Set Up

What is a set up?

A set up is the very first portion of your speech, where basic information about how you intend to run your case is provided and clarified, so that the judge and your opponents can better understand the case you are about to deliver. This is important, as motions are often succinct and each team has room to interpret and implement their own vision of what they think is best for their side.

Sometimes, teams deliberately leave their set up vague so as to confuse the opponent and give them less room to respond. It is crucial that you do not do this — confusing the opponent will confuse the judge as well, and clarity is essential to a good debate. Hence, learning how to deliver a concise yet clear set up is one of the first steps a team must take in any debate.

The structure of a set up

Definitions

Every motion has certain keywords that you will need to define so that everyone is arguing with a clear understanding of each other’s points. Definitions are not necessarily the textual, dictionary meanings of the terms, but rather insightful characterisations of the topic at hand based on how it occurs in the context of the real world. You would want to highlight features of the term that are favourable to your case in order to highlight the outcomes you wish to achieve in the debate.

Consider the motion “This House would allow students not to wear uniforms” from Proposition: the pure dictionary definitions of the words are not necessary as they are rather self-explanatory. However, consider the potential arguments in the debate, and what kind of characterisations would help you illustrate them. Proposition would likely argue in the course of the debate that uniforms do not allow students to develop their own self identity, and so, in defining the term “students”, you might include:

Now consider the Opposition angle. Since you are speaking after the opposition, it is difficult for you to outright disagree with their definition above (as it is rather factually true), but you can add on your own characterisations which will benefit your side. Potentially, you might want to argue that some students would feel peer pressured into buying expensive clothes. You might choose to add:

Very rarely, you might come across a team that blatantly defines or characterises a key term in a completely unreasonable manner. For instance, we could define students as “everybody” because we are all students of life, constantly learning new things about the world and ourselves (this is called squirrelling). Quickly point out that this is clearly an illogical and unfair definition to debate on, and offer a more reasonable interpretation — this is called a definitional challenge.

Context

In some debates, context is needed to ensure that the debate is argued based on broader logic and arguments, and not simply specific examples or case studies. It would be problematic if a team argues with the context of only one country in mind. Unless stated specifically in the motion, debates usually look for arguments that would be applicable in the broad majority of cases/countries/contexts. Having a context that is too narrow could risk causing the team’s case to be overly narrow. Should a team want to exclude certain countries or situations from the context, the team has to explain why they want to argue specifically in that context, for example arguing only about developed countries instead of included developing and less developed countries. Contexts can be challenged, therefore teams again must be prepared to defend their context, while at the same time engaging with the other team’s context in order to show that your arguments apply in most cases. 

E.g. This House Believes that all children will be homeschooled

It would be dangerous if a team surrounds their entire case around the context of Singapore and argue that homeschooling is not necessary because the education system functions well enough to educate students. Instead, broader arguments of how going to school is not the most effective use of time or that school provides the unique opportunity to learn about social interaction would be better suited to run as a case. Examples can and should still be cited, but they should always only be an extra substantiation of the argument, and never the argument itself or the sole proof that the argument stands. 

Problem

In every debate there is always a problem that is happening, which is why the topic is being debated about in the first place. Hence, problems are one of the most important things in a set up. 

Depending on the motion, both sides can agree or disagree about the problem. For the motion in the previous section, This House Would allow all students to not wear uniforms, Proposition and Opposition could bring up two different problems. However, for another motion such as This House Believes That We Should Invest In Green Technology Instead Of Space Research, a problem both sides would likely agree on would be global warming and the incumbent crumbling of our Earth.

Whether to agree or disagree with the other side’s problem is up to the team, just choose the problem that would benefit the case the most. Should teams want to propose an alternative problem, teams need to remember to not be dismissive of the other side’s problem because it often is a legitimate issue. Instead, teams should explain why their problem is the larger or more important/urgent issue in the debate.

Problems should help to shape the case each side is making. Only when there is a problem could teams move on to discuss various solutions to the problem, the stakeholders affected by the problems and solutions, the feasibility of the solutions and so on. 

Policy

Policy motions are motions that require you to enact a change. Usually, this takes the form of a “This House Would…” opening. It is then up to each team to decide what kinds of rules and regulations would achieve the best outcomes, and mitigate the most harms.

Consider the motion “This House Would ban smoking” from Proposition. In a policy, you would want to consider:

• How exactly this ban would be implemented, in terms of enforcement, punishments, exceptions, etc.

• When this ban would be implemented — overnight with immediate effect, some day in the future, or in phases (e.g. the tobacco law in New Zealand)?

• Would you include other provisions, such as therapy for addicted smokers, or alternative addiction relief products like nicotine patches?

Both teams, after delivering their policies, should also challenge the effectiveness of each other’s policies. You should consider whether the terms of the policy your opponent has stated are actually useful in achieving the goals that they outlined, how people in real life would respond to such a policy, whether the policy is sustainable in the long run, etc.

A note on Proposition Fiat:

The Proposition (who is enacting the change) has a degree of freedom in enacting the policies they wish (this is called the Proposition fiat), as the motion inherently assumes that such a change is possible, otherwise the debate itself would be purposeless. That is to say, if the motion were still “This House Would ban smoking”, the Opposition cannot criticise any Proposition policy on the basis of, for example, such a policy not gaining enough votes in parliament to pass. The opposition, however, does not have this fiat. Should they choose to run an alternative policy, they have to justify why it is feasible. If Opposition ran a policy of heavily taxing cigarette companies, it is reasonable for Proposition to criticise it for not gaining enough votes in parliament to pass, perhaps because of lobbying from the cigarette companies. In rebutting as the Opposition, the question to ask is not “would such a policy pass?”, but “would such a policy be effective in practice, in the real world?”

Counterfactual

Other motions may not necessarily require a policy, but ask you to consider whether it would be better or worse if some aspect of the world were to change. You must then clearly illustrate what your alternative world would look like in light of this change.

Consider the motion “This House Believes That all children will be homeschooled”. On Proposition, this would likely be a world where school as a concept does not exist — how would children interact with each other, if at all? Who would be the primary educators of children and how will they be trained? Will there be a standardised curriculum? A clear answer to these questions must be provided from the start.

Burden of Proof / Onus

The burden of proof is the bar you are setting for yourself and your opponent in the debate in order to win. These are clear outlines of what each of you need to prove by the end. Burdens are also usually an indication of what the other team thinks their strongest arguments are, and you should keep in mind that by the end of the debate you should have adequately rebutted it.

Returning to the motion “This House would allow students not to wear uniforms”, the Opposition might state the following burden for Proposition:

Likewise with definitions, burdens can be absurd or impossible to fulfil. The Proposition could impose on Opposition to prove that wearing school uniforms will prevent any sort of conflict from ever happening between all students. In cases like these, simply point out how the burden is too heavy and unfair, and you are not obliged to fulfil it.

Case divide

This is a brief summary of your side’s substantives to come, just to make it clearer to the judge what they should expect.