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 abolish the minimum wage

Introduction

The minimum wage is the lowest amount that an employer may legally pay an employee. In Australia, a legally-enforced minimum wage was enacted near the beginning of the twentieth century, and the standard Federal Minimum Wage is currently $14.31/hour, though some exemptions apply.

The minimum wage was initially put in place to protect unskilled manufacturing workers. These workers could be easily replaced, and so had very little power when negotiating wages with employers. Supporters of the minimum wage point to increased quality-of-life and increased motivation for productivity for the poorest members of society and a lessened burden on government welfare.

Opponents of the minimum wage note the efficiency of free (unrestricted) markets in setting appropriate prices: primarily, they are concerned that the minimum wage is a barrier to employment for workers without many skills. For example: suppose that John, a gardener, can only mow lawns fast enough to be worth $10 per hour. Given that Australia’s minimum wage is $14.31/hour, no employer will be willing to hire John because they will be forced to pay him more than his labour is worth. Opponents of the minimum wage suggest that this significantly increases unemployment, because those with labour valued at a rate less than the minimum wage will never be employable. They also argue that the minimum wage hurts businesses and does not significantly improve the economic situation of those it is intended to help.

—MC

Questions

  • What are the current exemptions to the minimum wage? Why do they exist?
  • Find a country that doesn't have a minimum wage law. How are wages determined? Do you think that workers are better or worse off under that system?
  • Should everyone have a right to at least as much money as is necessary to survive? Whose responsibility is it to ensure this?

Links

Round 2 - That Google has gone too far

Google began life as an Internet search engine in 1996, the brainchild of two research students at Stanford University. The simple interface and accurate results of the search engine quickly gained popularity, and today Google Inc. employs over 20,000 people and offers services from search, advertising and software to telephony, publishing and social networking.

Today, over 200 million Google web searches are performed every day using over 160 international versions, but some criticise the behaviour of the company. Most criticisms centre on privacy, but others include copyright infringement, ethical issues, and energy consumption.

Critics point out a seemingly cavalier attitude to privacy by Google. All visitors to Google search have a tracking cookie set which could allow Google to link searches together, even when a user is not logged-in. Google's data retention policies are notoriously vague, even for content which a user elects to delete (e.g., an email). The launch of Google Street View, a product which shows panoramic views of storefronts and houses in Google Maps sparked outrage from many privacy groups, who claimed that the images were inappropriately intrusive.

Google operates in China by complying with the Chinese Government's internet censorship regime. Critics contend that this compliance contravenes the corporate motto: "Don't be evil".

—MC

Questions

  • What is privacy? Is it important?
  • What is profiling/behavioural advertising?
  • How much information should a private company be able to collect about a person?
  • Should the Government ever interfere with the behaviour of a company? To what degree?
  • What rights do you have over content you create? (e.g., an email, a YouTube video, a spreadsheet)

Links

B Grade

Round 1 - That Australia should have seats in parliament reserved for Indigenous people

Calls for dedicated seats in Parliament for Indigenous people have been made and rejected since the 1930s. Advocates suggest that legislation should be enacted to ensure that the voice of the first Australians is heard on issues such as health, education, social issues, and corrective services. This has become particularly important after the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was abolished in 1997. However, some see dedicated seats as undemocratic because they contravene the principles underlying the Westminster system of government.

To date, only two Indigenous Australians, Neville Bonner and Aden Ridgeway, have been elected to Federal Parliament.

—MJP

Questions

  • Will reserved seats in parliament address past injustices?
  • Will this political power further empower Aboriginal people? Does it promote self determination?
  • What are some of the current problems facing the Aboriginal community? How will these be improved by greater political representation?
  • What barriers currently exist to Aboriginal representation in Parliament? Will this impact how political parties pre-select candidates for elections?
  • Is this democratic?
  • Why is it important that Aboriginal issues are raised and debated in parliament?
  • How will this be perceived?
  • What pressures will be placed on those who are elected?
  • How do we increase Aboriginal political representation in the long term?
  • What other countries have seats reserved in Parliament for Indigenous people? Has this been successful?

Links

Round 2 - That the government should not prop up the automotive industry

Across the world, governments have attempted to prop up their automotive industries on occasion. They have done this in a number of ways. Sometimes, they have levied tariffs on imported cars. Imported cars are thus subject to an extra tax and become comparatively more expensive than locally-produced cars. Alternatively, governments might introduce export subsidies to encourage exports of cars. More recently, governments have provided the automotive industry loans, or have given it money outright in the form of subsidies — sometimes to help a company to survive and sometimes to promote particular research and development.

Two features of the current global economic situation have particularly affected the automotive industry. First, companies in the automotive industry often have substantial debt. They have found it difficult to meet loan payments and very difficult to refinance their debts because banks have less money to lend and have become much more cautious. Second, as countries across the world have fallen into recession and unemployment has risen, the sales of new car have fallen significantly. As a result, manufacturers including General Motors, which was once the largest company in the world, are in difficult circumstances.

In this context, there is wide debate about whether the government should prop up the automotive industry.

—WAJ

Questions

  • What benefit do taxpayers get from sustaining automotive companies that make cars people do not want to buy? Would taxpayers not be better off with cheaper imported cars and paying less tax?
  • Who is affected if a big automotive company fails? What happens to parts manufacturers, car dealers and suppliers of steel?
  • How is Geelong (a manufacturing centre for Ford) or Elizabeth (a manufacturing centre for Holden in South Australia) affected by the fate of the automotive industry?
  • How is the automotive industry different from other sectors of the economy?
  • Why is it good (or bad) to support Australian cars over imported cars?
  • Should the government prop up an industry that causes significant environmental harm? Could government support improve the environmental consequences of new cars?

Links

C Grade

Round 1 - That we should legalise music piracy

Australia's copyright laws seek to balance the rights of the producer against the rights of the consumer and society. Artists have a right to profit from their labour, and society has a right to cultural development. In 2006, the Copyright Act was amended to allow the personal copying of music (e.g. putting the music from a purchased compact disc on a portable digital music player).

Despite frequent media use of the term "stealing music", copyright infringement is different from theft: if a copy is made, the owner is not deprived of the original object, just the potential to profit from it. Record labels largely ignored home copying (albeit with some brow-wringing over the introduction of recordable cassettes) until the rapid online spread of peer-to-peer file sharing at the end of the twentieth century.

In the last decade, the Recording Industry Association of America has filed thousands of lawsuits against those illegally downloading music. 58% of surveyed American youth felt that file-sharing was "always acceptable" or "sometimes acceptable", and 77% of surveyed Swedish youth agreed with the statement "I think it is OK to download files from the Net, even if it is illegal".

—MC

Questions

  • Why does copyright exist? How long does it last?
  • Why does copyright expire?
  • Who is sharing music?
  • Has technology changed the way music is distributed?
  • Do you think music copying will become more prevalent or less prevalent in the future?
  • To what degree does an artist have a right to profit from their work?
  • Should you have a right to listen to music?

Links

Round 2 - That fashion does more harm than good.

Fashion has the power to create and constantly change identity, acting as important tool for self expression. Clothing has the ability to reflect the personality, culture and interests of the wearer. However, fashion comes at a significant personal and environmental cost. Critics blame fashion for creating a culture of consumption and waste, encouraging people to buy things unnecessarily. Fashion is also often criticized for its impact on body image.

Be careful about how you approach this topic and others like it. Be aware that the topic is not asking you to argue that fashion is all bad or completely necessary; both teams will need to concede some benefit of either side of the argument. Affirmative teams will need to consider by what standard they will prove the level of harm. Some internet research may be useful in providing examples, but statistics and quotes will be of less use in a debate like this.

—MJP & CAD

Questions

  • Why is it important to be able to express your individuality?
  • What would be the effect of everyone dressing the same way?
  • What motivates people to buy clothes?
  • Does fashion affect men and women the same way?
  • How do the clothes people wear affect the way others view them?
  • Why does fashion change over time? What can we learn from this?
  • Where are clothes made? How?
  • What is the environmental impact of disposable fashion?

Round 3 - Advised topic: Education

Advised topics are released in the same way as secret topics, but the general subject area of the topic is known in advance. Your areas of research should be broader than what is outlined below. This resource guide hasn't been written with a specific topic in mind - it exists to help guide your team's research. Prior to your debate, make sure you read our guide to secret topic preparation. This will help ensure you make the best use of your preparation time.

Issues to consider:

  • How are schools funded? Remember to look at funding at both State and Federal levels.
  • What are the differences between private and public schools?
  • How do students learn best? What are the pros and cons of co-education?
  • Should schools teach compulsory subjects? Should students be forced to learn a language, or participate in physical education classes?
  • Who should set the curriculum? Should we have a national curriculum?
  • How should students be assessed?
  • How successful has the Education Revolution been?

Remember, when you're preparing your arguments, to consider how the topic might affect various groups differently. For example, some common groups in an education debate are:

  • Teachers
  • Parents
  • Students
  • The Government

Links:

Round 5 - That we should legalise the sale of human organs

Due to advances in modern science, it is now possible to transplant organs from one person to another. Currently, only organ "donations" are allowed; financial transactions of organs are banned in all but 1 country: Iran. In Australia, the sale of organs in live and deceased people is currently forbidden; the only way to receive an organ is to sign up to a long waiting list, resulting in many deaths each year.

There is currently legislation in Australia forbidding the sale and transaction of organs, like in most other countries. This was done supposedly to prevent the exploitation of poorer people, who might be forced to sell their own body parts, as well as in response to critics who argued the immorality of these sales. Supporters of the banning point out the current value of a kidney on the black market, (almost $20,000) arguing that organ donations would dry up and only the richest could afford them. They argue that this would result in gross discrimination against the poor. They also point out that human rights violations would occur, and that sales would become almost a compulsion for the poor. Finally, they propose an alternative scheme; presumed consent, where doctors would "presume" the patient allows the transplant unless otherwise stated so.

Those who support legalization note the legality of similar services, such as private health insurance, and argue that the seriously ill have the self-evident right to save them if they have money. That everyone should die is a pointless type of equality. Furthermore, they point out the mechanisms of free-market trade; prices will naturally fall; the only reason organs are currently so expensive is because they are an illegal commodity. They further argue that "presumed consent" is simply robbery; you would not presume to be allowed to take someone's wallet without their express permission. Both sides also point to examples and similarities; supporters of legalisation look at Iran. Iran allows financial transactions for the sale of organs, and the U.S already tolerates markets for blood, semen, eggs and even surrogate wombs. Opponents point to popular opposition and moral outrage, as well as the never-ending string of litigations relating to egg/sperm donors and the moral up righteousness of countries such as the U.K.

—Michael Niu, Viewbank College

Questions

  • Does the banning legislation actually achieve what it states it is doing?
  • How does the system in Iran work? Is it effective? Is it moral?
  • How will legalisation affect the pricing of organs?
  • Should people with money be allowed an advantage over those without?

Links

D Grade

Round 1 - That we should value literature more than science

This topic requires comparison. Most people think both literature and science are important. It is perfectly reasonable to like Shakespeare and at the same time be fascinated by Einstein's physics. You will be unlikely to win this debate if you simply argue that science or literature is good: because not many people would disagree.

Sometimes, though, science and literature compete with one another. Schools have limited time to teach their students, so more science classes might mean less time for literature. On a grander scale, what makes a society good — is it the accuracy of its scientific knowledge or the worth of its literature? These are difficult issues.

The trick in this debate is to argue why one of the two is better, perhaps because it provides more benefits to each person, perhaps because it advances humanity, or for dozens of other reasons. You need to downplay the significance of your opponents' arguments while advancing your own. This is a good chance to practise your rebuttal. (Just remember to argue against what the other team actually says; if you guess what they will argue and prepare in advance, it is unlikely to be persuasive.)

—WAJ

Questions to ponder

  • What makes life today different from life 5,000 years ago? Think about technology, but also think about law and politics.
  • What makes people happy and fulfilled? What role does a good library play, and what role an electric heater?
  • What can literature teach us? Has a book ever changed the way you think about the world, the way you live your life?
  • How does science change the way we think about the world? Do many people today fear that witches will eat them in the night? If not, why not?

Round 2 - That the Victorian Government should buy back the public transport network.

Before 1999, all trains, trams, and buses in Victoria were operated by the Public Transport Corporation, a corporation completely owned by the Victorian State Government. In August 1999, Jeff Kennett's government privatised the Victorian public transport network. Privatisation means that the ability to sell a product or service which the Government provides has been sold to a private company (for example, if the Government decided to pay a security company for police officers rather than employing them directly). The Government split the public system into five different pieces and sold them to different operators.

After some merging and restructuring, there are now three major operators (trains: Connex and V/Line; trams: Yarra Trams) and a number of private bus owners. Under the privatisation arrangements, the Government pays a bonus to the operators when certain indicators of performance are exceeded (e.g., almost all trains running on-time), and the operators must pay compensation when they are not met (e.g., many cancelled trains).

Recently, there has been a renewed call for the Government to buy back control of the public transport network from its operators. Some argue that the service levels under private operation are significantly worse than they were in public hands, and suggest that the privatisation is just a way for the Government to deflect blame for long-term planning failures.

—MC

Questions

  • What makes a good public transport network?
  • Is public transport similar to most other products or services provided by private companies? Is it like a rollercoaster? Like hospital care?
  • Which services should a government provide? Why?
  • How are government-run corporations held accountable? How are private companies held accountable?
  • Thinking about all the people involved (passengers, the Government, operators, etc.), whose rights are most important? Why?

Links

Round 3 - That parents should be able to design their babies

The ability to select the genes of a child through a method called Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PIGD) has used by fertility doctors for years to screen embryos in order to reduce the chances of carrying a baby with life-threatening diseases. A clinic in Los Angeles has recently started using this technology to allow parents to select the gender of their child, as well as their eye and hair colour.

—MJP

Questions

:
  • What kinds of traits would parents want for their children? How far will people go to design the "perfect" child?
  • What kinds of preemptive screening do we use currently?
  • What are some of the moral and ethical objections to this?
  • What is role of a doctor?
  • Who is going to be able to access this procedure? Will this create a further divide between the rich and poor?

Links

:

Round 4 - That we should be proud of Australia's bogan culture

From Kath and Kim to The Castle, Australia's bogan heritage is celebrated in popular culture. A 'bogan' is a uniquely Australian concept, referring to a particular working-class demographic that that resides in Australia's sprawling suburbia. Many Australians see our bogan culture as embodying the laid-back, easygoing Australian lifestyle. Bogan culture also encompasses a variety of iconic Australian products, from VB to Ford to ACDC.

However, this stereotype is often associated with anti-social behaviour. In December, Lord Mayor Robert Doyle vowed to rid the Melbourne CBD of bogans in an effort to reduce violent attacks. Bogan culture is also an exclusive concept, predominately referring only to Australians of Anglo-Saxon descent. As a result, bogan culture is often associated with racism and prejudice, evidenced by media reports in the aftermath of the 2005 Cronulla Riots.

—MJP

Questions

  • What is a bogan?
  • What kind of values do they represent? Are these values inclusive?
  • What kind of image does bogan culture present about Australia?
  • Is this a good stereotype?
  • What does bogan culture mean for our national identity?

Links

Round 5 - That Australia should allow women to fight in the front line of armed combat.

During the 20th century, women were gradually accepted into the Australian Defence Force, and now can hold the vast majority of positions that men also hold. However, women are currently forbidden from "direct combat duties", which means that they cannot fight in (to give a few examples) infantry, armoured, or artillery forces. Overall, women make up 12.8% of the ADF, and are allowed to take on 74% of the available positions.

This debate considers whether this ban should be lifted. Those supporting this argument suggest that sexual discrimination laws should apply to the military, and that women and men should fundamentally be treated equally: that is, that women are able to perform combat duties as well as men, and that they should not be discriminated against. Those arguing for the ban may suggest that there are, generally speaking, fundamental differences between women and men which mean that women would not perform combat duties as well as men; they also suggest that it is easier and more effective to have armed combat when only one sex is participating.

In this debate it is important to avoid generalisations which may be seen by the audience or adjudicator as offensive or sexist. Comparisons of the sexes should not just be assertions, but should be backed up with evidence.

—JDB

Questions

  • What is the front line really like?
  • Are there physical differences between men and women?
  • Are there emotional differences between the two?
  • Are all soldiers the same?
  • What else are women prevented from achieving in society?
  • What is the current state of the armed forces? How might women help or hinder this situation?
  • How would other soldiers react to the change?

Links