Using Examples and Thought Experiments
Philosophy has a long tradition of vivid thought experiments, and BQ debaters can borrow this tool to make abstract premises concrete for a judge. You will be able to select or construct a thought experiment that illustrates your premise.
Borrowing Classic Thought Experiments
Well-known thought experiments like the Trolley Problem, the Chinese Room, or the Experience Machine are effective because philosophers have already tested and refined them to isolate exactly one variable; using one accurately (and citing its original author) lends your case credibility while making an abstract premise vivid. Be precise about what the thought experiment actually shows, since misusing a famous thought experiment in front of a judge who happens to know it can badly damage your credibility.
Building Your Own Simple Example
When no classic thought experiment fits, build a short, simple original example using ordinary people and situations, keeping it under three sentences so it does not become its own mini-speech. A good original example isolates the exact premise you're defending without introducing new, distracting variables.
The Affirmative wants to illustrate that consequences alone cannot fully determine morality.
'Imagine a doctor who could secretly harvest one healthy patient's organs to save five dying patients, producing a better overall outcome by pure math. Almost everyone recoils at this, even though the consequences are better — showing that our moral intuitions track something beyond just outcomes, like the harvested patient's individual rights.' This borrows the classic 'transplant' thought experiment, correctly cited to its point.
1. Why can using a well-known thought experiment like the Trolley Problem strengthen a BQ case?
Answer all 1 to check.
Use classic thought experiments precisely, or build short original examples, to make abstract premises vivid and memorable.