DOCSLIB.ORG

The Code of the Debater

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Code of the Debater The Code of the Debater The Code of the Debater INTRODUCTION TO POLICY DEBATING ALFRED C. SNIDER International Debate Education Association New York • Amsterdam • Brussels International Debate Education Association New York • Amsterdam • Brussels Published by: International Debate Education Association 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 © 2008 International Debate Education Association All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Snider, Alfred. The code of the debater : introduction to policy debating / Alfred C. Snider. p. cm. 1. Debates and debating. I. Title. PN4181.S65 2008 808.53--dc22 2008020463 Design by Kathleen Hayes Printed in the USA Contents Acknowledgments xi Introduction xiii What Is Debate? xiii Why Debate? xiii PART ONE: INITIATION Chapter 1. Policy Debate 3 The Policy Debate Experience 3 The Debate Tournament 4 The Resolution 5 Speech Order and Responsibilities 6 Judges 10 The Affirmative Stock Issues: Upholding the Resolution 11 The Negative Stock Issues: Refuting the Resolution or Case 12 Exercises 14 The Code of the Debater 16 PART tWO: BASIC KNOWLEDGE Chapter 2. The Affirmative Case 19 Affirmative Advantages 19 Selecting an Affirmative Case 20 Preparing an Affirmative Case 21 Constructing Your Affirmative Case—The First Affirmative Speech 23 Briefing/Frontlines—Preparation Before the Debate 28 Exercises 30 Chapter 3. The negative Attacks the Affirmative Case 31 General Considerations 31 Organizational Guidelines for Attacking the Case 32 Strategic Willingness to Concede Portions of Case 33 Specific Techniques for Attacking the Affirmative Case 34 Utilizing Challenges 34 Indicting Affirmative Evidence 35 Techniques for Dealing with Stock Issues 36 Clashing with Affirmative Inherency 36 Clashing with Affirmative Impact Claims 37 Attacking Affirmative Solvency 41 Conclusion 42 Exercises 42 Chapter 4. The Disadvantage 44 Components 44 Types of Disadvantage Scenarios 45 Threshold Scenario 46 Linear Scenario 47 Structure of a Sample Disadvantage Argument 48 Other Concepts You Might Find Useful 48 Time Frame 49 Preemptions 49 Advice to Affirmatives: How to Answer a Disadvantage 49 Winning Disadvantages on the Negative 52 Kicking Out of Disadvantages 52 Exercises 53 Chapter 5. The Counterplan 55 Criteria 55 Answering Counterplans 58 Exercises 59 Chapter 6. The Process of Critique 61 Why Are Critiques Valuable? 64 Types of Critiques 66 Answering Critiques 68 Exercises 70 Chapter 7. The topicality Argument 71 Arguing about Definitions 72 Winning with Topicality 72 Making a Topicality Argument 73 Reasons to Prefer the Negative Definition(s) 74 Topicality Can Help with Other Arguments 75 vi The Code of the Debater Answering Topicality 75 Affirmative Topicality Tips 76 Common Responses to Topicality Arguments 77 Reasons Why Topicality Is Not a Voting Issue 78 Exercises 79 Chapter 8. Debate Steps 80 First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) 80 First Negative Constructive (1NC) 81 Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) 82 Second Negative Constructive (2NC) 84 First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 86 First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 86 Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 88 Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 91 Timeline for a Policy Debate 93 Before the Round 93 During the Debate 93 After the Round 98 PART tHREE: DEBATERS hAVE SKILLS Chapter 9. Speaking 101 Goals 102 The Dynamic Speaker 102 Applying Dynamism Factors to Delivery 103 Voice 103 Face 104 Eye Contact 104 Body Movement 104 Gestures 105 The Physical Elements of Speech 105 Parts of Your Speech System 106 Caring for Your Speech System 107 Giving a Good First Impression 107 Speaking Drills 108 Breathing Problems 108 Enunciation Problems 109 Contents vii Pitch Problems 109 Monotone or Singsong Delivery 109 Volume Problems 110 Other Delivery Problems 110 Other Drills to Improve Speaking 111 Chapter 10. Flowing 113 The Basics 113 Materials 113 Organizing the Flowsheets 114 Using Symbolic Vocabulary 115 Flowing Speech by Speech 117 Helpful Tips for Flowing 117 Chapter 11. Organizing Arguments 119 Learn to Build an Outline 119 Structure Beyond the Outline 121 Building a Single Argument—The A-R-E Model 122 Put Them Together with Notation 123 Signposting—Staying Organized during Your Speech 123 Organizing Your Refutation 125 Chapter 12. Preparing as a team 127 Partnerships 127 How to Prepare on the Affirmative 128 How to Prepare on the Negative 129 Chapter 13. Cross-Examination 131 Objectives of Cross-Examination 131 Guidelines for Asking Questions 132 Guidelines for Answering Questions 133 Tactics for Specific Cross-Examination Situations 135 Chapter 14. Research 137 The Importance of Research 137 A Debate Research Plan 138 Library Resources 139 Gaining Access 139 Reference Materials 140 viii The Code of the Debater Online Resources 140 Books 142 Government Documents 142 Internet Research 142 Chapter 15. Evidence 145 Creating Evidence Cards 145 Simple Guidelines for Evidence Citation 146 Evaluating Evidence 147 Evidence Drills 148 Chapter 16. Briefing 149 Titles and Tagging of Briefs 150 Writing Briefs and Taglines 150 Format of Brief Pages 150 Taping Briefs 151 Strategic Considerations—Or How to Make Your Work 152 More Useful Analytical Arguments 152 Analysis Drills 153 Chapter 17. Rebuttals 154 Chapter 18. Adapting to Judges and Audiences 157 Collecting and Using Information on the Judge 157 Types of Judges 158 Adapting to Specific Judge Types 159 Type B Adaptations 159 Type C Adaptations 161 PART FOUR: ENDLESS JOURNEY Chapter 19. The Better Debater? 165 The “Better” Debater 165 The “Not Better” Debater 166 Chapter 20. How the Decision Gets Made 167 Tuna’s Equation 168 Aunt Bluebell’s Scales 170 Contents ix Chapter 21. Cross-Application of Ideas 173 Chapter 22. Evolving Arguments: Strategic handling of Disadvantages 177 Evolving Disadvantages 177 APPENDIXES Appendix 1: videos And web Sites 187 Videos 187 Videos for Policy Debaters 187 Sample Policy Debate (free) 187 Policy Debate Instruction Videos (free) 188 Training Resources (for purchase) 188 Classroom Lecture Series: Critical Advocacy (free) 188 Web Sites for Policy Debate 189 Appendix 2: Sample Flowsheet 191 Appendix 3: Sample Brief 192 Democracy is Not So Good [Frontline] 192 Glossary 195 x The Code of the Debater Acknowledgments While my name is on the cover and I am very willing to accept any and all blame for errors and faults found in this volume, this is certainly not something that I have done alone. Since 1972 I have been gathering and evaluating debate-training materials for my own use. I have stolen every good teaching technique I have ever encountered. One main source I have borrowed from is the Emory National Debate Institute (ENDI). Melissa Wade and the Barkley Forum at Emory Univer- sity have been national leaders in developing training materials for new debaters. Year after year they have refined their materials. The 1999 ENDI policy-training manual was the best single debate training document I have ever seen. My sincere thanks and gratitude to Melissa Wade, Bill Newnam, Joe Bellon, Anne Marie Todd, and all of those at Emory who have worked through the years to produce these materials. Another major source I have borrowed from has been the World De- bate Institute held each summer at the University of Vermont. This pro- gram has also emphasized producing training materials for new debaters for over 25 years. I want to specifically thank the Open Society Institute for its support in this project. Its support for this work in its first incarnation in 1999 as a training text for students and teachers in America’s urban debate leagues was an essential part of the origin of this text. The institute’s drive to bring debate to communities that really need it has been an inspiration to me. I want to thank the many, many novice debaters I have worked with through the years who have taught me what works and what doesn’t. I have, of course, not fully learned this lesson, and I am still ready to learn more. I want to thank Martin Greenwald and Noel Selegzi for providing me with so many exciting debate opportunities. I also want to thank Elea- nora von Dehsen for her assistance with this text. I owe a great deal to Lionel Palardy of the University of Vermont, who kept this text alive be- tween 1999 and 2008. I also want to thank the Slovenian national debate program, Za in Proti, and its director, Bojana Skrt, who hosted me during my 2006 sab- batical from the University of Vermont and allowed me to write in a rich environment. I admire the program’s efforts to promote debate and have gained inspiration from its members. Debate isn’t just another game, and it isn’t just another educational activity. It is a path of critical advocacy that is life changing and empow- ering. As my friend from Malaysia, Logan Belavigendran, has said, debate is not just an activity, it is a lifestyle. I invite you to learn the code of the debater and follow the way of reason. Alfred C. Snider Burlington, Vermont, USA March 2008 xii The Code of the Debater Introduction Chapter 1 introduces you to the concepts underlying policy debate. It describes the basic elements of this type of debate—the structure of de- bate competition, the ideas to be debated, and your role in the debate. After reading this chapter, you should begin to feel at home in this new intellectual space. What Is Debate? Debate is about change. We are constantly engaged in a struggle to bet- ter our lives, our community, our country, our world, and our future. We should never be satisfied with the status quo—surely something in our lives needs improving. Debate is the process that determines how change should occur.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CX Firm Foundation I
    Stefanie Rodarte-Suto Canyon High School [email protected] §Policy Debate: US policy at home and abroad is the central issue of the topic/resolution. Debaters role play by acting as a policy maker, playing out possible scenarios. Evidence driven §CX Debate: Cross-Examination Debate §Team Debate: Two members constitute a team; Two teams of Two constitute a debate § “At the beginning, though, it is important to understand that, whatever else debate is, it is a game. It has teams, points, winners, losers, tournaments, and trophies. Like many games, it is not always fair (even though we try hard to make it fair). Most importantly, debate is supposed to be fun.” - Dr. Joe Bellon, Director of Debate Georgia State University 2006 § Just like any game, there are rules and a basic structure to learn and understand. Constructives § 8 min. 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC) § 3 min. CX by 2nd Negative § 8 min. 1st Negative Constructive (1NC) § 3 min. CX by 1st Affirmative § 8 min. 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC) § 3 min. CX by 1st Negative § 8 min. 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC) § 3 min. CX by 2nd Affirmative Rebuttals § 5 min. 1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR) § 5 min. 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) § 5 min. 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR) § 5 min. 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) *8 minutes of prep time for each team §Resolution § Topic to be debated- Selected each year by a national vote § Debated across the US throughout the academic year § Wording is important: Each word has meaning (Topicality) Providing boundaries for each team § 2017-2018 Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 354 559 CS 508 069 AUTHOR Herbeck, Dale A.; Katsulas, John P. TITLE The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate. PUB DATE Oct 92 NOTE 16p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (78th, Chicago, IL, October 29-November 1, 1992). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Debate; Debate Format; Higher Education; *Probability; Rhetorical Criticism; *Risk IDENTIFIERS *Policy Debate; Rhetorical Strategies; *Risk Assessment ABSTRACT The best check on the preposterous claims of crisis rhetoric is an appreciation of the nature of risk analysis and how it functions in argumentation. The use of risk analysis is common in policy debate. While the stock issues paradigm focused the debate exclusively on the affirmative case, the advent of policy systems analysis has transformed debate into an w,aluation of competing policy systems. Unfortunately, the illusion of objectivity masks several serious problems with risk analysis as it is presently used in academic debate. Risk analysis artificially assigns probability to arguments and overvalues arguments with large impacts. Four suggestions can dramatically improve the use of risk analysis in policy debate:(1) some risks are so trivial that they are not meaningful;(2) the increment of risk must be considered; (3) debaters must not become enslaved to large impacts; and (4) debaters must rehabilitate the importance of uniqueness arguments in debate. (Twenty-one notes are included.) (RS) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • Tackling UK Poverty and Disadvantage in the Twenty-First Century
    Tackling UK poverty and disadvantage in the twenty-first century An exploration of the issues Edited by David Darton and Jason Strelitz JR JOSEPH ROWNTREE FOUNDATION Using this report This book is primarily designed to be accessed as a pdf document. It contains internal links that can be followed by hovering over the underlined text with your cursor. You can return to your original place in the text using marginal arrow/page number boxes (e.g.▲ 9 ). This publication is also available in hard copy form. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. Joseph Rowntree Foundation The Homestead 40 Water End York YO30 6WP Website: www.jrf.org.uk © Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2003 First published in 2003 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation All rights reserved. Reproduction of this report by photocopying or electronic means for non-commercial purposes is permitted. Otherwise, no part of this report may be reproduced, adapted, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. ISBN 1 85935 070 4 (paperback) 1 85935 090 9 (pdf: available at www.jrf.org.uk) A CIP catalogue record for this report is available from the British
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©
    © National SpeechDebate & Association DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION DEBATE 101: Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents Chapter 1: Debate Tournaments . .1 . Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Rhetoric . 5. Chapter 3: The Debate Process . .11 . Chapter 4: Debating, Negative Options and Approaches, or, THE BIG 6 . .13 . Chapter 5: Step By Step, Or, It’s My Turn & What Do I Do Now? . .41 . Chapter 6: Ten Helpful Little Hints . 63. Chapter 7: Public Speaking Made Easy .
    [Show full text]
  • Beg. CX Robertson-Markham
    Jonathan Robertson, Sudan H.S. and James Markham, Anton H.S. An Introduction to UIL CX Debate UIL WTAMU SAC - September 23rd, 2017 Beatriz Melendez and Jose Luis Melendez, 2-A UIL CX Debate State Champions 2016 “You can do it!” -The Waterboy Introduction - Brief video as students and coaches enter: (Debate class video) What is CX Debate? Policy debate. Policy = evidence. Lots of evidence. This event will change your life. One student’s story that ends submerged. So, are you ready to “Suit Up”? The Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. “Debate is blood sport, only your weapons are words.” 2 - Denzel Washington in The Great Debaters The Speeches and their Times: 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 2NC) (never use prep time before CX periods) 1st Negative Constructive (1NC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 1AC) 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 1NC) 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC=8 min) (2NC + 1NR = Negative Block) CX (3 min by the 2AC) 1st Negative Rebuttal(1NR=5 min) 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR=5 min) 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR=5 min) 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR=5 min) Each team receives 8 minutes of prep time that may be used according to their strategy. Citation of evidence Evidence must be contiguous. And, citations done correctly, i.e.: Frank, 2015 [Walter M. Frank (legal scholar, attorney), “Individual Rights and citation → the Political Process: A Proposed Framework for Democracy Defining Cases,” 3 Southern University Law Review 35:47, Fall, 2015, p.
    [Show full text]
  • BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: the Teacher Materials SAMPLE Policy
    BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: The Teacher Materials SAMPLE Policy Prepared by Jim Hanson with thanks to Will Gent for his assistance Breaking Down Barriers: Policy Teacher Materials Page 1 BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: SAMPLE POLICY TEACHER MATERIALS By Jim Hanson TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO THE TEACHER'S MATERIALS ................................................................... 3 BASIC SKILLS OF DEBATING: BUILDING TOWARD MINI-DEBATES ....................................... 3 POLICY DEBATING: TOWARD TEAM/CX DEBATES ................................................................. 4 THE MOST ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS ..................................... 5 USING THE LESSON PLANS FOR LECTURES ........................................................................... 6 DEBATE COURSE SYLLABUS .................................................................................................. 7 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR THE BASICS .............................................................................. 9 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR POLICY DEBATING .................................................................. 10 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR ADVANCED POLICY ................................................................. 11 LECTURE OUTLINES ............................................................................................................ 12 BASIC SKILLS OF DEBATE LECTURES .................................................................................. 12 SESSION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE CLASS .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 11. Lincoln-Douglas Debate [Language Approved by Membership at NFA 2013; Incorporated by Executive Council on August 12Th, 2013]
    11. Lincoln-Douglas Debate [Language approved by membership at NFA 2013; incorporated by Executive Council on August 12th, 2013] PURPOSE: A debate event designed to engage the audience through a policy-oriented dialogue. DESCRIPTION: NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one-person, persuasive, policy debate on the traditional stock issues of policy debate (harms, inherency, solvency, and topicality). It is a communication event, in which competitors will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver and refute arguments. Rapid-fire delivery, commonly called “spread delivery,” is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event. RULES: a. Paradigm for Judging Lincoln-Douglas Debate - The official decision making paradigm of NFALD is that of Stock Issues: Harm (Advantage or Goals), Inherency, Solvency, and Topicality. The affirmative is required to propose a plan that meets four initial burdens. The plan need not be detailed, but should be sufficient to prove the plan’s propensity to solve the problem area. The affirmative must prove: - The harm of the present system or that a comparative advantage or goal can be achieved over the present system; - The inherency which prevents solving those harms or achieving those advantages or goals; - The proposed plan’s propensity to solve the harm or achieve the advantage or goal claimed by the affirmative; and - The topical nature of the proposed plan as an inductive proof of the resolution. If, at the end of the debate, the negative has convinced the judge that the affirmative proposal has violated the parameters set by the resolution, then the decision in the debate should be awarded to the negative.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Starter Packet SSRA Aff and Terrorism Disadvantage
    2015 Atlanta Urban Debate League Starter Evidence Packet (SSRA Affirmative and Terrorism Disadvantage) 2015 Starter Packet SSRA Aff and Terrorism Disadvantage Topic – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. More resources at 1 2015 Atlanta Urban Debate League Starter Evidence Packet (SSRA Affirmative and Terrorism Disadvantage) Table of Contents ***How To***............................................................................................................................................. 4 What Is Policy Debate? ............................................................................................................................. 5 Speeches and Speech Order ..................................................................................................................... 6 The Constructive Speeches ....................................................................................................................... 7 The Rebuttal Speeches .............................................................................................................................. 9 How to write a block and why? .............................................................................................................. 12 Judge Adaptation ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Cutting Cards .........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate
    Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate John R. Prager Copyright © 1993, 2007 John R. Prager CONTENTS 1 Lincoln-Douglas Debate Format 1 2 Values 5 3 Value Hierarchies 12 4 Fundamental Theory of Lincoln-Douglas Debate 20 5 The Affirmative Constructive Speech 29 6 The Negative Constructive Speech 36 7 The Rebuttal Speeches 50 8 Cross-Examination and Flowcharting Skills 55 9 Evidence and Research Skills 61 10 From Policy Debate to Lincoln-Douglas 72 11 Fallacies of Reasoning 76 12 A Sample Lincoln-Douglas Debate 86 Index 97 INTRODUCTION This text developed in response to the needs of my own students during my tenure as a coach of a small school in Michigan. At the time, Michigan did not have a statewide program of competition in Lincoln-Douglas, but a handful of invitational tournaments were experimenting with the form. There were no good options for textbooks on the subject at the high school level, and so my teaching notes gradually evolved to become this text. As of 2007, which this book was last revised, Michigan continues its exclusive commitment to policy debate at the high school level. The experiments with Lincoln-Douglas at tournaments have largely stopped. Yet I remain convinced that there is great worth for the high school student in learning about value debate, both for its own sake and for spillover benefits on policy and legislative debating. For this reason, I have made this text available online as an introduction to the subject for students and coaches. If you are approaching Lincoln-Douglas after experience with policy debate, you may wish to begin reading with Chapter 10, which has been written to ease the transition between the two forms of debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Debate: a Response to the Debate Blahs
    DOCURENT RESUME ED 096 703 CS 500 792 AUTHOR Kovalcheck, Kassian A. TITLE Current Debate: A Response to the Debate Blahs. PUB DATE Apr 74 NOTE 10p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Speech Communication Association (Richmond, April, 1974) EDRS PRICE HF-$0.75 BC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGE DESCRIPTORS College Students; *Debate; *Intercollegiate Ptograms; Persuasive Discourse; *Problems; Relevance (Education); Speech ABSTRICT Intercollegiate debaters often have difficulty coming up with rc;:!.,vant topics for debate. Even when they dofind current topics, by t1,1 end of an eight-month preparation period both the coaches an: the debaters are bored. One possible alternative to this extension of ttli4' rebate season might be found in current issues debate. Additica.11 emphasis on this type of debate may have significant edocational advantages. DSR-TKA operates current issues debate by allowing schools that have elected to participate in current issues debates to suggest topics for debate about six weeks to two months before the tournament. All participating schools vote on the topics and the most popular topicis selected. About three to four weeks before the tournament, the topic is announced. Each school then provides debaters prepared to debate on one side of the question. After the first day of debate, a parliamentary session is held with all the debaters and judges, and the participants may,if they wish, change the wording or nature of the, proposition. This method say have drawbacks, but it does allow debaters a chance to consider topics that are not possible with a single national proposition, and it can also be enjoyable.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Market Prices and the Market for Corporate Control
    CHEFFINS-ARMOUR.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 6/22/2016 11:13 AM STOCK MARKET PRICES AND THE MARKET FOR CORPORATE CONTROL John Armour* Brian Cheffins** The manner in which hostile takeovers have historically been executed has just begun to receive serious academic attention. Similar- ly, while the literature on the accuracy and determinants of share prices is voluminous, there has been little systematic historical analy- sis of when and how modern standards of share price efficiency took shape. This Article addresses both subjects in depth to ascertain the extent to which developments in the market for corporate control may have been associated with, or facilitated by, developments in stock market efficiency. We identify potential linkages between hostile con- trol transactions and stock market pricing and explore these linkages empirically with a new hand-collected dataset of control contests oc- curring between 1900 and 1965. We show that, while the evolution of acquiror tactics in control contests was plausibly linked in some cir- cumstances to changes affecting the manner in which shares were priced, other factors have to be taken into account to explain how the market for corporate control developed over this period. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 762 II. SHARE PRICES AND EFFICIENCY------A PRÉCIS .................................. 765 III. TAKEOVER TECHNIQUES OVER TIME .............................................. 770 A. Transfer by Vote vs. Transfer by Sale ........................................ 770 B. Exchange vs. Cash Tender Offers ............................................... 771 C. Block Purchases vs. Open Market Bids ..................................... 772 D. Cash Tender Offers vs. OMBs .................................................... 773 * Hogan Lovells Professor of Law and Finance, University of Oxford; ECGI. ** S.J. Berwin Professor of Corporate Law, University of Cambridge; ECGI.
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY DEBATE: “Two Versus Two” Debate
    WNDI 2014 p. 1 of 12 Policy Debate http://www.whitman.edu/academics/whitman-debate POLICY DEBATE: “Two versus two” Debate. CONDUCTING THE DEBATES THEMSELVES Each debate will have four constructives, four rebuttals, and four cross-examination periods. In a single debate, each student will deliver two speeches—a constructive and a rebuttal. 1AC: 5 minutes First Affirmative Constructive : This speech is almost fully prepared before the debate starts. The First Affirmative constructive speech is expected to defend the resolution in the most compelling way possible. This means at least 3 (and probably 4) components should be part of the 1ac: The existence of a problem, the consequences (impact of significance) of that problem, the need for a solution provided by the proposition, and (optional) arguments against what the negative side might say. In other words, the task of the 1A is to explain the resolution and provide arguments defending the resolution. The format is flexible, but most good 1As will defend an interpretation of the resolution and then establish 3-5 arguments in favor of the resolution. Each argument should have a claim, data, and warrants. Each argument should independently prove that the resolution is valid or true. Each argument should be given weight (significance)—why does that argument matter? Each argument should also link itself directly to the wording of the resolution. Most importantly, each argument should have evidence to back it up—quotations from experts, statistics, narratives, other reasoning, etc. CX of 1AC: 3 minutes The negative team cross-examines the affirmative speaker. These 3 minutes can be used to clarify information, set up future arguments, expose weaknesses in the speech, etc.
    [Show full text]