YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Structuring Arguments - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 2

Structuring Arguments - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 2 — Transcript

by Manchester Debating Union · 5,411 words · 771 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00Awesome.
0:03Hi everyone. Uh welcome to the second
0:06week of advanced trading. So I'll be
0:08running this workshop and then but Lucy
0:10will be around in case you have any
0:11questions or in case uh we have a second
0:14room that needs a judge uh for this bar.
0:17So um this week we're going to be
0:18covering something called linear flow.
0:20Um, and it's something that I recently
0:22discovered um that made me quite good at
0:26the things that I'm I think I'm quite
0:29good at, which are matter jumping and
0:31having really strong robust internal
0:34argument structure. So, loads of people,
0:36even those who are experienced with
0:37debating, do not know what linear flow
0:39is. Um, and it's something quite
0:41unnoticed when we make arguments, but it
0:43makes a world of difference when the
0:45judge is crediting your analysis or when
0:48you're trying to find out what's missing
0:49for making really, really persuasive
0:51argumentation. Um, so I think that I
0:54discovered uh a new way of phrasing what
0:57linear flow is or internal argument
0:59structure. So hopefully a lot of you
1:01even if you've been debating for years
1:02will benefit from it. So if I can click
1:05to the next slide. Ah, here it is. So a
1:09lot of you are able to make really basic
1:11arguments. Uh but lots of you are are
1:13also similarly when I was first starting
1:16out missing a lot of uh a lot of things
1:20in when trying to hit the higher
1:22brackets of speaker points. So like um
1:24here are a couple reasons why people
1:25often suck at making arguments. Number
1:27one, lots of significant portions are
1:29missing. So maybe it looks like impact.
1:30Sometimes people miss framing. Sometimes
1:32people miss really crucial logical links
1:34that they didn't know they needed to
1:36prove. Um, and this is always really
1:38difficult to try to get people to fix
1:40because you just don't know what you're
1:42missing until after the fact when the
1:44judge tells you that's why you took the
1:45third or the fourth. Um, so I'm going to
1:48like internal argument structure is not
1:50only good for identifying like or like
1:53it's not only good for a judge trying to
1:55follow your arguments, but it's really
1:57good at internally checking what parts
1:59you're missing before you even speak.
2:01So, we'll see that later on. Second part
2:03of why people suck at making arguments.
2:06um it's sometimes really unclear where a
2:08point is going. So loads of people um
2:10will sometimes say really smart things
2:12or they'll say like really true things
2:16but I'm like as a judge when I'm
2:17listening I just don't know where the
2:19point is going. I have no idea whether
2:21or not it links to the emotion. I don't
2:22know what the impact of the point is
2:25going to be. So basically like I just
2:27like I just tune out when someone is
2:30making a point but I do not know the
2:32direction that this point is going to go
2:34and so they end up wasting a lot of time
2:36because they don't signal to me why this
2:38point like why the statement they're
2:40making is even important in the context
2:41of the debate. Third reason why people
2:43suck at making arguments lots like
2:45similarly lots of time is wasted talking
2:47about meaningless details. So a lot of
2:50the times it's unclear where a point is
2:52going. Maybe it's because it's actually
2:54not going anywhere. So a lot of time
2:56people add details that are just not
2:58necessary to making a point persuasive
3:01or strategic in the the context of the
3:04debate. So loads of people just like for
3:06example give me pieces of framing that
3:08just don't go towards making their point
3:10impactful or making their point more
3:12persuasive. Sometime people give me
3:13logical links that are completely not
3:15crucial to making to proving that point
3:17is true. Fourthly, sometimes a argument
3:20is super hard to follow. So sometimes
3:22like they're jumping from all over the
3:24place. First like they tell me maybe
3:26like they tell me like the impact, then
3:28they tell me like the the analysis that
3:30leads to that impact, but then they tell
3:31me the problem after they've like the
3:33problem they're trying to solve after
3:35they've told me the solution to that
3:36problem. So it's really hard for a judge
3:38to follow your argumentation if it
3:41doesn't have a natural flow to it. So
3:43all of this can be really avoided by
3:46becoming disciplined in how your
3:47argument is presented or internally
3:49structured. Um, and I'm going to call
3:52this having a clear, clean linear flow.
3:55And what do I mean by linear flow? So,
3:57what is linear flow? Linear flow
3:59basically is how your argument gets from
4:01the beginning to the end. So, it seems a
4:04little bit like tongue and cheek when I
4:05say this. Uh, and I'll try to explain a
4:07little bit more further on and use
4:10analogy so all of you can understand
4:11what I mean. Um, linear for linear flow
4:13to work, every step along the way from
4:16getting from point A to point B is
4:18necessary. every step is getting you
4:21closer to the end point of that argument
4:23and you don't make any unnecessary
4:25detours or diversions. So typic like
4:28even though the flow will look different
4:30for any for each debate in each case,
4:32typically it resembles this. First you
4:34tell me the problem that you're trying
4:36to solve or you show me the framing of
4:38what the court looks like. So for
4:40example, if it's something like this
4:42house uh this house uh wants to
4:46implement gender quotas for corporate
4:47boards, you tell me the framing or the
4:50problem that you face in status quo. So
4:51just like look, right now a lot of women
4:53face a glass ceiling on trying to go up
4:55into the upper stratas or the upper
4:57echelons of corporations. Because of
4:59this, they're underrepresented in the
5:01most powerful positions in many of these
5:02businesses and remain a socioeconomic
5:04underclass. So that's a problem in the
5:06framing that we see in the world today.
5:08Then you show me why the problem arises.
5:10So you identify like why does why is it
5:13that the problem is there? So you can
5:15say just like I people have internal
5:16biases about what you know powerful
5:19business people look like and these tend
5:21to not be women for example or you say
5:24like ah lots of um you know like lots of
5:27you know these networks and promotions
5:29are based on old boys clubs that women
5:31just aren't privy to. So you identify
5:33why that problem arises. Then you show
5:35me how this motion makes that problem
5:38better or worse. Um then you show me why
5:40it matters that this change has
5:42occurred. So for example like if you're
5:43showing to me like ah now like women
5:45will be super empowered in the
5:47workplace. They now raise that glass
5:48ceiling. And this means the impact of
5:50that is that women maybe achieve higher
5:52incomes. Maybe these women in these
5:54corporate boards will start making
5:56policies that are more favorable to
5:57women in the workplace. Empowering other
5:58women lower down the corporate ladder.
6:01And then you show me the weighing at the
6:02end. you show me like this is the most
6:04important impact that in the debate
6:06because of XY Z reasons. Um so many of
6:09you especially if you like movies or
6:11especially if you like TV series
6:13understand that this actually really
6:16follows um what our brains naturally
6:19tend towards. So typically in a movie
6:21really good pacing is really necessary.
6:23So what you need is a setup and then you
6:26need a conflict and then you need a
6:28resolution and then you need an ending.
6:30Right? So this is the same thing. So the
6:31problem in framing is the setup and the
6:33conflict that you aim to solve and then
6:35the rest of your speech is about how you
6:37resolve that conflict or you just think
6:39maybe that conflict gets even worse,
6:41right? And then you show me the
6:42conclusion which is like the impact in a
6:43way. So note just like in a movie bad
6:47pacing can ruin everything and maybe not
6:49leave enough time for a resol a good
6:51resolution or a good ending. The same
6:52thing is true for an argument. So
6:54spending way too much time in the setup
6:56or in the in characterizing conflict
6:58means that you have no time trying to
7:00resolve that conflict or trying to
7:02conclude it to a satisfactory end. So
7:04all of you need to be really careful in
7:07how you internally allocate time to each
7:09of these points. So going further, I try
7:12to uh explain why it is that this nar
7:15this flow is the flow that most people
7:17follow. So you can't just like rearrange
7:19things and have it be just as persuasive
7:20a lot of the times. So first you need to
7:22tell me um so like often you cannot make
7:25an argument unless like a judge knows
7:28why you're making it right. So just a
7:30lot of times when you're trying to fix a
7:32problem you need to first tell me what
7:33that problem is. So an and then next
7:37when you're analyzing why that problem
7:39arises it helps you set up the next
7:41stage. to un like telling me like, oh,
7:43the reason why women are often
7:45underrepresented in the most powerful
7:47economic positions is through like
7:49internal soft sexism or soft sexist
7:51culture in workplaces or just like old
7:54boys networks. That sets you up really
7:56cleanly for the next stage, which is to
7:59show me why the problem changes to be
8:01better or worse. So all your analysis
8:03can be targeted at those at those root
8:06issues that you just identified in the
8:08prior part. to showing me like, okay,
8:10this motion solves the old boys network.
8:13So, this motion solves like the the
8:15internal soft sexist culture in
8:17corporations. And so, it makes it seem
8:19like your argumentation is all really
8:21targeted to the roots of the problem
8:23that you just characterized. And so, it
8:25by by doing that, your analysis seems
8:28super watertight to the judge and it
8:30seems also super unique and like the
8:32definitive delta in the debate. So it's
8:34not like it's the necessary thing in
8:37order to solve the problem and no other
8:39solution is going to be satisfactory
8:40because you show how that motion targets
8:43the very root problems of that motion.
8:45Um and so uh then like of course like
8:48the ending like your argument doesn't
8:51mean anything unless you tell me what
8:52the changes result in and why that
8:54matters. Um so for example like this
8:56house would institute syntaxes. Um so
8:59your the problem that you set up is just
9:01like look loads of syntaxes ex like
9:03loads of people are smoking and drinking
9:06alcohol um to the extent that it's
9:09detrimental for their health and lots of
9:10these people tend to be like
9:11soioeconomically vulnerable people. Um
9:14and then you can say like the problem
9:16the reason why the problem arises is
9:18because of state failure. Um the state
9:20has failed these people in terms of like
9:22they tend to face a lot of economic
9:25pressure that gives them a lot of stress
9:26in their lives and the only means
9:28through which they can cope with it is
9:30through like things like like addictive
9:32like like addictive substances like
9:34alcohol or other unhealthy life
9:36practices and the state has disallowed
9:38them from accessing any other stress
9:40relieving mechanism like for example
9:42disallowed them for maybe going to the
9:43gym having access to therapy etc. And so
9:46that's the problem that we have. And
9:48then the reason why this motion now
9:51solves that is that we as the government
9:53we nudge them in the more correct
9:56direction. So a lot of these people go
9:58for these solutions because they're
9:59comparatively cheaper than going to
10:01things like therapy go like like eating
10:03healthy food etc. By making these like
10:07smoking and drinking alcohol more
10:08expensive, we target that economic
10:10incentive to indulge in like harmful
10:12things like alcohol and cigarettes. the
10:14impact is like they get better health
10:16outcomes and then you can do the
10:18weighing afterwards. Does that make
10:20sense to people? Please pipe up if you
10:22have no idea what I'm talking about or
10:24if you want me to re-emphasize the
10:25point. So this leads me on to the next
10:28part of matter dumping. So um loads of
10:33people who have who have seen me speak
10:35kind of like I guess like I I think that
10:38I can get through lots of material
10:39pretty efficiently. And one of the
10:41reasons why I can do that is because I
10:42do something called taring my analysis.
10:44So what does tiering mean? So tiering
10:46essentially means that you give multiple
10:48levels of something. Um so I'm going to
10:51show you loads of examples of how you
10:53can tear your arguments so they seem
10:54super robust. But why should you give
10:57multiple levels of arguments? So if you
11:00give multiple levels of argumentation
11:02that I'll show you later, it's much
11:04harder for the opponent to rebut
11:06everything that you say. Um, so if if
11:08you're a first speaker um and you give
11:10like a bunch of different mechanisms or
11:12a bunch of different impacts or a bunch
11:14of different actors um that all lead to
11:17some change in the status quo, like
11:19maybe your your your opponent um if
11:22they're good, maybe rebut two out of the
11:24three. Then you the then your like
11:26second speaker can come up, not only
11:28rebut the other person who just came up,
11:29but said like, "Look, they obviously
11:31didn't take down every everything." And
11:33because we still have this one mechanism
11:35standing, we obviously at least make the
11:37world a better place um etc. Um also
11:40it's much more like you make also much
11:43more comprehensive cases that seem to
11:46cover different dimensions of the
11:47problem. Um so loads of problems in
11:49status quo unsurprisingly have many
11:52different roots or many different
11:54reasons as to why they occur. Um, and so
11:58seemingly acknowledging that and showing
12:00how you change all those different
12:02dimensions makes your case seem really
12:05really comprehensive to judge and even
12:06more persuasive. Also, if you're in an
12:08opening house, so if you're in an OG O,
12:11super hard to extend off something like
12:12that um, in a meaningful way if you just
12:14give a super comprehensive case. Also
12:16like the same reason as to why loads of
12:19problems arise due to a multitude of
12:21reasons, the actors involved also
12:23respond in a multitude of ways. So, it's
12:25also important to cover as much as
12:27possible in order to be persuasive. Um,
12:30be careful. Like, I'm saying this to you
12:32now, but try not to do this immediately.
12:35Like, try don't try to like deal with 10
12:37actors all of a sudden just because you
12:39hear this presentation. Take it slowly.
12:40Maybe like if you've only been analyzing
12:42one actor in a debate before. Analyze
12:44two. uh don't bite off more than you can
12:47chew because often what pe I've seen
12:49people do is that they try to handle
12:51everything and they just end up
12:53analyzing pretty superficially. So how
12:55do you do this effectively? There are
12:56loads of way to tears tier your
12:58analysis. So this is one of them. Um
13:01this this means giving lots of different
13:04mechanisms uh to solve a problem. So
13:06what problems mostly look like this
13:09right? You have a problem it could arise
13:12because of a multitude of reasons. So
13:14you know you have root one of the
13:16problem you have root two of a problem
13:18you have root three. Um and the way you
13:20can show that you comprehensively solve
13:23this problem or you comprehensively show
13:25how the motion makes it worse is that
13:27you take each root of the problem and
13:30you show how that changes each route
13:33changes. So if we're going back to like
13:36um uh there'll be like examples later
13:39but I'll show you examples later but
13:40like and then the next way you can tear
13:43analysis is that maybe a problem just
13:46says one route that you can identify you
13:48show me how that one root of the problem
13:50changes in a multitude of ways. So this
13:53becomes really evident later on when I
13:55give you examples. So this one is for
13:57example multiple roots to a problem. So
14:00here's a problem that I identify in the
14:01motion this house would legalize all
14:03drugs. Uh you can say like a drug
14:05cartels are a really big problem in
14:06Mexico or like a really big problem in
14:08lots of Latin America. Um they murder
14:11people. They often funnel their drug
14:12profits into really bad things like
14:14human trafficking. They often do things
14:16like rig elections or intimidate local
14:18people. That's a really big problem. So
14:21trying to identify why this arises
14:23probably has a lot of reasons. So maybe
14:25one of them is like ah they probably can
14:28recruit a lot of really vulnerable young
14:31men to be part of their drug network and
14:33once these young men for example are
14:35drug meals they'll get they'll get
14:36caught they get put in jail um where
14:39they become more hardened criminals. Um
14:41the second reason why this is a really
14:43big problem is often these drug cartels
14:45need to be violent. They often need to
14:48do face offs with the police. They often
14:50need to murder people in order for for
14:52them not to squeal or comply with the
14:53police. Um and because of that just
14:56there's just a lot of violence involved
14:57with the drug business. And third reason
15:00as to why drug cartels are a problem.
15:02They use that money from drugs to funnel
15:04lots of really bad things like for
15:06example they they fund things like pro
15:08forced prostitution, human trafficking,
15:10rigging elections and all these are
15:12really bad. So there's loads of reasons
15:14why drug cartels are really strong and
15:16this is how you can change each fruit.
15:18So you can tell me like uh like actually
15:21by legalizing all drugs, drug meals are
15:24never put in prison. They never become
15:25hardened criminals and they can never be
15:27recruited um to do worse things than
15:31drug me right. So you no like drug
15:33cartels can no longer recruit from
15:34prisons. So that route is solved. They
15:36can say like ah because we legalize all
15:37drugs like you just don't need to have
15:39face off with the police. You don't need
15:41to hire security to smuggle drugs
15:42anymore. And so just the violence
15:44entailed in trafficking drugs just goes
15:46way down. less people die because of the
15:48drug trade. Third reason, like people
15:51like because you legalize drugs,
15:53probably people would rather buy drugs
15:56from like the governmentrun pharmacy
15:58down the street rather than a shady drug
16:00dealer that is associated with a drug
16:02cartel. And because of this, drug
16:04cartels now get less money from drugs
16:07that they can funnel into things like
16:09human trafficking. Um, and so do you see
16:12like how I've identified different roots
16:14of the problem and the way I've made my
16:15case really comprehensive is to show how
16:17that motion changes each root of the
16:20problem to make it significantly better.
16:23Cool. So I hope that's clear. Another
16:25way you can
16:27do this now this is like
16:30this one problem that I identified that
16:33I show changes in a multitude of ways
16:35with the motion. So I identify one
16:38problem. So too few women are
16:40represented in the upper echelons of
16:42business. This is this house would adopt
16:43gender quota policies in corporate seno
16:45management. So I identified the problem
16:48lots too few women in to that are
16:51powerful business people. Um and then I
16:54identified one group to the problem it's
16:57because like women are discriminated in
16:59hiring policies. They often face like
17:00hostile work environments. So i.e. just
17:03like the root of the problem is sexism.
17:05Sexism that's basically incredibly
17:07entrenched, right? Um, and now because
17:10I've identified one root of the problem,
17:12I can show how the motion can change
17:14that one root of the problem. So like
17:15maybe like because more women are just
17:18put into senior corporate corporate
17:20decision-making boards, they can now
17:23pass for example policy women in senior
17:25positions are likely going to pass
17:27policies that make workplaces less
17:28hostile to to the presence of women. So
17:31this benefits women from lower down the
17:33ranks as well. So for example like you
17:35know like more women will get paid
17:36maternity leave. you know, they're more
17:38able to ascend in the workplace because
17:40there are just policies that support
17:42them. So, more women are likely going to
17:43be promoted. Second way that this solves
17:46this the root of the problem like maybe
17:48because like men and women both become
17:51more normalized working with and under
17:54women in senior positions. So, if your
17:56boss just looks like a woman or like the
17:58head honcho is a woman, over time, you
18:01just become much more used to that fact.
18:04um and you become less hostile or
18:06resistant to for example when a woman
18:08gets promoted or maybe if you become a
18:10manager one day you just say like hey my
18:12boss when I was 20 was a woman she did a
18:14good job let me hire this woman or let
18:17me let me promote this woman since I'm
18:19now a manager right so that's another
18:20way that you can change sexism third way
18:22you can change sexism optics so like
18:24more women for example when they have a
18:26role model in a really high achieving
18:29place or they have well they're like in
18:31a really high achieving place they now
18:32have role models and they know that a
18:34place is allocated to them. Um so
18:36they're much more likely to stri strive
18:38for promotions, they're more likely to
18:40put themselves out there um leaning in
18:43essentially and because they're much
18:44more active in pursuing promotions,
18:46pursuing raises because they now know
18:48it's possible to actually succeed like
18:51this also changes how women actively try
18:54to pursue those opportunities making it
18:55more likely that women succeed. So do
18:58you see how like I identified one root
19:00problem but then there are loads of
19:02different ways how that root problem can
19:03be solved by the motion. So trying to
19:05identify loads of different ways how a
19:07single problem can change is really like
19:11key to making your case uh as robust as
19:14possible.
19:16Cool. Another way you can do this is you
19:18can choose to target different actors.
19:21So this is a motion. This house would
19:23restrict EU development aid to member
19:24states with anti-democratic party
19:26practices. Um, so here's the problem.
19:28Uh, too many states in the EU like
19:30Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania are
19:33violating EU principles of political
19:34rights. You know, the rigging elections,
19:36they're stacking judiciary. This is just
19:38not good. Um, and the reason why this
19:41has happened is because populist strong
19:44men who have been elected choose to
19:46restrict political freedoms and they
19:48arrest journalists. They sack judiciary
19:50and so on. So you can choose to say like
19:53okay trying to analyze what then changes
19:55in this debate you can look at different
19:57actors involved. So we can say like okay
19:59people within those countries right
20:01people within Hungary or Poland or
20:02Bulgaria um you can say just like oh
20:06when you take away development aid from
20:08these from these places you can say just
20:10like people within those countries who
20:12no longer get as much money going
20:13towards local infrastructure or make
20:16creating jobs they just have more
20:17resentment towards these strong men for
20:19taking away their material wealth. So,
20:21if they ever have an election again, um
20:23they probably will vote this strong man
20:25out or maybe they just take to the
20:26streets and just oust this strong man,
20:29meaning that um anti-democratic
20:32practices become far less likely. Or you
20:35can look at, you know, another actor,
20:36the strong men themselves. You can say
20:38like, ah, you know, now they can like
20:40strong men themselves know that they
20:42can't just do all these terrible things
20:45without facing consequences and then
20:47eventually facing backlash from their
20:49voter base. they just are less likely
20:51going to do this in the terrible excess
20:53are doing it now right and then finally
20:56you can just look at borderline
20:57countries countries that are kind of
20:59doing anti-democratic stuff but are not
21:01as severe so for example Greece kind of
21:03it's kind of becoming a little bit bad
21:06uh but not quite to the extent of Poland
21:07Buggaria or Romania you can say that
21:09like oh countries like Greece they
21:11probably also get better they observe
21:13Poland and Bulgaria being punished and
21:15so local people know the consequences
21:18are swayed away from populism because
21:20this looks like that it could be their
21:22future. Um so by identifying different
21:25actors you can also see how the problem
21:27is made better. So the last one is
21:30different incentives. So this one is
21:32just like how different um like what
21:35people are motivated by. So maybe people
21:37are motivated by the policy that is
21:39around them that supports them. People
21:41are motivated by the norms that they
21:42exist in. People mo are motivated by the
21:45optical things they observe like for
21:46example like women in higher positions.
21:48This one is I just identifying different
21:50actors um in the debate and seeing how
21:53they all change.
21:55Cool. Now different context. Uh this is
21:57to protect yourself from being extended
21:59upon. Uh so for example, this house
22:02believes that it is in interest of
22:03dominant organized religions for that
22:05leaders to declare more progressive
22:06interpretations of traditional dogma. So
22:08maybe like you loosen uh how how
22:11stringent you are on like dietary
22:13practices or like the acceptability of
22:16contraception or samesex relationships.
22:18Um and so if you're on opening
22:21government, you can say like look there
22:22are too just too many people leaving
22:24organized religion. And that's because
22:26dominant organized religions are just
22:28too strict on the some of the dogma and
22:29it drives lots of moderates away. Um you
22:32can look at like religion exists all
22:34over the world. So it's probably really
22:36good to analyze how different countries
22:38or different context it exists in is
22:41affected by this motion. So you can just
22:42say like in a developed world um you're
22:45going to drive the most devoted away um
22:47because now like if you are in America
22:50or in the UK and you're super super
22:52religious when you're when the pope or
22:54when like um when when like um a really
22:57big influential Muslim figure just comes
22:59out and says like actually it's okay to
23:01do anything now. it's okay to be
23:03incredibly liberal with all of our
23:04religious practices. Now your your like
23:07religious beliefs just seem too similar
23:09to the secular context that you grew up
23:11in, right? It's too similar to the
23:12secular society that you exist in. So
23:15why are you staying this religion if has
23:17no comparative difference to the society
23:19that exists around you? So you as the
23:21most devoted person are probably going
23:23to leave or you're going to be driven
23:25away because there's just no comparative
23:27value that your religion is adding
23:28anymore. So that's a developed world,
23:30not a developing world, right? Um you
23:33can say just like look what passes as um
23:36like what passes as like really radical
23:39in in Europe or in the west actually is
23:42characterized as pretty moderate in a
23:44lot of parts of the developing world.
23:46And so it's likely that if you accept
23:48all of these like liberalisms in in in
23:52religion, this just becomes way too
23:53progressive for even mainstream society
23:55to accept and you're just going to drive
23:56loads of moderates away because they're
23:58just put off. That's way too different
24:00from their social political beliefs. Um
24:02and then yeah, so like you seem like
24:04really comprehensive and there's no way
24:06you can be outframed if you look at
24:08different contexts. Um yep.
24:11And there are like this is the final
24:13slide. Um so tiering analysis is you can
24:17see that's done in loads of different
24:19ways and I gave you loads of examples of
24:21how it can be done. Um this this is not
24:23like the end all be all. There's loads
24:24of other ways you can tear analysis. For
24:27example, second order impacts. So lots
24:29of impacts have secondary impacts. Um so
24:32for example if it's something like
24:35racial quotas in universities um sure
24:38you have a very initial impact of just
24:40like hey more minorities now get into
24:42university but also just like there are
24:44secondary impacts of that which is that
24:46you know like when you have like
24:49minority minorities going to university
24:51and graduating their children
24:53statistically are shown to be more
24:55willing to go to university if their
24:57parents have. So, a lot a big problem is
24:59is just that loads of minorities or
25:01underrepresented people don't go to
25:02university because they feel like
25:04university is not for them or it's not
25:05for people like them. Um, now that when
25:08you have like more like families that
25:11are from underrepresented backgrounds
25:12going to university, you no longer have
25:14that idea that it's not for you because
25:16your parents went to university. You're
25:17just more likely going to go to
25:18university because it's what your
25:20parents did. So, it's seems like a safer
25:22option. Um, so that's a secondary
25:24impact. Um, so you can tar your analysis
25:27such that you give like one really
25:29easily provable impact that just seems
25:31so intuitive and obvious. They can just
25:33branch off into many secondary impacts
25:35and just analyze that those happen. Um,
25:38just like I did right there. Um, and
25:40then the last way that I'll tell you how
25:42to tear your tear analysis is the
25:44short-term and long term. So you can
25:46also think about how a motion operates
25:49over lots of different time scales. So
25:52for example, the motion may be about
25:54forcing media companies to have more
25:56minority representation. You can just
25:57say like yeah sure just like like surely
26:01like now like the short term is that you
26:03just have a lot more lot more minorities
26:05on television. That's really good
26:06because like you know people like to see
26:08themselves rep reflected on television
26:10but you know on the long term that's
26:11where it really matters long term you
26:13have children growing up watching these
26:15television programs and they see
26:16minorities in a diverse set of roles in
26:19all of society and because of this they
26:20feel like they could be a lawyer. They
26:22feel like they can be a doctor. They
26:23feel like they can be an actress even
26:25when um social stigma often
26:28traditionally tells them they can't be
26:29those things. Um and so any questions
26:33whatsoever? This is super complicated
26:35stuff. I don't expect you to do this
26:37perfectly straight away, but anytime
26:39you're making an argument and you find
26:41yourself only having like one mechanism,
26:44um, try to think about all the things I
26:46told you. Try to see like what people
26:47are motivated by, different incentives,
26:50different actors involved in the motion,
26:51different contexts. Um, maybe like one
26:54problem has multiple reasons as to why
26:56it arises and you can look at how you
26:58this motion addresses every one of those
27:00roots. Um, yeah. So, just like don't be
27:02completely put off by it. This is a
27:04thing that you become naturalized to as
27:06you do more and more debate. So if
27:08you're confused, don't feel put off.
27:10It's something that comes in practice.
27:12Um but yeah, so I thought this was just
27:14a really good way of articulating how I
27:16matter dump in how I have really strong
27:18linear flow. Um and I hopefully this is
27:21useful to most of you. Um any questions?
27:27If not, um I'll be checking the chat as
27:29well. Maybe that's a good idea. Um, if
27:31not, I'm going to start stop recording
27:35and we can start the debate. Awesome.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Structuring Arguments - Advanced Training Debate Workshop: Week 2 by Manchester Debating Union, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 5,411 words across 771 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.