11/20 Swbat learn the basics of Debate

structure by taking notes and working as a

group to create an argument
Warmup: ASL Alphabet Kahoot
1. Take notes on the
Introduction to Debate handout
2. Construct an argument with your group
and present it to class
a. Choose any topic you wish
b. Follow the LD debate structure from last class
LD Debate format

Affirmative Constructive (your whole argument)

Cross by Negative

Prep for Neg

Negative Constructive (your whole argument)

Cross by Affirmative

Prep by Aff

Affirmative Rebuttal

Prep for Neg

Negative Rebuttal

Prep for Aff

Affirmative Rebuttal
11/12 Swbat learn the basics of Debate
structure by taking notes and working as a
group to create an argument
1. Present Persuasive Speeches/ Complete
Persuasive Speech Peer Review Chart
2. Reflection: What were my strengths? What did I
learn? What will I do differently in our debates to
convince my audience?
3. Use ch. 2 in the Debate textbook to define
the terms on p. 39
4. Construct an argument with your group
and present it to class
11/14 Swbat debate a proposition by preparing with their teams,
debating the proposition, and then reflecting on their experience

1. Earbuds or Headphones? Argue

2. 5 min to prepare for Student Parking debate
3. Debate
4. 10 min to prepare for 2nd debate
5. Debate
6. Reflection: Which part of the debate are you
most comfortable with? What do we need to
practice?
Constructing an argument
RESOLVED: Student parking
privileges should be
contingent on academic
performance.
 Your job:
• Write down one
argument for each side
of the issue.
• You MUST supply a
reason (evidence) WHY
you think these
arguments are true.
Group Task:
• Together, determine what
your three main arguments
are and WHY you believe
these arguments are true.
• Everyone records your
group’s arguments on the
handout.
• Choose a moderator to
present your group’s
arguments.
Final Questions:
• Why is each argument
important?
• How does each argument
explicitly support your
side?
• How does it affect
people?
Finding your way through
Debate…
A guide to successful argumentation…
 TYPES OF DEBATE
1. Value Debates (aka Lincoln Douglas) - about the priority of
different values
2. Policy Debates or Cross Examine Debates - whether or
not to take a particular action
3. Fact Debates - proving a fact such as that UFOs exist
4. Parliamentary Debates - based on a political premise with
persuasive speeches
5. Panel Debates - moderator asks questions of several
political figures
6. Public Forum Debates - teams debate controversial topics
from newspaper headlines
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
 History of the Lincoln-
Douglas Debate
• In 1859, Senator Stephen A. Douglas was up for re-
election to his Illinois Senate seat.
• His opponent was Abraham Lincoln.
• During the campaign, the two men faced off in seven
debates in different Congressional Districts (ones that
Douglas had not yet visited).
 Format of the original
Lincoln-Douglas Debates
• Opening statement (1 hour) [This alternated with
each debate.]
• Rebuttal statement (1 ½ hours)
• First speaker rebuttal of second speaker (30 min.)
 Modern format of Lincoln-
Douglas Debates
• Affirmative position debater presents constructive debate points (6 minutes) - The Affirmative reads a pre-
written case.

• Negative position debater cross-examination affirmative points (3 minutes) - The Negative asks the
Affirmative questions about the Affirmative case.

• Negative position presents constructive debate points (7 minutes) - The Negative (almost always) reads a
pre-written case and (almost always) moves on to address the Affirmative's case.

• Affirmative position cross-examines negative points (3 minutes) - The Affirmative asks the Negative
questions.

• Affirmative position offers first rebuttal (4 minutes) - The Affirmative addresses both his/her opponent's
case and his/her own. This speech is considered by many debaters to be the most difficult.

• Negative position offers first rebuttal (6 minutes) - The Negative addresses the arguments of the previous
speech and summarizes the round for the judge.

• Affirmative position offers second rebuttal (3 minutes) - The Affirmative addresses the arguments of the
previous speech and summarizes the round for the judge.
 Structure of an argument:
1. Claim: a statement of possible truth
2. Warrant: gives support for the argument as to
why it is true
a. Analytical warrant: logical reasons for the truth
b. Empirical warrant: statistics and examples from the real
world
c. Psychological warrants: explains how people act in
certain situations backed up with psychological studies
3. Impact: importance of the argument in terms of
how it proves claim true or how the argument
affects people
What is a value?
• A principle, standard,
or quality considered
worthwhile or
desirable

What are some

principles that most
people value?
What is a statement of
value?
• It is more about what ought to be true
than what is actually true.
• They tend to be more subjective as
different people/cultures value different
things.
• They tend to reference larger
metaphysical concepts such as “justice”
and “morality.”
What is the difference between a
statement of value and one of fact?

• To affirm a statement of fact, you would

have to make an absolute statement
about the truth of the statement, with
NO exceptions.
• To affirm a statement of value, you
show that the statement is true “as a
matter of principle”, with small
exceptions that do not invalidate the
overall claim.
Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.

What do we need to logically

prove or know to affirm or
negate this resolution?
First, analyze the text:
1. Understand the definitions of words in
the resolution.
2. Understand the type of resolution at
hand.
3. Understand the context, if any,
provided by the resolution.
4. Understand the actor and action of the
resolution.
5. Recognize the evaluative term of the
resolution.
 1. Define key words:
• Resolved: In a Democratic society, felons
ought to retain the right to vote.
Democratic
Society
Felons
Retain
Right
Vote
 2. Identify the type of
resolution:
Type 1:
COMPARATIVE (“x” is more desirable than “y”)
Requires you to examine both sides and
show why one ought to preference one
thing as opposed to another thing.
 2. Identify the type of
resolution:
Type 2:
ABSOLUTE (“x” action is just)
Requires you to prove that the action or
idea being put forward is correct.
 2. Identify the type of
resolution:
Type 3:
SUPERLATIVE (“x” is the best form of
government)
Requires you to defend one notion as
being preferable to all other options. You
must focus on that advantages of the
notion and why the possible harms are not
that important.
2. Type of Resolution
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.

What type of resolution

is this?
3. What is the context?
Look for clauses that show the context of
the value statement. Ask these questions:
1.Does the resolution provide a specific
context?
2.How do these contexts clarify the
conflict of the resolution?
3.How do these contexts suggest burdens
for what the affirmative or negative
debater has to prove?
3. Contexts
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.

What is the context

statement in this
resolution?
 4. Who is the actor? What is
the action?
The actor is the agent/person/entity that will
presumably carry out the action in the
affirmative world. (i.e.: a government, the
individual, society, the international community,
etc.)

The action is what the actor of the resolution

will do in the affirmative world.
4. Actor/Action
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.

Who is the actor?

What is the action?
 5. What is the evaluative
term or phrase?
• Evaluative terms pose the moral, legal, or
ethical question of the resolution. For example:
– It is morally permissible to kill one innocent
person to save the lives of more innocent people.
– In the United States, jury nullification is a
legitimate check on government.
– International leaders ought to cancel the debt of
highly indebted poor countries.
– Capitalism is the most just form of economic
system.
5. Evaluative Term
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.

What is the evaluative

term?
Final Question
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.
What do we need to
logically prove or know
to affirm or negate this
resolution?
 Resolution Evaluation
• These are the resolutions for our first team debate :

– Public high school students in the United States

ought not be required to pass standardized exit
exams to graduate.
– A just society ought not to use the death penalty for
a form of punishment.
– Juveniles charged with violent crimes should be
tried and punished as adults.
– In matters of collecting military intelligence, the
ends justify the means.
– Military conscription is unjust in the United States.d
 Resolution Evaluation
• Structure of the first debate:
• Affirmative definition of terms and first argument
• Negative definition of terms and first argument

• Affirmative rebuttal and second argument

• Negative rebuttal and second argument

• Affirmative rebuttal and third argument

• Negative rebuttal and third argument

• Affirmative summary and closing statement

• Negative summary and closing statement

3 minutes max for each stage of the debate.

Money can’t buy happiness

Group 1 Affirmative
abdul
autumn
ivan
mala'khy

Group 2 Negative
warren
nelly
Delvon
mateo