Q&A with Tim Sonnreich
Q. How do you deepen your analysis?
Deepening your analysis is one of the most difficult, and perhaps the most important things you can do to improve your debate skills. Here are some things that you can work on:
Disaggregation
: Make sure that you are always disaggregating the key actors in the debate, and then thinking about how the model or the issues in the debate affect each of these groups seperately.
So to take a simple topic, like "we should ban prostitution"
If you assume that all prostitutes have the same motivation, the same reaction to changes to the law, etc, then you are missing out on deeper possible analysis.
You should disaggregate prostitutes to recognize that there are different types of prostitutes: for example, 'high level'(small number, highly paid, good level of choice about what they do), 'mid level'(fairly large number moderately paid, small amount of choice about what they do), 'low level'(large number, poorly paid, esentially no choice about what they do, due to outside pressure).
So once you have disaggregated prostitutes, you can analyze each group separately. What does a ban mean for each of these groups?
For the high level, it doesn't mean much - the risk of getting caught is low(they don't work on the street, and the police tend to ignore this tier of prostitution) so for them the situation is unchanged - a ban will have little impact.
Low level prostitutes have NO CHOICE - most (or all) don't want to be prostitutes now but have no/few options so a ban doesn't change the fact that they prostitute themselves because they are desperate. So most will continue to do it, but they are very exposed to detection by police they are likely to get caught and punished.
Mid level prostitutes have more options to do other things, and are less desperate. So if the chances of getting caught is significant, then many will likely stop being prostitiutes. But this group is relatively small in number so the impact on society of reducing this tier of prostitution is limited.
So you can see that disaggregation has transformed 1 argument(the impact on prostitutes) into 3 arguments(the impacts on 3 different types of prostitues)
That will make the debate deeper and more sophisticated.
Q. How can you effectively prepare for debates?
Preparing for a debate is a process that takes practice, but if you apply it often enough, it just becomes a natural instinct.
Preparation is another difficult topic to summarize quickly, but in short a debater should do two things. First, and most importantly, study first principles philosophical spectrums (e.g. Rights Spectrum; Kantian vs Utilitarianis), because First Principle ideas give you flexibility to build cases for the widest range of topics. Second, a debater should stay connected to various sources, like NYT, BBC, Economist, Christian Science Monitor etc. What's important is to rotate your reading. Don't just rely on one publication, because they all have biases and different areas of focus. On top of day to day news I would try to read different new/politics magazine each week. I sought out uncommon magazines like African Business, as well as established ones like Foreign Affairs.
In your spare time, it's highly recommended that you read history books. I like narrative nonfiction, it's easier to read and remember than more traditional historical texts. Martin Gilbert and Doris Kearns GOodwin are examples of my favorite authors. Modern history is important because it puts current events in context, and gives you great case studies and ideas for models which have worked in the past.
Q. What are the first principles?
The 4 principles are essentially a very crude distillation of basic criminology theory. It's basic first principles. So yes there are always intermediate and advanced first principles options.
Long story to go through all the options, but grab introductory and intermediate criminology text books and have a look. But to give you some things to think about in the short term.
First, you should disaggregate the criminals.
Second, you can take a more structural approach to the issues. You can accept the 4 principles, but that doesn't mean that the current criminal justice system we have is the best way to deliver on those principles.
Consider the notion of "shame and integration" as part of the broader concept of "restorative justice"(as opposed to the status quo which is more "retributive justice")