Workshop Collection

Paris Debate Training Weekend 2018

Olivia Sundberg Diez, 2018

ca@scottisheudc2018.com
 CONTENTS

1. Introduction to analysis: How to develop arguments

2. Seven argumentation mistakes to avoid
3. Impacting arguments
4. Winning from preparation time
5. Strategies for rebuttal
6. Role fulfilment: closing half
7. How to bump up your speaker points
 HOW TO PROVE WHAT YOU WANT TO PROVE

• Who is harmed or benefited? Be specific and descriptive

• Have a clear sentence of causation
• What is the currency of harm or benefit?
• Probability, not possibility: what are the structural features?
• Be nuanced in your impact and characterisations
• Pre-empt attacks, and overcome them
• Seven Argumentation Mistakes to Avoid
 HOW TO IMPROVE AT IMPROVING

• Go to cafés with your partner

• Think about your last tournaments (and recurring feedback)
• Assess your level – who is around you?
• Start where you are weakest
• Watch and rebut speeches
• Make a list of top issues – be disciplined, prioritise
 SOCIAL POLICY: SECURITY VS PRIVACY
• Harm to privacy has no real impact on our lives,
especially if done nothing wrong
• CCTV, passport checks, police on streets
• Willingly sacrifice privacy already e.g. give data
to companies with worse intentions
• Duty to offer security is more important
because of state monopoly on violence
• Right to life is a pre-requisite for other rights
• State collectivises interests
• Loss of privacy and fear for security has a real
effect on people: worse day-to-day
• Must trade-off with real impacts and
alternatives; wouldn’t fill prisons, people don’t
get into cars
• Lack of trust and buy-in undermines security
• Probability: unlikely to stop attacks due to this
specifically
• Scope: more people affected
• Harm to security: state cannot protect your
information as well as you do; leaks and risk of
misapplication
 DEMOCRACY VS STABILITY IN THE
DEVELOPING WORLD
• Democracy leads to economic progress and
political stability; trust in government, more
likely to get investment, less conflict long
term
• Need representation for most vulnerable;
stability entrenches the most privileged. If
no right to decide freely, no accountability,
will not benefit from stability/development
• Political stability helps the economy and
leads to a stronger democracy long term
(people become wealthier, more educated)
• Poor suffer the most from bad management
(less state money for welfare, cannot fight
corruption effectively, can allow more
innovative policy with a stronger platform)
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE: RIGHTS OF VICTIMS VS
RETRIBUTION

• Duty to prioritise law-abiding citizens • Could never correct for the harm
over those who broke the law entirely, it was so large; therefore must
prevent future harm
• Duty to correct for previous failure to
protect • All victims are equal, cannot
discriminate against future victims
• Most vulnerable, least able to help
themselves • Crime against society / humanity
requires societal condemnation
• Right for closure
• Resentment and feeling ignored
weakens participatory justice
 HOW TO BEAT BACKLASH ARGUMENTS?

• Don’t negotiate with terrorists; illegitimate preferences shouldn’t factor in

• Short term backlash → longer term normalisation
• Inevitable sooner or later, whatever / whenever the policy happens
• Why is this policy and resulting backlash the tipping point?
• Why is the backlash worse than the status quo, not worth the benefits?
• Backlash → counter-backlash. People rally in support
• Perpetual imbalance that will always slow progress
 A CHECKLIST FOR WINNING:
SEVEN ARGUMENTATION MISTAKES TO
AVOID
By Olivia Sundberg
ca@scottisheudc2018.com
 1. DESCRIBING WHERE AN ARGUMENT
EXISTS… WITHOUT MAKING IT

• Narratives: “We should not have unlimited immigration because it will lead to
backlash”, “This policy sends a message that Putin’s actions are illegitimate”,
“This will give a platform to the LGBT movement”
• Principles: “We should allow unlimited immigration because borders are
arbitrary”, “This will lead the same type of crime receiving different treatment
and punishment”
• Generic outcome: “This will improve the economy / democratic participation”
• Value-neutral outcome: “This policy will allow small business to compete with
large multinational corporations in the developing world”
 2. SHOWING THAT SOMETHING IS POSSIBLE…
BUT NOT PROBABLE

• “What if the government is corrupt? They can use this policy

to their advantage!”
• “Forcing integration will allow rich people to befriend poor
people that they otherwise don’t meet, thus reducing
discrimination”
• “Poor people lose a lot of money gambling, so we should ban
it”
• “Reporting on wars makes people scared of entering them, so
we will not enter wars that we should be entering”
 3. EXAGGERATION AND GENERALISATION

• “This motion will end poverty / will lead to World War 3 /

will end the Israel-Palestine conflict / will end sexism”
• “Religious people are irrational / rely desperately on their
religion”, “Poor people spend welfare money badly so we
should use vouchers instead”
• “This policy will help women / LGBT people”
• Don’t just toss in “vulnerable people”.
 4. LEAVING YOUR ARGUMENTS
UNPROTECTED

• Expect the trade-off

• Pre-empt attacks
• Insulate your case
• Secondary impacts
• Add, rebuild and reconstruct
 5. ENGAGING AT A SHALLOW LEVEL

• Be aware of what you are doing: Is it mitigation? Is it

shedding doubt? Is it decisive?
• “We should not increase inheritance tax, because rich
people will still make their children rich while they are
alive”
• “OG say that social housing will help integration but they
never prove why rich people will ever talk to poor
people”
 6. MISSING ARGUMENT INTERACTIONS

• Internal inconsistencies: “people won’t care so their harm

doesn’t happen, people will care so our benefit happens”
• Concessions and unnecessary burdens: “oh, so are you
willing to always apply this?”
• ‘Strobe street light’ arguments
• “They make it a wasteland and they call it peace”
 7. NOT THINKING LIKE A JUDGE

• Focus on the logic – build a case, not a list of benefits

• Asymmetrical arguments
• Track the debate
• Impacting matters
• Clarity matters
IMPACTING YOUR ARGUMENTS
 COMPONENTS OF A GOOD ARGUMENT

• CLEAR.
What is my point?
• PROVEN.
Why is it true?
Why is it good / bad?
• IMPACTED.
Why is it important?
• COMPARATIVE.
What happens on your side vs the other side?
 TWO WAYS OF IMPACTING

• What is the size of the benefit or harm?

• What moral imperatives are at play?
 1. SIZE OF THE BENEFIT / HARM

• Size of the group

• Life or death vs minor benefit
• Uniqueness
• Short term vs Long term
• Probability
• Leads to further harms or benefits
e.g. economics, intolerance, discourse / engagement arguments
 2. MORAL IMPERATIVES

• Particular obligations towards them in this instance

e.g. education, welfare; promises made
• Particular obligations towards them in general
e.g. state’s duty towards the vulnerable, everyone’s duty towards the less
fortunate
• Some harms are unacceptable, even if they produce net utilitarian benefits
e.g. torture of terrorists to obtain beneficial evidence, rescue operations and
variations of the trolley problem
 TWO WAYS OF BEING COMPARATIVE

• You can compare different stakeholders

“OG want to help the rich and we want to help the poor. Here is why the poor are
more important and why only we help them.”
• You can compare different benefits for the same stakeholders
“We agree with OG that the most important thing in this debate is stopping crime
/ helping minorities. Here is why their benefits are minimal and our benefits are
huge in terms of stopping crime.”

• Most important: Have a framework. Justify what metric you are comparing
things by!
WINNING FROM PREP TIME
 HOW TO SPEND TIME

• 2-3 minutes thinking

• Always check: what’s the opp?
• Goal is to find out what the debate is about and what you need to prove to
win. This will help you prioritise arguments
• Need a functional team dynamic and division of labour: know what works
for you
• It varies depending on position
 QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION TIME

1. What is this debate about (where will the disagreement happen) and what is the
trade-off? (what do I have to sacrifice and where is the other side strongest – go
straight to heart and win trade-off)
2. What is this debate not about? (caveat, what only applies in some cases,
minorities and red flags)
3. What are the relevant stakeholders in this debate? (don’t miss the extension)
4. Why did the CA team set this motion? (be fair, and don’t miss the principle case)
5. What things, if true, mean you win this debate?
6. Why do your points matter?
7. If you had to rebut your case how would you do it?
8. Can I think of 3 examples or case studies? (how do they work, why are they
relevant, what is the conclusion?)
 OPENING

• Don’t spend too long on the mechanism: it won’t win for you
• Set the terms of the debate: what is it about? Pre-empt the opposition
• Division between PM and DPM, LO and DLO
• Case-building models: PSA, stakeholder structure
 CLOSING

• Diversify your arguments – you can develop them fully throughout the
debate
• What will the debate come down to? Predict the top half
• Clear headlines for arguments
• Order of preference
• Shared piece of paper
• What is the likely line and why does it beat opening?
• During the debate: critically listen, explain what you add and why it is better
 I’M STUCK!

• Stakeholders
• Principles
• Real world
• Analogies
• Do not choose breadth over depth
STRATEGIES FOR REBUTTAL
 WHAT IS GOOD REBUTTAL?

• Rebuttal is not an opposition argument; it is different from asserting the opposite

• Mitigatory, cast doubt, decisive, undermine relevance
• Logically, are you doing enough to win?
• Several lines of rebuttal; even if
• Take them at their best: attack where it is going, not where it is
• Be careful of ‘what aboutery’
• Spell out the relevance of your rebuttal: what premise does it knock down?
• Can integrate it. But then make sure you do.
TYPES OF REBUTTAL
 MITIGATION

• Nuance: is this factor important enough to lead to their change? How much
happens on your side as well?
• Minimise the change
• Washing out – what is asymmetrical or non-comparative?
• Counter-examples
• Claim the context
• Create an alternative
• After this, you need an impact
 FIGHT THE LOGIC

• Highlight assertions and assumptions

• Premises don’t lead to conclusions
• There are other explanations
• Conflation
• Steal the point, claim it for your side
• After this, you need to justify your interpretation’s probability, and you
need an ‘even if’
 ATTACK THE RELEVANCE

• Their group or benefit is not important

• Compare
• Frame out of the debate
• Focus on your burden
• After this, you need to justify why your argument is relevant
EXAMPLES
 PRACTICE

• This house would introduce a 100% inheritance tax

• This house would make voting compulsory
• This house would end the use of “decapitation” in fighting terrorism
• This house regrets mass tourism to developing countries
 THW INTRODUCE A 100% INHERITANCE TAX

• (1) Inheritance tax leads to the unfair accummulation of wealth across generations.
• Once you have passed away, you have no property rights. You are not going to use
your money or your mansion.
• Therefore it is legitimate for the government to tax it if it can create a social good. In
particular, because inheritance increases inequality.
• This will prevent huge wealth from being passed down across generations and create
a more even playing field.
 THW MAKE VOTING COMPULSORY

• (1) Making voting compulsory will make democracy more representative.

• Now: many do not vote, range of reasons: (a) don’t believe there is an impact, (b) no
tradition of voting, (c) dissatisfied with all options, (d) inconvenience vs no cost to not
doing so.
• Problem: affects policies implemented, politicians’ mandates, how they campaign,
what they promise. Especially because falls on class lines; especially when don’t have
time, least impact, tradition, circular.
• Change: (a) More people will vote because it is costly not to. (b) Huge signalling
mechanism. Have to start catering to those who have never voted before. Held
accountable with the next votes. Changes policies, much more representative. (c)
Once you have voted, invested, so will track promise.
 THW END THE USE OF DECAPITATION IN
FIGHTING TERRORISM

• (1) Decapitation leads to the death of civilians.

• It often looks like drone strikes against innocent people which are justified
because of the improtance of catching leaders of ISIS, al Qaeda or similar.
This creates resentment in the population, and makes it harder to fight the
root causes of terrorism.
• It is also impossible to kill terrorists without harming civilians, because they
often protect themselves with human shields. Every time they leave the
house they have to go with their wife or children, hoping you will not attack
them.
 THR MASS TOURISM TO DEVELOPING
COUNTRIES

• (1) Mass tourism harms developing countries’ economies.

• It is so fast that people cannot adapt and it displaces people to build hotels
and resorts, it forces people into slums.
• It is unsustainable, because people’s tastes change quickly and they may
decide to stop visiting in favour of another state. Your monuments etc. are
damaged over time.
ROLE FULFILMENT: CLOSING HALF
 WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN OPENING / CLOSING HALF?

• Opening half: Setting the terms of the debate

• Advantage: Power and influence
• Disadvantage: The debate moves on
• Closing half: Adapting and creating something new and better
• Advantage: Reaction time
• Disadvantage: Cannot be repetitive
• Challenges? Extension speeches, new lines that seem to knife, structuring
summary especially when extension is unplanned, what to do when OG/OO
messes up
 OPENING HALF

• Burdens across the bench: models/alternatives and mitigation/harms

• How to win from opening: clarity, impact, insulation, pre-emptive
engagement, set out the terms of the debate
• OG: Problem – Solution – Alternatives
• OG: Acknowledge the trade-off
• OO: Clarity, go beyond mitigation

• Divisions and deputy speeches? Must add something new

 REQUIREMENTS OF CLOSING HALF

• Add something new.

• New kind of argument, e.g. Principled vs pragmatic
• Completely different group, benefit or currency
• That something new does not have to be wild and irrelevant.
• Rebuttal extension: an “Even If” insulation, even in the best of worlds of the proposition, we still
win / or actually taking down and winning their central clash
• Analysis extension: making their case more plausible, filling in logical gaps
• Analysis extension: explaining why their case matters and is important enough to weigh in the
debate
• That something new has to be good.
• That something new should not contradict your opening half.
 HOW TO APPROACH IT TO WIN?

In prep time
• Brainstorm several ideas, avenues, benefits, principles and stakeholders.
• Consider the other side’s arguments and what the clash and trade-offs are likely to
be.
• Go into the detail of most arguments!
In the debate
• Listen carefully to top half. Cross out ideas they prove, take notes of what you add.
• Adapt and communicate.
• Be tactical with POIs.
 WHAT TO DO IN THE EXTENSION SPEECH

• Usual split: extension tackles the opening half and sum tackles the opp bench.
• You cannot rely on winning by being cleverer or clearer. You need to do the judges’
work.
• Actively make their material irrelevant.
• Ignore it. Do not spend any time re-giving their analysis.
• Weaken your opening in ways you can rescue. Often this means emphasising a missing
link in their case.
• Emphasise what is new in your argument. “OG said this. But what we say is this.”
• Explicitly tell the judges why it is better and more important than what they said.
• Spend one minute on the top half clash and move on to your important material.
 EXERCISE: JUSTIFYING YOUR EXTENSION

• This house would abolish the prison system

• This house would make voting compulsory
• This house would stream children according to academic ability in schools
 WHAT TO DO IN THE SUMMARY SPEECH

• Your clash points should be your extension points

• Can have a separate engagement clash
• Phrase them comparatively
• Do not allocate time as your extension speaker does it.
• Note taking
• Keep track of rebuttal and of the opening case; identify who is winning if possible
• Keep extension points as headings
• Communication
• Have a system, discuss with your partner
 WHAT TO DO IN THE SUMMARY SPEECH

• Do not add, do not repeat, but move it forward.

• What is new material?
• No: New lines of analysis, new harms, new principle, new context, new
mechanisms
• Yes: New examples (though rarely helpful), references to POIs you asked
(engagement, not substantive), engagement, deconstruction, clarity and
impacting.
CHEAT SHEET: HOW TO BUMP UP
YOUR SPEAKER POINTS
 WHAT ARE SPEAKER POINTS FOR?

• Cleverness
• Originality
• Sophistication
• Engagement
• Clarity
• Persuasion

• Every speech, you need to plan to give an 82.

• Every speech, you need to plan to not waste a second.
SPEAKER SCALE
 STYLE AND RHETORIC:
FIRST, WHAT IT IS NOT ABOUT

• Not MUN, FDA, or Académico

• Style is not a separate category: it is useful insofar as it enhances arguments
• “As Lincoln once said…”, “Ask not what you can do for your country…”, “First, they
came for the women and I said nothing…”, “And, I ask, what is democracy?”
• Stylishly giving no points = no speaker points for you!
• Stylishly giving bad points = no speaker points for you!
• Body language etc.
 RHETORIC

• Clarity and structure

• Introduction
• Anchor your case: principles and examples
• Avoid defensiveness

→ Clarity and persuasion

 CONTENT

• Steal the opposition’s analysis

• Understand the logic of the debate
→Engagement

• Specificity and precision

• Go one step further
→Originality, sophistication
 EXERCISES

• Introductions
• Arguments
• Framing teams out
• POI to PM