DOCSLIB.ORG

Teachers' Guide to the Middle School Public Debate Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Teachers' Guide to the Middle School Public Debate Program 4th Edition: November 2012 Core Skill Development Citizenship Laboratory Best Program Design Debate helps students To enhance productive The program offers develop reading, writing, citizenship in a democratic standards-based instruc- listening, and speaking society, debating facilitates tion with an emphasis on skills across the curriculum the integrated study of the the specific needs of as students learn to re- social sciences and hu- students and teachers in search and defend a vari- manities to promote civic the middle grades. The ety of positions on contro- competence. biggest and most success- versial issues ful program of its kind. Teachers’ Guide to the Middle School Public Debate Program MIDDLE SCHOOL PUBLIC DEBATE PROGRAM Teacher ’s Guide and Starter Materials This booklet contains all the materials teachers need to learn the Middle School Public Debate Program (MSPDP) format and program. It includes sample in- structional materials, information about preparing for tournaments, topic lists, and judging information. Additional materials are available online at www.middleschooldebate.com. Table of Contents About the MSPDP Guide to the Sample Essential Debate Debate Topics Rules for MSPDP Preparing for An article by MSPDP Debate Skills and How to How to select debate Competition Director Kate Shuster A guide to the sample Teach Them topics, and lists of Resources for teachers explains the debate on the A review of essential topics for debate, and students preparing design and topic “Ban debate skills, including including topics to participate in function of Boxing!” argumentation, aligned with selected MSPDP competitions. the including refutation, and note- social studies content Page 52-60 program. sample taking, with exercises standards. Competitions Page 3-11 notes. and ideas for use in the Page 30-44 Official rules for Page 12-16 classroom. MSPDP competitions. Page 17-29 Page 45-51 Additional Debate Coaching Resources Materials for Judging Frequently Asked What Parents Think Materials for Parents Skills Additional coaching Official MSPDP Questions for Teachers About the MSPDP Parents are essential to Brief readings and materials, including judging guide, Answers to most Results from a survey the MSPDP. Here are exercises covering ideas for running individual scoring questions asked by new of MSPDP parents the answers to their topics such as effective meetings, recruiting rubric, and judging teachers. and family members. questions. and a guide rebuttals, points of posters, and a sample manual. Page 97-104 Page 105-106 to parent involvement. information, and parent letter. Page 77-95 Page 107-112 public speaking. Page 70-76 Page 61-69 Next Step: Intramural Next Step: Forming a Next Step: Hosting a Appendix: Sample Tournament League Tournament Flow Sheet Maryland parent Teachers interested in Walton Middle School Essential Karen Sandler explains organizing intramural coaches Cynthia organizer for how she organized an competition can take Torres-Nusse and Don debaters and intramural debate the next step and Gordon explain how to judges. tournament at her organize a league. host an effective debate Page 119 child’s school. Page 115-116 tournament. Page 113-114 - Page 117-118 www.middleschooldebate.com 1 MIDDLE SCHOOL PUBLIC DEBATE PROGRAM About This Booklet This is a brief guide to the Middle School Public Debate Program (MSPDP), which currently serves tens of thousands of students in scores of schools throughout the United States. The program is housed at and primarily sponsored by Claremont McKenna College, in active partnership with the English- Speaking Union. Claremont McKenna College (CMC) is a liberal arts college with a primary mission of educating students for leadership positions in public affairs, business, and the professions. This booklet contains starter materials for teachers, parents, and administrators interested in the MSPDP. It is normally shipped with a sample debate on DVD or VHS. Although the materials here provide most of the information needed to use the MSPDP in class and competition, additional information is available on our website, www.middleschooldebate.com. A more extensive treatment suitable for student use can be found in our textbook, Speak Out! Debate and Public Speak- ing in the Middle Grades, available on Amazon.com and other retailers. Teachers who are interested in integrating debate and speaking skills across the curricu- lum should consult Speaking Across the Curriculum. About The MSPDP Now ten years old, the MSPDP was designed with middle school teachers to meet the specific educational needs of young adolescents. Unlike all other mid- dle school debating models, which merely map high school or college activities onto the middle grades, the design and implementation of the MSPDP has been informed by and geared towards research-based best practices in young adoles- cent education. This model was used to create the extraordinarily successful Middle School Public Debate Program. In ten years, more than 40,000 stu- dents in hundreds of middle schools have received debate and ar- gumentation class and contest training through the MSPDP. Pilot leagues are now starting in various locations throughout the United States. The MSPDP works to set high expectations for students participating in fully integrated leagues that bring public, private, and charter schools together for cooperative and active learning in a laboratory environment. www.middleschooldebate.com 2 MIDDLE SCHOOL PUBLIC DEBATE PROGRAM Introduction to the Middle School Public Debate Program: Kate Shuster, Director, Middle School Public Debate Program * Parts of this paper previously appeared in idebate, Volume 4, Issue 2. The Need for Middle School Debate There is a serious need for debating and public speaking programs in the middle grades. Most middle schools do not have extracurricular programs, particularly academic extracurricular programs. Students rarely have a chance to interact with students from other middle schools, particularly students from other communities. Further, middle school may be the last chance to productively reach students who are classified as “at-risk” students. These students are usually tracked into programs for low- achievers by the time they reach high schools, meaning that they are often not reached by high school debate programs, which normally reach students who are able to spare the time for elective courses or extracurricular clubs. If we can reach students in the middle grades, they are able to get the benefits of debate training. This means that students will be able to use the benefits of debate training once they get to a high school and beyond. Young adolescents are also less likely to be concerned about appear- ing “smart” in front of their peers, which means that students in the middle grades are particularly sus- ceptible to involvement in debate and public speaking activities. In addition, parents are more likely to be ac- tively involved in the education of their children in the middle grades than they are in high school. This is pri- marily because children are less independent in young adolescence than they are in later adolescence. Paren- tal involvement is an essential part of program sustain- ability and expansion, as I will explain later. Given the demonstrated importance of oral liter- acy in high school and beyond, it is particularly impor- tant to train young adolescent students in public speak- ing and debate. Young adolescents are quite talkative and argumentative, especially when compared to their counterparts in high schools. This makes debate a natural fit for the middle grades. When I speak to teachers about debate education, they often remark that the challenge for middle school students is not how to get them to debate, but how to get them to listen. Fortunately, debate does teach students how to be active and critical listeners. Listening skills are increasingly important in state-mandated content standards. These skills are critical to success across the curriculum, because if students do not develop sophisticated listening skills, they will not be able to fully process and engage other aspects of curricular instruction. In addition, debate creates an incentive structure to build listening skills as well as providing the infrastructure upon which such skills can be effectively constructed and developed. Such learning tools as “flowing,” the system of taking notes in a formal debate, can help students to immediately focus on listening and critical engagement with an ongoing discussion. Debate practice in the middle grades allows students to build skills they will need in high school and beyond. Debating is “active learning,” understood as a process of involving students in an activity while they reflect critically about what it is they are doing. Active learning strategies help students to master content and develop thinking skills. This skill acquisition means that students are more likely to succeed in classes, particularly smaller and more challenging seminar-style classes, where students are normally called upon to discuss a wide variety of subjects on relatively short notice. Although debate programs in the middle grades can help build and sustain high school debate programs (and this has been borne out in our outreach program), it is important to note that the purpose of middle school debate outreach should not be the expansion of high school debating. Middle school www.middleschooldebate.com 3 MIDDLE SCHOOL PUBLIC DEBATE PROGRAM students and middle level
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Siriusxm-Schedule.Pdf
    on SCHEDULE - Eastern Standard Time - Effective: Sept. 6/2021 ET Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Saturday Sunday ATL ET CEN MTN PAC NEWS NEWS NEWS 6:00 7:00 6:00 5:00 4:00 3:00 Rewind The Doc Project The Next Chapter NEWS NEWS NEWS 7:00 8:00 7:00 6:00 5:00 4:00 Quirks & The Next Now or Spark Unreserved Play Me Day 6 Quarks Chapter Never NEWS What on The Cost of White Coat NEWS World 9:00 8:00 7:00 6:00 5:00 8:00 Pop Chat WireTap Earth Living Black Art Report Writers & Company The House 8:37 NEWS World 10:00 9:00 8:00 7:00 6:00 9:00 World Report The Current Report The House The Sunday Magazine 10:00 NEWS NEWS NEWS 11:00 10:00 9:00 8:00 7:00 Day 6 q NEWS NEWS NEWS 12:00 11:00 10:00 9:00 8:00 11:00 Because News The Doc Project Because The Cost of What on Front The Pop Chat News Living Earth Burner Debaters NEWS NEWS NEWS 1:00 12:00 The Cost of Living 12:00 11:00 10:00 9:00 Rewind Quirks & Quarks What on Earth NEWS NEWS NEWS 1:00 Pop Chat White Coat Black Art 2:00 1:00 12:00 11:00 10:00 The Next Quirks & Unreserved Tapestry Spark Chapter Quarks Laugh Out Loud The Debaters NEWS NEWS NEWS 2:00 Ideas in 3:00 2:00 1:00 12:00 11:00 Podcast Now or CBC the Spark Now or Never Tapestry Playlist Never Music Live Afternoon NEWS NEWS NEWS 3:00 CBC 4:00 3:00 2:00 1:00 12:00 Writers & The Story Marvin's Reclaimed Music The Next Chapter Writers & Company Company From Here Room Top 20 World This Hr The Cost of Because What on Under the NEWS NEWS 4:00 WireTap 5:00 4:00 3:00 2:00 1:00 Living News Earth Influence Unreserved Cross Country Check- NEWS NEWS Up 5:00 The Current
    [Show full text]
  • DEBATING AGENT of ACTION COUNTERPLANS (I): MORGAN POWERS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS by David M
    DEBATING AGENT OF ACTION COUNTERPLANS (I): MORGAN POWERS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS by David M. Cheshier By the end of last year's academic wider than those few discussed here. This Court enforces, then the counterplan to sim- achievement season, agent of action essay does not review the merits of state ply have the Court initiate action which it counterplans were well established as a legislative or judicial action, although those then enforces as it would other decisions generic of choice, and the early indication will obviously be viable strategies in cer- might well be plan inclusive. Or is it? Even if is that they will have a similarly dominant tain debates. It does not review the compli- the outcome is very similar, one might ar- influence in privacy debates. While the cated literatures surrounding the Congres- gue the mandates of the plan are essentially summer experience of students at the sional delegation power, though in some different from the counterplan. And if we Dartmouth Debate Institute may be atypi- debates the delegation/nondelegation issue decide otherwise, wouldn't every cal, almost every round there came down to will arise. Nor does it review the range of counterplan become plan-inclusive, if only an agent counterplan, a Clinton popularity/ potential international action counterplans because both the plan and counterplan political capital position, a privacy critique, available on this topic, most of which would share similar language regarding "normal and associated theory attacks. The strate- presumably involve either consultation or means", "enforcement," and "funding"? gic benefits are plain to see - agent harmonization of American privacy policy Since there is, in certain quarters, a counterplans often capture the case advan- with the European Union - it was only little growing hostility to plan-inclusiveness, and tage and open the way for political process more than a month ago that U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Paying Attention to Public Readers of Canadian Literature
    PAYING ATTENTION TO PUBLIC READERS OF CANADIAN LITERATURE: POPULAR GENRE SYSTEMS, PUBLICS, AND CANONS by KATHRYN GRAFTON BA, The University of British Columbia, 1992 MPhil, University of Stirling, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (English) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) August 2010 © Kathryn Grafton, 2010 ABSTRACT Paying Attention to Public Readers of Canadian Literature examines contemporary moments when Canadian literature has been canonized in the context of popular reading programs. I investigate the canonical agency of public readers who participate in these programs: readers acting in a non-professional capacity who speak and write publicly about their reading experiences. I argue that contemporary popular canons are discursive spaces whose constitution depends upon public readers. My work resists the common critique that these reading programs and their canons produce a mass of readers who read the same work at the same time in the same way. To demonstrate that public readers are canon-makers, I offer a genre approach to contemporary canons that draws upon literary and new rhetorical genre theory. I contend in Chapter One that canons are discursive spaces comprised of public literary texts and public texts about literature, including those produced by readers. I study the intertextual dynamics of canons through Michael Warner’s theory of publics and Anne Freadman’s concept of “uptake.” Canons arise from genre systems that are constituted to respond to exigencies readily recognized by many readers, motivating some to participate. I argue that public readers’ agency lies in the contingent ways they select and interpret a literary work while taking up and instantiating a canonizing genre.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning to Spot Common Fallacies
    LEARNING TO SPOT COMMON FALLACIES We intend this article to be a resource that you will return to when the fallacies discussed in it come up throughout the course. Do not feel that you need to read or master the entire article now. We’ve discussed some of the deep-seated psychological obstacles to effective logical and critical thinking in the videos. This article sets out some more common ways in which arguments can go awry. The defects or fallacies presented here tend to be more straightforward than psychological obstacles posed by reasoning heuristics and biases. They should, therefore, be easier to spot and combat. You will see though, that they are very common: keep an eye out for them in your local paper, online, or in arguments or discussions with friends or colleagues. One reason they’re common is that they can be quite effective! But if we offer or are convinced by a fallacious argument we will not be acting as good logical and critical thinkers. Species of Fallacious Arguments The common fallacies are usefully divided into three categories: Fallacies of Relevance, Fallacies of Unacceptable Premises, and Formal Fallacies. Fallacies of Relevance Fallacies of relevance offer reasons to believe a claim or conclusion that, on examination, turn out to not in fact to be reasons to do any such thing. 1. The ‘Who are you to talk?’, or ‘You Too’, or Tu Quoque Fallacy1 Description: Rejecting an argument because the person advancing it fails to practice what he or she preaches. Example: Doctor: You should quit smoking. It’s a serious health risk.
    [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]
  • The Fallacy of Composition and Meta-Argumentation"
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Scholarship at UWindsor University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor OSSA Conference Archive OSSA 10 May 22nd, 9:00 AM - May 25th, 5:00 PM Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro's "The fallacy of composition and meta-argumentation" Michel Dufour Sorbonne-Nouvelle, Institut de la Communication et des Médias Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive Part of the Philosophy Commons Dufour, Michel, "Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro's "The fallacy of composition and meta- argumentation"" (2013). OSSA Conference Archive. 49. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/49 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Conference Proceedings at Scholarship at UWindsor. It has been accepted for inclusion in OSSA Conference Archive by an authorized conference organizer of Scholarship at UWindsor. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Commentary on: Maurice Finocchiaro’s “The fallacy of composition and meta-argumentation” MICHEL DUFOUR Department «Institut de la Communication et des Médias» Sorbonne-Nouvelle 13 rue Santeuil 75231 Paris Cedex 05 France [email protected] 1. INTRODUCTION In his paper on the fallacy of composition, Maurice Finocchiaro puts forward several important theses about this fallacy. He also uses it to illustrate his view that fallacies should be studied in light of the notion of meta-argumentation at the core of his recent book (Finocchiaro, 2013). First, he expresses his puzzlement. Some authors have claimed that this fallacy is quite common (this is the ubiquity thesis) but it seems to have been neglected by scholars.
    [Show full text]
  • Fallacies in Reasoning
    FALLACIES IN REASONING FALLACIES IN REASONING OR WHAT SHOULD I AVOID? The strength of your arguments is determined by the use of reliable evidence, sound reasoning and adaptation to the audience. In the process of argumentation, mistakes sometimes occur. Some are deliberate in order to deceive the audience. That brings us to fallacies. I. Definition: errors in reasoning, appeal, or language use that renders a conclusion invalid. II. Fallacies In Reasoning: A. Hasty Generalization-jumping to conclusions based on too few instances or on atypical instances of particular phenomena. This happens by trying to squeeze too much from an argument than is actually warranted. B. Transfer- extend reasoning beyond what is logically possible. There are three different types of transfer: 1.) Fallacy of composition- occur when a claim asserts that what is true of a part is true of the whole. 2.) Fallacy of division- error from arguing that what is true of the whole will be true of the parts. 3.) Fallacy of refutation- also known as the Straw Man. It occurs when an arguer attempts to direct attention to the successful refutation of an argument that was never raised or to restate a strong argument in a way that makes it appear weaker. Called a Straw Man because it focuses on an issue that is easy to overturn. A form of deception. C. Irrelevant Arguments- (Non Sequiturs) an argument that is irrelevant to the issue or in which the claim does not follow from the proof offered. It does not follow. D. Circular Reasoning- (Begging the Question) supports claims with reasons identical to the claims themselves.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Consultant Counterplan Legitimate
    THE D G E IS THE CONSULTATION COUNTERPLAN LEGITIMATE? by David M. Cheshier The most popular category of counterplan on the “weap- ons of mass destruction” (WMD) topic involves consultation. The negative argues that instead of promptly adopting and imple- menting the plan, the United States should consult some speci- fied government beforehand, only moving forward if the plan meets the approval of our consultation partner. Many versions were produced over the summer, including counterplans to consult NATO, Japan, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Canada. On this resolution, the consultation counterplan is often an irresistible strategic option for the negative. Because most plan texts as written advocate immediate implementation (if they don’t the affirmative may be in topicality trouble), the counterplan is mutually exclusive, for one can’t act and consult about acting at the same time. Because the resolution locks the affirmative into frequently defending policies the rest of the world would agree to, the counterplan consultation process would usually culminate in the eventual passage of the plan. Thus, the negative is able to argue there is little or no downside to asking for input. Consulta- tion promises to capture the advantages, with the value added benefit of an improvement in America’s relations with NATO, Rus- sia, or China (from here on I’ll use Russia as my example). The view is also prevalent that the consultation counterplan cannot be permuted by the affirmative, since to do so invariably commits the affirmative either to severance or intrinsicness (more on this shortly). Consultation is here to stay. For the counterplan to work, the negative must include lan- guage, which gives the consultation partner a “veto” over the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • 334 CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES a Deductive Fallacy Is
    CHAPTER 7 INFORMAL FALLACIES A deductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument necessarily follows from the truth of the premises given, when in fact that conclusion does not necessarily follow from those premises. An inductive fallacy is committed whenever it is suggested that the truth of the conclusion of an argument is made more probable by its relationship with the premises of the argument, when in fact it is not. We will cover two kinds of fallacies: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. An argument commits a formal fallacy if it has an invalid argument form. An argument commits an informal fallacy when it has a valid argument form but derives from unacceptable premises. A. Fallacies with Invalid Argument Forms Consider the following arguments: (1) All Europeans are racist because most Europeans believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans and all people who believe that Africans are inferior to Europeans are racist. (2) Since no dogs are cats and no cats are rats, it follows that no dogs are rats. (3) If today is Thursday, then I'm a monkey's uncle. But, today is not Thursday. Therefore, I'm not a monkey's uncle. (4) Some rich people are not elitist because some elitists are not rich. 334 These arguments have the following argument forms: (1) Some X are Y All Y are Z All X are Z. (2) No X are Y No Y are Z No X are Z (3) If P then Q not-P not-Q (4) Some E are not R Some R are not E Each of these argument forms is deductively invalid, and any actual argument with such a form would be fallacious.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantifying Aristotle's Fallacies
    mathematics Article Quantifying Aristotle’s Fallacies Evangelos Athanassopoulos 1,* and Michael Gr. Voskoglou 2 1 Independent Researcher, Giannakopoulou 39, 27300 Gastouni, Greece 2 Department of Applied Mathematics, Graduate Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece, 22334 Patras, Greece; [email protected] or [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 20 July 2020; Accepted: 18 August 2020; Published: 21 August 2020 Abstract: Fallacies are logically false statements which are often considered to be true. In the “Sophistical Refutations”, the last of his six works on Logic, Aristotle identified the first thirteen of today’s many known fallacies and divided them into linguistic and non-linguistic ones. A serious problem with fallacies is that, due to their bivalent texture, they can under certain conditions disorient the nonexpert. It is, therefore, very useful to quantify each fallacy by determining the “gravity” of its consequences. This is the target of the present work, where for historical and practical reasons—the fallacies are too many to deal with all of them—our attention is restricted to Aristotle’s fallacies only. However, the tools (Probability, Statistics and Fuzzy Logic) and the methods that we use for quantifying Aristotle’s fallacies could be also used for quantifying any other fallacy, which gives the required generality to our study. Keywords: logical fallacies; Aristotle’s fallacies; probability; statistical literacy; critical thinking; fuzzy logic (FL) 1. Introduction Fallacies are logically false statements that are often considered to be true. The first fallacies appeared in the literature simultaneously with the generation of Aristotle’s bivalent Logic. In the “Sophistical Refutations” (Sophistici Elenchi), the last chapter of the collection of his six works on logic—which was named by his followers, the Peripatetics, as “Organon” (Instrument)—the great ancient Greek philosopher identified thirteen fallacies and divided them in two categories, the linguistic and non-linguistic fallacies [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Ccofse Policy Debate Glossary Advantage: a Description Used By
    CCofSE Policy Debate Glossary advantage: a description used by the affirmative to explain what beneficial effects will result from its plan. affirmative: The team in a debate which supports the resolution and speaks first and last in the order of the speeches. affirmative case: The initial affirmative position (presented in the Affirmative Constructive) which demonstrates that there is a need for change because there is a serious problem (harm, or need) which the present system cannot solve (inherency) but which can be solved by the affirmative plan (solvency). affirmative plan: The policy action advocated by the affirmative burden of proof: 1) The requirement that sufficient evidence or reasoning to prove a claim should be presented; 2) the requirement that the affirmative must prove the stock issues. burden of rebuttal or clash: The requirement that each speaker continue the debate by calling into question or disputing the opposition's argument on the substantive issues. comparative advantage case: An affirmative case format that argues desirable benefits of the plan in contrast to the present system. It claims advantages in comparison to present policies. constructives: The first four speeches of the debate, the two Affirmative Constructives (1AC, 2AC) and the two Negative Constructives (1NC, 2NC). Arguments are initiated in these speeches and extended in rebuttals. criteria case: An affirmative case format that posits a goal and then outlines the criteria necessary to achieve the goal. cross-examination: a three minute period following each of the constructive speeches in which a member of the opposing team directly questions the speaker. disadvantage (“DA” or "disad"): An undesirable, effect of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • A Student's Guide to Classic Debate Competition
    Learning Classic Debate A Student’s Guide to Classic Debate Competition By Todd Hering © 2000 Revised 2007 Learning Classic Debate 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Understanding the Classic Debate Format Chapter 3: Argumentation & Organization Chapter 4: Delivery Chapter 5: Research & Evidence Chapter 6: Writing Your Case Chapter 7: The Rules of Classic Debate To The Reader: Welcome to “Learning Classic Debate.” This guide is intended to help you prepare for Classic Debate competition. The Classic Debate League was launched in the fall of 2000. The classic format is intended to produce straightforward debates that reward competitors for their preparation, argumentation, and delivery skills. If you find topics in this guide to be confusing, please e-mail the author at the address below so that you can get an answer to your question and so that future editions may be improved. Thanks and good luck with your debates. About the author: Todd Hering debated for Stillwater High School from 1989-1991. After graduating, he served as an assistant coach at Stillwater from 1991-1994. In 1994, Hering became head debate coach at Stillwater, a position he held until 1997 when he moved to the new Eastview High School in Apple Valley, MN. Hering is currently a teacher and head debate coach at Eastview and is the League Coordinator for the Classic Debate League. Contact Information: Todd Hering Eastview High School 6200 140th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124-6912 Phone: (651) 683-6969 ext. 8689 E-Mail: [email protected] Learning Classic Debate 3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Competitive interscholastic debates have occurred in high schools for well over a century.
    [Show full text]