Strategy through Whipping with Duncan Crowe

Summary

In a riveting workshop by Duncan Crowe, the focus is on mastering the art of 'whip speaking' in debating, particularly its strategic elements. The session explores how whip speakers can influence the outcome by anticipating a judge's perspective and crafting narratives that highlight their team's strengths. It delves into the distinctions between strategies and tactics, offering insights on handling debates' dynamism where traditional roles and burdens may shift. Crowe encourages debaters to adapt quickly, engaging with arguments on multiple levels to secure victories.

Highlights

• Whip speakers must prepare to counter potential errors by judges and opposition through strategic framing. 🧠
• Using metaphors like 'running with wolves' to stress being better than competitors rather than objectively right. 🐺
• Explained concepts like 'structure vs tactics' and how they apply to strategic debate victory. 🏗️
• Discussed how analogies from law and appeals can relate to debating strategies. ⚖️
• Highlighted the importance of recognizing debate shifts and adapting team responses accordingly. 🔄

Key Takeaways

• Whip speakers hold the key to turning debates in their favor through strategic narrative crafting. 📜
• Understanding the judge's mindset is crucial for whip speakers to effectively argue their team's case. 🎯
• Strategies focus on beating opposing teams, while tactics deal with overcoming specific arguments. 🏆
• Debate dynamics can shift, requiring nimble thinking and adaptability from speakers. 🚀
• Engagement at multiple levels with opposition arguments can enhance a team's standing. 🔄

Overview

Duncan Crowe takes debaters on a stimulating journey through the intricacies of whip speaking – the final speech that can pivot a debate's outcome. He underscores the importance of strategically positioning this speech to appeal to the panel of judges and effectively bolster the team's arguments. With whip speaking seen as a strategic battlefield, Crowe provides insights into crafting compelling narratives that nod to a team's strengths, thereby influencing the debate's conclusion. 🗣️

A key point in Crowe's discussion is the distinction between strategy and tactics within debates. Strategy is delineated as the broader plan aimed at defeating entire teams, while tactics focus on winning individual arguments. This dual understanding aids debaters in focusing their efforts effectively, whether in preparation or in the heat of the moment, when the debate's structure might shift unexpectedly. This capacity to adapt is essential to a whip speaker's success. 🎯

Crowe draws friendships between debating and legal appeals, illuminating how errors in judgment—akin to errors of law—cannot always be rectified, making the whip speaker's role even more pivotal. By anticipating and addressing potential misjudgments, whip speakers can reaffirm their stance, making tactical moves that engage judges and counter opposition arguments vigorously. This deft handling of debate twists ensures the team is well-poised for victory. ⚖️

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:30: Introduction to Workshop The chapter 'Introduction to Workshop' begins with welcoming attendees and summarizing the aim of the workshop, which is to discuss both specific strategies and broader relationships within a certain field. The main questions to explore are what needs to be done to win at a task and how decisions can be improved.
• 01:30 - 05:00: Strategy and Tactics Discussion The chapter "Strategy and Tactics Discussion" explores the concept of strategic advantage through metaphorical discussion. The speaker shares a metaphor about running with wolves, highlighting that the key to success is not absolute superiority but relative advantage over others. This idea is then related to debating, suggesting that victory doesn't require an objective standard of goodness but rather being better than the opponent. The chapter suggests the importance of tactical thinking and positioning in competitive scenarios.
• 05:00 - 08:30: Misapplication of Debate Rules The chapter titled 'Misapplication of Debate Rules' appears to address the application of rules in competitive scenarios, such as debate or law. It discusses how success is often measured by winning more than competitors and how it is crucial to communicate why one should win to the judges. The chapter also draws a parallel with legal principles, specifically the distinction between errors of law and errors of fact, and touches upon the function of appeals in the legal system.
• 08:30 - 11:30: Whip Speakers as Judges In the chapter titled 'Whip Speakers as Judges,' the discussion revolves around the concept of judicial error and the appeals process in legal proceedings. It highlights the difference between errors of fact or empathy made by judges and juries, which generally cannot be appealed, and errors of law, which occur when judges misinterpret or misinform juries on legal principles, and which can form the basis for an appeal. The chapter appears to explore these issues and their implications within the legal system, drawing analogies to emphasize the points made.
• 11:30 - 18:30: Chapter on Debating Cases In the chapter titled 'Debating Cases', the discussion centers around the idea that judges sometimes make fundamental errors during debates. These mistakes can involve misapplying or failing to apply the rules of debate properly. Such errors can have both positive and negative implications for the debating teams. For instance, a positive misapplication might occur if a judge mistakenly credits a team for taking a point of information when they did not, whereas a negative misapplication might involve neglecting to enforce a rule, thus allowing an opposing team to gain an unfair advantage.
• 18:30 - 26:00: Burden Flexibility in Debates In the chapter titled 'Burden Flexibility in Debates,' key topics are explored around the challenges and nuances present within debate judging. The discussion highlights potential pitfalls such as failure to apply rules consistently or overlooking critical points during debates. These issues can be likened to 'judging failures,' compared humorously to 'soap or no mistaking.' The chapter emphasizes the importance of not only judges taking comprehensive notes but also considers the need for providing feedback to ensure fair evaluation. Furthermore, it suggests an awareness of possible biases and the significance of understanding diverse argumentative perspectives presented in debates, leading to a call for judges to be adaptable and attentive to the entirety of the discourse.
• 26:00 - 34:10: Developments in Whip Speeches The chapter focuses on issues related to mistakes made by judges during whip speeches and the judicial process. It points out that there is no real appellate recourse to address these mistakes, which can involve errors of facts or undue persuasion by arguments that should not influence decisions. The lack of a Court of Appeal means that once a decision is made, there is no subsequent review or correction process unless a debate has been filmed and facts can be verified. The chapter underscores the difference between law debates and other debates, emphasizing the need for a systematic approach to address judicial errors.
• 34:10 - 41:00: Strategies Against Opposing Teams The chapter discusses strategies to counter opposing teams in competitive debates. It highlights the importance of understanding the perception of the debate audience, as many people watch debates online and form opinions about the winners. However, the text notes that relying solely on audience opinion isn't effective for competitive success. It emphasizes the approach some debaters and researchers take by acting as though they are in a court of appeals. This involves anticipating errors and correcting them proactively, positioning themselves to think from a judge's perspective to understand how a judge might interpret the debate.
• 41:00 - 48:00: Judges and Debates Chapter Title: Judges and Debates Summary: This chapter discusses the strategic process of anticipating and addressing potential issues before they arise in a debate context. The focus is on understanding the arguments that might persuade a judge and finding ways to counteract or mitigate these arguments in advance. It involves creating narratives or stories to convince judges why one team deserves to win over another. The distinction is made between structure and tactics, emphasizing the need for clear strategic planning in debating.
• 48:00 - 60:00: Examples of Noteworthy Whip Speeches This chapter focuses on the art of whip speeches in debating, highlighting the strategic decisions made by speakers. It discusses the differentiation between strategy and tactics, especially in the context of opposition in debates. The chapter further explores choices made by debaters, such as whether to advocate for a libertarian or communist perspective, or to critique opening government's insufficient tackling of topics like tax evasion.

Strategy through Whipping with Duncan Crowe Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 and do that God is like okay okay so hello people have just joined this just to summarize what I've said so far the answer it's not very much we've said the point of this workshop is to discuss both whip speaking about it think about strategy but than be be more broadly in the way the two bits relate and two questions one what we have to do to win at lace and second well enough judges can beat wrong
• 00:30 - 01:00 so we've had I think good answers these so far so the first is depicted by this those you have done one half stop the other day for breakfast got a very similar metaphor with you is running with Wolves I promise you I already have this metaphor before he started using it but I guess great minds think alike so the only is you only have to run faster than the other people if you run with practice and st. broadly speaking applies to debating winning to be better than the other team so there's no such thing necessarily objective goodness I
• 01:00 - 01:30 suppose to some extent that's what we would hope speech to the measure morality the best way to win races to win that make more than the team that wins the second most and the best way to try and explain that to judges is to identify what that team is and make sure you've explained to judges while you are bidding I see more on that for the rest of the talk and second so this is a distinction that's made within law between errors of law and errors of fact the main purpose of this thesis is the fact that Appeals exists in law so in
• 01:30 - 02:00 other words if a judge makes an error of facts or empathy a jury and a judge combining error of fact that can't normally be appealed upon you can't normally say well look you know the jury should I find there's evidence compelling but they just did that can't be appealed whereas errors of so-called law where the judges are saying miss at the final rule or they're their misinforming the jury had to understand the central those Academy the basis and in some ways as analogies amazing so
• 02:00 - 02:30 it's possible as Anna said there were some cases where just judges make fundamental objective errors so these are things they say applying or miss applies kiss might be revolutionary to myself they miss apply the rules of debate this could be both positive and negative misapplication so for example they could say well you know you didn't take a point of information be opening when you did so that would be a mistakenly positive attribution or a rule or it could be they failed to apply a rule that really showed you know they less your opposition team get away with
• 02:30 - 03:00 new material in some future example that might be objectionable application of failure to apply rule or could be diseases that are just like basic practice of judging failures like soap or no mistaking as I think earlier it could be if they missed attributes on points to another team you know one comes out in closing but they say well I felt this is a very compelling argument remotely other than saying judges should take better notes and having a feedback
• 03:00 - 03:30 procedure to try and deal with judges that do these mistakes there's not a lot necessary to be done about these or it could just be those fundamental problems in various ways but broadly speaking one issue at the mania there's no real Court of Appeal so whether they're making these mistakes are well they're making mistakes of facts they're being persuaded by things so you don't think that we should be persuaded by the difference between debating in law is there's no real recorder appeal there's no subsequent rededication I guess sometimes the base are films and you know veil yourself of the facts there
• 03:30 - 04:00 were lots of people watching the debates on YouTube they thought actually won but this is not necessarily that helpful do you in terms of jiggly competition so instead in some ways what the sunsweet some researchers are doing the web speakers are doing is trying to make use of the lack of the court of appeals so they are the last person has the opportunity to try and correct some of these errors so this probably requires you to be putting yourself and is close to the position that a judge would be as possible trying to figure out how a judge would be viewing this debate in
• 04:00 - 04:30 order to try and solve for these problems before they actually happen and say okay what would be the worst hits out here why might the judge be persuaded by this argument coming to the other side and how can I try and mitigate that problem how can I try and provide as many possible excuses or as many possible stories or narratives that I could be trying to sell the judges are like why we want why we were better than the team that is next most likely to take it take the win if we don't structure versus tactics there's no I
• 04:30 - 05:00 think particularly clear distinction in the way people use these sounds in debating so being one basic thing that you might be trying to do is say well strategy is about deciding what case to run press tactics is decisions about how you actually go about cross getting that case I think it seems to me pattern insofar as I think there's many cases we can think of where you know you say an open opposition to you have an option to decide do I want to run say a libertarian case here would ever want to run you know a communist KC do I want to say the og haven't gone far enough and tackling backs being bars and greedy
• 05:00 - 05:30 Mancos or do I say they've gone way too far banks a great scream angers fantastic they're driving on me these are the things these might be things you would think naturally would would count as proteic decisions because obviously a decision you make to run one case is probably mutually exclusive from running another case especially if they're ideologically opposed however if that was true they'd be no such thing as we've trashed the reason being the strategic decision to make a case or make the opposite case who's already made before the whoops biggest answer and if you know the reason then I want
• 05:30 - 06:00 to you know have the remainder of my talk to be about whipping a strategy I'm moving to suggest a an alternative understanding of how to make that section within debating so tactics I would say is about beating arguments so tactics is saying I'm in front of the disc argument how do I go about beating this argument or trying to make this argument that I'm offering more compelling than the other elements where strategy is about beating teams I have a team that was facing me I have a case how do I go to strategically placing myself in order to be taxed a team that
• 06:00 - 06:30 I think might otherwise take the win over me and those kind of decisions so if you think about one being on these large scale one being on the small scale the large scale decisions about how to position yourself relative to teams would be strategic decisions positioning new york' strela-10 to a particular argument should be tactical decisions so in this understanding a witness which is almost entirely stretch it so fast that's very much Logan's biggest job trying this inside okay which team with otherwise to be winning if not and how
• 06:30 - 07:00 do I make you most use of my seven minutes in order to maximize the odds that I'd be betting so tell novices when we're trying to explain Holmes do get a basic lipstick so we say well look there's there's points of clash or if you will crystallization you like the alternate word for it and say you should pick broadly three because there's three points in the debate speech I think pick three points of hash and they say well which three and I guess we have two options so we use consider on the board what people are actually debating so an
• 07:00 - 07:30 accurate description of what the main areas of clash for the debates are or second or points of clash would make the extension look back but most impactful with my support I think the answer this question should be rather to build this which is the best of these two options yeah option two is you're trying to win so you probably don't necessarily have shouldn't feel yourself compelled to give an accurate description of exactly what's happening in the debates because you're trying to maximize the extent to which your case seems compelling to
• 07:30 - 08:00 people that aren't necessarily your team so at least this tells you something about what's good in expansion so if you don't have substantial material on something that's in the liminal point of crash this is a proper so what do I mean by that well suppose you have I thought was on this slide but maybe it's on the next slide no yeah okay doesn't like sorry so suppose we have this house we give young people more votes interesting debate sometimes it's run so obviously there's a couple of areas
• 08:00 - 08:30 that we could think there as being important areas of the base so one would be safe why would be beneficial to give young people more votes but a second I think in illimitable aspects of that is the legitimacy question if your opposition team you need to explain in some detail as to why it's the legitimate to give young people more votes given otherwise there's gonna be an argument that says hang on democracy is one person one vote or something you know similar to do this vote of parity we really can't be giving some people
• 08:30 - 09:00 more a chance to how to stay in election otherwise I will be obviously for your case against that legitimacy point might well be something grand I'm not saying this has to be some kind of a principled argument in order to win to the juicy part what I am saying is there has to be something religious and in some ways just by thinking about the debate you do know that it's thinking about that motion of the abstracts you know you're getting a present Panasonic announced a slight legitimacy question and therefore if you don't have something in the extension which is original on that
• 09:00 - 09:30 point you're going to run a surprise why because when you try to craft a summation either the some speaker is going to have to ignore a fundamental part of that state or alternatively they're going to have to summarize something that the open set now that's probably something you want to avoid because it makes it even better you do more violent moments but broadly speaking that creates a problem for you and the problem is that sold by by realizing in advance you need something that answers that area of the debate in
• 09:30 - 10:00 the extension or that life easier for the diversity so I've never done something I mentioned in passing yesterday but I think are the very least I find interesting reiteration so burdens are not necessarily static so a lot of the way people try to explain debating to because they say well look you know there are these versions we look at emotion we're trying to figure out beat Ferrari what workers are when people are training the Beto's on analyze motions they say well first identify the bones but bones are very much obviously not static you can see
• 10:00 - 10:30 this by a couple of illustrations from recent debates so hopefully should be relatively intuitive to you so here is at least migration round three some of you saw like for those of you that did not see that you're just going to have to rely on my explanation of what happened there so one the left hand side we have the generic version of the debates these are not necessarily the best arguments one could run these are not necessarily
• 10:30 - 11:00 arguments that any debates did run this isn't based on one but I just it's just like broadly speaking what strikes me as thing was that team was like saying these positions I know there's something very strange that happens in quarter panel three oh you mean opposition say so only government let's say we run the roughly standard opposition case so people can't read the screen or when hours with the quarterfinal motion was brilliantly they sighs believes that we should have bailed out homeowners and not the OSS government should say banks not the
• 11:00 - 11:30 banks should Abella bank should have where that homeowners whatever that means so the standard opening that we in place probably know something I'm saying bankers are being rewarded for failure by failing at banks we should do that with homeowners homeowners are more worthy than banks banks are bad greedy bankers homeowners would you buy the greedy bankers and if you just bail out the back to you the lack of reform you get a moral hazard that's I say the generic proposition yes and that doesn't necessarily mean it's not the winning proposition yes good easy or kind the
• 11:30 - 12:00 quant funds do is very strange opening positions say well actually bay lights can involve firing the management whereas if you're bailing out homeowners what that means is you're giving money to people that have mortgages they lose that money for the back so you give money to these people have their mortgages they put it straight to the bank so the bank gets that money for as if we bail out the banks with fire all the management which means on proposition you have this problem bankers are rewarded for failure and there's a larger Bank before and there's a moral hazard so I mean I'm not going to quibble I
• 12:00 - 12:30 said well that's an accurate description of bailout what I only disappoint that is something very strange happens that means proposition and opposition I've switched positions so that means that open the opposition are able to run arguments that I'm saying or part of the generic proposition case now this means if you're a bottom half to you you went into that debate thinking I should run the generic you know I should concern myself with what the a prior versions of this debate are you're gonna have a bad time because the debate has shifted underneath your feet and their brothers are not described and if you were running the case that April are you
• 12:30 - 13:00 thought compelled with was the burdens revelation compels poverty you know if you go in there as happens the the CEO team and say this is a debate about banks good home owners back maybe then running backs good case from losing position is going to seem very strange because a splendid excellent by point of information opening a position that would just run a case that says banks Pat I've explained my opening government to shoulders burdened of propping up the banks without necessarily creating
• 13:00 - 13:30 gradual reform example which is very similar so this was the HW s quarterfinal this year this Cecily is the European Union should impose punitive conditions in Bragg's negotiations great motion so the generic model I would suggest for any government would be access to common market but with tariffs and free movement workers so that would be what or a harsh breaks its outcome would probably be so you say yes you can get access to our market but there's gonna
• 13:30 - 14:00 be some some degree of tariffs on maybe to some products and it's conditional upon you accepting free movement of workers free movement of Pepsi's interesting enough what happens in one of the quarterfinals is the only government team didn't necessarily give a particularly clear model as to exactly what they were going to be pushing for so evening on position in this case Stanford said okay we think that you should offer a reasonable soft fair deal which would be access to come on market with reasonable terms and I guarantee you people in the workers so you will notice something very strange has happened there which is open opposition
• 14:00 - 14:30 in the absence of government model would be able to run the opening government harsh case as being the soft easy case which means now opening government or in the inclusive government that have a sort of burden to either explain why that's nonsense or alternatively to accept the burden of pushing for even harsher greg's of terms and negotiations over go through as might not surprise you please ago may go through with them so I mean what happens from debates go weird in this way young you are an option which is rejects the weirdness so in this case argue why that would be an
• 14:30 - 15:00 illegitimate way to approach open a position well the second is to go with the weakness in example two there's a government wet what's the weirdness and Webster Sammy is that the one they ran as the case they prepared which didn't necessarily correspond with the fact that opening opposition and changed the fundamental parameters of the wait and did not go to I ever mentioned it just in passing one of the interesting things about those was that there was actually the same team so in one case they've acted one case they didn't it that but I think in in either case the point hopefully is appear that
• 15:00 - 15:30 a provider analysis is not necessarily better getting that far in debates you need to be responding to you what does that now might be changing within debates so one side note before we go and asking abortion right but in some ways which switches have evolved and I'm gonna use quotes from judging guidelines in order to help illustrate this so let's say we have a model of whips peaches are genuinely summery switches so this comes from a recent source as
• 15:30 - 16:00 the 2015 debating handbook formulated world's forward speakers of government opposition whips to summarize the major contributions of both teams on their side of the debate now I'm gonna do I have actually seen obviously she does up for a while I think if you watch the 2009 Euro semi you kind of gap a little speech like that but is pretty rare that you probably get a winter speech that it does summarize the rating team at least too many degree of seriousness as a new employee so obviously if you summarize your opening team to say they said this
• 16:00 - 16:30 but we set this other thing and this other thing is more important you're probably not doing what the person who wrote this had in mind is what we're supposed to do I think one reason for this is that this rule is very difficult to enforce if you did have this as a as an obligation of web speakers web speakers are obliged to mention they're a new team talk about the right medium migrate directly to us I mean one intuitively that there is a push against that because that doesn't your only team see better than you are and you kind of want to do the opposite and second it's
• 16:30 - 17:00 really difficult to see what a team hasn't mentioned their opening enough that's when you get judges starting to make these weird subjective evaluations before we don't want them to be making and that's when people write negative judge Bell uation say this person called the debate on rule fulfillment they said you didn't you didn't mention you wrote me enough and which is probably fair enough so that means this rule probably if it was ever seriously enforce can't really be particularly well on for trees is very difficult to try and make it stick so instead we have what we think of as
• 17:00 - 17:30 partisan moves so this is sometimes explained as saying that the job of the whip speaker is in the position of a biased judge as be explaining - judges why the the closing team that made everyone so I will speak remain in line with her team's needs to contribute more persuasive material to the debates and their opening aim to explain why the orig visions are the most persuasive are more important on their site though they should do so but they're projecting their opening house arguments so the caveat at the end that
• 17:30 - 18:00 was just saying literally don't robot your own plenty but you'll notice this is and this comes from the Thessalonica worlds dating handbook modified version a year LASIK so you'll notice there's been a pretty substantial jump in the case of a year which really I think corresponds more with practice so probably there was some feedback saying the former doesn't believe math ones the way works because seem to operate and seem to succeed so they maybe needs to be a bit of a reopening on soup
• 18:00 - 18:30 I'm gonna suggest there's actually been some even further programs in terms of awkward speeches look like especially did hi aunt so I think if you actually get a hold I've got some links that I've included in the in the PowerPoint presentation at the end of the tip the finish while my who's the son's room for Harvard or vinegar tremendously some sweet here for the heart I seems but this is um there were switches seem
• 18:30 - 19:00 to have further evolved into you trying to come up with a broader narrative story they're telling the judges as to where their extension fits in with the debate and how it is that judges should therefore apply certain standards to which position those teams relative to other teams and I think that would seem to be a natural progression in some like saying this where it's like okay which meters of space dimensions both
• 19:00 - 19:30 teams to saying was probably okay if they just went to one team to finally in evolution say well because a kind that was supposed to be doing the judges job for them so whip speaking now seems to be evolving more in the direction of all those either DeMuth work or schools or Astral's format more in the direction of replying speeches from astral world skills where they're trying to sell a holistic narrative of saying and this is this is why we definitely should have won the debate because this is what the most important stuff on the debate always was and always should have been
• 19:30 - 20:00 and if other teams have an engaged with that whether their own or whether there are teams on the other side more to fill them so what are you move so this is in some ways inspired by a meeting where you've got a very finite set of moves you make you don't move if someone gives you a hosing case then you have to say either while you were rejecting it or where in fact that case differs from the case in
• 20:00 - 20:30 question tuturro cleaner never removes a lot more loose I think in a some speech I'm the one move you can't make is introducing use of standard material though I point out the bottom of the page of previous conference there's actually an interesting paradox in the current rules at least as they're written in so far as 1 it says use of signs of materials now learning which uses seconds new rebuttal is eloping with switches and 3 somewhere else and handbook says rebuttal to be kind of superior I don't think it should take a logician to recognize it's not
• 20:30 - 21:00 necessarily the most consistent set next man before we ways to make it more consistent and certainly I think most judges of any degree of experience find ways to introduce rules of thumbs try and make it a consistent set I think my worry is they would be doing so maybe inconsistently amongst themselves so probably that's where the the next worlds kind of award to resolving needs it at some degree parity but in terms of the rule the moves you definitely can make so reanalyze so this is time-consuming and largely irrelevant
• 21:00 - 21:30 if the analysis was bearing exception so you can reanalyze points this is maybe something you'd be doing if you were seeking a safe crime scene we didn't think in else's forward but broadly speaking this would probably the least attractive annuity the second robot new negative arguments against the other side this is fine but judges probably feel uneasy about work speech which is seven minutes rebuttal right but probably feels as if it's going to involve new material at some point or should have passed that threshold for what new material is and we can find examples and two of them actually and
• 21:30 - 22:00 the final slide where these speech is largely new robust material however in those cases is justified because these speeches that they're tackling they're both government web speeches and the speech that they're trying to not have the debate is the opposition members reach so probably in those faces tellers are a bit more a bit more likeness third dimension so constant reference your partner to do is a very healthy prophylactic against the sense of unease it so even if you are running or seem broadly speaking like new arguments the best way to probably get away with that
• 22:00 - 22:30 is just constantly referring the judge back to things you find asset that we produce here Ellen this is facilitated the more there is clear labeling that's constantly it's constant between your speech and the other speech so in some ways this is the opposite of the next point where the fourth option is to add parts of training or add new example sort of any compelling in order to ask those documents if you're worried that maybe there isn't enough new material within the extension or there might be the risk that they might think that they arguments you're making your differently exception in some ways you don't want
• 22:30 - 23:00 about new examples you want to make sure the example is you're talking about our constant which into these features but alternatively your if you probably comfortable by the material reasoning section being sufficiently novel in and of itself maybe this is the opportunity and those new examples particularly for engaging with a team that's opposite you so if your concern is say you at the the opposition whip speak oh you had a nice chunky accession and the closing government team engagement Sullivan others will have lots and lots and lots of examples to illustrate the argument they didn't engage us that's something
• 23:00 - 23:30 really to try and crucify them one if they were maintained just on your case because this is your best opportunity to say well look they missed this argument and this argument is just so great because they'll cure all these examples that illustrate this one further and they said nothing in response that so they've probably in fact so I know judges I think are somewhat fetishes to bet in fact I think this is sneaking broadly speaking into Europe enjoy being more generally and North American coding as well but I think one so as a result of this
• 23:30 - 24:00 they might be more inclined to view impact as substantive so new impacts might be dangerous using let us say wow that's that's substantive impact which might be problematic but also second they probably expect a lot of impacting over the case of all so Ahrens would have gotten probably by re impacting impacts that are on a gloss in extension but make sure especially if you may be unfamiliar with European judges and you're debating with in any context and make sure adding an impact to arguments to say okay why is this important why is
• 24:00 - 24:30 this practically matter what are the effects on this if this is true um six I can't really think of a way to say read thing but obviously there's a theme I'm going for it so remark whatever reason judges allow meta debate and common sense observation in which speeches I think presumably that the thought of the back of people's minds is well how can we be a new argument if it's just common sense if it's obviously true so I think if you were really concerned with trying to you are as arguments that are
• 24:30 - 25:00 probably used with a bit the best when you're trying to package them if they can't be packages rebuttal obviously option one would be try and have as as point two and just say look they said this we said this in response that's rebuttal that's definitely light but if you can do that way try and add it to a massive debate observation one of the ways I've outfitted with speeches is watching particularly good to quip speakers and trying to end that that that's what I'm trying to you know figure out exactly what they were doing and this is something I thought was very they're presenting new new material as
• 25:00 - 25:30 just common sense observations by the debate has to be true almost feasible people with thing about the debate question and more other than not people will like that because it just seems as if it's retraining and reframing is that um so the goal here is you're trying to contract amount of the debate you're trying to explain what happens to the judges in a way that makes your seat team seem like the obvious people to get the Winky or as it says the bottom at least came second in analyze one easy way to do that or I mean probably easier
• 25:30 - 26:00 said than done but one option in the corner to try and do that preference it's just I think it as hard as humanly possible to tell between you and the team that next most likely to the win which of you is actually won so in other words if they've got a really compelling argument you just I can't think of a way to defeat that give four plausible reasons it might not be true engage with that argument is as much as humanly possible and you probably carry some of the judging panel along with you to the extent that those judges have this long discussion as to who won who didn't some people think in one side some people say you know even if you lose that discussion it's very unlikely that there
• 26:00 - 26:30 okay well this seemed like I thought one are naturally find that them coming third or fourth is probable that you could have come through the coattails of that discussion the closer you make it that you go through your fatty so relax onto them as tight as you can obviously into finals you have to win so this is why in some ways finals are strategically less interesting than a quarterfinal size but the best way to see that bear in mind a lot of time there should be a degree of division of labor between
• 26:30 - 27:00 speakers it's reasonable to say it would be flip speakers job throughout the rest of the way that's happening is trying to follow what is happening within the rest of eight and the best way to do that would be to take notes as close as possible to the way that you take notes if you were judging the reason things we said earlier your goal is to try and figure out what the judges are thinking well the best way to do that is trying to put yourself in the position of the judges now this is a matter of habit this is difficult it's difficult to get yourself
• 27:00 - 27:30 out of the partisan mindset but if you can and probably the easiest way to do that if you've done the same amount of judging is literally to just to approach the top half as if you wear judgments from bottom graph to look at that debate that's taking place and say okay how would I feel about this here's one the top half a normal basis that they want that is information that you can pass your partner when they're writing extension speech the the note here so what one piece of advice that James audio Arizona in a luxury Hibbs on whoopsies most people
• 27:30 - 28:00 should write the extensions future bottom half I don't know whether your relations with your your partner's would be different from mine I think I might in some ways that might be the ideal but I might be practically invisible I over say the more practical suggestion which is something I find miss Apple was a coordination page between us on speaker and the words be here so there's some degree of explanations that some speaking of a whip sweet you're saying I need material in this if the jism ax C is essential I need some original
• 28:00 - 28:30 augmentation of legitimacy so I can some that I can say we were rather them to that cash and alternatively the exception speaker Intel prior to you actually have until this is the siege but be one key points the extension are but more importantly the labels that are attached to those pants like exactly very important I mean notice that the best exceptions probably incorporate degree or that kind of comparative framework in into them preemptively so two examples I've got on the site one is the member of government case is by nine of my works
• 28:30 - 29:00 Pokemon courts you just gonna have to watch him and see you later and the other is the member government case in the Euro 2012 open fight so that we have red bangs they have traffic so handy so says opening opposition of right that individual should be able to express their views where they have to be religious to what happened otherwise the question for this debate is whether or not those religious views have the effect of creating and destroying the ability of other individuals to get the policy outcomes that they want this
• 29:00 - 29:30 debate about whether we should ban our religious groups from participating in American elections now note that what that does is that tells the judges okay here is the core premise of the opening opposition case we accept that premise and we are going to engage with that premise and meet it this tells the judges ok this he believes the only opposition of one the top hats and this is the summary of the core of the others of of the opening opposition case and this is how we're going to engage with
• 29:30 - 30:00 it and the extension has some elect six or seven arguments all on this theme and at the end of that debate is very difficult for electing someone to justify saying well open opposition to probably won anyway because this is an extension that engages in the opposition is perhaps at strongest area where booming government has not engaged with them and really hammers home that's right of extension so what best the risk would be becomes above that so there's definitely essential speaker that is doing their job next few slides are thinking about
• 30:00 - 30:30 who the potential enemies you might have is some speaker are so one of these enemy well you should be thinking about is your opposition to use so I mean whether you're closing government or your closing opposition you're punished have already engaged with the opposing team so be their harshest critic do they engage properly it's the case that they left some material standing is the case that they have some material vulnerable but not necessarily defeated that stuff that you need to know and you need to be following and you need to try
• 30:30 - 31:00 and come on behind them and do the job that they failed to do alternatively if you're sure that they did be an argument you can just reiterate that to the judges you just say well they clearly beat this argument for these reasons they explain to you why identify the point at which may be opening they say if you're closing up in the opening opposition cases at its strongest and engaging worth or multiple choice or bustle to them so you've seen those speakers do this sometimes by saying like even if such a good evening I'm not a big fan of and if you don't buy that because for the simple reason
• 31:00 - 31:30 that seems rhetorically weak because that seems to imply that you might not have bought the argument you should always assume that the judges of applying your arguments did you never tell them they should be buying them but ultimately does they look and even if that wasn't true flatout la blah blah and even if that wasn't true buh-buh-bah there's always gonna be multiple ways to clash with an argument particularly if an argument is strong you must have as many of those as possible just to ensure that if the judge did inspire the first response the second or third response is guerrilla what is the cracks with a diagonal opportunity what did they care about what is the core of the case and
• 31:30 - 32:00 how do the expansion engage with it if the extensions get engaged that's the probably team communication right that's not just a problem of the extension speaker a lot of people and especially with speakers like to blame their exception would be like oh well you know the exception is the they didn't have it's your responsibility to tell them what you need so especially busy doing the opposition team like that you kind of can solicit the opening opposition's not if they have you need to tell them during the debate you need to have a response on this you didn't have a point max at that point and I can maybe if
• 32:00 - 32:30 it's closed justify to the judges by that point is not necessarily as important as they think it might be or I can say why your point is better but you need to have something I can't just didn't over introduce that material from win points where you can and when you can't try and diminish the point the importance of those you can't so when you're taking notes try and identify the warrants the teams give for their their places why do they think those arguments are true all cases are at least a service at some level right yeah there's always going to be some some level of
• 32:30 - 33:00 tuition which is appeal to not necessarily our before if you can identify those you can probably just make your counter assertions and identify watched even if you think that the points can come at the very least being able to cross a plus the Clinton judges that the backs talking to the other side are awash whereas your case is good probably is a good way to argue to a standstill and say look if we're not taking the win we've at least taken a second we're going through this and this is why as I said it's often easier to to go throughout rooms that
• 33:00 - 33:30 aren't the final but it is to encourage it as difficult or not come first but it's not like that will become second if you just as a prejudice wearing winter especially about half remember always say your dog opposite from your wife known as ever been punched prefer to say their bottom half of it but people have been punished and indeed the rules up and say they should be punished for fair as they threatening on see who is your enemy number two you're opening so as a beating opposition this is probably done as a team effort so one
• 33:30 - 34:00 thing that you should be doing is wispy who is making some degree of assessment as to who won the top hat and where and trying to feed that information to your to your extensions video so I mean this is kind of where narratives become at the most important so if assuming you're CG if you're opening by short hours then considering extension which is long term if they are purely debating on practicalities debate on principles that they debating principles the big um
• 34:00 - 34:30 practicalities always be the lookout for stories you can tell judges as to why you did your job better than opening which we usually involve doing something that is measurably different and a deep opposite while you're at meeting are doing so a lot of the time these stories will take the form of something that said well you shoulder the heart of are you engaged with the opening case I don't much greater more fundamental level open position case rather at a more fundamental level than say your any government did or engaged more robustly with vaccine so one line that I got very
• 34:30 - 35:00 familiar hearing when judging or watch me proverbs is it becomes impossible to access any of the harms of benefits of opening before both Moto's you acts which is wonderful now Lee's favorite a really moving pilot tell Joseph stories about why the extension was the most fundamental material so Tom have said this oh gee you said this I was at this but that presumes second facts and as we said in the previous slide that's always just logically true at some point
• 35:00 - 35:30 there's going to be some assumptions that are made the extension provides the underlying justification for which of these is true which is more fundamental oming so he says look here's the story I'm telling you it is not possible really to adjudicate the topper without this additional view of the most iboga tells you why the top half case is true or false and therefore you know they can go through with us but they can't go through without us where the people are providing that fundamental didn't necessarily always
• 35:30 - 36:00 work I'm sure there must be cases where it didn't but it's a useful way of thinking about another story you can tell to try and explain why your case is more fundamental again you're trying to provide those kind of narratives that are judge you monsters of what you're going to would be able to appeal to against their colleagues and say well this is over thing really the the job that that closing he did that was important quiet join the fight look when you can just be the umpire instead step back and say look here is why the problem so severe as the other programs you don't necessarily need to to get
• 36:00 - 36:30 them in the muck with the aiming team you can just be the person standing back and simply look our opening site clearly the winner here is why the more fundamental level which is required for accessing any of the impacts that they wanted to say there so therapy was your enemy judges judges must be appeased so to clash with the team you try and make the point to accept the plausibility of their analysis and clash with it even if you think our flaws with the argumentation point the floor site but still try and engage with it was a most
• 36:30 - 37:00 fundamental the reason being that if judges buy the argument and you just try and dismiss it that's not necessarily about that you so here's a sort of a thought experiment obviously based on the real debate I won't say which one so you suppose you're including government in a quarterfinal debates by retribution being in normal the justice system and your main rival like the team that you know everyone knows intuitively you need to be trying to beat you're probably trying to be in the final oh gee employed an opening opposition that's the weight hit the reset button say look
• 37:00 - 37:30 here's what you should have said and here is how we're responding to that so look whatever happen to know to you we're definitely going through use opposing L&T your two options you extend the debates into an area that's not discuss my top half and attempt to win that debate against closing opposition accepting the probably spoken opposition of going through or do you attempt to try and convince the judges to reject the herb is at opposition recalculation of the debates sacrificing a possible extension to do so and broadly speaking going against the intuition that says teams should be
• 37:30 - 38:00 rewarded for try to you know bring the some degree of solvency some degree of clarity to debate it would otherwise be destroyed does anyone think the correct answer is option B no I mean I really so slightly ripped the the question the way I've written written the question but bear in mind with a team I'm thinking about chose option B it's obvious to you that option B is a bad choice because we've just been discussing about what you should be trying to do but in this case it was decisive they decided to go after a
• 38:00 - 38:30 opening opposition opening opposition obviously went through and closing opposition went to be with them because they decided to have some marginal extension on arming opposition and taste amazing mistake of making they're going through contingent upon judges being willing to reject the open opposition to you which in this case was just never going to happen because only opposition to literally established debate so for the actual published version of the website yeah for the public official who is speech over the lecture I've got some examples of
• 38:30 - 39:00 witness quick speeches I think you're prepared affected in different ways just you briefly blast them see the first two I think very good examples of whip speeches where the narrative is poured upon yourself so the second is a very recent example from us the former is the u.s. final from a couple of years back with imposing well I think arguably is might be controversial closing opposition we're not winning before the winter speech but definitely work with him after the road speech the other three
• 39:00 - 39:30 examples are to some extent examples at arms a bit particularly now Academy these two I mentioned earlier a very robust happy but are useful in pushing through a extension which is definitely doing a job but not necessarily a winning job relative to their opening and guests including opposition team in this case going through this is the quarter-final function I in this state's going through with that closing team in this case and knocking out opposing team by high road loss or a bottle isn't going to the
• 39:30 - 40:00 opening and this last example I think it's a good good example of if you wanted to try and think about what you can get away with this in terms of reanalysis and reframing the importance of an extension speech as a good example of watch for that so that's the ultrafeed some speech in the semi-final so all of these are worth watching you want really good examples of some speaking we've had its best but also it is most diverse say so if anyone has any questions before there be a chance that
• 40:00 - 40:30 I'm good