Models, Agents, and Stakeholders Ieva Skrīvere

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT THBT current generation of Germans should not pay taxes or any sort of reparations for past Nazi atrocities THBT capitalism is better than socialism The motion requires justification, proof of legitimacy Concentrate on principles, not practicalities

THIS HOUSE REGRETS/ CONDEMNS This House Regrets the EU Troika’s reliance on mainly austerity measures as a solution for at risk Eurozone economies.  TH condemns racially provocative art Usually about past events, so there’s nothing we can do about it But looking back to it now, it seems like a bad idea and we wouldn’t do it again

THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS/ APPLAUDS TH supports the Scottish independence This House applauds the rise of songs by female pop artists that glorify assertive female sexuality Again, the motion does not require us to do anything, we just believe that it is generally a good thing Often it is about some minority group that does not necessarily want us to do anything, but wouldn’t mind having our (GOV’s) support

FIRST PERSON MOTIONS You are Arnold Schwarzenegger. You are presented a script in which you are asked to portray a SS Nazi Officer who is presented in a positive humane light. THW take on the role. TH, which is the EU, would sue individuals, political groups and media that spread untrue and misleading information about the EU. ‘General good’ is irrelevant, always think about ‘what’s in it for the individual’

THIS HOUSE WOULD Fun visuals THW invade Syria THW legalize prostitution The motion requires action (what we do?) and model (how we do it?) Additionally, you should also consider the justification of legitimacy (why can we do it?)

MODEL No model is perfect (otherwise it would be implemented in real life already) Don’t make it too complex (the arguments are still more important) A simple strategy: MAD (Model, Agent, Delivery) What you do or hope to achieve invade / change regime Who does it WLibDem / US / NATO When do we do it when the ‘red line is crossed’

AGENTS There is no ultimate truth in choosing the best agent 1 country (USA) practical advantages (fast response, consensus in decision making) BUT principal disadvantages (lower legitimacy, US hate) a group of countries (WLibDem) more legitimacy BUT allies tend to think similarly international organizations (UN) maximum legitimacy BUT very inefficient (veto power)

RED SEA OPEN wasn’t just about open bar and pool parties

STAKEHOLDERS

STAKEHOLDERS Who are they? How will they be affected? How will they react? THBT university education should be free students, academic staff, universities, parents, businesses (labour market), government, neighbouring countries religious people (extreme, passive) minorities (ethnic, religious,) classes of income (rich, middle, lower) women, feminists LGBTQIA (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, and asexual) businesses (large corportaions, SMEs) workers, labour unions dependent on the state (unemployed, retired, poor) children, parents other countries citizens, government international organizations (EU, NATO, UN, WTO)

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS What is the problem? Can we do it? Should we do it? Does it work? Is it justified? Is this the right actor? What are the sacrifices? What rights are we stealing? Why now? Why change status quo? Read ALL the words in the motion (the CAs put them for a reason) Who is exempt and who is affected? (Stakeholders) How do we change their incentives/ behaviour/outcomes? Compare this plan with other options Can we narrow it / broaden it? Are there any negative externalities? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

STRUCTURE PM MOST SPEECHES WHIPS RHETORICS/ JOKE FLAGS PLAN / DEFINITION ARGUMENTS SUMMARY PM RHETORICS/ JOKE FLAGS REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS SUMMARY MOST SPEECHES RHETORICS/ JOKE FLAGS REBUTTAL CLASH POINTS SUMMARY WHIPS