Vietnam Debate Training

-Week 6-
Tota Takahashi (University of Tokyo)
Wednesday, 22 September 2021
Outline of Training

u Week 1: Practice Round / Feedback (8/18)

u Week 2: How to Become a Strong 1st Speaker -Lecture- (Argumentation: Mechanism/Impact) (8/25)

u Week 3: How to Become a Strong 1st Speaker -Lecture- (Structure) (9/1)

u Week 4: How to Become a Strong 1st Speaker -Lecture- (Finding/Selecting Strong Arguments) (9/8)
u Week 5: How to Become a Strong 1st Speaker -Drills- (9/15)
u Week 6: How to Become a Strong 2nd Speaker -Lecture- (Response/Weighing) (9/22)
u Week 7: How to Become a Strong Extension Speaker -Lecture- (Selecting an Extension; Weighing) (9/29)
u Week 8: How to Become a Strong Whip Speaker -Lecture- (Structure)
u Week 9: Practice Round / Feedback (10/15)
u Week 10: To Be Decided (10/22)
-Week 6- Responding/Weighing
How to Become a Strong 2nd Speaker
Role of 2nd Speaker

u Response – engaging with the opponent’s arguments

u Weighing – proving why your arguments are more important than the
opponent’s
u Construction – reinforcing 1st Speaker’s arguments and/or building a new
argument
u In British Parliamentary debating, weighing must be the absolute priority
u This is because weighing positions your impacts in the debate, and engages with all
the other teams
u In Asian Parliamentary debating, constructing becomes relatively more
important
u This is because Whip/Reply Speakers exist to respond and weigh
Types of Response

u There are many ways in which you can respond to an argument – the strategic
priority changes on a case-by-case basis
u 1. Identifying Failure
u 2. Disproving Mechanism
u 3. Disproving Impact
u 4. Disproving Exclusivity
u 5. Disproving Relevancy
Types of Response – Identifying Failure

u Identifying Failure – finding and pointing out the flaws in the opponent’s case
u If the opponent’s case lacks mechanisation or impacting, which are essential for
an argument to be constructed, you should actively point it out
u Example 1 – THW criminalise gang membership
u Government: “This motion would reduce crimes”
u Response: “The government side never mechanised why this leads to a reduction in the
number of crimes”
u Example 2 – THW give more votes to the young
u Government: “This motion would increase the representation of the young”
u Response: “The government’s argument on representation was never impacted”
u This may seem trivial, but it is actually very important because judges often do
not realise these flaws unless you point them out
Types of Response – Disproving Mechanism

u Disproving Mechanism – providing a counter-mechanism which disproves the

mechanisms of the opponent’s case
u Essentially, this process is identical to the mechanisation of an argument, but it is
conducted in the opposite direction
u This often involves looking into the incentive and capacity of the stakeholders in
question
u Example – THW give more votes to the young
u Proposition: “This would incentivise the young to turn out because it makes them believe
that they can create change”
u Response 1: “This would rather disincentive the young because it makes them believe
that change would happen without their participation”
u Response 2: “Even if they have greater motivation to turn out, they would still be unable
to turn out because they are occupied with their jobs”
u Remember to engage with the most important mechanism of the opponent’s case
Types of Response – Disproving Impact

u Disproving Impact – mitigating or flipping the impact of the opponent’s case

u Example 1 – THW abolish primary and secondary school grades/years that
group children based on age, and instead group them by competency and
intelligence
u Opposition: “This would lead to younger kids being bullied by older ones”
u Response: “Bullying is an extremely rare outcome because schools and teachers
have an incentive to prevent it from happening”
u Example 2 – THO tiger parenting
u Government: “This would make children insecure about themselves when they fail
to meet the expectation of their parents”
u Response: “Actually, that is rather good because children would understand the
reality, and learn how to cope with it”
Types of Responses – Disproving Exclusivity

u Disproving Exclusivity – proving that the opponent’s impact is symmetric

u The goal is not to show that the opponent’s impact exists on either side because
this ignores the extent of the impact
u Bad Example – THBT the feminist movement should oppose anti-ageing products
u Opposition: “There would be a huge backlash from women who rely on anti-ageing
products”
u Response: “Backlash does not matter because it exists anyway”
u The goal is to show that the marginal increase of the opponent’s impact is little
u Example – THW abolish death penalty
u Opposition: “Death penalty creates deterrence and prevents crimes”
u Response: “Deterrence exists on either side because there would still be other forms of
criminal punishments. The marginal increase in the amount of deterrence is low
especially because people commit horrible crimes out of passion, as opposed to after
rational calculations.”
Types of Responses – Disproving Relevancy

u Disproving Relevancy – proving that the opponent’s case is irrelevant to the

debate
u This type of response is only relevant in a limited number of debates, but
when it becomes relevant, it tends to be very effective
u Example – THP a world where people cannot lie
u Opposition: “People would not be able to speak their opinions”
u Response: “This is irrelevant because the debate is about facts, not opinions”
Exercise – Responding to Arguments

u Motion – THBT environmental activists should emphasise blaming large

corporations for environmental destruction, as opposed to focusing on the
individual responsibility
u Step 1: Split into Government and Opposition
u Step 2: Preparation Time (15 minutes)
u Step 3: Give a PM Speech (7 minutes)
u Step 4: Respond to the PM Speech
u Demo Debate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WGrep-
4A5oHijTwdiIxPmtj6gS_bA8kN/view?usp=sharing
Importance of Weighing

u Weighing is important in debating for multiple reasons

u 1. It is almost always impossible to completely disprove the opponent’s
arguments through responses
u 2. Even if you have sufficiently responded to the opponent’s arguments, it has
yet to be proven that you have won on a comparative
u 3. Many teams tend not do it, so doing it will give you an upper-hand
Types of Weighing

u There are a number of ways in which you can weigh in a debate – in practice,
different metrics are often combined
u 1. Scale of Impact
u 2. Scope of Impact
u 3. Certainty of Impact
u 4. Length of Impact
u 5. Vulnerability of Stakeholder
Types of Weighing – Scale of Impact

u Scale of Impact – proving that your impact is more severe than the
opponent’s
u Example – THBT the criminal justice system should not consider retribution as
a factor in sentencing
u Opposition: “The victims would be psychologically hurt because damages
done to them would not impact the severity of punishment”
u Government: “The psychological damage on victims through this is unlikely to
be severe, so our argument on preventing future crimes is much more
important”
Types of Weighing – Scope of Impact

u Scope of Impact – proving that your impact applies to more people than the
opponent’s
u Example – In areas of socio-economic deprivation, THBT schools should train
students in vocational skills to the exclusion of the liberal arts
u Opposition: “The students who would have otherwise been able to go to
university would now be unable to, causing them to work exploitative jobs”
u Government: “The students who can attend university are the minority in
these areas because their educational infrastructure is far worse than that of
other communities, so their argument is less important than our argument on
increasing employability for average students”
Types of Weighing – Certainty of Impact

u Certainty of Impact – proving that your impact is more likely than the
opponent’s
u Example – THW cancel all debts to international organisations (e.g. IMF) or
other countries held by the governments of the poorest 20% of countries
u Opposition: “This would make it difficult for poor countries to borrow money
in future”
u Government: “Their impact is speculative because we do not exactly know
how different organisations and countries would react to this, so we should
prioritise the alleviation of poverty caused by having to repay debt, which is
more certain”
Type of Weighing – Length of Impact

u Length of Impact – proving that your impact is long-term while the

opponent’s is short-term
u Example – THBT developing countries should privatise their state-owned
enterprises (e.g. airlines, railways, utility companies)
u Opposition: “The transition would cause massive confusion which would cause
the suspension of essential services”
u Government: “Their impact is at best short-term because private companies
would get used to the management over time, so our argument on increased
efficiency is more important”
Types of Weighing – Vulnerability of Stakeholder

u Vulnerability of Stakeholder – proving that your impact applies to people

who are more deserving of protection
u Example – THS the pirating and mass availability of academic resources
u Opposition: “The authors and publishers of these resources would lose
income, and suffer financially as a result of it”
u Government: “Majority of authors and publishers are privileged individuals
from developed countries who have access to advanced facilities, so they are
less important than the poor individuals in developing countries who need
these resources to access higher education”
Exercise – Weighing

u Identify an argument for the allocated side, and show why it is more important
than the argument for the opposite side
u Q1. THW tax adults who do not have children (Opp.)
u Government: “This would incentivise people to have children, which solves the problems
in ageing society.”
u Q2. THW abolish private schools (Gov.)
u Opposition: “Talented students would not be able to achieve their full potential in public
education because of its premature infrastructure. This also reduces innovation.”
u Q3. TH, as a female CEO in a male-dominated industry, would actively give
preferential treatment to female subordinates (Opp.)
u Government: “This female CEO is likely to be sympathetic to women in general because,
presumably, she has experienced many struggles unique to women. Therefore, giving
preferential treatment, and helping women would be in line with her interests.”
Structure of Responding/Weighing

u As it is in constructing arguments, having a structure is very important in

responding/weighing as well
u As a basic rule, when responding/weighing, you should follow the following
structure:
u 1. Target of Response
u 2. Number of Responses
u 3. Response/Weighing
u When the response requires a lengthy analysis, remember to have a structure here as
well
u Thesis
u Analysis
u (Impact)
u Link
Example – Structure of Responding/Weighing

u THBT all public servants should have the right to strike (Opp.)
u “They said that public servants currently suffer from oppressive working
environments. I have 3 responses. Firstly, they did not provide any
mechanisms for why this is true, so you cannot credit this argument in the
first place. Secondly, even if this is not true, we would argue that there is a
significant incentive for governments to treat public servants properly. This is
because they do not want to be criticised for treating its employees poorly
which would result in a major optical damage. Lastly, even if none of these
were true, public servants are less important than the potential victims of
their strikes who are much more vulnerable. This is because public servants
get paid decently, and always have the option to quit their jobs, whereas the
poor who rely on services provided by public institutions, such as hospitals,
have no other options available. For these reasons, this argument is less
important than our arguments.”
Exercise – Responding/Weighing

u Info Slide – Under the “deferred happiness model” of parenting, there is strong emphasis on
setting children up for a successful adulthood, including through a focus on academic or
extracurricular achievement, structure, and discipline. Under the “protected sphere model”
of parenting, there is strong emphasis on "letting children be children", including through a
focus on playtime and personal enjoyment.
u Motion – In a relatively equal society where the “protected sphere model” is the norm, TH,
as a parent, would raise their children according to the “deferred happiness model”
u Step 1: Split into Government and Opposition
u Step 2: Preparation Time (15 minutes)
u Step 3: PM Speech (7 minutes)
u Step 4: Response/Weighing
u Demo Debate:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1btuKbWx7mePghW3euBMwwSU71P5ziLx1/view?usp=sharing
Construction from 2nd Speaker

u 2nd Speakers should reinforce 1st Speaker’s arguments and/or build a new
argument
u Reinforcing Arguments – adding new mechanisms/impacts to fill in missing
analyses, or to reconstruct after being challenged by the opponent
u Building New Argument – constructing an argument that introduces a new
perspective into the debate
u New arguments are not necessary, but when employed strategically, they will
widen the scope of the debate and increase the chance of winning
New Argument from 2nd Speaker

u Ideally, a new argument from the 2nd Speaker should achieve one of the
following goals
u 1. Prove why you win the debate even if your main arguments do not stand
(i.e. “even if” arguments)
u 2. Prove why you win the debate even according to the opponent’s metrics
(e.g. “counterproductive” arguments, etc.)
u An accurate prediction of the opponent’s case would help improve the quality
of new arguments
Example – New Argument from 2nd Speaker

u THW desegregate schools in areas with high racial tensions

u PM: “Desegregation will reduce racial conflict in long-term”
u LO: “Minority children will be bullied”
u As DPM, you would want to prove that minority children will be better off
u DPM: “Children will get better education”
u As DLO, you would want to prove that racial conflict will be better solved
u “Desegregation creates more triggers of racial conflict within the school”
Example – New Argument from 2nd Speaker

u THW limit coverage of terrorist incidents to only reporting of statistics

u PM: “This will reduce discrimination towards minorities”
u LO: “It is necessary to have access to media coverage for safety”
u As DPM, you would want to prove that people will be better protected from
terrorist attacks
u DPM: “Reporting of statistics provides a more objective and accurate view of
terrorist attacks”
u As DLO, you would want to prove that minorities will be better protected
u DLO: “This will increase fear and speculation that target minorities”