Opening Government

Tactical Tips

What’s different about it?

Less time to prep arguments The debate hasn’t formed The matter and contention is invisible

Disadvantages

The debate can move away from you Your points can be better analysed You get to chance to take the best

points in the debate You get the chance to take the rest of

the points in the debate In prop you can mech, in opp you can

mech challenge

Advantages

You get to make ALL THE POINTS You get to mech out anything you don’t want

to defend in prop In opp you can mech challenge You get the chance to make all the best points

in the debate You can put unwinnable burdens on the other

team You get to dictate the ‘battleground of the

debate’ I.e ‘this debate is about quick change vs

slower, better change’

What’s important to remember

Thou shalt make all the ‘big’ arguments Thou shalt think about the opp Thou shalt not say ‘all the benefits on our

side, no harms at all, Mr Speaker’ Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's arguments Thou shalt LISTEN Thou shalt not ‘write arguments’ in prep

(sometimes) Thou shalt have a ‘team line’

What do your judges want?

SO…….!

You’ve drawn first Government….. What do you do?

NOW FREAK OUT!!!!!!! FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK WTF DOES THAT WORD MEAN?!? I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SYRIA FUCKFUCKFUCK

End up doing a 3 minute speech on what you thought was syria but was actually libya and block out the whole debate so you don’t realise how many fuck ups you made

First thing’s first

Calm down, first proposition is brilliant First proposition is the most formulaic Do the basics: Solid Mech Problem/Cause/solution analysis POI your case

What to do in prep

Don’t start writing arguments What was the CA thinking? What do you want this policy to do? Why will it do it? Is this justified? What’s the opp going to be? What’s the crux of the debate?

Final Step: (but we’ll do it now)

Definitions In most cases, they should be simple In most cases, they should be brave They should be snappy Don’t talk numbers Accept ambiguous cases You should do them last, it should fit your

goals No 10 point models (unless the motion is bad) Be savvy

Step One: What’s the crux?

It is about making ‘all the arguments’

-that means do the basics (stakeholder analysis, moral justification, why this? Why now?) It’s mainly about ‘the crux’ I can barely help you with that How do you do it?

E.g THW punish anti-social behavior with public humiliation

Model, we’ll replace all suspended sentences and fines with public displays of humiliation

Like what? Put them on a stage and shout about their crime

Make them hold a sign displaying how sorry they are

They can decline to apologise, but that will also be announced

Publically announce how stupid they are If they don’t reform, we’ll use prison

sentences or current methods

The crux

What does this mean? What does the debate ‘come down to’ What are the ‘big points on both sides’ This can become clearer by finding burdens What do you have to prove to win? What are they going to say?

Usually

-will this be effective in trying to solve the problem?

-who is it margianalising? What’s the cost of the motion? What’s more important?

-Is it justified?

Example-THW but quotas in boardrooms for women

The crux: what’s more important, meritocracy or representation?

What best empowers women in the workplace? What best empowers women in general? Analysis will follow naturally once you’ve thought of

this

How to get to it:

What’s the problem: underrepresentation of women in the boardroom, sexism in society, sexist business culture

Who loses out, what’s the cost? There’s a cost to the feminist movement, and women, and specifically female board members, also businesses (this is tangential)

Other stuff

Why this? Why now? You can’t let the opp say ‘other methods are better’, this is an easy win for them

What other methods could be used to achieve your ends? Why are those methods not enough?

E.g in the last debate- why are double blind tests not enough? Why can’t we wait for the SQ to fix itself? Why are the progressions currently not enough?

Your work is half done if you can convince the judge that SOMETHING needs to be done

Once you’ve got ‘the points’

Structure your analysis clearly Basics, what’s the problem? What are the causes of all those

problems? Outline them, in detail? What’s the solution? Why will it work to

specifically counteract those problems?

Why is that important? Weigh what you’ve got against the costs

Always be mindful of the opp

Example: THW Enforce Quotas in boardrooms

Problems: female representation in businesses, female equality in society, discrimination, women to applying in the first instance

Causes with examples: Loads; ingrained sexism, sexist business culture, business practices that exclude women, lack of female role models and aspiration, assumptions about ‘child bearing age’

Solution: creates positive feedback loops, for sexists, redresses the imbalance, gets women into decision making positions so practices can be changed, shows assumptions to be false, creates role models

What are they going to say? : It’s unfair, it actually entrenches sexism, it entrenches current negative feedback loops, emboldens the sexist movement, makes women feel more victimised, erodes the achievement of female businessmen

Why this? Why now?: other measures haven’t worked, double blind tests will still skew the balance, we’ve waited long enough

How to respond

99% of the time, the problems they’ll raise are SQ

Usually they’ll champion other methods, if they’re good that is, so why is THIS needed

‘Re-build’ this is basic, but vital Don’t ‘redefine, but you can be tactful

about it’ Often, their criticism will be irrelevant,

if it’s good, then rebuilding is key

Tactics

POI your case Have a team line Make sure you follow the formula If they POI something good, steal it