Video transcript
CT - Coaching secondary debating - 05. Writing and explaining an argument

[intro music]

TONY DAVEY: Hey there. So my name is Tony Davey. I'm the speaking competitions assistant for the New South Wales Department of Education. So the first thing that we're going to do is just talk through our really basic steps to an argument, an argument framework. And you probably will have heard some of this already, but we just want to make it a pretty basic opening video so that you have an idea of the basic steps to putting together a good argument and the different kinds of tips and tricks you can use to improve that argument when you're in a debate.

OK. So normally, we think of arguments as having basically four steps to them. The first step that we're going to talk about today, sometimes called point, is about introducing your argument and making sure it's really, really clear what that argument is going to be about. So in a public speech or in an essay, or even in creative writing, it's great to take the audience on a magical journey with you and have them guessing where you're going. A debating argument is the exact opposite of that. You want everyone to know from the very, very first sentence exactly what the next 1 and 1/2, 2-minute chunk is going to be about.

So you're going to use the phrase, my team's something-th argument will show that-- and instead of something-th, you'll give it a number-- probably first, second, third, fourth, or maybe even fifth. And instead of something, we need you to come up with the perfect half-sentence-long heading for that argument. So you're going to, again, start every argument with this simple sentence-- my team's something-th argument will show that perfect half-sentence heading. The half-sentence heading is going to be repeated during your allocation. It's going to be repeated when you point back to old arguments. So it's really important that half-sentence heading is absolutely perfect and summarises everything you want to say.

Later on, one of our best coaches is going to give you a definition for the topic that we should punish sports clubs for the off-field behaviour of their players. So just thinking about that as a topic for a while, one of the arguments you might have will be about how that will change players' behaviour and hopefully fix the problem, right? But a lot of people give kind of a mushy heading. They say, my team's first argument will show the benefits to punishing sports clubs. That doesn't actually tell you what's going to happen during that argument.

They might also use other debate-ry language, like my team's second argument will show the impacts on the different stakeholders. But the truth is that doesn't really tell anybody what's coming up. So instead, you want your heading to be more like, my team's first argument will show that when we punish clubs, those clubs have a reason to act proactively and manage their players' behaviour better, something like that. Or my team's second argument will show that now fans will put pressure on players to make sure they behave properly so that their team isn't penalised.

When you hear that, you know that argument is going to be about fan pressure and how it will work. So it's really important that heading be a clear, half-sentence-long explanation of exactly where you're going. Everyone should hear it and say to themselves, oh, yeah, I know what this is going to be about. I reckon I could even take over for myself and run that argument myself. So that's the first step. You start with that single sentence that we call point.

Your next job is the most important job, and that is to explain your argument. There are lots of different ways to explain an argument really, really well. But just so you've got a quick framework in your head, there's a really simple three-step process you can use to explain a practical argument really well. So that three-step process goes like this. You begin by painting a picture of what things look like right now in terms of the topic and the argument you're trying to explain.

So you talk about right now, before the change in the topic has occurred, and you paint a picture of what's going on that you're about to attack and say you should change if you're the affirmative or defend if you're the negative. So say your argument was about how now clubs will have to get proactive and ensure that players are behaving well. You might start by saying, so look, right now, clubs-- there's really no pressure on them to look after their players' behaviour.

When a player misbehaves off field, they can say, look, that's a private person. That wasn't our fault. It's not really anything to do with us. That happened in the offseason. And they find various ways in the media to dodge the problem and say that the problem isn't theirs. Because they're not being hurt, there's really no incentive for them to get involved and try to manage those players' behaviour. In fact, they're better off just sitting back and pretending there's nothing they could do and then blaming the player themselves afterwards. So it's just a little paragraph of what it looks like right now in terms of clubs being invested in managing players' behaviour.

The next thing that you would do is you would turn to what things would look like after the change had come in and clubs were being punished for their players' off-field behaviour. So you might say something like, after the change, or after we bring in this rule, and then you want to paint a little two or three-sentence picture of how different things will be. So you'll say stuff like, now, once we bring in this rule, those clubs are going to have a really strong incentive to try to manage their players' behaviour.

They'll be worried about losing fans if they start dropping down the ladder. They'll be worried about losing games if we punish them using points in game. And because they're worried about that stuff, they're now going to say to themselves, how can I better manage my players' behaviour? Maybe they'll bring in more staff to deal with player welfare. Maybe they'll have more training and education for those players and make it more mandatory so that those players are getting the instruction that they need and getting the support they need at the club to make sure that they're not going to go away and misbehave or do something stupid or do something illegal outside of the club. So you just paint that opposite picture of what it will look like and how much better will be if you're the affirmative once things have changed.

The last step that we want you to use if you're explaining a simple argument is just to do another two or three-sentence, maybe 30-second chunk where you tell us why what you've been talking about actually matters. So you're going to say something like, that's important because, and then give us another final paragraph where you talk through why it's so important that clubs work with players to ensure that their behaviour improves. You'd probably talk there a little bit about what kinds of role models they are, about how impossible it is for young sportspeople to manage their own behaviour when suddenly they end up with all of this money and not many rules in their life. You'll talk about all that kind of stuff. You might even want to pause now and give it a shot yourself. I reckon you guys could easily do a 'that's important because' and then tell me why it's important in two or three made-up sentences that clubs help to manage players' behaviour.

One last thing about those three steps, and that is to remember that if you're on the affirmative, your right now chunk is going to be really, really ugly. It's going to be here's how terrible it is right now. And then your after we bring in this rule chunk is going to be, look how great everything is now. If you're on the negative, it's going to be opposite to that. The negative are going to go, right now, and they're going to talk about all the different ways that the current situation works really, really well.

Clubs actually do look after their players really, really well. And then maybe they're going to say, after the change, after we bring in this rule, and they're going to paint a really bad picture, paint a picture of how this is going to backfire or fall apart or make fans hate the sport and so on and so forth. Both sides still do a 'that's important because' and give it two or three sentences.

Cool. So that's the most important part of your argument, is your explanation. The next step that we want you guys to go through is called example. This one's pretty simple. We just want you to name an example by saying, for example, and then calling out a real-world instance that demonstrates what your explanation was all about. And then we want you to make sure you take a couple of sentences to explain how that example works.

So just stick with examples. There are certainly some debates where it's harder to find an example than others, but there are also lots of debates where it's really easy to find an example, and speakers don't bother. So last year, I saw this topic quite a few times because it was quite popular. And I got through a lot of debates without anyone ever even telling me what was the instance of off-field player-- player poor behaviour, who was the player, what did they do, what were the consequences. And that's stuff that I think is in our collective brains. Most people can mention an off-field performance by a player that was less than OK and talk about the consequences that they faced.

So remember, when you're doing that example, actually call out that thing that has happened. Name the player, name the incident, and explain the response and show how it backs up your argument. Basically, we're looking for a case study. Case study might be an even better way of looking at it than an example.

So finally, it works best when your explanation is in the abstract, talking about clubs in abstract as entities, players and what they're like, fans and how they respond. And then your example is the specifics. It names the player, names the club in the incident, and names the response that we saw. OK. So that's what a good example would look like. And the last thing is just to end that whole thing by giving us a link.

That link is typically just you saying, and that's why, and then saying the topic again. So you just got to go, and that's why we should punish clubs for the off-field behaviour of their players. That sentence just lets everybody know that the argument is over so that they can get ready for the next heading that you're going to give them.

OK. So if you can memorise those steps, you'll be able to explain lots of the arguments that you have without really that much written down because you know that you're talking through the chunk about right now. You know that next comes the specific example. Those kinds of things will help you with really simple arguments. It won't work for all arguments, but it's a great starting place if you need to quickly write an argument for a debate.