principles I:

introduction to
principled
arguments

MDU Advanced Training Sessions // Week 2

'Non-principled' debates
what is utilitarianism?
a theory that says that an action is morally correct if the consequence of it is
maximising net happiness
debates where no 'principled arguments' are made operate under utilitarianism -
implicit agreement that what matters is maximising utility
BUT sometimes debaters make principled claims without thinking of them as
→
‘principles’ - e.g. ‘the most vulnerable actor’ not utilitarian but is expected
enough not to be perceived as a scary principle
judging 'non-principled' debates
the average intelligent voter is not a utilitarian by default
these debates can be judged because the teams all implicitly agree on
utilitarianism as the underlying principle → e.g. all teams agree that ‘Person X is
happy’ is valuable
 principles in debating logic
what “principled” arguments generally do is to question the assumption that the
maximisation of utility is the desirable outcome of the debate
e.g. reparation principles, special obligations to one's own children
as a consequence:
how do you weigh up principles versus practical arguments?
you don’t→ assuming that the principle connects, then the goal of it was to show
that the ‘practical’ arguments in the debate to do not have any value of their own
BUT principled arguments are not always completely independent of the practical
outcomes of the motion
not all principles explain that certain action is unacceptable, some just explain
which actors should be valued more or exclusively → in these cases, the debate
can still be contested on practical grounds about who achieves that the best
e.g. in a reparation debate, OG makes a well-connected principled claim that we
owe certain obligation to women
OO can still win without contesting contesting that the obligation exists,
just arguing that they are better able to meet that obligation - if they
succeed, they win
BUT unless opp contests that the obligation exists or at least is the
primary obligation, even if they make a brilliant argument about how this
will cause a lot of harm to men, it will not win them the debate
the place of thought experiments i
judges need to be explained what it is that the average
informed voter should be finding valuable
this is often difficult to do in an analytic sense → we use
thought experiments to establish common premises by
appealing to the judge’s intuitions
how to use thought experiments?
give a thought experiment and point out to the judge why
they have that intuition
claim that the situation in the motion is analogous to the
situation in the thought experiment → the judge should
apply the same intuition
e.g. Imagine you are a professor who believes that he has a wife
who loves him, children who look up to him and students who
value his lessons. In actuality, his wife is cheating, kids find him
embarrassing and his students do not respect him. Even though
the professor is living a happier life under the SQ, the intuition is
that you’d wanna know → radical honesty
 the place of thought experiments ii
formulate the thought experiment as clearly as possible to
avoid possible objections and highlight the intuition that you
need
e.g. Imagine that there are a brother and sister who have sex
with one another. They do not know that they are related, have
never met before, and one was in fact adopted. Both are
infertile. Is this wrong?
sometimes this is best done by giving multiple thought
experiments
a thought experiment X → arrive at intuition 1
give essentially the same thought experiment, changing the
exact factor you are trying to highlight → arrive at intuition
2
limitations
it is often unclear what exactly drives the intuition behind
the thought experiment → hard to derive consequences
(easy for opp to claim that the intuition derives from some
other factor)
e.g. does the professor thought experiment necessarily
mean that our intuition is that lying is bad?
you often find contesting thought experiments
rebutting principles
four methods
co-opting - sometimes, you might not want to rebut the
principle, but explain why you are fulfilling it better
question the thought experiments → exploit all the
weaknesses
provide a contesting principle
consider what the outcome of the principle X is -
sometimes →‘we owe an obligation to group X’
counter that by making your own principled argument,
suggesting that there are other obligations and explaining
why these are more important
e.g. the Trinity IV 2021 final
direct rebuttal - looks a lot like rebuttal you might otherwise
provide - missing pieces of mechanisation / weak link
the reason why debaters find this hard is because they are
not used to it and have not built up the intuitions yet
principles as performances
the role of emotions
not just trying to convince judges that you are logically proving things in the
debate → saying they should find something so intuitive that no one would
contest it
this is why often the words you use or the way you deliver them
matters
not good enough to just copy principles word for word from a different
debate - instead, adapt to the debate
principles are not things you tag on to the end of an argument