Supported by the Commonwealth Department of Education and t - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Supported by the Commonwealth Department of Education and the Australian Debating FederationChris Bisset

ACTDU Workshop 2015Slide2

Session 1: 9:15am-10:00am (45mins)Re-thinking debatingConstructing 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)

TimetableSlide3

Re-thinking debatingSlide4

Think about all the people or groups who make decisions that affect you – who or what are they?What are some of

the

decisions or rules they make that affect you?Which of these decisions or rules affect you the most? Why?Which do you disagree with most? Which are the most controversial? Are these different? 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 1.1Slide5

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 different things, but can be broken down into:

Policy Debates: about somebody implementing a policyEmpirical Debates: about whether a claim is true or untrueLearning to debate means learning to win argumentsSlide6

Key Debating Skills:Debating is about logical and objective analysis: you need to think of persuasive reasons why somebody who might think differently to you should agree with you.

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

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?Slide7

Policy Debates

Involve a

proposed change to the way the world works that needs to be considered.Looking forward– what will the effect 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 Affirmative must prove the policy will do

more good than harm.

The Negative must prove the policy will

do more harm than good.

The Affirmative must prove the statement is

more true than false

The Negative must prove the statement is

more false than true.Slide8

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 offer 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?Slide9

Policy Debates

Empirical Debates

Be ambitious in your arguments!Slide10

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 affirmative team is responsible for clarifying anything uncertain about the topic.

Often a good way of defining words is by using examples

E.g. If the topic is about violent sport, you need to define what a violent sport isA 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 topicSlide11

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 consequencesWhy are they more/less significant than the negative consequences

Goal is

to prove Benefits and Harms

…Slide12

Practical QuestionWhat and how much of it will happen?

Principled question?

What is more important?

Example 1:

ThaT

all school students should be forced to do 1 hour of exercise every day at schoolSlide13

Practical QuestionWhat and how much of it will happen?

Principled question?

What is more important?

Example 2:

That We should ban single-sex schools.Slide14

Practical QuestionWhat and how much of it will happen?

Principled question?

What is more important?

Exercise 1.4:

That we should ban animal testingSlide15

Constructing Practical ArgumentsSlide16

Often there is a chain of things that have a ‘domino effect’E.g. That we should raise taxes on cigarettesArgument: 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 themYou need to prove each step in the chain Sometimes you will have evidence to show that a similar policy has had the effects 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 happenSlide17

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 different 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 backflip 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 policySlide18

AFFRIMATIVE ARGUMENT: We should ban underweight models because they create harmful body image issues.Steps of causation that must be

proved

There are currently dangerously underweight models (why)Vulnerable people see these models (how and why)

Vulnerable people want to emulate what they see

(how and why)

When they try to look the same as models it has harms

(how and why)

example of

causation:

That we should ban underweight models Slide19

Constructing Principled ArgumentsSlide20

You need to explain how

to measure a harm or a benefitFor 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?

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 badSlide21

Every right creates a burden on someone else.That burden may be positive; to do

something

e.g. to rescue you if you are drowningOr negative burden to NOT do somethinge.g. to not push you into the waterExercise 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 rightsSlide22

Justify a right because of: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?Something about the nature of the rightIs the benefit of this right unable to be achieved elsewhere?

How important is the benefit of this right?

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?Slide23

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 themFree 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 ThingsSlide24

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.

Who should make a decision?

Exercise 2.2: Write in some features of these

decision makers: Slide25

Preparing fora debateSlide26

The affirmative needs to Tell a series of storiesSlide27

The negative has a choice to make about the SQ, Model and End GameSlide28

Exercise 2.3: That

we should ban reality TV showsSlide29

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 OptionsSlide30

The clash is the major difference between the two teams:Is there a philosophical difference?

Is there a

practical difference in how you would go about solving the problem?Do you have different priorities or criteria for success?The neg’s

choice shapes the clash and changes both team’s prioritiesSlide31

Topic is: That Australia should adopt a carbon taxIf the Neg says “The government doesn’t have any right to limit businesses’ ability to make money”,  what kind of difference is that

?

If the Neg says “Australia should combat climate change, but should instead implement an emissions trading scheme”, what kind of difference is that?If the Neg says “We shouldn’t adopt a carbon tax because it would harm the mining industry”, what kind of difference is that?

Exercise 2.4Slide32

Affirmative

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

What should we change with our model – who will do what differently?What will our end-game be?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.

What are the key arguments for their

approach in light of ours’?

Given your answers:

What

will you need to

prove to win?

Negative

What’s happening now – is there anything wrong with it?

What will the affirmative propose to do?

W

hat is their likely end-game?

In light of that - do you need a counter-model or can we say that they will make it worse?

What will we change – who will do what differently to the SQ and affirmative’s model?

What will our end-game be?What are the key arguments for their approach in light of ours’?Given your answers:What will you need to prove?The AgendaSlide33

0-5mins BrainstormFocus on being ready to answer the agenda5-20mins 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 argumentsWhat needs to be proved at first?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 Refine

Anticipate, pre-empt, balance and compare

Add examples, depth and sophistication

TimelineSlide34

The agenda creates the speechSlide35

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. Slide36

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

3Slide37

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 Slide38

bit.ly/ACTDUdebateFeedback