Aliens, Robots and Fairytales

1. Aliens, Robots and Fairytales

2. There are a finite number of debates all of which are dressed up in different ways. • Once you have seen enough of them you’ll automatically know the arguments for them all. • Sometimes a debate is dressed up in an abstract way, to be a skilled debater you have to be able to separate the abstraction from the principle.

3. Principles • Every debate has a few principles running through it, a debate on the legalisation of drugs comes down to a discussion on whether a person should be able to do whatever they want. • Or whether the state has a right to prevent people from harming themselves. • It also has a discussion about whether people who take drugs are rational actors or whether the choice to take drugs is irrational.

4. Aberystwyth • The Aberystwyth open is famous for its abstract motions, so to look at this topic in more detail we’re going to discuss the principles behind each of their motions, then we’ll look at a couple of abstract motions from other competitions before having a practice debate. • Round 1 - Your friend has been bitten by a zombie during a zombie apocalypse. They turn into a zombie in ten minutes. THW kill your friend now.Round 2 - THW allow courts to posthumously try those accused of war crimes with humiliation of the corpse as a possible punishment.Round 3 - There are conjoined twins. Trying to separate them would kill both. Twin B spontaneously kills someone in the street. Twin B has violent tendencies. Twin A was not conscious, aware or in any regard complicit through action or inaction for the murder. THB that protection from Twin B justifies the imprisonment of Twin A.Round 4 - You are in a room with a red button. You have no communication with the outside world or understanding why you are there. THW push the button.Final - THW send flamboyantly gay ambassadors to countries which abuse gay rights.

5. Round 1 • Your friend has been bitten by a zombie during a zombie apocalypse. They turn into a zombie in ten minutes. THW kill your friend now.

6. Round 1 • Your friend has been bitten by a zombie during a zombie apocalypse. They turn into a zombie in ten minutes. THW kill your friend now. • This debate should be almost instantly recognisable as a Euthanasia debate, the same arguments automatically apply. • However it is important to realise that the abstract contextualisation of motions do allow for abstract arguments. • For example this debate gives you the ability to talk about your chances of survival and whether it is better to die at the hands of your friend as a zombie than to take your chances of escape. • Or you could talk about the right of your friend to be an irrational zombie, perhaps they have the same right a lion does to exist?

7. Round 2 • THW allow courts to posthumously try those accused of war crimes with humiliation of the corpse as a possible punishment.

8. Round 2 • THW allow courts to posthumously try those accused of war crimes with humiliation of the corpse as a possible punishment. • This debate is about the role of punishment, should it end at death? Is it about giving people closure? Or if it’s about deterrence will this deter anyone? Do people see punishment they wont experience as a deterrent?

9. Round 3 • There are conjoined twins. Trying to separate them would kill both. Twin B spontaneously kills someone in the street. Twin B has violent tendencies. Twin A was not conscious, aware or in any regard complicit through action or inaction for the murder. THB that protection from Twin B justifies the imprisonment of Twin A.

10. Round 3 • There are conjoined twins. Trying to separate them would kill both. Twin B spontaneously kills someone in the street. Twin B has violent tendencies. Twin A was not conscious, aware or in any regard complicit through action or inaction for the murder. THB that protection from Twin B justifies the imprisonment of Twin A. • This is a difficult one, it isn’t as easy to see a underlying debate, instead it is more about an underlying moral problem. But what might be a close analogy is “Is the imprisonment of those who are incorrectly convicted justified by the removal of those who are correctly convicted?”. • In other words is it worth it?

11. Final • THW send flamboyantly gay ambassadors to countries which abuse gay rights.

12. Final • THW send flamboyantly gay ambassadors to countries which abuse gay rights. • Personally I think this debate is hugely op heavy, but the underlying debate is a discussion between whether our international relations interests should supersede our morality. • But it goes slightly further than this, it asks should we actively harm our international relations interests for the sake of changing someone else's moral standpoint. • An analogous debate might be THW sell arms to rebel forces in dictatorships.

13. What have we learnt? • Well the important thing to realise is that every debate has an underlying principle that can be argued for and against. • This is true not just of abstract debates but of all debates. • THW prohibit the publication of internet based materials that incite hatred. • Obviously the debate is about censorship and the limits of free speech, even if it has a strange wording about internet based materials.

14. Let’s look at one more • In the matrix universe THW take the blue pill. • This motion is a choice between ignorant bliss and harsh reality, is the loss of quality of life worth the knowledge that you are living in reality?