Mastering Debate: Essential Strategies and Techniques
Learn key concepts like argument structure, points of clarification, and how to make compelling arguments in a debate setting. Discover the importance of warrants, impacts, and implications in formulating strong arguments. Explore tips on coming up with effective arguments and understanding different perspectives.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Novice Bootcamp Fall 2021 DAY 2 Princeton Debate Panel
Agenda Argumentation How to opp How to flow Tight Calls
What are cases (RECAP)? Government chooses the motion/ case Also sets the scope of the debate Can caveat where debate takes place, what opp has to defend, and what issues are up for debate Can offer opp choice Government has a burden to share the necessary information to debate the case Opp gets no prep time
Points of Clarification This is the time for the opposition to ask questions of the government team. Take up to 15 minutes but usually don t need all of it and it s pretty obvious when people are trying to stall Ex. if someone has a case on the healthcare industry, don t ask what is a doctor? Potential things you might have questions about Where is this taking place Who is it affecting Has a similar thing been done anywhere else Implementation Context of current situation
Review: Arguments Structural View Burdens View 1. Claim 2. Warrants 3. Impact 1. Xhappens 2. Xis a good thing 3. Xdoes not happen without the policy Implication: Xshould be specific
How to make an argument? Claim What is the tagline of your argument? I.e. tell mewhat your argument is. Legalizing all drugs will increase government revenue Warrant What is the evidence for your claim/why is true? I.e. show meyour argument is true The government can tax drugs which will increase revenue. Impact What are the implications or why does your argument matter. I.e. so what? Can decrease massive deficit, increase funding for social welfare, education, etc. Like writing an essay!
Coming up with arguments Ideas Warrants => => Warrants Ideas
Warrants => Arguments 1. Think about the relevant questions a. Think from both sides 2. Think about how people feel 3. Think about what people s incentives are
THBT being single is preferable to being in a relationship Gov
THBT being single is preferable to being in a relationships Argument: when you re not in a relationship, you have more time to invest in the things that matter to you 1:30 -2:30 minutes
What is an argument? (1) 1. Claim 2. Warrant 3. Impact
What is an argument? (2) 1. A thing happens 2. The thing is good 3. ???
What is an argument? (2) 1. A thing happens 2. The thing is good 3. The thing does not happen otherwise
How to make arguments in general Who is impacted by the motion and who are the actors? the government, poor people, women, international bodies What are their incentives? Given these incentives, how are they likely to act. E.g. women are taxed less and therefore take more of their overall pay home. Couples that make decisions on who should be the primary caretaker versus breadwinner typically make them on whoever earns more. Think about what the other side might say E.g. if there is a an unelected group of scientists making decisions on climate policy, opponent might argue that sets a dangerous precedent for other forms of curtailing democracy. Explain how the climate crisis is so catastrophic and can t wait for the sometimes time consuming process of democracy. Given your answers, make arguments! Women work more Urgency of climate change demands decisive informed action now
Some approaches to rounds about economics Questions to consider: How will this affect business? Society/economy as a whole?
Economics can be viewed on the individual level Who are the worst off? How are burdens distributed on them? If labor restrictions are suspended in times of recession, the worst off have lower minimum wage and safety standards. Is this worth trading off with having a job? Automation effects on unskilled workers. Unintended consequences Will people be able to bring back these labor laws effectively in the case of suspending labor protection laws in times of recession? Information asymmetry Often when employees sign contracts, they might not know all legal jargon or be desperate for a job. Bad results may follow.
Economics can be viewed at the corporate level Monopolies Government run services or subsidies Subsidies are sometimes necessary when otherwise, products would be too expensive E.g. water is subsidized Free market Arguments include: individuals know best, less corruption and lobbying, more efficient Bad because one or a few corporations become the only source for people to buy necessary things from Corporations can charge higher prices, lower quality goods
Economics can have aggregate effects Supply and Demand Demand affected by number of consumers and incomes, particular needs for a product Supply affected by labor supply/productivity Examples of Economic Motions THW not bail out companies in times of recession THBT governments should provide all personal loans (student, housing, etc.) instead of private lenders
Social justice balances principled and pragmatic aims Questions to consider: What are the important principles to the group? Inclusion, pacifism, defying stereotypes Weighing between principled and pragmatic arguments Consider effects on identity especially on whether it essentializes a group Essentializing = arguing that socially conditioned traits are innate or made to be constitutive of the person (basically - stereotyping and thinking of people as one-dimensional) Ex. if someone is a woman, then they must have a maternal instinct Would potential backlash make things worse? Examples of motions: THBT commercialized feminism is good for the movement, THBT the United States should give black people 5/3 a vote
Policies are never implemented perfectly How would this policy be implemented? What are the potential consequences, intended or otherwise? How would different groups react? Is there any meaningful backlash? Does it tradeoff with anything else? Examples: THBT poor people should get more votes, THBT environmental policy should be determined by a group of scientists selected by their peers. Note: you should still engage with the goals of a policy on its merits; it s rarely sufficient to just describe how the policy will be implemented poorly
Agenda Argumentation How to opp How to flow Tight Calls
Opp Setup Most of the time: obvious what you are defending + you don t need ANY setup/to pause for questions Specified by motion TH would prefer cap and trade policiesto carbon taxes Defending current state of affairs (status quo) TH regrets the norm of polygamy Sometimes: you can specify what exactly the relevant alternative is THW invade Iran => can defend normalizing relations, or continuing sanctions
Rules for Opp Setups Your case MUST be mutually exclusive with the gov policy Your case MUST be significantly distinct Your case CANNOT be less feasible/require more resources than the gov policy
How can you oppose 1. Straight opp a. Defend the motion 2. Counter-case a. b. Is as or more plausible than the case Tight call a. Claim motion is unopposable b. Function of two sides switch Spec call a. Applies to whole debate OR arguments Other theory a. Status quo b. Just another voting issue Has to be mutually exclusive with gov policy 3. 4. 5.
Straight-opping Normally you defend the status quo/some world opp has prescribed for you You CAN make argument about what this would look like E.g. THW Use a Lower Burden of Proof when trying police officers for violence Are other policies (e.g. bodycams/defunding the police) in place/likely to happen? Are those policies better at solving the problem? Are they less likely now? It is yourburden to show that the SQ has some desirable characteristic
Countercasing How different: you can fiatthat the relevant actor will do the thing you want and not the think they are most likely to do Don t have an argumentative burden E.g. THW prefer to be single You want to defend an open/polygamous relationship Without countercase: HARD TO PROVE With countercase: NO NEED TO PROVE
Rules for countercasing Government case must not prohibit it E.g. pref to squo Same actor E.g. THBT the US should invade Venezuela If you want a coalition of South American nations, have to prove it s likely Mutually exclusive E.g. THW invade Venezuela => can t suggest invading the US instead Similarly plausible
What does similarly plausible mean Same ability to fiat(assert) good fortune Gov: we assume people collaborate with the policy Similar likelihood of being passed THS loan forgiveness for students Counterprop: THW make college free (?) Similar levels of resources THW pass amnesty for illegal immigrants THW redistribute $250bn in tax to end poverty
Examples THW pay welfare in the form of goods and services THBT the existence of evil is not compelling evidence against the existence of an Abrahamic God TH prefers a world where liberal democracies have open border policies to the status quo In the future, when the genetic enhancement of embryos in its infancy, THBT Western liberal democracies should not place price ceilings on the technology
Agenda Argumentation How to opp How to flow Tight Calls
Flowing is how you can keep track of a round The method of taking notes during the debate Use two sheets of paper --one for the on-case and one for the off-case Orient the paper vertically or horizontally and have each speech be a narrow column Have responses be written next to the argument they re responding to Use two colors of pens to have it be easy to read Use abbreviations --you don t have time to write out full words
Example Flow (On case) MG PM Arg 1 LO MO Response Response Response Arg 2 Response Response Response
Example Flow (Off case) MO Response LO MG Arg 1 Response Response Arg 2 Response
Agenda Argumentation How to opp How to flow Tight Calls
How to Handle Tight Calls The literal worst part of debate
Tight Call Theory Super Unfair Bad for the league, sets bad norms, makes it so that relevant topic issues are not discussed For novices! Use the fact that you are novices and people ought to care about your retention. This is true because the round is miserable and the judge will give you lower speaks.
What to do - BRIEF SUMMARY If you are tight calling: If you are defending against a tight call: Have to be able to beat their own case Government has infinite prep time Tight block cannot include countercase Time skew -made your PM speech irrelevant, so they have one more speech than you Just need to show a path to victory not beat the entire case
Tight Call Theory - DEFENDING GOV CASE Structure of the Round What is the point of saying this theory? Want to show how the structure of the round is now incredibly unfair to Gov in a way that makes it so judges give more credit to your arguments even if not fully developed Time Skew Opp Time = 8 LO + 8 MO + 4 LOR + basically 7 PMC = 27 mins Gov Time = 8 + 5 = 13 mins HUGE! This matters because more time = more arguments + more developed arguments that could actually win you a round, especially when part of that time has to be dedicated to stupid theory stuff instead of actual argumentation Opping is structurally easier esp because of things like the Opp Block (MO and LOR after each other, MOs can do MO dumps which tends to happen a lot in tight call rounds) Thus allowing them to pick side combined with time skew is super unfair
Rebuttals to their theory A lot of teams will use a theory called beat case Need to show that not only could they have thought of opps but that Gov entire case should be beaten since otherwise could do a PMR pull through and outweigh on that just true idea Will also say that Gov teams have infinite prep time so the case is extremely strong and thus need to show how it can be beaten How to rebut these things Literally in all other debates, a beat case standard is never used. People always have paths to victory. Each side will have arguments that are true and will stand. The point of debate is to outweigh Gov has one constructive speech so literally impossible given amount of material discussed Opposition gets to co-opt the PMC, which was also written with infinite prep time Always requiring gov teams have an opp which could clearly beat their case (with a 14 minute time disadvantage!) and is accessible to a reasonably good team is to require gov teams to lose all competitive debates.
Think of customizations to the round you are in/sassy things to say If something that fits liberal intuitions This is a widely debated topic. Contrary to APDA liberal belief, not all conservatives or people who disagree with them are stupid. There exists reasons why people think differently and you can think of them too If someone says PMC arguments are too good What does that even mean? Are you asking all Gov teams to come up with bad arguments so that it is easier for you to win? Good arguments does not equal unbeatable, it just means the debate is better and at a higher level Also, a lot of things in case sound pretty and nice but are either unwarranted claims or rely on false assumptions Other specific topic areas that might seem tight to certain group of people Tight to men cases = feminism cases that men just refuse to debate because they are uncomfortable
How to actually handle arguments Given them 1-3 paths to victory Say opp arguments that they could have made, warrant them to say why they are true (also why more true than PMC arguments), and how this could have been outweighed to be the most important impact of the round Try to quickly beat case anyway Go down your case and make rebuttals to it Now case is gone and they have three clean paths to victory! Recognize that the burden of Gov is never to actually win the round (because of time skew stuff etc that might be impossible) but to show how is this was a full round where everyone had all of their speaking time then these arguments could have conceivable withstood a certain amount of rebuttals and outweighed, giving a path to victory
Opping with a tight call (1) Say: we think this case is tight (2) Theory (3) Explain why their arguments/other arguments for gov are too strong
How to do a tight call as Opp - THEORY Pls just don t But if you must Beat Case Standard Gov had infinite prep time PMR pull throughs are a big thing that people do to win rounds. So even if most arguments are beatable, if one is is not then they would just pull it through Explain how all of the arguments could potentially be pulled through and be made to outweigh any other considerations Bad for league to write tight cases, bad norm setting, bad for novices Do some potential opps that are prob in tight block and explain how they would have never been viable Always outweighed by other considerations No impacts Bad warrants
