Preparation for A2 Philosophy

Your useful guide to the skills needed to succeed in Unit 3 of the A2 exam

What’s new for A2?

MKE unit to be sat in June 2013. No compulsory question. Questions in similar style to AS unit.

What units are we going to study?

Derren Brown – The Experiments

Derren Brown returns with The Experiments - a brand new four-part series. Each stand-alone episode asks and answers a single question, featuring the inventive and jaw-dropping Derren Brown mixture of stunts, suggestions and thought-provoking entertainment. These elements are combined with tried and tested psychological experiments to illustrate how easily our behaviour can be manipulated.

1. The Assassin2. The Gameshow3. The Guilt trip4. The Secret of Luck

As we watch each episode try to think how this is linked to Philosophy and how this can help us next year.

So what is a debate?A debate involves a discussion of the pros and cons of an issue. Debating successfully is all about using argument and persuasion to convince other people that your views are right.

1. Research: Research the subject, so that you have facts to back up your views. It helps to validate your answer so it becomes more than just your opinion.

2. Logic: Use logic to develop your case and make your points. Lead each point on from what you were previously saying. That way you build up a story and expand your answer.

3. Counter arguments: It's always good to be prepared so consider the counter arguments in advance. That way the other side can't catch you out and you're always prepared.

4. Keep an open mind: Be open minded and prepared to change your opinion if you the other side convinces you your argument is flawed.

5. Don't get personal: In the heat of a debate it's easy to lose your cool and attack the other person for having a different opinion to you. But remember they're entitled to that opinion and just because they don't think the same as you it's not a bad thing.

6. Stay Focused: Stick to the subject being debated and don't stray into other areas. It sounds obvious but it's easy to do once you start debating.

The Proposition

Speaker 1 – Must introduce the topic to the audience and present the main argument that supports the motion

Speaker 2 – Must elaborate on the points made by speaker 1 by presenting two further arguments for the motion.

Evaluator – Must take questions from the audience and attempt to answer them. They must then make a short summery of their key points.

The Opposition

Speaker 1 – Must introduce the topic to the audience and present the main argument that is against the motion

Speaker 2 – Must elaborate on the points made by speaker 1 by presenting two further arguments against the motion.

Evaluator – Must take questions from the audience and attempt to answer them. They must then make a short summery of their key points.

The Audience

Must research both topics and decide whether they agree or disagree with the motion. They must then compile five possible questions to ask both the proposition and the opposition.

At the end of the debate the audience must decide individually if their opinions changed or remained the same as a result of the debate.

Chair Person

The proposition and the opposition must each have a chair person. The chair person assists with the speech writing and during the debate introduces each speaker and is the time keeper. Each of the three speakers from each team have 3 minutes to talk. It is the chair persons job to clap twice at the end of each minute and clap three times at the end of the three minutes. Speakers will lose points if they go over three minutes.

What do you need to do?

• A motion will be given which each team has to debate upon – your team will either present arguments from the proposition or from the opposition.

• Each team will have THREE members – speaker 1, speaker 2 and the evaluator.

• Speaker 1 proposition. • Speaker 1 opposition. • Speaker 2 proposition. • Speaker 2 opposition. • Evaluator proposition. • Evaluator opposition. • Audience comments and vote.

Motion 1 - This House believes that God exists

The question of God’s existence forms a fundamental part of theology, philosophy, and life generally. Religion is one of the most profound and pervasive institutions, appearing in virtually every culture and in every time. Serious questioning of the existence of God has only become part of common discourse in the past three centuries, however, as state-sponsored religion and religious crimes have faded from the Western world. Increasing scientific knowledge has also led people to question belief in the existence of God. Since there are many arguments on both sides of the debate about God’s existence, it is necessary to limit the focus of this discussion. This debate will therefore take place largely within the parameters of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), and will focus on the arguments for and against the Abrahamic conception of God.Show less

http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/philosophical-political-theory/house-believes-god-exists

Motion 2 - This house believes that Anarchism is a valuable

political ideologyAnarchism is an ideology that believes that the state is an undesirable and unnecessary. Whilst a 'descent into anarchy' can be used in modern language to describe a decline towards a state of chaos, anarchists believe that a stateless society would be a much better place to live; they point to anarchist communes like Freetown Christiania in Copenhagen as places of peace and contentment free from the state.There are two ways to define this debate and I have tried to include both of them on this page, firstly one can talk about how anarchy is a worthwhile goal in and of its self and how a stateless world would be superior to the one we live in. Secondly it is possible to argue that Anarchism provides an essential voice in a world where people are much too keen to listen to and do exactly what the state tells them.

http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/philosophical-political-theory/house-believes-anarchism-valuable-political-ideology

Motion 3 -This house would make voting compulsory

In many countries around the world individuals are free to choose to vote or not to vote, while in other countries (Australia, a couple cantons in Switzerland, Belgium and Singapore , for example) it is compulsory for citizens to vote. Punishment for non-voting can vary from a $15 fine to the possible deprivation of government services or the freezing of one's bank account. Is this a violation of an individual’s freedom of choice? With the citizens of many countries fighting for their right to vote, is it right that US voting turnout hovers around 50 – 60%of registered voters 1? Should voting be seen as a duty or a right? This debate explores whether compulsory voting improves voter participation, increases voter awareness on key political issues, and reduces the powers of special interest groups.

http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/philosophical-political-theory/house-would-make-voting-compulsory

Reading for the summer

Reading for the summer

Reading for the summer