Scribd
Upload
35 views3 pages

LSDN 2023 Motion Overview

Uploaded by

kamilakamilaaa098
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views3 pages

LSDN 2023 Motion Overview

Uploaded by

kamilakamilaaa098
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

MOTION OVERVIEW

Lithuanian Schools Debating Novices 2023

THR the glorification of artists who died because of illicit substance abuse (e.g. Mac Miller,
Amy Winehouse etc)

Status Quo:

As the motion implies, there is a certain subset of artists who are glorified after they have
died from illicit substance abuse, typically illegal hardcore drugs such as cocaine, or fentanyl-
laced drugs. A video of Mac Miller singing just prior to his desk at an NPR Music Tiny Desk
Concert has garnered 109 million views, far more than typical viewership for such content.
Additionally, these artists are very often glorified in the form of posthumous album releases
and so forth, often causing controversy over whether artists post-death rights should be used
this way. Regardless, the overall debate and the reason why this motion was set is because
glorification of these artists is often intrinsically tied to illicit substance abuse - whether that
means a better or worse world overall is up to the teams to debate this year at the Lithuanian
Schools Debating Novices tournament.

Key points of analysis to consider during preparation:


1. This is a This House Regrets debate - a retrospective debate. This means that both
teams must only talk about things that have already happened. This is not a debate
about the possible future impacts and both teams have to analyze the impacts that
have occurred until this day only. What this means with this motion in mind
specifically is that neither team can argue that glorification of artists who died
because of illicit substance abuse did or did not happen - the motion assumes it did.
However, the extent to which that glorification has happened/how it looks is within
the debate and can be argued on by both sides.
2. Decide on key definitions you will use to make your case. These usually should come
from within the wording of the motion - are there any phrases within the motion that
you can define? If so, is there a way for you to define it in a way that is both
favourable for you but still fair for the other side? What are the most likely definitions
or framing points to be challenged? Try to support them with additional analysis or
examples of that being true and relevant in reality.
a. Note: How can you take your opponents at their highest when in the debate
you cannot agree on one definition? Are the definitions and characterisations
of the world mutually exclusive?
3. How can you be more comparative? Comparatives are the place where you can most
clearly demonstrate your advantage - make sure to analyze how and why your
opponent’s side is different from yours. Why are they not getting the same impact?
Why wouldn’t this mechanism work on their side? Why is a certain issue only
addressed on your side?
4. Possible agents: the youth, people struggling with drug addiction, the general
population, the pop culture sphere itself and the trends/ideas it facilitates, fans of the
artists, etc.

Team Proposition:
1. As Proposition, you need to establish a world in which this debate is taking place and
the relevancy of this motion in it. That is, to provide framing. You have to consider,
to what extent is pop culture influential, what is the extent of your impacts? What do
people look for in pop culture and how are they likely to view it? Who are the people
most impacted and why? In what way are people impacted, how often and where do
they encounter this phenomena? This is a place to establish a mechanism, how does
this issue become relevant.
2. It is very important to outline what is the specific issue you see with the current
world. What is it that you regret? You need to establish the problems that are caused
by the topic outlined by the motion. Be sure to provide not only general statements,
but grounded, specific images of the world as well. They have to illustrate how people
live under the influence of this glorification. Use these problems to establish the main
burden for both teams - what do both teams need to prove to win? What is the most
important agent/issue we have to focus on in this debate?
a. Make sure to flag that this is a retrospective motion.
3. It is crucial to clearly define glorification. Be specific about what it is, in what way it
happens. Use examples.
4. To construct arguments, try to think about different groups of people that are
impacted by this motion. Try to expand the debate through analysis of different
agents. How do they live their daily lives, what is the context/environment of their
experiences? How do they view social media and these artists, what is their
relationship towards them? What are their incentives? What do these agents care
about? Try to be realistic with your analysis.

Team Opposition:
1. It is important to challenge Propositions' conceptualisation of the world right at the
start. Reframe and redefine. What is a different perspective we could see this debate
from?
2. Given that you are defending the status quo, you should be heavy on the
characterizations of how the world looks like - what are the benefits of this type of
glorification? Does it shed light on issues related to substance abuse? Is it the
substance abuse itself that is glorified, or is it the tragedy of these artists’ deaths? Be
very clear in defining how your side’s world looks like and why that is comparatively
much better than side proposition.
3. Inherently, as side opposition your main purpose, especially in a THR debate, is to
minimize the potential impacts brought on by Proposition - challenge whether the
world without glorification would actually be better off and listen carefully as to
whether the world they present is actually believable or simply sounds so.

Any additional questions regarding the motion should be directed towards the CAs of the
tournament, Liudas Vinkleris ([email protected]) and/or Guoda Žukauskaitė
([email protected]).

You might also like