DOCSLIB.ORG

Foreic: Tne Sevtles: a :Etrospective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

OCUMEHT 2E1=2.E ED 202 046 CS 503 338 :AUTHOR LL1L, Ed. :=1117 Foreic: tne SevtLes: A :etrospective. IJSTITDTION Delta ma ahc-Tau Alph:., Lawrence, Kans. 77B DATE 79 T:TE 71p. :..7.0RNAL CIT Speae: a el; v17 11 Fall 979 7:3S PRICE EF01/1,'..03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Debate: 'Lduc_zticnal Tr=nds; *F. Advisers; E lgher .71-(1=aticn: PerszLsiveDiE.7our-.; *Speech Comm' peech 7:truct::n7 ABSTRACT 16 a=t±c-les _ntL urnal ism le identify a.na assess chance an c;ants in i_zterco:legiatefcr.a:sics during th- decade of tie 19-0s. tIr.r-icles give varying perzectf.reson the significance of --_he and t:ce .sob:_ra range :7: concern for , tenure for the e.-na-7 forna.-:.7 of ar 7.__tation thecry within the deba5: Reproductions supplied by .DRSare the best-that can he made from the criginal document., ******44***************=*************************************** 'I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER tERICI This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. i Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. o Points of view or opinions stated in this docu ;fent do not necessarily represent official NIE position or Policy. FORENSICS IN THE SEVENTIES: A RETROSPECTIVE This special issue of Speaker and Gavel is devoted to a backward-glance over the decade just ending in the hopes of identifying and assessing change and constants ininter- collegiate forensics. "PERMi3SION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Bill Bal dirop TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." VOLUME, 17 1111111LIE,P 1 rAtt, 19T9 6 speakoz andgavel. Official publication of Delta Sigma RhoTauKappa Alpha National Honorary Forensic Society PUBLISHED AT LAWRENCE, KANSA Ey ALLEN PRESS, INC. Second-class pose. =e. paid at. Lawrence,Kansas. S.A. 66044 Issued quarterly in Fall, Winter, Sprng and Summer.The Journa; ::arries no paid advertising. NATIONAL OFFICERS OF DSR-TKA President:JACK HOWE, California State University,Long Beach Vice President:DAVID A. THOMAS. Auburn University Secretary:BER TRAM W. GROSS. Marshall University Treasurer:ELAINE BRUGGEMEIER. Loyola University Trustee: WAYNE C. EUBANK, University:ofNew Mexico Historian:JOHN A. LYNCH, St. Anselm's College REGIONAL GOVERNORS, MEMBERS ATLARGE, AND REPRESENTATIVES Regional Governors: JOHN A. LYNCH, St. Anselm's College; JAMES J. HALL,St. John's University; HALFORD RYAN, Washington andLee College; KASSIAN KOVALCHEK, Van- derbilt University; ROBERT 0. WEISS, DePauwUniversity; VERNON R. McGUIRE, TexaS Tech University; DONN W. PARSON, University of Kansas; LARRY SCHNOOR, MankatoState University; WAYNE CALLAWAY,University of Wyoming; JOHN DeBROSS, Southern California. University of Members at- Large: TOM KANE (Past President),University of Pittsburgh; JAMES A. JOHN- SON. The Colorado College; tylf0HAEL M.OVERKING, Fairmont State College. ACHS Representative:JAMES H. McBATH, University of Southern'California. Representative on SCA Committeeon Intercollegiate Debate and Discussion: GREG, St. John's University. JOHN EDITORIAL BOARD ROBERT J. BRANHAM, Bates College; SKIP COULTER, Samford University; JOAN DONOVAN, St. Lawrence University; G. THOMAS GOODNIGHT, Northwestern University; SIDNEY R. HILL, JR., Mississippi State University; THOMASJ. HYNES, University of Louisville; ANITA Ohio University; JAMES A. JOHNSON, JAMES, The Colorado College; CHARLES KAUFFMAN,University of Virginia; LUCY KEELE, CaliforniaState University, Fullerton; JAMES KLUMPP, Nebraska; JOHN T. MORELLO, James Madison University of University; LARRY SCHNOOR, Mankato State University; JOHN SCHUNK. Wichita State University;BARBARA WARNICK, Tulane University; ROBERT 0. WEISS, DePauw University; MARILYNYOUNG, Florida State University. EDITOR BILL BALTHROP, 115 Bingham Hall, 007A,University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North olina 27514. Car- ne ker gave V ol u m No. 1 7r.'RENSICS IN ssux ecollt the chic fbrensics duringle. de- elide of th stiesc! 1g:L -.--mtiments and feelings ,pride at .ueing ,q1 in sp.. The ch.: were st'Caly in the early and slide. sev- enties, the:-.as an a- -.novation. Debate, for exumple, witnessed ;,-;Aly -tan :ew types of case structirzes,. re- fleeting so: 1:ticateci nu.rns to justify adoption of thereso- lotion. Coot:ersy tig the cases and concepts (alternative justification, iditio .. ant md attitudinal inherency were three of the most c,17.1-0Ver,ii11. .calthy intellectual debates about the merits and 1. 0. :als. The result was an enriching of the literatur- Jet ut and debate. Enclorseir1:1 Of th-:- -t, :....ion debate format resurrected an al- most-fbrgottt tleb;;,:e :-o-introduced intercollegiate advocates to the art ofskim ms :brill of analysis and refutation in a debate. The cinerzence o: ng by Delta Sigma Rho-Tau Kappa Alpha and, later, by -;ss -nation Debate Association, provided an alternati--2.t:an the sin ue;:t wh, ;reference was for questions of value and increas.el_-_einphasi; upon cur- tnicative style. National --liunanicu for juin();crsity and novice debaters provided extra incen fbr th ass - seasonsmembers of many squads. The 19-, -,:as an ----ilarating ; acle for those involved in individual vents A fle; ding cctiv catered the decade rather timorously. 1 Many cle_-n:nuients ,T,eeelt cc nunication had never heard of the ac- tivity. By p-nd ,lecade, . ,wever, individual events would be the most por of fo-,-,. :2 events, :evolving the majority of students who participa- orer. :c,at any given weekend. Two n- ;;(,- . ;al events tournaments have come to fruition dur- ing the t. krefiecta different concepts of how a student qualifies for nationa rovidimg a healthy means for directors of individual events program- Men.-the national tournament via a decision of which to attend. hu t :hod or more universities attending each national, both the al Fe cusie Association tournament and the American Fo- rensic tc tnainent appear healthy and vital at the end of the decade. J:i.nes A. net: k Professor a:A limner Director of Forensics, Department of Speech and 'FIR... Ball State University. .11 2 SPEAK. t ,AVEL The proliteration of iudiviclual participants generatedundreds Of nev touriunnnts throughout 0 lion, expansion of existifp_ individ- nal events tounti:tnh (such a:; 4 DSR-TKA) and Sp twin..the ad- dition of rue. even,at :er-dinner speaking, eism, informant a and dramatic intrprc:ation. By tilt end ofiulecade, he yrIticism of indivich:.,' cvt-ntswas prompt:11g occa, la', articles %yin lined to define or t-ori.tt, about someit the in:.:dual events a:it: begun to stimidat:Iiinights of empiric.a1 rest nu) the activit The rog,rani status peed] C011inil;1111, ASSOCIa- tionl"11'entlt important rof ifidiVid}lai iits as the deem:-Irew t (Sc i Not char ere for the 1970s, howevSignificant cause- r onerged and, tt.. been ineffectivtly confront- ed. T.:- will constitute Cue r. _ Alder thris pizryiew by one who program invok lebate..and individual events thirin_ Ili iid sounding bk. prophet or an mnidebate ,liscuss what I p, . iiethe..challenges facing de- Irate . the decade. I, pc:- cl that debate can be one of the n it vehicles to teach it research, to develop quick, (Alec- :se and refutation of ide al d, yes, to. facilitate effective tries for an advocate. It I `_tat debate has experictlyeel a significant. decline inpop- ohm 1It have muncrotis debate and tourn:onents. tended, but yl ornament with few ",--tionsdraws -my a .fraction of 0. attending. While th are many mid varied,' a sad fact .hat ..._-bate community, if espouseto the problem,is gin! zic name-calling, rade. attempting to clime to grips wits can, of the problem, Frank -cc is nodialogue_betweenthe' di% t (}1 debateOnly pse, .1;:logne. It omit:o the complaint that .tee is no longer locuring upon con: ication kills, the reply is tha ate-is an "elitist game of infor:-.- mat: )ro_... not nnt01(a ning." (How in the world does one onnething if it isn't car IT:iinicated clearlyor if it is coin- time ed intruncated form which a few canror at lea.st claim to-- um( out?) But to tell someone wh in't understand that they should lea. e activity is, ultimately, eating. It leads to restricting the imp of the activity to only a few. ,;nd ina day when departments of spe, communication (who still sp, usor most ofour programs) arc be- gin!.:2 to "hite.the bullet" on budge. ts, this makes debate an easy target for fr.lancial cuts. "Co refuse a dialogue on the issuedelivery, unorthodoxcases, what- everby opting for "other forms of debate for those who ob';2.ct-is not only to avoid the issue but to divide the debatecomumnity at a time when it desperately needs a united front. Debate should not be thought ofas an elitist activity. It should not because that type of thinking makes the "elitist" unduly confidentof the soundness of his/her practices as a debateror coach. Those who disagree with the elitistare automatically discredited as unknowledgeable; rec- ommend-ed changes are perceived asmore divergent from current prac- tices than they actually are (what Sherif, Sherif and Nebergall wouldcall the Latitude! of Rejection in action)! I'm suggesting, then, thatdebate should not he afraid to debate itself. SPEAKER AND GAVEL 3 Thinking of debate as an -elitist" activity also fosters the acceptance of practices which...mild not be tolerated in a non-game environment. This is to say that it is not unreasonable to want to know complete sourcing fOr one's evidence; it is not unrealistic to expect that the evidence, as read in the debate (rather than from cards after the roam!) be self-evident and clear; and one is not unjustified to expect that a parameter, voted upon befOre the season begins, ought to define the resolution. To reply that there must be something wrong with those who feel this way is to.evade the issue.' A complaint of many is the method by which the debate resolution is selected.
Recommended publications
  • CX Firm Foundation I

    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.
  • The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate

    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.
  • Tackling UK Poverty and Disadvantage in the Twenty-First Century

    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
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©

    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 .
  • Beg. CX Robertson-Markham

    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.
  • Is the Consultant Counterplan Legitimate

    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.
  • Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Mobility Or Immobility Across Generations? a Review of the Evidence for OECD Countries

    Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Mobility Or Immobility Across Generations? a Review of the Evidence for OECD Countries

    DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2007)7 Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Mobility or Immobility across Generations? A Review of the Evidence for OECD Countries Anna Cristina d’Addio 52 OECD SOCIAL, EMPLOYMENT AND MIGRATION WORKING PAPERS Unclassified DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2007)7 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English text only DIRECTORATE FOR EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Unclassified DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2007)7 Cancels & replaces the same document of 29 March 2007 OECD SOCIAL, EMPLOYMENT AND MIGRATION WORKING PAPERS NO. 52 INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF DISADVANTAGE: MOBILITY OR IMMOBILITY ACROSS GENERATIONS? A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE FOR OECD COUNTRIES Anna Cristina d'Addio JEL Classification: D31, I32, J62, I2, I38 All social, Employment and Migration Working Papers are now available through OECD's Internet website at http://www.oecd.org/els only text English Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2007)7 DIRECTORATE FOR EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS http://www.oecd.org/els OECD SOCIAL, EMPLOYMENT AND MIGRATION WORKING PAPERS http://www.oecd.org/els/workingpapers This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected labour market, social policy and migration studies prepared for use within the OECD. Authorship is usually collective, but principal writers are named. The papers are generally available only in their original language – English or French – with a summary in the other. Comment on the series is welcome, and should be sent to the Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16, France.
  • BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: the Teacher Materials SAMPLE Policy

    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 .......................................................................
  • 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]

    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.
  • 2015 Starter Packet SSRA Aff and Terrorism Disadvantage

    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 .........................................................................................................................................
  • Closing the Academic Divide THROUGH DEBATE

    Closing the Academic Divide THROUGH DEBATE

    Closing the Academic Divide THROUGH DEBATE The competitive, student-centered nature of debate gives learners a reason and opportunity to struggle with complicated text in a manner that speaks to their interests. Illustration iStockphoto 16 Spring 2013 ASHLEY BELANGER RHODE ISLAND URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE STEVE STEIN BOSTON DEBATE LEAGUE Urban youth with great potential often go unrecognized in public nondebaters on all sections of the ACT College Readiness Bench- schools. When they cease to feel engaged in the classroom, students marks. Debaters overall were 50 percent more likely to reach the may drop out, give up, or resort to self-destructive behaviors. Un- English benchmark than nondebating students. African Ameri- derserved urban youth in particular often grow up without the skills can male debaters were 70 percent more likely to reach the read- they need to succeed in college and to compete in today’s economy. ing benchmark and twice as likely to reach the English bench- In Rhode Island’s urban core and in Boston, however, many mark as peers. young people are being empowered by debate leagues and related • Debate improves academic outcomes. After one year of debate, enrichment activities that reverse the negative trends. 11th graders’ ability to read for accuracy increased more than three grade levels, and their ability to read for fluency and comprehen- Understanding Debate sion increased more than two grade levels.3 Students who debat- For more than 100 years, competitive academic debate has been ed 25 or more rounds during high school had 12th grade GPAs an effective training ground for many policymakers, business ex- (grade point averages) that were .20 points higher than students ecutives, legal professionals, and change makers.
  • Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate

    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.