Opening Government Tasks
The opening government starts the debate. The first speaker, the prime minister, sets the agenda for the debate with his policy and he determines the contextual focus. In return, he cannot reply to anyone’s ideas. He has seven minutes in which to develop the government’s argumentation. This way, the opening government can determine the matter of the debate with a neat policy.
The two speakers act as prime minister and deputy prime minister. While the first speaker outlines the general ideas (“the vision”), the second speaker may elaborate on certain arguments. However, the second speaker’s argumentation should be coherent with the first speaker (e.g. “After showing you the consequences of our policy for the individual, my partner will focus on the consequences for society as a whole”).
The policy is the central issue at stake. In order to come up with a neat policy the team should be aware of the current situation (status quo). Afterwards, they should think about the direction in which the status quo should be shifted. For this, the fundamental aspects of the topic must be discussed. In the majority of cases, the direction is set by the motion of the debate. The change of the status quo should be obvious – nothing is more boring than a policy that doesn’t change anything. But beware: Those who try to leap too far sometimes come a cropper. It is barely conceivable that a team could come up with a perfectly detailed bill within 15 minutes. A good way is to concentrate on one measure that makes a significant difference from the status quo.
Preparation
The opening government should ask themselves three questions during their preparation time:
1. What is it about?
What are the basic moral questions that the motion implies? What policies are possible? The team should think of two or three alternative policies and then decide for one of them. After the decision, the team should ask: What’s the status quo? Where do we want to go with our argumentation? What arguments and levels of argumentation have to be covered? Into what role should the opposition be put?
2. What to do?
What could a policy look like? Often times it is advisable to take on proposals that were seriously discussed in public debate. Of course, one can surprise the opposition with an unexpected policy, but fairness prompts a serious discussion of the motion.
3. Who does what?
After fixing the policy the arguments have to be divided up and the team strategy has to be settled. The speakers must convince the jury that they prepared together and developed a common profile. This can be done by reasonable references to the partner’s arguments and common usage of buzzwords.
Opening Opposition Tasks
The opening opposition must listen closely to the government’s policy and try to attack their core argumentation. They are diametrically opposed to the government’s plan. For this reason, the opening opposition doesn’t have to present a real counter-policy. Instead, they have to show which principles speak against the government’s policy and why these principles are worth to be maintained. In other words: It is enough for them to defend the status quo. Of course, they can make proposals how to shift the status quo in their direction, but this is just bonus.
The two speakers have a similar division of work as the opening government:
The first speaker attacks the policy and presents the opposition’s line of argumentation. He refers to his partner by incorporating him into his argumentation.
“I’m giving you arguments A and B. From these two argument C follows immediately, which will be the main argument of my partner. However, I will deal with the arguments of the opposite side first.”
The second speaker is again the one who picks up his partner’s argumentation and expands it. At the same time, he has to rebut the arguments of the government’s second speaker. Then, he may deepen the team’s line of argumentation.
Important: The opening opposition should make a clean sweep of the government’s arguments. If possible, every argument should be rebutted. This especially holds for weak arguments. Often they only need one sentence.
Preparation
The preparation strongly focuses on possible counter-arguments for the first speaker, who has to reply directly to the government’s policy. The second speaker has more time to think about further counter-arguments. During the preparation time the team has to ponder the motion in general and come up with several possible policies. The goal is always to find out the underlying conflict and to discuss the respective counter-positions shortly. Enough time should be granted for reflection on general aspects of the motion.
An example for the motion “This house wants more equality”: As the concrete policy could go into a multitude of directions, the team should reflect on equality in general: What does equality mean? When may unequal treatment be justified? What does the constitution say? What recent public debates have there been? (e.g. homosexual marriage, first vs. third world)
The preparation could look like this: 10 minutes reflection on the motion (possible policies) and counter-positions. 5 minutes reflection on general aspects of the motion.