“Comparative Analysis” Training Session 28 Feb 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Bad habits and summation. Recap How many now action then attacks can you remember?
Advertisements

Basic principles part 1. Harm Principle The state should only restrict the actions of an actor if they are going to cause a harm to another actor. (the.
1st Proposition Speech 1.Statement of the Resolution 2.Definition of Essential Terms (should be clear to the average person) 3.Outline Arguments/Pillars.
INTRODUCTION TO UNI DEBATING Part 2. Plan! 1. Using prep time effectively 2. Case construction 3. Thinking of arguments 4. Info about trials.
Constructing a Case for the Proposition International Debate Education Association.
The Value/Criterion Debate and Voters. Aaron Overheim.
Solving Absolute Value Inequalities
A few tips on everyone’s favourite position.. Two main types of debate: policy and analysis. In an analysis debate, there is no need to specify a mechanism.
THE BASICS COACHING SESSION. WHAT DO YOU NEED TO KNOW? What happens in a debate? What do you say in your speech? How do you give a good speech? How do.
INTRODUCTION TO DEBATING: ARGUMENTS DBAT 101. What should I say?  Principled Arguments:  We are more ‘Fair’. Often comes down to rights.  Burden is.
1 chapter: >> First Principles Krugman/Wells Economics
CHAPTER 1 First Principles. 2 OBJECTIVES Present & explain four principles of individual choices Present & explain five principles of interaction between.
© 2007 Worth Publishers Essentials of Economics Krugman Wells Olney Prepared by: Fernando & Yvonn Quijano.
Big Ideas & Better Questions, Part II Marian Small May, ©Marian Small, 2009.
The Problem of Evil: McCabe, “The Statement of the Problem”
Writing a Dialectical Essay Social 30 – Unit 1 Project.
DEBATING BASICS Tuesday, August 25, IMPORTANT VOCAB  Resolution: A debate topic specifically worded to make for fair debates.  Affirmative: The.
Opposition Strategy NCFA Rookie Debate Camp. Agenda ❖ A Brief Word on Trichotomy ❖ Basic Path to Winning ❖ Opposition Strategies by Position* ❖ Quick.
The Disadvantage Provides an added measure to vote against the affirmative plan and vote for the present system.
ETHICS in the WORKPLACE © 2012 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Chapter 2 Ethical Principles.
Role Fulfillment TRAINING SESSION 21 OCT Plan  Announcements  Quick review of last time’s stuff  Positions and their roles  How to prepare for.
Debating Rules, Roles & Regulations Sponsored by:.
1 Hypothesis Testing Basic Problem We are interested in deciding whether some data credits or discredits some “hypothesis” (often a statement about the.
“Analysis” Training Session 6 Feb Why do I need analysis? Most of the things debaters say are true (or at least plausible) Therefore both sides.
Most of you will be familiar with the quote: ‘Failing to prepare is preparing to fail’ This session should provide help with what to do in prep time to.
Camp San Tomas Poll for dates: Weekend of April 4 th or 18 th. GO VOTE! CAMPING!!!!!!
Interaction: How Economies work Chapter 1-2. Interaction of choices—my choices affect your choices, and vice versa— is a feature of most economic situations.
By: Donté Howell Game Theory in Sports. What is Game Theory? It is a tool used to analyze strategic behavior and trying to maximize his/her payoff of.
Lincoln- Douglas. Building your arguments.  Each argument makes a statement of a possible truth  Gives support for that argument in terms of some reason.
WHY!? Sponsored by:. Recap 4 teams of 2 people, with 2 teams in favour of each side 4 teams of 2 people, with 2 teams in favour of each side 15 minutes.
© 2007 Worth Publishers Essentials of Economics Krugman Wells Olney Prepared by: 장선구 ( 웅지세무대학 )
KRITIKS Melissa Witt.
Solving Equations Conceputally
Introduction to the Negative
Toulmin Argument Model Argumentation Basics 101
10.4 Solving Factored Polynomial Equations
How to come up with an extension
Building the foundations for innovation
How to adjudicate a debate and decide a winner
5.6 Indirect Proof and Inequalities in Two Triangles
What to do if your extention is stolen
Make Recommendations.
How Do People change what they do?
Collaborative Communication
LD Debate (yay!).
Advanced Summary SPEECHES
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
WAYS TO ANSWER ARGUMENTS
Points of information.
Objections to the Design Argument
WAYS TO ANSWER ARGUMENTS
Interaction: How Economies work
Rules and Regulations of Rounders – unit 1
What keywords / terms have we used so far
Dealing with Objections
Public Forum Debate (PF)
Algebra
Debate What is Debate?.
Ways to Attack an Argument
WHO DOES IT START WITH Presented by: Tom Dispenza
6 Steps for Resolving Conflicts
Outline the naturalistic fallacy
Notes Over 1.7 Solving Inequalities
Notes Over 1.7 Solving Inequalities
Strategic Thinking There are two concepts that all chess players must understand from the start; strategy and tactics. Beginners often confuse the two.
1-D Kinematics AP1.
National University Debating Championship Kopertis IV 2019
Quattrone and Tversky 1998, Slovic 1987
National University Debating Championship LLDIKTI XII 2019
Communication Module 6; Lesson 3.
Presentation transcript:

“Comparative Analysis” Training Session 28 Feb 2014

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.

NowSolutionThen

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?