One recurring clash in many debates is over the government's role in the lives of individuals; whether it has the responsibility to influence the behaviour of private citizens, and it what ways it will do so. This is a debate about the role of the government in our private lives.
This debate can vary greatly, but typically about banning different goods.
- That we should ban smoking
- That we should legalise recreational drugs
- That we should abolish compulsory unionism
- That we should make voting voluntary
- That we should ban alcohol
Note that in this debate, instead of giving arguments on an affirmative/negative basis, arguments will be divided into either pushing for a stronger governmental role, the 'Government Responsibility' side, or pushing for a stronger individual role, the 'Individual Rights' side.
|Government Responsibility||Individual Rights|
|1.1-Either an Imperative argument based on the failures of the status quo or an Unnecessary argument based on its successes depending on whether this side is the affirmative or the negative.||1.1-Either an Imperative argument based on the failures of the status quo or an Unnecessary argument based on its successes depending on whether this side is the affirmative of the negative.|
1.2-A Principled argument explaining why the government has the responsibility to intervene, normally for one or more of the following reasons:
1.2-A Principled argument claiming that individuals have a right to the action the topic is prohibiting, and that the government should not interfere with it. To establish this right, use these steps:
|1.3-A Practical/Effectiveness argument about how this will prevent the suffering caused by making such a poor choice, e.g. in a debate about drug legalisation, how more will take drugs, causing more deaths, or in a debate about making voting voluntary, how this will skew voting against certain societal groups.||1.3-A practical argument either around the harms done to people for whom this choice is prohibited, or, under some topics, an Effectiveness argument (or lack thereof) about how this will cause a more harmful black market trade to come to exist.|
|2.1-Often a Practical argument about a smaller stakeholder or the effect on the broader community by taking into account factors like the effect on crime.||2.1-Often a Practical argument about another stakeholder.|
|2.2-This argument can vary greatly on both sides from a smaller Practical argument to a Social Message argument to a Slippery Slope argument. See individual topics for more detail.||2.2-This argument can vary greatly on both sides from a smaller Practical argument to a Social Message argument to a Slippery Slope argument. See individual topics for more detail.|
In this debate, a 3rd speaker will usually discuss:
- The government responsibility against the individual rights-simply, whether individuals or the government can make a better choice. Typically this will take into account:
- Whether the risks are known
- Whether the substance/action is addictive
- Whether it hurts other groups.
- The practical effect on the biggest stakeholder or the model's effectiveness. This will often discuss either the practical effect on those whose choice has been prohibited or, under some topics, whether a more harmful blackmarket will be created.
- The effects on the broader Australian community, based on some of the points of the two second speakers.