supported by the commonwealth department of education and the australian debating federation chris...

Supported by the Commonwea l th Department o f Educat ion and the Aust ra l ian Debat ing Federat ion

Chr is B isset

ACTDU WORKSHOP 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Session 1: 9:15am-10:00am (45mins) Re-thinking debating Constructing Arguments

(Trivia & Morning Tea)

Session 2: 11:00am-11:45am (45mins) Preparing for debates

(Case Construction Exercise)

Session 3: 1:00pm-1:45pm (45mins) Rebuttal

(Practise debate)

TIMETABLE

RE-THINKING DEBATING



Think about all the people or groups who make decisions that aff ect you – who or what are they?

What are some of the decisions or rules they make that aff ect you?

Which of these decisions or rules aff ect you the most? Why?

Which do you disagree with most? Which are the most controversial? Are these diff erent? Why (not)?

Consider the one you disagree with the most; think about how you could convince someone to agree with you.

Now think about how you would convince yourself you were wrong about the rule or policy.

EXERCISE 1.1



The key to debating is learning how to make smart arguments to support your ideas.

Debating is just an argument that has been organised into two sides with some basic rules to give everyone a chance to talk.

Debating can involve arguing about many diff erent things, but can be broken down into: Policy Debates: about somebody implementing a policy Empirical Debates: about whether a claim is true or untrue

LEARNING TO DEBATE MEANS LEARNING TO WIN ARGUMENTS



Key Debating Skills:1. Debating is about logical and objective analysis: you

need to think of persuasive reasons why somebody who might think diff erently to you should agree with you.

2. You need to organise your ideas so that they make sense and the audience can follow your point.

3. You need to speak clearly so that people understand you and need to be engaging so the audience stays awake.

Remember there is always another side to every topic and in order to win – you will need to be able to do the three things above, not just well, but better than the opposing team.

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO DEBATING?



Policy DebatesInvolve a proposed

change to the way the world works that needs to be considered.

Looking forward– what will the eff ect of a change of policy be?

Empirical Debates Assesses the state of the

world and the truth of a statement.

Look at the past or the present.

Hint: they often about something you would argue with your parents about over dinner

WHAT ARE THE TWO TYPES OF DEBATES?

The Affi rmative must prove the policy wil l do more good than harm.

The Negative must prove the policy wil l do more harm than good.

The Affi rmative must prove the statement is more true than false

The Negative must prove the statement is more false than true.



That technology has done more harm than good.

That we should celebrate school’s focus on academic performance.

That we should require all social networks to off er parents full access to their children's accounts.

That schools focus too much on exams.

That we should regret the over-use of Facebook.

That we should ban examinations in schools.

EXERCISE 1.2: POLICY OR EMPIRICAL?



Policy Debates

Affirmative Negative

There’s nothing wrong

now

The policy won’t Change

Anything

The policy will make the world

worse

Things can’t stay the way they are now

The policy doesn’t do any

damage

The policy will make the world

better

Empirical Debates


The statement is false in at

least one instance

The statement is false some

times

The statement is false most of the time or in the important

case

The statement is true in at least one instance

The statement is true some

times

The statement is true most of

the time or in the important

case

BE AMBITIOUS IN YOUR ARGUMENTS!



We use words to describe real things, but sometimes things can be hard to describe so we need to establish a common meaning before we can have a proper argument.

The affi rmative team is responsible for clarifying anything uncertain about the topic.

Often a good way of defi ning words is by using examples E.g. If the topic is about violent sport, you need to define what a

violent sport is A way to do that is to say ‘sports like rugby, karate, kickboxing

etc’ and not sports like fencing.

Exercise 1.3: Are the any words in the topics we considered before that need to be defined?

DEFINING THE TOPIC



Going to happen when the policy is implemented (policy debates)

Happening in the past or right now (empirical debates)

1. Something is going to happen. What is going to happen? How is it going to happen? Has it happened that way before?

2. That thing will be beneficial/harmful. What are its positive consequences Why are they more/less significant than the negative

consequences

GOAL IS TO PROVE BENEFITS AND HARMS…



Pract ical Quest ionWhat and how much of i t wi l l happen?


One hour of exercise isn’t that important for health

Students will miss out on

class timeDoing

exercise at school

builds good habits

Students will be more

healthy

Principled question?What is more important?


Parental Choice

Educational Developme

nt

Government Choice

Physical wellbeing

EXAMPLE 1:THAT ALL SCHOOL STUDENTS SHOULD BE FORCED

TO DO 1 HOUR OF EXERCISE EVERY DAY AT SCHOOL





Scale is debatable

Single-sex schools are

good for educational

development.

Scale is debatable.

Single sex schools are

bad for social development



Parental Choice

Educational Developme

nt

Government Choice

Social Developme

nt

EXAMPLE 2:THAT WE SHOULD BAN SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS.






EXERCISE 1.4:THAT WE SHOULD BAN ANIMAL TESTING


CONSTRUCTING

PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS



Often there is a chain of things that have a ‘domino eff ect’ E.g. That we should raise taxes on cigarettes

Argument: Raising taxes will stop people smoking Step 1: Raising taxes increases the price of cigarettes Step 2: Increasing the price of cigarettes dissuades people from smoking them

You need to prove each step in the chain

Sometimes you will have evidence to show that a similar policy has had the eff ects you think it will have. You should include this in your argument, but be careful because:

The policy might have been different There might have been something different about the place it

was tried There might be controversy over exactly what happened The other team or judge may not believe you

PROVING SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN



How do we know how people/groups/organisations are going to respond to our policy?

Step 1: Don’t treat all people the same – break diff erent stakeholders down into sensible groups and deal with them one at a time.

Step 2: Think about how you would behave if you were a member of each group. Think about your incentives – what would give you the most reward?

How do you react when your mum threatens no TV unless you tidy your bedroom?

Think about your abilities – are there limits on what you can actually do? If a friend promised you a million dollars in exchange for doing a backfl ip

could you suddenly do it? Think about your attitude – is there an X factor like culture or history

that might shape the way people view their incentives and abilities. If your family didn’t believe in eating pork, would you eat it for a big prize?

HOW WILL PEOPLE RESPOND TO A POLICY



AFFRIMATIVE ARGUMENT: We should ban underweight models because they create harmful body image issues.

Steps of causation that must be proved

1. There are currently dangerously underweight models (why)

2. Vulnerable people see these models (how and why)3. Vulnerable people want to emulate what they see

(how and why)4. When they try to look the same as models it has

harms (how and why)

EXAMPLE OF CAUSATION: THAT WE SHOULD BAN UNDERWEIGHT

MODELS

CONSTRUCTING

PRINCIPLED ARGUMENTS



1. You need to explain how to measure a harm or a benefi tFor example:

How many people are better or worse off? (scale) How much are they better or worse off? (degree) Are they benefited in the short or long term? (time frame) In what way are they better off? (type)

i.e. socially? Economically? Environmentally?

2. You need to explain why your measurement is the best If you’re defending scale:

Talk about making more people happy = more happiness in general If you’re defending degree:

Why is the group that is a lot happier so important? If you’re talking about time frame:

Why is it important that the problem be fixed slowly or quickly? If you’re talking about type:

Why is your type more important?

PROVING THAT SOMETHING IS GOOD OR BAD



Every right creates a burden on someone else.

That burden may be positive; to do something e.g. to rescue you if you are drowning

Or negative burden to NOT do something e.g. to not push you into the water

Exercise 2.1: Can you think of some positive rights you have? What obligations do they create on others? Do the same for negative rights.

OFTEN PRINCIPLES AT STAKE ARE ABOUT PEOPLE’S RIGHTS



Justify a right because of:1. Something about the person and their entitlement to the

right. Are they vulnerable? Is there something about their position that entitles them to higher

consideration – eg. past wrongs committed against them?

2. Something about the nature of the right Is the benefit of this right unable to be achieved elsewhere? How important is the benefit of this right?

3. Something about the motives behind the use or exercise of the right. Is the motive behind the use of the right exploitation?

Compare on each of those categories with the imposition of the obligation required to create the right.

HOW DO WE BALANCE COMPETING RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS?



People should be allowed to make choices for themselves even if they are potentially risky choices.

Except if: The consequences of the choice will affect/harm other people.

Types of harm to others? Eg. Offence? Directness of harm to others? Eg. Loss of family earnings leading

to harm.

People have not properly consented (soft paternalism) Informed consent – understand the options before them Free consent – without duress, have real options

When does an influence become coercion? Explicit consent – have given consent for this particular risk.

There is something about the choice that makes it wrong to consent to (hard paternalism). Objective wrongs.

THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THINGS



Comparing two decision-makers – eg. Governments, parents, children, doctors, teachers, children, animals What do you know about the

incentives, capacities and ideologies of each decision maker?

As to their competence to make a particular decision. Eg. to choose an education, to adopt a particular course of treatment. What do you know about the

perspective and qualities required to make this type of decision.

Governments

•Majoritarian•

Adults• Liberalised•

WHO SHOULD MAKE A DECISION?

Exercise 2.2: Write in some features of these decision makers:

PREPARING FORA DEBATE



Status Quo

Which bad things are

happening to whom? Why should we

care?

How will the

model operate?

WHO…will do WHAT

differently?

Our end-game

What will things look like

afterwards?

THE AFFIRMATIVE NEEDS TO TELL A SERIES OF STORIES



Agree on the SQ

Offer a different model to achieve

Same end

game

THE NEGATIVE HAS A CHOICE TO MAKE ABOUT THE SQ, MODEL AND

END GAME

Disagree

about the SQ

Propose no change

Defend the SQ

Agree on the SQ

Offer a different model to achieve

Different end game



Status Quo

Which bad things are

happening to whom? Why should we

care?

How will the model operate?

WHO…will do WHAT

differently?

Our end-game

What will things look

like afterwards?

EXERCISE 2.3: THAT WE SHOULD BAN REALITY TV SHOWS



Offer a different

model

Recharacterise the

status quo

Aim for a different

end-game

Which approach

would you take on the

negative? Why?

EXERCISE 2.3: NEGATIVE OPTIONS



The clash is the major diff erence between the two teams:

Is there a philosophical diff erence? Is there a practical diff erence in how you would go

about solving the problem?Do you have diff erent priorities or criteria for

success?

THE NEG’S CHOICE SHAPES THE CLASH AND CHANGES BOTH TEAM’S

PRIORITIES



Topic is: That Australia should adopt a carbon tax

If the Neg says “The government doesn’t have any right to limit businesses’ ability to make money”, what kind of diff erence is that?

If the Neg says “Australia should combat climate change, but should instead implement an emissions trading scheme”, what kind of diff erence is that?

If the Neg says “We shouldn’t adopt a carbon tax because it would harm the mining industry”, what kind of diff erence is that?

EXERCISE 2.4



Affi rmative1. What’s happening now and

what’s wrong with it?2. What should we change with

our model – who will do what diff erently?

3. What will our end-game be?4. What will the negative say

about the SQ, mechanism and end game?

If there are options – consider them and decide which is hardest for you.

5. What are the key arguments for their approach in light of ours’?

Given your answers:6. What will you need to prove

to win?

Negative1. What’s happening now – is

there anything wrong with it?2. What wil l the affi rmative

propose to do?3. What is their l ikely end-game?4. In l ight of that - do you need a

counter-model or can we say that they wil l make it worse?

What will we change – who will do what diff erently to the SQ and affi rmative’s model?

What will our end-game be?

5. What are the key arguments for their approach in l ight of ours’?

Given your answers:6. What wil l you need to prove?

THE AGENDA



0-5mins Brainstorm Focus on being ready to answer the agenda

5-20mins Download your brainstorm to the team Follow the agenda – get an answer to the first question first, then move

on Get an answer and then ask if there are any concerns or alternate

suggestions – if not, move on. Discuss and argue each of the agenda items that you disagree on.

20-30mins Decide the arguments What needs to be proved at fi rst? What are the second speaker arguments?

30-40mins Argument Development Develop the levels Develop the labels

40-50mins Write Write big, make a plan for an argument – not a speech.

50-60mins Refi ne Anticipate, pre-empt, balance and compare Add examples, depth and sophistication

TIMELINE



1. What’s happening now and what’s wrong with it?

This is the introduction

2. What should we change with our model – who will do what differently?

This is the model and definition

3. What will our end-game be?This creates a team goal to

focus on and defend – rounds out intro

4. What will the negative say about the SQ, mechanism and end game?

This will help you know what you are comparing

5. What are the key arguments for their approach in light of ours’?

This helps you prepare responses and make

arguments comparative

6. What will you need to prove to win? These are the first speaker’s arguments.

THE AGENDA CREATES THE SPEECH



LABELLING: DEBATES ARE LIKE ONIONS…

That we should lower the voting age.

That those affected by the government should

be entitled to vote.

That engaging children will improve policy

outcomes for society.

That children are sufficiently affected by the government to be

entitled to vote.

That It’s a fundamental right to control those

who exercise authority.That children have the necessary capacity to be able to exercise the

vote.That using any other test of eligibility is

problematic.

That children contribute enough to

government.That government policy affects their

interest.That parents and other

proxies don’t sufficiently protect

children.

That having the vote encourages govs. to be

accountable to you.That children’s votes

will help value long-run concerns.

That children will gain a voice for sidelined

issues.



EXERCISE 3.5

That we should close all zoos

1. Animals have a right not to be treated

cruelly

3.2. Zoos treat animals

cruelly

1

2

3

1

2

3

1

2

3



Be specific- use the language of the topicTell the adjudicator what you intend on proving- don’t

leave them guessing! No longer than a sentence, but more than one word

HINTS FOR LABELING ARGUMENTS



bit.ly/ACTDUdebate

FEEDBACK

supported by the commonwealth department of education and the australian debating federation chris...

Documents

education actdu workshop

change of policy

types of debates

policyempirical debates

basic rules

untrue learning

different things

proposed change