ACTDU WORKSHOP

2015

Supported by the
Commonwealth
Department of
Education and the
Australian Debating
Fe d e r a t i o n

Chris Bisset

TIMETABLE
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)
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

RE-THINKING
DEBATING

EXERCISE 1.1
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)?
Consid er 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.
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

LEARNING TO DEBATE MEANS

LEARNING TO WIN ARGUMENTS
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

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

HOW DOES THIS APPLY TO

DEBATING?
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.

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

WHAT ARE THE TWO TYPES OF

DEBATES?
Policy Debates
Involve 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?
Th e Affi rm a ti v e m u s t p ro v e t h e
p ol i c y wi l l d o m ore g o od t h a n
h a rm .
Th e N e g a ti v e m u s t p ro v e t h e
p ol i c y wi l l d o m ore h a rm t h a n
g oo d .
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Empirical Debates
Assesses the st a t e of th e
w or ld a nd the t r u th of a
sta t em e nt.
Look a t the pa st or t h e
pre se nt .
H int : the y oft en a bo ut
som et hing y ou w ou l d a rgu e
w ith y our pa ren ts a bou t ov er
dinner
T h e A ffi rm a t i v e m u s t p ro v e t h e
s t a t e m e n t i s m o re t r u e t h a n f a l s e
T h e N e g a t i v e m u s t p ro v e t h e
s t a t e m e n t i s m o re f a l s e t h a n t r u e .
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of
Education &

EXERCISE 1.2: POLICY OR

EMPIRICAL?
That technology has done more harm than good.
That we should celebrate schools 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.
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

BE AMBITIOUS IN YOUR
ARGUMENTS!
Policy Debates

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Empirical Debates

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

DEFINING THE TOPIC

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 defi ne 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 defi ned?
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

GOAL IS TO PROVE BENEFITS AND

HARMS
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 benefi cial/harmful.

What are its positive consequences
Why are they more/less signifi cant than the negative
consequences
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

EXAMPLE 1:
THAT ALL S CHOO L STU DENTS SHO ULD B E F ORC ED
T O DO 1 H OUR OF EXERCI SE EVERY DAY AT S CHOO L
Pr a c t i c a l Q u e s t i o n
What and how much of it will happen?

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Principled question?
What is more important?

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

EXAMPLE 2:
THAT WE SHOULD BAN SINGLE-SEX SCHOOLS.
Pr a c t i c a l Q u e s t i o n
What and how much of it will happen?

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Principled question?
What is more important?

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

EXERCISE 1.4:
THAT WE SHOULD BAN ANIMAL TESTING
Pr a c t i c a l Q u e s t i o n
What and how much of it will happen?

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Principled question?
What is more important?

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

CONSTRUCTING
PRACTICAL
ARGUMENTS

PROVING SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN

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 diff erent
There might have been something diff erent about the place it was
tried
There might be controversy over exactly what happened
The other team or judge may not believe you
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of
Education &

HOW WILL PEOPLE RESPOND TO A

POLICY
How do we know h ow pe ople/ group s/org anisations are g oing to
re s pon d to our policy?
Step 1 : Dont tre at all pe op le th e same bre ak diff e re nt
stake hold er s dow n into s ens ib le groups and de al with the m one
at a time.
Step 2 : Th ink about how you would b e have if you we re a me mbe r
of each grou p.
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 didnt believe in eating pork, would you eat it for a big prize?
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

EXAMPLE OF CAUSATION:
THAT WE SHOULD BAN UNDERWEIGHT
MODELS
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)
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

CONSTRUCTING
PRINCIPLED
ARGUMENTS

PROVING THAT SOMETHING IS

GOOD OR BAD
1. You need to explain how to measure a harm or a benefi t
For example:

How many people are better or worse off ? (scale)

How much are they better or worse off ? (degree)
Are they benefi ted 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 youre defending scale:
Talk about making more people happy = more happiness in general

If youre defending degree:

Why is the group that is a lot happier so important?

If youre talking about time frame:

Why is it important that the problem be fi xed slowly or quickly?

If youre talking about type:

Why is your type more important?
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

OFTEN PRINCIPLES AT STAKE ARE

ABOUT PEOPLES RIGHTS
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.

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

HOW DO WE BALANCE COMPETING

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS?
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 benefi t of this right unable to be achieved elsewhere?
How important is the benefi t 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.
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THINGS

People should be allowed to make choices for
themselves even if they are potentially risky choices.
Except if:
The consequences of the choice will aff ect/harm other people.
Types of harm to others? Eg. Off ence?
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.
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

WHO SHOULD MAKE A DECISION?

Comparing two decisionmakers eg. Governments,
parents, children, doctors,
teachers, children, anima ls

E xe rc i s e 2 . 2 : Wr i t e i n s o m e
f e a t u re s o f t h e s e d e c i s i o n
m a ke r s :

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 educa tion,
to adopt a particular course
of treatment.
What do you know about the
perspective and qualities
required to make this type of
decision.

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

PREPARING FOR
A DEBATE

THE AFFIRMATIVE NEEDS TO TELL A

SERIES OF STORIES

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

THE NEGATIVE HAS A CHOICE TO

MAKE ABOUT THE SQ, MODEL AND
END GAME

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

EXERCISE 2.3: THAT WE SHOULD

BAN REALITY TV SHOWS

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

EXERCISE 2.3: NEGATIVE OPTIONS

Offer a
different
model

Aim for
a
different
endgame

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Rechara
cterise
the
status
quo
Which
approac
h would
you
take on
the
negativ
e?
Why?

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

THE NEGS CHOICE SHAPES THE

CLASH AND CHANGES BOTH TEAMS
PRIORITIES
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?

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

EXERCISE 2.4
Topic is: That Australia should adopt a carbon tax
If the Neg says The government doesnt 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 shouldnt adopt a carbon tax because it

would harm the mining industry,what kind of diff erence is
that?
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

THE AGENDA
Affi rmative
1. W h at s ha pp en in g no w an d
w h at s wron g wit h it ?
2. W h at s h ou ld we c h an g e wit h
o ur mod el wh o will d o w ha t
d iff e ren t ly?
3. W h at will o ur e nd - g am e b e?
4. W h at will t h e n eg at ive s a y
a bo ut t h e S Q, mec h an is m an d
e nd g ame ?
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?

Negative
1. W h a t s h a p p e n in g n ow i s
t h e re a n y t h i n g wron g w i t h i t ?
2. W h a t wi l l th e a ffi rm a t i v e
p ro p o s e to d o ?
3. W h a t i s th ei r l i ke ly e n d - g a m e ?
4. I n li g h t of t h a t - d o y ou n e e d a
c o u n t e r- m o d e l o r c a n we s a y
t h a t th e y w il l m a ke it w o r s e ?

Given you r a ns w ers :

6. W h at will you n eed t o prove t o
w in?
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

What will we change who will do

what diff erently to the SQ and
affi rmatives model?
What will our end-game be?

5. W h a t a re th e key a rg u m e n t s fo r
t h e ir a p p ro a c h in l ig h t o f o u r s ?
G iv en y o u r a n s w e r s :
6. W h a t wi l l y o u n e e d t o p rov e ?
Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of
Education &

TIMELINE
0-5mins

Brain storm

Focus on being ready to answer the agenda

5-20min s Down load you r brainstorm to th e team

Follow the agenda get an answer to the fi rst question fi rst, 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 th e argu men ts

What needs to be proved at fi rst?

What are the second speaker arguments?

30-40mins

Arg ument Development

Develop the levels

Develop the labels

40-50mins

Write

Write big, make a plan for an argument not a speech.

50-60mins

Refi n e

Anticipate, pre-empt, balance and compare

Add examples, depth and sophistication
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

THE AGENDA CREATES THE SPEECH

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

LABELLING: DEBATES ARE LIKE

ONIONS
That we should lower the voting age.

That those affected by

the government should
be entitled to vote.

That children are

sufficiently affected by
the government to be
entitled to vote.

That engaging children

will improve policy
outcomes for society.

That having the vote

That Its a fundamental
That children
right to control those
contribute enough to encourages govs. to be
accountable to you.
who exercise authority.
government.
That children have the
That government
That childrens votes
necessary capacity to
policy affects their
will help value long-run
be able to exercise the
interest.
concerns.
vote.
That parents and other
That children will gain
That using any other
proxies dont
a voice for sidelined
test of eligibility is
sufficiently protect
issues.
problematic.
children.
ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

EXERCISE 3.5
That we should close all zoos

1. Animals have a right

not to be treated
cruelly

2. Zoos treat animals

cruelly

3.

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

HINTS FOR LABELING ARGUMENTS

Be specifi c- use the language of the topic
Tell the adjudicator what you intend on proving- dont
leave them guessing!
No longer than a sentence, but more than one word

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &

FEEDBACK
bit.ly/ACTDUdebate

ACTDU Workshop - 17 October 2015

Supported by the Comm. Dep. Of

Education &