally considered to show poor team planning {rebut and summarise the debate Third {Third Negative is not allowed to introduce any new material.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Reply speeches are 5 This section was written by Madeline Schultz Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 6 . if necessary Second {rebut the arguments made by the First Negative Affirmative {make 2-3 arguments in favour of the motion Second {rebut the arguments made by the Affirmative so far Negative {make 2-3 arguments in favour of the motion {rebut and summarise the debate Third {while Third Affirmative is techinically allowed to introduce Affirmative new material. Negative although this should not prevent them from rebutting arguments in new or different ways 5 Part C: Variants on the Style AÇ}µA}vš]vµAÁ]šZAÇ}µŒAš]vPAŒŒUAÇ}µ[ooAoŒvAšZšAšZŒAŒAuvÇA]((ŒvšAšÇoA of debating.

BµA }(A šZ]ŒA ^uš-š_A všµŒUA Œ‰oÇA ‰ZA ŒA µµooÇA o]ÀŒA ‹µ]šA dispassionately. a meta-case is the case for your victory Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 7 . they should be a near-direct summary of the debate t but one that uses the material from the debate tacticallyUA š}A Z}ÁA A oŒA ÀvšPA š}A šZA ‰lŒ[A šuXA dZA P}oA }(A A Œ‰oÇA speech should be to give the adjudicator reasons to award the debšAš}AšZA‰lŒ[AšuUA rather than to defend the motion directly. Points of information are brief (15 seconds or less) questions }((ŒAÇAšZA}‰‰}]š]}vAµŒ]vPAA‰lŒ[A‰ZX W}]všA}(A]v(}Œuš]}vAŒA}((ŒAÇAvA}‰‰}]š]}vA‰lŒAšv]vPAµ‰AvAÇ]vPA^‰}]vt of ]v(}Œuš]}v_UA^‰}]všA]Œlu[u_UA^}vAšZšA‰}]vš_A}ŒA}uAÀŒ]všAšZŒ}(XAdZA‰lŒAuÇA Z}}Aš}A‰šA}ŒAŒišAšZA}((ŒA‰}]všA}(A]v(}Œuš]}vA~u}šA‰lŒAÁ]ooA]u‰oÇAZÁÀA }Áv[AšZA}‰‰}]š]}vA](AšZÇA}Av}šAÁ]ZAš}AšlAšZA‰}]všXAW}]všAof information may not be }((ŒAµŒ]vPAšZA(]ŒšA}ŒAošAu]vµšA}(AA‰lŒ[A‰ZX At tournaments where points of information are used. Reply speeches are scored out of 50. Points of Information (POIs) Points of information are usually used in the style discussed in Chapter Eight.: the Negative team gives their reply first t and are given by either the first or second speaker of each team. rather than out of 100. Instead. 6 Rather than arguing for the motion. Tactics and First Principles }(švAŒ]AAA^]Aiµ]š]}v_UA]vAÁZ]ZAZAšuAššu‰šAš}A‰ŒvšAAuš- 6 case (}ŒA ÁZÇA šZ]ŒA A ]A ššŒA šZvA šZ]ŒA }‰‰}]š]}v[XA Z‰oÇA ‰ZA ŒA P]ÀvA ]vA ^ŒÀŒA}ŒŒ_At i. Speakers are generally discouraged from accepting more than two points of information. Reply speeches are not allowed to introduce any new material or to rebut.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips.e. speakers are expected to accept no less than one point of information during their speech. as well as at the World Schools Debating Championship. but are also used in some university-level three-on-three competitions. Reply speeches are usually structured to answer two (sometimes three) questions about major issues in the debate t a similar structure to that used in thematic rebuttal.

with interesting/important issues that are complex or sophisticated enough to be sustained over the course of the debate. A common sense test is appropriate t could there be confusion about my subject if I fail to define this term? Could a reasonable opposition misinterpret what I mean if I dov[šMA/vAšZA^vAu}l]vP_AÆu‰oAµA}ÀUA(}ŒAÆu‰oUAšZŒAZ}µoA Av}A}všŒ}ÀŒÇAAš}AÁZšA^u}l]vP_A]UAµšAvA((]Œuš]ÀAAÁ}µoAv}šAA}u‰ošA](A 7 šZAu}oA]Av}šAšA}µšA‰Œ]oÇAÁZšA^v_AÁ}µoAuvA(}ŒAšZA‰µŒ‰}A}(AšZAšX KvAÇ}µ[ÀA]vš](]AÁZšZŒAAšŒuA]vAÇ}µŒAu}š]}vAŒ‹µ]ŒAA(]v]š]}vUAšZA(]ŒšAvA most effective way to define a debate is to apply two tests: Most Reasonable Definition: (1) Context & (2) Spirit of the Motion Context: simply put. In any case. what is happening in the world or a specific region that relates to the topic? It could be a new law or ruling being debated by a government/organisation. It might AA}v(o]šAZA(oŒAµ‰A}ŒAvAšZAµišA}(A]Pv](]všAu]Aššvš]}vXADÇA]š[AšZšA a long-standing problem has recently gotten worse. So. the topics Ç}µAÁ]ooAŒ]ÀAÁ]ooA}uAu}ŒA}‰vAš}A}šZAŒš]À]šÇAvAu]]všŒ‰Œšš]}vXAAµZUA]š[A important to have a clear understanding of what adjudicators are looking for from your definitions. Spirit of the Motion: šZAZ‰]Œ]šA}(AšZAu}š]}v[AuvA^ÁZšA}ŒšA}(AšAÁAvÀ]]}vA ÁZvAšZ]Aš}‰]AÁAZ}vM_AdZ]AššAŒo]A}vAšZAµu‰š]}vAšZšAš}‰]AŒAZ}vA(}ŒAA reason t namely that a particular issue or conflict would make a good debate. and ]u‰}]vPA(]vA}vAšZ}A(}µvA]vAšZA‰}]}vA}(A]šZŒX_ Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 8 . Assessing the Z‰]Œ]šA }(A šZA u}š]}v[A Œ‹µ]ŒA ]vPA µŒA šZšA Ç}µŒA (]v]š]}vA Á]ooA PvŒšA A P}}UA reasonably balanced debate. then you should have a good definition for the debate. if a significant event has occurred that seems to be related to the topic. 7 This does not mean that a dictionary definition should be provided. then it should be the focus of the debate t subject to the second test. we propose to ban smoking by preventing the sale of cigarettes or tobacco products. or a particularly bad example of an on- going problem has come to light. There is no point defining the debate to a very controversial issue if it is essentially a single issue that cannot be extended into a debate. Before dealing with the more complicated matter of selecting a correct (]v]š]}vUA]š[AÁ}ŒšZA Œ](oÇA]µ]vPAÁZvAÇ}µ[ooAšµooÇAneed a definition.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. It is not uncommon to watch young debaters spend as much as a minute of their speech carefully defining every term in a motion t that minute spent there is a minute not spent on addressing something controversial in their case. Tactics and First Principles Chapter Two: Definitions Most DAV topics tend to be intuitive in their wording t there are few ways to misinterpret ^šZšAÁAZ}µoAvAu}l]vP_XABµšAAÇ}µA‰Œ}PŒAšZŒ}µPZAÇ}µŒAš]vPAcareer. if the context to the debate suggests that a certain issue or situation should be the focus of the debate and that would meet the spirit of the motion. The point of a definition is to introduce clarity t a word should be defined for the purposes of the debate t (}ŒAÆu‰oUA^]vAšZ]A case.

ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. the more open a motion is. then it would be fair (and wise) to define the debate as relating to Israel because it is more likely to yield a good debate (spirit of the motion test). the explosion of a space shuttle. controversial. then ask yourself which definition will yield the best debate? Which has the most interesting. has there been something in the media that seems to relate to this topic? /(A}voÇA}vAuv]vPA}(AšZAšŒuAZšŒ[AZAAšŒ}vPA}všÆšµoAis. Tactics and First Principles 8 Note: the test of whether a place-set definition is fair is not whether your opponents do know anything about that issue. Otherwise the result might be a definitional challenge (which ruins the debate and your ‰lŒA}ŒAvl}ŒAvPŒÇAvA}v(µAiµ]š}ŒXAWoµAÇ}µ[ooAPšAAAŒ‰µšš]}vAAA team that plays dirty t ÀvA](AÇ}µA]v[t mean it! dlAšZAÆu‰oAš}‰]A^šZšAÁA‰vAš}}AuµZAu}vÇA}vAšZAšŒ_XA^]vAZšŒ[A}µoA relate to both astronomy/space-sciences and celebrities. or a controversially expensive film or contract)? Basically. the greater the number of options that will be equally valid as result of applying the above tests). the conflict in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan is far less widely known by even the most well-read members of society. Your obligation is to pick a definition that is firstly ÀŒÇA oŒA ~}v[šA ever debate vague principles and ideas t trušA uUA ]šA Á}v[šA A A P}}A debate t nail the principle down to something specific and practical.g. (2) Spirit of the Motion: if there is a relevant context to the debate. based on the competition and the experience of your opponents. With a more tightly worded topic. then most likely the definition should go in that direction. you need to choose a definition. that would be a place-set definition Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 9 . Figure 1: An Unreasonable Place to Set a Debate So if a topic relates generally to separatist conflicts. dZAu}ŒAÀPµA}ŒAZ}‰v[AšZAš}‰]A]UAšZAu}ŒAZoP]š]uš[A(]v]š]}vAšZŒAŒAÀ]ooAš}A you (i. and significant events have occurred in both Israel and Nagorno-Karabakh (context test). as in the example below) and secondly that is most likely to create a good debate (which is a definition that you can reasonably assume your opponents can understand and respond to properly). it is reasonable to assume that debaters should have a working knowledge of the ‰}o]š]oA ]šµš]}vA ]vA /ŒoUA µA ]š[A (Œ‹µvšoÇA reported on in the media. For example. In either case. applying the tests might indicate that the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict is the appropriate definition t a but make sure you are fairly applying both tests and not just looking for an opportunity to show off your knowledge of obscure places. apply the second test. However. (1) Context: Has there just been a significant event relating to either field (e.e. debatable issues? Which has issues that both sides should be aware of? 8 A place-set (]v]š]}vA]AA(]v]š]}vAšZšAZš[AšZAšAš}AAo}š]}vXA&}ŒAÆu‰oUA](AAšŒA ÁŒAš}A(]vAšZAu}š]}vA^šZšAÁAZ}µoA]všŒ}µAµv]ÀŒoA(ŒAZošZŒ_Aš}A]vPA}ooÇA}µšA the US healthcare system. but whether it is reasonable to assert that they should.

it is the status quo in Australia that the education system comprises of a mixture of public and private schools. A truistic case is one that there is no believable opposition to. Tactics and First Principles If one answer stands out on both tests. a Negative team will find themselves presented with a definition that they did not expect. both of which receive some level of public funding 10 Z^‹µ]ŒŒo[A]AAebating term that refers to an interpretation of a motion that is blatantly (and often deliberately) outside of the spirit of the motion Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 10 . The debate as established by the First Affirmative is genuinely truistic. your understanding of the status quo might not be the same as other people in the room (for reasons of culture. then you have a winner.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. etc). 2. As part of a good definition. The challenge must be made by the First Negative as the first part of their speech. because as you will see later. and should usually only be considered for the following reasons: 1. As part of establishing the 9 context you should always explain what the status quo is. which usually results in a low-scoring and frustrating debate. make sure it really is) then either is a good definition. This might sound like a minor point. Definitional challenges should not be mounted lightly. Explain why the definition is unreasonable 9 dZAZššµA‹µ}[AŒ(ŒAš}AšZA]šµš]}vAšAšZAu}uvšAt for example. religion. Many young teams default to a definitional challenge in these debates. One reason is µA šZA všµŒA }(A šZA ššµA ‹µ}A (]vA Z}ÁA ZZŒ[A }ŒA Z}(š[A o]vA Ç}µŒA A ]A ~A Chapter Four). State why the definition is unreasonable dZ]A]AAÇAAÇ]vPA^YšZA(]v]š]}vA}(AšZAKoÇu‰]AAµšŒo][A}]}vAÁ]šZA‰}ŒšA is unreasonable because it has no logical link to the topicX_ 2. but make an extra effort to set the debate up clearly and explain the relevance of the definition. but making sure both sides agree on what the status quo is can often be incredibly important. In the event of a tie (think carefully. or self- proving The oft-µAÆu‰oA}(AšZ]A]AšZA]všŒ‰Œšš]}vA}(AšZAu}š]}vA^šZšAÁAZ}µoAšUAŒ]vlA vAAuŒŒÇ_AAšZšAÁA~o]šŒooÇAZ}µoAšAvAŒ]vlA}AšZšAÁA}Av}šA]UAvAAZ‰‰ÇA because it is better than the alternative. Challenges cannot be mounted by other speakers. you should explain the context you used to form that definition (as well as the definition itself) in the first minute of your speech. A definitional challenge can be mounted for either of the above reasons. How to Mount a Definitional Challenge by Cathy Rossouw On occasion. The debate as established by the First Affirmative lacks any link to the motion (is a 10 Z‹µ]ŒŒo[ AšuAšZšA(]vAšZAu}š]}vA^šZšAÁAZ}µoAšÆA(š_AAAšA}µšA‰µv]Z]vPAšZA fattest nation on earth and pŒ}Aš}AŒPµA(}ŒAŒuAoAš}ACZ]vAš}A^‰µv]Z_AuŒ]A should not be surprised to be met with a definitional challenge. The following steps are important to mounting a definitional challenge: 1.

reasonable person would believe the topic to be about something else t e. dZAZÀvA/([ :µšAµAÇ}µ[ŒAZoovP]vPAšZ]ŒA(]v]š]}vA}v[šAuvAÇ}µA}v[šAZÀAš}AŒµšAšZ]ŒA ŒPµuvšXAdZ]A]A}vAÇAÇ]vPA^YµšAeven if we accept their definition of the Olympics. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 11 .ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. šZ]ŒAŒPµuvšAŒAš]ooA(oÁAµY_ 4. 3.g. the Olympics are a major international sporting competition. Tactics and First Principles Usually the best way to do this is to show that the average. Propose an alternative definition Make it short and simple because by now everyone has a pretty good idea of what your case is.

you need to know the difference between an argument and an assertion.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. dZAZvš}uÇA}(AvAŒPµuvš[ Whereas an assertion is simply a statement of fact (in slightly more sophisticated cases. an assertion can include simplistic/superficial analysis t AZCµoACµš]}v[Ao}Á AA‰Œ}‰ŒA ZŒPµuvš[A~]vAšZAvA}(A^}vAŒPµuvšA(}ŒAyA]Y_Av}šA^ÁAZAvAŒPµuvšAšZA}šZŒ ÇY_AZAšZA(}oo}Á]vPAšŒµšµŒW Idea Analysis One Argument Evidence Different people will use different labels for the various sections of an argument. Tactics and First Principles Chapter Three: Constructing and Deconstructing Arguments Part A: Making Arguments Before anything else. The point is that you and your team want people to believe šZšA]š[AšŒµX So how do you make them believe it? Well. you start with some analysis of why the idea is likely to be true t why it is logical and reasonable to believe it. In simple terms. This involves saying (out loud }ŒA]vAÇ}µŒAZA^ÁZÇM_AvA^µ_AAo}šJABµšA/[ooAP]ÀAÇ}µAvAÆu‰oA]vAAu}uvšXA Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 12 . or it might not. an assertion is something that is stated as true. without enough analysis to demonstrate that it is reasonable for a reasonable person to be convinced that šZAššuvšA]Ao]loÇAš}AAšŒµXA/š[AAššuvšA}(A(šUAÁ]šZ}µšA‰Œ}}(A}(A]šAÀo]]šÇX To avoid using assertions. you need to understand the anatomy of an argument. but this basic format is necessary to have a properly formed argument. µZA A ^šZA P}ÀŒvuvšA ZA vA }o]Pš]}vA š}A ‰Œ}À]A (ŒA µš]}v_A }ŒA ]šAu]PZšA iµšA A }ušZ]vPAšZšAÁ}µoAAZo‰(µoAš}AÇ}µŒA]A}(AšZAšUAµZAA^šZAšZA‰vošÇA]AvA ((š]ÀAšŒŒvšA(}ŒAŒ]u]vo_XA]šZŒAÁÇUA]š[Av}šZ]vPA}vA]šA}ÁvAt it may be true. Idea refers to the concept or proposition that you seek to prove t it might be a principle.

For instance. 11 How would you go about demonstrating an idea that is a little counter-intuitive? Well Ç}µ[AvA}uAo}P]oAvoÇ]Au]ÆAÁ]šZAŒoÀvšAÆu‰oXA&}ŒAÆu‰oW ^dZA(ŒA}(AµvŒšŒ]šA(}Œ]PvAu]At particularly American t stems from the belief that bigger budget productions are inherently more attractive to viewers. Having an example of a similar situation or policy can be very handy if you can clearly draw the link back to the issue at hand.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. what really attracts viewers is media that is relevant to their interests and culture. It might seem like an odd choice for a hit show. an argument that child labour in the developing world is good for the child workers would be a counter-intuitive one Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 13 . and second because it should be the last thing you worry about t focus first on having the right ideas about what your side needs to argue. local media can survive and even prosper. one of the most popular shows on the ABC is Gardening Australia t it consistently out-rates the news. but it has very loyal viÁŒAµA]š[AŒoÀvšAš}AšZ]ŒA interests. but you should never invent evidence t (]ŒšoÇUA]š[A just poor form. ošZ}µPZA]š[AšŒµAšZšA‰}‰oA}Avi}ÇA‰]oA((šAovA(]ouAvAdsUAšZŒA]A plenty of reason to believe that even without government protection. or the costs of a proposal) or quotes (not direct quotes. and every other competitor that rival networks have run against it. but knowing what important people have said about an issue). but it so actually tapped into the mood of the times that it has sparked the real-o](A^ZvP_AvA^šŒZvP_A‰Zv}uv}v[UA]vAÁZ]ZA city-based people move to beachside or rural towns to enjoy the same lifestyle they saw on the show. Why? Because beyond the superficial desire to see things blow up. local productions can compete with big budget imports t since fear of }u‰š]š]}vA]AšZAŒš]}voAZ]vAP}ÀŒvuvšA‰Œ}šš]}vA~}AšZš[AšZAidea t local media can compete with foreign imports). Similarly the ABC had a major hit with the drama series Seachange t which was not only well written. or the percentage of people affected by a particular problem. I put it last for two reasons t (]ŒšA µA ]š[A šZA ošA important. and then spend your time coming up with smart analysis to make it sound reasonable. At the other end of the scale there is Neighbours t ošZ}µPZA ]š[A Œ}µš]voÇA šZA µišA }(A Œ]]µoUA ]šA ZA vA }vA }(A šZe most consistently popular shows in Australian television history and has launched the 11 AZ}µvšŒ-]všµ]š]À[AŒPµuvšA]A}vAšZšAP}AP]všAu}šA‰}‰o[AvšµŒoA]všµ]š]}vAt for example. the better they become at spotting lieXA/š[A‰ŒššÇAZµu]o]š]vPAš}AZÀA}u}vAZ}ÁA šZšAÇ}µAÁŒAoÇ]vPAµAšZÇAlv}ÁAšZAŒoAš]oA}(AAP]ÀvA]šµš]}vXA}v[šAšlAšZA risk of it happening to you! >š[AŒ]vPAooAšZšAš}PšZŒAÇAµ]vPAAu}š]}vAAvAÆu‰oXAKvAšZA((]Œuš]ÀA}(A^that we Z}µoAš}‰A‰Œ}šš]vPA}µŒAo}oA(]ouA]vµšŒÇ_UA]šAÁ}µoAAZvÇAš}AAoAš}AZ}ÁAšZšA small-budget. Tactics and First Principles Finally there is the evidence. Note: it really should go without saying. But in advanced debates. If after that you have time for šZ]vl]vPAµ‰AÀ]vAvAÆu‰oUAšZvAšZš[APŒšXA Evidence can be statistics (like the unemployment rate before and after a policy. evidence is most commonly presented by case study or analogy. You should have enough respect for your opponents not to try and cheat or Z‰vAšZA šXAo}UA ]š[A µv]všoo]PvšA t the more experienced debaters/adjudicators get.

But attacking the argument here is a poor strategy. is more difficult but also more effective. Part B: Surgical Strike Rebuttal t Minimal Fuss. or they are outweighed by counter examples you know. or explaining the logical links in a different way. For example. the point of Australian film subsidies might not be to produce mainstream films. Unfortunately for you. you could criticise the examples used in the above argument about protecting Australian film industry t perhaps they are isolated examples. Attacking the argument a little higher.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. which weakens your rebuttal. This is the most common sort of rebuttal used by experienced speakers. Because the opposition can repair the chain by pŒ}À]]vPAu}ŒAÀ]vA~ÁZ]ZAÇ}µAššlAvAšZÇAP]ÀAu}ŒAvA]š[AAšouš A or by simply rebutting your criticisms. Maximum Damage In order to effectively evaluate the weakness in any given argument. people from all over the globe respond to stories about their }ÁvA}µvšŒÇUAvAšZ]ŒA}ÁvAµošµŒXAµšŒo]vAu]A}v[šAvAP}ÀŒvuvšA protection to be competitive. The argument chain is weakest at link three t evidence t ]vA]š[AoÁÇAÇAš}A]‰µšAšZA evidence presented by your opposition. but some attacks will usually be more effective than others. at the analysis. a clever opposition can rebuild their analysis by giving other reasons. If you can demonstrate that the analysis is illogical or based on assumptions that are not true (or are unlikely to be true) then you damage the credibility of the whole argument. Tactics and First Principles careers of many Australian actors and artists t you might think its lame.}ÁÀŒUA]š[AµµooÇAv}šAA(šoAo}ÁXA&}ŒAÆu‰oUAÇ}µAu]PZšAÇAšZšA‰}‰o[A]ŒAš}AA stories that are relevant to them is outweighed by their desire for exciting or well-produced všŒš]vuvšUA vA šZA µšŒo]vA (]ouA ]vµšŒÇA v[šA }u‰šA Á]šZA ššŒ-funded international media without government support. So finally we get to the top of the chain. . since although American culture is almost universally popular. but to 15 ÇŒA}oUA]š[AŒoÀvšX None of this should be surprising. you need to µvŒšvAÁZšAAZP}}[AŒPµuvšAo}}lAo]lA~A}ÀXAZA‰ŒšA}(AAÁoo-constructed argument is open to rebuttal. you can attack the idea that stopping supporting thA(]ouA]vµšŒÇAÁ}v[šAvA the capacity of Australian films to compete internationally by arguing the truth of the argument (attack the analysisUAµšAÇ}µAvAo}AŒµvAvA^ÀvA](_Ao]vAšZšAššlAšZAidea: even if some Australian films continue to thriveUAšZÇ[ŒAv}šAšZA‰}]všA}(AšZ]AšAt for your team. the idea. µšA ŒšZŒA š}A ‰Œ}µA }vA šZšA šooA š}Œ]A šZšA Á}µov[šA }šZŒÁ]A A š}oXA /(A šZA adjudicator accepts that sort of argument (or any other attack on the idea) then the other Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 14 . it just need good writers and talented actors t ÁZ]ZAšZAÀ]vAZ}ÁAšZšAÁAZÀA]vAµvv_X E}šAšZšAšZAŒPµuvšA}v[šAZÀAš}AŒ]P]oÇA(}oo}ÁAšZAšŒµšµŒA}µšo]vA}ÀAt but Ç}µAZ}µoAAoAš}AoŒoÇA]vš](ÇAšZAlÇAouvšA}(AšZAZvš}uÇA}(AvAŒPµuvš[A within that example. This is usually very difficult to attack since usually it is a reasonable idea. But sometimes you can attack the idea and if you can do it ((š]ÀoÇUA]š[AA(šoAo}ÁAš}AšZšAŒPµuvšX In our example.

But in just the same way that you can (and should!) use First Principles (see Chapter Six) to construct your arguments. 2) Contradiction t the argument may be valid. If it is in fact A}všŒ]š]}vAšZvAšZšAvAµAu]ÀAuPAš}AvA}‰‰}vvš[AUAµšA](A]šA ]v[šUAšZvAšZA(oAµš]}vAvAµAu]ÀAuPAš}AÇ}µŒAŒ]]o]šÇX But spotting t and pointing out t a contradiction is only the beginning. Simply point out why there has not been any/enough analysis to demonstrate the validity of the assertion and then provide a reason why the assertion is not obviously or intuitively true. there some fundamental. Tactics and First Principles o]vlA]vAšZAZ]vAŒA]ŒŒoÀvšXAKÀ]}µoÇUA]š[Av}šAšZšA]u‰oA. So even if you }v[šAlv}ÁAvÇšZ]vPA}µšAšZAÀ]vAšZÇAµUAvA Ç}µ[ÀAvÀŒAZŒAšZšAšÇ‰A}(AvoÇ]A(}ŒUA](AÇ}µAo]švAŒ(µooÇAvAšlAP}}Av}šUA then you might find one of the following flaws has occurred in the argument. But if you think the idea is vulnerable. Hopefully their next speaker will tell us which one of his teammates knows what they are šol]vPA}µšUAvAÁZ]ZA}vAÁAiµšAul]vPAšµ((Aµ‰_X You need to make it as uncomfortable for them as possible and try to force them to not just retract the statement but also concede that a number of their arguments ŒA ]ŒŒoÀvšA ~šZÇA µµooÇA Á}v[šA ÇA šZšUA šZÇ[ooA iµšA š}‰A uvš]}v]vPA ooA šZA arguments on one side of the contradiction. but it is in contradiction with a previous argument. it should be relatively simple to see how best to attack an argument. To be a real t }ŒAZ(µooAo}Áv[A}všŒ]š]}vUA]šAuµšAAšZšAšZAAšZšA]šA is impossible for the two arguments in question to both be true simultaneously.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. you have to explain to the adjudicator exactly how this compromises the credibility of their case. logical principles by which you can attack arguments. if you want to fully exploit it. ^}A}v[šAiµšAÇA^(]ŒšAšZÇA]AšZ]ŒA‰ovAÁ}µoAAŒooÇAZ‰UAvAv}ÁAšZÇAÇA]šA would be really expensive. µA]š[A((š]ÀAvA((]]všX Part C: Rebuttal from First Principles Once you understand the anatomy of an argument. So it cannot logically be both cheaper and more expensive š}A}AAP]ÀvAšZ]vPXA}v[šAP}A calling every argument you hear a contradiction or you will look foolish. and you need very good reasons to show that an entire idea and the argument that flows from it is irrelevant. so you should listen closely to how they Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 15 . Five Common Flaws with Arguments that Anyone Should Be Able to Spot Regardless of How Much they Know About a Topic 1) Assertion t šZAŒPµuvšA]Av}šAvAŒPµuvšAšAooUA]š[A]u‰oÇAvAŒš]}vAvAšZŒA is no logical reason given to believe that is it true. as outlined above. you should attack it. but is worth the money t šZš[A A ‰ŒššÇA ošvšA }všŒ]š]}v_UA(}oo}ÁA]šAµ‰AÁ]šZA}uAvoÇ]UAo]lA^}AÁZ]ZA]A]šAšZvMAKvA}(AšZuA cleŒoÇA}v[šA ŒooÇA µvŒšvA šZA všµŒA }(AšZ]A ]šµš]}vA t if a cheap program vA A ((š]ÀUA šZvA ÁZÇA ]A šZ]A ZA šŒÇ]vPA š}A šooA µA Á[ooA vA š}A ‰vA o}šA }(A u}vÇAš}AŒ}oÀAšZA‰Œ}ouMABµšA](AZ[AŒ]PZšAvA]šAÁ}µoAšlAAo}šA}(Au}vÇAš}A make a dint in this problem then everything the first guy said is rubbish.the opposition will defend their idea.

]šZŒAÁÇUA]š[A]u‰}ŒšvšAš}AŒ}Pv]AÁZvA}u}vA]Aššu‰š]vPAš}A(ooÇA]À]A the debate into two positions. the point of this example is that there can be many reasons why the crime rate t especially the murder rate t goes up and down. the Federal Government instituted strict gun laws. It occurs when someone tries to draw a link between two events. Never mind the fact that there are instances in which introducing the death penalty has preceded a rise in the murder rate. Be very clear at all times about what your team is trying to prove and you should be able to deal with this situation easily enough. one of which is either not what you are arguing. the straw man is when a team sets up an argument (which you ZÀAv}šAuUAvA}v[šA]všvAš}}AvAšZvA‰Œ}Aš}AŒµšA]šX Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 16 . 4) False Dichotomy t this a particular type of mischaracterisation of a debate or problem. So be careful not to assume that one factor is more important to the outcome than another. this is a lack of analysis. a contradiction is a serious flaw in a case. or not what anyone would argue. then attack them for abandoning part of their case). 3) Casual Causation t essentially. Note: the most important thing is that you clearly explain the contradiction t ]š[A critical that the adjudicator understands and believes you. Without saying too much about gun control. It occurs when someone says that there is a choice to be made and claims šZšAšZA}voÇA}‰š]}vAŒAZ[A}ŒAZB[UAÁZvA]vA(šAšZŒAŒA}šZŒA}‰š]}vX This can occur because a speakers is trying to assert a self-serving dichotomy (in a všAšAšZ]AÁ}v[šAAšŒµUA]š[Aou}šAoÁÇAAZ}]AšÁvAšwo options ]PvAš}A]u‰Œ}ÀAA]šµš]}vA}ŒAµAšZA‰lŒA]Ašµ‰]loÌÇAvA}v[šA understand the debate/your argument properly. A classic is when people argue that the introduction of the death penalty for murders causes a reduction in the number of murders. So what happened? In 1996 there was the Port Arthur Massacre. There may have been a reduction in murders the following year for any number of reasons (it depends entirely on why people commit murder in the first place). which saw thousands of guns handed in as the result of ^PµvAµÇ-l_AZuAvAuA]š much harder to buy a gun and keep it in your home. Tactics and First Principles defend themselves t if they stop mentioning certain arguments. so if an opponent accuses your team of a contradiction it is very important that your side respond as soon as possible and attempt to demonstrate how the two arguments are not contradictory. when Martin Bryant killed 35 people in Tasmania. 5) Straw Man t this is another type of misrepresentation or mischaracterisation of an argument. without showing how the former event actually caused the latter event to happen. this is simply not reason to believe t prima facie t that the death penalty is a deterrence. Between 1996 and 1997 there was dramatic drop in the number of murders in Australia t but the death penalty was abolished here in the 1970s. Basically. unless you have the analysis to show why that is the case.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Immediately after that incident. so explain it slowly and Œ(µooÇAvAl‰AÇ}µŒAÇA}vAšZAiµ]š}ŒAš}AA](AšZÇ[ŒA(}oo}Á]vPAÇ}µX As you can see.

yellow for economic arguments. this sort of stuff is guaranteed to whip your adjudicator into a frenzy. Thematic rebuttal is more than just grouping themes together t ]š[AooA}µšA‰Œvšš]}vXA šAšZAP]vv]vPA}(AÇ}µŒA‰ZUAo]šAšZAui}ŒAšZuA}(AšZA}‰‰}]š]}vUAvAšZvAZŒAZuA one at a timXA /š[A A ]u‰oA A Ç]vPWA ^Yš}v]PZšUA šZA }‰‰}]š]}vA ZÀA ‰ŒvšA šZŒA šZuWA}v}u]UA}]oAvAvÀ]Œ}vuvšoXA/AÁ]ooA]µAšZA}vAšAAš]uX_ABo]ÀA]šA}ŒA not. i.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. because if you ošAAšŒÁAuvAŒPµuvšAAšvAš}AšZAÁ]šZ}µšA‰}]vš]vPA}µšAšZšA]š[Av}šAÇ}µŒA argument in the first place. but became a big issue. red for social arguments t under which they write points concerning these themes. social. And the best thing about thematic rebuttal is that each speaker can do it when they rebut at the start of their speech! WŒšAWAZÀvA/([ In the previous discussion of rebuttal I showed you to build up a proper argument and then how to tear it down by targeting one of the links in the argument chain. Sound familiar? They are the same sorts of categories that you µAÁZvAšš]vPAµ‰AšuA‰o]šXAAšZuAvAo}AAvA]µAšZšA]v[šAuA]u‰}ŒšvšAšA the beginning of the debate. The Simplest Form of Rebuttal: Accept the Premises. Throughout the debate. Common examples of themes are: economic. sometimes it happens when they were hoping you would argue a certain thing and Ç}µA šµooÇA ‰Œ}‰}A }ušZ]vPA ]((ŒvšXA /šA }v[šA ŒooÇA uššŒA ÁZÇUA ]š[A important to point out when a team is not engaging with your case. a weak adjudicator can assume that it was part of your case. Tactics and First Principles Sometimes this happens when a speaker takes an extreme example of your proposal. How to do Thematic Rebuttal by Kim Little /šA}µvA]u‰Œ]ÀAvA]((]µošXAšµooÇUAšZuš]AŒµššoA]v[šAšZšAZŒAšAooXAdZA]A]A šZšA]všA}(AiµšAo]š]vPAšZA}‰‰}]š]}v[AŒPµuvšA‰lŒAÇA‰lŒUAÇ}µAPŒ}µ‰AšZ]ŒA arguments into themes. national and international. The themes you use will change from debate to debate. tZvA}]vPAšZuš]AŒµššoUAÁšZA}µšA(}ŒAšŒÇ]vPAš}A^(}Œ_AŒPµuvšAš}A(]šA]vš}AšZuXA /(AÇ}µAZÀAš}Ao‰AšZŒ}µPZAvoÇš]oAZ}}‰Aš}Ao]uAšZšAvAŒPµuvšAÁAvA^}v}u]_A ŒPµuvšUAÇ}µ[ŒA‰Œ}oÇAµ]vPAšZAÁŒ}vPAšZues. feminist. write down the }‰‰}]š]}v[AŒPµuvšUAvAšŒšAPŒ}µ‰]vPAšZuA]vš}AšZuXA^}uAšŒAZÀA}o}µŒA cards. Deny the Conclusion Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 17 . dZŒA ]A }(A }µŒA v}šZŒUA ]u‰oŒAÁÇA }(A ]Œ]š]vPA vA ŒPµuvšUA vA ]Œ}v]ooÇA ]š[A }A simple that the more experienced most debaters become. the less they tend to think about arguments in this way. sometimes it happens when they misrepresent something you said.e.

So remember t before you spend time trying to destroy a model. who are used to thinking about issues and arguments in fairly complex ways t forget to apply the simplest and most powerful test: what would happen if the model was implemented exactly as your opponents suggest? Of course. there is a very high chance that a radical Islamic group would win t just as Hamas won a generally fair election in Palestine. The reasons are a little complicated and not worth discussing here. Of course the Affirmative team denied all those things and said a decent election was possible. because opposition forces have been smashed. because there are the proper institutions in place to handle the elections. there are benefits to attempting to show that a problem is more complicated šZvAÇ}µŒA}‰‰}vvšAuAš}AŒo]AvA]š[AP}}Aš}AZ}ÁAšZšAšZ]ŒAu}oA]Aš}}AµvÁ]oÇA to ever be implemented in the way they suggest.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. but if you can show that a win by the radicals is the most likely outcome of ŒoAoš]}vUAšZvAšZš[A‰}švš]ooÇAAuµZAššŒAŒ}vAv}šAš}AZÀAvAoš]}vAšAooX NašµŒooÇAšZšA}v[šAuvAšZAšAÁ}µoAA}ÀŒAt a decent Affirmative team will deny that the radicals would win and give some good reasons (and there is a good argument to be made t look at who has won all the previous free elections in Pakistan for ivšv UAµšA]š[A a powerful and important argument for a Negative team. BµšAšZš[Av}šAšZAšAŒPµuvšA(}ŒAšZAEPš]ÀAšuXAdZAšAŒPµuvšA]WAÁZšAÁ}µoA happen if there was an election right now. Tactics and First Principles Too often debaters t especially good debaters. But that still leaves the most important question for any debate t what if it was? /AÁAA‰Œ(šA Æu‰oA}(A šZ]A]vA A‰Œš]AšA/AÁšZA ŒvšoÇA }vA šZA š}‰]A ^šZšA Pakistan should hold free elections or o}A šZA µ‰‰}ŒšA }(A šZA tš_XA dZA EPš]ÀA šuA ‰všA A o}šA }(A š]uA Ɖo]v]vPA Z}ÁA oš]}vA Á}µov[šA Á}ŒlA t because the dictatorial government would cheat. take a moment to ask Ç}µŒo(VAZ](AÁA]A}AšZ]UAÁZšAÁ}µoAZ‰‰vM[Az}µAu]PZšAAµŒ‰Œ]AÇAšZAvÁŒJ Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 18 . in just the way you say there could be? Who would win? And the answer is pretty simple: if a free and fair election was held in Pakistan right now.

deny food and/or medicine {allowed to the terminally ill. who are very close to death and who have no hope of a cure or decent standard of living {patients need the consent of multiple doctors and psychologists Soft Line {passive euthanasia only . Tactically: A harder line is usually easier to defend because it is more philosophically }v]švšA~}µ‰oAÁ]šZAšZA]A}(AZ(]ošŒ[AšZšA/[ooA]µAošŒUAÇ}µAZ}µoAvÀŒAP]vAŒµvA an inconsistent case) and more closely bridges the gap between the scale of the problem vAšZAoA}(AšZA}oµš]}vA~A^šZA‰Œ}ou-}oµš]}vAP‰_A]vACZ‰šŒA^Àv X Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 19 . because a plan so close to the status quo would rarely be controversial enough to illicit serious media attention or public debate. a soft line is highly unlikely to yield a good. It will rarely be a contextually-based definition or model. Tactics and First Principles Chapter Four: Tactics Part A: Hard/Soft Lines and Models dZAšŒuAZZŒ[A vA Z}(š[A ]vAŒ(ŒvAš}A A(]v]š]}vA }ŒA u}oA ŒA vA]v]š]}vA}(A Z}ÁA profound the change is that is being proposed. these terms do not imply how difficult it is to argue for that level of change t since often it is easier to arPµAAZZŒAo]v[AŒšZŒAšZvAAZ}(šAo]v[At µšAÁ[ooAPšA to that later. A very small modification to the status quo is Z}(š[. In terms of the spirit of the motion. µA]š[A}šZAšZA(]ŒšAšZ]vPAš}A}UAvA]AšZAšš]ooÇA}µvAZ}]Aš}}X Fairness: the problem with the soft line is that it will virtually always fail both tests of a good definition. It is by definition not particularly }všŒ}ÀŒ]oUA vA šZŒ(}ŒA ]A A ‰}}ŒA Z}]A š}A šA ~A ^µošŒ-}(šA o]v_A ]vA CZ‰šŒA Seven). complex debate with a range of important issues. who have a very low standard of living and little-to-no hope for a cure Moderate {doctor and psychologist consent required Line {doctor-assisted euthanasia allowed {available to anyone diagnosed with a terminal or debilitating illness. Example: (}ŒAšZAš}‰]A^šZšAšZ]AZ}µAµ‰‰}ŒšAµšZv]_UAšZAŒA]((ŒvšAZo]v[AÇ}µA might choose. {restricted to incredibly sick people. whether physical or mental {medical consent required Hard Line {doctor-assisted and self-administered euthanasia allowed A smart team will stay somewhere between the moderate and the hard line in every debate. Generally speaking.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. while a big ZvPA]AZZŒ[XAKvAÇ}µAZÀAšŒu]vAšZAZšŒvPšZ[A}(AÇ}µŒAo]vUA]šA should be relatively easy to create your model.

a soft line might uA o]lA šZA Z]š[A šZ]vPA š}A ŒPµUA µvš]oA Ç}µA ZÀA š}A (]nd three speeches worth of intelligent things to say about a model you selected because it was almost truistically obvious. (2) Insane Lines: Although hard lines are good and usually there is a positive Œoš]}vZ]‰A šÁvA šZA ZZŒv[A }(A šZA A vA ]šA u}ŒoA vA ‰Œš]oA consistency. So running a hard line means both teams will have a better debate. Past a certain point a definition or model stops ]vPAZZŒ[AvA}uA]vvX dZŒAA(ÁAÁÇAš}AiµPA](AÇ}µŒAo]vA]AZ]vv[XAdZA(]ŒšA]AšZAoµPZAššXA/(AšZA}‰‰}]š]}vA ~vA µ]vA oµPZA ÁZvA Ç}µA ‰Œ}‰}A šZA UA ]š[A µµooÇA A P}}A ]PvA šZšA Ç}µA ZÀA stepped across the line (it may be šZAÁÇAÇ}µAƉo]vAšZAŒPµuvšUAµšAvÀŒšZoA]š[A Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 20 . a hard(ish) line pushes you further away from your opposition. the Affirmative should never run the status quo unless compelled to by the topic ~šZ]A µµooÇA }µŒA ]vA ZvPš]ÀoÇ-Á}Œ[A š}‰]WA XPXA š}‰]AšZšAP]vA^šZšAÁAZ}µoAv}šXXX_. but which the Negative team will not be equipped to refute effectively. there is a point at which this relationship breaks down. but portray it as knowledge they had all along. Conversely. and risk being caught out in a lie or misrepresentation of the status quo by the Affirmative. but there are several strategic factors that need to be weighed up before you make the decision to do it. because they will both have the scope to make strong arguments. Just as with a truistic definition. this needs to be weighed up against the fact that the Negative do not in fact know much about the details of the status quo.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Negative teams can run the status quo. w]šZA}‰Z]š]šAvoÇ]XABµšA}v[šA ‰µZAšZ]AŒµoAš}}A(ŒUA}ŒAÇ}µ[ooAvAµ‰AŒµvv]vPAZ]vv[A(]v]š]}vX The Extreme Ends of the Spectrum t the Status Quo and Insane Definitions (1) Status Quo: simply put. which gives you more space to make arguments. This is because any decent Affirmative will explain the status quo in their set-up before outlining their alternative and a smart (but ill-informed) Negative can use that information. However. The benefit of counter-proposing an original model is that will negate much of the ((]Œuš]À[A ‰Œ-prepared criticisms of the status quo. The status quo is attractive to teams who are not well prepared for that particular topic. weakening the burden of plausibility can be disproportionately beneficial to one team. The single biggest problem with running a soft line is that you will ŒµvA}µšA}(A~uŒšAŒPµuvšAšZšAv[šA]u‰oÇAA}vAÇAvA}‰‰}]š]}vAšµlAŒPµ]vPA for something very similar to your case. Tactics and First Principles Also. The downside is that an original model concedes that the status quo is a failure and therefore weakens the burden of ‰oµ]]o]šÇA }vA šZA ((]Œuš]ÀXA /vA }šZŒA Á}ŒUA ]š[A u}ŒA ]((icult to argue that the ((]Œuš]À[AvÁAu}oAÁ}v[šAÁ}ŒlA](AšZAEPš]À[A}ÁvAu}oA]Ao}Av}ÀoAvAšZŒ(}ŒA ÀµovŒoA š}A ÆšoÇA šZA uA Œ]š]]uXA BµšA ]vA }vA ][A u}oA ]A µµooÇA u}ŒA ambitious than the others. They also risk being made to defend ooPAZZŒu[A~šo]ZAšAšZAšŒšA}(AšZAšAAšZAŒ}vA(}ŒAZÀ]vPAšZAšA]vA the first place) of the status quo which may be exaggerated or incorrect. if the Negative invent their own counter-model then there are also benefits and risks.

The best test is to remember that the model is not the debate. debates about a republic were obviously common and the model picked was critically important. as well as questions of how long the government can afford to maintain such a system (especially if the number of users grow as a result). For example. because there are many different ways of applying the idea. the insane line might be providing Zµ]]A ‰]oo[A }vA Œ‹µšUA š}A vy adult or child. the team actually set up a particular type of system that they support for reasons that are linked to various parts of the model. So it means that instead of just arguing that a certain idea is good. Models are an extremely important and useful part of debating. /š[A(]vAš}AŒPµA(}ŒAšZ]vPAšZšAŒAµvo]loÇAš}AZ‰‰vUAÀvAšZ]vPAšZšAŒAhighly unlikely to happen. However. but if a reasonable person is offended or disturbed by your case. then you have a problem. But thankfully the Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 21 . šZAZheroin trials[AšA~]XXA^šZšAÁAµ‰‰}ŒšA(AZŒ}]vA]viš]vPAŒ}}u_  is one where there is room for a range of models. The government-supplied model will generate criticism on the grounds that it turns the government into a drug dealer. The first question is what is a model? The answer is simple. and bring in (or cut out) various issues. Both these models have strengths and weaknesses. following the initial diagnosis of a serious u]oA‰Œ}ouUAÁZ]ZAšZÇA}µoAµAšAšZ]ŒA]Œš]}vXA/š[AiµšAš}}A(Œ-fetched. if anyone in the team feels seriously uncomfortable making the ŒPµuvšUAšZvAšZš[AAA]PvXAšŒAZ}µoAA(oÆ]oAvAÁ]oo]vPAš}AŒPµA}µvšŒ- intuitive positions. Building Your Model dZŒAŒAuvÇAÁÇAš}A}všŒµšAAu}oUAšZA]šA}(AÁZ]ZA]Aš}AšoA}u}vAo[JA dZA ÀšA ui}Œ]šÇA ~](A v}šA ooA }(A šZA šA Ç}µ[ooA }A ŒA ŒoUA }všu‰}ŒŒÇA ]µXA dZšA means that theÇAŒA]vPAšA]vAšZA‰µo]AŒvAŒ]PZšAv}ÁXA^}A]š[A‰Œ(šoÇAoP]š]ušA for you to take the side of one of the groups who are publicly lobbying on this issue. Tactics and First Principles a good indication). inexperienced debaters).ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Secondly. but you should think carefully before arguing in favour of something that is incredibly unlikely to happen. Part B: Search for a Super-Model There seems to be a fair bit of confusion about what a model is. At that time. then you have probably gone too far (or are debating against terribly pedantic. For instance. this system does effectively put many drug dealers out of business and it also means that users will always get pure heroin and not the Z]ŒšÇ[AÀŒ]š]A}(švA(}µvA}vAšZAšŒšA~ÁZ]ZA]AAui}ŒAµA}(A}ÀŒ}XAdZAZ}]A of model can change the focus of the debate. how to construct one and what to do once you have it. If you are spending all your time defending the reasonableness of the terms of your model. so let me try to clear up all those questions. Using the previous example of euthanasia as a guide. teams should choose between a model of government- sµ‰‰o]AZŒ}]vAvAAZµŒAµ‰‰o][AÇšuA~]XXAAZv}A‹µš]}vAl[A‰}o]ÇA}µšAÁZŒAA user obtained their drugs as long they use them in the safe injecting rooms). Take the Republic Referendum held a few years ago. Your model simply exists to clarify and focus the terms of the debate. A model is a specific set of practical actions proposed by a team in a debate.

A good way to attack a model is to look at what assumptions the team have made when they constructed it. I encourage teams to come up with their own models. How To Use Your Model The model should be presented by the first speaker. It is the analysis of those issues that will be the deciding factor in most debates. however I have one warning: make sure your model is realistic and practical. It requires you and your team to really talk about šZA]µA]vAšZAšXAZuuŒAšZšAu}šAšAšuA(Œ}uAZA‰Œ}ou[UAÁZšZŒAŒoA or perceived. because it shows research (no matter how smart you think you are. The best thing about invented models is that they are original t your opposition Á}v[šAA‰Œ‰ŒA(}ŒAšZuA~ÁZŒAšZÇAvAA‰Œ‰ŒA(}ŒAA}uu}vAu}oAvAÇ}µA have a chance to have a truly unique debate. This can be time consuming.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. the counter-u}oAš}Aššl]vPA/ŒvA]Av}šA^Á}ŒoA‰_AµAšAšZ]A‰}]všA]šA]A simply unrealistic). and if you understand the problem. Tactics and First Principles Constitutional Convention produced a wide range of models representing the ideas of each of the republican groups represented at the convention. The other way to come up with a model is to invent it from scratch. The model is a tool to structure debates and focus them around important issues. thought and a genuine attempt to tackle the issues. and becoming aware of the various proposals being suggested by different groups in society. By keeping up to date with the news. otherwise your model will be hopelessly flawed (for example. but you still have to show ÁZÇAšZš[AAP}}AšZ]vPAvAÁZÇAšZAv(]šA}(AšZAu}oA}µšÁ]PZAšZA]vÀ]šoA}šX Final Tips on Models EPš]ÀAšuAvAZÀAAu}oAš}}XAdZÇ[ŒAooA}µvšŒ-models and are just as effective as Affirmative team models. you might be able to come up with a solution. but rewarding in many ways. You cav[šA}AšZšA](AÇ}µŒAu}oA}uAšA}vA‰lŒX EÀŒšZoUA]š[A]u‰}ŒšvšAš}A‰šAšZšAu}oAŒAv}šAšZAZAooAvAvAoo[A}(AšXA There are few debates where a good model will win the debate all by itself. before they present their substantive arguments. }v[šAPšAš}}AZµvP up on how much a model costs (in monetary terms) as long as the benefits of the model are worth the cost (and the cost is realistic). on issues that you have established. you have ready-made models just waiting to be debated! KvAÇ}µ[ÀAš}ovAAu}oA(Œ}uA}u}vUAÇ}µAu]PZšAAoAš}AšZ]vlA}(AÁÇAš}A]u‰Œ}ÀA]šA or ƉvA]šXAdZš[A(]vAš}}XA:µšAulAµŒAšZšAÇ}µ[ŒAŒooÇAoŒA}µšAZ}ÁAÇ}µŒAÀŒ]}vA of the model is different to the group that you stole it from. I mean that it should be possible given the resources that µŒŒvšoÇA Æ]šXA }v[šA ‰Œ}‰}A A u}oA šZšA Á}µoA }šA šŒ]oo]}vA }(A }ooŒUA }ŒA Œ‹µ]ŒA šZv}o}PÇAšZšA}v[šAÆ]šA}ŒA]Aµvo]lely to exist anytime soon. there is no substitute for learning the details of an issue). Lots of programs cost the government money. but they are important and worthwhile. Did they realistically assess how individuals and groups act in society? Is it really the role of the government (or other organisation) to do what is being proposed? Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 22 . This is because you want your model to frame the debate and structure which issues are important. A model makes a debate clearer because it tells the audience precisely what the debate is about. By practical. I mean make sure that you are taking into account the way people really behave. By realistic.

Part C: Slippery Slopes A^o]‰‰ŒÇAo}‰_AŒPµuvšA]AÁZŒAÇ}µAššu‰šAš}A‰Œ}ÀAšZšAÇA}]vPA}vAšZ]vPUAÇ}µAÁ]ooA also. >š[AšlAšZA}Œš]}vAÆu‰o I used before.g. inevitably do something else worse. there are effective ways to counter slippery slope arguments. where the pregnancy would threaten the life of the mother) t Á[ooAooAšZšAW}]š]}vAXAvAÇ}µAÁvšA to make the argument that legalising abortion. Imagine an Affirmative team is proposing that abortion should be legalised. and is a natural instinct for inexperienced šŒA ÁZ}A ŒA l]vPA š}A ]v(ošA šZA ZŒuA }(A šZ]ŒA }‰‰}vvš[A u}oXA /vƉŒ]vced debaters are notorious for making slippery slope arguments that are so extreme that they become absurd and hence most adjudicators discourage any argument that even approaches a slippery slope. So you might say (for example) that if we legalise abortion even under very specific circumstances (such as where the pregnancy presents a medical danger to the mother) we will unleash forces that will eventually lead to legal abortion under any circumstances ~^}Œš]}vA}vAuv_X This type of argument is incredibly common. Consequently. will inevitably oAš}AAuµZAÁ]ŒAš}oŒvA}(A}Œš]}vUAuv]vPA^}Œš]}v-on-uv_At Á[ooAooAšZšA Position D. Firstly. and secondly they are only šŒµoÇAŒoÀvšAµvŒA‰](]A]ŒµušvXA^}AšZš[AšZAšŒ]lAt first learn how to do them. but only under certain circumstances (e. The problem is that it is not reasonable to believe that a government would move from Position A to Position D in one step.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Making Slippery Slope Arguments Work The key to an effective slippery slope argument is showing how strong the motivation will be for a government to take additional steps down a particular policy path after they have taken the first t µšAšZš[Av}šAµš}uš]ooÇA}ŒA]všµ]š]ÀoÇAšŒµAvAšZš[AšZAšŒ]lX tZšAÇ}µ[ŒAŒooÇAšŒÇ]vPAš}A}A]Aš}AZ}ÁAšZšAÇ}µŒA}‰‰}vvš[Au}oAÁ]ooAZvPAšZA}]oA norms and begin a new trend t a trend that will inevitably lead to unacceptable conclusions. Tactics and First Principles It is perfectly alright for opposing teams to concede some of the benefits of a model so long as they show why the problems the model will create are worse. so you have to explain what the middle steps . there is a now a common t but mistaken t beo](AšZšAo]‰‰ŒÇAo}‰AŒPµuvšAŒAµš}uš]ooÇAÁlA}ŒA]vÀo]XAdZšA]v[šAšŒµX dZA‰Œ}ouAÁ]šZAšZAÁÇAAo}šA}(A‰}‰oAulAo]‰‰ŒÇAo}‰AŒPµuvšA]AšZšAšZÇAŒv[šA šµooÇA ^ŒPµuvš_A šA ooUA šZÇA ŒA ]vA (šA ^Œš]}v_A vA šZš[A ÁZÇA šZÇA uA ÁlXA Assertions are always weak t by definition t and slippery slopes are almost always assertions µAšZ}Aul]vPAšZuA}v[šAlv}ÁAhow to do proper analysis. even in such a limited way.Positions B and C t Á}µoAUAvAÁZÇAšZAšŒvAÁ}µoAAš}AoPo]AšZ}A‰}]š]}vAš}}XA.Œ[AvA example: Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 23 . as a by-product. and then think hard about when to use them. Note: before I explain how to develop a slippery slope into a proper t and often powerful t ŒPµuvšUA]š[A]u‰}ŒšvšAš}Av}šAšZšAšZ]AšÇ‰A}(AŒPµuvšAZ}µov[šAA}ÀŒµd.

economic or social. Equally. How can we say that it is acceptable to disregard the rights and interests of šZA(}šµA](AšZAu}šZŒ[Au]oAZošZA]AšAŒ]lUAÁ]šZ}µšA‰š]vPAšZAuAŒš]}voA]vA cases where a woman has been the victim of rape or incest? Since clearly the psychological health of the mother has a strong influence on her physical health. and a risk to her health.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. and you can demonstrate that: ^/(AÁAoo}ÁA}Œš]}vUA]vAAÁZŒAšZAZošZA}(AšZAu}šZŒA]AvvPŒAÇA}vš]vµ]vPA the pregnancy. if a pregnancy could result in social exclusion or ostracism. and we know that the victims of rape and incest often suffer from severe depression that can lead to suicidal tendencies. if the health of the women truly is paramount. then there is a risk of depression and poor health. once you accept certain principles of the model. all that should matter is that she is. creates a psychological harm that is a significant health risk to the mother then why does the cause of the psychological harm matter? If the health of the mother is the over-riding concern. and that if the pregnancy is exacerbating that. then surely we must extend that to any set of circumstances that endanger the health of the mother t whether they are medical. then that could represent a threat to her health. surely we must treat all these risks the same way. then we will enshrine in law a principle that will inevitably go much further than we intend. whether medical or psychological is connected to the pregnancy. But if we accept that the trauma of rape. psychological. Tactics and First Principles The Abortion Slippery Slope Position A {severely limited: medical necessity only Position B {strictly limited: also allowed in cases of rape and incest Postition C {some limits: also allowed for psychological reasons Position D {almost no limits: fully legalised "abortion on demand" It should be obvious just by looking at each of the positions that there is a clear progression and a continuation of logic flowing from Position A to D. If having a child would leave a woman impoverished. So what we have here is a model that seeks to be restrictive. Of course. but which if we are to believe the ŒPµuvšAšZšAµš]vA]šUAšZvAšZŒAŒAÀŒÇA(ÁAŒ}voAŒšŒ]š]}vA}vA]šAšAooX_ So you see the key is to take it step-by-step and show how logically. compounded by an unwanted pregnancy. then the women should be able to terminate the pregnancy. it is unreasonable to include the sort of restrictions that are in the Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 24 . Position A relies on a key concept t šZšAšZAZošZA}(AšZAu}šZŒA}µšÁ]PZAšZAZošZA}(AšZA(}šµXABµšAšZš[Avš]oly the same logic that justifies each of the other positions. then it Z}µov[šA uššŒA why a women is suffering a severe depression or why she is suicidal.

In a good debate. the teams can dispute the best way to generate community support for minority rights. such as how important it is that society at large t šZAZui}Œ]šÇ[At accept the legitimacy of these new rights for the minority.g. But just because history ]A}vAÇ}µŒA]UA}v[šAuvAšZšAÇ}µA}v[šAvAš}A}AP}}AvoÇ]A}(Awhy it is true. One šuA ÇA šZšA ‰}‰o[A všµŒoA (ŒA vA ŒoµšvA š}A ZvPA }]oA v}ŒuAÀ‰}ŒšA}vA‰}‰oAAšZšAvÁAŒ]PZšA(}ŒAu]v}Œ]š]A}v[šAŒµošA]vA]u]v]ZA Œ]PZšA(}ŒAšZAui}Œ]šÇAvAšZ]ŒA}‰‰}vvšAŒPµAšZšA]š[AššŒAš}A}vš]vµAšZAšAvA the discussion until there is clear acceptance of change (Canada is a classic example t it legalised same-sex marriage after a long period of public debate. the teams will disagree on both counts. and although there will always be critics. Tactics and First Principles model. voting t ]šA]v[šA matter that many men ]v[šA‰šAÁ}uv[AŒ]PZšAš}AÀ}šAÁZvA]šAÁA(]ŒšAoo}ÁUAšZšA right was still empowering for women) and the other side will say that acceptance is crucial (e. B]ooÇUA šZ]A ]A vA Æu‰oA }(A A ]šµš]}vA ]vA ÁZ]ZA A ^šš]oA }v]}v_A ]A šZA ‰ŒµvšA course of action. Then the debate becomes about new issues. explain every step and keep referring back to the original arguments for Position A. The important thing is to sound reasonable and measured t follow the chain of logic.}ÁÀŒUA šZŒA ŒA š]uA ÁZŒA Ç}µ[ŒA (}ŒA ]vš}A }‰‰}]vg an increase in rights for a minority group (such as gay marriage/adoption. It helps if after explaining the argument you can throw in a case study and in the example of }Œš]}vA]š[A‰ŒššÇAÇAµA]š[AZŒAš}AšZ]vlA}(AA}µvšŒÇAšZšAZAoPo]A}Œš]}vA]vA vÇAÁÇA]vAÁZ]ZAšZŒAZv[šAvAAšŒvA(}ŒA(µŒšZŒAo]Œo]tion. and why it will remain true. and not only are they inherently weak arguments. The reason is simple enough: because discrimination is ]vZŒvšoÇAÁŒ}vPAvA]oo}P]oUAÇ}µ[ooAšŒµPPoAš}A}ÀŒ}uAšZ}A‰Œ}ouA]vAAšX . Of course. µšAÇ}µ[ŒA]PP]vPAvAµvvŒÇAvAvPŒ}µAZ}oA](AÇ}µA}‰‰}AšZA]uA}(A‹µoAŒ]PZšXA P]vUAšZAŒ}vA]A]u‰oWA]š[AÀ]ŒšµooÇA]u‰}]oAš}AƉo]vAÁZÇAA‰Œš]µoar group deserve to be discriminated against without straying into bigotry or sexism.g. but if that employer is sexist he can promote women more slowly or reduce their access to important clients or additional training t all of which affects their pay). Simply concede that there is a problem t no society on earth has reached a position of full entitlement for all its citizens t and explain that the processes by which rights are achieved are crucial to the acceptance of those rights in practice. they also violate the Code of Conduct at most tournaments. then the question is how we engender acceptance of minority rights by the majority. One team will say that the acceptance of rights is not really required for rights to be meaningful (e. Additionally.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. by the time the law was enacted there was virtually no social backlash and Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 25 . The first rule: never oppose the aim of equal rights You can (and should) argue about how best to move society towards of equal rights for all. equal pay provisions t an employer is legally required to offer equal pay. Part D: Opposing Minority Rights As a general rule. you should avoid arguments that force you to oppose any move towards greater equality for a minority group. etc) and you need some tactics for approaching these difficult situations. cultural rights for ethnic minorities.

To be truly meaningful it must be enduring. and (generally) be accepted. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 26 . which the right being given and taken away at the whim of the political cycle. This second approach can be hard to make. not a source of social division. etc). BµšA/[AŒu]vAÇ}µAšZšAšš]ooÇUAšZAšA}µš}uA(}ŒAÇ}µA]Aš}AÀ}]AšZA}ŒšA}(AšA t ]šAšlAAPŒšAoA}(Al]ooAvAŒ]]o]šÇAš}A‰µooA}((AAAo]lAšZ]UAvAÇ}µ[ŒA}vtantly }vAÁŒ}vPAÁ}Œl‰ZŒAÁÇA(Œ}uAÇ]vPA}ušZ]vPA]P}šXA/š[AAu]v(]oAšAÀ}]A](A the topic gives you room to do so. Tactics and First Principles ÀvAÁZvAA}vŒÀš]ÀAP}ÀŒvuvšAÁAošA‰Œ}u]]vPAš}AZŒÀ]Á[AšZA]]}vUAšZÇA made no moves to restrict same-sex marriage because the majority of Canadians accept it as fair). but if išAÁ}ŒlAšZvAÇ}µ[ooAÁ]vAvA]š[Aš]ooA]ŒA š}AŒPµAšZvAZ]Œ]u]vš]}vA]AŒ]PZš[XAdZAlÇA]Aš}AŒ}vAšZAšAt ]š[Av}šAiµšA}µšA ÁZšZŒA'Œ}µ‰AAvA}AyUA]š[A}µšAZ}ÁAšZšAPŒ}µ‰A(]šA]vš}AšZA}]šÇAvAšZAo}vPAšŒuA process of change that ]A A šŒµA ZŒ]PZšA u}Àuvš[XA z}µA ÁvšA š}A u‰Z]A šZšA šZA decisions (about when to grant new rights) should be made when there is something approaching a consensus t ‰]ooÇA ÁZvA Ç}µ[ŒA šol]vPA }µšA Œ]PZšA šZšA Œ‹µ]ŒA interaction with society to enact like employment rights and social rights (adoption.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. The worst outcome is for a right to be turned into a political football.

it would include people with range of styles. It incorporates all of the obvious things that coaches teach you. Credibility: Learning to have gravitas ]A ]((]µošUA µA ]š[A o]vlA š}A ‰Œ}voA ušµŒ]šÇUA ÁZ]ZAÇ}µAv[šA ŒµZUAµšA]vAšZAuvš]uAšZŒA ŒA }uA ÁÇAš}A ‰Œ}išA šZA uÆ]uµuA u}µvšA}(AŒ]]o]šÇAšZšAÇ}µ[ŒAµŒŒvšoÇA‰oA}(X Rule EµuŒAKvWAšlA]šAŒ]}µoÇAvA}v[šAµvŒu]vAÇ}µŒo( Often. you can be funny or serious and in some speeches you might do all those things. Tactics and First Principles Chapter Five: Manner hv(}ŒšµvšoÇUAšZŒAŒAÀŒÇA(ÁA}vÀv]všAššA}ŒAšš]A(}ŒAuvvŒXABµšAšZš[Av}šAš}A ÇAšZšAP}}AuvvŒAv[šAAšµPZšAvA}A]šAuµšAA‰}]oAš}AŒ]A]šXA/[AšŒAšZšA there is no narrow definition of good manner t you can be loud or quiet. persuasiveness is about matching your manner to your material in such a way šZšAÇ}µAuA}u‰ošoÇAŒ]}µA}µšAÁZšAÇ}µ[ŒA‰Œ}‰}]vPAvAŒÁAÇ}µŒAµ]vA]vš}A that same serious consideration of your arguments. you have explain it carefully vAµAšŒ}vPAvoÇ]A~]µAŒo]ŒUAµšA(Œ}uAAuvvŒA‰}]všA}(AÀ]ÁA]š[AŒµ]oAšZšA Ç}µAZ}}AÇ}µŒAovPµPAŒ(µooÇAvA}v[šA}ÀŒ}u‰o]šAšZ]vPAt and most importantly look šAÇ}µŒAiµ]š}ŒAÁZ]oAÇ}µ[ŒAÇ]vPA]šXAz}µAZÀAš}AoŒvAš}AŒAšZA(A}(AÇ}µŒA iµPAvA](A]šA}v[šAo}}lAo]lAšZÇAµvŒšvAÇ}µUAšZvAÇ}µAvAš}Ao}ÁA}ÁvAvAšŒÇA again until they get it. But šZš[Ao]lAÇ]vPAšZšAŒ]À]vPAAŒA]AiµšAA}u]vš]}vA}(AšµŒv]vPAAÁZoA vAu}À]vPAÇ}µŒAZXA/š[Aš}}A]u‰o]š]AvA]šAµlAooA}(AšZAŒšA}(A}µšA]šX dZAŒšA]A ]vA šZA ‰ÇZ}o}PÇA }(A ‰Œµ]}vXA&}ŒA]všvUA ]š[A À]šoAšZšAÇ}µA µvŒšvAšZA 12 difference between intuitive and counter-intuitive arguments. But that said. Persuasiveness is about making your message appealing to the audience. Running a counter-intuitive argument is not bad per se. projecting your voice and so forth. µšA]šA]AZŒŒXA/(AÇ}µA}v[šAlv}ÁoPAÁZvAÇ}µ[ŒAŒµvv]vPAA counter-]všµ]š]ÀAŒPµuvšUAÇ}µ[ooAvÀŒAulA]šA(oÇA]vAšZAšX But how to you make a counter-intuitive argument work? Well. inexperienced speakers do everything possible to emphasise how inexperienced they ŒXAdZš[AiµšA}µvšŒ‰Œ}µš]ÀXA}v[šAÀŒAšolAÇ}µŒA‰ZA}ÁvAÁZ]oAÇ}µ[ŒAP]À]vPA]šXA That sounds oÀ]}µUA µšA ]š[A š}v]Z]vPA Z}ÁA uvÇA šŒAÁ]ooAulA vA ŒPµuvšA vA šZvAÇA}ušZ]vPAo]lA^šZšA]v[šAulAvA]A]šM_A/[uAv}šAµŒA](A]š[AAŒµošA}(AvŒÀUA or some misguided attempt to be endearing.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Credibility and Conviction. Often. I think good manner is the right combination of three things: Persuasiveness. a speaker will make some arguments that sound good about an area like economics and the next speaker will say }ušZ]vPAo]lA^ÁooA/A}v[šAlv}ÁAAuµZA}µšA}v}u]AAšZAošA‰lŒUAµšA/[ooAZÀA 12 A counter-intuitive argument is something that people will initially find difficult to accept t something that seems to conflict with their gut feeling Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 27 . Another classic example is deferring to your opposition. If you made up a list of the best debaters in the world. At its heart. Persuasiveness is about making an audience want to agree with you. but either way you should stop it immediately. like making eye contact.

and use then them }v(]všoÇXA/(AÇ}µ[ŒAv}šAµŒAÁZšZŒAšZAvuA}(AšZACZ]vAWŒ]všA]A. ZµoAEµuŒAdÁ}WA}µvAo]lAÇ}µAlv}ÁAÁZšAÇ}µ[ŒAšol]vPA}µš That means one of two things t either actually lv}ÁAÁZšAÇ}µ[ŒAšol]vPA}µšA~ÇAoŒv]vPA First Principles as well as specific knowledge). you should be trying to project the image that you care about them and you genuinely want other people to believe you t not just so that you can get another win for your team. take a guess. Talking yourself down can act as a subtle but powerful confirmation of any negative perception of you that an adjudicator might already be harbouring. and }µvA}v(]všUAšZÇ[ooAµµooÇAšZ]vlAÇ}µAŒA}v(]všJ Conviction is probably the most under-ŒšA(šA}(AuvvŒXA/(AÇ}µA}v[šAo}}lAo]lAÇ}µAŒA }µšA šZA š}‰]A }ŒA šZA ŒPµuvšA Ç}µ[ŒA ul]vPUA šZvA ÁZÇA Z}µoA vÇ}vA oA ŒMA Remember that adjudicators suffer from all the same things that you endure at tournaments t šZÇ[ŒAš]ŒUAšZÇAvAA}ŒUAšZÇAvA]o]lAšZAš}‰]At ](AÇ}µA}v[šA}AÀŒÇšZ]vPAÇ}µA vAš}AulAšZAšAvPP]vPAvA‰‰o]vPAšZvAÇ}µAv[šAƉšAšZuAš}AulAuµZ effort either. Tactics and First Principles AP}AšAŒµšš]vPAZŒAŒPµuvšAvÇÁÇ_XAdZ]A]AA}µoAZ]šAt it weakens your credibility and it increases Ç}µŒA}‰‰}vvš[AŒ]]o]šÇJ /Av[šAšŒAv}µPZAZ}ÁAuµZAuPAšZ]A}Aš}AÇ}µŒAŒ]]o]šÇXA/šAuAo]lAAuooA thing. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 28 . and again. The audience has presumably realised ÁZŒAšZÇAŒAvAÁZšAšZÇ[ŒA}µšAš}AÁšZAo}vPA(}ŒAÇ}µAš}} up. including pronunciation. There is a fine line between sounding passionate and sounding ridiculous. Use your context and set-up to explain the debate. or sound o]lA Ç}µAlv}ÁA ÁZšA Ç}µ[ŒAšol]vPA about (the first is better). say it confidently! dZA}voÇAµŒAÁÇAš}Aµ]oAµ‰AÇ}µŒAŒ]]o]šÇA]Aš}AŒooÇAlv}ÁAÁZšAÇ}µ[ŒAšol]vPA}µšUAµšA that takes time. Meanwhile. but whichever you choose. not the location or the people present t šZš[AÁZÇAÇ}µAZ}µoA}všÆšµo]AšA šZA šŒšA }(A šZA &]ŒšA ^‰lŒ[A ‰ZXA /vA šuA ‰o]šUA šolA }µšA Z}ÁA Ç}µŒA se expands o}P]ooÇUA ŒšZŒA šZvA P]À]vPA šZA ]u‰Œ]}vA šZšA Ç}µ[ÀA uA }uA Œ]šŒŒÇA ]š]vš]}vXA Sound professional. focus on being confident. Sentences like those listed here should be erased from your debating vocabulary. and while you might ‰‰Œ]šAÇ}µŒAPŒvu}šZŒ[A‰ŒvUAÇ}µŒAiµ]š}ŒAÁ]ooA]vAv}AÁÇAA‰ŒµAÇAÇ}µŒA greetings to the random individuals in the room. but your manner Z}µoAÇA^/[uAZŒAš}A‰Œµ_Anot ^/[uAšŒÇ]vPAš}AÁ]vAAš_X Trying to persuade means engaging in the issues first and foremost.µA:]vAd}A}ŒA Wen Jao Bao. dZšAuvAÀ}]]vPAŒ(ŒŒ]vPAš}AšZA(šAšZšAÇ}µ[ŒAZÀ]vPAAšAt}v[šAÇAšZ]vPAo]lA ^Áo}uAš}Aš}Ç[AšUAšZAš}‰]A]_A}ŒA^AšZA(]ŒšA‰lŒA]š[AuÇAi}Aš}AƉo]vAšZA 13 u}o_ t just get to the issues as fast as you can. but it can be devastating. and remember that your adjudicators/opposition will rarely know anything about you t if you look confident. sound sophisticated and sound genuinely interested. 13 It amazes me how many high-school debaters waste the first 45 seconds of their speeches on meaningless platitudes welcoming everyone to the debate. You can sound credible by avoiding simple mistakes t like making sure you get the names of things right.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. but because ]š[Ainherently important to you that people believe you on this issue.

W}‰oA}(švAlAZ}ÁAš}A^‰µšAšuAÁÇ_VA]vA}šZŒAÁ}ŒUAZ}ÁAš}AÁ]vAÇAoŒPAuŒP]vAt and the key to scoring big wins against good teams is manner. They remind the adjudicator that this is just a contest. then when coupled with a strong case you will able to smash opponents. and the teams are just trying to score points.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. not just beat them. You can still win when that happensUAµšAÇ}µ[ooAvÀŒAŒooÇAoŒvAš}A ^‰Œµ_At ]všAÇ}µ[ooAoŒvAZ}ÁAš}AAššŒAšZvA}šZŒAšuVAvA}uš]uAšZš[A not saying very much. Tactics and First Principles P]vUAšZAŒAµšoAšZ]vPAvA]v]À]µoA]všvA}(AZš-‰l[A~šol]vg about the šUA]všA}(Ašol]vPA}µšAšZA]µA}v[šAuššŒAuµZUAµšAµuµoš]ÀoÇAšZÇAZÀAA big impact. If you can master these three facets of manner. But it takes patience. practice and perseverance! Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 29 .

setting up a definition does not mean going through ÁZšAZAÁ}ŒA]vAšZAš}‰]AZuv[At you should have already made this clear.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Thus. Cull and Expand Your Wishlist into Arguments 14 This is a lightly edited version of a text written by Nicole Lynch Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 30 . Form a Dichotomous Statement about the Debate.g. so that a good debate can occur. Define the Terms of the Debate z}µŒA}všÆšAZ}µoAoŒÇAulA]šAoŒAÁZšA]šA]AšZšAšZAš}‰]AZuv[A]vAšŒuA}(AÁZšA any unclear or ambiguous terms. Form a ššuvšA}µšAšZAšAšZšAvAAvÁŒA^Ç_A}ŒA^v}_XAdZ]AZ}µoAšAµ‰A the divide between the two teams in the debate t both agreeing and disagreeing with the statement should be valid positions. Remember t you should never try to win a debate by your definition (either model or benchmarks). Tactics and First Principles Chapter Six: Secret Topic Prep 14 Part A: Steps to Good Preps 1. by a government or by an interest group?) What is the issue that this debate is about? This step should help you understand why the topic was set in the first place t ÁZÇA]š[AvA issue that people are discussing (or should be discussing!). think of the groups involved in the issue t what their interests would be and how they are affected by the issue (or would be affected by your proposal). so it means defining the terms of the debate: Model Debates t in a lot of debates. of your case. DlAAZt]Zo]š[ dZ]vlA}(AšZ]vPAÇ}µ[Ao]le to prove for your case t anything that would be beneficial to your side of the debate t šZ]vPAšZšA](AÇ}µA}µoA‰Œ}ÀUAÁ}µoAulA]šA]ŒAš}AÁ]vXA/(AÇ}µ[ŒA stuck for ideas. 5. Your aim in defining the debate should be to set up a good strong structure through which }šZAšuAvAÁŒšoAÁ]šZAZA}šZŒ[AŒPµuvš 4. Avoid restating the topic t the statement should be the backbone. When it comes to the first ‰lŒ[A‰ZUAšZ]Aš‰AZ}µoAZo‰AÇ}µAšAµ‰AšZAšUAošAšZAµ]vAlv}ÁAÁZšA šZAš[A}µšAvAÁZÇA]š[AAšAÁ}ŒšZAo]šv]vPAš}X 2. 3. The definition stage is critical because it sets your team (and sometimes the other team too) clear markers against which your arguments can be evaluated. defining the debate means proposing your solution or ^u}o_ for solving the controversy. The details of your model should include the scope of the debate (the first world? Australia? schools?) and should give the debate a clear structure thorough which your arguments can be analysed. Empirical Debates t šZA ŒA šA ÁZŒA Ç}µ[ŒA v}šA ŒPµ]vPA (}ŒA A ‰}o]ÇA µšA merely evaluating something t XPXA^šZšA}µŒAoŒ]š]AŒAv}AP}}_XAz}µŒA(]v]š]}vA}(AšZA topic in these kinds of debšAZ}µoAšAµ‰AšZAvZuŒlAÇAÁZ]ZAÇ}µ[ooAA]vPA the issue. Identify the Controversy Think about the following questions: what is the context of the debate? What is the status quo and/or what event related to the topic has occurred recently? Has something been proposed in relation to a controversy? (e. or main contention.

Using those principles in combination with basic logic (i. If you construct your case according to the method above. they have two other people to consult with to smooth out the bumps before they get to the debating room. The structure of Ç}µŒAšu[AAZ}µoA(}oo}ÁAšZAšŒµšµŒA}(AÇ}µŒA‰Œ‰At when you identified the controversy at the start of your prep. etc) for each of your arguments. it was so you knew what the šAÁA}µšAvAÁZÇA]šAÁAÁ}ŒšZAš]vPWA}v[šAoµvZA]vš}AÇ}µŒAŒPµuvšA(}ŒA you enlighten thA µ]vUA šZAiµ]š}ŒAvA Ç}µŒA}‰‰}]š]}vAš}}JA /(AšZÇ[ŒAooA}vA šZA same page as you. It is also a good tactic because although only one speaker will be presenting any single argument. Do Your Team Split Finally. work out the logical progression of the arguments and decide which speakers will be covering which material. any speaker may need use that argument in rebuttal (or have to defend it from attack) t }A µvŒšv]vPA ooA Ç}µŒA šu[A ušŒ]oA ]A À]šoA t and collaborative preparation of your case ensures all speakers can do this. read through it carefully and identify things that are unprovable avAPšAŒ]A}(AšZuXAvÇšZ]vPAšZšAÇ}µAv[šAo}P]ooÇA‰Œ}ÀAšAšZ]A‰}]všAZ}µoA be cut t ]š[AAÁšA}(AÀoµoAš]uAš}A‰µŒµAŒPµuvšAšZšAÁ}v[šAZo‰AÇ}µŒAAvA]šA uvAÇ}µ[ooAZÀAoAš]uAš}AÀo}‰AÇ}µŒAšŒ}vPŒAŒPµuvšXAWŒ]}Œ]š]AÇ}µŒAŒPuments so that you know which are the central to your case and which merely strengthen it t cut the weaker ones if you have too many and be prepared to defend your important arguments! 6. every member of the team should be clear as to what the key clash in the debate is. it means that if anyone is hazy about anything. &]vooÇUAŒuuŒAšZšAšZ]AušZ}A]AooA}µšAšµooÇAš]vPXA}v[šAÁ}ŒlAšZŒ}µPZAooA}(A šZA š‰A vA šZvA švA µ‰A š}A P]ÀA Ç}µŒA ‰ZA vA }u‰ošoÇA (}ŒPšA ÁZšA Ç}µ[ÀA iµšA talked about. or even intermedišA šŒUA Ç}µA Á]ooA }všvšoÇA (oA o]lA Ç}µA }v[šA lv}ÁA enough to debate most topics to their full potential t vAµv(}ŒšµvšoÇAšZš[AšŒµXABµšAZ}ÁA to you fix that lack of knowledge? You focus on First Principles. Some Final Comments: You and your team should be talking to each other for the majority of your prep time.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. your arguments are likely to make a lot more sense and the debate will work better! Part B: Making Arguments from First Principles As a novice. statistics. Tactics and First Principles E}ÁA]š[Aš]uAš}AšŒv(}ŒuAÇ}µŒAÁ]Zo]šA]vš}AAXAdZ]A]AÁZŒAÇ}µŒA]APšAšŒv(}ŒuA from mere assertions to actual arguments (see Chapter Three). you should be able to come up with the best analysis and the best evidence (examples. as a team. &]ŒšAWŒ]v]‰oAŒAlÇA}v‰šAšZšA(}ŒuAšZA(µvuvšoAZoZ[A]vAšZAui}Œ]šÇA}(AšA (see Appendix One for a basic list). logical case that fits together well. what your team is proposing and the details }(AÇ}µŒAšu[AŒPµuvšXAdZ]A]A]u‰}Œšvt so that your team presents a consistent. With your whole team working together. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 31 .e. Ask yourself whether you have made all the links to explain how you reached your conclusion so šZšA}u}vA ÁZ}[A vÀŒAÀvA šZ}µPZšA }µšA ]šAÁ}µoAAoA š}A (}oo}ÁA Ç}µŒAŒ}v]vPA (and be convinced by it!) Once you have expanded your wishlist. Plus. Then speakers can finalise their notes for their own speeches in the final few minutes.

and short of being an expert on every issue. preventing children from using them) but otherwise if people want to choose to do something that will do them harm. First Principles are the best way to generate those ideas in prep. So while it might save lives and money if we banned smoking and drinking. So what is an example of First Principles theories in action? Well. you want to give yourself the best possible chance of building good cases on a wide range of issues t and First Principles is the best way to do that. All debates are built on a foundation of conflicting ideas and theories about how to solve problems t like how to best run the economy (Keynesian or neo-liberal?) or the best principles for a political system (communitarian or liberal?). as well as identifying and understanding the philosophical clash that lies at the heart of any debate. but for the purposes of debating you just need to understand the key concepts in each theory. But what does it mean? WellUAo]Œo]uAvš]ooÇAuvAZuooAP}ÀŒvuvš[At giving individuals as much freedom A‰}]oA~Ao}vPAAšZšA(Œ}uAÁ}µov[šAAµAš}AZµŒšA}šZŒA‰}‰o XA^}AšŒµA^uooAZo[A o]Œo_A o]ÀA šZšA ÁZvA P]ÀvA šZA Z}]A šÁvA vv]vPA }ušZ]vPA }Œ regulating its use.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Note: šZAovPµPA]v[šAšZšA]u‰}ŒšvšXA}v[šAÁ}ŒŒÇA}µšAoŒv]vPAšZAooliŒP}vAµA]vA ‰‰v]ÆAKvUA]š[AšZAideas contained in those theories that are important. they should be free to make it. The case prepping method outlined in Part A is designed to show you how to build a case by approaching it from First Principles t incorporating logical progression of ideas. governments should choose to regulate it. you can't prep a good case without having good and consistent ideas about a topic. First Principles t The Role of Government At some point everyone learns about o]Œo]uA~^uooAZo[Ao]Œo]u_UAv}šAšZA>]ŒoAWŒšÇ XA BµAµšŒo]A]AAZo]Œo-u}ŒÇ[UAšZA}v‰šA}(Ao]Œo]uAuµšAZÀAAo}šAš}A}A with how we conceive of the proper role and responsibilities of government. because banning something implies that the government is telling you what sort of behaviour is acceptable or beneficial for you t and liberals think that wrong.g. These ideas might sound complicated. šZš[AšZ]ŒAZ}]XAdZAly is informed choice t so long as adults fully understand the choice they are making. many of the First Principles šZ}Œ]AŒošAš}A]‰µšA}ÀŒAšZAZšŒµ[AŒ}oA}(AšZAP}ÀŒvuvšA t and you can learn the fundamentals of dozens of debates by mastering a few simple concepts. The best ways are to read and to pay attention during debates/adjudications. Tactics and First Principles knowing how to show that an argument is logically flawed without knowing any facts/matter about the issue) will allow you to run a reasonably good case for any topic. true liberals would argue that these things should be regulated (e. Simply put. There are few shortcuts to learning First Principles. None of this is meant to suPPšAšZšAÇ}µAZ}µov[šAšŒÇAš}Al‰Aµ‰AÁ]šZAšZAvÁUAvAÀvA go further than that and research issues that you think might be useful t of course you Z}µoA}AšZšXABµšAšZš[AA‰Œ}AšZšAÁ]ooAA}vP}]vPAšZŒ}µPZ}µšAÇ}µŒAš]vPAŒŒXAšA the start. Everybody knows that smoking is dangerous Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 32 .

ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 33 . learning these First Principles ]A Á]ooA Zo‰A Ç}µA µ]oA A šŒ}vPA A ]vA vÇA }(A šZA ]vvµuŒoA ZŒ}oA }(A P}ÀŒvuvš[A debates. the core of the debate is the same t big government versus small government. gambling. On top of that core clash. It would be great if you were an expert on drugs. Regards of whether the topic is about gun control. KvA Ç}µA oŒvA A (ÁA &]ŒšA WŒ]v]‰oA ]UA Ç}µ[ooA šŒšA š}A A šZuA µvŒ‰]vv]vPA ÀŒÇA debate you do. It will also help you devise rebuttal. but in the meantime. In ‰Œš]UA‰}‰oA}v[šAµµooÇAµ‰‰}ŒšA}vA‰Z]o}}‰ZÇA}v]švšoÇUAµšA}šZA]AŒAoÁÇA represented in public debate. drugs. smoking. gambling. pornography. (etc). (etc). in an effort to create a }]šÇAšZšA‰Œ}u}šAšZAZ}]oAP}}[X ^}A]šAÁAZ]PAP}ÀŒvuvš[A}uuµv]šŒ]vAÁZ}A]AšZšAÁŒ]vPAAšošA}ŒAPšš]vPA ]uuµv]A (}ŒA ]A Z}µoA A }u‰µo}ŒÇXA dZš[A šZA P}ÀŒvuvšA šoo]vPA Ç}µA ÁZš[A best for you t ]š[AšZAP}ÀŒvuvšAÇ]vPA^Á[ŒAv}šAP}]vPAš}AšlAšZAZvAšZšAÇ}µ[ŒA šµ‰]Av}µPZAš}A]Pv}ŒAšZA}À]}µAv(]šA}(AÁŒ]vPAAšošUA}AÁ[ŒAP}]vPAš}AulA]šA AoÁAvAšZvA‰µv]ZAÇ}µA](AÇ}µA}v[šA}A]šX_ dZ]AoZAšÁvAZ]P[AvAZuoo[AP}vernment is a constant theme of Australian politics. Tactics and First Principles t ](AšZÇAš]ooAÁvšAš}Au}lUAšZAP}ÀŒvuvšAZ}µov[šAš}‰AšZuUAµA]š[AvAZ]v(}ŒuA cho][X C}vÀŒoÇUAšZŒAŒA‰}‰oAÁZ}AŒA}uš]uAooAZ}uuµv]šŒ]v[A}ŒAu}ŒAŒ}oÇUA Z}]o]š[UAÁZ}AšlAšZA}‰‰}]šAÀ]ÁXAdZÇA(À}µŒA^]PAP}ÀŒvuvš_UAAP}ÀŒvuvšAšZšA actively involves itself in shaping the choices that people can make. but each debate would be a clash of the same principles. guns. you would include any specific knowledge you might have the harms or benefits of the thing in question. Even if no-}vAuvš]}vAšZAvuA}(AšZAšZ}Œ]A]vÀ}oÀUAÇ}µ[ooAAZ}ÁA the logic of those ideas permeates every argument made.

Part A: Speaking Order. Of course. Ideally. which will improve your debating skills (through better understanding of tactics and case construction) and is also a crucial part of becoming an elite adjudicator. a good set-up to a case is absolutely vital. because each team has its own strengths and weaknesses. but few would actually have a significantly higher level of competence in that role then they do in any other). it is my view that more knowledgeable person on a given topic 15 should speak second. speakers should be capable of competently performing any of the speaker roles (even if most people have a favoured speaking position) and young debaters should set themselves the goal of gaining that level of flexibility as soon as possible. First. then case construction is really just about bringing those things together in a way that is consistent. Three factors that are useful to contextualising a case are trends. it is also vitally important that teams properly contextualise their cases t to not only explain the factual context of the debate. There are two good reasons for this.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. In addition to those concepts. and speakers at might have limited capacity to be flexible in terms of speaking roles (whereas at the novice level speakers might feel more comfortable in a given role.: Second Affirmative and First Negative. Since this person is the most knowledgeable on the issue. norms and tipping points. Intermediate teams might find it difficult to identify which speaker is the most knowledgeable. Second. how to ‰]lAAP}}AZu]µu-to-ZŒ[Ao]vAvAšZvAZ}ÁAš}A}všŒµšAP}}UAvoÇ]-rich arguments. this configuration gives the team maximum flexibility when responding to the initial attacks of the opposition. Filters and Tactical Concessions Speaking Order is difficult to generalise about. and great care and attention should be given to a first speaker during prep to ensure that they are able to fully explain all aspects of 15 Ao]PZšAÀŒ]všA}vAšZ]AµAÇAuvÇAšuA]Aš}AZÀAšZAu}šAƉŒ]vA‰lŒA‰lA^(]ŒšA Œ‰}v_At i.e. šZŒA ŒA šš]A šZšA Ç}µA vA u‰o}ÇA š}A ]u‰Œ}ÀA Ç}µŒA šu[A }v]švÇA nd responsiveness to challenges. it helps with consistency t the first speaker can be briefed on the issue in the prep and the second speaker (as the principle source of that information) should be well placed to avoid contradictions or inconsistencies as the case expands. but to help build momentum for their argument. Being able to speak in any position is crucial to developing an understanding of the dynamics of debates. but especially for teams at the ends of the spectrum t very inexperienced teams and very experienced teams. and set the tone for the debate. The first tactical decision to make regards speaking order. they are best placed to reposition the team following the }‰‰}]š]}v[A(]ŒšA‰lŒX I think this is a good rule for teams of all skill level. which will be discussed later in this chapter. but there are some things worth considering. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 34 . the }vA]AAšZv]‹µA/Ao]lAš}AooA^filters_AvA(]vooÇAšZŒAŒAtactical concessions. In addition to having prep techniques that help you develop more innovative arguments. Tactics and First Principles Chapter Seven t More Advanced Tactics If you have understood everything so far about how to choose the right definition. All things considered equal.

Secondly t and this is especially useful when debating with inexperienced speakers with whom you need to spend a lot of time building up their understanding of the fundamental issues in the debate t filters give clear boundaries and confidence when delivering rebuttal. Tactics and First Principles your definition and model. With that in place. During the debate. The filter was simple and drew on the most obvious and relevant analogy t as the Affirmative team. we were challenged on issues like violent students. severely disabled children. There is no point having maximum flexibility at second speaker if the case has been badly presented from the start. but instead had a well-developed case. or our }‰‰}vvš[AAZAv}AuŒ]šVAšZA point is that running every argument through a clearly defined filter keeps your responses consistent and relieves the stress on inexperienced speakers.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Speaking first and even second can seem daunting or even boring sometimes. the first of which is that it generates consistency t anytime the opposition asks whether your plan will include a certain group. Filters ŒA]u‰oÇAZšš[AšZšAÇ}µAšo]ZA~]šZŒAƉo]]šoÇA}ŒAiµšAÁ]šZAÇ}µŒAšuuš AÇA ÁZ]ZAÇ}µAPµPAÇ}µŒA][AŒš]}vAš}AvÇA‹µš]}vA}ŒAŒPµuvšAŒ]AÇAšZA}‰‰}]š]}vXA ^}A]š[AAZPµ]]vPA‰Œ]v]‰o[A}(A}ŒšUAÇAÁZ]ZAÇ}µŒAšuAÁ]ooAvÀ]PšAšZŒ}µPZ}µšAšZAšX Applying clear filters to your case has two benefits. Ç}µAÁ]ooAlv}ÁA]uu]šoÇAÁZšAšZA}ŒŒšl}v]švšAvÁŒAZ}µoAUAÀvA](AÇ}µAZv[šA considered it during prep. tZšA ŒA }uA Æu‰oA }(A A (]ošŒA ]vA A šMA dZA š}‰]A ^that intellectually disabled children should be taught in u]všŒuAZ}}o_ was run at a debating tournament in 2005 and my team successfully employed a simple filter to keep our case clear and consistent t allowing us to defeat a team with a higher (average) level of experience. specialty staff and upgrades to facilities to accommodate the intellectually disabled. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 35 . Especially in 3-on-3 styles. Finally a note about speaking third: a disproportionate number of high school debaters }v]ŒA šZuoÀA š}A A ZvšµŒo[A šZ]ŒA ‰lŒXA dZš[A v}šA varily a problem. and every time my team answered confidently and consistently t even though we Zv[šA ]µA uvÇA }(A šZ}A ]µXA tA }v[šA š}oŒšA ÆšŒuoÇA À]}ovšA ‰ZÇ]ooÇA ]oA Z]oŒvA ]vA šZA u]všŒuA ÇšuUA ÁA }v[šA ‰µšA ÀŒoÇA ‰ZÇ]ooÇA ]oA children in mainstream schools (but the vast majority are do get in) t µšA ÁA Á}µov[šA tolerate a child in a wheelchair being denied access to a mainstream school because the P}ÀŒvuvšA]v[šAÁvšAš}A‰ÇA(}ŒAAŒu‰A}ŒAA‰]oA]AšZŒAt so why apply different rules to the needs of intellectually disabled children? This is not to suggest that our case was flawless. third is the last place to have your best speaker. the strength of the case and the analysis early on is absooµšoÇAÀ]šoVAvA](A]š[Av}šA}vAÁooAšZvA even a brilliant third speaker will be unable to save the team from any decent opposition. but at this level a great first speaker is much more valuable to a team then a great third. we set as our guiding principle that we would not accept any restrictions on intellectually disabled children that were not the norm for physically disabled children. my team could focus during prep on developing ideas and persuasive voÇ]XA dZ]A uvšA šZšA ÁA ]v[šA ‰vA much š]uA šZ]vl]vPA }µšA šZA }‰‰}]š]}v[A arguments. but the reality of debating is that in most cases. and every good team needs a strong third speaker.

However. tactical concessions make you look reasonable and allow you to focus attention on the true areas of clash in the debate. this is a minority. it would seem churlish to deny that there is a drug problem. classified and if necessary access should be restricted (such as with R rated movies). This gives the Negative a chance to spend their time preparing the best possible free- speech/pornography case they can think of. The second option is to make a tactical concession. without worrying too much about how they will cope with the arguments raised by the Affirmative. using this filter throws the onus back onto the opposition to show how the analogy is inappropriate t so in the first case they would need to show why intellectually disabled children cannot be treated under the same principles as physically disabled children and in the second case they would need to show why pornography is so special that adults are unable to process it in the same way they can violent action and horror movies (]XXA Á]šZ}µšA šµŒv]vPA ]vš}A Œ]oA l]ooŒ XA dZŒA ]v[šA A ]u‰oA (]ošŒA (}ŒA ÀŒÇA UAµšA]š[AAšŒ]lAÇ}µAZ}µoAZÀAµ‰AÇ}µŒAoÀX Tactical Concessions are in the same tactics family as filters t because in both cases the issue choosing your battles. and lots of violence is still allowed to be shown. and vi}ovšA‰}Œv}PŒ‰ZÇAZ}µov[šAAvÇA]((ŒvšX Just like the previous example. Some people think it o}}lA ÁlA š}A PŒA Á]šZA Ç}µŒA }‰‰}vvšA š}}A }(švXA /A šZ]vlA šZšA A o}vPA A Ç}µ[ŒA uŒšA about it. Obviously. there is a limit to how much violence a mainstream movie can get away with and it should be the same here t so grotesquely violent pornography can be banned t but just like ultra-violent movies. Basically. or in a debate about ZŒ}PµAšš[Ao]lA/ŒvA}ŒAE}ŒšZA<}ŒUA]šAÁ}µod look silly to claim that these states are not Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 36 . weak or irrelevant arguments should be ignored if dealing with them is an µvŒ}voA ]šŒš]}vA (Œ}uA u}ŒA ]u‰}ŒšvšA ]µA ~ošZ}µPZA }uš]uA ]š[A Á}ŒšZA pointing out ‹µ]loÇAZ}ÁAšµ‰]AvAŒPµuvšA]Aš}A]Œ]šAÇ}µŒA}‰‰}vvšUAµšAÇ}µ[ooAš]ooA only win the debate if you deal with their strongest points).ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Not everyone is knowledgeable about various kinds of hardcore pornography and ]š[Av}šAvAŒAÁZŒAÀŒÇ}vAÁ]ooAA]oÇAoAš}AšZ]vlA}(AÆu‰oAvAÀ]vXABµšA the filter is fairly obvious: a smart Negative would set as their test that we should only accept a restriction on pornography if the same restriction was the norm for mainstream media. Tactics and First Principles Negative teams can also make use of filters: a good example would be šZAš}‰]A^šZšAÁA Z}µoAvAooA‰}Œv}PŒ‰ZÇAšZšA(šµŒAÀ]}ovA}ŒA}Œ]}vX_ This is a difficult topic for the Negative team and you need to clearly establish what sort of pornography you are prepared to defend. this is admitting that you happen to agree with a proposition put forward by your opponents. in 90% of debates both sides should agree with the existence of a problem (you can still disagree with the proposed solution). /š[Av}šA‰}]oA}ŒAÀ]oAš}AšŒÇAvAŒµšAÀŒÇAŒPµuvšA made by your opposition t ]š[AššŒAš}A‰Œ]}Œ]š]AšZAŒPµuvšAvA(}µA}vAššl]vPAšZA most potent ones your opponents made. This filter means a model that deals with violence in the same way as for other media t it should be assessed. In a debate about drugs. But which arguments should you let through? There are two answers to that t those that are weak and those that can simply be conceded. So when should you concede? There are two rules to concessions t concede if you would o]lAšµ‰]A}šZŒÁ]UAvA}vA](A]šAulAvAŒPµuvšAÇ}µAv[šAÁ]vAP}AÁÇX So what are some examples? Well.

Conceding in order to make problematic ŒPµuvšAZP}AÁÇ[A~]vA}šZŒAÁ}ŒUAo}AŒoÀvA]vAšZAšA]AA(]vAo]vXAK(švUA]š[A better to concede that there is a moral imperative to act (in response to some sort of problem or situation) than it is to fight it. Concede that there is a moral imperative to act. then remind the adjudicator that your side has a plan to tackle the problem and your opponents are just wasting time talking about an issue that everyone agrees on. In the wake of the GFC. But be careful: if yoµ[ŒAP}]vPAš}A(vAšZAššµA‹µ}AvAvA}‰‰}]š]}vA]A(}u]vPAšAšZA mouth about how terrible the current situation is. . but it clearly happening in the majority of cases and regardless of whether it is good or bad. Norms and Tipping Points When building a case. with a cycle of increasingly stringent laws. Trends are the current direction of public policy. with the re-regulation of investment banks in many countries. norms or tipping points. perhaps even ŒÀŒA]šXAdZš[A(]vUAµšA]š[A]u‰}ŒšvšAš}AµvŒšvAšZAšŒvUAµAšZšAÁ]ooAZo‰AÇ}µA understand what sort of problems your proposal will be likely face. /š[A‰Œ(šoÇA(]vAš}AµAšZe development of a trend as the impetus for a policy. But simply pointing out a problem is often not enough t to make the case really strong you need urgency: why should this be done now ~‰]ooÇA](A]š[A}ušZ]vPAšZšAZAvAšAuvÇAš]uA(}ŒUAo]l euthanasia)? One way to create that urgency is to point to trends. it is the reality. Tactics and First Principles dangerous t µšAu]šš]vPAšZ}AšZ]vPA}v[šAuvAšZšAvÇA‰Œš]µoŒA}µŒA}(Aš]}vA]A automatically the right response. it would be a bad idea to concede the problem. The second rule is more difficult to implement. So you might ÇAA ‰ŒšA}(AÇ}µŒA šAµ‰WA^šZŒA ]A AoŒA šŒvA Ào}‰]vPA }ÀŒAšZA ošA A (}ŒAšZA United States to act militarily without the consent of the United Nations (Bosnia. But if both sides have agreed that there is a problem. Part B: Trends. Following the terrorist attacks of 9-11. You might want to propose a policy that would be a change to this trend. the first thing you should do is clearly establish the context in which the debate occurs. there has been a clear trend of governments passing ]vŒ]vPoÇA ŒšŒ]š]ÀA Zvš]-šŒŒ}Œ]u[A oÁA ~švš]}vA }(A µ‰šUA ]všŒµ]ÀA ]vÀš]Pš]}vA ‰}ÁŒUA ]vŒA ‰voš]A ]vA šZA vuA }(A ‰µo]A (šÇXA /š[A or from the way that Australia has modelled some of its most recent reforms on laws in the UK that there is a widespread trend emerging. ^}uAšŒvAvAAÀŒÇAŒ}WA]vAšZAŒoÇAõì[AšZŒAZAvAAclear trend amongst tšŒvAP}ÀŒvuvšAš}A‰µŒµA}v}u]A‰}o]]AA}vAZv}-o]Œo]u[A~‰Œ]Àš]š]}vUA Œµš]}vA]vAšŒAŒŒ]ŒUAŒPµoš]}vA}(A]vµšŒÇXAdZš[Av}šAš}AÇAšZšAšZ]A‰Œ}AZA been universal. and both sides think the status ‹µ}AvAš}AZvPUAšZvA}v[šAošAÇ}µŒA}‰‰}vvšAP}A}vAvA}vA}µšAZ}ÁAu}ŒooÇA superior they are.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. but your case will be made most potent by developing a sense of urgency t a need to implement your particular policy now.}ÁAvAÇ}µA}AšZ]MAtooA]š[AŒ]š]oAš}AµvŒšvAšZAvšµŒA}(AšZA‰Œ}ouA}AšZat you can describe why something is a problem. This requires discussing some of the factual circumstances that have led to the debate. Iraq) and Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 37 . there has been something of a trend in the opposite direction.

Therefore we will be proposing the introduction of laws to make directors personally financially liable for acts of o]ŒšAu]uvPuvšAšZšAšZÇA}vµšY_ But equally. but as it stands. Therefore we support a ‰Œvš[AŒ]PZšAš}APvš]ooÇAu}](ÇAšZ]ŒAµv}ŒvAZ]o_X dZ]A]AvAÆu‰oA}(AZ}ÁAÇ}µAvAµAZšŒvAvoÇ][Aš}AulA}ušZ]vPAšZšA]A}iš]ÀoÇA very controversial appear to be simply the next step along the path that society is already on. Since those times. HIH) going bankrupt as a ŒµošA}(AšZAŒ]}µAu]uvPuvšAÇA]Œš}ŒUAÁAšZ]vlA]š[Aš]uAš}A]vš]šµšA(ŒAZŒZŒA penalties for directors who deliberately run companies into the ground. pre-natal genetic screening) and we think that it is the simply the next logical step to give potential parents access to the next generation of reproductive technology t which involves genetic manipulation of the foetus. why not allow parents to use technology to ensure that the foetus is healthy in more ways than simply avoiding disease?). Norms can also be influenced by economic status (poor and rich people can have very different ideas about norms). in that norms are the status quo. many people view the consumption of whale meat as being little different to any other meat. For Æu‰oWA^}ÀŒAšZAošAšvAÇŒUAÁAZÀAAoŒAšŒvA}(A‰ŒvšA]vŒ]vPoÇA]vPAP]ÀvA access to reproductive technologies as a means to better plan their families and ensure healthy babies (IVF. It is analysis that will form part of the core of your case t genetic modification is not that different in principle from what we already allow (if we allow a foetus to be screened for genetic diseases that might lead to the parents making a decision to abort. ethnicity. then the task is that much harder for the opposition. Enron. and to strengthen the relevancy of the UN. there is nothing wrong with proposing a case that would be an extension of a current trend t you can use analysis of the trend to add momentum to your argument. we have seen a growing trend towards equality. /(AÇ}µAvAu}všŒšAšZšAšZAŒoÀvšAšŒvAŒA‰}]vš]vPA]vAšZA]Œš]}vA}(AÇ}µŒAšu[A logic. or what people are willing to accept now (the trend might be moving in any direction but at any given moment a ‰Œš]µoŒA‰}]š]}vAÁ]ooAAšZA}uu}voÇAZoAZv}Œu[X For instance. Norms are closely related to trends. Tactics and First Principles we think it is critical that we make reforms to the international system to encourage the US to act more multilaterally. This seems simple v}µPZUAµšA]šAÁv[šAoÁÇAšZAXA>AšZvAAvšµŒÇAP}A]šAÁAšZAv}ŒuA~Po}ooÇ A(}ŒA women to be denied the right to vote. The extent to which society accepts inequality is the norm. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 38 . We would do this by Œ(}Œu]vPAšZAhEA]vAšZA(}oo}Á]vPAÁÇY_ KŒWA ^(Œ}uA šZA ŒvšA šŒvA }(A }Œ‰}rations (World Com. the norm is that neither group has reached a position of full equality. just 50 years ago it was the norm in Australia for Indigenous people to be denied the same right. nationality and many other factors. while the direction things are moving is the trend. In Norway and Japan. it is a norm in our society that citizens have equal rights. religion. Norms can be highly culturally specific.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. but in Australia the norm is for people to view whales as worthy of special protection.

It would make options like invasion or attack much more likely than they are at the moment. but after the vote both the leaders of the major parties were forced to discuss it and state their positions. 16 Z^‹µ]ŒŒo[A]AAš]vPAšŒuAšZšAŒfers to an interpretation of a motion that is blatantly (and often deliberately) outside of the spirit of the motion Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 39 . Before the RU486 vote it would have been hard to imagine how the abortion debate could become a live issue in Victorian politics. Part B: Classic Affirmative Mistakes and Negative Tactics Many of the mistakes that Affirmative teams make when setting up debates are also the 16 perfect weapons for Negative teams to use t especially if they have squirreled or have limited knowledge of the issues in the debate. there was a vote on the legalisation of the abortion pill RU486. Classic Trap One: The Problem-Solution Gap This mistake is most common and most damaging when teams propose soft models. For that reason they are discussed here together. Tipping Points ŒA ÁZšA Z‰‰vA ÁZvA A ZšŒv[A P]vA u}uvšµuA š}A šZA ‰}]všA ÁZŒA A major change is considered. But because of pressure by a cross-party alliance of MPs. making previously remote options seem more plausible. But usually a tipping point is the result of a series of events that propel a debate into uncharted territory. most people thought the issue would be largely ignored for the foreseeable future.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. That sort of series of related ÀvšA}µoAA]Aš}AAu}À]vPAµšŒo]A~}ŒAs]š}Œ]AšAošAš}ÁŒAAZš]‰‰]vPA‰}]vš[A]vA the debate about abortion laws. What are some examples of a tipping point? They occur when a situation has reached a critical juncture t where policy makers are forced to make a fundamental choice and there is ŒooÇA v}A ZZo(-ÁÇ[A ‰}]všXA KŒA uÇA A Œ]A }(A ÀvšA ZÀA ‹µ]loÇA u}ÀA A ]šµš]}vA forward. Sometimes this is hard to do t ‰]ooÇA ](A Ç}µ[ŒA ŒPµ]vPA (}ŒA }ušZing quite hardline. Abortion was a bit of a non-issue in Australian politics for many years and with the conservative Howard government winning control of both houses of parliament. Tipping points are important because they add weight and Œ]]o]šÇAš}AÁZšAu]PZšA}šZŒÁ]AAvAAvAµvo]loÇA}µš}uXA^}AÁZvAÇ}µ[ŒAšš]vPA up your case. If you can describe the situation t }ŒAšZAZ‰Œ}ou[A}(AšZAšAt as being at a Zš]‰‰]vPA ‰}]vš[VA Ç}µA vA P]ÀA Ç}µŒA A A vA }(A µŒPvÇA vA Œ]]o]šÇXA dZA ŒA }šZA powerful things to have on your side. you obviously want to make it sound like the plan that you are proposing is going to work t šZšA‰}‰oAŒAP}]vPAš}AA(]ŒoÇAÁ]oo]vPAš}A}A]šAvAšZšA]š[AP}]vPAš}AZÀA benefits. Tactics and First Principles It is important to understand noruA]vA}ŒŒAš}AµvŒšvAZ}ÁAZZŒ[UAZ}(š[A}ŒAZ]vv[AA particular argument/model is (because this is largely based on how different people perceive your case to be from the norm). /uu]šoÇA (}oo}Á]vPA šZšUA DWA ]vA s]š}Œ][A ‰Œo]uvšA šŒšA agitating for a decriminalisation of abortion under State laws. You can imagine how strong the sense of urgency would be to find ways to restrict the spread of nuclear weapons and to do something about the dictatorship in Iran. A recent example of a debate which somewhat unexpectedly reached a tipping point is abortion. A single event could cause a tipping point t like (to take an extreme example) if Iran tested a nuclear weapon.

offer a soft uZv]uAš}AZ]u‰Œ}À[AšZA]šµš]}vXAdZAšŒ‰A]AšZšA]š[Au}ŒooÇA]v}v]švšAš}AAÁŒA of a great and pressing problem.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. This is pretty obvious but still worth doing. If they truly think the problem is that big and that important than their model is unconscionable. Classic Trap Two: The Ultra-Soft Line /[ÀAoŒÇA]µA‰ŒÀ]}µoÇAÁZÇA]šA]UAšš]ooÇA‰l]vPUAAA]A(}ŒAvA((]Œuš]ÀA team to propose the status quo as their model t and generally speaking any competent topic oš}ŒAÁ]ooAÁ}ŒAu}š]}vA}AšZšAŒµvv]vPAšZAššµA‹µ}A]A]u‰}]oXABµšAšZšA}v[šAš}‰A stupid or inexperienced teams from proposing very-soft line models which are almost the status quo. To give an obviously exaggerated example: a team identifies the context to the debate as the growing problem of hunger and starvation in the developing world and cites a recent UN or NGO report filled with horrifying statistics of the suffering these people endure and then proposes a model in which rich nations increase the amount of food aid they donate by some tokenistic amount. but not quite. This is one way that teams can win debates after being ‹µ]ŒŒoXA/š[AA(}ŒuA}( Z&]ŒšAWŒ]v]‰o[AA}všŒµš]}vlŒµššoXA/šAo}AÁ}ŒlA}uš]uA against ultra-soft lines. The tactical advantage of this is that it totally vµšŒo]A šZA u}ŒoA ŒPµuvšA vA ]vA (šA šoA ]šA (}ŒA šZA }‰‰}]š]}vXA /š[A šZA ‰Œ(šA opportunity to hijack the debate. they will have fallen into the Problem-Solution Trap. It is certainly true that this tiny amount of extra food is literally ZššŒA šZvA šZA ššµA ‹µ}[UA µšA šZŒA ]A A ÀšA ]v}v]švÇA šÁvA šZA oA }(A šZA problem they have identified and the solution they have offered. How to Exploit the Problem-Solution Gap There are two ways to exploit this gap. opposition teams should attack the case as being unable to effectively combat the problem they themselves wanted to tackle. Firstly. Zo]š]ooÇUA ]vA A ZµšZv][A šUA ](A A šuA šŒšA ÇA ]vš](Ç]vPA šZA µ((Œ]vPA }(AšZA terminally ill in our hospitals and the desperate need to find a way to help people alleviate their pain and to have dignity in their final moments (a common and reasonable way to contextualise that debate) and then they ran the soft model described in Chapter Four. Tactics and First Principles Basically the trap is this: usually when a team propose a soft model they will start by identifying a very real problem. The trap grows stronger the more the Affirmative push the moral dimensions of their case. but simply offer a soft solution t or worse still. This creates a number of problems for both teams and a decent adjudicator should expect something pretty special from the Affirmative if they are to win (so long as the Negative šuA}v[šA‰v]AvAŒ}‰AšZAooX The reason why an ultra-soft case is a bad idea is because they have the strong potential to Z}oo‰[AAšAvAulA]šA]((]µošA(}ŒAšZAšuAš}A(]vAvÇAuv]vP(µoAZoZ[XA&Œ}uA Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 40 . ^}voÇA ~‰]ooÇA µ(µoA ](A šZA }‰‰}]š]}vA }v[šA lv}ÁA uµZA }µšA šZA š}‰]UA ]u‰oÇA counter-propose something that would be even marginally be more effective at tackling the problem (the more effective the better). although a combination of the two is most effective. but then think it is defensible to do very little about it.

and half šZA^}vA((]Œuš]ÀA}(A‰ZUAÁ]šZ}µšA]šAPšš]vPAŒ‰š]š]ÀUA]u‰o]š]A}ŒA}Œ]vPMA/[AA impressed if you could. the debate ends up being more about whether or not you can clearly explain and defend your line than it is about defeating your opponents position (in a normal debate those priorities are equally important). But ask yourself how many quality arguments you could make in favour of this standard? Can you think of enough to fill 15 minutes (First Affirmative. Almost by definition. But the Negative team also have an obligation to come to the party and engage in the debate established by the Affirmative. That means taking a hard line (or at least a very firm line) to clearly delineate the stance of your team and to give your team a principled line to defend. Tactics and First Principles the point of view of the adjudicator. clear line that šµvšAZ}µoAAoAš}AÁŒAvÇAo}šZ]vPAšZÇAÁ]ZAšZšA]Av}šA]v‰‰Œ}‰Œ]šA~Ç}µA}v[šA want be condoning students coming to school wearing pyjamas or dressed like prostitutes. So. so long as the clash is reasonable. your best tactic t under all circumstances. As a Negative team. reasonable clash (there is a strong clash between an Affirmative team that is in favour of freedom and asks the Negative šuAš}A(vAoÀŒÇVAµšAšZšA]AvAZµvŒ}vo[AoZAvAZ}uld be punished by an adjudicator because t amongst other things t it breaks the definitional rule and probably the Code of Conduct). Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 41 . a Negative team should run a fairly strong. and µA]š[A]u‰}ŒšvšA(}ŒAZ]odren to learn to cope with material differences t everywhere they go after school. The Negative would then focus on why it is important that children be able to wear whatever they like t }šZAµA]š[AA form of personal expression and important to the development of their personalities. In effect. the Affirmative team have an obligation to provide the conditions for a good debate t which basically means a good. Under those circumstances. Even assuming that the Affirmative team have done themselves a massive disservice by running an ultra-soft line. an adjudicator will have few good reasons to award the debate and will probably end up giving it to the team which is penalised less for ruining the debate. but especially in response to an ultra-soft line t is to create space in the debate. the way they look will have an impact on their life: from job interviews and workplace. an ultra-soft line is likely to be uncontroversial t meaning that there is nothing much to say in favour of it! /(A šZA š}‰]A ÁA ^šZšA ooA‰µo]A Z}}oA Z}µoA ZÀA A µv](}Œu_A vAšZA ((]Œuš]ÀA šuA (]vA]šAA^A}uu}vAŒAšvŒAt v}AZvuAŒv[Ao}šZUAv}AƉv]ÀAiÁooŒÇUA minimal make-µ‰AvA}voÇA(ošAZoUAo}Aš}UA]vPoA}o}µŒAZ}_UA]šAu]PZšAuAo]lAvA impossible case to lose. The tactical reason why Affirmative teams should avoid ultra-}(šAo]vA]AšZšAšZÇA}v[šAP]ÀA you enough opportunities for providing deep analysis. to fitting in socially t and school is a good place to learn those skills. in relation to our example.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. but that still allows a very wide range of acceptable attire). the Negš]ÀAš]ooAvAš}AAŒ(µoAšZÇA}v[šA}uAÀ]š]uA}(A an imploding debate t where the area of clash is small and gets smaller and smaller until there are virtually no strong areas of difference between the teams. K(A}µŒUAÇ}µAš]ooAvAš}AulAAšŒ}vPA((}ŒšAš}AvPPAÁ]šZAÇ}µŒA}‰‰}vvš[AUAµšA the central thrust of your rebuttal is likely to be that the Affirmative have based their case on the wrong principle t rather than that the specifics of their case will cause some harm.

Part C: General Tactical Mistakes D]šlAKvWAdZA&ooÇA}(AZDµšµoAÆoµ]À]šÇ[ The concept of ZuµšµoA Æoµ]À]šÇ[A ZA vA šZ}Œ}µPZoÇA }ÀŒµA vA u]µvŒš}}A ÇA debaters of all styles. and controversy is the oxygen of debate. The problem of mutual exclusivity is this t teams think that if they can show that an }‰‰}vvš[A u}oA ]A v}šA ‰Œš]ooÇA ]v‰oA }(A ]vPA všA šA šZA uA š]uA A šZ]ŒA own. This would be bad enough. Any decent adjudicator should reward a team that is trying to save a debate and so they will hopefully be generous towards you. restricted. Tactics and First Principles The attack on the Affirmative team is that any attempt to stifle the sartorial freedom of students is simply limiting the development of their personal autonomy. but commercially available) the Negative might counter-propose a model that is essentially Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 42 . the more you can argue that students will consistently bend and break their rules and that the ZvšµŒo[A‰}]š]}vAÁ]ooAAu}ŒAo]lAšZšAÇ}µAŒA‰Œ}‰}]vPX }v[šAPšAuAÁŒ}vPUA/[uAv}šAÇ]vPAšZšAšZ]AÁ}µoAAAPŒšAšAt once a team go ultra- soft its very rarely a good debate (which should be reason enough to never do it yourself) µšA]š[AA(]PZšA(}ŒAµŒÀ]ÀoXAvAµošŒ-soft line is an attempt to suck the controversy out of a debate. now they are fighting on your terms! You need to keep your cool and simply point out the hypocrisy of their position t ](AšZÇAšZ]vlAšZšA(ŒAƉŒ]}vA]A]u‰}ŒšvšUAšZÇAv[šAZÀAÁZšAu}µvšAš}AAµv](}ŒuA by stealth. then figure out which line you can run that will push the debate as far towards that original level of clash as possible. So the best Negative tactic is anything that increases the controversy and injects in some more oxygen. &}ŒA Æu‰oUA ](A šZA š}‰]A ÁA ^šZšA šZ]A Z}µA Á}µoA oPo]A ŒŒš]}voA ŒµP_A vA šZA Affirmative proposed a model of licensed distribution of drugs like ecstasy (essentially treating recreational drugs in the same way as cigarettes and alcohol t regulated. that weakens the validišÇA}(AšZ]ŒA}‰‰}vvš[AXAdZŒA]A}uAšŒµšZAš}AšZ]UAŒš]voÇA ŒZš}Œ]ooÇAµšAo}AŒPµuvšš]ÀoÇUAµšA]š[A}ÀŒššAvA‹µ]šA]u‰oAš}AŒ(µšX dZA (]ŒšA ‰}]všA ]A šZšA uµšµoA Æoµ]À]šÇA ]A v}šA A (šoA (oÁA ]vA vA }‰‰}]š]}v[A A automatically t only under certainly circumstances is it even a weakness. This would be the same line you would have run had the Affirmative set up a reasonable model. and making harder for them to learn how to interact with others in the real world. but you have to keep your cool and run a clear and }v]švšAo]vXAAB]ooÇUAÇ}µAZ}µoAP}AlAš}AZ&]ŒšAWŒ]v]‰o[UA(]PµŒA}µšAwhat the clash should have been. etc) with the harms of free dress (bullying. but there also seems to be a widespread o](AšZšAuµšµoAÆoµ]À]šÇA]AA‰}ÁŒ(µoAŒµššoAš}AvA}‰‰}vvš[AAt when tactically speaking it can be easily and effectively countered. The Affirmative team t being the soft and timid people that they obviously are t will probably try to have the šA}(A}šZAÁ}ŒoAvAŒPµAšZšAšZ]ŒAZ}(šAµv](}Œu[Aš]ooAP]ÀA children room to express themselves t but this is the crucial thing. social segregation.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. strict conformity. peer-group pressure) and becomes more about whether freedom of dress and expression is the superior principle to the alternative of uniformity of dress. The more they defend the need for students to have self-expression. but the focus shifts from comparing the potential harms of a proper school uniform (cost.

and flowing from the philosophical difference. when they should rightly be seen as a wider number of discrete entities that have a small number of things in common but nevertheless possess significant differences. there are commonalities between individual members that make }uAPvŒo]š]}vA(]ŒAvAµŒšXA&}ŒAÆu‰oA]š[A(]ŒAš}AÇA^}Œ‰}Œš]}vAŒA‰Œ}(]šA Œ]Àv_UAµAvÇA}Œ‰}Œš]}vAšZšA}v[šAlA~uÇAu}vPšA}šZŒAšZ]vP Aš}AulAA profit is not really a business t ]š[A A ZŒ]šÇUA }ŒA }uuµv]šÇA ŒÀ]UA µšA ]š[A v}šA A Z}Œ‰}Œš]}v[A ]vA šZA }oo}‹µ]oA vA }(A A ‰Œ]ÀšA µ]vXA .ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. In each of these cases. big businesses that have large profit margins and substantial resources and small businesses that run on small margins and have limited resources). because an identical education campaign would be consistent with the aims of their own model. corporations.}ÁÀŒUA šZA ‰µŒµ]šA }(A ‰Œ}(]šA takes many forms: corporations aim for different markets (e.g. Any time an opposition talk about a one of these categories as though they are homogenous ~^ÁZšA Á}uvA ÁvšA ]A š}A A Œ‰ŒvšA ‰}o]š]ooÇA ÇA Á}uv_A }ŒA ^tšA W‰µvA }v[šA ÁvšAÀo}‰uvšUAÁZšAšZÇAŒooÇAÁvšA]Aš}AA(ŒAš}A‰µŒµAšZ]ŒAšŒ]š]}voAµošµŒ_UA even if you know nothing about the group in question. rather than their gender µAZÁ}uv[AŒAAAPŒ}µ‰AŒA(ŒA(Œ}uAµv]šA]vAšZ]ŒAÀ]Á_AvAšZvA‰Œ}À]AšZA analysis for why these differences within the group are reasonable. important and how they Á]ooA}u‰o]šAšZA(]ŒA‰‰o]š]}vA}(AšZA}‰‰}]š]}v[Au}oX Mistake Three: The Myth of the ^K‰‰}]š]}v[AKvµ_A~}ŒAWµZAš]vP Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 43 . Tactics and First Principles the status quo. there is a simple practical ]š]vš]}vXA dZA EPš]À[A u}oA ]A uµšµooÇA Æoµ]ÀA ]vA šZA vA šZšA ](A šZA µš]}vA campaign works as well as it argued that it would. the lack of formal mutual exclusivity is not a fatal flaw. Secondly. developing countries. but with greater education about the effects of drugs and drug abuse to discourage their use. While strictly speaking this is true t something can be legalised and there can be a broad education campaign about the harms (e. debaters will analyse an entire category of things together. then there would be no need to legalise supply of drugs as a harm minimisation strategy t if education does effectively limit harm from drugs. These concepts are mutually exclusive. Some common examples include the media. or even an effective attack t because philosophically the two models are predicated on two mutually exclusive concepts: that the best way to limit harm is to allow supply and encourage responsible use and that the best way to limit harm is to restrict supply and explain that generally there really is no such thing as responsible use. then the only reason you would go further than that and legalise it is if you thought people had a right to access it (which is an argument exclusive to the Affirmative). cheap and low quality or expensive and high quality) and operate under different conditions (e. you can confidently assert from First WŒ]v]‰oA šZšA šZA ]šµš]}vA ]A u}ŒA }u‰o]šA šZvA šZšA ~^uvÇA Á}uvA ŒA u}ŒA concerned with the ideological beliefs of their representatives.g. cigarettes).g. C}uu}voÇUAšZA((]Œuš]ÀAÁ}µoAŒ‰}vAÇAÇ]vPAšZšAšZAEPš]À[AA]Av}šAuµšµooÇA exclusive with their own. D]šlAdÁ}WAdZA/ooµ]}vA}(AZ^uv[ Quite often. and racial/ethnic/gender/sexuality groups.

Tactics and First Principles dZ]A]A}vA}(AšZ}AZ(]vAo]v[A]µA]vAš]vPliµ]š]}vVAÁZvA]AvA}‰‰}]š]}vAšuA Z‰µZAš]vP[AvAÁZvA]A]šA]u‰oÇA‰}]vš]vPA}µšAšZA}À]}µA}µšAšZA(µvuvšoAZoZ[A in the debate? Push debating can occur in many forms. As an adjudicator or debater. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 44 . BµšAšZŒAŒAµšoš]Aš}AšZ]AvAAÇ}µA}uAu}ŒAƉŒ]vAÇ}µ[ooAoŒvAš}AšooAšZA difference between a team that is trying (consciously or not) to unfairly push their opposition. As an adjudicator. you should be wary of letting competitors tell you how to judge the šXA/š[A(]vA(}ŒAAšuAš}A‰}]všA}µšA‰Œ}ouAÁ]šZAšZA}‰‰}]š]}vUA}ŒAš}AZoovPAšZ]ŒA definition or their arguments. but contrary to what they think. and one that is simply trying to establish the parameters of a fair debate. our alternative is not a ]ŒšÇA (}]oA (µoA vŒPÇA ]vµšŒÇUA šZA ošŒvš]ÀA šZšA ÁA Á]ooA A À}š]vPA ]Y_A vA šZvA insert your model.ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. they will clearly spell out exactly what your side will be attempting to prove or which position you will be advocating for avAšZš[AÁZšAÇ}µAZ}µoA be judged on. or through the establishment of some sort of (unfair) test or criteria through which they assert the debate should be judged. But there are other. &}ŒA Æu‰oUA ](A šZA š}‰]A ÁA ^šZšA µšŒo]A Z}µoA µA vµoŒA vŒPÇ_UA šZA ((]Œuš]ÀA team have the right to choose exactly how much nuclear energy t and under what conditions t šZÇAŒAÁ]oo]vPAš}A(vA~šZš[AvA]µA}(AZ}ÁAZZŒAo]v[A}ŒAZ}(šAo]v[AšZÇA Z}}Aš}AAµšAšZÇAv[šA(]vAšZA}‰‰}]š]}v[AXA^}AšZÇAv[šAÇA^ÁAÁ}µoAo]lA šZA P}ÀŒvuvšA šA A šŒPšA }(A PvŒš]vPA îì9A }(A µšŒo][A ošŒ]]šÇA šZŒ}µPZA vµoŒA power and the opposition have to defend the status quo t of virtually total fossil fuel use t AAššŒAšŒšPÇ_XAdZš[A‰µZAš]vPXA/(AšZAEPš]ÀAšuAÁvšAš}A(vAšZAššµA ‹µ}UAšZvAšZš[AšZ]ŒAZ}]VAµšA](AšZÇAZAAAA}vA}uAošŒvš]ÀA~o]lAPŒvA energy. or to oppose a truism. You never haÀAš}A‰šAvAZ}vµ[A}ŒAAšA}(AŒ]šŒ]AšZšA]A‰oA}vAÇ}µAÇAvA}‰‰}]š]}vA‰lŒXA/(A your team has a good first speaker. then establish ÁZšAšZAZšŒµ[A]Z}š}uÇA]AvAPšAback to defending your side of that equation. but in the end the only criteria that matter when awarding the šAŒAšZ}AšA}ÁvA]vAšZAŒµoXAdZ]A}v[šAuvAšZšAÀŒÇAš]uAAšuAšŒÇAš}AšA out criteria for a debate they are trying to be unfair t but in almost every case these criteria are irrelevant. Remember this simple rule t no-one can tell you what your side needs to prove. these are simple situations that really only require you to explain why such dichotomies are ridiculous and irrelevant to the real debate. or reductions ivAvŒPÇAµAAšZvA]š[AšZ]ŒAŒ]PZšAš}AšAšZA‰ŒušŒA}(AšZ]ŒAX ooA Ç}µA ZÀA š}A }A A A EPš]ÀA šuA ]vA šZšA]šµš]}vA ]A š}A lv}ÁoPA šZA Z‰µZ[A vA ŒišA]šXA&}ŒAÆu‰oUAÇ}µA}µoAÇA^šZA((]Œuš]ÀAšuAŒAPŒAš}AAvµoŒA‰}ÁŒA used in Australia and we reject that. Two of those possibilities were covered in Chapter Three when dealing with false dichotomies and straw men t when an opposition are trying to force you to (or convince the adjudicator that you should) argue for something totally irrelevant. subtler forms of push debating that inexperienced speakers and judges }uš]uAu]AvAšZš[AÁZvAAšuAšŒÇAš}AZ‰µZ[AvAvš]ŒAA}vš}AšZ]ŒA}‰‰}]š]}vAt either through an unfair definition of the terms of the debate.

Tactics and First Principles Every time the Affirmative try to say that your team is defending the problems with the ššµA ‹µ}AÇ}µAvAouoÇAÇA^v}UA ÁA ÁvšAš}AZvPA šZAÇšuA š}}UA iµšA ]vA A]((ŒvšA ÁÇXXX_AvAPšAlAš}AšZAšX There are times when an Affirmative team is right to stake out the grounds of the debate. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 45 .ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Push debating occurs mostly when the wording of the topic is focused on what the ((]Œuš]ÀAZ}µoA(vUAvA}v[šAÇAuµZA}µšAšZAvšµŒA}(AšZAEPš]ÀAšu[A A~µZAA^šZšAÁAZ}µoA]vÀA/Œv_At the position of the Affirmative is made obvious. the Negative is always free to reject the push if they want to. šXAhvŒAšZA}v]š]}vUA}uA((]Œuš]ÀAšuAÁ]ooAšŒÇAš}Ao]u]šAšZAEPš]À[AZ}]XA dZÇAu]PZšAA}]vPA]šAµAšZÇAšZ]vlA]š[A]vAšZA‰]Œ]šA}(AšZAuotion. economic engagement. but the Negative have several options open to them t sanctions. or neutralise an argument (see Tactical Concessions in Chapter Seven). KvAA(]voAv}šUA]š[AÁ}ŒšZA‰}]vš]vPA}µšAšZšA]š[Av}šAvŒ]oÇAZÁl[Aš}A‰šAAZ‰µZ[A position. but this is only the case when the topic forces the Negative team (by virtue of the wording) š}A(vA}ušZ]vPXA/(AšZAš}‰]AÁA^šZšA^]vP‰}ŒAZ}µoA}o]ZAšZAšZA‰vošÇAAA ‰µv]ZuvšA(}ŒAŒµPAšŒ((]lŒ_UAšZvAšZA‰}]š]}vA}(AšZAEPš]ÀA]Aobvious t they have to defend the status quo. They might try to insert some minor modifications (a better appeals ‰Œ}UAšAµšA](AšZÇ[ŒAv}šA(v]vPAšZAµA}(AšZAšZA‰vošÇA(}ŒAŒµPAšŒ((]lŒUA they have failed to engage properly in the debate. If the Negative want to embrace the case/test/criteria pushed onto them by the ((]Œuš]ÀUAšZš[Av}šAvA]vZŒvšoÇAA]]}vXA^}uš]uUA]šA]Ašš]ooÇAuŒšAš}A}A}UA just as sometimes a tactical concession can help move a debate forward. In any event. or they might be doing it because they are trying to gain some tactical advantage.

In the last few years. While many key elements of debating remain the same in this different style. the differences are quite substantial. the style has been embraced for a number of school-level competitions. as follows: Opening Opening Government Opposition Closing Closing Government Opposition dZA šÁ}A ZP}ÀŒvuvš[A šuA šA A A }ŒšA }(A }o]š]}vUA ooA A ZvZ[UA A }A šZA šÁ}A Z}‰‰}]š]}v[AšuA~ošZ}µPZAšZAšuAŒAš]ooA}u‰š]vPAP]všAšZA}šZŒAšuA}vAšZ]ŒA bench).ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. as follows: Opposition Prime Minister Leader Deputy Deputy Prime Opposition Minister Leader Government Opposition Member Member Government Opposition Whip Whip 17 This chapter was prepared by Madeline Schultz Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 46 . and as a result this new chapter has been introduced. but each speaker has a different name for the purposes of the debate. Speakers speak in an alternating order between government and opposition speakers. Part A: The General Format British Parliamentary debates involve four teams of two. This chapter is at best an introductory guide and students are encouraged to seek further resources if they wish to debate in this style. Tactics and First Principles 17 Chapter Eight t British Parliamentary (BP) Debating Until very recently. this style of debating was nearly exclusively the domain of university- level competitions.

However. although they can be somewhat analogised to three-on-three roles. The whip speakers are somewhat similar to third speakers in three-on-three debates. they are required to present an extension. they are required to present something that can be considered unique to their team. The member speakers have a role that is somewhat analogous (at least in terms of speech structure) to that of a second speaker in three-on-three style. and the roles of the speakers are roughly analogous to the roles of the first and second speakers in a three-on-three team. member speakers ŒA Œ‹µ]ŒA š}A ‰ŒvšA vA ZÆšv]}v[UA ÁZ]ZA ]A µ((]]všoÇA ]((ŒvšA š}A ÁŒŒvšA ]šA }ÁvA section below. as discussed in Chapter One. Extensions may take the form of new arguments. Extensions must be presented by the member speaker and take the place of substantive material in their speech. to ensure that sufficient options are available during the debate. Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 47 . BµAo}]vPAZo(AšuA}Av}šA‰Œ‰ŒAÁ]šZAšZ]ŒA}‰v]vPAZo(UAšuA}v[šAlv}ÁAÁZšA arguments their opening half will run until during the debate. an important new stakeholder or case study or an overwhelmingly more convincing way of framing the debate. Æšv]}vAZ}µoA}oµšoÇAv}šAAŒšŒ]šAš}AšZAuuŒ[A‰ZAt the key role of a whip speaker is to emphasise the value of the extension to the debate. In order for a closing half team to win a debate. Rather than simply declaring a winner. teams are ranked first through fourth and awarded 0-3 team points on the basis of their ranking (first receives three points. substantially new analysis. British Parliamentary debating also makes use of points of information. to between 15 and 30 minutes (depending on the competition). However. Instead. except that they need to emphasiAšZ]ŒA}ÁvAšu[A material in comparison to the material discussed in the opening half. second receives two and so forth).ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips. Part B: Extensions Because closing half teams are trying to differentiate themselves from their opening. because opening teams are also }u‰š]vPAP]všAšZAZo}]vPAZo([AšuUAu}šA‰µšÇA‰lŒAÁ]ooA]voµAAµuuŒÇA]vA their speech in an attempt to round out the debate before it continues into closing half. to win a closing team must make their extension sound like the key reason to agree with their side of the debate. Preparation time for a British Parliamentary debate is also reduced. preparing an extension requires substantial brainstorming in prep. The roles of the closing half speakers are more unique. to make it more o]loÇAšZšAšZAiµ]š}ŒA}v]ŒA]šAš}AAšZAZšŒ}vPš[AušŒ]oA}vAšZšAvZXABµA the value of a team to the debate is assessed on the persuasiveness of their material. As a result. Tactics and First Principles dZAZ}‰v]vPAZo([AŒµvA]vAuµZAšZAuAÁÇAAšZA(]ŒšA(}µŒA‰lŒA}(AAšZŒ-on-three debate. they need to do more than simply improve on the arguments and analysis presented by their opening half (they have had longer to prepare and should be able to do so easily).

ÀvA^Z}}o[A'µ]Aš}ADebating: Tips.ŒuAWŒ]v]‰o International Relations 3) Aims of the Criminal Justice 1) Rationalism System 2) Realism (and Neo-Realism) 3) Neo-Liberal Institutionalism Business (Corporate Governance) 4) Dependence Theory 1) Corporate Social Responsibility 2) Stakeholder Model Diplomacy 3) Shareholders Only Model 1) Bilateral 2) Regional Security 3) Multilateral 1) Collective Security 2) Cooperative Security Others 3) Democratic Peace Theory 1) Game Theory 4) Just War Theory Kindly Printed by Freehills Tim Sonnreich 48 . 128) 2) Neo-Liberal 4) Mandates 5) Party Discipline (Australia versus Legal USA) 1) Social Contract Theory 2) :X^XAD]oo[A. including an assessment of the strength of each position. Tactics and First Principles Appendix One t First Principles Exercises In 25-50 words describe the key features of the following philosophies/concepts. 109. Governance 5) New Security Agenda 1) Liberal Democracy 6) Golden Arches Peace Theory 2) Social Democracy 3) Guided Democracy Political 4) Dictatorship 1) Liberalism 5) Communism 2) Socialism/Communitarianism 6) Regionalism 3) Secularism Morality Science 1) Kantian (Rights based) 1) Precautionary Principle 2) Utilitarianism (Preference and Hedonistic) Feminism 1) Liberal Feminism Environment 2) Radical Feminism 1) Humanist Ecology (Sustainable 3) Developing World Feminism Development) 4) Difference Feminism 2) Technological Ecology 5) Power Feminism 3) Deep-Green Ecology 4) Tragedy of the Commons Australian Politics 1) Federalism Economics 2) Centralised Power 1) Keynesian 3) Constitution (ss 51.