Developing ArgumentsIMPROVED TEMPLATES

Special Lesson on Argument Development

I. Effectiveness Argument Template II. Externalities Template (Positive and Negative) III. Principled Argument Template

Effectiveness Argument

EffectivenessOld Version (v 1.0) New Version (v 1.1)

Problem

Diagnosis

Application/Mechanism

Actionability

Problem: Top-Priority, Undeniable Problem

Diagnosis (it has to be related to the motion)

1st Application: Policy/Mechanism- What solves the problem (it has to be multi-layered as possible)• Why mechanism works 1• Why mechanism works 2• Why mechanism works 3

2nd Application: The Comparative- Compare your policy/mechanism with what your opponent has. Show why yours is better. Note that comparative might also be towards the status quo

Conclusion

Effectiveness Argument v 1.1 X= Top-Priority, Undeniable Problem

y= What causes x

z= Your policy/mechanism

W= Your opponent’s policy/mechanism

Premise 1 (Problem): We have x

Premise 2 (Diagnosis): y causes x

Premise 3 (1st Application): z solves y becauseMechanism discussion 1Mechanism discussion 2Mechanism discussion 3

Premise 4 (2nd Application): w does not solve y, or Z is not ideal, but a difficult choice we have to make. Or z is progress enough for us, despite it being far from perfect.

Conclusion: z is most effective in addressing x

Effectiveness Argument v 1.1 (Example)

Effectiveness Argument for THW Torture Terrorists: Torture will effectively extract valuable information from terrorists

Premise 1 (Problem): We have x- We have plenty of ticking time bomb scenarios. Massive destruction of lives and property is imminent. We have a few leads, but our information to stop it is incomplete.

Premise 2 (Diagnosis): y causes x- In some instances, our available information might point to a prisoner, who can disclose actionable information that can save lives. But the law inhibits us from using all measures to gather information from this prisoner.

Effectiveness Argument v 1.1 (Example)

Effectiveness Argument for THW Torture Terrorists: Torture will effectively extract valuable information from terrorists

Premise 3 (1st Application): z solves y- Our policy to allow various types of torture, which will increase our chances of getting valuable information. This torture is a systematic interrogation technique: physical, psychological, and mental. Breakdown by giving the information they have.

Why does it work? Every person has a breaking point, no matter what your background is, and that includes terrorists.

What are the types of torture that we are talking about, and why do they work.

Mechanism discussion 1: Excruciating pain systematically employed shall break even the hardest resolve to withhold information.-give examples and how do they work (needles under the nails, electrocution)

Mechanism discussion number 2: It also weakens the resolve of terrorists psychologically, despite their hardened disposition (confusing them like sleep deprivation, exposure to loud noise)

Mechanism discussion number 3: re-programming of mindset, combination good-cop, bad-cop, raping-child cop, I-am-her-to-save-your-family-cop

Case Studies: Thwarting of the Dirty Bomb and Capture of Jose Padilla, Thwarting of Karachi Plots, Thwarting of “Second Wave” Plot and Discovery of Al Ghurabaa.

Premise 4 (2nd Application: The Comparative): w does not solve y- Current intel-gathering policies are inadequate (slow and ineffective, and terrorists are trained to resist them), specifically, it naively forces us to skip a procedure of systematically interrogating a person, even if it is deemed the next most viable step…

Comparative 2: We know that this is far from ideal, but in the comparative, we would prioritize the thousands of innocent lives that we will save than stand for arguably in-existent and fluffy ideas of “rights of terrorists”

Conclusion: Since we get actionable information through torture, we should allow its use as against terrorists!

Externalities Argument

Externalities (Positive and Negative)

Old Version (v 1.0) New Version (v 1.1)

Conditions

Application/Mechanism

Actionability/Conclusion

Urgency: It must be/not be this Externality

Conditions: If you have the following, then we will have/not have this externality

1st Application: Our policy has the following, so we will have/not have the externality

2nd Application (the Comparative) : The opposing policy has the following, so we will have/not have the externality

Conclusion

Effectiveness Argument v 1.1 X= Wanted/Unwanted Externality

y= The conditions to have/not have x

z= Your policy/mechanism

W= Your opponent’s policy/mechanism

Premise 1 (Urgency): It must be/not be x

Premise 2 (Conditions): If y then x

Premise 3 (1st Application): Our policy is y, so we will have/not have x

Premise 4 (2nd Application: The Comparative): The opponent’s policy is w, so we will have not have x

Conclusion: z is most effective in addressing x

Externality Argument v 1.1 (Example)

Externality Argument for THW Make the Protection of LGBT Rights a Condition for Receiving Development Aid (Opp): The condition will setback the improvement of LGBT treatment (Negative Externality)

Premise 1 (Urgency): It must be x- It is non-negotiable that the welfare and treatment of the members of the LGBT be protected. Why? (Defend this part adequately!)

Premise 2 (Conditions): If we have the following, then we will not have this externality- If y then x- The protection of the welfare and proper treatment of the LGBT cannot happen without resources (money and know-how) for socioeconomic advancement. A lack of resources will impede the development of wide and sustainable access to education, jobs, social services, etc. This will deprive the members of the LGBT community to become indispensible participants in society.

Externality Argument v 1.1 (Example)

Externality Argument for THW Make the Protection of LGBT Rights a Condition for Receiving Development Aid (Opp): The condition will setback the improvement of LGBT treatment (Negative Externality)

Premise 3 (1st Application): The affirmative’s policy is w, therefore we will not have x- The affirmative’s policy creates a lack of resources for socioeconomic development.

Mechanism discussion 1: It is a pre-requisite to fulfill conditions before funding, but funding might possibly be needed first to protect LGBT rights and advance the welfare of its members. This policy misses that nuance

Mechanism discussion number 2: LGBT treatment and welfare is a cultural issue and are highly entrenched in the habits and beliefs of society. This means that powerful institutions who are already established and wealthy will not be targeted by the policy because they don’t need your development aid. Those who need them will be the ones to suffer, but they are not the ones who can enact change.

Mechanism discussion number 3: Imposing it as a condition will make the LGBT in the poorest of the poor more vulnerable, because funding is withheld from them, and they are the ones who usually suffer the most.

Premise 4 (2nd Application: The Comparative): Our policy is y, therefore we will have x- Our policy, on the other hand, allows for resources to pour into the country and therefore enable the socioeconomic development

Conclusion: Therefore…

Principled Argument

Principled ArgumentOld Version (v 1.0) New Version (v 1.1)

Worldview:

Grounding:

Application/Mechanism

Actionability/Conclusion

Moral Urgency: We are decadent. We need to repent!

Worldview: We have to believe this

Grounding: The worldview is not just a cute, fluffy concept. It is realistic, and it is as important/more important than our practical reasons.

Policy/Stand: Our policy/paradigm affirms the worldviewApplication 1:Application 2:Application 3

The comparative:

Conclusion

Effectiveness Argument v 1.1

X= Moral Decadence

y= Ideal Moral

z= Your policy/stand

Premise 1 (Moral Urgency): We must not stand for x

Premise 2 (Worldview): We must stand for y

Premise 3 (Grounding): y is realistic and doable and as important as our practical reasons because of the following…

Premise 4 (Policy/Stand): z stands for y

The comparativeConclusion

Principled Argument v 1.1 (Example)

Principled Argument for THW demolish Soviet Monuments (Aff): That it is our moral imperative to demolish symbols of tyranny and dehumanization

Premise 1 (Moral Decadence): We must not stand for x- It is repugnant for society to show tolerance to undeniably inhumane categories. We show this tolerance for as long as the symbols of oppression remain visible. The presence of these unwanted symbols—Soviet Monuments—contradict the values present society holds true. It is because the Soviet ideal strips humanity of its dignity and reduces its members to objects. Oddly, it is even hypocritical to its own value with how Soviet nations have pampered its chief agents.

Premise 2 (Worldview): We must stand for y- We rather exhibit a strong belief against an immoral ideology, and this applies not only to ensuring that our governments are not tyrannical and its people not oppressed through respectable laws and protection of basic rights. It extends to every facet of society, including its outward appearances, such as banners, monuments. Banners and monuments are akin to a permanent acknowledgement of values—more permanent that mere speeches and anthems. Thus we ought to demolish those that oppose the proper moral stand.

Provide parallel examples

Principled Argument v 1.1 (Example)

Principled Argument for THW demolish Soviet Monuments (Aff): That it is our moral imperative to demolish symbols of tyranny and dehumanization

Premise 3 (Grounding): y is realistic, doable, and as important as our practical justifications because of the following…-

Outward symbols appeal to the moral sensibilities of the people, more so given their permanence and immense presence (better if we can give examples). The swastika, for instance, offends the moral sensibilities of Germans who are ashamed of the Nazi History and who now stand for democracy and basic human rights.

Moral sensibilities should not be dismissed as mere squeamishness. For most people, in fact, these sensibilities form the core of their being: their moral stand on abortion, politics, lifestyle choices, etc. How their moral sensibilities are protected determine their being human, just their life and practical welfare does...

So we see why Germany and other countries that outlaw the public display of their offensive and immoral history are justified. (Other examples… Berlin Wall, Statue of Saddam)

Principled Argument v 1.1 (Example)

Principled Argument for THW demolish Soviet Monuments (Aff): That it is our moral imperative to demolish symbols of tyranny and dehumanization

Premise 4 (Application): z stands for y- Demolishing Soviet Monuments stands for the moral imperative to condemn the beliefs that society rejects and to support the ideals that society holds. To demolish a statue of Stalin is to break a permanent and towering display of unscrupulous ideology. Essentially, our policy does the following: (1) The act of demolishing is an active protest against the Soviet totalitarian ideal. (2) It is also an act of affirmation of our democratic principles. (3) The resulting absence of the monument frees society from the captivating permanence of the monument.

Comparative

Conclusion: Therefore…

What to do: 1. Master the Template

2. Once you have mastered the templates, feel free to play with them, modify them, or craft templates on your own that should suit your style.