Pakistan Debate Workshop - Advanced Argumentation

Analysis Above and Below the Level of the Actor

Analysis at the level of the actor.

THBT Israel should/should not build settlements.
At the level of Israel (good for them/bad for them)

Analysis below the level of the actor

Breaking down the actor into different sub actors
Israel: urban left, the conservative religious right, ultra orthodox jews, local arabs living
there, Likud, red and blue coalition

Companies
Microsoft did this/that
Workers (upper level/lower level workers), researchers, foreign workers, financial
stakeholders

Social movements
Student Action Committee
People from elite institutions, non elite institutions, women, men, non-binary, Punjab,
periphery areas

Analysis above the level of the actor

Actors themselves are made up of a system - Israel is in the Middle East, Iran, S. Arabia
International system - international security

Companies
Financial system impacts
Global development impacts

Social Movements
Student Action Committee
Inspire social movements in other regions within Pakistan, or abroad/elsewhere in S.
Asia
Creating a Equivalence Between Different Things in Terms of Outcomes

Correspondence Theorem

If whatever makes X X is the same thing makes Y Y, then X basically the same as Y.

We often define our terms through descriptions as opposed to through outcomes.

1. US/Big Country invading/intervening in small country.

First we should try diplomacy, then we should try harsh diplomacy, then we should try
economic sanctions, finally last resort we go in with the guns.

This assumes that military intervention is different from economic sanctions.

Military intervention bad because > lots of people killed + violation of state sovereignty

Over a hundred thousand Iraqi children had died as a direct result of US economic
sanctions
Sanctions also threaten your sovereignty because now other countries control what you
produce, sell, buy on many levels
Sanctions disproportionately impact the poor while the rich escape.

2. Physical and mental harm

Physical harm worse than mental harm

In terms of outcomes, hard to draw a distinction between the two.

Physical harm is bad because > impair your body in some way + permanent damage +
trauma

Use of Empirical Examples

Two sorts of reasoning in debating:
1. Logical/structural reasoning - the why of things
2. Factual/trivial reasoning - the what of things

The IMF is a bad actor to Pakistan.

F/T: IMF’s previous bailout to Pakistan included terrible structural adjustment policies
which harmed Pakistan’s economy (the what of things)
L/S: IMF has incentives to hurt Pakistan in order to open up its borders to foreign
MNCs, to exploit the cheap labour it has, to leverage against China

Often there is a bias in debates towards structural or logical reasoning

PM: I have an argument which has an example.

LO: Yes but I have a counter-example. Yes, but that example is not representative.

Examples are inherently weak ways to prove debates, but this is not true. In reality, the
problem is with the sort of examples you are using.

The more constrained within space and time your facts and examples are, the
weaker they are likely to be. And the more they capture across space and time,
the stronger they are likely to be. (Trends and Patterns)

PM: IMF is a bad actor to Pakistan.

F/T: IMF’s previous bailout to Pakistan included terrible structural adjustment policies
which harmed Pakistan’s economy
Instead say: IMF has issued 17 emergency bailouts in South Asia - none of them have
ever been paid back - more broadly, of the 110 countries IMF has given money to, 2
have been to pay back and the rest are in debt.

PM: US is not a reliable actor to militarily intervene anywhere.

F/T: Look at what happened in Iraq (other side: look at what happened in Kosovo).
Instead say: over the last 120 years, the US has illegally intervened in the regime
change of over 60 countries.

David vs Goliath : a contest between a big power and a small power.

Arguments Should Always be in Search of David, Even When Defending Goliath

Microsoft or Amazon etc - they should be regulated more/broken up into smaller

companies
These companies are exploitative to workers, they are exploitative to consumers etc

Opposition seems to be in the awkward position of defending Goliath (Microsoft).

Search for David within Goliath
You have to prove that Microsoft being regulated might lead to workers of the most
vulnerable kind being hurt, consumers of the poorest groups being marginalized

Debating circuit has a very strong ‘underdog bias’.

In Politics: no one will say btw I hate the poor.

Right-wing government would say - tax breaks for the rich are important because they
open up the economy, hire more poor people, do more charity.

Actors vs Actions

Problem of knowledge
Problem of ethics
Problem of reasoning

It is crucial that you move away from making arguments about the actor to making
arguments about the action.

THBT new military government in Myanmar should be sanctioned by the West for its
recent coup.

Actor X being sanctioned by Actor Y.

Give lot of reasons sanctions work and lots of reasons they don’t.

Military govt in developing world is sanctioned by West

Lots of reasons that helps and lots of reasons that it doesn’t

Wash: make analysis of opening irrelevant.

Weigh: have better analysis on same point as opening.
New Metric: have different analysis/arguments from opening.
You are a younger talented professional in the Balkans (Serbia etc).

TH would travel to live and work in the EU.

OG: good for you because EU much bigger, more market, more jobs, better jobs, better
standards of living.

OO: bad for you because lots of racism against you, much bigger problems with
competing against more skilled people, will generally face discrimination

CO:
OO’s claims are about how this is economically bad for you
1. Purchasing Power Parity
2. Different education standards
3. Global pool as opposed to local pool

Wash: both openings had long-term analysis about living here/not living here.
That is irrelevant because Serbia is about to join the EU.

New metric: psychological trauma of being dependent on immigration status.

2x3x3

Impacting has to come down to that level of simplicity for it to be intuitive:

More people hurt or more people benefitted

Powerful country becomes more powerful which creates inequality
More inequality
Hurting the most vulnerable
Violating duties

NFL draft picks

No sports motions are about sports.

Weighing can be of several kinds:

1. Probability weighing - both teams reach for outcome X, but you prove outcome X
better.
 2. Impact weighing - both teams reach for different outcomes, and both teams
attempt to prove that their chosen outcomes is more important

Different Moral Duties

We have rights
Rights are only operational insofar as they impose obligations on others.
My right to life only makes sense, in the context of everyone else around me now
having an obligation on themselves not to kill me.
Rights imply obligations.

States also have obligations.

States must protect your rights, but in doing so they necessarily have to impose
obligations on others.
Pakistan signs the Convention Against Torture (2004).
The state is in a legally binding position to not torture its citizens.
However, along with the state’s obligation to not torture you, it has to similarly apply an
obligation on others not to torture, because the state is the only arbiter of obligations.

You can have two sorts of liberties/rights

Negative liberties - freedoms from
Positive liberties - freedoms to

__________________________

Certainty vs Uncertainty

It is obvious that doing nothing is bad, but it is unclear as to how bad it is to do

something. (An intuitive argument for status quo reform).

Passive vs Active

All active duties are in fact passive duties.

All passive duties are in fact active duties.
1. You can argue it from culpability. (A much higher bar to meet).
2. You can argue it from beneficence. (A much lower bar).

OXFAM (global inequality)

HRW (human rights but in a progressive space)
UNDP, UNHCR
Freedom House (democracy indicators)
Transparency International (Corruption)
Amnesty International (state repression)

Al Jazeera
SCMP
Der Speigel
Deutsche Welle
Le Monde