Structures 1: Argument as narrative

I have discussed motion analysis, deconstruction, and some characteristics of collegiate debate. These are all only the first step to crafting a speech. Before I delve into anticipation of opposition arguments, which is another crucial part of that first step, I want to get started on structure, the next step. Cos you can't expect your opps to engage you well without knowing how to make 100% sure that they first grasp the sentient points in your case.

Most debaters go for the default speech, which is: 1. rebuttals+witty jabs at the opp 2. substantives 3. summary. If you stick to this, no matter how convincing your arguments are, unless you are on chummy terms with the adjes they aren't likely to pay close attention to your speech, easily glossing over the subtler shifts and nuances that you thought were most critical to your stance. Life's like that. Thankfully, with a little coffee table book help, it can be MUCH more interesting than that.

Here I borrow the four(arguably three) presentation styles from Dan Roam's book "Show and Tell: How Everybody Can Make Extraordinary Presentations". Taken on their own, Dan Roam's tips aren't much help, realistically speaking. But I will try to enliven his points using a motion, and hopefully show that greater clarity and purpose is possible over and beyond simply "knowing more facts than the other team".

Motion: THB the state should not fund any work of art or performance that the average citizen would not recognise as having artistic merit 

1. The Report (Who, What, Why, When, How, How Much - In any order, then loop back to first)
Opening cases
Address the "Who, What, Why". Doesnt matter if you are PM or OL, adjes always want to hear what makes this motion matter.
PM - The average citizen pays taxes. These taxes should be invested in positive returns. Ensuring positive returns for the tax-paying public is important for governments who want citizens to continue their support for their other policies.
OL - The average citizen also gets a positive return from a more varied and diverse artistic community. Even if certain art works are not popular, they still yield positive returns by contributing to this diversity. A varied and diverse artistic culture requires government support.
- Notice that the OL's case contains additional responses to the PM's case (underlined)

Cases that attack fundamental positions of an opponent
"When... their case falls."
Better to show specific examples of when their policy might fail than to try to tear it apart. Many excellent debaters out there have water-tight logic, no use questioning it.
DPM - When a work of art is unpopular because it is obscene or contains outdated themes, it is not beneficial, and hence cannot be said to contribute to said diversity.
OM - When a work of art is not popular, it is because it contains some hard truths about a changing society that people are not yet willing to accept, such as homosexuality and feminism. Compared to other countries, such art should exist to remind people of the limitations of their own cultural and societal stereotypes.

Cases that are defensive
"How much... is their purported attack insubstantial/irrelevant."
"How... is their analysis of our points limited."
Again, you shouldn't try to tear down their logic by arguing that they had a flawed analysis, this wastes too much time and is likely inconsequential.
DPM - Truly educational art is rare. Even if it were truly educational, it does not count as a positive return because no one is likely to derive pleasure from being told that they are narrow-minded.
OM - Artistic merit is subjective. Some may think that an artwork is obscene simply because it contains nudity, while others see it as a beautiful form of art. So who is the state to say what should contribute to diversity and what should not?
- Notice that in both cases we see a form of limitation by exclusion: arguing that the opp's attack does not fall within certain categories necessary to topple the original case. This is, imo, the easiest rebuttal form out there.

Cases that are wrapping up an entire debate - whip
"How... our case addresses the motion better -> Who, What"
How we benefit more people (who are they)
How we created more opportunities and benefits (what are these)
GW - More tax payers will support the government if they know that their money is being invested selectively in the artistic community because this ensures the highest return on their money.
OW - More tax payers will gain if the government invests in a diverse community of art because it encourages a more forward-looking community with diversity of opinion.

2. The Explanation (building up steps to a final conclusion)
Present the case in small steps, with each step linking directly to the next. Provide a signpost for each step and signal the start and end. Good for opening and whip cases.

3. The Pitch (like hurling a ball over a hurdle)
Present a problem, your case as a significant solution to the problem, and why it is the only solution
- This is actually the ideal structure for a specific substantive, not for an entire speech.
The

4. The Great Drama (light at the end of the rainbow)
Present your points as a start of some kind of ideal, fairy tale scenario, then present opponents' points as posing great problems to the status quo all round, how the opponents are basically messing up the policy, and how your refined substantives later step in to "save the day"

Some notes on debating ethics

A game is fair if there is none of the following:
1. Aggression/Intimidation
2. Intention to deceive the judges
3. A deliberate rephrasal of someone else's position

A game is fair if there is all of the following
1. Willingness to engage all parties objectively, without prior judgment or prejudice
(ie judging someone on the merit of the speech alone)
2. Criteria for not placing someone's input on the table must be objective and undisparaging

A game is fair if:
1. Players exercise discretion in focusing on the rules and spirit of the game and not getting swayed politically or emotionally
2. Judges exercise discretion in ignoring emotional or political outbursts and picking up arguments or positions that are unfair to the other players

Perhaps a good game has different rules:
1. Ability to explain concisely and make concepts significant in light of the issue
2. Awareness of your own prejudgments (morally, assumptions made)

Motion analysis: How much maneuvring room?

By which I mean, room for expansion of scope, depth of analysis, remoteness of consequences, assigning validity and how much of the consequences can we presume to take for granted. Clearly this is a broad area, but that is exactly what we are trying to delineate: how broad is broad?

Here's my thought process for the motion: THBT European Union should give up the Euro

First phase: scope, goals, sub-questions and alternative phrasings -> Exploration.
Scope and fundamental goals - The fundamental goal of the Euro is to financially integrate the Northern European economies and allow for free capital flows between them. Clearly, you will be expected to take arguments to the international scale, problems with the extrajurisdicial nature of the problem, exacerbated by lack of regional governing body, how entire nations' economies will be in danger (go wild: accuracy doesn't really matter in the brainstorming stage anyway)
Scope basically tells you the context and benchmarks at which you will predict and outline causalities and consequences, in this case, the international financial system.
Alternative phrasings - what are the problems of having a common currency? what are the problems of multiple currencies in a free trade zone?
Alternative phrasings help you to look at what questions lie hidden/implicated in the motion. You use the reversal technique to flip the question around and it will give you an idea of what the opposition would say. 
Ask questions: Do the benefits of a common currency outweigh the consequences or vice versa?
Challenge the assumptions behind the motion - what if the Euro were a fundamental part of the EU identity, and saying getting rid of the Euro would be like getting rid of the EU altogether?

Second phase: prospects, malleability of the situation -> Developing A Case.
Prospects - Status quo shows that the Euro is very susceptible to financial crises, as exemplified by the Greek debt crisis. Furthermore, several notable countries within the EU are already not satisfied with the arrangement, especially Germany who is tired of playing the role of debt issuer and reserve manager for the region.
Prospects are statements of relevant fact, ie status quo that prompt you to think about whether the Euro is really a viable strategy to grow the regional economy. They tell you which party is likely to be the most capable to change the status quo and who is most affected by a change in the status quo.
Malleability - Is it likely that the Euro will be decommissioned and splintered into many different currencies? What is the alternative, then?
Malleability is the probability and possibility of changing a situation to fit a certain outcome. Are the institutions and individuals involved amenable to negotiation and possess the resources and willpower to make the change?

Third phase: consequences and logical links -> Strengthening Your Case
List consequences - Giving up the Euro would throw the EU into a greater crisis than before. Giving up the Euro would put local businesses out of business. Giving up the Euro would make the region a less lucrative destination for investment.
A lot of debaters do well in thinking up all kinds of creative outcomes and slippery slopes in their argument, but as you will see later, many are not viable or relevant because they miss the details of the status quo.
Links - Because the common Euro is crucial for sustained global investment, it is highly unlikely that the authorities will give this up for the sake of preserving the stability of one or two of its weaker economies. The large inflow of capital outweighs the losses that may occasionally occur when the Euro depreciates in value relative to the greenback.
This is an example of a link. By the third phase you would have found that your thought structure is like a tree: each phase branches out into more branches in the next, giving rise to parallel strains of argument. This is why links are crucial. You list and explain the branches, then link them back to the mother branch, and finally, to the trunk.

Argument structures in context 2 - Clashes are rooted in decision making *edited*

At high school level, clashes are general and invoke great values or ideological strains.

There are motions invoking a single great clash between two institutions, and then there are motions that take multiple clashes and perspectives. A clarification on the former category: these may mean actual institutions (like United Nations, the Arab Spring etc) or institutions of thought. These could be from philosophy, political science, sociology, etc. A characteristic of pluralist motions is that a lot of time is spent establishing the main clash and this means adjudicators have to allocate a large part of the score to relevance and engagement. I also included policy criteria (cost, feasibility, sustainability etc) under the umbrella heading of binaries because usually they fall into two sides during an engagement as well, eg politically expedient vs not.

At college level, these great ideological clashes are implicated in the everyday interactions between individuals, between individuals and state, and between states. Develop an eye for how individuals rationalize their decisions given the complex socioeconomic micro-environment, and perhaps also read up about the decision making process of institutions and states. I say perhaps because most of the time debaters just assume that institutions and states rationalize like individual actors. That is one valid way of looking at it, but when it matters, social or commercial interest clashes with private interest and should be engaged. It definitely helps to bring in specific examples and knowledge of recent events.

Here are some generalizations about binaries in debate:
1. There are such things as invalid binaries: choosing between contradicting statements of fact, ease of administration, and so on that will never contribute meaningfully to a debate.
2. Never assume that a clash has a correct side and wrong side. There is only what is morally, politically and economically expedient for the goal and situation at hand.
3. Avoid loaded assertions and double-barrelled accusations. These are what I call rhetorical traps, when debaters have a sober intention to not play a fair game. I will perhaps devote a later post to this and list some of the most common fallacies I hear being called out on in rebuttal.

Deconstruction 1: Orally deconstructing Federalist #10

Before I use the next few posts to further delve into how to make use of motion context and environment in more effective persuasion, in this post I wanted to create a easy method of orally deconstructing complex and long arguments, using a famous example.

Here is how I set out James Madison's written argument:
1. Faction is the main cause of strife in small republics.
2. There are two ways to control faction, one is to eliminate the causes of faction, and one is to mitigate the effects.
3. We cannot eliminate the causes of faction for many reasons including, human nature is flawed, a free society is an inherently unequal society and one man will always have interests mutually exclusive to and competitive against another.
4. Therefore we must look at mitigation.
4.1 However, in small republics, mitigation is not always possible because we wont always have virtuous statesmen at the helm.
4.2 This is because in small republics, there are no checks on inducements to corrupt the leader, and no guarantee that leaders are genuinely concerned for maintaining equality.
5. With caveats 4.1 and 4.2, one can conclude that faction is an inherent flaw in small republics that cannot be mitigated with the ideals and principles of small republics alone.
6. Therefore, we must turn to large republics.
7. In large republics, factions are rendered incapable of a dominating voice and effecting schemes of oppression and corruption because there are now many, instead of a few albeit disproportionately sized ones.
7.1 However a large number of factions, and hence leaders, is a source of confusion and lack of unity.
7.2 In large republics leaders are less attached to the issues and details of local politics.
8. Both small and large republics are clearly therefore not in themselves perfect forms of government, but their principles and ideals can be adapted in concert to suit the varied needs and interests at both the local and the national level.
9. The federal Constitution forms the happy balance between these two "ideals", as we prevent factious communities from oppressing minorities by having a national rule of law, but at the same time preserve the voice of local issues and interests by assigning these matters to the state legislatures.

Here's how I would put it in oral form:
1. Here's a major issue that would arise under your paradigm*
2. There are only two ways to solve it if we stick to your paradigm.
3. One is clearly possible only in theory, and hence the other is our reluctant choice
4. Lo and behold, that choice isn't perfect either! Your paradigm is thus inherently flawed.
5. Adopting the Constitution actually solves that issue better than not adopting it.
6. Therefore, we should adopt the Constitution.
*A paradigm is a belief that is not explicitly stated but assumed throughout every point: in this case it is when you feel that a particular system of government is best for ruling the country.

And here is, in my view, the best way to take down the oral form:

1. Take a moment to find the appropriate way to describe their paradigm in their terms. Pro-Constitution is too vague; Pro-large-republic is closer but inaccurate; pro-large-republic with a nod at small-state republicanism is most appropriate.
2. Step 1 allows you to take their argument and turn it in your favour, because if they can do it with yours, you can do it with theirs.
3. Draw it into the context of the whole debate. This is the glorious era of the Second Founding, when ideologies are beginning to take root in the American consciousness. It matters that leaders be virtuous and not susceptible to corruption. It matters that equality is at least realised in the collective consciousness of the people, even if it were not to be achieved in reality.
3.2 Again, I want to stress here that we cannot bite off more than we can chew, but this time I am talking about our own stand. We are not going to spend our limited time hashing out the merits of the anti-Federalists.
4. Identify the weakest link, look for clearly disputable statements because these would be the points of contention most clear to everyone else in the room as well. In this case it would be 2: There are only two ways to solve faction. This is a good place to start because their entire case rests on this, and if you can show that a solution/compromise exists under yours, their whole argument is already moot.

And here is how to set out the oral critique:
1. We aren't just concerned with solving the disconcerts of faction. Our entire case for non-Constitutionalism rests on the need to preserve the powers of small state government and how it realizes individual self-actualization much better than large state governments can.
2. Faction isn't just a major flaw in our paradigm, faction is a problem for both our paradigms. The only difference is that it is an absolute evil in ours and a perverse, necessary evil in yours. This distinction is the fundamental problem with your case! Encouraging faction for the sake of controlling it isn't a legitimate reason for large-state government, even if it proves to be effective.
3. We also say that it is important that leaders send the right message appropriate for the times, be it with or without the Constitution. What does it say about a leader if he proposes to solve a problem by encoruaging more of it?
4. We therefore propose the small-republic solution: put in checks and balances to protect virtuous leaders from corruption. Give them incentives to listen to the interests of minority lobbying groups. There is nothing inherently wrong with small-state republican ideology. The problem lies with your flawed interpretation of it.

argument structures in context, #1

This is first in a series exploring how one's environment shapes the argumentative process. This is especially relevant to debaters just starting out in their practice. Argument as we know it usually takes the form of a confusing, tangly topic that gets systematically unravelled as an audience just sits there passively and listens. In such a lecture-y context, there are no opportunities to make rebuttals, so the lecturer anticipates them, and this usually only adds to the illusion of a complete, convincing argument. In a live debate context while anticipating rebuttal is expected, it is virtually ineffectual because of constant POI's and snide remarks from the opposition bench, meant to be "tactfully ignored", but such hackling will subconsciously undermine the gravity of what you are saying in the adj's mind. The success of a pitch lies in engaging an active, skeptical and probably hostile audience, depending on a constant alertness and lightning responses to perceived threats and doubts. Further, there are severe time constraints. So you do want to set up that puzzle that the opp has thrown you and unravel it nicely for the judges, but make do with a mini digestible one that can be summed in one or two quick points, and then smooth it out within the span of the next six minutes weaving in those threats and aversive challenges.

The crux is that most of the time, the hostile environment of a debate puts one in a pure defensive stance and frame of thought, which is mutually exclusive to constructive engagement. remember your main objective is to unravel points of confusion or doubt lingering with the adj. In later posts I will hash out structures (and their fallacious counterparts) that arise purely from defensive thinking and the structures that lend themselves to constructive, problem-solving analysis, and develop a structure that combines these approaches.