Advanced Deba+ng Resources

A Masters Academy Resource Pack

Individual Prepara.on Advanced Techniques

Preparing Your case This resource has been created for debaters who are experienced and want to use prepara+on +me more efficiently. We suggest that each individual spends 5 minutes at the beginning of the prepara+on period answering the following ques+ons:

Status Quo What is the current system surrounding this policy?

Are there flaws in the system currently?

Are there any current issues surrounding the status quo in the news recently?

Principle What is the fundamental idea your team is suppor+ng or proposing?

For example: “That all children have a right to feel safe at school” or that “All government informa+on in a democra+c country should be freely accessible by the people”

Model If you are changing the status quo, what are you trying to fix? – What is your Impera+ve?

How would you go about the change that you are making? – What are your Prac+cali+es?

How would the system benefit directly/indirectly from the change? – What are your Principles?

Brainstorm Who are the stakeholders involved?

What benefits does your change bring to these stakeholders?

What stakeholders might be harmed in the change process, and how might you mi+gate or reduce the effect on them?

What evidence do you have to show your claimed benefits are likely? Are your outcomes realis+c and achievable or far-fetched and hopeful?

ABN: 60 143 264 724 mastersacademy.com.au �1

Remember: When preparing you arguments its important to balance Principles and Practicalities across al l Stakeholders to ensure a solid founda+on for your arguments

Right, Responsibility and Reason A Conceptual Framework

As debaters become more experienced, their debates become more challenging and the teams become harder to differen+ate in terms of finding a result. A team that is able to analyse a topic on a deeper conceptual level than their opposi+on has a greater chance of winning a close debate.

To ‘unpack’ ideas further and move deeper into the arguments, it is important to analyse ideas from different points paradigms and frameworks.

One important conceptual framework for policy debates looks at the concepts of Right, Responsibility and Reason. These set of words can be used to ‘unpack’ most themes in a debate.

Some basic leading sentences for star+ng an analysis under the ideas of Right, Responsibility and Reason are:

These sentences flow on logically from one another. Without answering the first ques+on in each category comprehensively, teams will fail to analyse the next step properly. Teams should start with the ques+ons of Rights, and then move on to the ques+ons of Responsibility and Reason.

ABN: 60 143 264 724 mastersacademy.com.au �1

Right Responsibility Reason

Do we have the Right to take action?

Who has the Responsibility to take action in this scenario?

Are there enough Reasons/Issues to justify taking action?

Can this action be justified and balanced?

Does one stakeholder have more accountability than

another?

Would this action result in Net Benefit or Net Detriment to

these Issues?

Right, Responsibility and Reason A Ques+on of Rights

Rights can be explained in three main ideas:

Underneath the concept of ‘Rights’ a team should be able to accept that there are mul+ple layers of ‘Rights’ in the topic. In order to prove their side correct, they need to analyse the rights of the par+cular stakeholder that is taking ac+on verses the right of other stakeholders.

A frequently unjus+fied Right in deba+ng is the ‘Right to Choose’. This argument is used o[en by less experienced debaters as a staple in debates about making a par+cular policy compulsory.

Take for instance:

That we should make cooking classes compulsory in primary schools.

A common ‘Right to Choose’ argument a team will use would go like this: “Cooking classes should not be compulsory because students have a right to choose what they do and don’t do.”

Whilst this statement shows somewhat of a principled standpoint and therefore does meet the first part of the criteria for defining a Right, it also assumes that students have a right to make a choice in what they do. This assump+on is incorrect on mul+ple levels when defining the rights of the student in this topic:

Firstly: In primary educa+on the student has very limited choice in terms of par+cipa+on

Secondly: This statement assumes that the student is capable of an educated choice and therefore deserves the right to choose

Thirdly: Both the parents/guardians and state have rights that supersede the child in terms of choices made as they are a minor

ABN: 60 143 264 724 mastersacademy.com.au 2

Rights are moral or principled standpoints

Rights should never be assumed or inherited

Rights can be challenged and balanced against other Rights

Right, Responsibility and Reason A Ques+on of Rights (Cont.)

As you can see, balancing out the rights of a child to dictate their own learning verses those of the government or their caregivers would take some fairly in depth jus+fica+on and would be very difficult to prove. However, if this framework is applied to a different stakeholder, the result can be easily jus+fied.

Using the parents and guardians as the central stakeholder in this framework a team might say:

‘Cooking classes should not be compulsory because parents and guardians have the right to teach non-essen>al life skills to children, not the government.’

This statement is a more correct analysis of the Rights in the topic as it is a principle that is based in fact.

It is logically correct because:

Firstly: Parents do have the right to teach their children life skills in the status quo

Secondly: Cooking classes are a non-essen+al life skill that is not core to a child’s educa+on at school

Thirdly: Parents and guardians have rights that are balanced against the governments’ rights on deciding how to raise their children

ABN: 60 143 264 724 mastersacademy.com.au 3

Remember:

Rights are moral and principled standpoints that must be justified and can be argued on a conceptual level.

Rights should be discussed from the perspec+ve of different stakeholders in the debate that are action-takers.

Right, Responsibility and Reason A Ques+on of Responsibility

A[er establishing a premise of the debate under the ini+al idea of Rights, a team should then move on to establish how these Rights carry Responsibilities with them.

Ques+ons of Responsibility and Accountability in deba+ng o[en revolve around three key themes:

From an affirma+ve perspec+ve, it should be noted that they are always arguing for a change in the delega+on of Responsibility. This means that they should concentrate their main points of conten+on in the Responsibility argument around the last two dot points listed above, thus proving that Responsibilities are not currently being met and would be more effec+vely met if the central stakeholder changed.

From a nega+ve perspec+ve, it can be seen that they are arguing to maintain the current levels of Responsibility in the Status Quo, proving that assumed Responsibilities are being met, and met effec+vely.

On the nega+ve side of the topic in the compulsory cooking classes debate, a team may have established their right to maintain the status quo by arguing that parents have a right to teach life skills (as seen previously).

Under this premise, they then need to prove that parental responsibility to teach life skills is being maintained properly at the moment and that there is a form of accountability that exists within the status quo. A short argument for the responsibility of the parent in this scenario may look like this:

‘Parents have assumed responsibility for teaching life skills when they choose to raise a child. Life skills in regards to cooking are currently being taught by parents when they deem it appropriate for their child. It is best that the parent assumes this responsibility because cooking methods are an important skill set that vary from family to family.’

This statement can then be expanded with Reasons that will re-enforce the arguments of responsibility.

ABN: 60 143 264 724 mastersacademy.com.au 4

Which stakeholder has an assumed responsibility for a

particular role in society?

Are responsibilities currently being met by the central

stakeholder?

Would responsibilities be better met if they are assumed

by a different stakeholder?

Right, Responsibility and Reason A Ques+on of Reasons

Reasons are used as the last step in the ‘Right, Responsibility, Reason’ equa+on. Reasons aim to prove the logical Net Benefit or Net Detriment of a par+cular ac+on taking place. Reasons also look to reinforce the principles of Rights and Responsibility that have been set throughout a case.

Therefore, all reasons should aim to be logical conclusions that are extensions of the Rights and Responsibility principles that were set at the beginning of a teams’ case.

Most ma_er in deba+ng falls under the ‘Reason’ category of this framework. Think of ‘Reasons’ as the ground level arguments in the debate. The best way to find Reasons is to analyse the Rights and Responsibility arguments and then try to brainstorm ways to reinforce them or provide evidence for them.

Right ‘Cooking classes should not be compulsory because parents and guardians have the right to teach non-essen>al life skills to children, not the government.’

Responsibility ‘Parents have assumed responsibility for teaching life skills when they choose to rear a child. Life skills in regards to cooking are currently being taught by parents when they deem it appropriate for their child. It is best that the parent assumes this responsibility because cooking methods are an important skill set that vary from family to family.’

Reasons • Parents and children will spend +me together through this method, therefore bonding over a life skill:

Social Benefits.

• Parents will be able to teach the cooking skills that are applicable for their family, therefore accoun+ng for cultural difference: Cultural Benefits.

• Parents are be_er equipped at the home to teach in a low key environment: Welfare Benefits.

• Homes are currently equipped and able to teach these life skills whereas schools are not: Practical/Safety Benefits.

ABN: 60 143 264 724 mastersacademy.com.au 5

Remember:

Reasons should be using the compare and contrast method to show that there are more Net Benefits to your proposal than Net Detriments.

HAVE A QUESTION? Email: info@mastersacademy.com.au Phone: (02) 8283 2905

VISIT US ONLINE: www.mastersacademy.com.au

STAY CONNECTED: facebook.com/mastersacademytraining twitter.com/masters academy

LOCATION: Masters Academy Training Pty. Ltd. 13A Parkes Road, Artarmon NSW 2064

ABOUT MASTERS ACADEMY

Masters Academy Training is a Sydney based company, focused on developing the cri.cal thinking, deba.ng and communica.on skills of students in NSW.

With over 10 years experience in adjudica.on and deba.ng coaching, Masters Academy Training believes that deba.ng offers students important argumenta.ve and persuasion skills, whilst teaching students how to be effec.ve public speakers.

Copyright 2017 Masters Academy Training Pty. Ltd. You are not granted permission to share, copy or

reproduce informa+on contained within this document without express wri_en permission.