Post on 24-Feb-2016
description
Opening Government
Tactical Tips
What’s different about it?
Less time to prep arguments The debate hasn’t formed The matter and contention is invisible
Disadvantages
The debate can move away from you Your points can be better analysed You get to chance to take the best
points in the debate You get the chance to take the rest of
the points in the debate In prop you can mech, in opp you can
mech challenge
Advantages
You get to make ALL THE POINTS You get to mech out anything you don’t want
to defend in prop In opp you can mech challenge You get the chance to make all the best points
in the debate You can put unwinnable burdens on the other
team You get to dictate the ‘battleground of the
debate’ I.e ‘this debate is about quick change vs
slower, better change’
What’s important to remember
Thou shalt make all the ‘big’ arguments Thou shalt think about the opp Thou shalt not say ‘all the benefits on our
side, no harms at all, Mr Speaker’ Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's arguments Thou shalt LISTEN Thou shalt not ‘write arguments’ in prep
(sometimes) Thou shalt have a ‘team line’
What do your judges want?
SO…….!
You’ve drawn first Government….. What do you do?
NOW FREAK OUT!!!!!!! FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK WTF DOES THAT WORD MEAN?!? I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SYRIA FUCKFUCKFUCK
End up doing a 3 minute speech on what you thought was syria but was actually libya and block out the whole debate so you don’t realise how many fuck ups you made
First thing’s first
Calm down, first proposition is brilliant First proposition is the most formulaic Do the basics: Solid Mech Problem/Cause/solution analysis POI your case
What to do in prep
Don’t start writing arguments What was the CA thinking? What do you want this policy to do? Why will it do it? Is this justified? What’s the opp going to be? What’s the crux of the debate?
Final Step: (but we’ll do it now)
Definitions In most cases, they should be simple In most cases, they should be brave They should be snappy Don’t talk numbers Accept ambiguous cases You should do them last, it should fit your
goals No 10 point models (unless the motion is bad) Be savvy
Step One: What’s the crux?
It is about making ‘all the arguments’
-that means do the basics (stakeholder analysis, moral justification, why this? Why now?) It’s mainly about ‘the crux’ I can barely help you with that How do you do it?
E.g THW punish anti-social behavior with public humiliation
Model, we’ll replace all suspended sentences and fines with public displays of humiliation
Like what? Put them on a stage and shout about their crime
Make them hold a sign displaying how sorry they are
They can decline to apologise, but that will also be announced
Publically announce how stupid they are If they don’t reform, we’ll use prison
sentences or current methods
The crux
What does this mean? What does the debate ‘come down to’ What are the ‘big points on both sides’ This can become clearer by finding burdens What do you have to prove to win? What are they going to say?
Usually
-will this be effective in trying to solve the problem?
-who is it margianalising? What’s the cost of the motion? What’s more important?
-Is it justified?
Example-THW but quotas in boardrooms for women
The crux: what’s more important, meritocracy or representation?
What best empowers women in the workplace? What best empowers women in general? Analysis will follow naturally once you’ve thought of
this
How to get to it:
What’s the problem: underrepresentation of women in the boardroom, sexism in society, sexist business culture
Who loses out, what’s the cost? There’s a cost to the feminist movement, and women, and specifically female board members, also businesses (this is tangential)
Other stuff
Why this? Why now? You can’t let the opp say ‘other methods are better’, this is an easy win for them
What other methods could be used to achieve your ends? Why are those methods not enough?
E.g in the last debate- why are double blind tests not enough? Why can’t we wait for the SQ to fix itself? Why are the progressions currently not enough?
Your work is half done if you can convince the judge that SOMETHING needs to be done
Once you’ve got ‘the points’
Structure your analysis clearly Basics, what’s the problem? What are the causes of all those
problems? Outline them, in detail? What’s the solution? Why will it work to
specifically counteract those problems?
Why is that important? Weigh what you’ve got against the costs
Always be mindful of the opp
Example: THW Enforce Quotas in boardrooms
Problems: female representation in businesses, female equality in society, discrimination, women to applying in the first instance
Causes with examples: Loads; ingrained sexism, sexist business culture, business practices that exclude women, lack of female role models and aspiration, assumptions about ‘child bearing age’
Solution: creates positive feedback loops, for sexists, redresses the imbalance, gets women into decision making positions so practices can be changed, shows assumptions to be false, creates role models
What are they going to say? : It’s unfair, it actually entrenches sexism, it entrenches current negative feedback loops, emboldens the sexist movement, makes women feel more victimised, erodes the achievement of female businessmen
Why this? Why now?: other measures haven’t worked, double blind tests will still skew the balance, we’ve waited long enough
How to respond
99% of the time, the problems they’ll raise are SQ
Usually they’ll champion other methods, if they’re good that is, so why is THIS needed
‘Re-build’ this is basic, but vital Don’t ‘redefine, but you can be tactful
about it’ Often, their criticism will be irrelevant,
if it’s good, then rebuilding is key
Tactics
POI your case Have a team line Make sure you follow the formula If they POI something good, steal it