These are some of my summaries and reviews after hosting the first session of BPDU Workshop, the pre-tournament training for Bowen Cup.
I did not put too much time in preparing the materials, however spent most of the time sorting out the rules and skills.
The following are what are mentioned during the session. Most of them are links and videos of better quality and clarity of explanations provided by other platforms, feel free to click into them and take a look if you can’t remember what we mentioned.
Rules
Debate Skills
Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Analysis is to think about those who gets involved when a motion is proposed, and think of the impacts that the motion or your arguments have on them.
Weighing
Weighing in debate differs between people, but generally it is to weigh your arguments over the opposition, for example an earthquake is more urgent than global warming, because the earthquake has already done harm a lots of people, however global warming hasn’t yet. In this case earthquake is more urgent to address than global warming is.
Path to Victory
See 16:08 for Path to Victory
Path to victory is to think of the arguments that the opposition may propose, and use them to armor your own arguments, protecting them from being rebutted, and also to diminish the oppositions’ arguments’ impact.
Burdens of Proof
See 36:25 for Burdens of Proof
Burdens of Proof is to answer to all questions unanswered, these questions are usually naturally aroused when an argument is proposed.
Burger Proof
See 40:20 for Burger Proof
Personally I call it Burger Proof, which is to have multiple routes and layers to the destiny of your arguments, so they are not easily destroyed.
Debate Review
TH, as a parent, Would raise their child in a rural as opposed to an urban area.
Notes
OG:
Definations:
1. Rural: Green Space, Accessible Nature
2. Urban: Factory & Dense Population
Argus:
1. Expose to pollution (Factory, Car, Noise)
2. Good Healthcare, because children are away from the factories which generates pollution, so they are protected.
3. Rights to play outside --> Good for both mental and physical health.
4. Traffic
5. Safer env.
OO:
1. Healthcare: Urban offers better healthcare with better facilities and more advanced technologies
2. Air Pollution: Despite that urban areas have factories, in rural areas people burn crops, which also generates pollutants. In urban areas, factories are built where people don't live, typically far away from city centers, so people are less likely to be influenced. On the other hand, people burn crops in rural areas on farms, where there are actually people living, directly exposing the children in the pollutants.
3. Better foundational sys:
Better and more accessible facilities.
4. Parent would need to move with the children when they have a illness that local hospitals can't handle. Suggestions
All debaters did very well in fulfilling their duties, and explained their arguments. Here are some suggestions for improvements.
Impact
Only OG gave us the impact of their house, which is to offer a safer and peaceful environment for the children.
In a debate, all houses should explicitly tell the panelists the impact they have, so to prove the importance of their arguments.
OG can further argue that their impact on the children, both physically and mentally, has positive impact on children, for example building personalities that are beneficial for long-term development.
OO, on the other hand, can argue that they offer much better facilities and job opportunities for the children, and the impact could be more promising career.
Examples given here are limited and can be rebutted, but it is just for explanation. It is still important that you think of some solid impacts, and explicitly tell the panelists.
Mechanism
BP debate is proof-heavy, meaning that you need to prove your points very clearly and comprehensively.
Take “Rural area are safer for children” as an example, living in rural areas does not automatically make it safer for the children, debaters need to explain the details, like:
- Rural areas have less traffic than that in urban areas.
- Roads are easier to see clearly in rural areas as there are no distractions.
The other side could also argue:
- Rural areas have no monitors, when a child is lost, it is harder for us to find him or her.
- Rural areas have less police, and the average time for police to arrive is longer, when a crime is undergoing, this is not beneficial for the victim.
Definitions
PM gave us very good characterizations on “Rural” and “Urban”, but did not tell us what “Child” means, child of 1-3 or child of 6-8? That makes a difference in debate.
Status Quo
What is the background of this motion? Why do we bring up this motion? Do we raise children in one of the areas and send them to school in another in the future?
Status Quo is pretty helpful for giving definitions and building your case.
Watch 15:55 for more:
THR the widespread narrative that motherhood is a rewarding experience.
When writing this section I didn’t have access to the speakers’ notes, so feel free to add some contents here.
The motion it self is a THR motion, meaning that the house regrets a certain phenomena that had done certain harm to its people or society, and even though it brings certain benefits, they are covered over by the harms it has brought. The government would need to give us the reasons for regretting the phenomena, e.g., in this motion, by telling us that the world without such narrative could have been better.
Nuances in THR motions
THR motions regrets a wide range of phenomena in may ways. For example:
- THR the rise of AI therapists.
- THR the trend of social movements targeting their campaigns towards the youth.
Sometime the house regrets a trend, or regrets the rise / rising trend of a topic or narrative or phenomenon.
It is worth noticing what exactly in the motion that’s being regretted, so that you won’t be off the topic.
About narratives
Narratives are like social norms or certain kind of sayings that spreads among the society, we can argue through the impacts they have on people, no matter directly or indirectly, and extend the impact to the societal level.
About glorifications
On glorifying a certain group of people, it is worth arguing in which way are we glorifying them and whether it is going to have negative impact on the people that are not glorified.
In any kind of policy, glorification, changes that you propose, you need to be aware of the potential backlashes and and try to diminish them.
On this motion
On this motion, as given, the narrative is already widespread. So we would need to argue that in such circumstance, how much harm or benefit the narrative has brought to us, and why or why not the world without it be better.
Recommended Resources
UChicago Debate Society’s Workshops are highly recommended for debaters, no matter new to debate or those who has already had some experience.
Leave a Reply