Debate: Analysis and Argumentation

Debate: Analysis and Argumentation PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Updated On :
  • Presentation posted in: General

Debate Formats . Policy Debate: Involves Resolutions that urge taking actionResolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services to persons living in poverty in the United States. Value Debate: Involves resolutions that have to do with evaluating ideas or actions What are some issues that might be argued in value debate? .

Download Presentation

Debate: Analysis and Argumentation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript

1. Debate: Analysis and Argumentation Debate Formats and Speaker Responsibilities

2. Debate Formats Policy Debate: Involves Resolutions that urge taking action Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services to persons living in poverty in the United States. Value Debate: Involves resolutions that have to do with evaluating ideas or actions What are some issues that might be argued in value debate?

3. Where Do You Stand? – Assessing and Supporting your Values

4. Where Do You Stand? Resolved: The American media works against the best interest of the American Public. Resolved: That allowing innocent people to be harmed is preferable rather than giving into terrorists’ demands.

5. Where Do You Stand? Resolved: Terminally ill patients have the right to die when and how they choose. Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, the demands of national security ought to supersede conflicting claims of individual rights.

6. Wisconsin High School Forensic Association Current Debate Topics Public Forum Topic - Resolved: The United States policy on illegal immigration should focus on attrition through enforcement rather than amnesty. Lincoln-Douglas Topic -Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate.

7. Time Frame for Cross Examination Debate

8. Speaker Responsibilities: First Affirmative Constructive 1AC includes contentions or arguments, the affirmative plan, and the advantages of the plan. The key 1AC strategies are: 1) to present the strongest possible case and 2) to leave the affirmative in a strong offensive position. To achieve this, 1AC should: Give a brief, pleasant introduction State the resolution Define the key terms of the resolution Present justification for change Present the plan Present the advantages of the plan Briefly summarize the case

9. Speaker Responsibilities: First Negative Constructive The negative must decide what the negative philosophy will be – what position the negative will take against the affirmative The key 1NC strategies are: 1) to maintain the validity of the present system and 2) to expand the debate. To achieve this, 1NC should: Give a brief introduction that explains the negative philosophy or point of view Show how the negative will organize its analysis Challenge the affirmatives definition of terms Challenge the affirmative’s topicality Defend the present system Argue that the affirmative has not adequately justified a change Briefly summarize the negative’s position

10. Speaker Responsibilities: Second Affirmative Constructive The 2AC has three primary purposes: To reestablish the affirmative position in the debate To refute major arguments presented by 1NC To extend any arguments and present any remaining constructive material In order to achieve this, the 2AC should: Give a brief introduction that reestablishes the affirmative position Reestablish topicality Reestablish the affirmative justification for change Prove that harm exists and is likely to grow worse if no action is taken Demonstrate that the harm is caused by the present system and that the advantages are unique to the plan Review any affirmative arguments that have not been attacked Briefly summarize the affirmative position

11. Speaker Responsibly: Second Negative Constructive The primary purpose of 2NC is to deal with three issues: Plan workability Plan solvency Plan disadvantages To achieve this, the 2 NC should: Give an introduction that outlines what will be covered in the 2NC – Roadmap. Show why the affirmative’s plan is unworkable or improbable. Show why the plan will not solve the problems of the status quo Detail the disadvantages of the plan. Give a very brief conclusion.

12. Speaker Responsibilities: First Negative Rebuttal The key 1NR strategy is to extend the negative’s case attacks. To achieve this, the 1 NR should: Define terms Refute any 2 AC arguments about topicality Return to the rest of the arguments in the 1NC, refuting the affirmative’s objections Attack again the affirmative’s justification for change Summarize the negative block (second negative constructive and first negative rebuttal)

13. Speaker Responsibilities: First Affirmative Rebuttal The Key 1AR strategies are: To ensure the affirmative has met the burden of proof To validate the affirmative plan To narrow the debate To achieve this, the 1AR should: Refute the negative’s plan objections Return to the affirmative’s case to rebuild it at major points of attack Consolidate as many 1NR arguments as possible and refute them Briefly summarize the strengths of the affirmative’s case

14. Speaker Responsibilities: Second Negative Rebuttal The key 2NR strategies are: To identify the case arguments the negative views as voting issues To demonstrate that the significance of the disadvantages outweighs the advantages or solvency of the affirmative harm To achieve this, the 2NR should: Roadmap Briefly reestablish topicality and definition of terms challenges, if still applicable Reestablish key case arguments as voting issues and extend them Review plan objections and disadvantages Summarize the negative position, calling for the rejection of the proposition.

15. Speaker Responsibilities: Second Affirmative Rebuttal The key 2AR strategy is to put the debate in perspective and thus continue to advance the affirmative’s basic strategies. To achieve this, the 2AR should: Roadmap Extend answers to plan objections, taking special care to refute major disadvantages and point out those that were dropped Center the speech on the three or four major arguments on which the case depends Review the basic affirmative analysis and call for the acceptance of the proposition.

16. Winning the Debate Remember the voting issues: Solvency Harms Inherency Topicality Significance The Affirmative must prove their case by winning all five voting issues The negative team only needs to win one of the five voting issues to win the debate

17. Winning the Affirmative Case The burden of proof is always on the affirmative team! In order for the affirmative to win, they must show: Need for change Workable, practical plan Significant advantages All three must be accomplished to win

18. Workability Factors Costs: Where is the money coming from? Is it too expensive? Is there enough money to operate the plan? Administration: Who will be employed? Who will oversee and manage the program? Benefits or Advantages: What are they? Is it possible the plan creates harms? Acceptance: Does the public favor change? Enforcement: How will legal matters be dealt with? Will this cause criminal activity to occur? Time: How long to start the program? How will it be implemented? Research: Is this provided for? Is there a need? Education: How will you train those involved in the plan? What current literature exists? Flexibility: Does the plan allow for changing conditions?

19. Lincoln-Douglas Debate A form of value debate that involves only two participants Debating values and attitudes, rather than policies and actions Named in honor of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas – not Frederick Douglass, FOX News!!

20. An Odd Debate


22. Lincoln-Douglas Overview Lincoln Douglas debate centers on a proposition of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what is.  Debaters may offer generalized, practical examples or solutions to illustrate how the general principle could guide decisions. No question of values can be determined entirely true or false.

23. LD: Parallel Burdens No debater can realistically be expected to prove complete validity or invalidity of the resolution. The better debater is the one who proves his/her side of the resolution more valid as a general principle. Burden of Proof Burden of Clash Resolution Burden

24. LD: Value Structure The debater establishes a value structure (or framework) to serve two functions: to provide an interpretation of the central focus of the resolution to provide a method for the judge to evaluate the central questions of the resolution.

25. LD: Delivery Written: Cases and arguments should be constructed in a manner that is organized, accessible, and informative to the listener. The debater should employ clear logic and analysis supported by topical research. Verbal:  The debater has the obligation to be clear, audible and comprehensible, and to speak persuasively to the listeners. Additionally, debaters should strive for fluency, expressiveness, effective word choice, and eloquence. Non-verbal: The debater should demonstrate an effective use of gestures, eye contact, and posture.

26. Public Forum Overview Public Forum Debate is a team event that advocates or rejects a position posed by the monthly resolution topic. The clash of ideas must be communicated in a manner persuasive to the non-specialist or “citizen judge.” FORMAT & TIME LIMITS ~ The round starts with a coin toss; the winning team selects either: The side (pro or con) they will argue The speaker order (begin the debate or give the last speech).

27. Public Forum: Debate Requirements Display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis Utilize evidence without being driven by it Present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team (rebuttal) Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum

28. PF: Debate Format Speaker 1 (Team A, 1st speaker )    4 min. Speaker 2 (Team B, 1st speaker)    4 min. Crossfire (between speakers 1 & 2)    3 min. Speaker 3 (Team A, 2nd speaker )    4 min. Speaker 4 (Team B, 2nd speaker )    4 min. Crossfire (between speakers 3 & 4)    3 min. Speaker 1 Summary    2 min. Speaker 2 Summary    2 min. Grand Crossfire (all speakers)    3 min. Speaker 3 Final Focus    1 min. Speaker 4 Final Focus    1 min. Each team may use up to two minutes of prep time.

29. To Learn More Now:

  • Login