Leeds Debating Union Training Guide Director Semester One

Leeds Debating Union Training Guide

Written and Edited by Produced by Contributors from Michael Burgess Leeds Debating Union John Taylor Oliver Duggan Stefano Imbriano Laurence Hooper

Hannah Townsend Jade Pilling Ben Mulvihill Copyright 2011. Some rights reserved. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/ . Printing History October 2011: Second Edition Michaela Martin

This book may be used freely for educational or business purposes. Online editions are available at http://www.leedsdebatingunion.com. For more information contact leedsdebatingunion@gmail.com. Printed copies are available for 1 upon request.

Conventions
Motion Titles appear in Italic Small Caps text indicates a signpost

Abbreviations & Terms

THBT THW Motion Status Quo Knifing Barracking Wings
2

This House Believes That This House Would A proposition the government must advocate The Current (Legal) Situation Contradicting the position of other speaks on your side Offering POIs in a repetitive distracting manner Assistant Judges

Contents
Introduction Parliamentary Rules Types of Debate The First Half: Proposition The First Half: Opposition The Second Half: Extension The Second Half: Summation Judging Sample Speech & Structure POIs & Preparation My Progress Articles I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. IX. The Media The State Religion Human Rights The Law Identity The Economy 4 5 6 7 9 11 14 16 18 20 21 22 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 ... 36

VIII. The EU

Justice & Equality 38

Reading the Guide

We have designed the training guide to be read three or four pages at a time, which you can do in a free ten minutes on the day of the session. Read the first three pages (up to 6) to get an idea of what debating is about. After that your mentor will suggest a couple of pages every week in preparation for the next debate, for example if the next weeks debate is on the media and you will prefer to judge that, pages 16 and 22 will be suggested. The guide is quite short and hopefully accessible, though we are always looking for helpful suggestions.
3

Introduction
Welcome to the wonderful world of debating. At first you may find the discipline intimidating, the artful tirades of professionals instilling awe and confusion. This guide, and the training at Leeds Debating Union, is designed to reveal the elegant forms of argument hidden beneath the bravado and bobbing of debaters as they shout, on that!. This training is designed to provide you will the confidence to speak on any topic with style and aplomb. Through this process of self-education and self-development we will be helping you at every step. The starting point for us is providing a friendly society with approachable experts and useful material. We host training and debates every week and we encourage you to come to as many as possible. However do not worry if you don't understand one aspect of a topic, or miss one or two sessions, we are always happy to get you up to speedand that is the basic task of this booklet.

What is Debate?
A debate is a spoken clash of opposing views. Professional debating requires speakers to cast aside their own opinions and enjoy the process itself; positions in a competitive debate are randomly drawn and have no reflection on a speakers personal views. Like any other discipline, debating has a structure and rules that allow us to speak in a competitive environment. The British university societies uses the same structure as the World University Debating Championships: the British Parliamentary Format.

How British Parliamentary Works

British Parliamentary (BP) debate is structured in teams of two. Each debate is made up of four teams, two on each side. Speakers get either five or seven minutes to deliver a speech, to convince a judging panel that their side of the argument is the correct one. The pair that does this most effectively wins. Every pair is subsequently ranked by the order of how ably they convinced the judge.
4

Parliamentary Rules The rules of parliamentary debate are fairly simple. The debate consists of four teams, each with two members, as show in Figure 1. There is also a Speaker (a chairperson) who is almost always the main judge. The judge will adjudicate the debate, potentially with a panel of wings, or secondary judges. Typically, a motion is announced, for example, This House Would ban cosmetic surgery. Then positions on the table are drawn randomly, after which teams have 15 minutes each to come up with different arguments for their side of the debate. During speeches, debaters from the opposing side will often stand to ask a question, or Point of Information. The person speaking does not have to accept these and will often wave the questioner down. Every speaker is charged with bringing new arguments to the debate, with every speaker other than the first brining extra material which aims to refute the previous speakers points. Figure 1, A typical room layout. Teams indicated by patterns.
Opening Government (First Proposition) Opening Opposition (First Opposition)
Speaker 1 Speaker 2

Speaker 3

Closing Government (Second Proposition)

Table

Speaker 4

Closing Opposition (Second Opposition)

Speaker 5

Speaker 6

Speaker 7

Speaker 8

Judging Panel
5

The first and last positions differ slightly from this generic model. The person speaking first, sometimes known as the Prime Minister, is required to outline the terms under which the debate will occur. These may include the precise meaning of words or specific actions the government will take if the motion carries. The last two debaters are known as the summary speakers, they are charged with providing an overview of the debate largely from the point-of-view of their own team. They may not bring new arguments into the debate however may rephrase and repackage the material already aired and add a little analysis.

Types of Debate
In BP there are two kinds of motions: policy debates (eg. This House Would Legalize Marijuana) or beliefs debates (eg. This House Believes That All Killing is Immoral). In each circumstance your role remains the same: to convince the judges that your side is right. However there are some slight differences; in beliefs motions, a. You do not need to define specific steps for the government to take as Prime Minister, however it is a good idea to outline the standards of judgment youre using. For example, what you mean by immoral? b. Pragmatic arguments are held in less esteem, approach them with a philosophical attitude looking to see what values they rest upon. Motions may also be open or closed depending on their wording. An open motion gives much more freedom to the opening government, allowing them to entirely dictate the subject of the debate. For example, THBT you need to break a few eggs to make an omelette: first prop may decide this means torture is sometimes necessary, or that the BNP should be silenced. Closed motions are the most common, and clearly state the topic of debate.
6

The First Half

The first half of the debate concerns the first four speakers. The first speaker gets to outline the terms of the debate, and the rest set its tone. The key thing to remember here is you must be clear, you must be forceful and you must think tactically. Its very easy for second half to steal the debate away and depreciate what youve said. Make sure you very clearly state what your arguments are and why those arguments are the most important ones. With POIs to later teams, you must reiterate your team line and seek to rebuild any of your points that may have been refuted. First Proposition The first speaker for the proposition, the Prime Minister, must define the motion. Its their responsibility to answer all of the questions on the workings of a particular policy. If that doesn't happen opp may fill the lack of information with assertions that can weaken the case. Its a simple task but even the best debaters in the world sometimes forget to do it. If a motion is THW legalize drugs, for example, the PM needs to answer several questions: a. b. c. Which drugs? Are dispensaries state-owned or private sector? How will this be regulated (age restrictions, licensing, locations etc.)?

You can bypass a lot of answers sometimes by appealing to precedent, if it is well-known enough: Marijuana, regulated exactly as alcohol. Once youve outlined the finer details of the motion you can go onto your supporting argumentation: why the government should do it.

The second speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister, will largely be concerned with rebuttal and providing more supporting arguments. The DPM is essential for minimising the effect of opps rebuttal, and should rebuild the case by reanalysing the arguments if necessary. The DPM should refrain from changing the mechanism. Outline a Problem As opening government you need to establish that a change in the law is needed, rest assured that opposition will think of problems that your motion will create, so its down to you to identify a cause that makes it worth it. The cause can be principled or practical. Principled arguments concern rights and values, if you go down this alley then you may have to explain why the particular principles in question are important. Practical arguments often focus on harms: to individuals, society or even the economy (which may cause long term social problems). The problem with the illegality of drugs is the black market. The black market is the cause of nearly all the harms that society and individuals face. When an adult takes drugs they incur some minor physical cost. When the government makes drugs illegal the black market makes society suffer. Outline the solution After discussing the damage that your chosen problem(s) cause, you need to show how your mechanism is a solution. Its not good enough to say that legalising drugs takes away the black market. You must go into detail and constantly reference back to the problem you outlined. Legalisation allows state sanctioned vendors to sell and thus undercut drug dealers. Dealers current prices incur heavy premiums for the risk they take. People are unlikely to visit a black market dealer if they have to pay more, they are also unlikely to want to deal with a criminal rather than a sanctioned company. This would suffocate black market demand.
8

Case Building When something similar to your proposition has been tried before and worked, it can be persuasive to show that the current proposal is directly analogous. If it isn't similar enough its just one example: illustrative but not convincing; who is to say it will happen the same way? We should continue to enforce sanctions on Iraq. Sanctions work: they were a major factor in removing the apartheid government in South Africa. It is usually inappropriate for the proposition to use enforceability arguments the fact that a proposal is enforceable should be part of the mechanism: just because it can happen doesn't mean it should. If a current ban on something seems incongruous with current law then thats important to discuss too because law should be consistent, in order to give a reasonable expectation of what is acceptable. By exploring similar laws you may also look at the good reasons for why they exist and show how they correspond to your arguments.

The First Half Opposition

The oppositions job is to prove the props proposal is either useless, unnecessary or worse than the status quo. Identifying Concrete Harms Enforcing a law usually enables or restricts action. In each of these cases you must consider the consequences of such a move. What will people do to get round the law? What may happen as a result to the people the law affects? Effective opposition arguments undermine the case the proposition set out by using their principles against them. If prop is arguing that allowing people to take drugs allows them to express their freedom of choice, you can turn this argument around and focus on how the effects of drugs erodes the ability to choose. This is not always possible, in these cases you need to set out strong alternative principles in direct opposition to theirs.

When making substantive criticisms of the proposition, it is always the case you can argue that the new law is worse than the status quo in some respect. Efficacy Sometimes a motion wont even work. If youre identifying lots of other harms and the only good the prop has identified wont even be realised, then your case will look very strongmake sure you point this out! Using precedent is often a good way of establishing how sometimes the goods hoped for don't materialize. Dont get too bogged down with the obvious failures of governments case. If prop have been silly and have set a UN Security Council Resolution against a member which can veto this, point it out then move on. Trivial mechanistic points such as, this will cost Sweden more than its GDP may be amusing in an off-hand way, and stylistically useful , but they aren't analytically substantive. Remember that their loss isn't necessarily your gain: there are still two other teams. Mr Speaker Government have argued that Haiti should go to war with Iran. Lets put aside the fact that they have no army capable of such an invasion, that Iran have missiles pointed at major oil routes, and that Haiti doesn't have the funding for such a war. Were going to tell you why Haiti will lose, why wars of Aggression are illegitimate and why there are no conceivable benefits to this motion. The most important thing for opposition to note is that they must always engage with the debate laid out in the Prime Ministers definition. Dont change the terms of the policy, unless the definition is trivially true such as the sky is blue. If prop have misunderstood or outlined a motion contrary to the spirit of the wording (called squirrelling), you just have to accept this and make new arguments; though point it out and the judge should make allowances.

10

The Second Half: Extension

Very simply, the job of the extension (5th and 6th) speakers in the debate is to bring new material to the table. You must be of value to the debate, don't repeat the same points: provide new points or novel analysis. Extension is one of the best positions on the table for novice speakers to secure a first from, as you have much more prep time than first half and less time for your ideas to be torn down as the debate goes on: this is particularly true of closing opposition. As you only ever need to win one debate (the final) to win a typical tournament, your target should be to never take less than a second when speaking in the second half. Always aim for a first however, regardless of position! The main features of a good extension are, I. II. III. Material: Angle: Clash: New Analysis New Direction Perfect Engagement

I Material The most obvious thing you must do when extending the debate is provide new analysis. Repeat what first half said, or provide analysis that only reinforces up their arguments and youre at least behind them and probably lower, though weaker judges occasionally mistake a good reanalysis as novel. So its vital that after half an hour of debate youve got something new to say. The most obvious way to do this is to write down many arguments on your side of the debate and cross off the three that the speakers before you use. The problem is that first half are going to take the good arguments, leaving you with some not-so-good things to say.

11

Therefore the most important thing to remember about extension is quality not quantity. An extension with two points of well analysed material is going to beat one with five superficial points. So when youre looking at your points, always ask yourself why? i. ii. iii. Why does executing paedophiles violate their rights? Why is it that paedophiles have rights? Why is violating rights bad? ...and so on. If you include rebuttal, a seven minute speech should give you about four minutes to extend on. Including wrapping up time at the end, thats possibly two well-analysed points. However, dont feel forced into using a set number of arguments. If you have one thing that you feel is really important, have one point and analyse the hell out of it. If youve got four, run with four. Just be careful to make sure that your points are not all the same or the same as the first halfs. Some quick and easy ways of finding material for extension are listed below. Stakeholder analysis: who are the groups affected by the policy? THW not provide medical care to prisoners. How does this affect the families of convicts? Inverted rebuttal: proving the other sides points wrong. Pro-Gun laws protect people People get themselves shot. Motion analysis: what are the values on which the debate rests? THW approve the accession of Turkey to the European Union. Are inclusive communities stronger than exclusive ones? Why? Deepen analysis by repeatedly asking why? of everything.

12

II Angle One of the things that can define your extension, and determine your placing on the table by the judges, is the angle you take on the debate. For instance, THW introduce a maximum wage may be dealt with as an economics debate in the first half, but it can just as legitimately be taken as a rights debate in the second. In a lot of cases, you are moving the debate onto an almost entirely new area by looking at the wider picture. Changing angle can also be very useful when looking to distance yourself from a bad first half. If the first half spend their time debating the benefits and harms of the policy, then looking at the role of the government may fundamentally undermine their case: if a government should not intervene the benefits of it doing so are incidental. Also consider the proposition side, it is likely opposition would contend the government has the right to introduce a maximum wage. A proposition may extend in anticipation of this point, by outlining a strong governmental role which compels the state to act here. III Clash One of the basic features of all good debates is a clash between opposing principles and arguments. It is imperative therefore, that you should try and engage as much as possible with the teams across the table from you. As another extension or summation will come after you, theres already an opportunity for horizontal clash with the other second half tea via your partners rebuttal. So when trying to create clash, the team you need to engage with is the first half team opposite you. The most obvious way to do this is to dedicate some of your rebuttal to substantive critique of the first half. Make sure you know what the main points of their arguments are, and try and knock these down before going into your substantive. Always try to connect your substantive material to the debate as a whole, and present a larger narrative of thematic clash, especially as summation.
13

The Second Half: Summation

The job of the summation speaker is to clarify all of the material that has been brought into the debate, and to show why their bench has won. Summation speeches must not contain new information. Doing so is unfair: theres not enough time for the opposing bench to critique you before the end of the debate. During prep time, summaters should assist extension speakers with perfecting their material, as they do not have to produce any at this point. Try to think about what the other side will argue, this will make the job easier. A fantastic extension with a reasonable summation should take a first in most rooms. Do a brilliant summation of an extension that was just average, and youre struggling. While a summation will often make the difference between two close positions, it is rare for a summation to win a debate on its own. Therefore it is vital you consistently flag your partners material during your speaking time. There are two broad approaches to summation. Defensive Summation A defensive summation intends to shore up the arguments made by your bench, as opposed to an attack on the other side. A defensive summation is easier to do than an aggressive summation, so novices may consider this style. Simply take two or three best arguments put forward by your side, with one from the first half and the rest from extension. This makes your partners material seem more important in the debate, while appreciating the first half. Remember to include substantive rebuttal of the other sides extension before going into your summation. If youre on opposition this should be less of a problem, as your extension speaker should have done some rebuttal to props extension. However, if youre summating for government, rebuttal is vital as its the only chance you get to engage with the opp extension. Opposition extensions are the easiest place to win the debate from simply because theres not enough time for prop to engage.
14

Aggressive Summation Aggressive summation is different to defensive summation in that, instead of saying this is why we won, you are saying this is why they lost and we won. An aggressive summation is more difficult, as you need to be constructively engaging with material all the way down the opposing bench so you can summate their material, and reference it to your argumentation. While a lot of the same rules apply to aggressive as well as defensive sums (rebuttal, prep. time & referencing your partner), there are some significant differences. First of all, you need to be able to martial both sides arguments in your notes. While in a defensive sum, you only require a basic understanding of the opposition case, in aggressive sums you need to be able to deconstruct their material with argumentation other speakers have brought up, remember: no new information! To this end, you need to work a lot closer with your partner both in prep time and during the debate, so you understand how your teams extension relates to the other sides argumentation, which points it takes down and which it doesnt. Secondly, you need to develop the style to make an aggressive summation work. All critical analysis of an argument needs to reference back to your own sides material. For example, one might say opposition said x, in response, first prop. mentioned y and more importantly z, which extension proved. Theres nothing left of this argument. Finally, finding tension (contradiction) between arguments requires a deep understanding of how they link together. Pointing out tension between speakers or within cases can help knock a team out, or at least send the other side into damage control. Going close to contradicting one another shows the other side werent paying attention when writing their speech, and it undermines the strength of their case as a whole: something youll get rewarded for noticing.

15

Judging
Responsibilities The judges responsibility is to determine the pecking order of teams and speakers. Judges should confer with their wings (secondary judges) to reach a consensus; though consensus is not essential it should be aimed at. Teams are ranked one to four depending on where they came in the debate, with First as the winner. Team rankings must also be consistent with speaker points. Speaker points are awarded to individual speakers and are out of 100, with 75 being a large competition average (intermediate skill). Novices often obtain around 70 and professionals around 80. Deviation beyond 60 and 85 is very rare and indicates some extremely disappointing or impressive performance. The sum of team members points must be consistent with team rankings: a team cannot have more speaker points than the First team if it Second, etc. The Chair is required to explain the reasoning of the panel, however some competitions have their later rounds Closed where this is unavailable. Judges may also provide constructive feedback when explaining the panels reasoning; wings may be invited to comment, but not always. Before a debate an judge may outline the rules briefly, and what he or she considers the roles of each speaker to be. Some judges do not place heavy consideration on all aspects of role fulfillment (eg. new information in summary), while others place great importance on these duties. Therefore it can be helpful to speakers to hear what will be required of them before they speak. During the debate judges should act as chairpersons, keeping order but not influencing or taking part in the debate. A chair might indicate a POI is running too long by a hand wave, and should call Order if a POI is asked in protected time. Order should also be called if speakers are chatting or otherwise being distracting and taking focus from the person speaking.

16

Judging
Reaching a Decision The very first question to consider is how well each speaker fulfilled their role. Did the Prime Minister outline a clear and effective policy? Were extensions novel and interesting? Did summation bring in a lot of new information? The most essential aspect of debate is engagement. An excellent extension may find itself in an unusually low place if there was no rebuttal or indication of being in a debate, in other words it looked like a pre-prepared speech. Were the arguments brought out relevant and tailored to the evolving debate? Was there any consideration of the opposing side. Taking several POIs shores up a teams engagement, which is why everyone should be monitored for the POIs they give and take. Consideration of role fulfillment may quickly identify the fourth position and even perhaps the third. However in good debates everyone will have met their duties and judging analysis must look at the argumentation more deeply. When weighing arguments against one another it is important to consider what points are more fundamental. If prop made a principled case but opp managed to effectively show that it doesn't solve the problem, then props case has been severely weakened. Solving the problem is the most essential aspect of a proposition case, if that isn't established then the rest comes under question. Always consider the interdependence of arguments, what has been taken down in rebuttal and what still stands. Heuristic Decision Making Judges often consider more broad methods of judgment: Which team contributed the most essential points to the debate, which team went furthest in proving their argument, which teams material was most relevant. Comparatives are also used to rank teams. The Prime Minister spoke poorly compared to the Leader of the Opposition and both deputies were about equal, therefore Opening Opposition comes ahead of Opening Government. The most important comparative lines are often the diagonals (OG/CO, OO/CG).
17

Structuring your Speech

There is no set rules for structure, but even most world champions essentially follow the same formula. Assuming its a five minute speech you should structure it in general accordance with the outline below. Times are rough guides. The first 15 seconds. Signpost (title) your arguments; tell the speaker exactly what you are going to speak about by sub-grouping them into two or three structured points. If youve signposted clearly its far more likely a judge is going to remember exactly what you said and credit you for the analysis. Titles should try to express your conclusions. Eg., Hello Mr. Speaker. Today I am going to tell why we should legalize possession of guns in two points. Firstly, Personal Liberty should Guarantee this Right and secondly any meaningful right of Self-Defense requires firearm possession. The next minute. Spend this time offering rebuttal of the other sides arguments. Go through their signposts and counter those points. Eg., The previous speaker told us selling and using drugs diminishes our personal liberty and right to choice, however he assumes drug takers have the ability to choose. He forgets that those suffering from addiction have lost their ability to choose. The addiction forces them to take drugs above almost everything else. The next three minutes. Spend this time making your substantive arguments. Here is where you win or lose the debate. Using the signposted structure, tell the judge why a motion should or shouldnt carry. The remaining time. Like the first 15 seconds, summarize your points with potent conclusions and striking titles.
18

A Sample Speech
Here is an outline of a typical speech, this should give you a concrete understanding of the general approach taken in British Parliamentary debate. Lots of material has been left out indicated by (), however the structure is generally correct. Good evening Madame Speaker. Today I will demonstrate why war is necessary for peace. Firstly by providing an understanding of what peace is: a balancing act. Then I will show that to maintain this balance in the long term, short term wars are needed. However before this I will rebut the previous speaker. (). So Madame speaker, peace is a balancing act. States ultimately act to fulfill their interests: acquiring resources and power. However they also think strategically and realize that an overly aggressive power-grab may leave them weakened and cause domestic problems (). So Madame speaker I have show that since peace is a balancing act, wars are sometimes necessary to preserve a larger order in the long term.

Debating Etiquette
Do not shout out over other speakers. If you need to talk to your partner, do it quietly, preferably on paper. You may bang gently on the table to indicate support, but do not do so in an off-putting way which will prevent the judge from hearing what was said. Sometimes its better to nod vigorously. Do not insult others; by all means jest, pick apart what theyve said comically. Point out silly things but never get personal. Debating is detached, speakers play the role of devils advocate, no one is speaker for or against a motion because its in line with their beliefs, they are doing it because thats the position they were drawn into. Do not POI too often, this is called barracking. If youre rejected wait for a bit before standing up. A speaker isnt going to be able to make any arguments if they spends their whole speech telling you to sit down. Do not randomly use Nazi/Commie analogies or make the this is expensive argument. This isnt bad etiquette they are just bad arguments. The judges opinion will fall if they hear either of these.
19

Points of Information
Points of Information are questions or statements you can pose to an opponent during their speech, you cannot offer them during their first or last minute. Politely stand up when you want to make one and say point of information or on that, if you are rejected sit down immediately and dont offer one for another ten seconds at least. If you dont want to take a POI just say no thank you, wave your hand down or if they are being annoying perhaps sit down. If youre getting a lot of offers just wave them away with your hand so you dont have to break your flow. Trying to bring points you have brought back into the debate with a POI will make your arguments seem more important. If youve yet to speak, try to get the good points out in your POIs so other speakers wont get all of the credit. Chairs will not always appreciate the implicit clash between points, and your arguments may lose emphasis as the debate goes on. It is important to challenge later speakers with your material, to make explicit the grounds on which you are trying to beat them.

Preparation
In prep time you should not write your speech: brainstorm and plan. Outlining what your major conclusions are and the main steps behind proving them is a sound method: try to bullet point and think about the reasoning between each step. You should also try to think of illustrative examples which explain your case and look at what the other side may say. If the argumentation you plan in prep time becomes irrelevant in the context of the debate, change it. You will get a lot more marks if you engage with the debate. You may be able to save your speech by making the pragmatic case more principled, or the converse: by illustrating your ideas with detailed examples.

20

My Progress

Name:

Offered a POI Answered a POI Spoke Clearly Structured a Speech Analysed Three Points Prepared without Help

__ __ __ __ __ __

Spoke as PM Spoke as LO Spoke as DLO Spoke as DPM Extended Summated Spoke for

__ __ __ __ __ __

Ranked 1st Ranked 2nd

__ __

3 Minutes 5 Minutes 7 Minutes

__ __ __

Winged Chaired

__ __

Attended an Intravarsity Novice Competition __ __ __

Attended Advanced Spoke at Advanced

__ __

Intervarsity Attained 70 Speaks

__ __ __ __ __
21

Broke Speaking Broke Judging

__ __

73 Speaks 75 Speaks 80 Speaks

Read the guide

__

83 Speaks

Article I

Media

Vitnija Saldava

Media is our window to the outside world: it is the central means through which people get ideas and information. As a window it should be clean and clear, the media needs to be fair and informative to promote freedom, democracy and development. However, the media often fails to meet this criteria and may in many instances harm or hinder social ideals. Traditional Media The traditional media is often selective telling us more about some events and issues than others. Some traditional media content is a product of states or corporations where ownership and control, the level of regulation, and demographic assumptions, influence the end product. The stories they bring to our attention may not necessarily be the most socially and politically important ones, but emphasize issues they are interested in pushing: to gain mass approval or to get people to discuss one issue and forget the other, for example. Many British newspapers make no apologies for bias, publicly endorsing a political party, or ideology. By controlling what is presented to us, the media have a considerable power to define the collective view of reality. They can set limits on what we talk about and how we see events that are happening outside our society, especially in communities where the media is trusted. The topics the media discuss and the manner in which they do so reflect the social attitudes and concerns of their readership. While editors set the agenda of newspapers the diversity of those available often means the readership selects contents on the basis of pre-existing preference and prejudices. Therefore, while the media influences its readership, it is often an equilibrium driven by those who purchase rather than supply. However in highly distorting environment, which is not liable to selective pressures or open criticism, the agenda or approach of the content may strongly influence its readership.

22

New Media The internet is a decentralized global network, arguably the largest and most anarchic system that human beings have ever created. It is seen as threatening to existing hierarchies of power and control, as it can revolutionize public debate and political interaction. The People are now able to become involved citizens, engaging with political issues and watching over their governments in flexible, transparent arena without barriers of time and space. The internet has relatively low access costs, so even minorities or poorer groups can unite, form social groups and get their message across. A decentralized web gives more freedom to individuals to initiate a change themselves without being experts and is pivotal in situations where professional media is not showing the real picture because of censorship. There are educational, economic and social divides that prevent an egalitarian web. Technologies are advancing so fast that the possibility that developing world could technologically or economically catch up with the developed world is low. Only if the Internet became a free accessible public service everywhere at all times, would it be a truly useful tool for democracy. The internet can also be used to maintain or take control of people. We are monitored by commercial websites and by governments who ban websites they do not want their citizens to see. Commercialization and regulation of the Internet may be distorting market freedom, where bigger businesses have more money to spend on websites and advertising, which affects search results the primary entry point to the web.

Sample Motions
THBT the media should not report on the private lives of celebrities THW require reporters to reveal their sources in a court of law THW nationalize failing newspapers
23

Article II

The Role of the State

Oliver Duggan

According to the left, the state primarily exists to protect its citizenry, and to the right, to facilitate its choices. In reality we needn't chose between one or the other but most arguments fit pretty simplistically into the space between those two points. To Protect its Citizenry This argument, most often associated with the left, is one that tends to crop up on issues such as banning abortion or legalizing drugs. The idea is that the state was created with a social contract that encouraged citizens to forfeit some freedoms in exchange for the collective security of the nation. This creates certain duties for the state. In exchange for power, taxes and control the state has tacitly promised to protect its members and often with particular emphasis on its most vulnerable members. Protection from external threats, but also from unsafe working conditions, poisonous products, and other such 'internal threats'. Even without a basic theory of consent, given that the state has monopoly of power and is in a position to protect a moral argument may be constructed that it should do so. These ideas, however, are balanced on the notion that the state is in a better position to make decisions for individuals than they are themselves which is not always the case, and is perhaps morally suspicious. However in some instances the state does not pronounce on the right course of action, but acts merely to solve 'collective action problems', where an independent group would fail to act, or act poorly such as in the creation of traffic lights, or a national defence force. Facilitate Choices and Freedoms The right wing argument flips the assumption on its head: the role of the state is to create an environment wherein individuals can follow their own interests and 'self-actualize'.
24

The social contract is again the basis, but here its a necessity rather than a choice. On this side of the table, the social contract is created to make the state of nature (Hobbes) more manageable, not to eradicate it. The idea is that whilst anarchy is undesirable and impossible, anarchic freedoms are what every individual actually wants and require the minimum of state intervention. The concept of freedom appealed to here is a primitive notion of, 'being left alone'. It is clear that this is not possible in practice, and may not be desirable in general. Often people can find themselves with more freedom to act when they depend on one another, and the state. Sovereignty States are constituted and defined by their possession of sovereignty, which is the authority to represent or control the people within a territory. Democracy is often considered the only legitimate political system to confer sovereignty as it solely allows all citizens to pool their individual sovereignty into a collective body by consent and representation. However representation in democratic countries is often severely limited to two or three electable parties which offer fairly narrow opportunities for consent, and there seems to be no outlet for those who either do not wish to live in a democracy or which it were considerably different. Internationally sovereignty is pragmatic: if states recognize your sovereignty then you have it, and if they don't you don't. Political stability often hinges on the fact that in the vast majority of cases sovereignty is respected: if states felt able to do as the pleased chaos and global war would quickly result. Humanitarian intervention is the most common and controversial legitimate infringement of sovereignty.

Sample Motions
THW deny scarce medical resources to terminally ill patients THBT governments in the developing world should invest in sex tourism THW reduce government to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub
25

Article III

Religion

Ben Mulvihil

When approaching the topic of Religion, it is important to distinguish between the truth of religious claims from religion itself. Ultimately conclusions about god(s) existence are mired in philosophical problems, difficult to solve without a lot of research in the area. The idea of god has a habit of changing in opportunistic (or working in mysterious) and hard to analyse ways. Therefore most debates centre more on how religious belief affects peoples lives. Contemporary mood often phrases this as is religion a force for good? Criticisms are levelled at religion on both physical and metaphysical grounds. Religion firstly has tangible and immediate harm on the rights of individuals, through a lack of equality for homosexual members of religious communities or in a wider systemic abuse: the mutilation of genitalia in orthodox Jewish and certain Islamic communities. These systems create and uphold systems of inequity. However while religion may be criticised of harm, it can equally be demonstrated as a systemic force for good, as it encourages direct action which has provable positive effects, such as charitable acts in sub-Saharan Africa and educational and outreach programs across the developing world. Religion justifies these acts with appeals to divine principles. However dependence on the divine may be innately harmful to peoples ability to be comfortable with their own identity, life, meaning, and world to be in a world of other people, rather than subservient to an authoritarian god. However many find dependence on the idea of something transcendent and perfect instructive and comforting. There are able to reflect on what a perfect being might instruct as a means of moral learning and contemplation, and are reassured that their life has some significance beyond fading attachments. Religion is often held up as a source of moral principles, with scripture, personal contemplation, revelation or clerical authority providing them. However rather than providing principles which can be used by all the religious ground theirs in dogma specific to their faith and often on absolutist terms.
26

Strong or fundamentalist religious belief is more common amongst poorer and less educated communities. In these cases, religion provides simplistic moral codes, which adherents are often satisfied with. As strong religious belief is often seen as the most pure and observant kind, moderates often defend or fail to criticize this simplistic moral absolutism and thus preserve and legitimize dangerous black and white thinking. Religious actors, such as priests, churches or theocracies will often be proponents of more orthodox religious thinking. Western Liberal Democracies believe that moral systems should not be regulated insofar as they operate within the laws of the Sovereign executive body. The effects of religion in western countries is primarily felt in political dialogue, with religious voices having guaranteed representation in the House of Lords and all members of the US congress professing theism (despite groups of similar wealth and education having much more diversity). In developing countries religion provides strong moral codes and extreme moral reasoning to control societies. Hell and torture are the instruments by which individuals and leaders keep the peace. It is often believed that without religion in these circumstances society would collapse. One could argue that shared human empathy is stronger than religion that religion in fact dehumanizes individuals and causes the divisions and infighting which sceptics point to or that these societies should collapse. Perhaps it is better that small groups form which are more communal than rely on psychological torture to maintain the law. A more politically palatable solution is to liberalize and secularize all laws and systems of morality whilst liberalizing economic and social policy as a means of reducing poverty and the necessity of fundamentalist religion.

Sample Motions
THW try the pope before the ICC THW ban religious symbols in public environments THBT religious doctrines are more important than womens rights
27

Article IV

Human Rights

Oliver Duggan

The first ten rights of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, often known as the primary rights, are: 1. Life, liberty and security of person; 2. Freedom from slavery and servitude; 3. Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; 4. Right legal recognition; 5. Equality before the law; 6. Right to legal remedy of rights abused; 7. Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exil; 8. Right to fair and public trial; 9. Right to be considered innocent until proven guilty; 10. Freedom from arbitrary interference and privacy. Human rights, like the ones above, are pragmatically, political or legislative assertions. Where they are derived from is a matter for debate with the main contenders being: collective morality, the social contract, human dignity and God. In most discussions human rights are asserted, however political reality demands that we have some justification behind prioritizing an individuals rights over some more convenient government or moral decree. The claim that human rights stem from some innate feature of human beings is often tied together with suffering and happiness to provide a serviceable justification: humans are free from slavery because slaves suffer unnecessarily and do not have the freedom required for happiness. Society and the social contract also provide an opportunity for analysis: we each agree to presume the other innocent so that society does not descend into spiteful accusation and random imprisonment. There are significant criticisms levied against all justifications. The first is moral relativism. Relativists hold all decisions and moral truths are formed in terms relative to the society in which they are applied, they are formed and influenced by their surroundings and cannot stand in the abstract. For relativists, each persons ethics-system is entirely dependent on the society in which it was formed and can therefore only be applied, judged and critiqued within the system. Therefore acts considered immoral in our society that are committed elsewhere cannot be condemned by us.
28

We cannot, in essence, enforce our notion of morality internationally. Universal rights that transcend state borders and ethnic boundaries are therefore illegitimate by definition. The other critique accepts the existence of human rights but questions the extent to which they are absolutes. We limit rights in law all the time, which provides precedence for the alteration, if not abuse, of universal human rights. We, for example, force people to wear seatbelts thereby limiting the right to chose in order to ensure safety, which is to say that rights are curtailed to maintain security. Is it therefore legitimate to torture terrorist suspects to find a hidden bomb or prevent an attack? We do it in the first instance but not the second. A pragmatic view of human rights defends them as rules which protect the individuals from an over-presumption of knowledge. If I know that a nuclear bomb will kill millions then Im inclined to do anything to prevent that happening, however when does anyone have that knowledge for certain? Doubt over the truth of a statement is essential in highlighting our need for rights, as soon as governments or groups become convinced of some political truth they are inclined to do great harms to realize it. There are some cases where everyone agrees that some group does have the right amount of knowledge to make the decision: the government on matters of safety and education, doctors on matters of health and vaccination, etc. In these cases we are general happy to be constrained a little for the social good.

Sample Motions
THBT politicians have a right to a private life THBT freedom of expression is absolute THW torture
29

Article V

The Law

John Taylor

The law ensures that people are punished equally for the same offence, that suspects receive a fair trial, and that offenders cannot avoid justice by being more powerful than their victim. It provides assurance to the public that they are being protected, so they do not need to take justice into their own hands. Justice may fail, if for example victims decided the punishment or if homogeneous juries (eg. all middle class white men) judge other minorities. The Justice System Questions surrounding domestic law tend to fall into two main categories. Firstly those concerning the roles of the individuals within the justice system and secondly those that concern how we treat those over which the law has a monopoly of force. The principle of justice is central: what the aims of justice are, why those aims are important, and how a policy positively or negatively affects those aims. The widely accepted aims of justice are to punish offenders to a level that is proportionate to their offence, to protect wider society from dangerous individuals and to rehabilitate offenders so that they can positively engage with society again. Discussion of the law primarily consists of questions over principle not factual knowledge. Far more important than factual knowledge is how systems of justice address general principles such as universality and proportionality. In the majority of law debates the status quo is obvious, however knowledge of juries is often essential. A jury consists of twelve individuals randomly selected from the electoral register. There is no level of qualification required, nor an understanding of the law. Those who are excluded from the electoral register, such as criminals, people without sufficient mental capacity and those under the age of eighteen cannot sit on a Jury.
30

A Jury can only decide factual guilt and cannot interpret the law nor does it decide the sentence. Changing and Questioning the Law When changing the law legislators ask,

Will the public still be adequately protected? Will rehabilitation be more or less effective? Will offenders have been sufficiently punished for their actions?

When laws are questioned it is insufficient to merely reply, do not challenge it because another law says so. When questioning law we are seeking to change it, and may alter any other laws inconsistent with our amendment. When proposing new policies or laws, one should always consider the main stakeholders and assess how they will be affected. These tend to be the public, the victim, the offender, their families and communities. The role of these groups is vital within the criminal justice system and their relative importance is a key question of our time. To what extent should we allow the victim to determine the punishment? Should victims be totally removed from such considerations: do they undermine the impartiality of the law? It is crucial to discuss how the perception of the criminal justice system. If we were to abolish juries, would it make the public believe that justice was now in the hands of professionals? Or would it have the opposite effect and exacerbate concerns that the justice system is elitist? Would it make people less willing to engage in a legal system they feel does not involve them any more?

Sample Motions
THW use professional juries THW invest absolute power in Judges THBT sentences should rehabilitate not punish
31

Article VI

Identity

Stefano Imbriano

Identity is the framework around which human beings define themselves. It is shaped and affected by almost every minute human interaction with the world around them. Your race, gender, social status, education, culture and personal experience can all be said to be principal determiners of your identity. It simultaneously influences and is influenced by everything we do. Your identity affects your ability to be happy through access to a certain kind of being (lifestyle, meaning, view of life and society, etc.). Some policies can be said to drastically alter someones identity so much that it is, in a moral sense, akin to killing. Arguably there is no humanity without identity, so to remove the identity is to effectively remove the human. For example, pro-choice activists are often asked why adoption isnt sufficient alleviation of the harms and pressures of carrying out a pregnancy. They often respond by arguing that pregnancy bluntly alters the way a women views herself, the effect is permanent and this act effectively destroys a former, much happier version of herself. The analysis is comparable to drug addiction, the drastic change of identity an addict undergoes deprives them of a significant amount of happiness; in the case of pregnancy, access to this identity is traumatic for some. Detractors dispute the idea that identity is so constituent to happiness that it must be ring-fenced at the expense of potentially progressive policy. They point to the fluidity of identity throughout our lives and the inevitable instability of any conception of ourselves. Our identity is determined by so many things that its unlikely that we could ever protect any perfect conception of ourselves. Its unlikely a policy will ever destroy identity, it will only alter it. As such, prolife campaigners would argue that life must always be protected above identity, in other words, that there are some values more important than identity, or even that some identities are immoral.

32

The fluidity of identity makes the subject difficult to grapple with in the abstract, though many questions do arise: is the state legitimate in significantly contributing to social identity? Is the media and mass markets a viable alternative to constructing a communal identity? Notions of communal identity may be as important as individual identity, as they reach many more people and are often more fundamental to the way individuals interact with the world, especially in social movements and religions. Modern liberalism has tended to erode religious identity, with policies such as forcing religious adoption agencies to consider homosexual adopters. Individualism too has left the mass markets with significant input into identity with selfdefinition being increasingly dependent on 'purchased lifestyles'. Equality has allowed access to new identities that individuals may previously have been excluded from, in the case of marriage, many find satisfaction and happiness in the commitment two people make to each other, an avenue of identity now open to homosexuals. Liberalism too has allowed individuals to creatively differentiate themselves from one another, through the books the read, the media they consume, their clothing and food. The markets may be positive vehicles of self-expression. The state has many opportunities to influence identity. The multicultural policies of the UK government have traditionally homogenized minorities: providing funding and support for groups of people rather than individuals. This has left minorities competing for state recognition and resources, strengthening an artificial single identity and creating tensions between and within groups. How the state manages its interaction with minorities (we are all in at least one minority) is key to the promotion of general happiness and social unity.

Sample Motions
THW force religious adoption agencies to accept homosexual couples THBT immigrants should be assimilated THBT patriotism is a force for good
33

Article VII

The Economy

Laurence Hooper

The goal of economics is the distribution of limited resources so that society gets what is needed where it is needed. The problem lies in the lack of agreement on what types of policies create the best outcomes; importantly there are often many objectives for economic policy: Achieving environmental goals; Achieving aims of equality; Achieving the greatest benefit in the long run; Fulfilling a political/moral mandate; Ensuring societal cohesion; Ensuring economic continuity, stability or growth. Globalisation When examining economics applied to the real world, it is important to remember that national economic policies apply to the entire world. Globalisation, has been the key defining trend of late twentieth century economics, in principle it means labour (the working population) and capital (money for investment) are much more mobile, and this has been encouraged by a liberalization of markets so that regulation has been reduced or removed. Therefore an economic policy can never be considered in a vacuum. Intervening and regulating domestic markets may hurt them on a global scale. The globalised nature of financial markets means London, for example, could be undermined as a financial centre, hurting employment and wealth creation. However, its important to remember that globalization can also be a justification to intervene in markets. For example inequality presents many problems: globalization has created winners and losers, with many low paid, low skilled workers becoming poorer as their jobs have shifted eastward, while the upper end of society has benefited from the increased opportunities. Human Fallibility Economic theory often works from the basis that the global system is an arrangement of rational individuals working in rational markets that result in efficient outcomes.
34

However humans are not rational creatures (in the economic sense) we are highly influenced by what others are doing and our prexisting prejudices and preferences. As individuals and as groups we make decisions that fail to accord with the best outcomes economics would predict. The Sovereign Debt Crisis Sovereign debt is the debt of a state. The government raises finances by selling bonds that promise the purchaser fixed return, similar to loaning money from individuals, with interest. The return is known as the yield on the bond (recently the return on UK government bonds fell to a record low yield of 2%). Investors will accept low yields on bonds, as long as they feel their money is safe (the 'repayments' will continue), normally sovereign bonds are seen as very safe because they are guaranteed by the state not just a company. With a low yield a government will be able to borrow large sums of money sustainably, so at present the U.K. government is borrowing a sum of money this year equivalent to about 10% of our G.D.P. but people trust or have confidence in the government to repay them so they can borrow at very low rates. Italy on the other hand is only trying to borrow a sum of money equivalent to about 3-4% of its GDP, but as it has a very high level of debt already has had no clear plans to reduce the deficit, fears grew. Italy found it was having to pay more for its debt, which in turn then means it is more likely to be unable to repay, so the pressure for higher interest rates is increased further. Investors began to lose confidence. The sovereign debt crisis, is primarily about certain states having borrowed excessively, but it also is about investors losing confidence that the states will manage their finances adequately and so seeking to protect themselves bring about conditions that increase the outcome they feared in the first place.

Sample Motions
THW prioritize economic policy over social policy THW privatize the NHS THW have let the banks fail
35

Article VIII

The European Union

Michaela Martin

The European Union (EU) is an exclusive economic and political partnership between 27 European countries which seeks to deliver peace, stability, and prosperity. The EU has helped raise living standards, launched a single European currency, and is progressively building a single Europe-wide market in which people, goods, services, and capital move between member states as easily as within any one country. The EU was created in the aftermath of WWII on the theory that countries which trade with one another are economically interdependent and will thus avoid conflict. As the EU was designed to be a largely economic union, it has demonstrably failed in that primary objective. Its political ambitions have evolved into environmental policy, social welfare and Human Rights. Arguably, such direction is necessary if the states are to truly coalesce, though some see it as an intrusion into sovereignty and domestic law. The EU actively promotes human rights and democracy and has the most ambitious emission reduction targets for fighting climate change in the world. The Schengen Protocol, which essentially abolished border controls between EU states, makes it now possible for citizens to move freely within most of the EU. It is now much easier to live and work in any other EU country. However some older members perceive the rate of expansion to be too large, making them nervous about the EUs future. Questions about its role in human rights are often raised (cf. Turkey) and economically we might wonder why Greece gets a bail out when it clearly cannot satisfy the necessary conditions to survive in the EU.

36

The EUs institutions form the framework for co-operation between member states. The European Commission is the body which initiates legislation. It submits its proposals to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, to be approved or rejected. Once legislation has been passed, the European Court of Justice ensures the courts interpret it consistently across all the member states. Directives and Regulations Directives are addressed to member states rather than their citizens, and are therefore only legally binding upon the states themselves. They are tailored to suit the state in question and that state can elect how to implement such law, allowing flexibility. Regulations have a general application, meaning they are binding on individuals and effectively form part of domestic law as soon as they are made, on all member states. It is generally only necessary to amend existing national laws that are inconsistent with regulations, rather than make new legislation altogether. Critics of EU institutions will often speak of Brussels diktat while Europhiles argue having universal rules makes life easier for EU citizens, and perhaps having a final means to challenge one's state provides extra protection for human rights. Striking the right balance between giving effect to the European legislation and maintaining the effect of pre-existing national legislation has proved challenging, mostly because the member states differ so hugely. Abortion laws are an example, Ireland is exempt from the debate, Italy and Poland engage a grey area. Such uniformity in law, if indeed a desirable aim, is still a long way off.

Sample Motions
THB in a Federal Europe THBT the EU should only direct aid to nations with strong environmental policies THW throw Greece out of the EU
37

Article IX

Justice and Equality

Michael Burgess

The distribution of resources within society is often held as an indication of how just it is. There have been many responses to the question of the fair allocation or distribution of resources, primarily wealth, within and by states. Capitalism is perhaps the most important conception of just distribution. Capitalists believe in a free market, where individuals are able to enter into contracts and exchange goods, labour and wealth by their own agreement. The consent of individuals in these transactions makes the transaction fair. If an entire market is structured as a mutual and consensual collection of transactions then the way the market distributes wealth is just. Capitalists argue that any interference with these transactions is illegitimate, as it compromises their fairness and may unjustly advantage or disadvantage parties. Any other notion of fairness is external to the all parties involved in the transaction, and therefore if applied without their consent would be immoral and compromise their ability to act freely. If the parties share a particular conception of fairness then they will act according to that conception anyway. Any deviation from consensual free action is a kind of slavery or injury, as it forces someone to give up their money or goods (and therefore labour) without their consent. Capitalism relies on the notion that a just process produces a just distribution. These are several potential challenges to this idea of justice. The most compelling politically is that markets are rarely freely competitive in the way capitalism requires, not all transactions are open to all individuals sometimes due to prejudice, social status or something as simple as location. Poorer members of society often cannot move and commute in the same way wealthier members can and therefore have limited access to all the potential opportunities available. The dramatic inefficiency of the markets primarily arises from human values which do not concord with the values of the 'rational agents' capitalism requires, this is often called 'prejudice' but the problem stems much deeper: some simply do not wish to treat others in a completely disinterested manner.
38

For a labour markets wages to be fair, nepotism cannot exist: people have to compete on their own merit, not on inherited merit. Inheritance in general is a systematic way a class of people are privileged over another and gives them a dramatic advantage in all transactions. Labour markets also have to be completely mobile, but when immigrants prefer their own communities they can be locked out of opportunities elsewhere in the country. Many preferences and values supersede monetary gain, which is the capitalist definition of selfinterest, and the driver of their economic theory. When monetary gain is less important capitalism is generally unable to predict the outcome. The major alternative theory of justice was proposed by John Rawls in the 1970s, he states the "most reasonable principles of justice are those everyone would accept and agree to from a fair position." His 'fair position' is called the original position, a hypothetical situation in which a group of people are deciding upon the allocation of resources without knowing who they will be in society. The original position is said to be fair because it removes from the calculation of justice values and prejudices which are not universal: my preference for my own race or social class is meaningless when I do not know what either will be. In such a scenario Rawls argues that we would prefer (1) to allocate slightly more resources to the least advantaged (in case you got that position) and (2) to make all opportunities available to everyone. However it seems plausible to suggest individuals in the original position might prefer to allocate resources to the brightest and most creative members, in the hope their productivity would improve society at a much faster pace, and therefore increases the resources available to everyone, which is the motivation behind capitalism.

Sample Motions
THW end all social welfare programs THBT taxation is theft THBT greed is good
39

Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' And all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; The grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you.

Christopher Hitchens

40