Workshop 1: Whip Speech

DO NOT:
Do none rebuttal
i.e. weighing abstract concepts
repetition (go over things team by team)

General winning theory

- Win on three direct comparisons
- Within constraints: time, plausibility, regional priorities,

Framework:
- A mixture of team by team and issue by issue

Three main components

- 1. Strategic positioning of the extension
o why does the extension comparatively win the debate in itself
- 2. Rebuilding, internal strategic commentary and rebuttal
- 3. Weighting rebuilt extension against refuted claims from
other sides
-
Component 1: Positioning the extension

1. legitimacy (role fulfilment) and direct comparison with the opening

- novelty, robustness

Allocating time explains why the extension is different

Direct comparison with opening:
- s
(put it in the introduction) (esp. Analysis extensions)

2. Impact
 show what is the impact of the extension; select 2-3 that are the most important

selection criteria =
What are the metrics other teams set?
Which of these impacts is more likely to win based on those metrics?

IF teams have conflicting priorities/different metrics:

Select the impact that is easily proven as the most important/impactful
(Or the most in contrast)

e.g. Legalizing recreational drugs

freedom vs. drugs are awful (?)

3. Why should the judge buy your extension outright?

(Even if they buy everything from every other team!)
- insert a traditional piece of weighing
- on the scale, capacity, uniqueness, etc. (even when other team’s benefits stand)

Could do a 3-minute monologue focusing on the extension at the start

The rest of the speech increases the margins

e.g. we brought in x, which is more important than y and z, we win outright

- if we don’t, here is why x wins y and x
Component 2: Rebuttal, Rebuilding and Strategic Commentary

1. Rebuilding (strengthening your own case)

(the extension is now what the opposition considers it to be, not what the robust extension
originally was)
pinpoint where the extension is unintuitive and explain
- make sure the judge buys the plausibility
- esp. if the extension is a bit counterintuitive
critically listening to your Member to determine where there are gaps in explanation
- (esp. Gov whip, but also opp whip)
listen to the exact responses that come from the other side
- and decide which ones are worst to the team
ps: new material can be inserted into the rebuilding of the extension

2. Rebuttal (mitigating the other side’s case)

- comparative
- characterization
- tipping point
- mechanistic completeness
- (does the outcome cohere with the mechanism)
- mitigation
e.g. it leads to backlash
- No.3 It is not the tipping point

3. Strategic commentary (showing the process and final contrast)

making sure you are telling the judge exactly how you intend to win a specific comparison
or what you are bout to refute/rebuild and why
e.g. OG’s argument is contingent on backlash manifesting,
if we prove to you that instead of backlash, people will have more engagement
we win the debate
Component 3: Weighing
End of the speech, after all the ‘legwork’

Internal
- characterisation comparisons (debates on social movements, political
strategy)
- when both sides claim the same benefit
External
- discrete, distinct outcomes weighed against each other
- intensity, scale, uniqueness etc.

e.g.1
 OG say they claim 1000 ppl were helped
 we prove only 50 ppl being helped in whip
 this in comparison to the 1000 WE help
 it is clear that we win the debate

e.g. 2 X priority and Y priority, which one is more important

A contingency
- even if the judge doesn’t buy your initial strategic positioning, comparing
your contribution to the mitigated/defeated claims of the other side
makes it easier
-
if issue by issue, do it at the end of the issue; if team by team directly weigh
the contribution of you and the other team

ps:
be completely honest with what the other teams run
so the skills are not used improperly
 Prioritization

1. Protect the extension

Which claims, already flowing in the debate, harms your extension from
standing?
- Explicit material
- Implicit responses

Closing must target the following things from Opening to win the debate:
things that clash with your extension directly/ what harms the chances of the
extension standing
- e.g. incorrect characterization, tipping points, incentives

2. Risk Aversion
- avoid 4th before anything else
- Make sure the extension stands
- then directly dealing with each team (1)

(1):
better to take out the 3rd than the 1st if you are at risk of being 4th
work your way up by dealing with the weakest team

3. Reading the Judge and the round reaction

(or simply the other team’s response)
 Note on Gov Whip

Opp Whip follows, and one speech to deal with the CO Case
- Lots of manoeuvring capacity

Two ways to mitigate backload capacity:

• Focus on thoroughly deconstructing the mechanisms of the argument (no new
mechs allowed in OW)
• Outweigh the most generous incarnation of the claim from CO
• Explicitly point out what is not permissible from the OW

Overcoming the double burden of responding and rebuilding?

• Prioritise rebuilding, and 'structural responses' on mechs, and weighing
----------------------
- Note:
- To prevent Opp whip control, use structural responses
- rebut the mechanism
- Things that don’t take you much time to argue, but takes Opp whip a lot of time to
reconstruct

How to weigh analysis extensions?

Important as motions become shallower and less thought out (especially in CG)
Track closely what Opening said, did they miss anything obvious etc.
e.g.
Ban Olympics
OG: ppl dirven out of slums due to political capital
CG: slums = the cheapest land
Cheap land (more compelling) vs political capital

For many judges, analysis extensions come with uniqueness red-flags

- Be honest in saying this is a new reason for the same argument

If you decide to run an analysis extension:

- Listen to the exact impacts and mechanisms that come out, track them honestly
- Make sure that both you and your partner are aware the precise difference in the
mechanisms/context/

Note:
Can the new reasons that contributed to the debate be reasonably proven as better?
If not, focus on bringing down the other side using responses
E.g. Legalising drugs  ppl reach out
Secondary impact = ppl reach out to families
Tracking the debate

Two stages (Can Integrate):

- Critically and generously tracking claims from the debate
- Writing up the Whip Speech
Stage 1:
- Colours help
- Claim, Mech, Comment
Stage 2:
- Prioritising and writing

New Material
(insert into rebuilding)
- A grey line, err on the side of caution
- Space for discourse on how materal ought to be evaluated
Gov whip can flag the lack of mechanisation in MO

Repeating responses

OG’s response to OO cannot be claimed

Can flag it to the judge