Checklist

Introduction
Model – including definitions and identity of actor
Principled arguments
Practical arguments
Characterisation of people affected, ideally using examples
Analysis of different cases, ideally using even-if arguments
Rebuttal - pre-prepared where possible
Weighting points, showing why yours matter but their effects are minimal, and why even if
their effects were large those effects don’t matter as much
Points of information (pre-prepared where possible)
For Opening half teams: have we anticipated the main lines of argument Closing teams
could bring? How can we frame our material to remain relevant even if the grounds of
the debate shift significantly? In Closing half: which team is winning so far in this debate?
How well does our material engage with theirs? Engaging via POIs is always essential.

Brainstorming

Government:
● What is the pressing problem with the status quo? (if the motion is to change it)
● What principle makes us morally obliged to support this? (should almost always have
one; even if it’s just utilitarian benefits, explain why some people deserve them the most)
● Who is being affected by the policy? Specifically, what are their characteristics and
motivations? What are the different possible cases?
● What other groups could possibly be affected?
● Wider societal effects? In the longer term?

Opposition:
● Who's implementing the policy? Is it their role to do so?
● What's the principle? What will gov say the principle is? Are any rights being infringed?
● Who is being affected by the policy? Specifically, what are their characteristics and
motivations? Why are they not going to behave in the obvious way?
● How will this lead to harmful side effects. Wider societal effects? In the longer term?
● Economics: only matters in a non-economics debate if you can somehow weight it, e.g.
what's the opportunity cost, or why will it lead to businesses going under (particularly
small businesses). Sometimes it’s good to explicitly countermodel “We’re going to take
this money and spend it on the existing programs, instead of your proposed new one” -
NEVER seriously countermodel “we’re going to take this money and spend it on
[unrelated good thing], e.g. aid to Africa, since that’s irrelevant to the debate.
 Constructing a persuasive point

● Each point should have a title explaining its main idea, e.g. “Why this hurts the poor”
● Beneath this, there should be several subpoints explaining reasons; say how many there
are at the beginning of the point, but don’t name them.
● Reasons (aka mechanisms) rely on detail and characterisation, so you need to paint a
picture about why this particular effect will happen on an individual level. Any relevant
detail about the group of people or the actor you’re talking about makes you sound more
authoritative, and also allows you to convincingly use that detail to explain how they’re
going to act. “People irrationally buy lottery tickets” is worse than “People who haven’t
studied much maths focus only on the size of the prize pool, and enjoy fantasies about
what they’d do if they win; eventual, buying tickets becomes an ingrained habit.”
● Explain what happens to multiple subgroups – don’t just have one characterisation, but
accept that there’s going to be a spectrum of people involved, and even those who aren’t
the ones you’re mainly talking about are still benefited. E.g. in a parenting debate, the
most basic analysis is “parents have more incentives to do X”. More sophisticated: “there
are good parents who do THIS and bad parents who do THAT, each affected in different
ways”. Even better: “here’s what causes good and bad parenting behaviour, and let me
describe the gradient between good and bad parents and how this policy pushes parents
further towards/away the habits of good/bad parenthood.” Whoever debates on the
higher level basically wins the characterisation argument, because no matter how
convincingly they describe, say, the effects on bad parents, you can always respond
“Okay, so some parents may be stereotypically terrible. We think the real world is far
more complicated, even neglectful parents still think they’re good people, here’s how the
vast majority of people who aren’t in these binary categories, but in between, will react.”
● At each level, ask “why” or “what”, try and think of more details about the situation, and
see if you can get into more subtle analysis. When you find your point relies on a heavily
loaded word or phrase, then it’s often important to break that word down. E.g. “if Iran had
nukes, then it’d bully other countries.” Against a good team, though, you’ll need to be
more specific on what would happen and why it’s bad. Details? “Iran would make threats
which its neighbours would have no choice but to concede to, leading to heightened
tensions.” Better, but what are tensions? “Other countries would be both angry and
terrified; they’d immediately start working on their own nukes, and also try to use indirect
measures against Iran, which would lead to escalation from both sides.” Escalation? Etc.
● Even-if arguments are very useful to support your points, explaining why even if one or
two of the links don’t hold, then you still get bad/good consequences. In a similar way to
discussing subgroups, you can say “Here’s what we think will happen. They’ve said that
none of it will happen. We’ve already rebutted that, but even if some of their arguments
hold, we think it’s most likely that (something in the middle) will happen. Here’s why
that’s good for us. And even in the worst-case scenario where they’re entirely right, then
it’s still worth doing, because of external reasons (e.g. raised public awareness).
● Think of examples. Examples should be used either as tools to contextualise analysis, or
very briefly to make you sound more authoritative. Either way, they shouldn’t be at all
 personal. Bad: “My friend had disease X, and she says that it sucks.” Better:
“Insert_celebrity had disease X, and she says it sucks and started a charity to help.”
Better: “Many survivors, like insert_celebrity, spend the rest of their lives campaigning for
our policy because the disease affects them so terribly.” In the last one, you both sound
like you know what you’re talking about, because of the celebrity name, and you have
analysis of why your example is applicable in general, not just in this one case. Either is
possible without the other; having both is best. Another example: mentioning that this
policy failed in both Greece and Spain is alright, but ideally you want to elaborate. E.g.
“this policy failed in Greece and Spain because of systematic factors X, Y, Z, and here’s
why X, Y, Z will be present in all future cases as well”. Examples should never be of the
form “imagine John. John is X and Y.” (rather, phrase it as “there are people who are X
and Y, here’s why there’s lots of them, here’s how they’re affected”).
● Examples can also be moral analogies, e.g. “We let people eat McDonalds, or go
skydiving, or donate their kidneys”. Same rules apply: explain relevant factors (these
can’t really be used to sound knowledgeable). They make decent POIs: “Should we ban
skydiving?” Then the person is put on the spot, and has to come up with reasons why
they’re not morally analogous, or commit to being extreme. If you get a POI like that,
though, best response is generally to say “Maybe, but that’s a different debate with
different practical considerations.” To force an answer, maybe phrase it as “We allow
skydiving; why exactly is that morally different?” or “Why shouldn’t we ban skydiving?”
● Finally, you need to explain why this point is a really important issue in the debate.
Where possible, explicitly weigh it against other points that the opponents have brought
up. Very often, weighing will win debates. You can do it in terms of short-term vs
long-term, people-we-should-care-about-more vs others (e.g. in prison debates),
likelihood vs unlikelihood, size of effect, of course, and a few others.
● Three advanced strategies are weighing our actions under uncertainty, weighing
urgency or irreversibility, and weighing happiness vs economics. The first goes
something like “when it’s unclear what course of action to take, then we should be
risk-averse, because the most fundamental duty of the (government, individual,
humanity) is not to harm (whoever gets harmed: citizens, innocents).” Note that this is
NOT a fully general argument for not changing status quo, but rather an argument about
cases where there is particularly intrinsic uncertainty. E.g. moral rights of people with
relation to future technology, or whether religion is true, etc. The second: if your benefits
can only accrue right now, whereas theirs are something that we could do at any time,
yours are better. If theirs are irreversible, and could be a mistake, then be risk-averse,
otherwise we’re stuck with these terrible policies (especially if you have a reversible
counter-case). Third: they might point to slightly increased wealth. You can say, “Look,
NZ is a rich country. Research has shown that for the majority of people with the typical
level of wealth in this country, money is only a small factor in happiness. We think it’s
better for people overall if we prioritise (job satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, etc)
rather than having slightly cheaper (plastic toys from China, other consumerist things).
Particularly powerful if you talk about why consumerism and seductive advertising mean
people will never be happy with their level of material wealth, but will rather be stuck on a
 “hedonic treadmill”.
Rebuttal

A couple of the most important ways to rebut are:

● Deny the premise of their point, by highlighting their initial flawed assumptions
● Deny their mechanism, by arguing that people don't think/act they way they describe, or
pointing out that they haven’t given enough description to really believe them
● Appeal to the middle ground – say that their view only holds in extreme cases
● Point out contradictions or tensions between two of their points
● Say why their benefits still exist under your model, or under the status quo
● Reductio ad absurdum: point out unacceptable logical consequences of their principle
● Explain why the argument isn’t important (e.g. the problem’s already starting to go away)
● Argue that their point isn’t in the scope of the motion - e.g. “this is not a practical debate”
It’s generally best to respond in as many ways as possible, even if it means less time on any
individual rebuttal. Order responses by which part of the argument they attack, so you can
phrase it as: “Three responses. [First one]. But even if that fails, [next one]”, and so on. For
example, a response which questions the whole premise of their point goes first. Then one
which explains why their mechanism doesn’t work, then why even if it does, its impact is tiny.

Introductions

The beginning of your speech should do two things: firstly, catch the judges’ attention, and
secondly, outline the structure of your speech. The latter is much more important than the
former - indeed, many top speakers simply begin their speeches by saying “I’m going to cover
three points in this speech: first, X, second, Y, third, Z. First, however, some rebuttal.”
Remember that you are being judged on the persuasiveness of your arguments, not the
persuasiveness of your style. However, judges are only human and beginning your speech in
style makes a good impression. A couple of ways to do so are outlined below: however, none of
them should take more than ten or fifteen seconds, to avoid displacing actual material.

Dramatic introduction: As first speaker, this should be based on the biggest problem with the
status quo if you're gov, or the biggest problem with the motion if you're opp. Quickly describe
what's happening to the people most affected by this policy. One or two sentences. Various
ways to phrase this: “Imagine you're...”, or “The typical person who...” or “Right now, thousands
of people...” etc. After you've established what's happening to people, say that this is
unacceptable. Use emotive phrases like “it's a violation of fundamental human rights” or “it hurts
the most vulnerable”; wait until later to get into specifics. You can weave these two parts
together, e.g. “It's outrageous that the poorest people in our society, who are working the
longest hours just to put food on the table, will be screwed over by their policy.”

Explanatory introduction: If the debate is about what will be more effective, take the most
intuitively plausible reason why your side is right and paint a picture of it, on a personal level.
E.g. “Every day, we're bombarded with images, quotes, videos of celebrities. They're one of the
biggest influences on modern culture – and when it comes to changing people's attitudes
towards global warming, they are way more inspiring than a faceless government.” This is
effective within points as well, although phrased slightly differently.

Mocking introduction: If you’re feeling sassy, you can take the stupidest thing the other team
said and mock it. Again, if possible, describe individuals. E.g. “The affirmative team think that,
because our parents never took parenting classes, we're all dysfunctional, depressed human
beings.” Or, “They live in a world where .... That's not the real world.” Make sure not to mock
without later also actually rebutting the point later in your speech.

Model

Define all the important and/or ambiguous terms in the motion

● No need for dictionary definition, just make it clear what you're talking about
● Can use examples: “we're talking about things like this, not things like that”

If a policy debate:
● Specify who is going to implement the policy
○ Generally “government” is fine
○ If the motion is specifically about government regulation of something, better but
not essential to name a branch which specialises in that, e.g. Ministry of Health.
● Specify how they are going to implement the policy
○ What will they actually be doing? Surprisingly easy to miss. E.g. what will
compulsory religious studies classes actually teach?
○ What's the extent of it – how long, how many people, etc?
○ Fines are generally good as punishments if people don’t obey; if it's important
that rich people don't get off but poor people don't get screwed, briefly say that
they scale up with income. Prison is rarely the answer for non-criminal issues.
● Make the model better by adding in helpful details. It’s generally reasonable to:
○ Implement it slowly (e.g. over the next 10 years)
○ Exclude unreasonable edge cases (e.g. people with criminal convictions)
○ Specify lots of govt control (e.g. legalise prostitution, but only in govt-run facilities)
○ Maintain current limitations (e.g. in a debate about letting Turkey join the EU,
make it conditional on them meeting the usual criteria)

If a belief debate:
● Identify the criteria which the debate should be judged on
○ These should be slightly weighted towards your side, if possible
○ e.g. for the motion “Turkey would be better off outside the EU”, you could
highlight the economy, self-determination, and global influence as what matters
○ Basically they're the categories which your points fit into; then you can introduce
your speech as “I'm going to discuss why we win on each of these criteria”.
● Of course, be ready for your opponents to argue that other criteria matter more. Weigh
 these against your criteria, and explicitly explain why yours trump theirs.

Types of arguments

Rights-based arguments
● Humans have certain rights which shouldn't be violated, where at all possible
● However, they do not have the right to infringe on others' rights
● The most fundamental rights are called negative rights, which are rights to not be
interfered with – i.e. not be killed or harassed or silenced
● The philosophical justification for this is that rights are fundamental to everyone's
self-determination and ability to define who they are, which is what they use to create
meaning in their life. If we violate anyone's rights in order to give utility to someone else,
we're denying their individuality as a human being, since we're making them into a tool
or a “means to an end”, instead of treating their quest for self-actualisation as an end in
itself. Note that not every person needs every right to create meaningful lives – e.g. a lot
of people don't want and don't use a right to abortion – but our rights framework should
include everything that would be necessary for almost all people to do so.
● Most people agree we also have positive rights: the right to have things like housing and
food, the right to healthcare etc. These are often justified as facilitative rights – that is,
they are necessary to exercise other rights. You need to be well-fed and not sick in order
to exercise bodily autonomy and your freedom to work, for example.
● It may seem weird that these are seen as facilitative not fundamental, since they're so
important to the UN etc, but the key philosophical difference is that negative rights are
intrinsically yours originally, whereas positive rights are things which have to be given to
you by society (e.g. your right to work freely is negative, your right to be given a job or
welfare if you don't have one is positive). And intrinsic to society giving people things is
society taking them away from others, by taxation; thus upholding positive rights often
involves violating negative rights. Libertarians don't think that's okay (see below)
● Some level of govt. interference can be justified by social contract theory: people are
part of an implicit agreement to give up some rights in exchange for the government
protecting their other rights, which they opt into by being part of the society (see below)
○ E.g. “we can see gun control laws as part of an implicit social contract: people
give up the right to carry guns, in exchange for a safer society.”
● Rights are about choice – if you force somebody to have an abortion, that's terrible and
not at all the same as the “right to have an abortion”. So people can choose to forfeit a
particular right – e.g. signing a contract forfeits the right to go against that contract
● However, this has to be a free rational choice! If people don't have enough information,
or expertise, to make informed and rational choices, or there's some sort of coercion
occurring, then they shouldn't be allowed to make a choice which sacrifices rights.
● It can be argued that some decisions are so extreme that people can never properly
imagine or rationally judge the consequences (e.g. organ sale), and so the government
needs to protect their future selves from the long-term harm of their actions. Other
reasons why people can’t rationally decide include being children, being addicted, or
being coerced (e.g. some work contracts, although the extent of this is up for debate).
Utilitarian arguments
● These are generally not phrased as “we increase utility” but instead “this will benefit
these people in these ways”, both for individuals and large groups of people
● They're usually the bulk of the arguments in any round: the “practical” ones
● Generally, utilitarian arguments and rights arguments are decided separately.
Sometimes, though, you have to explicitly weigh up which is more important.
● On the rights side, see philosophical justification above: no person should be used to
increase others' utility without regard for themselves, since that denies them agency as a
person, which is even more important than utility. Further, the govt should never be able
to erode rights since to a large extent it's the govt that rights are protecting people from
● On the utilitarian side, a good argument is that utility precedes rights - rights are valuable
because they allow people to fulfil their utility. That's why people are allowed to forfeit
rights if they think they'll get more utility from it. Fundamentally we define ourselves as
agents with goals and desires, and utility by definition is the sum of those. When it
comes to tradeoffs between protecting rights and increasing utility, when the stakes are
large enough, intuitively utility often wins - e.g. torturing a terrorist to find their bomb.

Role of Actor arguments

● The 'actor' is most often the government. They have certain goals and roles within
society, and no action they take should be contradictory to these
● For example, the government has the obligation to actively defend people's rights, to
follow the democratic will of the people, and to maintain law and order
● This is actually a case where slippery slope arguments are valid, since what prevents
governmental abuses is the fact that violating these things is taken as NEVER okay
● Other groups, such as the feminist movement, sports authorities, etc may have different
mandates and different goals. Talk about how they have the obligation to properly
represent the people who they speak for, and not to betray that purpose. However, this
doesn’t imply that they are monolithic or all agree with each other.
● Doctors have obligations to do no harm (Hippocratic oath) and to put patients first, in
particular regarding patient confidentiality (priests and lawyers have the latter duty too)

Effect on society arguments

● These are arguments which claim that there are social goals which are intrinsically good,
e.g. equality, democracy, non-discrimination
● Generally you don't need to explain why they're good – few people will challenge that
equality is valuable. However, it's also really powerful to say, for example,
“non-discrimination is good in general” and then follow up with a couple of tangible
effects that it has on society – e.g. minorities losing the “us vs them” mentality, which
decreases crime, and feeling more connected with the system, which increases voting
turnout, and tending to aim for better careers, which inspires their communities
● Then explain how this proposal will lead to or undermine the overall social goal
● One mechanism by which this happens is “backlash”. Pushing through an unpopular
 policy might lead to people disliking this group, stymying their future campaigns.
● Another mechanism is legitimisation. For example, if the US police had more black
officers, but discriminatory laws still existed, politicians could point to those black officers
as proof that the system is “legitimate” without changing the underlying issues.

Effect on the world arguments

● Many policy debates are implicitly set in the developed western world. But if you can
prove a significant impact on people from the poorest countries in the world, that is very
difficult to outweigh. In places like Uganda, it takes $3000 of additional medical funding
to save a life. In Britain, it takes closer to $3 million. Unless your opponents argue that
we have 1000x more of a moral obligation to Britons than Ugandans, increasing the
wealth of developing countries can be incredibly significant and thus debate-winning.
● Some examples: only 3% of deaths from terrorism occur in the western world. Thus
those in the Middle East and Africa are by far the most affected in terrorism debates.
● The TPP free trade deal is predicted to increase Vietnam’s GDP by 10-20% - this directly
translates into millions of people dragged out of poverty, even if the US loses some jobs.
● The EU impedes its members’ trade with African countries (especially through the
Common Agricultural Policy) which prevents them from properly industrialising
● Arguments for benefits to poor countries can be further emphasised by the idea of a
historical obligation for reparations - wealthy countries got that way through exploitation.

Human dignity arguments

● These are the most difficult arguments to make; only do so after practise. They say the
intrinsic value of humanity is degraded by various actions, esp. when money’s involved
● This might come up in debates involving selling organs, torture, commercial surrogacy,
suicide/euthanasia, graphic pornography, or punishments for particularly sadistic crimes
● The general idea is that there is something important in the concept of humanity in itself,
which is undermined by actions which totally disregard the dignity of any human, and
violate this shared relationship. People often use the phrase “human life is sacred”, but,
although it conveys the right idea, just the word “sacred” is not enough analysis (in
particular because the argument should be secular). So “human dignity” is better.
● Back up this argument with very emotive and descriptive language about how bad this
particular act is, how it exploits people, and the psychological or physical consequences.
● Counter this argument either by arguing that the consequences aren’t bad enough for it
to be a proper affront to dignity, or weighing that your utilitarian and rights points are
more important. It often dies away on its own, since it’s so hard to weigh into the debate

Tactical concessions
● These can be really useful, but are difficult to use right. In particular, use them when you
want to totally shift the debate away from what your opponents are talking about, if you
think that you can win on other material - they’ve now wasted a lot of time proving
something that they won’t even get points for winning, since you agree. E.g. gov has just
given brilliant arguments as to why and how a specific group are screwed over. You
 could now stand up, concede all those harms (although ideally also pointing out that
they’re probably not as bad as claimed) and then explain why you don’t care at all about
that particular group. Why not? Maybe because you think that you can’t take away the
rights of others even if it’d prevent harm to that group. Maybe because that group has in
some way forfeited their rights. Maybe because it’s not the role of the actor to help them.
● In general, dispute everything; don’t make tactical concessions unless you are confident
that your framing will totally sideline the opposition’s material. At the same time, if an
argument is ridiculous or flawed, then good judges won’t weigh it into the debate - you
don’t need to explicitly respond to everything, just the arguments which matter most.

Specific arguments to know

Parental rights
● Generally, parents have the right to make decisions for their children, since children are
incapable of making rational decisions. However, parents also have an obligation to
made these decisions in the best interests of their children - so abuse cannot be justified.
● It's sometimes argued that the government shouldn't make a particular decision about
children since the government would be taking away these parental rights. But parental
rights are usually easy to rebut, because the whole reason that they exist is so better
decisions are made for children. Therefore parents don't have the right to make
decisions which will harm their children. If the government thinks that they might, then for
the sake of the children it's perfectly justified in limiting parental rights, particularly since
children are the most vulnerable members of society and incapable of helping
themselves, and therefore the group that the govt is MOST obliged to protect.
● The right of a child not to be harmed beats parental rights to choose for them, except in
cases where the definition of harm is intrinsically subjective (e.g. teaching religion).
● If you DO have to defend parental rights, talk about how blanket laws are generally
ineffective at dealing with individual cases where parents are far better at making
decisions about what's best for their particular child, while government bureaucrats are
generally very removed from how things work in the real world
● Also, a principled point: limiting the freedom of any particular parent is making the
assumption that they will be a bad parent without any evidence. An analogy to the justice
system, where people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, is somewhat relevant.

Black market arguments

● When the government makes something illegal, but people still want it, then black
markets will form to provide the good (cigarettes, abortion, drugs).
● Black markets are bad because they are unregulated, so whatever they provide has no
quality control and will be more dangerous than a legal version (particularly drugs)
● Black markets also get previously law-abiding citizens embroiled into the criminal
underworld, which makes them more likely to resort to other crime
● Thirdly, they entrench the power and profitability of gangs since the prices skyrocket and
the gangs are the only providers – e.g. Al Capone during the Prohibition. Instead of govt
 getting tax revenue, which can be used to enforce regulations, gangs get the money
● This is a pretty standard but good point to make whenever you're arguing against
banning something; it needs to be rebutted on a case-by-case basis, although generally:
○ a lot of people would be deterred by black markets being illegal, since they don't
want to associate with criminals and face risks of getting caught
○ also, people do respect the law intrinsically, and feel a moral duty to obey it
○ People will KNOW that the products are lower-quality, and not want to risk it
○ Black markets will still be more expensive than status quo, and deter people
● Note that these are only mitigatory arguments, and weak unless you explain how they
are actually significant in the context of the particular issue involved

Philosophy of justice
● When people commit crimes, they are trespassing against the rights of other people
● Because of this, they have forfeited some of their own rights
● This is only in proportion to the severity of their crime: principle of proportionality (this
doesn't mean that their punishment should be AS severe as the crime they committed).
● However, there are some rights which are inalienable and can never be taken away –
e.g. in New Zealand we draw the line at the death penalty, taking away the right to life
● Society must maintain moral superiority in order for punishment to be legitimate

Roles of justice system

● Deterrence: scaring other people off from committing the same crime. When making
arguments about deterrence, you really need to get into a criminal's mindset; describe
what's happening in their head at the moment of committing the crime.
● A common way to rebut deterrence is to say there are crimes of passion vs premeditated
crimes; you could say that in the former, they're not thinking rationally, but in the latter,
they don't think they'll be caught anyway, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth it
● On the other hand, larger consequences make it easier for people to exercise
self-control (especially when the punishment is an emotionally intense concept like
death), and they may change the cost-benefit analysis of premeditated crimes.
● Rehabilitation: making sure that people will never commit the crimes again after
they've gotten out of jail. This means emphasising that what they did was wrong,
teaching them how to behave as a productive member of society, and motivating change
● Jail is in general pretty bad at rehabilitation, which is one of the important issues for most
cases about jail. There are many many reasons: when you come out few people will hire
you except criminals, all the people you know are criminals, and you may well stay in the
gang you joined in prison for protection; you or your family are likely in debt and you've
lost the years of your life when you should have been working your way up the job
ladder and gaining actual job experience and savings; instead, you will have picked up
all sorts of criminal skills and often drug addictions; you now are likely bitter towards
society and angry at the system, but in many countries legally banned from voting for
any change (disenfranchisement); you may be traumatised by jail violence and societal
stigma
● Rebuttal for all that: NZ jails help prisoners learn skills and do productive things; there
are lots of programs specifically targeted at stopping people from reoffending; you can
get jobs in prison; you REALLY don't want to go back, and you've had time to reflect on
your actions; and NZ prisons are pretty cushy, particularly minimum-security (Sky TV!).
● Prevention: Some people will never be rehabilitated. The purpose of keeping them in jail
then is to stop them from committing more crimes. This includes committing crimes in
jail, which is way too common currently - especially jail rape in the US
● Retribution: This is the only non-utilitarian role, and it's the most difficult to argue. The
idea is that after committing a crime, the perpetrator morally deserves to be punished: to
“pay” for what they've done, by suffering under whatever punishment is imposed.
● Retribution can be seen as an expression of society's outrage about the crime. It also
comforts victims to know that society has punished the person who hurt them. It
generally needs to match society's opinions about how heinous a crime is.
● However, you could say that making people suffer beyond what is necessary for the
other 3 roles is cruel and brings no benefit, so retribution is unjustified. This is particularly
true from a utilitarian standpoint. Many deontologists would likely think otherwise.
● There's an interesting distinction between nominal punishment and experienced
punishment (i.e. 10 years in jail may be far worse for one person than another); in
general it's difficult to weigh this, but in special cases judges do tend to try to judge how
severe the experience is, instead of treating everyone exactly equally (e.g. if you're very
old and/or dying, then keeping you in jail is too harsh; you get name suppression if
you're famous and revealing your name would ruin your career, but not otherwise)

Equality
● There are two types: equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome.
● The first one is just that people should have the same chance to succeed. It's pretty
uncontroversial. E.g. all children should, in an ideal world, have access to equally good
educations. Some libertarians disagree but this is one case where they're clearly wrong.
On the other hand, true equality of opportunity is probably impossible because if
somebody chooses to give their child a better education at a private school, it’s
excessively authoritarian to stop them from doing so. So what’s probably wanted is an
acceptable, but not perfect, level of equality of opportunity
● Equality of outcome is a bit trickier, but it can be argued in several ways:
○ Talents and luck which lead to making money are morally arbitrary – they're
assigned by a “lottery of birth” and not correlated with what we “deserve”. If
people didn't know whether they were talented, they'd want even untalented
people to have good lives; so we should help the people who are worst off (this is
known as the “Veil of Ignorance argument).
○ It's justified to tax the rich the most because they've gained the most from the
rule of law and ordered society; therefore they should give back the most
○ The idea of a “natural rate of unemployment” means that, even if everyone works
hard, some will always lose out – surely we have an obligation to help them.
○ Utility-wise, a more equal society is a happier society because class divides lead
 to conflict and resentment, which also increases crime, while concentrating
money and power in the hands of a few undermines democracy; inequality of
outcomes leads to cycles of poverty for children (see below) and loss of
facilitative rights. These are related to the points in “Effects on society
arguments”
● If you need to rebut equality arguments, talk about how you do support equality of
opportunity but that, after that, people should be responsible for their own free actions
○ If fifty thousand people each agree to pay a few dollars to watch a basketball
star, then it's totally legitimate that the star is a millionaire; how can you justify
stopping them from paying what they choose for the enjoyment of watching?
○ And in fact, people who are wealthy in capitalist societies often ended up that
way because they've provided a significant service to a lot of people (e.g. Bill
Gates' computers have done so much for the world economy and productivity) –
therefore in the majority of cases they DO deserve it.
○ Everyone has the potential to succeed but if some choose to be lazy or
unproductive, then others shouldn't be forced to work harder to provide for them.
Additionally, this may just indicate that they value having free time or less stress
more than being wealthy; this is a lifestyle choice not something to be “fixed”
○ Diminishing the incentive to succeed results in poorer outcomes for everyone
(e.g. the higher welfare is, the fewer poor people choose to work; the higher
taxes are, the fewer rich people choose to work; often a jealous sense of
“equality” doesn't bring the poor up but just pushes the rich down

Libertarianism
Libertarians think that negative rights should be inviolable. Closely related is the idea that
people should make whatever decisions they want and face whatever consequences – if
they want to take heroin or gamble everything, it should be legal, but nobody should be
forced to pay taxes to bail them out, since that's basically stealing their hard-earned
money. Pure libertarians would only have just enough taxes to pay for the justice
system, national defence and public goods (non-excludable and non-rival, like
lighthouses). Libertarianism is self-consistent but too extreme to be acceptable to most
in today's society (and in debate rounds). There are 4 main ways to beat it:
● Sometimes we need to violate rights in a minor way, e.g. taxes, to uphold other vital
rights, e.g. political rights. You can't vote or be a part of society if you're destitute.
● Libertarianism breaks down for children. Even if adults should be culpable for the
consequences of their actions, it's often their innocent children who get screwed over.
Even libertarians who are progressive enough to support things like public education and
orphanages ignore the effect of growing up in poverty on children, since any attempt to
alleviate this through taxes clashes with the idea that negative rights should be inviolate.
● Furthermore, even libertarians acknowledge that children shouldn't make legal
decisions, on the basis of mental incapability. Yet it's difficult to draw a line between
mental incapacity and lack of rationality through things like addictions or diseases.
● Lastly, it’s just not how society works. Welfare is something which is traded off with rights
 all the time; just because libertarianism is consistent doesn’t make it right.

Cycles of poverty and crime

Children growing up in poor or otherwise disadvantaged (e.g. minority) neighbourhoods are
far less likely to succeed in life, because:
● They generally go to worse schools with more disruptive kids and lower standards
● Far more difficult to learn when you're hungry, don't have proper educational materials,
internet access, or are distracted with issues at home
● Their parents are less educated and can't help them with homework etc; in fact, they
may view school as “a waste of time” and discourage attendance at university
● Kids have few people around them to view as role models of success, and it may seem
normal to them to get low-paying jobs without aiming any higher. Particularly bad when
parents are on welfare, so that kids think this is a viable lifestyle
All these factors mean that, when unable to find other success, some kids turn to crime
● Additionally, there is a much greater presence of gangs in their neighbourhoods, which
means that they are normalised, and find it much easier to recruit
● General feeling that society is against them/the people who are making decisions don't
care about them and are just old white wealthy men
● If their parents are criminals, lack of good role models (parents may spend time absent
in jail) and knowing lots about crime from a very young age will contribute to this cycle of
crime. Again, they may think it's a viable or “normal” lifestyle
● Be careful of phrasing this as stereotypes; instead, talk about influencing factors

Social contract
● This is a hypothetical contract exchanging some rights for protection – e.g. you give up
the freedom to own a tank, so that the government can protect everyone from tanks
● This is also a justification of some level of taxation – in theory, if I didn't want to pay
money towards national defence, then taxation would be stealing from me. But if I'm
implicitly buying into the social contract, then I do get a fair deal
● It's a valid argument to say that the entire theory is flawed. A contract depends on
consent, but nobody ever made a consenting decision to give up these rights; it
was just forced on them from birth. “Implicitly” buying in can't beat explicit refusal
● Furthermore, it's unreasonable to expect that people who don't like their country's social
contract should have to move overseas to prevent their rights being taken away.
● Responses: even though it's only hypothetical, it's the contract that people WOULD
HAVE consented to, if they hadn’t known where they’d be in society, which is mostly only
down to the “lottery of birth” - random luck of who your parents are
● Further, our society does run on a give-and-take of rights, so it's difficult to totally reject
the theory without also rejecting western society
● And in a democracy, people do get a say in which rights are affected, which is important

Private vs Public sector

● Private sector is often argued to be more efficient, because of the profit motive. When
 the CEOs and directors are going to get paid directly based on how well they do, they
have more of an incentive to work hard. When there’s a certain service that people want,
there’s incentive to profit by introducing it, especially if they value it highly.
● Further, the private sector HAS to be efficient or else they won't survive; so the most
efficient companies will flourish. On the other hand, publicly-owned companies may lose
money but keep going because the government sinks money into them. This also means
that it's difficult for private firms to compete without losing money also.
● Thirdly, the private sector is not as dependent on the whims of politicians, who change
every few years and may promote inefficient policies to pander to voters.
On the other hand:
● Public sector is better when there are natural monopolies or potential for monopolistic
behaviour, since public firms in these areas will not set prices too highly or use predatory
pricing (where they lower prices temporarily to drive other firms under).
● Public sector will provide services to everyone. In cases where there are positive
externalities, this is important – e.g. building railway tracks to towns even though they
won't be profitable, because it's a social good to have good transport everywhere.
● Public sector employees often choose their jobs from a desire to benefit society.
● Public sector is safer, since there's less risk of companies going under. For large
companies which offer critical services, this is vital.
● Public sector makes money for the government, in most cases.

In general, to argue for the private sector, you should take a moderate position and support
remedying its flaws using taxes and regulations. Describe in detail the failures of government
decision-making procedures, including how economically illiterate voters skews political
promises. Describe also how pressure from consumers can keep companies in line.
If you're arguing for the public sector, focus on cases of natural monopolies (where there are
prohibitively high costs of entry) and essential services which the government needs to ensure
work no matter what. E.g. power lines, dams, rail networks. A counterexample for essential
services is food - no intervention needed, because it’s so un-monopolistic. Also explain how
corporations will always devote energy to evading laws and screwing over consumers. Lobbying
is a big factor - because there’s so much money at stake, private companies will use politicians
to rig the system in their favour. There is a “revolving door” for the people who write and enforce
regulations to work for big companies at twice the salary, figuring out how to evade them. In
addition, shareholders are increasingly focused on short-term profits, and the pressure from
them to show good returns can drive CEOs to duplicitous or outright criminal behaviour. Also,
CEO pay is no longer driven by supply and demand, but rather is continually inflated to signal a
company’s status, and because directors has very little incentive to speak against it.

Self-governance
● This is the principle behind democracy: each person has ownership of themselves, so
therefore the only legitimate governments must be based on their opinions
● People having input into the laws which govern them is a moral necessity for those laws
to be legitimate, since otherwise the government is just arbitrarily taking away their rights
 ● Case: “any minority group should be able to secede”. You can argue for this on the basis
of the principle of self-governance. On the other side, we don’t let individuals or arbitrary
groups secede when their policies don’t get passed. Therefore, it should only happen
when there is some sort of historically or culturally homogenous group with legitimate
grievances (maybe determined by a referendum, since people only tend to want drastic
change as a last resort)
● There’s often a lot of violence associated with secession (or not allowing secession).

Democracy
Democracy vs autocracy is no contest, democracy is far better in terms of both principles
and outcomes. See above on how self-governance is important. Autocratic regimes:
● tend to create corruption since there's no external oversight of govt officials
● have difficulty entrenching safeguards to protect minorities & limit government power,
since there are no ways to change the government if it starts breaking those safeguards
● therefore end up suppressing dissidents through violence and terror
● are economically inefficient since they often overregulate free markets
● Note: planned economies are NOT necessarily autocracies. One is a system of
economic policy; the other, a system of government. They have historically been
correlated; however, in principle it would be perfectly possible for a planned economy to
have different parties with different priorities, who get voted in and out.
However, we can debate how to optimise democracy, e.g. whether compulsory voting, binding
referendums, campaign spending limits, or particular regulations for politicians should exist.
● Don’t be afraid to question whether “democracy is intrinsically good” - the easiest
philosophical stance to take is that democracy is valuable because it leads to good
outcomes, and any modification which causes better outcomes is worth doing.
● Minority parties are incredibly important because they give people a larger range of
policy options; a big problem with two or three-party systems is that often, it's a case of
which is the lesser evil. E.g. National managed to win despite nobody wanting asset
sales, because Labour wasn't good enough on other issues. In that case, having a 3rd
big party with positions between the two would have helped satisfy a lot more people.
● Limiting campaign spending is not a huge issue in NZ, but it's generally a good idea.
Individuals and special interest groups contributing large amounts undermines the ideal
of “one person, one vote” and therefore biases the political process. On the other hand,
if I'm a private individual and I want to make an ad which bashes one party, it's a
violation of my rights to free speech to stop me (although in general it’s still worth
banning that)
Compulsory voting/voting limitations/referendums on particular issues:
● When voters are uninformed about an issue, or it is complicated above the average
person's knowledge, then their input is likely to be wrong and harm the election.
● Uninformed voters are also far more likely to vote based on irrelevant factors like how
'nice' or 'eloquent' a candidate seems, which can make the worse candidate get elected
● Even if voters know a little about parties, it's likely to be very shallow. Parties will cater to
these voters by creating policies which superficially favour them, but which will actually
 do little to help. E.g. raising the minimum wage may be good, but raising it too much will
destroy jobs. Yet uninformed voters will think higher = better.
● Rebuttal: people don't actually need to know very many details to vote; if they are poor,
and know 'Labour helps the poor', then that vote is perfectly valid.
● In addition, limiting voting of any group is a MASSIVELY slippery slope; democracy only
works when the people in power are totally subject to the will of all the people.
● When people are forced to vote, it may make them more engaged in the political process
● In the current system experts can analyse the effectiveness of policies, and convey that
information to people: what's needed from the public is judgement about priorities
● In fact, the whole idea of democracy is that people choose which “experts” represent
them and trust in their judgement. That's why we don't have individual votes on
economic issues, because we want qualified (elected) people deciding them
IMPORTANT: the aim of democracy is not from “everyone votes for the person who's going
to run the country best”, the aim of democracy is “everyone votes for the person who's
going to be best for them, which forces politicians to offer policies which cater to what
most people actually want”. Democracy doesn't NEED people to be altruistic (although it
helps). Similar to the free market, where people buy things that suit them the best, not
things that they think would suit everyone the best. However, this assumes that there are
safeguards in place which prevent rights violations (e.g. in the US, judges can strike
down ANY law if it breaks the constitution).

Paternalism
● This is when the government bans “victimless crimes” which don't hurt anyone except
the person doing them, for example smoking, drugs, gambling, not wearing seatbelts
● On a rights basis, this is unjustified since people should have free choice (libertarianism)
● However, it can be argued that in some cases people are incapable of making rational
choices, particularly due to addiction – which, by definition, is inability to choose to stop
● Addiction can be physiological (chemical craving) or psychological (habit, thrill, rush e.g.
gambling). Both can be very serious - gambling, for example, is all psychological
● Particularly bad when addiction starts during childhood, as with many smokers (since
that’s a time when we accept that people can’t make rational choices) or affects others
● Paternalism is worse when it interferes with the most personal parts of people’s lives -
for example, consensual sexual activities which might be frowned upon by society
● Non-coercive alternatives are generally preferable (e.g. if donating organs when you die
is the default, but people can opt out, rates are 5-10x higher; money also often works)

The Media
● The media works by providing sensationalist and populist material which people want to
know about. This biases it in a number of ways:
○ It’s always going to focus on big flashy events more than systematic problems -
e.g. the people dying in airplane crashes are prioritised over famine victims
○ It’s going to focus on western lives and interests far more than foreigners, and
personal stories of those westerners over detailed analysis
 ○ It’s going to spend just as much or more time on relatively trivial things, especially
sports and celebrities, as big international issues
○ It may not disclose, or at least not focus on, inconvenient facts. Particularly true
in politically-biased media, such as Fox News in America.
○ If a news event isn’t already well-known (e.g. various African wars) then outlets
won’t want to cover it, since it’s more difficult to get people engaged - and the
opposite for already-public news. Result: herd mentality (e.g. see Je Suis
Charlie). Note that online activism is often almost entirely ineffective.
● People react to the media in emotive and irrational ways. They have huge scope
insensitivity - a picture of one child dying is far more emotive than a report of 10 000
dead. Sometimes tapping into that emotivism is worth it, because otherwise people who
have been numbed by constant coverage of distant atrocities will never take action. But
it’s also manipulative, and can serve to obscure the true facts of any situation
● They also self-censor their media consumption, by choosing outlets which reflect their
own political views, and then end up in an echo chamber (especially because their
friends and family likely also have those views). This is far worse on social media.
● The skewed ownership of media companies by the liberal elite changes news priorities.
● Further, many journalists come from similar backgrounds, which influences their views.

Feminism
● Modern feminism is very concerned with both the explicit policies which are harmful
towards women, but also the subtle social pressures which drive stereotypes
● In particular, feminism dislikes the assignment of characteristics to each side of a gender
binary. This hurts both men and women: each are “punished” by society by derision,
bullying, or not being able to get jobs, etc, when they display traits that aren’t seen as
fitting of their gender - for men this is particularly being “weak” or “girly”, whereas with
women there are many different types of pressures, especially to be “sexy”
● Don’t be afraid to put in a subpoint about how many men are also hurt by the existence
of these societal norms on behavior, appearance and mannerisms - particularly gay
men. However, the fact that masculinity is set up in such a way that it’s always
associated with what is more “powerful”, as opposed to “vulnerable” femininity, means
that men as an overall group end up in more positions of power. Reinforced by male
physical strength, and socialisation for confidence and forwardness
● Norms are so prevalent, particularly in media and advertising, that people end up deeply
believing in the particular norms that they have been told to value; and they become
self-enforcing. For example, women are often the most critical of other women who don’t
conform to mainstream standards of beauty or behaviour.
● TH as the feminist movement debates: the movement is a diverse group of people, not a
monolithic entity. There’s a culture of internal criticism, and many different religions,
races, etc. Arguments about backlash towards feminism shouldn’t be the main point.

Vulnerable Groups
● Often the most persuasive arguments are those which claim that already-marginalised or
vulnerable groups are screwed over. This is both because the same effect (e.g. losing
$1000) harms them more, but also because the government has a particular obligation
to those who have already been treated unjustly by society, either historically or now.
● In economics terms, the marginal utility of most benefits is higher for the disadvantaged
● Harms to young people (18-25ish) can be emphasised by pointing out that:
○ They don’t have financial reserves to help them survive unlucky circumstances
○ They don’t own their own houses, and so are in unsettled situations
○ They have little relevant experience, so have difficulty advancing their careers
○ They may be the first fired when a business needs to downsize
● Harms to racial minorities are worse because:
○ It may compound or build into currently-existing stereotypes
○ They are currently (or were historically) treated in unjust ways by society as a
whole, and so we should make a special effort to make up for those injustices
○ It may cause increased disenfranchisement with the current structure of society
● Harms to the poor can be emphasised by the facts that:
○ They’re often not educated, and so vulnerable to exploitation/make bad decisions
○ For the same reason, their job options are generally very limited
○ Often overstressed and tired from working long hours/two jobs
○ Vulnerable to sudden shocks, e.g. you can’t plan for your car breaking down, but
suddenly you can’t get to work unless you find $1000 cash to fix it
○ Can’t afford to take time to do things which would be helpful in the long term, e.g.
learn about proper nutrition or what sort of help the state could provide them
● It can be valuable to be particularly emotive and outraged when making these points.

International Relations Debates

● There will often be an implicit conflict between the west and other big powers - Russia,
China, etc. When the west is not involved, they gain. Especially important in Eastern
Europe (Ukraine) and Middle East, where Russia is a fan of selling arms
● On the other hand, it’s not in any of their interests to totally screw over the others,
because they’re so economically interlinked that it’d be terrible for all of them (China
holds all the US’s debt, which is worthless if the US goes under; meanwhile if China
stops producing goods, then the US loses a large chunk of its consumer economy)
● “Soft power” is things like using diplomacy, building ties via trade deals, doing each other
favours, etc. Soft power is an alternative way of influencing things, as opposed to war.
As above, increasing soft power decreases likelihood of actual conflict.
● The motivations of Russia and China are up for debate. Putin is a “strongman” who plays
on nationalist stereotypes and Russians’ dislike of the West. His actions can be
portrayed as either cunning and calculated, or egoistic and irrational. Meanwhile the
Chinese government is walking a tightrope: the levels of economic growth which keep
their population quiescent are unsustainable, and the internal politics of the Party are
very complicated. China’s national self-image might drive them to aggressive acts.
 ● Currently the Middle East is a total mess. There’s a huge Sunni/Shia divide (Iran and
Iraq are Shia, everyone else isn’t) and various terrorist groups are on each side of the
divide. Iran is funding a proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Meanwhile Saudi is
funding HAMAS, who are a big reason why Palestine is in such a bad state. Iran’s
funding Hezbollah. Emphasise instability: any given group or country may end up
splintering, infighting, or doing terrible things. Everyone hates ISIS, even Al Qaeda.
● Everyone also hates Israel. Israel’s reaction (they have nukes, and also a fantastic army)
should be considered in most debates set here. Israel is kept in check by the US, to
some extent, since they don’t want relationship breakdown - but not necessarily enough.
The US was also putting huge sanctions on Iran to stop them developing nukes, sending
viruses to destroy their centrifuges, and assassinating their nuclear scientists. This is
better than an alternative of nuclear war between Iran and Israel.

Development debates:
Poor countries need development. There are a number of important factors involved.
● Free trade is of course incredibly important to any economy. But it can be too free:
● The IMF has forced many African nations to stop subsidising crops. But since
Europe still spends billions doing so, this means they can’t compete globally
● It’s important to have tariffs in place to protect fledgeling industries (industries
which have just started and need time to become properly competitive)
● International corporations end up taking profits from natural resources overseas,
as well as using their power to manipulate the local system - not hard in countries
which are somewhat corrupt. See Coca-cola killing union leaders in Columbia
● Aid is a difficult topic. Increasing aid is good, but there are problems with status quo:
● In corrupt countries, aid is often funneled to leaders, who use it to maintain their
own grasp on power, e.g. by paying off supporters, bribes, funding the military. In
Afghanistan, a significant proportion of American aid ends up funding the Taliban
● Aid is thus best given in goods or services: malaria nets, engineering help, etc.
However this may wipe out local production of those goods: worse in long term
● Also incentivises the govt to keep the country poor, so they keep getting aid
● Sometimes aid is conditionalised on the government meeting certain criteria,
such as improving human rights. This is not inherently bad, but means that if the
govt screws up, it’s the poor who suffer. It’s also historically been misused by the
West to force countries into very libertarian policies such as cutting welfare,
privatising state assets and deregulating corporations, which generally open
them to western exploitation and terrible outcomes, and continued dependence
● Aid causes currency appreciation and thus a fall in exports (Dutch disease)
● Additionally, even while we give poor countries aid, they pay us huge amounts of
interest on unfeasibly large loans that were originally caused either by
incompetent governments or remnants of war and natural disasters
● However, increasing political will in Western countries to do clearly-good sorts of
interventions (health assistance, technical assistance, food to famine areas) can
very easily be framed as the most important possible issue to address
“TH Regrets” Debates
● Set up a counterfactual about what the world would be like if the regretted thing didn't
exist, e.g. “In a world without organised religion, we’d see lots of local spiritual discourse”
● Talk about what’s probable or likely, not what's possible or certain; appeal to uncertainty.
● You don't have to stop at the present; keep going to why we will regret it in the future.
● Opp: there are core reasons behind what you regret, which are not regret-worthy; or x is
a necessary part of that bigger trend. “There is no way to regret the decline of the
nuclear family without regretting the rise of feminism and sex-positivity, so we shouldn’t.”
● Are the negative aspects contingent on the phenomenon (a necessary part of them) or
are they caused by something different but related? “Revenge porn is not a necessary
part of the internet and will soon be legislated away, so don’t regret the Internet overall”

Action-inaction distinction
● This is a complex philosophical argument which you can sometimes use as a bludgeony
subpoint or rebuttal. Basically, is there a moral difference between doing something bad,
and not doing something good? i.e. do you have an obligation to help people if you can?
● If you're supporting doing something, say that the difference doesn't exist: that if we don't
act to help, we're morally culpable. Use the example of someone drowning and you, with
a rope, walking straight past. Emphasise how easy it would be to help, in your proposal.
Say that any actor who knows that their choice will lead to a better world is bound by
morality, because choosing to walk past is just as much of a choice as choosing to help.
Further, our moral connection to the rest of humanity is what distinguishes us from
arbitrary selfish individuals. Even if it's not immoral to walk past, it's definitely not moral,
and we should strive towards morality wherever possible.
● If you're supporting not doing something, say that there's a real distinction. When you
haven't caused someone's problem, then you can't be held culpable for what
happens to them; otherwise we're terrible people for not spending every single day
helping people. If there were no distinction, then our fundamental rights would be
invalidated since we'd be forced to put ourselves in danger or harm for others who have
no connection to us. Instead, the original cause of the bad event is responsible.

Political Pluralism
● Some things would have good outcomes, like banning openly racist political parties. The
reason why we can’t is because of the ideal of political pluralism. Essentially, we have
particular rules by which we decide how to run society. Call them “political rights”. Within
those rules, we are free to disagree about what sort of society we should have - and
sometimes one group will be more powerful, and sometimes another. But if the group
which is in power at any given time decides to remove the political rights of another
group, then there’s no reason why the other side can’t do the same when THEY get into
power, and then each can basically try to stack the political process in their favour (see
gerrymandering in America). The whole reason that political rights exist is to provide a
framework such that, even if (or especially if) you totally disagree with the people in
 power, you’ll still be able to access and change the political system. That’s historically
been really important for minority groups who want to create change, because if they
didn’t have political rights, they’d be shut out altogether (and only 60 years ago, during
McCarthyism, the entire US political left was basically a persecuted minority group).
● Imagine everyone had the following preferences for possible outcomes (best to worst):
a. Everyone is banned from saying genuinely terrible things
b. Everyone can say whatever they want
c. Everyone can only say things that whoever’s in power at that point allows
It’s pretty clear that if we picked option a and gave the current government the power to
decide what’s genuinely terrible, then we’d be in a slippery slope to c, the worst option,
every time a new government gets elected. So we grant an absolute right for b, even
though genuinely terrible things still get said, because it’s the only stable solution.
● Of course, sometimes we DO change political rights, such as putting various limits on
free speech. There’s no rule as to when this happens, but the general idea is that you
need a “societal consensus” that it’s unreasonable to oppose the change. In the US, for
example, you need a significant majority to make any constitutional amendment. In many
parts of Europe, banning holocaust denial was such a consensus, and now it’s a norm.
● The other major problem with not being politically pluralistic is that it tends to backfire.
Banning parties which discriminate based on race, for example, would also get rid of the
New Zealand Maori party and affirmative action. Cracking down on objectification of
women could also be used to deny women sexual agency. Even the recent US Supreme
Court ruling forcing bakers to make whatever cake customers wanted (i.e. including
cakes celebrating gay marriage) has also been used to force some bakers to make
anti-gay-marriage cakes. Aiming for the ad-hoc goals of one’s own party isn’t a
sustainable way to legislate.

Immigration
Immigration debates are becoming popular; they have strong practical and principled points.
● Immigration improves typically improves the quality of life of immigrants immensely.
They now have a welfare net, improved public services (including education) and far
better job opportunities - particularly when coming from very poor or conflicted countries
● On a utilitarian basis, we therefore have a moral obligation to open our borders to far
more immigrants than we currently accept, especially refugees
● The country you’re born in is simply due to the “lottery of birth”, in which we lucked out
and others didn’t - but that’s a morally arbitrary factor, so we have no significant moral
reason to turn potential immigrants away, except selfishness
● Immigrants also tend to work hard and contribute significantly to the economy. They’re
disproportionately entrepreneurial and their children perform very well academically.
Especially given the low birth rates in Western countries, having more workers is good.
Arguing against immigration, there are three main stakeholders: countries immigrated from,
countries immigrated to, and immigrants themselves.
 ● Because immigration selects for high-skilled, entrepreneurial people, the countries they
leave from often end up far worse off. Even if they’re sending back some of their
earnings, it’s still generally not worth the brain drain - especially if others follow them.
● If nations care about their own citizens more, then there’s a justification for not accepting
too many immigrants. However, for this argument to work you then also need to prove
that immigrants harm the society they immigrate to - by taking more in welfare than they
pay in taxes, for example. Also, whether nations should care that much more about their
own citizens can be contested from a utilitarian stance. To counter that, you can appeal
to the social contract, or to morality being based on relatively closer relationships (i.e. the
same reason why it’s okay to care more about our own families than our neighbours
makes it okay to care more about citizens of our own country than foreigners: moral
relationships which have been built up by time and closeness). Even if the “lottery of
birth” is random, and it’s totally down to luck whether we’re born in NZ or Africa, morally
significant relationships can still evolve from an arbitrary starting point
● Low-paid immigrants stretch the welfare and public health systems, and sometimes don’t
adopt the values of their new homes - see areas in London “basically under Sharia law”.
In the longer term there may be a danger that the values of immigrants overwhelm the
values of the home country. For example, many Britons are much more deferential to the
Muslim ban on depicting Mohammed than they used to be. This effect is less
pronounced in the US, where cultural integration is driven by American exceptionalism.
Either way, there are bad things about the current system which could improve or worsen:
● Immigrants tend to have very poor information about the country they’re moving to,
gained from hearsay accounts and Western media. They’re lied to by people-smugglers,
and don’t expect to end up second-class citizens, often exploited.
● The trip is generally very dangerous, especially by water to Australia or southern Europe
● Anti-immigrant rhetoric currently plays on people’s fear and distrust of outsiders,
provoking hatred, violence, discrimination, and the rise of far-right parties in Europe
● Current illegal immigration leaves children of immigrants in a legal black hole, where
they can’t properly live, learn, work, etc, in the country they’ve spent their entire lives in

Science and technology debates

● Fundamentally, the scientific method is a fantastic way to provide objective evidence
regardless of the biases of the investigator. The idea of empirically testing hypotheses
against each other has been one of the main drivers of progress over the last few
centuries. However, many of the associated institutions have flaws - see below.
● Patent law is somewhat screwed up - local bodies patent locally, so there’s difficulty with
international enforcement. Also, big technology companies hold stockpiles of patents as
weapons to ensure that, if another company sues them for patent infringement, they can
sue back, costing both sides millions in legal fees. At that point it’s a stand-off.
● Technology patents also last for too long (20 years in the US) when in reality, the pace of
change is so fast that the technology will often be obsolete before the lawsuit finishes;
they’re also often handed out for trivial things.
● Science career advancement is grueling, and the financial rewards to ensure the best
scientists stay in academia don’t really exist. PhDs in some subjects are like a pyramid
scheme, where their supervisor uses their labour for their own benefit, but only a small
fraction of those who graduate can get good research jobs.
● Ethics in science emphasise transparency and consent. Sometimes, this is not possible
(for example, giving placebo treatments) and these become more morally grey areas.
● The controversies over “unnatural” science are largely overblown. Genetic engineering,
nuclear power and so on have bad reputations but can be incredibly beneficial - for
example, the development of golden rice has the potential to save millions of people who
die from Vitamin-A deficiency every year. Nuclear power can slow global warming. Etc.
● The US Food and Drug Administration - the FDA - is incredibly screwed up. The amount
of testing that new drugs go through add literally billions of dollars to the cost of bringing
a new drug to the market; testing also often takes the best part of a decade. In the
trade-off between safety and efficiency, it is currently very skewed towards the former.
● The US health-care system is also very flawed. Here are 4 reasons:
○ Because healthcare is provided by insurers, there are a lot of administrative costs
to ensure that treatments meet all the criteria to qualify for insurance.
○ Negotiations to lower drug prices don’t work as well as in countries where there is
a single-payer, nationalised healthcare system.
○ Doctors are more worried about lawsuits, so order expensive, unnecessary tests
○ FDA regulations on drugs - e.g. requiring extensive testing for generics which are
identical to products already on the market (see Epipen).
● These factors make US healthcare nearly twice as expensive as any other developed
country. However, it could be argued that the increased amount of money going to drug
companies helps subsidise their research. If the US had a similar healthcare system to
Europe’s, the rewards for developing a new drug would be lower.

Sports
● Sports are very important in building communities, especially in poorer areas. They give
poor children an important sense of self-worth, as well as teaching discipline and
teamwork. Sports are something which unite particular areas (see how cohesive NZ
feels during World Cup) and also provide role models and inspiration. Also fitness, and
thus health and longer lives and better lives.
● The Olympics are incredibly expensive, especially the Olympics, which typically don’t
bring the host country anywhere near what they spent, and often leave them with
facilities which won’t ever be used again. Also, training can be very expensive, e.g.
Britain spent several million pounds per gold medal won at the last Olympics.
● Big sports events are a global unifying factor, a model for peace and co-operation, and
also showcase lesser-known countries internationally
● Sports have a huge effect on racial, gender and LGBT norms, and create a
confrontational and oppositional environment. They showcase this environment, which is
often homophobic and brutal (e.g. boxing, fights during almost every ice hockey match)
and promote a particular ideal of masculinity through strength and aggression.
● On the other hand, watching/doing boxing may be a good way to release aggression
which would otherwise culminate in fights (e.g. football fans often fight anyway, despite
the fact that their sport isn’t very violent)
● Generally the whole “nature/spirit/ideal of sport” point is not that effective, and very hard
to weigh against tangible harms; still use it if you want, but focus on utilitarian stuff more.