- Ends vs. Means
- Isolation vs. Integration
- Security vs. Civil liberties
- Freedom vs. Preventing 3rd party harm
- Long term vs. Short term
The first example falls into the principles of the Freedom vs. Preventing 3rd party harm debate type. The second motion example fits the principles of Isolation vs. Integration and third motion under the Security vs. Civil liberties type.
If you look at almost any random debate motion, you will see that it "fits" into the principles of these five debate types. Some motions may include a mix of two or even three types of principle debates, but still almost every debate is about these basic ideas. And knowing how to qualify any motion under these basic principle debates is a skill I have observed in many experienced British parliamentary debaters. So why is that such an important skill? Well, because these debaters then always know exactly in which principle spheres the debate is and the understanding of these ideas makes it far easier for them to come up with arguments, examples and underlying logic.
But understanding that all debates are basically about five basic principle debates is also important for your scores, because good adjudicators are also very familiars with these types of debates and if they hear a concept they are familiar with, they know you really understand what you are debating about. That means they are more likely to understand your argumentation in the way you want to present it and therefore consider your speech as having more weight in a debate as such.
Every time you see a motion it is important that you:
- Qualify it under one or maybe two "Five BP debates" .
- Ask yourself what is the problem and what principles I can use to explain it in favour of my side.
- Ask yourself what do I have to prove to tip the scale onto my side of these principles behind five basic debates? So for example if you are the opposition in the this house would invade Iran debate, you should prove that isolation is a better idea (principle) then intervention in this case.
- Use appropriate argument names (tag names) in the debate itself. These make it easier for the adjudicators to understand the ideas you are presenting under the underlying principle.
If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. - Henry David Thoreau.
5 comments:
The more I think about it, less clear the difference between 3) and 4) is.
Now, civil liberties are a subset of freedoms and preventing 3rd-party harms is one aspect of security, so why the distinction?
I assume 3) implies a debate about social contract and 4) about harm principle, but even so, HP is an ideal social contract.
The only logical conclusion I can derive from this is, that one should always use the principle where one proposes an improvement of the more general term (freedoms or security) to minimise the burden of proof. But what about the opposition? Should they accept the terms or try to switch to the more favourable principle (assuming a case can be made either way, does extending in general pay off)?
One more thing, I think 2) is isolation vs. integration. Intervention just seems too narrow. What would than be the principle behind "Turkey should join the EU" or the semi-final debate from Tallinn?
Of course the boarders aren't clear cut. But I wouldn't go and generalise them so far to say they imply a debate about only social contract. If you have time go and analyse one of them into greater detail on examples!
Using a principle to minimise the burden of proof is in my opinion a good idea. As for the opp, I believe they can use any of the 18 OPP Strategies (I HOPE SOMEONE WITH CLEAR NOTES FROM THAT LECTURE WILL POST THEM HERE) and then decide wheter to switch to the more faworable principle or concide the terms and beat them withing that frame.
About turkey and bilateral aid, I would agin stress the importance of not clearly cut boarders, so I would add some ends v. means into the debate.
But I wouldn't go and generalise them so far to say they imply a debate about only social contract.
Give me an example where the role of the state (in abstract) is not derived from SC.
Granted, there probably are degenerate cases where one would argue freedom is limited by physical (and by extension biological) constraints and the extent of free will, but a debate like that requires all participants already have a very deep understanding of the governing principles.
As for the opp, I believe they can use any of the 18 OPP Strategies
I think this approach is flawed. Specific negation strategies should be used only after underlying principles have been identified (we don't want to end up with a let's throw everything against the wall and see what sticks case).
About turkey and bilateral aid, I would agin stress the importance of not clearly cut boarders, so I would add some ends v. means into the debate.
The point was, you were using the wrong term (intervention instead of integration).
Post a Comment