TYPES OF ANALYSIS IN DEBATE:

1. Contextual Analysis:

This is the act of examining the context of the debate, where the debate takes place.

This allows you to frame the debate to suit your arguments.

NOTE: SOMETIMES THE CONTEXT COULD BE GIVEN IN THE MOTION OR INFO SLIDE. IN THIS CASES DO
NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON ANALYSIS.

For instance: TH as Kenya would support Black Lives Matter

The context in the above motion is Kenya. You have to show benefits Kenya accrues to win.

2. Impact Analysis:

This the examining of the effects of the arguments presented in the debate.

They can either be positive or negative.

You ought to show net impact. This means show the larger outcome of the case presented in order to
win the debate. This means prove to us the extent of the impact on the affected parties relevant to the
debate.

3. Actors Analysis:

This is the examining of the relevant parties to the debate, the actors, and determining how the debate
affects each of them.

Types of actors:

a) Direct actors- These are the people who would typically be directly involved in the debate and
are directly affected.
b) Indirect actors- These are people who may not be directly but feel the effects of the debate
c) Vulnerable actors- These are people who in the debate context are taken to be weaker than
everyone else thus they cannot defend themselves e.g. orphans, kids. This means they need
protection from the effects in the debate. Arguments that prove that they protect the interests
of this actors tend to be stronger in a debate setting.

NOTE: SOMETIMES THE ACTORS COULD BE GIVEN IN THE MOTION OR INFO SLIDE

4. Harms and benefits analysis:

This the examining of the dangers and rewards that the debate may have on the relative parties.

This requires the debater to review all arguments and see the harms and benefits present.
Net benefits- This means show the larger outcome of the case presented in order to win the debate.
This means prove to us the extent of the benefits that your arguments have on people. It also means
you show the harms on the opposing side to ensure your case valid.

Marginal benefits- This means you show that though your argument is not optimum it is slightly better
than all the others. This is done through the assessments of harms and benefits of your side and the
opposing side, then doing an average of the harms and benefits on each side. The side with more
benefits than harms appears to be more relevant to the debate.

5. Comparative analysis

This is the examining of all sides of the debate to determine whose side is better through comparing all
arguments.

Remember to always link the argument you are trying to discredit to yours to prove validity. Use your
argument to take out theirs.

State what each side has said and compare all arguments to yours, to determine the winner.

6. Even if analysis

This is the act of showing the irrelevance of the competitors’ arguments in order to show the strength in
ours.

7. Risk-based analysis

Show the risk of the competitors’ arguments and prove that the risk is far much greater than the reward.