How to Argue Module (Part A)

HOW TOTHINK OF AN ARGUMENT A. Introduction - emphasize that there are no hard and fast rules - must not confine selves to algorithms/templates although this can help at the start - takes practice and exposure to develop familiarity with arguments - dont discount affective elements such as intuition, hunches, divine inspiration, imagination, communication with aliens - First Speaker: Takes the obvious arguments (those that correspond to the main issues of the debate) Provides the framework of his/her sides case B. What to do? Ask questions about the facts and paint a clear picture of the situation: What are the facts? What is the context? Who are the actors? What does the policy purport to forward? What is it said to endanger? Draw out important themes. There are recurring themes in debates. They key is to identify these themes, then nuance them to the issues at hand: Are there rights that are being violated/upheld (usually, sovereignty, self-determination, right to religion, culture, information, expression, privacy, etc.)? How do we balance rights? Are there people/social groups that are being antagonized/marginalized? Are there risks of abuses? What messages are sent/precedents are set? What is the governments responsibility in the situation and how can it best be realized? What is a good mix of incentives and disincentives? Who are the liable actors in the situation, why do we say they are liable, and are the punishments we propose commensurate? What is the best interest of the actors involved (financial success? retribution? rehabilitation? security? catharsis?) and how do we achieve this image-building, reinforcement of messages, etc.? Proactive vs. reactive policies DEBATES ARE RARELY ABOUT BLACK AND WHITE ISSUES. MANY DEBATES ARE ABOUT EXTENTS AND DEGREES. THATS BECAUSE THE WORLD IS LIKE THIS. Arguments have to reflect this. Each argument has to be comparative. Whatever benefits/detriments you discuss must be weighed against what the other side is defending.

C. What not to take for granted Sometimes you have to defend even the values that the policy you propose supposedly upholds: ex. People Power is bad because it hurts institutional stability/reduces the chance of building institutional stability vs. Why is the process of building institutional stability a more valid goal than removing incompetent presidents? --- Hence, this defense of the goals may have to be incorporated into an argument/turned into an argument. Some values, however, can, to an extent, be taken for granted and assumed as valid goals, especially if both sides agree on this (liability, accountability, retribution, etc., BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE DEBATE). D. Sample ways to frame arguments/helpful frames to nuance and turn into arguments: a. rights are not absolute; one mans right ends when anothers begins (must not lead to direct harm upon someone else); not all rights are inalienable, some are socially allocated, and we have to assess the value behind these rights first ex. The press in times of war (videos of terrorists) right to info/expression vs. national security Criminals publishing accounts of their crimes (versus victims, etc.) b. state sovereignty is being challenged; countries often seek to influence each others policies; the usual question is when is it justified to do so: for what reasons and through what means? note the different means (and this is not a technical way of classifying them): diplomatic sanctions (censure, official declaration/resolution, suspension of membership from International Organizations, etc.), economic sanctions (embargos, tariffs, quotas, travel ban, etc.), military sanctions (threat of war, pre-emptive strike, war itself/invasion/occupation); peace-keeping; humanitarian aid; constructive engagement [carrots and sticks] reasons government oppressing its people; government threatening other countries, etc. basis: for the intervention - international law (UN, ICJ, ICC, WTO, other treaties), human rights regime (UN Human Rights Declaration), etc; for who undertakes it moral and legal responsibility and mandate (if UN), moral responsibility (especially after colonization/entrenching the evil regimes) if countries like U.S. or Britain Questions: Is it in the best interest of the intervening country (refugee spillover, develop a regional identity, best way to ensure that the aid it gives is used properly, image, etc.). Is the method chosen most effective given the context domestic populations (will they be radicalized?), personality of the leaders (track record, face politics, image projection, political survival), values, etc.? c. capitalize-on-the-transition/sway-the-moderates arguments: diverse values in society; there exists critical mass for opposing values (ex. Homosexual marriages) in cases like these, be wary of portraying society as absolutely for or against something admit the diversity and argue that the policy is well-timed and can be situated in context (i.e. policy as an extra push to enhance a natural progression ex. Legislation on gay marriage as a normative tool or U.S. aid to Pakistan as a way to ensure more democratization instead of Musharraf pandering to Islamic fundamentalists, who are gaining ground); conversely, the policy can set back gains

made (ex. society is not ready/shock therapy/backlash/empower the right-wingers; or in the Pakistan example, strengthen the association between Pervie and the U.S., which is not good given anti-U.S. sentiment); give Affirmative Action example. d. human life as a common value upheld by all major systems of belief E. Practical vs. Principle Note: the imaginary dichotomy between practical and principle => principle arguments are supposed to deal with values (which ones to uphold and discourage); practical arguments are supposed to deal with issues of effectiveness and feasibility in the realm of actual, tangible results (shudder). The dichotomy is false because values inform actions and actions partially develop values, among other things. BUT in a debate, the assumptions are different. It is hard to build links between values and concrete results in 7 minutes, BUT YOU MUST ALWAYS TRY TO DO SO. Values have to be nuanced to tangible effects as much as possible. But since the links between values and concrete actions are not always clear, and many judges are trained to look for arguments about concrete results, try to cover principle and practical arguments in the same speech. Example: This House Would Impose the Death Penalty on Drug Traffickers (assume this is set in a country where the death penalty is already legal, and the debate is about extending it to drug traffickers) Argument 1: Commensurability (principle) - Death penalty is deemed by the people to be a legitimate punishment for the worst type of crimes; it is a socially accepted form of punishment enshrined in law. - Drug Trafficking is a crime against life because it involves deliberately supplying people with substances that are proven to cause them serious harm. Furthermore, because drugs are addictive and most types of drugs require an increasingly higher dosage to achieve the same effect as when they were first used, people who are hooked on them can be driven to a life of crime in order to pay for these drugs. Hence, there is a multiplier effect in terms of social costs when we assess how drugs harm the individual, his personal relationships, and the security of her community. Drug Traffickers perpetuate these crimes, and hence, deserve the death penalty. Argument 2: Effectiveness as deterrence (practical) - govt. and society must seek to discourage people from becoming traffickers - death penalty is the worst form of condemnation possible - will discourage even more strongly people from committing the same crime - instill in them more strongly how deplorable the crime is because they see society condemning in the strongest terms - give case studies/historical analysis of where this worked - tie it back to government responsibility