Debating
Not Losing Debates
An Introduction to Strategy, Cases and Response
Disclaimer: I speak third and write cases
and speeches. I (mostly) have not spoken
any other position for 4 years.
Developing Debating Skills
Helpful Activities:
• Watch Debates (BP: WUDC, EUDC | 3v3: WSDC, Australs, Easters, NSDC)
• Track Debates
• Speech/Manner Drills (Pen between Teeth, No Notes, Impromptu Speaking)
• News (The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Paul Krugman Blog,
The Guardian, The ABC, The Australian)
• Podcasts (The Ezra Klein Show, The Daily, The London Review of Books,
Freakonomics, Fault Lines (NSI), The Diplomat (ASEAN)
• Journals (Foreign Policy, Project Syndicate, Foreign Affairs)
You don’t get better at cricket by playing
test matches.
James Stratton
Three Approaches
Three Approaches
Impact
Truth
Three Approaches
Impact
Truth
Three Approaches
Impact
Truth
Three Approaches
Impact
Truth
Three Approaches
Impact
Truth
Three Approaches
i h o o d A Impact A
Likel
Premise
Likel
ihoo
dB
Impact B
Impact
Truth
Adjudication
The Ideal
Adjudicator
Adjudication
The Ideal The Unideal
Adjudicator Adjudicator
Just stop losing debates.
Just stop losing debates.
Thanks, jeez, you’re so helpful.
Paths to Victory
Let’s assume that everything you claim is true (i.e. the likelihood of every
outcome is 100%), is that enough to win you the debate?
Many cases fail this basic litmus test.
Examples:
That we should ban plastics.
That we should make unionisation mandatory for all employees. (NSDC
2021)
Weaponise this in rebuttal.
Contingency (Part 1)
A contingent argument is one that depends on another premise.
All claims are contingent.
An extra $30 will allow me to buy more tomatoes.
This assumes that global agricultural markets are functional enough to give
me tomatoes AND that the system of currency will hold for the 20 minutes it
takes me to buy some at the IGA on Glenferrie.
Now, these assumptions are pretty good bets, but they are still assumptions.
Debaters make mistakes when their arguments assume the outcomes of
other arguments.
Contingency (Part 2)
There are three types of contingency:
• Vertical
• That the Australian Labor Party should adopt a policy of student debt cancellation.
(NSDC 2022)
• PRINCIPLES
• Horizontal
• That the Democrats should nominate a moderate. (NSDC 2019)
• Mutual
• That the feminist movements should embrace conservative female leaders. (NSDC
2021)
You can exploit these dependencies in response.
Principles and Practicals
Firstly, there are no real principles. All principles can be deconstructed by
counterexample of the suffering they can cause at extremes.
Secondly, only run a principle if you think you are going to win by a landslide.
Why? Imagine you are adjudicating this motion:
That voters should be asked to produce ID when voting in Australian elections.
(NOD 2021)
So, principles can: widen margins, muddy losses, change weighing.
Principles cannot transform a debate you are winning, to a debate you are
losing. There are (mostly) ships passing in the night.
Use them sparingly.
Fake Impacts
All arguments must trace back to “utility” — that is, some measure of how
an individual life is improved or worsened by a particular policy.
Fake impacts include:
• ‘justice’
• ‘representation’
• ‘equality’
• ‘democracy’
• ‘political/social capital’
Responses to fake impacts.
Fake Impacts
All arguments must trace back to “utility” — that is, some measure of how
an individual life is improved or worsened by a particular policy.
Fake impacts include:
• ‘justice’
• ‘representation’
• ‘equality’
• ‘democracy’
• ‘political/social capital’
Responses to fake impacts.
Fake Impacts
All arguments must trace back to “utility” — that is, some measure of how
an individual life is improved or worsened by a particular policy.
Fake impacts include:
• ‘justice’
• ‘representation’
• ‘equality’
• ‘democracy’
• ‘political/social capital’
Responses to fake impacts.
Beware of Intuitions
Pathways in Debating
Schools Level:
The Victorian State Team:
Regional Competitions (DAV, School-Hosted Tournaments)
Round 1 Trials (Open)
State Competitions (DAV Finals, DAV BP, Monash Asian
Studies, Deakin Law School, VST Trials) (December, January)
National Competitions (NSDC, National Online Debating) Round 2 Trials (24)
International Competitions (WSDC) 1 Week of Training
University Level:
Round 3 Trials (12)
Small Tournaments (held by individual university/regional
debating societies) 4 Weeks of Training
MUDS - University of Melbourne; MAD - Monash University Team (7) [4 Speakers + 1
Regional Tournaments (Easters (Australia), Australs Reserve]
(Australasia), EUDC (Europe), NADC (North America))
Many Weeks of Training
International Tournaments (WUDC)
Questions?
