Debate 07 08

53
Fence-sitters are chickens.

description

 

Transcript of Debate 07 08

Fence-sitters are chickens.

Debate is defined as a

formal, direct, oral contest

in argumentation between

two or more teams on a

definite issue on a definite

time.

VALUES: Leadership Skills, Analysis,

Critical Thinking, Open-

mindedness, Thinking on One’s

Feet, Organization, Listening,

Self-confidence, Teamwork and

Cooperation

The winner in a

debate is the better

speaker of English.

A good debater

must, to a certain

extent, be arrogant.

In a debate, one should

speak as loudly and as

quickly as he or she

can.

The more content is

delivered, the

stronger the

argument.

VARIOUS NAMES: Oregon-Oxford Debate Format

Cross-Examination Debate

Forensic Debate

ALL THE SAME TYPE OF

DEBATE

IMPORTANT FEATURES:

•Use of Proof and

Evidence

•Cross-Examination

Part

Members per Team: 4

Role of Members: 4 speakers

Length of Constructives: 3 mins

Number of Constructives: 3

Length of Cross-Ex: 1 min

Rebuttals: 1 per side

Length of Rebuttals: 3 mins

Last Speech: Negative Rebuttal

Prep 3 minutes

1st Aff 3 minutes

Cross Ex of 1st Aff 1 minute

1st Neg 3 minutes

Cross Ex of 1st Neg 1 minute

2nd Aff and 2nd Neg 16 minutes

3rd Aff and 3rd Neg

Rebut by Aff 3 minutes

Rebut by Neg 3 minutes

Adj Prep 3 minutes

Adj 3 minutes

Propositions must go

against the status quo

or what is the

prevailing

circumstance.

That students should

be allowed to bring

cellphones to school

Speaker Roles

Speaker Responsibilities

1st Affirmative Speaker

•define the terms of the

proposition

Example: “cellphones are

electronic devices used for

communication”

Speaker Responsibilities

1st Affirmative Speaker •Lays out the policy created by the

team/values to be debated on

•give an outline of the team

structure/team split (signposting)

Speaker Responsibilities

1st Affirmative Speaker Example: I as the first speaker will

talk about the feasibility of

cellphone proposal, while the

second speaker will talk about the

benefits of having this policy.

No rehash!

Speaker Responsibilities

1st Affirmative Speaker •begin to present the affirmative’s

case

THE FIRST SPEAKER SHOULD TAKE THE

MOST DIFFICULT PART OF THE TEAM

SPLIT.

Speaker Responsibilities

1st Negative Speaker • cross-examine 1st Affirmative

• accept or reject the definition

• reasons: definition is against the spirit

of the proposition or altruistic

• States the clash

• rebut 1st Affirmative (0ffense)

Speaker Responsibilities

1st Negative Speaker • Clash: We do not want students to bring

cellphones to school. We want to

maintain status quo.

Speaker Responsibilities

CROSS-EXAMINATION •to clarify points

On ECA being required

Mr. Speaker, you conceded that

clubs promote holistic

development, didn’t you?

Speaker Responsibilities

CROSS-EXAMINATION •directing questions

On ECA being required Mr. Speaker, isn’t holistic development a

goal of Xavier School? Shouldn’t students

be required to do things that contribute to

their holistic development?

Speaker Responsibilities

CROSS-EXAMINATION •concluding questions

On ECA being required

Mr. Speaker, shouldn’t ECA,

contributing to holistic

development, then be required of

students?

Speaker Responsibilities

CROSS-EXAMINATION •Don’t make statements, do ask

questions.

•Don’t ask irrelevant questions.

•Try to ask yes-or-no questions.

•Do be courteous.

Speaker Responsibilities

2nd and 3rd Speakers •defend 1st speaker from attack

(defense)

•rebut previous speaker (offense)

•present portion of case

Speaker Responsibilities

Rebuttal Speakers

•summarize his side

THE REBUTTAL SPEAKER CAN

PRESENT NEW ARGUMENTS.

Speaker Responsibilities

Rebuttal Speakers

•summarize his side

THE REBUTTAL SPEAKER CAN

PRESENT NEW EXAMPLES.

Speaker Responsibilities

Rebuttal Speakers •select his side’s strongest issues

and explain why these are

sufficient for a win

•refute key issues of other side

•explain why other issues should

result in a loss for other side

Speaker Responsibilities

Rebuttal Speakers •Issues: important

contentions/clashes in the

debate

That capital punishment should

be implemented

Speaker Responsibilities

Rebuttal Speakers:

I’m going to answer two crucial

questions in my speech. First,

does the death penalty really

deter crime? Second, is justice

really served by an eye-for-an-

eye punishment?

Speaker Responsibilities

AUDIENCE

•objectively express

agreement or disagreement

•HEAR!

•SHAME!

DIVISION INTO TEAMS

4 people / team

other people to

be adjudicators

Preparing Notes for the Debate

Motion:

Definition of Terms: Affirmative

Split: (three parts)

1st Speaker: (name)

- points within split

2nd Speaker: (name)

- points within split

3rd Speaker: (name)

- points within split

Negative

Split: (three parts)

1st Speaker: (name)

- points within split

2nd Speaker: (name)

- points within split

3rd Speaker: (name)

- points within split

WHY???

ARGUMENTATION

Argumentation is the art of giving reasons in order

to justify acts, beliefs, attitudes, and values

Argument a reason to justify a stand on a

particular issue

How do we argue? Handle/Label of the Argument

That capital punishment should be implemented

Capital punishment protects society by deterring heinous crimes.

How do we argue? deductively and inductively

Arguing Deductively

• Start with the conclusion

• Explanation of the conclusion through the providing evidence/support

Conclusion: The death penalty deters crime by threatening would-be criminals with the heaviest and most dreaded punishment possible during their period of calculation.

Support: That is because heinous crimes are usually deliberate and pre-meditated. This means that before people commit these crimes, they plan the act and therefore, have the benefit of rational thought.

Capital punishment protects society by deterring heinous crimes.

Arguing Inductively

•Start with specific pieces of evidence or support

• Ends with a conclusion

Capital punishment protects society by deterring heinous crimes.

Support: That is because heinous crimes are usually deliberate and pre-meditated. This means that before people commit these crimes, they plan the act and therefore, have the benefit of rational thought.

Conclusion: Thus death penalty deters crime by threatening would-be criminals with the heaviest and most dreaded punishment possible during their period of calculation.

You may add examples like:

Statistics, news items, case studies, etc.

Feasibility

• Will the policy work? • How will it work? • Is it the best policy to solve the

problem?

Beneficiality

• Will the policy be beneficial?

• How big of a benefit will it be?

• Who will benefit from the policy?

HOW???

WHY???

EVERY ARGUMENT SHOULD BE BACKED UP BY SUPPORTS. Banner statements are

NOT arguments.

With a partner, construct your own argument given this motion:

That Xavier School should abolish its haircut policy

You may choose to argue deductively or inductively.