1 / 9

Effective Debating Strategies: Banning Smoking and Argument Construction Techniques

In this session, we will recap last week's debate while honing our skills in case construction and argumentation. We'll delve into the problem-solution-benefit model, focusing on the affirmative stance that smoking should be banned. Key arguments will revolve around health improvements from reduced smoking rates and the societal stigma created by such a ban. Participants will learn to construct solid rebuttals, understand the importance of clash, and explore the implications of proposed models. Join us for an interactive Q&A session to solidify these concepts.

keefe
Télécharger la présentation

Effective Debating Strategies: Banning Smoking and Argument Construction Techniques

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Week 2 More on Debating

  2. QandA • Any questions from last week’s debate?

  3. Quick recap • Use of prep time • Case construction • Problem -> Solution -> Principle -> Benefits • Clash and rebuttal

  4. Outline • Constructing an argument (example) • More on rebuttal • More on models

  5. Constructing an argument • Topic: That we should ban smoking • Side: Affirmative • Argument 1: Banning smoking will improve people’s health • What is the problem? • Smoking causes various harms to people’s health: • Directly, to the smoker, the inhalation of chemicals poses various risks such as cancer and general health deterioration • For third parties, passive smoking damages their health even though they have not chosen to take part in it

  6. Cont. • How does the model solve this? • 1) A ban on smoking would decrease the sale/supply and consumption/demand of tobacco since it would involve the government banning mainstream supply • 2) A ban would creative a normative message that will stigmatise the culture of smoking • Why is this important/a good thing? • Fewer people smoking means a reduction in the cost to people’s health and thus fewer preventable deaths and illnesses

  7. Rebuttal • 3 (of the) different ways to rebut: • The argument is based on a false premise (to ‘reject the premise’) • E.g. Smoking is harmful. The government should ban things which are harmful. The government should ban smoking. • The argument is true but not important/relevant • E.g. Civil literacy test to vote – aff argues that being informed is critical to voting well.

  8. Cont. • The argument lacks causation • E.g. The aff argues that the government should make people informed about civics before they vote but not how the test achieves this outcome. • Importantly, there is an onus on the negative team to explain why that causation is lacking. • E.g. Portugal decriminalised drugs and it has a lower incidence of drug use. • Alternative explanations?

  9. /Models • Going not far enough vs. Going too far • Understand your burden according to the topic • E.g. That obese children should be removed from the care of their parents. • What are some reasonable restrictions on your model? • What is your model trying to achieve? Does it do this? Does it incur any additional harms/benefits?

More Related