How to build a clash?

By Usman Sialvi
What is a clash in Parliamentary debate?
In parliamentary debate, a "clash" refers to the process of directly engaging with and
challenging the arguments and positions put forth by the opposing team. It is a
fundamental aspect of the debate where teams attempt to undermine, counter, or refute the
points made by their opponents. Clashing is an essential part of the competitive and
persuasive nature of parliamentary debate, as it demonstrates critical thinking, analytical
skills, and the ability to support your own arguments while discrediting the opposition's.
Clashes can take various forms, including:
1. Direct Refutation
2. Counterarguments
3. Present Evidence and Examples
4. Questioning Assumptions
5. Highlighting Unintended Consequences
6. Pointing Out Logical Fallacies
Direct Refutation
Start by carefully listening to the opposition's speeches to identify their main points and
arguments. Take notes on their key contentions.
Organize your response by framing your clashes around the key arguments of the
opposition. Clearly state what you're going to challenge and why.
This involves directly addressing the points made by the opposing team and providing
reasons and evidence to show why those points are flawed or incorrect.
Counterarguments
Provide well-reasoned counterarguments to undermine the opposition's points. For
example:
Opposition Argument: "Increasing taxes on the wealthy will stifle economic growth."
Your Counterargument: "There is no direct correlation between high taxes on the wealthy
and stifled economic growth. In fact, many prosperous countries have higher tax rates for
the rich and continue to thrive."
Present Evidence and Examples
Present Evidence and Examples:
Support your counterarguments with evidence, data, and examples. Use statistics or real-
world examples to illustrate your points. For instance:
Opposition Argument: "Climate change is a natural occurrence."
Your Counterargument: "Multiple scientific studies have shown that human activities,
such as carbon emissions, are the primary drivers of climate change. The overwhelming
consensus among climate scientists supports this view."
Questioning Assumptions
You challenge the underlying assumptions or premises of the opposition's arguments. This
can involve asking critical questions to expose weaknesses in their logic. For example:
Opposition Argument: "Private healthcare is always more efficient than government-run
systems."
Your Counterargument: "It's a mistake to assume that private healthcare is inherently more
efficient. Many countries with public healthcare systems have lower healthcare costs and
better outcomes."
Highlighting Unintended Consequences
You point out potential negative outcomes or unintended consequences of the opposition's
proposed solutions or policies.
For instance:
Opposition Proposal: "We should ban all single-use plastics."
Your Response: "While banning single-use plastics may sound appealing, it could lead to
job losses in the plastics industry and encourage the use of alternative materials that may
be even more harmful to the environment."
Point Out Logical Fallacies:
Identify any logical fallacies in the opposition's arguments and explain why they are
invalid. Common fallacies include ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, and false
analogies.
Opposition Argument: "If we enact stricter gun control, it's a slippery slope to losing all
our rights."
Your Response: "This is a classic slippery slope fallacy. We can have reasonable gun
control measures without compromising other fundamental rights.
Motion: "This House believes that social media platforms should ban political advertisements."

Opposition Argument: "Banning political ads infringes on free speech."

Clash: "It's important to note that social media platforms are private entities, not governments. They
have their own terms of service and can regulate content. Moreover, allowing political ads on these
platforms often leads to misinformation and manipulation, which undermines democracy."
Opposition Argument: "Political ads on social media provide a level playing field for smaller parties."
Clash: "While it's true that political ads can be a valuable tool for smaller parties, the current system
is heavily skewed towards well-funded campaigns. Banning political ads would encourage a focus on
policies and direct engagement with voters rather than relying on advertising budgets."
Motion: "This House supports the use of nuclear energy as a clean and sustainable source of power."

Opposition Argument: "Nuclear energy produces minimal greenhouse gas emissions."

Clash: "While nuclear energy produces fewer emissions during power generation, the entire
nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to waste disposal, has significant environmental concerns.
The long-term storage of radioactive waste poses a substantial environmental risk."
Opposition Argument: "Nuclear energy is a reliable source of power."
Clash: "Nuclear energy may be reliable when it's working, but it's vulnerable to catastrophic
accidents and costly maintenance. We've seen disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima, and
the cost of building and maintaining nuclear plants can divert resources from investing in
truly sustainable and renewable sources.
Motion: "This House believes that social media platforms should ban political advertisements."

Opposition Argument: "Banning political ads infringes on free speech."

Clash: "It's important to note that social media platforms are private entities, not governments. They
have their own terms of service and can regulate content. Moreover, allowing political ads on these
platforms often leads to misinformation and manipulation, which undermines democracy."
Opposition Argument: "Political ads on social media provide a level playing field for smaller parties."
Clash: "While it's true that political ads can be a valuable tool for smaller parties, the current system
is heavily skewed towards well-funded campaigns. Banning political ads would encourage a focus on
policies and direct engagement with voters rather than relying on advertising budgets.
Clashing is a key component of parliamentary debate because it not only allows each team
to critically engage with the other's ideas but also demonstrates the ability to think on
one's feet and respond persuasively to a dynamic discussion. Effective clashes can
significantly strengthen your team's position and increase your chances of winning the
debate.