Point Of Information
Bai Ruotong
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is probably the least certain aspect of preparing for a debate, much of it boils down to how familiar you are with the specific topic at hand. Hence, before delving into any of the frameworks for thinking below, it is crucial that you do thorough research on the motion — where a policy has been implemented before, where people hold such beliefs, what were the circumstances and the motivations, what were the impacts, etc.
That being said, it can be useful to think about a motion using different guidelines and frameworks, which we will discuss below.
Stakeholders
Thinking about the relevant stakeholders in a debate is a useful way of generating arguments for your side. Stakeholders are people who have an interest or concern in the topic you are debating — that is, a “stake” in the situation. In any debate, we would therefore consider:
Who are the stakeholders?
What do they want?
How will they be impacted? How will they react?
How are these stakeholders related to one another?
Which stakeholder is the most important?’
For the rest of this section, let us consider the motion “This House Would ban the production and consumption of all animal meat”.
(1) Who are the stakeholders?
Who are the stakeholders?
Immediately, we should intuitively be able to come up with a few groups that are directly affected by the ban: this could be farmers, meat consumers, animal rights activists, and even animals themselves. However, to make our arguments more nuanced, we should also consider sub-groups within each category, who may have differing views on the issue — this is called spectrumising, like placing groups on a spectrum. For instance, within the group of meat consumers, there are still variations in opinion:
At first glance, you may think of:
Environmental activists
Farmers
Consumers
Animals
However, to make our arguments more nuanced, we should also consider sub-groups within each category, who may have differing views on the issue — this is called spectrumising, like placing groups on a spectrum. For instance, within the group of meat consumers, there are still variations in opinion:
(2) What do they want?
We then consider what each group aims to achieve. Some are rather straightforward — animal rights activists want better treatment of animals. However, some goals are less straightforward:
It is possible for a stakeholder to have multiple and differing goals: a farmer might want the profits from selling as many meat products as possible, but they can also care about maintaining a good public reputation for the ethical treatment of animals.
Some consumers might not explicitly outline their goals: meat consumers would not likely outright say that they dislike eating meat, but they might dislike being unhealthy in general, and a change in diet would likely be beneficial for that purpose.
(3) How will they react?
We also want to consider what changes for these stakeholders if the motion were passed — how their attitudes or actions would vary before and after. For instance, having identified the sub-group of “consumers who are ambivalent towards the vegetarian cause”, the ban might cause them to feel personally affected due to the reduction in choices and dramatic change to their lifestyles. They might hence become less supportive towards the cause.
(4) How are the stakeholders related to one another?
These ambivalent consumers form an important pillar of support for environmental causes. Extreme measures may cause animal rights/environment movements to lose support from the masses and even backlash. This can hinder them from achieving other forms of progress in the future e.g. protecting the rights of animals etc. This can go against the interest of animal / environmental activists.
(5) Who is the most important stakeholder?
Often, it’s impossible for one side to achieve the best outcome for each stakeholder. The question then becomes one of prioritisation – which is the most important stakeholder and how do we achieve the best outcomes for that stakeholder?
How do we know which stakeholder is the most important? We can consider:
A) Which stakeholder is most important in helping us achieve our end goal?
In this motion, you can argue that ambivalent consumers are in fact the most important stakeholder because
They take a large proportion of the population
They are the most relevant actors in this debate as the policy discussed will likely change their views and behaviours (unlike the stakeholders are at the extreme ends of the spectrum who are unlikely to change)
B) Which stakeholder is the most vulnerable?
The most vulnerable actor can be the most important stakeholder because they have the most to gain and the most to lose.
In this motion, you could argue that small scale farmers, particularly in more rural nations that rely more on agriculture, are the most vulnerable. They might rely heavily on the production of meat not only to feed themselves, but to sell at a low profit. While consumers have other choices for food, and large industrial farms can pivot to another product, this ban would be devastating for such small farmers who have little other choice. Hence, this group has the most to lose, and you can make the argument that they are the most important consideration in the debate.
Another common application of this method is: disadvantaged students are the most vulnerable and thus important stakeholders in the education system
If the school does not give the rich students the best opportunities to explore their full potential, they can always look for alternatives, summer schools overseas during their holidays, tuition, etc. HOWEVER, if the school does not uplift the less privileged students, there might be no one else to help them. Hence, the less privileged students have the most to lose from a poor-functioning education system.
They are also the group with the most to gain from a good public education system: education can be far more life-changing for the poorer student – it can mean breaking out of intergenerational poverty.
We can argue that EVEN IF another stakeholder e.g. privileged students does not achieve the best outcomes, we are ok with that because we are better able to achieve the best outcome for the more important stakeholder.
What Changes?
A useful question to ask in brainstorming is what changes as a result of this motion being passed? Every event occurs in a series of causes and effects, and hence, by tracing forwards and backwards, we can begin to see how the motion affects the world at large. These changes need not necessarily be immediately beneficial or detrimental for your side, the aim is to have a better grasp of real world implications, which you can then use to inform your argumentation.
For the same motion on “This House Would ban the production and consumption of all animal meat”. Let us first consider the chain of events that leads up to meat being produced:
From this, we could generate a Proposition argument from the left branch, that animal farming is terrible for the environment. We could also generate an Opposition argument from the right branch, that farming forms the basis of many individuals’ livelihoods. Obviously, these are only two possibilities, while brainstorming, it is helpful to follow as many of these branches as possible and examine where they end up.
Likewise, we can consider the chain of events that follow from meat being produced:
Likewise, we can generate more arguments by forward induction. For Proposition on the left, we deduce that the growth of meat production will only lead to more animal cruelty. For Opposition on the right, we envision that the same growth of meat production will lead to us being able to feed more people and increase the quality of life for many.
Okay, put on your thinking cap and start brainstorming!