Debating Guide Part IV

Arguments can focus on various areas, of which the most important are:

results – what will happen if the proposal is enforced?
principles – what values underpin the proposal, and do they make sense?
precedent – has anything similar been tried before, and if so what happened?
enforceability – is it practically possible to do what is being proposed?

These can be used in different ways for the different sides in the debate:

Proposition

You are trying to show that your particular proposal is the one which should be adopted. Always relate your arguments to your proposal.

Results

your proposal will have certain beneficial consequences (you may need separate arguments to show why these consequences would be beneficial)

“Introducing stricter controls on adoption would make it more difficult for potential abusers to obtain children.

failing to adopt your proposal will have harmful consequences (again, you may need to show why they are harmful) “If the EU does not admit more countries it will be breaking its earlier promise to let them in; this will damage the EU’s credibility.”

Principles

your proposal upholds (and the opposition undermines) certain values which are shared by all in the debate

“We want to abolish the monarchy because we do not believe that you should qualify for a particular position of responsibility purely because of who your parents are.”

Precedent

something similar to your proposition has been tried before or elsewhere and it worked (you need to show that your example is relevantly similar)

“We should continue to enforce sanctions on Iraq because sanctions were a major factor in removing the apartheid government in South Africa.”

It is usually inappropriate for the proposition to use enforceability arguments – the fact that a proposal is enforceable should be part of the mechanism, not an argument in favour of your proposal.

Opposition

The opposition uses similar kinds of argument, but focuses them in the opposite direction. It is usually easier for the opposition than for the proposition to employ enforceability arguments.

Results

the proposal will have unintended negative consequences

“Allowing more immigration will result in resentment of minorities and racial tension.”
the intended consequences are undesirable

“Introducing PR would indeed ensure that governments had smaller majorities, but this would reduce their ability to govern effectively.”

the intended consequences will not result from the proposition

“Reintroducing the death penalty will not cut crime, because criminals do not consider the penalty while they are committing crimes.”

Principles

the proposal goes against principles which ought to be preserved “Cancelling third world debt sends out the message that irresponsible management of resources should be rewarded.”

Precedent

something similar to the proposal has been tried before or elsewhere and has failed or had bad consequences (again, you need to show that the example is relevant)

“When hardcore pornography became more widely available in the USA in the 1970s, police reported the use of new practices in rapes and sexual abuse which had been almost unheard of until they were depicted in pornographic material.”

Practicalities

the proposal is unworkable or unenforceable – even if it is desirable in principle

“You can introduce as many legal controls on biological weapons as you like, but the countries most likely to be producing such weapons won’t let your inspectors in.”

NB Don’t focus enforceability arguments on the fact that a policy wouldn’t get through parliament, or whatever authority would have to approve it. Always assume, in the context of the debate, that the legislative body in question could in principle be persuaded that the case was good – that’s what debating is about. Enforceability is about the ability of a proposal to be implemented once it has been instituted.