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.