A STANCE ON ASSOCIATED ISSUES

So much for a stance on the vital issue of the debate. However, what about a stance on

associated (or side) issues?

The simple answer is that you don’t need one. For example, if you are arguing that “we should support the death penalty for terrorists”, you do not need to have a stance on whether we should also support the death penalty for non-terrorist serial killers. If you do not have such a stance, the adjudicator cannot reasonably penalise your team (at least, not directly).

However, it is nonetheless often helpful to have a team stance on associated issues. This has essentially the same advantages that were explained earlier; it clarifies your team’s position, and avoids inconsistencies in the team case. In debates where points of information are used, a team stance on associated issues can avoid on-the-spot confusion. (Points of information will be explained in more detail later.)

For example, suppose the topic were “THAT AUSTRALIA SHOULD BECOME A REPUBLIC”. Many people in general society argue that Australia should become a republic to sever what are argued to be outdated links to Britain. Following similar reasoning, they also argue that Australia should change the design of its currency (much of which features the Queen), and that Australia should change the design of its flag (which features the Union Jack in the top left-hand corner). Therefore, although the flag and coins are associated with the republic issue, they are not vital to it. As a result, there is strictly no need for the affirmative team to decide a stance on whether the flag and coins should be replaced.

However, there is always a chance that the negative team will argue, “If we become a republic, we will need to change our flags and coins. That will cost too much.” Alternatively, a negative speaker might ask a point of information along the lines of, “Your team is very keen to cut ties with Britain. Would you therefore have us abandon our coins and flag?”. (We will examine points of information in Chapter Four.)

The affirmative team can really give one of three answers to these challenges:

1. “There is no need to change the coins and flag. Becoming a republic is about constitutional change and little else.”

2. “Absolutely, we should change the coins and flag. That is entirely consistent with our arguments about our relationship with Britain being outdated.”

Preparation: The Case Approach

3. “It is irrelevant whether we change the coins and flag at all. That is for another debate on another day. The issue here is merely the republic, and our opposition is refusing to deal with that issue.”

The affirmative team must decide which approach it prefers in the circumstances: any of the three could work. However, the important point here (and with other associated issues) is that there is an advantage to be gained in the affirmative team deciding one approach before the debate, and sticking to it.

Therefore, the first question to be asked of associated issues is:

“What about issue [X]? What’s our stance on that?”. (Of course, as explained

earlier, the teams ‘stance’ on the issue may be that it is irrelevant and that the team will not be drawn one way or another on it.)

However, there is also a second question:

“Now that we’ve decided our stance on issue [X], do we make it clear at the outset, or wait until the issue arises?”.

There is no single or simple answer to this second question; it must be decided in the circumstances. In most cases, if an associated issue is important enough to attract your attention during preparation, it is worthwhile to clarify your stance the outset. In essence, clarifying your team stance costs only one or two sentences of your first speaker’s time, but can avoid significant confusion later. For example, a team arguing that “we should support the death penalty for terrorists” should probably explain at the outset whether it also supports the death penalty for non-terrorist serial killers (or others). This clarification is particularly useful because it explains whether the affirmative team supports the death penalty for terrorists merely because terrorists kill many people, or whether because terrorists do so as part of a political or social movement. That is, it is worthwhile to clarify most relevant associated issues at the

outset because this helps to clarify the vital (or case) issues.

The exceptions to this approach are (obviously) those associated issues that are best left to the opposition to raise. In particular, these are associated issues that are:

1. Not particularly relevant at all, or

2. Potentially frustrating points for an opposition to raise, but which the opposition team may not have considered.

The ‘coins and flag’ issue discussed earlier is probably an example of this exception. It is probably better for the affirmative team to wait and see whether the negative team raises the issue. Raising and clarifying this issue from the outset might either:

1. Suggest the argument to the negative team, or

2. Make the affirmative team look weak if the negative team proceeds to argue a well- directed and sophisticated case that has nothing to do with coins or the flag.

Preparation: The Case Approach

Therefore, the only clear guidance to give on associated issues is this: many issues that

are not vital to your case are nonetheless important to the outcome of the debate. You should think about those issues, and how your team will deal with them.