Guide

 to  University  Debating  

Edited  by  James  Bowker  
 
 Acknowledgements  
 
Thanks  to  Amanda  Moorghen,  Imogen  Parkes,  James  Laurenson,  Matthew  Szeto  and  Andrew  
Green  for  assistance  with  the  writing  and  editing  of  this  guide.  

Copyright  ©  James  Bowker  2013,  except  chapters  3.2  (©  Ray  D’Cruz),  4  (©  Tim  Sonnreich),  
5.2  (©  Tim  Sonnreich),  7  (©  Amanda  Moorghen  and  James  Bowker),  8.2  (©  Tim  Sonnreich),    
 
  2  
 Contents  
Section  1  –  Basic  debating               Page  no.    
             
1.                      British  Parliamentary  Format           5  
2.                      Types  of  Motions               7  
3.                      General  Notes  on  Public  Speaking           10  
4.                      Speech  Content                 13  
5.                      Models                   17  
6.                      Burdens                   23  
7.                      The  Analysis  Machine               26  
8.                      Effective  Preparation  Time             32  
9.                      Tips  and  Tricks                 36  
Section  2  –  First  Principles  
 
10. Arguing  from  First  Principles           40  
11. Rights  and  Political  Philosophy           45  
12. Justice                   47  
13. Political  Economy               52  
14. International  Relations             56  
15. Feminism                   67  
16. The  Law  and  Criminal  Justice  Systems         71  
 
Glossary  
Bibliography  and  Additional  Resources  

  3  
  
Section  1  -­‐    
Basic  Debating  

  4  
 Chapter  1  –  British  Parliamentary  Debating  
How  the  debate  runs  
 
In  BP  debating  there  are  two  ‘sides’,  or  ‘benches’:  proposition  and  opposition  (sometimes  
called  government  and  opposition).  On  each  side  there  are  two  teams:  known  as  the  top  half  
and  bottom  half.  Each  team  consists  of  two  speakers,  meaning  there  are  eight  speakers  in  
total.  These  speakers  take  it  in  turns  to  speak,  starting  with  the  first  proposition  speaker,  
then  the  first  opposition  speaker,  and  so  on  in  a  zigzag  pattern  (see  diagram  1).    

First  speakers:  the  first  speakers  for  either  side  of  the  ‘house’  
should  outline  their  teams’  case.  This  primarily  involves  
providing  a  model  (see  chapter  5),  identifying  the  harms  that  
occur  under  their  opposition’s  model  (or  the  status  quo)  and  
the  benefits  that  would  accrue  under  their  own.  However,  this  
must  be  analyzed  and  not  merely  asserted  –  but  this  will  be  
explained  in  more  detail  later  on.  They  should  then  present  
two  or  three  substantive  arguments  for  their  case.    

Second  speakers:  the  primary  role  here  is  to  ‘rebuild’  your  
partner’s  case,  having  presumably  been  damaged  by  an  
onslaught  of  rebuttal  from  the  previous  speaker,  then  to  bring  
additional  arguments  for  your  team.  At  the  end  of  your  speech  
you  want  both  your  own  and  your  partner’s  points  to  be  
‘standing’  –  that  is,  winning  that  point  of  clash.  Moreover,  you  
want  to  do  as  much  damage  to  your  opponents’  case  as  
possible.  

Third  (extension)  speakers:  at  this  point  in  the  debate  the  
second  half  teams  must  attempt  to  win  the  debate.  Thus  the  
extension  speaker  should  attempt  to  shine  a  light  on  an  
element  of  the  debate  that  has  not  been  sufficiently  examined  
until  that  point.  This  can  be  done  in  one  of  two  ways:  (i)  bring  
an  entirely  new  argument  to  the  table,  or  (ii)  co-­‐opt  a  point  
that  has  already  been  raised  but  not  analyzed  sufficiently  by  
proving  the  underlying  principles  upon  which  it  is  based  –  
stealing  the  carpet  from  underneath  the  feet  of  the  first  half,  so  
to  speak.  Importantly,  the  extension  speaker  should  show  why  
their  point(s)  are  the  most  important  in  the  debate.    

Summary  (whip)  speakers:  present  the  key  points  of  clash  in  
the  debate  and  show  how  your  side  won  them.  To  win,  show  
why  your  partner  in  particular  won  those  clashes.  It  is  vital  
that  you  do  not  bring  any  new  material  or  arguments  at  this  
point  in  the  debate,  however  you  can  use  comparative  
analysis  in  order  to  prove  that  you  (and  your  partner)  have  
won  certain  clash  points.  

Note:  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  all  speakers  engage  with  the  arguments  of  the  opposition  
via  rebuttal  and  substantives  (be  it  interwoven  or  presented  at  the  beginning  of  a  speech).    
  5  
 How  to  Structure  your  Speech  
 
In  BP  debating  speeches  are  generally  either  five  or  seven  minutes  in  length.  The  first  and  
last  minutes  are  known  as  protected  time,  meaning  that  nobody  can  interrupt  you.  
However,  in  the  interceding  three  (or  five)  minutes  speakers  on  the  opposite  bench  are  
encouraged  to  offer  Points  of  Information  (POIs).  It  is  expected  that  speakers  take  at  least  
one  POI  during  their  speech,  in  order  to  facilitate  a  fair  and  engaging  debate.  
 
Note:  a  Point  of  Clarification  (POC)  may  be  offered  to  the  first  proposition  speaker  
(preferably  as  soon  as  possible  in  their  speech).  The  point  of  a  POC  is  to  clarify  any  
uncertainties  about  the  proposed  model,  such  that  a  less  confused  (and  thus  better)  
debate  can  be  had.  A  POC  is  not  counted  as  one  of  your  POIs.  
 
Rebuttal:  the  easiest  way  to  ensure  you  have  provided  sufficient  and  clear  rebuttal  is  to  
place  it  at  the  beginning  of  your  speech,  after  you  have  briefly  outlined  what  your  speech  
will  cover.  This  allows  you  to  succinctly  deal  with  your  opposition’s  case  and  then  move  on  
to  your  substantives  without  fear  of  confusion  or  a  lack  of  clarity  in  how  you  clashed  with  
the  opposite  bench.  
 
Thus  a  simple  template  for  a  speech  might  be:  

Speech  

Argument  1   Argument  2   Argument  3  

IDEA   IDEA   IDEA  

ANALYSIS   ANALYSIS   ANALYSIS  

EVIDENCE   EVIDENCE   EVIDENCE  

Note:  in  a  five-­minute  speech  it  is  advised  to  make  only  two  substantive  points,  or  
three  at  the  most,  in  order  to  ensure  you  have  enough  time  to  sufficiently  analyze  
those  arguments.  Remember:  a  single  strong  argument  is  more  likely  to  win  the  
debate  than  several  weak  arguments.    
 

  6  
 Chapter  2  –  Types  of  Motions  

There  are  several  distinctions  between  types  of  motions  (and  thus  debates).  In  this  chapter  I  
will  outline  two  common  distinctions  in  motion  theory  before  providing  a  simple  tip-­‐off  
about  motion  types  and  thus  the  sorts  of  arguments  one  should  be  making.  

Distinction   Explanation  
   
   
   
  In   a   mutually   exclusive   debate,   only   one   side   can   be  
  conclusively   correct   –   that   is,   it   is   inherent   within   their  
  argument   that   the   opposing   side   must   be   false   for   their  
  case   to   stand.   For   example,   on   the   motion   “THBT  
  capitalism   is   inherently   unjust”,   prop.   might   run   a   Marxist  
  analysis  and  opp.    could  run  a  libertarian  case.  These  are  
  mutually   exclusive   and   thus   cannot   be   debated   on   a  
  spectrum,   meaning   that   one   side   must   be   proposing   an  
  ultimately  good  or  just  case  and  the  other  must  not.    
   
  In  a  trade-­‐offs  debate  this  is  not  the  case.  Both  sides  of  the  
Trade-­‐offs  VS  mutually  exclusive   debate  are  proposing  benefits  that  any  reasonable  person  
would  consider  to  be  good.  However  there  is  a  zero-­‐sum  
game:  both  of  these  goods  cannot  be  achieved  fully,  an  
increase  in  one  comes  at  a  cost  to  the  other.  Therefore  the  
debate  is  about  the  correct  balance  of  these  principles  in  a  
moral  or  ideal  situation.  To  use  the  classic  example,  both  
accountability  and  efficacy  are  conceptual  goods  in  a  
democracy.  However,  one  must  sacrifice  some  of  one  in  
order  to  increase  the  other.  For  example,  to  increase  
accountability  we  might  elect  our  parliamentary  
representatives  every  six  months  –  however  this  would  
likely  mean  that  the  government  would  become  
ineffective  and  could  not  achieve  any  of  its  goals.  Thus  we  
trade  off  some  accountability  in  order  to  achieve  
reasonable  efficacy.  
 

  7  
    
  A  liberty  debate  focuses  on  the  relationship  
  between  the  state  and  the  individual.  The  
  state  can  also  be  characterized  as  the  general  
  collective  in  more  international  debates.  This  
  sort  of  motion  questions  to  what  extent  the  
  state  can  limit  the  freedoms  of  the  individual  
  in  order  to  achieve  collective  freedoms,  or  vice  
  versa.  For  example,  is  it  okay  to  limit  press  
  freedoms  in  order  to  protect  the  privacy  of  
  individuals  (the  Leveson  debate)?  Is  wealth  
Liberty  VS  justice  debates   redistribution  immoral?  
 
A  justice  debate  considers  various  
conceptualizations  of  what  the  just  or  moral  
outcome  of  any  given  motion  is.  This  
considers  political-­‐philosophical  arguments,  
such  as  the  Kantianism,  Rawlianism,  
utilitarianism,  etc.  In  this  debate  the  team  that  
can  prove  that  their  model  is  the  most  just  
wins.    
 
Note:  individual  or  collective  freedoms  draw  on  
justice  claims  and  are  thus  worth  considering  
in  the  prior.  

   
   
   
  A  policy  motion  will  begin  with  the  words  
  ‘This  House  Would’  (THW),  meaning  that  the  
  proposition  bench  have  to  provide  a  
  mechanism  or  model  for  employing  the  given  
  policy  in  wherever  they  choose  (within  
  reason)  to  set  the  debate.  These  debates  have  
  practical  outcomes  and  deal  with  issues  such  
  as  efficacy,  etc.  For  example,  one  might  debate  
  the  motion  “THW  legalize  abortion”.  
Policy  (THW)  VS  Principles  (THBT)      
A  principles  motion  begins  with  ‘This  House  
Believes  That’.  This  means  that  the  
proposition  bench  need  not  show  how  they  
would  enact  the  given  principle,  but  rather  
has  to  prove  that  it  would  be  a  good  idea,  all  
other  things  being  equal.  In  this  case,  one  
might  debate  the  motion  “THBT  abortion  is  
immoral”.    

 
  8  
 Harm  Minimization  Debates  
 
A  final  type  of  motion  that  generally  falls  on  the  ‘Policy’  side  of  the  distinction  is  the  harm  
mitigation  debate.  These  sorts  of  debates  consider  whether  legalizing  or  banning  a  harmful  
practice  would  most  effectively  or  justly  mitigate  the  harms  of  that  practice.    
 
For  example,  if  a  state  were  to  legalize  drugs  it  would  be  able  to  tax  sales  in  order  to  pay  for  
drug  rehabilitation  and  healthcare,  it  could  ensure  that  those  drugs  sold  were  safe  and  not  cut  
with  other  more  harmful  substances  and  it  could  limit  the  use  of  drug  profits  to  fund  other  
criminal  activities.  However,  it  increases  availability  and  thus  makes  it  more  likely  that  
individuals  might  choose  to  take  them.  
 
On  the  flip  side  of  this  debate,  if  drugs  are  made  illegal  then  access  is  decreased  (because  even  
if  they  are  still  available  consumers  may  have  to  accept  considerable  risks  in  attempting  to  
purchase  them),  a  social  stigma  around  that  drug  is  entrenched,  discouraging  individuals  from  
using  them  and  the  state  is  not  buying  in  to  a  product  that  is  inherently  harmful  to  its  citizens.  
However,  the  harms  experienced  by  those  that  still  choose  to  take  the  drugs  are  greater  
because  they  are  not  controlled  by  the  state  and  the  black  market  will  likely  fund  criminal  
activities.    

Note:  even  in  a  policy  debate  it  is  often  still  useful  to  debate  the  underlying  
principles.  For  example  when  debating  the  motion  “THW  intervene  in  Syria”,  
principles  of  humanitarian  intervention  and  duties  towards  oppressed  peoples  
are  key  to  the  prop  case.  

  9  
 Chapter  3  –  General  Notes  of  Public  Speaking  

Speech  Structure  
 
Good  structure  is  key  to  the  success  of  a  speech.  If  it  is  poorly  structured  then  there  are  
three  key  problems:    
 
• The  speaker  gets  confused  and  thus  their  speech  is  muddled.  This  often  means  that  
analysis  is  not  fully  completed  and  arguments  are  subsequently  weaker.  
• The  judges  struggle  to  follow  the  arguments  made,  or  make  distinctions  between  
those  they  hear.  This  not  only  makes  the  speaker  look  bad  in  their  judgment  but  also  
makes  it  less  likely  that  arguments  will  be  fully  credited.  
• It  is  easier  for  the  opposition  to  purposefully  or  accidentally  mischaracterize  your  
case  in  such  a  way  that  it  makes  it  easier  for  them  to  take  down  your  points.  This  is  
compounded  by  the  difficulties  faced  by  the  judges,  who  may  buy  this  
mischaracterization  due  to  the  confusion  left  by  the  initial  speaker.  
 
A  good  technique  here  is  to  ensure  you  have  clear  notes  that  allow  you  to  see  what  your  
points  are,  how  they  interact  and  how  to  make  the  necessary  links  in  effective  analysis.  Sub-­
pointing  is  highly  beneficial,  because  it  enables  concise  argumentation  without  the  
unnecessary  fluff  that  so  often  wastes  the  time  of  speakers.    
 
For  example,  if  my  argument  were  that  the  involvement  of  religious  groups  in  politics  limits  the  
rational  autonomy  of  voters  I  could  sub-­point  it  in  two  ways:  
 
1. Religion  provides  the  ultimate  risk  calculus:  follow  its  teachings  or  face  eternal  
damnation.  Thus  if  a  religious  group  supports  a  particular  party  its  followers  true  
autonomy  is  removed  because  they  do  not  have  the  effective  freedom  to  vote  against  
this  party,  as  it  would  condemn  them  to  such  as  fate.  
2. A  religious  stance  on  a  given  social  issue  (such  as  abortion  or  euthanasia)  might  lead  a  
religious  group  to  support  a  party  that  opposes  these  issues.  However,  voting  this  way  
may  not  be  in  the  rational  interests  of  that  individual,  because  that  party  might  also  
favor  economic  policies  that  actively  harm  them.  
 
The  rule  of  three  applies  to  speech  structure:  say  things  three  times  and  judges  are  more  
likely  to  remember  them.  Therefore  it  is  useful  to  briefly  outline  what  you  plan  to  say  in  
your  speech  at  the  beginning,  say  it,  then  concisely  summarize  what  you  have  said  in  the  last  
15-­‐20  seconds  of  your  speech.  
 
Finally,  signposting  is  incredibly  useful  for  making  it  clear  where  one  point  ends  and  
another  begins,  allowing  judges  to  more  easily  follow  your  argumentation.  This  can  be  as  
simple  as  saying  “this  leads  me  to  my  next  point…”.  
 

  10  
 Manner  
 
by Ray D’Cruz, excerpts from The Australia-Asia Debating Guide  
 
Body  language  
 
The  body  language  of  a  speaker  is  a  very  important  element  of  their  speaking  style.  As  the  
expression  indicates,  body  language  is  a  language  of  its  own.  It  can  have  a  significant  impact  
on  an  audience  and  can  create  powerful  impressions  such  as  confidence,  trust  and  
credibility.  It  should  go  without  saying  that  failing  to  create  these  impressions  can  be  very  
damaging  to  the  persuasiveness  of  a  speaker.  The  Kennedy–Nixon  debate  is  an  example  in  
which  body  language  was  crucial  –  eye  contact  created  trust.  
 
Some  of  the  elements  of  body  language  include:    
 
• eye  contact  (and  the  use  of  notes  by  speakers);    
• gestures;  and  
• stance.  
 
Eye  contact  is  associated  with  confidence  and  sincerity;  a  judging  panel  is  more  likely  to  
believe  someone  who  is  willing  to  look  them  in  the  eye.  Debaters  should  attempt  to  maintain  
eye  contact  with  their  audience  by  moving  their  eyes  over  the  audience  as  a  whole,  without  
becoming  fixated  on  a  single  member  of  the  audience,  the  adjudicator  or  an  inanimate  object  
in  the  room.  
 
The  overuse  of  notes  limits  the  eye  contact  and  reduces  the  capacity  of  the  speaker  to  
engage  with  the  judging  panel.  Adjudicators  should  discourage  speakers  from  reading  their  
speeches  –  a  debate  is  not  an  essay-­‐reading  competition;  it  is  an  exercise  in  persuasion  that  
requires  engagement  with  the  audience.  Notes  should  not  become  obtrusive  or  distracting  –  
either  to  the  audience  or  to  the  speaker.  One  way  of  avoiding  this  is  to  record  only  key  
words  or  headings  rather  than  the  whole  text  of  the  speech.  
 
There  are  no  rules  regarding  gestures,  except  that  they  should  be  natural  and  appropriate  to  
the  point  being  made.  Overly  dramatic  or  theatrical  gestures  may  appear  forced  and  
unnatural,  and  distract  an  audience.  Adjudicators  assess  the  effect  of  gestures,  determining  
whether  they  enhanced  the  speech  or  distracted  from  it.  
 
Speakers  may  stand  to  deliver  their  message  in  a  variety  of  ways:  some  remain  still,  others  
make  dramatic  (and  sometimes  ridiculous)  gestures.  Find  the  right  balance  for  you.  Once  
again,  the  adjudicator  will  assess  whether  the  speaker’s  stance  was  distracting,  or  whether  
it  was  appropriate  and  effective  in  the  context  of  the  speaker’s  total  presentation.  Speakers  
should  find  a  stance  with  which  they  are  comfortable.  
 

  11  
 Vocal  style  
 
The  second  element  of  manner  is  the  vocal  style  of  the  speaker.  All  speakers  must  have  their  
message  heard  and  understood.  Vocal  style  is  central  to  this  goal.  Some  of  the  elements  of  
vocal  style  are:    
 
• Volume  and  pace;    
• Tone;  and    
• Clarity  and  the  use  of  language.  
 
The  volume  of  delivery  should  be  such  that  the  speaker  can  be  clearly  heard  by  the  whole  
audience,  without  doing  permanent  aural  damage  to  those  in  the  front  row.  The  pace  of  the  
delivery  should  be  neither  so  slow  as  to  be  ponderous  nor  so  fast  that  the  audience  feels  
overwhelmed  or  is  unable  to  keep  up  with  the  speaker.  
 
A  certain  amount  of  light  and  shade,  or  pausing  to  draw  attention  to  crucial  passages,  and  
then  dropping  back  to  a  conversational  one,  can  be  very  effective.  However,  it  should  not  
become  artificial  or  theatrical.  The  objective  is  persuasion,  and  most  people  find  artifice  
unconvincing.  
 
The  tone  of  the  speech  should  be  confident  and  conversational.  Adopting  such  a  tone  will  
allow  the  speaker  to  build  rapport  and  trust  with  the  audience.  Some  speakers  have  an  
ability  to  lose  the  favor  of  the  adjudicators  by  being  overly  antagonistic  or  arrogant.  It  
should  come  as  no  surprise  that  this  affects  their  capacity  to  build  rapport  and  trust  with  the  
judging  panel  (and  audience).  
 
The  clarity  of  enunciation  should  allow  the  speech  to  be  understood  without  difficulty,  and  
without  causing  the  panel  to  strain  to  comprehend  the  words.  While  speakers  should  be  
reasonably  fluent,  and  cautious  of  over-­‐using  “ums”  and  “ahs”,  debating  is  not  about  getting  
things  word  perfect.  It’s  about  adopting  a  fluent  and  comfortable  conversational  tone.  
 
Debaters  should  not  use  overly  complex  language  and  should  steer  well  clear  of  jargon  that  
the  audience  may  not  understand.  This  is  particularly  the  case  with  acronyms  that  the  
audience  may  be  unfamiliar  with.  Speakers  at  international  competitions  should  take  
particular  care  as  the  audience  or  the  adjudicator  may  come  from  a  cultural  background  
different  from  that  of  the  speaker  and  may  not  be  familiar  with  the  use  of  certain  language.  
 

Preparation  
 
Preparation  –  however  little  –  before  a  speech  makes  a  huge  difference  to  a  speech.  It  allows  
you  to  structure  your  speech  more  effectively,  to  be  familiar  with  the  arguments  you  intend  
to  make,  and  to  maintain  clarity  throughout  your  speech.  If  you  don’t  know  what  you  are  
saying,  there  is  no  chance  your  audience  will!  
 

  12  
 Chapter  4  –  Speech  Content  
By  Tim  Sonnreich,  excerpts  from  the  MAD  Schools’  Training  Handbook  

Constructing  Arguments  
 
First  and  foremost,  you  need  to  know  the  difference  between  an  argument  and  an  assertion.  
In  simple  terms  an  assertion  is  something  that  is  stated  as  true,  without  enough  analysis  to  
demonstrate  that  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  statement  is  likely  to  be  true.  It’s  a  
statement  of  fact,  without  proof  of  its  validity.  
 
To  avoid  using  assertions,  you  need  to  understand  the  anatomy  of  an  argument:  
 
Anatomy  of  an  Argument:  The  Argument  Chain  
 

}  
    IDEA  
 
    ANALYSIS   One  argument  
 
    EVIDENCE  
 
The  IDEA  
 
The  idea  is  simply  the  point  you  are  trying  to  make.  It’s  just  a  heading  or  a  title  -­‐  it  might  be  
true,  it  might  not,  but  that’s  something  for  you  to  prove  later.  So  for  example,  in  the  debate  
“That  we  should  ban  smoking  in  pubs  and  clubs”,  the  first  affirmative  speaker  might  have  as  
the  IDEA  for  one  argument,  “that  banning  smoking  will  improve  the  profits  of  the  businesses  
involved”.  Now  that  may  be  true,  but  it  hasn’t  been  proved  yet;  it’s  just  an  IDEA.  IDEAS  are  
often  the  things  you  mention  when  you  are  signposting  your  part  of  the  team  split.  
For  example:  “I  will  be  talking  about  the  economic  reasons  why  we  should  ban  smoking  in  
pubs  and  clubs.  My  first  argument  is  that  it  will  improve  the  profits  of  the  businesses  
involved.”  (IDEA)  
 
The  ANALYSIS  
 
Once  you  have  an  IDEA,  the  next  step  is  to  provide  the  analysis  to  prove  it.  Basically  this  is  
where  you  show  logically  or  analytically  that  the  IDEA  is  likely  to  be  true  (it’s  hard  to  really  
“prove”  things  in  debates,  but  you  can  show  it’s  highly  likely  to  be  true).  You  can  do  this  by  
demonstrating  that  logically  the  IDEA  is  true  when  taken  in  the  context  of  the  topic,  or  you  
can  offer  a  series  of  reasons  to  support  it.  Using  the  previous  example  of  banning  smoking,  a  
speaker  might  say,  “banning  smoking  will  actually  generate  more  profits  for  businesses,  
because  it  will  attract  more  customers.  At  present  many  potential  customers  are  put  off  
going  out  to  pubs  and  clubs,  or  cut  short  their  visits  because  they  are  put  off  by  cigarette  
smoke,  which  they  know  is  dangerous  to  them”.  You  could  explain  this  in  more  detail  but  I  
think  you  get  the  point.  However,  although  this  ANALYSIS  is  partially  persuasive  on  its  own  
as  a  justification  for  the  IDEA,  it  would  be  stronger  if  it  had  some  evidence.  Which  brings  us  
to  the  last  step  (note  my  excellent  use  of  signposting!)...  
 

  13  
 The  EVIDENCE  
 
The  third  step,  EVIDENCE,  is  usually  the  easiest.  This  is  the  stage  where  you  provide  
something  like  a  statistic,  a  survey,  a  case  study  or  an  analogy  to  give  greater  credibility  to  
your  IDEA  and  ANALYSIS.  Partly  because  it’s  the  easiest  to  do,  it’s  also  the  least  important  
link  in  the  chain  of  an  argument,  but  it’s  a  good  to  thing  to  have.  So  to  finish  our  example-­‐
argument  one  piece  of  evidence  might  be  a  survey  conducted  by  ASH  (Action  on  Smoking  
and  Health)  that  demonstrates  how  a  significant  number  of  people  would  spend  more  time  
in  smoke-­‐free  pubs  and  clubs.  

Rebuttal  -­‐  Deconstructing  Arguments  

 
Anatomy  of  an  Argument:  Rebuttal  
 

Best  and  most  effective  part  to  attack    IDEA  

 
Excellent  part  to  attack    ANALYSIS  
 
Weakest  link  in  the  chain  and  the  easiest  target,  but  not  as  effective    EVIDENCE  
 
Now  that  you  know  what  a  good  argument  is,  you  can  effectively  destroy  it.  The  argument  
chain  is  at  weakest  at  link  three  –  EVIDENCE  –  since  it’s  always  easy  to  dispute  the  evidence  
presented  by  your  opposition.  For  example  you  could  criticize  the  study  conducted  by  ASH  -­‐  
since  it  is  an  openly  anti-­‐tobacco  organization,  it  would  probably  be  biased  in  the  way  it  
conducted  the  survey.  But  attacking  the  argument  here  is  a  poor  strategy.  This  is  because  
the  opposition  can  repair  the  chain  by  providing  more  evidence  (which  you  attack,  then  they  
give  more  and  it  becomes  a  stalemate)  or  argue  over  whether  ASH  is  a  good  source  of  
evidence.  Boring...  
 
Moving  up...  
 
Attacking  the  argument  a  little  higher,  at  the  ANALYSIS,  is  more  difficult  but  more  effective  
than  simply  attacking  the  evidence  level.  If  you  can  demonstrate  that  the  ANALYSIS  is  
illogical  or  based  on  assumptions  that  are  not  true  (or  unlikely  to  be  true)  then  you  heavily  
damage  the  credibility  of  the  whole  argument.  This  is  the  most  common  sort  of  rebuttal  
used  by  experienced  speakers.  However  it’s  usually  not  a  fatal  blow.  
 
For  example:  you  might  say  that  smoking  is  not  really  a  reason  why  people  choose  not  to  
attend  pubs  and  clubs,  since  less  than  a  quarter  of  the  Australian  population  smoke,  but  
nightclubs  and  pubs  are  full  of  non-­‐smokers  every  weekend.    
 
Unfortunately  for  you,  a  clever  opposition  can  rebuild  their  ANALYSIS  by  giving  other  
reasons,  or  explaining  the  logical  links  in  a  different  way,  and  that  weakens  your  rebuttal.  
 
The  Top  of  the  Chain  
 
So  finally  we  get  to  the  top  of  the  chain,  the  IDEA.  This  is  usually  very  difficult  to  attack  since  
often  they  are  reasonable  ideas;  it  is  just  that  your  team  has  to  argue  that  they  are  not  true  
in  the  context  of  this  debate.  But  sometimes  you  can  attack  the  idea,  and  if  you  can  do  it  
effectively,  it’s  a  fatal  blow  to  that  argument.  
  14  
 So  in  our  example,  you  can  attack  the  idea  that  banning  smoking  in  pubs  will  be  good  for  
business  by  arguing  that  firstly  you  don’t  think  that’s  true  (and  attack  the  analysis)  but  even  
if  it  is,  “it’s  not  the  most  important  priority  in  this  debate.  Smoking  is  a  legal  activity,  
consenting  adults  have  the  right  to  do  lots  of  things  that  are  harmful  to  them  (like  drinking  
the  alcohol  served  in  pubs  and  clubs)  and  the  government  can’t  ban  it  simply  because  it  
might  make  more  money.  People’s  liberties  are  more  important  than  a  nightclub  owners  
profits”.  If  the  adjudicator  accepts  that  sort  of  argument  (or  any  other  attack  on  the  IDEA)  
then  the  other  links  in  the  chain  are  irrelevant.  Obviously  it’s  not  that  simple:  the  opposition  
will  defend  their  idea,  and  you  need  very  good  reasons  to  show  that  an  entire  IDEA  and  the  
argument  that  flows  from  it,  is  irrelevant.  But  if  you  think  the  IDEA  is  vulnerable,  you  should  
attack  it,  because  it’s  effective  and  efficient.  
 
Now  that  you  know  the  parts  that  make  up  an  argument  and  the  ways  you  can  attack  them,  
you  can  start  to  use  these  techniques  as  you  go  through  your  rebuttal.  Not  only  do  you  have  
the  strong  framework  of  thematic  rebuttal  to  work  within,  you  have  more  specific  ways  to  
attack  your  opponent’s  arguments!  

General  Rebuttal  Tips  

Although  a  persuasively  presented  case  is  an  enormous  help  when  trying  to  win  a  debate,  
it’s  usually  the  quality  of  rebuttal  that  separates  two  good  teams  in  a  debate.  Rebuttal  is  the  
“dark‟  side  of  debating  since  it  requires  you  to  locate  and  exploit  the  mistakes  and  
weaknesses  in  your  opponent’s  arguments.  I  guess  that’s  why  I  like  it  so  much.    
 
So  here  are  my  tips  on  mastering  this  essential  element  of  debating.  
 
(1) Do  you  know  how  much  rebuttal  you  are  supposed  to  do?  Be  certain.  The  number  
one  complaint  made  by  adjudicators  in  relation  to  rebuttal  is  that  speakers  are  not  
doing  the  appropriate  amount  of  rebuttal.  Never  mind  the  quality,  most  debaters  are  
just  too  eager  to  get  off  rebuttal  and  to  start  their  prepared  material.  Make  sure  that  
you  know  how  much  rebuttal  is  expected  of  you  and  aim  to  meet  those  requirements.  
 
(2) Listen  very  carefully  before  you  even  try  to  think  of  rebuttal.  Small  details  can  be  
crucial.  The  longer  most  people  debate,  the  less  attentive  they  are  to  the  finer  details  
of  their  opponent’s  arguments.  Do  not  assume  that  after  10  or  20  seconds  of  listening  
to  your  opponent  that  you  “know  what  they  are  saying”  and  can  then  focus  on  
formulating  rebuttal.  Listen  carefully  and  pay  attention  to  details,  especially  when  a  
team  is  presenting  a  model.  You  don’t  want  to  be  accused  of  misrepresenting  an  
argument  or  misquoting  a  speaker  –  it  makes  you  look  unprofessional  and  ill  
informed.  
 
(3) Save  nothing  for  later  –  hit  ‘em  as  hard  as  you  can,  as  soon  as  you  can.  Rebuttal  needs  
priorities,  with  the  best  points  coming  out  first.  At  every  stage  of  the  debate  speakers  
should  use  their  rebuttal  to  change  the  momentum  of  the  debate,  and  reassert  the  
superiority  of  their  team’s  argument.  
 
(4) Good  rebuttal  combines  accurate  criticisms  of  your  opponent,  with  references  to  
your  own  team’s  case.  Whenever  you  point  out  a  flaw  in  your  opponent’s  logic  or  in  
the  practicality  of  what  they  are  proposing,  that  is  the  best  time  to  demonstrate  to  
the  audience  that  your  team  did  not  make  similar  mistakes.  Continuous  comparing  

  15  
 (5) Good  rebuttal  combines  accurate  criticisms  of  your  opponent,  with  references  to  
your  own  team’s  case.  Whenever  you  point  out  a  flaw  in  your  opponent’s  logic  or  in  
the  practicality  of  what  they  are  proposing,  that  is  the  best  time  to  demonstrate  to  
the  audience  that  your  team  did  not  make  similar  mistakes.  Continuous  comparing  
and  contrasting  of  the  opposing  arguments  throughout  the  debate  is  an  effective  and  
methodical  way  to  simultaneously  tear  down  your  opponent,  while  propping  up  your  
own  arguments.  Just  be  careful  not  to  spend  too  much  time  discussing  your  own  
material;  just  refer  to  it  as  a  reminder  of  the  strengths  in  your  case.  
 

  16  
 Chapter  5  –  How  to  do  a  Mechanism/Model  
Your  model  is  key  to  the  quality  of  any  given  debate  and  it  allows  the  first  proposition  team  
to  exploit  a  variety  of  tactical  advantages.    
 
However,  you  must  first  define  the  debate.  Here  are  some  tips  on  how  to  do  this:  
 
(1) Consider  the  context  of  the  motion.  What  has  happened  recently  in  the  world  that  
might  have  led  the  CA  team  to  run  this  motion?  For  example,  if  North  Korea  had  
recently  tested  intercontinental  ballistic  missiles  and  the  motion  was  “THW  invade  
North  Korea”  it  seems  likely  that  there  might  be  a  link.  
 
(2) What  is  the  spirit  of  the  motion?  Don’t  limit  the  debate  such  that  a  sophisticated  
debate  is  impossible  –  nobody  likes  this  (after  all  debating  is  essentially  a  discursive  
game)  and  it  will  potentially  get  you  an  automatic  fourth.    
 
(3) Place-­setting:  where  is  this  motion  set?  Is  it  set  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  United  
States,  a  generalized  Western  Liberal  Democracy,  the  European  Union?  It  is  
important  you  place-­‐set  fairly,  based  both  on  the  motion  and  on  the  likely  knowledge  
of  your  opponents.  Again,  your  burden  is  to  provide  a  high-­‐quality,  open  debate.  
 
Editor’s  note:  unless  it  is  stipulated  in  the  motion,  it  should  generally  be  assumed  that  a  
debate  takes  place  in  a  generic  Western  Liberal  Democracy  
 
(4) Who  is  the  primary  actor?  Is  the  house  the  British  government,  the  European  Union,  
NATO,  the  UN?  Choose  the  actor  who  best  suits  your  case  and  will  give  you  the  
greatest  advantage.  However,  you  must  consider  both  reality  and  fairness:  you  
should  not  suggest  that  every  country  in  the  entire  world  would  intervene  in  any  
given  country,  unless  you  qualify  it  as  the  United  Nations  Security  Council  with  
voluntary  troop  deployment  by  member  states.    
 
(5) Has  something  similar  been  attempted  before?  If  so,  adopt  the  good  parts  of  this  
policy  and  try  to  iron  out  problems  that  occurred  under  it.    
 
Example:  “THW  intervene  in  Syria”  
 
– Context  of  the  motion:  human  rights  abuses,  part  of  Arab  Spring,  70,  000  citizens  dead.    
– Spirit  of  the  motion:  attempt  to  stop  or  lessen  these  issues  in  Syria  
– Place-­set:  Syria  
– This  house  is:  the  Arab  league,  supported  by  the  United  Nations  Security  Council    
– Interventions  have  happened  before,  but  issues  with  US  being  primary  actor.  Thus  if  led  
by  Arab  League  some  of  the  harms  associated  with  US-­led  interventions  are  mitigated.  
 

  17  
 Hard/Soft  Lines  and  Models.  
 
By  Tim  Sonnreich,  excerpts  from  the  MAD  Training  Guide  for  University  Debating  
 
The  terms  ‘hard’  and  ‘soft’  in  reference  to  a  definition  or  model  are  an  indication  of  how  
profound  the  change  is  that  is  being  proposed.  

A  very  small  modification  to  the  status  quo  is  soft,  while  a  big  change  is  
hard.  The  status  quo  might  be  in  terms  of  legal  principle  or  in  terms  of  
people’s  attitudes.  
 

Note:  Generally  speaking  these  terms  do  not  imply  how  difficult  it  is  to  argue  for  
that  level  of  change  –  since  often  it  is  easier  to  argue  a  ‘hard  line’  rather  than  a  
‘soft  line’  –  but  we’ll  get  to  that  later.  
 

Once  you  have  determined  the  ‘strength’  of  your  line,  it  should  be  relatively  easy  to  create  
your  model  (which  is  the  subject  of  the  next  section).  
 
Example:  For  the  topic  “This  house  supports  euthanasia”.  Below  are  different  definitions  
you  might  choose.  
 
Soft  line  -­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­  Moderate  line  -­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­-­Hard  line  
 
Restricted  to  incredibly   Allowed  to  the  terminally   Available  to  anyone  
sick  people,  who  are  very   ill,  who  have  very  low   diagnosed  with  a  
close  to  death,  and  who   standard  of  living  and   terminal  or  debilitating  
have  no  hope  of  cure  or  a   little-­‐to-­‐no  hope  of  a  cure.   or  degenerative  illness,  
decent  standard  of  living.   Doctor  &  psychologist   whether  physical  or  
Patients  need  the  consent   consent.  Doctor  assisted   mental.  
of  multiple  doctors  and   euthanasia  allowed   Need  medical  consent.  
psychologists.   Doctor  assisted  or  self-­‐  
Passive  euthanasia  only  –   administered.  
deny  food/medicine  

A  smart  team  will  stay  somewhere  between  the  moderate  and  the  hard  line  in  every  debate,  
because  it’s  both  the  fairest  thing  to  do,  and  is  the  tactically  sound  choice  too:  
 
Fairness:  The  problem  with  the  soft  line  is  that  will  virtually  always  fail  both  tests  of  a  
good  definition.  It  will  rarely  be  a  contextually  based  definition  or  model,  because  a  
plan  so  close  to  the  status  quo  would  rarely  be  controversial  enough  to  illicit  serious  
media  attention  or  public  debate.  Obviously  in  terms  of  the  spirit  of  the  motion,  a  soft  
line  is  highly  unlikely  to  yield  a  good,  complex  debate  with  a  range  of  important  issues.  
It  is  by  definition  not  particularly  controversial,  and  therefore  is  a  poor  choice  to  
debate.  
 
Tactically:  A  harder  line  is  usually  easier  to  defend  because  it  is  more  philosophically  
consistent,  and  more  closely  bridges  the  gap  between  the  scale  of  the  problem  and  the  
scale  of  the  solution.  

  18  
 Also  a  hard(ish)  line  pushes  you  further  away  from  your  opposition,  and  that  means  you’ll  
need  to  argue  why  your  model  has  more  benefits,  but  is  also  the  correct  ‘norm’  by  which  this  
issue  should  be  addressed.  
 
Forcing  yourself  to  make  these  kinds  of  arguments  is  good  because  it  ensure  your  case  is  
sophisticated  and  well  developed.  
 
The  single  biggest  problem  with  running  a  soft  line,  is  that  you  will  run  out  of  (smart)  
arguments.  Just  like  with  a  truistic  definition,  it  might  seem  like  logically  a  truistic  definition  
is  best,  but  in  terms  of  filling  6-­‐8  minutes  with  intelligent  analysis,  it’s  just  impossible  if  
what  you  are  saying  is  simply,  irrefutably  true.  So  running  a  hard  line  means  both  teams  will  
have  a  better  debate,  because  they  will  both  have  the  scope  to  make  strong  arguments,  with  
sophisticated  analysis.  But  don’t  push  this  rule  too  far,  or  you’ll  end  up  running  ‘insane’  
definitions...  
 
The  extreme  ends  of  the  spectrum  –  the  status  quo  and  insane  definitions.  

(1)  Status  Quo:  simply  put,  prop.  should  never  run  the  status  quo  unless  
compelled  to  by  the  motion  (which  usually  would  mean  it  was  a  bad  motion).  
There  is  nothing  more  to  say  about  it  –  just  don’t  do  it.  
 
(2)  Opposition  teams  can  run  the  status  quo,  but  there  are  several  factors  that  
need  to  be  weighed  up  before  you  make  the  decision  to  do  it.  
 
Obviously  the  status  quo  is  attractive  to  teams  who  are  not  well  prepared  for  that  particular  
topic.  This  is  because  any  decent  prop.  will  explain  the  status  quo  in  their  set-­‐  up  before  
outlining  their  alternative  and  a  smart  (but  ill-­‐informed)  opp.  can  use  that  information,  but  
portray  it  as  knowledge  they  had  all  along.  
 
However  this  needs  to  be  weighed  up  against  the  fact  that  the  opp.  does  not  necessarily  
know  much  about  the  details  of  the  status  quo,  and  risk  being  caught  out  in  a  lie  or  
misrepresentation  of  the  status  quo  by  the  prop.  They  also  risk  being  made  to  defend  
alleged  ‘harms’  of  the  status  quo  which  may  be  exaggerated  or  incorrect,  but  which  the  opp.  
team  will  not  be  equipped  to  refute  effectively.  
 
Editor’s  note:  An  opp.  team  can  also  choose  to  ‘counter-­prop’  a  motion  (see  Chapter  20)  

(3)  Insane  lines:  Although  hard  lines  are  good,  and  usually  there  is  a  positive  
relationship  between  the  ‘hardness’  of  the  case  and  its  moral  and  practical  
consistency,  there  is  a  point  at  which  this  relationship  breaks  down.  Past  a  
certain  point  a  definition  or  model  stops  being  ‘hard’  and  becomes  insane.  
 
There  a  few  ways  to  judge  if  your  line  is  ‘insane’.  The  first  is  the  laugh  test.  If  the  opposition  
(and  audience)  laugh  when  you  propose  the  case,  it’s  usually  a  good  sign  that  you  have  
stepped  across  the  line  (it  may  be  the  way  you  explained  the  argument,  but  nevertheless  it’s  
a  good  indication).  Secondly,  if  anyone  in  the  team  feels  seriously  uncomfortable  making  the  
argument,  then  that’s  a  bad  sign.  Debaters  should  be  flexible  and  willing  to  argue  counter-­‐
intuitive  positions,  but  if  a  reasonable  person  is  offended  or  disturbed  by  your  case,  then  
you  have  a  problem.  

  19  
 It’s  fine  to  argue  for  things  that  are  unlikely  to  happen,  even  things  that  are  highly  unlikely  
to  happen,  but  you  should  think  carefully  before  arguing  in  favor  of  something  that  is  
incredibly  unlikely  to  happen.  
 
The  best  test  is  to  remember  that  the  model  is  not  the  debate.  Your  model  simply  exists  to  
clarify  and  focus  the  terms  of  the  debate.  If  you  are  spending  all  your  time  defending  the  
reasonableness  of  the  terms  of  your  model,  then  you  have  probably  gone  too  far  (or  
debating  against  terribly  pedantic,  inexperienced  debaters).  
 
Using  the  previous  example  of  euthanasia  as  a  guide,  the  insane  line  might  be;  providing  
‘suicide  pills’,  on  request  to  any  adult  or  child  following  the  initial  diagnosis  of  a  serious  
medical  problem,  which  they  could  use  at  their  discretion.  It’s  just  too  far  fetched.  
The  Search  for  a  Super-­‐Model  
 
There  seems  to  be  a  fair  bit  of  confusion  about  what  a  model  is,  how  to  construct  one  and  
what  to  do  with  it  once  you  have  it.  Models  are  an  extremely  important  and  useful  part  of  
debating,  so  let  me  try  to  clear  up  all  those  questions.  
 
The  first  question  is  what  is  a  model?  The  answer  is  simple.  

A  model  is  a  specific  set  of  practical  actions  proposed  by  a  team  in  a  debate.  
So  it  means  that  instead  of  just  arguing  that  a  certain  idea  is  good,  the  team  
actually  set  up  a  particular  type  of  system  that  they  support  for  reasons  that  
are  linked  to  various  parts  of  the  model.  
 
For  example,  the  "heroin  trials"  debate  (i.e.  “THW  support  safe  heroin  injecting  rooms”)  is  one  
where  there  is  room  for  a  range  of  models,  because  there  are  many  important  questions  
about  the  practical  application  of  the  idea.  For  instance,  teams  should  choose  between  a  
model  of  government  supplied  heroin  or  a  ‘user  supplies’  system  –  i.e.  a  ‘no  questions  asked’  
policy  about  where  a  user  obtained  their  drugs  as  long  they  use  them  in  the  safe  injecting  
rooms.  
 
Both  these  models  have  strengths  and  weaknesses.  The  government  supplied  model  will  
generate  criticism  on  the  grounds  that  it  turns  the  government  into  a  drug  dealer,  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).  However  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  
‘dirty’  varieties  often  found  on  the  street  (which  is  a  major  cause  of  overdoses).  So  you  see  
the  choice  of  model  is  extremely  important,  because  it  can  change  the  focus  of  the  debate,  
and  bring  in  (or  cut  out)  various  issues.  
 
  Building  your  model.  
 
There  are  many  ways  to  construct  a  model,  the  easiest  of  which  is  to  steal  someone  else’s!  
The  vast  majority  (if  not  all)  the  debates  you’ll  do  are  real,  contemporary  issues.  That  means  
that  they  are  being  debated  in  the  public  arena  right  now.  So  it’s  perfectly  legitimate  for  you  
to  take  the  side  of  one  of  the  groups  who  are  publicly  lobbying  on  this  issue.  Take  the  
republic  referendum  held  a  few  years  ago.  At  that  time  debates  about  a  republic  were  
obviously  common  and  the  model  you  picked  was  critically  important.  But  thankfully  the  
Constitutional  Convention  produced  a  wide  range  of  models  representing  the  ideas  of  each  

  20  
 of  the  republican  groups  represented  at  the  convention.  So  by  keeping  up  to  date  with  the  
news,  and  becoming  aware  of  the  various  proposals  being  suggested  by  different  groups  in  
society,  you  have  ready-­‐  made  models  just  waiting  to  be  debated!  
 
Alternatively,  you  can  modify  an  existing  model.  So  once  you’ve  stolen  a  model  off  a  political  
party  or  whoever,  you  might  be  able  to  think  of  ways  to  improve  it  or  expand  it.  That’s  fine  
too.  Just  make  sure  that  you’re  really  clear  about  how  your  version  of  the  model  is  different  
to  the  group  that  you  stole  it  off.  
 
The  only  other  way  to  come  up  with  a  model  is  to  invent  it  from  scratch.  This  can  be  time  
consuming,  but  rewarding  in  many  ways.  What  it  requires  is  for  you  and  your  team  to  really  
talk  about  the  issues  in  the  debate.  Remember  that  most  debates  stem  from  ‘a  problem’,  
either  a  real  or  perceived  problem  and  if  you  understand  the  problem,  you  might  be  able  to  
come  up  with  a  solution.  The  best  thing  about  invented  models  is  that  they  are  original.  That  
means  that  your  opposition  won’t  be  prepared  for  them  (whereas  they  can  be  prepared  for  
a  common  model)  and  you  have  a  chance  to  have  a  truly  unique  debate,  on  issues  that  you  
have  established.  
 
I  strongly  encourage  teams  to  come  up  with  their  own  model,  because  it  shows  research  (no  
matter  how  smart  you  think  you  are,  there  is  no  substitute  for  learning  the  details  of  an  
issue),  thought  and  a  genuine  attempt  to  tackle  the  issues,  however  I  have  one  warning.  
Keep  it  real.  Make  sure  your  model  is  realistic  and  practical.  By  realistic,  I  mean  make  sure  
that  you  are  taking  into  account  the  way  people  really  behave,  otherwise  your  model  will  be  
hopelessly  flawed  (for  example  the  counter-­‐  model  to  attacking  Iran  is  not  "world  peace"  
because  at  this  point  in  history  it  is  simply  unrealistic).  By  practical  I  mean  that  it  should  be  
possible  given  the  resources  that  currently  exist.  Don’t  propose  a  model  that  would  cost  
trillions  of  dollars,  or  require  technology  that  doesn’t  exist,  or  is  highly  unlikely  to  exist  
anytime  soon.  
 
  How  to  use  your  model  
 
The  model  should  always  be  presented  by  the  first  speaker,  before  they  present  their  
substantive  arguments.  This  is  because  you  want  your  model  to  frame  the  debate,  and  
structure  which  issues  are  important  to  this  debate.  You  can’t  do  that  if  your  model  comes  
out  at  second  speaker.  Nevertheless  the  important  thing  to  know  about  models  is  that  they  
are  not  the  ‘be  all  and  end  all’  of  debates.  There  are  precious  few  debates  where  a  good  
model  will  win  a  debate  all  by  itself.  The  model  is  a  tool  to  structure  debates  and  focus  them  
around  important  issues.  It  is  the  analysis  of  those  issues  that  will  be  the  deciding  factor  in  
most  debates.  A  model  makes  a  debate  clearer  because  it  tells  the  audience  precisely  what  
the  debate  is  about,  but  you  still  have  to  show  why  that’s  a  good  thing,  and  why  the  benefits  
of  the  model  outweigh  the  inevitable  costs.  
 

  21  
 Final  Tips  on  Models  
 
• Opposition  teams  can  have  a  model  too.  They’re  called  a  counter-­‐model  and  are  
just  as  effective  as  an  proposition  team  model  (see  chapter  20)  
 
• Don’t  get  too  hung  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)  then  it’s  
really  not  that  important.  Lots  of  programs  cost  the  government  a  lot  of  money,  but  
they  are  important  and  worthwhile.  
 
• A  good  way  to  attack  a  model  is  to  look  at  what  assumptions  the  team  have  made  
when  they  constructed  it.  Did  they  realistically  assess  how  individuals  and  groups  
act  in  society?  Is  it  really  the  role  of  the  government  (or  other  organization)  to  do  
what  is  being  proposed?  
 
• It  is  okay  for  opposing  teams  to  concede  some  of  the  benefits  of  a  model  as  long  as  
they  show  why  the  problems  the  model  will  create  are  worse  than  those  benefits  
 

  22  
 Chapter  6  –  Burdens  

What  is  a  burden?  In  short,  it  is  something  you  have  a  duty  to  prove  in  
order  to  win  the  debate  (this  is  generally  considered  a  good  thing!).  
 

Burdens:  
   
– Can  be  inherent  to  your  case,  you  should  work  out  which  burdens  these  are  during  
prep.  time.  
 
– Can  arise  during  the  debate,  when  opposition  provides  some  analysis  that  you  then  
have  a  burden  to  outweigh  or  disprove.    
 
o However:  be  aware  of  false  burdens.  This  is  when  the  team  opposing  you  claims  
an  unproved  burden  on  your  side  of  the  house  that  is  not  really  a  burden.  
Identify  when  this  is  the  case  and  then  show  why  this  is  so.  

Basic  Burdens  –  how  to  win  from  proposition  

 
1.   Show  harm(s)  in  status  quo    Which  are  the  most  important  harms?      
      (For  example,  death  is  worse  than  a  lack  of  chocolate)  
2.   Show  why  that  harm  necessitates  actions/justify  
 
3.   Show  why  that  action  will  be  effective/necessary  regardless  of  efficacy  

Notes:  (i)  Consider  what  opposition  bench  will  say,  (ii)  avoid  giving  yourself  too  
tough  a  burden,  and  (iii)  try  not  to  take  on  too  many  burdens  
 
Example  –  THW  ban  pornography  
 
1. Pornography  objectifies  women  
a. It  does  this  by    
i. Presenting  them  as  subservient  to  male  counterparts    
ii. Limiting  role  of  women  to  sexual  objects  
iii. Having  a  generally  male  audience,  which  is  marketised,  making  the  
women  essentially  ‘products’  in  the  competitive  market  
 
2. Therefore:  state  is  justified  in  banning  because  it  has  a  burden  (wahey!)  to  protect  all  
citizens  from  dehumanisation  and  objectification  as  well  as  to  promote  gender  equality  
 
3. Effective  because:    
a. When  things  are  criminalised  discourse  around  subject  alters  
b. Harder  to  access,  so  less  easy  for  people  to  ‘slip’  into  the  porn  
normalisation/addiction.  
c. Even  if  not  effective  entirely  will  reduce,  because  effective  access  is  reduced  and  
state-­endorsed  moral  framework  critiques  it  
 
  23  
 Basic  Burdens  –  how  to  win  from  opposition  (option  1)  
 
1.   Show  a  good  in  the  status  quo    
       
2.   Accept  but  mitigate  prop  harm(s)  
 
3.   Prove  how  motion  makes  problem  worse  
 
4.   [Explain  why  this  is  none  of  the  state’s  business?]  
 
Example  –  THW  ban  pornography  
 
1.   Pornography  can  allow  people  to  explore  their  sexuality  and  can  be  regulated  by  the  
state  
 
2.   Can  objectify,  but  this  doesn’t  effect  how  people  act  in  real  life  
 
3.   Motion  makes  pornography  unregulated  and  the  taboos  create  allure  
 
4.   None  of  state’s  business  because  people  should  be  free  to  enjoy  their  own  sexuality  so  
long  as  it  doesn’t  directly  harm  others  
   

Basic  Burdens  –  how  to  win  from  opposition  (option  2)  

 
Show  why  it  is  illegitimate  for  a  state  should  not  act  in  this  way  
 
Example  –  THW  ban  pornography  
 
State’s  primary  function  is  protection  of  individual  liberty  (freedom),  not  to  be  a  ‘nanny  state’.  
This  removes  the  freedom  of  women  to    liberate  their  sexuality  via  pornography  and  of  anyone  
who  wants  to  watch  it  

How  to  spot  burdens  during  the  debate  

 
During  the  debate  you  should  be  noticing  when  key  points  of  clash  arise.  For  every  clash  
point  there  will  be  at  least  one  burden:  to  win  your  side  of  the  clash.  However,  there  can  be  
multiple  burdens  in  allowing  you  to  do  this.    
 
There  are  three  key  ways  to  deal  with  a  new  burden:  
• Prove  that  the  point  is  not  true  (see  ‘rebuttal’  in  chapter  4.2)  
• Show  that  the  point  is  outweighed  or  irrelevant    
• Argument  absorption  (see  chapter  22)  

  24  
 Example  –  THBT  the  media  should  show  the  full  horrors  of  war  
 
Extension  says:  “This  motion  allows  us  to  break  the  veil  of  words  that  politicians  use  to  
construct  a  discursive  narrative  that  obstructs  public  understanding  of  actions  made  by  the  
state.  For  example,  torture  is  constructed  as  intensive  interrogation  such  that  the  public  do  not  
question  the  morality  of  such  actions  by  the  state.”  
 
New  burden  for  opp:  To  prove  either  that  (i)  the  motion  does  not  have  this  effect,  (ii)  this  
already  happens  because  of  [x],  or  (iii)  this  is  nevertheless  illegitimate.  
 

  25  
 Chapter  7  –  The  Analysis  Machine  (What  to  do  
When  You  “Don’t  Know  Anything”)  

What  happens  if  I  don’t  know  anything?  

1.  
2. 1.   Don’t  panic  
3.  
2.   You  do  know  something:  you  know  the  analysis  machine.  All  motions  boil  down  to  
similar  sorts  of  things,  and  that’s  why  the  analysis  machine  is  a  piece  of  awesome  
rather  than  being  useless.  There  are  different  types  of  motions,  with  slightly  different  
variations  on  the  analysis  machine  for  each  one.  Fundamentally,  though,  it’s  the  same  
machine,  it’s  just  the  emphasis  is  different.  
 
The  most  common  form  of  motion  concerns  a  clash  between  the  state  and  citizens.  
Basically,  any  motion  that  involves  the  State  doing  something  that  primarily  affects  its  own  
people  is  this  sort  of  motion.  So  any  time  you  ban  something,  legalise  something,  or  impose  
pretty  much  any  sort  of  government  policy.  
 
Examples:  
 
• This  house  would  legalise  all  drugs  
• This  house  would  ban  pornography  
• This  house  would  tax  bankers’  bonuses  (although  this  is  a  bit  of  a  shit  motion)  
• This  house  would  make  organ  donation  compulsory  
• This  house  would  allow  the  purchase  and  sale  of  babies  on  the  free  market  
 
This  kind  of  motion  will  have  the  following  points  of  clash:  
   
1. Is  the  State  legitimate  in  doing  X/  What  about  individual  rights  and  freedoms?  
2. Should  the  State  do  X  (what  are  the  harms  and  benefits)?  
The  second  point  can  be  explored  using  the  analysis  machine  Imogen  gave  you:  
 Think  about  the  people  involved.  Think  about  what  the  other  side  will  say.  Imagine  what  
the  world  would  look  like  if  this  was  in  place,  and  try  and  imagine  the  impacts  the  motion  
will  have,  for  better  and  for  worse.  
   
The  first  point  is  what  I  want  to  focus  on  here.  There  are  several  ways  of  addressing  
questions  of  State  legitimacy,  and  of  individual  freedom.  Essentially  all  forms  of  government  
exist  as  a  compromise  between  individuals  doing  everything  and  anything  they  want,  and  
some  form  of  State  control.  The  interesting  bit  is  the  examination  of  the  nature  of  that  
compromise.  Here  are  some  things  that  it  might  help  to  be  aware  of:  
 

  26  
 Individual  rights  and  freedoms:  
     
Rights  aren’t  just  a  matter  of  pointing  at  legal  documents.  Rather,  they  need  to  be  justified  
and  weighed  up  against  one  another.  There  are  two  distinctions  that  it  may  be  useful  to  
consider  when  thinking  about  rights  and  freedoms:  
   
   
2.   Formal  vs  facilitative  rights  
 
This  first  distinction  boils  down  to  this:  
   
Formal  rights:  Stuff  that  no-­‐one  is  stopping  you  from  doing.  So  I  have  a  formal  right  to  go  to  
the  Seychelles  –  there  is  no  law  against  it.  
   
Facilitative  rights:  These  are  rights  that  come  with  a  concurrent  duty.  So  if  I  have  a  
facilitative  right  to  something,  someone  else  has  a  duty  to  provide  me  with  that  thing.  The  
provider  is  normally  the  state.  E.g.  I  have  a  facilitative  right  to  healthcare  if  I  break  my  arm:  
the  state  has  a  duty  to  provide  it.  
   
1.   Formal  and  effective  freedoms  
     
These  are  pretty  similar:  
 
Formal  freedoms:  things  that  I  have  the  freedom  to  do  in  the  sense  that  no-­‐one  is  stopping  
me  (Isaiah  Berlin  refers  to  these  as  negative  freedoms)  
   
Effective  freedoms:  things  that  I  would  need  other  people  to  help  me  accomplish,  and  if  I  
am  to  be  said  to  have  a  freedom  to  do  it,  someone  would  have  to  make  it  possible  (Berlin  
refers  to  these  as  positive  freedoms).  This  idea  of  effective  freedom  is  often  tied  up  in  
questions  of  autonomy:  
 
Autonomy:  
     
Political  philosophers  over  the  years  have  discussed  this  idea  of  autonomy.  We  will  
conceptualise  it  here  as  being  opposed  to  “freedom  as  doing  whatever”.  Essentially,  
someone  is  acting  autonomously  when  they  are  being  “most  free”:  when  their  effective  
freedoms  have  been  enhanced  such  that  they  are  making  a  decision  closest  to  the  one  they  
would  make  if  they  were  maximally  informed,  or  a  decision  that  is  “best  for  them”.  
   
E.g.  Someone  teaches  me  that  being  a  debater  is  the  best  thing  ever,  and  teaches  me  how  to  
be  the  best  debater  ever.  I  then  go  and  become  the  best  debater  ever.  Now,  before  I’d  been  
taught  this  about  debating  I’d  been  tempted  to  go  off  and  join  a  climbing  society,  and  
become  a  climber.  However,  with  the  knowledge  I  was  given  about  debating,  I  made  a  better  
decision.  That  is,  the  education  I  was  given  (about  debating)  allowed  me  the  effective  
freedom  to  make  a  decision  that  was  better  for  me  than  the  decision  I  would  have  made.  

  27  
 Thus,  in  being  taught  about  debating,  my  autonomy  was  enhanced.  
 
The  Role  of  the  State  
 
In  debates  these  ideas  about  rights  and  freedoms  are  important  because  arguing  for  or  
against  a  particular  conception  of  a  right  influences  what  the  state  would  then  have  to  do  
about  that  right.  
   
For  example,  if  I  could  show  that  the  right  to  education  was  a  formal  right,  then  the  state  
wouldn’t  have  to  do  anything  other  than  not  ban  education.  However,  if  I  could  argue  that  
the  right  to  education  was  a  facilitative  right,  then  the  state  would  have  a  duty  to  provide  
education.  
In  essence,  then,  “role  of  the  state”  arguments  fall  into  two  categories:  big  state  and  small  
state  
.  
Arguing  for  a  big  state:  
     
Arguing  for  a  bigger  state  basically  entails  showing  why  something  should  be  done  by  the  
state.  There  are  two  key  types  of  “big  state”  argument:  
 
1.              This  is  the  State’s  duty  
     
Explaining  why  something  is  the  State’s  duty  ordinarily  comes  down  to  showing  that  
citizens  in  that  state  have  a  facilitative  right  to  something,  and  that  the  State  is  the  best  
placed  to  provide  that  right.  
   
E.g.  We  should  have  state  funded  healthcare  because  citizens  have  facilitative  rights  to  
healthcare  (give  some  reasons  why  this  is  true,  if  necessary),  and  the  free  market  does  not  
adequately  provide  for  this  right  because  under  a  free  market  system,  poor  people  are  not  
able  to  access  sufficient  healthcare  (i.e.  their  right  is  not  provided  for).  
   
Depending  on  the  debate  in  question,  you  might  have  to  do  more  or  less  work  explaining  
why  something  is  in  fact  a  right,  and  why  it  cannot  be  provided  in  a  different  way.  
   
2.              This  is  something  that  it  is  legitimate  for  the  state  to  do    
     
Arguments  about  State  legitimacy  essentially  are  questions  that  ask:  I  am  born  free  –  why  
can  the  State  tell  me  what  to  do  in  this  instance?  
There  are  several  ways  in  which  you  might  limit  this  “natural”  freedom  (see  overleaf).  
   
 

  28  
   Limitations  on  “natural  freedom”  
1.  
2. 1.              Harm  to  others  
3.  
If  an  action  harms  other  people  in  society,  you  limit  their  freedom.  So  if  I  wanted  to  hit  
Imogen,  whilst  it  would  be  “more  free”  for  me  to  do  so,  it  would  trample  upon  her  freedom  
from  being  hit.  So  we  often  limit  freedoms  for  the  sake  of  other  people  in  society.  (There  are  
lots  of  other,  better  ways  to  justify  this  principle,  which  is  sometimes  called  “The  Harm  
Principle”  because  that’s  what  JS  Mill  called  it  when  he  thought  it  up.)  
   
This  is  normally  countered  in  one  of  two  ways,  depending  on  the  motion.  Either  show  that  
people  are  not  in  fact  harmed,  or  show  why  an  action  is  so  important  to  some  individual  or  
group  that,  even  if  it  harms  others,  it  should  be  allowed  because  the  price  (in  freedom,  or  
happiness,  or  whatever)  to  that  individual  of  being  restricted  from  the  action  is  greater  than  
the  harm  to  others.  
   
1. 2.              Maximising  autonomy  
   
I.e.  Who  knows  best-­‐  you  or  the  State?  
   
There  may  be  instances  where  the  state  maximises  “effective  freedom”  whilst  it  restricts  
formal  freedom.  The  classic  example  of  this  is  education.  When  I  force  a  child  to  go  to  school  
and  learn  to  read,  write  and  count,  I  am  obviously  limiting  that  child’s  formal  freedom:  it  
would  rather  do  something  more  fun  like  run  around,  play  in  the  sand,  eat  mud…  However,  I  
increase  that  child’s  effective  freedom,  because  in  educating  it  I  am  providing  it  with  the  
tools  to  make  more  informed,  or  just  plain  “better”  decision  in  the  future.  
   
The  flip  side  of  this  argument  is  to  offer  an  explanation  of  why,  in  this  instance,  individuals  
know  better  than  the  state.  This  argument  normally  takes  the  form  of  explaining  that  
different  people  have  different  ideas  about  what  it  is  to  live  a  good  life.  We  have  different  
priorities:  I  might  choose  to  spend  money  on  a  really  nice  car,  whereas  someone  else  might  
think  it  is  more  important  to  save  the  money  in  some  sort  of  high  interest  account.  The  State  
probably  has  no  idea  what  my  individual  preferences  are,  and  even  if  it  knew  a  bit,  I  know  
better.  So  whenever  the  State  is  “increasing  effective  freedoms”  what  it’s  really  doing  is  
imposing  its  own  idea  of  what  a  good  life  is  on  me.  
   
1. 3.  Consent  and  coercion  
2.    
This  is  sometimes  referred  to  as  the  “can  I  fence  off  a  cliff”  argument.  (By  “sometimes  
referred  to”  I  mean,  I  call  it  that.  I  think  the  example  comes  from  Locke,  but  I  can’t  
remember.)  
 
Essentially  this  question  comes  down  to  whether  or  not  we  increase  freedom  by  increasing  
formal  freedoms.    So  if  we  all  roamed  about  the  countryside,  we  would  be  pretty  free.  If  I  
came  over  and  fenced  off  a  cliff  so  that  people  didn’t  fall  off,  that  would  decrease  formal  

  29  
 freedom,  because  it  has  limited  an  option  (walking  off  the  cliff).  However,  no  one  in  their  
right  mind  would  walk  off  a  cliff,  so  I  haven’t  limited  an  option  that  anyone  would  take,  and  
so  I  haven’t  really  limited  freedom  at  all,  so  it’s  fine.  
 
In  debates  this  issue  comes  down  to  whether  or  not  an  option  is  one  that  anyone  would  
take.  This  is  often  wrapped  up  in  arguments  about  consent  and  coercion:  i.e.  is  it  more  likely  
than  not  that  a  given  person  taking  a  course  of  action  is  doing  it  because  they  were  coerced?  
 
E.g.  THW  legalise  prostitution  
 
So  I  might  argue  that  if  we  legalise  prostitution  we  are  increasing  freedoms  by  giving  people  
another  option.  Someone  might  argue  against  me  by  saying  that  we  are  not  really  giving  
another  option,  but  simply  allowing  people  to  be  coerced  into  it:  people  would  not  become  
prostitutes  autonomously,  but  rather  would  be  pressured  by  others  into  doing  so.  This  is  
because  the  nature  of  prostitution  is  such  that  it  is  overwhelmingly  more  likely  that  
someone  be  coerced  than  they  do  it  freely.  
 
1. 4.              Collective  action  
2.    
When  we  all  live  together  cooperatively,  sometimes  there  are  problems.  These  problems  are  
the  cost  of  people  only  thinking  of  themselves,  rather  than  acting  rationally.  
 
E.g.  The  Prisoner’s  Dilemma  
 
This  is  an  argument  out  of  a  branch  of  economics  known  as  “game  theory”  that  looks  at  what  
happens  when  people  act  rationally  and  self-­‐interestedly.  

This  is  an  argument  from  a  branch  of  economics  known  as  “game  theory”  that  looks  at  what  
happens  when  people  act  rationally  and  self-­‐interestedly.  
 
Two members of a criminal gang are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in
solitary confinement with no means of speaking to or exchanging messages with
the other. The police admit they don't have enough evidence to convict the pair on
the principal charge. They plan to sentence both to a year in prison on a lesser
charge. Simultaneously, the police offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain. If he
testifies against his partner, he will go free while the partner will get 10 years in
prison on the main charge. Oh, yes, there is a catch ... If both prisoners testify
against each other, both will be sentenced to 5 years in jail.

Thus  there  are  four  possible  outcomes:  

1. I  confess,  and  you  confess.  We  both  get  5  years  in  prison.  
2. I  confess,  and  you  don’t  confess.  I  get  set  free  (because  I  provided  evidence  against  
you)  and  you  get  10  years  (because  you  wouldn’t  confess).  
3. You  confess,  and  I  don’t  confess.  You  get  set  free  and  I  get  10  years.  
4. We  both  don’t  confess.  We  both  get  6  months.  
 
As  you  can  see,  the  best  (most  optimal)  outcome  for  both  of  us  is  (4)  –  we  both  don’t  
confess,  and  both  only  get  6  months.  

  30  
 So,  because  neither  of  us  can  guarantee  that  the  other  won’t  confess,  we  both  confess,  
leading  to  us  both  getting  5  years.  

This  is  an  example  of  a  collective  action  problem  (indeed,  the  classic  example)  because  us  
both  getting  5  years  when  we  could  both  have  had  only  6  months  is  silly.  It  is  a  collective  
action  problem  in  the  sense  that  if  we  had  had  some  way  to  collaborate  and  guarantee  that  
the  other  person  would  not  confess,  we  could  both  have  had  a  better  outcome.  
 
Things  in  the  real  world  act  like  this  sort  of  problem:  e.g.  Global  warming,  developing  
nuclear  weapons/disarming.  
 
One  role  of  the  State  can  be  to  provide  an  arbiter  to  prevent  such  problems:  the  State  can  
use  its  monopoly  of  force  to  ensure  that  people  fulfil  promises  so  that  we  can  all  get  the  best  
solution.  
 

Stakeholder  Analysis  
 
To  cite  Wikipedia:  
 
“Stakeholder  analysis  is  the  process  of  identifying  the  individuals  or  groups  that  are  
likely  to  affect  or  be  affected  by  a  proposed  action,  and  sorting  them  according  to  
their  impact  on  the  action  and  the  impact  the  action  will  have  on  them.  This  
information  is  used  to  assess  how  the  interests  of  those  stakeholders  should  be  
addressed  in  a  project  plan,  policy,  program,  or  other  action”  

When  uncertain  what  arguments  you  can  make  on  a  motion,  consider  the  major  
stakeholders:  the  actors  who  are  affected  by  the  motion:  
 
• Identify  the  stakeholders  
• Consider  the  power  relations  between  them  and  where  they  stand  in  the  
national/international  system  
• Do  these  groups  experience  net  benefits  or  harms  as  a  result  of  the  motion?  
• Which  stakeholders  should  we  prioritize,  and  why?  

Other  options:  
 
1. Arguing  from  first  principles  (see  Section  2)  
 
2. Consider  the  burdens    these  often  hint  at  what  arguments  you  should  make  
 
3. Assess  the  impact  of  the  motion  on  principles  you  know  about,  e.g.  women’s  
liberation,  the  relationship  between  Israel  and  Palestine,  or  individual  freedoms  

  31  
 Chapter  8  –  Effective  Prep  Time  
This  chapter  will  outline  two  common  ways  to  utilize  your  prep  time  effectively.  Remember,  
you  have  fifteen  minutes  of  preparation,  so  make  the  most  of  it!  
 
The  first  is  incredibly  simple  and  is  employed  by  debaters  of  all  abilities.  I  recommend  this  
for  new  debaters,  in  order  that  they  don’t  panic  and  waste  their  prep  time.  
 

Prep  method  1  –  Seven  simple  stages  

 
 
 
1. Define  the  debate  (first  prop)  or  work  out  what  the  most  reasonable  definition  is  
(everyone  else).  If  not  in  first  prop,  consider  likely  definitions  and  how  they  might  
affect  your  case  
 
2. Brainstorm  ideas  about  the  motion  
 
 
3. Think  about  the  burdens  inherent  in  your  case  (see  chapter  6)  and  work  out  what  
arguments  could  fulfill  them.  
 
4. Apply  a  ‘filter’  –  that  is,  a  principle  by  which  you  will  run  your  case.  This  is  to  assure  
consistency  in  your  team  line.  
 
 
5. Identify  2-­‐3  arguments  each  to  speak  on  (remember,  quality  not  quantity).  Aim  to  
have  no  more  than  5  main  points  as  a  team,  ideally  fewer,  but  with  sub-­‐points.  
 
6. Work  through  the  logical  steps  of  each  of  your  arguments  
 
 
7. Consider  ways  in  which  your  opponents  might  try  to  fulfill  their  burdens  and  find  
ways  to  disprove  their  analysis.  

Remember:  Don’t  Be  Thinking  About  Incredibly  Weird  Cases!  

 

  32  
 Prep  method  2  –  The  ‘MAD  Secret  Topic  Prep’  method  
 
By  Tim  Sonnreich,  taken  from  the  ‘MAD  Guide  to  University  Debating’  
Note:  This  is  based  on  a  text  written  by  Nicole  Lynch.  
 
Preliminaries:  Listen  to  the  topic  –  write  it  down  with  the  correct  wording  and  DON’T  
PANIC!!!  Then...  take  a  deep  breath  and  start  talking!  (you  and  your  team  shouldn’t  stop  
talking  ‘til  your  done!  
 
1.   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.g.  by  a  government,  by  an  interest  group?)?  What  is  
the  issue  that  this  debate  is  all  about?  
 
This  step  should  help  you  understand  why  the  topic  was  set  in  the  first  place  –  why  it’s  an  
issue  that  people  are  discussing  (or  should  be  discussing!).  When  it  comes  to  the  first  
speakers  speech,  this  step  should  help  you  set  up  the  debate,  let  the  audience  know  what  the  
debates  about  and  why  it’s  a  debate  worth  listening  to.  
 
2.   Form  a  dichotomous  statement  about  the  debate.  
 
Form  a  statement  about  the  debate  that  can  be  answered  yes  or  no.  This  should  set  up  the  
divide  between  the  two  teams  in  the  debate  –  both  agreeing  and  disagreeing  with  the  
statement  should  be  valid  positions  so  that  there  is  a  genuine  clash  between  the  sides  so  
that  a  good  debate  can  occur.  Avoid  restating  the  topic  –  the  statement  can  be  the  backbone,  
or  main  contention,  of  your  case.  
 
3.   Define  the  terms  of  the  debate  
 
Your  context  should  already  make  it  clear  what  it  is  that  the  topic  ‘means’  in  terms  of  what  
any  unclear  or  ambiguous  terms  are  relating  to.  Thus,  setting  up  a  definition  does  not  mean  
going  through  what  each  word  in  the  topic  “means”  –  you  should  have  already  made  this  
clear,  it  means  defining  the  terms  of  the  debate:  
 
Model  Debates  –  in  a  lot  of  debates,  defining  the  debate  means  proposing  your  
solution  or  “model”  for  solving  the  controversy.  The  details  of  your  model  should  
include  the  scope  of  the  debate  (e.g.  the  first  world?  Australia?  Schools?),  and  give  the  
debate  a  clear  structure  thorough  which  your  arguments  can  be  analyzed.  
 
Empirical  Debates  –  these  are  debates  where  you’re  not  arguing  for  a  solution  but  
merely  evaluating  something  –  e.g.  that  our  celebrities  are  no  good.  Your  definition  of  
the  topic  in  these  kinds  of  debates  should  set  up  the  benchmarks  by  which  you’ll  be  
assessing  the  issue.  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.  
 
Remember  –  you  should  never  try  to  win  a  debate  by  your  definition  (either  model  or  
benchmarks).  Your  aim  should  be,  in  defining  the  debate,  to  set  up  a  good  strong  structure  
through  which  both  teams  can  wrestle  with  each  other’s  arguments.  
 
  33  
 4.   Make  a  ‘wish  list’  
 
Think  of  things  you’d  like  to  prove  for  your  case  –  anything  that  would  be  beneficial  to  your  
side  of  the  debate  –  things  that  if  you  could  prove  would  make  it  easier  to  win.  If  you’re  
stuck  for  ideas,  think  of  the  groups  involved  in  the  issue  –  what  their  interests  would  be  and  
how  they  are  affected  by  the  issue  (or  would  be  affected  by  your  proposal).  
 
5.     Cut  your  wish  list  down,  and  form  the  remaining  ideas  into  arguments  
 
Now  it’s  time  to  transform  your  wish  list  into  a  case.  This  is  where  your  ideas  get  
transformed  from  mere  assertions  to  actual  arguments.  Remember  the  form  of  an  
argument:  
 

}  
IDEA  
 
ANALYSIS   One  argument  
 
EVIDENCE  
With  both  of  you  working  together,  you  should  be  able  to  come  up  with  the  best  (being  the  
clearest  and  most  logical)  analysis  and  the  best  evidence  (examples,  statistics  etc)  for  each  
of  your  arguments.  Ask  yourselves  at  this  stage  whether  you  have  made  all  the  links  to  
explain  how  you  reach  your  conclusion  so  that  someone  who’d  never  even  thought  about  it  
would  be  able  to  follow  your  reasoning  (and  be  convinced  by  it!)  
 
Once  you  have  expanded  your  wish  list,  read  through  them  carefully  and  identify  ones  that  
are  un-­‐provable  and  get  rid  of  these.  Anything  that  you  can’t  logically  prove  at  this  point  
should  be  cut  –  it’s  a  waste  of  valuable  speaking  time  to  pursue  arguments  that  won’t  help  
your  case  and  it  means  you’ll  have  less  time  to  develop  your  stronger  arguments.  Prioritize  
your  arguments  so  that  you  know  which  are  the  strongest/most  important  and  which  
merely  strengthen  it  –  cut  the  weaker  ones  if  you  have  too  many  and  be  prepared  to  defend  
your  important  arguments!  
 
6.   Do  your  team  split  
 
Finally,  as  a  team  work  out  the  logical  progression  of  the  arguments  and  thus,  which  
speakers  will  be  covering  which  material.  Then  speakers  can  finalize  their  notes  for  their  
own  speeches  in  the  final  few  minutes.  
 
Some  final  comments...  
 
You  and  your  team  should  be  talking  to  each  other  for  the  vast  majority  of  your  prep  time  –  
if  you  construct  your  case  according  to  the  method  above,  every  member  of  the  team  should  
be  clear  as  to  what  the  key  clash  in  the  debate  is,  what  your  team  is  proposing  and  the  
details  of  your  teams  arguments.  This  is  important  so  that  your  team  presents  a  consistent,  
logical  case  that  fits  together  well.  It  is  also  a  good  tactic,  because  although  only  one  speaker  
will  be  presenting  any  single  argument,  any  speaker  may  use  that  argument  in  rebuttal  (or  
have  to  defend  it  from  attack)  and  might  have  to  summarize  or  clarify  an  argument  during  
the  debate  –  so  understanding  all  your  teams  material  is  vital  –  and  collaborative  
preparation  of  your  case  is  the  way  is  the  best  way  to  do  this.  Plus  it  means  that  if  anyone  is  
hazy  about  anything  at  any  point,  they  have  two  other  people  to  consult  with  to  smooth  out  
the  bumps  before  they  get  to  the  debating  room!  Two  heads  are  better  than  one!  
  34  
 Finally,  also  remember  that  this  method  is  all  about  actually  debating.  Don’t  work  through  
all  the  steps  and  then  stand  up  to  give  your  speech  and  completely  forget  what  you’ve  just  
talked  about!  The  structure  of  your  teams  case  should  follow  the  structure  of  your  prep  –  
when  you  identified  the  controversy  at  the  start  of  your  prep  –  it  was  so  you  knew  what  the  
debate  was  about  and  why  it  was  worth  debating:  don’t  launch  into  your  arguments  before  
you  enlighten  the  audience,  and  the  adjudicator  and  your  opposition  what  the  debates  about  
to!  If  they’re  all  on  the  same  page  as  you,  your  arguments  are  likely  to  make  a  whole  lot  
more  sense  and  the  debate  will  work  better!  
 

Prepping  an  extension  case  

 
There  is  no  real  formula  for  perfect  extension  speeches,  but  here  are  some  tips  on  how  to  
ensure  you’re  in  the  best  position  possible  when  it  comes  to  making  an  extension  speech:  
 
1. A  debate  can  always  run  on  one  of  two  levels:  the  micro  or  the  macro.  If  you  like,  on  
the  societal  level  or  the  individual  level.  Prep  both  to  a  certain  extent,  then  during  
the  debate  when  it  becomes  clear  which  line  first  half  are  running,  get  working  on  
fully  analyzing  the  other.  During  prep,  you  want  to  think  of  the  best  arguments  for  
both,  so  you  know  where  you’re  going  mid-­‐debate.  
2. Consider  depth  and  width  of  points:  
a. Depth:  this  relates  to  the  depth  of  the  philosophical  arguments  which  
underpin  a  case  
b. Width:  this  concerns  how  widely  applicable  an  argument  is:  think  about  how  
you  might  widen  an  argument  to  give  it  more  strength  in  the  meta-­‐debate  (see  
chapter  26).  
 

  35  
  
Chapter  9    -­  Tips  and  Tricks    
 
 
This  chapter  is  a  compilation  of  hints  provided  by  debaters  across  the  
country…  
 
• Don’t  panic!  Nobody  is  here  to  see  you  fail  and  we  were  all  beginners  once.  
Everybody  has  the  ability  to  become  a  great  orator,  when  necessary  we  can  all  
be  persuasive,  credible  and  intelligent.  
 
 
• Listen!  A  debate  is  all  about  knowing  what  you  need  to  say  in  order  to  win  (see  
chapter  6  on  burdens).    
 
• Be  clear  with  yourself  what  you  are  trying  to  say  –  if  you  don’t  know  what  your  
argument  is,  there  is  very  little  chance  the  audience  will!  
 
• Don’t  fall  into  the  solution  gap.  This  is  usually  where  the  prop  team  identifies  a  
problem  as  being  incredibly  pernicious  but  then  proposes  a  mechanism  that  
only  scratches  at  the  surface  of  the  problem  they’ve  identified.  This  is  morally  
inconsistent  and  is  easily  targeted  by  the  opposing  teams.  
o If  you  notice  a  prop  team  do  this  when  you  are  in  first  prop,  it  is  often  possible  
to  win  the  debate  by  providing  a  mechanism  which  improves  the  situation  
more  effectively  than  that  provided  by  prop  (see  chapter  18).  
 
• Write  your  notes  clearly  in  block  capitals,  with  larger  than  usual  handwriting  
and  plenty  of  space  between  lines,  in  order  that  you  can  read  your  notes  easily  
and  flesh  out  arguments  during  the  debate  –  although  don’t  be  ridiculous.  
 
• Every  so  often  during  the  debate  take  a  step  back  to  consider  how  you  would  
feel  the  debate  was  leaning  as  an  unbiased  audience  member.  This  is  a  useful  
technique  for  identifying  burdens  on  your  side  of  the  house.  
 
 
• You  should  (almost)  never  try  to  argue  against  minority  rights  and  liberation.  
The  correct  technique  is  to  argue  about  how  best  rights  are  protected/how  
liberation  is  best  achieved/what  liberation  actually  is  (i.e.  liberation  is  not  the  
slave  owner  passing  his  slave  a  loaf  of  bread,  but  the  slave  taking  that  loaf  to  
achieve  her  own  liberation).  
 
 
• When  in  opening  government,  think  about  potential  opp  lines  that  you  could  
squeeze  out  with  a  good  model  –  however  it  is  vital  you  remain  within  the  spirit  
of  the  motion.  
 

  36  
  
• Read  lots  –  knowing  what’s  going  on  in  the  news  allows  you  to  add  context  and  
examples  to  your  arguments,  and  having  academic  knowledge  on  given  
subjects  (particularly  legislation,  economics,  political  theory  and  philosophy)  
means  content  generation  becomes  a  lot  easier.  
 
 
• Be  clear  about  the  points  of  clash  –  this  helps  throughout  the  debate.  
 
 
• Never  be  rude  or  use  oppressive  language  (such  as  sexism,  racism,  classism,  
ableism,  etc.)  
 
 
• Be  confident  in  your  case  –  this  makes  it  more  persuasive  and  means  you’re  
less  easily  put  off.  
 
 
• When  you  take  a  POI,  wait  until  you  have  finished  your  point  (or  sub-­point).  
When  speakers  take  a  point  mid-­sentence  they  generally  fail  to  adequately  
finish  the  point  they  were  making.  
 
 
• Avoid  making  POIs  on  unimportant  matters.  Speakers  normally  only  take  one  
so  you  want  that  one  to  be  as  damaging  to  their  case  as  possible.  Use  the  
rebuttal  techniques  explained  in  chapter  4  for  good  POIs.  
 
 
• Try  and  ensure  that  a  POI  is  taken  from  your  team  rather  than  the  other  half.  
This  can  be  done  by  offering  more  POIs,  offering  them  in  a  manner  that  they  
are  psychologically  more  likely  to  accept  (such  as  just  when  they  are  finishing  a  
point).  
 
 
• Do  not  contradict  your  own  side.  This  is  called  ‘knifing’  and  will  normally  get  
you  an  automatic  fourth  place.  To  a  small  extent  when  in  closing  opp.  you  can  
run  cases  that  are  not  necessarily  entirely  consistent  with  the  first  half,  but  
only  to  a  small  extent  (unless  they  run  something  insane).  
 
 
• Practice!  This  is  really  how  you  get  good  at  debating  –  go  to  workshops,  go  to  
competitions  and  have  fun  whilst  meeting  and  learning  from  some  of  the  best  
speakers  around.  
 
 
• Set  your  own  debate:  don’t  allow  the  other  teams  tell  you  what  your  burdens  
are.  Often  teams  will  try  and  push  burdens  upon  you  that  don’t  really  exist.  
This  wastes  your  time  and  detracts  from  the  important  arguments.  
 

  37  
  
• Be  wary  of  lumping  actors  together  in  a  way  that  is  not  empirically  accurate.  
For  example  saying  “religious  groups  are  oppressive  to  gay  rights”,  or  “media  
companies  unfairly  invade  the  privacy  of  the  individual”.  It  is  far  more  
persuasive  to  concede  the  nuance  that  this  is  only  some  of  either  of  these  
groups,  however  the  effects  are  still  bad  enough  that  you  need  to  deal  with  
them.  
 
 
• You  should  never  straw  man  an  opponent’s  argument.  To  straw  man  is  to  
construct  a  mischaracterization  of  a  case  such  that  it  is  more  easily  defeated.  
This  damages  your  credibility  and  often  means  that  you  do  not  effectively  
rebut  the  arguments  made  on  the  other  side  of  the  house,  leaving  them  
standing  at  the  end  of  your  speech.  
 
 
• Write  down  the  analytical  steps  of  logical  progression  made  by  your  opposing  
teams.  This  helps  you  to  locate  missing  links  in  their  analysis  which  you  can  
then  exploit.  
 
 
• Constantly  critique  your  own  case.  If  you  identify  a  weakness  before  your  
opposition  you  can  find  a  way  to  plug  the  hole.  
 
 
• Write  down  good  POIs  so  you  don’t  forget  them.  This  way  if  either  you  or  your  
partner  are  accepted  you  are  secure  in  the  knowledge  that  you  have  a  kick-­ass  
POI.  
 
 
• Time  your  speech.  This  helps  with  structure  and  a  knowledge  of  time  makes  it  
easier  to  fit  all  of  your  material  in.  
 
 
• Time  your  opponents’  speeches.  This  helps  you  to  gauge  when  to  make  POIs  as  
well  as  effectively  stops  you  speaking  out  of  order  (which  makes  you  look  bad).  

That’s  it  for  

Section  1!  
 

  38  
  
Section  2  -­‐    
First  Principles  

  39  
 Chapter  10  –  Introduction  to  First  Principles  
Making  Cases  From  First  Principles  
 
By  Tim  Sonnreich,  from  the  “MAD  Guide  to  University  Debating”  
 
As  a  novice  or  even  intermediate  debater  you  will  constantly  feel  like  you  don’t  know  
enough  to  debate  most  topics  to  their  full  potential  –  and  unfortunately  that’s  probably  true.  

First  Principles  has  two  key  elements:  

 
1. A  good  understanding  of  the  principles  of  logic  (i.e.  knowing  how  to  show  that  an  
argument  is  logically  flawed  without  knowing  any  facts  about  the  issue).  
 
2. A  good  understanding  of  the  key  concepts  that  form  the  fundamental  ‘clash’  in  the  
debate  -­‐  (see  following  chapters).  

Simply  put,  you  can't  prep  a  good  case  without  having  good  and  consistent  IDEAS  about  a  
topic,  and  short  of  being  an  expert  on  every  issue;  these  two  elements  are  the  best  way  to  
generate  those  ideas  in  prep.  
 
Note:  The  language  isn’t  that  important.  Don’t  worry  about  learning  the  labels/jargon  used  in  
Appendix  One,  it’s  the  IDEAS  that  are  important.  
 
None  of  this  is  meant  to  suggest  that  you  shouldn’t  try  to  keep  up  with  the  news,  and  even  
go  further  than  that  and  specifically  research  issues  that  you  think  might  be  useful  –  of  
course  you  should  do  that.  But  that’s  a  process  that  will  be  on-­‐going  throughout  your  
debating  career.  At  the  start  you  want  to  give  yourself  the  best  possible  chance  of  building  
good  cases  on  a  wide  range  of  issues  –  and  first  principles  is  the  best  way  to  do  that.  
 
The  case  prepping  method  outlined  in  Chapter  8  is  designed  to  show  you  how  to  build  up  a  
case  by  approaching  it  from  first  principles  –  incorporating  both  logical  progression  of  ideas,  
as  well  as  being  able  to  identify  and  understand  the  philosophical  clash  that  lies  at  the  heart  
of  any  debate.  
 
There  are  few  short  cuts  to  learning  first  principles.  The  best  ways  are  to  read  and  to  pay  
attention  during  debates/adjudications.  All  debates  are  built  on  a  foundation  of  conflicting  
ideas  and  theories  about  how  to  solve  problems  –  like  how  to  best  run  the  economy  (e.g.  
Keynesian  or  Neo-­‐liberal?)  or  the  best  principles  for  a  political  system  (e.g.  communitarian  
or  liberal?),  etc.  These  ideas  might  sound  complicated,  but  for  the  purposes  of  debating  you  
just  need  to  understand  the  key  concepts  in  each  theory.  
 
So  what  is  an  example  of  first  principles  theories  in  action?  Well  many  of  the  First  Principles  
theories  relate  to  disputes  over  the  ‘proper’  role  of  the  government  –  and  you  can  learn  the  
fundamentals  of  dozens  of  debates  by  just  mastering  a  few  simple  concepts.  

  40  
 First  Principles  –  The  Role  of  Government  
 
At  some  point  everyone  learns  about  liberalism  (“small  ‘l’  liberalism,  not  the  Liberal  Party).  
Obviously  because  Australia  is  notionally  a  ‘liberal-­‐democracy’,  the  concept  of  liberalism  
must  have  a  lot  to  do  with  how  we  conceive  of  the  proper  role  and  responsibilities  of  
government.  But  what  does  it  mean?  Well,  liberalism  means  “small  government”  –  giving  
individuals  as  much  freedom  as  possible  (as  long  as  that  freedom  wouldn’t  be  used  to  hurt  
other  people).  So  true  “small  ‘l’  liberals”  believe  that  when  given  the  choice  between  
banning  something  or  merely  regulating  its  use,  governments  should  choose  to  regulate  it,  
because  banning  something  implies  that  the  government  is  telling  you  what  sort  of  
behaviour  is  acceptable  or  beneficial  for  you  –  proper  liberals  think  that  wrong.  
 
So  while  it  might  save  lives  and  money  if  we  banned  smoking  and  drinking,  true  liberals  
would  argue  that  these  things  should  be  regulated  (e.g.  preventing  children  from  using  
them)  but  otherwise  if  people  want  to  choose  to  do  something  that  will  do  them  harm,  that’s  
their  choice.  The  key  is  “informed  choice”  –  so  long  as  adults  fully  understand  the  choice  
they  are  making,  and  then  they  should  be  free  to  make  it.  For  example,  everybody  knows  
that  smoking  is  incredibly  dangerous.  If  they  still  want  to  smoke,  then  the  government  
shouldn’t  stop  them,  because  it’s  an  ‘informed  choice’.  
 
Conversely  there  are  people  who  are  sometimes  called  “communitarians”  or  more  broadly,  
“socialists”,  who  take  the  opposite  view.  They  favour  “big  government”,  a  government  that  
actively  involves  itself  in  shaping  the  choices  that  people  can  make,  in  an  effort  to  create  a  
society  that  promotes  the  “social  good”.  
 
It  was  ‘big  government’  socialists  who  decided  that  wearing  a  seatbelt  should  be  
compulsory  and  that  getting  immunised  for  diseases  should  be  compulsory.  That’s  the  
government  telling  you  what’s  best  for  you  –  saying  “We’re  not  going  to  take  the  chance  that  
you’re  stupid  enough  to  ignore  the  obvious  benefits  of  wearing  a  seatbelt,  so  we’re  going  to  
make  it  a  law  and  then  punish  you  if  you  don’t  do  it.  
 
This  clash  between  “big  government”  and  “small  government”  is  a  constant  theme  of  
Australian  politics.  In  practice  people  don’t  always  support  one  philosophy  consistently,  but  
both  sides  are  always  represented  in  public  debate.  
 
Think  about  it.  Regards  of  whether  the  topic  was  about  gun  control,  gambling,  pornography,  
drugs,  smoking,  (etc),  the  core  of  the  debate  is  the  same  –  big  government  versus  small  
government.  On  top  of  that  core  clash  you  would  include  any  specific  knowledge  you  might  
have  of  the  harms  or  benefits  of  the  thing  in  question,  but  each  debate  would  be  a  clash  of  
the  same  two  principles.  
 
Once  you  learn  a  few  1st  P  ideas,  you’ll  start  to  see  them  underpinning  every  debate  you  do.  
Even  if  no  one  ever  mentions  the  names  of  the  theories  involved,  you’ll  see  how  the  logic  of  
those  ideas  permeates  every  argument  made.  It  would  be  great  if  you  became  an  expert  on  
drugs,  guns,  gambling  (etc)  but  in  the  meantime,  learning  these  two  1st  P  ideas  will  allow  
you  to  build  a  strong  case  in  any  of  the  innumerable  ‘role  of  government’  debates.  It  will  also  
help  you  devise  rebuttal.  

  41  
 Rebuttal  from  First  Principles  
 
Once you understand the anatomy of an argument, it should be relatively simple to see how best
to attack an argument. Appendix Three explains in detail how to best damage and hopefully
destroy an argument in the most efficient and effective way.

But in just the same way that you can (and should!) use ‘first principles’ to construct your
arguments, there some fundamental, logical principles by which you can attack arguments. So
even if you don’t know anything about the evidence they used, and you’ve never heard that type
of analysis before, if you listen carefully and take good notes, then you might find one of the
following flaws has occurred in the argument.

5 common flaws with arguments which anyone should be able to spot regardless of how
much you happen to know about a topic – this is just logic.

1)    Assertion  –  the  argument  is  in  fact  not  an  argument  at  all,  it’s  simply  an  
assertion,  and  as  such  there  is  no  logical  reason  given  to  believe  that  is  it  true.  
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.  
 
2)   Contradiction  –  The  argument  may  be  valid,  but  it  is  in  contradiction  with  a  
previous  argument.  To  be  a  real  –  or  ‘full  blown’  contradiction,  it  must  be  the  
case  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  two  arguments  in  question  to  both  be  true  
simultaneously.  So  it  cannot  logically  be  both  cheaper  and  more  expensive  to  
do  a  given  thing.  Don’t  go  calling  every  argument  you  hear  a  contradiction  or  
you  will  look  foolish.  If  it  is  in  fact  a  contradiction  then  that  can  cause  massive  
damage  to  an  opponent’s  case,  but  if  it  isn’t,  then  the  false  accusation  can  
cause  massive  damage  to  your  credibility!  
 
But  spotting  –  and  pointing  out  –  a  contradiction  is  only  the  beginning,  if  you  want  to  fully  
exploit  it  you  have  to  explain  to  the  adjudicator  exactly  how  this  compromises  the  
credibility  of  their  case.  
 
So  don’t  just  say  “first  they  said  their  plan  would  be  really  cheap,  and  now  they  say  it  would  
be  really  expensive,  but  is  worth  the  money  –  that’s  a  pretty  blatant  contradiction”,  follow  it  
up  with  some  analysis,  like;  “so  which  is  it  then?  One  of  them  clearly  doesn’t  really  
understand  the  nature  of  this  situation  –  if  a  cheap  program  can  be  effective,  then  why  is  this  
she  trying  to  tell  us  we’ll  need  to  spend  lots  of  money  to  resolve  the  problem,  but  if  she’s  
right  and  it  would  take  a  lot  of  money  to  make  a  dint  in  this  problem,  then  everything  the  
first  guy  said  is  rubbish.  Hopefully  their  next  speaker  will  tell  us  which  of  his  team  mates  
knows  what  they  are  talking  about,  and  which  one  was  just  making  stuff  up”.  
 
You  need  to  make  it  as  uncomfortable  for  them  as  possible,  and  try  and  force  them  to  not  
just  retract  the  statement,  but  concede  that  a  number  of  their  arguments  are  irrelevant  
(they  usually  wont  say  that  out  loud,  they’ll  just  stop  mentioning  all  the  arguments  on  one  
side  of  the  contradiction  –  that’s  when  you  know  they’re  in  trouble  and  you  should  listen  
closely  to  how  they  defend  themselves  –  if  they  stop  mentioning  certain  arguments  then  
attack  them  for  abandoning  a  chunk  of  their  case).  

  42  
 Note:  The  most  important  thing  is  that  you  can  clearly  explain  the  contradiction  –  it’s  critical  
that  the  adjudicator  understands  and  believes  you  –  so  explain  it  carefully,  and  keep  an  eye  on  
the  adjudicator  to  see  if  they  understand  you.  
 
As  you  can  see,  a  contradiction  is  such  a  serious  flaw  in  a  case,  so  if  an  opponent  accuses  
your  team  of  running  a  contradiction  it  is  very  important  that  your  side  respond  as  soon  as  
possible  and  attempt  to  demonstrate  how  the  two  arguments  in  question  are  not  
contradictory.  
 
3)       Casual  Causation  –  Essentially  this  is  a  lack  of  analysis.  It  occurs  when  
someone  tries  to  draw  a  link  between  two  events,  without  showing  how  the  
former  event  actually  caused  the  latter  event  to  happen.  
 
A  classic  is  when  people  argue  that  the  introduction  of  the  death  penalty  for  murderers  
causes  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  murders.  Never  mind  the  fact  that  there  are  instances  in  
which  introducing  the  death  penalty  has  preceded  a  rise  in  the  murder  rate,  there  is  simply  
not  reason  to  believe  –  prima  facie  –  that  the  death  penalty  is  a  deterrence.  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).  Between  1996  and  1997  there  
was  dramatic  drop  in  the  number  of  murders  in  Australia  –  but  the  death  penalty  was  
abolished  here  in  the  1970s.  So  what  happened?  Well  in  1996  there  was  the  “Port  Arthur  
massacre”,  when  Martin  Bryant  killed  35  people  in  Tasmania.  Immediately  after  that  
incident  the  Federal  Government  instituted  strict,  uniform  gun  laws,  which  saw  thousands  
of  guns  handed  in  as  the  result  of  a  “gun  buy-­‐back”  scheme  and  it  became  much  harder  to  
legally  buy  a  gun  and  keep  it  in  your  home.  Without  wanting  to  say  too  much  about  gun  
control,  the  point  of  this  example  is  that  there  can  be  many  reasons  why  the  crime  rate  –  
especially  the  murder  rate  –  goes  up  and  down.  So  be  careful  not  to  be  too  quick  to  assume  
that  one  factor  is  more  important  to  the  outcome  than  another,  unless  you  have  the  analysis  
to  show  why  that  is  the  case.  
 
4)   False  Dichotomy  –  This  a  particular  type  of  mischaracterization  of  a  debate  or  
problem.  It  occurs  when  someone  says  that  there  is  a  choice  to  be  made,  
where  the  only  options  are  ‘A’  or  ‘B’,  when  in  fact  they  are  not  the  only  choices  
available.  
 
This  can  occur  because  a  speakers  is  trying  to  assert  a  self-­‐serving  dichotomy  (in  effect  they  
are  saying,  “this  debate/argument  is  a  choice  between  doing  something  positive  to  address  
this  problem,  or  simply  letting  things  get  worse”  –  in  a  decent  debate  this  wont  be  true,  its  
almost  always  a  choice  between  two  options  designed  to  improve  a  situation.  Or  a  speaker  
can  offer  a  false  dichotomy  because  they  are  stupid/lazy  and  don’t  understand  the  
debate/your  argument  properly.  
 
Either  way  it’s  important  to  recognise  when  someone  is  attempting  to  falsely  divide  the  
debate  into  two  positions,  one  of  which  is  either  not  what  you  are  arguing,  or  not  what  
anyone  would  argue.  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.  

  43  
   5)       Straw  Man  –  This  is  another  type  of  misrepresentation  or  mischaracterization  
of  an  argument.  Basically  the  straw  man  is  when  a  team  set  up  an  argument  
(which  you  have  not  made,  and  don’t  intend  too)  and  then  proceed  to  rebut  it.  
 
Sometimes  this  happens  when  a  speaker  takes  an  extreme  example  of  your  proposal,  
sometimes  it  happens  when  they  misrepresent  something  you  said,  sometimes  it  happens  
when  they  were  hoping  you  would  argue  a  certain  thing,  and  you  actually  proposed  
something  slightly  different.  It  doesn’t  really  matter  why,  it’s  important  to  point  out  when  a  
team  is  not  engaging  with  your  case,  because  if  you  let  a  straw  man  argument  be  beaten  to  
death  without  pointing  out  that  it’s  not  your  argument  in  the  first  place,  a  weak  adjudicator  
can  assume  that  it  was  part  of  your  case.  Also  it’s  important  to  point  out  when  your  
opponents  are  not  engaging  because  that’s  a  critical  part  of  having  a  good  debate.  

Note  for  adjudicators:  The  5  ‘first  principle’  rebuttal  techniques  listed  above  are  really  just  
logical  flaws  that  can  exist  in  an  argument.  As  such,  ‘the  average  reasonable  person’  should  
be  able  to  spot  them  (a  ‘reasonable’  person  is  persuaded  by  logical  arguments  and  not  
convinced  by  illogical  arguments)  and  so  even  if  an  opposition  don’t  spot  a  contradiction  or  
an  assertion,  if  you  do  you  should  penalize  the  speaker  that  made  those  arguments.  
 
So  if  you  hear  an  argument,  and  you’re  convinced  (this  is  where  taking  good  notes  is  
important)  that  its  contradictory  with  something  else  said  by  that  team,  you  should  penalize  
the  speaker/team  for  that  mistake.  If  their  opponents  also  spot  the  flaw  and  point  it  out,  
then  you  should  reward  them  in  the  same  way  you  reward  any  good  piece  of  rebuttal  –  but  
regardless  of  what  the  opposition  do,  logic  is  logic  and  if  an  argument  is  clearly  illogical  then  
it  should  be  marked  down.  
 
This  isn’t  a  controversial  idea  –  we  don’t  adjudicate  from  the  perspective  that  “I’ll  believe  
anything  I’m  told  unless  the  opposition  rebut  it  effectively”  –  that  would  be  a  crazy  and  
unreasonable  way  to  judge.  If  a  team  said  in  a  debate  that  Australia  had  the  highest  
unemployment  rate  in  the  entire  world,  even  if  their  opposition  was  stupid  enough  to  
believe  them,  you  should  still  penalize  them  because  that  is  obviously  not  true.  Logical  flaws  
are  no  different  –  they  create  an  obvious  flaw  that  renders  an  argument  either  irrelevant  (in  
the  case  of  something  like  a  straw  man)  or  significantly  less  persuasive  (in  the  case  of  an  
assertion).  
 
But  don’t  take  this  too  far.  Adjudicators  are  not  the  ‘logic  police’,  so  don’t  go  crazy  searching  
every  argument  for  a  logical  flaw.  But  if  you  were  properly  taught  the  rules  (as  set  out  in  the  
Australia-­‐Asia  Debating  Guide)  then  you  should  be  evaluating  each  argument  based  on  the  
“cornerstones  of  matter”  –  logic  and  relevance,  and  these  5  categories  are  examples  of  the  
first  part  of  that  equation.  

  44  
 Chapter  11  –  Rights  and  Philosophy  
Debates  about  competing  ‘rights’  claims  come  up  at  nearly  all  competitions.  Indeed  many  
motions,  which  initially  appear  to  be  about  something  else  entirely,  boil  down  to  
philosophical  questions  concerning  rights.    
 
Chapter  7  provides  a  reasonably  comprehensive  analysis  of  rights  and  freedoms  and  the  
relationship  between  the  individual  and  the  state.  This  chapter  will  firstly  explain  various  
conceptualizations  of  human  rights,  then  consider  the  relationship  between  rights  and  
duties  before  finally  discussing  the  notion  of  the  ‘social  contract’.  
 
The  first  thing  to  understand  about  ‘rights’  is  that  there  is  no  consensus  on  what  they  are  or  
how  a  person  (or  animal)  comes  to  have  them.  The  key  question  is:  are  there  any  innate  
human  rights  or  are  all  so-­‐called  ‘rights’  merely  social  constructions?  Here  are  a  few  
different  conceptualizations  of  human  rights:  
 

Natural  rights  
 
There  is  a  long  history  of  philosophical  thought  arguing  that  human  beings  have  innate  
rights  (known  as  natural  rights)  that  are  pre-­‐existing  of  society.  These  claims  generally  rest  
on  two  ideas:  creationism  and  rationality  (or  autonomy).  I  will  not  explain  the  former  in  
depth,  because  most  debates  take  place  in  a  non-­‐religious  paradigm.  Moreover,  even  if  you  
did  want  to  run  this  line  you  would  have  to  prove  (in  five  minutes)  that  a  God  or  higher  
being  created  humankind,  which  is  very  difficult  to  do.  However,  in  short:  
 
God  created  humans  in  his  own  image.  Humans  are  the  property  of  God  because  he  created  
them,  in  the  same  way  a  statue  is  mine  if  I  take  a  rock  (which  previously  belonged  to  nobody)  
and  used  my  labor  craft  a  sculpture  from  it.  Because  God  owns  all  humans,  nobody  has  the  
right  to  harm  another,  because  in  so  doing  they  damage  God’s  property.  Similarly,  you  cannot  
harm  yourself,  because  you  do  not  own  yourself.  Humans  are  but  vessels  for  God’s  work  and  
thus  we  have  rights  in  the  sense  that  we  are  inviolable  –  not  because  of  any  intrinsic  value  but  
because  God  has  a  fundamental  stake  in  us.    
 
This,  however,  will  not  win  you  many  debates.  It  would  be  far  more  beneficial  (whatever  
your  own  religious  stance)  to  use  analysis  that  is  easier  to  prove!    
 

Rights  from  rationality  

 
A  more  secular  line  of  analysis  for  the  existence  of  rights  is  premised  on  the  notion  of  human  
rationality  and  their  subsequent  autonomy.  This  is  a  lot  of  jargon  for  essentially  saying  that  
human  beings  are  capable  of  making  decisions  based  upon  rational  thought  rather  than  
carnal  instincts.  For  example,  a  smoker  might  choose  to  give  up  their  habit  for  the  sake  of  
health  reasons,  even  though  their  body  is  telling  them  that  they  should  continue  to  smoke.  
As  such,  humans  are  the  only  truly  autonomous  beings:  because  all  other  animals  are  slaves,  
(if  not  to  another,  then  to  their  own  desires).    
 
Given  that  humankind  have  the  ability  to  engage  in  rational  thought  and  autonomy,  their  
ability  to  exercise  that  autonomy  should  not  be  restricted  (unless  their  actions  would  
  45  
 has  restricted  their  autonomy  and  this  awareness  is  enough  that  one  should  not  seek  to  
limit  that  autonomy.  
 

Rights  as  Constructions  

 
Many  people  have  come  to  believe  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  natural  right  and  that  in  
reality  all  rights  amount  to  is  a  construction  that  seeks  to  maximize  the  chances  of  more  
people  living  pleasant  lives,  free  from  fear,  pain  or  death.  If  this  is  the  case,  then  the  rights  
we  have  are  fluid,  depending  on  the  social  consensus  we  can  gain  or  lose  rights  at  any  given  
moment.  However,  rights  are  still  important  because  they  are  perhaps  the  ‘highest’  social  
construction,  in  that  the  idea  of  inalienable  rights  is  so  engrained  within  our  psyche  that  we  
are  not  prepared  to  mess  with  them  willy-­‐nilly.  
 
The  Truth  
 
The  reality  is  that  nobody  can  say  for  certain  what  rights  are,  or  what  rights  we  have.  Well,  
people  do  say  for  certain,  but  there  is  no  real  consensus.  However,  for  debates  you  should  
just  pick  one  of  the  latter  two  conceptions  and  stick  to  it,  unless  you  want  to  show  the  judges  
why  you  win  the  debate  regardless  of  which  account  is  true.  
 
For  more  information  on  this  kind  of  stuff,  go  back  to  the  chapter  “Analysis  Machine”.  
 

Additional  Resources/Reading  
 
• “Political  Philosophy:  A  Beginners  Guide  for  Students  and  Politicians”,  Adam  Swift  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights  
• http://www.yourrights.org.uk/  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights  
• http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/  
 

  46  
 Chapter  12  –  Justice  
Questions  about  justice  underlie  most  common  philosophical  dilemmas  you  will  encounter  
in  a  debate  and  as  such  is  perhaps  the  most  useful  topic  to  have  a  thorough  understanding  
of.  Let  us  consider  a  common  thought  experiment:  

The  runaway  coal-­cart  

 
Imagine  you  are  working  on  a  coal  mine,  and  are  just  loading  a  coal-­‐cart  when  it  begins  to  
roll  down  the  track,  completely  out  of  control.  You  see  five  workers  up  ahead,  oblivious  to  
the  approaching  danger.  However,  off  to  the  side  you  see  a  side  track,  where  one  worker  is  
sitting  to  have  a  sandwich.  Do  you  turn  off  the  main  track  to  hit  the  luncher,  or  stay  on  
course  to  hit  the  five  workers?  Most  people  choose  to  turn  off  the  main  track,  claiming  it  is  
surely  better  to  kill  one  person,  rather  than  five.    
 
But  if  this  principle  applies  here,  does  it  apply  in  all  cases?  What  if  that  luncher  were  your  
parent,  spouse,  or  child?  What  if  it  were  a  choice  between  your  child  or  two  workers  you  
didn’t  know?  What  if  you  were  not  in  fact  on  the  coal-­‐cart,  but  observing  from  afar  and  able  
to  avert  the  catastrophe  by  pulling  a  lever  that  plonked  an  incredibly  overweight,  but  
entirely  innocent,  person  in  front  of  the  cart,  certain  to  stop  its  rampage?  How  about  if  you  
paid  that  person  to  jump?  
 
What  if  the  choice  were  between  lying  to  your  five  closest  associates,  be  them  family  
members  or  friends,  in  order  to  persuade  them  to  kidnap  a  terrorist  intent  on  detonating  
their  bomb  vest  in  a  crowded  area.  You  are  well  aware  that  this  will  lead  to  the  death  of  
your  friends,  but  you  also  know  you  will  save  hundreds  of  lives.  Would  this  be  the  right  
thing  to  do?    

These  questions  are  difficult  for  a  reason:  to  demonstrate  the  amount  of  alternate  moral  
ideas  that  we  draw  on  in  contemporary  society.  To  name  but  a  few:  utilitarianism,  
libertarianism,  Kantian  ethics,  Rawlsian  ethics,  and  justice  as  desert.    
 
This  chapter  will  briefly  discuss  all  of  these  ideas,  using  a  fantastic  book  by  Harvard  legend  
Michael  J.  Sandel  called  Justice:  What’s  The  Right  Thing  To  Do?  as  a  structural  and  analytical  
basis  (because  it’s  basically  the  best  book  I’ve  read  on  the  subject,  you  should  definitely  get  
it).  Bear  in  mind  only  the  basics  will  be  covered  in  each  section!  

Utilitarianism  
 
Utilitarianism  is  simply  the  belief  that  the  most  moral  or  just  action  is  that  which  maximizes  
utility.  Utility  is  most  simply  defined  by  Jeremy  Bentham  as  happiness  or  pleasure.  The  
opposite  of  utility  is  thus  pain,  so  utilitarian  calculations  consider  the  balance  of  pleasurable  
and  painful  outcomes  of  a  given  action.  To  quote  Bentham:  “It  is  the  greatest  happiness  of  
the  greatest  number  that  is  the  measurement  of  right  or  wrong”.    
 
As  such,  utilitarians  believe  that  governments  should  seek  policies  that  maximize  the  
greatest  happiness  of  the  greatest  number,  regardless  of  the  consquences  for  those  who  
experience  pain  as  a  result  of  that  policy.  Some  critics  regard  this  as  an  affront  to  human  

  47  
 Liberty.  A  classic  thought  experiment  considers  the  martyring  of  Christians  in  Roman  lion  
pits  and  arenas.  If  enough  Romans  experience  a  hedonistic  pleasure  from  witnessing  the  
rebellious  Christians  being  torn  limb  from  limb,  does  this  override  the  excrutiating  pain  and  
ultimate  death  of  those  individuals?  
 
Utilitarianism  is  also  subdivided  into  two  strands  of  thought:  act  utilitarianism  and  rule  
utilitarianism.  
 

Act  utilitarianism  
 
Act  utilitarianism  holds  that  for  every  individual  act  one  must  make  a  utilitarian  calculation  
to  determine  whether  that  act  is  moral.  For  example,  if  I  am  asked  to  kill  an  innocent  child  in  
order  to  significantly  better  the  lives  of  5000  people,  I  must  measure  the  approximate  
happiness  gained  by  the  majority  and  weigh  it  against  the  pain  experienced  by  the  child  and  
anybody  else  who  may  experience  pain  due  to  the  child’s  untimely  death.    
 
Clearly  there  are  some  limitations  with  this  ideal.  Critics  will  point  out  how  difficult  it  will  be  
for  an  individual  to  accurately  measure  the  utility  of  a  given  action.  They  may  take  into  
account  personal  biases.  They  may  fail  to  account  for  the  fact  that  whilst  they  really  don’t  
care  about  dying  children,  others  might.  Moreover,  some  actions  have  negative  effects  that  
are  basically  unpredictable  –  is  this  still  okay?  
 

Rule  utilitarianism  
 
Rule  utilitarianism  is  slightly  different.  In  this  account  of  utilitarian  thinking  governments  
should  seek  to  enforce  rules  that  generally  maximize  utility.  For  example,  a  government  
might  decide  to  make  murder  illegal,  because  in  most  cases  such  action  causes  more  pain  
than  pleasure,  even  if  in  some  instances  the  opposite  might  be  true.    
 
But  this  too  has  its  limitations.  How  can  the  government  hope  to  predict  what  gives  pain  and  
pleasure  to  such  a  large  group  of  people  as  a  national  population?  Does  rule  utilitarianism  
not  limit  the  utility  of  a  state?  Does  rule  utilitarianism  itself  maximize  utility?  Does  rule  
utilitarianism  diminish  the  ability  of  the  individual  to  calculate  the  utility  of  any  given  
action?    
 

John  Stewart  Mill  –  higher  and  lower  pleasures  

 
Unlike  Bentham,  John  Stewart  Mill  argued  that  it  was  necessary  to  distinguish  the  quality  of  
a  pleasure,  not  merely  count  the  quantity  of  pleasures.  He  posited  that  there  are  basically  
two  types  of  pleasure:  intellectual,  higher  pleasures  and  hedonistic,  lower  pleasures.  He  
claims  that  you  can  hold  these  pleasures  to  be  consistently  higher  and  of  more  value  
because  those  who  appreciate  these  pleasures  wouldn’t  forsake  them  for  any  amount  of  a  
lower  pleasure.  Perhaps  the  simplest  example  might  be  life.  Most  conscientious  judges  
would  not  forsake  life  for  any  amount  of  carnal  pleasure.  Perhaps  more  interestingly  
however,  Mill  believes  these  judgements  can  also  be  made  for  less  obvious  things  than  life  
itself.  He  would  have  argued  that  reading  Shakespeare’s  sonnets  was  a  higher  pleasure  than  
listening  to  the  music  of  Robin  Thicke.    

  48  
 Why  would  he  have  believed  this?  Stuart  Mill  said  that  in  the  same  way  no  intelligent  person  
would  choose  to  be  a  fool,  or  no  fool  would  choose  to  be  a  big,  a  reasonable  judge  who  has  
experienced  the  higher  pleasure  of  the  Shakespearean  sonnet  would  ever  choose  to  read  the  
lyrics  of  Blurred  Lines  over  the  work  of  the  Bard.    

Libertarianism  
 
The  Libertarian  school  generally  holds  that  individuals  have  a  right  to  liberty  and  that  this  
right  is  unalienable  and  the  highest  right.  Consequently,  they  believe  that  we  should  have  a  
state  that  is  limited  to  protecting  liberty,  property  rights  and  contracts.  Justice  from  a  
libertarian  is  far  less  demanding  than  many  of  the  other  philosophical  schools  of  thought.  
Provided  that  a  contract  is  made  freely  then  the  consequences  of  that  contract  are  just,  
regardless  of  the  inequalities  that  arise.  It  is  perfectly  legitimate  for  me  to  hire  a  former  
slave  for  25p  and  hour  provided  that  former  slave  freely  agrees  to  work  for  that  amount,  
because  they  would  be  better  off  than  if  they  did  not  have  that  job.  It  does  not  matter  that  
their  labour  increases  my  profit  by  approximately  75p  an  hour,  meaning  that  for  every  hour  
they  work  for  me  I  benefit  from  their  employment  50p  more  than  them.  
 
Property  rights  for  libertarians  are  also  key.  They  believe  that  property  rights  arise  in  
several  ways:  original  acquisition  (the  first  person  to  claim  something),  creation  (the  person  
who  made  something),  or  free  trade  (be  it  as  a  gift  or  part  of  an  exchange  or  contract).    
 
There  are  some  obvious  critiques  that  can  be  made  of  libertarianism.  How  can  we  know  that  
a  contract  is  truly  free?  Was  the  former  slave  making  a  free  choice  to  accept  my  wage,  or  did  
the  lack  of  any  other  options  mean  that  their  choice  was  a  choice  between  starvation  or  
misery  and  thus  not  a  true  choice  at  all?  Is  there  such  a  thing  as  original  acquisition?  Or  did  
the  West  steal  most  of  its  wealth  during  various  empires  and  invasions,  then  claim  that  they  
owned  the  spoils  of  these  conflicts?  Does  this  lack  of  a  fair  start  mean  that  no  contacts  can  
be  truly  free,  because  one  actor  always  has  the  ability  to  exploit  the  other?    

Kantian  ethics  
 
Kant  argued  that  the  only  thing  that  in  and  of  itself  can  be  good  is  a  good  will.  We  can  
commit  acts  with  good  intentions  that  have  bad  consequences  and  vice  versa.  To  term  it  in  
Sandel’s  way:  “what  matters  is  the  motive”.  The  ultimate  conclusion  of  this  thought  process  
is  that  true  good  will  is  a  duty  to  the  moral  law,  as  to  uphold  the  moral  law  is  to  uphold  what  
is  right  and  good.  
 
Kant  then  goes  on  to  describe  his  categorical  imperative,  which  has  two  key  components.  
The  simpler  of  the  two  is  that  humans  must  only  ever  be  ends  in  themselves,  and  as  such  
must  never  be  used  as  a  means  to  an  end,  because  this  instrumentalises  them  and  strips  
them  of  their  humanity.    
 
The  reason  that  this  is  wrong  is  due  to  the  more  complex  part  of  Kant’s  categorical  
imperative:  that  an  action  (or  maxim)  is  only  ever  moral  if  the  judge  can  in  good  conscience  
universalize  that  maxim  –  i.e.  make  it  true  for  all  people.  The  classic  example  for  this  is  lying.  
When  I  am  considering  whether  or  not  to  lie  in  order  to  better  my  trading  position  in  a  deal  
I  am  making,  I  must  universalize  my  maxim.  What  if  everybody  were  to  lie  whilst  making  

  49  
 these  deals?  The  world  of  business  would  collapse  and  communication  would  be  severely  
damaged  due  to  the  fact  that  nobody  could  trust  one  another.  As  such,  you  must  conclude  
that  lying  goes  against  the  categorical  imperative  and  is  thus  immoral,  meaning  in  order  to  
act  justly  you  must  avoid  telling  lies.    

Rawlsianism  
 
Rawls  had  lots  of  cool  ideas,  but  there’s  really  one  main  one  he’s  remembered  for:  the  veil  of  
ignorance.  Rawls  asks  us  to  consider  what  sort  of  a  justice  system  a  group  of  people  would  
make  in  a  hypothetical  situation  in  which  they  are  removed  from  any  knowledge  of  their  
identity  or  place  in  society.  They  understand  economics  and  philosophy  and  how  societies  
work,  they  just  don’t  know  where  they  fit  in  any  given  society.  If  a  group  of  these  people  got  
together  to  create  a  constitution  behind  this  veil  of  ignorance,  what  would  they  do?  
 
Rawls  believes  that  they  will  not  propose  any  actions  that  would  be  unjust  on  a  given  
minority,  because  as  the  deliberators  do  not  know  their  identity  it  would  be  irrational  for  
them  to  risk  their  being  a  member  of  that  minority.  For  example,  it  would  not  be  suggested  
that  women  shouldn’t  have  the  vote,  because  there  is  a  reasonable  chance  that  they  are  
themselves  a  woman.    
 
He  also  concluded  that  the  judges  would  agree  to  basic  liberties  and  rights  for  all  citizens,  
and  general  equality  under  the  law.  This  includes  freedom  of  conscience,  expression  and  
democratic  rights,  as  well  as  equal  opportunities  and  the  ‘difference  principle’.  The  
difference  principle  holds  that  there  should  be  no  injustices  in  society,  unless  those  
injustices  work  to  benefit  the  most  disadvantaged  in  society  in  order  to  equalize  an  
otherwise  unequal  society.  For  example,  universities  may  offer  lower  entrance  
requirements  to  students  who  have  been  educated  in  schools  or  areas  that  are  particularly  
poor  or  difficult  to  grow  up  in,  in  order  to  correct  for  an  imbalance  of  opportunity,  wherein  
students  born  in  wealthy  areas  have  access  to  a  better  education,  leading  to  university  
places  and  ultimately  better  jobs.    

Justice  as  Desert  

 
Perhaps  the  most  intuitive  form  of  justice  is  the  idea  that  we  should  get  what  we  deserve.  A  
student  who  has  achieved  consistently  high  grades  throughout  their  life  deserves  to  get  a  
place  in  a  top  law  school  and  eventually  become  a  partner  in  a  successful  law  firm.  But  do  
they?  Perhaps  they  received  an  elite  education  because  their  parents  were  wealthy  enough  
to  send  them  to  a  school  with  incredibly  high  fees.  Perhaps  they  also  had  tutors  in  subjects  
they  struggled  with.  But  maybe  they  tried  really  hard  and  thus  deserve  it  regardless  on  their  
own  merit?  Is  their  work  ethic  enough  to  make  them  deserve  higher  pay  than  somebody  
else?  Is  their  work  ethic  even  their  own  doing,  or  is  their  work  ethic  due  to  arbitrary  factors  
as  well,  because  their  parents  drilled  it  in  to  them  from  a  young  age,  or  their  high-­‐paying  
school,  or  their  middle-­‐class  social  circle?  Can  anybody  really  be  said  to  deserve  anything,  if  
life  has  randomly  given  us  so  many  advantages  that  we  do  not  even  realize  we  have?  

  50  
 Additional  resources/reading:  
 
• Michael  Sandel  (2010)  Justice:  What’s  the  Right  Thing  to  Do?  
• http://www.justiceharvard.org/  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhm55mIdSuk&list=PLBB9F9A757FB8CF57  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice  
• http://www.iep.utm.edu/polphil/  
 

Utilitarianism  
 
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-­‐history/  
• http://www.phil.cmu.edu/cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.html  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K60AdYPVNWk  
 

Libertarianism  
 
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXUa1aXcIhw  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vScOpGjGB7c  
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ8fYA87E7U  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/  
 

Kantianism  
 
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw  
• http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm  
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-­‐moral/  
 

Rawlsianism  
 
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice  
• http://mattbruenig.com/2012/05/18/a-­‐basic-­‐primer-­‐on-­‐rawlsian-­‐and-­‐egalitarian-­‐
distributive-­‐justice/  
• http://oyc.yale.edu/political-­‐science/plsc-­‐118/lecture-­‐16  
 
 
 

  51  
 Chapter  13  –  Political  Economy  
There  are  two  key  schools  of  thought  that  will  be  important  in  the  economics  debates  you  
encounter:  liberalism  (often  called  neoliberalism)  and  Keynesianism.  All  the  ideas  are  
reasonably  simple  and  have  their  merits  and  depending  on  the  debate  and  the  side  you  are  
on  it  is  often  useful  to  adopt  one  of  these  approaches  and  show  why  it  is  correct  and  why  
this  means  you  win  the  debate.  An  alternate  approach  can  be  to  point  out  that  there  are  two  
key  ways  of  analyzing  economics,  and  that  under  both  models  you  win  the  debate  for  
reasons  x,  y,  and  z.  Having  a  decent  understanding  of  these  approaches  will  also  make  
rebuttal  much  easier,  as  you  will  able  to  spot  theoretical  inconsistencies  in  your  opponents’  
case.  
 
Throughout  this  chapter  I  will  make  use  of  a  fictional  case  study,  which  we  will  
subsequently  analyze  from  both  perspectives.  The  case  study  is  as  follows:  

The  banks  have  collapsed!  The  government  has  run  out  of  cash  and  we  are  spiraling  into  a  
recession.  What  do  we  do???    

Liberalism/neoliberalism  
 
Liberalism  arguably  began  with  two  big  cheeses:  Adam  Smith  and  David  Ricardo.  Smith  
brought  the  idea  of  the  ‘invisible  hand’  to  the  table,  and  Ricardo  the  theory  of  comparative  
advantage.  These  are  perhaps  the  most  important  ideas  you  need  to  know  when  discussing  
economics,  because  they  are  applicable  to  nearly  every  debate.    
 
The  ‘invisible  hand’  is  simply  the  idea  that  the  market  is  self-­‐regulating,  such  that  it  is  at  its  
most  efficient  when  it  is  without  interference  by  outside  agents,  such  as  governments.  This  
is  because  actors  within  the  market  will  seek  to  maximize  their  own  profits,  or  utility,  and  in  
so  doing  the  market  will  evolve  to  provide  for  that  which  society  desires.  If  lots  of  people  
want  Oreo  cookies,  then  Oreo  can  employ  more  workers  and  sell  more  cookies,  until  the  
supply  meets  the  demand.  Similarly,  if  consumers  decide  that  they  no  longer  enjoy  Monster  
Munch  crisps,  the  demand  will  decrease  and  the  supply  will  follow  suit,  until  eventually  the  
company  may  cease  to  exist.  This  is  the  natural  state  of  the  market,  Smith  argues.  It  is  fluid  
and  at  its  most  efficient  when  it  is  free  from  any  external  fetters.  This  of  course  affects  
prices:  if  supply  is  greater  than  demand  then  products  lose  value,  but  the  opposite  is  true,  
the  value  of  the  product  increases.    
 
This  sort  of  free  market  is  also  known  as  a  laissez-­faire  market  (pronounced  <Lay-­‐say-­‐fair>).    
 
The  laissez-­‐faire  market  also  involves  wages:  if  a  worker  is  willing  to  work  for  a  wage  that  is  
the  wage  they  will  receive.  A  truly  free  market  would  have  no  minimum  wage  and  a  
completely  fluid  labour  market,  in  order  that  companies  could  maximize  their  efficiency  and  
thus  their  profits.    
 
David  Ricardo  later  published  his  work  on  comparative  advantage.  This  theory  makes  use  
of  mathematical  reasoning  to  show  that  two  states  can  both  profit  from  specializing  in  the  
products  they  are  most  efficient  at  producing  and  then  trading  these  products.    

  52  
 The  best  way  to  explain  comparative  advantage  is  through  an  example,  so  here’s  one  for  
you:  
 
There  are  two  countries,  Debateland  and  the  United  States  of  Oration.  
 
Each  country  has  100  worker  units  (each  being  worth  100,000  workers).  
 
Debateland  is  a  relatively  undeveloped  state,  so  isn’t  particularly  efficient.  It  takes  4  worker  
units  to  produce  a  casefile,  and  1  worker  unit  to  produce  a  gavel.  If  the  workers  of  
Debateland  are  allocated  half  and  half  to  the  manufacturing  of  each  product,  they  will  
produce  12.5  casefile  and  50  gavels.    
 
The  USO,  on  the  other  hand,  has  pretty  epic  technology  and  a  higher  level  of  education.  Tony  
Stark  heads  up  their  Ministry  for  Production.  Because  of  this,  they  only  require  2  worker  
units  to  create  either  a  casefile  or  a  gavel.  Thus,  allocated  evenly,  the  workforce  will  produce  
25  casefile  and  25  gavels.  
  Gavels   Casefiles  
Debateland   50   12.5  
USO   25   25  
Total   75   37.5  
 
What  if  each  country  specialized,  however?    

  Gavels   Casefiles  
Debateland   100   0  
USO   0   50  
Total   100   50  
 
If  the  states  now  trade,  they  both  stand  to  achieve  gains  compared  to  if  they  distributed  
their  workforce  evenly.  Prior  to  specialization,  the  USO  could  produce  gavels  at  a  cost  of  one  
casefile  per  gavel.  Now,  they  could  offer  to  trade  one  casefile  for  three  gavels.  
 
This  may  seem  like  a  bad  deal  for  Debateland.  But  is  it?  Prior  to  specialization  it  cost  them  4  
gavels  for  every  casefile.  So  they  stand  to  gain  from  the  offer  made  by  the  USO.  Thus,  they  
accept  the  deal.  They  trade  45  gavels  for  15  casebooks.  

  Gavels   Casefiles  
Debateland   55   15  
USO   45   35  
Total   100   50  
 
As  you  can  see,  both  states  are  better  off  than  they  were  prior  to  specialization  and  trade  
and  neither  side  loses  out.  In  real  terms,  both  states  are  better  off.  
 
But  are  they?  The  USO  could  have  traded  at  a  rate  of  2:1  rather  than  3:1  (gavels:casefiles).  But  
why  didn’t  they?  It  was  probably  because  they  stood  to  lose  less  from  not  trading,  as  they  were  
wealthier.  Or  they  had  persuasive  power  over  Debateland  of  other  kinds,  perhaps  they  give  aid  
to  Debateland,  or  have  a  badass  army  of  Avengers  to  intimidate  the  weaker  state  into  
submission.    
 

  53  
 As  a  result  of  the  specialization  and  trade,  the  USO  have  seen  a  net  increase  of  80%  in  gavels  
and  40%  in  casefiles.  Debateland,  on  the  other  hand,  have  seen  a  net  increase  of  10%  in  gavels  
and  20%  in  casefiles.  So  the  USO  has  seen  net  growth  far  higher  than  Debateland,  growth  
which  will  only  increase  exponentially  as  their  comparative  and  real  advantages  grow  too.  
This  is  how  the  gap  between  rich  and  poor  widens,  even  if  it  seems  to  benefit  the  poor  at  first  
glance.  Why  does  this  matter?  Because  the  richer  a  state  is  compared  to  another,  the  easier  it  is  
for  the  richer  state  to  exploit  the  poorer  state.    
 

Conclusion  
 
These  two  basic  ideas  form  the  basis  of  classical  and  neoliberal  economics  and  are  really  
useful  theories  to  understand  when  engaging  in  economics  debates.  So  to  answer  the  
question  of  what  our  government  should  do  in  a  recession,  we  have  two  pieces  of  analysis  to  
bring  forward.  Firstly,  we  should  remove  market  restrictions  so  that  the  market  can  adjust  
itself  to  its  most  efficient  model,  employing  as  many  people  as  possible,  matching  supply  to  
demand,  and  stabilizing  prices.  Secondly,  as  a  state  we  should  specialize  in  industries  that  
we  have  a  comparative  advantage  in.  However,  it  is  worth  considering  how  the  government  
could  influence  this  specialization,  because  if  it  is  enforced  politically  that  could  potentially  
conflict  with  attempts  to  liberalize  the  market.    

Keynesianism  
 
Everybody  loved  liberalism  at  the  beginning  of  the  20th  century.  Wall  Street  was  booming,  
Mr.  Gatsby  was  hosting  some  insane  parties  and  jazz  music  was  tearing  up  the  post-­‐war  
boredom.  But  then  the  Wall  St.  Crash  happened.  It  turned  out  that  maybe,  just  maybe,  
leaving  markets  to  do  their  thing  wasn’t  in  all  circumstances  the  best  solution.  But  nobody  
had  a  credible  alternative  until  1936,  when  John  Maynard  Keynes  published  his  seminal  
work  A  General  Theory  of  Employment,  Interest  and  Money.    
 
So  what  is  Keynesianism?  In  short  it’s  a  simple  thesis  that  sometimes,  during  times  of  
economic  uncertainty,  private  decisions  about  capital,  investment  or  other  financial  issues  
can  be  simultaneously  rational  on  an  individual  level  and  dangerous  on  a  macroeconomic  
level  (macroeconomic  is  a  long,  unappealing  word  that  refers  to  general  economic  trends  
that  occur  on  a  large  scale,  usually  in  a  state).  For  example,  if  there’s  a  recession  and  
unemployment  is  on  the  rise,  it  might  make  sense  for  me  to  save  as  much  money  as  I  can,  in  
case  I  become  unemployed  or  my  money  becomes  more  valuable.  However,  if  everybody  
makes  this  rational  choice  then  nobody  is  investing,  businesses  fail  and  the  recession  only  
speeds  up.  Therefore  Keynes  argued  that  in  some  instances  it  is  necessary  for  the  state  to  
intervene  in  order  to  artificially  stabilize  the  economy.  
 
Keynes  argued  that  two  actions  should  be  taken  by  governments  in  order  to  rebalance  an  
unstable  economy:  
 
1) A  reduction  in  interest  rates  at  the  central  bank  (monetary  policy)  
2) Government  investment  in  infrastructure  (fiscal  policy)  
 
The  first  of  these  makes  it  cheaper  for  commercial  banks  to  receive  loans  from  the  central  
bank  and  encourages  them  to  pass  on  these  benefits  to  their  customers.  It  also  sends  the  
signal  that  lowering  interest  rates  is  a  good  thing  for  banks  to  do.    

  54  
 The  second  has  three  main  benefits.  Firstly  it  gets  people  back  into  work,  secondly  these  
people  then  have  money  to  invest  in  the  economy,  as  do  the  companies  who  have  been  
contracted  to  carry  out  the  infrastructure  improvements  and  thus  the  economy  is  
stimulated  by  increased  spending  (and  subsequently  more  people  are  employed  by  other  
companies  etc.),  and  thirdly  the  country  is  left  with  a  shiny  new  bit  of  infrastructure.  
 
Finally,  Keynes  rebutted  the  idea  that  unemployment  was  purely  the  result  of  incapacity  or  
slothfulness.  He  pointed  out  that  unemployment  was  usually  because  of  a  lack  of  
opportunity  for  those  who  could  not  get  work,  perhaps  because  of  geographical  location  or  a  
lack  of  education.  He  also  argued  that  because  there  was  no  guarantee  that  supply  would  be  
met  with  demand,  people  were  naturally  unemployed  as  their  labour  was  worth  nothing.  
 

Conclusion  
 
That,  in  a  nutshell,  is  Keynesianism.  So  in  our  case  study,  what  should  we  do?  Well  firstly  we  
know  that  we  should  instruct  the  Bank  of  England  to  lower  their  interest  rates.  Secondly,  we  
should  probably  invest  in  high  speed  internet,  or  high  speed  rail  services.  We  hire  
contractors,  they  hire  workers  (builders,  technicians,  etc.),  they  buy  raw  materials  and  other  
products,  which  funds  other  companies  to  employ  more  staff,  on  and  on  until  the  economy  is  
nicely  stimulated  again!  At  which  point,  the  government  can  choose  to  retain  control  of  the  
infrastructure  or  choose  to  sell  it  on  in  order  to  recoup  some  (or  all)  of  the  money  they  
spent  on  creating  it.  

Additional  Resources/Reading  
 
• Robert  Heilbroner  (1991)  The  Worldly  Philosophers:  The  Lives,  Times  and  Ideas  of  
the  Great  Economic  Thinkers,  Sixth  Edition,  London:  Penguin.  
• William  Tabb  (1999)  Reconstructing  Political  Economy:  The  Great  Divide  in  
Economic  Thought,  London:  Routledge.  
• Ronen  Palan  and  Jason  Abbott  (1999)  State  Strategies  in  the  Global  Political  
Economy.  London:  Pinter  
• http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Economic_liberalism.ht
ml  
• http://bev.berkeley.edu/ipe/outlines%202011/2%20Lecture%20Econ%20Liberali
sm%202011.pdf  
• http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html  
• http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-­‐05-­‐29/selling-­‐keynesian-­‐economics-­‐to-­‐
joe-­‐the-­‐plumber.html  

  55  
 Chapter  14  –  International  Relations  

Theories  of  the  International  System  

 
In  this  section  I  will  firstly  outline  the  key  theoretical  approaches  to  International  Relations  
(henceforth  shortened  to  IR):  realism,  liberalism,  Marxism,  social  constructivism  and  the  
nebulously  titled  ‘critical  theories’.  Following  this,  I  will  examine  several  ideas  or  ‘first  
principles’  that  are  particularly  useful  in  IR  debates.  
 

Sovereignty  
 
Perhaps  the  most  powerful  and  generally  accepted  norm  of  international  relations,  
sovereignty  is  the  belief  that  all  states  have  given  borders,  and  what  goes  on  within  those  
borders  is  the  business  of  that  state  and  nobody  else  is  legitimate  in  seeking  to  control  what  
occurs  within  that  state.  Sovereignty  is  akin  to  autonomy  and  a  right  to  self-­‐governance.  It  
was  established  in  the  Treaty  of  Westphalia,  1648.  
 

Realism  
 
Key  ideas  
• States  are  the  main  actors  in  IR  
• States  are  rational  actors  
• States  are  driven  by  competitive  state  interest,  because  of:  
• Hobbes’  state  of  nature:  people  are  scared  in  anarchy,  thus  selfish/aggressive  
• This  is  applied  to  IR  –  no  world  government,  thus  anarchy  between  states  
• Security  dilemma:  states  want  to  increase  their  own  power  to  remain  secure,  but  this  
reduces  the  relative  power  of  another  state.  This  state  then  rationally  pursues  
policies  to  increase  their  own  power,  leading  to  a  cyclical  race  to  the  top.  
• States  do  not  cooperate  because:  
o Cooperation  requires  to  concession  of  some  autonomy  
o Do  not  fear  the  state  of  nature  as  much  as  individuals  
 
Realism  is  perhaps  the  simplest,  or  the  most  intuitive,  of  the  mainstream  IR  theories.  This  is  
in  part  because  it  proclaims  to  determine  the  ‘truth’  of  the  international  system  using  
‘scientific’  methods,  such  as  logical  analysis  based  on  empirical  data.  
 
Realism  is  founded  in  the  philosophy  of  Thomas  Hobbes,  who  talks  about  the  state  of  
nature  being  “nasty,  brutish  and  short”,  due  to  the  anarchy  of  a  pre-­‐societal  world.  People  
were  constantly  scared  of  threat  and  thus  acted  aggressively  towards  others  and  sought  to  
amass  the  greatest  strength  in  order  to  remain  secure:  “life  is  constantly  at  risk…people  are  
living  in  constant  fear  of  each  other”  (Jackson  and  Sorenson,  2007:  65).  

“When  diplomacy  ends,  War  begins…”  

          Adolf  Hitler  

  56  
 Realist  IR  theorists  translate  this  into  the  international  arena.  It  is  clear  that  there  is  no  
world  government  –  the  closest  to  this,  the  UN  is  largely  ineffective  and  is  made  up  of  
representatives  from  other  states,  with  little  power  to  coerce  member  states  to  submit  to  its  
authority.    
 
As  such,  states  exist  in  international  anarchy.  Because  of  this,  they  cannot  trust  any  other  
states;  they  seek  only  to  ensure  their  own  security  by  amassing  as  much  power  as  necessary  
to  discourage  other  states  from  attacking.  This  does  not  mean  that  states  will  seek  to  gain  
power  at  all  costs,  because  the  security  dilemma  means  that  for  every  increase  in  your  own  
security,  you  necessarily  decrease  the  security  of  other  states.  Those  states  will  realise  this  
and  in  their  insecurity  will  seek  to  increase  their  own  power,  which  will  lessen  yours.  As  
such,  most  realists  assume  that  states  seek  a  certain  level  of  power  and  are  then  content,  
assuming  other  states  do  not  continue  to  increase  theirs.  Remember:  all  states  really  care  
about  is  survival.    
 
States  also  do  not  cooperate  in  international  relations  to  increase  their  security  because  
they  do  not  fear  the  international  state  of  nature  as  much  as  the  individual  and  because  
cooperation  requires  the  concession  of  certain  freedoms  in  return  for  security,  which  whilst  
individuals  are  prepared  to  do,  states  are  not.  
 
The  second  key  premise  of  realist  IR  thinking  is  that  states  are  inherently  driven  by  
competitive  self-­interest.  Moreover,  they  are  the  most  important  actors  in  international  
relations,  and  finally  they  are  necessarily  rational  actors.  The  reason  states  act  in  the  way  
they  do  is  that  they  comprise  of  thousands  of  individuals.  As  Hobbes  posited,  human  nature  
is  egocentric  and  competitive  and  therefore  so  are  states.    
 

Liberalism  
 
Key  ideas:  
• Peace  is  the  natural  state  of  international  relations  
• National  interests  are  made  secure  by  more  than  just  military  strength  
• Democracy  is  vital  for  human  development  
• States  are  primary  actors  
• State  interdependence  is  key  to  IR  
• Positive  view  of  human  nature,  founded  in  the  capability  to  reason  
• Thus  even  under  anarchy,  states  (made  up  of  humans)  have  the  capacity  to  reason  
that  cooperation  is  mutually  beneficial  and  worth  sacrificing  some  sovereignty  for  
• ‘Absolute  gains’  matter  more  than  ‘comparative  gains’  
 
In  short,  cooperation  is  the  natural  state  of  international  relations.  Humans  cooperate  
because  they  are  rational  actors  and  as  such  recognise  that  this  leads  to  the  best  mutual  
situation.  As  such,  international  organisations  and  institutions  are  key  actors  in  the  
international  arena.  
 
Liberals  are  generally  in  favour  of  spreading  free  trade  and  democracy,  because  free  trade  
increases  interdependence  and  cooperation,  which  necessarily  leads  to  fewer  wars.  
Democracy  provides  the  best  political  framework  for  ensuring  that  states  act  rationally  and  
responsibly.  
 
Liberalist  thinking  has  historically  been  behind  the  international  organisations  we  know  

  57  
 today,  from  Wilson’s  ‘Fourteen  Points’  which  led  to  the  founding  of  the  League  of  Nations,  
through  its  replacement  the  United  Nations,  to  the  more  recent  European  Union.    
 

Social  Constructivism  
 
Key  ideas:  
• IR  dictated  by  norms  and  institutions  
• These  are  socially  constructed  
• Different  states  may  have  different  understandings  of  things,  because  they  have  been  
constructed  differently  
• The  world  isn’t  necessarily  in  anarchy,  or  at  least,  “anarchy  is  what  states  make  of  it”  
(Wendt)  
 
Constructivism  in  IR  is  really  useful  for  debates,  as  it  helps  to  explain  why  states  might  not  
all  act  according  to  some  ‘universal  laws’  that  are  often  utilised  by  other  teams.  A  good  
understanding  of  its  basic  tenets  will  be  really  beneficial  for  your  case  construction.    
 
Two  main  things  drive  international  relations  for  constructivists:  norms  and  institutions.  
Norms  are  simply  shared  understandings  that  have  built  up  over  the  years  through  
international  interactions.  Institutions  are  more  deeply  ingrained  norms  that  are  normally  
considered  necessary  for  peaceful  international  cooperation.  For  example,  are  human  rights  
inherent  or  are  they  constructed?  
 

Marxism  
 
As  always,  Marxism  (or  more  accurately,  neo-­‐Marxism)  finds  itself  at  the  centre  of  heated  
debate.  Within  IR,  Marxism  has  three  key  strands:  traditional  Marxist  IR,  World-­‐Systems  
Analysis,  and  Neo-­‐Gramscianism  (this  will  not  be  discussed  below,  however  it  is  a  very  
useful  theory  that  is  worth  looking  up,  if  only  on  Wikipedia).    
 

Traditional  Marxist  IR  

 
• History  is  characterised  by  historical  materialism,  the  progression  of  one  oppressive  
class  system  to  another,  capitalism  being  the  penultimate  stage  of  progression.  
• This  oppression  is  rooted  in  class  relations,  or  more  accurately  in  one’s  relation  to  
the  means  of  production.  If  you  have  to  sell  your  labour  to  survive,  you  are  the  
exploited  class.  
• As  the  state  is  divided  along  class  lines,  so  is  the  world.  The  international  proletariat  
are  oppressed  by  the  international  bourgeoisie,  a  situation  worsened  by  increased  
globalisation.    
• Different  scholars  believe  that  the  international  revolution  will  happen  in  different  
ways.  Some  say  they  will  happen  simultaneously,  others  claim  a  domino  effect  will  
occur,  still  others  say  it  will  be  a  slow,  gradual  change.  If  you  plan  to  use  traditional  
Marxist  theory  in  a  debate,  make  sure  you  are  clear  about  which  of  these  you  will  run  
with.  

  58  
 World-­‐Systems  Analysis  
 
• The  world  is  divided  into  two  primary  groups:  the  Core  and  the  Periphery.  The  Core  
focuses  on  high-­‐skilled  sectors  whereas  the  Periphery  focuses  on  labour-­‐based  
production,  leading  to  a  structure  of  oppression  between  states,  using  the  same  
economics  as  traditional  Marxism.    
• This  system  is  dynamic:  states  can  move  between  the  Periphery  and  the  Core,  known  
as  the  Semi-­‐Periphery.  Examples  of  such  states  might  be  China,  or  South  Africa.    
• The  bourgeoisie  and  proletariat  of  the  Core  states  are  entirely  different  to  the  same  
classes  in  Periphery  states,  thus  there  will  never  be  international  proletariat  
cooperation  in  the  way  suggested  by  traditional  Marxist  scholars.    
• The  system  is  inherently  weighted  in  favour  of  the  Core  states,  which  continue  to  
amass  ever  more  power  and  influence  over  the  Periphery,  allowing  them  to  increase  
exploitation.  
• This  can  lead  to  hegemony,  wherein  one  state  has  dominance  in  the  international  
arena.  

Theories  of  Peace  

 

Democratic  Peace  Theory  

 
• War  is  less  likely  between  democratic  states  because:  
o In  democracies,  leaders  are  held  to  account  for  the  outcomes  of  conflict  by  
their  electorate.  Therefore  they  are  less  willing  to  send  soldiers  to  die,  or  to  
commit  atrocities  and  are  instead  more  likely  to  engage  in  cooperative  
diplomacy.  
o Democracies  are  usually  wealthy  and  war  is  generally  damaging  to  their  
economies.  
o Democracies  are  unlikely  to  view  other  democracies  in  the  same  way  they  
view  non-­‐democracies,  because  they  share  norms  and  understandings.  
o Democracies  are  generally  more  transparent  and  predictable  than  other  state  
forms,  thus  the  prisoners  dilemma  is  less  pernicious.  
o Democracies  are  more  rational  actors  than  non-­‐democracies.  
• Therefore  we  should  encourage  more  states  to  adopt  democratic  modes  of  
governance.  
 

Neo-­‐liberal  Peace  Thesis  

 
• Conflicts  tend  to  damage  economies.  
• Wealthy  states  with  large  economies  have  many  people  within  them  who  benefit  
from  that  economy.  
• Therefore  actors  within  the  state  are  unwilling  to  go  to  war.  
• International  interdependence  means  that  states  are  less  willing  to  engage  in  conflict  
with  one  another,  because  they  rely  on  each  other  for  trade.  
• Common  markets  provide  incentives  for  peaceful  diplomacy,  making  cooperation  
more  likely  to  succeed.    
 

  59  
 Marxist  Peace  Thesis  
 
• Genuine  peace  will  never  exist  whilst  class  oppression  remains.  
• Peace  may  be  achieved  between  states  but  capitalist  exploitation  is  where  the  real  
international  struggle  lies.  
• Until  the  system  of  alienation  and  exploitation  is  ended,  states  will  remain  in  conflict.    
 

Golden  Arches  Peace  Theory  

 
• When  a  country  can  successfully  support  a  McDonalds  franchise,  this  indicates  that  it  
has  a  strong  middle  class.    
• This  middle  class  stands  to  lose  its  wealth  and  power  in  conflict,  thus  is  disinclined  to  
go  to  war.  
 
      This  is  generally  regarded  as  a  ridiculous  theory,  because  nearly  every  country  in  the  
world  has  a  McDonalds  franchise.    
 

Realist  Peace    
 
• Peace  occurs  when  it  is  in  the  interests  of  all  parties,  or  when  enough  parties  have  
significant  enough  power  over  those  who  stand  to  gain  from  war  that  they  can  coerce  
them  to  remain  peaceful.  
• Peace  is  always  practical  and  it  is  always  pragmatic.  It  is  also  never  permanent.    

Summary  
 
Why  have  I  written  all  of  this  theoretical  stuff  up  for  you?  Surely  all  you  need  to  know  is  
practical  information  about  things  in  debates,  right?  Wrong.  A  decent  understanding  of  the  
principles  and  theories  that  underline  how  we  think  about  international  relations  is  
invaluable  when  considering  IR  debates,  because  it  allows  you  the  knowledge  necessary  to  
make  succinct  but  persuasive  analysis  on  IR  first  principles.  Remember,  ideas  are  more  
important  than  examples!  Having  said  this,  read  on  for  some  practical  info  on  IR  debates…  

Practical  Stuff  for  IR  debates    

Based  on  a  presentation  by  Andrew  Green  
 

Types  of  IR  motions:  

 
• Direct  military  intervention  (such  as  the  enforcement  of  a  no-­‐fly  zone,  see  Libya,  or  
troops  ‘on  the  ground’  as  with  France  in  Mali).  
• Support/train  group  X  (for  example,  providing  arms,  logistical  support  or  training  to  
the  Syrian  rebels).  
• Assassination  (of  Kim  Jong-­‐Un  in  North  Korea,  say)  
• Nuclear  weapons  (pre-­‐emptive  strike  on  Iran’s  nuclear  facilities?  Japanese  
development  of  a  nuclear  programme?)    
• Civil  conflicts  (Israel-­‐Palestine,  Syria,  Cashmere,  etc.)  

  60  
 Who  is  ‘This  House’?  
 
• Is  it  stated  in  the  motion?  If  so,  you  have  to  go  with  that.    
• If  not:  what  is  the  context?  Which  states  are  involved?  Consider  the  potential  
reactions  of  states  such  as  China  or  Russia  to  this  motion.  
• Generally:    
o NATO  
o United  Nations  
o United  States  
 

Military  Intervention  
 
Note:  never  argue  that  war  is  good.  War  is  always  bad.    
 
Therefore  you  have  to  prove  why  the  war  is  both  necessary  and  legitimate:  
 
What  reasons  do  you  have  for  doing  this?  For  example,  is  there  an  ongoing  conflict  (e.g.  in  
Syria,  Mali),  have  there  been  human  rights  abuses  (e.g.  in  Iraq,  North  Korea)  or  is  there  a  
threat  of  Weapons  of  Mass  Destruction  (e.g.  Iraq,  Iran)?    
 
How  would  you  do  it?  Would  you  initiate  a  full-­‐on  invasion  of  the  state  in  question?  Would  
you  enforce  a  No-­‐Fly  Zone?  Or  would  you  engage  in  targeted  strikes  on  key  infrastructure  
and  military  bases?  These  are  all  things  that  you  must  make  clear,  and  explain  why  they  are  
the  right  course  of  action.  
 
What  do  prop  need  to  prove?  
 
1. That  the  status  quo  is  worse  than  war.  There  are  three  useful  ways  you  can  argue  
this:  firstly,  by  showing  that  there  is  no  end  in  sight  to  the  problems  under  the  status  
quo,  and  when  balancing  the  harms  of  intervention  over  inaction  your  proposition  is  
the  least  harmful.  Secondly,  you  could  argue  that  the  status  quo  is  likely  to  worsen  if  
there  is  no  intervention.  Finally,  you  could  argue  that  if  you  do  not  act  then  
somebody  else  is  likely  to,  and  explain  why  this  would  be  worse.  
 
2. That  you’ll  win  the  conflict.  If  you  fail  to  win  the  conflict  then  none  of  the  goals  you  
set  out  to  achieve  will  be  possible  and  you  will  amass  all  of  the  harms  outlined  by  the  
opposition  without  any  of  the  benefits  you  are  looking  to  gain.  Thus  it  is  vital  that  you  
win  the  clash  on  whether  your  proposition  will  be  effective.  
 
3. That  there  is  no  diplomatic  solution  available.  This  is  because  peaceful  diplomacy  is  
always  the  better  option,  as  thousands  of  people  don’t  die,  lands  aren’t  destroyed  and  
nations  aren’t  split.  Why  might  it  be  impossible?  Consider  social  constructivist  
analysis,  historical  impasses  or  cultural  differences.  
 

  61  
 Things  to  consider:  
 
1. What  might  be  the  immediate  response  to  an  intervention?  Will  local  people  view  it  
as  Western  Imperialism,  leading  them  to  support  their  government?  Could  this  lead  
to  insurgencies  in  the  future?  How  will  this  intervention  be  received  by  other  
international  powers  such  as  Russia  and  China?  Could  it  lead  to  a  second  Cold  War  
between  China  and  the  West?  Or  will  it  push  countries  away  from  the  West  and  
towards  China?  
 
2. What  will  happen  in  the  aftermath  of  an  intervention?  Will  insurgencies  lead  to  a  
long-­‐term  military  commitment?  Will  you  hand  peacekeeping  responsibilities  back  to  
local  forces?  Will  you  be  involved  in  the  rebuilding  of  the  state?  
 

Assassination  
 
1. When  would  you  do  this?  
a. Dictator  repressing  his  population  (Syria,  Libya  etc.)  
b. Dangerous  rebel  leader  (Koni,  Ntaganda  etc.)  
c. Scientists  working  on  nuclear/chemical  weapons  
 
2. Who  do  you  kill?  
a. Just  the  Dictator/Lead  Scientist?  
b. The  Dictator/Lead  Scientist  and  their  closest  advisors  (cabinet,  key  generals,  
other  key  scientists  etc.)  
  General  rule  of  thumb,  if  they  are  unlikely  to  be  in  the  same  room  at  any  
point  its  probably  excessive/unfeasible  
 
3. What  is  your  aim?  
a. Overthrow  the  regime?  
b. Remove  one  key  figure  and  hope  his  replacement  is  better?  
c. Send  a  message  and  intimidate  the  successor?  
 
4. Who  takes  over?  
a. Other  key  figure  within  regime?  
b. Military  figure?  
c. Dominant  rebel  group?  
 
5. What  do  prop  need  to  prove?  
a. That  the  replacement  is  going  to  be  better  
b. That  the  country  won’t  just  fall  into  chaos  
c. That  this  is  a  moral/legitimate  actions  and  that  the  actor  doesn’t  deserve  a  
trial  

  62  
 Support/Train  Group  X  
 
1. When  would  you  do  this?  
a. When  an  existing  group  exists  which  supports  your  interests  but  it  isn’t  good  
enough  to  defeat  its  opponents  (e.g.  Free  Syrian  Army)  
 
2. What  do  you  need  to  prove?  
a. The  weapons  and  training  are  going  to  the  right  place  (e.g.  not  to  Mujahedeen,    
Al-­‐Quaeda  in  Syria).  
b. This  is  going  to  be  effective  (because  otherwise  you  are  escalating  the  conflict  
for  no  reason)  
c. There  is  no  diplomatic  solution  
 
3. Things  to  Consider  
a. Who  are  you  arming?  
b. Are  the  rebels  a  cohesive  group  or  do  they  have  undesirable  elements?  
c. Is  the  group  nice  (for  example,  African  militaries  tend  to  have  bad  
humanitarian  records)?  
d. What  happens  to  the  weapons  after?  
e. What  are  the  cultural  effects  of  being  trained  by  the  West?  
i. Do  you  know  how  they  fight?  
ii. Can  you  be  certain  your  soldiers  will  be  culturally  sensitive?  

Nuclear  Weapons  
 
Key  facts:  
1. Nuclear  weapons  are  not  connected  to  the  Internet:  they  cannot  just  be  hacked.  
2. Most  nuclear  weapons  are  sited  in  such  a  way  that  it  is  next  to  impossible  to  take  
them  out  before  they  can  retaliate  to  an  attack.  
3. Britain’s  nuclear  weapons  (Trident)  are  mounted  on  four  Vanguard  Class  
submarines,  one  of  which  is  always  at  sea  in  an  unknown  location  (these  submarines  
can  also  be  used  in  conventional  warfare).  
 
Types  of  Motions:  
o THW  get  them  
o THW  prevent  others  getting  them  
 
Key  Concept  MAD:  
o The  firing  of  a  nuclear  weapon  by  one  side  will  result  in  retaliation  by  the  other.  
o This  results  in  the  destruction  of  both  sides  
o Therefore  when  both  sides  have  nuclear  weapons,  neither  will  ever  use  them  
o However  you  need  to  have  your  own  nuclear  weapons  for  the  deterrent  to  work  and  
this  theory  assumes  that  all  actors  are  inherently  rational.  

  63  
 Why  would  someone  fire  nuclear  weapons?  
 
1. They  believe  their  nation  is  under  an  existential  threat  and  nuclear  weapons  are  the  
only  way  to  defeat  it  
2. They  have  already  been  targeted  and  want  revenge  
a. Consider:  Is  this  legitimate?  
3. They  are  basically  crazy,  irrational  actors  
a. (e.g.  Iran’s  alleged  views  on  Israel,  North  Korea’s  view  of  the  West)  

In  essence  a  country  does  not  need  to  either  possess  its  own  nuclear  weapons  (or  be  allied  
to  a  country  that  does)  for  the  principals  of  MAD  to  apply.  
 
Why?  
 
Because  were  any  country  to  launch  a  nuclear  strike,  then  that  country  would  have  proven  
itself  willing  to  commit  genocide  and  that  it  is  therefore  irrational.  Thus  it  is  in  the  interest  
of  all  other  countries  to  prevent  it  from  being  able  to  act  in  such  a  fashion  again  (e.g.  by  
nuking  it).  Should  any  country  launch  a  nuclear  strike  and  get  away  with  it,  then  the  concept  
of  MAD  is  shown  to  be  false,  which  removes  the  deterrent  effect  from  the  future  use  of  
nuclear  weapons  
 
It  is  therefore  in  the  interest  of  all  other  nations  to  reinforce  the  convention  of  MAD,  which  
requires  them  to  nuke  the  aggressor  state.  

Civil  Conflicts  
 
1. What  is  the  context  of  the  conflict  being  discussed?  Who  are  the  key  groups  involved  
and  what  are  the  power  relations  between  them?  Which  group  do  you  support  and  
specifically  why  are  they  in  the  right  in  this  situation,  above  other  actors?  
 
2. Consider  reasons  why  you  might  be  supporting  a  given  group.  For  example,  if  
supporting  Arab  Israelis,  is  this  because  of  the  effects  of  Israeli  settlements  on  
Palestinian  land?  In  Cashmere,  is  it  because  of  the  way  minorities  are  treated  by  the  
governing  powers?  Or  is  it  merely  because  a  cultural  nation  (if  not  a  legal  one)  does  
not  have  autonomy  or  sovereignty  and  you  want  to  argue  that  they  have  a  right  to  
self-­‐determination?  
 
3. How  would  you  do  this?  Would  you  impose  sanctions,  or  physically  intervene?  See  
the  relevant  sections  in  this  chapter  to  get  an  idea  of  which  of  these  might  best  suit  
your  purposes.    
 

Sanctions  
 
If  you  are  proposing  sanctions  you  have  to  do  three  key  things:  
 
1. Show  that  your  sanctions  are  necessary  and  justified  
2. Prove  that  your  sanctions  will  be  effective  in  achieving  your  ends  

  64  
 4. Show  that  your  sanctions  are  just  and  legitimate  (i.e.  are  they  proportional?)  
 
There  are  broadly  two  types  of  sanction:  economic  and  diplomatic.  Economic  sanctions  are  
usually  bans  on  trade  or  cutting  aid,  whereas  diplomatic  sanctions  involve  actions  such  as  
the  removal  of  diplomatic  ties,  the  closure  of  embassies,  etc.    

Some  final  key  ideas  for  IR  debates  

 

Just  War  Theory  

 
This  is  a  framework  for  understanding  what  constitutes  a  just  war  (hence  the  name).  It  has  
two  criteria:  jus  ad  bellum  (just  cause)  and  jus  in  bello  (just  engagement).    
 
Jus  ad  bellum:  the  reason  for  going  to  war  must  be  just  and  not  purely  selfish.  For  example,  a  
just  war  would  seek  to  protect  citizens  from  human  rights  abuses,  but  an  unjust  war  would  
seek  to  provide  new  markets  for  goods  produced  in  your  state.  
 
Jus  in  bello:  this  simply  dictates  that  the  conduct  of  states  within  war  must  also  be  just.  
Consider  the  Geneva  conventions  and  international  norms  of  war.  For  example,  torture  and  
rape  are  both  unjust  methods  of  warfare.  
 

Responsibility  to  Protect  (R2P)  and  the  Right  to  Intervene  

 
The  Responsibility  to  Protect  is  a  UN  initiative  that  was  adopted  in  2005.  It  has  three  key  
pillars:  
 
1. States  have  a  responsibility  to  protect  its  population  from  mass  atrocities  
2. The  international  community  has  a  responsibility  to  assist  the  state  to  fulfil  its  
primary  responsibility  
3. If  the  state  fails  to  protect  its  citizens  from  mass  atrocities  and  peaceful  measures  
have  failed,  the  international  community  has  the  responsibility  to  intervene  through  
coercive  measures.  Military  intervention  is  the  last  resort.  
 
The  R2P  has  led  to  a  belief  in  some  schools  of  though  that  in  certain  instances  the  
international  community  has  a  Right  to  Intervene.  This  is  useful  to  know  in  debates  
concerning  intervention.  
 

‘Hard’  and  ‘Soft’  Power  

 
Soft  power  concerns  things  such  as  aid,  development  loans  and  diplomatic  relations,  as  well  
as  cultural  influence  and  implicit  economic  power.  It  involves  any  attempts  to  change  the  
actions  of  other  actors  without  resorting  to  openly  coercive  power.  Nye  described  it  is  the  
ability  to  persuade  or  co-­‐opt.  
 
Hard  power  is  the  more  coercive  side  of  international  relations,  and  generally  involves  
military  and  economic  sanctions.  It  is  the  stick  to  soft  power’s  carrot.    
 

  65  
 In  debates  it  is  useful  to  consider  which  of  these  you  want  to  utilise  and  most  often  you  will  
find  the  best  solution  is  a  combination  of  both.  Be  clear  on  the  distinction  and  make  sure  you  
utilise  both  effectively  and  show  how  they  work  in  conjunction  with  one  another.  

Additional  resources/reading  
 
General  International  Relations  Theory  
 
• International  Relations  Theory  by  Oliver  Daddow  
• The  Globalization  of  World  Politics:  an  Introduction  to  International  Relations  by  John  
Baylis,  Steve  Smith  and  Patricia  Owens  
• Global  Political  Economy:  Contemporary  Theories  by  Ronen  Palan  
• http://www.e-­‐ir.info/  
• http://www.irtheory.com/know.htm  
 
Realism  
 
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-­‐intl-­‐relations/  
• http://www.ioe.stir.ac.uk/courses/undergrad/ite/documents/JackDonnelly2000Re
alismandInternationalRelations.pdf  
 
Liberalism  
 
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZbDMUaqwE8  
• http://www.princeton.edu/~amoravcs/library/liberalism_working.pdf  
 
Social  Constructivism  
 
• http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Wendt1992.pdf  
• http://e-­‐
edu.nbu.bg/pluginfile.php/147644/mod_resource/content/0/jackson_sorensen_Intr
o_in_IR_chap06.pdf  
 
Marxism  in  IR  
 
• http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/S10_Courses/427s10_marxism.pdf  
• http://www.isj.org.uk/?id=309  
 
Useful  websites  for  learning  stuff  that’s  going  on  in  the  world  
 
• Al  Jazeera  -­‐  http://www.aljazeera.com/  
• The  Economist  –  www.economist.com  
• CIA  World  Factbook  -­‐  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-­‐world-­‐
factbook/  
 

  66  
 Originally  published  as  “Who’s  Afraid  of  
Chapter  15  –  Feminism   Feminism”  in  the  Monash  Debating  Review    
Written  by  Andrew  Fitch  

All  major  debating  tournaments  around  the  world  appear  to  share  one  thing  in  common  –  
the  collective  groan  than  echoes  throughout  the  room  when  topics  relating  to  feminism  are  
announced.  I  don’t  believe  that  this  groan  is  the  result  of  any  apathy  toward  women,  nor  a  
particular  objection  to  the  women’s  movement,  but  rather  is  an  acknowledgement  that  most  
debaters  seem  to  fear  debating  about  feminism.  Of  course  there  are  several  who  revel  in  the  
opportunity,  but  they  appear  to  be  the  minority.  
 
In  this  [chapter]  I  want  to  examine  several  problems,  which  teams  encounter  when  
approaching  feminism  debates  and  discuss  some  strategies  that  may  help  teams  to  avoid  
these  pitfalls.  
 
Feminism  debates  at  university  debating  tournaments  are,  almost  without  exception,  
mechanistic  debates.  Whether  the  debate  is  about  maternity  leave,  the  banning  of  
headscarves  or  female  genital  mutilation  (FGM),  mechanistic  debating  is  a  constant.  The  
current  political  climate  of  debating  worldwide  assumes  that  women  must  be  treated  better  
and  that  some  form  of  feminist  resistance  to  the  patriarchy  is  both  necessary  and  to  be  
celebrated.  
 
The  clash  lies  in  how  the  aims  of  the  feminist  movement  or  more  accurately,  women,  can  
best  be  reached.  To  argue  that  women  should  remain  bare-­‐foot  and  prefnant  in  the  kitchen,  
or  that  the  removal  of  the  clitoris  from  pre-­‐pubescent  girls  is  a  good  thing  is  usually  
considered  debating  suicide!  With  this  in  mind,  let’s  look  at  some  of  the  common  mistakes,  
with  case  studies,  teams  make  in  these  debates  and  why  they  are  bad.  
 
Problem  One  –  Reverse  Stereotyping  
 
Too  often  teams  attempt  to  covertly  define  what  a  woman  should  be.  In  the  age  of  political  
correctness  the  figure  of  the  ‘female’  is  type  cast  as  a  victim  figure  and  little  else.  The  
problem  with  these  characterizations  is  that  they  assume  both  a  singular  identity  for  the  
females  they  debate  about,  and  come  across  as  immensely  patronizing.  
 
The  female  as  singularly  victim  is  most  prevalent  in  debates  such  as  the  FGM  debate.  Teams  
often  attempt  to  outlaw  the  practice  try  far  too  hard  to  locate  the  woman  as  a  victim  and  end  
up  isolating  her  in  that  position.  While  this  is  not  the  only  debate  in  which  this  occurs,  it  is  
the  best  example  to  analyse  to  make  the  general  point.    
 
The  classic  model  for  this  is  in  debates  in  which  the  proposal  entails  intervention  by  the  
West  in  the  3rd  World  feminist  problems.  The  3rd  World  woman  is  often  classified  as  
destitute,  poor,  unable  to  resist  the  evil  black  man  oppressing  her  and  in  need  of  old  whitey  
to  save  her.  Post-­‐colonial  feminists  the  world  over  would  cringe  to  see  the  extent  to  which  
this  occurs  in  debates!  Too  much  time  is  devoted  to  explaining  the  specific  violence  that  
FGM  entails.  We  all  know  that  this  practise  is  violent  and  barbaric,  five  minutes  of  the  
opening  speech  explaining  what  the  procedure  involves  and  how  nasty  it  is  is  unnecessary.  
Secondly,  teams  tend  to  focus  so  much  upon  the  violent  effects  of  FGM  upon  women,  that  
women  become  synonomous  with  victimhood  and  nothing  else.  Whetehr  through  ignorance  
or  a  tactical  decision,  women  are  involved  in  the  debate  solely  through  their  status  as  
victims.  

  67  
 The  problem,  from  a  debating  point  of  view,  is  twofold  –  a)  it  is  factually  inaccurate,  and  b)  it  
can  make  you  look  ridiculously  simplistic  and  risk  contradiction.  
 
So,  factual  inaccuracy.  In  countries  which  practise  FGm,  not  only  is  it  often  the  mothers  and  
grandmothers  of  the  girls  who  insist  most  strongly  that  the  rite  be  performed,  there  also  
exist  female-­‐led  resistance  movements  attempting  to  half  the  practise  in  countries  such  as  
Kenya  and  Sierra  Leone.  By  locating  the  figure  of  the  female  as  singularly  the  victim,  you,  as  
a  team,  risk  being  contradicted  by  fact.  This  is  the  case  in  most  circumstances  –  women  are  
rarely,  if  ever,  solely  the  silent,  accepting  victims  of  male  oppression;  they  are  often  loud,  
outspoken  and  full  of  fight.  
 
In  debates  about  feminism,  credibility  plays  a  major  role  in  the  adjudicators  mind  (whether  
it  should  or  should  not  is  another  issue),  so  appearing  not  to  know  your  stuff,  or  being  
revealed  to  be  engaging  in  stereotyping  is  extremely  harmful  –  even  if  your  stereotypes  are  
geared  toward  ‘saving’  these  poor,  poor  girls.  
 
The  second  problem  that  locating  the  woman  as  singularly  the  victim  is  that  you  can  look  
like  a  fool!  Stereotypes  are  never  healthy  in  debates,  even  if  you  are  trying  to  help.  By  
looking  at  women  in  cases  such  as  these  as  purely  victimized  entities  you  come  across  as  
simplistic,  at  best,  and  at  worse,  offensively  patronizing.  Women,  like  any  other  group  of  
people,  encompass  a  wide  and  almost  endless  range  of  identites,  beliefs  and  relationships,  
with  each  other,  and  with  men.    
 
In  a  close  debate,  the  refusal  to  conform  to  stereotypes  can  often  make  the  difference,  
especially  if  the  second  speaker  is  able  to  point  out  the  stereotypical  nature  of  the  opposing  
case.  Speakers  should  look  for  this  when  planning  their  speech.  Given  that,  as  discussed  
above,  the  assumption  in  debates  is  that  women  are  valuable  creatures  and  we  want  to  help  
them  and  pointing  out  that  the  opposition  is  patronizing  women  in  their  attempt  at  
liberation  is  a  persuasive  strategy  to  pursue.  
 
Problem  Two  –  Assumed  Desire  
 
This  is  a  problem  usually  isolated  to  debates  about  women  in  the  West  –women  who  have  
achieved  basic  rights  and  are  now  attempting  either  the  extension  of  these  rights  (such  as  
maternity  leave)  or  are  merely  resisting  patriarchal  social  structures.  
 
Women  in  these  debates  are  too  often  characterized  as  educated,  professional,  driven  to  
succees,  wanting  to  combine  children  and  a  career,  and,  most  importantly,  bereft  of  sexual  
desire.  
 
In  a  recent  debate  I  adjudicated  whether  or  not  Britney  Spears  and  Christina  Aguilea  were  
good  for  feminism,  this  stereotype  was  on  display  in  full  force.  The  proposition  team,  
arguing  that  Britney  and  Christina  were  not  friends  of  feminism,  cited  the  fact  that  they  
“dressed  like  hoes”  as  key  material.  The  assumption  was  that  they  could  not  possibly  be  
feminists  if  they  chose  to  dress  in  a  revealing  nature  and  to  actively  promote  themselves  as  
sexual  beings.  This,  as  I  told  the  team  (which,  incidently  won  the  debate)  is  as  offensive  a  
stereotype  as  arguing  that  all  women  should  stay  at  home  with  the  kids  –  and  far  more  
common.  Good  feminists,  so  the  extension  of  this  argument  runs,  must  dress  in  power  suits,  
thoroughly  covering  themselves  and  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  they,  like  men,  are  sexual  
beings.  To  do  otherwise  is  to  merely  conform  to  male  stereotypes  that  women  are  sex  
objects  and  should  be  ogled  at  and  violated  at  every  opportunity.  

  68  
 Women  are  allowed  to  have  sex,  they  can  like  sex  and  they  can  even  love  sex.  They  can  have  
as  many  sexual  partners  as  they  like  and  dress  as  they  like.  To  argue  otherwise  is  simplistic,  
patronizing,  betraying  a  double  standard,  and  thoroughly  anti-­‐feminist.  There  is  a  world  of  
feminist  literature  supporting  this,  Germaine  Greer  being  arguably  the  most  prominent  
exponent  of  this.  
 
However,  this  argument,  if  put  correctly,  can  be  a  very  good  one.  The  argument  should  not  
have  been  that  they  are  “dressing  like  hoes”  but  that  they  have  no  choice  but  to  do  so.  The  
issue  here  is  one  of  choice.  If  you  can  establish  that  women  such  as  Britney  and  Christina  
have  no  choice  but  to  dress  and  act  in  this  manner  if  they  wish  to  succeed,  then  you  have  an  
argument  –  they  are  victims  of  patriarchal  power  structures.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  
able  to  succeed  in  another  manner,  but  have  chosen  to  fast  track  their  success  by  playing  up  
to  the  sexual  stereotype,  they  are  actually  liberated  women,  using  their  sexuality  and  
attractiveness  to  further  their  careers.  Here  we  have  a  genuine  clash  –  and  sophisticated  
argumentation.  
 
This  is  also  a  strategy  that  can  be  applied  to  debates  about  prostitution,  or  the  porn  
industry.  The  issue  is  choice  –  do  the  women  have  it,  or  not.  If  so,  then  their  involvement  
whatever  practice  the  debate  centres  around  is  not  (necessarily)  anti-­‐feminist,  but  can  be  
construed  as  actively  feminist.  If  not,  then  we  have  a  problem  for  the  women  involved.  
 
These  arguments  are  by  no  means  perfect  however,  by  looking  at  these  issues  as  ones  of  
choice  and  empowerment  (or  the  absence  of  both),  a  team  can  avoid  the  stereotypes  and  
provide  genuine  analysis  of  the  feminist  issues  involved.    
 
Problem  Three  –  Wanting  the  World  
 
This  is  possibly  the  most  contentious  of  the  problems  I  have  witnessed  in  feminism-­‐based  
debates  –  the  feeling  that  teams  must  provide  women  with  every  that  they  want  and  that  it  
must  happen  immediately.  
 
This  is  of  particularly  significance  when  issues  of  maternity  leave  and  such  are  so  readily  
debated  at  tournaments  everywhere.  In  looking  at  this,  I  will  focus  upon  the  maternity  leave  
debate  and  the  problem  that  teams  arguing  against  it  have.    
 
Everyone  knows  the  arguments  about  backlash  and  the  effects  that  maternity  leave  will  
have  upon  small  business  etc  –  these  comprise  the  ‘opposition  to  maternity  leave  101’  case.  
 
The  problem  is,  that  in  a  lot  of  current  debating,  certain  arguments  that  are  often  very  
persuasive  cannot  be  run  for  risk  of  breaching  etiquette.  In  this  case,  the  argument  that  
many  teams  fear  to  run  is  that  women  may  have  to  make  a  choice  –  kids  or  a  career.  Most  
proposition  teams  will  set  up  the  debate  in  a  context  in  which  women  must  make  this  choice  
and  that  it  is  harmful  for  them  to  have  to  do  so  –  opposing  teams  rarely  contest  this.  
However,  if  run  well,  this  is  entirely  the  case  that  teams  should  run.  
 
To  argue  that  this  choice  is  a  defensible  one  is  not  that  difficult  –  it  is  only  fear  of  appearing  
anti-­‐feminist  that  prevents  people  doing  it.  However,  if  you  can  establish  that  you  not  care  
which  parent  stays  at  home,  and  that  children  are  too  important  to  leave  in  day-­‐care,  this  
argument  is  a  very  good  one,  though,  like  all  arguments  in  debates,  it  has  an  opposition.  
 
Both  adjudicators  and  debaters  need  to  realize  that  women  do  not  have  to  wear  power-­‐suits  

  69  
 and  that  child  rearing  is  not  a  degrading  profession,  but  a  necessary  part  of  being  a  parent.  
Arguments  such  as  these  can  be  run  without  being  accused  of  being  patriarchal  misogynist  
dinosaurs!  
 
Stop  being  scared  of  Virginia  Woolf  people,  she’s  lovely.  Really.  

  70  
 Chapter  16  –  The  Law  and  Criminal  Justice  
Systems   Kindly  contributed  by  James  Laurenson  

Introduction  
 
Legal  motions  are  much  less  frequent  than  they  used  to  be,  but  as  a  general  rule  you  will  be  
expected  to  have  a  basic  knowledge  of  how  the  Court  System  functions  and  its  relationship  
with  the  other  two  branches  of  the  state.  

Basic  Concepts    
 
There  are  two  broad  types  of  court  case:  Criminal  and  Civil.    Helpfully,  these  cases  use  
different  procedures  and  the  same  terms  to  mean  different  things!    It  is  important  not  to  
confuse  them.    Criminal  cases  consist  of  the  state  prosecuting  individuals  or  companies  for  
crimes  (although  in  extremely  rare  cases  private  individuals  can  try  to  prosecute  others  for  
an  offence  if  the  CPS  refuses  to  do  so),  whereas  Civil  cases  cover  all  other  kinds  of  disputes  
between  people,  from  enforcing  broken  contracts  to  assigning  liability  for  car  crashes  to  
getting  a  council  decision  overturned.  
 
The  Burden  of  Proof  –  The  Burden  of  proof  is  concept  you  should  already  be  familiar  with  
from  debating:  it  refers  to  the  onus  on  one  party  to  prove  what  they  are  asserting.    In  
Criminal  cases  the  burden  of  proof  almost  always  lies  with  the  prosecution  to  show  that  the  
defendant  is  guilty  of  whatever  crime  he  or  she  is  accused  of.    If  the  defendant  raises  a  
defence  to  the  charge  (ie.  Has  an  alibi  or  claims  they  were  acting  in  self-­‐defence)  then  the  
burden  of  proof  is  on  the  prosecution  to  show  that  that  defence  is  not  true.    There  are  
certain  rare  circumstances  where  in  criminal  cases  the  defendant  will  have  the  burden  of  
proof  in  establishing  their  defence,  the  most  common  of  which  is  the  ‘hip  flask  defence’  
whereby  if  you  fail  a  breathalyser  test  and  want  to  claim  that  you’d  drunk  alcohol  between  
an  accident  and  taking  the  test  (ie.  that  you  were  sober  before  the  accident  and  only  got  
drunk  afterwards),  it  is  up  to  you  to  prove  that  you  drank  that  alcohol  and  not  for  the  
prosecution  to  prove  that  you  did  not.    An  occasional  law  motion  is  to  propose  reversing  
the  burden  of  proof  for  a  certain  offence  in  order  to  raise  conviction  rates.  
 
In  a  Civil  case  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  each  side  to  support  their  own  claims.    So  if  I  claim  
that  I  sold  you  a  car  for  £1000  and  you  claim  that  the  price  we  agreed  was  only  £500,  we  
would  have  an  equal  need  to  provide  evidence  supporting  our  own  claims.  
 
The  Standard  of  Proof  –  The  Standard  of  proof  is  the  degree  to  which  we  require  that  
something  is  proved.    In  Criminal  cases  the  standard  of  proof  is  ‘beyond  reasonable  doubt’.    
In  Civil  cases  the  standard  is  ‘on  the  balance  of  probabilities’  (ie.  More  likely  than  not).    If  I  
want  to  prosecute  you  for  stealing  an  apple,  I  need  to  show  that  there  is  no  reasonable  
chance  you  didn’t  steal  the  apple.    If  I  want  to  sue  you  for  paying  only  £500  for  my  car  when  
we  agreed  a  price  of  £1000,  I  just  need  to  convince  a  judge  that  it  is  more  likely  than  not  that  
we  agreed  the  higher  price.    Standards  of  proof  are  an  important  concept  for  debating  
because  debaters  like  to  pretend  that  proof  is  an  absolute  and  will  declare  that  if  you  
can’t  prove  something  absolutely  then  you’ve  lost  –  don’t  fall  into  this  trap!    If  you  
can’t  prove  something  absolutely  (which  is  almost  always  true  given  it’s  a  debate),  the  

  71  
  
next  question  to  ask  is  “What  is  more  likely  to  be  true?”  
 
The  Tribunal  of  Fact  and  The  Tribunal  of  Law  –  There  are  always  two  questions  being  asked  
in  any  legal  case:  What  are  the  Facts?  and  What  is  the  Law?    The  Tribunal  of  Fact  answers  
the  first  question,  the  Tribunal  of  Law  answers  the  second.    Sometimes  these  are  the  same  
entity  (ie.  In  a  Magistrate’s  Court),  and  sometimes  they  are  different  entities  (ie.  Judge  and  
Jury).    In  a  Jury  trial,  the  Judge  will  define  the  relevant  law  for  the  case.    The  job  of  the  Jury  is  
to  decide  the  facts  of  the  case  (ie.  Agree  between  them  what  happened)  and  then  apply  
those  facts  to  what  the  Judge  says  the  law  is  to  come  to  a  finding  of  guilt.  

Judicial  Review  
 
Judicial  Review  is  a  special  kind  of  court  case  where  a  Judge  will  be  asked  to  review  a  
decision  by  a  public  body.    It  is  both  a  very  powerful  and  very  limited  kind  of  action  –  any  
state  body  up  to  Government  Ministers  can  have  their  decisions  reviewed  and  overturned  if  
there  has  been  bias  or  improper  procedure  followed,  but  the  Court  can  only  require  that  the  
decision  be  made  again  –  it  cannot  force  a  certain  decision.      

The  Human  Rights  Act  (how  it  works)  

 
Public  bodies  may  not  breach  your  Human  Rights  unless  they  have  no  choice  because  of  an  
Act  of  Parliament.    This  means  that  if  the  local  polling  officer  refuses  to  let  Joe  Bloggs  vote  in  
an  election  then  he’s  breached  the  Human  Rights  Act  and  can  be  sued  for  damages.    If  
however  Parliament  passes  an  Act  saying  that  Joe  Bloggs  is  not  allowed  to  vote  then  refusing  
to  let  him  vote  would  not  be  a  breach  of  UK  Law.  
 
If  a  person  goes  to  court  claiming  that  the  government  has  breached  their  human  rights  then  
one  of  two  things  will  happen  (assuming  their  rights  have  been  breached).    If  the  body  that  
breached  their  rights  could  have  acted  differently  then  the  Court  will  order  the  breach  to  
end  and  likely  award  damages.      
 
If  there  is  an  Act  of  Parliament  forcing  the  public  body  to  act  contrary  to  the  Human  Rights  
Act  then  all  a  UK  court  can  do  is  issue  a  declaration  of  incompatibility,  which  has  no  effect  
other  than  to  put  Parliament  on  notice  that  it  has  acted  contrary  to  the  Human  Rights  Act.    It  
is  up  to  Parliament  to  decide  whether  or  not  to  change  the  law.  
 
Having  exhausted  their  options  in  the  UK,  a  complainant  can  take  their  case  to  the  European  
Court  of  Human  Rights,  which  can  award  damages  for  a  breach  of  the  ECHR.    The  ECHR  is  
heavily  overloaded  with  casework  and  in  practice  it  is  very  difficult  to  get  a  state  that  is  
determined    
 
A  good  example  of  this  is  the  issue  of  prisoner  voting.    John  Hirst  (convicted  of  
manslaughter)  sued  in  the  UK  to  get  the  right  to  vote.    He  failed  in  the  UK  courts  but  
succeeded  at  the  ECtHR  (see:  Hirst  v  UK  (no2)  
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2005/681.html.  ECtHR  judgements  tend  to  be  very  
readable  even  for  non-­‐law  students).    Despite  having  ‘won’  over  10  years  ago,  successive  UK  
governments  have  simply  refused  to  remove  the  block  on  prisoner  voting.  
 

  72