DEBATE COACHES HANDBOOK
Strategy Guide ................................................................................................................................................ 2
IMPROMPTU ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Structure of Impromptu .................................................................................................................................. 3
Delivery of an Impromptu Speech .................................................................................................................. 4
Impromptu Theory Quiz ................................................................................................................................. 5
SPAR DEBATE ............................................................................................................................................. 6
What is an Argument? .................................................................................................................................... 8
Toulmin Assignment ...................................................................................................................................... 9
STUDENT CONGRESS ...............................................................................................................................10
Sample Bill ....................................................................................................................................................12
Congress Legislation Preparation Form ........................................................................................................13
Congress Research Sheet ...............................................................................................................................14
POLICY DEBATE ........................................................................................................................................16
Lets Make A Rule Activity............................................................................................................................16
Debate Vocabulary Test ................................................................................................................................17
Cross Examination Circle ..............................................................................................................................19
Rebuttal Redo Guidelines ..............................................................................................................................20
Think Like A Judge Activity .........................................................................................................................21
The Signposting/Flowing Drill ......................................................................................................................22
“What Should I Be Doing?” ..........................................................................................................................23
PUBLIC FORUM ..........................................................................................................................................24
PF Case Outline .............................................................................................................................................26
PF Case Outline .............................................................................................................................................27
LINCOLN DOUGLAS .................................................................................................................................28
Introduction to LD .........................................................................................................................................29
Value Story ....................................................................................................................................................31
Values in LD .................................................................................................................................................32
LD Case Structure .........................................................................................................................................33
LD Case Outline ............................................................................................................................................36
GENERIC ASSIGNMENTS .........................................................................................................................37
Ballot Evaluation Assignment .......................................................................................................................37
Planning Scope & Sequence for Success: .....................................................................................................38
Delivery Charades .........................................................................................................................................42
Course Description and Syllabus ...................................................................................................................45
Strategy Guide
Coaches, this book is meant to help you get started in your own debate class. Please use
this handbook in addition to the three debate handbooks that you have already been given
– the Public Forum Handbook, the Policy Manuel, and the Lincoln-Douglas Handbook.
Most of what is included here is from the National Forensics League and the National
Debate Coaches Association websites. Feel free to email me with any questions that you
may have over anything that is included.
Feel free to look at these websites for further clarifications and other materials:
Planetdebate.com
Nflonline.org
Debatecoaches.org
IMPROMPTU
Structure of Impromptu
A good speech always has three distinct parts--an introduction, the body of the speech, and a conclusion.
While an impromptu speech may sacrifice some of the quality of a normal speech due to limited
preparation time, it still contains these basic requirements.
The Introduction--Before a speaker can develop an adequate introduction for an impromptu speech, it is
useful to review the purposes for an introduction. An introduction serves to light a fire under the audience
and motivate them to listen. It provides the thesis statement to direct the content of the rest of the speech. It
provides the basic organization, which sets up the direction for the rest of the speech. And, in the case of
impromptu speaking, it also provides the speaker with a little extra time to do some thinking about
additional content to be developed as the speech progresses.
With these purposes in mind, an impromptu speaker will generally begin with some kind of epigram--for
example, a story, a joke, a quotation or an analogy--which has as its main theme the basic point the speaker
has decided to make in the speech. The speaker will then explain this point as a means of setting up the
thesis statement, which is presented next. After the thesis statement, an impromptu speaker will generally
provide a preview of the main ideas which will be developed in the body of the speech. A speaker will use
between 2 and 5 of these ideas, with 3 being the most common. This preview helps structure the speech by
providing the judge with the organization which will be used in the body of the speech. It also helps the
speaker remember the ideas to be developed. By following the simple 'roadmap' the speaker has established
in the preview, the speaker provides direction and purpose to the rest of the speech. If the areas are chosen
well, they help the speaker logically develop the point provided in the thesis statement.
Some speakers choose to omit the preview. Instead, they develop the areas of the speech as they unfold
during presentation, but without the prediction and roadmapping provided by a normal preview. They do so
because this structure allows more flexibility (what happens if you change your mind after presenting a
preview?) and because it adds a slight element of surprise since the preview gives away the conclusion you
will try to reach from the start. While this method has some slight advantages, it is also more difficult and
is not recommended for beginning speakers.
The Body of the Speech--The speaker then makes a transition into the first of the three areas of the body of
the speech. In each major area, the speaker will try to offer further analysis by providing subpoints which
help to develop this idea. At each step, the speaker will try to include stories, illustrations, quotations and
other support material to help the audience understand the point being made, and to make the speech more
interesting.
The speaker will then make a transitional statement leading to the second area of the body of the speech
and repeat the process followed in the first area. Repeating the process for the third area concludes the
development of the body of the speech.
Many speakers will use standard patterns for the organizational structure of the body of the speech. For
example, on some subjects, impromptu speakers might use the 'pro-con-opinion' pattern. With this
organizational structure, the speaker presents reasons in favor of some controversial idea as the first major
area of the body of the speech, reasons against the idea as the second area, and develops his/her own
personal opinion on the issue as the third area of the speech. Other standard patterns include the 'pastpresent-future' pattern, and the 'causes-effects-solutions' pattern. Many experienced speakers develop their
own patterns, adapting them to the specific requirements provided by changing topics. And many choose a
standard third area in which they apply the issue raised by the topic to our own lives. They do this because
the ballot for impromptu speaking asks the judge to rate the speaker on how well s/he applies the material
to real life.
The Conclusion--The third and final component of a speech is the conclusion. In Impromptu Speaking, the
conclusion will usually attempt to do two things: summarize the basic point the speaker has been trying to
make, and tie the speech together by referring back to the story or epigram used in the introduction.
Delivery of an Impromptu Speech
In delivering the speech, remember that the initial impression you make with the judge is very important.
This begins from the moment the judge sees you, not just from the point at which you begin your speech.
So you should always practice courtesy and control. The speaker who laughs and giggles and acts
inappropriately may receive low ratings from many judges even though the speeches s/he gives are
effective. Remember, too, that your personal appearance is part of your initial impression. So you should
always be clean and neat and dressed appropriately.
Next, concentrate on the physical end of delivery. Try to maintain a confident expression, even if you do
have butterflies in you stomach. Keep gestures under control. Use you hands when appropriate, but all
gestures should be definite and should have a stop to them to show strength and control. Remember that
facial and body animation contribute to the speech. Your face should always express the same emotion as
your speech. If you are talking about death and starvation, you should not be smiling. If you are talking
about joy and happiness, your face should not reflect fear or sadness.
Work on voice control. Try to have strong, forceful delivery. Don't sound weak and uncontrolled. Try to
imagine famous people as good impromptu speakers. Imagine Robin Williams as an impromptu speaker.
Do you think he would be weak and wimpy? Or would he be fun, strong, entertaining, energetic and
confident? Now try to imitate the things about his style you admire and make them part of your own
effective style. Remember that vocal inflections are used to show emotions or to provide stress on a
significant point. So use your voice to make some points stand out or to show the emotion needed to
convey the proper meaning or to persuade the judge to your point of view.
Remember that this is a personality event. A judge will vote for someone s/he likes. So let the judge see
your personality. Have fun with the speech and work hard to say something in a smooth and entertaining
fashion. Also, give the judge credit for basic intelligence. Don't seem to doubt his/her intelligence.
Next, understand the importance of choice of language. This is a formal speaking event, so formal
language is appropriate. That means you should eliminate slang. And it means you should try to select
language that is definite, concrete and colorful. Paint pictures with words and your judge will be impressed.
Avoid introducing anything which might divert the minds of your audience from your main point. You
have heard speakers who got sidetracked on some unimportant detail and forgot about the main point s/he
was trying to make. Stay on course, with definite steps and progress toward the goal of your speech.
Finish one thought at a time. Impress it clearly on the minds of you audience and then move on to your
next point. If you get bogged down trying to present several ideas at once, you will lose clarity and
direction.
Next, avoid hesitation, delay and uncertainty. You should always be in control. When you hesitate, it
makes the judge believe you don't have a plan for the speech.
Finally, try to read your judge. If the judge seems bored with your presentation, you might need to increase
your energy level or change the direction of your speech. You might also want to offer examples or
illustrations to increase the judge's level of understanding.
In summary, winning speakers in impromptu, as in any other speaking situation, do three basic things.
First, they make an interesting point. You can do this by selecting a specific thesis statement and by using
varied and plentiful illustrations, examples and other support materials. Second, they are organized. You
can do this by using and following a preview to set up the major areas of the body of the speech. Finally,
they have effective delivery. Fluency will be easy if you have an effective introduction and organization to
point you in a specific direction. Also, you might want to consider speaking just a bit slower than normal,
so that your mind can keep up with your mouth. In addition, effective delivery should be confident and
energetic.
Impromptu Theory Quiz
Name ___________________________________________ Period________________ Score
__________
1. List three things an impromptu introduction tries to accomplish.
2. An introduction usually begins with what?
3. What is a preview? What is it's purpose?
4. What is a thesis statement?
5. What 5 things does an impromptu speaker develop during the few moments of prep time?
6. Speeches without content are boring. What makes speeches interesting?
7. An impromptu speaker tries to accomplish three things. List them.
8. Explain the basic procedure in an impromptu speaking tournament.
9. List four types of topics an impromptu speaker might be given.
10. Using the topic "Winning," outline an impromptu speech on the back of this test.
SPAR DEBATE
SPAR (Spontaneous Argument) Debate
1.
Select a topic with which students have some familiarity. Perhaps these topics
may come from classroom instruction. The topics should be phrased as declarative
statements, not as questions. For instance:
Art can be evaluated objectively.
A person’s genetic makeup determines who he or she is.
Obama is a better President than Bush.
Physical education is as important as academic study.
If this is your first time with the activity you may want to choose one of the silly SpAr
topics that follows the activity.
2.
Select 2 students to speak in front of the room. Assign 1 student to debate the Pro,
supporting the topic, and the other student the Con, opposing the topic.
3.
Give the students the topic and explain the criteria for evaluation listed below in
point 7.
4. Allow students to examine the topic for 1 minute before starting the actual debate
using the following format:
Spontaneous Argumentation schedule:
1 minute prep
2 minute affirmative
2 minute negative
3 minute clash
1 minute negative rebuttal
1 minute affirmative rebuttal
5.
You may need to clarify the speakers’ duties. One-minute speeches may not lend
themselves to highly structured speeches. Students should still communicate a
beginning, middle, and an end to their speeches. All speeches other than the first one
should refer to what has previously been said.
6.
Students should not address each other but should address the audience during the
speeches. They may address each other during the unstructured crossfire but should still
face the audience, not each other.
7.
Criteria for evaluation




Use of information: Although the activity is “unprepared,” students
should still try to use information to support their positions.
Analysis: Students should demonstrate logic, reasoning, critical thinking,
and clear argumentation.
Clash: Students should respond to each other’s arguments.
Etiquette: Speakers should listen attentively while an opponent is
speaking. During the unstructured crossfire, students should be polite,
allowing their opponent to speak while asserting their own right to speak.
Students should be assertive, but this should not be a free-for-all
simultaneous argument.
Silly SpAr Topics
Animals are appropriate mascots for high schools.
Backpacks are better than lockers.
Barbie is a more appropriate role model than GI Joe.
Belts are better than suspenders.
Blondes have more fun.
Bowling should be the national sport of the United States.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
Buttons are better than zippers.
Cats are better pets than dogs.
Children watch too much TV.
Cows are better than horses.
Dark chocolate is better than white chocolate.
Disneyland represents all that is best about America.
Doritos are better than Pringles.
Football is the most violent sport.
Halloween is a better holiday than Valentines day.
Make up should be banned from high schools.
Penmanship should be a required subject in high school.
Rock is better than Rap.
Santa is better than the Easter Bunny.
Showers are better than baths.
Sleep is for wimps.
What is an Argument?
1. The Basics.
a. Teach “Claim, Warrant, Impact”
Claim = statement
Warrant = “because”
Impact = “why”
b. Audio / Video: “Argument” by Monty Python
c. Class debate on simple resolutions students can relate to e.g.Resolved: Xbox
360 is better than Wii. Start with one affirmative argument stated as claim: Xbox is
better than Wii, warrant:
because Xbox allows online multiplayer gaming and,
impact: online multiplayer gaming is a
more enjoyable experience (note the actual
impact is “joy”). The negative will than make an
argument using the format: Repeat
opponent's claim, counter-claim, warrant, impact e.g. “They
say Xbox 360 is better
than Wii; however, Wii is better than Xbox 360 because there are more multiplayer
games designed for Wii and that means more options for enjoyable group play. (Note
the “clash” at the level of the warrant, the negative should attack the opponent's warrant,
not just disagree with the claim.
d. Repeat this for a few different resolutions and get many students involved.
2. Toy Story Debate
a. Video: “Toy Story” (show clip from time Buzz arrives to “That's not flying,
that's falling with
style.”)
b. Class debate: Resolved that Buzz can fly.
Ask students to decide which side of the resolution they are going to
defend. Ask those
who agree Buzz can fly to write an argument using the
“claim, warrant, impact” format.
Write two or three affirmative arguments on
the board.
Ask students to write arguments to counter the affirmatives; write them on
the board
opposite the affirmative argument they “clash” with.
Let the debate get loud and passionate as they argue about what it means
to fly. Sit back
and laugh and enjoy the energy and silliness. After a few
minutes remind them they are
arguing about a “cartoon.”
c. Class discussion: Discuss how important definitions are in debate.
Ask who won the debate in the movie (students should say Buzz won
because the other
toys, the audience or judges, believed him. This is an
important lesson...the debate that
matters occurs in the mind of the judge. The
point of competitive debate is not to “beat”
the other team but to “win” the
judge! Woody may have been correct in claiming that
Buzz couldn't fly,
which is proven later in the movie, but Buzz won the debate.
Toulmin Assignment
Now that we have discussed the basic parts of the Toulmin model (claim, warrant, data), I
want you to apply what you have learned by completing the following assignment:

First, find a newspaper/magazine article or an advertisement, which makes an
argument. Some of the most useful articles are from the Editorial/Opinion
pages because they are usually clear about what argument the writer is
making.

Second, underline a claim, warrant (if it states one) and data in the article. If
you decide to use an advertisement, you will have to be more creative with
your interpretation of what argument is being made. Please circle the
sections of the advertisement that you believe are making the arguments.

Lastly, create a diagram of the claim, warrant, and data that looks like the
example below.
Claim: Smoking is bad ----------------- Data: It causes lung cancer.
I
I
I
I
Warrant: Lung cancer is bad.
Please turn in a sheet with the diagram of the claim, warrant, and data typed or neatly
written down with the article or advertisement stapled to the back of the diagram.
STUDENT CONGRESS
Student Congress is an event where students role play the parts of
Senators and Representatives. Competitors will be divided into chambers
(Senate or House) for the purpose of debating bills and resolutions. Each
chamber will consist of approx. 20-30 students. A typical session will last
from 1 ½ to two hours.
You will be assigned to a chamber for a session of legislative debate. Upon
entering the chamber you can expect the following:
 You will receive ballots for the speakers
 You will receive a copy of the agenda and a seating chart for the
session
 The Presiding Officer (PO) will be (or will have been) elected by the
legislators for the session.
 Legislative materials will have been distributed.
 The Presiding Officer will take control of the session and debate will
start with the first bill on the agenda.
Your job will be to listen and score each debater. The scoring in student
congress is different from any other event. In student congress, you will
award each speaker from 1-6 points for each speech presented. Unlike
individual events where 1 is the highest rank, in student congress 6 is the
highest number of points per speech that can be awarded and 1 is the lowest.
It is extremely unlikely that you would ever give a speaker below a 3. A
score of 6 should be reserved for exceptional speeches. Scores above 3
should be reserved for speeches where students actually debate- respond to
prior speakers.
Speakers alternate from affirmative to negative speeches on the bill or
resolution being debated. Speakers will be allowed 3 minutes for each
speech, often followed by a 1 minute cross-examination period, or
sometimes, the balance of unused time is the cross-examination time- the PO
will know the tournament rules. The first person to speak is the author or
sponsor of the legislation. This person’s 3 minute speech is followed by a 2
minute cross-examination. You should consider the speaker’s answers and
questioning of other debaters when awarding points and nominating Best
Speakers. Points are not awarded specifically for questioning, or making
motions, however, overall activity should factor in, along with overall
quality and quantity of speeches.
Depending on the number of legislators in the chamber, competitors may
present more than one speech in each session. When scoring the speakers,
judge each speech on its own merits. Some areas you may want to consider
when completing the ballots are:





Organization of speech (introduction, body, conclusion)
Development of ideas (use of evidence, logic, examples)
Vocal delivery (articulation, vocabulary, fluency, etc.)
Poise and presence (body movement, confidence, etc.)
Sincere involvement in the session
Did the debater respond to prior speakers? This is a DEBATE event!
Sample Bill
A Bill to [Action Word] [article] [Object] to
[Summarize the Solution Specifically]
1
BE IT ENACTED BY THE STUDENT CONGRESS HERE ASSEMBLED THAT:
2
SECTION 1. State the new policy in a brief declarative sentence, or in as few sentences
3
as possible.
4
SECTION 2. Define any ambiguous terms inherent in the first section.
5
SECTION 3. Name the government agency that will oversee the enforcement of the bill
6
along with the specific enforcement mechanism.
7
A. Go into further details if necessary.
8
B. Go into further details if necessary.
9
10
11
SECTION 4. Indicate the implementation date/timeframe.
SECTION 5. State that all other laws that are in conflict with this new policy shall
hereby
be
declared
null
and
void
Congress Legislation Preparation Form
Title of Legislation: ____________________________________________
Pro
Con
Possible Questions
13
Congress Research Sheet
Name: _______________________
Hour: _________ Date: ________
Research / Preparation Sheet
Remember that preparation leads to better debates. You will be prepared to ask questions and argue for
or against a variety of topics. You will receive bills ahead of time and have a chance to prepare.
REMINDER: THIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE READ AS A SPEECH!!! THESE
IDEAS ARE ONLY FOR YOU TO INCORPORATE INTO A SPEECH!
Legislation Title/Topic: ________________________________________________________
Reference number: ___________
Two Facts about the topic of the legislation:
1.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Two Quotes about the topic: (list author . . . try to make it someone we’ve heard of.)
1.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Legislation Title/Topic: ________________________________________________________
Reference number: ___________
Two Facts about the topic of the legislation:
1.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Two Quotes about the topic: (list author . . . try to make it someone we’ve heard of.)
1.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2.) _________________________________________________________________________
14
Legislation Title/Topic: ________________________________________________________
Reference number: ___________
Two Facts about the topic of the legislation:
1.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Two Quotes about the topic: (list author . . . try to make it someone we’ve heard of.)
1.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Legislation Title/Topic: ________________________________________________________
Reference number: ___________
Two Facts about the topic of the legislation:
1.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Two Quotes about the topic: (list author . . . try to make it someone we’ve heard of.)
1.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
2.) _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
15
POLICY DEBATE
Lets Make A Rule Activity
Objective –
To discover and unanimously agree on a set of rules that make debates better. Students will buy into the concepts,
expectations, and benefits of a structured debates versus a shouting match.
Rule to Learn –
1. Only one speaker at a time.
2. Alternate between aff and neg (pro and con)
3. Time limits are fair
4. Evaluate the debate, not your opinion
Lesson Set Up
The basic idea is to progressively improve the way students will engage themselves in class and in debates. Most
kids will come into the class very talkative and when debate happens, students will want to jump in. Without
restraints students quickly get left out and the discussion becomes chaotic.
Tell your students that we are going to have class wide debate. After you read the resolution, you will ask kids to
separate into two groups. Its important to keep the sides even.
Tell the students that before we have this debate, there is only one rule: “When I say stop, the debate is
over.”
Introduce the topic: Resolved: Boys are better than Girls.
Have students divide into groups and start debating. After a few minutes, some kids will be shouting, others won’t
say anything, and no one will get anything out of it. Tell students to STOP. Ask them who won (more shouting might
take place). Ask them what they liked about the debate and what they didn’t like. As soon as a student says it was
too loud or chaotic, say “Lets make a rule.” A write on the board the rule “Only one speaker at a time.”
For the next debate, say that because only one speaker can speak at a time, you will call on different people when
they raise their hands. Introduce one of the resolutions that the students gave you from day one. Have students
divide into two groups and start the debate. Call on one student from each side and then select ONLY STUDENTS
FROM ONE SIDE (the affirmative for example). Keep calling on students from one side until the other side is visibly
frustrated or you yell STOP. (you may have to call on 7-8 students in a row). Ask them what they liked about the
debate and what they didn’t like. As soon as a student says it wasn’t fair, say, “Lets make a rule.” A write on the rule
on the board “Alternative back and forth between sides.”
Repeat this method for the following rules:
Equal time and limited time (let a student talk for as long as possible or ask a student before the class
starts to be an accomplice by speaking for as long as possible even if it means reading).
16
Debate Vocabulary Test
NAME _________________
1. Evidence _____
2. Argument _____
3. Flow _____
4. Inherent _____
5. Negative _____
6. Status Quo _____
7. Advantage _____
8. Plan _____
9. Prima Facia _____
10. Constructive _____
11. Counterplan _____
12. Disadvantage _____
13. Harm _____
14. Topicality _____
15. Solvency _____
16. Rebuttal Speech _____
17. Resolution _____
18. Affirmative _____
19. Analysis _____
20. Case _____
A) The state of conformity to the intent of the
resolution. Does the case meet the definitions
of the resolution?
B) What is gained by adopting the affirmative
plan
C) Facts, statistics, and expert testimony given in
support of an argument
D) The present system, the existing order
E) A process of reasoning. They all have a claim,
warrant, and implication.
F) A system of keeping track of arguments on a
sheet of paper
G) The side of the debate arguing against the
resolution
H) The side of the debate arguing in favor of the
resolution; the side that wants to change the
status quo.
I) The term meaning the problem can be solved.
Does you plan work?
J) The first speech given by each participant in a
debate. This speech creates your case.
K) A negative argument indicating that adoption
of the plan will result in severe consequences.
L) An alternative plan to the affirmative proposal.
M) The speech given following the constructive
speeches. It summarizes the debate.
N) The formal statement of the issue or topic to be
debated.
O) The steps given by the affirmative team to
implement the resolution and give justification
for the plan.
P) The nature of character of something, a
necessary part. It exists.
Q) An undesirable impact or result brought about
by a policy. Something the affirmative will try
to address and solve.
R) Has first appearance of proving a fact. It is the
minimum burden of the affirmative (topicality,
significant harm, inherency, solvency, plan)
S) The higher level thinking skill of breaking
down an idea into its parts. Using your own
words and thoughts, not evidence.
T) The affirmative arguments that show a need to
change.
17
18
Cross Examination Circle
Submitted by Tara Tate, Glenbrook South HS
One of my favorite activities to do with the beginning debaters is a cross-examination circle. Have one
of the individuals in the class read a copy of the Affirmative case or a Pro case. After the case is read,
have students sit in a circle and each one of them has to ask a cross-examination question based on what
was just read. The individual who read the case can answer the question, but the teacher and other
students can help him/her out with the answers.
After everyone goes around and asks a question, the teacher should come up with a question that is the
heart of the case that was read. The group should then work on “probing” – asking a CX question based
off the answer that was given. Most young debaters will ask a question and not probe deeper into that
issue when the answer is given. This time around the circle, have each student ask a probe…they must
ask a question based on the answer that was given before they asked the question.
This is an especially great activity to do with novice policy debaters when they are getting familiar with
their 1AC!
19
Rebuttal Redo Guidelines
1. Pick any rebuttal. It would be better not to pick a 1nr, but that’s fine. You should
ask your partner to help you put together a flow of the previous speech.
2. Come up with 3 things you want to improve from your speech.
3. Make a list of arguments you need to win to win a debate, and a list of arguments
the other team could win on.
4. Write blocks if possible. If you could use this block again- a 1ar case explanation, etc.
then it is a useful block. If this is the only time it would be necessary, than don’t
5. Go back and make things more word efficient
6. Watch for your verbal clutch phrases. Make a list and eliminate them from your
speech
7. Watch for signposting. The correct sign posting is the speech that imposes the
structure, the number, and a short phrase to tell the argument. For example “ 1nc
number 3, alternate causality. “ or “2ac number 1, no link”
8. Number your arguments with hard numbers “ 1” not “first.”
9. Re think the cards you read or didn’t read
10. Practice. It should be exactly 5 minutes
11. When you come for practice have the following with you to turn into Nicole:
a. the flow from the previous speech,
b. a list of things you want to improve,
c. list of winning arguments,
d. a list of verbal clutches,
20
Think Like A Judge Activity
This activity introduces the skill of judge adaptation. Students are asked to view debate from the
perspective of a judge. The goal is for students to think about debate as an interaction with the evidence.
Students should also think about how "winning" and "losing" a debate is arbitrary and subject to the
thinking of a judge. You must not simply be right, but persuade another that you are right.
Objectives:
By the end of this activity, students will:
!. Think about the criteria that judges will use to evaluate their debates.
2. Begin to think strategically about how to "win over" judges with technique and reasoning.
Time Allotment:
20 minutes
Materials and Preparation:
You may want to prepare a list of your own judging techniques and guidelines in advance to stimulate
discussion.
Method:
Ask students, as a class or in small groups, to imagine that they were supposed to judge a debate round.
Assign a student from each group to take notes. Have students brainstorm what guidelines they would
use to decide who won the debate round, why they would use the guidelines,and how important they
think the guideline should be in decision-making. Possible judging guidelines could include:
1. Unanswered arguments
2. Analysis of significance and impacts
3. Style or demeanor
4. How "realistic" their arguments are
When the students have completed a list, have them report back to the class on what they decided. Then,
have the class decide on a "master list' that a note-taker records. These criteria and guidelines should
then be made into a grading sheet or rubric. When students have practice debates, you can use these
questions and have the rest of the class evaluate and judge the round.
21
The Signposting/Flowing Drill
Participants:
At least 3 debaters
Tools:
An affirmative and negative case
Flow paper
Timer
Procedure:
One debater should leave the room/area while one of the other debaters reads his/her
affirmative constructive. The absent debater is not to hear, flow or know about the
affirmative constructive content. Following the constructive, only clarification questions,
necessary to understanding the case, should be asked.
Once cross examination is finished, bring in the absent debater. One of the debaters
present for the reading of the 1AC (but not the individual who read the 1AC), should take
some prep time to construct answers against the affirmative case (amount of prep time is
discretionary) and prepare to read his/her negative constructive.
All debaters should flow the next part, including the debater who was absent during the
affirmative constructive.
Once prep time is finished, the second debater should begin reading his/her constructive
as usual. Following the constructive, the debater giving the speech will move on to refute
arguments made in the affirmative constructive. While refuting the affirmative, the
debater giving the speech should focus specifically on signposting clearly (stating the
value and criterion, not just giving the author of the card, but signposting the argument as
well).
The purpose of the speech will be to give responses, but also to give enough information
so that the debater who was not present for the initial reading of the 1AC can reconstruct
the affirmative case based solely on what the negative debater says.
The more complete the flow of the absent debater, the better. Turn it into a competition
to see who can best respond to arguments completely while signposting specifically and
offer prizes for fun!
22
“What Should I Be Doing?”
Debate is a complicated and difficult, but ultimately very rewarding and fun activity. However, you
won’t get the most out of debate unless you can work independently (in class and outside of class).
You’ll notice that we have a lot of students at a lot of different skill levels doing a lot of different events.
This means that there will be many days in which it will be up to you to find something to do. Try these
for starters.
1. Speaking Drills – Do them daily! If you were on the cross country team, you wouldn’t expect to
show to a race and be fast, you have to practice, and you can’t just practice once a week, you do it all the
time. Here are some possible speaking drills
*Full Blast Fast – You may be unclear, but it will get your mouth moving fast.
*Pen in Mouth – This helps with clarity and speed because it forces you to annunciate words
with very slight movement from your mouth (it also stops the tongue from getting
sloppy…gross).
*Ghetto Fabulous – In this drill you over-annunciate everything, adding as mush flavor or flair
as you can. It helps with clarity and passion.
*Backwards or saying “o” in between every word – This drill helps you recognize words only,
instead of the full sentence which may be tripping you up if your brain is moving faster or slower
than you mouth. And it basically makes things hard.
2. Read – A great coach once said, “When you are reading, you are getting smarter.” Actively read your
files, your cases, and article on the topic. You all have so much evidence that is going to waste if you
don’t know what you have in your tubs/folders. When reading, you should be doing the following:
*Highlighting or underlining
*Writing out summaries or questions out to the side
*Critically thinking about the content.
3. Mini Debates – Its hard to complete a debate in class, but you can maximize your time, getting the
same benefits doing a mini one. Here are some methods for these debates:
*Work on one speech (using your flows from an earlier round or just constructing a hypothetical
scenario) and then deliver it to someone. Take their feedback to heart.
* Work with a partner and debate one argument (a contention, an off-case argument, etc.). Some
appropriate time limits for these speeches might be:
Policy: 1NC – 1.5 min, 2AC – 2.5 min, 2NC – 4 min, 1AR 1.5 min
Lincoln Douglass: 1NC – 2 min, 1AR – 1 min, 1NR – 1 min, 2AR – 1 min
4. Ask Questions – Debate is a unique activity where you test ideas and discover different concepts as
you go. EVERYONE understands debate differently, EVERYONE is unsure, and EVERYONE has
questions. I teach best by simply answering questions. You should feel comfortable asking me, or any of
your teammates a question.
I will be adding to this list, so let me know if you have good ideas. And remember:
“Debates are won before they begin…. work like an underdog.”
23
PUBLIC FORUM
Public Forum in the Classroom: A
by Adam J. Jacobi
Bridge from Traditional Public
Speaking to Debate
The last two “Curriculum Corner”
columns have focused on a more
theoretical approach to unit planning,
so this month will feature a more
practical approach. While my advice
here is geared toward daily, 52-minute
class periods, most of these methods
also can be tailored to extra-curricular
training for Public Forum.
desks, asking students to share their
statements. Invite dissent, and viola!
An instantaneous exchange erupts.
Wrapping up the introduction to the
unit can be a brainstorm of practical
applications of debate in the real world
(courtrooms, lobbyists, think tanks,
etc.).
Instruction
In the broad field communication Initial instruction on debate often
centers on Stephen Toulmin’s model
course I taught, I followed the unit on
of argumentation, herein referred to as
research methodology with a unit on
“CWI” as in “claim, warrant, impact.”
argumentation, where Public Forum
The claim is a specific position
serves as the centerpiece for
statement, which is supported by
performance assessment. This is a
evidence (Toulmin’s term of art is
perfect example of Backward Design,
“data”) that is relevantly connected
because in order to construct
back to the claim by a warrant
arguments, students must understand
statement. The specific claim is then
the basic tenets of logic and reasoning
qualified by an impact statement, or
and the structure for debate and
“so what” that explains its pertinence
refutation. It is also a great early
semester presentation exercise, because to the overall position on the
it allows students to have a partner near topic/issue at hand. Teachers should
prepare several examples of
them as they present, which really
arguments that follow the CWI
helps ease students out of the
unnerving mindset of public speaking. structure to share with the class, as
well as seeking some from the
Teenagers love to argue! Teachers can students.
Then review approaches to
introduce this unit by brainstorming
arguments we hear and make routinely, organizing information, i.e.,
outlining, and stress the importance
such as favorite brands of products or
viewpoints on issues – particularly
of making sure there is a logical
issues relevant to the school and lives
arrangement to information.
of the students. Ask students to write
Next, discuss refuting (deconstructing)
down a statement defending a position opposing arguments and rebutting
on any subject, supported with reasons. (rebuilding) arguments attacked by the
Travel up and down each row of
opposition. Introduce the concept of
flowing, or following
the lines of argument in a debate by
taking detailed notes in an organized,
shorthand manner, to make sure that
both holistically and specifically,
arguments are responded to. Finally,
watch videos of sample rounds,
asking students to practice
flowing. The first time, stop and start
the video, modeling what to flow, and
asking students to contribute what they
were able to hear, until they are
weaned off this guidance. Even though
a Public Forum debate is only about a
half hour, this process should take
more than one class period, to allow
ample time to capture the arguments, as
well as holistically debrief the debate.
Show a second sample round, running
the video all the way through, and then
collect the flow worksheets as an inclass assignment, grading the
completeness and accuracy of what was
flowed, so students get feedback on
how well they’ve mastered this process.
If you don’t take shortcuts with the
initial stop-and-start sample, the
students’ accuracy is better for the
continuous sample.
Show a third sample round,
distributing a flow worksheet and
a judge ballot. This time, students
should turn in the flow and the ballot,
voting for the team that debated
better, and justifying their decision.
Grade the ballots for completeness
and thoroughness of rationale.
24
Vol 83, No. 4
Assigning Teams
Assigning partners or groups is a
perpetual quandary for teachers. Create
a list of relevant topics, drawing from
past NFL topics. Early in the unit,
administer a survey to students, asking
them to rank their interest in the topics,
and also to share how strongly they
agree or disagree with an issue (helpful
for determining how motivated they
will be on a particular topic). Then
“tabulate” these surveys – and recruit a
student assistant to help.
This approach to assigning teams
garners enthusiasm and contentment
with the assigned topic and partner,
because the students have a common
relationship through the topic. For odd
numbers of students, allow students
who you think can handle it to work
alone as a “maverick” or allow
students to work with two different
partners for extra credit.
Preparation
Give the students a class period to
orient themselves to their partners, to
brainstorm arguments, and to start
researching, if they’re ready. This
works well in a computer lab or with a
mobile laptop lab, because students
can either work at desks/ tables, or on
computers. If you use past NFL topics,
students will sometimes find old
evidence books online, but remind
them that the evidence in those books
is often outdated, and they should be
more imaginative in their research.
You may allow students to synthesize
that information with what they’ve
found on their own, but they should
print a bibliography of sources they’ve
found during “prep days,” so they’re
accountable for productive time.
Earmark three to four days for
research and case construction.
Since students work at a variety of
paces (some take the work home,
while others don’t have resources at
home or need more guidance), it
allows you to share more time among
the class. Encourage students
who finish early to practice their
constructive case in the corridor, and
then offer them a few points of
extra credit to present first (provided
the opposing team is ready). This
motivates opposing teams to help
each other prepare, which results in
their knowing both sides much
better!
Presentation
Everyone must be ready to debate
by the first day of presentations,
although you can welcome volunteers.
They may put off for a one-letter grade
deduction (as if they turned in work
late). This way, the entire class isn’t
affected as much by absences, since
you can call for two teams who you
know are all accounted for (knowing
in advance
when field trips or athletic events
will pull students out is helpful). Allow
students to present alone as a maverick
if their partners continue to be absent.
The make-up assignment is to turn in a
ten-page research paper on the topic.
For each debate, students who
aren’t presenting must flow and
complete a ballot. After each debate,
debrief the points raised and discuss
other directions the debate could have
gone in. For fun, also tally up the
ballots and announce who “won,” just
before class ends.
At the end of the semester, students
consistently report how much they
enjoyed this unit, and it often results in
students joining the debate team the
next season. In many cases, students
reflect that this experience whets their
appetite to learn more about what’s
happening in the world around them,
to become more civically engaged.
Materials
For a complete collection of handouts
and worksheets, visit the Public Forum
section at www. teachingdebate.org.
Some of the materials correspond with
the chapters on “Supporting Your
Views” and “Logic and Reasoning” in
Glencoe Speech, which includes a
section on Public Forum in its 2009
edition.
The NFL offers a variety of video and
audio recorded final rounds
of debate at its online store, www.
nflonline.org/OnlineStore.
Bibliography
Barembaum, Neil, et. al. Speaking
Across the Curriculum: Practical
Ideas for Classroom Debate.
California High School Speech
Association, Curriculum
Committee. <http://www.cahssa.
org>.
Bennett, William H. “Turner Debate:
Writing Your Cases.” Rostrum.
March 2003.
McCutcheon, Randall, et al. Glencoe
Speech. McGraw-Hill/Glencoe, 2009.
Rieke, Richard D. and Malcolm
Sillars. Argumentation and Critical
Decision-Making. New
York: Addison Wesley Longman,
2001.
(Adam J. Jacobi is the NFL’s
Coordinator of Member Programs and
Coach Education. He has taught
Communication and International
Baccalaureate Theatre, instructed
institutes, and is a one-diamond
coach of three national champions).
25
PF Case Outline
ARGUMENT CLAIM:
SPEAKER A:
SPEAKER B:
SPEAKER A OUTLINE:
Attention device:
Thesis:
Impact:
Preview:(remember to allow time here for refutation of opposition’s arguments)
BODY
Sub-argument 1:
Evidence AEvidence B-
Sub-argument 2:
Evidence AEvidence BSummary:
Memorable closing:
26
PF Case Outline
SPEAKER B OUTLINE:
Attention device:
Thesis:
Impact:
Preview:
BODY
Sub-argument 1:
Evidence AEvidence B-
Sub-argument 2:
Evidence AEvidence BSummary:
Memorable closing:
27
LINCOLN DOUGLAS
Introducing Values in LD Debate
by Alli Martin, Alta High School
1. Begin by reading the princess story to the class.
2. After finishing the story, ask each student to rank the characters based on who they believe is
most to blame for the princess’ death.
3. After the individual rankings have been made, break the class into groups of 3-5 and have them
come up with a group ranking. Explain that everyone in the group must agree to the ranking.
4. While groups are working, create a chart on the board like the one below:
Character
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Class total
Godfather
Knight
Prince
Princess
Vagabond
5. Have a member of each group fill their rankings in on the chart.
6. Add the rankings to come up with a class total.
7. Ask members of each group why they ranked the characters they way they did. As they explain,
write the key words they use in a separate list on the board. Most students will use words like
“personal responsibility,” “family,” “love,” or “life” to explain why certain characters hold
blame.
8. Explain that these key words are values much like those we use in LD and that while all values
are inherently valuable, we may choose to support certain ones over others depending on what
we are trying to prove in our LD case. For example, if the resolution is “Resolved: The
godfather ought to have lent the princess money.” then we would choose family to be our
affirmative value and, perhaps, personal responsibility as our negative one.
9. Continue the discussion into values listing more common LD values on the board (justice,
freedom, liberty, security, societal welfare, etc.).
10. Have students complete the LD Values Worksheet.
28
Introduction to LD
LD is an ideological debate that questions the assumptions and foundations of human interaction, policy,
and thought.
“…human interaction, policy, and thought” summarize the fact that LD topics change every two
months and cover a wide range of areas.
“…ideological debate…” means we’re talking about ideas, not specific policy plans. Primarily,
the ideas center around Values.
“…questions the assumption and foundation…” means that we have to dig deeper to better
define, articulate, conceptualize the value premises. For example, the value of Justice is
universally seen as good, but people have different conceptions of Justice. So we have to
question the assumptions and foundations of these ideas and values so we can better understand
and communicate the reason(s) the judge should conceptualize values, such as Justice, and
arguments from the perspective we advocate in round.
VALUES AND CRITERIA
LD debates Values, but is actually a Criteria Debate
Value: A principal or standard that is intrinsically good or desirable
While Values are discussed in other events, LD is the exclusive forum through which
propositions of value.
PROPOSITIONS OF FACT vs PROPOSITIONS OF VALUE
Toulmin Model and Capital Punishment
GROUNDS (Reasons)
CLAIMS
Capital Punishment is Just
Deterrence
Specific Deterrence
General Deterrence
Victim’s Rights
Resources
Retributive Justice (Eye for an Eye)
Warrants
Justification for Using the Grounds to Support the Claim
29
We can debate the Propositions of Fact (i.e. whether capital punishment produces a deterrent
effect or whether it costs more than life without parole), but LD also debates Propositions of
Value (i.e. what is Just). In policy, the Warrant is typically Cost-Benefit Analysis; in LD, the
Warrant is your Criteria—the mindset, paradigm, framework—used to justify the Grounds that
support Value Claims.
Important note: “Warrant” in this Toulmin model is different that debaters typically use the term.
For debaters, “warrant” generally refers to the grounds, or reasons, that support the claim. Hence,
the shorthand commentary used in debate that an argument is merely a “claim without warrant”
meaning there is no supporting reasons why the claim is true.
LD AS ITS OWN EVENT
While the tactics of speed and the use of evidence present troubling trends in LD, the greater
concern is our loss of the critical analysis of Warrants (the Criteria Debate, in the Toulmin
model) in debating value propositions.
30
Value Story
Once upon a time a beautiful princess married a handsome prince and went off to live with
him in his majestic castle. Throughout the next few years, the prince was seldom home and
almost never took the princess to balls and banquets she had been accustomed to attending
when she married the prince. For the prince often went on long hunting expeditions and
frequently had to leave town to meet with the King and discuss “business”.
The princess grew bored and tired until one day a traveling vagabond happened to
wander into a garden in which the princess was reading. In a matter of hours the vagabond
had swept the princess off her feet with his stories of travel and adventure. She immediately
agreed to run off with him.
After a night of passion, the princess woke up alone and with no way to get home
except to travel through the forbidden forest. Now everyone knows that a princess cannot
travel through the forbidden forest without an escort, for if she does this, she will be killed by
the fire-breathing dragon.
Luckily, the princess thought to bring her cell phone and immediately calls a Knight-forHire. After hearing her story, the Knight agrees to escort the princess through the forest for
$5,000. The princess explains that all her money is back at the castle but will gladly pay the
Knight once he gets her there. The Knight quips that he only accepts payment in advance and
tells her to call back once she has the money.
Desperate and scared, the princess calls her Godfather. She explains her plight and
asks for help. Her Godfather rebukes her for being so careless and explains that he will not
give $5,000 to a woman who would act as she has.
Feeling that she has no other choice, the princess begins to venture through the forest
and towards home. She is, of course, killed by the dragon.
Who is most to blame for the princess’s death? Rank the following characters in order 1=most
at fault; 5=least at fault
Godfather
Knight
Prince
Princess
Vagabond
31
Name ___________________________________________
Hour _____________
Values in LD
A value is defined as “a principle or belief considered worthwhile or desirable.”
1. Name three values
2. Explain why each of the above is a “principle or belief”.
3. Having value is not the same thing as being a value. Name three things that are tangible (you
can hold or touch them) and have value but are not a “principle or belief”.
4. Methods for obtaining something are not values, for example, democracy is not a value but it
achieves values. Name three values that democracy might help achieve.
5. Goals are not values. Free elections (voters being able to choose their leader) might be a good
goal but they are not a value. Name one value that free elections might achieve.
32
LD Case Structure
In this section I will go over all parts of your affirmative case to give you an idea of how to form your
case. There are sometimes different ways to present the information and I will give you most ways to do
so. However, I will stress which method I prefer you to take. The main point for the alternative methods
is so that you get an idea of what else you might see at a tournament.
FYI: all the times given are in normal speaking time. So if you read it aloud that is the proper speed with
which to time yourself.
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is your AGD (Attention Getting Device). You want to open the round with some
interesting insight to draw your judge into the round and let them know what the issue is
really about. I strongly suggest using a powerful quote by a well-known person. This is 20
seconds TOPS.
II.
DEFINITIONS
A)
One way to provide definitions is contextually. You simply state “the definitions will be
provided contextually in the round” and move on to other parts of your case. To define
contextually means “we all know what these terms mean so I’m not going to bother
stating them directly.” Realize, however, there is usually some room for contention on
what the proper definition of terms are. For example, how do you define Justice? For
those terms, you may specifically point to your Value analysis or the Criteria to explain
your conception of such terms (assuming they do so). Also, if you define contextually
you should still have definitions prepared and state “I can provide specific definitions in
Cross-Ex.”
B)
When you give definitions, you simply state the word, cite the source, and read the
quoted definition. For example:
BORING from Webster’s Dictionary 2002: Stimulating no interest or enthusiasm.
This is how it is read aloud, but this is how you should be writing it:
BORING (Webster’s Dictionary 2002): Stimulating no interest of enthusiasm.
Since you’ll find more than one definition for a word, it’s fair to use one slightly slanted
for your position, but it’s a fine line between a slanted definition and an abusive one.
Again, this isn’t policy; you don’t want to be dragged into a “definition debate”
(topicality) over a ridiculous definition. My best advise: use a standard, fair definition.
Definitions, AT MOST, should take 30 seconds. This resolution only requires TRUTHSEEKING and PRIVILIGED COMMUNICATION to be defined.
33
III.
(OPTIONAL) RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS
This is a way to further limit the playing field (in your favor). The analysis you’re providing
should be an observation about the context, NOT an argument about the content. Mainly I
would suggest only using analysis to preempt abusive negative arguments.
For example, the HIPC debt topic may warrant some resolutional analysis such as:
“Repudiation is enacted by the borrower revoking debt, not the lender canceling debt so debt
cancellation is distinctly different based on the actor initiating and their motives in removing
debt from HIPCs.”
The resolutional analysis should be NO LONGER THAN 20 SECONDS.
IV.
VALUE AND CRITERIA
A)
VALUE
Remember a Value is simply defined as: “An abstract idea that someone places a
preference on.” These are vague ideas by design. When you present your value, state
“My value premise for this round will be…” Then state your value and give some
analysis about why it’s a valuable concept. You can use evidence here, but it should be
really short.
More than likely, your value will be Intrinsically or Inherently good. That just means it’s
good in and of itself. For example, Truth is an inherent (or intrinsic) good; Truth is good
just because it is (use the word inherent or intrinsic, though, because it doesn’t sound
good to say “just because”).
B)
CRITERIA
Again, LD is a Criteria Debate. You advocate a paradigm that gets you to think about the
resolution in a certain way. You want your judge to adopt your paradigm so you need to
give them warrant as to why your criteria are good. Like the Value, evidence can be used,
but be brief.
To common ways the Criteria are explained are as a:
1. STEPPING STONE: This simply uses the Criterion as a stepping-stone to your
value. It is very common to take this position, but I advise against it.
2. WEIGHING MECHANISM: This is the preferred way to use your criterion
effectively. Criteria weigh both sides of the resolution and tell you how to
consider the arguments. This is why if your judge adopts your Criterion, they
should side with your position.
C)
The Value and Criteria together should be NO LONGER than a minute.
34
V.
CONTENTIONS AND SUBPOINTS
This is where you make traditional arguments, which are simply reasons for why your
position is correct. The contention is a broad argument that encompasses your subpoints,
which are precise arguments. For example:
Contention 1: The Bush administration is a horrible failure.
Subpoint A: Their economic policy has devastated the economy.
Subpoint B: Their environmental policy has damaged the environment.
Subpoint C: Domestic programs have suffered during their term in office.
As you can see, there is the broad claim, then there are precise points to back up that claim.
The contention is simply the tagline, but under each subpoint you want to put evidence and
analysis to support the subpoint, which in turn supports the contention.
There are many different ways to format your contentions, but as a general rule, use three
contentions with three subpoints each. As to how your arguments are organized, there are
four general ways:
A. THE LITANY: The litany is a laundry list of reasons to affirm the resolution. The litany
generally uses 3 major reasons (your contentions) and 3 specific reasons (your subpoints)
for each major reason. I don’t recommend this method.
B. VALUE/CRITERIA INTENSIVE: This method uses the value and criterion in every (or
nearly every) contention and subpoint. This method can be pretty effective, but I think it
depends on the resolution and the Value and Criteria.
C. TIE IT TOGETHER: This method is a very good method to go about proving any
resolution. The first 2 contentions present major arguments (contentions) with 3 specific
arguments (subpoints), like a litany would. The third contention then ties the first two
together by incorporating the Value and Criteria into the arguments.
D. THE ACADEMIC: I call this one the academic method because in theory it’s perfect, but
in practice it’s hard to do. In Contention 1, you set the stage. Subpoint A of Contention 1
isolates the conflict in the resolution; Subpoint B establishes the broader debate (the
meta-debate) and major points of your case; Subpoint C preempts the premise of the
negative. Contention 2 presents specific examples that demonstrate your notions in
practice. Contention 3 incorporates the Value and Criteria into the case. Subpoint A of
Contention 3 is an argument as to why your Criteria ought to be adopted; Subpoint B uses
that Criteria to weigh the entire case; Subpoint C emphasizes the Value premise is upheld
through your affirmative position.
VI.
CONCLUSION
This final statement is just a quick (10 second) summary and direction to the judge to vote in
the affirmative.
35
LD Case Outline
Opening Quotation:
Because I agree with____________________, I affirm/negate the resolution which states Resolved: the
United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations.
Definitions:
The United States
Moral
Obligation
Promote
Democratic Ideals
Value and Criterion:
My value for this round will be______________, which is important because…This value relates to the
resolution because…
My criterion will be_______________. This criterion is important because…This criterion achieves my
value premise because…
Contention One (tagline):
Main Argument One—Claim
Warrant
Data (evidence)
Impact
Relationship to the criterion and value
Main Argument Two—Claim
Warrant
Data (evidence)
Impact
Relationship to the criterion and value
Contention Two (tagline):
Main Argument One—Claim
Warrant
Data (evidence)
Impact
Relationship to the criterion and value
Main Argument Two—Claim
Warrant
Data (evidence)
Impact
36
GENERIC ASSIGNMENTS
Ballot Evaluation Assignment
1. Read all of your ballots from this weekend, paying particular attention to judge comments. Read them
with an active memory of the round.
2. Identify some general impression and discuss (with your partner if necessary) the following questions:
______
What key lesson did you learn from evaluating your ballots?
______
Identify some of your main strengths.
______
What is the most important area that you need to improve in?
______
What external factors contributed to your wins or losses?
______
How did you work with your partner?
______
Identify a position/argument that you lost on and a strategy for answering it in the
future.
______
Beyond the structure or format of debate, how will you improve the content of
your arguments?
______
Anything else?
3. In a 2-page essay, summarize your findings and/or answer the questions above.
37
Curriculum Corner: The Teacher’s Toolbox
Planning Scope & Sequence for Success:
Designing Curriculum for Understanding
By Adam J. Jacobi
When classroom teachers develop curriculum, we are laying the groundwork for student learning, much as debaters
develop their plans or cases – predicated on both proven techniques and theoretical frameworks – as well as fostering the
kind of interactivity that generates engagement, such as interpretation or oratorical performers strive for. Just as
students in forensics endeavor to wow their judges, efficacious teachers work to deliver content with flair. In a world
where No Child Left Behind pervades, and accountability, standards and assessment are constant buzzwords, the
importance of speech communication skills has never been more important – across curricula.
Whether teaching a course
in broad-field communication
studies, debate or oral reading, or
organizing speech and/or debate
as an extracurricular after school
activity, coaches must approach
student training with a pedagogical
pathway that will map out the
journey of techniques building on
theories, building on complementary
principles that will not only prepare
students for presentations, but for
real life situations.
This time of year, teachers are
sometimes thrown into instructing
a course they have had little time to
anticipate, much less plan curriculum
for. The theories, frameworks
and methods described herein are
designed to help you jumpstart
your program in whatever state it
might exist, to make the most of
the circumstances you will face.
Throughout the year, a variety of
resources will be highlighted to
assist you in building your teacher’s
toolbox.
Several educators in our
community rest their entire
curriculum on Roman orator
Quintilian’s principle of nurturing a
good person who speaks well. One
of the premier speech communication
textbooks, Glencoe Speech – among
whose authors include the NFL’s
RostRum
own Randall McCutcheon and Joe
Wycoff – begins with a chapter
entirely dedicated to “Building
Responsibility,” that is, to use the
powerful skills gained in this
discipline for ethical purposes
(McCutcheon).
Current research and best practices in
educational design points to using a
holistic approach, which ties together
a variety integrated curricular planks
and cross-disciplinary content to
engage learners. I have highlighted
some of those below, and how I have
used them both in the classroom and
in cocurricular contexts toward
successful learning.
“Teaching for Understanding”
Framework
One of the most stimulating
professional development courses I
ever took was through Harvard
University Graduate School of
Education’s Project Zero, exploring
the Teaching for Understanding
(TfU) framework. The framework
starts with identifying
“throughlines,” which are
overarching course-long or seasonlong goals for student learning
(Blythe). These goals are often
closely aligned with state and/ or
national content standards, and
for debate and speech, those are often
found in the Communication,
Language Arts, Social Science, and/
or Theatre Arts disciplines.
A teacher begins planning with the
TfU framework by creating
“Generative Topics” that generate
curiosity for content by connecting to
students’ prior knowledge,
experiences and interests. This creates
the spark of motivation that leads to
the second TfU step, “Understanding
Goals.” The important delineation here
is that knowing and understanding are
two very different ideas.
Unfortunately, so much of teaching
emphasizes knowledge without
understanding how to use that
knowledge. We need only consider
Bloom’s Taxonomy to appreciate
knowledge as a base level of learning,
and to move up the ladder, students
must analyze, synthesize and evaluate.
In the end, that’s what will aid in more
meaningful retention ensuring that
what is taught is learned!
Enter stage right TfU’s next step,
“Performances of Understanding.”
By asking students to create
something new from what they learn,
they are exhibiting that they
understand a concept well enough to
create with it. The fairly recent
revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy
38
concurs: creating surpasses
evaluating. We can be armchair
quarterbacks, but to actually do
something ourselves involves a certain
risk and commitment to understanding
something well enough to do it well.
There’s the adage about teaching for
when we’re no longer there for our
students. Performances of
Understanding measure just that!
Performances of Understanding can be
small steps, similar to how drills or
games emphasize certain skills or
components of presentation in speech
and debate. The difference between
true performances and mere activities
is the degree to which a student is
using their own creativity, rather than
simply recycling information from
memory. That’s why I justify with
students the NFL point system for
placing a premium on original speech
events. It takes more effort to create a
text from scratch, using analytical
thought and then performing it, than to
cut and perform a literary script. That’s
not to say that there aren’t inherently
different values in both, and certainly
doesn’t mean one is “better” than the
other; it simply acknowledges the
additional time spent gathering,
analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating
research before creating a speech
based around it.
The next TfU step is “Ongoing
Assessment.” In forensics, this is the
recurring practice we expect of our
students. This is assembling,
analyzing and evaluating criticism
from judges, and synthesizing that
with our approach to what and how
we present. The assessment criteria
must be explicit, so students know
exactly what standards and
conventions they’re ascribing to.
That’s why rubrics are so effective.
In designing a rubric, teachers need
to plan exactly what and how they
want students to understand. In
RostRum
reading a rubric, students know
exactly what they need to do to
achieve. Students do this time and
again, and perhaps one of the most
inspiring “teachable moments” I’ve
had as an educator was being
approached at the 2008 National
Tournament by a Representative who
was in the preliminary chamber in
which I served as parliamentarian.
suggested by Wiggins and McTighe:
start by identifying desired results,
next determining acceptable evidence,
then plan learning experiences and
instruction (ibid.). This reminds me of
educational philosopher John
Dewey’s approach to solving
problems. To quote another adage,
“don’t put the cart before the horse.”
What I appreciate
After semifinals were posted, and
he didn’t advance, he asked me what
I thought he could have done better.
After I shared my criticism with him,
I asked if he would be attempting to
return to Nationals next year. He
replied “no,” because he had
graduated, and subsequently said “I
just wanted to know what I can
improve in myself.” There’s a
student who understands the
overarching “big picture” benefit
forensics can bring him in life, beyond
competition. He then went to
watch a semifinal chamber.
in the field of educational design
is that beyond those high-stakes
expectations we have in modern
curriculum, it is incumbent upon
teachers and coaches to find the
enduring value in what we teach, that
is to say, what young people can take
beyond the classroom and into life.
We need to communicate that to our
students, so they see the point in what
we’re learning. And, if we don’t
follow the inductive practice of
“backward design,” there isn’t that
experiential thread that moves through
the journey of learning that John
Dewey advocated so strongly.
Backward Design
We are often faced with a “teaching to
the test” mode of preparing students
for a particular assessment exercise. In
the book, Understanding by Design
(UbD), authors Grant Wiggins and Jay
McTighe contemplate “curriculum as
a means to an end” (Wiggins). That
end could be a high-stakes test, state
and/or national standards, or
educational scaffolding to build to the
next topic. While this seems like
common sense, the old adage (about it
not being so common) holds true. As
the authors point out, so many
teachers are quick to think about their
textbooks, favorite lessons and handson activities first, “rather than
deriving those tools from targeted
goals or standards” (ibid.). Sounds
kind of like Luigi Pirandello’s Six
Characters in Search of an Author,
but I digress!
Let’s examine the framework
Going Forward to Move Backward
The evidence in backward design is
assessment, which is categorized
dichotomously into formative and
summative. The former refers to
measuring learning in pieces or steps
along the way toward the latter, which
is a culminating measurement of
understanding a lesson or unit
comprehensively. Assessment is also
thought of as authentic when it asks a
student to demonstrate proficiency in
completing a practical task related to
the concept learned. Such tasks are
thought of as performance
assessments, where a student
demonstrates their learning publicly.
Sounds similar to the TfU approach,
doesn’t it?
As a former speech and theatre
teacher, this of course made total
sense to me. I would sometimes
encounter resistance among
colleagues, who were concerned
39
with the vitality of knowing factual
information. What I realized is that in
the speech and theatre disciplines, we
are teaching two of the most forsaken
aspects of literacy: listening and
speaking. We take for granted that our
students can listen and speak, but can
they do these well?
For students lacking specific training
in these skills, I would contend the
answer to be “no.” What’ more, too
often, teachers in other disciplines
tend to forget how much they need to
be active practitioners of those skills.
I was fortunate to have a university
supervisor while student teaching who
pointed out that while I moderated a
class discussion, I was too quick to
offer evaluative responses to each
student’s answer, rather than listening
– and better yet, allowing other
students to evaluate their peers!
Formative assessments most often
rely heavily on communication
between the teacher and each student.
Observing student verbal (oral and
written) as well as nonverbal (body
language to show engagement, facial
expression to show understanding)
response to individual concepts is a
simple, yet powerful way to
informally assess “how things are
going” in progress of teaching.
Having students journal on their
progress and experiences is also an
effective way of engendering
intrapersonal, self monitoring of
learning and understanding. Frequent
and short “quizzes” of components of
the “big picture” ensure that students
are “getting it” as a unit progresses.
Summative assessments, on the
other hand, are measurements of
the culmination of what is learned
over the course of a unit, semester
or year. These directly link to the
standards, overarching objectives
or throughlines. When these are
authentic, rather than
rote tests, students also feel a more
genuine sense of accomplishment by
appreciating the “big picture” or
“enduring understanding” that Wiggins
and McTighe espouse (ibid.). Case in
point: after giving several matching or
multiple choice quizzes, I told students
their culminating test for a unit in
interpersonal communication would be
several case studies in which they
would have to apply solutions to
common problems in relationship
communication. After the test, several
students told me they actually enjoyed
writing their answers and playing the
role of “therapist.” Moreover, several
students later
destination, but “buy in” to the
importance of the journey along the
way. Moreover, when teachers link
that destination as in fact, a new
beginning to more vast opportunities,
students appreciate the “big picture” of
what they’re working toward. In
forensics, that means competition is no
longer an end unto itself, but a means
toward learning so much more.
There are varied approaches to
coaching, but the most effective
methods involve teaching students the
techniques, and even the rationales
and theories behind those techniques,
so the students are empowered to
bring these to any situation in which
reflected that they felt more prepared
those skills are needed. We delight in
to avoid common pitfalls of
hearing about the successful lives our
communication in relationships.
forensic alumni lead. NFL Alumni
Coordinator Heidi Christensen
“Cutting it” Together
recently interviewed Austan Goolsbee,
In competitive forensics, the
advisor to Presidential candidate
“test” we are chiefly concerned with
Barack Obama, an economist, and
is the presentation at contests. So,
professor at the University of Chicago.
when we think backwards from a
What makes this man so inspiring is
tournament, there’s the perfecting of
how he applies forensic skills in such
timing – whether it’s a 1AC in debate
a varied manner. From the debate or
or a cutting for an interpretive event. In
extempore standpoint, he examines
fact, I love to marvel at how a student
economic issues with acumen that
who competes in both Policy Debate
despite his leftist leanings, earns him
and an interpretive event can crossrespect of conservative columnist
apply their cutting skills to both
George Will. From the interpretive
situations. Good timing is a mix
perspective, he brings personality and
between understanding pacing, what
needs vocal emphasis, and prioritizing engagement to his communication,
content. Those are all constituent skills even performing in an improv troupe
that are equally important to teach
on the side. Designing curriculum for
before a student is ready to synthesize students ought to consider a “whole
them for the purposes of timing.
package” person like Austan
Goolsbee, and what we teach and how
we deliver it can lead to that kind of
Of course, when a coach holds a
success – and lead backward from
cutting drill before a student
there!
understands the relevance of that
practicable skill, the student might
become frustrated. That’s why the
So, just like effective designers
totality of the journey is so important
consider function before form,
for teachers to communicate early and
teachers designing their scope and
throughout the process. So, students
sequence need to think about the
will understand the
40
ultimate aims of the content they
Vol 83, No. 1
need to deliver. By following the be a more meaningful experience (Adam J. Jacobi is the NFL’s TfU and UbD
frameworks, we are with our students in the long-run, Coordinator of Member Programs forced to think critically about
what with a classroom or team room that and Coach Education. He has taught we’re teaching before we deliver brims
with more engagement and Communication and International that instruction. The result will excitement. Baccalaureate
Theatre, instructed
institutes, and is a one-diamond
coach of three national champions).
Bibliography
Author’s Note: At time of press, all of the online articles and tools below were freely accessible!
Backward Design: Beginning With The End in Mind to Design Multi-Genre Thematic Units. Greece
Central School District (NY) – English Language Arts. Retrieved 1 September 2008
<http://www.greece.k12.ny.us/instruction/ela/6-12/BackwardDesign/Overview.htm>.
“Backward Design Template.” Media Working Group: [Digital] Literacy. Retrieved 1 September 2008
<http://digitalliteracy.mwg.org/curriculum/template.html>.
Blythe, Tina. The Teaching for Understanding Guide. Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Boston, Carol. “The concept of formative assessment.” ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and
Evaluation. October 2000 <http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/557/09/>.
Brualdi, Amy. “Implementing performance assessment in the classroom.” Classroom Leadership.
3:5, February 2000 <http://www.ascd.org/ed_topics/cl200002_brualdi.html>.
McCutcheon, Randall, et al. Speech: Communication Matters. McGraw-Hill/Glencoe, 2001.
McMillan, James H. (2000). “Fundamental assessment principles for teachers and school
administrators.” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(8). Retrieved 1 September 2008
<http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=8>.
McTighe, Jay, and Ken O’Connor. “Seven practices for effective learning.” Educational Leadership.
Assn. for Supervision & Curriculum Development, November 2005.
Mertler, Craig A. (2001). “Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved 1 September 2008
<http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25>.
Schultz, Lynn. Bloom’s Taxonomy. Old Dominion University. Retrieved 4 September 2008
<http://www.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm>.
Teaching for Understanding: Putting Understanding Up Front. Harvard University Graduate School of
Education/Project Zero. Retrieved 1 September 2008 <http://learnweb.harvard.edu/ALPS/tfu/>.
Wiggins, Grant P. “What is Understanding by Design?” Authentic Education. Retrieved 1 September
2008 <http://www.grantwiggins.org/ubd.html>.
Wiggins, Grant P., and Jay McTighe. Understanding By Design. Assn. for Supervision & Curriculum
Development, 2005.
RostRum 75
41
Delivery Charades
Happy New Year, everyone! I hope all of you had a wonderful and restful holiday break. Many of you are now starting a new
semester with new classes and new students which means you are probably looking for some new ways to teach old lessons. I
hope that many of you are planning to incorporate some of the ideas from my previous curriculum guides. If not, perhaps this
month’s activity suggestions will pique your interest a little more. Both of these ideas were originally given to me by Dr. David
Williams at Texas Tech University. Thanks, Doc.
Analyzing your Audience
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
While in graduate school at Texas Tech University, I had the opportunity to teach a number of basic level oral communication
classes (public speaking, business and professional speaking, etc.). In each of these courses I tried to stress to my students the
importance of audience analysis and audience adaptation. Learning to tailor your message to an audience’s values, attitudes,
and beliefs is a vital skill necessary for a successful presentation. The following activity will provide your students with an
opportunity to analyze a likely audience - their classmates.
Rationale:
One of the most important lessons a speaker can learn is that people evaluate messages in light of their own values, attitudes
and beliefs. Therefore, a speaker is much more likely to maintain her or his audience’s attention, gain favorable consideration
for her or his point of view, and succeed in presenting an effective speech if she or he gathers information about the
audience’s feelings toward the subject of the speech. With this information in hand, a skilled speaker will adapt his or her
message to fit the audience; however, many speakers often fail to analyze and then adapt to their audiences. Thus, it is
important that young speakers practice early on the art of audience analysis and the skill associated with adapting their
messages.
Objectives:
x_
To offer students the opportunity to gain information about their classmates so that they might engage in audience
analysis.
x_
To help make students aware of the difference that may exist between their seemingly similar classmates.
Preparation:
This activity requires very little preparation outside of a lesson on audience analysis. Beyond this you will only need to
divide the class into groups of four or five students each.
The Assignment:
x_
Each group of students should be instructed to come up with a list of ten to fifteen words or phrases that describe
the members of the class.
x_
Once each group has completed its list, the class should discuss the descriptors generated by each group. Stu
dents should be made to feel as comfortable as possible disagreeing with generalizations that may not be true
of all members of the class.
x_
In light of the class discussion each group should revise its list, adding new descriptors revealed during the discussion
and removing descriptors that now seem invalid.
x_
In order to practice audience adaptation in addition to information gathering, each student should individually
write a 500 word essay discussing how they will adapt future speeches to the information gleaned from the
class discussion.
56
42
Delivery Charades
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
It is easy to find videos of effective speeches that can be used to illustrate to students how they should deliver their speeches.
This exercise seeks to reproduce the poor delivery techniques we would like our students to avoid. This exercise will stress
delivery over message content as a means of demonstrating the effects of poor delivery techniques.
Rationale:
It is one thing to lecture to students about the distracting effects of poor delivery habits, but it another thing altogether to let
them see the habits at play. By observing poor delivery techniques at work, students can realize and observe the distracting and
problematic effects of rapid fire speech, no enthusiasm, pacing, and numerous other faulty delivery styles . However, it is often
difficult to find videos demonstrating these habits. In fact most instructional videos show only effective speech habits. This
activty is designed to provided teachers with a means of filling this void in teaching material.
Objectives:
x_ To demonstrate to students the distracting effects of poor delivery techniquies. x_ To stimulate discussion among students
regarding the way in which poor delivery techniques impact message
presentation. x_ To show students what not to do when delivering a
speech.
Preparation:
Prepare a list of faulty delivery techniques just like you might prepare a list of quotations for an impromptu speech.
This list might include the following:
Speaker grips the podium
Speaker paces
Speaker rocks back and forth
Speaker mumbles
Speaker speaks too loudly
Speaker does not speak loudly enough
Speaker plays with hair Speaker does not make eye contact
Speaker looks at back wall
Speaker reads entire speech
Speaker does not gesture at all
Speaker is monotonous
Speaker has no enthusiasm or energy Speaker is heavy on vocal fillers like “umm”
Once you have created your list, cut the list into strips with one technique on each (just like you would if you were going to
play charades). Place the strips of paper in an envelope, hat, or basket.
The Assignment:
x_
Ask students to volunteer to give a brief impromptu speech, but instead of selecting a quotation or other
prompt for the speech, they will draw a delivery technique from the envelope. The student can give his or her
speech on an acceptable topic (remember this exercise stresses delivery, not content).
x_
Instruct the student to speak for 1 to 2 minutes while performing the delivery technique on the slip of paper
selected from the enevelope.
x_
After each speech, ask the class to identify the delivery technique performed during the speech.
x_
Once the class has successfully determined the delivery technique, have them discuss the technique’s impact on the
overall effectiveness of the speech.
For more information on these assignments please contact Chris Joffrion at: cjoffrion@nflonline.org
43
57
Flow-sheet Score Guide
Criteria
Points
7 columns for flowing
Case &
numbered
Responses
1 2 3 4 5
are
1 2 3 4 5
One Issue per Sheet
Plan
is
flowed
understandable
Comments
1 2 3 4 5
and
1 2 3 4 5
Arguments can be followed
speech to speech
1 2 3 4 5
Abbreviations
throughout
1 2 3 4 5
are
used
Evidence Sources are flowed
1 2 3 4 5
Dates of Evidence are flowed
1 2 3 4 5
Content of Evidence is flowed
1 2 3 4 5
Flow is neat and readable by
another person
1 2 3 4 5
Total
/50
=
%
/500
44
Forensics I
Course Description and Syllabus
Instructors: Mr. Alderete, Mr. Kurth, and Mr. Meyers
Course Scope: Forensics is a Co-Curricular course for students with an interest in developing their skills
in public speaking and argumentation, speech writing and advanced research. The course will provide
instruction in various forms of debate and public speaking activities, especially those that are offered in
competitive forensics tournaments. These speaking forms include policy, and Lincoln-Douglas debate,
Student Congress, extemporaneous speaking, expository speaking, oratory, and dramatic, humorous
interpretive reading. It will also cover the characteristics and roles of different types of reasoning that
are utilized in oral argumentation, including deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, inference, and
metaphor.
Course Objectives:
1. An introduction to the theory of argumentation and debate, including extensive in-class debating and
opportunities for tournament debates on the national high school debate topics;
2. Training in the organization of materials and the oral and physical aspects of delivery in various
speaking situations. Intended to give the beginning student an understanding of and practice in the art of
communicative speaking;
3. To develop an understanding of the defining characteristics of different formal speaking and debating
styles, focusing especially on public speaking events offered in Las Vegas area interscholastic debate
and speech tournaments;
4. To learn and utilize techniques for effectively developing and delivering speeches appropriate for
competition in area forensics tournaments. These public speaking styles will include extemporaneous
speaking, expository speaking, oratory, and dramatic, humorous, and poetic interpretation;
5. To utilize and improve both theoretical and practical argumentative skills in in-class and tournament
debates;
6. To develop and utilize library and on-line research skills necessary to the preparation for in class and
tournament debates and other public speaking activities;
7. To develop an appreciation for issues related to “the ethics of advocacy” and “proper source material
attribution,” and to utilize proper research, advocacy, and attribution techniques in all in-class and
tournament presentations;
8. To develop an appreciation of the importance of active listening techniques, and to consistently utilize
these techniques as engaged listeners during the presentation of speeches and debates conducted by
fellow students; and
9. To develop an appreciation of the importance of highly developed note-taking and flowcharting skills,
and to consistently develop these skills through the maintenance of a Notebook. This Notebook will
45
consist of detailed in-class lecture notes, flowcharts of in-class debates conducted by fellow students,
and scripts from prepared individual and debate events.
Novice Academic Evaluation Criteria
A. Tournament Attendence. ( 30 percent)
1. One tournament each month minimum – 5 total by the end of the year
- For the First Quarter, you must attend at least 1 Tournaments
- For the First Semester, you must attend at least 3 Tournaments
- For the Second Semester, you must attend 5 tournaments by the end of the semester
2. Hosting the TMS tournament does not fulfill a tournament
3. Extra Tournaments cannot fulfill other requirements
4. Extra Tournaments in the second quarter (for example) cannot make up for a missed tournament in
the
first quarter without prior approval. We will always attempt to accommodate your scheduling needs.
B. Practice Rounds. (20 Percent)
1. One Practice Round or Speech a week minimum
- For the First Quarter, you must have at least 4 Practice Rounds
- For the First Semester, You must have at least 10 Practice Rounds
- For the Second Semester, You must have at least 5 Practice Rounds in the Third Quarter
2. A Minimum of 2 Practice Rounds at the Quarter and 7 Practice Rounds at the Semester must be in
a Debate Activity, as opposed to an Individual Events speech.
3. Participation in Mock Trial Practices may count toward Second Quarter Debate Practice Rounds, up
to 2 Practice Rounds.
4. A satisfactory practice round or a speech has a judge, either coach or varsity partner.
- Policy – A Full Round through Rebuttals
- LD – A Full Round through Rebuttals
- Congress – prepared speeches on at Least Three Bills, with CX and reworks
- IE – Fully Prepared speech with at least one Rework
5. Extra Practice Rounds or Speeches CANNOT be used as extra credit
6. IN ORDER FOR A PRACTICE ROUND TO COUNT, YOU MUST HAVE THE FILLED OUT
AND SIGNED PRACTICE ROUND FORM.
7. Practice Rounds must be completed before the last tournament that you attend.
C. Assignments/Class Folder. (20 Percent)
46
1. Scouting Sheets, Debriefing Sheets, Practice Round Forms and Notes must be filled out/completed
2. Speech Scripts, First Affirmatives and Negatives, and Legislation must be included
3. Research and writing assignments will be made during both quarters of the Second Semester
D. Classroom Participation (10 Percent)
1. Active participation in daily discussions and brainstorming sessions is expected.
2. Disruptive behavior which affects class productivity will affect your grade negatively.
E. Quizzes (20 Percent)
1. Weekly quizzes on Current Events and on Formal Logic will be given.
2. Eight Quizzes will count toward the First Quarter Grade
3. 15 Quizzes will count toward the Second Quarter Grade
4. It is Your Responsibility to make up missed quizzes. We will always make them available.
Introduction to Forensics Course Outline and Syllabus
This is designed to give you an idea of what we will be working on each week, and significant Due
Dates. As in any class, there may need to be schedule changes.
Aug 29- Sept 2- Introduction to The Class, Forensics Team, Forensics Tournaments. We will Introduce
you to Each Individual and debate event and give you demonstrations Introductions – Class and
Tournament Expectations / Grades and the Class Folder
Introduction to Individual Events and Demonstrations
Intro to Lincoln Douglas Debate and demonstrations
Introduction to Policy Debate and demonstrations
Sept 6-9 - Introduction to Events. Policy – Stock Issues, Structure, Responsibilities, Organization,
Demonstrations stock Issues and Speech Responsibilities Readings
LD – Value/Criterion, Structure, Responsibilities, Organization, Argumentation, Demonstration
Lincoln-Douglas Made Easy
IE – Interps: Script Selection, cutting and rewrites
Extemp: Speech format, styles, research, practice speech/impromptu speech
Congress: Parts of a Bill/Resolution, Understanding parliamentary procedure
Sept 12-16 – Introduction to Events Policy – Introduction to Topicality, Disads, Advantages – Filing
Evidence – Practice Rounds Topicality and Disad Readings
47
LD – Introduction to Values, Criteria, Casing, Topic Breakdown – Flowing How To Chapter 1, Chapter
5, Specific Readings
IE – Interps: Final selection of script, first draft of cutting, memorization
Extemp: Practice speeches, gain an appreciation for the world and its news
Congress: Create legislation, practice rules of order, research, speech formatting
Sept 19-23 – Preparation for First Tournament Policy – Discussion of the Topic – Affirmatives and
Negatives – Practice Rounds Topic Readings
LD – Discussion of the Topic – Affirmatives and Negatives – Practice Rounds Topic Readings
IE – Interps: scripts memorized, begin blocking, character analysis
Extemp: Tub building, practice speeches
Congress: speech writing, impromptu speeches, cross examination, rebuttals
Sept 23-24 – First Tournament!!
Sept 26-30 – Advanced Forensics Policy – Advanced Flowing, Line By Line Skills, Shotgun 2NCs
LD – Advanced Flowing, Signposting, Advanced Argumentation
IE – Interps: Review Tournament, continue blocking and clean up, Practice Rounds if time permits
Extemp: Review Tournament, practice speeches, research, tubs
Congress: Review Tournament, begin writing bills and prepping for next tournament
Oct 3-7- Advanced Forensics Policy – Advanced Topicality – Terminology, Shells, Aff Answers, On
the Topic
LD – Advanced Casing, Cross-Examination Case Writing, CX Drills
IE – Interps: Continue blocking and clean up. Practice rounds if time permits
Extemp/Platform: practice speeches, research, tubs, rewrites as needed
Congress: Continue study of Robert’s Rules, rebuttals and cross examination
Oct 10-14 – Advanced Forensics Policy – Advanced Disads – Shells, Aff Answers, On the Topic
LD – Introduction to blocking, block writing – refutation drills How to Block an LD Argument
IE – Interps: Continue and clean up, Practice rounds if time permits
Extemp/Platform: practice speeches, other analysis formats, research, rewrites
Congress: Logic and analysis of Bill Structure and content, continue study of Roberts Rules
Oct 17-21 – Advanced Forensics Policy – Introduction to Counterplans and Kritiks Counterplan and
Kritik Readings
LD – Offensive/Defensive Argumentation, Definitional Debating/Topicality, Intro to Next Topic
IE – Interps: Continue and clean up, Practice rounds if time permits
Extemp/Platform: practice speeches, other analysis formats, research, rewrites
Congress: Logic and analysis of Bill Structure and content, bill rewriting
Oct 24-27 – Individual Events Week
48
Oct 31-Nov 4– Advanced Forensics Policy – Debate Theory – Terminology, Application, Mini Debate
Exercise
LD – Strategy – Application and Exercises, Casing Topic Readings
IE – Interps: Start Duo work and script cutting. Practice rounds if time permits
Extemp/Platform: practice speeches, Impromptu, SPAR
Congress: Practice motions, presiding officer training, SPAR
Nov 7-10– Advanced Forensics Policy – Politics Disad – Internal Links, Strategy, Matching Exercise
LD – Research, Evidence Usage
IE – Interps: Practice rounds if time permits, Begin searching for next script/change events
Extemp/Platform: practice speeches, begin to search for new event
Congress: Logic and analysis of Bill Structure and content, bill writing, research new event
Nov 14-18 – Advanced Forensics Policy – Advanced Flowing Seminar - Exercises
LD – Advanced Flowing and Rebuttal Seminar – Exercises
IE – Interps: Continue blocking and clean up, Practice rounds if time permits
Extemp/Platform: advanced extemp style and performance, self review orations
Congress: Understanding resolutions, committees and other fringe congressional elements
Nov 21-23 – Advanced Forensics Policy – Kicking Out Exercise
LD – In-Class Debates
IE – Interps: Begin blocking of new scripts. Character analysis, cuttings
Extemp/Platform: practice speeches, other analysis formats, research, rewrites
Congress: How to be successful on the national circuit
Nov 28-Dec 2– Debate Reversal Make Up Exam for Current Events Tests
Dec 5-9 – Debate Reversal
Dec 12-16– FINALS – Study for your Classes!
Advanced Level classes are available in each of the Debate and Forensics events. These classes are
smaller, more individually focused courses that are repeatable for Honors credit for three years.
49