Empirical v Model Debates

.

There are two types of debates that you will come across: a ‘model’ debate and an ‘empirical’ debate. The same rules regarding scoring, manner, matter, method, definitions, rebuttal, first principles and so on will apply in both debates, but depending on the phrasing of the questions there will be some differences in how you should approach your argument, and what information you need to include.

.

.

Type One: Model Debates

Most debates will revolve around whether we should change or maintain an aspect of our society. In these circumstances you will need to provide a model. Put simply, your model will illustrate how you propose to solve the problem posed in the topic. You should propose your model after you have finished providing your definition of the debate, as your model will help to elaborate upon your interpretation of the debate itself. You will be judged upon the strength of your model, how effectively it addresses the topic, and how convincingly you can defend it.

In a model debate, a model will always need to be provided by the affirmative. The negative is able to provide a counter-model (proposing to change things in a different way, in line with their team’s position) or else argue that the status-quo should be maintained. Both teams will then need to provide arguments that support their position while attacking the opposing team’s proposal.

For example, let’s take the topic ‘That parents should be punished if their children don’t attend school’. If you spend the debate simply arguing that it is bad for children to skip school, you will not be answering the debate topic, and you will not be able to provide a strong argument. How should parents be punished? What problem are you trying to address, and how effective is your approach likely to be? For example, your model might be that parents whose children repeatedly skip school (perhaps more than ten per cent of school days) should be fined and/or have welfare payments frozen. You can then spend your debate explaining:

1. What the problem is and why it is bad, AND
2. How your model will solve this problem, making your team’s position the correct one.

.

.

Type Two: Empirical Debates

In empirical debate you will be asked to evaluate something: you need to say whether it is good or bad and why this is the case. However, in an empirical debate you are not required to find a solution to the problem (i.e. there is no need to provide a model). However, your definition will become much more important, as the way in which you define the terms will determine what you need to prove in order to be successful.

.

Model and empirical debates can often be very similar and can make use of the same facts, but the way in which you present your case, and what you ultimately need to prove, will be quite different. Let’s take the following two topics:

Topic 1: That we place too much value on sport.

Topic 2: That sport should be compulsory in all schools.

Both these debates will include many of the same arguments, but the way they are structured will be very different:

Topic 1 is an empirical debate because it is asking you to evaluate the role that sport has within our society. The important thing will be to define what “too much value” means, as this will determine what each team needs to argue in order to win the debate.

Topic 2 is a model debate because it requires you to propose an alternative to, or defend, the status quo. The affirmative team will need to propose a model whereby all school students participate in some sort of sport, and the arguments that each team propose will be in relation to this model. They do not only need to argue that sport is a good thing: they also need to prove that their model (of compulsory sport in schools) is the best way to bring about these benefits.

 .

 .

.

 Differing Models: Hard Line v Soft Line

The vast majority of your debates in the DAV will be model debates. In these debates, your model will serve a number of important roles:

• It sets the parameters for the debate: the affirmative team is establishing what it is prepared to defend/argue, and also what it is not prepared to defend.
• It illustrates the practicality of your side’s approach.
• It helps to provide a cohesive central structure to your team’s case.

However, unless the topic itself dictates that a certain model be adopted, there will usually be many possible approaches that each team can make. These different approaches are called the line that your team will follow. You can only follow one approach, or ‘line’ in a debate, so choose carefully!

.

As a general guide, there are usually three different ‘lines’ that you can follow:

• A Soft Line: a soft line seeks to narrow the differences between the two teams’ models. A very risky approach, as it requires one team to move closer to the opposing side, weakening the force of their own arguments in the process. Often, the softer your approach, the more difficult it is to win the debate, as you risk arguing the same thing as your opposition.
• A Moderate Line: a moderate line is the middle ground between the hard and soft line. Some compromises are made, although the two sides remain distinct. However, don’t assume that this is necessarily the best approach just because it sounds reasonable: your goal, after all, is to convince us of your side of the topic, not negotiate a middle-ground.
• A Hard Line: a hard line seeks to establish a large, vast difference between the two teams. This results in clearer, more distinct arguments. However, you must be careful not to become too extreme. A harder line will almost always be the best approach.

.

Often these approaches are expressed as a continuum, with a preference towards models that tend towards a ‘hard line’:.The model you adopt will result in vastly different outcomes to the debate, as it changes the nature of the arguments that you can put forward, the weighting that arguments will be given, and the type of rebuttals that can be provided. Consider the differences between the following models, and the positives/negatives associated with each approach:

.

.

.

.

Negative Team Models

There are two options available to the negative team in a model debate:

1. Defend the Status Quo: defend the current situation and argue that it should continue in its current form. This assumes that the current situation is the best possible alternative, or that at least we are better off with the ‘devil we know’ because of the risks posed by any alternative. However, if you are going to advocate to keep the status quo, then you will need need to explain what the status quo currently is, so as to appropriately contexutalise your later arguments.
   .
2. Propose a Counter-Model: provide a new alternative of your own along contrasting philosophical principles. If you do this, you cannot argue that the status quo is working. Rather, you are conceding that something needs to change, but that it should be taken in an opposing direction to what the other team is proposing. For example, on a debate about whether cosmetic surgery should be banned, you may argue that, while the status quo is not working well, greater regulation is the best option, rather than outright banning all cosmetic surgery. In this case, you would need to explain what regulations you would propose and how they would provide a better alternative.

.

 .

 .

Building a Model

There are no real ‘tricks’ when it comes to explaining your model. As a general rule:

• Your model should be clear and succinct.
• It needs to be introduced near the start of the first speaker’s speech, before their arguments.
• It should only take about 30 seconds to explain.

Often ideas for a model can be found in your research, and it is perfectly acceptable to use a model that already exists somewhere in the world. You don’t have to replicate it exactly, but often a strong model will be based upon something that’s already done elsewhere:

• E.g. a debate and indigenous representations in parliament might borrow the model used in New Zealand.
• E.g. a debate on banning fatty foods might borrow from New York’s policies.

However, it is also acceptable to invent a model from scratch as long as it is realistic and practical. Regardless of whether you are using an existing or invented model, make sure you explain how the relevant aspects will operate and why you have chosen to change (or keep) these things.