1. 15 min

2. 1. What do I need to prove?

3. Relevant clashes What will win me this debate? Is it consequentially good? Is it legitimate? Is it principally right?

4. Relevant clashes If you’re stuck- write down other sides main case

5. THBT it is immoral to donate to animal welfare charities while there are charities which aim to alleviate human suffering still in need 1.Charity is not a moral obligation at all 2.Charity is not a zero sum game 1.Both charities can benefit one another 2.Not the same people care about these causes 3.There is a point at which the utility gain from animal charities is bigger

6. THBT it is immoral to donate to animal welfare charities while there are charities which aim to alleviate human suffering still in need 1.Is charity an obligation? 2.Are the two mutually exclusive? 3.Animals vs human beings as a cause

7. THW prefer to live in a world where personal success and failure are seen as a consequence of random factors rather than personal choices 1.Happiness 2.Inequality vs incentives 3.Intrinsic value of the «Illusion of control»

8. 1.What do I need to prove? 2.Choices between arguments

9. Mutually exclusive Sometimes your case includes multiple possible ideas that clash with one another «Even if» works sometimes

10. EVEN IF case THW not limit replacing people with technology Resources are scarce-> this is sub-optimal EVEN IF resources are not scarce-> this does not make people happier (better alt exists)

11. Exclusive THW NOT prefer to live in a world where personal success and failure are seen as a consequence of random factors rather than personal choices 1.You feel better about being «lucky»/»unlucky» -> loss aversion 2.People feel more from things they are responsible for - > people have biased self-attribution.

12. What to choose? 1.«Even if» when possible 2.If not: 1.What argumentation does it open/close for each side? 2.Is it realistic?

13. What to prioratize? 1.What is NECESSARY for your case to stand at all 2.What is likely to be most central (have most impact) -> we go back to the same thing: what is likely to be the main contention(s) in this debate?

14. Assuming the technology exists, THW forcibly implant memories of discrimination experienced by minorities into the minds of the majority. 1.Gov legitimacy: necessary and important 2.Mech: necessary but less important

15. Don’t have enough... 1.Look at the other sides case and come up with responses 2.Think from different actor perspectives 3.Think from different principled perspectives 4.Think of «even if» cases: try to win their strongest case 5.Analyze underlying assumptions

16. Don’t have enough... 1.Look at the other sides case and come up with responses 2.Think from different actor perspectives 3.Think from different principled perspectives 4.Think of «even if» cases: try to win their strongest case 5.Analyze underlying assumptions

17. Assuming the technology exists, THW forcibly implant memories of discrimination experienced by minorities into the minds of the majority. (1)having an identity that is based on discriminating others and limiting their ability to enjoy their identity is an illegitimate identity (2)it is false that by any change in your memory we destroy your identity. State paternalism- forcibly changes people’s identity

18. Don’t have enough... 1.Look at the other sides case and come up with responses 2.Think from different actor perspectives 3.Think from different principled perspectives 4.Think of «even if» cases: try to win their strongest case 5.Analyze underlying assumptions

19. THBT liberal democracies that overthrow the governments of other states should impose power-sharing, even when this severely overrides or delays democratic representation (1) people feel represented in the government seeing the possibility of influencing policy without resorting to violence. (2)lessens incentive for previous political leaders (who with office or not still hold power among people) to stir up trouble Opressed groups Those who were previously in power

20. Don’t have enough... 1.Look at the other sides case and come up with responses 2.Think from different actor perspectives 3.Think from different principled perspectives 4.Think of «even if» cases: try to win their strongest case 5.Analyze underlying assumptions

21. THBT the EU should not force member states to adopt force progressive social norms in legislation, e.g. Gay marriage (1) this further enchances the idea that gayness is a ‘western thing’ (2)Interpretations of values are morally subjective based on cultural context Consequential Moral subjectivism

22. Don’t have enough... 1.Look at the other sides case and come up with responses 2.Think from different actor perspectives 3.Think from different principled perspectives 4.Think of «even if» cases: try to win their strongest case 5.Analyze underlying assumptions

23. THBT, where resources are scare, minority campaign groups should fund minority art, literature and films rather than funding lobbying for legislative change Usual case: 1.Why lobby sucks? 2.Why art is so awesome? Additional ideas: 1.Even if we can’t achieve change in majority culture through this.... 2.Even if we can’t achieve change at all...

24. Don’t have enough... 1.Look at the other sides case and come up with responses 2.Think from different actor perspectives 3.Think from different principled perspectives 4.Think of «even if» cases: try to win their strongest case 5.Analyze underlying assumptions

25. 1.What do I need to prove? 2.Choices between arguments 3.Frame & plan

26. Plans & frames 1.Frame the debate establishing the assumptions necessary for your case as truth 2.Make a plan that serves your arg and GSP(s)

27. 1.What do I need to prove? 2.Choices between arguments 3.Frame & plan 4.Analysis points

28. Argument str. 1.Framing 2.Principle 3.Mechanism 4.Impact 5.Comparative 6.Strategic importance / summary

29. THBT feminists in the developing world should campaign for economic and political rights not gender rights. Unstable governments and economics will damage the sustainability of gender rights even if achieved Arg idea

30. THBT feminists in the developing world should campaign for economic and political rights not gender rights. Feminism is an intersectional movement. Ignoring economic and political rights as the first thing to achieve leads to a failure in achieving gender rights. Frame

31. THBT feminists in the developing world should campaign for economic and political rights not gender rights. Feminism ought to aim for sustaining gender rights in the long term not the sr. Princ.

32. THBT feminists in the developing world should campaign for economic and political rights not gender rights. If you have an unstable government gender rights are unlikely to be maintained even if they are gotten. See the Taliban in Afghanistan burning down recently built girl schools. Mech. Ex.

33. THBT feminists in the developing world should campaign for economic and political rights not gender rights. If feminists don't do this, they can be portrayed as uncaring, westernized and showing an unbalanced list of priorities and thus more easily discredited. + don’t achieve gender rights in either the sr nor lr. Impact

34. THBT feminists in the developing world should campaign for economic and political rights not gender rights. Comp./ sum Even if feminists achieve gender rights now- the instability means they don’t ensure them in lr. If we first ensure political/econ. rights then the movement gains support of the public in lr and stability in the system enough to then achieve gender rights

35. 1.What do I need to prove? 2.Choices between arguments 3.Frame & plan 4.Analysis points 5.Other things (almost never have time for these...)

36. POI’s/POC’s 1.If closing, may want to outline obvious idea the opening team will take just to get credit 2. Important plan elements that need to be clarified Rebuttal points 1.Usually integrated in argumentation as pre- emtpives, but not always