Thinking and Planning

Introduction

A key part of debating is learning to work as a team to think through and plan your case in the prep room. This resource is designed to help you step through the debate planning process in detail. It includes useful examples and explanations to help clarify your understanding. It is important to realise that this document can be used for all stages and year levels, though the level of detail and execution will differ based on the experience of the debaters.

In your prep planning, there are four broad steps to set up your case.

1. Establishing a Reasonable Basis – Deciding what is a reasonable position for both teams to argue from, then articulating a working proposal for the policy being changed in the debate

2. Asking Key Questions – Identifying who the key groups are in the topic and questioning the values, practicalities and trade-offs that are apparent

3. Gathering Proof – Factual and Behavioural examples that provide evidence for how a policy functions in reality

4. Outlining Consequences – Outcomes and Impacts of the events that occur as a result of the way that the policy functions

Almost every debate has a policy that is meant to change something. The debate is about, first, whether the policy will actually work to make the change and, second, whether it’s then a good idea or not to make the change. These two things are in ‘contention’ in any debate. So, what the teams are likely to disagree about are the standards or values that we should try to uphold and what is the best way to do that—these are the grounds for a fair discussion between the teams.

1. Basis

Work out what can be the basis that everyone can agree on for a reasonable debate. Your first task is always to look closely at the topic to make sure you understand it.

Every topic involves some sort of issue, small or large, in our society. This issue may be clear to you as soon as you see the topic. Sometimes it’s harder to see, but every topic proposes a policy solution that can help you either find what the issue actually is OR find a positive factor that would create a new or greater benefit.

The topic wording can often also add elements you have to consider to argue the debate well. The more words in a topic, the more likely that you need to check if they affect the debate. These are key words because they decide some aspects that should frame the debate.

Examples of typical key words are ones that: define a particular group, place, time, situation, incentive or deterrent, or the extent of something involved in the topic. If we look at the topic, That we should ban advertising for toys and games on afternoon TV, we can see that this example specifies afternoon television as the time that needs to be analysed by both teams in order to properly assess the benefits and harms that occur when implementing the policy. In this debate, an argument that is more general (advertising is bad for children, for example) has less value to the overall case than arguments that address this keyword specifically.

Once you have considered the topic and its key words you can determine how the case you make should be targeted.This then helps affirmative teams work out the model (or plan) that will help set up the debate.

Model

The model is a framework for the affirmative team to define for everyone in the debate how the policy in the topic will actually function practically in the world. It sets up a clear, fair basis of practical benchmarks for the debate discussion. This allows affirmative to give simple, concise details that deal with petty practical concerns not at the heart of the debate’s real issues. Models are usually far less important in deciding debates than the effects (or outcomes) shown by each case.

To set up your model you look at who is taking action in your policy and how it will work. To identify these factors you need to use the key words to ask some questions:

• Who exactly is taking action in the policy?

• How far must the key behaviour or action in the debate be controlled? (If it’s a ban, for instance, you have to stop the activity.)

• Is the key behaviour or action public or private? (If it’s public, then government will control the instruments or mechanisms that can be used to control the action. If it’s private, it won’t involve any direct interference by authorities, just a social expectation for behaviour.)

Commonly, the questions of ‘when’ or ‘where’ a policy should be implemented have been included in models, however these questions are largely arbitrary. The policy would be implemented in the widest jurisdiction you could control, and timing would be as soon as practicable. You don’t need to worry about those details in your debate discussion.

Remember that a model should always affirm the topic that has been provided to the affirmative team, it should not be used as a tool to reduce or narrow the debate.

Finding a reasonable Basis

Once you understand exactly what the topic is asking you to respond to, and how you will model that response, it’s always a very good next step to try to see what you’re NOT going to argue about.

• In a debate about health (That we should ban fast food companies like McDonald’s and KFC from Australia), it’s unlikely that anyone will argue being unhealthy is a great thing.

• In a debate about education (That we should ban all technology from the classroom), it’s unlikely that anyone will argue that learning is a total waste of time.

• In a debate about animals, (That we should ban horse racing) it’s unlikely that anyone will argue that being cruel to them is good.

So, from here, it means you can get the basic thing you ARE very likely to agree on out of the way right up front so you don’t have to waste time on it. This is simply the opposite of what you are not going to argue about. This will become your BASIS statement.

So, when your team is working out the context for your first speaker, (using our earlier examples) you would express your BASIS by saying something like:

• In this debate we think both teams are going to want Australians to be healthy. The question we’re trying to answer is whether banning junk food companies is an effective way to do that. Or;

• We think everyone in this debate can agree that getting a good education is really important. What we’re going to argue about is whether electronic technology is effective for kids learning. Or;

• Both teams in our debate are going to value animal welfare. The matter in contention is whether horse racing can ever be anything but cruel.

Explaining Basis another way

What you’re actually doing to find your BASIS statement is identifying something (a factor) about the way the world works right now (we call this the status quo) that may be exaggerated—too much or too little (exces- sive or inadequate). The topic proposes a policy that will change this fac- tor in the status quo to make it less exaggerated.

In our examples:

• Banning fast food companies is proposed as a way of improving

  our health (by reducing the exaggeration factor of obesity).

• Getting rid of technology is proposed as a way of improving our education (by removing the exaggeration factor of distractions)

• Banning horse racing is proposed as a way of improving horse welfare (by removing the exaggeration factor of harms to them).

Once you’ve identified this exaggeration factor, you can see that neither team in the debate is likely to stand for those harms, so you can work out your BASIS statement from that knowledge.

Stating the BASIS statement removes the need to waste time, particularly for affirmative teams, trying to establish the truth (or principle) that shows that the exaggeration factor in the topic is actually bad. Doing this, therefore, removes unnecessary discussion from the debate and lets you get on with trying to prove what’s the best solution for the exaggeration factor.

It is worth keeping in mind that sometimes, though, as the debate develops, aspects of the truth or principle you’re upholding may need to be reinforced in response to an argument from the other case. In other words, part of the contention in the debate is whether it is worth trying harder to uphold a principle that might fix the exaggeration factor. Negative teams, in contrast to affirmative ones, need to show that the status quo is about right (that the factor actually isn’t exaggerated) or isn’t solved by this particular new policy.

2. Questions

Once you’ve identified the factor that’s exaggerated and will be in contention in the debate, you can use it to frame questions that you will try to answer in your case through your arguments.

In debates, and in the real world, policies have effects on the way things are. These policies directly (and indirectly) have an impact on groups of people (or animals). We call these groups STAKEHOLDERS.

In setting up your case you need to identify which stakeholders are affected by the exaggeration factor for the topic, and how they are affected. These groups are called primary stakeholders. You also need to identify anoth-
er kind of stakeholder that is active in debates and has an impact on other stakeholders or the debate situation. These are called secondary stakeholders.

It’s also possible for stakeholders to exist who aren’t directly mentioned in the topic wording. For instance, with the topic, That students should be able to select their own texts in English, the secondary stakeholder group, teachers, isn’t mentioned but we can see they clearly have a role in the debate.

The topic key words that you’ve identified and considered can also help you form your questions. So, once you’ve identified the stakeholder types, you need to divide them into two separate questions:

1. How does the exaggeration factor (too much or too little/excess or inadequacy) you have identified in the topic have an impact on the primary stake holders in the debate? (the most affected groups).

2. How does this exaggeration factor or its suggested policy solution enable or disable any secondary stakeholders in their role with the primary stakeholders or the debate situation?

Types of Argument

Next, you need to deal with these questions using separate specific arguments. There are three clear types of argument you may be able to use for answering your stakeholder questions:

1. Principled arguments: these show how values have an important role in a change of policy. They prove we have a principled need to try harder to fix the problem. In other words they answer, IS IT RIGHT?

2. Practical arguments: these show whether the policy actually works to uphold the principle in question. In other words they answer, DOES IT WORK?

3. Trade-off arguments: these accept that while a policy—either in the status quo or making a new change—will have some undesirable outcomes, it will result in more good outcomes than bad. In other words they answer, IS IT WORTH IT OVERALL?

Here, for example, are the kind of questions each category of argument needs to work out for the topic That we should ban fast food companies from Australia:

This debate is a clash between two primary stakeholders—business and the public.

• A principled argument is about whether it is right to restrict business in order to pursue health goals.

• The main practical argument is about what is the best way of achieving a healthier nation. (Considering immediate (short term) and ongoing (long term) effects would be good here.)

• A trade-off argument is about whether any of the resulting negative effects on fast food businesses are worth accepting for the overall benefit of public health.

It is useful to remember that answering any contested question in a debate follows this clear process:

Status Quo > Change > Outcomes

3. Proof

Establishing that the change you are making will actually happen. In framing your arguments you really need to prove why they are true and why they are likely to happen rather than just tell us they’re good or bad.

Proof is the essential foundation for your case. All proofs involve steps where you present evidence and then interpret it to show your conclusion is the most likely one. It is the connection between factual evidence and its interpretation that establishes your proof. There are two types types of proof that you need to use.

Factual Proof

Clear evIdence/information from the real world that backs the policy for affirmative or the status quo for negative. This kind of proof is commonly found in current affairs and the news. Factual proof may be direct (a fact about the exact topic situation), contextual (a fact that will work here and now) or analogous (a fact from another situation that is very similar). All these kinds of factual proof are likely to be straightforward information.

For the example That we should ban fast food companies from Australia:

A negative team might want to prove that a ban on fast food restaurants would have detriments for young people and their employment:

‘We can see that Macdonalds is the business that employs the highest number of Australian young people—with over 100,000 under 18’s employed across the nation. The youth unemployment rate currently sits at 12 percent and has been steadily increasing over the last 5 years. Combined with the impacts of restrictions on business for Covid-19, there is a pressing need to keep as many pathways for employment for the young as possible.’
(This is factual contextual proof. It’s worth noting that while the statistics exactly quantify the situation, describing it well without them can still be factual proof.)

Conversely, an affirmative team might want to prove that there is a pressing time-imperative for the ban of fast food restaurants.

Over the last decade, the Australian government has tracked an increase of the prevalence of obesity in the adult population, from 1 in 5 in the early 2000’s, to 1 in 3 adults being classified as obese now, despite increased levels of government education around health. The increase has been largely attributed to unhealthy eating choices, particularly for adults in rural areas. Because the main source of un healthy food in these areas is from fast food chains, and obesity has been so clearly on the rise, the urgent need to ban these companies from Australia is clear.
(This is another factual contextual proof.)

An affirmative team might also try to argue that there is a strong correlation between countries that have fewer fast food businesses in operation and lower rates of obesity.

We can see from the example of Nepal, which has no fast food outlets as well as one of the lowest rates of obesity in the world, that there is a strong correlation between easy access to food with unhealthy ingredients and obesity. (This is an analogous factual proof.)

Or flipping the approach to framing the argument from denial to excess...

If you look at the example of Nauru, which has the world’s highest rate of obesity per capita, the government itself drew a correlation between the availability of Macdonalds and a spike in obesity rates in the community. (This also is an analogous factual proof.)

Behavioural Proof

Evidence that shows that human behaviour has been changed either by, or matched by, other similar policies or the status quo, and therefore is likely to be true for this policy or situation. Behaviour can be easily separated into immediate (short term) and ongoing (long term) responses. This kind of proof is often found by thinking of what you know about the way people act. You can also use past examples of behaviour to predict future behaviour. Another word for this is characterisation. Characterisation, if it creates an effective picture of how people react and respond to change, is a powerful kind of proof.

For the example That we should ban fast food companies from Australia: An affirmative team might try to argue that most people are more likely to buy fast food rather than go to the effort of cooking.

We can see that with the pressure most people are under trying to balance work and homelife, the convenience and low cost of fast food makes them take advantage of the meals offered by companies like McDonalds rather than spend time cooking when they are busy and tired. Therefore, closing these companies would reduce easy access to unhealthy foods and have a significant impact on its consumption. It would also encourage healthy home cooking as the most likely alternative.

A negative team might try to argue that the habit of eating fast food means that most people will find ways to eat that sort of food even if fast food companies were banned.

We can see that the sorts of food that fast food companies sell is highly appealing to most people. Habits of eating, particularly for comfort fast food, don’t change because of shutting down businesses. If these companies were closed, it would not remove people’s appetite for this kind of food, so they would find similar alternatives through other take away outlets, supermarkets or in their home cooking. Therefore the health improvements the opposition is hoping to achieve would not happen.

A combination of both types of proof are important for you to establish that specific effects (outcomes) could, and are likely, to occur with your change in policy (for affirmative), or cannot or are unlikely to occur, or would do harm if they occurred (for negative). Remember, all proofs involve presenting evidence and interpreting it to show it establishes your proof. It should be backed by using the word ‘because’ (or similar expression) that leads the thinker to explain why their argument is true and its evidence is likely to occur.

4. Consequences

Arguing that the changes you are making have clear effects (outcomes) that are also worthwhile (of value). First, a reminder of the clear process that answers any contested question in a debate:

Status Quo > Change > Outcomes

At the end of any question and its answer through your proven arguments, you want to show that it has been effective (results or outcomes). For affirmative cases you will prove that the effects improve the status quo. For negative cases you will prove that effects provided by status quo policies are better than those by the new policy change or that the change would make things worse.

A very powerful strategy lies in comparing the value of your effects with negative or less valuable effects from the other side of the case (much of this comparison is most effectively done during the ‘trade-off’ arguments).

The extent of success of every effect should be clearly shown by you in order to argue its value. You can assess the value of an effect by its impact, which means measuring how many benefits your proven effect will bring, and for how many people. Some impacts are stronger (and therefore are more persuasive) than others in the debate.

For the example That we should ban fast food companies from Australia: Examples of measuring the success of outcomes might be:

• Impacts for groups of people (stakeholders) that were proven to be particularly vulnerable during the debate

• Impacts that have both short and long term effects

• Impacts that bring positive change that correct a long-term

  societal wrong

• Impacts that cause negative change or entrench a long-term

  societal wrong

• A negative team might want to prove that a ban on fast food restaurants would have detriments for young people and their employment.

Here is a whole argument on this topic, including the effects (consequences) stage, and the standards (values) stage towards the end of the process.

Our team’s next argument will show that banning McDonalds would be seriously damaging to youth employment.

I have two ways that my argument can be proved.

Firstly, McDonalds employs the highest number of Australian young people—with over 100,000 under 18’s employed across the nation. The youth unemployment rate currently sits at 12 percent and has been steadily increasing over the last 5 years. Combined with the impacts of restrictions on business for Covid-19, there is a pressing need to keep as many pathways for employment for the young as possible. (This is a combination of direct and contextual factual proof.)

Secondly, employers such as fast food restaurants have a wide variety of low skilled jobs and tasks required for them to operate, so work there is much easier to obtain on a scale that supports a local community. (This is a direct factual proof)

After you have used these factual proofs about youth the dramatic effect on young people and their employment prospects, you might now ex- plain the effects arising from your proofs. This might sound like:

This means that this change in policy would have a negative effect because cutting down the options available to find work means that there would be a rise in the rate of youth unemployment.Young people already have fewer employment options due to their general lack of experience, so banning the largest provider of employment for young people to gain that experience would not only seriously limit their potential for getting a job in the short term, but it could also have huge long term harms by stopping a pathway for job experience.

We think this is particularly bad in rural Australia where they have fewer job opportunities in general, because towns are smaller, there are fewer businesses, and therefore there are fewer jobs available.

After you have shown the effects of your proofs you need to explain the standards or principled harms of these effects. This might sound like:

These harms are an unacceptable trade-off for our world because as a society, there are limited ways for a government to quickly fix entrenched unemployment issues in a generation, rather than addressing the real issue which is a lack of awareness and education about physical health and eating habits.

Summary

Ultimately, the thinking and planning stages are crucial parts of a debate, regardless of your experience level. The steps that we’ve outlined, setting a basis, posing questions, gathering proof and showing consequences are great ways to start the planning process in order to ensure that you are creating a persuasive well structured debate.

Even if you are unable to apply all of these ideas straight away, they are fantastic ways to start the thinking process and improve your debating!

Remember—in order for arguments to stand, they should be reason- able, put forward a legitimate question, provide pieces of factual and behavioural proof and then show the effect that the argument has on the world.