Structuring Arguments - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 2
Summary
TLDRThis workshop introduces the concept of 'linear flow' in argumentation, a method to enhance persuasive debating skills. The speaker explains that a clear, logical progression of arguments, from problem identification to impact and conclusion, is crucial. They also discuss 'tiering' of arguments to create robust cases that are harder to rebut. The session aims to help debaters, even experienced ones, to refine their argument structure for better analytical and persuasive power.
Takeaways
- 📚 The training focuses on 'linear flow', a concept that enhances argument structure and persuasiveness in debates.
- 🤔 Many debaters lack awareness of linear flow, which is crucial for structuring arguments and influencing judges' decisions.
- 💡 The presenter introduces a new way of understanding 'linear flow' and its impact on making robust internal argument structures.
- 📉 Common issues in argumentation include missing significant portions, unclear direction, and wasted time on meaningless details.
- 🔍 A strong internal argument structure helps in identifying missing parts before even speaking.
- 🎯 Linear flow is about the necessary progression from the beginning to the end of an argument without unnecessary detours.
- 🌟 The typical flow starts with framing the problem, analyzing its cause, showing the impact of the motion, and concluding with the weighing.
- 🎬 The concept of linear flow is likened to good pacing in movies, requiring a setup, conflict, resolution, and ending.
- 📈 Tiering analysis involves providing multiple levels of argumentation, making it harder for opponents to rebut and creating a comprehensive case.
- 🌱 Tiering can be done by addressing different roots of a problem, showing how a single root problem changes in multiple ways, targeting different actors, or considering different incentives and contexts.
- 🌐 The presenter emphasizes the importance of adapting argumentation to various contexts and considering secondary impacts and long-term effects.
Q & A
What is the main focus of the advanced training workshop in the script?
-The main focus of the workshop is on 'linear flow', a concept that the speaker believes can greatly improve argument structure and persuasiveness in debating.
Why is 'linear flow' significant in the context of debating or argumentation?
-Linear flow is significant because it ensures that every step in an argument is necessary and contributes to the overall persuasiveness, making it easier for judges to follow and credit the analysis.
What are some common issues people face when making arguments according to the script?
-Common issues include missing significant portions of the argument, unclear direction of points, wasting time on meaningless details, and arguments being hard to follow due to lack of natural flow.
What is the typical structure of a persuasive argument as outlined in the script?
-The typical structure involves identifying the problem (framing), explaining why the problem arises, showing how the motion makes the problem better or worse, and then demonstrating the impact and weighing at the end.
How does the concept of 'tiering' contribute to making an argument more robust?
-Tiering analysis provides multiple levels or dimensions to an argument, making it harder for opponents to rebut everything and giving the argument a comprehensive coverage of the issue at hand.
What is an example of tiering analysis provided in the script?
-An example given is the motion to legalize all drugs, where the speaker identifies multiple roots of the problem, such as drug cartels, and shows how legalization addresses each root, leading to a more comprehensive and robust argument.
Why is it important to consider different actors and contexts when constructing an argument?
-Considering different actors and contexts helps to create a more comprehensive and persuasive argument, as it acknowledges the varied ways in which the motion can impact different stakeholders and environments.
What does the speaker mean by 'mattering dump' in the context of debating?
-Mattering dump refers to the ability to efficiently present a large amount of material in a debate. The speaker uses tiering of analysis as a method to achieve this, ensuring that arguments are comprehensive and cover multiple dimensions.
How can understanding 'linear flow' benefit someone who has been debating for years?
-Even experienced debaters can benefit from understanding linear flow as it provides a structured approach to ensure arguments are complete, clear, and persuasive, potentially improving their performance in higher-level debates.
What advice does the speaker give for those who find the concept of tiering analysis overwhelming?
-The speaker advises not to be put off by the complexity and to take it slowly, gradually increasing the number of dimensions or actors analyzed in an argument to avoid superficial analysis.
How does the speaker suggest using secondary impacts or long-term effects in an argument?
-The speaker suggests using secondary impacts or long-term effects to add depth to an argument, showing not just the immediate effects of a motion but also its broader and more lasting implications.
Outlines
📚 Introduction to Advanced Training and Linear Flow
The speaker introduces the second week of advanced training, focusing on the concept of 'linear flow' in argumentation. They explain that linear flow is an essential yet often overlooked aspect of constructing persuasive arguments, particularly in debate settings. The speaker aims to teach participants, even those with experience, a new way of structuring their arguments for better clarity and impact. The session begins with an overview of common issues in argument construction, such as missing components and unclear direction, which can lead to ineffective persuasion.
🔍 Understanding Linear Flow and Argument Structure
The speaker delves into the specifics of linear flow, comparing it to the natural progression of a story with a setup, conflict, resolution, and ending. They emphasize the importance of each step in an argument's development, from identifying the problem to showing the impact of the proposed solution. The explanation includes the necessity of avoiding unnecessary detours and ensuring that every point contributes directly to the argument's endpoint. The analogy of movie pacing is used to illustrate the need for a clear and logical progression in arguments to maintain audience engagement and effectiveness.
💡 Tiering Analysis for Robust Argumentation
The speaker introduces the concept of 'tiering' in argumentation, which involves providing multiple layers or levels of analysis to strengthen an argument. This approach makes it more difficult for opponents to refute all points and can cover various dimensions of a problem. The speaker provides examples of how to tier arguments, such as addressing multiple roots of a problem or showing how a single root can change in multiple ways due to a motion. The goal is to create a comprehensive case that is persuasive and difficult to counter.
🌐 Analyzing Different Actors and Contexts in Debate
The speaker discusses the importance of considering different actors and contexts when constructing arguments in a debate. By examining how various stakeholders may be affected by a policy or motion, the argument can be made more comprehensive and persuasive. The speaker provides examples of how to analyze the impact on internal and external actors, as well as how different contexts can influence the effectiveness of an argument. This approach helps to create a well-rounded perspective that is crucial for successful debate.
📉 Addressing Multiple Motivations and Incentives
The speaker explains how understanding the motivations and incentives of different actors involved in a debate topic can strengthen an argument. By identifying what drives various stakeholders, the speaker can craft arguments that are more likely to resonate and be persuasive. The discussion includes the idea of analyzing how changes in policy or societal norms can influence behavior and lead to the desired outcomes. The speaker encourages participants to think critically about the underlying factors that shape people's actions and reactions.
🔄 Utilizing Short-term and Long-term Impacts
The speaker concludes the training by discussing the importance of considering both short-term and long-term impacts when constructing arguments. They provide examples of how immediate effects can lead to broader, more profound changes over time. The speaker encourages participants to think about the lasting influence of policies and actions, and how these long-term effects can be used to bolster an argument's persuasiveness. The emphasis is on creating a compelling narrative that shows the深远 impact of the motion being debated.
🤔 Open Floor for Questions and Practical Application
The speaker opens the floor for questions, inviting participants to seek clarification or further examples to better understand the concepts discussed. They acknowledge the complexity of the material and encourage practice as a means to internalize the techniques for strong argument construction. The session aims to empower participants to apply these strategies in their debates, enhancing their ability to present well-structured and persuasive arguments.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Linear Flow
💡Internal Argument Structure
💡Framing
💡Impact
💡Logical Links
💡Tiering
💡Matter Dumping
💡Resolution
💡Pacing
💡Weighing
Highlights
Introduction to the concept of 'linear flow' in argumentation and its impact on persuasive debate.
Linear flow defined as a structured approach to ensure arguments progress logically from start to finish without unnecessary detours.
Importance of identifying what parts of an argument are missing to improve internal argument structure.
Common issues in argument construction, such as missing logical links and unclear direction of points.
The analogy of movie pacing to explain the significance of a clear and natural flow in arguments.
The necessity of each step in an argument to contribute to the endpoint, avoiding digressions.
How linear flow can help in identifying missing parts of an argument before presentation.
The process of tiering analysis to make arguments robust, providing multiple levels of support for each point.
Examples of tiering analysis, such as addressing multiple roots of a problem or different actors involved.
The strategy of targeting different incentives, actors, and contexts to strengthen argumentation.
The concept of 'matter dumping' and its relation to efficiently presenting a large amount of material in a debate.
Techniques for tiering analysis, including giving multiple mechanisms, impacts, or addressing different dimensions of a problem.
The importance of not overextending one's analysis to avoid superficial treatment of multiple issues.
How secondary impacts or long-term effects can be used to deepen the analysis of an argument's utility.
The practical application of linear flow and tiered analysis in debating, with tips for effective implementation.
Encouragement for practitioners to practice and become natural with the concepts of linear flow and tiered analysis over time.
Invitation for questions and further discussion on the presented techniques for argumentation.
Transcripts
awesome hi everyone
uh welcome to the second week of
advanced training so i'll be running
this workshop and then but lucy will be
around in case you have any questions or
in case
uh we have a second room that needs a
judge
for this bar so um this week we're going
to be covering something called linear
flow
and it's something that i recently
discovered um
that made me quite good at things that
i'm
i think i'm quite good at which are
matter jumping and having really strong
robust internal argument structure
so loads of people even those who are
experienced with debating do not know
what linear flow is
and it's something quite unnoticed when
we make arguments but it makes a world
of difference
when the judge is crediting your
analysis or when you're trying to find
out what's missing from making really
really persuasive argumentation
so i think that i discovered a new way
of phrasing
what linear flow is or internal argument
structure
so hopefully a lot of you even if you've
been debating for years will benefit
from it
so if i can click to the next slide
ah here it is so a lot of you are able
to make really basic arguments uh but
lots of you are are also similarly when
i was first starting out
missing a lot of uh a lot of things and
when trying to hit the higher brackets
of speaker points so like
um here are a couple of reasons why
people often suck at making arguments
number one
lots of significant portions are missing
so maybe it looks like impact sometimes
people miss framing sometimes people
miss really crucial logical links that
they didn't know
they needed to prove um and this is
always really difficult to try to get
people to fix because you just don't
know what you're missing until
after the fact when the judge tells you
that's why you took the third or the
fourth
um so i'm gonna like internal argument
structure is not only good for
identifying like oh of like it's not
only good for a judge trying to follow
your arguments
but it's really good at internally
checking what parts you're missing
before you even speak
so we'll see that later on second part
of why people suck at making arguments
um it's sometimes really unclear where a
point is going so loads of people
um will sometimes say really smart
things or they'll say like really
true things but um like as a judge when
i'm listening
i just don't know where the point is
going i have no idea whether or not it
links the emotion i don't know what the
impact
of the point is going to be so basically
like i just
like i just tune out when someone is
making a point but i do not know the
direction that this point is going to go
and so they end up wasting a lot of time
because they don't
signal to me why this point like why the
statement they're making is even
important in the context of the debate
third reason why people suck at making
arguments lots like similarly lots of
time is wasted talking about meaningless
details
so a lot of the times it's unclear where
our point is growing
maybe it's because it's actually not
going anywhere so a lot of time people
add
details that are just not necessary to
making a point
persuasive or strategic in the the
context of the debate
so loads of people just like for example
give me pieces of framing that just
don't go towards making their point
impactful or making that point more
persuasive sometimes people give me
logical links that completely not
crucial to making
up to proving that point is true
fourthly
sometimes uh argument is super hard to
follow so sometimes like that jumping
from all over the place first like they
tell me
maybe like they tell me like the impact
then they tell me like
the analysis that leads to the impact
but then they tell me the problem
after they like the problem they're
trying to solve after they've told me
the solution to that problem
so it's really hard for a judge to
follow your argumentation
if it doesn't have a natural flow to it
so all of this can be really
avoided by becoming disciplined in how
your argument is presented or internally
structured
and i'm going to call this having a
clear
clean linear flow and what do i mean by
linear flow so what is linear flow
linear flow basically is how your
argument gets from the beginning
to the end so it seems a little bit like
tongue-in-cheek when i say this
and i'll try to explain a little bit
more further on and use analogy so all
of you can understand what i mean
um linear for linear flow to work every
step along the way
from getting from point a to point b is
necessary
every step is getting you closer to the
end point of that argument
and you don't make any unnecessary
detours or diversions
so typically even though the flow will
look different
for any for each debate in each case
typically it resembles this
first you tell me the problem that
you're trying to solve or you show me
the framing of what the current world
looks like so for example if it's
something like
this house uh this house uh
wants to implement gender quotas for
corporate boards you tell me the framing
or the problem that you face in status
quo so just like look
right now a lot of women face a glass
ceiling and trying to
go up into the upper stratas or the
upper echelons of corporations
because of this they're underrepresented
in the most powerful positions in many
of these businesses
and remain a socio-economic underclass
so that's a problem in the framing that
we see
in the world today then you show me why
the problem arises
so you identify like why that why is it
that the problem is there
so you can say just like i people have
internal biases about what
you know powerful business people look
like and these tend to not be
women for example or you say like uh
lots of
um you know like lots of you know these
networks and promotions are based on old
boys clubs that women just aren't privy
to so
you identify why that problem arises
then you show me
how this motion makes that problem
better or worse
um then you show me why it matters that
this change has occurred so for example
like if you're showing to me like ah now
like women will be super empowered in
the workplace they now
break that glass ceiling and this means
the impact of that is that women
maybe achieve higher incomes maybe these
women in these corporate boards
will start making policies that more
favorable to women in the workplace
empowering other women
lower down the corporate ladder and then
you show me the weighing at the end so
you show me like this is the most
important
impact that in the debate because of xyz
reasons
um so many of you especially if you like
movies or especially if you like tv
series
understand that this actually really
follows
um what our brains naturally tend
towards
so typically in a movie really good
pacing is really necessary so what you
need is a setup
and then you need a conflict and then
you need a resolution
and then you need an ending right so
this is the same thing so the problem in
framing is set up
and the conflict that you aim to solve
and then the rest of your speech
is about how you resolve that conflict
or you just think maybe that conflict
gets even worse right
and then you show me the conclusion
which is like the impact in the wedding
so note just like in a movie bad pacing
can ruin everything and maybe not
leave enough time for a resolut a good
resolution or a good ending
the same thing is true for an argument
so spending way too much time in the
setup or in the
in characterizing conflict means that
you have no time
trying to resolve that conflict or
trying to conclude it to a satisfactory
end
so all of you need to be really careful
in how you internally
allocate time to each of these points so
going further
i try to unders explain why it is that
this
this flow is the flow that most people
follow so you can't just like rearrange
things and have it be just as persuasive
a lot of the times
so first you need to tell me um so like
often you cannot make
an argument unless like a judge knows
why you're making it right
so just a lot of times when you're
trying to fix a problem you need to
first tell me what that problem
is so and then next when you're
analyzing why that problem arises it
helps you set up the next stage so i'm
like telling me like oh the reason why
women are often underrepresented in
their most powerful economic positions
is through like internal soft sexism or
soft
sex culture in workplaces or just like
old boys networks
that sets you up really cleanly for the
next stage which is to
show me why the problem changes to be
better or worse
so all your analysis can be targeted at
those
at those root issues that you just
identified in the prior part you're
showing me like okay
this motion solves the old voice network
so this motion
solves like the the internal soft sexist
culture incorporations
and so it makes it seem like your
argumentation is all really targeted to
the roots of the problem that you just
characterized
and so it by by doing that your analysis
seems
super watertight to the judge and it
seems also super unique
and like the definitive delta in the
debate so it's not
like it's the necessary thing in order
to solve the problem
and no other solution is going to be
satisfactory because you show how that
motion targets the very root problems of
that motion
um and so uh then like of course like
the ending
like your argument doesn't mean anything
unless you tell me what the changes
result in and why that
matters um so for example like this
house would institute sim taxes
um so your the problem that you set up
is just like look
loads of syntaxes ex like loads of
people are smoking
and drinking alcohol um to the extent
that it's detrimental for their health
and lots of these people tend to be like
socio-economically vulnerable people
um and then you can say like the problem
the reason why the problem
arises is because of state failure um
the state has failed these people
in terms of like they tend to face a lot
of economic pressure that gives them a
lot of stress in their lives and the
only
means through which they can cope with
it is through like things like
like addictive like like addictive
substances like alcohol or other
unhealthy life practices
and the state has disallowed them from
accessing any other stress relieving
mechanism like for example
this allowed them for maybe going to the
gym having access to therapy etc
and so that's the problem that we have
and then the reason why
this motion now solves that is that we
as the government
we nudge them in the more correct
direction so a lot of these people
go for these solutions because they're
comparatively cheaper than going to
things like therapy
go like like eating healthy food et
cetera by
making these like smoking and drinking
alcohol more expensive we target that
economic incentive to
indulge in things like harmful things
like alcohol and cigarettes the impact
is
like they get better health outcomes and
then you can do the wing
afterwards does that make sense to
people please pipe up if you
have no idea what i'm talking about or
if you want me to re-emphasize a point
so this leads me on to the next part
of matter dumping so um loads of people
who have
who have seen me speak kind of like i
guess like i i think that i can get
through lots of material pretty
efficiently and one of the reasons why i
can do that
is because i do something called tiering
my analysis so what does tiering mean so
tiering essentially means that you give
multiple levels of something so i'm
going to show you loads of examples of
how you can tear your arguments so they
seem super robust
but why should you give multiple levels
of arguments
so if you give multiple levels of
argumentation that i'll show you later
it's much harder for the opponent to
rebut everything that you say
um so if you're a first speaker and you
give like a bunch of different
mechanisms or a bunch of different
impacts or a bunch of different actors
um that all lead to some change in the
status quo
like maybe your your opponent um if
they're good
maybe rebut two out of the three then
you'll then you're like second speaker
can come up
not only but the other person who just
came up but said like look they
obviously didn't take down every
everything and because we still have
this one mechanism
standing we obviously at least make the
world a better place
um etc um also it's much more like
you make also much more comprehensive
cases that seem to cover different
dimensions
of the problem um so loads of problems
and status quo
unsurprisingly have many different
routes or many different reasons
as to why they occur and so
seemingly acknowledging that and showing
how you
change all those different dimensions
makes your case seem really really
comprehensive to judge
and even more persuasive also if you're
an opening half so if you're an ogo
super hard to extend or something like
that um in a meaningful way if you just
give a super comprehensive case
also like the same reason as to why
loads of problems
arise due to a multitude of reasons the
actors involved also respond in a
multitude of ways
so it's also important to cover as much
as possible in order to be persuasive
um be careful like i'm saying this to
you now but
try not to do this immediately like try
don't try to like
deal with 10 actors all of a sudden just
because you hear this presentation take
it slowly maybe like if you've only been
analyzing one actor in a debate before
analyze two uh don't bite off more than
you can chew
because often what peop i've seen people
do is that they try to handle everything
and they just end up analyzing pretty
superficially so how do you do this
effectively
there are loads of way to tears analysis
so this is one of them
um this this means giving lots of
different mechanisms
to solve a problem so what problems lit
mostly look like this right you have a
problem it could arise because of a
multitude of reasons
so you know you have root one of the
problem you have root two of a problem
you have root three
um and the way you can show that you
comprehensively solve this problem or
you comprehensively show how the motion
makes it worse
is that you take each root of the
problem
and you show how that changes each root
changes
so if we're going back to like um
uh there'll be like examples later but
i'll show you examples later but like
and then the next
way you can see your analysis is that
maybe a problem that says one route that
you can identify you show me how
that one root of the problem changes in
a multitude of ways so this becomes
really
evident later on when i give you
examples so this one is for example
multiple roots to a problem
so here's a problem to identify in the
motion this house would legalize all
drugs
uh you can say like drug cartels are a
really big problem in mexico
or like a really big problem in lots of
latin america um they
murder people they often funnel their
drug profits into really bad things like
human trafficking
they often do things like regulations or
intimidate local people
that's a really big problem so trying to
identify
why this arises probably has a lot of
reasons so maybe
one of them is like ah they probably can
recruit
a lot of really vulnerable young men to
be part of their drug network
and once these young men for example are
drug mules they'll get they'll get
caught they get put in jail
um where they become more hardened
criminals
the second reason why this is a really
big problem is often
these drug cartels need to be violent
they often need to
do face-offs to the police they often
need to murder people in order
for them not to squeal or comply with
the police and because of that
just there's just a lot of violence
involved with the drug business
and third reason as to why drug cartels
are a problem
they use that money from drugs to funnel
lots of really bad things like for
example they
they fund things like forced
prostitution
human trafficking rigging elections and
all these are being thought so there's
loads of reasons why drug cartels are
really strong
and this is how you can change each food
so you can tell me like ah
like actually by legalizing all drugs
drug meals are never put in prison they
never become hardened criminals
and they can never be recruited um to do
worse things than drug muelling right so
you know like drug cartels can no longer
recruit from prisons so that route is
solved
they can say like ah because we legalize
all drugs like you just don't need to
have face offs
with the police you don't need to hire
security to smuggle drugs anymore
and so just a violence entailed in
trafficking drugs
just goes way down less people die
because of the drug trade third reason
like people like because you legalize
drugs probably people would
rather buy drugs from like the
government-run pharmacy down the street
rather than a shady drug dealer that is
associated with a drug cartel
and because of this drug cartels now get
less money
from drugs that they can funnel into
things like human trafficking
um and so do you see like how i've
identified different roots of the
problem and the way i've made my case
really comprehensive is to show how that
motion changes
each root of the problem to make it
significantly better
cool so i hope that's clear another way
you can
do this now this is like
this one problem that i identified that
i showed changes in a multitude of ways
with the motion so i identify one
problem
so too few women are represented in the
upper echelons of business this is this
house would adopt gender quarter
policies and corporate senior management
so i identified the problem lots too few
women
in that are powerful business people um
and then i identified one group to the
problem probably it's because like women
are discriminated in hiring policies
they often face like hostile work
environments
so ie just like the root of the problem
is sexism
uh sexism that's basically incredibly
entrenched right
um and now because i've identified one
root of the problem
i can show how the motion can change
that one root of the problem so like
maybe like because more women are just
put into
senior corporate corporate
decision-making boards
they can now pass for example policy
women in senior positions are likely
going to pass policies that make
workplaces
less hostile to the presence of women so
this benefits women from
lower down the ranks as well so for
example like you know like more women
will get paid maternity leave
you know they're more able to ascend in
the workplace because there are just
policies that support them
so more women are likely going to be
promoted second way that this solves
this the root of the problem like
maybe because when like men and women
both become more normalized
working with and under women in senior
positions so if your boss just looks
like a woman
or like the head honcho is a woman
over time you just become much more used
to that fact
um and you become less hostile or
resistant to
for example when a woman gets promoted
or maybe if you become a manager one day
you just say like hey
my boss when i was 20 was a woman she
did a good job
let me hire this woman or let me let me
promote this woman since i'm now a
manager right
so that's another way that you can
change sexism third way you can change
sexism
optics so like more women for example
when they have a role model
in a really high achieving place or they
have well they're like in a really high
achieving place they now have role
models and they know that a place is
allocated to them um so they're much
more likely to strive
for promotion they're more likely to put
themselves out there um
leaning in essentially and because
they're much more active in pursuing
promotions
pursuing raises because they now know
it's possible to actually succeed
like this also changes how women
actively try to
pursue those opportunities make it more
likely that women succeed
so do you see how like i identified one
root problem
but then there are loads of different
ways how that root problem can be solved
by the motion
so trying to identify loads of different
ways how a single
problem can change is really like key to
making your
case uh as robust as possible
cool another way you can do this is you
can choose to target different actors
so this is the motion this house would
restrict eu development aid to member
states with anti-democratic party
practices
um so here's the problem uh too many
states in the eu like hungary
poland bulgaria romania are violating eu
principles of political rights you know
the
rigging elections stacking judiciary
this is just not good
um and the reason why this has happened
is because
populist strong men who have been
elected which choose to restrict
political freedoms
and they arrest journalists they stack
judiciary and so on so you can choose to
say like okay
trying to analyze what then changes in
this debate you can look at different
actors involved so we can say like okay
people within those countries right
people within hungary or poland or
bulgaria um
you can say just like oh when you take
away development aid
from these from these places you can say
just like people within those countries
who no longer get as much money
going towards local infrastructure or
make creating jobs
they just have more resentment towards
these strong men for taking away their
material wealth
so if they ever have an election again
um they probably will vote the strong
man out or maybe they just take to the
streets and just oust
this strong man meaning that um
anti-democratic practices become far
less likely
or you can look at you know another
actor the strong men themselves you can
say like ah
you know now they can like strong men
themselves know that
they can't just do all these terrible
things without facing consequences and
then
eventually facing backlash from their
voter base
they just are less likely going to do
this in the terrible excess of doing it
in
now right and then finally you can just
look at borderline countries countries
that are
kinda doing anti-democratic stuff but
are not as severe
so for example greece kinda it's kind of
becoming a little bit bad
uh but not quite to the extent of poland
bulgaria or romania you can say that
like oh countries like greece
they probably also get better they
observe poland and bulgaria
being punished and so local people know
the consequences are swayed away from
populism because
this looks like it could be their future
um
so by identifying different actors you
can also see
how the problem is made better so the
last one
is different incentives so this one is
just like how different
um like what people are motivated by so
maybe people are motivated by the policy
that is around them that supports them
people are motivated by the norms that
they exist in
people are motivated by the optical
things they observe like for example
like women in higher positions
this one is i just identified different
actors
um in the debate and seeing how they all
change
cool now different context uh this is to
protect yourself from being extended
upon
so for example this house believes that
it is an interest of dominant organized
religions for that leaders to declare
more progressive interpretations of
traditional dogma so maybe like
you loosen uh how how stringent you are
on like dietary practices or like the
acceptability of contraception
or same-sex relationships um and so
if you're on opening government you can
say like look there are two just too
many people
leaving organized religion and that's
because dominant organized religions are
just too
strict on the summer dogma and it drives
lots of moderates away
um you can look at like religion exists
all over the world
so it's probably really good to analyze
how different countries or different
contexts it
exists in is affected by this motion so
you can just say like in a developed
world
you're going to drive the most devoted
way because now like
if you are in america or in the uk and
you're super super religious
when you're when the pope or when like
um
when like um a really big influential
muslim figure just comes out and says
like actually
it's okay to do anything now it's okay
to be incredibly liberal with all of our
religious practices
now your your like religious beliefs
just seem too similar to the secular
context that you
grew up in right it's too similar to the
secular society that you exist in
so why are you staying this religion it
has no comparative difference
to the society that exists around you so
you as a the most devoted person
are probably going to leave or you're
going to be driven away because there's
just no
comparative value that your religion is
adding anymore so that's the developed
world not a developing world right
um you can say just like look what
passes
as um like what passes as like really
radical
in in europe or in the west actually is
characterized as pretty moderate in a
lot of parts of the developing world
and so it's likely that if you accept
all of these like
liberalisms in in in religion this just
becomes way too progressive for even
mainstream society to accept and you're
just going to drive loads of moderates
away because they're just put off
that's way too different from their
social political beliefs um
and then yeah so like you seem like
really comprehensive and you there's no
way you can be out framed
if you look at different contexts um yep
and there are like this is the final
slide um
so tiering analysis is you can see
that's done in loads of different ways
and i gave you a list of examples of how
it can be done um this
this is not like the endo and be all
there's loads of other ways you can tear
in
analysis for example second order
impacts so lots of
impacts have secondary impacts um so for
example
if it's something like racial quotas in
universities
um sure you have a very initial impact
of just like hey
more minorities now get into university
but also just like
the secondary impacts of that which is
that you know like
when you have like minority minorities
going to university and graduating
their children statistically are shown
to be more willing to go to university
if their parents have
so a lot a big problem is is that loads
of minorities or underrepresented people
don't go to university because they feel
like university
is not for them or is not for people
like them um now that when you have like
more
like families that are from
underrepresented backgrounds going to
university you no longer have that idea
that it's not for you because your
parents went to university and just more
likely you're going to go to university
because it's what your parents did so it
seems like a safer option
um so that's a secondary impact um so
you can tear your analysis such that you
give like one really easily provable
impact that just seems so intuitive and
obvious
they can just branch off into many
secondary impacts and just analyze that
those happen
um just like i did right there um and
then
the last rate i'll tell you how to tear
your utility analysis is the short term
and long term so
you can also think about how emotion
operates over
lots of different time scales so for
example
the motion may be about forcing media
companies to have more minority
representation
you can just say like yeah sure just
like like
surely like now like the short term is
that you just have a lot more a lot more
minorities on television that's really
good because like you know people like
to see themselves
reflected on television but you know in
the long term that's where it really
matters
long term you have children growing up
watching these television programs
and they see minorities in a diverse set
of roles in all of society and because
of this they feel like they could be a
lawyer they feel like they can be a
doctor they feel like they can be an
actress
even when um social stigma often
traditionally tells them they can't be
those things
um and so any questions whatsoever this
is super complicated stuff i don't
expect you to do this perfectly straight
away but anytime you're making an
argument and you find yourself only
having like
one mechanism um try to think about all
the things i told you
try to see like what people are
motivated by different incentives
different actors involved in emotion
different contexts
um maybe like one problem has multiple
reasons as to why it arises and you can
look at
how you this motion addresses every one
of those roots um
yeah so just like don't be completely
put off by it this is a
thing that you become naturalized to as
you do more and more debate
so if you're confused don't feel put off
it's something that comes to practice
um but yeah so i thought this was just a
really good way of articulating how
i matter dumb and how i have really
strong linear flow
and hopefully this is useful to most of
you um any questions
if not um i'll be checking the chat as
well maybe that's a good idea
if not i'm going to start stop recording
and we can start the debate awesome
تصفح المزيد من مقاطع الفيديو ذات الصلة
Curso completo, Raciocínio Lógico, Concursos Públicos 2019 - Prof Pedro Evaristo, Aula 11
106. The Toulmin Method of Argumentation | THUNK
Reading Logical Fallacies
3. Berpikir kritis menilai argumen
COMO FAZER UMA REDAÇÃO NOTA MÁXIMA? - Professora Pamba
Weaponizing rhetoric (Advance) - Lucia Arce and Tin Puljić. MDA
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)