Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tilbury House Newcomer Workshop
Wintersemester 2013/14
Contents
• Theory I: Argumentation
• Theory II: The Debate
• Theory III: Reocurring Principles in Debating
• The Debating World
Theory I: Argumentation
Bad Arguments
• A huge element of debating is spotting bad arguments and
pointing them out to the judges!
• Another big element of debating is avoiding making bad
arguments!
• Many people recognise that an argument is bad but have
difficulty saying exactly why, so…
• We’re going to look and think methodically about different
types of bad arguments
Personal Attacks
• e.g.: “That argument is wrong because Leonard made
it, and he is a well known idiot!”
• What’s wrong with that?
– Debating is about persuasion through the exchange of ideas
– Name-calling adds nothing to that Actually lose you marks!
Authority
• Arguing “So-and-So said it” or “The People think” therefore
it is right!
1. It doesn’t matter who said it - judges want the reason behind
it
2. In most debates you’re arguing about what people SHOULD
think!
• Can anyone think of any situation where this kind of
argument might be ok?
– To back-up an explained point
– Where Public Opinion is VERY heavily entrenched
Analogy & Example
• “We used sanctions on Iran so we should use them on
Syria”
• What is the problem with this kind of argument?
– If there are differences between the two instances in an
example or analogy
• Examples and analogies can be good to back up an
argument
• Never use personal examples!
Assertion
• Very simple: An argument without supporting logic or
information is worthless
• If your opponent asserts something, point it out!
Black & White Extremism
• Other debaters will often try and force you into a tough
choice!
– e.g.: “If you don’t want to invade Iran then you have defend
letting them have Nuclear Weapons”.
– In most situations there will be a “Third Way” like constructive
engagement or a preventative regime like sanctions - Think
outside the box!
• This can be a very clever and effective tactic to try and get
people to argue a very difficult position - don’t fall for it
AND watch out for opportunities to use it on weak teams
Caricature & Misrepresentation
• Presenting a weaker picture of an opponent’s argument and
then attacking it
• Is that valuable?
– No, and most adjudicators won’t miss it, BUT point it out
anyway!
False Association
• e.g.: “you are arguing X, Stalin supported X, therefore you
are as bad as Stalin”
• Why is this a bad argument?
– It doesn’t explain the underlying reason why X is bad
False Causation
• Often arises when statistics are used
– e.g.: “sales of lemonade in the UK fell in the 1980s at the
same time as crime rates soared therefore we would have
compulsory lemonade to solve the crime wave”
• What’s the problem here?
– Obviously, no connection between the two occurrences has
been shown; a relation is merely asserted…and we know about
assertion!
Slippery Slope
• Speakers often argue that X will lead to Y therefore we
shouldn’t do X
• This kind of argument can be ok IF….what?
– IF… the progression from X to Y is clearly proven
– But most people don’t do this, so point it out in your own
speech!
Irrelevance & Misdirection
• e.g.: in a debate about the death penalty: “proportionally
more black men are hanged in the US than white men
therefore we should abolish the death penalty because it is
racist”
• What’s the problem with this argument?
– Like some of our earlier examples it implies a causal
relationship where none exists
– In addition, it identifies an incorrect problem, misdirecting the
debate
Shifting Burdens
• Sometimes a team will try and place a burden on you to
argue something: “so the Opp needs to show why the State
shouldn’t ban smoking!”
• It’s perfectly reasonable to challenge the other side to try
and disprove something that you’ve clearly proven…BUT…
– Cunning teams will try and shift a burden without doing the
initial roving themselves
– This could sometimes be an effective tool for you but don’t let
other teams away with it when they try it on you
Generalisation
• e.g.: “X is a restriction on civil liberties by government and
is therefore wrong because democratic governments
shouldn’t do that”
• What’s the problem here?
– The argument should be made in it’s own right - similar to
problems with analogies
Good Arguments
• The first rule of making good arguments is “Don’t make
Bad Arguments”
• BUT … There are three other rules for making a good
argument that are pretty essential and … they are pretty
simple and easy to get right
• If you want to make a good argument you’ll need to have
these rules to the forefront of your mind
The 3 Rules for Good Arguments
• Keep it SEXI
• Ask why…again…and again…and again…
• Always think about the case!
Keep it SEXI
Each point must be treated like a chapter of a book or a
paragraph of an essay
S = State the Argument
In one sentence tell the judges exactly what your point is!
EX = Explain the Argument
Lead us through the logic of the argument in small simple steps
I = Illustrate your argument
Give an Example, Analogy, or Fact to back-up your argument
Ask why again and again and again
• Speakers often ask, what constitutes “sufficent explanation”
– Think about what you intend to say: if you can legitimately ask
“why?” then you probably need to explain more
– Be careful though - sometimes you may need to answer one of
your “why”s with a separate introductory point (independently
flagged as part of your case)
Always think about the case
• All cases work along a very simple model
Harm Policy Effect
• You should be able to finish every argument with sentence
“… and this is why the motion stand (falls)”
Now Action Then
Exercise
• Take 10 minutes to write down one structured argument
and present it
This house would introduce student fees
Theory II: The Debate
Motion
• Policy Motions: This house would ban smoking in public
places.
– You have to present a policy
• Believe Motions: This house believes that parents should
not tell their adopted children that they are adopted.
– No real policy, but principal debate
• Third Party Motions: This house, as a 18 year old high
school graduate, would join the military.
– Argue out of ones perspective
Motion
• Consider every part of the motion
– THB that the Noble Committee should deprive President
Obama his Noble Peace Prize
– Always ask yourself: WHY?
Prep Time
• Work together with your team partner: you win as a
team, you lose as a team
• Possible Timetable (depending on position):
– 1 min: Talk with your team partner: “What is the debate
about”
– 5 min: Brainstorming (Alone/Together)
– 5 – 10 min: Discuss your Arguments
Who is doing what
Think about the other side
Start with notes for your speech
Role Fulfillment
1st Government
Prime Minister
Deputy Prime Minister
2nd Government
Member of Government
Government Whip
1st Opposition
Leader of Opposition
Deputy Leader of Opp.
2nd Opposition
Member of Opposition
Opposition Whip
Seco
nd
Hal
fFi
rst
Hal
f
Prime Minister
• Defines the debate
• Difficult: Lack of time, and all against you
• What the Prime Minster should do (preferably in this order)
1. Status Quo: Problem, Harm (plus, definitions if necessary)
2. Your Goal: Better Status Quo
3. Measure
4. Mechanism
5. Main Arguments (1 – 2)
• Not sure about the debate: Take more POIs to get more
information about the debate
Prime Minister II
• What the Prime Minster shouldn’t do:
– Do not overcomplicate things
– Do not narrow down your case
– Squirrels: Take the obvious debate
– Time/Place settings: Take the obvious
– Do not hang your case: The central case should be in your
speech
Opposition Leader
• Should show that:
– “That the Status Quo is good”
– The Goal is bad
– The Measure is wrong
– The Mechanism leads to the opposite
• Structure of your speech
1. Rebut the PM (Extensively, 1 – 2 min)
2. Outline your case
3. Present main arguments (1 – 2 Arguments, rest of your
speech)
Deputy PM/OL
• Deputy should:
– Reinforce team line
– Defend PM/OL
– Rebut OL/PM/DPM
– Develop further arguments
• Structure of your speech
– Rebuttal (1 min)
– Arguments (1 – 2 Arguments; main part of your speech)
– Summarize position shortly (1/2 – 1 min)
Extension Speaker
• Have to move the debate forward
• Coherent with 1st Gov./Opp.
• Bring new material to the debate
– Find new stakeholder
– New Principals (Social, Political, Economical, Moral etc.)
– Extension Animals
• Mole: dig deeper
• Eagle: overall idea
• Stork: bring something new
• Hippo: making things broader
Extension Speaker II
• Structure of your speech
– Rebut DPM/DOL and respond to first half (1 – 2 min)
– Present extension (Differentiate team but support OG/OO) (3
– 4 min)
• Government side: If first team screwed up
– Elegant case drop or make more specific
– Contradiction in first team: pick one
• You want to debate on
• Defend remotely
Whip Speaker
• Provide a biased summary of the debate
– Find the main clashes of the debate and show why your side
won, especially the importance of your team: Identify the
burden of proof
• Different ways to structure your speech
• No clashes?
– Biased judge (as a lobbyist would do it)
1. What was the first half about
2. Why the other extension is wrong
3. Why your extension is right
Whip Speaker II
• Important to remember:
– Support your team partner
– Do not bring new material
– Rebuttal
• Structure of your speech:
– Rebut Opposition Extension/Government Whip (1 min)
– Defend your extension speaker
– Summarize the debate (main part)
Engagement
• A debate is more then prep time, your speech and waiting
for the call
• Engagement with your opponents will make you more
persuasive, and makes the debate more fun
• How can I engage:
– Rebut the other side
– Offer and take POI’s
– Be comparative
Rebuttal
• Rebuttal is destructive material aimed at knocking down
what the other side has said
• You have to rebuttal the previous speaker
– Best: At the beginning of your speech
– Also possible during your speech (Clearly mark it!)
• You do not have to rebut everything the previous speaker
said, focus on the important points
Rebuttal II
• Three ways to attack the opponent:
– Attack the evidence
• weak
– Attack the analysis
• Most common
• Analysis illogical or wrong assumptions
– Attack the principal (strongest)
• Difficult, but the strongest
• Insignificant / More important arguments
Point of Information
• Taking
– Only take it when you are ready to
– Take one in a five minute speech
– Never take a POI without responding to it
– Do not take them if you feel unsure about your point
– Be strategic
– Take the stronger team
• It is your speech, so use POI to show that you are confident
in what your are saying
Point of Information II
• Giving
– Offer POIs regularly (both team members), but do not badger
• Use: “On this Mam/Sir”, “Sir/Mam”, “Point”
– Three kinds of POIs
• Responsive: weaker
• Constructive: Flag your own material
• Misleading: Trick them into an answer they do not like
Be comparative
• Include the other side’s position in your argumentation
• Show the judge that your point is more relevant / stronger
then the other side
• Requires that you listen to the other side
Theory III: Reoccurring principles in debating
Foreign Policy Motions
Foreign Policy motions usually deal with interests and possible political actions of an actor, either a foreign actor or of a WLD towards a foreign actor
Almost everytime these motions are closed or semi-closed
and deal with a principle
The underlying principle usually deals with the conflict
between principle or interest-led (realist) foreign policy
Two problems: a) You've got no idea b) the judge has got no
idea
Foreign Policy Motions II
There will always be at least one foreign policy motionduring a tournament. Prepare yourself! Knowledge iseverything!
Israel is a debater obsession.
Examples:
THBT it should be the policy of the US to conduct all of itsmilitary interventions unilaterally
THBT it is in the west's interest for Assad to decisively winthe Syrian Civil War.
THBT liberal democracies should cut all economic and
military ties with the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia
Privacy vs. Security
• What is the responsibility of a democratically elected
government?
• Do NOT argue for absolute positions
• You can only win a debate by showing where the line
between the two principles should be drawn in the specific
case of the motion
• There are different degrees of infringements
• What are the benefits of privacy in this specific case?
• Individual preferences can change over time
• Societal attitudes can change over time
Free Market vs. State Intervention
• A free market is about individuals making decisions
voluntarily
– Why do individuals make decisions, that others believe to be
problematic?
– What immediate effect does the intervention have on the
stakeholders?
– How do the incentives for the stakeholders change?
– What unintended consequences can follow?
– Is the intervention justified, if you consider alternative ways to
achieve the goal (e.g. regulation, education)?
– Is the intervention proportionate, if you weigh harms and
benefits?
Liberty vs. Paternalism
• Are individuals always rational actors?
– Whether you perceive a decision as right or wrong
• depends on your perspective
• changes over time
• Does individual freedom include the right to make mistakes?
– What is the harm of a mistake in the specific case of this
debate?
– What is the benefit of people making their own decisions in the
specific case of the debate?
Liberty vs. Paternalism II
• Is a paternalistic approach justified, if you consider
alternative ways to achieve the goal (e.g.
regulation, education)?
• Is paternalism proportionate, if you weigh harms and
benefits?
The Debating World
International Tournaments
• International debating tournaments are held almost every
weekend
• Tilbury House sends teams to all major competitions
throughout Europe
• Tournaments are a great way
– To improve your debating skills
– To meet interesting people from all over Europe
– To discover other University Towns in Europe
• 50 € sponsorship for Tilbury House members
International Tournaments
Tilbury House participations all over Europe
Typical Tournament
• 7 min speeches
• 5 preliminary rounds, break to semi-finals
• team cap of 32 – 60
• costs are 30 - 50 euros per debater,
• n-1 rule applies (number of institution teams – 1 = number
of judges)
• The fee includes food and accommodation
Exemplary Tournament Schedule
Friday
17:00 Registration
18:00 Dinner
19:00 First Round
21:00 Second
Round
23:00 Social
Saturday
10:00 Breakfast
11:00 Third Round
13:00 Lunch
14:00 Fourth
Round
16:00 Fifth Round
18:00 Semi-finals
19:00 Dinner
20:30 Finals
21:30 Social
(Sunday)
10:00 Breakfast11:00 Semi-finals13:00 Lunch14:00 Finals
Upcoming Tournaments
January
• Zeit Debatte Dresden
10. – 12.
Deutsch
35 €
44 Team
• London IV
19.
Novice
30 £
40 Teams
February
• LSE Open
– 15. – 16.
– 50 £
– 100 Teams
• Leiden Open
– 22. – 23.
– 30 €
– 68 Teams
• Manchester IV
– 22. – 23.
• Budapest Open
– 28. – 2.
– 50 €
Tilbury House IV 2013
• Dec. 13th – Dec. 15th
• How Can I Help? Get involved!
– Runner
– Guides
– Registration
– Wing Judges
– Swing Teams
– Catering
– Organisation
How to inform yourself
• idebate.org
• achteminute.de (German)
• europeandebating.blogspot.de
(Tournaments)
• economist.com
THANK YOU!
©Tilbury House Debating Society
www.tilburyhouse.de
www.facebook.com/tilburyhouse.debating
twitter.com/tilbury_house
