Xix interscholastic debate tournament 2010
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 23

XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010 PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 122 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010. Workshop: Judging Debates! April 29, 2010 Universidad Casa Grande. Today’s Tasks. #1 (45 min.) Reflect on IDGE debate issues Debate type Judges Case development criteria and ballot

Download Presentation

XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010

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


Xix interscholastic debate tournament 2010

XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010

Workshop: Judging Debates!

April 29, 2010

Universidad Casa Grande


Today s tasks

Today’s Tasks

#1 (45 min.) Reflect on IDGE debate issues

  • Debate type

  • Judges

  • Case development criteria and ballot

    #2 (60 min) Mini-Debate: Practice using case development criteria

    #3 (60 min) Judging a debate or attend IDGE meeting


What is a debate

What is a debate?

Debate is the foundation of democracy. The purpose is to persuade.

In an IDGE debate two sides (negative and affirmative) speak alternately for and against a resolution based on an issue.


Task 1 idge debate issues

Task #1 IDGE Debate issues

  • What kind of debate format should IDGE use – Policy (cross-examination) or an IDGE adapted version?

  • What criteria should be used when selecting Tournament judges?

  • Would Argument/Rebuttal section of debate be clarified by using THISS?


Task 1 input based on

Task #1 Input based on…

  • Childress, R. (2009) The Super-Novice File: A Guide to Entry Level Policy Debate


Question 1 idge debate format

Question #1 IDGE Debate format


Question 2 criteria for selecting tournament judges

Question #2 Criteria for selecting tournament judges

There are many types of judges, but the most common types of judges in Missouri are…

  • lay judges

  • current varsity debaters/recently graduated high school debaters,

  • former debaters,

  • coaches


Question 2 judges

Question #2 - Judges


Question 3 building the affirmative case

Question #3 – Building the Affirmative Case

With policy debate, the foundation for the affirmative team is the affirmative case. If debating on the affirmative side, you must have a strong, well-developed case with evidence to support your claims. You must fulfill ALL of the following 5 criteria to win.


Case development criteria thiss

Case development criteria: Thiss


Winning a debate the case should do the following

Winning a Debate – the case should do the following…

Affirmative has the burden of the proof. It must prove ALL of the following.

  • 1. That a change is necessary (Harm, Inherency, Significance)

  • 2. That the proposed change is the best solution (Topicality + above)

  • 3. That the change will solve the problem (Solvency)


Winning a debate cont

Winning a debate (cont.)

Negative has to prove ONE of the following (or argue convincing against ONE THISS)

  • 1. That the change is not necessary – a problem does not exist.

  • 2. A problem exists, but there is a better solution.

  • 3. That the change will not solve the problem.


Task 1 debate issues 30 min

Task #1 – Debate issues (30 min.)

Group work

  • Divide into 2 groups

  • Answer the 3 questions and report

    • What debate format should IDGE use?

    • What criteria should be used when selecting Tournament judges?

    • Would the ballot criteria for Argumentation and Refutation be improved by adding THISS? Propose revisions be for “Adequate Argumentation.”


Task 2 mini debate

Task 2 – Mini Debate

Same groups – Draw for negative and affirmative positions

Case outline:

  • Review sources for quality, arguments and evidence

  • Write case outlines thinking about THISS

    Debate - Raffle for who debates

    Discuss judging criteria using THISS


Task 2 criteria for good sources

Task 2 – Criteria for good sources

  • Relevant

  • Recent

  • Reliable (accurate) – respected newspaper, magazine, expert

  • Representative (should have both sides of an issue)


Where do you begin

Problem

A question

Define issues

Write debate resolution

Ss sneak cell phones to school

Should students bring cell phones to school?

Individual good (like it, useful) versus common good (courteous, focused class)

Schools should permit students to bring

cell phones.

Where do you begin?


Debate practice

DEBATE Practice

  • Resolution:

    Schools should permit students to bring cell phones to school.


Debate positions

Debate positions

Affirmative

Negative


Organization constructive speech aff proves resolution will solve problem

Aff 1

Introduce resolution

Define term: permit

List 2 Aff arguments

Defend Arg 1 using evidence

Concluding statement

Aff 2

Restate arguments

Present Arg 2

Summarize Aff position indicating why it is better than the Neg case

Concluding statement

Organization: constructive speechAff proves resolution will solve problem


Organization constructive speech neg proves resolution is false

Neg 1

State negative position

Definition: agree or disagree?

List 2 Neg arguments

Defend arg 1 with evidence and sources

Closing

Neg 2

Restate negative postion and arguments

Defend Arg 2 with evidence and sources

Closes stating why neg position is better than aff postion.

Organization: constructive speechNeg proves resolution is false.


Organization rebuttal both sides

Speaker 1

Speaker 2

Summarize own case and arguments

Address 1 weakness of opponents’ arguments and/or evidence in order to prove own case is better.

Poor evidence = no evidence, unreliable source, outdated

Concluding statement

Address another weakness

Repeat strongest arguments

Closing statement indicating why public should support case

Organization: Rebuttal (both sides)


Mock debate format constructive speeches 10 min

Mock debate formatConstructive speeches (10 min.)

Aff 1 Constructive speech (90 sec)

Cross exam by Neg 2 (60 sec)

Neg 1 Constructive speech (90 sec)

Cross exam by Aff 2 (60 sec)

Aff 2 Constructive speech (90 sec)

Cross exam by Neg 1 (60 sec)

Neg 2 Constructive speech (90 sec)

Cross exam by Aff 1 (60 sec)


Rebuttal 5 min

Rebuttal (5 min.)

Neg 1 Rebuttal (60 sec)

Aff 1 Rebuttal (60 sec)

Neg 2 Rebuttal (60 sec)

Aff 2 Rebuttal (60 sec)


  • Login