Analysis motions

Analysis motions/debates

An analysis motion is a motion in which no mechanism is required. The first prop team, instead, sets the perimeters of the debate and teams work within that framework.

For example:

THBT, with hindsight, the state of Israel should never have been created.

First prop is not required to give a mechanism for dismantling Israel, the debate is simply whether the last 50 odd years would have been better or worse has Israel never been set up. In this debate, first prop should look at the people affected. For example, the impact of the state of Israel on Jews in Israel, Jews as a group around the world, the Palestinians, the wider Middle East and the World as a whole.

Another analysis motion might be:

THBT feminism has failed.

In this situation, 1st prop looks at what feminism tried to achieve (formal equality, social equality, freedom of choice, autonomy for women etc) and the debate is the extent to which feminism has achieved its goals.

Just as in a normal debate, the model that first prop introduces can make or break the debater in terms of quality, so the definition and narrowing down in an analysis debate is of equal importance.

If first prop does not narrow the scope the debate, all that happens is teams spend forty minutes swapping examples without actually engaging with each other at all.

The opposition should be looking at directly tackling the issues identified by first prop. If first prop have said “We will win this debate on points 1, 2 and 3”, this is the primary context in which the opposition should work. If op tries to expand the debate it could become messy.

Be aware, analysis motions are becoming increasingly popular on the circuit again. At the moment, if a debate is to be an analysis debate, it is virtually always explicitly flagged as such. If you are not sure whether a debate is an analysis debate or not, you should run it in the normal manner (ie: mechanism)

In short

1. An analysis motion does not require a mechanism.
2. First prop should define the areas upon which the debate will be focussed
3. Opposition should, generally, work within these boundaries
1. The only exception to this is if prop have framed the debate in deliberately prop heavy terms that ignore the core of the debate. E.g. that the third Reich should be judged solely on the performance of the public transport system. The op should then expand the frame of reference by adding ‘regional peace’ or ‘human rights’.

First Opposition

First Opposition

1. What is the purpose of first opposition?
1. The primary purpose of first opposition is to undermine what first proposition have said.
2. First prop will have suggested a problem, a solution and an outcome (for what to do if they haven’t, see below). The job of first op is to attack one or more of these elements (problem, solution, outcome) or the links that they have made between them.
3. Try not to nitpick at a proposal. Look at th big issue reasons why the proposition will fail. That “it costs money” is less convincing than an argument that money isn’t an incentive in the case they are talking about F
4. For example: THW offer financial incentives to career women for having children. The strong opposition to make is to undermine the link made between paying women to have children and those women actually wanting and having more children. A weak point to make is that this costs money and so is bad.
2. What do judges look for when assessing first op?
1. Structure, teamwork, analysis, style etc
2. Teamwork is especially impressive in this position
3. Don’t do a whole speech of rebuttal. Some constructive argumentation is needed too.
4. Judges want constructive points on why there isn’t a problem. Why, if there is a problem, the solution won’t solve it. Or why, if there is a problem and the solution would solve it, it would cause more problems than the initial status quo. Or why the links between these are wrong and don’t work
5. This position sets up the clash in the debate. A good first op team will see their points used throughout the rest of the debate.
3. Common problems in first opposition
1. What the proposition has proposed is different from the motion (a.k.a Squirrel[*])

i. If it is a squirrel, complain but still run with what first prop has said

ii. If there is a difference between the motion and what first prop proposes, you must run with what first prop proposes not what you think they should have said. Even if the new proposition is nothing like the original motion. If this means your original prep has been wasted and is no longer relevant, you still have five and fifteen minutes (depending where you are sitting) to write a new speech. A lot of your old material may still be useful, but just in a different way.

2. First proposition hasn’t defined/explained a problem/offered a solution

i. Find something very reasonable that they could have propped. Tell the judge they failed to say anything so you are assuming they would have said [insert reasonable thing here]. Run from there. What is crucial in this situation is to be reasonable. If you are not, then it will ruin the rest of the debate and whilst first prop might come last, you will almost certainly not get first or second.

ii. Ideally, complain that first prop didn’t do their job and then spend the constructive part of your speech saying why they are wrong in principle.

3. Counter-propping

i. Don’t do it.

ii. If you have conceded that the problem identified by the proposition exists and is a problem, it can be tempting to provide an alternative solution. You don’t have to and should not do so. Your job is to defend the status quo and simply explain that whilst there are problems in it, the proposition will either not solve them or, in solving them, will cause many more problems.

iii. If challenged by proposition to give a different solution, remind them that your role on the table is not to explain an alternative but simply to explain why their proposition is wrong and makes the world a worse place.

iv. If you saw the Israel debate at the beginning of the year, opposition conceded the area was a mess. They conceded life in Palestine wasn’t nice. They conceded that life in Israel for Arab-Israelis was imperfect. They did not offer any solution to these problems, they merely pointed out that the two state solution would not solve many of the problems and even if it solved some, it would exacerbate others.

4. In short
1. Deny any or all of the propositions problems, solutions or outcomes
2. Deny the links between the three
3. Don’t solely rebutt, add constructive material as well
4. Counter propping is a bed idea
5. Attack the strongest parts of the proposition, not just the weakest
6. Argue the motion as defined by proposition, no matter what it is, not the motion you thought they should have run based on what you were given twenty minutes before.

---

[*] A squirrel is where a first prop team have gone significantly beyond what the motion could mean in defining their proposition. In a closed motion, the link between the motion and what proposition says should be very, very clear. A squirrel is so called because it’s hairy and runs away fast.

Extensions, assertions and analysis

Extensions, Assertions and Analysis

Extensions

The job of the second half of the table, as a whole, is to be better than what has gone before without contradicting what has gone before (unless the other side said it!). Think of it like a coalition government; both parties in government support a certain proposition, but for very different reasons.

An extension speech has to contain significant new material. This can be an entirely new angle (for example, discussing economics if only politics and morality has already come up) or much deeper analysis of something which has only been covered very superficially previously.

The question a judge will ask themselves when looking at an extension speech is “Did this person add value to the debate?”

It is quite usual to worry what you are going to say and be worried that all the points will have been taken by the top half. Don’t let this panic you into taking the first new point that comes into your head in order to provide new material. Sit back and look at the debate and see what areas haven’t been properly covered and then decide what your speech will be. Two ways of looking for new material are:

Look at the different areas which are normally covered in a debate (politics, economics, society, legal, moral, religious, environment…) and see if you can find something from that.

Look at the stakeholders in a debate. A stakeholder is anyone at all who is affected by the policy. For example, in THW support the two state solution the stakeholders include the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, Arab Israeli women, Arab Israeli men, Israeli Jews, Muslims in general, other minorities in the area (gays, religious minorities etc)… and so on.

Assertion and Analysis

An assertion is a statement made which is not backed up. For example, “You can’t ban trade unions because it infringes on unionists’ human rights”.

Every time a statement is made in a debate, it should be backed up with analysis.

Assertion is bad.

So what is analysis? Every time you make a statement you need to ask afterwards “How?”, “Why?” and “So What?”. You then need to answer it.

To continue the example above.

“You can’t ban trade unions because it infringes on unionists’ human rights”.

[How?]

“Because people have the right to free association”

[So What?]

“Because human rights are important”

[Why?]

“Because we say that human rights are rights common to all humanity”

[So What?]

“Because when we deny a person a right, we deny part of their humanity and this is a dangerous road to go down.”

[Why?]

“Because….”

The aim is that by the end of this series of questioning, you end up with a statement which cannot seriously be disputed (“Murder is a bad thing”).

So to analyse something, keep asking questions, keep saying ‘because, because, because’.

Another model is REAL and Now-Action-Then.

Reason: Banning trade unions is bad because it may lead to a lower standard of health and safety

Example: For example, London tube drivers striking because the ‘dead man’s handle’ didn’t work

Analysis: Now, people are allowed to strike so they can bring health and safety issues to attention when other methods have failed. If we take this Action, tube drivers will not be able to bring this to the public’s attentions so Then the world will be a more dangerous place.

Link: Make sure all the points above are linked. Causal links (or their lack of existence) make or break an argument.

In Summary

• If you are extension, don’t just grab the first point to come into your head. Think about areas missed or only superficially covered and look at them
• Stakeholder analysis is a useful way of finding relevant arguments
• An area commonly missed is the link between actions and their results – the Causal Link
• Ask yourself “Why?”, “How?” and “So What?” and then answer ‘because, because, because’ until you end up with a statement which it’s virtually impossible to disprove
• Use REAL and Now-Action-Then

Cambridge 2007

Well done to the two teams who went to Cambridge this weekend. Both did themselves and the MDU proud. MDU A came 20th and MDU B 42nd. MDU A also made it to the comedy final. Manchester kept up its traditional role of being the self appointed alcohol samplers and there are certainly some slogans now for if people get hoodies...

For those who don't know, Cambridge runs open motions. The final was defined as 'As the world government, we would stop all controls on migration'. It was won by second op, the Victoria University of Wellington.

Tab was given out at the IV but isn't online yet. Will try and remember to update when one becomes available in electronic format.

Welcome

Welcome,

I kept wanting a space to put all the random stuff I tend to accumulate in the background to running training. Some stuff I've been putting on facebook, other stuff in the hand outs, some things I e-mail to a few people. A lot of it hasn't been going anywhere but the depths of my computer which seemed something of a waste. The various attempts I made at starting casefiles will also be posted at some point :)

So, I will (hopefully) keep this updated regularly with links to useful articles (either for motions, background stuff or stuff about debating), I will try and remember to post the handouts from each week here so if you miss a training session, it'll still be online. I'll also post comments on IVs. If I'm at them and have my computer (Worlds 2008, for example) I will blog directly. If not, comments later.

If you have any ideas of what else I should put on here, please tell me!

xx