DOCSLIB.ORG

INHERENCY, STRATEGY and ACADEMIC DEBATE by Benjamin R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INHERENCY, STRATEGY and ACADEMIC DEBATE by Benjamin R INHERENCY, STRATEGY AND ACADEMIC DEBATE by Benjamin R. Bates According to most debate text au- something preventing the present system plan from being done now?" There are three thors, judges, and coaches, there are four from accruing the advantages. This view of levels of inherency accepted in today's de- stock issues, or burdens of proof, that an inherency merges the issues of inherency bate community. The first is also the oldest. affirmative team must meet to have a prima and solvency. If a plan uniquely gains an It is structural inherency. This type of facie case. These issues are topicality, harms, advantage by implementing a particular inherency identifies laws, treaties, court rul- solvency, and inherency. Topicality is simple strategy and that is the only strategy that ings, or executive orders that prevent the to understand, as it only asks whether the will work, then the advantages are linked proposed affirmative plan. If for example, affirmative team is upholding the resolution. with the plan so much that they have be- the affirmative wanted to import avocados Harms (which includes significance) is also come inherent to the plan. If this claim is from Mexico, current laws that say the not difficult to comprehend. It only asks if made, the negative can attack inherency by United States cannot do so would provide the problem is serious enough to act on. removing solvency. If the plan cannot solve, a clear structural barrier (i.e. a law that must Solvency asks whether the affirmative plan it cannot gain the advantages, and there- be repealed first). Also under structural can fix the problems. Inherency, however, is fore the advantages are no longer inherent inherency are structural gaps. Although no much less clear. Not only is inherency a to the plan. current laws blocks the plan in the present poorly defined issue, but there is also a A second specific view of inherency system, the current actions of the present question of whether or not it is an issue at asks, "can the problem be solved without system do not go far enough in what they all. This article will attempt to define the is- resolutional action?" Sometimes there are do. If, for example, the United States limited sue of inherency and identify when problems that must be solves before it is its use of weapons of mass destruction to- inherency is or is not a voting issue in a too late. This does not mean, however, that ward Russia already, but the treaty did not debate round. the resolution is the only way to do so. If mention China, there would be a structural the negative chooses to admit that there is gap when it came to limiting use against Definitions of Inherency1 a problem in the real world, it has three op- China. The second level of inherency is at- To begin this discussion, it is neces- tions. The negative can counterplan. A titudinal inherency. This identifies any sary to define what inherency is. There are counterplan admits that there is no mecha- deep-set feelings that would prevent the several views as to what "inherency" nism in the present system that can solve plan from being done now. For example, if means. The most simplistic view, meaning and that major action must be taken (i.e. it the plan were to enact more species protec- easiest and clearest to understand, defines admits that there is inherency). A second tion laws, the attitudes of many inherency as why smart and reasonable option is to perform a minor repair: to take congresspeople would prevent them from people allow dumb or bad things to happen some action that does not adopt the resolu- approving the plan in the present system. (Grassmick, 1995). This provides a basic tion, but still fixes the problem. This does Structural inherency is easier to prove but understanding of what inherency is, but it admit some level of harms, but if the harms attitudes are almost as strong, although is not enough. While this definition does can be solved for without adopting the reso- they do have the propensity to change. The cover the basic question, it leaves out a few lution, then there are no inherent barriers to final type of inherency is existential important points such as a bright line, a change. The third negative strategy is to inherency. Existential inherency states that method of proof, and standards. More pre- say, "a change to solve the problem is al- if the harms exist and the plan has not been cise views of inherency make these distinc- ready in the works." This was popular with done, there must be something blocking ac- tions and make inherency into a usable de- the national health insurance topic. Many tion, even if we do not know what it is. Exis- bate argument. negatives would say, "if we wait for X num- tential inherency relies on several assump- The first view asks if the affirmative ber of years, the Clinton plan will be passed, tions: plan is the only way to get the advantages; and there will be insurance for everyone." 1) no one is acting on any level. that is, are the advantages inherent to the Such a claim, if true, would mean that there 2) no one is interested in acting now. plan? This falls under the general definition would be no reason to choose the resolu- 3) there is no propensity for any level as asking why, if the plan is so good, does tion over the present system, since any of change. the present system not act on it? The affir- resolutional action would be done by the 4) there are no alternate solutions mative would claim that there is that there is system anyway. being proposed now. The third view of inherency is unre- Each of these assumptions is faulty, as there 1 See Cox, 1975 and Cherwitz & Hikins, 1977, for lated to the effects of the resolution or of is undoubtedly someone trying to do the an expanded discussion of the definitions of inherency discussed in this section. the plan. It asks instead, "what blocks the plan, especially if the authors for the sol- vency section actually advocate the plan. resolutional action was unnecessary. Dur- rors. There may be, however, more effective Even if a minor official in an obscure branch ing the 1950s and 1960s, negative teams were forms of inherency argumentation, a sub- of government writes a memo on the affir- successful at arguing this point, and many ject explored later in this article. mative plan, then the present system has won national level tournaments on Since inherency is a voting issue with taken some level of action on the plan, mak- inherency alone. During the 1970s and some judges, we must ask how a judge ing claims of existential inherency illegiti- 1980s, the importance of inherency declined. should react to an inherency argument. mate. While it was still possible to win the Again, there are three basic ways for a judge inherency argument, the issue was held to to react to an inherency argument: accept Practices of Inherency a higher standard and was rarely used in it, reject it, or let the debaters fight it out. Although inherency has been defined close rounds (McGee,1995). Lower stan- The last of these reactions is probably the as a theoretical issue, this has not been the dards for meeting the burden of inherency most common and the most acceptable to way that inherency has been used in de- were due to the introduction of new modes both judges and debaters. Following the bate rounds over the years. Inherency has of inherency. As attitudinal and existential basic guidelines of a tabula rasa judge, in been around since the beginning of formal inherency became more popular, structural this setting inherency is debatable, just as academic debate. In this time, its role in the barriers became a kind of "pseudo- topicality is debatable. If inherency is purely activity has changed substantially. Accord- inherency" and were no longer necessary debatable, then there are no preconceived ing to Meredith Garmon, inherency has for a prima facie case (Schunk, 1978). In the notions as to the worth of the argument been an issue that has never carried much 1990s, though, judging philosophies were going into the round. The judge will look at weight in a debate round According to his less and less likely to view inherency as a her sheet at the end of the round and, if post to CEDA-L, central issue in a debate (Pettus, 1991). enough of the inherency attacked is carried Coaches up through the 60s Inherency still has a place in debate across the flow, then her only justifiable almost universally told their stu- rounds. Rather than being a jurisdictional decision would be to vote on inherency. If dents that [inherency was [a vot- issue like topicality, inherency is now used the negative presents the inherency viola- ing issue]. And 1Ns during that to gain strategic advantages in the debate. tion as a voting issue, and if the affirmative period used to scream about Inherency attacks commonly set up disad- fails to respond adequately, then just like a inherency on the assumption that vantages in the following way: dropped topicality argument, the negative it was a v.i. ...But a careful analysis 1N: The plan has already been could win on this argument alone. of all debate ballots ever written will done, so there is no need for plan There are also some judges for whom reveal that the only time a negative action, right? inherency is, was, and always will be an ab- team ever won a round on an 2A: No, nothing has been done in solute voting issue.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • CDL High School Core Files August 2019
    Table of Contents Red/Maroon Conference Argument Limits Blue/Silver Conference Argument Limits Ukraine AFFIRMATIVE (Rookie/Novice – Beginner) Plan Plan: The United States federal government should end all direct commercial and foreign military sales of arms to Ukraine. Contention 1 - Inherency Trump is currently committed to increasing arms sales to Ukraine. Contention 2 is Harms – Ukraine Crisis Arm sales entangle the US and Ukraine. This is bad because Ukraine uses its relations with the US to antagonize Russia. U.S-Russia Military confrontation over Ukraine escalates to nuclear war. Contention 3 is Solvency Ending arms sales reduces tensions with Moscow and stops conflict escalation. Plan solves – ending arms sales respects Russia’s influence. That’s key to better relations. [Optional] Contention 4 is Harms (China-Russia) Relations Tensions with the US push Russia towards China. That improves China-Russian relations. Creation of a Russia-China alliance fuels arctic militarization. 2AC/1AR Ukraine Affirmative—Chicago Debates High School Core Files 2019- 2020 Arctic militarization causes conflict escalation. Arctic conflict escalates to nuclear war. 2AC/1AR Ukraine Affirmative Ukraine 2AC/1AR On Case Answers 2AC – Answers to Ukraine Crisis Harms Frontline #1: Arms sales good turn 1. Extend our Carpenter 2018 evidence - it says___________________________________________ __ 2. The plan solves for Russia’s perceptions – it sees the provision of weapons as a provocation. 3. Arming Ukraine fails to deter Russia and results in entanglement which forces US escalation. 4. Arms won’t deter Russia – they cause conflict escalation and back the US into a corner. 2AC – Answers to Ukraine Crisis Harms Frontline #2: Democracy Turn 1.
    [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]
  • Badgerland Pref Book
    James Madison Memorial and Middleton High Schools proudly host Badgerland Debate Tournament November 13-14, 2015 Judge Philosophy Book Updated as of 9:35 pm, 11/12/2015 LINCOLN-DOUGLAS JUDGES .............................................................................................................................. 4 Bailey, Kevin ............................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Beaver, Zack ............................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Berger, Marcie ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Burdt, Lauren .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Dean, John .............................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Dempsey, Richard ............................................................................................................................................................... 13 Fischer, Jason .......................................................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Niles Debate Curriculum Guide
    Debate SO3D01 Curriculum Guide Niles Township High Schools, District 219 Ms. Katie Gjerpen Mr. Eric Oddo Table of Contents: Department Structure……………………………………3 Learning Targets…………………………………………4 Syllabus…………………………………………………..7 Pacing Guide…………………………………………….14 Instructional Materials…………………………………...26 Assessment Materials…………………………………...122 2 Department Structure: 3 Debate Learning Targets: Learning Target (1) - Common Core Skills A. I can read and interpret an historical document. B. I can recognize the difference between facts and opinions. C. I can write and defend a thesis. D. I can write a coherent paragraph using a claim, evidence, and a warrant. E. I can interpret maps, charts, graphs, and political cartoons. F. I can connect facts to construct meaning and make logical inferences. G. I can take notes to organize historical content. H. I can utilize the political spectrum to analyze historical events. Learning Target (2)-Advanced Research A. I can use electronic resources to find debate evidence. B. I can compile debate evidence into block format so it can be used during a round. C. I can identify quality sources and find qualifications of authors with ease. Learning Target (3)-The Affirmative A. I can explain the major components of the 1AC. B. I can construct a 1AC that places the Affirmative in strategic position over the Negative. C. I can extend case arguments in the 2AC, 1AR and 2AR effectively. D. I can describe why the impacts of the Affirmative outweigh the impacts of the Negative disadvantages, counter plan net benefits and kritik impacts. E. I can utilize Affirmative theory arguments to my advantage and to the Negative’s disadvantage during a debate round.
    [Show full text]