This article will go over the ARESR, which is a commonly used acronym to describe the basics of how you create an argument in HSPDP.
If you’ve ever had the pleasure of receiving an “ARESR Strong!” bracelet from John Meany, you can skip this article. For those who do not regularly sport this stylish apparel, this article will be going over the often mentioned but rarely discussed concept of ARESR.
ARESR is an acronym that stands for Assertion, Reasoning, Evidence, Significance and Result. It exists to remind you the basics of how to form an argument for HSPDP. This article will do so for the following motion: This house does not support economic sanctions.
We provided an explanation for each aspect below:
This is an introductory statement that highlights the hypothesis of your argument. It should be short and easy to write down.
Example: Sanctions harm civilian populations.
This is the logical analysis that supports your previous claim.
Example: The fundamental logic of sanctions is to coerce the people of the sanctioned country to instigate regime change by exacerbating their plight; economic sanctions are predicated upon exacting suffering upon the people of countries. Why? Because economic changes are not absorbed by the leaders of a state. Authoritarian leaders just move economic damage onto the people, causing the civilians to absorb the danger and economic instability of sanctions.
This is information that backs up the claim that you just said. It can be a study, statistic, historical example, modern case-study, or expert opinion, amongst other things.
Example: In Iraq and Yugoslavia independently, ½ million children died due to sanctions. The same goes for North Korea, where U.S. sanctions led to 60,000 children facing acute malnutrition, and thus death from starvation.
This is the importance of the argument on a qualitative and quantitative level.
Example: The problem with sanctions targeting civilians is two-fold. First, if the population absorbs the economic impact of sanctions rather than the country’s leaders, there will be no regime change or innate harm to the ruling class. But second, even if sanctions can lead to a regime change, harming civilians for the sake of the cause, especially in such mass numbers, is morally reprehensible.
This is your proof for the comparative value of your argument. What does the world look like in which this what you are arguing is true? How does your side of the topic work to instate the most beneficial world?
Example: Insofar as sanctions only target civilian populations in mass numbers, failing to even cause regime change, we would always prefer a world in which sanctions do not exacerbate the flaws of the status quo. At the end of the day, our side of the house ensures that the innocent population is not wrongfully punished for the wrongdoings of an authoritarian state.
For more information about the content discussed in this article, please visit our HSPDP Resource page.