“Analysis” Training Session 6 Feb 2015 Why do I need analysis? • Most of the things debaters say are true (or at least plausible) • Therefore both sides are saying competing true things • Quality of analysis is how the judges decide which true thing they prefer What does “more analysis” mean? • Making the judges believe what you say. – They have to believe it is true – They have to believe it is important – They have to understand it will work Example motion • THW Arm the Police – This will reduce crime (Prop) – This will save lives (Prop) – This will lead to better armed criminals (Opp) – This will lead to the police being alienated from the public (Opp) Add examples • True things – American police are armed and there are far more shootings than in the UK • Emotive things – Imagine how you would feel if you were an elderly lady in a minority community who every day saw police from the majority group patrolling your neighbourhood with guns Sub-points • Don’t have one really convincing argument for why something is true? – Use several weaker ones COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ISSUE: • Often people talk around each other so fail to engage with other side • Or fail to explain why the things they say are more important than points from their opponents USING COMPARATIVES: • Why life under your side is better than the alternative option; • Why the benefits/ harms you give are more important than those from the other side. Now Solution Then • How can you attack this from Opp? • Usual cases feature around: – Solution does not lead to desired "then" – Then is bad. • Have to say why then is better than now or vice versa. • Often Opposition teams will just explain problems in Then - without explaining why those make it worse than Now. • So even if you prove that there desired Then doesn't happen you still have to explain why that Then is worse than Now. Trade-offs • Both sides of the debate are proposing benefits that any reasonable person would consider to be good. • However there is a zero sum game: both of these goods cannot be achieved fully, an increase in one comes at a cost to the other. • Therefore the debate is about the correct balance of these principles in a moral or ideal situation. • Have to prove that your stakeholder is more important (tends to mean either your group is larger or is effected to a greater degree in terms of being either harmed or benefited more than other groups are.) • In analysis directly engage with what your opponents are saying and explain why your stuff is more important. • This is particularly important when weighing up principles. • Often you are weighing up some harm versus some concept of freedom. • Freedom does get taken away in certain circumstances. Why or why not in this case? Impacting • A lot of this can be solved by simply impacting harms more. • As then the other teams can't just shrug it off as not a problem. • So how do you do that? – Explain why things are harmful (don’t assume your judge will just believe something is bad) – For example, debaters often just state that this leads to inequality therefore it is bad. But why is this the case?