Home Search Contact
Members and Schools:
Log in or sign up.

Welcome to the DAV Website
The DAV is a non-profit association which exists to promote debate. It is the peak debating body in Victoria and runs large competitions for adults and for schools across Victoria. It provides training and resources for debaters, teachers and adjudicators.

The Resource Guide is not a substitute for proper preparation, and its aim is simply to help you prepare your own case. You should not structure your case around the questions asked, nor should you rely too heavily only on the articles to which we provide links. Adjudicators are not asked to read the Resource Guide, so any ideas that it gives you will need to be explained just like any other material.

A Grade

Round 1 - That we should ban Scientology

Introduction

Religions are treated differently by the state than other groups of people. Religions receive financial benefits, such as tax arrangements that create incentives to donate, and are often exempted from laws such as those requiring equal employment opportunity. But religions don't have total freedom to flout laws, especially when it comes to practices which hurt people or animals. The line between what is and isn't a 'legitimate' religion - and what religions can and cannot legally do - is an unclear one.

Scientology is a comparatively new religion, started by L. Ron Hubbard in 1952. It lacks the historic entrenchment and scale of other major world religions, such as Christianity or Islam. As such, critics have questioned Scientology's status as a religion - not just because it does not deserve the state-supported benefits of being a religion, but because some say it actively causes harm to its followers. Supports of Scientology argue that it has many similarities to other religions, that people engage with it freely and that it brings benefits to many people around the world.

—ASG

Questions

  • When does the state regulate or prohibit religious conduct? What examples of this are there?
  • What are the main criticisms people have of Scientology? How do they compare to the practices of other - more mainstream - religions, such as Judaism, Islam and Christianity?
  • What is the difference between a group of people who believe something and a religion? What is the difference between a religion and a 'cult'? What should it take for something to be considered a religion?
  • What might happen if Scientology were banned? Would its adherents stop practicing? If not, what would they do?

Links

Round 2 - That we should have a quota for women on corporate boards

Introduction

Despite many successes in the women's rights movements over the last hundred years, women still have greater trouble reaching high level positions in corporations in most developed and developing nations. When they do, there is often a large pay disparity to their male counterparts and a workplace environment which is isolating and male dominated.

Many people argue that affirmative action of this type is what is required to provide a way to increase women in organisations, and encourage others to work towards attaining such provisions. Others argue that affirmative action leads to worse conditions and greater scrutiny as to the competency of women who already hold these roles.

—MEH

Questions

  • What is the nature of the problems women face in the workplace? Do men and women have different skills, suited for different roles on boards?
  • How do boards play a role in shaping the directions of their companies?
  • Will this result in backlash, and the questioning of the skills of competent women?
  • Is it OK for the state to intervene in the economic market in this way? Will there be a positive or negative effect on businesses if they embrace the contribution of women?

Links

B Grade

Round 1 - That we should prohibit building homes in areas prone to natural disasters

Introduction

Encounters with natural disasters have become part of the Australian identity. In the last few years Australia has experienced devastating natural disasters including the Black Saturday Bushfires, the Western Australian storms and more recently the Queensland floods. The cleanup and rebuilding costs of these disasters to the government is huge, with Black Saturday costing $4.4billion and the Queensland floods expected to have a price tag exceeding $10billion. Disasters also claim many lives – Black Saturday alone resulted in 173 deaths, many of which were in fire prone areas.

Although nobody can surely predict when and where natural disasters will occur, some regions can easily be identified as natural disaster prone areas. For many people these areas are ‘home’ and vital to their way of life, however suggestions are being put forth which call for provisions to be put in place which would prevent homes being built in such areas. The right to choose where to live is being challenged in order to limit dangerous exposure to the population and hence prevent both tragic loss of life and wasted taxpayer dollars.

—AJC

Questions

  • Does the Government already prohibit building homes in other instances?
  • What areas in Australia are prone to natural disasters?
    • How could this land be otherwise used?
    • What would happen to existing homes in these areas?
  • How would the Government prevent houses from being built?
  • Should the Government be allowed to tell us where to live?
  • Could houses be better built to accommodate their environment?

    • Links

    Round 2 - That we should use prison labour for public works

    Introduction

    Prisoners are kept away from society, so as to encourage people not to commit crimes, to protect the community and rehabilitate offenders. Keeping prisoners isolated costs the government, and thus taxpayers, a lot of money. It also alienates the prisoners, renders them economically unproductive and entrenches certain perceptions of prisoners in the minds of the public.

    Historically, 'chain gangs' were collections of prisoners; literally chained together, working on menial physical labour tasks, such as digging roads. More recent versions of prison labour include accusations that less-democratic nations use prisoners effectively as slave-labour, to produce goods for sale at little to no cost. But could modern-day prison labour be more useful than chain gangs and more humane than forced labour? Do the principles which justify imprisonment in the first place also allow us to make use of prison labour, or would it be an unacceptable way to treat human beings? Moreover, could prison labour provide public savings and literally allow offenders to repay their debt to society? Or is it all more trouble than its worth?

    —ASG

    Questions

    • What rights to prisoners have, and which rights do we take from them? What is our justification for removing those rights from prisoners?
    • What would be the benefits of using prison labour? Are there benefits for the community or government? How about the prisoners themselves?
    • How would prison labour work with the aims of the criminal justice system? Does it alter the deterrent or rehabilitation aspects of the system - and if so, for the better?
    • Are there any risks associated with this idea? How do those risks compare to the benefits?
    • How might this proposal change how people think of prisoners? How might it change how prisoners think of themselves and the corrections system?

    Links

    C Grade

    Round 1 - That the government should not fund major sporting events

    Introduction

    Major sporting events can bring large numbers of tourists to a city, and raise the national and international profile of a city. Sporting events provide a range of cultural and social benefits to the people of a host city, including access to elite sporting events that would otherwise require expensive travel. Cities often also benefit from new infrastructure, both in the form of sporting facilities and more general public amenities like transportation.

    These benefits, however, come at a cost. Hosting major sporting events generally requires substantial government investment, which necessarily comes at the cost of other government services like healthcare and education. The large influx of visitors that a major sporting event brings to a city can also diminish the quality of life for residents - even those who are not interested in the sport - by contributing to congestion and crowding. This debate is about balancing the costs and benefits of hosting major sporting events.

    —MC

    Questions

    • What other kinds of major events does the government contribute to the cost of hosting?
    • Why does the government fund major events (sporting or non-sporting)?
    • Who benefits from increased tourism to a city?
    • What contribution do major sporting events make to society?

    Links

    Round 2 - That schools should be allowed to drug test students

    Introduction

    In 2008 a Federal Government advisory group found that drug testing in schools would be a waste of money, costing more than $350 million to do a single test on every student in the country. However some independent schools are already conducting drug tests with the support of parents and community as they believe it stifles students’ desire to experiment with drugs. Experts argue that the tests are not entirely accurate and instead create mistrust and stigma between staff and students. They commonly suggest Drug Education as a more effective alternative.

    The real issue in this debate is not whether there should be mandatory drug testing in all schools, but whether schools should be allowed to conduct drug tests if they feel it necessary. This topic examines current drug use amongst students, the rights of students, the effectiveness of drug testing and the consequences of implementation.

    —AJC

    Questions

    • What are the dangers of drug use?
    • Is drug testing an invasion of privacy? What would happen if a student did not give consent for a test?
    • How accurate are the tests? What would happen if a student was falsely accused?
    • How will the tests address student drug use?

    Links

    Round 5 - That public transport should be free

    Introduction

    There are many advantages to society when individuals decide to use public transport. It may be better for the environment and may mean that roads and other forms of transport are more free for those who absolutely must use them. Public transport is often used by people who live in congested areas or who cannot afford a car.

    Public transport is expensive, though, and a system whereby individuals pay for their own tickets means that the people who use public transport the most must also pay the most for it. Australian governments contribute some money to public transport infrastructure, so the cost is already partly publically subsidised.

    —CMR

    Questions

    • Who uses public transport? Why (or why not) may they be especially susceptible to financial pressures?
    • What are the general societal benefits of more people using public transport, and would more people use it if it were free?
    • Is it unfair to people who cannot use public transport if their tax dollars are used to support a free system?
    • What expectations do we place upon individuals generally to manage their own living costs?

    Links

    D Grade

    Round 1 - That we should ban violent video games

    Introduction

    Since the 1970s, video games have become a popular form of entertainment and important part of our culture. From traditional arcade games to those that can be played at home, video games have slowly worked their way into our lives to become one of the most common forms of entertainment, especially for teenagers. Game-players claim that the games are a fun way to pass time, that they decrease stress and are a good way to escape from their everyday lives. However, critics of video games argue that violent games encourage real-life violence and train people to use weapons such as guns or knives. Evidence shows that those who play violent video games are more likely to become aggressive straight after playing – though many game-players state that the games are a good way to release feelings that they could not express in the “real” world.

    —CAD

    Questions

    • What makes a video game violent? Who decides this?
    • Why do people play video games in the first place?
    • Are the current ratings on video games enough to stop young people playing games that are too “old” for them?
    • What kids of bans would be placed on games?
    • Do violent video games affect somebody more than violent movies or books?
    • Are we exposed to other forms of violence?

    Links

    Round 2 - That we should not allow animals to be used as objects of sport

    Introduction

    Animals are used by humans throughout the world as objects of entertainment. One of the most common derivatives is using animals in sport. Many different examples of this can be seen through both racing and hunting. A lot of these sports hold strong cultural significance and are thus seen as part of everyday life. Animal rights advocates are pushing for bans on blood sports and racing as they claim animals are suffering under cruel conditions. Meanwhile industry representatives maintain that it is in their own best interests that animals are healthy and happy in order to perform well.

    Although using animals for our own amusement may be demeaning to ourselves as well as the animals, it is a large industry employing many people across the world. Issues relating to animal wellbeing could be solved with reform rather than abolition, but is it worth the risk?

    —AJC

    Questions

    • What sports involving animals are of significant cultural importance?
    • What effect would a ban have on gambling?
    • What provisions are already in place to prevent cruelty?
    • What would happen to the racing industry?

    Links

    Round 3 - That we should ban beauty pageants

    Introduction

    Beauty pageants involve individuals, predominantly females, competing in a competition based predominantly on beauty or physical characteristics, although there may be other elements of the competition, often including showcasing musical, athletic or other personal talents. They vary substantially in scope and size, with small, local community contests existing alongside large competitions such as Miss World, Miss Australia, Miss USA etc.

    Many people argue that these contests provide something for the community to rally around, and is a legitimate form of entertainment. They claim those involved develop presentation skills and confidence which they can use later on in life. However, others claim they lead to the objectification of women and contribute to the sexualisation of society given their emphasis on beauty. Some argue the pressure is too much and leads to women being obsessed with being beautiful, often exposing themselves to harm through surgery and dieting.

    —MEH

    Questions

    • When should the state be involved in regulating people's private lives?
    • Do people participate in these competitions voluntarily? Is that important?
    • Why do people choose to participate in the competitions? What benefits/harms exist for them?
    • What is the impact of these competitions on the audiences who watch them? Do they contribute to broader social emphasis on the importance of beauty? Who, if anyone, is affected by this?

    Links

    Round 4 - That private schools should not receive funding from the government

    Introduction

    Public schooling in Australia is available to all citizens free of charge (although many schools will request a voluntary financial contribution from parents). Parents may instead choose to send their children to an Independent school, which is not operated by the state government, and will generally charge fees for tuition.

    Parents may choose Independent schools because they perceive them to offer a higher quality of education, or because of the more opulent facilities that their wider pool of funding sources enables. The Government funds Independent schools using a fixed amount per student that is adjusted for the socio-economic status of the school community. Some argue that those attending private schools choose to opt-out of the government education system, and that such education should be entirely privately funded.

    —MC

    Questions

    • If a person chooses to purchase a private service instead of using a government-provided service, does the government usually fund that choice? Why/why not? (Think about the differing examples of private healthcare and private security)
    • What would the effect on Independent schools of reduced government funding be?
    • Is the government education system adequately funded at the moment?
    • Do the government and our society benefit from the existence of private schools?

    Links

    Round 5 - That space exploration is not worth the cost

    Introduction

    Space exploration has been described as the crowning achievement of the twentieth century. It has provided a symbol of hope and optimism to many, and has been seen as representative of a new age of discovery and excitement. Many day-to-day products have been invented as part of space programs, such as smoke alarms, ear thermometers and freeze-dried food.

    These benefits have come at significant cost. NASA alone has, over the past fifty years, spent $471.23 billion and in some years in the 1960s was taking between four and five per cent of the national federal budget. Many have questioned whether the few tangible benefits, such as a few household conveniences and an interest in astronomy among children, justify the expense of space exploration.

    —CEH

    Questions

    • What is the purpose of space exploration?
    • Is there a trend that shows an ongoing (or increasing) benefit derived from space exploration?
    • Is any benefit commensurate with the cost?
    • What criteria should exist to determine whether an undertaking is 'worth' the cost?

    Links