September-October 2014 UDL Curriculum
Technology
Welcome (back) to UDL! I hope you’ve all had the chance to go to your schools, recruit
some new debaters, see some familiar faces at practice and get excited for the year ahead! The
first date everyone needs to be aware of is Friday, October 10, when we’re hosting our first
tournament of the year here at Yale from 3 to 7 pm. Please start reminding your students about
this as early as possible, and encourage everyone to attend, especially if they haven’t competed
before. Also let them know that observing rounds is an option if they’re nervous—if they come
to the tournament, odds are they’ll see that they’re prepared to compete.
The start of the semester can be tricky for conducting practices because you’ll
(hopefully!) be working with a mix of experienced returning debaters and students who are
brand-new to the activity. This likely means the first few practices will be devoted to covering
the basics of parliamentary debate, argumentation and flowing. To ensure the more experienced
team members stay engaged, consider letting them help you coach, whether by working with a
small group or explaining concepts. It’s good for building the team if newer debaters know they
can look up to fellow students!
Week of September 9 (or your first week back)
Introductions (5 minutes): Take some time to introduce yourselves and UDL for all the
newbies. Explain how tournaments work, how many cool opportunities UDL kids have
(competing at Osterweis, UPenn, and Yale; winning awesome prizes; going to camp for free;
meeting kids from all over New Haven; having lots of fun) and what your practice schedule will
be like.
Name game (10 minutes): Divide students into pairs. Each student will spend 5 minutes
interviewing their partner to find out at least basic information about them—class year, academic
interests, hobbies, goals, reason for being at debate practice, etc. Then, everyone will give a short
presentation about his or her partner.
Structure of an argument lecture/discussion (15 minutes): A good argument MUST have
three parts:
1. Claim – what argument are you trying to make?
2. Warrant – why should the judge believe your argument is true?
3. Impact – why should the judge believe your argument is important?
Outline an argument on the board following this format (try to make it technology related
and straightforward—maybe something like “Cell phones should not be allowed at schools”).
Ask for volunteers to complete a few arguments on their own. When each student presents, ask
the other students to identify the claim, the warrant and the impact they just heard.
Mini-debate (30 minutes): Split students up into groups so that you have two or four (or even
six, if you have enough coaches) teams. Each team will be arguing for or against a motion, and
will be responsible for brainstorming and outlining at least three arguments to support their
stance
I.
Possible resolutions: “THW require high school students to take a course in computer
skills.” “THW give every public school student a laptop.” “THB Facebook is a waste of
time.”
II.
III.
Take 15 minutes for the teams to brainstorm their points. Coaches and experienced
debaters can help newcomers generate ideas, pick the best to turn into arguments and
outline each point.
Teams will take turns delivering points. First, one person from side Gov will deliver one
point. A member of side Opp must then immediately make a brief speech rebutting that
point (or, if your students would benefit from it, feel free to give 30 seconds of prep
time—no need to terrify people on day 1). After side Opp delivers the rebuttal, someone
from side Opp will deliver one of their main points, and side Gov will rebut. Process
continues until all the main points have been delivered.
Wrap up (10 minutes): Explain that though the UDL format is different from what they just
did, they now understand (hopefully) the basic structure of argumentation and refutation that
they’ll need for the rest of their time in UDL! Yay! Next week, more discussion of parliamentary
debate structure and technology! Again, remind everyone about the tournament and encourage
them to plan to attend!
Week 2, September 15
Remind students about the tournament—October 10, Yale, 3 to 7! Also, if they’re signed
up to compete at the Yale High School Tournament, that’s this weekend, September 20 and
21! On Saturday, parli will be at Wilbur Cross starting at 8. On Sunday, elimination
rounds will be at Yale starting at 9. Students are also welcome to attend the tournament to
watch rounds.
Technology discussion (15-20 minutes)
I.
II.
Start by asking students to brainstorm all the ways they have used technology (technically
technology means any knowledge + tools people use to make life easier—which might be
something interesting to discuss with your students—but let’s go with a more computersrobots-electric-stuff definition) over the course of their day.
a. What specific pieces of equipment have they used?
b. What have they used the technology for?
c. Are interactions with technology universally positive and beneficial? What are some
problems they’ve encountered with technology? Ie, unreliability, privacy concerns, time
wasting, etc.
d. What rules have their parents and teachers imposed on their use of technology? Are these
rules beneficial or overly constraining? What purpose do they (at least attempt to) serve?
Segue from discussion of personal technology use to societal technology use and the new
challenges and problems that accompany the ubiquity of the Internet and devices that allow
convenient, round-the-clock access. (These is mostly what I would call social issues related to
tech; policy/governmental issues related to tech will be discussed next week)
a. Privacy issues
i. Everyone knows there is lots of information about people on the Web—
including information on theoretically secure sections of the Web like a personal
email account (celebrity nude photo hacking )
ii. Who should be able to use that information? Is it fair for employers to look at the
personal social media accounts of prospective employees? Is it ok for advertisers
to use information about people to try to sell things?
1. Emphasize how new and crazy and creepy microtargeting techniques are,
and discuss the ways companies can use data about your searches and
even email content to send ads your way.
2. Discuss the “Right to be forgotten”: The European Court of Justice has
ruled that people have the right to request Google scrub certain
information about them from its search results. Is this fair to those who
expect information about people they meet to be readily available online?
Should it be applied in the US?
b. Safety issues (esp for minors)
i. Cyberbullying
ii. Predators
iii. Information theft
c. Anonymity on the web
i. Should people be required to use their real identities online?
ii. Role of anonymity in cyberbullying (above)
d. Potential for idiocy’s impact to be greatly magnified
i. Social media gives megaphones to people who probably shouldn’t have them. Is
this a problem or is it easy to ignore?
ii. Companies now often operate social media accounts as a promotional tool. This
can quickly go awry. Like here. Probably don’t show your students this particular
article, but explain the situation. http://foodspin.deadspin.com/pizza-apologizesto-victims-of-domestic-violence-1632536910
1. Shows how social media can be a tool for people to unify and share
experiences in positive ways—and also an avenue for stupidity. Should
DiGiorno’s fire their social media guy?
iii. Is this something that matters? In 2014, people with access to the Internet absorb
far more information on a daily basis than everyone else in human history, and a
lot of the information and communication is kind of an embarrassment to
humanity. How (if at all) does that change the way we view the world?
Practice round/basics of parliamentary debate (45 minutes)
I.
II.
Split up beginners and experienced debaters. If you have enough coaches (you should), have
your returning students do a practice round on the resolution THW not watch the video of
Ray Rice assaulting his wife OR THB parents should not allow children under 10 to use the
Internet.
With newcomers and students who didn’t compete last year or want a refresher, go over the
basics of parliamentary debate by walking through a round with the motion THB Facebook
should be banned in schools. Introduce the concept of flowing by explaining that note-taking
is crucial to making sure you can respond to all of your opponent’s arguments and notice
when they fail to respond to yours. By the end of a round, their flow should look roughly like
the outline you have on the board when you finish this activity.
a. Prime Minister Constructive
i. Outline your case by making 2 to 3 major arguments to support the resolution.
1. Ask students to brainstorm what arguments they could use to support the
resolution, and make sure that you get the three parts of each argument.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
2. Example:
a. Claim: Facebook distracts students from lessons and assignments.
b. Warrant: Because many people have smart phones and many
classes require students to use computers, it’s easy to access
Facebook instead of paying attention.
c. Impact: This makes students likelier to fail to learn the material
they need to succeed, leading to classroom disorganization and
poor grades.  when kids don’t learn high school material well,
their options for college and careers are dramatically reduced
Leader of the Opposition Constructive (LOC): 5 minutes
i. Present your case of 2 to 3 arguments opposing the resolution, then refute the
arguments the Gov team made.
1. Ask students to brainstorm what arguments they could use to oppose the
resolution, and make sure that you get the three parts of each argument.
2. Example:
a. Claim: Facebook can serve as a powerful educational tool.
b. Warrant: Many important people, businesses and groups operate
Facebook pages in addition to (or even instead of) other web
presences. Students can use these for research and even
interaction with things they’re studying. IE, a student studying
the ways the president of the U.S. attempts to engage the public
should be able to look at his or her Facebook page.
c. Impact: (A) Kids will be able to access more information. (B) As
social media becomes more and more ubiquitous, it’s important
for kids to understand its uses beyond simply keeping in touch
with friends, and recognize that social media can help them learn
more about the world long after they leave school.
3. Refute the arguments made in the PMC
a. Ask students how they would respond to the claim that
“Facebook distracts students from lessons and assignments.”
Member of Government Constructive (MG): 5 minutes
i. Refute the arguments made in the LOC and make new arguments or summarize
the arguments your partner made.
1. Ask students how they would respond to the claim that “Facebook can be
a powerful educational tool”
ii. How can they respond to other arguments that were brought up? (Both those new
in the LOC and the responses to PMC arguments).
Member of the Opposition Constructive (MO): 5 minutes
i. Refute any new points the MG made and present new arguments or summarize
the arguments your partner made.
Leader of the Opposition Rebuttal (LOR): 2 minutes
i. Emphasize your team’s strongest points and explain why you should win the
debate by comparing your points to your opponent’s points. You can present new
examples in this speech but you cannot make new arguments.
Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR): 3 minutes
i. Emphasize your team’s strongest points and explain why you should win the
debate by comparing your points to your opponent’s points. You can present new
examples in this speech but you cannot make new arguments.
Week 3, September 22
Discussion (20 minutes): Last week we discussed some technology-related concerns your
students have probably encountered in their own lives. Now we’ll look at some policy questions
they may not have thought about.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Brainstorm some reasons governments have an interest in controlling, to at least some
degree, what happens on the Internet and with new technologies.
a. Safety and privacy concerns, along the lines of what was discussed last week.
b. National security—countries can and do use the Web to spy on each other. The
Internet provides meeting places for groups like white supremacists, religious
extremists and other unsavory characters to gather, share ideas and sometimes draw
up actionable plans.
c. Potential for theft of personal information, money, documents by hackers
d. Necessity of protecting utilities such as electricity and water from disruption
Freedom of speech
a. We’ve had a lot of debates in UDL about hate speech. Should the government
regulate speech on the Internet, given that it can reach a broader audience and thus
potentially have more impact?
Net neutrality: the principle that all data should be treated equally by governments and
internet service providers.
a. The FCC is considering a rule that would allow service providers (such as Comcast)
to charge content providers (such as Netflix) for guaranteed levels of service.
b. This would violate the net neutrality principle that many people believe is essential to
keep the Internet fair, but could allow consumers faster access to popular services
like video streaming.
Foreign policy issues
a. Cybersecurity threats are very difficult to defend against, especially because many
vulnerable targets (such as banks and even utility companies) are wary about giving
the government too much access to their networks in the name of protecting them
from threats.
b. The U.S. has used cyber tools to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program. Should such tools be
fair game? Does using them undermine America’s credibility should we seek to
create an international set of regulations for cyberwarfare?
c. Leaks: the Internet enabled the procurement, leak and dissemination of an avalanche
of U.S. classified military and diplomatic information—WikiLeaks. How does the
potential for such leaks affect America’s foreign policy? Is the potential for leaks a
sign the government should be less transparent or more transparent?
Drill (20 minutes)
I. Divide the students into two teams. For the sake of this curriculum, students will be
labeled G1, G2, G3 (for the students on Gov), and O1, O2, O3 (for the students on
opp).
i. Use the topic THW shut down online forums run by hate groups like white
supremacists and religious extremists.
ii. Give each team 5-7 minutes to brainstorm arguments for their side
II. In a 1 minute (or so) speech, student G1 gives the first argument in support of the
resolution.
III. Student O1 then has to stand up and, in a 1-ish minute speech, respond to/attack
student G1’s argument and then offer his/her indepenedent argument against the
topic.
IV. Student G2 then stands up and refutes student O1’s new argument, before giving
his/her own new argument supporting the topic.
V. Student O2 then stands up and refutes student G2’s new argument, before giving
his/her own new argument against the topic.
VI. This process continues until either (a) you run out of time or (b) the students run out
of arguments.
Skill practice: Flowing (20 minutes)
I. Remember how last week we did a round on the board? Now it’s time for the
students to work on flowing on their own paper!
II. Explain how flowing works! Show them on the board:
a) Make sure they know the difference between on case and off case
b) Make sure they know the order in which things are written on the flow
c) They can divide the paper up in advance if that makes things easier for them!
d) Use some examples of arguments (either from the topic about online forums or
something else entirely if they’re getting tired of technology) to show them how a
flow would progress
Remember, tournament October 10! Yale! Be there!
Week 4: September 29
Tournament is next Friday! October 10! Get all the names of your students who will be
competing, and encourage anyone who is too nervous to compete to come watch rounds
(after you try to persuade them that they shouldn’t be scared!). Email Lincoln.swainemoore@yale.edu or becca.steinberg@yale.edu with any questions!
Discussion: Speaking Style (20 minutes)
I. Delivery goes a long way towards making a speech persuasive, especially when your
judge is uninformed about the topic. Strong delivery is also especially important if you feel
shaky about content—learn not to let lack of confidence visibly or audibly manifest itself in your
speech.
II. Brainstorm and discuss specific behaviors that are positive and negative
Positive: fluid speech, eye contact, purposeful hand gestures, comfortable volume,
straight posture, conversational speaking voice, good organization
Negative: filler words, excessive movement of body or hands, touching hair or clothes,
avoiding eye contact, staring at paper, poor or no organization
III. Watch videos of speeches and discuss (if someone has a laptop with Internet access
capabilities—otherwise it’s fine to skip this and instead ask for volunteers to deliver short
arguments while focusing on their delivery)
What’s strong and what’s weak about each of these speeches? Note not only body
language and other factors previously discussed, but write down memorable phrases and
moments of strong emotion. As a group, discuss takeaways from videos
Good speech: Barack Obama’s address of 2004 Democratic National Convention (we
won’t watch the whole thing—first six minutes or so)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fMNIofUw2I
Not so good speech: Ohio local government candidate, 2010 (this one is really over the
top but funny and demonstrates the pitfalls of trying too hard to emote)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBl8Ddsaf4U
Practice round (45 – 60 minutes)
I.
Divide your students up into groups:
e)
If you have fewer than 4 kids, have assistant coaches fill in, so you
can do a full 2 vs 2 practice round
f) If you have 4 kids, then divide them up into 2 teams of 2
g)
If you have 5 or 6 kids, divide them up into 2 teams of 2-3. Where
needed, you can have a different person give the PMR than the person
who gave the PMC. Same with the LOC and the LOR.
h)
If you have 7 kids:
1. If you have 2 or more coaches, divide them up and do 2 prounds.
Either one assistant coach can fill in for the empty spot or, if you
have a student who is up to the challenge, s/he can iron (wo)man
2. If you only have 1 coach, have all of the kids who are not
participating in the round flow. Afterward, they can discuss the
ideas that they had that didn’t come up in the round!
i) If you have 8 or more kids
1. Same as for if you have 7 kids, only you don’t need an assistant
coach to fill in.
II.
Because this is the first practice round, feel free to give the kids 20 minutes of
prep, instead of 15 if that is what they need.
III.
For this practice round, use the topic, THB all cities should provide free WiFi in
public areas
IV.
After the round, give as much constructive feedback as time will allow for!
Week 5: October 6
IT’S ALMOST TOURNAMENT TIME!! If you haven’t already, get all the names
of your students who will be competing. Make sure they know how they will be getting to
campus, have talked to their parents about it and have identified a way to get home.
Discussion: What would technology use look like in a perfect world? (20 minutes)
I.
This should help your students identify impacts they can use for arguments at the tournament
this week.
II.
III.
IV.
What is the Internet’s potential to do good? Think about things like crowdsourcing, nonprofit
fundraising capacity, free flow of information, ability for musicians, writers etc. to share art
with the world, cool journalism stuff like ProPublica, new channels for people all over the
globe to reach each other, etc.
What would it take to maximize people’s use of technology for good purposes instead of bad?
More education? More laws against questionable activities? Better devices?
To what degree do we have to accept the bad (all the stuff we discussed earlier) in order to
get the good?
Focus on Skill: Refuting arguments (15-20 minutes)
I. Goals of Refuting arguments: Spend some time talking with the debaters about the goal
of successfully dealing with an opponent’s arguments
i. Encourage students to ask themselves this question when refuting
arguments: At the end of my rebuttal, will the judge still be convinced by
my opponent’s point?
1. If yes, you need to rework the rebuttal
2. If no, you’ve succeeded in rebutting your opponent’s argument
II. Rebuttal Strategy: Explain the A-R-E model to your students and offer examples of each
strategy if you feel it is necessary.
i. Argument Component
 A: Assertion
o Attack your opponent’s argument or claim
 R: Reasoning
o Attack your opponent’s explanation or reasoning
 E: Example
o Attack your opponent’s example or examples
III. Some Helpful Refutation Strategies
i. Irrelevance: show that the point does not relate to the round’s resolution or
does not do anything to advance the other team’s line or argumentation
ii. Factuality: show that your opponent’s assertion is false or that he or she is
making it up
iii. Logical errors: prove that your opponent’s logic doesn’t make sense
iv. Low impacts: prove that your opponent’s argument makes very little
difference in the round
v. Just rebutting examples cannot defeat a point, but if the opponent uses a
lot of examples to support his or her point, showing how these examples
are false or illogical can help your case
Drill: Responding to arguments (30-40 minutes)
a. For the following drill, use the following motions:
 THB teenagers who sext should not be charged with distributing child
pornography.
 THB all public television should be streamed live online.
b. Divide students into 2 teams—gov and opp. Give them ten minutes to
brainstorm arguments for their sides
c. Have one gov student stand up and deliver one argument in support of a topic
in a one minute speech. Have one opp student stand up and respond to the
argument from side gov, and then deliver one new argument for side opp (in a
1-2 minute speech). Have one gov student stand up and respond to side opp’s
new argument and then deliver a new gov argument
d. Repeat this process until it’s pretty clear that the arguments are getting
repetitive and/or you cycle through all of the students. Then repeat with the
next topic!
e. Give students feedback about their speeches. What prevented some rebuttals
from being as effective as they could have been?