The Long Diagonal
December 8, 2008
The Round
Adjudicator: Erin O’Brien (University of Queensland, Australia)
Tournament: New Zealand BP Open Tournament
Location: Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
Dates: November 30 – December 1, 2008
Motion: “This house would abolish all forms of affirmative action”
Teams: OP: (2nd) Kathy Errington and Richard D’Ath (Victoria University)
OO: (4th) Rohan Grey and Steph Paton (Sydney University)
CP: (3rd) Yogesh Patel and Hugh McCaffrey (Victoria University)
CO: (1st) Polly Higbee and Stephen Whittington (Victoria University)
Abstract: This debate presents an interesting example of a long-diagonal decision, highlighting some of the difficulties in judging debates where the hardest fought clash takes place between the Opening Proposition and Closing Opposition teams.
Discussion
Debates about affirmative action typically present opportunities for an ideological debate given life through discussion of personal motivations. Affirmative action policies in debates like these are often measured by their ability to change societal attitudes and to overcome some of the practical realities of historical and economic inequalities. This debate was no exception.
The Opening Proposition took a strong stance that affirmative action should be abolished because it had always caused harm and would not achieve its aims. They mounted their case on an individual, community-based and society-wide level, largely focusing on affirmative action programs in educational environments, for example college scholarships for African Americans in the United States. They argued that affirmative action reinforces a mentality that certain groups of people are not the ‘governing class’ because of an inherent disadvantage. They also argued that placing the emphasis on individuals to serve as role models is tokenistic and potentially damaging to both the individual and community when individuals cannot live up to expectations.
The Opening Opposition team countered this case with statements about the importance of diverse opinions and role models to overcome public stereotypes, the possible benefits of affirmative action candidates in government positions, and the need to reward potential rather than proven merit in some cases. The Opening Opposition’s case identified some of the key issues, but failed to get off the ground due to a lack of development of the arguments. The case presented an image of what ‘should’ or ‘could’ happen due to affirmative action, but no real proof of what ‘would’ happen as a result of affirmative action policies.
The Closing Proposition team crafted a clear extension that focused on the dangers of elevating individuals above groups. They argued that people who benefit from affirmative action policies in education are often ostracised by their communities, and in many cases do not return to ‘give back’ once they have benefited from the policy. They also argued that affirmative action policies can become politicised, leading to the pooling of resources in some communities to the disadvantage of others. This extension, though new, did not enable the Closing Proposition team to gain ground over the Opening Proposition. Although the arguments were creative and more developed than that of the Opening Opposition, the summation speech was not able to defend their arguments well against a strong attack from the Member of the Opposition, nor did the Proposition Whip engage the extension brought by Closing Opposition, causing problems for the Closing Proposition’s ability to fulfil their role in the debate.
After the fifth speech, many of the arguments made by Opening Proposition still remained largely unscathed, while at the same time the Opposition case had been quite thin. The Closing Opposition dealt with both problems. Primarily through rebuttal in both the Member and Whip speeches, the team managed to challenge the assertions of the Opening Government and at the same time fill the gaps in the Opening Opposition’s arguments.
Their own extension focused on a more practical analysis of the important roles that affirmative action candidates can play within their communities. The Member Opposition argued that the harms to individuals asserted by the Opening Proposition were not being witnessed, particularly due to the large numbers of people still clamouring for affirmative action positions. They also effectively countered the Closing Proposition’s argument about ostracisation, as well as the Opening Proposition’s argument about societal perceptions through their substantive material on the role that individuals can play on a practical level. To illustrate this point they focused on the importance of diversity in community services like the police force, as well as in health, education and other government services. They also enhanced the Opposition case with an argument about the importance of affirmative action candidates in government roles to address systemic inequalities by bringing real experience and understanding to deliver a needs-based system.
The dominance of the Opening Proposition and Closing Opposition teams in this debate created an adjudication conundrum that is commonly known as the ‘long diagonal,’ where teams that are vying for the win have not directly faced each other despite clashing over the same issues. For teams in this situation, the goal of being the most persuasive on the key issues should not change. However, there are strategic manoeuvres that can be employed by teams who spot a long diagonal in the making. The Closing Opposition must still fulfill their role of responding to the Closing Proposition extension, but their primary focus of attack should be the Opening Proposition. Many teams make the mistake of going for the easier target of refuting the weaker arguments of a closing team in the hope that adjudicators will simply forget the stronger analysis that came earlier. It is also worthwhile trying to take a point of information from the opening team to demonstrate to the judges that even when they have a chance to come back, you are still able to undermine their arguments. Shutting a strong team out of POIs makes you look weak, not them. Of course the options for the Opening Proposition are limited, though if the chance to offer a POI arises, it is better to make a point that undermines either one of their key arguments, or refutes an attack on one of yours. Opening Proposition teams often make the mistake of offering POIs in the closing half of the debate that simply reiterate their case, rather than advancing it.
For adjudicators, the long diagonal requires a comparison of the individual cases on their merits, as well as a consideration of whatever back and forth existed between the teams. In these situations, asking yourself a few key questions can often help – Did the Opening Proposition’s case stand up to scrutiny from the Closing Opposition? Was the Closing Opposition’s case comprehensive and convincing, or just more recent? Which team’s case was the most persuasive on the key issues of the debate? Where there is a lack of direct clash between the two teams vying for the win, the question of which team had the best and most persuasive analysis becomes even more important.
Although the teams in this debate had no opportunity to clash with each other, and in particular the Opening Proposition had no opportunity to defend their case against attacks later in the debate, it was still possible to judge which case was more convincing.
Both teams focused on the role that those who have benefited from affirmative action can play in changing societal attitudes. While the Opening Proposition case largely focused on the perceptions that would result from affirmative action policies, the Closing Opposition case explored the practical outcomes that would influence both perception and reality regarding inequality. The Closing Opposition also effectively undermined many of the conclusions that Opening Proposition had drawn about the impact of affirmative action policies throughout the debate. From a strategic point of view, the inability of the Deputy Prime Minister to respond strongly to a point of information from the Closing Opposition about the large numbers of people still clamouring for affirmative spots in education despite the OP’s allegation that these people were treated as inferior exposed a vulnerability in the case of the Proposition that was later effectively exploited.
Ultimately the efforts of the Closing Opposition to attack the Opening Proposition throughout the debate, and to deliver convincing arguments that dealt with both perception and reality, won the debate.
Would you like to comment?
