DEBATING Training Handbook

Transcription

1 DEBATING Training Handbook

2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Basic Training 3. Schools of Debating 4. Ideas 5. Motions 6. Sample Debate 7. Preparing for your Debate 8. Exercises 2

3 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Debating Society is the Royal Grammar School Worcester s largest academic society. It is divided into a Junior Society (Years 7-10) and a Senior Society (Years 11-13), which meets during lunchtimes. There are separate training meetings for the Competition Squad and the Committee. The Debating Society is run by a student committee elected once a year by members of the Society. The Committee is headed by a President, again elected by fellow students. The President is responsible for the overall running of the Committee. S/he works through a team including a Chairman (responsible for running debates), a Secretary (responsible for training) and a Junior President. Students choose the motions and organise the debates. The Society enjoys close ties with the History and Politics, English and Classics Departments, and the Oxbridge Programme. It acts as discussion forum for, among others, students pursuing careers in Law and Medicine, and those applying to Russell Group (top 20) universities. The Debating Society takes part in various debating and public speaking competitions, including the English Speaking Union Mace, Oxford and Cambridge Union debating. 1.2 THE YEAR Debating is very well established in Britain, and competitions are run by many elite universities, and by organisations such as the English Speaking Union and Debate Matters. The most prestigious competitions are the ESU Mace, ICYD, Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, and the Society aims to compete in all of these, and to progress to second rounds and Finals Days. Most competitions take place between November and April. A typical debating society Competition Squad will therefore spend the Michaelmas term recruiting and training, the Lent term in competing and the Trinity (Summer) term resting. Of course, the Society will also be running floor debates (general meetings), training sessions and meetings with invited speakers throughout the year. The season traditionally ends with the Durham competition in March, which is a grand gathering of all of the Debating Societies who can afford to go imagine debating with the atmosphere of a football stadium. After Durham, people focus on their studies. 1.3 HOW TO WIN Debating is not Public Speaking. That is, you win based on the clarity and sophistication of your argument, and your ability to deal with the other side s argument. You do not win based on how you use your voice, or your body language, or the quality of your jokes 3

4 although you have to be careful to deliver your message in an appealing manner. There are subtle difference in style between different competitions, with ESU more interested in delivery than Oxbridge is, but in general, the winning side will have the best philosophical argument. Training therefore focuses largely on Philosophy. 4

5 2. BASIC TRAINING 2.1 KEY DEBATING LINGO British Parliamentary [BP] The main style of debating that we do 1 st Prop/1 st Opp/2 nd Prop/2 nd Opp positions on the BP table. Government is sometimes used to mean proposition, and opening and closing are used sometimes instead of 1 st and 2 nd. E.g. Closing Government would mean 2 nd Proposition. Motion THW (This House Would) or THBT (This House Believes That ) this is essentially the policy that we are debating about. Point of Information (POI) During a speech from the other side, you can give a POI to the speaker between the 1 st minute and 4 th minute of their speech. Do this by standing up and saying Sir/Ma m, On that Point, Point of information, Information, Sir etc It is recommended that you offer lots, and only take 1 or 2. IV Inter-Varsity the name of the competitions we go to. Break When a team makes the semi-final or final at a competition, they are said to have broken to semi or to final. 2.2 HOW TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC Even though Debating is not about Public Speaking, but philosophical argument, novices must become comfortable with speaking in public. Coaches must teach them to use body language, eye contact, variations in the tone and volume of their voice, props (note cards, for example) and positioning (where they stand in relation to furniture and the audience) to instil confidence. These skills will be the starting point for the Juniors Coach, followed by basic structure of argument, and then philosophy. 1. General Advice on Public Speaking Speak clearly and audibly Try and memorise your speeches (but not word-for-word) Avoid gestures, or clothing, which distract from what you are saying Use gestures to emphasise points (but don t overdo it) Develop eye-contact with your audience Keep your eye on the clock. Keep to the time. 5

6 Address the chair / audience when appropriate 2. The Speech Make sure that you address the motion (topic) Make sure that you have the evidence to back up your reasons, and reasons to back up your conclusion Remember that an audience s attention span is limited stress the main points Include humour if appropriate Plan your speech with this question in mind: what will it sound like? (tone, speed, volume, vocabulary; variation) 3. The Questions Make sure that you have heard the question Don t be afraid to challenge the questioner if the question either does not make sense, or it misrepresents you Always be courteous, though firm If you don t know the answer to a factual question, say so quickly and politely Some of these principles apply to debating, and some don t. Always remember that in Debating, WHAT you argue means more than HOW you say it. 6

7 3. SCHOOLS OF DEBATING There are a number of different schools or styles of debating. The most common are the Mace and British Parliamentary styles. We will discuss each style in detail later, but basically, the following structures apply: In Mace, two speakers from one team debate against two speakers from another team. There are six speeches in total. That is, one person from each team speaks twice. The English Speaking Union runs debates on this model. In British Parliamentary, there are four teams. Each pair of teams are on a side. As the name suggests, it is based upon the British Parliament. Therefore, on the Government side there will be a pair representing the largest party, accompanied by another pair representing its coalition partner. On the other side will be the Opposition, again divided into a pair representing the largest Opposition party, plus another pair representing its coalition partner. Only one pair out of the four can win the debate, so you are simultaneously competing with, and cooperating with, your coalition partners. Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and the International Competition of Young Debaters (ICYD) run their debates in this style. 3.1 MACE As mentioned above, Mace is the simplest form of Debating and therefore often used to train up young speakers, or to have entertaining floor debates. There are four speakers, plus two officials. First Proposition Second Proposition Chairperson + Timekeeper First Opposition Second Opposition AUDIENCE The speakers are always seated this way. The speakers will speak in the following order: Vote First Proposition First Opposition Second Proposition Second Opposition 7

8 Break (questions from floor, handled by chairperson) Opposition Summary Speaker Proposition Summary Speaker Vote Results Speeches are up to 7 minutes long, with summary speeches up to 4 minutes long. The chairperson agrees the length of the speeches with the speakers in advance. Speakers move out from behind their desks, and deliver their speeches to the audience. The audience may only ask questions during the designated break, but the other side may ask the speaker points of information according to particular rules. The Chairperson must run the meeting according to formal rules, and has the right to remove people from the venue in response to a point of order meaning, somebody has complained about the behaviour of a person in the room. The timekeeper makes sure that the speakers speak the allotted time, and uses certain signals to tell the speakers how much time they have left, and when points of information may be asked. Mace is a good way to introduce younger speakers to debating, but is not considered as heavy-weight as British Parliamentary [BP]. Most competitions, and most Competition Squad training, will focus on BP. 3.2 BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY [BP] OUTLINE This is the most popular form of competitive debating, used by prestigious competitions such as the Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Unions Schools Debating Competitions. At a BP competition, everybody will gather in a central locale. The organisers will talk about the event sponsor, a few household rules, and then they will tell you which room you are in, where you are on the table, and who the other teams in the room are. Be careful to write down everything about where you should go, and what side of the argument you should prepare. Then, the organisers will tell everybody what the motion (topic) is. Write this down word for word, and check with your partner for accuracy. Normally, BP is run on the fifteen minute prep principle, that is, you get your topic and your place on the table (see below), walk to the venue and (exactly fifteen minutes after the motion was announced!) the first person starts to speak. Competition training should reproduce these conditions as often as possible. 8

9 When you arrive at the room, First Proposition get the room, and everyone else should find some nice floor and prep nearby. If you are in the first half of the table (Government and Opposition) you should already have found six or so points to say, splitting them between the two of you. If you are on the second half of the table (Coalition partners) you should think of as many ideas as possible and use the ones that remain after the first half is done, in your extension (see tactics below). If you get through (or break ) in the first round in Oxford, you go through to Finals Day with the top 80 or so Schools in the country. If you break in the first round of Cambridge, you go through to the Second Round, after which you can break into the Finals Day. Durham is a two day, multi-round event, in which the top four teams go through to the Grand Final (there is also a novice final). ICYD is an U15 competition, organised by Oxford and Cambridge on alternate years HOW TO IMPRESS THE JUDGES Before their first rounds, the major competitions run training sessions discussing method and tactics. Advice varies, and judges emphases vary, but the golden rule is that substance beats style that is, the ability to construct a philosophical argument, and to dissect the other sides argument, is what really matters. That said, a training session by Oxford University in 2009 raised the following points (useful for novices, and to train younger speakers): The debate is judged on three categories Content How convincing is your argument? At the end of the debate what arguments are left on the table? How engaged are you through points of information? What is the depth of the analysis? Are their logical links between sub-sections of your arguments, and between your reasons and conclusions? Do you have 2-3 main points per team member? Are you sharing points between team members and complementing each others arguments? Strategy Perform your role at the table Do you address the question specifically? Style 9

10 Less important in Oxford debating than in Public Speaking Eye contact important Speak audibly, not too soft or fast Do not read no personal or inappropriate humour; self-deprecation fine This is an intellectual activity: defeat the opponent on analysis, and then style That said, watching a Grand Final can be like watching a stand-up comic. The speakers are so good, that they crack jokes and entertain the audience while launching devastating philosophical arguments. The judges listen only to the argument. The audience is often less sophisticated... You will find a great deal of apparent variation in the criteria used by judges. Do not be alarmed. Judges are subjective, but they do agree that that winning side will be the one in which 1. The speakers set up a series of clear arguments, which the opposition left on the table (that is, could not, or would not, counter with their own arguments) at the end of the debate 2. The speakers followed their roles Various training sessions, run by university students with considerable debating experience, have given subtly different versions of how you can win. Before we go onto the philosophical tactics, let s look at the roles of speakers Roles of Speakers 1 st Prop Team Government Speaker P1 Prime Minister Speaker P2 Speaker O1 Leader of the Opposition Speaker O2 1 st Opp Team Opposition 2 nd Prop Team Ruling Coalition Partner Deputy PM Speaker P3 Cabinet Minister Deputy Opposition Leader Speaker O3 Shadow Cabinet Minister 2 nd Opp Team Opposition Coalition Partner 10

11 Speaker P4 Speaker O4 Chair and Timekeeper Whip Whip How do we play our roles? Various judges have explained it in various ways: (a) OXFORD You are trying to beat both the other side and the other team on your side, but even though you do not prepare with the other side on your side, you can only win if you work with them. In brief, the speakers do the following: 1 st Speaker Proposition Defines the motion (Note that although the motions that you are given are vague, your definition must be specific) There are two types of debating: o Analysis: used in World Schools Debating and phrased This house believes o Policy: used in Oxford Debating; phrased This house would ; you have to recommend a specific policy programme Speaks 5 minutes: Definition 1 minute; 2 substantive points about 1 ½ to 2 minutes each 1 st Speaker Opposition Attacks: rebuttal (1 minute) must be aggressive; attacks the Proposition s solution especially (as this is a policy-type debate) 2 substantive points 1 ½ to 2 minutes each 2 nd Speaker Proposition Rebuts the 1 st Opposition (1 minute) then make 2 substantive points (1 ½ - 2 minutes each) Prevent people further down on own side from stealing rebuttal 2 nd Speaker Opposition Rebuts the 1 st Proposition (1 minute) then make 2 substantive points (1 ½ - 2 minutes each) Prevent people further down on own side from stealing rebuttal 3 rd Speaker Proposition + Opposition 11

12 Rebut other side s second speaker Move debate away from top half of the table; add new elements, e.g. looking at practicalities Add an extra layer of analysis See how your point goes with strength of foregoing argument: e.g. if debate strongly principled, do not go into petty practicality 4 th Speaker Proposition + Opposition You do not rebut immediately preceding speaker unless s/he clearly contradicts their said or said something very peripheral; you are to attack their entire side Do not contradict earlier speakers on your side No new material, but new analysis everything you argue must have been mentioned by your side of the table; show that you are bringing something new but carefully relate it to earlier points Use implicit rebuttal: 3 main points of clash e.g. political, social and economic and show why your side has won (Explicit rebuttal is a tit-for-that we said x and they said y Integrate your rebuttal into areas of clash, but you can get tiny bit of extra rebuttal not fitting into main areas in at start of speech (b) YORK Another way of approaching the issue of what judges want comes from the How to break at the York Novice Cup Guide, which is particularly useful for novices: Positions, how they differ The First Proposition can obviously not rebut (nobody else has yet spoken). They must talk about problem that their side proposes to solve (that is, the problem outlined in the motion), what mechanism they are using to solve it, and the world that their policy creates (consequence). So, the opening bit of their speech, which for speakers 2 6 are about rebuttal, should be reserved for definition and mechanism. First Opposition rebuts, and then attacks the First Proposition s case with two key (substantive) points. Second Proposition continues the points outlined by First Proposition, and Second Opposition continues the points outlined by First Opposition (while rebutting the previous speaker as appropriate). Now we get down the table, to the coalition partners. The Third Proposition and Third Opposition speakers have to be careful. They have to largely agree with the case set out by the first two speakers on their side, but they also have to show that they (the coalition partners) have some better ideas. Remember, the coalition partners agree with their partners, but they are still a different party, with a different set of principles. These speakers (number three on each side) will signpost their own points (I shall say this...), then rebut the 12

13 first speaker(s) from the opposing side (so, 3 rd Proposition will rebut 2 nd Opposition, and a bit of 1 st Opposition) and follow up with arguments which are a) different to your coalition partners b) that your coalition partners said badly (clearly, be subtle here don t undermine your friends you cannot split the coalition!) c) something already said that you can talk about in a different way Summary Speakers are the last speakers on each side. The Proposition summary should rebut, but the Opposition shouldn t. Afterwards, pick 3 key issues that: a) Clash i.e. there is disagreement between proposition and opposition b) Are important to your side winning (your best points) c) Stuff your partner said. Refer to your partner s ideas it looks nice for your team Speech Structure How do you structure a speech? Signpost Rebuttal / Definition (if you are First Proposition) 3 Main points (your substantive case) Summary of your speech This is what I have said / what you should remember This is what I am going to be 0-30 seconds saying I don t agree with the other seconds side / this is what I am saying Telling us what you believe 60 seconds each / 90 seconds if you have only two points 0 30 seconds This applies for all speeches, although extension will be more likely to have 2 points. York provides the following Top tips : 1. Analysis it s important. Very important. If there is any point during your speech where a judge can ask themselves why is that true? why is that important? why is that relevant to this debate? and you are not answering these questions, we may get upset and cry. Judges are stupid. They need to be told reasons. 13

14 2. TAKE POINTS OF INFORMATION AND OFFER POINTS OF INFORMATION. IT IS THE BEST WAY TO MAKE THE OTHER SIDE LOOK STUPID. Try to make sure both you and your partner offer them. When it is the speech before your partner s you should do most of the POI work. 3. Don t doze off!!!! Listen to all the other speeches it helps with rebuttal and points of information which you should be offering as often as possible. 4. Speak for as long as you can At the start it s just about getting through 5 minutes, but you get better with practice. Just being up there speaking gives you valuable experience 5. Speak to the chair that s who you re convincing, not the other side. Some people look at the chair when giving Points of Information, but this is less important. 6. Be nice, but not too nice. Don t be rude, but tell them how silly their arguments are. 7. Don t hold grudges for someone making a certain point, they probably don t really think that and are just doing it to win the debate 8. Get feedback. The judges always have useful things to say. You will get good faster. Bring pen, timer and paper. If you do this you ll automatically be better than Andrew. Use your timer to help structure your speech and time your preparation. Think broadly in 2 nd half; think about all the weird and wonderful people the motion affects. Often 1 st half takes the easy-to-think-of points, so be prepared. (c) FLYNN s A well-known Debating Guide suggests the following way to deliver your BP Speech (presuming a length of seven minutes) 1st Minute (0:00-1:00): (Can't be given a point of information Protected Time)h Win the audience, perhaps with a joke. Don't rebutt another speakers speech. Define your speech, i.e. say what you will address and how. Ideally be able to state your argument in a single, short sentence. Define your team approach i.e. say, roughly, what your partner will say (or has said) 2nd Minute (1:00-2:00): Don't take any Points of information until foundation has been laid i.e. until you have developed your speech a bit. Layout your argument. Usually best to propose/oppose on 3 points. (e.g. Political, Economic, Social). Begin your first point. 14

15 3rd-6th Minute (2:00-6:00): Accept 2 to 3 points of information. Say outline political aspects and deal with them. Then take a P.O.I. on that. Do the same for the other aspects (i.e. Economics & Social). Use these four minutes to make all your points. Effectively this is your speech. Refer back to the single, short, core sentence one or two times. 7th Minute (6:00-7:00): Once the sixth minute bell has gone you can't be offered any points of information. Finish the point you were on as quickly as possible. Don't introduce any new points or arguments. Sum up. Reiterate your main points and arguments (and those of your partner if you are the second team speaker.). Ideally, if possible, restate the single, core sentence as the last thing you say. 7:00 min: Stay on your feet until you hear the bell. Finish, immediately if possible, "Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to...". Be back in your seat by 7:15, if possible, and no later than 7:30. (d) WARWICK The Warwick Union shared the following pearls of wisdom: Role of the Opening Government [OG] The first goal of an OG team is to present a clear, coherent, and above all, contentious case. Remember that the OG case must be contentious enough to last for eight speeches, and 56 minutes of debate. One of the most important things OG teams should keep in mind is that bold cases are generally better to run than squirreled cases that run out of steam within the first few speeches. It is debate, after all. This doesn t mean that you should propose that humans eat their young. But it does mean that you shouldn t be afraid of proposing controversial models or cases. The major point: Propose bold, but not suicidal cases. The next thing that you must remember as OG is that your case must be within the spirit of the resolution. At most BP tournaments the resolutions are directed. This means that the resolution will hint at the topic that should be discussed. However, the wording will usually be such that the OG will have a degree of flexibility in how they frame their case. However, a degree of flexibility does not mean that the OG can ignore the resolution 15

16 The Role of the Opening Opposition As the OO team, your role is twofold. You must refute what the OG team has said, but it is not enough to simply poke holes in the OG case. You must also bring in constructive arguments of your own. It is not enough to go into a BP round as an OO team and do a rebuttal-only opposition. A good OO case would make sense if the wording of the resolution were reversed, and OO became the OG. You have to bring your own constructive analysis to the round. Good OO teams will often tie in some of their rebuttal with their constructive points as well. This allows the judges to see that you re engaging with the other team s arguments as well as using them to build up your own. Using this style will also help you stay under the time limit, which is often a difficult thing to do if you re faced with a lot of rebutting and summarizing. So remember: It s not enough to say why their ideas are stupid, you have to say why your ideas are smart. The Role of the Closing Teams Both closing teams are expected to offer an extension for their opening team s case. What is an extension? An extension can take many forms: Switching the focus of the debate from practical to philosophical arguments, or vice versa Bringing in new practical/philosophical arguments Focusing on a specific case study Focusing on an already mentioned argument and expanding on it significantly This is an incredibly short list of acceptable extensions. The main goal for a closing team is to differentiate yourself from the opening team, but still support them. It is very important that you support the opening team. But at the same time it s still important for your arguments to be better than theirs. So you have to make sure that your case has an overarching theme that the judges can easily identify, that makes your team distinct from the opening team, and still supports the opening team. This doesn't have to be difficult. Many teams stress themselves out about the closing positions because of the extension, but being on the closing half of the debate has distinct advantages. The closing teams have the ability 16

17 not only to introduce their own constructive matter and rebut what the other team has said, but also to summarize the debate in their own words. The summary is to be done by the second speaker on each closing team. This is an integral part of the role of each closing team. There are many ways to summarize the debate. Some speakers like to identify the main themes that were analyzed during the round. Some speakers like to label each team with a name describing their arguments. One of the easiest ways for debaters new to BP to go through their summary speech is to identify three questions that need to be answered at the end of the round, and say why your side, and particularly your team, bring the best resolution to those questions. Any style you choose is fine so long as it gives a substantive summary of the arguments in the round, and why you won those arguments. As a reminder: The Opposition Whip is not allowed any new arguments in their speech, and it is highly recommended that the Government Whip focus entirely on summery, as well. Organization: At the beginning of your speech tell the judges what you're going to be speaking about. More advanced debaters may feel comfortable speaking without numbering their points or signposting where they're going with their speech. But the majority of beginning BP debaters will probably find it helpful to number their points and to make very clear to the judges what they're speaking about. This helps the judges keep track of your most important points, and it helps you cover everything you need to. Pay attention to your timing. If you say that you're going to introduce three constructive points and then you run out of time, that will reflect poorly on you. Always fill your time. Speaking Style: The most important thing is to keep the audience engaged. You don't want them drifting off and thinking you're boring. There are many ways to keep the audience and judges engaged. These include humor, intelligent analysis, and delivery. Not everyone can be a funny speaker, and that's ok. Most people aren't. But it will help if you can use a few funny quips, or open with a joke. Avoid being monotonous. Vary your tone and pace of delivery. Never insult another debater's race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Anything offensive will be penalized. Err on the side of caution. 17

18 Analysis: Try to introduce facts, case studies, and philosophical analysis instead of statistics. Statistics are boring, they can be easily dismissed by the opposition, they generally fall into "specific knowledge", and they're easily falsified. Focus on examples. Appropriate examples and case studies will make a case better for the beginning BP debater than any pretty rhetoric can. Stay focused. Remember what you are trying to communicate to the audience, and then communicate it. Don't go off on tangents. Definitional Challenges: Definitional challenges are exceedingly rare. Do not object to a definition of a resolution if it is merely stupid or generally bad. The only time you should object to the definition is if it is a truism or tautology. The only speaker who can object to the OG definition is the LO. If the LO doesn't object, no one else can. If the LO objects to the definition then they must substitute their own. The remaining debaters then have to decide which definition to use. If the remaining debaters use the LOs definition then the debate can continue on like normal. If there is still disagreement about the definition then the closing teams must decide which definition to support, or whether to substitute their own. This is why it is usually an exceptionally bad idea to challenge a definition that isn't a truism or tautology. It's very messy. Knifing: Knifing is when a closing team, or even a partner on the same team, blatantly disagrees with a fundamental part of the substantive case that they're supposed to be supporting. (Effectively knifing someone in the back). In the vast majority of situations you should not knife your opening team. It will be a negative factor for you in the adjudication as supporting your opening team is a fundamental part of your role. However, occasionally your opening team will be so shrill and off the mark that you'll have to basically ignore what they said in order to salvage your side of the round. You may have to twist what they said in order to make sense of their case. Be careful with this strategy. You probably won't take a first, but you may be able to salvage a point or two out of the round. 18

19 Tactics for High Bracket Rounds: While it is always a good thing to take a first place in a BP round, once you get into the high bracket rounds the most important thing is to avoid taking the fourth.. When you get into high rooms you'll find that the competition between the teams becomes that much closer. So it's important not to give the judges an excuse to drop you. Watch the small things as well as the big ones. Be careful with timings, signposting, and rebutting what your opponents have said. Do not stress out about your position in the round, or whether other teams are really good. Concentrate only on staying involved in the round, and demonstrating good analysis and argumentation. A lack of confidence will show through. 3.3 POINTS OF INFORMATION o Points of Information (POI) are essential to show that you are listening to your opponent, and therefore involved in a discussion with them o Each speaker should accept 2-3 points of information, and have 2-3 points of information accepted per debate Accepting a POI o When posed a POI, you can either o tell the person to sit down: say no thank you or, declined (be polite but firm) o leave them standing by saying I shall take your point in a moment and then get back to them once you have finished your point by then, they might have forgotten their point, or the debate might have moved on o take their point, indicating that you are listening (looking at them, or nodding): they may speak for only 15 seconds maximum, after which you just say thank you firmly o After listening to a POI, you can either o respond to it immediately, remaining brief o say I believe I have addressed that point when I said o say I believe that your question will be covered by me / my partner in a moment make sure that you do Making a POI o When making a POI o stand up and say (on a) point of information or information 19

20 o feel free to use tone reflecting dismay/confusion or doubt (this will focus the audience on you) o remain standing until recognised or told to sit down o Types of POI o Clarification: if what the speaker is saying is not clear, or the full scope of their argument is not revealed, ask for clarification o Factual: if a speaker uses a fact that is erroneous, or you can offer a competing fact that undermines the speaker s example o Argumentative objection: offering a counter-argument to a point that the speaker is making (e.g. on the other hand, what if we do x; would that not also cause y ) o Argumentative challenge: if you can offer an argument for your side that has not yet been made (especially if you are the second team on your side, this can give you an advantage against the other team on your side) o A joke: must be well-timed, witty and relevant to what the speaker is saying (use very sparingly) Common flaws in arguments (use these to formulate or respond to POI, or during rebuttals): Flaw Opponent says You say Slippery slope Straw man Ambiguity Ad hominem Because X happens, Y will happen, and Z will happen That because one small thing is wrong with X (e.g. dogs bite ) the whole thing should be dismissed (e.g. we should not have dogs ) Uses a word in an inconsistent, vague or misleading way (particularly concepts like freedom or happiness or security Because the idea or action was proposed by person X, it is wrong X doesn t automatically lead to Y or Z! A or B could also happen! You are focussing on one tiny thing (and/or) which, even if true, is not in itself sufficient for your argument to work What do you mean by word X? You seem to be using word X in two different ways. Previously you said Y, now you say Z. You are confusing the idea with the person / attacking the person rather than the idea; just because X supported it, does not make the argument wrong 20

21 Tu quoque (rebuttal) Appeals to emotion Appeal to history Accuses you of making a similar error Tries you to feel rather than think, e.g. be afraid of something, think something is cute, think of sex (e.g. who would not want to ) Because something has happened before, it will happen again Ignore the fact that they have pointed out your error; say I think you misunderstood my point, but thank you for admitting your mistake This debate is about reason; what you are suggesting is irrational and without foundation / distracts us from the real issue History does not repeat itself exactly Appeal to tradition Because we have done something in a particular way up to now, we should continue doing it Tradition is not necessarily correct: e.g. what about the tradition of slavery? Circular argument Uses point X to prove Y and then point Y to prove X again, e.g. crazy people often deny that they are crazy, but because delusions are symptoms of insanity, this simply proves that they are, in fact, crazy You are avoiding the question: you haven t actually proved which causes which, or whether there is a third factor at work Correlation/cause confusion Because A precedes B, A caused B OR Because A and B happen at the same time, they must be related Say that A was not necessary or sufficient to cause B OR Ask the person to prove the connection. Denying the antecedent If we do X, then Y will happen, but if we don t do X, then Y won t happen e.g. if we wear school uniforms, students will feel more loyalty to the school, but if we don t wear uniforms, then people will lose all respect for their school Over-generalisation Claims that something is always true e.g. people will always pick the easier option Cite exceptions to the opponent s rule 21

22 Prediction about the future without sufficient evidence Predicts that a current trend, e.g. global population growth or rising crime figures, will continue indefinitely or for a long time The phenomenon may be infrequent (e.g. terrorist attacks) or subject to feedback mechanisms (e.g. population growth) or have a history of reversal (e.g. crime rates) Restricting the options Sources! Puts forward a limited number of possibilities, one of which is usually unattractive to the listener (e.g. either we build more prisons or we bring back capital punishment to deter offenders ) Cites an interesting statistic or fact without naming a source Present other options, and ask why the opponent did not consider them Ask where they got the information from a reputable source (that forces them to both identify it and say whether they consider it to be trustworthy) OR Cite contradictory evidence from an identified source and ask them to account for the conflict 22

23 4. IDEAS So, by now you are aware that there are roles for each speaker, a part they play in making sure that the debate as a whole works. The result of the debate is, however, largely determined by how you handle ideas. A great way to train is to listen to people debate. Each time a person makes a major point in their case, write down the key phrase and circle it. When the other sides rebuts, or provides a counter-argument, see whether they eliminate that point. If they do, cross it out. If they don t, that point stays on the table. At the end of the debate, you should have a flow diagram, with key point leading to key point for each time. See which points were left on the table that is, which the opposing side were unable to tackle or eliminate those will normally be the points of the winning side. The best background for debating is to read general Philosophy books, especially ethics. There are books (such as Pros and Cons ) that list arguments for each case. For example, under the heading nuclear energy they will have cases for and against nuclear energy. However, these booklets are of limited use for competition debating. People who use them are predictable, and can easily be counter-argued by simply looking at the adjoining column (it would be like playing tennis, and always playing the same shots in the same sequence). Rather, work from general principles, for example, Life is precious and then apply it to the situation. The opposition will, in effect, be forced to argue that life is either not precious, or that there is another moral principle which is more valuable than life (e.g. suffering should be prevented ). Questions to ask include: 4.1 BASIC QUESTIONS 1) What is the moral argument? a. Equality of opportunity/fairness b. Relative harms c. Happiness d. Categorical imperatives 2) What is the role of government? a. Its people b. Other countries c. Liberal/paternal 23

24 3) What groups are particularly affected a. Minorities groups or women b. Oppressed groups (e.g. the poor) Other questions to ask 1) How bad is the current problem? 2) Will their idea work (given limitless money)? (Practicality) 3) Will it create bigger and worse problems? 4) Have they got two ideas confused e.g. a. Incentive with force b. Equality with fairness 5) What are the contracts here a. Individuals contract with the state b. States contract with the individual c. Control principle d. Parent s contract with their child Or, an easy way to remember it: PERM (Practical, Economic, Role of Government, Moral) list the arguments on each side (Prop and Opp) and the elaborate. 4.2 PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOLS There are various philosophical schools or traditions that you can mine for ideas to fit in the PERM system (or the more detailed questions above them). Liberalism and Conservatism are but two examples Liberalism Individual o Used to be defined by the group we belonged to (slave, serf, aristocrat, royalty) Freedom o Mill accepted only the most minimal restrictions on individual freedom in order to prevent harm to others. We should distinguish between actions that are selfregarding over which we should execute absolute freedom (e.g. drugs, death, who we work for) and other-regarding in which can restrict the freedom of others (crime, driving drunk) o Rawls everyone is entitled to the widest possible liberty consistent with like liberty for all. 24

25 Justice o Equality of opportunity (no absolute equality because we are all born with different talents and skills and some are willing to work harder than others - Martin Luther King should be judged not on traits such as gender, race, class but on the content of your character o Rawls should work behind a veil of ignorance (i.e. if we didn t know the role and opportunities we would have what would we see as fair). Principles are a) liberty of each person should be compatible for liberty of all b) inequality should only exist f it works to the benefits of the poorest in society. Toleration o Voltaire I detest what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it o Only restriction is that each party must tolerate the views and actions of others (problem can be that this leads to a society devoid of moral structure e.g. BNP) o Why we dislike the concept of fatwa over people like Salman Rushdie over his book the satanic verses and why we therefore funded his protection. Role of government o Locke to protect life liberty and property but has no right to meddle in the care of men s souls o Liberals see the state as the neutral arbiter amongst the competing individuals and groups within society o The government is created by individuals and should serve their needs and interests. Thomas Jefferson In the American declaration of Independence each man has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness declares that when the government becomes an absolute despotism it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. o All individuals would recognise that it is in their interests to sacrifice a portion of their liberty in order to set up a system of law otherwise their rights and freedoms would be constantly under threat. You can match each core Liberal idea to a series of examples, and the more you debate, the more examples you will have to apply. People should be defined by their individual traits, abilities and character rather than the group they belong to equal opportunity Examples for Slavery Anti-Feminism Inherited Royalty/Aristocracy Freedom of expression Taliban Dislike Fatwa so counteract Examples against Care only for ourselves let children of our neighbours starve or die of a brain tumour Stress and depression has increased (We have evolved to be a social animal) Skill gaps and cooperation BNP Do you allow people to 25

26 Freedom over selfregarding decisions (Government shouldn t interfere with theses) the effects (funding protection) Prevents McCarthyism and the concept of thought crime Allows debate where people have to defend their ideas and best ideas can surface Taliban Suicide Who you work for and when you work (i.e. no slavery to the state) Role of Government Justice system arbiter Declaration of Independence Democracy multi-party representation shouldn t let majority define individual s rights Separation of church and state - men s souls declare Fatwa e.g. Salman Rushdie Where is the line for infringing the rights of others (if I yell racial slurs at my neighbour every day doesn t that affect their freedom?) Seat Belts Heroin - based on the idea of free-will, in some situations people are taken advantage of and we have to protect them. Seat Belts Equality of opportunity Protect the weak and helpless Ensure that scientific knowledge is acted on for the greater good e.g. educational change, One method is to take Liberal principles to show that a seemingly harmless or beneficial idea has certain undesirable consequences. One such chain of thought can occupy an entire main point in your case (a paragraph in your speech, so to speak) Claim: allowing the Government to decide what is in an individual s best interest, is a road to dictatorship Chain of thought (spelled out in your argument): 1. The government decides that it should make some decisions for an individual in their best interests 2. The government bans some behaviours as a means of doing this 3. This creates the idea that the government is entitled to parent the population if it deems it in their best interests. 4. The government s decisions on what to ban are determined by parliament 5. Parliament decisions are made by the majority party 6. The majority party is elected by only part of the population 7. The government can legislate on anything that the majority feel is right or good for example asking women to wear non-provocative clothing to reduce rape. 8. The government starts to look a lot like the Taliban 26

27 4.2.2 Conservatism Another way of approaching issues is through Conservatism, the idea that we change in order to conserve (Burke). It is a pragmatic approach to slow and steady improvement whilst maintaining (conserving) what has been successful in the past. Its key ideas are: Tradition - society is a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be born Burke o Things endure for a reason and we shouldn t rush into dismissing them (e.g. monarchy) o Give people a sense of rootedness and a sense of belonging and identity (e.g. queuing, red telephone boxes) Human Imperfection o Shouldn t rely on idealistic dreams, humans are both imperfect and unperfectable o Humans are a) naturally social animals who feel comfortable knowing where they stand in the pack and b) have natural instincts and appetites. The states role is to preserve order. o Reform and revolution often lead to more misery (e.g. Iranian revolution of 1979) because they are based on idealistic dogma which has no grounding in pragmatism and the basic motivation of man. Organic Society o Believe that people are naturally defined and drawn to their group (family etc). Freedom is a willing acceptance of social obligations and ties (doing one s duty/honour/responsibility) e.g. when a parent disciplines a child they are not constraining their liberty but providing guidance in their child s best interests. o A society where people focus on their rights without their responsibility would be rootless, atomistic and empty. o Family is the natural and dominant social group and should be supported. o Religion is also important as they believe that a society should have shared values which are often provided by religion. o In terms of inequality conservatives believe that people are born unequal and that a natural feature of society is that there will be a hierarchy, some people are leaders and some people are followers. As a follower you may have less money but then you have less responsibility too. Authority Authority is rooted in nature of society, so as parent is to child, boss is to employee, government is to citizen. 27

28 The limits on authority not created by an artificial contract but the natural responsibility of being in a position of power. (e.g. parents have responsibility and power over their children but shouldn t abuse them) Society has a natural hierarchy and social inequality is Government the father figure Has a role to keep society together by - Creating order (e.g. penal system) - Conserving what works (e.g. private schools) - Ensuring that shared moral values are upheld and respected (e.g. censorship) - Keeping people united and rooted (e.g. keep the pound, reduce immigration, protect Church of England) They do not believe the job of government is to change the individual. Oakeshott government is not designed to make men good or even better. We should value tradition as it represents what has socially evolved over time to be successful Accept that humans are not perfect, nor will they ever be idealism leads to misery Society naturally has structure and social roles. This isn t inherently bad and leads to contentment and peace Examples for Queuing Marriage Iranian Revolution of 1979 which led to overthrow of monarchy and replacement with Sharia law Idealists Hitler, Taliban, Chairman Mao vs. Realists and pragmatists Nelson Mandela Boss of company has massive responsibility and massive money, secretary has low responsibility and low money. They both can feel content with this We have evolved to be a social animal and regardless of what idealists think, there is always an alpha male/female. This doesn t necessarily make anyone unhappy; unhappiness comes 28 Examples against Tradition led to a misogynistic, racist, classist society Tradition is about allowing those on top to stay on top Gay rights Anti-Colonialism Because we can t be perfect should we not try to be better? Ghandi This argument would have allowed slavery as practical if not morally ideal This is the argument made by those at the top of the social pack. You rarely hear union leaders or unemployed or trapped housewives saying they feel comfortable with their position. What happens to those who don t want to belong or share values (e.g. Nelson Mandela during Apartied, Ghandi during colonialism,

29 Role of Government as the father figure from not feeling secure in your position. Students have lower status than teachers; teachers have lower status than Head Teachers. This isn t discriminatory; it s the way a group behaves effectively. Support society and ensure it maintains its cohesion. Countries with a strong sense of cohesion are more successful (e.g. USA/China) Take care of its citizens as a father would (seat Belt, education, illegal drugs) Discipline its citizens to ensure people respect traditions and values (e.g. prison, respect in schools) Ensure that moral values are upheld and shared (Christianity in schools, censorship, values teaching) Susan B Anthony during the feminist movement) They tend to be locked up and punished. This is not about natural this is about dominance. What about those who disagree with the father. E.g. Nelson Mandela during Apartied, Ghandi during colonialism, and Susan B Anthony during the feminist movement) they tend to be locked up and punished. This is not about natural this is about dominance. Represents the views of the majority which the minority are therefore held to (e.g. Christianity, views on marriage, antihomosexuality, anticolonialism, anti-monarchy) Paternalism leads to the idea that the group has control over the individual who gave them that right Utilitarianism This is a very popular framework for ideas in debating. Note the emphasis on happiness another one of those philosophical concepts we need to think carefully about. Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people", and is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utility, the good to be maximized, has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain), although preference utilitarians define it as the satisfaction of preferences. It may be described as a life stance, with happiness or pleasure being of ultimate importance. 29