strategy &

weighing
some logistics
every Monday at 6pm (workshop & spar debate)
using zoom for both workshops and debates, links will be
posted on Facebook and Discord
join Discord server (even externals!) here:
[Link]
workshops will be recorded and both slides and
recordings can be found in our database document
sign-up form for the post-workshop debate (posted in
advance):
[Link]
Ri_3Y0AE3E8Gvkag55Evvq4CJ29om9A47U2ApA/viewform
no requirements to join, but more advanced
workshops and focus on long term improvement
private feedback trackers to help see you your
progress
 Rhys
EUDC 2020 semifinalist & Top 10 speaker
CAed something every second weekend since October
doing a PhD in Maths
famously known to be a big Twilight and Keeping Up With
Kardashians Stan (their favourite Kardashian is Rob)
 top half vs. back half strategy
how to
predict clashes and burdens
structure of this explain strategic implications
workshop spot weak points of arguments
weigh
case selection exercise
top half strategy
primary goals
taking as much sensible material as possible
'surviving' until the end of the debate and staying
relevant
how to stay relevant
make sure you have multiple mechanisms and layers
take the most relevant characterisation that most of the
arguments will depend on
motions are often shallow and decided by a single
characterisation
clarity
explain to the judge why you are on clash
outline the scope of the debate and explain why
your arguments fit into it
if you are dropping / deprioritising an argument,
explain why
predict who you need to beat in the debate
take a POI from diagonal and think of it critically
 back half strategy
picking an extension because it is winning, not because it is new
common mistake: crossing off a bucket list
running fewer extensions and explaining their strategic importance should
always be a priority to running many but not positioned
present the extension not as a series of arguments, but rather an idea why
you are winning
whipping the goal of the argument rather than the arguments separately
clarity in positioning
do not lie to the judge that you are new when you are not
'we will be reaching the same impact as top half, but using distinct
mechanisms'
point the gap in top half clearly at the start of the extension speech - get the
judge's attention and make 'space' for the extension
mechanistic gaps
limitation in impacts (their impacts are implausible)
pointing out why they lose the top half and how you'll fix it
what to do if my top half takes everything
find distinct mechanisms, focus on rebuttal and explain why your bench
beats the other
if your top half is losing - figure out why and deal with that material
 predicting clashes and burdens
week 3 'Prep Time Efficiency' workshop for detail
common mistakes
generating your own arguments in vacuum → instead, always ask yourself
whether your arguments are comparative and likely to be contested
'biting off more than one can chew' → consider not just what is the strongest
potential argument, but what you can prove
how to predict
a lot of it comes with practice and building intuition
consider the other side's main claims and identify the contention
both gov and opp are likely to agree about how the motion plays out in two
different contexts (e.g. positive in the developed world, negative in the
developing world) → contention: framing on which of these contexts is this
motion more likely to be enacted / where the scale of the impacts would be
bigger
both gov and opp agree on a desirable impact (e.g. improving the situation
of women/minorities), but disagree on whether the mechanism is effective
or harmful → contention: rigorous mechanistic analysis
gov and opp disagree on which impact is more desirable (e.g. mass
mobilisation vs. commitment trade-off in social movement motions) →
contention: weigh-off between the importance of different impacts
explaining strategic implications
- main advice

how to do it?
explaining strategic implications ≠ dropping a lot of
meaningless phrases ('we are winning because our impact is big')
explain how the argument/rebuttal/characterisation you did
affects other teams cases and subsequently position of your
case in relation to others
e.g. how you made it unlikely that other teams will prove
certain things (e.g. THO the commercialisation of Mindfulness)
spotting weak points of arguments
try to think from the mindset of the judge - if you were judging, which
part of the team's arguments would still make you doubt?
arguments are often repetitive and follow similar patterns - pay
attention to them to spot gaps quicker
listen to OAs even about other teams

exercise:
TH, as the feminist movement, would promote narratives about the
importance of relying on and supporting other women (e.g. 'sisterhood'), as
opposed to emphasising self-reliance.

OG:
'We are going to include these narratives in campaigns, popular media like
films and books. Once women hear these narratives, they are likely to find
them inspiring and become more involved in the feminist movement, and
would act more in solidarity with women around them, for example in
workplaces.'
 ways of weighing
common metrics to use for weighing
number of people affected
intensity of harm
likelihood of outcome
availability of alternatives to achieve the same outcome
(uniqueness)

special duty owed to the actors involved

if the motion is balanced, both sides will be able to use some

size of impact

probability of impact
 THR the increasing trend of the modern left characterizing
case selection exercise conservative politicians and voters as morally reprehensible

OG OO
X conservatives would still engage in similar
better policy
less demonisation →
more likelihood of
behaviour on gov
X conservative voters won't change their mind
cooperation and solution-oriented policies
voter mobilisation voter mobilisation
more efficient criticism and mobilisation for
on opp, you can't flip conservative voters
protests
because they see you as the enemy
shame as a motivator to make people take
you get more engagement in politics better actions

CG CO

you