Argumentation and Debate Assignment Packet



Argumentation and Debate Assignment Packet

Communication 311

D. Fabionar

Toulmin Model Warrant worksheets

Five Common Types of Reasoning

Media Fallacy Scrapbook

Lincoln-Douglas Speech mini debate description

Lincoln Douglas Grading criteria

Lincoln Douglas Critique Sheet

Policy Stock Issues worksheet

Negative Strategy worksheet (policy)

Pro/Government Value Stock Issues worksheet

Con/Opposition Value Stock Issues worksheet

Sample Evidence Card

Evidence Card assignment description

Evidence Card/Outline assignment grading criteria

Parliamentary Debate (Policy) grading criteria

Parliamentary Debate (Value) grading criteria

Refutation exercise

Debate Critique (self-critique)

Flowing tips

Dialogue Presentation Description

Group member grading forms

Individual evaluation form

Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment

Toulmin Model Warrant Worksheet

One key to evaluate and/or refute an argument is to discover the bridge, or warrant, between the grounds and the claim. Warrants can almost always be stated in terms of one of the five types of reasoning (see Chapter 2 in your text). Fill in the backing of the warrant (can be fictional, as long as the backing supports the form of reasoning you choose.)

Example

1. Grounds: The price of steel has gone up.

Claim: The price of automobiles will definitely go up.

Warrant: causation

Backing for the warrant: Automobiles are 90% steel.

Or

Grounds: The price of steel has gone up.

Claim: The price of automobiles might go up.

Warrant: correlation

Backing for the warrant: Most automobiles aren’t made of steel.

Both responses would be correct because the backing supports the warrant

2. Grounds: As a result of stricter driver’s license tests and periodic retests, Alabama has cut its accident rate by 20 percent.

Claim: Massachusetts can cut its accident rate significantly.

Warrant:

Backing for the warrant:

3. Grounds: In the United States, medical care is usually delivered to those who can afford the cost.

Claim: Most poor people will forego medical care.

Warrant:

Backing for the warrant:

4. Grounds: Alan Greenspan has argued that the budget deficit will destroy this country’s economic growth by the year 2007.

Claim: The United States Congress should pass the balanced budget amendment.

Warrant:

Backing for the warrant:

5. Grounds: 55 percent of the people in a Channel 11 poll believe that marijuana is a gateway drug

Claim: Marijuana should not be legalized

Warrant:

Backing for the warrant:

Having successfully completed the warrant for each argument, suggest reservations to these arguments.

(1)

Activity 2

Examine the following arguments. Decide what reasoning pattern each one follows. Then locate the parts of the argument, using the signs G, C, and W for grounds, claim, and warrant. If a part of the argument is missing, fill in a statement that would provide a reasonable completion of the argument.

1. Covert CIA activities succeeded in Iran. They also succeeded in Chile, Guatemala, Cuba, Vietnam, and Nicaragua. These covert activities were carried out under a variety of political conditions, at various points in recent history, and against various types of opposition. It is safe to assume that CIA covert activities will be successful in the future.

2. Identify the claim, warrant, grounds, and modality of the following argument.

Because she stood holding a gun over a man that was bleeding on the floor from a gunshot wound and she has a history of committing violent crimes, she definitely shot him.

Claim:

Warrant (form of reasoning):

Grounds:

Modality:

(2)

Five Common Types of Reasoning

Causal Reasoning: Implies a causal connection between two phenomena.

When A happens, B results.

Ex: Cigarette smoking causes cancer.

Poor reinvestment strategies led to the collapse of the steel industry.

Low-fiber diets can lead to bowel cancer.

Tests: 1. Is the cause sufficient?

2. Are there any alternate causalities?

Sign (Correlation): Implies a correlation between two events rather than a causal connection. When A exists, B also exists.

Ex: Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

A flag at half mast is a sign that someone important has died.

A large deficit is an indication of a budget out of control.

Tests: 1. Is the sign consistent?

2. Do other phenomena result in the same sign?

Reasoning by Example: Presents cases in which the argument holds true. Statistics and survey data are often included in this group.

Ex: Decriminalization of marijuana works. The experience in Oregon proves it.

Rock stars do care. Look at USA for Africa and LiveAid.

Tests: 1. Are the examples representative?

2. Are there any important counter-examples?

Reasoning by Analogy: Presents a comparison between two like phenomena and draws conclusions based on their similarity. Includes both figurative and literal analogies.

Ex: National health care works in Britain; it will work in the United States. (Literal analogy)

The deficit is like an ever expanding balloon—someday it is going to burst. (Figurative analogy)

Tests: 1. Are the two phenomena sufficiently similar to allow comparison?

2. Do the two phenomena differ in important respects?

Reasoning by Authority: Accepting the conclusions of experts.

Ex: The EPA says that acid rain will increase three fold by 1995.

Tests: 1. Is the source qualified? In the relevant field?

2. Is the source crippled by bias or self-interest?

3. Is this reluctant testimony?

(3)

Media Fallacy Scrapbook

Your goal: To create a “scrapbook” filled with fallacies found in various media.

Materials needed: 1) a slim binder, 2) construction paper, 3) tape or glue, 4) scissors.

Step 1.

Identify ten different examples including at least five different fallacies among the following media:

a) Newspaper articles (such as editorials) and advertisements

b) Web sites

c) Magazine articles and advertisements

d) Political cartoons and comic strips

e) Direct marketing (junk mail)

Do your best to choose your fallacies from different kinds of media. Ideally, you will find two fallacies from each kind of media. Please do not give me more than two examples of a single fallacy. For instance, a hasty generalization is pretty easy to find, but I don’t want more than two examples. If you prefer, you can give me one example each, of ten different fallacies.

Step 2.

Cut out your fallacy and tape or glue it to an 8.5 x 11 sheet of construction paper. Next, provide a label and definition of the fallacy. MOST IMPORTANTLY, you need to provide justification supporting your claim of why the text or picture is, for example, a hasty generalization. Without this justification, you will receive no credit for your fallacy.

Step 3.

Please make sure your scrapbook is bound together securely and text and pictures are affixed securely. I don’t want it falling apart on me when I evaluate it. Please make sure that names of fallacies are printed boldly and easily found and that your name is on the FRONT of your binder. Please provide a table of contents detailing the type of fallacy, the source and the page of your scrapbook in which it will be found.

GRADING CRITERIA

Three points for each accurately identified example of a fallacy. I will only award points for two examples of a single fallacy. The third example will not receive any points.

You must define your fallacy clearly and explain your justification clearly. You will lose points if you “reach” or “force-fit.” Do not label your example a particular fallacy if it is not clearly identifiable.

You must identify at least five different fallacies and display ten total examples (two of each). Your scrapbook must also include an example from each of the five types of media listed above. I don’t want all of your examples coming from comic strips, etc. If your scrapbook lacks certain types of media, I will subtract points.

This assignment is worth 30 points. If you have questions, call me at 558-2558.

(4)

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS POLICY Mini-Debate

Your task: You and your partner will decide on a resolution/proposition and advocate the pro and the con side of the issue by using giving speeches that consist of a five minute constructive and a two minute rebuttal. Each person will turn in an annotated bibliography summarizing each source cited.

The Process: The speaker in favor of the resolution (pro/affirmative/government) will give a five minute constructive speech supporting the resolution. The speech should consist of POLICY stock issues (harms, inherency, plan, solvency, advantages). Your speech should focus on a clearly outlined plan. Your goal is to convince the audience that your plan should be implemented because there are far more benefits than costs of passing and implementing the plan.

The Second Speech: The second person will give a five minute speech opposing the resolution. You may use a combination of case attacks, disadvantages, and counter-plan arguments in your speech. It is up to you which strategy you choose. The goal of the speech is to convince the audience that they should NOT implement the affirmative’s plan because there would be too many negative impacts. You should effectively weigh the impacts and show that, ultimately, there are more costs than benefits of the plan. (“Costs” don’t have to focus on monetary costs. Lives lost, freedoms lost etc. are other examples of costs).

After each constructive speech you will be allowed to ask your opponent ONE question regarding their case. This is cross-examination practice.

Wrapping it up: The final two speeches are rebuttal speeches that summarize the important issues of the debate. The Con speaker gives a two-minute rebuttal. So basically, the Con side gives their speeches back-to-back. The Pro side speaks first and last. The rebuttal speech is your opportunity to present closing arguments, highlight reasons, or specific arguments that are the most convincing to the audience.

Pro 5 min speech—Con 5 min Speech---Con 2 min rebuttal—Pro 2 min rebuttal

(5)

Lincoln-Douglas Policy Mini-Debate Grading Criteria

1. Your constructive speech (first speech) should contain a minimum of five pieces of evidence (Including Who? What? And When?). Sources must be complete with this information to receive full credit.*** (Please turn in an annotated bibliography with all five sources summarized)

10 points possible—2 points per citation

2. Your speech should be delivered effectively. This means making eye contact with the audience and speaking with enthusiasm and clarity. If you don’t appear to care about your speech, chances are your audience won’t either.

5 points possible

3. Your speech should be well organized. Previewing your contentions in the introduction and reviewing them in the conclusion is important. Also, signposting is key. For example, “My first contention is…” or “my first harm is…” will keep your speech organized and easy to follow.

5 points possible

4. Overall ability to persuade will be awarded points. This includes your cross-examination question and rebuttal speech. At the end of the discussion, were you persuasive?

5 points possible

25 points total

Any Questions? Call me at 558-2558 or email at fabiond@scc.losrios.edu

(6)

Lincoln-Douglas Critique Sheet

E—Excellent

G—Good

S—Satisfactory

P—Poor

N—Nonexistent

Content:

Three credible source cites were verbally stated? EGSPN

Was the Who? What? and When? Clearly stated? EGSPN

Were the stock issues or negative strategies developed sufficiently? EGSPN

0-10 points______

Comments:

Organization:

Were definitions addressed? EGSPN

Were the contentions previewed? EGSPN

Was the criteria clearly explained? EGSPN

Did the speaker signpost each contention? EGSPN

Did the speaker link back to the criterion? EGSPN

0-5 points______

Comments:

Delivery:

Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN

0-5 points______

Comments:

Overall ability to persuade the audience? EGSPN

Did the speaker use questions in cross-ex? EGSPN

Did the speaker identify voting issues in the rebuttal? EGSPN

0-5 points______

Comments:

(7)

Policy Stock Issues Worksheet (Pro/Affirmative/Government)

Resolution/proposition:

1. Definitions

2. Criterion

3. Brief intro: (synopsis of the issue, preview your contentions)

4. Harms: (Who is hurt by the problem? To what extent? Will the problem worsen if nothing is done to solve it? What will happen? Are the harms significant enough to warrant a change?)

5. Inherency: (What are the barriers to solving the problem? Are they attitudinal? Economic? Physical? Or can the harms be solved in the status quo?)

6. Plan: (What specific changes do you want to implement?)

Agent:

Mandates:

$:

Enforcement:

Timeframe:

7. Solvency: (What evidence is available that supports your assertion that the plan will truly solve the harms? Is there a model of a similar plan that has been effective elsewhere i.e. a precedent set? Is there an expert in the field who would advocate your plan, or a similar one?)

8. Net Benefits: This is your conclusion. Drive home the point that the plan will solve the harms. Most importantly, clearly explain how the benefits of your plan will outweigh the costs.

(5)

Negative Strategy Worksheet (Policy)

Resolution/proposition:

1. Definitions

2. Address the criterion

3. Brief intro: (quick synopsis of the issue, preview your contentions)

4. You have a choice between case attacks and disadvantages. You may offer one counter plan as well. You should have 2-5 contentions, but be sure to focus on the contention that you feel is the strongest.

A. Case attacks: (What about the pro/affirmative’s case doesn’t make sense? Which stock issue will you choose to argue? You may choose one or all of the stock issues to be your point of stasis.)

B. Disadvantages: (What future “doom and gloom” effect will the plan cause? How is the status quo negatively changed? What are the impacts of the disadvantage? What evidence can be found to prove that the plan will cause the disadvantage to happen? [Causal link] )

C. Counter-plan: (You have the option to offer the audience another plan to “compete” with the pro/affirmative’s plan. The plan should not support the resolution and should provide a better way to solve the harms.)

** Make sure you preview and signpost your arguments very clearly. The con/negative side is more difficult to organize because you have the option to use any combination of positions, unlike the Pro who has to use SHIPSA. (Significant Harms, Inherency, Plan, Solvency, Advantages) Ask if you have any questions.

D. Net Benefits: This is your conclusion. Weigh the impacts of your disadvantages and show how the costs of the pro/affirmative’s plan will outweigh the benefits. Also, if you used case attacks, explain how the pro/affirmative has not met its prima facie burden.

(6)

Value Stock Issues Worksheet (Pro/Affirmative/Government)

Objective: To create a case (outline) for a value resolution/proposition

Procedure: On a separate piece of paper follow the steps below and create an outline of your government/pro strategy.

Resolution/proposition:

Prime Minister:

1. Define the terms of the resolution

2. Justify your definitions: (For what reasons should your definitions be accepted by your opponents and the critic? You don’t have to use all of these suggested justifications)

A. Clarity—your definitions are clear and provide a “bright line” between what is and is not being discussed. For example, “the term ‘good old days’ = the 1950’s,” provides a clearer “bright line” than “‘good old days’ = ‘our grandparents’ era.’ ” We know exactly when the 1950’s begins and ends, but who knows when ‘our grandparents’ era’ begins and ends?

B. Accuracy—your definitions are accurate. For example, the term “vegetarian = vegan” provides a more accurate definition than “vegetarian = dieting.” “Dieting” is not as specific to what vegetarians can or cannot eat.

C. Education—your definitions will lead to a discussion that will be educational.

D. Debate-ability—your definitions will make it fair for both the pro and the con side. There are arguments on both sides of the resolution.

3. Identify a value: This is your “thesis” or “weighing mechanism” meaning all of your contentions should support this value. The success or failure of the case will be determined by how well you support your value. Common values are: “The greater good for the greater amount of people,” “equality,” “life,” “quality of life,” “freedom,” “information,” and “education” etc.

4. Justify your value: Why is your value important to your audience?

A. Scope—Many people feel that this value is important.

B. Magnitude—Those who feel that this value is important, feel that it is very important.

C. Moral Imperative—This value is morally correct.

D. Traditional Importance—This value has been important for a long time.

5. Establish Criterion: Criterion explains to the critic how the game is won. For instance in basketball, the criteria is the number of points scored. The criterion for the game of chess is that one wins when “checkmating” the opponent’s king. The criterion for a value debate is that the team (government or opposition) who proves their value to be true through their contentions more than the other team wins the debate.

(7)

6. Establish contentions and support them: Just like main points of an essay, or speech. The contentions must support the value.

A.

B.

C.

(8)

Value Stock Issues Worksheet (Con/Negative/Opposition)

Purpose: To construct an outline that directly responds to the stock issues of the government/affirmative/pro.

Procedure: On a separate piece of paper, follow the steps below and provide an outline of your opposition strategy.

Resolution/proposition:

Leader of Opposition:

1. Accept the government’s definitions? If YES, skip to step 3

2. If not, redefine and identify reasons to prefer your definitions.

3. Accept the government’s value? If YES, skip to step 5

4. If not, offer a counter-value and identify reasons to prefer your value.

5. Accept the government’s criterion? If YES, skip to step 7

6. If not, identify new criterion and provide reasons to prefer it over the government’s criterion.

7. Refute each of the government’s contentions.

8. Establish opposition contentions and support them:

A.

B.

C.

(9)

EVIDENCE CARD #_____

Name:

SOURCE (Completely written out):

Circle one: Book Website Magazine Newspaper Other

ARTICLE SUMMARY:

HOW DOES THE HIGHLIGHTED OR BRACKETED TEXT OF THE ARTICLE SUPPORT YOUR CASE? Be very specific, does it support the harms? The solvency? If you’re the opposition team does it establish a case attack? Disadvantage? Etc. If you are debating a value which part of your case does this article support? Which contention? Which counter contention? If you are preparing for the dialogue presentation, which claim(s) does the highlighted portion support?

WHAT TYPE OF REASONING( Identify at least one of the five types) DOES THIS ARTICLE USE? EXPLAIN.

HOW COULD YOUR OPPONENT TEST AND/OR REFUTE YOUR REASONING? Any fallacies present?

ON A SCALE FROM 1-10 HOW EFFECTIVE IS THIS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORTING YOUR CLAIM? WHY?

(STAPLE YOUR COPY OF THE HIGHLIGHTED ARTICLE AND COMPLETE THIS WORKSHEET FOR FULL CREDIT FOR THIS EVIDENCE CARD)

(10)

Evidence Card Assignment

Step 1 Gathering Information

You are responsible for researching for two debates (a value and a policy debate) which can be a great undertaking if you do not work as a team. Communication with your partner and opponents will be valuable in keeping the scope of this assignment reasonable. Make sure each team communicates its plan (for the policy debate) and value and contentions (for the value debate). By this time your class has chosen the resolutions to be debated, your group of four will choose one policy topic and one value topic. You must be prepared to argue both sides of BOTH resolutions. Therefore, you should start gathering research for each resolution immediately.

Step 2 Organizing the Information

READ the evidence and begin identifying the strong arguments and sorting out the weaker evidence. Once you have a stack of evidence that you think will be useful, sort it into the following categories:

Prime Minister’s speech

Member of Government’s speech

Leader of the Opposition’s speech

Member of Oppositions speech

After you finish, the big-picture of your debate will be clearer. You will be able to see what points each speaker will make by laying out the evidence beforehand. Next, begin making evidence cards by bracketing the important part of the articles that you will read into the debate. Fill out and attach a copy of the evidence card worksheet to each one. Make sure you answer each question very specifically and number each highlighted portion of an article to correspond with the same number evidence card.

Step 3 Outlining your Cases

One outline of the Prime Minister’s speech and one of the Leader of Opposition’s speech should be turned in for each team of two. This means that if you turn in an outline of the Prime Minister’s speech, your debate partner needs to turn in an outline for the Leader of Opposition’s speech and vice versa. ONE OUTLINE PER PERSON. The same goes for the value debate. These outlines will be very useful during the debates in keeping you organized. I will give you a sample outline so you will have an idea of what is expected.

(11)

Step 4 Preparing for Specific Arguments

After you have researched a topic thoroughly, you will be able to identify specific arguments that are common, or more obvious. For example, if you are going to debate the topic of capital punishment, you should be ready to discuss the cost issue. If you are pro-death penalty, you should have answers ready for the “high cost of appeals” argument. You should have your research organized in such a way that your have answers ready for arguments that you think your opponent will use against your case. This evidence is very useful in the member speeches where you will have the best opportunity to address your opponent’s case.

Step 5 Turn in your evidence cards in a binder

(Please do not use sheet protectors!)

You must turn in your evidence and cases immediately following your debate.

Each individual will be responsible for:

10 evidence cards and 10 additional sources summarized in an annotated bibliography for each debate:

1st debate: 10 evidence cards for the policy topic broken into:

5 government/pro evidence cards

5 opposition/con evidence cards

10 additional sources listed in an annotated bibliography

2nd debate: 10 evidence cards for the value topic broken into:

5 government/pro evidence cards

5 opposition/con evidence cards

10 additional sources listed in an annotated bibliography

Please provide a table of contents at the beginning of your binder and a tab for each evidence card.

You must bind your work, number the evidence cards and highlight the specific information in the articles to which your evidence card is referring or you will lose points.

(12)

Grading Criteria for the Evidence Card Assignment

I will be grading you on the following criteria:

1. Are your evidence cards STAPLED to the articles?

2. Do you explain specifically how the article supports your case?

3. How thorough is your work? Do you answer all of the questions completely?

4. Do you clearly outline the text from the article you are citing?

5. Do you number the bracketed text so it corresponds with a particular evidence card? i.e. Is the number “2” written next to the text, so that it clearly corresponds to the number “2” evidence card?

6. Are your evidence cards and articles consistent with your summaries?

7. Do you provide me with a thorough outline?

8. Do you meet the required number of evidence cards?

9. Does your evidence support your contentions?

10. Are you able to correctly identify reasoning and tests of reasoning on your evidence card worksheets?

11. Did you rate the article accurately, or did you over-rate the article when evaluating the strength of the article. (They all can’t be tens) Also, you don’t want to include weak (1-4 rating) in your cards/debate.

12. Is your name on EVERY card?

I will provide a sample of past evidence card assignments so you have a clear idea of what constitutes an “A” assignment.

Once again, each individual will be responsible for:

1st debate: 10 evidence cards for the policy topic broken into:

5 government/pro evidence cards

5 opposition/con evidence cards

2nd debate: 10 evidence cards for the value topic broken into:

5 government/pro evidence cards

5 opposition/con evidence cards

This assignment is worth 30 points PER PERSON

3 points per evidence card (thoroughly and accurately completed)

Outline requirements

All outlines must be:

1. be typed.

2. include consistent indentation and symbolization.

3. should include source cites and your personal analysis of each contention.

4. should be free from spelling and grammatical errors.

5. should include definitions, criteria, and contentions.

6. should accurately divide the information into main points and sub points.

Make sure you take a look at the various sample cases that I will be passing around the class.

(13)

Debate Grading Criteria

Research: Do you have a minimum of five sources that are clearly cited? Are the “Who? What? and When?” questions answered? Five sources per team for each case are required. Did you develop your case sufficiently?

Refutation: Tests of Reasoning/Fallacies: Each person must refute their opponent’s contentions. You will lose points if you “drop” fail to answer an opponent’s contention. Additionally, each team member must test the reasoning/identify fallacies in their opponent’s advocacy. For example, “I question your causal reasoning by pointing out that the disadvantage is not uniquely caused by my plan. Lung cancer can be caused by numerous factors, not only auto exhaust.” You must clearly say “I’m testing your reasoning” in order to get credit. You will only receive an “A” grade if reasoning is tested.

Delivery: Make eye contact and deliver with energy. Remember: If you look like you don’t care about your speech, why should your audience?!

Organization: Make sure that you preview, signpost, and review your main points so all of us can flow the debate!

Ability to persuade your audience: Do I feel persuaded after your speech?!

Cross-examination/point of information: Do you use points of information and order effectively?

I will let you know the topic you are debating and the side of the issue that you must advocate approximately one week before your debate. Don’t procrastinate!

The debate is worth 30 points:

Research …………………………………………….10 points total

Delivery……………………………………………….5 points total

Organization…………………………………………..5 points total

Testing reasoning/fallacies……………………………5 points total

Cross-examination…………………………………….5 points total

Total 30 points total

14

Parliamentary Debate Critique Sheet

(Policy)

E – Excellent G – Good S – Satisfactory P – Poor N – Nonexistent

Content:

Five credible source cites were verbally stated? EGSPN

Was the Who? What? and When? clearly stated? EGSPN

Were the stock issues or negative strategies developed sufficiently? EGSPN

Does the speaker make convincing arguments using sound reasoning? EGSPN

Did the speaker provide analysis along with source cites? EGSPN

Did the speaker impact his/her arguments? EGSPN

0 – 10 points________

Comments:

Organization:

Were definitions addressed effectively? EGSPN

Was the criterion explained? EGSPN

Were the contentions previewed? EGSPN

Did the speaker signpost each contention? EGSPN

Was the speaker easy to flow? EGSPN

Did the speaker drop any arguments? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Refutation:

Did the speaker refute line-by-line? EGSPN

Did the speaker test reasoning and/or identify fallacies? EGSPN

Did the speaker identify dropped arguments by their opponents? EGSPN

Did the speaker impact his/her refutation? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Delivery:

Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Intangibles:

Overall ability to persuade? EGSPN

Did the speaker ask useful points of information? EGSPN

Did the speaker identify voting issues in the rebuttal? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

(15)

Parliamentary Debate Critique Sheet

(Value)

E – Excellent G – Good S – Satisfactory P – Poor N – Nonexistent

Content:

Five credible source cites were verbally stated? EGSPN

Was the Who? What? and When? clearly stated? EGSPN

Were the stock issues or negative strategies developed sufficiently? EGSPN

Does the speaker make convincing arguments using sound reasoning? EGSPN

Did the speaker provide analysis along with source cites? EGSPN

Did the speaker impact his/her arguments? EGSPN

0 – 10 points________

Comments:

Organization:

Were definitions addressed effectively? EGSPN

Did the speaker justify the definitions? EGSPN

Did the speaker clear state and justify the value? EGSPN

Was the criterion explained? EGSPN

Were the contentions previewed? EGSPN

Did the speaker signpost each contention? EGSPN

Was the speaker easy to flow? EGSPN

Did the speaker drop any arguments? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Refutation:

Did the speaker refute line-by-line? EGSPN

Did the speaker test reasoning and/or identify fallacies? EGSPN

Did the speaker identify dropped arguments by their opponents? EGSPN

Did the speaker impact his/her refutation? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Delivery:

Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Intangibles:

Overall persuasive ability? EGSPN

Did the speaker ask useful points of information? EGSPN

Did the speaker identify voting issues in the rebuttal? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

(16)

Refutation Exercise

Purpose: To improve the student’s ability to refute arguments using a formalized structure.

Procedure: Refute the following arguments using the following progression:

A) Identify your opponent’s argument

B) Number and provide a counterclaim

C) Explain and support your counterclaim

D) Impact your refutation

Example:

Your opponent’s contention:

1. The death penalty is less expensive than life imprisonment because life imprisonment means a lifetime of charging the public with housing, healthcare and food for prisoners.

Refutation:

A ) Regarding my opponent’s first argument

B) I have one response, the death penalty is definitely MORE expensive than life imprisonment.

C) The excessive number of appeals costs the public far more in taxes than housing criminals.

D) Think about all of your hard earned money that will be wasted on court appeal after court appeal. This mitigates my opponent’s cost argument and it should have no weight in the debate.

Your opponent’s contention:

2. The death penalty is a deterrent to crime

because states that have the death penalty

reported a decrease in crime.

Refutation

A)

B)

C)

D)

(17)

Your opponent’s contention:

3. The death penalty upholds victim’s rights. By executing the murderer, the victim’s families gain closure.

Refutation

A)

B)

C)

D)

Your opponent’s contention:

1. Outsourcing U.S. companies to developing nations will strengthen our

our economy in the long run.

Refutation

A)

B)

C)

D)

(18)

Your opponent’s contention:

2. Outsourcing U.S. companies will help the developing nations’ economies and ultimately increase their quality of life.

Refutation

A)

B)

C)

D)

Your opponent’s contention:

3. Outsourcing U.S. companies leads to lower prices for U.S. consumers

Refutation

A)

B)

C)

D)

(19)

Flowing Tips

Flowing is the informal name for the note-taking process in debate. There are usually more arguments brought up in a debate than one person is inclined to remember. Furthermore, without effective note-taking, it is difficult to focus on one issue at a time and present your arguments in an organized manner. FLOWING PROVIDES A “MAP” OF THE DEBATE!

Just as a map shows major cities, small towns, and the roads that lead to them, the debate “flow” will include main stock issues with minor arguments and evidence for support. Here’s how to make your “map”…the Flow:

Take your paper and divide it into columns according to the number of speeches:

Prime Minister Leader of Opp Member of Gov’t Member of Opp Opp Rebuttal Gov’t Rebuttal

(PM) (LO) (MG) (MO) (LO) (PM)

The main arguments will be numbered within the constructives. Follow the speaker’s organization. Use letters to signpost (like a map) the main issues:

If the speaker says: “Observation One: Harms: 10,000 people are dying in Iraq because of U.S. sanctions”

Flow this: O1: US sancts = 10K dead in Iq

These are usually the main issues within an advocate’s case:

R = Resolution

T = Topicality (Definitions of terms)

H = Harms, Ills, or Motives (the problem with the status quo)

I = Inherency (the circumstances, causes, barriers, or characteristics contributing to the problem)

P = Plan (for policy debate) or WM = weighing mechanism (for value)

S = Solvency (how the plan solves the problems with the status quo)

AV= Advantages (the benefits to the affirmative’s plan) or SC = Scenario (the bad world w/o plan)

DA = Disadvantages (presented by either the gov’t or opp)

CP = Counterplan

The “roads” that the speaker will take are Observations, Contentions, and sub-points A, B, etc.

You can abbreviate these as well:

O = Observation Con = Contention Sub-points can be represented by letters (a, b, c, etc.)

Each contention will have a main argument or “claim;” your goal is to “tag” this claim:

A “tag” sums up the evidence in approximately 10 words or less; this should read like a “headline.”

If the debater states: “Contention One: 3,000 acres of the Northwest Forests are likely to be cut by the year 2000 because these lands are privately owned”

You could “flow” as follows: Con1: 3K acres of NW forests to be cut by 2K.

(20)

“Dialogue” Presentation

“What I question is using opposition to accomplish every goal, even those that do not require fighting, but might also (or better) be accomplished by the word “dialogue.” I am questioning the assumption that everything is a matter of polarized opposites, the proverbial “two sides to every question” that we think embodies open-mindedness and expansive thinking.” -Deborah Tannen Ph.D. from “The Argument Culture”

By now you have been introduced to a highly-structured, very traditional form of academic debate. Dr. Tannen identified numerous shortcomings of this adversarial format in “The Argument Culture.” This assignment is an opportunity for you to explore an alternative format when discussing a controversial issue. Your “dialogue” can be presented in a variety of forms. Your presentation may incorporate a skit, video, film, lecture, class activity, a completely different debate structure, or a combination of formats. You are free to experiment with alternative methods in an effort to find “the truth” about an important value issue. The goal of the presentation is to explore your value resolution in a non-confrontational manner and to incorporate concepts we have discussed in the first part of the course (listed below as general grading criteria). Additionally, you will be required to find some common ground between the various positions. You do not have to “resolve” the issue, but at least find a position(s) that each side can agree upon. The parameters will be relatively open. However, I will expect you to turn in a rough draft of your presentation.

This assignment is worth 30 points, 20 points will be allocated by me, and the remaining 10 will be awarded by your group members.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Evaluate your group members using the following criteria:

Group member__________________________ Total points________

Meeting attendance 0-3 points

Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?

Was the person easy to contact?

Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process? Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel that the person’s contribution was equal to others’ in the group?

Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?

Explain:

(21)

Group Member Grading Forms

Group member__________________________ Total points________

Meeting attendance 0-3 points

Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?

Was the person easy to contact?

Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process? Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel that the person’s contribution was equal to others’ in the group?

Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?

Explain:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Group member__________________________ Total points________

Meeting attendance 0-3 points

Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?

Was the person easy to contact?

Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process? Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel that the person’s contribution was equal to others’ in the group?

Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?

Explain:

(22)

Group Member Grading Forms

Group member__________________________ Total points________

Meeting attendance 0-3 points

Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?

Was the person easy to contact?

Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process? Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel that the person’s contribution was equal to others’ in the group?

Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?

Explain:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Group member__________________________ Total points________

Meeting attendance 0-3 points

Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?

Was the person easy to contact?

Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process? Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel that the person’s contribution was equal to others’ in the group?

Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?

Explain:

(23)

Dialogue Presentation

(Individual Evaluation Form)

E – Excellent G – Good S – Satisfactory P – Poor N – Nonexistent

Content:

Five credible source cites were verbally stated during your portion of the dialogue? EGSPN

Does the speaker make convincing arguments using sound reasoning? EGSPN

Did the speaker provide analysis along with the sources? EGSPN

Did the speaker impact his/her arguments? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Organization:

Were definitions addressed effectively? EGSPN

Was the speaker easy to follow? EGSPN

0 – 2 points________

Comments:

Refutation:

Did the speaker offer refutation to any of the ideas presented? EGSPN

Did the speaker impact his/her refutation? EGSPN

0 – 3 points________

Comments:

Delivery:

Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Intangibles:

Was the speaker persuasive overall? EGSPN

Did the speaker identify common ground between the various ideas? EGSPN

Did the speaker speak for an equitable amount of time?

0 – 5 points________

Comments

(24)

Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment

Rate your confidence level when speaking in public.____

No confidence-------------------A little confident--------------Moderately confident-------Very confident

1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10

Explain:

Rate your ability to effectively deliver a speech.____

No ability-------------------A little effective---------------Moderately effective------------------Very effective 1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10

Explain:

Rate your knowledge of current events and controversial issues.____

No knowledge----------A little knowledge----------Moderately knowledgeable-------Very knowledgeable

1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10

Explain:

Rate your ability to construct arguments______

No knowledge----------A little knowledge----------Moderately knowledgeable-------Very knowledgeable

1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10

Explain:

Rate your ability to deconstruct arguments (Rebut arguments, identify fallacies etc.)______

No knowledge----------A little knowledge----------Moderately knowledgeable-------Very knowledgeable

1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10

Explain:

Rate your ability to research a given topic (navigate the library, internet etc.)______

No knowledge----------A little knowledge----------Moderately knowledgeable-------Very knowledgeable

1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10

Explain:

Rate your level of interest concerning participating on the speech and debate team._____

No interest-------------A little interested-------------Moderately interested------------Very interested

1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10

Explain:

Rate your level of interest concerning the study of Communication as a major._____

No interest-------------A little interested-------------Moderately interested------------Very interested

1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10

Explain:

(25)

Parliamentary Debate Self Critique Assignment

STEP ONE: GIVE YOURSELF A GRADE (30 points possible)

E – Excellent G – Good S – Satisfactory P – Poor N – Nonexistent

Content:

Five credible source cites were verbally stated? EGSPN

Was the Who? What? and When? Clearly stated? EGSPN

Were the stock issues or negative strategies developed sufficiently? EGSPN

Does the speaker make convincing arguments using sound reasoning? EGSPN

Did the speaker provide analysis along with source cites? EGSPN

Did the speaker impact his/her arguments? EGSPN

0 – 10 points________

Comments:

Organization:

Were definitions addressed? EGSPN

Was the criteria explained? EGSPN

Were the contentions previewed? EGSPN

Did the speaker signpost each contention? EGSPN

Was the speaker easy to flow? EGSPN

Did the speaker drop any arguments? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Refutation:

Did the speaker refute line-by-line? EGSPN

Did the speaker test reasoning and/or identify fallacies? EGSPN

Did the speaker identify dropped arguments by their opponents? EGSPN

Did the speaker impact his/her refutation? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Delivery:

Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN

Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

Intangibles:

Overall persuasive ability? EGSPN

Did the speaker ask useful points of information? EGSPN

Did the speaker identify voting issues in the rebuttal? EGSPN

0 – 5 points________

Comments:

(26)

STEP TWO: SUMMARIZE YOUR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Write a two-three page critique focusing on the content, organization, delivery, evidence, reasoning and refutation used in the debate. Comment on what elements of the debate were strengths of yours and why? Additionally, clearly identify what you would do differently if you were to debate this topic again.

Your written critique should consist of a paragraph for each of the categories stated above.

STEP THREE: SOPHISTRY OR A SEARCH FOR TRUTH?

Was this experience an exercise in sophistry, or to a certain degree, a search for truth about the issue?

Maybe a little of both? Explain. Ultimately, what did you learn about the topic? What is your true stance? Did your stance change because of the research you did? Explain

Please type and double space your responses to step two and three in order to get full credit. This assignment is worth 25 points.

Any questions? Call me at 558-2558 or email fabiond@scc.losrios.edu

(27)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download