First Principles

(AN INTRODUCTION)

 

 

What are ‘First Principles’?

 

Put simply, First Principles are the ideas upon which most debates are won or lost. However, most debaters will respond to the term with the same bemused confusion as a puppy when it sees its first wheelie-bin, despite the fact that they have most likely used a ‘First Principle’ themselves in most of their debates.

 

So what are ‘first principles’? Let’s pretend that we have been given the debate topic: That money is more important that human life. It would seem extremely difficult to prove that money is more important than a person’s life. But how would you defend the ‘value of life’ argument? It is possible to enter into a cost/benefit ping-pong match with the opposing team, but quite often such ‘practical’ arguments can be effectively rebutted by logical and relevant counter-arguments (not to mention that there is a very real risk simply trying to bury the opposition under a bigger list of examples).

 

Yet it is unlikely that any amount of pragmatic justification can overturn something that feels so fundamentally wrong – it will never overcome those lingering doubts in the back of your mind. Ask yourself: what is at the crux of your argument, of your beliefs? What are those ‘lingering doubts’ saying to you? In this case it is not the practical, but the moral dimension that makes the monetary valuing of life so repugnant. These moral characteristics are what we call ‘first principles’: they are near-universal ‘truths’ which are very difficult to rebut. They are the building blocks of our society, and therefore they will also be the building blocks of your debate.

 

 

Why use First Principles in a debate?         

.

First principles are the basic building blocks of a proper debate. Every topic will have its own central moral, theoretical or philosophical themes, and these will often re-emerge in many different ways. These often form the most powerful and important arguments, but they are not often capitalized on as people we just ‘assume’ them to be self-evident or true, and do not consider the logic or theory behind them.

 

It is easy to neglect arguments based on first principles and to jump straight to the ‘practical’ arguments (e.g. what effect will it have on the environment? How much will it cost? Will it increase unemployment? etc). Try to look at why we accept these beliefs as undoubtable and beyond challenge. To begin with, try looking at the following areas. Exploring these dimensions will often lead you towards the first principles associated with a topic, for example:

  • Individual rights and freedoms (and responsibilities to society generally)
  • The role of government in society
  • Values and principles (e.g. equality, tolerance, etc)
  • Basic rules (e.g. the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, etc)

 

 

How can you use First Principles in a Debate?

 

Firstly, you need to be able to identify what these core moral and philosophical principles are, so you will need to look at the topic closely and consider who is affected and how. The next step is crucial – do not simply assert that these principles exist and think that this constitutes an argument. You must explain why these principles do or should exist (i.e. you should be arguing ‘this is how society should be’, rather than just saying ‘this is how society is).

 

Let us return to the opening illustration. Why should a human life not be given a monetary value? Your justifications may have a number of roots:

  • Your belief may be linked to ideas of equality, democracy, and the rule of law: to place a value on a person’s life devalues all human life, making it incompatible to a society where the inviolability of the person is at the core of maintaining civil order and civilization itself.
  • Your belief may be linked back to notions of social contract: in the interest of self-preservation, we respect a common, inviolable right to life so that our own most valuable possession – our own lives and the lives of those we care about – are protected, and not subjected to valuation and negotiation based on another’s personal gain.
  • Your argument may be humanist in nature: the dignity and self-worth of all people means that quantifying their value in such a way is innately evil.
  • You may take a religious stance: a human being possesses a soul, whose ownership and value cannot be determined by other men, but only by God/a deity/supreme being, or some other variation upon these ideas. (Be careful though – religious approaches assume that everyone listening to the debate follows the same belief system.)

 

If you follow through on your ideas, you will find that there are countless ways to justify such a belief. In a debate these are often amongst the most passionate and idealistic arguments you can put forward, and if done correctly can have a profound impact on the audience (often because, as these principles lie at the core of our common culture, anyone, except perhaps the most cynical psychopath, will at least in part share the same beliefs).

 

In a secret topic debate, identifying the relevant first principles is an important step in planning your topic. Do not ever disregard these moral or philosophical arguments – they may be less tangible than sets or raw figures or practical examples, but they are no less powerful (and adjudicators love them).

 

 

 

 

Preparation and Tasks for Training Sessions

 

Work in Progress: AREAS OF FIRST PRINCIPLES

Further Reading: FIRST PRINCIPLES (MAD Training Handbook 2010)

General Preparation: FIRST PRINCIPLES EXERCISES (Advanced Schools Training Guide)