Normative Arguments – how and when to use them

What are ‘Norms’?

A norm is a standard of social behaviour that is expected of a person or group of people.

Most norms are bad – because we tend not to like things which restrict freedom, even in such an abstract way.

Some norms are good – for example the norm that children do not play with fire, because they create good outcomes.

Some are meh, e.g. Shaking hands.

For whom are norms important in debating?

Minority groups and women – there are often powerful historic norms that have a role in how these people interact and are interacted with.

People who are vulnerable and easy to influence – a less intrinsically strong norm has more power here.

To a lesser extent, every person and every organisation that you can claim will respond to stimuli with a change in behaviour.

What creates norms? Tradition – Roles of different people

within families is a good example of this. This is often intertwined with religion and hence are backed by widely respected texts.

The state – When we create policies people tend to change their behaviour accordingly e.g. Taxes on smoking, but there doesn’t have to be a material incentive to change.

Role models – able to drastically change the way groups of people behave.

The Argument(s) in Brief

Policies cause changes, they lead to changes in behaviour, changing a norm to make it less/more harmful/beneficial.

A norm exists, which will affect how people behave as a result of your policy, which will make the policy have less/more of a good/bad effect.

Many debates often rest on how well you can prove people will behave in a certain way.

Policies that Break Down and Create Norms Education and Exposure (don’t

know?). Affirmative Action (glass ceiling?). Material Incentives (can’t afford?). Creating Role Models (who says?). Undermining things that reinforce

norms (what would Jesus do?).

N.B. Jesus reinforces lots of good norms too

How to think about it.

There will be stakeholders in debates that you can group. That grouping you make in your mind is often in and of itself normative.

It is often good to identify how this group will stereotypically react to a policy as a result of their associated norms.

This is a sub- branch of ‘Group Analysis’ – a very important thing in debating.

Beating down norms arguments Rationality – Sometimes people do not act in

‘rational self-interest’, if that’s a thing. Policies that rely on RSI to change behaviour fall here.

Conflicting norms – e.g. A reduction in the effect of a harmful norm may coincide with the worsening of a different harmful norm.

The ‘some will and some won’t’ argument – then give as many reasons as possible why the latter ‘some’ is a bigger group than the other side thinks (it tends to involve a bit of ‘look guys, how much is norms really a thing?’)

E.g.Norms in Feminism Debates There are three very important ones (and more): 1. The Action Man/Barbie Doll norm – that men

do manly things and women do girly things because in their formative years they are essentially taught to do so.

2. Cultures of sexism – it is often plausible to claim that some institutions and industries use gender to discriminate when they employ and treat people due to perceived abilities.

3. Culture of a power imbalance – traditional family roles have led to men having coercive power over women.

Where to use these!

Action Men and Barbies

Sexist Industries

Power Imbalances

Pretty much every debate on feminism ever... Link it to role models.

Affirmative action debates and porn, can win for both sides.

Most feminism debates, particularly stuff like prostitution.

I need people to buy my norm... You will see many good debaters at

competitions who sell their normative arguments through sheer passion at the injustice they claim the norm creates.

It is generally a bad idea to try and sell tenuous normative arguments in this way – a prerequisite for these arguments is good reasons why they are true.