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.
No comments:
Post a Comment