A few tips on everyone’s favourite position.

Two main types of debate: policy and analysis. In an analysis debate, there is no need to specify a mechanism (unless it is THBT X Country Should...)etc 1 st Prop’s job is to define what the sides will be arguing about, and to start arguing about it. It’s a bad idea to ‘prop the status quo’ – normally the point of a debate is to change things.

You should be thinking about the mechanism as soon as you’ve got the main principle of your argument – what needs to be done to make sure you’re doing what you want to do; are there any pitfalls you can avoid? Think of first opp’s obvious responses, and mech for mitigation: e.g. In situations where you may face coercion arguments against you, mech in information provision and counselling to ensure the most informed choice possible.

“This House” is not always the British government. When an actor in International Relations debates, often bear in mind that RealPolitik plays more of a part than what’s good for everyone. When making arguments about helping people, the source of those moral duties should be explained. Analysis motions have no actors, but may still need mechs, criteria for success etc. Different actors have different interests, often debates come down to what the interests of the actor e.g. ‘the feminist movement’ is. Make a claim on this if it is not obvious and could become a clash.

Work out your problem and your mechanism/definition etc. Then start prepping constructive arguments. Give the important points to your 1 st Speaker. Make sure they have enough to fill their speech. Your 2 nd Speaker can then make his/her speech on rebuttal, stuff that the 1 st Speaker said badly, and new less important material. 2 nd Speaker will have not much to do in the final 4/5 mins or so – they should prep pretending they’re 1 st Opp. This helps you work out if you need to add to your mech, and gives you more time to prepare obvious responses.

Try as hard as possible to starve 2 nd Prop of arguments. Often what happens to 1 st Prop teams is they get forgotten, and a good 2 nd Prop takes over. Try to work out what the holes in your case are, and have a way to combat the way that opposition will inevitably attack them. However, don’t ‘prebut’ – opposition may not make those arguments, so don’t go giving them ideas.

Your main weakness as 1 st Prop is an inability to engage with arguments further down the table As a consequence, speakers in 1 st Prop should endeavour as much as possible to take points of information from closing opposition This gives you time to get at more of the opposition case. This isn’t a hard and fast rule, in 2 nd half training we will be telling you not to hand out your case in a POI, so this won’t work against good 2 nd half teams.

Often early on a 1 st Prop 1 st Speaker’s speech, he/she may be given a ‘Point of Clarification’, advertised by ‘Clarification, sir?’ or ‘Point of Clarification?’ etc. You should take this point, always. It means ‘I don’t understand your definition/want a bit more info on your mechanism’ and it leads to a messy debate if unanswered. As well as taking POIs, give a lot out as well, so your contribution to the debate isn’t forgotten by the end.

The debate is not over. Prep POIs Do not: POI in anger POI a tiny bit of the debate that really doesn’t matter. POI arguments made by 2 nd prop Do: Think of a justification of why you’re winning, and POI it (this is essentially explaining why your arguments have beaten the opp bench.)