DEBATE GUIDE
POLICY RESOLUTION:
Resolved: The State of Utah should establish a policy to
expand energy exports from within its borders.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS RESOLUTION:
Resolved: The State of Utah ought to prioritize
incentives over mandates to promote energy savings.
• 2009 •
ABOUT THE NATIONAL ENERGY FOUNDATION
The National Energy Foundation is a unique non-profit organization dedicated to the
development, dissemination, and implementation of supplementary educational
materials, programs, and courses. These resources for education relate primarily to
energy, water, natural resources, technology, conservation, and the environment. All of
NEF’s educational resources and services are designed to enrich and enhance
instruction. They recognize the importance and contribution of natural resources to our
economy, national security, the environment, and our quality of life. NEF is devoted to the implementation of a variety of innovative teacher training and student
programs. To K–12 school teachers, the NEF Academy offers several independent study
courses, with university graduate credit available. The Foundation, supported by the education
community, businesses, associations, and government agencies, has more than two decades
of expertise in establishing and promoting educational partnerships. NEF invites you to
participate in strengthening fundamental subjects that are vitally important to the future of our
nation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The National Energy Foundation acknowledges the contributions and support of the
following organizations that have contributed to and made possible the development and
revision of the 1999 Debate Manual:
Granite School District
Jordan School District
Central Utah Water Conservancy District
Department of Environmental Quality
Murray School District
Murray City Power Department
Salt Lake City School District
Salt Lake Clean Cities Coalition
Washington County School District
Utah State Office of Energy Services
NEF also recognizes and appreciates the talents and expertise of numerous material
development specialists, teachers, reviewers, editors, design specialists, artist, and all
those
who made this project possible.
© 2008, National Energy Foundation
No part of this publication or the included educational materials may be reproduced
or
transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of the
National
Energy Foundation, with the following exception:
NEF hereby grants permission to any teacher conducting a course of instruction
in a public or private institution of learning to reproduce any portion of this
publication, or the included educational materials, for classroom use only. No
portion of this publication or included educational materials may be reproduced
for purposes of profit or personal gain.
CONTENTS
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Coaching Guides
Overview of Policy
School/District/State
Room Arrangement
Time line of Pre-debate
Debate Vocabulary
Policy Debate
Policy Debate Appendix
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
3
Debate Guide
4
Debates
4
5
Activities
9
13
55
81
95
Appendix
This collection of debate lessons and
materials has been created to give educators in
grades 4–9 a basis from which to teach the elements of debate to their students. The
debate topic used in this guide is designed to be accompanied by educational materials
and resources from the National Energy Foundation. This correlation of topic and
research materials has been assembled so the debate learning process can be as easy
and rewarding as possible.
General Coaching Resources
From the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues
http://www.urbandebate.org/coaching_resources.shtml
COACHING THE BASICS: WHAT IS AN ARGUMENT?
Some people think that “engaging in argument” means being mad at someone.
That’s one use of the word “argument.” In debate we use a far different meaning of
the term. In some ways though, making an argument in debate is the opposite of
being mad at someone. It means making claims based on logical reasoning and
proof.
There are three parts to an argument in debate: the claim, the data, and the warrant.
These terms seem kind of formal, and they are. But whether you know it or not,
solid arguments that you make every day are based on these concepts.
Here is an example of an argument: “Team X will win the basketball game against
Team Y because Team X has taller players than Team Y.”
The “claim” is the bottom line conclusion of the argument – namely in this example
that “Team X will win the basketball game.” The “warrant” is the reasoning behind
the claim. In this example the reasoning is that the taller team will win the
basketball game. The “data” are the facts used to support the warrant. In this
example the data is that Team X is taller than Team Y.
Here is another example of an argument. “The death penalty should be abolished
because innocent people are killed.” The claim is that “the death penalty should be
abolished.” The warrant is that any policy that results in innocent people being
killed should be ended. The data is that innocent people are killed by the death
penalty.
Claims without reasoning are very weak arguments. Some might say it isn’t even an
argument at all. The more warrants, or reasoning, that a claim has the stronger it is
generally speaking. Sometimes the data might be statistics sometimes it might be
an expert opinion.
For example, the argument “I saw that movie got ‘two thumbs up’ so we should go
and see it” uses the expert opinion as the data for the claim. The claim is that we
should go see the movie. The warrant is that movies that receive two thumbs up are
worth seeing. The data would be that the movie did, in fact, receive a review of “two
thumbs up.” This reasoning is based on an appeal to the expertise of the reviewers,
and little more.
So, that’s an argument. Claim-Warrant-Data. Debate is based on competing
arguments. Each team offers arguments that they defend, and they attack the
arguments of their opponents. Research provides the data and warrants for
defending and attacking arguments.
There are many ways to attack an argument. You could challenge the factual basis
of the claim. In the first example, perhaps Team Y was in fact taller than Team X. In
the second example you could prove that there has never been an innocent person
executed in the U.S.
Another way to go would be to attack the reasoning/warrant. In the first example
you could point out that the taller team does not always win basketball games. You
could find examples of games that were not won by the taller team. You could say
that other factors such as shooting ability, experience, effort, and coaching might be
equally or more important factors in winning.
In the second example you could argue that just because an innocent person might
be killed is not sufficient reason to ban a public policy. For example, innocent
people die in traffic accidents, does that mean we should ban driving automobiles?
COACHING: WINNING CLASH BATTLES
Every debate turns on a handful of arguments where both sides have a valid point.
Usually, most of the time spent in the debate falls in these areas. To be a champion
debater you must learn how to win these crucial “clash battles.” There is a reliable,
five-step extension technique that you can use to help you win clash battles. The 5
steps are:
(1) Refer back to the tag of your argument. This step is where you indicate to
the judge what argument you want to extend. Make a specific reference to an earlier
speech by your team where the argument was initiated. This could include a piece
of evidence. This technique is often called “signposting.”
(2) Explain your argument. In this stage you comprehensively explain your
argument. This step may take one sentence or several, depending on the time
pressure in the speech and the importance of the argument. Explanations should
include a statement of the underlying reasoning and proof for your claim.
(3) Characterize your opponent’s response to your argument. Your description
should be fair. Do not be critical of the other side’s argument. Don’t call it “stupid”
or “silly”. You will lose credibility with the judge if you do that. This part should
also be brief, but you do want to develop an understanding in the judge’s mind.
(4) Resolve the issue. At this stage you explain why you are right and they are
wrong. It could be something as simple as pointing out that your evidence is more
recent or qualified. Other ways to resolve the issue include: use of historical
example, a claim of a consensus viewpoint. The most common way to resolve an
argument is to prove that your side contains internal logic that is not assumed by
the other side’s argument.
(5) Impact the importance of winning the argument. The final step involves
providing an impact assessment. You want to get maximum credit for winning the
particular clash battle so tell the judge what it is exactly that you win if they do
resolve the issue in your favor.
Here is a complete example with the steps indicated along the way (you wouldn’t
use the numbers, they are just to flag the different stages for this example):
“(1) Our third argument in the 1AR is that ‘schools are getting worse.’ (2)
Statistics from all parts of the country indicate test scores are declining, and
schools are literally falling apart. (3) They say “schools are getting better.”
(4) Our evidence is more recent than their evidence and comes form studies
whereas their evidence is just one person’s opinion. (5) If we win this it proves
we win inherency, that status quo efforts are failing.”
This technique has a number of benefits. It encourages you to actually extend your
original argument, not simply repeat it. If all you do is repeat your argument it does
not help the judge resolve the debate at all. The team that resolves the argument –
taking it to the next level – will have a big advantage with the judge.
Second, the 5-step technique helps the judge follow along with the development of
the argument. In a way it creates a conversation back-and-forth in the judge’s mind.
By making a word-for-word reference to the other team’s argument you help the
judge recognize that you are indeed answering the other side.
COACHING THE MECHANICS OF HAVING A DEBATE: FLOWING
Debates will become complicated. Even in relatively simple rounds there are often
20 or 30 claims that must be addressed. Keeping these arguments organized is
crucial for success and to make sure you don’t miss anything. If you miss something
you will likely lose.
As a way to keep track of both teams’ arguments debate has developed a convention
known as “flowing.” Flowing is basically a system for organizing and following
along the details of the debate. While most young debaters view flowing as a chore,
more experienced debaters quickly understand that having a good flow makes
winning debates much easier.
Flowing is keeping a record of the speech-by-speech course of each argument.
There is a standardized way to do it, but each person tends to develop her or his
own variations. Learning how to flow may be one of the most difficult and boring
tasks in learning how to debate, but it is among the most important. Some people
flow on paper, and some flow using a computer spreadsheet program. Here are
some basic steps to get started.
Step 1: Divide each sheet (paper or computer) into seven columns. Each column
represents one speech in the debate. There are eight speeches in the debate but the
two Negative Block speeches can be put in one column. Seven is the most columns
you will ever need. Start in the left-most column then keep moving one column to
the right for each later speech. At first, you’ll find it helpful to write the speech
abbreviations (1AC, 1NC etc.) at the top of each column.
Step 2: Start with the Case Flow. Do this by writing the details of the 1AC Case in
the left-most column, from top-to-bottom. Try to write down the numbers or
letters, the tags, the main point of the argument, and any details you can of the
evidence that is read. You can use several sheets for the Case Flow to keep the
major points of the 1AC separated.
Step 3: The 1NC speech will be flowed partly on new sheets and partly on the Case
Flow sheets. When the 1NC presents Off-Case arguments they should start on their
own new sheets (the Off-Case Flows) in the left-most column. Each Off-Case
argument should be on its own sheet. When the 1NC starts to attack the affirmative
Case, the flowing should switch over to the Case Flow where you would write in the
second column, next to the related parts of the 1AC.
Step 4: The 2AC (and subsequent speeches) responses should be written down on
their appropriate sheet, depending on whether they are answering the Off-Case
arguments or rebuilding their Case. Off-Case arguments stay on the Off-Case Flows,
and all the Case arguments stay on the Case Flow. Keep the Off-Case Flows separate
from each other.
Step 5: When it is your own turn to speak, prepare by writing out your arguments
in the columns that belong to you. Try to keep your writing in those columns. You
might want to make your columns wider so you’ll have more space to write things
out in detail.
Step 6: Develop shorthand abbreviations. You’ll quickly learn that you don’t have
time to write out words all the way otherwise you’ll miss too much. Come up with a
shorthand that you (and your partner) can recognize. You can use “AF” to
abbreviate “Africa”. You can use the letter “T” to abbreviate “Topicality”. You can
use symbols, like an up-arrow to stand-in for “increase”. Even words that aren’t
jargon can be shortened. In the place of the word “engagement” you could write
“eng”.
Step 7: Practice, practice, practice. This is really the only way to learn how to flow
and to improve. Flow practice debates and any other debates you see, even if you
are just an observer. Practice abbreviations when you are taking notes in school.
COACHING THE LIFE BLOOD OF DEBATE: EVIDENCE
The way to support your arguments is to have evidence. Evidence might come from
your own experience, common knowledge, or based on a story that someone told
you. Most evidence for debate rounds comes from research done in the library or
on the internet. Generally you look for examples, statistics or testimony that
supports the claims you want to make. Evidence comes from books, magazines,
journals, newspapers, and web sites. A lnumber of debates are won because one
team has better evidence. So what makes evidence “better”?
The Qualities of “Good” Evidence
You want evidence that is full of solid reasoning and warrants, not just claims.
Evidence that has reasoning is more persuasive and credible than evidence without
it. If someone told you to do something and you asked why and all they said was
“because I said so” they would not be providing a warrant and you wouldn’t find
their request very persuasive.
Suppose you wanted to prove that Senator Obama will be elected President of the
U.S. You might find a quote that says “Senator Obama will be elected because he
opposed the Iraq War from the beginning” it implicitly has a warrant that politicians
who opposed the war have a better chance of winning. That warrant makes it
stronger than if it said simply “Obama will win.” Evidence can have more than one
warrant, which would make it even stronger.
You want evidence that is recent. Some claims are true at certain times but
proven false over the course of time. The more recent your evidence is the greater
chance it might remain true, other factors equal. You wouldn’t want evidence from
1998 for a prediction of who was going to win the Super Bowl this year. You might
not even want evidence from three months ago.
You want evidence that comes from qualified sources. Qualifications refer to the
credentials or experience of the author of your evidence. Other things equal it is
assumed that sources who are more experienced or credentialed are more likely to
be right.
You want evidence that comes from unbiased sources. Some sources, while they
may be very experienced and credentialed, might have questionable credibility
because they are “biased”. Being “biased” means that the source has a motivation
that could override their interest in telling the truth. A politician might be more
concerned about the political effects on their campaign than they are about the
truth. A business leader might have strong economic interest in saying something
that isn’t the truth. A friend or relatively might be motivated by loyalty or love more
than the desire to tell the truth.
When you find your evidence you are required to have a complete citation before
you can use it in a debate round. What makes for a complete citation?
The Parts of a Complete Citation
When you find a piece of evidence it is essential that you provide a complete citation
for it so that someone can look it up if they want to. Think of it like a bibliography.
Getting the source citation correct is often boring and detailed, but it is very
important to be done accurately.
A full and complete citation includes: the author, the qualification, the source, the
complete date, and the URL or page number. Here is an example:
Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institute, Brookings Web Site,
November 18, 2007
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1118_pakistan_ohanlon.aspx
COACHING HOW TO FIND EVIDENCE: RESEARCH STRATEGIES
You need to have a plan of attack when you begin to research. When you set out to
find evidence it is helpful to have an idea of what arguments you are trying to
support ahead of time. Those ideas can often come from brainstorming sessions by
you and your teammates. As you think of ideas for arguments you should write
them down and save them to review when you begin your research.
Doing outstanding research is a function of effort. The best-researched teams are
the ones that spend the most time doing it. Just like in most things, the more work
you put into it the greater your chances of success. Some times it takes a while to
find any evidence for your point at all. Other times you can find average-quality
evidence but it takes more time to find high-quality evidence.
Thoroughness is crucial, and can prove decisive in winning and losing. When you
find good evidence you should bookmark the web site or write down the part of the
library you used. You will find that as you gain more experience with researching
that it will get easier and you will develop your own shortcuts and strategies for
being efficient. As you become more experienced with debate rounds you will learn
a sense of how good your evidence must be to help you win the debate.
Library
The library at your school or community might be a good source for finding
materials on the debate topic. You can often discover good evidence in books, from
reference documents, journals and magazines and sometimes paper copies of
newspapers.
If you are unfamiliar with how to search for books, journals and newspapers in
nearby libraries ask the librarians to help you get started. They will be eager to
assist you. That is their job.
Internet
Most debate research these days is done over the internet. It can be done either at
school or at home depending on where you have access.
A common internet-based research strategy is to use a search engine like Google or
Yahoo. Using either a basic or advanced search in one of these programs can help
you find relevant web sites, newspapers and reports. Google Scholar is a good
resource for finding articles in academic journals, although sometimes you have to
have a subscription to get access to those articles.
Evaluating the Internet
The internet is a fantastic resource for debate research. Most of you are already
very experienced with how to use it to find things that you want. In many ways the
internet helps to equalize access to research across urban, suburban and rural areas.
On the other hand, there are many potential pitfalls with internet research – namely,
anyone with a keyboard can “publish” internet materials. It is important to be able
to sort out the good from the bad.
Unfortunately, most of this evaluation has to be done on a case-by-case basis. You
can often judge a web site based on the factors of authority, accuracy, objectivity
and how up-to-date it is. Does the site provide authoritative references and
footnotes? Do its claims conform to what you already know, and what other authors
claim? Does the web site treat alternative ideas fairly and thoroughly? Has it been
updated recently?
COACHING COMMUNICATION STYLE - VERBAL
Every speaker has his or her own style, and that’s a good thing. Whether you try to
or not, you will have your own unique signature as a speaker. This offers a bit of
choice, however. On the one hand, you want to have a distinctive style. On the other
hand, you don’t want to be so distinctive that it becomes a distraction to the judge.
Style is part of substance. Your body language, volume, speed, variety all say
something about your credibility. Some qualities have proven more effective in
general than others.
Clarity
Effective communication depends importantly on your clarity. Your style choices
are crucial in determining the clarity of your communication. Volume, speed,
variance, language choices are all factors in your clarity. Start by understanding
yourself what you want to say. Use concise statements – short and to the point –
whenever you can. Limit the jargon and technical language when required by your
audience.
Volume
If you are too loud your judge may resist your message and shut down their
listening. If you are too soft it becomes too difficult for you judge to pay close
attention. Your room may have bad acoustics based on the room size or shape. You
want to sound energetic and enthusiastic, which requires some volume. You also
want to raise your voice sometimes for emphasis. You can often look to your judge
for feedback on volume.
Pitch
Your voice can be so high that your judge finds it grating. It may be so low that it
becomes distorted. If you have just one tone (monotone) you become boring. You
also want to avoid a repetitive inflection of rising or falling as your sentence goes on.
Relaxing will help your pitch. Don’t have a fake “debate voice” or inflection. Be
yourself and be conversational in pitch. If your pitch is too high, project from your
stomach, not your throat or nose.
Rate
When you first start debating you may be “too slow.” This “problem” generally
takes care of itself as you become more experienced. Most debaters go too fast for
their own clarity. They go so fast they begin to garble their words. Speed without
clarity is harmful to your ability to persuade the judge. Debaters often fail to
recognize that while they can understand 100% of their own spoken words, the
judge understands a much smaller percentage. Most debaters would actually
effectively communicate more ideas per minute if they slowed down a little bit.
Articulation
The concept of articulation refers to the distinctiveness or clarity of the words that
you say. Some times articulation problems are caused by a debater trying to go too
fast. Other times it is due to a mush-mouth. The easy solution to this problem,
besides slowing down a bit, is opening your mouth wider and putting effort into
finishing your words.
Pronunciation
It is important to have correct pronunciation – saying your words correctly. It can
greatly undermine your credibility if you don’t pronounce your words right, or you
confuse two words that sound alike. Don’t over-reach on your vocabulary. Listen to
how other speakers say certain words. You can also look up in a dictionary to see
how words are pronounced.
COACHING COMMUNICATION STYLE – NON-VERBAL
Think of the first day of school. You’re sitting in the classroom waiting for your
teacher to show up. When that teacher walks in the room you look at her. Before
she says anything you make judgments. How well is she dressed? Does she seem
confident, energetic? Does she seem friendly and smile? Does she look right at the
class before she starts?
These are just a few examples of how speakers communicate without saying a word.
Non-verbal traits are crucial for conveying honesty, respect, and competence. As
important as first impressions are, many times they are non-verbal. The way judges
evaluate debaters follows this pattern.
Appearance
It is important to have your own sense of style, and that includes the way you dress.
On the other hand, you do not want your appearance to be distracting to the judge.
If you are underdressed the judge will think you aren’t professional and don’t take
the activity seriously. If you have poor hygiene (messy hair, unshaven) it will
convey the same lack of respect. What do you think of your teacher on that first day
of school if they walk in without combing their hair?
Gestures
Speakers are told – you must have gestures. As a result, many gestures are forced
and look stiff, they are poorly timed, they seem random and unconnected to the
message, and gestures can become repetitive and even distracting. Despite these
concerns, debaters should not fear gestures. As long as the gestures are natural,
modest, and connected to their message, they can be an effective way to underline
what they are saying.
Body Language
The way you stand, walk and move during your speech conveys information to the
judge. If you seem hesitant getting prepared to speak, it sets a bad tone. If you seem
eager to finish your speech and sit down, it makes the judge think you are
dissatisfied with what you said. If you slouch, pace nervously, or sway, it sends a
bad signal to the judge or is distracting. Debaters should stand up straight. Walk up
to the podium and back from the podium in an upright, confident way.
Eye Contact
In our culture, eye contact is one of the most important aspects of communication.
How do you react to a sales person who looks down at their shoes when they are
talking to you? What do you think of your teacher if they look above the class the
entire time? In our culture, evasive eye contact is interpreted as lying or insincerity.
Debaters should establish eye contact at the start and conclusions of their speech, as
well as many times in-between. This enables you to make a connection with the
judge. Eye contact is also a crucial way for a debater to receive feedback.
Facial Expressions
Some debaters think they need to be a stone-face to convey seriousness. Others
take facial expressions to such an extreme they are phony. As with most other
“rules” of communication, just being your normal self is the best strategy with facial
expressions. Debaters should convey a sense of friendliness and goodwill by smiling
before they start to speak. Don’t force your facial expressions.
COACHING THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE FOR POLICY DEBATE
When you are the affirmative team, you have the responsibility to present a Case and Plan in your
first speech. The Affirmative Case must establish that there is a significant problem in the current
system (Harm), that the current system cannot or will not correct the problem (Inherency), and that
you have a plan that will solve or improve the condition (Solvency).
Harm
When you are affirmative you have the responsibility of showing there is a
significant problem in the status quo. This is called the burden of Harm. To meet
this burden the affirmative documents the extent and the importance of their Harm
area.
For instance, your Affirmative Case might claim the Harm area of failing schools.
There would be several possible ways to demonstrate the extent of the problem
through the use of evidence – the percentage of schools the are in need of repair, the
percentage of students who are not learning, the number of dropouts, declining test
scores and more.
The second aspect of the Harm claim is showing the importance of these statistics.
In the example of failing schools the affirmative could argue that academic
achievement is crucial for employment opportunity, going to college, or achieving
social progress.
Some Harm claims emphasize the quantity of its extent – such as millions of people
starving to death, or thousands of people dying in a war. Other Harm claims might
emphasize the quality or value – the intrinsic value of biodiversity, the unfairness of
discrimination, the immorality of violating fundamental rights, are examples. The
best affirmative Harm claims have strong quantitative and value components.
Inherency
As part of building the Case, the affirmative must prove that the current system –
often referred to as the “status quo” – is incapable and unlikely to solve the Harm
area. Part of this is documenting that the Harm will continue without the proposed
solution of the Affirmative Plan.
This burden is referred to as “Inherency.” If the affirmative fails to prove their
Harm area is Inherent, there is no reason to vote for the Affirmative Plan since it is
not necessary. If the current system is working to solve the problem, there is no
case for changing the system.
Inherency claims include descriptions of the attitudes or structures that
demonstrate the present system is insufficient. If a problem is getting worse that is
evidence the current system is not addressing the Harm area.
In our example of failing schools the affirmative might offer evidence of a lack of
adequate funding for school construction and repairs. They might argue that
because teacher salaries are so low there are not enough qualified people interested
in that job.
COACHING SOLVENCY AND THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN FOR POLICY
DEBATE
Solvency
It is not enough for the affirmative team to show there is a problem that is not being
addressed in the status quo. They must also prove that they have a solution that can
work. The proposed solution, called the Affirmative Plan, must be proven to be
comparatively better than the current system.
That is the third component of the Affirmative Case – called “Solvency” – proof that
their proposal can solve or reduce the Harm area they have identified in their Case.
In policy debates the affirmative must present a proposed action by leaders – i.e.
Congress passing a law, the Supreme Court making a decision, the President taking
action.
The Affirmative Case must include a Solvency point that contains evidence that
demonstrates the Affirmative Plan will solve or improve the Harm area.
For example, if a certain State (say, Ohio) has successfully used higher teacher
salaries to improve schools, the affirmative team might propose to have the Federal
Government copy that state. The affirmative would present evidence about how
higher teacher salaries in the State of Ohio have increased academic achievement
there.
The Affirmative Plan
The affirmative should present in their first speech a specific proposal for a course
of action to be taken. They advocate that the judge endorse or vote for this
proposal. This proposal is referred to as the “Affirmative Plan.”
The Affirmative Plan must be an example of – or come from – the resolution. That is
referred to as the burden of “Topicality”.
There are two basic considerations for the Affirmative Plan: the agent of action and
the actions themselves.
The agent of action is where the affirmative team specifies who will be
implementing their plan. The resolution may indicate the “Federal Government”
should be the agent. Some resolutions specify the “United States” or the “United
States Federal Government.” The affirmative may want to go into more detail and
specify the part of the Federal Government they imagine should implement the
affirmative Plan, such as the Congress, President, the Supreme Court or possibly a
government department like the Department of Defense.
In our example of school reform the logical agents would be the Congress and
President.
The second consideration for the affirmative plan is the actions that they propose
are taken. These actions are typically tied pretty closely to the evidence presented
in the affirmative’s Solvency point. In our example of school reform the Affirmative
Plan would state that the Federal Government should copy the system of higher
teacher pay used by the State of Ohio throughout the entire United States.
COACHING: SAMPLE OUTLINE - AFFIRMATIVE CASE AND PLAN
This outline is an example of a structure for an Affirmative Case and Plan that they
would present in their First Affirmative Constructive. It consists of three main
“contentions” and the affirmative Plan. Each contention represents one of the three
burdens the affirmative must demonstrate for a complete Case: Harm, Inherency
and Solvency. Under each major contention there might be sub-points, although
there is no set number for that. For each contention and sub-point there would be
evidence supporting those claims.
I.
Harm – Schools in the United States are Bad Shape
II.
A.
Schools All Through the U.S. are Falling Apart
B.
Test Scores are Declining for Millions of Students
C.
Academic Achievement is Crucial
1.
Success in College
2.
Employment Opportunities
3.
There is a “Right” to Adequate Education
Inherency – The Status Quo Fails to Improve Schools
A.
B.
Insufficient Resources Being Spent on Schools
1.
Federal Government
2.
State Governments
Teacher Salaries Are Way Too Low
Affirmative Plan: The United States Federal Government should adopt a policy
of raising teacher salaries, modeled after the program in the State of Ohio.
III.
Solvency – Our Plan Will Improve Schools
A.
Higher Teacher Salaries will Attract More Qualified People
B.
Teachers are the Key to Better Schools
C.
This Proposal is working in the State of Ohio
COACHING THE SPEECH: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
In any debate it is a strong advantage to go first. Many judges or audiences have
short attention spans and will only pay attention at the beginning. After that their
interest may fade. Further, the judge and audience tends to make quick judgments
about the debaters based on their early impressions.
The First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) is always the first speech in the debate. It
is the initial opportunity for the affirmative team to present and defend their Case
and Plan. It is a way for the affirmative team to stake their own ground, and choose
any area of the topic they want to talk about. The 1AC should be designed
strategically to emphasize the affirmative’s strongest arguments.
Substance
The 1AC is generally completely written out ahead of time. The entire outline of
the Case and Plan (see sample on page 11) should be presented at this time.
Typically the affirmative should place their best evidence in their 1AC. “Best” in this
case might mean the longest, most qualified, and most recent evidence with the
strongest warrants.
Your 1AC evidence should have qualifications, and those should be read in the
speech itself. Not only does this help establish the credibility for your Case and Plan,
but it also sets up possible comparisons with evidence the negative might read.
Typically the affirmative has better research on their own Case than the negative
does, so they usually have better qualified evidence.
After you have selected the evidence that forms your basic case sub-points think
defensively and include cards that anticipate common negative arguments.
Where you think there might be a weak spot, find some back-up evidence.
Adjustments to your 1AC are crucial as the year goes on. After you have been to a
tournament or two, evaluate your evidence selection in your 1AC. Are there
cards in your current 1AC that you seldom use in the rounds? If so, consider taking
them out of your speech. Are there cards that you find you are always reading in the
2AC? If so, consider adding those cards.
Style
Not only is it important to make a good initial impression on the judge, the 1AC
literally lays the foundation for the entire rest of the debate for the affirmative team.
Both affirmative debaters in later speeches will want to frequently refer back to
their 1AC, so it is crucial for the judge to understand and absorb it right away. In
particular, read the Plan a little more slowly and clearly so the judge understands
what you are proposing right away.
Because the 1AC is completely scripted before the debate, it is easy to practice so
that it sounds very professional and polished. The First Affirmative debater should
present all the headings, tag lines, and evidence very clearly and persuasively. The
evidence should be read with strong internal emphasis.
COACHING THE SPEECH: SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
CONSTRUCTIVE
The two main jobs for the Second Affirmative Speech (2AC) are first, to rebuild the
affirmative Case, and second, to respond to the Off-Case arguments presented by the
1NC. The 2AC is the affirmative’s last constructive speech so it is their final chance
to make the arguments they need to win the debate.
Preparing at Home
The 2AC is a speech where time allocation is especially important so preparation is a
crucial asset. Most of the arguments the negative will make against your Case and
Plan can be anticipated, and therefore can be prepared for at home before the
tournament.
The affirmative should write sets of answers to every topicality argument, every
disadvantage, every counterplan and every Critique they think of. This is referred to
as “writing front-lines.” After each tournament you should review your flows and
update your answer files where necessary. This kind of detailed preparation can
make a crucial difference in winning and losing on the affirmative.
Responding to Off-Case Arguments
The 2AC must respond to each Off-Case argument presented in the 1NC.
Generally you want to “group” each Off-Case argument and respond to it with one
block of numbered arguments. Front-lines they should be quickly pulled and made
ready to read.
The 2AC should allocate time according to how much time the negative spends
Off-case for each argument. For example, if the negative spends 4 minutes Off-case
and 4 minutes on the Case in the 1NC, the 2AC should roughly do the same
allocation. Most likely the 2AC can afford to spend a bit more time on the Off-case
arguments since they can rely on the 1AC evidence to help answer the Case
arguments.
The 2AC should diversify the types of answers that are made against each Off-case
argument. Do not focus on just one or two specific types of arguments, but instead
present a wide variety. This diversity should include “turn” strategies on
disadvantages, counterplans and critiques. Designing strong response strategies is
equally important as your affirmative Case construction.
Re-Building Your Case
The 1NC will usually make many arguments against your affirmative Case, including
attacks on Harm, Inherency and Solvency. It is the job of the 2AC to rebuild the
Case back to its original strength. You will have to answer those arguments on an
efficient, line-by-line basis. It is very important that the 2A debater be an expert on
their Case, inside and out.
Use the 1AC evidence generously. The 1AC evidence is the strongest in the
affirmative file. The 2AC should refer back to the evidence, both the substance of
the reasoning in the evidence, as well as the quality of the sources. If the affirmative
has written a strong case the 2AC should have to read very little new evidence on
the Case side of the debate.
Prepare power-worded summaries of your case Harms. The larger the
affirmative Harm claim the more persuasive the Case is, and that leads to a greater
chance of winning. You can prepare sweet, carefully worded descriptions of your
Harms that you can use in your 2AC (and rebuttal speeches, too).
COACHING THE SPEECH: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL
The First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) must cover all of the arguments extended by
the negative team in both the 2NC and the 1NR, including the off-case and on-case
arguments.
The sheer timing of this is difficult considering the 1AR is only 5 minutes long and
the negative block is 13 minutes. Obviously the 1AR must be selective and very
efficient.
Strategy
The 1AR should have a strategy in mind for allocating time. Generally the 1AR
should allocate their time in proportion to the way the negative block did. For
example, if one-third of the negative block was spent on extending a Topicality
argument, approximately one-third of the 1AR should be spent answering it. This
guideline must be adjusted based on the quality of the negative’s arguments, the
strengths of your earlier affirmative arguments, and the importance of each
argument toward winning and losing the debate.
The 1AR should use their partner’s 2AC as a reference point for their speech.
The 1AC evidence and analysis can also be used as well. As the 1AR extends the case
and off-case arguments they should make direct reference (“signpost” – see page 5)
to the 2AC speech. Refer back to their tags, analysis, author of evidence and the
reasoning in their evidence. This does not mean the 1AR must extend every single
2AC argument, only the most important ones.
The 1AR also needs to think of the speech as a set-up speech for the 2AR. The
1AR must extend a diverse array of arguments so as to provide flexibility for the
2AR. For example, when answering a disadvantage the 1AR should extend link,
uniqueness and impact arguments if possible. That way the 2AR can choose among
them.
Tactics
The 1AR concentrate on word economy. It is vitally important that the 1AR not
repeat arguments in different places on the flow. The goal of the 1AR, as with the
other rebuttals, is to make 5 minutes of completely different arguments. Repeating
an answer usually is a waste of your time. Word economy must start at the
beginning of the speech, not just at the end.
The 1AR must respond directly to the negative’s arguments. It is not enough to
simply repeat your 2AC answers or your 1AC arguments. You must ask yourself,
“What arguments did the negative make that would make the most impression on
the judge?” then directly answer those arguments. Reminder: your job is to extend,
not just repeat, the affirmative arguments.
The 1AR should avoid “dropping” really important arguments. As has already
been mentioned, the 1AR is a very time-pressured speech. It may be difficult to
cover every negative argument that you want to. In that case, the 1AR should be
sure not to put crucial arguments at the end of their speech where they may not get
to them at all. Arguments like Topicality that are “all-or-nothing” should not be
saved for last.
If possible, the 1AR should try to read some supporting evidence. This evidence
should be chosen selectively to respond to the most dangerous aspects of the
negative strategy.
COACHING THE SPEECH: SECOND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL
The Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) is the final speech in the debate, which gives
the affirmative a huge advantage. Some judges and audiences will remember best
what they hear most recently. The 2AR needs to make a strong speech to take full
advantage of this lasting impression.
Strategy
As the “closing statement” for the affirmative team 2AR must summarize and puttogether the entire strategy, both Case and Off-Case. The 2AR must completely
explain the affirmative Case and how they have a comparative advantage over the
negative policy. Again, the 2AR should have practiced, well-worded descriptions of
the affirmative Harm claims to make them seem as big and compelling as possible.
The 2AR must assess which arguments are necessary to win the debate, and also
determine what arguments the affirmative can afford to lose. Then they should start
off by setting out to win their most impressive argument decisively and early in the
speech. Generally that will be a specific advantage or Harm area. It might be a
comprehensive link or theory argument.
In addition to summarizing the affirmative arguments, the 2AR must also address all
the arguments extended by the last negative speaker. Adapt to their weaknesses.
If the 2NR mishandles an argument, capitalize. Be realistic that you may not win
every argument in the debate, but explain to the judge how you still win overall.
Put the debate in an overall framework where the arguments you win seem more
important than the arguments you think the negative may win. Use an overview at
the beginning.
Tactics
Refer back to the 1AR frequently. You cannot make up new arguments in the
2AR. Sometimes the judge will have a hard time telling whether or not your
argument is new or not. The more you refer back directly to your partner’s
arguments the more it sounds like your 2AR arguments are grounded there, not
brand new. This is especially true in relation to evidence that was read.
Directly clash with your opponent’s best arguments. The 2NR will likely make
some pretty persuasive sounding arguments. Figure out which ones are creating the
best impression on the judge and clash with them word-for-word.
The agenda of the 2AR should be affirmative arguments, not negative
extensions. The 2AR should be based on previous affirmative answers. Signpost
back to those arguments and explain them before you address the negative points.
This will make sure that you are spending your time on your ground, not on theirs.
The 2AR should be selective and somewhat slower than previous speeches. As
the last speech, the 2AR has the freedom not to worry about what comes afterwards.
Choose a few arguments and develop them thoroughly. A rushed, frantic 2AR
sounds like a losing 2AR. Lowering the speed generates a sense of confidence and
boosts credibility.
COACHING: DESIGNING THE NEGATIVE STRATEGY
Designing the negative strategy is one of the most important aspects of preparation.
It is important to focus your energies on coherent and logical positions. There are
two kinds of negative strategies: specific and generic. Specific strategies are for
Cases that you know about. Generic strategies are for times when you have no
specific strategy. This may happen when the affirmative runs a brand new Case.
When you brainstorm, ask some questions about the affirmative. What are the
basic assumptions of the affirmative Case? The answers will form the basis of your
on-case attack. Who would be hurt by adoption of the plan? The answer to this
question will help form the bases of your disadvantages. Are there any basic
questions of philosophy their plan violates? This will help you decide on critiques.
Finally, is there some better way to solve the problem? This helps with designing
counterplans.
The negative strategy should avoid repetitive parts. For the Case arguments the
negative should choose a set of responses that are not redundant. Also avoid
choosing disadvantages or critiques that have similar links or impacts.
The negative strategy should avoid inconsistent or contradictory parts. The
negative almost never benefits from contradictory arguments as you can only win
the debate on one or the other. Plus contradictions set up the possibility of the
affirmative being able to get out of both.
Design the negative strategy so you can kick out of parts of it later in the
debate. It is very difficult for the 2NR to cover all aspects of the 1AR. Both speeches
are the same length, but the 1AR does not have to wrap up the debate as the 2NR
does. Ideally the negative team would extend certain arguments in the negative
block that they will not need to cover in the 2NR. Even a small concession might
make a huge difference.
For example a negative team could extend a topicality argument in the 2NC which
the 1AR might spend 1 minute answering. The negative could then concede this
topicality argument, gaining an extra minute for the 2NR for covering all remaining
arguments of the 1AR. Gaining an extra minute in a 5-minute speech is a huge
strategic advantage.
Finally, design strategies that would appeal to a wide variety of judges. Some
judges are conservative on debate theory and some are liberal. Some judges have
broad views of the topic some have narrow views. It is risky to devise a strategy at
home that only would appeal to a narrow range of judges.
Generic Strategies
Generic negative strategies are necessary sometimes. It is impossible for the
negative to always have specific attacks against every affirmative case and plan.
Generic attacks should follow the above guidelines as much as possible. Avoid
repetitiveness, contradictions and build in some flexibility. In addition, always try
to tie the specific affirmative plan to the generic evidence as best possible. Even if
the negative has no specific evidence matching up to the affirmative case or plan
they can often successfully argue that the affirmative plan is the same as other plans
with the common link.
COACHING TOPICALITY
Debates are governed by a resolution, referred to as the topic. Policy resolutions,
like the one you have, are written broadly to allow for many examples. The
affirmative must be able to prove that their Plan is actually an example of the
resolution. This is referred to as having a “topical” Plan – it falls under the topic, so
it is topical. But words, including the words in the topic, are subject to some
interpretation, so this issue is not always clear-cut.
The burden on the affirmative to have a topical Plan has a debate jargon name that
you will not find in most dictionaries: Topicality.
Topicality arguments play an important role in debates because they are an all-ornothing issue. It is generally accepted that if the affirmative fails to prove that their
Plan is Topical, they will lose. Many debates are decided for the negative on the
issue of Topicality alone.
When the negative wants to advance a Topicality argument they must provide their
own interpretation of the resolution, with definitions of words in the topic. They
would then argue that their interpretation is the best one, for several possible
reasons, based on standards for interpretations (discussed below). Then they
would argue that the affirmative Plan “violates” their interpretation by falling
outside of it. They also attack the affirmative’s interpretation of the topic. If the
negative wins that the affirmative plan is not topical, they generally win the debate.
Notice that the focus of Topicality is the affirmative Plan not the Case. The
advantages claimed by the affirmative are not subject to topicality scrutiny no
matter how distant from the topic they seem. If the affirmative Plan is judged to be
topical, they have met their entire topicality burden.
To defend against this, the affirmative generally provides their own interpretation
of the resolution – one that clearly includes their Plan. The affirmative also usually
attacks the specific negative interpretation as being too restrictive or unusual.
Usually the judge decides between the two interpretations.
Topicality Standards
Here are some ways to evaluate interpretations of the resolution – called
“standards.” Both teams use standards either separately or in combination
depending on what their interpretation is like in the specific debate.
Standards: Is the interpretation too limited or too unlimited? Is the interpretation
consistent with common dictionary definitions? Is the interpretation consistent
with the way experts in the policy area use the terms? Is the interpretation
grammatically correct? Is the interpretation predictable for both teams, or is it very
unusual? Finally, does the interpretation lead us toward or away from the core
issues we would expect to debate under the resolution?
The wisdom of all of these is subject to argument. Even these standards are
debatable within a debate. Are limited resolutions good for education because they
focus debate on a few key issues, or are they bad for education because they stifle
creative thinking? There is no debate rulebook to resolve this. It’s up to the
arguments each team can present in the round.
Quite often there will be “competing standards” in a round. For instance the
affirmative might have a dictionary definition to back up their interpretation, but
the negative might be able to prove that’s not the way experts in the field use those
words. Who wins in that case? Again, it comes down to the arguments advanced
about education and fairness in the round itself.
COACHING CASE DEBATE
Attacking Affirmative Harm Claims
One way to attack a harm claim is simply to provide evidence that it is declining and
that the situation is getting better. Negative teams can also attack harm claims by
proving that underlying circumstances have changed so that affirmative harm
claims that may have been true in the past are no longer viable. The negative can
boost their refutation of harm claims by citing scientific studies that empirically
demonstrate how rare the affirmative harm is. The more qualified the negative
source is the stronger the evidence is. One strategy for harm refutation is to attack
the motivation of the affirmative authors. Perhaps they have a strong self-interest
in making the problem seem greater than it is.
A powerful negative strategy is to argue that status quo programs are reducing the
affirmative harm area. This simultaneously attacks both the harm and inherency
(see next section) claim.
When the affirmative defends harms that are philosophical in nature the negative
can argue that the affirmative criteria, or decision rule, is detrimental in the
extreme. Another approach to philosophical harm areas is to defend the notion of
pragmatism or realism as an overarching framework for our foreign policy. Finally,
the negative could offer a counter-value, or an offsetting philosophical argument.
Attacking Inherency Claims
The affirmative must prove that the status quo will not solve their Harm claim. To
attack their inherency claim the negative must prove that an actor in the status quo
is taking a step that will address the significance of the affirmative's Harm claim. If
the negative proves that the problem is being solved in the status quo they greatly
reduce the comparative advantage offered by the affirmative plan. Another
approach is to identify empirical examples of how status quo programs are already
working. The negative can also attack the affirmative inherency claim by arguing
there is a trend toward solving the affirmative problem. One other excellent strategy
is to argue that agents other than those used in the affirmative plan are solving the
problem.
Attacking Solvency Claims
The negative attack on the affirmative Solvency is often one of the most powerful
strategies. Many affirmative plans make intuitive sense, but in the real world cannot
fulfill their promise. There are generally many intervening factors between the
specific mechanism in the plan and the ultimate effect the plan has on the situation
in the real world. The primary way that the negative can contest solvency is to
provide empirical examples of policy failures that are similar to the affirmative
proposal.
Another common solvency approach is for the negative to provide alternative
causes for the problem to continue. Some solvency arguments present alternative
causes of the harm claim that the affirmative plan does not address. The debate
terminology for this type of argument is "alternative causality." For instance if your
car did not run because it was out of gasoline, and because it was missing spark
plugs, a plan to purchase gasoline would not get your car running unless it also
addressed the spark plugs. In this example the lack of spark plugs would be an
alternative causality argument against a plan to buy gasoline. To develop alternative
causality negative teams should collect proof of all the many causes of certain harm
claims.
Solvency is typically a weak link in the affirmative comparative advantage analysis
and should be challenged vigorously by the negative. Most affirmative plans are very
idealistic and often ignore the realities of how difficult it can be to solve certain
problems.
COACHING DISADVANTAGES
When people make proposals to do something, often there are drawbacks to that
proposal. To consider a course of action we generally weigh the benefits against the
potential downsides. Policy debate is no different. In fact, arguments about the
downsides of affirmative Plans are one of the most common parts of a debate.
These drawbacks are called “disadvantages” (DA) in debate jargon. DA’s are
arguments advanced by the negative team that represent the unique reasons why
adopting the Plan would be a bad idea. If the negative team can prove the
disadvantage to acting was greater than the advantage of acting the judge should
not endorse the affirmative Plan and should vote negative.
Burdens of a Disadvantage
Disadvantages have parts to them. Just as an affirmative Case has to have Harm,
Inherency and Solvency, and the affirmative Plan must be Topical, disadvantages
have burdens they must meet before they become reasons to reject the affirmative.
DA’s must have a link, be unique to the affirmative plan, and have an impact that
outweighs the affirmative advantage.
Disadvantages must link to the affirmative plan. This means that the negative
team must be able to prove that the drawback results from adoption of the specific
affirmative Plan. Links can come from the actions of the Plan or the advantages of
the Case. Some DA’s are based on several “internal links” – like a chain reaction.
The affirmative can deny the link to a DA either by proving their Plan will not result
in that outcome, or by questioning one of the internal links.
Disadvantages must also be “unique” to the affirmative plan. This burden
means that the drawback occurs ONLY when the Plan is passed, that it won’t occur
in the present system. For example suppose someone suggests that you go to dinner
at Wendy’s and someone responded by saying, “don’t go there, the fries are greasy”
(a DA). That person would have to prove that if you didn’t go to Wendy’s you would
be able to find some food that wasn’t as greasy. If a DA is not uniquely caused by the
affirmative plan it is not a reason to reject it. In our example, suppose the
alternative to Wendy’s was McDonalds, you could say that McDonald’s had greasy
food too so going to Wendy’s would not have a unique disadvantage of greasy food.
Disadvantages must have a large impact – one that is bigger than the advantage
that the affirmative wins in the debate. The negative has to prove that the bad
consequence of adopting the Plan would outweigh the benefits otherwise it isn’t a
reason to reject the Plan. An example might be that the affirmative plan could hurt
the economy, which would push us into a recession. The impact of the recession
might be greater than the affirmative Case, especially if the negative is also making
some inroads in beating the Case. Disadvantages with bigger bottom line impacts
are better for the negative to run. Affirmatives could debate against the impact by
saying it wouldn’t be so bad.
Turns
Often, one of the most powerful arguments an affirmative can make against a
disadvantage is to say that their Plan actually has a positive effect in the area of the
DA. That means the argument really becomes a net advantage, not a drawback, to
adopting the plan. For example, suppose the person proposing we go to Wendy’s
said that Wendy’s offered more grease-free options, like salads and baked potatoes,
than any other fast food chain. In our example about the recession, the affirmative
might have an argument that their Plan was actually good for the economy. Both of
these would be example of “Turns” to the disadvantage. As you can see, turns are
very important arguments and both teams should focus on them.
COACHING COUNTERPLANS
Many times in life we are not confronted with a simple choice between a proposal
and the current path. Instead we are faced with one proposal weighed against a
second proposal. For example, if your refrigerator breaks down, you may look at the
option of buying a new refrigerator compared to the “status quo” of the broken
appliance. But more likely you’ll compare one new refrigerator vs. another new one.
In debate, when the negative defends an alternative policy and not the status quo, it
is said that they are defending a “counterplan” (CP).
How to Run a Counterplan
Counterplans are policies that are defended by the negative team. It should be
presented in the 1NC. It should be written out and be as detailed as an affirmative
Plan.
The CP must be a reason to reject the Plan. To explain this, let’s go back to our
example. Suppose your idea is to buy a GE refrigerator (the Plan). If someone else
in your family said instead “let’s turn the lights on in the living room,” you would
likely reject that suggestion as being irrelevant. Obviously, it would be possible to
buy the GE fridge and also turn the lights on in the living room. There is no need to
choose, so you’d still accept the initial idea.
To test whether or not the CP is a reason to reject the affirmative Plan you ask two
questions. First, is it impossible to do both the Plan and the CP at the same time? If
the answer is yes, then we are forced to choose. The second question: Is it the case
that we should not do both the Plan and the CP at the same time? If the answer is
yes, then it is illogical to do both together. In either of these cases the negative also
has to prove that the CP is better than the Plan. This test is used to establish
whether the CP meets its test of “competition.”
The most common strategy for the negative running a counterplan is to say there is
some other way to solve the Harm area without triggering a DA that links to the
Plan. For example, if the affirmative Plan was U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance to Africa, the
negative could CP with European Union HIV/AIDS assistance to Africa. They would
combine the CP with a DA to U.S. action, say a tradeoff in the USAID budget. So the
negative would be saying the CP is a reason to reject the affirmative Plan because it
solves the HIV/AIDS harm without triggering the USAID DA.
Answering a Counterplan
At first, debaters have a hard time answering counterplans until they get used to it.
Most teams are used to comparing the Plan to the status quo, not to a CP.
Experienced teams eventually learn how to design their affirmatives with the
common counterplans in mind.
Here are some ideas: Find reasons that the CP does not solve the affirmative Harm
area as well as the Plan (called a “solvency deficit”). Ask to read the CP and look for
wording mistakes in the text. Present new affirmative advantages, ones that the CP
does not solve very well. Challenge the CP if it does not have any specific solvency
evidence. Come up with arguments for why it would be better to “do both” the Plan
plus the CP.
Argue that the best policy would be to combine the Plan with part of the CP – this is
referred to as a “permutation.” For example, you may suggest going out on a date to
a movie. Your object of interest suggests instead going to dinner. You initially say,
well why not “do both” and go to dinner and a movie? The response by your date is
that there isn’t enough time to do both. So then you come up with the “permutation”
of going to the movie then going out to get dessert (the best part of dinner, after
all!). If the “perm” ends up being the wisest course of action, there is no reason to
reject the initial idea of going to a movie, which is part of the permutation.
COACHING CRITIQUES
Some arguments that we use in everyday life do not fall into the categories of
disadvantages or counterplans, but are still reasons to reject a course of action.
These arguments often involve philosophical reasons to reject certain actions or the
way we talk about those actions.
Imagine a situation where you and your friends are looking for a place to eat and
one of your friends suggests Denny’s. Someone else points out that Denny’s has
been involved in certain acts that might be considered racist – and therefore that
you should look for somewhere else to eat. That objection to eating at Denny’s isn’t
really a disadvantage – after all, it’s not like you and your friends eating at Denny’s is
going to keep them in business, and shunning them won’t cost them much. It’s a
statement of morality or principle on your part
Explanation of Critiques
A critique (sometimes written in the German ‘kritik and abbreviated as a K) is a
philosophical argument linked to a policy or language. Usually negative teams use
critiques to attack the affirmative’s fundamental assumptions or language. Often he
affirmative makes these assumptions by choice and sometimes they do it because
it’s their job to defend the resolution. Critiques are usually complicated arguments,
and many people are not familiar with the kinds of ideas associated with critiques.
A “representation” critique is the most common type. It is based on the way that a
team represents their arguments – such as their language choice. In some ways a
representation critique is similar to making a decision based on appearance or
characteristics. In our above example, you might choose not to eat at Denny’s
because of the way they treated other customers, not the taste of their food or their
prices.
Examples of Critiques
Some examples from debate rounds include critiques of gendered language such as
“mankind” or “Congressman”. Another would be a critique of the concept of “SubSaharan Africa.”
Critiques have components that are in some ways similar to other types of
arguments. They typically have “link” arguments, where the negative connects the
specific actions of the affirmative to their critique claims. There are also “impact”
arguments where the negative identifies the implications of the critique. Finally,
some critiques offer “alternative” ways of viewing the world, or alternative
representations. These often function very similarly to counterplans. Alternatives
can be explicit or implied.
Implications
Generally, critiques have a couple of implications. One is that they undermine some
part of the affirmative Case such as the Harm or Solvency. Second, they might
implicate consequences similar to that of a disadvantage. In other words, a critique
might justify voting against a team altogether in order to reject their assumptions.
Affirmative Strategies
Affirmatives can attack critiques at a number of levels. They can argue their
affirmative outweighs the critique. They can deny the link to their representation.
They can try to formulate a permutation similar to against a counterplan. They can
attack the “Solvency” of the critique alternative, or argue drawbacks to the
alternative. They might be able to find some inconsistencies within the negative
arguments.
COACHING THE SPEECH: FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
The First Negative Constructive speech (1NC) lays the foundation for the negative
strategy in the debate. In this speech the negative starts every major argument that
is part of their strategy. The main job of the 1NC is to present all of the negative
attacks against the affirmative Case. They should also present “shells” of all of their
Off-Case arguments (topicality, disadvantages, counterplans, critiques). The 1NC
should build a solid negative policy to defend, whether that be a defense of the
status quo or a counterplan.
Preparation
You can prepare for the 1NC days before the actual debate. Pre-tournament and
pre-round work can get the 1NC all set to go. Choosing the best Case and Off-Case
arguments ahead of time leads to making the right selections. Against common case
Harm areas the 1NC responses can be completely written out. The negative should
write “front-lines” of arguments whenever possible.
Selection
The 1NC should avoid repetitive arguments. Repeating arguments make it too
easy for the affirmative team to answer. This is true both for Case and Off-Case
arguments. Make sure your disadvantages do not have similar link or impact
arguments. Do not present duplicative Case arguments. The 1NC should attack as
many aspects of the affirmative Case as possible.
Presentation
The 1NC should read their Off-Case arguments first and then proceed to their
Case attacks. Off-Case “shell” arguments have to be read in a complete form, with
each logical component being included. Try to divide your speech roughly equally
between the time you spend on the Case and Off-Case.
Specific Links
Many Off-Case arguments are “generic,” meaning they apply to many different
affirmative Plans. This is a powerful weapon for the negative as it helps them be
more familiar with their negative strategies. On the other hand, judges may not like
it when they think the negative is running the same arguments every round,
regardless of whether they really apply to that specific affirmative Plan. In order to
make your generic arguments seem relevant, include a specific link argument in
the 1NC shell. That means you should write out a sentence or two that explains the
connection between your argument and the specific affirmative.
Delivery Style
The 1NC should be delivered quickly but clearly. The appropriate speed will be
governed, as in most cases, by the experience level of the judge. Clarity is as
important for the 1NC as it is for the 1AC as it is the first impression the judge will
have of your arguments, and set the stage for later references back.
Analytical Case Arguments
Some debaters think they can’t make an argument unless they have evidence. This
is not true. Analytical arguments (arguments without evidence) can be very
powerful. It is often very easy to poke holes in the affirmative Case by making
logical arguments. These types of points should be added to your Case attack,
mixed in with evidence-based arguments. Focus your strategy and attacks on the
largest, most threatening parts of the affirmative Case.
COACHING THE SPEECH: SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
The Second Negative Constructive speech (2NC) is one of the most important
negative speeches in the debate. The 2NC typically extends two or three of the OffCase argument shells that were presented in the 1NC. These arguments are
typically the key parts of the negative strategy, and the likely place where the
negative team will end up trying to win the debate in the end.
Preparing
Much of the preparation for the 2NC can be done at home before the tournament.
You pretty much know, either through brainstorming or through experience of
actual debates, what the 2AC is going to say against your Off-Case shells. You can
prepare front-lines, with analytic and evidenced answers, to read against the
2AC.
Before you stand up to give your 2NC it is really important that you know and
understand everything the 2AC said to your arguments. If you need to ask for
clarification in cross-examination, you should do that. If you have the time to read
through the evidence they read you should try to do that. Asking to borrow the 2AC
blocks after the read them is the surest way to make sure you don’t miss anything.
Tactics
You start by making a short “regional” overview at the top of the flow for that
argument. The regional overview should contain a short explanation of all pieces of
your argument. Make the link as specific as possible to the affirmative Plan or Case.
For example, when you extend a disadvantage your regional overview should
include a sentence on the link, uniqueness and impact. The regional overview is a
way of summarizing the argument for the judge, and helps pull it all together.
After the regional overview the 2NC should cover all of the 2AC arguments,
usually one-by-one, without skipping over any. On some arguments you’ll need to
read evidence, in some cases you won’t need to. In part that depends on whether
the 2AC used evidence or not.
Rebuild the key parts of the Off-Case arguments by reading more evidence if
necessary. This is often referred to as having a “wall” of extensions, i.e. the “link
wall” or the “uniqueness wall.” But don’t forget to use and extend the 1NC shell
evidence, as that is usually the best evidence you have. Refer to it by author and
explain the warrants in the evidence. Stress the specific link arguments.
Finally, weigh or assess the impact of winning the Off-Case argument. If it is a DA,
explain how it outweighs the affirmative; if it is a K, explain how it undercuts the
Solvency or turns the Case; if it is a CP, point out how it solves the case while
avoiding the DAs. Reading additional impact evidence is usually a solid strategy.
Strategy
The 2NC should choose one Off-Case argument to be the primary strategy, but
generally they should not make this choice obvious. If you tip your hand to the
affirmative too early in the debate they will know to focus on it. The 2NC should
extend two or three arguments so they can disguise their intentions and to maintain
flexibility. What looks like a sure thing before the 2NC may seem iffy or a second
choice by the time the 2NR rolls around.
COACHING THE SPEECH: FIRST NEGATIVE REBUTTAL
The First Negative Rebuttal speech (1NR) is the second part of the Negative Block –
where they give back-to-back speeches in the middle part of the debate. The 1NR is
a very important part of the overall negative strategy and should not be
underestimated. A powerful 1NR puts great pressure on the affirmative team,
particularly the First Affirmative Rebuttal.
Case Extension
The 1NR should focus on extending the most powerful attacks on the affirmative
Case. Using the 5-step extension technique (page 5), the 1NR should base their
speech on the 1NC arguments, while answering what the 2AC had to say on those
points. The agenda of this part of the 1NR should be the 1NC. The 1NR should
signpost back to the 1NC structure.
Explain the 1NC arguments fully, including developing the warrants in the
original evidence. The reasoning within the evidence, not just the old tag line, is
the important part that needs to be expanded and impacted. The full use of the 1NC
warrants is the strategy that makes the 1NR an A+.
The 1NR should be somewhat selective, if necessary, among the various
arguments begun in the 1NC, as some of those initial points may not be worth it.
Some arguments have “round winning” potential, others are kind of trivial. You
likely won’t have time to go for all of the 1NC points, especially if you are expanding
them as you are supposed to. So you’ll need to be selective and realistic.
The goal in extending Case arguments is to rebuild them to the point where they
are really powerful and do-or-die for the affirmative team. It is not very strategic to
extend negative arguments so weakly that they barely register. The 1NR should
explain the impact of these arguments as fully as they can.
One way for the 1NR to make their extensions more powerful is to read additional
evidence. It might even be a good idea to save some of your best Case evidence for
reading in the 1NR where it is much more difficult for the affirmative to answer.
The 1NR should clash directly with the most threatening affirmative Case
arguments. This ideally should be done in a word-for-word manner to make clear
to the judge that you are not ducking the big Case debate. If the 2AC highlights
certain evidence or arguments to the judge, you need to go after them with a direct
response.
Off-Case Extension
Some times the 1NR is assigned to extend an Off-Case argument, such as topicality
or a disadvantage. It is possible for the 1NR to do both the Case (or part of the Case)
and extend an Off-Case argument. It all depends on where the biggest need is.
While it may be possible to do this, you don’t want to spread the 1NR too thin,
making all the arguments they cover really easy for the affirmative to answer.
In the Off-Case extension the 1NR should follow the advice given above (page 23)
for the 2NC in going for these arguments. Start with a short “regional” overview.
Cover the 2AC in a thorough, line-by-line, manner. Read more evidence on the key
points. Emphasize the specific link. Weigh or assess the implications of winning
that argument.
COACHING THE SPEECH: SECOND NEGATIVE REBUTTAL
The second negative rebuttal (2NR) is the most difficult speech in a debate. It
requires substantial coverage and explanation skills. The 2NR must tie together the
entire negative strategy, extending each part in detail and creating a favorable
impression. They must also cover the many arguments of the 1AR. The 2NR has to
balance all these factors, and then throw in being responsible for the strategic
decision-making for the team.
Strategies
The most important strategic goal for the 2NR is to, in fact, have a strategy. While
this sounds obvious, many 2NR's simply go through the motions of trying to win
every argument. Instead, the 2NR must assess how the strategy is working up to
that point and make a decision about the right mix of the Case or Off-Case
arguments, and choosing among the Off-Case arguments.
The 2NR should adapt to the weaknesses and strengths of the 1AR. No two
1AR's are alike. Some might make serious coverage mistakes in unexpected places.
When the 1AR makes a serious coverage or time allocation mistake the 2NR must
maintain enough flexibility to adjust and capitalize. There are no degree-of-difficulty
points in debate. If the other team presents an unforeseen opportunity, take it.
The 2NR must attempt to anticipate the 2AR strategic choices. The more
experience you have, the more easily this will come. The more times you debate a
certain team the more you can expect what they will go for in the last rebuttal. The
2NR should focus on that strategy and extend enough arguments against it to
neutralize it. While the 2NR may want to make some reference to your opponent's
upcoming speech, it is generally more effective to internalize the chess game and
just shape your 2NR to pre-empt their strategy.
The 2NR must evaluate all your impacts in the debate, whether it that means
choosing which disadvantage to extend, or emphasizing case advantage turns. You
may have to decide between a counterplan strategy vs. kicking the counterplan. You
may have to decide between a critique and a counterplan.
Techniques
Repetition is fatal for the 2NR. The goal of the 2NR should be to make five minutes
of totally separate arguments. If you sense that you are repeating the same
argument in several places in the debate you should correct that by diversifying
your positions. Do not over-rely on one argument, one assessment, or one insight.
The 2NR should begin with an overview briefly explaining how they will win the
debate. This overview should not last more than 30 seconds. It should compare the
arguments each side will win and say this comes down favorably for the negative.
Be realistic about the arguments the affirmative may win. It’s a waste of time to just
get up there and say you are winning everything.
The 2NR chooses which Off-Case arguments to go for. They have to (very
quickly) kick out of the ones they don’t want, and then thoroughly extend the ones
they do want. On those, they must answer everything the 1AR said on that flow. It
is crucial not to miss anything.
The 2NR also needs to extend the key Case answers. They will probably have to
focus on a few of them, though, given the time constraints. They should choose the
ones where the affirmative is the weakest and the negative has the best warrants.
OVERVIEW OF POLICY DEBATE GUIDE FOR STUDENTS
DEBATE is an opportunity for students to use their skills of reading, thinking, writing,
speaking and listening in a meaningful situation that can be related to their own lives.
Teams of two students research a controversial issue to collect facts and expert opinions
for/against a proposed change (stated as a resolution). They prepare cases by using
these data and making inferences. Teams face opponents in timed speeches. They
attempt to elicit judges’ votes by stating a strong case and refuting opponent’s claims
with contradictory facts and explanations. Elementary students argue either as an
affirmative or a negative team. Intermediate students are prepared to argue both
affirmatively and negatively.
POLICY DEBATE SEGMENT TIME LIMITS:
Constructive Speeches
3 minutes elementary
5 minutes intermediate
Recess
2 minutes
Rebuttal Speeches
1 1/2 minutes elementary
2 1/2 minutes intermediate
Plan Text and Middle School Policy Debate
As a change to the format of policy debate at the junior high level, plan text
should be presented in the first affirmative constructive. This enables the focus of
the debate to center around the solution (policy option) to the problem identified
by the topic and for the affirmative rebuttals to be more a summary of the debate
and not the first opportunity to respond to attacks presented by the negative.
Plan text is typically presented after the inherency and harms identified the
affirmative case and is followed by the solvency evidence that focuses on the
efficacy of the affirmative plan. Plan text is a short statement by which the State
of Utah will address the harms presented by a policy action.
Debate can be used in the classroom in two ways:
1. As a unit of study, introducing debate skills with the process and information for the
debate.
2. As a part of the year’s curriculum and as an outgrowth of language arts, science, and
social studies.
Debate focuses on six main skill areas:
Debate includes specific vocabulary and speech structures. 1.
ANALYSIS: the higher thinking of breaking down an idea
into its parts (parts may be comparisons, contrasts, causes and
effects, and trends). In debate, analysis follows a fairly standard
process of finding pro and con positions on the issues.
2.
ORGANIZATION:
the three part organization of a
speech-introduction, body and conclusion.
3.
DELIVERY: the presentation of speech including
projection, eye contact, fluency, and style.
4.
EVIDENCE: facts, statistics, and expert testimony given
in support of an argument.
5.
REASONING: the higher level thinking skill of synthesis
used to identify main points, support each with evidence, explain
relationships, and draw conclusions.
6.
REFUTATION:
identify and counter opponents’
arguments and conclusions with reasoning and evidence.
Debate includes specific vocabulary and speech structures.
Each Debate Skill in this guide includes:
Title
Objective
Guidelines
Debate Vocabulary
Pre-debate
Activities
SCHOOL-WIDE FINAL DEBATES
1. Assign half the teams a number and the other half a letter. Numbered teams are
affirmative the first round and negative the second round (middle school only).
2. Locate empty rooms, spaces, closets, hallways, etc. (Classrooms with student
observers can help other students learn energy and environmental concepts and the
debate process.)
3. Each team must also debate twice—once affirmative and once negative.
Elementary teams may choose to debate only affirmative or negative. (High school
debaters, teachers or trained parents are effective judges for elementary debates.)
4. Anyone who isn’t debating or judging acts as a timekeeper. (Use time cards or
hand signals.)
5. Speaker points are awarded.
6. If you grade debaters, you may base your evaluations on judges’ comments,
complete ballots and thorough flow charts. (See DEBATE BALLOT in Policy Debate
Appendix)
DISTRICT AND STATE (INTER-DISTRICT) DEBATES
District debates are coordinated with Gifted and Talented coordinators, high school
coaches and teacher teams. Winners from district meets are invited to attend state level
or
inter-district meets.
ROOM ARRANGEMENT FOR DEBATE
1. Teams sit at front of room on opposite sides, facing judge, and timekeeper.
2. Speaker stands between two teams at podium or table (if available).
3. Judge and timekeeper must sit where speakers can see them.
4. Names, speaker positions and/or code numbers are put on chalkboard if
available.
SUGGESTED TIME LINE OF PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES
Listed below are processes and techniques that enhance debate skills. Many activities
may already be offered; but, with a slight shift of emphasis students will become stronger
in the skills they need to be successful and strong debaters. Suggestions for pre-debate
activities are contained within this guide. (Activities may be found in district guides or
other books.) We suggest the following chronology for skill mastery:
SEPTEMBER – DECEMBER:
Brainstorming
Categorizing
Forecasting
Problem solving and decision making Analyzing
(analysis)
Evaluating
In language arts:
Read orally in class
Memorize poems or speeches
Read student writing
aloud
Look at both sides of an issue
Speak extemporaneously
a. one minute
b. two minute
Take notes while reading or listening
Strengthen listening skills
Enhance learning
skills from English textbook
a. fact and opinion
b. persuasive writing
c. cause and effect
d. research skills
In language arts or social studies:
Strengthen newspaper skills
a.
components of a news article (same components of a debate plan)
b. cause and effect
c. presentation of information in a story (funnel technique—most important
to
least)
d. find main ideas and supporting ideas
e. study advertising techniques
f. read about and study current issues, then informally debate the issues
SUGGESTED TIME LINE OF PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES – cont.
In social studies:
Find cause and effects of historical events
Analyze components of history
Look at
both sides of the issues
In math:
Study statistics
Go over how to read surveys and opinion polls
Teach
students to read graphs and charts
Have students use reasoning to
explain how they solved problems
In science:
(Topics usually involve energy, natural resources, or the environment and can
easily be addressed in the science curriculum.)
What is energy? How does it affect
the environment or natural resources?
Learn about energy sources
Learn about
alternative energy sources
Study the environmental issues of energy
Predict the
future of energy or natural resources
About October—as soon as resolution for the year is announced:
· Give students a large manila envelope with a copy of the resolution inside or taped
to
the front (this is to collect all debate information).
· Discuss the resolution.
· Brainstorm all possible solutions (have student write these down and keep in a
folder).
· Brainstorm all possible problems, hindrances or negative responses to the
resolution.
· Instruct students to begin collecting all information they find on the subject. Have
them share the resolution with their parents so they can help collect information.
(If
possible, put the resolution in the school newsletter.)
· Set dates for class and/or school meets. Inform students and parents of these
dates.
(Again, this could be put in the newsletter.)
· Periodically remind students of the resolution and discuss any current trends or
topics.
· To assist students in gathering information refer to the RESOURCES section of
the Policy Debate Appendix.
IN JANUARY:
· Discuss the resolution again.
·
Bring in several news articles, if they’re not too long, make a copy for each
student. Read and discuss the articles together. Show students how to make and
organize evidence cards. Some students like to use 3-ring binders instead of the
cards.
(Instructions on how to do evidence cards is discussed later in this book.)
·
Spend an hour once a week building debate vocabulary, discussing the
resolution, news articles, and current trends.
·
Review any other applicable resources, such as: videos, books, public opinion,
etc.
·
Near the end of January have students choose their partners. Elementary should
also choose their side of the resolution. Have students continue to look at both sides of
the issue.
FEBRUARY – APRIL:
· Attend the debate workshop provided
· Research and study both sides of the issue
· Watch current trends
· Use the Debate Guide to develop:
Plan
Speeches
Rebuttals
Reasoning
Evidence
Delivery
NOTES:
DEBATE VOCABULARY
Note: All debate vocabulary is important to all debaters; however, the list may be
overwhelming to a first time debater. Asterisked (*) words are identified as those words
to be learned first.
ACCRUE
to accumulate or to increase
ADVANTAGE
AFFIRMATIVE*
what is gained by adopting the affirmative plan
the side in the debate arguing in favor of the resolution; the side
that wants to change the status quo
ANALYSIS* the higher level thinking skill of breaking down an idea into its parts (parts
may be comparisons, contrasts, causes and effects, and trends) [In debate, analysis
follows a fairly standard process of finding pro and con positions on the issues.]
ARGUMENT*
a process of reasoning
[Points are developed that move from the known to the unknown
and use evidence to reach a conclusion.]
BRIEF
an outline of an argument with evidence that supports one side of
the proposition
BURDEN OF PROOF
the obligation of debaters, affirmative or negative, to prove with
evidence and reasoning any argument they introduce
CASE
affirmative arguments that show a need to change
CAUSAL LINK
the link
CAUSALITY
the logical connection between two events or arguments—
the relationship between two things in which one is believed to
cause the other
CIRCUMVENT
CLASH
to get around or avoid
the term used to refute an argument
CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH* the first speech given by each participant in a debate [In
this speech, the debater presents the arguments in support of his/her position.]
COUNTERPLAN
be non-topical.]
alternative plan to the affirmative proposal [A counterplan must
DELIVERY*
the presentation of a speech including fluency, projection,
eye
contact, and style
DISADVANTAGE
negative argument indicating that adoption of the plan will
result
in severe consequences
EVIDENCE* facts, statistics, and expert testimony given in support of an argument
FLOW CHART
a system of keeping track of arguments given in a debate
[A flow
chart is for the personal use of each team and is not shown to the
judges or other team.]
FLUENCY
the ability to speak knowledgeably about the debate topic with a
comfortable pace and smooth delivery
GESTURES
movements of the body, or part of the body, to express or
emphasize ideas and emotions
HARM
an undesirable impact or result meant to be solved by the
affirmative plan or policy
IMPROMPTU
to speak on a topic with a short amount of preparation time
INHERENT
the nature or character of something, a necessary part
[Inherent is used to describe a feature or characteristic that
exists and will continue to exist in the absence of the affirmative
plan.]
JUSTIFICATION
why the resolution, rather than any other program, should
be
adopted
NEGATIVE*
the side of the debate arguing against the resolution and/or the
affirmative policy
ORGANIZATION*
the three part organization of a speech—introduction, body,
and conclusion
PACE
the rate at which a speaker delivers his/her ideas, arguments,
and refutation
PERSUASIVE
to speak with conviction and emphasis using tone of voice, pace,
and gestures as well as reasoning, analysis, and evidence
[Correct pronunciation and knowledge of the topic is necessary
for a persuasive argument to be convincing.]
PLAN*
the steps given by the affirmative team to implement the
resolution through a specific policy option
PLANK
each separate step of a plan
PREPARATION TIME
the time used between speeches for preparation
PRIMA FACIA CASE
has first appearance of proving a fact [The affirmative has
a prima facia burden in the First Affirmative Constructive to
demonstrate:
1.
topicality (meet resolution)
2. significant harm (need to change)
3. the harm is inherent within the status quo
4. the plan will solve the harm
5.
present a plan]
PROJECTION
the ability to make your voice heard clearly and distinctly at a
distance [Also, the ability to project feelings and emotions in
your voice.]
REASONING
the higher level thinking skill of synthesis used to identify
main
points, support each with evidence, explain relationships,
and
draw conclusions
REBUTTAL SPEECH*
the speech given following the constructive speeches [The
debater refutes the arguments of the other team. The rebuttal
speech may also be used to clarify, answer the other team’s
refutations, to summarize arguments, and persuade to own point
of view.]
REFUTATION
identify and counter opponents’ arguments and conclusions with
reasoning and evidence
REFUTE
reasoning and evidence given by one side in a debate to
oppose the opponents’ arguments and conclusions
RESOLUTION*
the formal statement of the issue to be debated
SIGNIFICANT
the impact, importance, or scope of an issue or a part of the issue
SOLVENCY
the term meaning the problem can be solved [Affirmative
reasons that problems identified can be solved with the
affirmative plan; negative reasons that problems are being
solved by the status quo and that the affirmative plan will bring
harm rather than solvency.]
STATUS QUO*
the present system, the existing order [The status quo is that
which would be changed by adopting the affirmative plan.]
TONE
the quality of voice that includes pitch and clarity of words
TOPICALITY
the state of conformity to the intent of the resolution [A case is
topical if it justified the full intent of the resolution. A plan
is
topical if the needs are solved or the comparative advantages are
gained as a direct result of those planks in the plan that
implement the resolution.]
NOTES:
CONTENTS
· Debate Skill 1
· Debate Skill 2A
· Debate Skill 2B
· Debate Skill 2C
· Debate Skill 3
15
Analysis
19
Persuasive Writing/Speaking
23
Organization of a Plan
25
Writing a Debate Speech
31
Delivery
·
·
·
Debate Skill 4
Debate Skill 5
Debate Skill 6
37
Evidence
43
Reasoning
47
Refutation
Teams of two students research a controversial issue to collect facts and expert opinions
for/against a proposed change —stated as the resolution. They attempt to persuade
judges to their side by stating a strong case and refuting their opponent’s claims with
contradictory facts and explanations.
TITLE: ANALYSIS
OBJECTIVE:
Students use the higher level thinking skill of breaking down an idea into its parts (parts
may be comparisons, contrasts, causes and effects, and trends). In debate, analysis
follows a fairly standard process of finding pro and con positions on the issues.
GUIDELINES:
Using logical reasoning, students should be able to:
1. Identify the parts related to an issue.
2. Look at causes and effects to understand the impact of decisions.
3. Compare and contrast the parts of the issue as they relate to the whole.
4. Analyze the direction of current trends (a general tendency or course of
direction),
then predict future scenarios of where we are heading and the impact of this
direction.
DEBATE VOCABULARY:
Argument
a process of reasoning [Points are developed that move from the
known to the unknown and use evidence to reach a conclusion.]
Plan the steps given by the affirmative team to implement the resolution through a
specific policy option
Status Quo
the present system, the existing order [The status quo is that which would
be changed by adopting the affirmative plan.]
PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Analysis can be taught as an isolated skill or through the curriculum. It can then be used
to identify comparisons, contrasts, causes and effects, current trends, and future
scenarios with logical arguments. (Note: Bloom’s Taxonomy is a good source for skill
development of analysis.)
Activity 1:
Use analysis skills to understand the parts of a story.
After reading a story from the basal, students identify each part of the story
(introduction and setting, characters, plot and resolution).
Activity 2:
Use analysis skills to understand the fall of a civilization.
(Example: The Roman Empire)
Analyze causes and effects of the “Fall of the Roman Empire.” What were the
components of the Roman’s daily life? What weakened their society and
government?
Activity 3:
Apply analysis skills to compare and contrast changes.
Compare life in the early 1900’s to life now. Students should list all of the
changes they can, then place them into categories by years.
Decide which changes had positive and which had negative impacts on
society.
Activity 4:
Use analysis skills to identify current trends and predict the future
accordingly.
Identify a current trend, then predict what this will do to the future. (This may be
done as a list or used with the FUTURE SCENARIO worksheet found in the
Policy Debate Appendix.) Decide if the impacts will be positive or negative.
(Example: What if car travel continues to increase at the current rate, what will be
the outcome?)
DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Analysis of the issues is critical in preparing a logical plan or argument. Sub-problems
and related issues must be considered along with the “big problem.”
Activity 1:
Use analysis skills to understand the causes and effects of the current problem.
Analyze the current situation. Why the resolution and present
concern?
Generate as many ideas as possible about the causes of the present
problem. What will be the effects of these? (This could be done as a whole group listing
them on the board or individually with each student writing a personal list.)
Activity 2:
Use analysis skills to understand the problems and sub-problems related to the
resolution.
List all the problems related to the status quo.
List any related or sub-problems that are contained within the “big
problem.”
On another sheet of paper have students list all of the solutions they can think of
for the problems. Discuss the positive and negative of each pro-posed solution.
Will any of these solutions create new problems?
Activity 3:
Use analysis skills to compare and contrast the parts related to the resolution to
identify the most important components of the issue.
Complete the CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING sheet found in the Policy Debate
Appendix. (The worksheet is self explanatory and will direct the students to focus on
major problems and solutions.)
Activity 4:
Use analysis to identify current trends and forecast the future accordingly.
Identify the current trends of society related to the status quo. What do people do
now? Does their current behavior, thinking, or habits create problems now or for
the future? Have students fill out the FUTURE SCENARIO worksheet. Discuss
the impact of the future direction. Will everyone be happy or content with
outcomes? Is there anything that could be done to change the current direction?
What would that accomplish?
NOTES:
TITLE:
PERSUASIVE WRITING / SPEAKING
OBJECTIVE:
Students use persuasive writing / speaking skills to influence or convince another to a
new idea or a different point of view.
GUIDELINES:
Using persuasive writing / speaking skills, students should be able to:
1. Identify a point of view on an issue and be able to state it.
2. Develop and defend the point of view with reasons, evidence, and examples.
3. Understand and use persuasive skills to convince others.
4. Organize writing / speaking skills into a logical plan of action.
DEBATE VOCABULARY:
Argument
a process of reasoning [Points are developed that move from the known
to the unknown and use evidence to reach a conclusion.]
Evidence
argument
facts, statistics, and expert testimony given in support of an
Organization
the three part organization of a speech—introduction, body, and
conclusion
Persuasive
to speak with conviction and emphasis using tone of voice, pace, and
gestures as well as reasoning, analysis, and evidence [Correct
pronunciation and knowledge of the topic is necessary for a persuasive
argument to be convincing.]
Reasoning
the higher level thinking skill of synthesis used to identify main points,
support each with evidence, explain relationships, and draw conclusions
PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
The skills of organized, persuasive writing / speaking are important to success in debate.
Activity 1:
Study the power of persuasion.
Using ADVERTISING TYPES found in the Policy Debate Appendix, discuss the
different types of advertisement techniques. Have students analyze several
magazine, newspaper, T.V. or radio ads. Decide what technique(s) were used.
Discuss which types of persuasion would be appropriate for debate. Assign students to write an ad or do further research of advertising techniques.
Activity 2:
Appendix.
Discuss the correct format for writing a speech or paper.
Hand out a copy of P.R.E.P. TALK/WRITE found in the Policy Debate
P.
R.
E.
P.
Activity 3:
Write a persuasive letter.
Have students write a letter to their parents persuading them to allow a certain
privilege (examples: outing with friends, being able to choose chores and/or the
time to do them, joining a sports team or taking lessons).
Use the P.R.E.P. format. Remind students to be as logical as possible and to avoid the
emotional or ridiculous.
(Optional: Have students take the role of a parent and write a response to the letter.)
Activity 4:
Read a “letter to the editor” from a newspaper or periodical and identify each part
of the letter.
Did the letter contain all parts? Was it sufficiently developed? Did it give the
students a new perspective or point of view? What tool(s) of persuasion did the
writer use?
Have students write a letter to the editor on an issue they feel strongly
about
Activity 5:
Write from the “other side”.
Choose a well-known fairy tale. Have the students analyze the villain's reason(s)
for doing what he did and write a paper in his defense. (examples: What was
Goldilocks’ real reasons for going into the three bears’ home? What were the
reasons that the stepsisters treated Cinderella the way they did? What were the
wolf’s views about the three pigs? Why did the queen feel the way she did about
Snow White?)
Activity 6:
Write / Speak from both sides.
Write a defense for the following scenario:
Students at your school would like to install a candy and a pop machine in the cafeteria.
Write a speech to present to the principal and staff.
Take the role of the principal or a teacher and oppose the suggestion. Write the
opposing speech. (Students could choose sides and informally debate this in class using
their speeches.)
Activity 7:
Write persuasive papers on specific topics after research and investigation.
(Ideas for subjects are found in the Policy Debate Appendix under
RESOLUTIONS FOR PRACTICE.) Informal debates could be given on the
topics.
DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
NOTES:
TITLE: ORGANIZATION OF A PLAN
OBJECTIVE:
Students will plan the organization of a course
of policy action that will change the
current direction of the status quo.
GUIDELINES:
Using organizational skills, students should be able to:
1. Identify the components of a plan. (Who? What? Where? When? Why? How?)
2. List the components of the plan in order of importance and/or order of action.
3. Make a plan that could solve a number of the issues contained within the
resolution.
4. Develop a plan that is both realistic and feasible.
DEBATE VOCABULARY:
Plan
the steps given by the affirmative team to implement the resolution
through a specific policy option
Counterplan
alternative plan to the affirmative proposal—it must be non-topical
Plank
each separate step of a plan
Resolution
the formal statement of the issue to be debated
PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Planning is a valuable life skill. While it comes naturally for some, planning can be taught
to others through activities.
Activity 1:
Search newspaper articles to identify Who? What? Where? When?
Why?
How?
Activity 2:
Activity 3:
Activity 4:
Plan and organize assignments through the use of time lines.
Give students a long term assignment or project. Using a calendar, have the
students fill out the completion date and intermediate check dates. Where will
they need to be at each check date? How will this be accomplished? (It is also
helpful for students to plan times, workplaces and supplies needed.)
Plan a party—real or pretend.
Students should describe their party, then plan all details for the party—
decorations, food, rides, etc.
Plan how to accomplish the following assignment:
You have been assigned to organize a group of students to clean an area of the
roadside that your school has adopted. Set up a plan, then prepare a flyer or
poster with all information. (Include who? what? where? when? why? how?)
DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Activity 1:
Complete the worksheet in the Policy Debate Appendix titled WHO SHOULD
SOLVE THE PROBLEM? Discuss the results. (It is important that students
understand the responsibilities and limitations of different governmental levels
and agencies.)
Activity 2:
Write an outline for a plan or counterplan using the worksheet in the Policy
Debate Appendix titled PLAN OR COUNTERPLAN.
Activity 3:
Ask three adults to read the plan and answer these questions:
1. Do you think this plan will work? Why or why not?
2. Can you see any flaws in the plan?
3. Do you think the time line for change is realistic?
4. What are your suggestions?
TITLE: WRITING A DEBATE SPEECH
OBJECTIVE:
Students will write a debate speech.
Elementary speech is three (3)
minutes
Secondary speech is five (5) minutes
GUIDELINES:
Using writing and organizational skills, students should be able to:
1. Identify those speeches used by both the affirmative and negative team.
2. Identify and understand the components of each of the speeches.
3. Develop an outline for the First Affirmative Constructive, First Negative
Constructive, Second Affirmative Constructive, and Second Negative Constructive
speeches.
4. Organize the speeches into the correct order of delivery.
5. Have a clear understanding of the division of labor associated with each
speech.
DEBATE VOCABULARY:
All of the terms found in DEBATE VOCABULARY, page 9, are important to this activity.
If
this activity is going to be copied and given to the students, that section should be
included.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Present the issue with a quote or snappy saying
B. State the resolution (use the current resolution)
C. Introduce yourself and your partner
II. DEFINITIONS
A. Define any words that are important to your case
B. Clarify any terms or abbreviations used in your speech (such as EPA)
III. CASE
A. I will now present our case
B. The status quo is not working (Inherency)
C. State contentions using at least three main points (They must be complete
sentences.)
Example:
Contention 1: Humans need to be responsible for their water use.
Contention 2: Water is a precious, limited resource.
Contention 3: The protection of our natural environment depends on proper
water allocation.
D. Each main point must have at least one piece of evidence to prove it
E. Each main point may have subpoints as needed Each subpoint must
also have evidence to support it Subpoints are written in complete sentences
IV. PLAN
Purpose is to solve all problems listed in the case. As a change to the format of policy
debate at the junior high level, plan text should be presented in the first affirmative
constructive. This enables the focus of the debate to center around the solution (policy
option) to the problem identified by the topic and for the affirmative rebuttals to be more
a summary of the debate and not the first opportunity to respond to attacks presented by
the negative. Plan text is typically presented after the inherency and harms identified the
affirmative case and is followed by the solvency evidence that focuses on the efficacy of
the affirmative plan. Plan text is a short statement by which the State of Utah will
address the harms presented by a policy action.
A. Key the plan with words Example: “To solve our water problems we present the
following plan.”
B. Plan must tell who will carry out the plan (government, agency, department—new or
existing) and tell how the policy will be carried out and how it will solve the problem
V. ADVANTAGES
What will your plan do to solve the problems?
A. Key it with words such as “The affirmative plan will accrue the following advantages:
1.
Water will be used wisely.
2. Our natural environment will be protected.”
VI. ENDING
A. Go back to your opening statement or have another snappy saying
B. Give a persuasive statement to the judges about your speech
(Note: See Policy Debate Appendix for CASE
PRESENTATIONS)
FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Introduce yourself and your team (negative)
B. My partner and I do not support the proposed resolution “(use current
resolution)”
C. We think...
II. ATTACK FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
A. My opponent says ____________, but I disagree because ____________
B. Hit every single reason that the first affirmative constructive mentions (be sure
to
flow)
C. Key words: Where is the proof?
I disagree!
D. Use evidence, examples, and logic
III. CASE
A. Say “I will now present the negative case.”
B. List all the reasons why your team feels the way you do—use examples and
evidence
C. Key words: “The status quo is just fine (give reasons for
this).”
D. Number your reasons if you wish, and use fingers to emphasize
E. This is your BIG job—spend most of your time here
IV. CONCLUSION
A. Summarize—mention your most important reason(s) again
B. Restate—the status quo is just fine!
C. Snappy ending
(Note: See Policy Debate Appendix for CASE PRESENTATIONS)
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. State your name
B. My partner and I support the resolution (do not repeat the resolution)
II. ATTACK THE FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
A. My opponent says _____________, but ______________
B. Expose any discrepancies or problems with their case
C. Support these with evidence
III. CASE
(This should be a brief overview, your partner should have done most of
this)
A. Start by saying “Let me review our case.”
B. Repeat only a few of your partner’s reasons
C. Introduce one or two more reasons, but save most of the time for the plan
D. Use evidence and examples to prove the change is needed
IV. PLAN
A. This is your BIG job—spend most of your time here
B. Start by saying: “I shall now explain our plan.”—or “I will now finish explaining
our
plan.”
1. Describe the plan
a. What is it?
b. Who will oversee the plan and be responsible?
c. How will this get done?
d. When will it be done? (give a timeline for completion)
e. Where will take place?
f. Why should this be done?
C. Explain how this will solve the current problems
D. Give reasons for support of your plan
V. CONCLUSION
A. The status quo is NOT working—summarize reasons
B. Restate the advantages of your plan and why it will work
C. End with a snappy saying or a strong statement of persuasion
(Note: See Policy Debate Appendix for CASE
PRESENTATIONS)
SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Introduce yourself and your team (negative)
B. My partner and I do not support the resolution: “(use current resolution)”
C. We think...
II. ATTACK SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
A. “The affirmative plan can only cause harm.” Give reasons, examples, and
evidence
B. Your BIG job is to attack the affirmative’s plan
C. You may also attack their case (reasons) if your partner forgot to, or if you have
a
better example
D. Key words: I disagree!
Where is the proof?
III. COUNTER PLAN
A.
Only if you want to—this tactic is not necessary
IV. CONCLUSION
A. This is also your BIG job—spend time on it
B. Restate the resolution; state that it isn’t necessary
C. The main point is ______________, and the affirmative team has not
D. Have a snappy ending
(Note: See Policy Debate Appendix for CASE PRESENTATIONS)
ORDER OF SPEECHES
CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES:
3 minutes for elementary; 5 minutes middle/junior high school
FIRST
AFFIRMATIVE
FIRST NEGATIVE
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
SECOND
NEGATIVE
RECESS:
2 minutes to look over flow charts
Plan with your partner and decide who will attack each point and who will
restate evidence and position
REBUTTAL SPEECHES:
1 1/2 minutes for elementary; 2 1/2 minutes for middle/junior high school
FIRST
NEGATIVE
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE
SECOND NEGATIVE
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
DIVISION OF LABOR
CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Introduces self and partner; presents resolution; defines terms; outlines harms
in
the status quo; presents case; and introduces plan and advantages.
Needs organization, persuasion, and clarity.
FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Introduces self and partner (do not need to restate resolution); refutes case
and
definitions presented by first affirmative; disagrees with each harm; argues
topicality if appropriate; presents own definitions; explains negative points; and
emphasizes negative position.
Should be persuasive and clear.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Refutes first negative point by point (say something about everything); preserves
original case organization; addresses all arguments and if negative has missed an
argument, points it out, repeats it and summarizes it; making sure the what (is the plan),
why(is it needed), when(time line), who(will do it) and how(will it be funded) are included
in the details of the plan; proves harm exists and will get worse if the current trend
continues.
SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
Attacks plan and advantages presented by first and second affirmative; uses workability
of plan, solvency of plan and disadvantages caused by the plan. Be creative!
Refute
any second affirmative arguments (or any arguments left from first affirmative).
See Rebuttals for division of labor in rebuttals.
TITLE:
DELIVERY
OBJECTIVE:
Students use speaking skills and a persuasive
style to deliver their information to the
judge(s).
These skills include controlling and varying vocal
projection and expression,
making eye contact,
displaying confidence through voice and body
language and
using persuasive techniques.
Delivery also includes being aware of and
observing
time limits.
GUIDELINES:
Using delivery skills, students should be able to:
1. Speak in a strong, pleasant, and clear voice that can be easily heard and understood. A
variety of pitch and volume can add interest and persuasion to the speaker’s points.
2. Maintain a pace that is neither too fast nor too slow, but vary the pace
occasionally for interest.
3. Stand straight and tall with no fidgeting, rocking, or distracting movements, but
give a natural appearance of confidence with voice expression, eye contact, and
gestures that come easily.
4. Use time to think and to choose words carefully. The more comfortable with the
topic the students become, the easier it is to be fluent and speak without ‘ums’, ‘ers’,
‘okays’ or nervous panic.
5. Visual aids are not appropriate in a debate. Delivery depends on style and
information used.
6. The effectiveness of the delivery is often as important in the judging of a debate
as the arguments and refutations.
DEBATE VOCABULARY:
Fluency
the ability to speak knowledgeably about the debate topic with a comfort-able
pace and smooth delivery
Gestures
movements of the body or parts of the body to express or emphasize
ideas and emotions [Gestures should be natural, not exaggerated, and should add to
your delivery, not detract.]
Impromptu
speaking on a topic with a short amount of preparation time
Pace the rate at which a speaker delivers his/her ideas, arguments, and refutation in a
debate
[A very fast rate of delivery is called “spewing” and is not appropriate in an
elementary debate. Advanced debaters may pick up the pace of delivery but
“spewing” is still not recommended.]
Persuasive
to speak with conviction and emphasis using tone of voice, pace, and gestures
as well as reasoning, analysis, and evidence [Correct pronunciation and
knowledge of the topic is necessary for a persuasive argument to be convincing.
Opening statements and rebuttals are important times to be convincing and
persuasive.]
Projection
the ability to make your voice heard clearly and distinctly at a distance;
also the ability to project feelings and emotions into your voice
Tone
the quality of your voice that includes pitch and clarity of words
PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
NOTE: Students require a supportive atmosphere from teacher and peers to gain the
necessary practice to become comfortable with public speaking. Give time for students
to talk about fears and concerns as well as numerous opportunities to speak in front of
small and large groups. It is important for students to know that stage fright is common
to everyone.
Activity 1:
Discuss experiences students have had speaking in front of groups. How did
they feel? What are their concerns? Add your own experiences. Compare
feelings about speaking to a thermometer. The temperature goes up (nerves,
fears, etc.) as time to speak gets closer. It’s normal. The temperature comes
back down as you finish speaking. A feeling of accomplishment is a big part of
speaking.
Activity 2:
Give rewards and support in the way of applause, positive comments,
certificates, or points. Involve the students in picking out what others do well. Also, give
students many opportunities to speak; the more practice students get, the easier it
becomes.
Activity 3:
Give guidelines for speeches so students know what to expect but build
gradually. Start simple, adding techniques and skills as you go. Too much, too soon can
be overwhelming, especially for beginning debaters.
Activity 4:
Help students understand that the audience is important in the speaking process.
Make a list of what makes a good audience. Have audience practice listening
skills and audience skills while others give speeches.
PRE-DEBATE DELIVERY ACTIVITIES:
Activity 1:
Depending on class size, divide into groups of 10 or less and have each group
form a circle. Give group(s) a talking stick that allows each member to talk as
long as they have the stick. Give a signal to pass the stick to the next person.
Another variation is to tie a large piece of yarn into a circle. Make a knot where
the yarn is tied. Students hold onto the yarn, moving it in the circle. First student
speaks until the knot reaches him/her, then the next per-son begins speaking
until the knot reaches him/her. Students may speak on their choice of topics or
list ideas for topics on the board.
Activity 2:
Start a chart of ‘Speaking Do’s and Don’ts’ or ‘Speaking Yes’s and Speaking
No’s.’ Add one and then practice it with a speech that would be particularly
important for that skill, For example: voice projection might be writing and giving
a cheer for your school, for homework, a subject in school, or for a team; word
emphasis could be taking a sentence and changing the meaning of the sentence
by changing the emphasis on each word (He hit me on the nose.); gestures
might be playing charades, using not only titles of songs, books, and shows but
slogans from the world of advertising, quotations, and phrases that are familiar to
students.
Activity 3:
Watch videos of or listen to speeches such as Martin Luther King’s “I Have a
Dream” or inaugural addresses or reenact historic speeches and have students
evaluate the effective delivery of the speech.
Activity 4:
Help students become more comfortable with speaking in front of a group by
doing choral readings starting with larger groups and growing smaller as students
become more at ease. Each chorus should have a leader whose most important
task is to make sure the group begins together and keeps at the correct pace.
The leader also can control the volume that may change as well as the
expression in the reading. Poems, short stories, jokes, and even passages from
a textbook can be used for choral readings.
Activity 5:
Have students read nursery rhymes demonstrating a particularly poor speaking
skill or positive speaking skill and have class see if they know what speaking skill
is being demonstrated.
Activity 6:
As a class, write an evaluation form for a speech using the many skills you have
been discussing and a rating scale that everyone feels comfortable with. This
could be combined with the organizational parts of the speech. See the SPEECH
EVALUATION FORM in the Policy Debate Appendix as an example.
Activity 7:
Have students read poetry to the class using one or all of the speaking skills they
have been learning.
Activity 8:
Have students write an introduction of themselves or a classmate demonstrating
as many speaking skills as they can.
Activity 9:
Show and Tell—Have students bring an interesting object from home and give a
detailed description of it. They may describe the object while showing it or place
it in a sack and see if students can guess what it is from the description. Give
guidelines for length of time students can take for a ‘show and tell’ speech.
Activity 10:
Use the opportunity for students to stand in front of a group in as
many
subject areas as possible. Instead of handing in written papers, have
oral
delivery. Examples: oral book reports, presentations on science and
social
studies points or trends, etc.
Activity 11:
a. Impromptu Speech—Write 3 topics on the board:
My favorite sport...
My favorite hobby...
My favorite place...
Students choose one of the topics and give a one minute impromptu
speech.
b. Impromptu Speech—Write 3 new topics on the board:
My biggest irritation...
I get discouraged when...
I hate it when...
Give a one minute impromptu speech with a great beginning.
c. Impromptu Speech—Can be used as a filler at any time during the day. Put a
variety of topics in a jar and have student draw one. See SPEAKING SKILLS
PRACTICE in the Policy Debate Appendix for topic ideas. If students feel
really uncomfortable with the topic they picked, they may choose one more
time.
d. Impromptu Speech—Defend or support a quote or a proverb. See the RESOURCES
section in the Policy Debate Appendix for examples.
Activity 12:
Students may write a ‘How-To’ speech and then demonstrate the ‘how to’
as
they give the speech.
Activity 13:
Students bring an object from home and ‘sell’ it as a product,
convincing
other students they must have it.
Activity 14:
Students pick a topic from a list of topic ideas and prepare a minute and a half
speech at home concentrating on a great beginning and conclusion. Have
students write their speech on note cards to get used to using the cards as they
talk. When delivering the speech for the class, work on speaking skills. As
students become more comfortable with speaking in front of the group, fill out the
SPEECH EVALUATION FORM, found in the Policy Debate Appendix, on each
student. Teacher may also video tape students and have them fill out the form on
themselves. When really comfortable with speaking, have students fill out the
form on other students.
AT HOME DELIVERY ACTIVITIES:
Activity 1:
Give speech in front of mirror watching facial expression and eye contact.
Activity 2:
better.
Speak for family members and ask for pointers to help make speech
Activity 3:
Deep breathing can be helped by reading a speech while holding a chair out in
front of you with straight arms (no resting chair on chest or anything else). Place
the speech on the seat of the chair while you read it out loud. This forces
breathing from the diaphragm. Breathing this way gives speakers more air and
also helps control the pitch of the voice.
Activity 4:
Practice enunciation by slowly reading a card, exaggerating the hard consonants
(g, t, k, p, b, d, etc.) and enunciating each and every syllable. Then build up
speed while continuing to over-enunciate. Another enunciation activity is to read
a card with a pencil (sideways) in mouth. Practice reading tongue twisters.
Activity 5:
Try to get in a rhythm by reading to music with a constant beat.
DEBATE DELIVERY ACTIVITIES:
Many of the above activities can be done with the debate topic.
Activity 1:
Take an issue that may be divided into two or more points of view. Students
choose to speak on one point of view. Audience votes for the speaker that is
more convincing.
Example: Who gets the water during water rationing?
Points of view: agriculture
recreation
manufacturing and mining
home
consumer
Censorship of music lyrics and videos
Points of view: consumer
parents
producers
artist
government
Activity 2:
Speak for one minute about the resolution—affirmative or negative or a
combination.
Activity 3:
Videotape the prepared part of the constructive speech and fill out an
evaluation form on it. Pick out parts for improvement.
Activity 4:
Videotape a practice debate and critique as a class.
Activity 5:
Mark cards (if needed) for places to make eye contact, to breathe, or to say a
word or words with emphasis.
NOTES:
TITLE: EVIDENCE
OBJECTIVE:
Students use the skill of research to read for
evidence, distinguish
between fact and opinion,
and record and evaluate sources or information.
GUIDELINES:
Using research skills, students should be able to:
1. Understand that only fact and the opinions of leading authorities in the field, backed
by
facts, are considered as substantial evidence.
2. Identify evidence as fact or opinion and use it appropriately in a debate.
3. Take notes written in a format which gives easy access to the debater and
includes
sources.
4. Obtain research from a variety of sources and evaluate it for appropriate use as
fact
or opinion.
DEBATE VOCABULARY:
Affirmative
the side in the debate arguing in favor of the resolution; the side that wants to
change the status quo
Evidence
facts, statistics, and expert testimony given in support of an argument
Negative
the side of the debate arguing against the resolution
Plan
the steps given by the affirmative team to implement the resolution through a
specific policy option
Resolution
the formal statement of the issue to be debated
PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
The skills of gathering and using evidence can be taught across the curriculum. When
this skill is taught before the introduction of the debate resolution and related debate
skills, the student is prepared to gather and use evidence in the debate much more
effectively.
Activity 1:
Use evidence to support answers to questions.
In reading literature, science, or social studies materials students are generally
given questions to test comprehension. Require students to support answers to
questions with facts and quotes from the reading material, giving the page
number and the source builds skills to evaluate and use evidence.
Activity 2:
Distinguish between fact and opinion.
Using newspapers and news magazines to discover differing opinions on a
topic is helpful in teaching students that all information in print is not fact.
Identifying differences between a front page newspaper report and an editorial
helps to clarify fact and opinion.
Give students a subject in science, literature, or social studies and have
them list five facts and five opinions about the subject.
Provide students an opinion on a subject or issue and have them find five facts to
support the opinion. A guideline for finding facts to support an opinion is to find
facts supporting the credibility of the person giving the opinion.
Activity 3:
Develop good research skills.
Reading an article for evidence requires the skill of identifying main ideas and
ideas related to a topic.
Read an article together as a class and ask students to underline or highlight the
three or four words most important in the paragraph. Students can then share
and compare words they underlined. Help them evaluate their choice by writing
the words on a card (note taking).
Ask: What can you recall about the paragraph from the words on the card?
Ask: How are the words on the card related to the topic?
Students need to repeat this activity many times, in different situations, to learn
the skill of identifying important information which precedes note taking.
Use of questions helps students to conduct meaningful research.
Identify a topic for study such as habitat of an animal or economics of a particular
country. Have students write questions about the topic and then look for answers to their
questions. Students without research skills generally copy any information that includes
the key word of their topic without evaluating the information for value or personal
comprehension. Searching for answers to their own questions and only writing that
information teaches them to look for appropriate research.
Interviewing authorities is a valuable research tool.
Students can begin learning the skill of interviewing as a research tool by
interviewing parents about a subject or issue, then interviewing a principal,
librarian, or school counselor, and then interviewing an authority in the field
of science or social studies. An interview should always include the
following
components, and should be practiced before it is conducted:
1.
Purpose of the interview
2. Questions to be asked
3. Planned introduction to the person to be interviewed
4. Recording answers to questions
5. Report of interview which includes qualifications of the person interviewed
related to the topic and purpose of the interview
Activity 4: Students should be familiar with basic note taking skills.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Notes can be paraphrased in the student’s own words
Notes can be quoted (copied) directly and should be identified
as quotes
Sources should always be included with notes
Notes should include a title or identifying subject word
Only one subject or idea should be on a card
Students can “cut and paste” information on a card
Notes should be organized in some way to enable appropriate use
Reading a research article together and preparing note cards as a class is an
important first step in note taking.
A chapter in a science book, an article in a magazine, a short encyclopedia
article, or an article from the internet may be used as a beginning activity in
learning to take notes. Read the material one paragraph at a time. Ask: What
information in this paragraph is related to our topic or question? Record on a card
three or four words only of the related information. Write the most important word
of the topic or question related to the information as the subject of the card. Write
the source, author, name of article, and date on the card.
Continue the activity
through the chapter or article. When the subject of the card changes, a new card
must be used. The following day, students can use their note cards to give a brief
oral summary of the material read or write a summary paragraph of the
material.
Taking notes from a video or a speaker helps with listening skills.
Before taking notes from a video or a speaker, students need to know what they
are listening for. The teacher should identify several questions or topics and have
the students write the questions or topics and leave space for their notes. A
simple statement like write five facts about ____topic_____ gives direction.
Students begin with a misunderstanding that they are to record every word said
and so they do not listen for meaning but listen for words.
Using a famous speech or speaker such as Martin Luther King’s speech, “I
Have a Dream,” is a good lesson in note taking. First ask students to record
every word. After a few minutes students are completely lost, stop and evaluate
the difficulty of trying to record every word. Ask: “What would be a better
approach to taking notes?” Recording key words or ideas that are part of the
topic, ‘I have a dream,’ would eliminate many words. Recording key words
without accompanying explanation would eliminate many words. Using symbols
or letters for often repeated words would be helpful.
Activity 5:
Learn to effectively evaluate research.
Students beginning in research generally believe all their research information
is of equal value and wish to use every note they have. Learning to choose the
more significant research is a valuable skill. Group students in small groups of
three or four. Ask a question related to the topic of research. Each group
should choose three pieces of information from their research to answer the
question. They may only choose three and all in the group must agree that the
three pieces of information are the most appropriate.
DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Evidence is vital in debate. If students have had experience in pre-debate activities
which
have given them the skills of gathering and using evidence, they are more prepared
to
gather and use the evidence related to the debate resolution.
Activity 1:
Introduce debate with the resolution, and as a class study the topic and
the
vocabulary.
The KWH model is helpful in beginning to gather and use evidence. K—whatdo
we know? W—what do we want to find out? H—how shall we find informa-tion?
Often students study only the topic—pollution, traffic congestion, water
use—
and do not study other aspects—county, state, or federal
government,
programs or mandate, etc. It is important to gather evidence on all
areas of
the resolution.
K—KNOW: First brainstorm as a class all the information known about
all
areas of the resolution. This would include the topic, vocabulary, who
would
be involved, and the action stated in the resolution. Encourage students
to
look at the resolution from different points of view, the stakeholders,
those
who have an interest in the topic and what is happening, and what
could
happen.
W—WHAT: After listing what is known, list questions that the students
haverelated to the resolution. Questions should be about the resolution; notabout
strategies of debate.
H—HOW: As a class, determine the best way to find information about each
of
the questions. Assign individuals to small groups to research answers
to
questions and to bring information to the class, remembering to list
sources.
If students have had experience in gathering evidence, they will have
the
skills to complete this activity more easily.
At this point gathered evidence is shared by the class and information may
not
be labeled affirmative or negative. Students are encouraged not to take
sides.
Activity 2:
Notes for debate should be easy for the student to use.
As students begin gathering evidence, it is important they have a variety
of
experiences in preparing note cards. SAMPLE EVIDENCE CARDS can be
found
in the Policy Debate Appendix.
1 Sources
Students do not like the busy work of writing a source on each card,
yet
it is vital that each piece of evidence have a source. Students can use a
card or
paper listing all sources and labeling each source with a capital
letter—A, B, C. They
can then use the letter representing the source on
the debate card.
2 Subject and category
It is easy to find and use cards if students title each card
with the subject and also code it to categories—Affirmative, Negative, Definition,
Plan.
Color coding the top corner according to the category is helpful. As
students begin
research without identifying affirmative and negative,
they may not mark all cards as to
category in the beginning of gathering
evidence.
3 Evidence availability
Depending on time available, coaches may determine how
much time is
spent in students gathering evidence. If time is limited, coaches
may
gather the evidence and facilitate students in preparing cards from
the
evidence.
The National Energy Foundation sponsors a content workshop, usually
inFebruary, which provides evidence on the current debate resolution.Some
of this information needs to be summarized or simplified by thecoach;
however,much of it is readily useable by the student.
Activity 3:
Types of evidence:
1 Statistics Broad picture of an issue
Students need to have skill in reading charts,
tables, and
graphs
2 Examples Facts to apply to one or a number of instances
3 Facts Information accepted as true
4 Opinion An authority who is reliable and an expert in the topic
The opinion must
be based on facts
Students should work to find at least one example of each of the types of
NOTES:
Stephen Douglas, the
Democratic candidate, to a series of debates. Stephen Douglas
was well known for his
speaking skills and Lincoln was gangly with a high-pitched
voice. Yet, using logic, Lincoln
w
DEBATE SKILL
5
TITLE:REASONING
OBJECTIVE:
Students will use the skill of reasoning to bring
ideas together to form a logical
argument.
Reasoning uses the higher level thinking skill of
synthesis as students
identify main points, support each with evidence, explain relationships,
and draw
conclusions.
GUIDELINES:
Using reasoning skills, students should be able to:
1 Identify the steps that move toward a conclusion.
2 Explain how the evidence supports each main point. (Each step in reasoning is a
main
point which is supported with evidence.)
3 Connect ideas in a logical way by showing relationships.
4 Explain the relationships in terms of their affirmative or negative points.
5 Explain how the conclusion reached relates to the affirmative or negative main
points.
DEBATE VOCABULARY:
the nature or character of the problem or
issue [This describes a feature that
already exists and will continue to exist.
The affirmative must use reasoning to
explain how the affirmative plan can
reduce or eliminate this feature. The
negative reasoning needs to show that
this feature cannot be reduced or
eliminated by the affirmative plan or reasoning.]
the impact, importance, or scope of an
issue or a part of the issue [The
affirmative must give reasoning to show
the resolution is significant. Each of the
main points should have significance. The
negative must give reasoning to show
that the resolution does not address a
significant problem or issue.]
the term meaning the problem can be
solved [The affirmative reasons that the
problems identified in the resolution can
be solved with the affirmative plan. The
negative reasons that the problems are
Inherent
Significant
Solvency
being solved by the status quo and that the affirmative plan will bring
harm
rather than solvency.]
PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Reasoning is a skill that can be used in many areas. Students need to develop this
skill
before formal debate study, so their research, note taking, and development of
argument
will fit together in a logical, reasoning format.
Activity 1:
Learn to provide reasons for answers and comments.
Students should develop the skill of adding at least one piece of evidence
to
answers or comments they give.
Example:
Who is the main character of the story?
Why do you
think ____________ is the main character?
Example:
In which kingdom do we find
mushrooms?
Why are mushrooms
classified in that kingdom?
Students should soon discover that an answer, opinion or fact, is not
sufficient; there must be evidence, an idea, fact, or explanation to
support the
answer or comment. Soon, a simple why? will be reminder
enough.
Activity 2:
Understanding and skill in solving math story problems or any problem
that
involves more than simple computation is strengthened by adding
reasoning.
Choose one problem a day and ask students to fold a paper in
half lengthwise; have them write the answer with the work on one side of
the paper
and, on the opposite side, write an explanation of how they
arrived at the
answer. Asking for an explanation of a computation
problem such as why do
we add numerators and not denominators or
why does borrowing in subtraction work, helps students to develop
reasoning skills. Teachers generally give
the reasoning explanation, and
then if the student can work the problem,
teachers assume
understanding. Most often, however, it is not reasoning
which provides
the correct answer but following the recipe the teacher
demonstrated.
Activity 3:
Effective reasoning comes in a hierarchy of steps; each higher level
carries
more weight or power.
Level 1 (simple):
Benefits me — “I want it or it will make me happy.”
Level 2 (power):
Punishment or reward — “I won’t like you.
I’ll punish you. You can have a prize if
you do it.”
Level 3
Benefits others — “It will help mankind. We’re
helping the class. We’re saving the environment for
the future.”
Role play with students. Have them argue for something they want.
Show
them the weakness of a Level 1 argument or how often tantrums
are really a
Level 1. This is an activity they enjoy, and they discover the
levels of their
own arguments. Pushing them to give Level 3 arguments
develops their reasoning skills.
or
Activity 4:
Example:
Learn to effectively show
relationships.
A vital step in the debate
process is the connecting
of points or ideas to move
to a logical conclusion.
This is often the skill least
used by the young
Give a Level 3 reason why
this should be an open
book test. Give a Level 3
reason why the school
should not cancel recess
Physical Education. Give a
Level 3 reason why we use
the scientific method.
debater.
For students to understand
the value of relationships
in using reasoning,
activities connecting a flow of ideas to a logical and true conclusion are
necessary .
Relationships are a connection between ideas which meet together in a
conclusion. If information is left out, the conclusion can be incorrect.
Example: A bird has two legs. A bird likes sunflower seeds. A bird
can
sing.
Karen has two legs. Karen likes sunflower seeds on her salad. Karen sings in the school choir. Therefore, Karen is a bird.
Answering a question in any subject area, using this guide is helpful in
seeing
reasoning with relationships.
Example:
Because 1. _____________
and 2. _____________;
therefore,
_____________ is
true.
Because 1. the general public could not read during the MiddleAges and 2. the
printing press was invented at the close of theMiddle Ages and 3. more changes
and inventions happenedafter the Middle Ages, therefore, the ability to read
affectschangeis true.
DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Evidence needs to be organized in a way to produce reasoning.
Activity 1: Write the resolution on the board and the words For and Against. Ask
stu
dents to name all the reasons why they are for the resolution—list them on
the board. Ask students to name all the reasons why they are against the
resolution—list them on the board.
With the class, revise the reasons listed and add those you believe were
missed
until you have a list of points for the affirmative and negative arguments.
Students should write each point on a card and then organize their
evidence
cards under each point. If a point has none or limited evidence, this is
an
area where students can research more evidence.
Activity 2: Developing points for reasoning:
Using the guide: fact, fact, fact, therefore ____________ is true, given
in
the pre-debate activities, students should use three of the points to
lead to
a true statement.
Example: 1. Pollution is harmful to the environment and to our health.
1 Increased population increases traffic and pollution.
2 The government is elected to protect and care for our state
and its
citizens.
therefore—the resolution that the state of Utah should
implement a program to decrease pollution within our state is
necessary.
As students prepare each point to lead to their conclusion, they must
show
the relationship. This is shown with the evidence.
Limiting points of argument:
Beginning debaters often use their evidence cards as points in their
argument without showing relationships. Often these cards are given as
points in
their argument and can add up to ten or more points. Debaters
are better to
limit their points to three and develop those points with
reasoning and relationships. Requiring debaters to limit their points helps
them to use reasoning and evidence.
Activity 3: Using reasoning in refutation.
Each point identified in the reasoning step should be used to prepare
a
debate brief (argument) both for and against. Each brief should
include the
following:
1 an introductory statement which includes opinion
2 at least three pieces of evidence to support your opinion
3 a concluding statement which strengthens the relationship
to other points
or to the resolution for or against
The affirmative team needs to be prepared to refute all negative
arguments;
therefore, preparing rebuttal briefs for each point will help
them be prepared
in refutation.
Likewise, the negative team needs to be prepared to refute all
affirmative
arguments; therefore rebuttals must be prepared for each
point.
Activity 4: Practicing reasoning develops this essential debate skill.
Students should present and support a point through reasoning and
also
argue against that point through reasoning.
Choose a point, affirmative or negative. Ask two students to prepare
briefs
both for and against the point. The first speaker is given one
minute to present one brief. The second speaker must then choose from
his/her prepared
briefs, the correct one to use in rebuttal. Debaters are
to be prepared with
DEBATE SKILL 6
TITLE:REFUTATION
OBJECTIVE:
Students will use the skill of listening to
identify
opposing arguments and conclusions.
Arguments
given by the other team are refuted
throughout
the constructive speeches as well as
the rebuttals by pointing out the problems, flaws,
concerns, or errors in the opponents’
arguments.
Reasoning, analysis, and evidence
are used to
refute the opposing arguments.
GUIDELINES:
Using reasoning, analysis, and evidence skills, students should be able to:
1 Refute the problems, concerns, and disadvantages of the opposing arguments.
2 Refute all arguments of the opposing team. (Never refute arguments NOT given
by
the opposing team.)
3 Keep track of the arguments on a FLOW CHART (found on page 64 of the
PolicyDebate Appendix). Key words, main ideas, abbreviations, and symbols can be
used onthe flow chart to record arguments.
4 Use refutation as the negative team to emphasize that the significance of the
issue is
not as serious as the affirmative team is claiming (significance); question the
ability
of the affirmative plan to solve the problem (solvency); prove the affirmative
change
will cause more harm than the status quo (harm); or point out missing links in
case
arguments.
5 Use refutation as the affirmative team to counter the negative arguments by
using
evidence of significant problems in the current system; emphasize the need
for
change; point out missing links in case arguments; and show the flaws in the
negative
arguments.
DEBATE VOCABULARY:
Analysis the higher level thinking skill of breaking down an idea into its parts (parts
may be comparisons, contracts, causes and effects, and trends) [In debate, analysis follows a fairly standard process of finding pro and con
positions on the issues.]
facts, statistics, and expert testimony
Evidence
given in support of an argument
a system of keeping track of arguments
given in a debate [Teams keep track of
the opposing arguments as well as
making notes about the refutation done
Flow chart
by the other team of their own arguments
in order to respond to the refutations.
Arguments should be marked as having
been refuted or having not been refuted.
A flow chart is for the personal use of
each team and is not shown to the judges
or other team.]
an undesirable impact or result brought
about by a plan or policy
the higher level thinking skill of synthesis
used to identify main points, sup-port
each with evidence, explain relationships,
and draw conclusions
the second speech of each debater is the
last opportunity to refute the opponents’
arguments [It is the time to summarize the
debate from the perspective of the
speaker, persuade the judge to your point
of view, and restate your case.]
reasoning and evidence given by one
side in a debate to oppose the oppo-
Harm
Reasoning
Rebuttal
Refute
nents’ arguments and conclusions
Significance the importance of the problems that are created because of current
inadequacies in the present system [(See Debate Skill 5: Reasoning)
Negative refutes the affirmative claim of
significance by showing that the
resolution does not address a significant
problem or issue or that the
status quo is already addressing the issue.]
Solvency
the term meaning the problem can be solved [Affirmative reasons
that problems identified can be solved with the affirmative plan; negative reasons
that problems are being solved by the status quo
and that the affirmative plan
will bring harm rather than solvency.]
Status quo
the present system, the existing order [The status quo is that which
would be changed by adopting the affirmative
plan.]
PRE-DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Listening Skills:
Activity 1:
Activity 2:
Divide into groups of two. Assign a topic
of interest to the students. One student
begins and speaks for one minute. When
time is up, the second stu-dent
summarizes what the first student has
said. Trade places and repeat activity.
Topics such as: What I do in my spare
time My favorite hobby If I could have
three wishes
The best vacation I ever had
What makes me nervous
What makes me angry are things
students find easy to share.
Do the same activity but divide into
groups of three. The third person evaluates the listener on his response to the
speaker. This person must listen carefully
to both people. Rotate the position of
speaker, listener, and evalua-tor.
Listen to recordings of songs or
speeches. Ask questions about key points
or sequence of events. Listen for certain
instruments, for rhythms, words, or
sounds in the recordings.
Divide a paper into squares. Can be 16,
2, 9, or 8 squares. Share a story with the
students from a children’s book and have
them record one key idea in each square.
If you choose an unfamiliar story,
students will have to judge what the
important ideas are in the story. They
should try to fill all squares using key
words, symbols, shortcuts, and
representations of their ideas.
Activity 3:
Activity 4:
They then retell the story to a partner.
Note: Listening skills should be
part of all curriculum areas and many teacher manuals
have listening skill
activities.
Note Taking Skills:
Activity 1:
Read together an article from a newspaper, magazine, etc., and highlight
the
key words from the topic of the article.
Activity 2:
As a class make a chart of abbreviations or symbols of commonly
used
words. Hang in classroom and refer to it often.
Activity 3:
Activity 4:
Have students listen to a newscast and write down key words of one of
the
events being reported.
Listen to speeches, teacher presentations, or other student
presentations
and practice taking notes. Share notes with a partner and
compare the similarities and differences in the notes.
Refutation Skills:
Activity 1:
Choose an issue in school or in current events. Have students write an
opinion (I support because... or I do not support because...) on the issue
on a
piece of paper. Fold the paper into a paper airplane. Get into a
circle, on the
count of three everyone flies his/her plane. Have students
pick up a plane
that has landed close to where they are standing.
Choose a student to read
the opinion on the airplane and then refute the
argument with an opposing
argument.
Activity 2:
In small groups, come up with a definition of a common object that comes
in
many different shapes or forms (such as chair, shelter, etc.). Have a
group
share their definition and other groups refute the definition by
sharing examples that may be different than the definition or by showing
how the definition is not complete.
Activity 3:
On the board, brainstorm a list of supporting arguments for an
issue.
Opposite each argument, find a problem in that argument. Point
out that by
finding the problems in the argument, you are refuting the
argument.
Activity 4:
Find articles in newspapers, magazines, etc. that try to show two sides of
an
issue. Discuss if the problems, flaws, or missing links of both sides
are discussed or are they just stating their own arguments.
DEBATE ACTIVITIES:
Activity 1:
Brainstorm key words, representations, and symbols that pertain to
the
debate topic. Add to the chart in the room.
Activity 2:
As a class read one or more articles about the debate topic to pick out
key
words and important ideas. Try to find articles on both sides of the
topic.
Activity 3:
Pair students as partners, one affirmative student and one negative
student.
The affirmative student begins and talks for one minute, with the
negative
student listening for main points. Practice writing down the key
words of the
debate. As students learn more about the topic, have the
negative student
refute the affirmative arguments. Switch, and have the
negative talk one
minute and affirmative write key words and think of
refutations.
Activity 4:
Make a T-chart on the board. Brainstorm affirmative arguments on one
side
of the ‘T’ and the refuting argument on the other side. Do the same
for negative arguments.
Activity 5:
Flow a practice or mock debate on the board or overhead
projector.
Determine how to mark arguments refuted or not refuted
(dropped). Think
of ways to help the flow be easily read such as using
different colored ink for
affirmative, negative, plan, refuted, or dropped
arguments; arrows forward
for continuation of or extensions of arguments and arrows back to
arguments from refutations. (See Policy Debate Appendix for a
sample FLOW
CHART.)
Activity 6:
Have debate partners make up cards with refutations for opposing
arguments. Organize so that they may be easily found in a debate.
Rebuttal Skills:
Rebuttals:
The final speech given by each debater—this speech rebuilds arguments
that
have been attacked, refutes the opposition’s arguments, and
summarizes
the debate. It is an opportunity to persuade the judge(s) to
your side of the
debate. No new arguments are allowed in a rebuttal but
extensions of arguments are allowed. It is also an opportunity to further
explain evidence used
earlier in the debate. It is NOT the time to just
reread the same evidence
unless more explanation is given along with
that evidence. Also, do not
refute any arguments not addressed by the
opposing team.
When summarizing the debate, it is important to look at the stock issues
in
the debate. These are issues the judge(s) will take into consideration
as he
marks a ballot (see sample DEBATE BALLOT in Policy Debate
Appendix).
They are called voting issues in high school debate.
Stock Issues in a Debate:
Stock issues are those that the affirmative side should support by reasoning and
evidence
and reemphasize in the rebuttal. The negative can refute these stock issues
with reasoning and evidence by minimizing the significance and harm in the system or
defending
the present system as solving any problems.
Significance
the importance of the problems that are created because of
current
inadequacies in the present system
Inherency
a problem that is part of the status quo that exists and will
continue
to exist in the absence of the affirmative plan
Solvency
the ability of the plan given by the affirmative team to solve the
problem or problems outlined in the affirmative case
Harm
an undesirable condition in the system that should be given the
attention of policy makers
The main stock issues for the negative side in a debate are disadvantages and
topicality.
Disadvantages
the negative side effects that would result if the affirmative plan
were
put into effect
[These disadvantages will create new harms
to the system.]
Topicality
the affirmative side strays from the topic of the debate [The
plan of the affirmative has little relevance to solving the case
presented by the affirmative team.]
ORDER OF REBUTTAL SPEECHES:
First Negative
Follows second negative constructive. Continues refuting
affirmative case and plan that second negative started in the
constructive. Also picks up any arguments second negative
may
have missed. Restates negative philosophy and points
that
negative put forth in the constructive speeches. Groups
negative arguments to emphasize main points while using
logic and
persuasion.
First Affirmative
Refutes the negative opposition to affirmative’s case and
plan.
Rebuilds case and significance of the topic. Restates why
the plan is
good and will work and why it is needed. Points out
flaws in negative
use. Uses logic and persuasion to show
advantages to affirmative
side.
Second Negative
Summarizes the debate from the negative perspective. The final
word
for the negative team. Reestablishes negative arguments,
definitions,
topicality, and evidence. Points out arguments
affirmative may have
missed or inadequately answered. Refutes
stock issues brought out
by affirmative side.
Second Affirmative:Summarizes the debate from the affirmative perspective. The
final
word in the debate. Briefly recaps the debate—begins with
the plan
and ends with the case. Emphasizes strong issues and
stock issues
made in the constructive speeches. Points out
arguments that negative may have missed. Calls for acceptance of
the plan. Persuades the
judge(s) that the affirmative plan is
necessary.
POLICY DEBATE
APPENDIX
CONTENTS
Advertising Techniques 57
Case Preparations
Affirmative Argument 58Affirmative Plan 59Negative Argument 60Negative Attack on Plan 61
Creative Problem Solving 68
Debate Ballot 62
Sample Evidence Cards 63
Flow Chart 64
Future Scenario 65
P.R.E.P. Talk / Write 66
Plan or Counterplan 67
Resolutions for Practice 71
Resources
Government Agencies 72Private Organizations 73
and AgenciesMagazine Resources 74Proverbs 75Quotations 76
Speaking Skills Practice 78
Speech Evaluation Form 79
Who Should Solve the 70
Problem?
NOTES:
ADVERTISING TECHNIQUES
CASE PREPARATIONS
CASE PREPARATIONS
CASE PREPARATIONS
CASE PREPARATIONS
Negative They plan to (action or funding): Attack on Plan:
Reasoning: This plan will have these bad impacts:
Funding: This plan will cost _________ and that’s too much: Raising this money will
create problems by:
Evidence:
UTAH HIGH SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION DEBATE BALLOT
ROUND _______________________
________________________ AFFIRMATIVE TEAM
NUMBER _________
JUDGE
_______________________ NEGATIVE TEAM NUMBER
FIRST
AFFIRM
ATIVE
5
4
3
Total
2
Rank
1
Name:
FIRST
NEGATI
VE
5
Total
3
Name:
4
2
Rank
1
SECON
D
AFFIRM
ATIVE
5
Name:
4
3
Total
2
1
Rank
SECON
D
NEGATI
VE
Name:
5
4
Total
Rank
3
2
1
SAMPLE EVIDENCE CARDS
Aff.
or
Neg.
Brief Summary
Quote
"_____________________________________________
_____________"
Water Card
Fresh water makes up less than 3% of Earth’s surface.
Water changes, but goes
nowhere.
Power of water is strong. Man can use this power for himself.
Water is motion, everything it touches, changes.
LaQuinta — man-made
lake
“In Celebration of Water”
Water Program on TBS by National Geographic
January 10, 1993
SUGGESTIONS:
1
2
3
4
5
Use 4” x 6” lined cards (three-ring binder may also be used)
Writing must be neat, legible
Limit amount of information on each card to a single complete thought
Record entire source
Use only one side of card if possible
FLOW CHART
First Affirmative
First Negative Rebuttal
Constructive First
Negative
Constructive Second
Affirmative Constructive
First Affirmative
Rebuttal
Second Negative
Rebuttal
Second Affirmative
Rebuttal
FUTURE SCENARIO
–
P. R. E. P. TALK / WRITE
Opening:
P.
=
POINT
State the point you
wish to make
Body: R. =
REASONS Give reasons for the point
E.
=
EVIDENCE &
EXAMPLES Give
evidence and
examples to prove
your point and
reasons
Closing:
P.
=
POINT Restate
your opening point
PLAN OR COUNTERPLAN
1 What is your general plan?
2 Who will be in charge of implementing the plan?
3 Where will the plan be implemented?
4 How will the change be paid for?
5 When do you expect to complete the project or impact the future trend?
6 Why will this plan work? (Give evidence of how same or similar plans have
worked in
CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING
NAME:
__________________________________
DATE:
__________________________________
Topic:
Situation:
Problem:
Subproblems or underlying problems:
Brainstorm at least 10 solutions to the problem or subproblems:
1
2
CREATIVE PROBLEM SOLVING - cont.
Choose 5 of the most positive
solutions, then put them into the solution grid.
GRID
1
2
3
4
5
TOTALS
Criteria
Solution #1
Solution #2
Solution #3
Solution #4
Solution #5
Choose 5 criteria to judge each solution. (Examples: Most cost effective, least amount
of
time, is within current laws of the state, least disruptive to current system, residents
would
accept.)
Rate each of the solutions according to the criteria chosen. Use numbers 1–5 with 5
being
the best and 1 being the least acceptable.
Total each solution. The solution with the highest number should be the best
solution.
Analyze this to see if this is accurate. Will solution create any new problems?
Will it
accomplish what you wish it to?
If your solution seems appropriate, complete the plan worksheet with details of your
plan.
If your plan does not solve the problem or creates too many new problems,
choose another solution.
WHO SHOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
Name: ___________________________________
1. Big problems have smaller related problems.
Your job is to identify the smaller, related problem.
Big Problem
Smaller Problems—identify 4
2. There are many people and groups of people who say they can solve the
problem.
Federal Government
President, Congress, Federal Agencies
State
Government
Governor, Legislature, State Agencies
Local Government
Mayor,
Commissioners, City and County Leaders
Private Citizens
Companies, Organizations, Volunteers, Your Family, You
1 Assignment
Choose one of the smaller problems you listed. Star * that
problem.
RESOLUTIONS FOR PRACTICE
Resolved that all Utah
schools charge a registration fee.
Resolved that all
children who commit serious crimes be tried as
adults.
Resolved that Utah raise the legal driving age to
18.
Resolved that all defense areas cut their budget by
one half within the next year.
Resolved that Utah allow
each child to attend the school of his/her own
choice.
Resolved that the U.S. raise federal income taxes
to help lower the national debt.
Resolved that animals no
longer be used for research.
Resolved that Utah restrict
any rising health care cost.
Resolved that Utah
discontinue kindergarten.
Resolved that Utah discontinue
all school lunch programs.
Resolved that the State of
Utah institute ten minutes of prayer or meditation in
each
school.
Resolved that all students be required to
do at least one hour of homework each night.
Resolved
that all schools go to year-round education.
Resolved that
the State of Utah restrict all students to one hour of TV
viewing each day.
Resolved that the State of Utah restrict
all students to one hour of video game use
each
day.
Resolved that the State of Utah restrict all
students to one hour of internet use each day.
Resolved
that all students attending public schools must wear school
uniforms.
Resolved that Utah adopt an alternative fuel
plan to reduce air pollutants.
Resolved that all businesses
in the State of Utah pay additional taxes to subsidize
the
state highway program.
Resolved that the U.S. cut
further space exploration.
Resolved that the U.S. cut any
further monetary assistance to foreign
countries.
Resolved that the State of Utah pass stricter
gun control laws.
Resolved that the State of Utah pass
and enforce a 10:00 p.m. curfew for children under
the
age of 18.
Resolved that the State of Utah double the
number of juvenile detention centers.
Resolved that the
State of Utah pass stricter laws against drunk
drivers.
Resolved that the State of Utah incorporate a
lottery to aid educational funding.
Resolved that all
elementary schools install pop and candy machines for
student use.
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
United States Supreme Court Building
1 First
Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20544
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations
Suite 2000, Vanguard
Building
1111 Twentieth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20575
Council of Economic Advisors
Old Executive Office Building
Washington, DC
20500
Council on Environmental Quality
722 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC
20006
Department of Agriculture
14th St. & Independence Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC
20250
Department of Commerce
Washington, DC 20230
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1155
Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC
20202
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20585
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington,
DC 20201
Department of Housing and Urban Develop.
451 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington,
DC 20410
Department of the Interior
C Street Between Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Streets,
N.W.
Washington, DC 20240
Department of Justice
Constitution Ave. & 10th St., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Department of Labor
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210
Department of State
2201 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20520
Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590
Department of the Treasury
15th St. & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC
20220
International Bank for
Reconstruction & Development
1818 H Street,
N.W.
Washington, DC 20433
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Export-Import Bank of the United States
811 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC
20571
Federal Election Commission
1325 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20463
International Monetary Fund
700 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC
20431
National Labor Relations Board
1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC
20570
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, CONT.
Representatives and Senators will also provide debate information upon request. Write
your
Representative or Senator in care of United States House of Representatives or
United States
Senate, Washington, DC 20515. Two standard publications available to
debaters are: a
bibliography of materials on the topic, and a publication by the Legislative
Reference Service
which contains reprints of articles and documents related to the topic.
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES Many private organizations provide free or low cost materials. To find a complete list
of
organizations doing work related to the topic consult the Encyclopedia of
Associations for
their names and addresses. This source lists all agencies according to
field and provides a
brief explanation of the organization’s purpose. The following is a
list of organizations providing free or low cost materials.
American Academy of Political Overseas Development Counciland Social Science
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.3937 Chestnut Street Washington, DC
20036Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 The Brookings Institution
American Bar Association 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.750 N. Lake Shore Drive
Washington, DC 20036Chicago, Illinois 60611 Robert Maynard Hutchins
Academy for State & Local Government Center for Study of Democratic Inst.444 N.
Capitol Street, N.W. Box 4068Washington, DC 20001 Santa Barbara, California 93103
American Enterprise Institute for Committee for Economic DevelopmentPublic Policy
Research Suite 700, 1700 K Street, N.W.1150 17th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006
Washington, DC 20036 Public Affairs CommitteeAmerican Medical
Association 381 Park Avenue South535 N. Dearborn Street New York, New
York 10016
Chicago, Illinois 60610 Resources for the FutureLeague of Women Voters of 1755
Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.the United States Washington, DC 200361740 M Street,
N.W.
United Nations Association
of
Washington, DC 20036 the United States of AmericaNational Council on
Crime and 300 E. 42nd StreetDelinquency New York, New York 1001777
Maiden LaneSan Francisco, California 94180
MAGAZINE RESOURCES
Barron’s
Brookings Bulletin
Bulletin of the Environment
Federal Reserve
Bulletin
Forbes
Foreign Affairs
Fortune
Harpers Magazine
Monthly Labor
Review
Nation
Nation’s Business
New Republic
Dun's Review
Education
Digest
Psychology Today
Science
Science News
Scientific American
Time
Today's Education
UNESCO Courier
UN Monthly
Chronicle
U.S. News & World Report
Vital Speeches
New York Times
Magazine
Newsweek
Atomic Scientists
Business Week
Clearing
House
Commentary
Commonwealth
Congressional Digest*
Current
History*
Department of State Bulletin
*These magazines publish issues specifically related to the debate topic each year.
PROVERBS
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.
Do not look a gift horse in the mouth.
Love me, love my dog.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
No news is good news.
When poverty comes in the door, love flies out the window.
When you are in Rome, do as the Romans do.
It is better to travel hopefully than to arrive.
Every advantage has its disadvantage.
One sword keeps the other in the sheath.
A full belly is the mother of all evil.
Look rather on the good of evil men than on the evil of good men.
Who has never tasted what is bitter does not know what is sweet.
He that does not beat his child will later beat his own breast.
Enough is better than too much.
To be happy at home is the ultimate result of all ambition.
I hate a bad man saying what is good.
QUOTATIONS
This will never be a civilized country until we expend more money for books than we do
for
bubble gum.
—Elbert Hubbard
Few friendships would survive if each one knew what his friend says of him behind
his
back.
—Blaise Pascal
In giving advice, seek to help, not please, your friend.
—Solon
Perhaps the most valuable result of all education is the ability to make yourself do
the
thing you have to do, when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not; it is the
first
lesson that ought to be learned, and however early a man’s training begins, it is
probably
the last lesson that he learns thoroughly.
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Smack your child every day. If you don’t know why—he does.
—Joey Adams
Never learn to do anything; if you don’t learn, you’ll always find someone else who’ll do
it
for you.
—Mark Twain
Worship your heroes from afar; contact withers them.
—Madame Necker
Get happiness out of your work or you may never know what happiness is.
—
Elbert Hubbard
He who is not very strong in memory should not meddle with lying.
—Michel de
Montaigne
If ever you have a lump of money large enough to be of any use, and can spare it, don’t
give it
away; find some needed job that nobody is doing and get it done.
—George Bernard Shaw
Treat spring just as you would a friend you have not learned to trust.
—Ed
Howe
Before you can begin to think about politics at all, you have to abandon the notion that
there
is a war between good men and bad men.
—Walter Lippman
When you go to buy, use your eyes, not your ears.
—Czech proverb
Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
—Arabian proverb
Welcome everything that comes to you, but do not long for anything else.
—
Andre Gide
QUOTATIONS, CONT.
Beware, lest in your anxiety to avoid war, you obtain a master.
—Demosthenes
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if
he
had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
—John Stuart Mill
If we take vengeance on vengeance, vengeance will never end.
—Vietnamese proverb
Our national flower is the concrete cloverleaf.
—Lewis Mumford
When I look back, the greatest thing that ever happened to me is that when I first
picked
up a basketball, I was terrible. If things come naturally, you may not bother to
work at
improving them, and you can fall short of your potential.
—Bob Pettit
Reprove thy friend privately, commend him publicly.
—Solon
Be humble, for the worst thing in the world is of the same stuff as you; be confident, for
the
stars are of the same stuff as you.
—Nicholai Velimrovic
It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can do only a little. Do what
you
can.
—Sydney Smith
The possibility that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support
of
a cause we believe to be just.
—Abraham Lincoln
If you marry, you will regret it. If you do not marry, you will also regret it.
—Soren
Kierkegaard
SPEAKING SKILLS PRACTICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
School is good because...
Homework is...
Students should/should not have
chores at home because...
Sports are good/bad because...
Math is...
Reading is...
Science is...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Social studies is...
I hate it when...
I love it when...
Family vacations are...
Life is full of...
I wish to accomplish...
I have a goal to...
My future career...
Girls are...
Boys are...
My mom...
My dad...
My hero is...
My favorite color...
My favorite food...
My favorite holiday is...
My best day was...
I feel peace when...
Something that bugs me is...
I am happiest when...
My sister is...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
My brother is...
Writing is...
Art is...
When I’m alone...
At night I...
Mornings are...
The thing that frightens me the most
is
When I grow up...
After high school I will...
After college I will...
My lifetime achievement will be ...
Happiness is...
Sadness is...
The most important thing to me is...
If I could visit anywhere in the world, I
would visit...
If I could visit anywhere in the U.S., it
would be...
Summer is...
Winter is...
Spring is...
Fallis...
My best quality is...
If I could change one thing, it would
be...
Rules are...
School lunch is...
My favorite thing to do is...
If I could be someone else, it would
be...
My best possession is...
SPEECH EVALUATION FORM
Name of Speaker
_____________________________________________________
Title or topic
of speech ________________________________________________
Excellent
Good
Good Beginning
Eye Contact
Expressive
Appropriate Volume
Good Pace and Use
of Time
Appropriate
Gestures
Evidence of
Preparation
Appropriate Posture
Good Ending
Compliment:
Evaluator: ________________________________________
Suggestions
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
DEBATE
CONTENTS
Overview 83
Debate Vocabulary 84
Skill 1 85
Propositions
Skill 2 87
Understanding Values
Skill 3 89
Criteria
Skill 4 91
Organization
Appendix 95
Lincoln-Douglas debate differs from policy debate in that students will be
debating
individually and they will be
debating matters of values. Simply put,
in this form of
debate students will present a value, the reasons why this value
is the most important,
and evidence to
back up their assertion.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
(Same times for elementary and intermediate)
Affirmative Constructive 3 minutes
Cross-examination 1 1/2 minutes
Negative Constructive
3 1/2 minutes
Cross-examination 1 1/2 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal 1 1/2 minutes
Negative Rebuttal 2 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal
1 minute
*In addition to these times, each Lincoln-Douglas Debator
will have 2 minutes to use as "prep time".
OVERVIEW
Lincoln-Douglas debate differs from policy debate in that students will be debating
individually and they will be debating matters of values. As a result, students will be
asked to
understand the difference between propositions of fact, policy, and value.
Furthermore
students will be asked to choose a value and uphold that value as the
reason for their
belief for or against the proposition. Students will also be asked to
present a criteria or a
set of standards that a solution must meet in order to be
acceptable. Simply, in this form
of debate students will present a value, the reasons
why this value is the most important,
and evidence to back up their assertion. Students
will find that there are many philosophical arguments for their values so there is a
section of philosophy. Value argumentation is
something that we do everyday. Students
should find this a natural and comfortable type
of argumentation.
Lincoln-Douglas debate is named for the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln
and
Stephen Douglas. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves could be taken to
any
state, free or not, and still could not sue for their freedom. They also wrote that no
free
state could force a slave owner to give up his slaves because to do so would force
the
person to give up his property. The Supreme Court decision was called the Dred
Scott
decision after the slave who originally sued his master for freedom. In 1858,
Abraham
Lincoln, the Republican candidate for senator of Illinois, challenged as able to
get Douglas to admit that states should have the right to free slaves even if it
meant
going against the Dred Scott decision. This caused problems in the Democratic
Party
since they were counting on Douglas to defend slavery. These debates gained
national
attention for Abraham Lincoln and emphasize that logic and intellect are as
important
as speaking skills in debate.
Politicians often make laws that are supposed to reflect the views of society. As teachers
and
parents, we make rules for our students and families. Are these rules just? Should we
have
the right to search lockers or is privacy more important? Is civil disobedience justified? Do we,
as a society, have obligations to others? These are the types of questions
you will be
examining when you discuss Lincoln-Douglas debate with your students. You
should be able
to find questions like these in the news on a daily basis. For example,
should we let people
burn the flag? Do we have a moral obligation to help other nations,
such as Kosovo, when
they are in need?
Since the debate guide emphasizes many areas such as delivery, evidence and
reasoning,
this section will focus more specifically on the types of propositions used in
debate, fallacies in debate, and Lincoln-Douglas itself. While there is a vocabulary list
included in this
section, it should be used in conjunction with the vocabulary in the
debate guide.
Individual teachers should decide which vocabulary is appropriate for
their students. The guide on philosophy has been added for your convenience. While teachers may
choose
not to use it, philosophy is helpful in defining criteria.
ELEMENTARY AND INTERMEDIATE DEBATE VOCABULARY
AESTHETIC VALUE a value that involves standards of beauty and artistic merit
CRITERIA
CROSS-EXAMINATION
FACTUAL PROPOSITION
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
MORAL VALUE
POLICY PROPOSITION
A set of standards or a test that a solution must meet
A period following each speaker’s constructive during
which the speaker, who has just spoken, is questioned
a proposition that is either true or false
a form of debate that attempts to resolve value propositions a value that involves
standards of fairness a proposition that focuses on the desirability of a particular course
of action [This proposition is used in policy debate.]
PROPOSITION
a declarative statement—the debate resolution [Propositions
of
fact are evaluated by their truth, while propositions of value
and
policy are shown to be desirable or undesirable.]
a standard applied to judge whether
something is right or wrong, or of greater
or lesser worth
provide further standards of judgment to
evaluate an
agreement
provides a standard of judgment to
evaluate whether or not an argument is
valid or invalid
a proposition for which there is no right or
wrong answer [This type of proposition
involves philosophical judgments.]
VALUE
VALUE CRITERIA
VALUE PREMISE
VALUE PROPOSITION
SKILL 1
TITLE: PROPOSITIONS
CONCEPT:
Debates are based
upon propositions
OBJECTIVE:
Students will understand the
three types of
propositions.
I
. Basic Information
A. Factual Propositions are either true or false You can prove the proposition with
empirical evidence.
1. Example: The sky is blue. I just need to look at the sky.
2. Example: Dogs bark. Listen to a dog.
B. Policy Propositions focus on the desirability of a course of action
1. Example: We want to curb growth along the Wasatch front because our
resources
are becoming too strained. (This is the type of debate discussed in
the first section
of the manual. You create a plan and then discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of the proposed plan.)
C. Value Propositions cannot be answered by knowing the facts or predicting
the
effects
There is no right or wrong answer for value propositions. In order to argue
value
propositions, a student must uphold a value. A “value” is simply a standard
by
which we may judge something right or wrong. We all have a set of values.
1. Example: The environment ought to be valued above growth. In this case, students
on the affirmative argue the value of the environment, while students on
the
negative would value societal growth or development. Students could also
value the
freedom to own property as an argument for growth.
. Activities for Propositions
A. Beginning Activities
1. Students enjoy discussing their favorite cartoons, TV programs, and music.
Ask
students which has a greater value: television or music. Have students
defend
their decision using standards and evidence. You may discuss this as a
class,
have students write it down, or let students do an impromptu debate on
the
issue.
B. Advanced Activities
1. Using the PROPOSITIONS WORK SHEET in the L-D Debate Appendix, have students
identify whether the propositions are propositions of fact, policy, or value.
2. Have students choose one of the value propositions from the
PROPOSITIONS
WORKSHEET and debate it with another student in class. Each
side gets three
minutes to prepare and one minute to present its case.
SKILL 2
TITLE: UNDERSTANDING VALUES
CONCEPT:
OBJECTIVE:
I
Lincoln-Douglas resolutions are
constructed upon values
Students will be able to identify the values
within a resolution
and apply them to prove or dis-prove the
resolution.
. Basic Information
A.What is a value?
1.A value is a standard we use to judge something right or wrong, good or bad.
2.Example: Privacy, loyalty, freedom, democracy
3.Standards can be of different types
a.moral values — is something just or unjust?
b.aesthetic values — is something beautiful or ugly?
c.political values — is something democratic or tyrannical?
B.Our public policies are often founded on what we value as individuals
1.If you value the sanctity of human life you might argue against the death penalty;
however, if you value safety you might argue for the death penalty.
2.If you value personal freedom, you might argue against gun control; however,
if
you value public safety, you might argue for gun control.
C.Value can be arranged into hierarchies. The goal is to prove that your value is
more
important. Criteria help to identify which value is more important (criteria will
be
the new concept.
D.Common values and their applications
1.Liberty—people or government should act to insure the greatest amount of
liberty
2.Equality of opportunity—policies should give all citizens fair access to jobs
and
services
3.Democracy—people should be allowed the maximum role in making decisions
4.Justice—Plato’s definition: “giving equal amounts to equals and unequal
5.Safety—government should make policies to insure the safety of the people
6.Privacy—right to be left alone without harassment, eavesdropping, or
privacy
checks
7.Individualism—interests of the individual take preference over those of society
8.Life—prerequisite to all other values—for without life we cannot enjoy the
benefits of other values
1 Scientific progress—development or advancement of society
2 Quality of life—avoidance of suffering or pain, “quality” is the measure of
the
value of life
. Beginning Activities
A.Ask students to pretend they are the supreme rulers of the world. They
can do
anything they want to do. What rules would they make? Why? What are
the values
behind them?
B. Liver transplant simulation—This is a good group activity (see handout
in L-DDebate Appendix).
C.The Green Og—Tell the students that they have been given a Green Og (see
handout in L-D Debate Appendix). It is half human and half animal. It can only
communicate by grunting. It is the last of its kind. Instruct them to write a
paragraph on
what they plan to do with the Green Og and why. Possible
suggestions are: selling
it to a circus, giving it to science for research, taking care
of it, or putting it on display. Allow students to share their decisions with the
class.
D.Have students list five things they value, five things their family values and
five
things they think society values. Have students write their values on the
board.
Have them look for contrast between their values and societal values.
Why do contrasts exist? Do they value the same thing their families value? What
about society?
E.Ask students what they would do if their best friend was drowning. Would
they
save them? What if it meant that they had a really good chance of
drowning themselves and both people would die?
F.Ask students what they value more: freedom or life? Why?
. Advanced Activities
A.There have been times in our history when something was legal that we think
is
wrong now. For example, segregation was once common and legal, but now
is considered wrong. Write an essay about a value that has changed over time.
B.Find common political questions from the news: Is flag burning acceptable?
Should
we have prayer in school? Should we practice gun control? Have
students choose
sides and identify a value that supports their belief. Then have
students write
about why this value is more important than other values.
C.For the following resolution list two values you would uphold if you were affirma
SKILL 3
TITLE: CRITERIA
CONCEPT:
Criteria are the part of
your
argument that supports
why one
value is more
important than
another
OBJECTIVE:
Students will understand
criteria
and be able to apply it
to the
value in their case.
I
. Basic Information
A.Good debaters will offer a criterion to measure or compare the truth or merit of
each
side. A criterion is the standard which can be used to weigh or compare values and
arguments. The debaters offer the criterion in each debate. Not only do
they have to
use it to compare their values and arguments, but also to defend the
standard itself.
B.Criteria are used two ways in debates:
1.The first way is to compare two values. If a debater upholds security and
the
opponent upholds liberty then the first can use Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
as
an example to show that certain values such as safety must be satisfied in
order
for other values to exist. Thus, security or safety has to be satisfied before
others can even be considered.
2.The second way is as a way to link the value to the contentions. For example,
a
debater may argue that he has chosen the criterion of “the ends justify
the
means.” If the resolution is “Resolved that there is no such thing as a just
war,”
the negative might uphold freedom as a value. He would then argue that
to
have a free society we have to be willing to go to war therefore justifying
war
as a means to have freedom.
C.Criteria can be generally accepted statements, such as these, that are related to
a
society or government:
1.Preserve the social contract
2.Provide the greatest good for the greatest number
3.Maximize liberty
4.Provide justice
D.Support for criteria comes from logic and common sense and from quoting
other
people like philosophers and historians.
E.Criteria are the part of Lincoln-Douglas debate that requires some knowledge
of
philosophy. Values on their own lack meaning without some frame of
reference;
philosophy used in a debate serves to give reference. Three common
concepts
used as criteria are: social contract, utilitarianism, and the categorical
imperative.
1. The social contract is a political theory that is used to explain the
relationship
between the people of a nation and its government. The main idea is
that the
people agree to be governed by a government in order to receive security.
In
our country, we give up the individual’s right to punish law breakers, and
in
return the government provides us with a justice system. Philosophers
behind
this theory are Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and John
Locke.
2.Utilitarianismisthe theory defined as “the greatest good for the greatest number.” The
premise behind this idea is that actions should be considered on how
much ‘good’ or
‘bad’ they may cause. The leading philosophers behind utilitarianism are Jeremy
Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
3. The categorical imperative is a principle that asks people to evaluate their
actions
on the assumption that their actions would be followed by all people.
This is a lot
like the Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do
unto you.
Immanual Kant is the leading philosopher behind the categorical
imperative.
F.Criteria are best looked at as the reasons we value what we value and why it
should be
weighed above other things. For elementary students, teachers may
want to leave out
the philosophy behind it. For junior high students, the philosophers make great research
assignments. There is a brief section of philosophy in the
L-D Debate Appendix.
G.Simply put, criteria give us the reasons we like or dislike something. They explain
why
we do or do not value something. Students do not have to use philosophy.
When you
ask them which is better, they must then have reasons for their decision.
1 Example: Value—light rail Criteria—being environmentally responsible
2 Example: Value—education Criteria—progress; without education it is hard
to
progress in this world
. General Activities
A.Tell students they have been given 75¢ to buy an apple or a candy bar. If
they
value health, they will choose the apple, but if they value great taste, they
will
choose the candy bar. Have students develop criteria for health and for
great
taste.
B. Resolved that there should be a mandatory curfew of 10:00 p.m. for all
children
under 14. Have students pick values for affirmative and negative and then
provide
criteria to justify each value.
SKILL 4 TITLE: ORGANIZATION
CONCEPT: Lincoln-Douglas organization differs from policy debate in some distinct ways.
OBJECTIVES:
Students will be able to build a Lincoln-Douglas constructive.
I. Basic Information
A. Times will be the same for elementary and secondary debates
Affirmative Constructive – 3 minutes Cross-Examination – 1 ½ minutes
Negative Constructive – 3 ½ minutes Cross-Examination – 1 ½ minutes First Affirmative Rebuttal – 1 ½ minutes Negative Rebuttal – 2 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal – 1 minute In addition to these times, each student will have 2 minutes to use as “prep
time.” Prep time is time given during the debate in order for students to
organize their thoughts and prepare arguments. They may ask the judge for
prep time at any point during the debate that is between speeches. Prep time
should not be taken before the affirmative constructive or before crossexamination. It is recommended that debaters use prep time before the
negative constructive and before rebuttals.
91a
Suggestions for prep time usage:
1 minute before negative constructive to make sure that arguments are
clear and that student has written down some responses to the 1 st
affirmative constructive.
1 minute before each rebuttal to give the debater time to organize
thoughts and to come up with clear arguments that counter the other
side.
B. Negative constructives should consist of the speech and should also leave
time for some rebuttal of the affirmative case. Approximately 2 minutes for
case and 1 ½ minutes for rebuttal.
C. Always relate your arguments and evidence to your value premise.
D. Just as in policy debate, students should be concerned with
Introduction, Body, and Conclusion.
II. General Activities
A. The outline and speech writing activities from Skill 1 may be used again
here.
B. Have students prepare outlines and practice reading affirmative and negative
constructives with a partner. Partners take notes and critique one another.
C. Have each student write definitions of ‘honesty’ and ‘loyalty’ on a sheet of
paper. Ask some students to volunteer to read their definitions. Discuss the
different interpretations. Now, read the dictionary definitions to them.
Finally, compare all of the definitions in an attempt to reach agreement on
which definition is best.
91b
AFFIRMATIVE SPEECH OUTLINE
I
. INTRODUCTION
A.Open your speech with a quote that pertains to your side of the argument
B.State the resolution: Say “Because I believe this quote by _______________, I
must
affirm the resolution: “______(use current resolution) .”
. DEFINITIONS
A.Introduce this section with key words Example: “For the purpose of clarification, I
will define the following terms...”
B.Define any words important to your case.
. VALUE
A.State your value for the case and define it The value that best supports this resolution
is _______________ defined as
_______________.
IV. CRITERION
A.My value of _______________ is best supported by the criterion
of
_______________ as explained by _______________.
V. CASE
A.Case should have at least three main points
Contention 1:
Contention 2:
Contention 3:
B.Each main point should have at least one piece of evidence to prove it
C.Each main point may have subpoints as needed
VI. CONCLUSION
A.Summarize main points and explain to the judge why he/she should vote for you So for
the reasons of _______________, _______________,
_______________ you should
vote affirmative.
AFFIRMATIVE CASE EVALUATION
Name: _____________________________________
Name of
person whose case you are evaluating:
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each of the following eight areas in the
case
you read:
Introduction:
Definitions:
Value:
Criterion:
Contention 1:
Contention 2:
Contention 3:
Conclusion:
Overall give the case a score of 1 to 10. Ten is perfect. Justify your score.
NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
I
. INTRODUCTION
A.Using a quote from an expert or a famous person, gain attention of the judge
B.Explain in one or two sentences why you are opposed to the resolution and why
the
judge should agree with your side
. DEFINITIONS
A.Give definitions that support the negative case—state the source of your definitions
Make sure to give counter definitions to any affirmative definitions you disagree with.
. VALUE
A.State the value, define it and give reasons or evidence that prove it is important My
value _______________ defined as _______________ is important
because
_______________.
IV. CRITERION
A.Explain how your value is superior because of your criterion My value is most
important because of the criterion of _______________. Cite
the author if you use
philosophy or a historical example.
V. CASE
A.Contention 1: Present your first main objection to the resolution, explain how
this
objection relates to your value
B.Contention 2: If you have time, if not omit Contention 2
VI. TRANSITION AND REBUTTAL
A.Use a quick, one sentence summary that leads you on to debate the affirmative
case
Example: I will now show you how the affirmative case is weak. In my
opponents
first contention, she states _______________ and this is clearly faulty
because
_______________.
REBUTTAL SPEECHES
1 Affirmative has two rebuttals but must attack the negative case in the first
rebuttal
2 Be sure to clash with your opponents case
3 Remember to remind the judge why he/she must agree with you Say, “Due to
these three main points _______________, _______________, and
_______________
my side clearly wins and you must vote affirmative not negative.”
4 Be persuasive
L-D DEBATE APPENDIX
CONTENTS
Philosophy Lesson Plan 97
Propositions Worksheet 101
Propositions Answer Key 102
A Liver Transplant 103
The Green Og 104
Lincoln-Douglas Ballot 106
PHILOSOPHY LESSON
PLAN
TITLE:
PHILOSOPHY
(*Note to teachers: If your students do not use philosophy to back up their values, they should still try to
state
a criteria, or reason, why something is good or bad.)
CONCEPT:
Philosophy is essential to a good
criteria as it adds evidence to back
up
values
OBJECTIVE: Students will become familiar with
basic philosophical ideas and be
able to
apply them to debate
I
Philosophers in Review
UTILITARIANISM: Utilitarianism focuses on the effects of an action. The moral
action is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number. In other
words, the happiness and general well-being of the majority should take priority
over the individual. Utilitarianism is a theory which attempts to define the scope
and freedom of individual liberty under state authority. Because it draws a line
between the rights of the individual and the rights of others, utilitarianism is a
form of justice.
Jeremy Bentham
Bentham’s basic assumption is that humans by nature avoid pain and
seek pleasure. He argues that individual happiness is the supreme good. A
person should act in a manner that provides happiness for the greatest number.
In other words, happiness would be measure by a quantitative scale (measure
happiness by amount or quantity). Those who commit crimes, then, should be
punished by the quantity of unhappiness they create. Punishment must produce
more in pain than pleasure gained by committing the crime.
Bentham is an “act utilitarian.” Act utilitarians uphold two ideals: one, that
the worth of an act should be judged according to its pleasant and unpleasant
consequences; two, that a person should act in such a way that his act will
promote the greatest good for the greatest number.
Critics argue that Bentham’s philosophy has two major short comings.
First, it ignores the distribution of happiness. Second, it ignores other important
values that a state ought to consider.
John Stuart Mill
Mill believes that happiness is determined by the individual. In addition,
he argues that no one individual can determine what will produce happiness for
every individual. Thus, he believes that a democracy (which provides for
maximum individual participation and creates an environment for the pursuit of
happiness) is the best way to secure liberty (man’s quest for his own good) and
promote happiness. Thus, democracy is an avenue to provide individual
happiness to the greatest number.
Unlike Bentham, Mill argues that happiness should be measured on a
qualitative scale (consider the overall quality of life and happiness…not just the
quantity of happiness). He is hoping, then, to produce a high quality of
happiness for the greatest number of individuals.
To define the extent that an individual should be allowed to exercise his
liberty, Mill refers to the “harm principle” which says that the only good reason for
restricting a person’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. Mill argues that
punishment should only be used if it would lead to better consequences than
non-punishment.
Mill is a “rule utilitarian.” Rule utilitarians support three main ideas: one,
that the moral worth of an act is judged according to the good or bad
consequences that result from following a moral rule of conduct; two, that a
person should follow a moral rule that brings more good consequences than
another rule would; and three, that all moral rules which produce the greatest
happiness for the greatest number should be obeyed.
Critics argue that every individual action has potential negative effects.
Also, one cold argue that by measuring happiness on a qualitative measure, Mill
is no longer a true utilitarian promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest
number.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: Civil disobedience is the theory that one should break a
law or rule in order to make society better. The person who practices civil
disobedience believes that the society should be respect overall, but that some
specific parts of it need to be changed. He respects the idea of the law or rule in
general, but believes that a specific law or rule is unjust.
Henry David Thoreau
Thoreau believes that if a law or rule is unjust, civil disobedience is
automatically justified. According to Thoreau, there are three components used
to determine whether or not a law or rule is unjust: common sense, individualism,
and supremacy of conscience. First, common sense is the belief that ideas
should be examined and re-examined. Time honored ideas shouldn’t be viewed
as sacred. Second, individualism is important because morality is a matter of
individual conscience. The state does not have a moral worth of its own—only
what the people give it. It is the individual’s obligation, then, to resist unjust laws
and rules. Finally, supremacy of conscience is what individuals use to determine
right from wrong.
Another important belief held by Thoreau is that if an individual decides to
practice civil disobedience, he or she must be willing to accept the consequences
of that decision. It does not matter whether the consequences are positive or
negative, the individual must be willing to live with them.
Critics attach Thoreau by suggesting that individuals lack the courage
needed to disobey when they should, that there is no clear standard of morality,
that the individual is less important than the states, and that conscience is not the
most important value.
John Rawls
Rawls uses civil disobedience to test his theory of justice. He argues that
civil disobedience should be used when there is a conflict between having to
comply with laws and defending liberties. Rawls believes that when this conflict
arises one of two principles (which compose his theory of justice) has been
broken: equal liberty or fairness. Equal liberty is the belief that everyone should
be granted the same freedoms and rights to begin with. Fairness is the idea that
these freedoms should be equally distributed to all persons. If a person had on a
“veil of ignorance” and had to make a decision not knowing what social class he
would be in, he would make a fair decision.
Unlike Thoreau, Rawls does not assume that civil disobedience is
automatically justified. Rawls lists three conditions under which civil
disobedience is permissible: one, it is limited to instances of substantial and clear
injustice; two, it must be used as a last resort after all normal appeals within the
system have been made (except in extreme cases); and three, the intent of civil
disobedience must be balanced with the possible ill effects so that it won’t
endanger society.
NOTE: Martin Luther King and Ghandi also promoted the concept of civil disobedience. You
might read up on their views of this philosophy.
SOCIAL CONTRACT: The belief that a person enters into society to secure
rights and/or protection (depending on the philosopher). The concept of a “social
contract” represents the agreement between the individual and society. The
“terms” of this contract differ between philosophers.
John Locke—(Inalienable Rights)
Locke assumes that all men have certain “natural rights” that existed
before society was created and that those rights are good in and of themselves.
In the natural state (no government), however, men’s rights conflict and this
conflict leads to war. As a result, men enter into society and form a social
contract. He also assumes that since man senses the need for self-restraint, he
is by nature good and rational.
The “natural rights” that are protected under Locke’s social contract are
life, liberty, and property. Property, according to Locke, includes both material
possessions and personal fulfillment. Property, then, is similar to the pursuit of
happiness. To protect these rights, government is created. Government serves
three purposes: one, it establishes laws; two, it acts as an authority and settles
conflict; and three, it applies consistent justice.
According to Locke, government does not cause minority suppression.
Rather, it enlarges liberty since, in the state of nature, freedom is limited by the
conflicting rights of individuals. To achieve this end, government should promote
justice, operate according to the majority rule, and promote equality.
Critics argue that there are two flaws with Lock’s idea of social contract.
One, there is no proven instance where people first got together and gave their
consent to the social contract. Second, people who were born under the
government are not at liberty to create another one.
Thomas Hobbes—(Self Preservation)
Hobbes’ basic assumption about human nature is that people desire
power and are willing to do whatever is necessary (in the absence of
government) to get it. People are greedy and can act in destructive ways toward
each other when there is no common power to keep them in line.
Hobbes argues that every person possesses the “natural right” (liberty) to
act in whatever manner he believes is appropriate in order to preserve his life
and the objects which improve his life. Additionally, Hobbes considers all people
to be essentially equal.
Hobbes realizes that the state of equality and the freedom to act according
to one’s own desires will cause a “natural condition” of living in constant fear. To
gain a sense of security, people therefore naturally agree to develop a sovereign
or government which Hobbes refers to as the “Leviathan”. Hobbes argues that a
rational sovereign would only propose laws to regulated people when it was
necessary for the common good. This concept becomes Hobbes’ theory of selfpreservation.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau—(General Will)
Rousseau’s basic belief is that humans are good by nature but they
become corrupt through social interaction. Specifically, Rousseau contends that
“man is originally without sin, that he comes into the world a free being, and that
he is equipped with the capacity for decency, public spiritedness, candor, and
authentic rationality.”
This natural innocence, however, is corrupted as people interact with one
another. Their natural differences in skill and ability give rise to artificial
differences, particularly those of wealth and poverty. The artificial differences
result in envy and contempt which lead to a breakdown of the community.
Therefore, individuals can never return to the original state of goodness.
The answer to this problem, according to Rousseau, is not to remain in a
savage state, but to construct a higher civilization. The social contract in
Rousseau’s world is meant to be a blueprint for this higher civilization. In order to
achieve a higher state of civilization, all individuals must dedicate themselves
solely to seeking the common good for all. This dedication is known as the
“general will.” Because the general will is grounded in a concern for the common
good, it can never seek particular objects or interests. Likewise, benefits and
burdens must be distributed equally to all citizens.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: The belief that the means (the actions a person
takes) justify the end (the result or outcome of the action). It is important to not,
however, that the end is only justified if and when the means is moral.
Immanuel Kant
Kant believes that food will is the most important criterion to use when
determining the morality of an act. An act cannot be considered moral if the
original intention was not of a good will. According to Kant, there are two main
ingredients that make up good will: reason and duty.
Acting from a sense of duty means that an individual acts the way he
thinks he should, regardless of whether or not it makes him happy or produces
any benefits. Furthermore, Kant argues that it is not enough to just do the right
thing, an individual must also do it for the right reasons. For example, being kind
to others just because it makes you feel good is not enough to make the
kindness a moral act. You must be kind because it is your duty.
There are three basic elements to Kant’s Categorical Imperative which are
listed below:
1. Make sure the principle you act from could be applied to anyone,
anytime, in any situation. This belief is knows as Kant’s “universal
law”.
2. Don’t use other people (or yourself) as simply a means to an end.
Treat every person as ends in and of themselves. In other words, Kant
considers man to be an end in and of himself.
3. Always act as if you are a member of the “realm of ends”.
NOTE: Kant’s philosophy is somewhat confusing and often misused. If you are gong to use him,
you must study his philosophy thoroughly. If someone is using him against you, test their
knowledge for misuse.
OBJECTIVISM: The basic assumption that, to live a moral life, one should be
concerned with his own interests. A person should take actions that will benefit
himself first and foremost. As Rand would say, the individual must maintain a
sense of “rational selfishness”.
Ayn Rand
Rand would argue that the ultimate value or concern is survival. Man’s
basic means for survival is reason, the process of thinking for one’s self, making
one’s own decisions. Thus, that which is good furthers life and reason; that
which destroys life and reason is evil.
Rand would argue that there are three basic values that one must live by
in order to attain survival: reason (rationality), purpose (productiveness), and selfesteem (pride). Independence, honesty, integrity, and justice are all essential
elements of reason. Using these qualities of reason, man becomes productive
and accomplishes his goals. The outcome, then, is that man attains a sense of
pride and esteem from his accomplishments. At this point, then, the individual’s
life is worth sustaining. Throughout this process, man must live for himself,
neither sacrificing himself to others or others to himself.
Ultimately, Rand would contend that the achievement of happiness is
man’s highest moral purpose. However, a man should not choose his actions
according to that emotion. The road to happiness may be filled with bitterness
and sorrow.
HEIRARCHY OF HUMAN NEEDS: The basic assumption that to live a full and
happy life, an individual has five basic needs that must be met. Thos needs
progress form the most vital and necessary (survival) to the idea (selfactualization).
Abrahm Maslow
Maslow argues that all individuals, regardless or their culture or
background, require the same basic needs and strive for the same ultimate goal:
self-actualization (the condition of total happiness, or knowing that one has
accomplished one’s goals and attained a sense of fulfillment). In order to reach a
state of self-actualization, one must first attain the needs listed below. The
needs must be obtained in order starting at the bottom of the pyramid.
Self-Actualization (see def. above)
Self-Actualization
Self-Esteem—feeling pride and confidence
in one’s self and accomplishments.
Self-Esteem
Love—feeling accepted and liked by others.
Love
Safety—feeling secure in one’s environment;
knowing that one is protected from
potential dangers.
Safety
Survival
Survival—possessing or having access to
the vital necessities (food, water, and shelter).
Research Assignment on Philosophers
Part I: Name the philosophy associated with each of the following philosophersJohn Locke
_____________________________Immanuel Kant ________________________Jeremy
Bentham ________________________Thomas Hobbes
_________________________Jean Jacques Rousseau ___________________John
Stuart Mill _________________________
Part II:
Write a short paragraph explaining the following ideas
Utilitarianism
Categorical Imperative
Social Contract
. Other Activities
A.Have students research and write a one page report on a philosopher. Then
have
students do a three minute report on their philosopher.
B.Have students do group projects on the different philosophers or philosophies and
then
have each group teach a lesson to the class about their assigned philosopher
or
philosophy.
C.Have students list different values and then decide which philosophies would serve
as a
criterion for each value.
PROPOSITIONS WORKSHEET
Name:
_______________________________
Date:
_______________________________
In the space provided, identify each proposition as a proposition of fact, policy, or
value.
1 __________ Abraham Lincoln was the sixteenth president of the United States.
2 __________ Honesty is more important than loyalty.
3 __________ The State of Utah should implement a program to
substantially
decrease traffic congestion prior to the 2002 Winter Olympics.
4 __________ The State of Utah should create a plan to significantly reduce air
pollution.
5 __________ Ginger Spice is no longer a Spice girl.
6 __________ The Backstreet Boys are better singers than N’Sync.
7 __________ Watching Leonardo DiCaprio movies is better than watching
Jonathan
Taylor Thomas.
8 __________ The symbol of the Democratic Party is a donkey.
9 __________ The State of Utah should establish a plan to increase
environmental
education.
10 __________ Dogs make better pets than cats.
11 __________ The official bird of the United States is the Bald Eagle.
12 __________ The official bird of the United States should be a turkey.
13 __________ The United States should establish a plan to significantly reduce
juvenile crime.
14 __________ Principals should be allowed to search lockers.
15 __________ Year round school is better than traditional school.
16 __________ The State of Utah should develop a plan to substantially
decrease
growth along the Wasatch Front.
17 __________ The environment should be valued above human beings.
18 __________ George Washington was the first president of the United States.
19 __________ Bugs Bunny is a better cartoon character than Mickey Mouse.
PROPOSITIONS WORKSHEET ANSWER KEY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
fact
value
policy
policy
fact
value
value
fact
policy
value
fact
value
policy
value
value
policy
value
fact
value
value
A LIVER TRANSPLANT
INSTRUCTIONS: You have been chosen to serve on a hospital committee to decide which
of
seven applicants are to receive a liver transplant. The operation for transplanting a pig
liver
into a human being has been improved to the point that it is now possible, for the
first time, to
save the lives of people who would otherwise die of liver diseases. Your hospital is the only
one in the world where this operation can be successfully performed.
Because the procedure
is so costly and complex, only three transplants can be performed
each year. You must
choose, therefore, only three of the seven applicants.
Keep in mind three important considerations:
1.The applicants are all suffering from a rapidly growing liver tumor. Without a
liver
transplant all will die within a year.
2.No one can share a liver with anyone else.
3.You are the final authority in this case—you cannot delegate the decision to
anyone
else.
SEVEN APPLICANTS:
1 White, 29-year-old female bank robber with six children, the oldest of whom is
12
years old; on welfare since she was released from prison last year.
2 White, 70-year-old Swiss businessman (manufactures watches). Family will
donate
$3,200,000 to research on liver diseases if he is chosen to get a transplant.
3 Seventeen-year-old delinquent with a high IQ but a 3-year drug (nonaddictive)
history; currently unemployed.
4 White, female physician, 54 years old—works half time in community health
clinic; her
other work involves research on vaccines for infectious diseases; had mild
heart
attack two years ago.
5 Black, female, college scholarship student, age 21, who is carrier of sickle-cell
anemia.
6 Male musician, age 36, famous concert violinist and teacher.
7 Oriental male orphan, 4 years old; otherwise healthy and seemingly bright.
THE GREEN OG
This is a Green Og. It’s half human and half animal.
The Green Og is the last of its kind. Some want to destroy it because of its ugliness.
Some
would buy tickets to see it. Some zoos would love to exhibit it. Some would
feature it in
horror films, while others want it for medical research.
The Green Og is given to you.
What will you do with it?
Why?
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE BALLOT
ROUND ________ ROOM ________ TIME ________ DATE __________ JUDGE
Affirmative (code) name
Negative (code) name
INSTRUCTIONS TO JUDGES:
In making your decision, you might ask
yourself the following questions:
1 Which of the debaters persuaded you that their position was more valid?
2 Did the debaters support their position appropriately, using logical argumentation throughout,
and
evidence where necessary?
3 Which debater communicated more effectively?
CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER:
SUPERIOR EXCELLENT GOOD AVERAGE
Affirmative 50-49-48-47 46-45-44-43 42-41-40-39
38-37-36-35
Negative 50-49-48-47 46-45-44-43 42-41-40-39
38-37-36-35
AFFIRMATIVE
Case & Analysis
Support of Issues Through Evidence and Reasoning
Delivery
Reason for Decision
NEGATIVE
Case & Analysis
Support of Issues Through Evidence and Reasoning
Delivery
NOTES:
Ballot Review Activity
Name
Tournament
Tournament Date
What was the best part of each of your speeches? Organization, data, voice,
other? Explain in a few sentences.
What was the worst part? Explain.
What would you change about your speeches if you were to do them again?
Pick three steps to improve yourself for next time.
1.
2.
3.
What did the judge say you did well? Do you agree?
What did the judge say you needed to improve? What is your plan to improve?
How would you adapt to better fit this type of judge next time?
Student Signature
Coach Signature
Famous Debaters in History
PEOPLE IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
John Laroquette (star of Night Court and the now defunct John Laroquette
Show) went to college in the south on a forensics scholarship.
Terry Nedry (stand up comic and star of the 80’s comedy movie "Young Doctors
in Love") did high school forensics and even includes it in his stand- up routine.
Comedian and late night talk show host Arsenio Hall competed for Ohio
University.
Nancy Cartwright (the voice of cartoon character Bart Simpson) competed for
Ohio University.
Shelley Long (Cheers) did Original Oratory at Ft. Wayne Southside High School
in Indiana. She had an in-state rivalry with Dateline NBC anchor
Jane Pauley who attended Chesterton High School. Long is rumored to have
beaten Pauley in the state finals and went on to win the NFL national tournament
in 1967 with a persuasive speech entitled "The Sex Perversion Weed" which
advocated sex education in public schools.
Brent Mintz won Dramatic Interp with a selection from Elia Kazan's AMERICA,
AMERICA competing for Bellaire High School in Houston, TX, in 1967. He went
on to fame as Brent Spiner, a.k.a. "Data" on "Star Trek: The Next Generation"
and numerous other TV and movie roles.
Kelsey Grammer, star of Cheers and Frasier, was coached in drama at
Marquette High School by Ron Krikac.
Film star Jim Belushi and his brother, the late John Belushi, competed at
Wheaton Central High School and at the College of DuPage in Chicago.
Comedian Adam Sandler competed in forensics prior to earning fame on
Saturday Night Live and in subsequent comedies on film.
Linda Larkin, who did the voice of the Princess in the Disney animated film
Aladdin, competed for several years for Hofstra University (under her real name,
Linda Kuehnow)
CC Pounder (E.R. and Working) competed briefly for Ithaca College.
Michael Stipe, song writer and lead singer of the group R.E.M., is rumored to
have written the hit “It's the End of the World As We Know It” after watching a
friend compete in an NDT debate round. Folks at Georgia have said that they
could never find any proof that Stipe actually competed while he was a student
there, but the song is supposed to have been written after Stipe watched a friend
compete in NDT at the Wake Forest tournament. REM contributed to the
restoration fund of Demosthenian Hall on the University of George campus, the
home of one of the two non-competitive debate/speech societies and the oldest
student organization at UGA, founded in 1803.*
Joyce Dewitt (Janet on the 70’s television comedy Three's Company) did
forensics in Indiana.
Critically acclaimed actor James Earl Jones competed in forensics and credits
his training in speech with helping overcome stage fright and a stutter. In addition
to his on screen roles, he is the voice behind the CNN slogan “This is CNN” and
he has also given life to the sinister character Darth Vader in the Star Wars
series.
Recording star Bruce Springsteen was the New Jersey High School
Extemporaneous Speaking champion.
James Dean competed in interpretation in high school.
Steve Buscemi (actor who starred in Fargo, Reservoir Dogs, Armageddon, etc.)
competed for Valley Stream Central High School in Brooklyn, NY.
William H. Macy (Fargo, ER, etc.) was the captain of the Allegany High School
Drama Club in Cumberland, Florida, which also involved competition in what we
would think of as one act. From there he then went on to understudy under David
Mammet.
Kevin Murphy, voice of Tom Servo from television’s Mystery Science Theater
3000.
LEADERS AND LEGAL EAGLES
James Copeland, the Executive Director of the NFL (National Forensic League),
said that several years ago a survey of U.S. Senators and Representatives
revealed that over 60 percent had participated in high school or college forensics.
A study reported on IE-L, the Internet List-Serve for Individual Events and Lincoln
Douglas Debate, claimed that half of the current U.S. Senators competed in high
school or college forensics, including Humphrey, Hefling, Boren,and nowdeposed Packwood.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan competed in the early 60’s for Macalester
College in St. Paul, MN.
South African President Nelson Mandeladebated in college.
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatchercompeted in debate.
Former British Prime Minister John Majorcompeted in debate.
Former President Lyndon Baines Johnson taught high school debate in Texas
and went on to put several of his debaters in high ranking positions in his
administration.
George McGovern taught debate and speech at Dakota Wesleyan University
and met his wife when she beat him in a round of debate as a high school
competitor.
Edmund Muskie was a forensics competitor.
Attorney General Janet Reno competed.
Former President Richard Nixon was a debater in California.
Marcia Clark (lead prosecutor on the OJ Simpson case) was a debater,
competing in mock trial competitions. The same is true of OJ Simpson’s defense
attorneys Robert Shapiro and Johnny Cochran.
Floyd Abrams (a famous first amendment attorney) debated for Cornell
University.
Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan competed at the Interstate Oratory
Association’s national tournament.
William Jennings Bryant also competed at the Interstate Oratory Association’s
national tournament.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge competed in debate for Cathedral Prep High
School in Erie, PA.
Diana DeGette, who replaced Pat Schroeder in Congress from the Denver
district, debated four years for Colorado College.
John Kennedy's speech writer and executive assistant Ted Sorenson, not only
debated in high school and college, but is rumored to have been able to
construct antitheses like the ones that made JFK's speeches so memorable in
the middle of his debate rounds.
Antonin Scalia is a Georgetown alum. Apparently several years ago when the
debate program was under threat of de-funding, Scalia faxed a letter a support
and the program was saved.
REPORTERS, MEDIA PERSONALITIES, OTHER IMPORTANT FOLKS
Oprah Winfrey competed in Lincoln-Douglas Debate in high school and
competed at National Forensics League nationals.
Dateline NBC anchor and news correspondent Jane Pauley competed in
Original Oratory and earned the state championship in Girls Extemp. She had a
high school rivalry in Original Oratory with Shelley Long from Cheers. Long is
rumored to have beat Pauley in the state finals and went on to win the NFL
national tournament in 1967 with a persuasive speech advocating sex education
in public schools.
Tom Brokaw is rumored to have debated at South Dakota State.
Movie critic Roger Ebert was the State Champion in Radio Speaking in Illinois.
Allan Lichtman (debated for Brandeis, coached Harvard) is a regular guest
commentator on public policy and political issues for CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.
Robert Shrum (debated for Georgetown, coached Boston College, Georgetown)
is a political consultant and featured guest on Crossfire, C-SPAN, the Capitol
Gang, etc.
David Bloom (#1 bid to NDT for Claremont) is an NBC correspondent, reporting
on most national stories for the network (Unabomber, Starr investigation, etc.).
Erwin Chemerinsky (debated for Northwestern) is a law professor at USC and
legal affairs commentator on CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Eliott Minceberg (debated for Northwestern) heads People for the American
Way and is a frequent guest and commentator on news and talk programs.
Laurence Tribe did NDT at Harvard and won the National Championship. He
has argued before the Supreme Court 30 times, most recently representing Al
Gore and the Democratic position in the post-election fall out in the fall of 2000.
In his book, "The Uncertain Trumpet," General Maxwell Taylor, former
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (under John F. Kennedy) not only mentions
that he was a former high school debater, but attributes his success in politics
and the military high command to his involvement in debate.
Larry Summers (former MIT debater, Harvard econ prof) was economic advisor
for the World Bank and was Clinton's chief economic advisor.
Philip Zelikow (former Houston and Redlands debater, govt prof at JFK School
at Harvard) is the author of the recent book, "The Kennedy Tapes," revealing the
taped Oval Office sessions on the Cuban Missle Crisis and other events.
John Graham, former Wake Forest debater, directs the risk analysis office at
Harvard and was principally responsible for the research support for the inclusion
of air bags as passive restraint (interesting debate case, turned case law, turned
public policy). He was a prominent interviewee on the issue on a recent prime
time news show.
Col. William Taylor, the former debate coach at West Point, serves as analyst
on most national news broadcasts re: military crises. He was on several recent
news programs on the potential military conflict with Iraq.
Danny Povinelli, former debater for U Mass, was a featured guest on a prime
time news program for his work investigating language use with primates.
FAMOUS FIGURES IN HISTORY AND INDUSTRY
Lee Iacocca (Chrysler Corporation) also competed in Extemporaneous
Speaking.
Dr. Henry Heimlich, inventor of the Heimlich Maneuver, did forensics at Cornell
University.
In his book "Confessions," St. Augustine writes "from age 18 to 35, I was a
teacher of public speaking....oh how wicked are the sins of men."
In addition to the many debates of his public career, Malcolm X debated teams
from Harvard, Yale, and other New England colleges as part of the Norfolk
Prison (Massachusetts) debating program. Read more about it in "'I Was Gone
on Debating': Malcolm X's Prison Debates and Public Confrontations", by Robert
Branham, debate coach at Bates College, published in Argumentation and
Advocacy, v. 31, Winter, 1995.
Some famous Greek debaters include Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle.
FORENSICS FOLKS IN THE NEWS
Val Vojdik, the lawyer representing the first female to attend the Citadel.
Charlie Chafer - owns a company that launches human remains into space.
elin o'hara slavick, an artist and art professor who successfully sued on First
Amendment grounds to prevent her gallery exhibition from being censored.
Shawnalee Whitney
Co-Director of Forensics
Associate Professor of
Communication
University of Alaska Anchorage