Types of debates

Knowing how to recognise different types of debates can help your team make good decisions during topic selection and prep time. This page will take you through a number of different types of debates that you will come across in secondary debating, including:

• banning or liberty debates

• state intervention debates

• affirmative action debates

• privacy debates

• law and order debates.

Learning intention: learn to argue whether banning something will or won't be effective.

Learning intention: discuss whether stakeholders in a debate have informed consent.

In banning (liberty) debates we discuss whether people can make their own choices or if governments need to force choices upon people. 

Informed consent is about letting people make their own decisions once they understand the risks and harms.

Suggested activity

1. Watch the video and take notes throughout.

2. Complete the activity in the video about consenting to euthanasia. Brainstorm both affirmative and negative arguments for each of the 4 questions to explain why people can or can't give their informed consent to euthanasia.

3. Listen and compare your arguments for the activity to what Tony came up with. 

4. Reflect on your arguments and consider how you might approach 'banning' debates in the future.

Learning intention: learn how to approach a debate when you are discussing state intervention (when countries intervene with other nations).

Suggested activity

1. Research the meaning of sovereignty.

2. List as many examples as you can of times when countries intervened in the actions of other sovereign states. 

• Why did they decide to intervene? (what was the desired outcome?)

• What did they do to put pressure on the 'enemy state'?

• How effective were these measures in obtaining the desired outcome?

3. Use one of these real-world examples to form an argument for state intervention in the following topic: 'That we should boycott international events in countries with anti-gay laws'.

Learning intention: learn how to approach a debate about affirmative action for disenfranchised stakeholder groups.

Affirmative action debates discuss a group of people that are disadvantaged. In the debate the teams will need to consider whether intervening will improve equality and reduce the disadvantage. 

Suggested activity

1. List as many stakeholder groups as you can who could benefit from an affirmative action policy.

2. Research how other countries have come up with a possible solution to disadvantage for any of these groups and consider how that solution might work in Australia. 

3. Which of the following topics could be considered affirmative action topics and why?

• That a quota of seats in the senate should be reserved for Indigenous Australians.

• That every second prime minister should be a woman.

• That we should never exclude speakers from public forums on the basis of their ideas being offensive.

Learning intention: present more complicated principled arguments in privacy debates.

Suggested activity 

For each of the following topics, use Alex's 4-step approach to come up with a structured principled argument.

• That journalists should never have to reveal their sources

• That the media should stop reporting on the private lives of celebrities.

• That parents should be able to access their children's social media accounts. 

Were you able to use all 4 questions for each topic? Remember Alex's advice about each debate being different and use what is relevant to your case. 

Learning intention: present more complicated principled arguments in law and order debates.

Suggested activity 

Match the law and order topic with the correct subcategories above.

• 'That we should ban smoking in prisons'

• 'That judges should be elected by the people'

• 'That Australia should introduce capital punishment'.