What is analysis? Internal aims of analysis: 1. Prove argument is true 2. Prove argument is important External (strategic) aims of analysis: 1. Make the argument strong enough that it is invulnerable to attack 2. Substantiate the argument to the degree that the other team on your side cannot offer superior substantiation of it – e.g. in the form of an “analysis extension” 3. Meet judge’s subjective standard of having “sufficiently analysed” the point such that it “stands” absent any competent responses 4. Make argument seem comparatively more important than other arguments
Three Sections Section 1: “Why Gareth always yells at me in International Relations rounds” Section 2: “I have 15 reasons why torture is mean” Section 3: “My analysis will itself apart”
1. Why Gareth always yells at me in International Relations rounds So I gradually came to realise when I was speaking with Gareth that sometimes me feeling demoralised going into a debate was a good sign It meant Gareth had been growling at me for ignorance When you make Gareth growl, he growls relevant facts about the world
Why Gareth always yells at me in International Relations rounds Gareth: Well, Israel will go mental if this happens and invade everyone Me: What, why would Israel go mental? Gareth: The nationalists would have a field day Me: But aren’t the nationalists a tiny minority Gareth: Well no, Andrew, but even if they were, Israel’s PR system gives them massive amounts of power Me: Why would they have a field day? It’s just a bit of aid Gareth: Isn’t it obvious? Israeli nationalism is tied to the idea the world’s against it, and that they’re under threat Me: Okay, but they’d still have loads of guns, right? Gareth: That doesn’t matter, pea brain. They have no strategic depth! Me: Riiiighhht…
Gareth: Israel is really small! Me: Oh, I see… Nope, I still don’t get it. Gareth: Sigh… They’re easy to conquer. You can get to their cities easily. Me: Oh, okay, but what about nukes. Couldn’t they use nukes. Gareth: That’s the whole point, you absolute cretin. They need more territory to be able to use short range tactical nukes. Me: Okay, but if that’s true I still don’t get why they wouldn’t just go mental even without us removing the aid Gareth: Have you ever, like, read a newspaper?! The U.S. underwrites their security with the promise they’ll send fighters over Jerusalem in the event of invasion and because they have a consistent source of funding for their military
The point here is that the best partnerships are looking to use prep time to make their arguments as strong as possible The best way to do this is to fill in the holes before they’ve been picked You can’t do that by accident, you need to systematically attack them – by one person explaining the argument and the other forcing them to clarify deficits in explanation and trying to rebut the point. You then tailor the analysis you give to dealing with those responses. You also force your partner to explain things they may think are obvious Don’t do this sometimes. Do this always.
You don’t need to explicitly prebut things in your analysis. You would just say something like: “Israel is really small, and so lacks strategic depth. What that means is that a conquering force can take the cities very quickly. Moreover, Israel would need more territory in order to plausibly use its short range tactical nukes. The reason this isn’t a problem under the status quo is that America underwrites Israel’s security with their air-force…” etc etc Implicitly deal with a lot of the confusions stupid Andrew had.
2. “I have 15 reasons why torture is mean” You will rarely need 15 reasons why torture is mean. Inadequate substantiation of the fact that torture is mean is unlikely to be the reason why you don’t win a debate. Remember, the internal aims of analysis?: prove truth and importance. What you need to recognise is that truth and importance aren’t always of equal importance in an argument Too often we see substantiation for the wrong part of the argument
Baby Burdens Like burdens, only smaller Our aim is to link a contentious statement to a non-contentious statement – e.g. everyone agrees with the proposition “we should not do things that genocide” so if you link that statement successfully to “THW give amnesties combatants in post-conflict societies”, the argument will stand Ask yourself which bit(s) of the argument is/are contentious You should direct your analysis towards those
Examples – True, Important or Both THW bring back the death penalty Argument: Deterrence – this will prevent more murders. This argument is obviously important if it’s true, so the purpose of our analysis is to provide reasons why it will deter, otherwise you’re not persuading the judge of anything she didn’t already believe Argument: This violates criminal’s right to life. By contrast, this argument is self-apparently true, but its importance isn’t obvious.
Some to try THW legalise drugs Argument: Individuals gain access to a set of experiences they might not otherwise be able gain Argument: Individual choice is maximised under the prop model Argument: There will be less drug addiction under the prop model
3. My analysis will tear you apart: Sub- Pointing – what is it and why is it important? Benefits to sub-pointing: a) Easier for you to follow your own speech if you’re hitting certain points at certain times b) Easier for judge to follow all the analysis you’re giving c) Forces you to come up with more than one reason why something is true d) Ticks boxes with judges. Hard for them to think you haven’t substantiated a point if you’ve given multiple reasons why it’s true e) Takes away analysis extensions f) We inevitably make more than three arguments in a debate, but sometimes there are only one or two overarching burdens towards which we are directing our analysis
Cautionary note: Make sure it’s not assertive While a sub-point might be written on your page as a couple of words, it may take up to a minute to explain in some cases. Sub-points are essentially arguments. Some sub-points will have their own sub- points
Example Motion: TH supports politicians who pass progressive legislation, even where this is contrary to the wishes of the democratic electorate Claim: It is legitimate to override majoritarian democracy
Your page A) Certain groups lack access to the political process creates self-perpetuating and undemocratic cycle i) villification ii) lack of money B) Democracy is an instrumental good C) To the extent that democracy is intrinsically good, benefit is in maximising choice and freedom of expression D) People constructed into beliefs by powerful state – nothing intrinsic to that part of world which makes them abuse minorities E) Massive harms to minorities > preferences of majority etc etc.