One of the most important concepts and skills in any format of debating is called “setup.” This guide will cover what set-up is and how to use it strategically in both opening and closing speeches.
Set up is an essential part of your case; it represents the foundation of your arguments. A team may very well make the ‘correct argument’; however, in order for the adjudicator to buy their analysis, it must be set up correctly.
What is set up?
Set-up occurs at the beginning of your 1st speaker’s speech. There is an expectation for the opening teams to set up the debate; however, closing teams may also offer set-up so long as it doesn’t disagree with their opening.
Set-up is referred to as nonargumentative, but that does not mean you can’t make your set-up strategic.
The most common form of set-up seen in debating is giving definitions. This is a mistake and a waste of everyone’s time. The people adjudicating know what words mean. Reading a dictionary entry or coming up with a boring definition is going to contribute nothing to your speech. Always be asking yourself: “is this a strategic observation to be making”
Instead, you can go through a list of stock questions and see which of them is actually going to contribute to your speech.
The second way to set up poorly is to list stakeholders. This is a common mistake made in speeches – the reason listing stakeholders is useless is because you’re not telling us anything about the stakeholders. You win debates by proving why a group receives better outcomes, not simply telling me that the group is relevant to the debate.
Stock questions
These are some questions you can ask during setup that might make or break your case. They can be useful for brainstorming, even if they’re not given explicitly in a speech.
1- What does this look like?
This is a better version of giving a definition. Rather than asking what something is, you can tell us more.
If the motion permits a model, this is where you explain tha.t
2- Why is this done well/poorly?
If we are talking about supporting or opposing a policy, one of the most important questions is whether that policy can be implemented effectively. Take, for example, Australia’s social media ban – we care about whether the ban is actually effective. If a policy can be implemented well, that means it is more likely to materialise its benefits and avoid the harms that a team claims. This means you can use it strategically to mitigate a lot of the claims your opposition will make.
To prove something is done well, you need to mechanise your claim. Two important factors to consider here are incentive and capacity. Incentive is the desire to achieve something, and capacity is the resources and abilities to do it.
3- Where does this debate take place?
Another way you can set up a debate is to ask in which regions the motion is relevant. Sometimes this is given, other times you need to set the debate.
Note: play setting is not simply you CHOOSING where the debate takes place, but you explain why the debate is MOST LIKELY occurring in a certain place.
– Developed / developing countries
– Urban / regional areas.
– Australia versus the rest of the world.
o This is especially true for any debate about democracy or politics. Australia is unique in having compulsory voting, which can be used strategically when talking about how different policies affect elections.
4- What does the actor want?
This is relevant in any debate where you are asked to debate the interests of a given group or individual.
o Ie TH, as Japan, would host US nuclear weapons.
Or THBT it is in the interests of Japan to host US nuclear weapons.
You can answer this question relatively straightforwardly – simply by going over what they want.
That can be material things, such as money, but it can also be particular states, such as peace, freedom, or happiness.
A strong team won’t just list interests, they will explain what things like ‘fulfilment’ actually look like
5- What is the counterfactual?
This is the most important question in set up. A counterfactual is an ‘other world’ that exists in the absence of something.
Eg. In THO, the under 16 social media ban in Australia the counterfactual is a world where the ban does not exist.
In THS the rise of independent candidates in Australia, the counterfactual is a world where the rise of independents never occurred in Australia.
Any debate with a counterfactual is won by comparing the counterfactual to the current world with/without something. This means that every team should discuss the counterfactual.
There is also not a single counterfactual. Rather, there are multiple possibilities, and teams must win by proving that their counterfactual is the most likely.
Set up for opening
When you’re opening, it is the PM of LO’s job to set up the debate and establish any important context. A strong team points out when their set-up is optimal or strategic in order to come ahead of their closing.
For example: TH Predicts that the average Australian will be better off by 2050.
You could set up the debate as follows:
1- What does the average Australian look like?
- The average Australian is middle class, lives in an urban area and works full time.
- explain that:
- The average Australian currently suffers from cost of living.
- The average Australian cannot currently afford a home.
- The average Australian is constantly exposed to pessimistic and fake news via social media.
2- What does be better off look like?
- Being better off can be financial (having adequate funding to afford basic necessities and other nice bonuses) but it can also be immaterial – it can be happiness, quality of life, access to natural resources.
3- What is our burden in this debate?
The burden in this debate is for side government to prove that there is some form of material betterment by 2050 than there is now. We do not have to prove that we fix the worlds issues, we simply have to prove that the average Australian is better off in 2050.
Set up for closing
- The most important thing to remember for closing is that you must avoid knifing, any set up side affirmative gives is set up you have to work with.
If they explain a counterfactual that is markedly different to yours – you must defend it.
That being said, if they haven’t provided set up or left holes then you can fill in that gap.
A strong closing team can win by offering an important or unique set up that helps clarify the debate or reframe it significantly.
Oftentimes this involves resetting the debate to a different location (eg. from Australia to the developing world) or articulating a counterfactual in the event your opening doesn’t offer one.
For example: THS governments adopting a militarised approach to anti-poaching
A closing team might observe 2 things:
o Opening didn’t explain where this debate takes place.
- You can then provide the set up and explain that poaching happens predominantly in developing areas in Africa or South Asia with endangered species such as elephants.
o Opening didn’t discuss whether or not this militarised poaching was done well.
- Even if they asserted it, you can build on it. (Note: you can essentially ‘steal’ their benefits if you believe they haven’t TRULY proven them, talk about how they insufficiently proved it and tell the adjudicator that closing’s analysis was instrumental in unlocking/activating the material given at opening.
