posted 27th January 2025
‘If a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing well,’ goes the saying. If you are the proposition in a debate, arguing for an action that will change the status quo, you need to show both that the job of change is worth doing, and that you will do it well. You need to be right in principle, and have a mechanism that is practical, effective and feasible.
But what if you are the opposition? Should you be focusing your attack on the mechanism or on the principle? Should you accuse the proposition of not doing the job well, or should you argue that no matter how well it’s done, it’s just not worth doing in the first place?
Engaging with the principle is nearly always far more effective than attacking the implementation of the principle. Implementation can be changed and improved; principles can’t be changed. Find faults with your opponents’ mechanism, and they can come back with ways to fix the faults. Prove that your opponents’ principle is inherently wrong, and they have no way back.
Let’s take a couple of examples.
You are the opposition to the motion This house would require all citizens to pass a basic test of political knowledge before being allowed to vote. You could spend a lot of time arguing that the questions set will be too hard or too easy, or that it will be too easy for people to cheat, or that it will be too expensive to implement; the proposition can bat your objections aside with promises of expert input into the design of the tests, foolproof anti-cheating measures and economies of scale. But if you accuse them of undermining the most fundamental principle of democracy, that all citizens should have an equal right to vote, without any barriers or preconditions, they are going to have a much harder job rebutting you. They will have to prove that the advantages of their proposed measure are so powerful that they justify overriding this fundamental principle of equality.
Or say you are the opposition to the motion This house would abolish private schools. You could devote your speech to fretting about what would happen to existing private schools. Will they be turned into state schools? Will the government be able to afford the higher salaries private school teachers receive? How will they pay for the maintenance costs? Who’s going to cut the grass on Eton’s forty rugby pitches? Who’s going to take Stowe’s beagles for a walk every day? The proposition can quickly short circuit your arguments with a well designed mechanism, e.g. phasing in abolition over ten years, giving time to deal with all the practical issues. If, on the other hand, you focus on the fundamental injustice of preventing parents from making decisions about their children’s education, you will be on much stronger ground. The proposition will have to come up with very powerful arguments for the benefits of abolition to justify taking away something which many see as a basic human right.
So, if you are the opposition, assume that the proposition’s mechanism will work, but show that what the mechanism is trying to achieve is wrong. If you can undermine the foundations of their proposal, their whole case will collapse.
