supported by the commonwealth department of education and the australian debating federation chris...
Post on 21-Jan-2016
213 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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?
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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.
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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?
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Affirmative Negative
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!
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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…
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
Pract ical Quest ionWhat and how much of i t wi l l happen?
Affirmative Negative
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?
Affirmative Negative
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
Pract ical Quest ionWhat and how much of i t wi l l happen?
Affirmative Negative
Scale is debatable
Single-sex schools are
good for educational
development.
Scale is debatable.
Single sex schools are
bad for social development
Principled question?What is more important?
Affirmative Negative
Parental Choice
Educational Developme
nt
Government Choice
Social Developme
nt
EXAMPLE 2:THAT WE SHOULD BAN SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS.
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
Pract ical Quest ionWhat and how much of i t wi l l happen?
Affirmative Negative
Principled question?What is more important?
EXERCISE 1.4:THAT WE SHOULD BAN ANIMAL TESTING
Affirmative Negative
CONSTRUCTING
PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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?
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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.
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
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
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of Education &
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
bit.ly/ACTDUdebate
FEEDBACK
top related