Research
The age of Google has made research very fast and easy. Unfortunately, a fast search
does not often end with quality evidence. When you debate, it is important to have
quality research for your arguments to help establish the credibility of your case. I
have complied a list of helpful and credible resources below where you can begin
your search for research that will help strengthen your case and briefs.
A few important tips before you begin researching
1) Have a focused approach
a. Brainstorm key words, proposals, legislation, or discussions about
your topic. Use these ideas to limit your search.
2) Create an argument map
a. It helps to have an idea of your arguments before you begin
researching.
b. Mapping out your arguments before you begin your research. Your
arguments will probably change and/or become more focused as you
find different material for your positions.
3) Explore the authors
a. If you find an article or piece that you really like, explore some more
writings by the same author.
4) Currency
a. Ensure that you are researching the most current publications.
Policies, legislation, and conditions of countries change very quickly
so the most current information you can find is best for your evidence
Where to research:
Search Sites:
Google Scholar: www.googlescholar.com
All Academic: http://www.allacademic.com/search/
Pew Center: http://www.people-press.org/
Debate Sites:
Debatabase – www.debatabase.org
National Issues.com – www.nationalissues.com
Govspot – www.govspot.com
Findlaw – www.findlaw.com
News Sites:
The Christian Science Moniter – www.csmoniter.com
The Economist - www.economist.com/
World Press – www.worldpress.org
Real Clear Politics – www.realclearpolitics.com
Al Jezeera - www.aljazeera.com/#
The BBC – www.bbc.co.uk
The Washington Post – www.washingtonpost.com
The Week – www.theweek.com
The Huffington Post – www.huffingtonpost.com
Evidence:
Your research turns to evidence:
When you have compiled journal articles, news reports, magazine articles, and texts
with your research, it is now time to turn the research into evidence. You will select
facts, statistics, examples and/or testimony from your research to use as evidence in
your argument.
Your argument is only as strong as the evidence you use to support your claim.
Processing evidence:
Tag (one phrase that summarizes the evidence)
Evidence (exact wording of your supporting material)
Citation (Author, Publication, Date)
Research Plan
Phase 1: General Knowledge: General knowledge is the "big picture" of an issue of
controversy.
Stage 1: Accumulate General Knowledge
●
Ask others about the proposition and inquire about arguments that have
been made on previous propositions that may be similar.
●
Brainstorm ideas concerning the proposition to determine the main
arguments that will most likely occur with the proposition.
●
Begin an active search for general knowledge by conducting searches
on the Internet or electronic database for books on the topic.
●
These more general, abstract sources will contextualize the topic and
begin to narrow it.
Stage 2: Process General Knowledge
●
Look for two things: information that describes the topic in historical
and contextual ways, and clues that might help to see what specific
issues are important when discussing the controversial aspects of our
topic.
●
A basic understanding of the topic will also be useful when researching
specific issues since sources will frequently refer to historical and
contextual information when discussing specific arguments.
Stage 3: Determine the Vital and Specific Issues
●
Think about what specific issues might be important when debating the
proposition.
●
Discern the vital specific issues from the irrelevant ones.
Stage 4: Review Footnotes and Bibliographies
●
Footnotes and bibliographies include information that doesn’t have to
be researched from scratch.
●
Footnotes and bibliographies frequently include information that
supports more sophisticated and nuanced arguments, thereby helping us
to narrow our research focus.
Evidence Exercise 1
Read the following paragraphs and answer the questions below. This exercise will
help you begin to read research critically and select information that will be helpful
in your case building
BRUSSELS, July 8 (Reuters) - Greece secured a 6.8 billion euro ($8.7 billion) lifeline from the
euro zone on Monday, officials told Reuters, but was told it must keep its promises on cutting
public sector jobs and other reforms in order to get all the cash. The deal, which spares Greece
defaulting on debt that falls due in August, will see Athens drip fed support under close watch
from its international creditors to drive through unpopular reforms.
Under the terms of the deal, euro zone finance ministers agreed to make staggered payments of
aid to Greece starting with a 2.5 billion euro instalment from euro zone countries in July, said
officials close to the talks. The agreement foresees a further payment from euro zone countries of
500 million euros in October. Central banks in the Eurosystem will contribute 1.5 billion euros in
July and 500 million euros in October, the officials said. The International Monetary Fund will
give 1.8 billion euros in August. "That's the way it will be done," said one of the officials.
After more than three years on life support from Europe, Greece's governing coalition is split over
how to meet the demands of its bailout programme, putting the country centre stage and
threatening to reignite the euro zone debt crisis.But a week of talks, culminating in promises to
reform the public sector, appeared to convince international lenders - the International Monetary
Fund, the European Commission and the European Central Bank - that Greece is committed to
rebuilding its economy. ($1 = 0.7773 euros)
Summarize the paragraphs in one sentence
What were the main points that were discussed in the article?
Did the article discuss any legislation or national policy? What were they?
What information in the article will be useful for your case? (stats, testimony,
examples)
Evidence Exercise 2
Read the following paragraphs and answer the questions below. This exercise will
help you begin to read research critically and select information that will be helpful
in your case building
New York Times, July 7, 2013
OTTAWA — The police said on Sunday that at least five people had died and 40 were missing
after runaway railroad tank cars filled with oil derailed and exploded in a small Quebec town.
The derailment and explosions, which took place around 1:15 a.m. on Saturday, underscored a
debate in the effort to transport North America’s oil across long distances: is it safer and less
environmentally destructive to move huge quantities of crude oil by train or by pipeline?
Visiting the town on Sunday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper compared it to a “war zone.”
The fires, which incinerated at least 30 buildings in the core of Lac-Mégantic, a tourist town of
6,000 people about 150 miles east of Montreal, limited the work of accident investigators, as well
as attempts to search for survivors and the remains of victims.
In a statement, the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway said the train had been parked outside
Lac-Mégantic for the night with no crew members on board. Its locomotive had been shut down,
“which may have resulted in the release of air brakes on the locomotive that was holding the train
in place,” the statement said. The railway did not respond to further questions, but Reuters,
quoting officials from the company, said the oil aboard the train had come from the Bakken oil
fields of the Western United States.
Summarize the paragraphs in one sentence
What were the main points that were discussed in the article?
Did the article discuss any legislation or national policy? What were they?
What information in the article will be useful for your case? (stats, testimony,
examples)