Remember! If a word or debate term confuses you, search it up on this document: Common BP terminology.
Myths about generating arguments
Myth: “Just read the Economist/Foreign Affairs/Fox News/[other news source here].
This strategy is akin to telling a novice to read about bicycles when they fall off a bike. This method is terribly ineffective because they are not familiar enough with common debate arguments or trends in debating to identify which news stories are important, and what content to take away from news stories. As such, this learning method overwhelms and demotivates novices. Eventually, when they attend a debate tournament and notice that their hours of reading did nothing to help them in their debate rounds, it discourages them from continuing to read and learn. Please don’t do this as a new debater!
Myth 2: “Just think of a lot of things during prep!”
You won’t believe the number of pros who told me this when I first started debating. Getting this advice is so frustrating and demotivating! It always made me feel like I was just not smart enough to be a good debater because I could not naturally think of arguments. I was wrong, just like how the advice “just think hard” is wrong. Your preps will be less stressful and more consistent if you have a strict and rigorous strategy for generating content.
That being said, generating arguments is never fail-proof! Sometimes you will not know, but that is okay! A mentor once told me (I think Lucy Murphy?): “if you are panicking during prep, then the other team probably is too.”
Lastly — do what works for you. Some people are naturally inclined for creative arguments and it will come easier for them. For others, like myself, being encyclopedic and knowing common arguments + following a step-by-step method works best. If something does not feel like its working, try it for 2 weeks, then re-assess. These things take a long time to feel comfortable with.
Myth 3: “I need at least 3 arguments, I need 4 pieces of refutation, I need 2 extensions, etc.”
After you read this page, take a look at this separate article I wrote debunking these other myths, with the help of Ashish Kumar.
The quick, flexible methods:
Identifying the problems suggested by the motion:
There are videos of famous debaters simply suggesting “just think about why the CAs set the motion when trying to build a case.” What I hope they are trying to say is: Every motion has a different problem that the government bench is trying to solve. The first thing to do in prep is to identify the problem(s). Once you figure this out, you will notice that everything else starts slowly falling into place. Notably, linear flow encourages this model of thinking because it the first step is always to identify the problem 🙂
- Once you identify the problem, then the debate is usually about whether your solution is good or bad.
- Consider reasons why the other team would believe your problem is the correct/incorrect problem. This tests if you are addressing the topic in the debate which everyone wants to debate
- Consider reason why the other team would believe your solutions are the correct/incorrect solutions. This helps you consider the opponents’ arguments, which may help you generate more arguments.
The Caoimhin Hamill method:
One day, I was feeling incredibly discouraged because I had just lost an important tournament final and failed to grab an HWS Round Robin spot. I decided to reach out to Caoimhin Hamill out of the blue over Facebook because he had only recently started debating and had reached the Euros final a few weeks prior. He sent me a 20 minute voice memo, but I had to spend an hour deciphering it because I could not understand much through his microphone.
While his strategy did not work for me (which I’ve explained below), he yelled something profound that I always motivated me during rounds where I began to panic. “IT’S A MENTAL BLOCK IF YOU CAN’T COME UP WITH THINGS. YOU ARE LYING TO YOURSELF, DON’T BE ABSOLUTIST. YES, YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING.”
- Underline every proper noun in the motion and begin listing things associated with each word
- List everything you can think of: Observations about the world, actors, relevant examples — think of connections these things have to the motion/your position.
- Maybe you know
- Then use that list to come with 4-5 different angles.
- Do not enter prep with your partner until you have multiple different angles to approach the debate from (when extending)
The difficult, long-term method: Stealing (Respectfully)
Novices are (usually) intelligent, motivated people. They are just unfamiliar with the expectations for building arguments in debating. In my experience, the fastest way to learn these expectations is to copy from debaters who already make arguments which fulfill the expectations.
So basically: copy arguments made by better debaters.
Step 1: Watch
- Watch YouTube videos of good debates. Don’t go searching right now. We provide all these videos for you in the drills!
- If you don’t like YouTube videos (@Emery Taylor), watch outrounds at debating tournaments.
- If you don’t like watching, please find a way to make it bearable. Listen to it while doing the dishes or going on a walk.
- Ask a friend/an experienced debater/your judge in a round what they would do.
Ideally you do all three of these!
Step 2: Absorb
- Listening to debates passively is okay, but ideally you sit down with a pen and paper and write down what each debater is saying in your own words.
- Some arguments are more important than others, and you don’t need to write down every argument in perfect detail. Pay attention to cues which indicate an argument is very important.
- How long is the debater spending on this argument? How long are they spending refuting it? Longer = they believe it is important.
- Which arguments are the whip speakers addressing? Strong whip speeches address the most relevant topics in the debate, so listening to these speeches will often provide significant insight.
Step 3: Condense and ‘Matterfile’
A ‘matterfile’ is a document full of debate-relevant information compiled by a debater. Some matterfiles simply include dense information about the world, like an encyclopedia. The matterfile strategy I suggest here is different: it is a compendium of relevant, common, difficult debate arguments.
- Most important step: Translate what you copied into Linear flow onto a fresh document. A ‘good copy’ if you will. Translating a debaters’ arguments into linear flow will reinforce the concept and force you to understand rather than passively copy.
- Ideally, this document will grow as you witness more incredible debates and do reading on your own. Here is my matterfile for your reference, built over 4 years of debating. You will recognize that many arguments are copied from the videos suggested in the drills.
Step 4: DO NOT RANDOMLY START WATCHING STUFF RIGHT NOW!
- You will notice that all the drills expose you to common debate arguments run by excellent debaters. This is not an accident! I intentionally built the practice programs around this concept of “stealing respectfully.” In this way, novices are exposed to a) common arguments in debating, and b) how debaters structure their arguments in ways that judges find persuasive. As a result, subconsciously (or consciously) novices begin picking up habits (how to speak, how to structure an argument, which arguments to run) which judges find persuasive.
- Therefore, you don’t have to do this on your own time because the course is already doing this for you 🙂 Keep these learning strategies in mind during the course, watch the videos thoroughly, and matterfile the videos you watch!
Exercises:
Once again, we will do my favourite drill:
Exercise 1: The best way to practice linear flow on your own.
- Open up another debate video. Here is a playlist of Gwen Stearn’s and I’s recommendations.
- Prep the PM speech for motion in 15 minutes.
- Watch the PM in the video, write down parts that you missed, or parts that were different.
- Reflect upon missing parts in your arguments and consider how you would fill them in your own words.
- Prep and give the PM speech again, using the material you learned from the video.
- This exercise will take you approximately 30 minutes.
In Lesson 2, we will discuss refutation. Please remember to stay on Lesson 1 for at least 10-14 practice sessions, over the course of two weeks, before moving onto Lesson 2.
Next Lesson: Lesson 2-1: Introduction to Refutation
Buildacase 