Elaborating and Finding Philosophical Principles

I have gained this through philosophy; that I do without being commanded what others do only from the fear of law

-Aristotle

Four Elements of a Philosophical Point

Okay, disclaimer first. This guideline is not rigid. I’m not saying that you should always, all the time, 100%, adhere to these elements. This is something that you need to learn, yes. Something you may need to understand before you find a more flexible way, yes. You have to read this, yes. But in the end you decide. This method is, in my opinion, already flexible enough. In any way you want to deliver your principle, be it a linear explanation, be it a branchy one, be it a diverging or converging one, you can put these four elements into it.

Oh and this guide is something I design from watching gazillions of hours of WUDC, AUDC, EUDC and APDA debates. So it shouldn’t be that bad.

1.            Contextualization

This is where you pull a particular motion/debate/stance to a philosophical concept. You can’t, for example, just talk about freedom of speech or freedom of religion without explaining why your side has anything to do with those concepts.

Example:

“THW force Catholic adoption agencies to accept homosexual couples” [WUDC 08 Quarters]

You’re, for instance, posing as the opposition. You want to advocate for freedom of religion. You can’t just talk about freedom of religion without explaining which part of the motion harms freedom of religion.

You may firstly say:

“Homosexuals are believed as sinful by the Catholics. If you want to force Catholic agencies to accept homosexual couples, that means you’re forcing them to contradict with the values their own religious teachings believe.”

Only then can you move on to explaining why religion is something extremely important to people.

This is best done through practices and examples. But the bottom line is that if you directly talk about freedom of religion without explaining why you’re talking about it, it’s going to reduce the relevance and thus the strength of your philosophical principle.

2.            Importance for Subjects

This one is simple. Explain why the principle that you’re talking about is needed by individuals and the main subjects of the debate.

Let’s take the motion above.

You’re still negative. You’re explaining about freedom of religion.

“We can’t easily harm people’s rights to embrace their religious beliefs. Religion is something extremely important because it is a guidance, a purpose of life, it gives them peace of mind, religion is how people actualize themselves. The quality of life to most people isn’t just determined by worldly riches, but also the assurance that they gain virtue from God and go to heaven in the afterlife.”

This part is probably the most important part of a philosophical principle, although that depends a lot to what principle you’re trying to explain.

NOTE:   The subject is usually individuals and the people of one government. But in some cases like in international conflict motions, the subject may be a nation. Thus, you need to explain why one principle is important for nations.

3.            Importance for Governing Body

This part is quite similar to #2, but here you explain why one principle is important for a governing body to uphold and realize.

“By not upholding this principle, the government is being inconsistent with its own constitution which states that…”

“This is fundamental for a government because it is always the government’s duty to…”

“This principle cannot be interfered by the government because it’s in the private sphere of the people. The government can only intervene when it’s in public sphere…”

Link the principle to the constitution of one government, the laws that it adheres to, its aims and purposes, etc.

NOTE:   In international conflict motions, the governing body may be the United Nations. Nations may be the subjects instead of a governing body.

4.            Precedence

Consistency is the ground which all nations stand upon (well, almost always), so an example of a previous policy that is similar to the policy you’re proposing always helps your case a lot.

What precedence show:

-          This has been done before, thus it is CONSISTENT if we do a similar policy and otherwise inconsistent if we don’t

-          This has been done before, thus we CAN do it resource and approval wise

-          You’re smart and knowledgeable, thus what you say next would be listened more. Not to mention you might be able to intimidate your opponent and wow the crowd if your delivery on the precedence is strong. Okay, a bit of an exaggeration there

Example:

Let’s say you’re explaining about secularism.

“Some states in the United States have banned animal slaughter in the name of religion because of public health concerns. Some other states have banned the existence of religious schools for reasons of security and integration. Not to mention that religious laws are overridden by state laws in other secular countries. These precedence showed us that we can limit religious rights for the sake of public concern.”

Though you need to be careful not to implicitly say that “we want to do this just because other states have done so too.” Delivery matters and the previous three elements may need to be fulfilled first so that it doesn’t sound as if precedence is the only thing that you have without any supporting logic behind them.

 

Finding Philosophical Points

Now that you have a slight idea of how to deliver the point, let’s skim through some ways on how you can find a philosophical point.

Read. Yeah, read.

But anyway.

1.            Find out whether a proposal is in line or not in line with the principle and aim of one institution.

                - What are the purposes and duties of a democratic government? Is a particular proposal consistent or in line with them?

- What is the purpose of a public school, and is it in line with a particular proposal?

- Is the idea of voting in line with the purpose and function of the army?

- What are the purposes of a criminal punishment or a prison? Is a debated policy aimed to inmates in line with them?

- What are the ideologies that a nation believes in? Is it unregulated free market?  Is it a secular state? Does the corresponding policy contradict to one of them?

Once you’ve found one of them, you can analyze the logic behind that principle or aim that the particular institution upholds, and then explain them. Then get an 80 speaker score and bask in glory. Another exaggeration.

2.            Find out whether or not a policy is fair. Almost everything in a democratic government’s context is based on take and give; well at least that’s how a particular Sydney Union debater that took a doctorate degree in Social Contract said. Everyone that contributes in the same way to the state should be given back something that is equal to each other.

                But fairness may not stop at taking and giving. Sometimes you need to analyze who’s to blame for a particular damage done, and make the correct perpetrator/doer the one who would take full responsibility, not other subjects.