The ultimate pocket-sized principle argument structure

A structured argument is easier to follow by judges, and by your audience. Here’s a pocket-sized tip on how you can build a structured principle argument.

To make a good principle argument, there are 4 main questions you need to chronologically answer:

• First, what’s the issue that’s principally debatable?
• Second, what are the relevant principle standards?
• Third, why are the issue and principle standards relevant?
• Fourth, does the issue support/violate the relevant principle standards?

Let’s put this to an example to show you what I mean:

Motion: This House, as Robin Hood, would steal money from the rich to give to the poor (Government)

• First, what’s the issue that’s principally debatable?
  • UNSTRATEGIC analysis: stealing. only stealing.
    Why is this not strategic? Because there is no stakeholder analysis that’s clearly stated on the motion: the rich, and the poor. Stealing in itself is too general to be debated without context, and this makes it harder for you to justify just stealing.
  • STRATEGIC analysis:
    • stealing from the rich
    • giving the stolen money the poor
  • Why is this strategic? Because the context of the motion, in this case, is the power dynamic between the rich and the poor (in other words, stakeholder analysis). This adds more nuance that you can use to answer the next questions.
• Second, what are the relevant principle standards?
  • taking away someone’s rights (wealth) without their consent
  • unjust labor treatment and retribution of those unjust treatments
  • the distribution of wealth principle
• Third, why is the issue & principle standards relevant? What’s the connection?
  • Taking away someone’s rights without their consent. Relevance: this idea is derived from stealing.
  • Unjust labor treatment. Relevance: this idea is derived from how the rich gained money in the first place: by exploiting labor, slavery, and such. giving the stolen money to the poor would be a part of retribution for the unjust labor treatments.
  • The distribution of wealth principle. Relevance: this idea is derived from giving the stolen money from the rich to the poor, parallel to taxing the rich and transforming it into welfare benefits.
• Fourth, does the issue support/violate the relevant principle standards?
  • Stealing violates the first principle standard (taking away someone’s rights without their consent). But, it is justified because:
    • The rich gained their money from treating the poor unjustly and exploiting their labour. Examples include unsafe working environment, low wage, and lack of insurance to increase their profits. Hence, it perpetuates the suffering of the poor. It is thus justified for the poor to receive retribution in the form of money stolen by us (Robin Hood).
    • This treatment also prevents the poor from having basic financial and health protection, preventing them from getting out of the poverty cycle. Therefore, the stolen money would be amount to a form of wealth distribution for the poor to fulfill the basic needs that were deprived of them.
  • Hence, stealing, in a vacuum is not justified, but contextualised to the condition of the world, it fulfills the principles of retribution and wealth distribution.

However, that’s just one layer of a principle argument. You can add more spice by adding more principle standards, such as parallel examples, past precedence, stakeholders’ interests/agenda, and others that you can find here.

Within each layer, you’d want to reiterate and answer the above questions to make the argument complete. At the end of your argument, make sure to conclude why the motion is/isn’t justified.

Here are some motions you can use for practice:

1. This House supports the use of moral enhancement drugs
2. This House would grant animals the same basic rights as humans
3. This House believes that government-funded healthcare coverage should be proportional to the lifestyle of its applicant

Here at Disputandum, we love principle arguments. If you’d like to know more about principles, you can also watch this lecture by Ashish Kumar: