Introduction Powerpoint to lincoln douglas debate

Download Report

Transcript Introduction Powerpoint to lincoln douglas debate

Meet the Players

Court Room Analogy

Question: Did John Doe kill Sally Sue?

Prosecution

•

Witnesses

•

Weapon

•

Motive CX CX

Defense

•

Witnesses

•

Evidence

•

Alibi

Court Room Analogy

Resolved: Mandatory drug testing of student athletes is justified.

Affirmative Negative

•

Facts

•

Expert Testimony

•

Logical Reasoning CX CX

•

Facts

•

Expert Testimony

•

Logical Reasoning

Court Room Analogy

Prosecution’s Case

Defense Closing Arguments

Defense’s Case CX

4 3

Prosecution Closing Arguments

Court Room Analogy

Affirmative Constructive Case

Affirmative Rebuttal

Negative Rebuttal

Negative Constructive Case and Refutation CX

Affirmative Rebuttal

7 4

Decision

Lincoln Douglas Format 1 st Affirmative Constructive Cross Examination by Negative

(Prep Time by Negative)

1 st Negative Constructive (includes refutation of affirmative) Cross Examination by Affirmative

(Prep Time by Affirmative)

1 st Affirmative Rebuttal

(Prep Time by Negative)

1 st Negative Rebuttal

(Prep Time by Affirmative)

2nd Affirmative Rebuttal 6 minutes 3 minutes 7 minutes 3 minutes 4 minutes 6 minutes 3 minutes

What is a policy debate?

A policy debate consists of

two teams

, the

Affirmative

and the

Negative

national debate topic, or resolution. Each team consists of two debaters.

, debating the  The Affirmative team supports or advocates the policy direction prescribed by the resolution.

 The Negative team opposes the resolution.

Some Key Debate Concepts



Burden of proof:

proof. They must prove the need for change or the need for the resolution.

The Affirmative team has the burden of    

Status quo:

The present system or the ways things are now.

Presumption:

Absent proof of a need for change, presumption says that things should remain as they are, or status quo. The Negative team and the status quo have presumption.

Fiat:

The basic assumption that the Affirmative plan will be adopted.

Prima Facie:

The requirements that the Affirmative case must fulfill to prove a need for change and to support the resolution.

The Prima Facie or Stock Issues

     Topicality: Is the Affirmative case germane to the resolution?

Harm: quo?

Is there a problem? What is wrong with the status Significance: significant?

Is the problem qualitatively or quantitatively Inherency: What is causing the problem? What barrier prevents change or prevents the SQ from solving the harm?

Solvency: Can the problem be solved? Will the solution create more serious problems than the ones it resolves? Is the solution advantageous?

Prima Facie: Topicality



The resolution limits the topics or issues that the Affirmative may argue; the Affirmative must stay within the bounds of the topic.



If the Affirmative plan does not fall within the bounds of the resolution, then it is Not Topical.

Prima Facie: Harm & Significance

 To warrant adoption of the resolution, there must be a reason to change; there must be a problem with the present system.

 Harms may be physical, economic, or philosophical.

 The problem, or Harm, must also be significant.

  Quantitative significance (statistics, numbers) Qualitative significance (values, quality)

Prima Facie: Inherency

 There must be a reason that the present system can not solve for the Harm; there must be a barrier to change.

 Types of Inherency (3)    Structural inherency (law or policy) Attitudinal inherency (attitudes) Existential inherency (harm simply exists)

Prima Facie: Solvency

 AFF must eliminate or reduce the Harms.

 The AFF plan is the mechanism of solvency.

 The plan should be more advantageous than the SQ.

The Prima Facie or Stock Issues

An easy phrase for recalling the Prima Facie requirements:



Topicality



Harms (Brink-Link-Impact)



Inherency



Solvency (Advantages)

Harms:



_______________

The Structure of a Debate

 High School policy debate uses the

8-3-5

format.

 Each debater delivers a

8-minute

constructive speech, which is followed by a

3-minute

questioning period (Cross-X) by the opposing team.

 Each debater delivers a

5-minute

speech.

rebuttal or closing  Each team also has 8-10 minutes of prep time between speeches.  to use This is a total of 8-10 minutes, not 8-10 minutes between each speech.

The Structure of a Debate

  Constructive Speeches     First Affirmative Constructive (1AC): 8 Minutes  Cross-Examined by 2N: 3 Minutes First Negative Constructive (1NC): 8 Minutes  Cross-Examined by 1A: 3 Minutes Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): 8 Minutes  Cross-Examined by 1N: 3 Minutes Second Negative Constructive (2NC): 8 Minutes  Cross-Examined by 2A: 3 Minutes Rebuttal Speeches  First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): 5 Minutes    First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR): 5 Minutes Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): 5 Minutes Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): 5 Minutes

Constructive Speaker Burdens



1AC:

 Presents a “Prima Facie” Case Harm, Significance, Inherency, Solvency, Plan  Topicality is granted until challenged by the Negative team 

1NC:

 Presents the Negative Attack Traditionally attacks the 1AC  May also present “off-case” arguments such as Topicality, Disadvantages, Counterplans, and/or Kritiks

Constructive Speaker Burdens



2AC:

 Re-Defends Against 1NC Rebuilds the Affirmative case presented in the 1AC  Follows 1NC point-by-point or applies the 1NC points to the 1AC structure 

2NC:

Answers 2AC positions/continues Negative attack  Presents any additional Negative arguments not presented by the 1NC  Answers some, but not all, 2AC positions (divide positions with the 1NR)

Rebuttal Speaker Burdens



No new arguments (new evidence to further a previous argument is OK) in the rebuttals



1NR:

Answer remaining 2AC arguments not covered by the 2NC



1AR:

Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments

Rebuttal Speaker Burdens



2NR:

Extend winning Negative arguments (pick and choose, do not “go for” everything); tell the judge why she should vote “Negative” 

2AR:

Answer all remaining Negative arguments & claim all Affirmative positions that are no longer contested; tell the judge why he should vote “Affirmative”

Resolved:

.The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and or development of space beyond the earth’s mesosphere

What is a resolution?

 The resolution is always a proposition of policy.

 The resolution specifies what action should be taken and by whom.

 Sample policy resolution:

Resolved: that the United States federal government should substantially change its foreign policy toward Israel.

The 2011-2012 High School Resolution Resolved: .The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and or development of space beyond the earth’s mesosphere

Initial Questions about the Topic

What is “The US federal Govt, What is the mesosphere, ”?

What does should mean?

What constitutes “Substantially, increase, ”?

What are “areas that need to be explored and or developed”?

Why is it important that we do it?

Space Exploration on the Affirmative



Space beyond the Mesosphere?

 The Planet Earth is a terminal entity. BOOM!!! We’re gone  Resources on earth are limited (Electricity) Space  The benefits of exploration are infinite. (GPS, maintenance of satelites and space stations. Colonization. Inventions for earth, Medical breakthroughs and experimentation.

Space Exploration on the Affirmative



Solar Satelites:



Reliance on fossil fuels puts the US at a crossroads – Transition to SPS is key to ensure access to carbon neutral technologies



Oil shocks coming now because of supply disruptions – perception of instability in the mid east and supply disruptions causes oil prices to soar – that tanks the global economy



Additionally, the resulting oil competition causes US China war



China US war escalates and causes nuclear war



SPS solves the economy – creates multiple jobs and saves the space industry

Space Exploration/Development on the Affirmative



Balistic Missile Defense:



The US Federal Government should deploy a constellation of kinetic energy ballistic missile interceptors in space above the mesosphere.



Chinese expansion into challenges US national security space



US and China likely to go to war over hegemony and security competition

Space Exploration on the Affirmative



Other Topics:

 Asteroid Mining  Aliens  Asteroid Detection  China Cooperation  Colonize Mars  Lunar Mining   Nuclear Waste Disposal Space Tourism .

http://www.debatecoac

hes.org/page/open evidence-project

Space Exploration/Development on the Affirmative

  

You will be constructing an Affirmative Case and building evidence files on the Negative side.

Your job is not to come up with something from scratch.. But to locate and organize your files.

Team Approach so you are not on your own.

Selecting the Affirmative Case

 The best cases are found only after you have done extensive preliminary research on the topic.

 Begin by looking for Solvency evidence –try to find recommendations for topical action.

 Once you have a “plan” gather the Harms and Inherency evidence.

 Summer debate workshops and some tournaments will produce case lists.

Selecting the Affirmative Case

Some thoughts about case selection:



Think Strategically

Does the case position you to refute obvious Negative DAs and CPs? Big changes/impacts to outweigh or minimal change to avoid the links  

What are your research abilities?

Big cases central to the topic are easier to research.

Cases inadequately researched will not win.

Pick a case that is interesting to YOU

Organizing the Case (the 1AC)



There are 3 types of cases:



The Needs Case



The Comparative Advantage Case



The Goals Criterion Case

The Traditional Needs Case

 Remember: All cases must meet the prima facie requirements regardless of organizational structure.

 Based on a problem-solution theme  The Affirmative explains the cause and the extent of the problem and then presents a plan and demonstrates that it solves the problem.

The Traditional Needs Case

Contention 1: SQ will not solve the problem (Inherency) Contention 2: The inherent problem results in a significant problem (Harms & Significance) Plan Contention 3: Implementation of the plan will solve the problem (Solvency)

The Traditional Needs Case

Cont 1: SQ Fishing Policy Fails Cont 2: Overfishing is Destroying Our Oceans Plan: establish marine reserves system Cont 3: Reserves restore our oceans

The Comparative Advantage Case

 Focuses on comparing the SQ and the Affirmative alternative  Begins by describing the nature of the SQ (inherency)  Presents the plan and compares it to the SQ by illustrating the plan’s Advantages

The Comparative Advantage Case

Observation: SQ will not implement the plan Plan Advantage 1 A. Harm B. Solvency Advantage 2 A. Harm B. Solvency

The Comparative Advantage Case

Observation:

SQ Fishing Policy Fails Plan: establish marine reserve system Advantage 1: Ocean Environment A. Overfishing is Destroying Our Oceans B. Reserves Protect Ocean Ecosystems Advantage 2: Economy A. Overfishing will collapse fisheries B. Reserves economically benefit fisheries

The Goals Criterion Case

 Argues that we have a goal and that the AFF plan better meets the goal than does the SQ    Must win two arguments The goal(s) exists and is a worthy goal The Plan better meets the goal  Prima facie requirements are addressed by the second argument.

The Goals Criterion Case

Obs:

Reducing juvenile crime is a national priority (the goal)

Plan:

increase funding for runaway shelters; non disclosure statutes for shelters; repeal 15-day limit for staying in shelters

The Goals Criterion Case

Contention 1:

SQ policies promote juvenile crime by runaway youths   A. SQ lacks a comprehensive policy to deal with runaway youths B. Runaway youths increase juvenile crime  C. Runaway youths increase prostitution leading to the spread of AIDS

Contention 2:

Aff plan better reduces teen runaways    A. Increased funding for expanding training and expanding youth shelters solves B. Non-disclosure statutes ensuring confidentiality solves C. Repealing 15-day-stay limit solves

Writing the Affirmative Case

 Do not over-structure the case.

Every piece of evidence does not need to be labeled as a subpoint. Some substructure (A, B, C) may be necessary or desirable.

 Use transition sentences/tag lines: Each card should be introduced by a sentence that succinctly summarizes the argument it supports.

 Cite the complete source for the evidence.

Writing the Affirmative Case

 Use your best evidence in the 1AC.

 Use evidence that allows you to refute (or preempt) commonly run Negative arguments.

 Avoid evidence that sets up or makes you vulnerable to specific Negative attacks.

 Make adjustments to your 1AC throughout the debate season.

Writing the Affirmative Plan

     Specify the agent of adoption Give specific policy mandates Specific plan mandates should be consistent with the solvency evidence Include funding & enforcement mechanisms F & E may be by normal means, or you may specify the means. However, you can not claim an advantage from the specified F & E.

Reserve the right to clarify plan intent Use “Planks” or write as a paragraph

Sample Affirmative Plan

Plank 1: Mandates

The United States federal government will adopt the May 2003 recommendations of the Pew Oceans Commission regarding overfishing, including the shift to an ecosystems-based approach to fishery management and the establishment of a National Oceans Agency empowered to oversee and implement a nationally-coordinated system of marine reserves and marine protected areas within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone.

Plank 2:

Funding and enforcement are guaranteed.

Plank 3:

intent.

Affirmative speeches shall serve as policy

Sample Affirmative Plan

Answering Negative Attacks

Generally, you should anticipate the Negative attacks and prepare briefs with evidenced and analytical responses.

Answering Topicality attacks:  Provide counter definitions and interpretations  Provide counter standards for evaluating your definitions/interpretations vs. the Negative’s

Answering Negative Attacks Answering Case Attacks

   Use your 1AC evidence or read new evidence to counter Negative claims.

Provide analysis about why your evidence and arguments are better.

Line-by-line vs. Lump & Dump (grouping)

Answering Negative Attacks Answering Disadvantages

 Challenge the arguments uniqueness      Deny/take-out or turn the link Deny/take-out or turn the impact Beware of the double turn Consider whether the NEG inherency attack disproves the Uniqueness or Link Does the Harm solved by the plan outweigh the impact of the DA?

Answering Negative Attacks Answering Counterplans

    Is the CP topical?

Is the CP competitive?

 Permutation Does the CP solve the case Harms?

Does the CP have any Disadvantages?

Negative Debate Strategies



Attack or refute the Affirmative case



Argue that the Affirmative is not topical



Present disadvantages to the Aff Plan



Propose a counterplan

Attacking the Affirmative Case



Attack the Harms/Significance:

extinction.

Prepare briefs against all the harms that affirmatives are likely to present such as ocean pollution and species 

Attack the Inherency:

Argue that the present system does have programs to address the harms or that the plan has been adopted. Show new ocean policy initiatives are working to address problems.

 Suggest minor repairs

Attacking the Affirmative Case



Attack the Solvency:

Deny that the plan will work. Blame causes outside of the U.S. ocean policy for environmental problems and then show the plan won't solve these problems. Show that government programs fail to help marine natural resources.

Tips for Attacking the Case

 Listen to the 1AC evidence. Does it really say what they claim it says? Are there any gaps in their reasoning?

Attacking the Affirmative Case

Tips for Attacking the Case

 Attacks may be take-outs or turn-arounds  Apply your arguments to the 1AC case structure  Follow the Steps of Refutation

1. State the opponent’s argument you are attacking (signpost) 2. State your argument 3. Read evidence to support your argument or explain your argument with analysis

 Number your arguments

Arguing Topicality

 A topicality attack is like a motion in a court of law or a legislative body in which you argue that the judge does not have the jurisdiction to vote for the AFF plan because it falls outside the bounds of the resolution.

 The Negative team argues that the Affirmative plan violates one or more terms in the resolution.

 A Topicality argument consists of four parts: the definition, the violation, the standards, and the voting issue. It is presented as an “off-case” observation.

The Structure of a Topicality Attack

 Definitions: read definitions for the terms in the resolution that you claim the AFF plan does not meet.

 Violations: Explain how the AFF plan does not meet the definition and thus violates the topic.

 Standards: What standards should we apply for determining that your interpretation of the resolution is the better one?

   Better Definition: Field Context, Grammatical Context, Precision Each word has meaning Reasonability, Debatability

The Structure of a Topicality Attack

 Voting Criteria: Why should the judge vote NEG on T?

  Prima Facie Issue Jurisdiction  Fairness

Arguing Topicality on Ocean Protection

 The plan is not “the United States federal government” because it relies on the states or private businesses or another country.

 The plan does not “establish an ocean policy” or “increase protection” because it concerns activities on land or it only modifies an existing policy.

 The plan does not concern “marine natural resources” because it preserves land or human-made resources.

Sample Topicality Argument

Definition Random House 2003 “establish: to create or originate” Violation The plan only modifies the current policy regarding double hulls by accelerating the time frame. It does not “create or originate” an ocean policy.

Standards 1.

Precision: this definition provides a precise limit to the term Debatability: allowing Affirmatives to modify existing policies excessively broadens the topic and places an unfair burden on negatives Voting Criteria 1.

Prima Facie burden: T is a PF burden. The Aff must win all PF burdens to win. If they lose T, they lose the debate Jurisdiction: The resolution only empowers you to consider topical plans. Plans outside the bounds of the resolution are outside your jurisdiction and thus, like a judge in a court, you should throw out the case

The Disadvantage

An argument that claims that adoption of the AFF plan will have bad consequences.

   

4 parts of the Disadvantage Impact: What would happen? How bad would it be?

Link: Why will the plan cause this?

Brink: Why is this a critical time?

Uniqueness: plan?

Would the DA happen even without the

The DA Link

Start from something the plan does:



Increases environmental regulation



Requires federal gov’t action



Spends money

The DA Brink/Uniqueness

Present recent evidence giving some reason that we are at a critical time:

 

Economy: On brink of recession now.

Bipartisanship: Change-over/elections of the Senate creates a critical brink point.

Present recent evidence giving some reason why the disadvantage will be avoided in SQ:

 

State-federal balance is maintained now Bipartisanship will survive if Congress can avoid contentious issues such as ocean environment.

The DA Impact

What will happen.

Be as explicit as possible about a scenario to impact: Be prepared to explain how and why the impact will happen.

  

Federalism: civil war Bipartisanship: fail to pass aid needed for Mid-east peace Spending: causes economy to crash

Linear Disadvantages

Linear disadvantages do not need to prove brink, threshold, or uniqueness: Linear DAs freely admit that the problem may already be happening in the present system; they simply claim that the affirmative plan produces more of a bad thing.

For example: Proliferation of nuclear weapons. It may be true that there is proliferation in the present system, but the plan would worsen the situation. The more proliferation, the worse for all of us since there will be a linear increase in the risk of war.

The Advantage of Using Linear DAs: More real world; brink arguments are often artificial anyway.

The Problems With Using Linear DAs: Not much impact; difficult to outweigh the affirmative advantages; it is difficult to quantify the “increment” of disadvantage caused by the plan.

Presenting the Disadvantage

“The Shell”: The DA can be first presented in any constructive speech. Most commonly, the DA is presented in the 1NC with a 1 to 2 minute “shell” of the argument. In other instances, the DA is presented in the 2NC; in such cases, the negative team often presents a longer version of the shell. Sample Shell A.

Uniqueness Link Impact

Arguing Disadvantages on Ocean Protection

  Business Confidence: Companies are typically concerned with any government regulation that makes doing business more expensive. Many affirmatives will do just that. Creating more mandates for environmentally friendly technology and investment could make it difficult for ship builders, cruise ship operators and other maritime businesses to make ends meet. That could jeopardize the fragile economic recovery that has begun in the United States by discouraging hiring and investment.

Eco-tourism: Improving the ocean environment could make them more appealing to visitors. Paradoxically, tourists put a great deal of stress on the environment through the use of resources and visiting (and trampling on) natural wonders. That would make the policy that attempts to preserve natural resources counter-productive.

Arguing Disadvantages on Ocean Protection

 Federalism: Many states have created their own regimes of ocean regulation. New ocean policies at the federal level undermine the states autonomy, threatening this very important federalist balance of power and perhaps preventing a stronger regulatory framework from emerging from below.

 Spending : Enforcing new regulations is costly, as is more investment from the government to restore the environment. Budget balancing priorities demand that we avoid new spending at this time. More federal spending is a bigger drain on the economy.

Arguing Disadvantages on Ocean Protection

  Politics DAs : The affirmative's plan will increase or decrease the political capital and popularity of President Bush or congressional actors. That could affect the chances of seemingly unrelated legislation becoming law. It may also have implications on the electoral viability of each party. With presidential elections coming up and the war on terrorism continuing, these disadvantages will have large impacts and continue to be a powerful negative tool.

Terrorism : The Coast Guard has many duties. Two of these are to enforce environmental regulations and to guard the seas from terrorists and other threats to security. If the Coast Guard moves some resources away from terror prevention to implement environmental rules, that may make it easier for enemies of the United States to attack the homeland.

Turning the DA: AFF Answers

Link Turns: A link turn shows that the plan actually does the opposite of what the negative link claims For example: On the bipartisanship DA, the affirmative may argue that the plan would actually promote rather than hurt bipartisanship.

Impact Turns: An impact turn shows that the claimed impact is actually good rather than bad For example: The DA says that plan passage would result in a Russia-China alliance. The affirmative argument is that a Russia-China alliance would be a good thing, rescuing the Russian economy from collapse.

Beware the Double Turn: The Affirmative team must NEVER turn both the link and the impact.

Presenting A Counterplan

A counterplan is a policy defended by the negative team which competes with the affirmative plan and is, on balance, more beneficial than the affirmative plan.

Counterplan Requirements Nontopicality: Must be a NON-resolutional alternative to solve the harm Competitiveness: Must give the judge a reason to choose between the plan and counterplan.

CP Non-Topicality

  The resolution divides ground. If the CP is topical it justifies the resolution. Thus voting for the CP would be a vote for the resolution and a vote for the resolution is a vote for the AFF.

Some judges say the CP may be topical, for the following reasons: 1. The affirmative team is asking for adoption of the PLAN not the resolution.

2. Competitiveness provides adequate protection against abuse.

3. Ground is preserved, since the affirmative team had free opportunity to choose its position first from anywhere within the resolution .

Counterplan Competitiveness

Mutual Exclusivity:

It is logically impossible to do both the plan and counterplan.

Net Benefits:

beneficial than the plan or the plan plus the counterplan The counterplan alone is more

Other Possibilities:

Resource competition, Philosophical differences

Counterplan Permutations

 A permutation is an argument offered by the affirmative to demonstrate the non competitiveness of a counterplan.

 It suggests a specific way that the plan and counterplan can be desirably combined.

Arguing Counterplans on Ocean Protection

   States CP : Rather than the federal government, the 50 states should act on the affirmative proposal. This avoids the federalism disadvantage and the inherent risks associated with centralized national control over policies.

United Nations CP affirmative harms.

: Instead of the United States acting, the United Nations would develop a comprehensive international policy to address the Japan CP : The Japanese government would enact the plan rather than the U.S. government. Possible net-benefits: U.S. action might anger allies, cause a shift in the 2004 election, or undermine Japanese global leadership.

Keeping a Flow Sheet

Obs 1. SQ Fishing Policy Fails --lack comp appr USCOP 9/02 --SQ n/protect eco Pew 5/03 --ind. prev. reform Sutton 03

1. NOAA focus on rebuild fish stocks Hogarth 02 SFA rebuild 2. US adopted int’l agreements Hildreth 02 adopt FAO code 3. EO expands MPAs Dept Comm 03 4. SFA contributes to eco health now Hildreth 02

1.SFA flawed Hogarth 02 unfocused, no $ 2. SFA only limit ctach size Natl Geo 01 3. SFA n/protect biod Norse 02 Exec order d/n MPAs Ore Reg 01

Flowing Tips

       Use 8 ½ x 14-inch legal pad, not 8 ½ x 11 Use two colors of ink (ie black and red) Use abbreviations appropriate to the topic Use symbols for common claims: down arrow for decreasing, right arrow for “causes” or “results in”, etc.) (up arrow for increasing, Establish priorities: 1. Contention labels first priority, 2. Subpoints second priority, 3. Evidence reference third priority (Smith, ’01), 4. Key words of evidence fourth priority.

Ask for missed points (in CX or prep time).

Use lots of paper (leave space b/w arguments/evidence separate sheets for plan arguments and for case arguments; each big argument should have its own sheet).

Keeping a Flow Sheet

Obs 1. SQ Fishing Policy Fails --SQ lacks comp approach USCOP 9/02 --SQ not protect ecosystem Pew 5/03 --industry prevents reforms Sutton 03

1.SFA flawed Hogarth 02 unfocused, no $ 2. SFA only limit ctach size Natl Geo 01 3. SFA no protect biodiversity Norse 02 Exec order not increase MPAs Ore Reg 01

Some Flowing Abbreviations

H Inh S Sig T PF SQ NT XT Def Vio Stds C-S VI DR BOP Harms Inherency Solvency Significance Topicality Prima Facie Status Quo Non-Topical Extra-Topical Definition Violation Standards Counter Standards Voting Issue Decision Rule Burden of Proof Obs Adv DA CP U N/U L N/L M T/ w/ w/o OP MPA O/F Eco Observation Advantage Disadvantage Counterplan Unique Not Unique Link No Link Impact Turn with without ocean policy marine reserve Overfishing ecosystem

Final Thoughts on Flowing

       Flow all of the speeches Use your flow to speak Do not give up. Listen for numbers and signposts to help you find your place on the flow again Practice!

Practice!!

Practice!!!

Did I say, Practice?

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

Debate I

WHAT IS IT?

Public forum debate, also known as crossfire debate, PFD (sometimes pronounced puff), pofo, pufo, and sometimes called by its former names, controversy debates or Ted Turner debate, is a style of debate practiced in National Forensic League

•

PFD

Public Forum Debate is audience friendly debate that focuses on advocacy of a position derived from the issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

•

A Public Forum Debate round begins with a flip of a coin between the competing teams to determine sides and speaker position.

•

Public Forum tests skills in argumentation, cross-examination, and refutation.

•

INTRODUCTION

Public Forum Debate offers students a unique opportunity to develop on-their-feet critical thinking skills by situating them in contexts not unlike US political (radio and TV) talk shows. Public Forum debaters must anticipate numerous contingencies (possibilities) in planning their cases, and must learn to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances as discussions progress.

• Public Forum’s open

-ended cross-examination format encourages the development of unique rhetorical strategies. Public Forum debates should be transparent to lay audiences while providing students with real-world public speaking skills through the discussion of contentious ideas.

Public Forum Debate

• •

Public Forum will test your skills in argumentation, cross-examination, and refutation.

Example Current PF Topic: Resolved: The benefits of post 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom.

How it goes…

•

Two teams make up a Public Forum debate, one taking the affirmative position, the other arguing the negative. The guidelines for arguing these positions are as follows: 1. Arguing a Case for the Resolution The affirmative team has the opportunity to interpret and define the resolution, and has the responsibility to interpret the resolution as it would reasonably be interpreted in the public sphere. The affirmative team is not required to provide a literal interpretation of the resolution, but may instead choose to create a metaphorical interpretation of the resolution. The reasonability of the affirmative team’s interpretation of the resolution is a matter that can be argued from debate to debate.

•

How it goes…

2. Arguing Against the Resolution Assuming that the affirmative team’s interpretation of the resolution is acceptable, the objective of the negative team’s efforts is to refute the arguments offered by the affirmative team and/or to offer its own arguments against the stance taken by the affirmative team. The negative team may challenge any aspect of the affirmative team’s case. For instance, it may challenge the interpretation of the motion (if it is unreasonable), the factual and analytical foundations of the proposition’s case, the underlying assumptions of the proposition team’s claims, or any costs associated with the affirmative team’s arguments.

Public Forum Debate

•

You and a partner will debate controversial issues that are taken from newspaper headlines.

•

New topics will be announced for each month.

• • • • • •

This Debate Should…

-display solid logic, reasoning, and analysis -utilize evidence but not be driven by it -present a clash of ideas -counter the arguments of the opponents (rebuttal) -communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum

•

RULES

1. In-Round Research is Prohibited Research on the topic must be completed prior to the beginning of an actual debate. Once the debate begins, the debaters may not conduct research via electronic or other means. No outside person can conduct research during the debate and provide it directly or indirectly to the debaters. The use of a dictionary to determine the meaning of English words that the debater may not understand should not be construed as a violation of this rule. 2. Citations Debaters may refer to or cite any public information. When debaters cite information, they should be prepared to provide complete documentation of the source to the opposing team and to the judge on request. A team’s documentation of cited material must be complete enough that the opposing team and the judge can independently locate the information. Ordinarily, such documentation would include the name of an author (if any), the name and date of a publication, the URL of a website (if the information was retrieved electronically), and a page number (if any exists.)

• •

How It Goes

The debate begins with the first team's first four-minute constructive speech. In this speech, one of the members of the team gives arguments either for or against the resolution ( a resolution or topic is a normative statement which the affirmative team affirms and the negative team negates .), depending on which side the team is speaking for. Strictly speaking, the custom in public forum debate dictates that when debaters speak (both for speeches and crossfire), they should face forward towards the judge, sometimes from behind a lectern. However in some tournaments, it is customary for debaters to remain seated and face each other during crossfire.

•

CLOSER LOOK @ First Two Speeches

In these two speeches, the first and second speakers should deliver their pre-prepared reasons for adoption or rejection of the topic. The second speaker may also respond to the most important arguments raised by the first speaker.

•

In the first two speeches, speakers for both sides must be concerned with constructing and presenting a logical argument that draws on evidentiary support. This is the one time in the debate where specific preparation can be used as a tool of the debate.

•

How It Goes

Next, the other side is permitted to give its first four minute constructive speech in which not only arguments may be presented, but rebuttals to arguments from the first speech as well.

•

However, rebuttals are almost always not presented until a team's second constructive, and are frowned upon in some states/tournaments, and the first constructive generally consists exclusively of prepared material.

•

Cross Fire

Following this speech, the first speaker from the first team joins the first speaker from the second team at the podium if one is provided (in the absence of one debaters stand by their desks) and the first three-minute "crossfire" begins.

•

The first speaker begins crossfire by asking a question to the second speaker. In crossfire, the two debaters directly ask each other questions and answer questions of their opponent.

•

Crossfire may be used, like cross-examination, to ask revealing questions in an attempt to expose a weakness in the opponents' arguments, but it is often used as a way to further develop and attack arguments through discourse.

Keep Goin’

•

After crossfire, first team's second speaker gives a four minute rebuttal speech. After they have rebutted their opponents case, they move on to "rehab" their own (rebut the opponents rebuttals in an attempt to nullify them. Although, this only applies to the second speaker as the first team should not have had any points rebutted yet.)

•

Then, the second speaker of the second team gives a four-minute constructive speech following this same format. Following this speech, another three-minute crossfire ensues.

•

CLOSER LOOK @ 2

SPEECHES

This speaker position for both sides has the burden of analyzing the opponents’ position and explaining flaws in the ideas presented by the other team.

•

The judge has an expectation that the two sides will clash. Clash may be in the form of line-by-line refutation of the opponent’s position or could focus on the most "attackable" issues advanced by the other side.

Grand Crossfire

•

The first speaker of the first team then gives a two minute summary speech of the debate, which includes further rebuttal of the opponents case and reiteration of the first team's case, and the first speaker of the second team does the same.

•

After this speech, all four debaters participate in "Grand Crossfire". Grand Crossfire is similar to crossfire except that all four debaters can ask and answer questions of each other. The speaker that gave the first summary speech begins Grand Crossfire by asking the first question.

Final Focus

•

After Grand Crossfire, each team's second speaker has a chance to give a one-minute speech called the "Final Focus," the first team giving this speech first.

•

In the Final Focus, the speaker is given one last chance to explain exactly why his or her team has won the round. No new arguments or evidence is allowed in the Final Focus. This speech is often the determining factor for a judge's decision in a closely contested round, as it allows the judge to hear which arguments/evidence each team views as the most important to his or her case, and summarizes the entire debate.

•

CLOSER LOOK @ FINAL FOCUS

In the Final Focus, speakers should select the issue or issues they feel have become crucial to the round.

•

Moreover, they should explain how their side has won arguments related to those issues. The Final Focus should not be an attempt to explain all issues that have been raised, but rather offer sustained, persuasive commentary on a single issue or small number of issues of importance.

TOPICS

• • • • •

April 2009: "Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act serves the best interests of the American people.“ March 2009: "Resolved: That, on balance, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the United States.“ February 2009: "Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States.“ January 2009 "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels.“ December 2008: "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking Web sites have had a positive impact on the United States."

•

TOPICS PT. 2

November 2008: "Resolved: That the United States government should implement universal health care modeled after the French system.“

•

October 2008: "Resolved: That the United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy."

•

September 2008: "Resolved: That the United States should implement a military draft."

• •

NFL Nationals: "Resolved: US policies established after September 11, 2001 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist acts against the United States.“ http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_suggestions.php

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Time Schedule

Public Forum Timing Schedule First Speaker - Team A = 4 Minutes First Speaker - Team B = 4 Minutes Crossfire = 3 Minutes Second Speaker - Team A = 4 Minutes Second Speaker - Team B = 4 Minutes Crossfire = 3 Minutes Summary - First Speaker - Team A = 2 Minutes Summary - First Speaker - Team B = 2 Minutes Grand Crossfire = 3 Minutes Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team A = 1 Minute Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team B = 1 Minute Prep Time (per team) = 2 Minutes

Everyone is expected to be a respectful audience member. A judge’s rank may reflect a contestant’s disrespect to other competitors during the round.

Student Congress

A Brief Introduction to Speech Development, Procedures, and Speaking

What is Student Congress?

 Student Congress is a hybrid event that blends the use of public speaking skills used in Forensics competitions, the argumentation strategies from Debate events, and the ability to master procedural methods used by the United States Congress.

What Does It Take to Succeed?

 In order to be a successful in Student Congress, the competitor must be able to accomplish the following (1) Speak Clearly and Persuasively (2) Successfully Refute or Support the Arguments of Other Competitors (3) Actively Engage in the Process and Procedures Used to Organize a Session

Developing Student Congress Speeches

On What Topics Do Competitors Speak?

 In student Congress competitors speak on a variety of Bills or Resolutions describing a particular course of action to be taken by the model congress.  The students are to approach the session as though the decisions made will become binding parts of American governing policy.

 Students will either speak in favor of a particular Bill or Resolution, or will speak against this course of action.

Sample Resolution 

Whereas, there are Americans who use guns for recreational sports such as hunting, target practice and professional shooting, and,



Whereas, guns also provide in-home protection for Americans, and,



Whereas, there are thousands of home invasions each year in the United States and guns. can help people protect themselves and their families from these criminals, and,



Whereas, establishing gun control laws would encourage more people to break these7. laws, and,



Whereas, gun control laws would make criminals aware that families have no means to protect themselves,



Therefore, be it resolved, by this student congress here assembled, that all legislation promoting gun control laws be abolished.

Sample Bill  Given that the stimulus package enacted by the federal government has been largely successful in ending the recession; and  Since another stimulus would help increase spending by American citizens and state governments; and  Since spending is necessary to avoid falling into another recession;  Therefore, this Congress ought to add one hundred and fifty billion dollars to the current stimulus plan to be distributed amongst all fifty states, ensuring increased spending.

Bill vs Resolution  A Resolution presents a very specific plan of action that must be described in detail in the wording of the resolution.

 A Bill suggests a possible general idea for government action without going into detail as to how this action might look.

The A.R.E. Method to Speech Writing 

Writing a Student Congress speech is as easy as A.R.E. X 3

rgument!



The

rgument is the point the speaker is making about why the bill should be affirmed or negated.

Sample

rgument 

On the Gun Control resolution: My first point is that gun control laws lead to greater rates of black market gun sales.

easoning!



The

easoning is the three or four explanations of what the argument means and why it is relevant.

Sample

easoning Gun control laws lead to strict regulation of who can and who cannot buy guns. Often those who seek to purchase a gun are those who would not pass the necessary background checks in order to purchase a gun. As a result, these individuals seek back channel methods to purchase firearms. In turn this helps to support criminal and dangerous groups in our society.

vidence!



The

vidence is the two sources (minimum) used to support the argument and reasoning of the speaker.

Sample

vidence According to The Future of Freedom Foundation in an article written May 23, 2010, black market gun sellers service “over 2 million customers each year.” Further the Cato Institute contends that the profits made by black market gun sellers leads to “further expansion of illegal gun and drug empires into struggling communities.”

Put it All Together!

My first point is that gun control laws lead to greater rates of black market gun sales. Gun control laws lead to strict regulation of who can and who cannot buy guns. Often those who seek to purchase a gun are those who would not pass the necessary background checks in order to purchase a gun. As a result, these individuals seek back channel methods to purchase firearms. In turn this helps to support criminal and dangerous groups in our society. According to The Future of Freedom Foundation in an article written May 23, 2010, black market gun sellers service “over 2 million customers each year.” Further the Cato Institute contends that the profits made by black market gun sellers leads to “further expansion of illegal gun and drug empires into struggling communities.” Without question the well-intentioned gun control laws have had an adverse effect on gun sales and safety in America.

A.R.E. Presented Graphically

Argument: Reasoning:

Evidence:

Therefore A.R.E. x 3 Looks Like:

Argument: Argument: Argument: Reasoning:

Evidence: Reasoning:

Evidence:

A.R.E. Speech Outline Handout Resolution / Bill Title: _________________ Position: Aff or Neg

Argument: Argument: Argument: Reasoning:

Evidence: Reasoning:

Evidence:

Refuting or Supporting the Arguments of Others

The 4-Steps to Refutation / Support 

Teaching students to refute or support an argument can be easily done in 4 simple steps!

Step 1 – “They say…”  Briefly restate the point the speaker just made and the point you are about to answer.

 For example:  “They say that gun control laws lead to increases in gun sales made through the black market”

Step 2 – “But…”  Make your counter assertion!

 For example:  “But eliminating gun control laws would cause greater hikes in crime as almost anyone would be able to purchase firearms.”

Step 3 – “Because…”  Offer reasoning and evidence to support your counter-assertion.

 For example:  “This is because it becomes easier to purchase firearms after laws are eliminated. According to a Mayors Against Illegal Guns study, over half of the violent gun crimes in America occurred with guns purchased legally from states with relaxed gun control laws”

Step 4 – “Therefore”  Conclude your point by comparing you point to the point you’re answering.

 For example:  “Therefore while gun control laws may lead to greater sales in black markets, eliminating gun control laws all together would drastically increase violent crime even further.”

Put it All Together They say that gun control laws lead to increases in gun sales made through the black market, but eliminating gun control laws would cause greater hikes in crime as almost anyone would be able to purchase firearms. This is because it becomes easier to purchase guns after laws are eliminated. According to a Mayors Against Illegal Guns study, over half of the violent gun crimes in America occurred with guns purchased legally from states with relaxed gun control laws. Therefore while gun control laws may lead to greater sales in black markets, eliminating gun control laws all together would drastically increase violent crime even further

Outlining the 4-Step Plan

Refuting

They say…

Supporting

1. They say… 2. but… 3. because… 4. Therefore… 2. and… 3. because… 4. Therefore…

Actively Engaging in the Process and Procedures of Student Congress

Procedures for the Novice Competitor  Beginning student congress competitors should consistently strive to take part in three key procedures used in all sessions: (1) Make Motions (2) Ask Questions (3) Vote!

Motions  A motion is a verbal cue presented by a member of the Student Congress in order to advance the flow of the debate in the session.

 There are numerous motions used in every Student Congress session.

Three Motions for New Competitors

(1) Move the Previous Question

(1) Translation : by saying “I move the previous question” the student is saying “Lets vote on whether to pass or fail this resolution!” (2) When to Use It : The student should “move the previous question” when it appears that debate on a resolution or bill is over or has become one-sided

(2) Move to Lay on the Table

(1) Translation : by saying “I move to lay this resolution on the table” the student is saying “Lets put this aside and come back to it later!” (2) When to Use It: The student should use this motion when debate is not conclusive on the issue and there are other matters needing to be addressed.

(3) Point of Information

(1) Translation : by saying “Point of Information…” the student is asking the chair person to clarify either a procedure or specific wording that the Congress in taking into consideration.

(2) When to Use It: The student should request a point of information when an unclear step is being taken by the Congress.

Asking Questions  At numerous points in a Student Congress session, the speaker will need to respond to questions from the rest of the chamber.

 Your student should strive to ask poignant and pertinent questions related to the speech or the speaker’s position.

 These questions can be:    Clarifying Supportive Setting up an Argument

Sample Questions  Clarifying Question  Your bill recommends that we as a Congress vote to increase financial support of the Stimulus package, where would that capital come from?

 Supportive Question (Softball Question)  In your speech you explain how the Stimulus package benefits the economy, do you think this would help those experiencing the greatest poverty?

 Setting Up an Argument (Hardball Question)  You stated that in order to support the stimulus we can draw money from other domestic programs, how would this impact the effectiveness of those programs?

 (Then in your speech you hit them with the harms of their proposed plan!)

VOTE!

 At numerous points in the session, competitors will be asked to contribute to the flow of debate by voting on motions and resolutions.

 Students should always vote whenever it occurs in order to show their presence and participation in the session.

 Voting one way or another can also influence the course of debate in the remainder of the session.

Mini-Session

Student Congress Mini-Session  For the remainder of our time, we will participate in a sample Student Congress session. In this session I will play the role of the Presiding Officer and each of you will be active participants in the competition.

 The resolution we are going to discussion has the following Therefore clause: 

“Therefore the United States military should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, instead sending them to Darfur, Sudan as peacekeeping agents.”

Preparation  In small groups of 3 or 4, use the ARE x 3 outline to develop either a speech in support (affirmation) of the resolution or in (negation) of the resolution.

 You won’t have evidence right now, so just focus on the Arguments and your Reasoning  In 10 minutes, we will begin our sample session with a speech in affirmation followed by a speech in negation. There will be time for questioning after each speech.

Mini-Session

A Resolution to Send Troops to Darfur  Whereas… 

Therefore the United States military should withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and Iraq, instead sending them to Darfur, Sudan as peacekeeping agents.

Extemporaneous Speech

The World in 7 Minutes or Less

Foreign/Domestic---- Informative/Persuasive

What is an extemporaneous speech?

A speech with only a limited amount of preparation and limited notes.

A speech about a world/national event.

Reading a Question

The first step in working with an extemp speech is to select your question.

1) Pick a question you have some knowledge about and one that has some importance to it.

2) Make sure that you have some evidence on that question.

3) Make sure that you understand the question.

Getting Your Speech Ready.

1. Determine what the question is asking.

What can the United States do to end the fighting in the Middle East?

2. Research your topic with the question in mind.

3. Organize the speech into 2-3 main points

Basic Organizational Pattern 1

The three point speech pattern: Introduction: Attention Getter, State the Question, Preview Main Pnts.

A. 1 st Main Point B. 2 nd Main Point C. 3 rd Main Point Conclusion: Review Main Pnts, restate the question, wrap-up

Basic Organization Pattern 2

Introduction: Attention Getter, State the Question, Preview Main Pnts.

Main Point a. sub point b. sub point 2. Main Point a. sub point b. sub point Conclusion: Review Main Pnts, restate the question, wrap-up

Basic Tips and Pointers

1) Make sure you answer the question.

2) Support your answer through your analysis in the body of the speech.

3) Give yourself time to practice your speech.

4) Speak with confidence.

5) Try and use 3-8 sources in your speech.

Review and Practice

Read the following questions and pick one to work on.

Can the new Mali leader rebuild the country?

Who is the best rapper in the world?

What can be done to bring peace to the Middle East?

Scan the Information

Sharon repeated his position that violence must end before talks begin and that he doesn't believe there can be successful negotiations as long as Arafat remains in power.

"We must have a partner for negotiations," the prime minister told Bush. "We don't see yet a partner.“– Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 11 th Conditions do not yet exist to begin working toward a final peace in the Middle East, largely because there is no confidence in the current Palestinian leadership, President Bush said yesterday after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.– Washington Post, June 11 th Sharon "wants to weaken the Palestinian Authority and to destroy the Palestinian infrastructure," Palestinian spokesman Yasser Abed-Rabbo said. Minister Nabil Shaath accused Israel of trying to "sabotage any progress."– LA Times, June 11 th

For More Information

For more information on giving Extemporaneous Speeches Extempcentral CDE Extemp Topic Resources CDE Extemp Topics 2011 The Extemp Page Unified Organization (pdf required)