Unit7 lesson1 makeup

DO NOW:1. THINK ABOUT A TIME YOU WERE HEAVILY

MISUNDERSTOOD AND IT RESULTED IN AN ARGUMENT

OR ALTERCATION. WHAT WAS THE ISSUE? WHAT WAS

YOUR OPINION? WHO WERE YOU ARGUING WITH?

2. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DISCUSSION AND A

DEBATE?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LesGw274Kjo

Watch this:

The Art of Debate: Never Lose An Argument Again

FORMS OF DEBATE:

• POLICY DEBATE

• LINCOLN DOUGLAS

• PUBLIC FORUM

• PARLIAMENTARY

• CONGRESSIONAL

• IMPROMPTU

FORMS OF DEBATE:

• POLICY DEBATE

• LINCOLN DOUGLAS

• PUBLIC FORUM

• PARLIAMENTARY

• CONGRESSIONAL

• IMPROMPTU

CLAIM WARRANT IMPACTWHAT YOU THE EVIDENCE WHY IT

ARE TRYING FOR WHY MATTERS

TO PROVE THE CLAIM IS

TRUE

DEFINITIONS 1:

POLICY DEBATE: A FORM OF DEBATE

COMPETITION IN WHICH TEAMS OF

TWO ADVOCATE FOR AND AGAINST

A RESOLUTION THAT CALLS FOR

POLICY CHANGE BY THE UNITED

STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

DEFINITIONS 2:

RESOLUTION: ALSO KNOWN AS THE

TOPIC; IT IS AN EXPRESSION OF

OPINION THAT INCLUDES THE WORD

“SHOULD.” IT SETS FORTH THE ISSUE

TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE DEBATE.

DEFINITIONS 3:

AFFIRMATIVE TEAM: THE SIDE IN A

DEBATE ROUND THAT SUPPORTS OR

“AFFIRMS” THE RESOLUTION.

NEGATIVE TEAM: THE SIDE IN A

DEBATE ROUND THAT OPPOSES OR

“NEGATES” THE RESOLUTION.

DEFINITIONS 4:

CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH: THE FIRST SET

OF SPEECHES IN WHICH BOTH SIDES

“CONSTRUCT” THEIR ARGUMENTS AND

POSITIONS; CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES HAVE

A CROSS-EXAMINATION PERIOD DIRECTLY

AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPEECH;

EACH SIDE WILL GIVE A CONSTRUCTIVE

SPEECH.

DEFINITIONS 5:

CROSS-EXAMINATION: ONE DEBATER

GETS TO INTERACT WITH ANOTHER

DEBATER BY ASKING QUESTIONS;

THE TIME CAN BE USED FOR

CLARIFICATION OR TO SET UP AN

ARGUMENT. CROSS-EX AND CX ARE BOTH SHORT FOR CROSS EXAMINATION.

DEFINITIONS 6:

REBUTTAL SPEECH: THE SECOND SET OF

SPEECHES IN WHICH BOTH SIDES FOCUS ON

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING ARGUMENTS

ALREADY PRESENTED IN THE DEBATE ROUND; THE

REBUTTAL SPEECHES ALLOW TEAMS TO ANALYZE THE

KEY ARGUMENTS OF THE ROUND USING LOGIC TO

EXPLAIN WHY ONE SIDE’S ARGUMENTS ARE SUPERIOR

TO THE OTHERS’; THERE SHOULD BE NO NEW

ARGUMENTS DURING THE REBUTTAL PERIOD; EACH COMPETITOR WILL GIVE A REBUTTAL SPEECH.

DEFINITIONS 7:

STATUS QUO: THE CURRENT STATE

AFFAIRS; THE WAY THINGS ARE NOW.

IT IS BELIEVED TO BE WORKING UNTIL

THE AFFIRMATIVE PROVES THAT IS

NOT.

DEFINITIONS 8:

BURDEN OF PROOF: THE

AFFIRMATIVE’S OBLIGATION TO

PROVE THAT THEIR PLAN IS

PREFERABLE TO THE STATUS QUO

AND THAT IT IS A REASON TO

CHANGE THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

DEFINITIONS 9:

BURDEN OF REJOINDER: THE

NEGATIVE’S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT

THE LOGIC USED BY THE

AFFIRMATIVE IS FAULTY OR

INCORRECT.

DEFINITIONS 10:

CLASH: THE ARGUMENTATION

RESULTING FROM DIFFERING POINTS

OF VIEW; THE CLASH BETWEEN THE

BURDEN OF PROOF AND THE BURDEN

OF REJOINDER.

Policy Debate Format

1AC (8 min. for 1A) CX (3 min. for 2N to ask 1A questions)

1NC (8 min. for 1N) CX (3 min. for 2A to ask 1N questions)

2AC (8 min. for 2A) CX (3 min. for 1N to ask 2A questions)

2NC (8 min. for 2N) CX (3 min. for 1A to ask 2N questions)

1NR (4 min. for 1N)

1AR (4 min. for 1A)

2NR (4 min. for 2N)

2AR (4 min. for 2 A)

Scenario 1

Imagine two teams show up for a debate round. Both teams

enter the room and sit down. The round starts. The first

affirmative speaker stands up, the time starts on the clock,

but the speaker says nothing for the entire speech. Cross

examination comes and goes and neither team says a

single word. The first negative speech comes and goes and

no words are spoken. After the round, where no debater

said a single word, the judge signs the ballot, and walks out of the round. Who did they vote for? And why?

Scenario 2

Think about the example above in another context. Imagine

that you were charged with a crime, and had to appear in

court. Now, imagine that both prosecutor and defense

attorney did not say anything during the entire trial. If no

arguments were made for or against you, ultimately, you

would be considered not guilty and released because in a

court of law you are innocent until proven guilty. That means

that you are presumed innocent until the other lawyer overcomes this burden (i.e. presumption is with you).

Definition:

Presumption, one of the single most

important terms in debate, means that the

status quo is believed to be working until the affirmative proves that is not.

GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A STATUS

QUO. WHAT IS 1 ARGUMENT THAT

WOULD HELP PROVE THAT A

CHANGE TO THE CURRENT

SYSTEM IS THE RIGHT CHOICE?

INCLUDE A CLAIM, WARRANT,

AND IMPACT.

EXIT TICKETIN COMPETITIVE DEBATING, YOU MAY NOT

CHOOSE WHICH SIDE YOU ARE ON. WHY DO

YOU THINK THAT TEAMS ARE NOT ALLOWED

TO CHOOSE THEIR SIDES IN A DEBATE? WHAT

DO YOU THINK IS CHALLENGING ABOUT

ARGUING BOTH SIDES OF AN ISSUE?