Review of Jasmine Revolution debate, organised by IDEA

Launching the London 2011 Youth Policy Symposium, Intelligence Squared (in association with the British Council and IDEA) presented a debate at the Royal Society asking whether the Jasmine Revolution in North Africa will wither. Six brilliant speakers presented us with a thoroughly enjoyable evening, which presented some interesting questions and answered a few of them.

@intelligence2
Jasmine: peak flowering in June and July. Will the same be true for the Revolution? #iq2rev
2011-05-13, 13:29

The full motion for the debate was “The Jasmine Revolution Will Wither in North Africa: It Won't Meet the Expectations of Youth”, although there seemed to be some confusion about the subtitle – sometimes it was about economic dividends, sometimes about political ones, sometimes about expectations. This confusion was reflected in the variety of arguments that discretely missed each other like busy passengers on the Tube. Convening the debate was Nik Gowing, the main presenter of BBC World News since 1996, who brought an immediate calm and professionalism to the whole event. The audience, with no clear majority of any race, age or sex, pre-voted approximately 3:2 against the motion, but with around a quarter saying they weren’t sure.

Each speaker had the floor for 8-9 minutes and Nora Ayman, a 23-year-old corporate analyst at the National Bank of Egypt who was at the Egyptian revolution this year, was first to propose the motion. Ayman argued that the conditions are not yet right for democracy to flourish; there is no real dialogue, merely posturing. The defining value of democracy is hearing and listening to dissenting voices, which is not happening. Specifically in Egypt, she asserted, the media uses the tone of the old regime and there is a noticeable lack of education about the values and methods of democracy.

@intelligence2
Democracy takes time - just look at the histories of Western European countries, argues Nyman #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:34

The first speaker against the motion was Ahmed Naguib, the Advising and Exchange Director for AMIDEAST and a key player and mobiliser in the 2011 Egyptian revolution. Naguib spoke in rallying, emotive tones about how “this revolution is unprecedented by all measures” and that “we will no longer tolerate dictatorship”. He argued that the immense sense of ownership the Egyptian people had felt will push them toward actively taking control of their economy and government; that where education had not previously been a priority, it is now; and that legislation is already on its way to improve civil liberties.

@pia_muzaffar
Ahmed Naguib: people of #Egypt now have sense of ownership of their country - won't tolerate corruption and poor governance anymore #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:44

The next speaker for the proposition was Norman Stone, Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara, and previously of Oxford University. Professor Stone spoke frankly about a world where children gather like bunches of grapes and forty people live off one wage; this is not a world where one can just slap on a democracy sticker and have done with it. Democratic reforms, he argued, are no guarantee for long-term economic stability. In fact, history shows us that the very danger of revolutions is the instability that follows.

@Its_Zippy
Agreeing with Norman Stone - Egypt may not have the apparatus to sustain revolution. #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:49

Roger Cohen spoke next against the motion and was the first to really engage with anything his opponents had said. Professor Stone had said that we must believe in yesterday – only the Americans believe more in tomorrow. Cohen replied that he must then be an American, for he believes in tomorrow, when the alternative is the police state of yesterday. As a reporter for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune, Cohen was at Tahrir Square and has experienced many other elements of the Arab Spring. He argued that the people have overcome their fear and that powerful emotions engulf the youth in these cascades of revolution. He spoke as if it was inevitable and the audience applauded and cheered him on.

@intelligence2
Cohen: the opposition aren't exercising sensible 'realism' - instead, they're guilty of 'pessimism' and 'cynicism' #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:55

@_mohamedm
Bravo Roger Cohen, excellent summation of the aspirations and hope of the revolutionaries in Egypt and elsewhere #Egypt #Jan25 #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 18:59

@schnitzelboy12
#rogercohen just slammed his opponents. What a legend #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 19:01

Responding to Cohen’s accusations of pessimism on the part of the proposition, Douglas Murray explained that they were actually cautious. They don’t wish for the revolutions to wither, but they also don’t share the thundering optimism clearly demonstrated by the opposition. This was just one of the straw men that Murray identified in Cohen’s arguments and effortlessly dispensed with before proceeding. I don’t think the audience were as convinced by this as I was, as Cohen had sat down to a roaring crowd. Murray is Associate Director of the Henry Jackson Society and formerly Director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, both non-partisan think tanks. He argued that there are many reasons to warn caution upon the Arab youth, mostly the lack of democratic accountability. From a wider perspective, open and free societies have a duty to help those emerging from closed ones, but the will to help is not present. We wish them well, he said, but we must warn them not to be led astray.

@intelligence2
Murray criticises response of international community to events in North Africa - reserving particular censure for Hilary Clinton #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 19:09

The final speaker against the motion was Fawaz Gerges, Professor of Middle Eastern Politics and International Relations at LSE. This is just the beginning, this is a psychological rapture that has shattered political apathy in the Middle East, he argued; Arabs have been empowered and emboldened with international values in their hearts. An impassioned speech, extolling the undeniable power and force of these uprisings, ended the speakers’ command of the floor and gave the audience a chance to have their voices heard.

@Nanyatef
RT @intelligence2: Gerges emphasises the 'psychological rapture' - in other words, the fear in Arab people has now gone #iq2rev
2011-05-16, 19:30

During the audience’s questions I kept half an ear open, but voting had already started and I felt the speakers were no longer persuading us, only reiterating their positions. I reflected on the evening and how my pre-vote ‘For’ the motion had been a gut instinct and how my mind had not been pushed that hard away from that feeling. It seemed the rest of the audience were similarly stubborn, as the post-vote came out with only five ‘For’ votes converting to ‘Against’. However, the quarter of the room that were unsure in the pre-vote had been swayed into action and the vote ended 40 ‘For’ to 178 ‘Against’, with 12 continuing to abstain.

Overall, I felt the speakers who had had more direct contact with the revolutionaries were the ones who had more confidence in the revolutions. I wondered whether they were better informed, or if they had just got caught up in the spirit of the thing. I wondered what kind of a person you have to be to see your world turned upside down all around you and not to get carried away with it.

How to accidentally become a social entrepreneur

Guest Blog on enternships.com

March 18, 2011, 8:19 am

This week’s guest blog is from Will Bentinck, a recent graduate who found himself drawn to social enterprise. Here he explains his story of how he ‘created his own job’ and how his experience as an ‘entern’ inspired and helped him on his journey as a serial social entrepreneur.

I finished my degree last summer and spent several months job hunting and claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). This is not an experience I recommend, particularly because I grew out of getting an allowance when I was ten. And it’s really boring. I hated it. So, instead of trying to get hired by someone else, I created my own job. The interview was a doddle.

I had quickly got sick of trying to be heard over the cacophony of voices screaming,

“Please give me a job! I am keen to work in a dynamic industry; I have dynamic transferable skills and am a dynamic team player!”

My CV wasn’t perfect (as I kept being told by my very helpful, perfect-CV lawyer friend) and I had to do something worthwhile (I’m not motivated solely by money, much to my surprise); so I set out to do two things: get an internship or three and start my own organisation.

Aside: There is on-going commentary about internships only being for people from wealthier backgrounds because they can afford to work for no money, but you can do internships even when you’re claiming JSA (there are some rules) and it is probably the most effective thing you can do for your career other than sleeping with a CEO. (I’m a CEO by the way.)

So I went to w4mp.org(Work for an MP) and looked at their job listings (I wasn’t clever enough to use enternships.com). I found an internship at a debating website (read that again, it doesn’t say dating website). Debatewise.org aims to create crowd-sourced debates and, among other things, use them to influence policy. I applied, went for interview and quickly started peppering my job hunting with some interning at a desk in Shoreditch. Around the same time, a friend of mine introduced me to an idea in a pub.

“I had this idea…” is a phrase I hear a lot. These ideas usually involve monkeys and occasionally spaceships. This idea was a little more far-fetched. Alex (beardy Glaswegian autodidact) wanted to continue the work of Lord Shaftesbury and rekindle the Ragged Schools, the precursor of state primary education. Except Alex wanted to create the Ragged University.

We’ve all been in a pub or café and found that we’ve learned something from the person we’ve been talking to. The Ragged University’s primary goal is to expand that experience so that one person is passing on their knowledge to a whole room. It gives a platform for communities to educate themselves, it increases social capital (I didn’t know what it meant either), it encourages civic engagement and allows people who would otherwise be distant from education to engage with topics and attitudes they never would have been exposed to. And it’s free.

“That’s a frightfully good idea!” I thought (I’m quite posh) and the idea quickly turned into action – raggeduniversity.com.

If you take anything away from this article other than eye strain, let it be this compound statement: It has never before been easier to start something; it has never before been cheaper to share your ideas with an almost inevitably growing market; it has never before made more sense to take an idea, mix it with some friends and make some entrepreneurial cake.

It’s quite an experience being part of a team of your friends creating, developing, repairing, adjusting, re-launching, publicising and then maintaining an idea that is so much bigger than you originally conceived. I could write for hours about my experiences with the Ragged University, but I will share only one observation here (please write to me if you want to know of any others).

Don’t get too big for your boots, but make sure you wear big boots.

I’ll rephrase that: Implement your idea on a manageable scale, but implement it hard. This is similar to the advice not to bite off more than you can chew, but with the added instruction not to talk with your mouth full.

My internship at Debatewise went well. Debatewise was an entrepreneurial endeavour itself, the brainchild of the brilliant David Crane. His idea got picked up by IDEA, ironically, and after a couple of years of them funding the site, he has now taken over their UK operations; or rather, our UK operations, because he gave me a real job when we became a charity at the beginning of the year. So internships can turn into jobs too – especially internships with start-ups and entrepreneurs (I think they call them enternships).

Blatant plug: IDEA (the International Debate Education Association) UK are hiring enterns right now. We promote informed public debate to help people build more open, participatory societies. There’s a massive revamp of our website going on and we need help with all sorts of things, from code to prose. There’s a job advert on this very site, so sign up immediately!

The Ragged University would have happened without me; IDEA would have a UK branch even if I’d never worked for David; I was just there at the right time and grabbed at those great opportunities. However, the lessons I learned from those experiences (and keep learning) enabled me to substantially contribute to my next project – Levantine Links.

The lawyer friend I mentioned earlier (Ben) went to Syria a couple of summers in a row, to the Syriac Orthodox community in the north east, to teach English and learn Arabic. Ben kept telling me he wanted to set up a recruitment process in the UK to send top graduates out to do the same thing. He kept talking about it. And talking. I kept pushing and pushing him to actually do it and eventually we sat down and started planning.

We achieved more in eight hours that day than I had contributed to the Ragged University in eight months. When we work together, we are astonishingly efficient and productive. I am new to this entrepreneur stuff, I’ve only been at it since last summer, but I am sure that the following lesson will prove to be the most valuable one I ever learn.

Who you work with will define your business, its successes and its failures. So work with people who inspire you with their brilliance, yet acknowledge and defer to your areas of expertise.

If you’re one of those people, I want to work with you; whether that’s at the Ragged University, at IDEA or in Syria. Drop me a line and let’s make some cake.

Enternships.com gives you the opportunity to work with other people and learn how to be better at doing your own thing. While you wait for that world-changing idea to come along, you can intern in brilliant buildings, with passionate people, doing awesome activities.

Let’s make some cake.

Thinking Critically

“There are two ways to slide easily through life:

to believe everything or to doubt everything.

Both ways save us from thinking.”

- Alfred Korzybski

The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is a famous critical thinking test.

Watson and Glaser define critical thinking as a combination of:

1. An attitude to inquiry that involves the ability to recognise problems and an acceptance of the need for evidence in support of claims.
2. Knowledge of the rules and restrictions of logical reasoning.
3. The skill to apply this attitude and knowledge.

So how do we do this then? First, we take the attitude that nothing is going to get past us. We are the bouncers on the door of debAte, the members’ club where all the coolest arguments go. If they’re not on the list, they’re not coming in. How do arguments get on the list? They have to satisfy these criteria:

1. All claims are backed up with reasoning or evidence or both.
2. The conclusions follow logically from the premises (i.e. the argument is valid).
3. The premises are true (provably, or at least there is evidence for them being true).
4. There are no redundant or stuck-on conclusions.

Let’s go through those one-by-one:


1. All claims are backed up with reasoning or evidence or both.

If you make a claim, whether factual or emotional, you need to back it up. The most common mistake on Debatewise is making unjustified claims.

You can justify your claim with reasoning or with facts, but using both is better.

Example:

“The sky is blue.”
- unjustified claim

“The sky is blue. This is clear from the fact that when we look up at the sky, we see blue.”
- reasoned claim (the reasoning is flawed, however!)

“The sky is blue because of ‘Rayleigh scattering’. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths (red end) pass through. However, much of the shorter wavelength light (blue end) is absorbed by gas molecules. This absorbed blue light is then radiated in every direction, getting scattered all across the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. So you see a blue sky. [ref1][ref2][ref3]”
- reasoning and three separate references (yes, you are allowed to use Wikipedia for one of them!)

This is also something to look for in other people’s arguments. Seeing whether someone has backed up their claim will help you to evaluate how strong their argument is.


2. The conclusions follow logically from the premises (i.e. the argument is valid).

There is a detailed tutorial on the logical mistakes that can occur in arguments on this blog (How to Win an Argument, parts 1-4).

However, if you don’t want to read 7,000 words on logical fallacies, here is a short introduction to how logic can help you think critically:

Non sequitur is Latin for ‘doesn’t follow’. This describes an argument where what someone claims doesn’t follow from what they started with. This might be because the argument is invalid or unsound (we’ll look at ‘soundness’ in the next section).

Most arguments say something like “because of A and B, therefore C”. A and B are called premises and C is called the conclusion. The ‘validity’ of an argument is just based on its structure, the ‘soundness’ is based on whether the statements are really true.

Valid means:
If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Always.

Invalid means:
If the premises are true, that doesn’t necessarily mean the conclusion is true (it could be true, but that would just be a coincidence).

A valid argument:
All men are mortal.
Ben is a man.
Therefore, Ben is mortal.

A valid argument:
All animals with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

The second argument is definitely valid, but its conclusion is false - penguins can’t fly. How has this happened? The first premise “All animals with wings can fly” is not true. Notice that ‘validity’ is only about the logical structure of the argument, not about whether any of the statements are really true. The first argument above is sound, the second one - because its first premise is false - is unsound.


3. The premises are true (provably, or at least there is evidence for them being true).

So, we’ve seen how even valid arguments can produce false conclusions - because they are unsound:

Sound means:
A valid argument with true premises (and so a true conclusion).

Unsound means:
A valid argument with at least one false premise OR an invalid argument.

(If an argument is invalid, it is automatically unsound.)

We could argue that “All animals with wings can fly” is actually true. This would stop the argument being unsound and so mean that is was a good argument. To do this, we would need to provide evidence or reasoning (see point (1)) to show that it was true.

If we were against this argument, we would only need to show ONE animal with wings that could not fly to show that the whole argument is unsound. A penguin, for example!

As well as using things that are wrong to show that an argument is unsound, you can use unsound arguments to prove that things are wrong. This is called reductio ad absurdum, which means ‘reducing to an absurdity’.

For example, if your opponent claims that “All animals with wings can fly”, then you can use the argument above to conclude that penguins can fly (which is absurd) and so show that your opponent’s claim is false.


4. There are no redundant or stuck-on conclusions.

All of these four criteria for good arguments can be difficult to spot or difficult to use. Redundant or stuck-on conclusions are probably the most difficult.

Imagine an argument is trying to get into the members’ club debAte. He’s got good credentials, this argument, but he’s got a few friends with him. If we let him in, should we let his friends in without checking their credentials? No. If an argument appears to conclude two different things (or more), then we need to check each conclusion separately.

Here is an extreme example to illustrate:

“1+1=2” and “2+2=4” are true statements.

We could say something like:

If “1+1=2”, then “2+2=4”
1+1=2
Therefore, 2+2=4
---- This argument is valid and sound.

But because “2+2=4” is ALWAYS true, that means that this next argument is also valid and sound:

If “1+1=2”, then “2+2=4 or the moon is made of cheese”
1+1=2
Therefore, 2+2=4 or the moon is made of cheese

So we have managed to conclude that the moon being made of cheese is somehow related to 1+1=2 and might actually be true!

Keep a watchful eye out for these stuck-on conclusions; most of the time they are not even known to the person giving the argument.

---

So, a good argument needs to satisfy the entry conditions:

1. All claims are backed up with reasoning or evidence or both.
2. The conclusions follow logically from the premises (i.e. the argument is valid).
3. The premises are true (provably, or at least there is evidence for them being true).
4. There are no redundant or stuck-on conclusions.

How to read an argument

1. Get the feeling.

Read the argument from an emotional point of view. Try to feel what the author wants you to believe/understand/agree with. Does the argument feel persuasive? Do you feel like they might have a good argument?

Consider how reliable the author’s words feel as you re-read the argument. Do they sound like they know what they are talking about, or are they just launching into opinionated claims? Do they sound like they have vested interest in the subject, or are they arguing from an objective standpoint? The author’s reasons and psychology are important when considering their argument.

If there are any references, it is worth reading them to see how reliable the sources are. Wikipedia or newspapers can be reasonably reliable, but it’s usually better if they’re supported by other, more reliable sources.


2. Get the main points.

The next step is to draw out the main points of the argument. This involves going through it a few times to brush away the fluff and filler and find what is actually being said. Is the argument coherent (does it make sense to go from one step to the next)? Is the argument consistent (does it ever disagree with itself)?

Has the author written hundreds of words when one or two sentences will have done? Are they waffling and distracting from the weakness of their argument with a volume of words? Or do they actually have a lot of very important stuff to say? What about the other way round? What if they make a good point, but have only said it in one sentence and then never explained it?

A very useful thing to do here is write down the main points and see how strongly each one is justified. A lack of justification is a common mistake on Debatewise.


3. Go Spock.

When we get very logical about the whole thing, I like to call it Going Spock. This can be very useful when you’re up against an argument that seems unassailable. By picking logical holes in an argument, you can find its weaknesses and exploit them.

Being really logical requires a decent insight in to various logical fallacies and a basic understanding of the rules of logic (some of which can be counter-intuitive). These things are not needed, however, to just be very rigorous with your analysis. Don’t be afraid to be pedantic!

Go Spock!

---

Let’s look at some examples from Debatewise:

Patents on life-saving drugs should be bypassed (15 September 2010)
- From the Irrational to the Ingenius[sic]:The Status Quo and Our Proposal

No, because...
The current patent system is flawed to its very core. Under the status quo pharmaceutical firms make use of research from state-funded university labs, that has been released into the public domain, to base their own research programs. They usually enter late in the process when there already is a possible product in sight. Once a product is completed it is patented for the sole use of the company for a period of 20 years. This 20 year monopoly is rigidly enforced by both domestic & international law across the world.

Devastating problems arise with this because the high prices charged by these firms to maximize their profit are too expensive for those in developing countries, and even in some developed countries that lack proper social security institutions, resulting in millions of unnecessary deaths. The current system suppresses innovation by placing legal hurdles to further researching and improving existing drugs. It also incentivizes spending on non-life threatening diseases common in the West (such as hair loss) and therefore bring in more revenue than those focused on poorer countries that can’t afford to spend as much on medication.

Therefore, we propose a plan set out by Economics Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz where an international multi-billion dollar fund would be set up to award scientists and firms once they discover or develop cures to life-saving diseases. This would aim to cover research costs but also incentivize research into life-threatening diseases over other ailments. Once payment is made the product is pooled into the public domain, available for use by any company anywhere in the world. While this would be expensive (0.6% GDP) it would pay-off in the medium term as health care systems would no longer have to pay huge premiums to drug companies. More importantly, it would allow for millions to afford medicines [1].

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-hidden-truth-behind-drug-company-profits.html


1. Get the feeling - corporate = bad, big pharma = bad, solution = utopian system; author is reasonably credible, but makes a lot of unjustified claims. The only reference is from a newspaper and it is a broken link; it would have only been one journalist’s opinion of a scientific report - it is better to have read the report yourself and use that as a reference.

2. Main points - current system is flawed: too expensive and prioritises non-life-threatening diseases; they propose a solution based on a suggestion by an academic.

3. Going Spock - where is the justification for the all the claims made about the current system? A reference would help, but evidence would be better. Where are the facts that say hair loss is prioritised? The solution, while delightfully labelled with some academic’s name, isn’t analysed to show its effectiveness at solving the problems listed. So it is presented as a solution, but it isn’t explained how it solves. Finally, and this is getting quite pedantic, the current system being flawed is based on whose ideal? What ideal system are they comparing it to, to say that it is “flawed to its very core”?

---

Is the UK education system getting better? (15 September 2010)
- School is to educate !

Yes, because...
Seeing as the point of school is to educate students and a better result would suggest they have been educated better which would mean the education system is getting increasingly better.
[link to graph of results going up 1988-2010]

Let’s just jump straight in and go Spock on this one:
What are they actually saying?
A. The point of school is to educate.
B. Better results suggest that students have been better educated.
C. Results are getting better.
D. Therefore, the UK education system is getting better.

(A) is irrelevant to the argument about the education system being better or worse. (B) and (C) are premises and (D) is a conclusion. Does the conclusion follow from the premises? No. The conclusion that would be valid is (E) “Therefore, students have been better educated.” This is similar, but not the same as (D). Also, (B) may be true, but is not necessarily the whole truth. There may be other things that improve results.

This is noticed by the opposition:

No, because...
A better result could be caused by something other than better teaching: easier exams or the way examinations are marked not working properly, children being naturally more intelligent, or being motivated by the recession to work harder in order to gain qualifications needed for jobs, parents paying more attention to their children's educations.

We could add that students being better educated does not necessarily mean that the UK education system is getting better (i.e. (E) does not imply (D)).They could have got better another way.

---

Remember - Don't be afraid to be pedantic. Make sure you are rigorous in your analysis. 'Leave no stone unturned.'

How to win an argument (Part 4)

In case you missed them, here are the various logical fallacies we’ve been looking at:

Surgeons, Clouds, Red Herrings, Scarecrows, Mistresses, Journalists, Swans, Flying Penguins, Farting Dogs and Non-existent Sofas.

Let’s have a look at how these fallacies can be put into place. We won’t be able to get all of them in, mainly because some of them are quite rare and others are more difficult to spot than others. The most common fallacy you will come across is non sequitur. This is simply when what your opponent is claiming does not follow from what they’ve said.

Warning: This post is pretty long. If you are interested, but don’t want a long read, just look at the first example. The approach is the same in all of the others, there are just different fallacies addressed in the later ones.

On 2 September 2010, I had a look at the debate on Debatwise.org called “Music that glorifies violence against women should be banned.” This was one of the World Online Debating Championship rounds (between Australia and Botswana). I note the date, because the arguments may have been changed/improved since then. Below is one of Australia’s proposition points, titled “A change is needed to stop the cycle of violence.”

Any material which explicitly devalues the intrinsic worth of another human or expresses a message of malefaction or malice without justification needs careful examination. We must consider the impact of the content in music and the content in music videos on the general public; including all of the stakeholders who are affected by being exposed to such negative portrayals of VAW. Men are not as heavily represented in lyrical content, nor have they been suffering from abuse & violence as severely as women over history. As such we find the portrayal of women in music & music videos to be a major problem that must be actioned immediately in order to stop the continuing cycle of abuse against women across the globe.

If music explicitly expresses a message of debasement, hatred, or violence without just cause, then what is the real benefit to society- and in particular women- of producing & distributing such content? There is a clear moral imperative to not accept the current status quo, as women shouldn't be forced to tolerate or condone music which debases their character or dignity.

They then go on to propose their solution to this apparent problem. I won’t look at their solution, because we are only interested in their reasoning. So, sentence by sentence I have analysed what they are saying into simplistic statements, hopefully taking out any emotive content.

Any material which explicitly devalues the intrinsic worth of another human or expresses a message of malefaction or malice without justification needs careful examination.

> If material is devaluing of a human or malicious, then it needs careful examination.

This is an emotive statement that actually means nothing. What is the nature of this ‘careful examination’? To what ends are we to carefully examine this material? WHY does it need careful examination? There is also no justification for this standpoint - it is merely a bold statement of a trivial opinion. Not a good start.

We must consider the impact of the content in music and the content in music videos on the general public; including all of the stakeholders who are affected by being exposed to such negative portrayals of VAW.

> We must consider the impact of music/video content on the public, including those who are affected by being exposed to it.

Again, why must we? Again, what is the nature of our consideration? To what ends are we considering, rather than, say, carefully examining? Also, if we are considering the impact on the public, doesn’t this already imply that we are considering those affected by it?

(Also, although this is a little pedantic, they say “negative portrayals of VAW”. Aren’t negative portrayals of violence against women supposed to be a good thing? It’s usually good to say a bad thing is bad, isn’t it?)

Men are not as heavily represented in lyrical content, nor have they been suffering from abuse & violence as severely as women over history.

> There is an imbalance across the sexes regarding this issue.

If I am kind here, I will assume that this is the result of the authors’ ‘careful examination’ and ‘considering’ of the music/videos. However, this is not at all explicit. Even being kind, there is no justification, there are no facts, no arguments as to how the authors arrived at this conclusion. It is also not explained how this statement is at all relevant to the argument as a whole.

As such we find the portrayal of women in music & music videos to be a major problem that must be actioned immediately in order to stop the continuing cycle of abuse against women across the globe.

> Therefore, if the portrayal of women in music/videos is stopped, then the cycle of abuse against women will stop too.

Now we have a conclusion (“As such...”). So from the empty, unjustified statements that preceded, the authors have somehow concluded that there is a causal link between the portrayal of women in music/videos (not just the negative portrayal, although this is getting pedantic again) and the cycle of abuse against women across the globe. So ALL portrayals of women in music/videos are the cause of ALL violence against women in the whole world. Even the places where they don’t have access to Western music, or know what a ‘booty call’ or a ‘milkshake’ is. How this conclusion has been reached, or how on earth the authors intend to explain or justify it is beyond me. This is the weakest part of the argument - at least the previous bits were trivially true. This is just ridiculous.

If music explicitly expresses a message of debasement, hatred, or violence without just cause, then what is the real benefit to society- and in particular women- of producing & distributing such content?

> This assumes that: ‘Music must have just cause to express a particular viewpoint, otherwise its production and distribution it is of no benefit to society.’

The authors ask what the benefit to society can be if the music expresses its message without just cause? This implies that the message would be beneficial to society IF there was just cause to express it. I find this a very interesting argument and much subtler and more powerful than anything else this excerpt. However, it’s washed up in a sea of empty statements and ridiculous conclusions; and it is only addressed in this sentence. At no point is there an investigation into any of the following, likely enlightening, questions:

• Is this message actually expressed without just cause?
• What constitutes just cause in this case? And why?
• How does a justly expressed message benefit society?
• How does an unjustly expressed message NOT benefit society?
• How does any of this relate to anything the author has said?

It would be good to start answering these questions yourself (as the opposition) and show how they in fact support your argument (if they do)!

There is a clear moral imperative to not accept the current status quo, as women shouldn't be forced to tolerate or condone music which debases their character or dignity.

> Women are being forced to tolerate and condone music that debases their character and this is morally unsatisfactory.

Again, an interesting argument. However, this falls short of laziness and generalisations as well. Women are not being forced to tolerate or condone any music (this is a version of the Loaded Question - it’s just a loaded statement, assuming that women are being forced to tolerate and condone this music). At least not all of them. You might force your sister to listen to Gangsta Rap, but I certainly don’t. The word I take particular umbrage with is ‘condone’. What possible justification do they have for saying that women are being forced to condone this music? Are they being put at gunpoint and told “Repeat after me... ‘G-Funk, Ice-T, Wu-Tang Clan - they all speak the truth!’”?

The major problems with this excerpt are: there is no justification given for any of the statements; and the conclusions are wildly over-generalised to the point of silliness. The third, slightly more minor, problem is that the conclusion in no way follows from the premises (non sequitur).

-----

Next is an example of listening to someone’s argument, thinking that what they say sounds about right, but getting a niggling feeling that it isn’t. Then ‘Going Spock’ and logically analysing what they’ve said to discover the fallacious reasoning.

From the debate “Can science explain everything?” (Also 2nd Sept 2010)

The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything. If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.

This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can.

The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.

One sentence at a time:

The very purpose of the term “science” is an explanation for everything.

> Unjustified claim.

Who says so? I didn’t know terms had purpose. And even if they do, who defined science’s purpose as an explanation for everything? JUSTIFY!

If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.

> If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.

A bold statement that seems like it could be true, but again isn’t justified - or at least argued for. However, it assumes that the possession of knowledge implies the capability to explain.

This whole debate seems, to me, to be futile as it is like asking the question “Can an explanation for everything explain everything?” the answer to which is unquestionably and obviously: Yes it can.

> Asking “Can science explain everything?” is futile, because ‘science’ is ‘an explanation for everything’ and so the question is trivially true.

This assumes the truth of the initial, unjustified statement, as well as assuming that asking a trivially true question is always futile. This is not as stupid as it sounds: consider the question “Is Stephen Fry really Stephen Fry?” This is trivially true, but could be very informative. You may find out that your neighbour Stephen Fry is actually that famous bloke off the telly.

The question we should be asking ourselves is “Can such a knowledge be obtained?” my answer to which would be “No, absolutely not” but that’s another debate altogether.

> We should instead ask: “Is perfect knowledge possible?”, but that is not the same discussion. And so the author ends; with no actual discussion of their alternative question.

Wow. So the author suggests an alternative question, but claims that it is a different discussion. This contradicts what they have said. I’ll show you how, by taking what they say as true and deducing the opposite conclusion. This uses a bit of logic; or as I like to call it “Going Spock”.

Author’s Conclusion:

The truth of the statement “Perfect knowledge is possible” (P) is a different matter from the truth of the statement “Science can explain everything” (E).

Let’s take as true the author’s premises:

Premise 1:

“The purpose of science is an explanation for everything.”

Premise 2:

“If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.”

We can rewrite E as “Complete explanation is possible”, because if it is, then the purpose of science is achievable, which means that ‘science can explain everything’. (This might not be true, but we are saying it is because we have taken the author’s premises as true and this follows from those premises.) This is known as ‘logical equivalence’, which means (loosely) that whatever makes one of them true, makes the other one true as well.

This new version of E is familiar: by the author’s own admission (premise 2), if P is true, then E (new version) is true. So how can they be different debates? The truth of one is dependent on the truth of the other.

Continuing the Spock Attack, let’s look deeply at premise 2:

“If perfect knowledge is possible, then complete explanation is possible.”

The author’s words are:

If a perfect knowledge could somehow be obtained then the universe and everything in it could be explained by the holder of that knowledge.

Really? I know a lot about my feelings, but am not very good at explaining them. My cousin’s very young children know stuff, but are rubbish at explaining any of it. So if I had perfect knowledge, that would apparently give me the ability to explain all of it.

NONE of this has anything to do with the actual question - “Can science explain everything?” Bugger.

Be careful not to get involved in someone else’s irrelevant point. Just say that it’s irrelevant and explain why, then move on.

---

Another WODC debate gives us an example of a straw man fallacy. In a debate about the legalisation of prostitution in order to reduce HIV infection, the point ‘Prohibition doesn’t work’ has a well-structured argument from the proposition. The opposition correctly note a contradiction in the proposition’s argument, but then go on to talk about something other than prohibition. They promote education as a way to reduce infection, but do not address the proposition’s position that prohibition doesn’t work. What the opposition is saying may well be very good, but it is not about whether prohibition works.

---

In the debate “Should religious education be part of the curriculum?”, the proposition made the point ‘It helps build society’:

Religion is a major influence on people’s lives. It shapes their thought process [sic] and decides their actions e.g. a Jehovah’s Witness refuses blood transfusion based on his/her religious beliefs. Religious studies acts as the academic platform from which we can build a better understanding of these major influences and hence people. With a better understanding of people we are able to relate better with them. Communication is more effective as we understand why they do things. Progress in society is dependent on effective communication amongst people. Religion allows for this by bringing about compromise stemming from an understanding of each other’s viewpoints.

Initial Premises:

• Religion is a major influence on all people.
• Religious studies allow people to better understand the influences of religion on each other.

Initial Conclusion:

• Therefore, religious studies allow people to better understand each other.

Further Premises:

• If people have a better understanding of each other, then communication is more effective.
• Progress in society is dependent on effective communication.

Further Conclusion:

• [missing]

Another conclusion:

• Religion allows for effective communication (and so progress in society) by bringing about compromise, stemming from an understanding of each other’s viewpoints.

If we allow for a bit of sloppiness, we can rewrite this last conclusion so that it fits as the ‘further’ conclusion:

Final Conclusion:

• Religious studies make communication more effective and so help progress society.

Problems:

• Religion is a major influence on some people, not all. Even so, the argument could be used to say the same thing about understanding religious people, rather than all people, so this objection is weak.
• There is no justification for the jumps from better understanding to more effective communication and then to progress in society.
• The final slip up of saying that religion is responsible for this great understanding, rather than the study of religions, implies that the egalitarian ideals of this argument are a thin veil over the top of a single religious preference. I wonder how the author would respond to the Religious Studies syllabus containing the benefits and disasters of the five most adhered-to faiths in the world. In order, they are Christianity, Islam, no faith, Buddhism and Hinduism. Also, if the major benefit of studying religion is to better understand the people around you, then, for example, Judaism should be taught in America and Israel, but nowhere else – 40 per cent of Jews live in the USA, another 40 per cent in Israel.

The opposition’s response is even worse:

it needs to be optional for the student and only the student, because it's their choice to believe or to not believe in religious phenomenon [sic]. And religious people (this is mainly to the Christians) should not try to force their beliefs down their throats, which I find to be quite sinful. And they should teach more than just Christianity but every religion, like paganism and neo-paganism.

OK, this is bad.

The opposition starts their response with a contradiction. Answering ‘no’ to the question “should it?” and then explaining that it shouldn’t because “It should, but…” is a very bad start. Ignoring that this argument is in the wrong place, what does it say?

• Religious education should be optional for the student because it is the student’s choice to believe in religious phenomenon (?).
• Religious people should not force their religious beliefs on others.
• Religious education should teach every religion.

The first point says that a student should be able to choose whether to study religion because they have the choice to believe in religious phenomenon. I assume this means either the phenomenon of religion (which is undeniable) or religious phenomena (which could mean miracles or just the experience of having faith, I suppose). Either way, the choice to believe should not inform the choice to study, should it?

The second point assumes that religious education says that a particular set of beliefs are taught to be true. This may be correct in practice, but in theory it shouldn’t be like that. As a remedy to this practical problem, the author suggests a practical solution – teach about all the religions. All of them? That’s impractical. The Internet tells me there are over four thousand religions. I then went on to compile a list of the religions that have more than 10 million adherents:

Religion	Adherents (millions)
Sunni Islam	1050
Roman Catholic Church	989
Hinduism	820
Pentecostalism	450
Buddhism	369
Shi’a Islam	201
Shinto	100
Russian Orthodox Church	90
Anglican Communion	77
Lutheran Church	49
Presbyterian Church	48
Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church	45
Baptist Church	37
Methodism	33
Sikhism	25
Jehovah’s Witnesses	17
Judaism	14

Even teaching the workings of these 17 religions and even considering that there will be an enormous amount of overlap, the whole project seems impractical.

This is an example of using facts and other justification to back up your counter argument.

-- End of Part 4

That’s it then. All finished. Well done for getting this far. Now get out there and destroy some arguments!