Debating Notes

Argumentation Development Augmentation & Keyholes (Pros and Cons)

Goods for introductions and summaries and can be turned into points in any debate. The Keyholes are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Rights Freedoms Justice Choice

Using analogies are very effective as they back your points.

Things to do during a debate

Track the debate (listening to the nuances of what they said) Think of the assumptions and assertions the opposition has made. Be clear as to what our stance is/ and what their is to Think about what is relevant for the debate

Rebuttal
Three parts 1. Structure (doesnt tie together large number of points) 2. Labelling (name the issues correctly) 3. Coverage (dont back away from difficult issues) Rebuttal needs to be 4 main things: 1. Dynamic Respond to the changing oppositions case Have different refutations for the same argument Respond to the best part of the oppositions case 2. Multi-layered Have more than one response for each issue 3. Comprehensive Cover ALL topics and points 4. Strategic Prioritise the largest issues

 Tell the audience the key issue Basic principles should still stand at the end of a debate Prove that arguments are wrong analytically How they made their case (assertions) Break down their logic Look at what is relevant to win a debate Strategic concession Point out contradictions with there was tension, inconsistencies in the opposition Dispute facts Even if Provide reasons as to why my version of the facts are true Spin is very important

Introductions
Short snappy opening which undermines the basis of their case Aggressive assertive introduction Go further with rebuttal straight to the point

Before the Debate

Look at varying perspectives Think about the context of the debates Explain the necessary processes Imperative: reason to act, mandate: the authority for a party to carry out a policy. Forecasting where will the clashes of the debate will be Principles: rights/autonomy/ideology

OTHER Fight them on their own ground Listen to what they have said Principle/practical

Stakeholders Build an imperative add emotion You can mention the speakers and incorporate their words into our speech Examples: use directly relevant ones, before abstract ones Create very specific headings for arguments Distinguish between moral and realistic topic Social change is the hardest one to justify Conspiracy of silence What happens as a consequence of change (what can they do, after they have been informed) Draw parallels Lack of imperative is not a good first point (too defensive) Match practicality with practicality Be more aggressive with issues Dont rebut imperatives Questions for us to use rebuttal for a purpose

Case Construction
More nuance of analysis Think about stakeholders Look at how their behaviour may change alongside policy Point out a story at how most realistically their behaviour will change (once this has been ascertained, place this as the goal) Look at majority/minorities Understand what you need to win Look at the basic principles Make debates real world focused (specific examples, hypothetical examples) Make a distinction between the status quo and the choice of the opposition Specificity wins debates What re the repercussions of not agreeing with God Prioritise At start of 3rd discuss what we needed to prove in this debate Manner diversity More substantive clash Why to ban: third party harms, child/individual harms Look at the likelihood of an event occurring Deal with characterisations Look at comparatives Explain everything step it through

Define all terms Focus on effectiveness (how groups are already bad)