Whitman Debate Camp

LD Lecture Notes

These lectures should be used as a starter as most aren’t complete/set up for a full lecture.

Intro to LD (Beginners)............................................................................................................. 2

Bracketing, tagging, citing evidence.......................................................................................... 4

Prepare an Affirmative Case..................................................................................................... 5

Prepare a Negative Case........................................................................................................... 6

Presenting Cases....................................................................................................................... 7

Flowing and Refutation.............................................................................................................. 8

Example Short LD Debate....................................................................................................... 10

Rebuilding Arguments............................................................................................................. 11

Rebuttals: Crystallizing the voting issues................................................................................ 12

Cross-Examination Game........................................................................................................ 13

Delivery Game......................................................................................................................... 14

Values Lectures....................................................................................................................... 15

Philosopher Lectures............................................................................................................... 16

USING THE LESSON PLANS FOR LECTURES.................................................................... 20

LECTURE OUTLINES............................................................................................................ 20

DAY 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE CLASS.......................................................................... 20

DAY 2: INTRODUCTION TO DEBATE................................................................................ 22

DAY 3: INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC LECTURE......................................................... 23

DAY 4: PREPARING ARGUMENTS.................................................................................... 23

DAY 5: PREPARING CASES................................................................................................ 25

DAY 6: PRACTICE PRESENTING CASES.......................................................................... 27

DAY 7: EXAMPLE MINI-DEBATE....................................................................................... 28

DAY 8 AND 9: DELIVER CASES......................................................................................... 28

DAY 10: RESPONDING TO ARGUMENTS.......................................................................... 28

DAY 11: 4 STEP REFUTATION........................................................................................... 30

DAY 12: REBUILDING ARGUMENTS................................................................................ 31

DAY 13-14: REFUTATION AND REBUTTAL DEBATES..................................................... 31

DAY 15: CROSS-EXAMINATION........................................................................................ 32

DAY 16, 17, 18 AND 19: MINI-DEBATES............................................................................ 32

VALUE LECTURES................................................................................................................. 33

VALUE DAY 21/49: ISSUES IN VALUE DEBATE............................................................... 33

VALUE DAY 22/50: MAKING AND DEFENDING A VALUE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.......... 34

VALUE DAY 23 TO 26/51 TO 54: RESEARCHING AND PREPARING AFFIRMATIVE CASES.................................................................................................................................. 34

VALUE DAY 27/55: MAKING A NEGATIVE CASE............................................................. 35

VALUE DAY 28 TO 30/55 TO 56: PREPARE NEGATIVE CASES........................................ 35

VALUE DAY 31/58: LAST MINUTE AFFIRMATIVE CASE WORK..................................... 35

VALUE DAY 32/59: WHAT TO DO IN A LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE........................... 36

Intro to LD (Beginners)

WHAT JIM WANTS: Students to understand how a debate works and some of the basic cases/arguments on the first LD topic.

NOTE: BRING COPIES OF EACH OF THE RESOLUTIONS TO THE LECTURE TO HAND OUT TO EACH STUDENT

INTRODUCTION TO DEBATE

I. INTRODUCTION TO DEBATE

A. WHAT IS DEBATE? Debate occurs when two opposing sides advocate a position on an issue to another person who makes a decision about which side of the argument is more convincing.

ACTIVITY: Have students get into groups and present arguments to each other about a current, well known topic. Tell the students the topic, then have them discuss for about five minutes. Call on groups to see what they argued.

B. WHAT HAPPENS IN A DEBATE?

1. YOU DEBATE A RESOLUTION A resolution is the topic of debate, a statement in support of a stand on an issue. This year’s resolutions are PASS OUT A COPY OF THESE TO EACH OF THE STUDENTS:

· When they conflict, the means ought to be prioritized above the ends in making governmental policy.

· A just society ought to use affirmative action programs to promote equality.

· The intervention of one nation in the domestic affairs of another nation is morally justified.

· Violent juvenile offenders ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system.

· Judicial activism ought to be valued above strict constructionism as the basis for US Supreme Court decisions.

· In America, government provision of welfare for the poor ought to take priority over individual economic freedom.

· Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

· Establishing a safe educational environment in grades K-12 justifies infringement of students' civil liberties.

· That colleges and universities have a moral obligation to prohibit the public expression of hate speech on their campuses.

· That the demands of the work environment justify an employer's violation of employees' privacy.

2. IF YOU ARE AFFIRMATIVE--You take a position that supports the resolution. GIVE EXAMPLE OF AN AFFIRMATIVE CASE.

3. IF YOU ARE NEGATIVE--You take a position that rejects the affirmative. GIVE EXAMPLE OF A NEGATIVE POSITION AGAINST THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE YOU STATED.

4. You debate to convince the judge.

WHILE YOU DO THIS: Visually motion to where debaters and judges sit and stand in a debate.

STORY: Tell a story of an interesting debate that you saw or heard about. Be sure to identify the resolution, the affirmative and negative positions, & the judge/audience.

C. THE PROCESS OF A DEBATE

1. YOU TAKE A POSITION

Then you support it with appealing arguments--arguments that rest on sound principles that the judge will believe are true.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Call on students for three affirmative and three negative points on their debate resolution. Write them on the blackboard or overhead projector.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Call on students to give reasons for the points they offered. Comment on the reasons. Ask others to comment on the reasons. Get students to improve the soundness of the reasons they offer.

2. YOU ATTACK YOUR OPPONENTS’ POSITION

3. YOU DEFEND YOUR POSITION

D. LD SPEAKER DUTIES

Explain what each speaker does in a debate.

AC: 6 min, Present Case including arguments in favor of the resolution.

CX: Neg questions Aff

NC; 7 min., Attack aff case, Present Neg Case against the aff/resolution

CX: Aff questions Neg

1AR: 4 min., Rebuild aff case, respond to neg case

NR: 6 min., Rebuild neg case and reattack the aff case

2AR: 3 min., Rebuild aff case and reattack the neg case

ACTIVITY: Have two students come to the front and do an example debate with really, really short speeches (30 to 45 second speeches; 1 question allowed for each cross-ex) to demonstrate a debate. Talk about the debate as it occurs and answer questions.

Bracketing, tagging, citing evidence

WHAT JIM WANTS: Working with you, students bracket, tag, and cite evidence from ONE SAME article on YOUR lab’s affirmative case. You offer feedback and help them cut/tag/cite better. Then, students can cut different articles from each other.

QUESTION: WHAT KIND OF CITATION DO WE WANT?

Answer: I want author, qualifications, full date and then the rest of the junk.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Pass out a photocopy of THE SAME article to each student. The article should be on your affirmative case.

NOTE: Even though just one of you did the research for this resolution, that person should make a photocopy of all materials for the other lab leader to use in his/her lab.

1. Bracket the evidence IN THE ARTICLES
Tell students to bracket 3 to 7 sentences; the evidence should give a strong reason for its main claim.

ACTIVITY: Give them five minutes to find evidence in the article. Call on students to state which sections of the article they used for evidence. Critique the evidence.

2. CUT OUT the evidence

3. GLUE OR TAPE THE EVIDENCE TO A PIECE OF PAPER

4. SOURCE CITE THE EVIDENCE
Tell students that they need to write directly above the evidence the author, author qualifications, full date, publication, page number.
Remind them that they cannot write “Same source as above”
Tell them to use dark pens for photocopying!
ACTIVITY: Have students do this with the evidence from their article.
BE SURE TO WALK AROUND THE ROOM LOOKING AND COMMENTING ON STUDENT WORK.

5. TAG the evidence to make arguments
Show students how--explain they need to write a complete, 4 to 9 word sentence that accurately and persuasively states the main point of the evidence.
Provide an example of tagging on the overhead or with one of the pieces of evidence in the article.
NOTE: Our tags should use NO symbols or abbreviations; they MUST have verbs too--we want complete sentences!
ACTIVITY: Have students tag their evidence.
Be sure to show them where to write the tag (many will try to write tags after the citation, to the side of the evidence, etc.)

IF STUDENTS FINISH, GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL ARTICLES—THEY CAN USE ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT THEIR AFFIRMATIVE CASE.

Prepare an Affirmative Case

WHAT JIM WANTS: Each student will finish this lab time with a completed affirmative case that he/she wrote. You will need to bring cut evidence into the lab to help make this happen as cutting articles up will not give you enough time to finish.

NOTE: EACH STUDENT NEEDS TO PREPARE HIS/HER OWN CASE SO THAT EACH STUDENT CAN PRESENT HIS/HER OWN CASE

So, you need enough copies of the evidence you handout for each student to make his/her own case.

Using the evidence that all the students have just cut, cited and tagged (not any articles that only individual students received) and more evidence that you hand out, teach them how to construct an affirmative case. Have them write a case using their evidence (about a 5 to 6 card 1AC). Yes there is enough time to write a case if you keep your lecture short and maximize the time that they work on their case. Try to look at everyone’s work--walk around the room and offer encouraging and helpful comments and answer questions.

NOTE: Students work on their affirmative case individually. Make sure each student knows how to put together an affirmative case.

I. How to make and defend a case.

A. Choose a case and research it.

HINT TO THE STUDENTS: Point out that it is frequently a good idea to choose a value example to reduce potential value objections.

EXPLANATION: Tell the students which case you will develop during the lecture and pass out the evidence. Choose a case that addresses one of the LD resolutions.

B. Develop AN EVALUATION/resolutional OBSERVATION.

1. DEFINITIONS

Define the key terms in the topic. Explain what arguments are and are not relevant based on the definitions.

2. VALUE

State and explain your value. Justify the value and give reasons why the value is more important than competing values you expect your opponent to present.

3. CRITERION

A criterion states what must be proven to support the resolution. Often it is a statement of how to meet the value and therefore the resolution.

EXAMPLE: A criterion might be worded as "If I can show that drug testing violates the value of privacy, then I will have proven the resolution that drug testing is unjustified."

WARNING: You will hear questions such as

1. "What is the difference between a value and a criterion?"

The answer is: a criteria is a statement of how proving the value proves the resolution.

2. "That's not how I was taugh to do a criteria."

The answer is: fine; do it your way generally, but give our approach a try and learn something new! J

C. CONTENTIONS. CONTENTIONS SHOW that the value object or value example supports the criterion.

ACTIVITY: Give students twenty minutes to construct cases using the your LD Case Evidence Handout. Then, call on students to present their cases. Comment on their cases.

D. PREPARE Backup briefs. With briefs/evidence that remain after writing YOUR affirmative case, make backup briefs.

IF YOU HAVE TIME LEFT: OFFER Advanced ideas for cases? Rhetoric of a case; preemption of negative arguments; etc.

Prepare a Negative Case

WHAT JIM WANTS: Each student will finish this lab time with a completed negative case that he/she wrote. You will need to bring cut evidence into the lab to help make this happen as cutting articles up will not give you enough time to finish. AGAIN: THE LAB LEADER WHO RESEARCHED THE CASE NEEDS TO GIVE COPIES OF ALL ARTICLES TO THE OTHER LAB LEADER.

NOTE: EACH STUDENT NEEDS TO PREPARE HIS/HER OWN CASE SO THAT EACH STUDENT CAN PRESENT HIS/HER OWN CASE DURING THE NEXT HOUR

So, you need enough copies of the evidence you handout for each student to make his/her own case.

THERE ARE NO LECTURE NOTES FOR THIS PRESENTATION. BASICALLY, STUDENTS PREPARE A NEGATIVE CASE THE SAME WAY THEY DID AS THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.

HOWEVER, STUDENTS NEED TO BE REMINDED TO KEEP THEIR NEGATIVE CASE TO 3 TO 4 MINUTES MAXIMUM SO THEY SPEND MOST OF THEIR NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE RESPONDING TO THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.

Presenting Cases

WHAT JIM WANTS: Each student will present about 2 to 3 minutes of their affirmative case. You offer comments (during and/or at the end of the 2 to 3 minutes) and have them redo what they aren’t doing so well. Be sure to identify at least one specific thing each student does well--make them feel good about themselves.

Talk to students and give them examples of how to read:

1. speaking clearly

2. speaking persuasively, not just to go fast

3. reading tags, citations and the quotation with intonation so they are distinct from each other

4. reading lines in quotations so their persuasive parts stand out

Each student should present about 2 to 3 minutes of his or her case.

Give each student specific feedback about what they did well and what they need to improve on. I suggest that you have them redo parts they need to improve on.

NOTE: WE ARE NOT TRAINING STUDENTS TO BE SPEED READERS.

If students want to go fast, that’s fine. Help them do it clearly and persuasively.

If students don’t go fast/don’t want to go fast, THAT IS FINE. Encourage them to be clear and persuasive as well.

Flowing and Refutation

WHAT JIM WANTS: I want every student to flow (not necessarily on a flowsheet with columns). When students flow, I want them to flow the evidence. I want you to check their flowing and give them concrete tips for improving. I want every student to engage in “4 step” refutation. Some people like to describe 4 step refutation differently than I do--that’s fine with me. Just get them to respond to arguments.

YOU NEED FOR THIS LECTURE: Evidence for an argument and against it. Ask Jim for this material.

Its as simple as it sounds. Give them the basics in the lecture below. Then, have them flow; followed by having them refute. Try to look at everyone’s work--walk around the room and offer encouraging and helpful comments and answer questions.

BIG TIP: HUGE PROBLEM IN THIS LECTURE IS THAT LECTURERS PRESENT THE ARGUMENTS TOO FAST FOR THE STUDENTS TO FLOW. YOU NEED TO GO RIDICULOUSLY SLOW--WAY BELOW CONVERSATION SPEED. Otherwise, they can’t flow it and then they just sit there stunned--some might even cry. :)

NOTE: THE POINT OF THIS LECTURE IS TO GET STUDENTS TO WRITE DOWN THE RIGHT STUFF ON THEIR FLOW. INFORMATION ABOUT FLOWSHEETS (5 COLUMNS, ETC. IS TAUGHT LATER TODAY RIGHT BEFORE THE EXAMPLE DEBATE)

1. WHAT YOU FLOW

When you flow an argument, write down:

· the tag

· the source

· the main reasons or facts that the evidence offers in support of the label. Make sure you tell them to flow the evidence--that is the most common flowing problem.

DO AN EXAMPLE ON THE BOARD

ACTIVITY: Present two arguments for them to flow. Have students flow the arguments. Have two or three students reconstruct the arguments out loud by using their flows. Comment on their flowing skills based on their reconstruction.

2. ABBREVIATION TIPS

SQ, Increase, Decrease, Causes, Sig., Inh., Solv., etc.

Topic specific abbreviations: ed; acad achiev; super ed flex; federalism; clinton; etc.

ACTIVITY: Have students flow two more arguments. REMEMBER--SPEAK INCREDIBLY SLOWLY! SUGGESTION--PRESENT ONE ARGUMENT AND THEN ASK IF THEY WANT YOU TO GO SLOWER--ALSO LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE WRITING AS YOU PRESENT THE CASE.

3. FLOWING RESPONSES

Draw an arrow across from the argument and then write the response.

DO AN EXAMPLE ON THE BOARD

ACTIVITY: Present responses to two of the arguments you presented. Have students flow the responses. AGAIN--SPEAK VERY SLOWLY. Have two or three students read their flows out loud and comment on their flowing skills based on what they say they flowed.

4. ACTIVITY: PLAY THE I DISAGREE GAME

Have students split into two groups, go to sides of the room, line up single file and face each other. Start by having the first student in one of the two lines (line A) make an argument. On the other side (line B), the first student should say, "I disagree because . . .", and should complete the sentence. The second person in line A should make an argument and the second person in the line B should respond with, "I disagree because . . ." and the process continues until everyone has made an argument. Then, reverse roles and have line B make arguments and line B make responses.

5. RESPONDING TO ARGUMENTS WHEN YOU DEBATE

1. FLOW. Flow your opponent's arguments carefully.

WORKING EXAMPLE/ACTIVITY: Present and flow an argument.

2. THINK UP REFUTATION RESPONSES. As you flow, listen to your opponent's arguments. What flaws do you see in their arguments?

Prepare to present these flaws you see in their arguments by drawing an arrow across from their argument and writing down the flaw.

3. PULL OUT BRIEFS. Pull out briefs that attack the argument. Draw an arrow across from their argument and writing down the response(s) from the briefs you choose.

WORKING EXAMPLE/ACTIVITY: Pass out a brief with responses on it.

4. NOTE: WRITE DOWN RESPONSES WHEN YOU CAN. Flow your arguments as you flow your opponent's case or when your opponent is finished.

5. USE YOUR FLOWSHEET TO DO YOUR REFUTATION (4 step).

· On the left, you’ll see your opponent’s argument. STATE THE NUMBER AND TAG.

· You see the arrow on your flow. PAUSE, SAY “I DISAGREE,” ETC.

· You see your responses. GIVE YOUR RESPONSES--NUMBER, TAG, REASON/EVIDENCE

· When you are done with your responses: SUM UP IN ONE SHORT SENTENCE YOUR POINT, AND SAY “GO TO THEIR NEXT ARGUMENT, . . .”

ACTIVITY: Present another argument. Tell students to prepare responses to the argument. Give students ten minutes to prepare to respond to the argument using four step refutation. Each student will go to the front of the class and do four step refutation. Inevitably, they do not do it correctly. Critique their refutation and make them do it again until they get it right. Encourage students to use accurate, clear, and concise labels, clear four step refutation, and the use of both refutation and counterargumentation. Be sure to point out what students do well in addition to what they need to improve upon.

ACTIVITY: Continue 4 step refutation practice.

WHAT JIM WANTS: Beginners to learn how to use a flowsheet during a debate.

1. MAKE YOUR AFF CASE FLOWS

You will use this flow for the aff. case and all responses made directly to the arguments in the aff. case

Divide the sheets into 5 columns. 1ac, nc, 1ar, nr, 2ar

Explain how you flow in each column

2. MAKE YOUR NEG CASE FLOWS

You will use this flow for arguments that the negative raises that do not directly address an argument in the aff. case

Divide the sheets into 4 columns. nc, 1ar, nr, 2ar

Explain how you flow in each column

3. FLOWING DURING THE DEBATE

1ac, flow in the left column of the aff case flow

nc, flow in the left column of the off case flow; then in the second column of the aff case flow

Etc.

Example Short LD Debate

It’s the match of the century. Set up the debate.

GO SLOW! I cannot emphasize this enough. Go slow.

Also, this is not a competitive situation. Make it a pleasant, low key debate.

Please provide case clash with evidence--set a good role model for the students. Keola, especially, take note that the rebuttals in LD are horrendously short.

Rebuilding Arguments

WHAT JIM WANTS: Students to practice rebuilding arguments (1ar rebuilding case; nr rebuilding the neg case)

1. WHAT IS REBUILDING ARGUMENTS

Rebuilding arguments happens in the speech after someone has refuted your case, disadvantage, counterplan, etc.

Instead of just answering your opponent’s arguments, you defend your argument against attacks.

2. HOW TO REBUILD ARGUMENTS

WORKING EXAMPLE: Flow an example case contention with three or four subpoints. Flow two responses to the contention.

1. BRIEFLY RESTATE THE MAIN POINT OF YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT

2. CONCISELY STATE YOUR OPPONENT’S RESPONSE

3. SAY THE OPPOSITE OF THE RESPONSE, AGREE WITH IT, SAY IT IS IRRELEVANT OR UNIMPORTANT

TIP: Use evidence/arguments in the original position to respond to the argument.

4. STATE THE PART OF YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT THAT YOUR OPPONENT DID NOT RESPOND TO

5. DEVELOP FURTHER AND ADD ON TO YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT

State the number and tag of their argument; respond; use a number, tag, reason/evidence for each of your responses.

TIP: If a response is irrelevant to the position, state so!

SUM UP AND EXPLAIN WHY YOUR POSITION MEANS YOU SHOULD WIN THE DEBATE

ACTIVITY: Flow a case position; write two responses to the position; have students present responses. Critique their responses and have them redo their rebuilding to improve.

Rebuttals: Crystallizing the voting issues

WHAT JIM WANTS: Discuss how to list and support the three or four main voting issues in a debate.

Remind them:

1. Clearly state the voting issue in one, succinct sentence

2. Support why it is a voting issue and why you are winning the issue

3. As you discuss the voting issue make points and then state how those points respond to opponent arguments. DON’T get defensive and start answering their arguments with “they said x, that’s not true because we showed y. . .” instead do this “We have shown y, explain it, and that proves the opponent x argument to be false because . . .”

Cross-Examination Game

WHAT JIM WANTS: Each student to participate in the C-X game.

Have them play the cross-examination game--its a real favorite. Here’s how it works--One student is the questioner and one student is the answerer. The rest of the students line up ready to answer a question. The goal is to become the questioner. Students become a questioner if they answer the questioner’s question effectively. You, the lecturer, are the judge for what is a good answer. Students go to the end of the line if they:

1. Take too long to answer a question (any pause--they go to the end of the line)

2. Present a weak answer to a question (any answer that does not answer the question directly, or that appears to have no support, or that does not really support the student’s case.)

3. Do not stand poised and face the judge (this includes when they are standing in line--students misbehaving obviously go to the end of the line)

4. Ask a bad or weak question or take too long to come up with a question (this is the only way the questioner goes to the end of the line unless the answerer gives a good answer).

Reward answers that give strong support, that answer the question immediately, that refer to pretend pieces of evidence, that are humorous, that divert attention away from potential weak spots, etc.

Note--When you send a student to the end of the line--give an explanation for why so that everyone can learn.

Note--If you have a student that isn’t real strong--be kind/give him or her a break.

Delivery Game

WHAT JIM WANTS: A student presents one minute of his/her case. Another student presents one minute of his/her case. Other students vote on who was most persuasive. The one voted most persuasive gets to stay up front. Students must give the loser at least two tips to speak better the next time.

Values Lectures

Here are some values you can consider in your lectures.

Anthropocentrism versus Biocentrism: Anthropocentrism argues that humans are unique among all life. Our ability to use tools, reason, and evoke language proves us superior to other organisms. Anthropocentrists argue that nonhuman life has only the value assigned to it by human beings, that of value to human purposes. When in conflict, humans come first. Biocentrists argue that all life has intrinsic value (in and of itself). The standards used to justify human superiority are arbitrary: the cheetah would say it is superior because it runs the fastest, the zebra because only it has stripes. In truth, many other animals show capabilities similar to those of humans (dolphins communicate) and even superior to our own (dogs are more loyal and have a better sense of smell). Furthermore, biocentrists argue, anthropocentrism is a dangerous environmental philosophy because it justifies wholesale destruction of the ecosystem.

Community versus Individual: Communitarians argue that the structure of values come from the standards of a community. The maximization of individual rights often comes into conflict with the safety and cohesion of the community. Communitarianists argue that individuals have an obligation to subvert their own personal desires to those of the group. Individualists, however, hold that as humans are ends in themselves, the expression of individual liberty is the most fundamental. Community regulation destroys individual initiative, which in turn undermines the common good.

Leisure versus Work: In times of relative leisure, great advances of humankind in philosophy, literature, art, and science have been achieved. Leisure liberates us from abstract obligations imposed by the structure of society and best provides for individual expression. The opposing side argues that only in activity can humans achieve meaning. The values and continuation of society demands a focus on work.

National Security versus Peace: Some argue that national security, whether it means protection of a nation from any threat or only from military threats, is of fundamental importance. In particular, hawks argue that it enhances freedom and is the most crucial governmental obligation under the social contract. However, many critics counter that it is not an important human value because it undermines morality and, due to cultural biases, leads to hegemonic imperialism, and ultimately undermining world peace. To what extent violence is justified to provide security and whether the only response to violence is to “wage peace” is an open question.

Utopianism versus Pragmatism: Utopianism declares that reaching for the stars is necessary to achieve the ideal society. To envision a utopia, or perfect place (such as Eden), is an act that lends itself towards human betterment. Although we may never achieve such perfection, we learn much from the ride. Pragmatists argue that only what is immediately possible is morally relevant. They argue that the attempt to achieve some abstract fiction is to undermine social action and to divorce ourselves from the particulars of the here and now. We will never achieve ideals, and therefore must work on what is most practical.

Sanctity of life versus Quality of life: The most sacred and universal conception of human culture, some argue, is “Thou shall not kill,” the ultimate embodiment of reverence for life. This is the most fundamental moral principle since it represents love and compassion for life itself. It is the foundation for progress and provides for the common good because it best promotes the valuation of life. Finally, life itself is logically necessary for quality of life to have any meaning. Without existence, there can be no comparative rank. On the other hand, many people argue that life itself is meaningless without the experiences (aesthetic, pleasurable) that provide for quality. There are cases, such as suicide or euthanasia for terminally-ill patients, where providing for death would prevent much unnecessary suffering.

Equality versus Liberty: The fundamental tenets of equality state that humans are equal in dignity and capacity. This equality is the basis upon which actions should be judged, for the creation of inequalities implies the disingenuous undermining of some person’s well-being, and equality must be held at paramount concern. On the other hand, attempts to achieve equality inevitably fail. People are fundamentally different both in their abilities and preferences . Attempts to force equality undermine the freedom to choose a course of action that maximizes an individual’s potential towards excellence.

Philosopher Lectures

Obviously talk about the philosophers you are expected to discuss. The following is just a helper.

NOTE: It would be good to have students argue among the differing thinkers. For example, during the communitarian lecture, have students use the philosophers to respond to the individualism lecture. For example, during the civil disobedience lecture, have students use the philosophers to respond to the social contract lecture.

LD‑‑PHILOSOPHER NOTES: INDIVIDUALISM INDIVIDUALISTS/CAPITALISTS: The following thinkers come down squarely on the side of conservative interpretations of individual rights, and have arguments at their disposal which discourage social or communitarian ethics.

ADAM SMITH

Major Work: THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. Major Theories: 1. The Invisible Hand: Smith argued that, left alone, the processes of capitalism would result in the best society. Individuals motivated solely by self interest would be productive in order to earn wealth. But their combined actions would result in everyone being better off. 2. Progressive improvement of society: Smith believed that society was moving generally in the right direction, again, free of government intervention as much as possible. He was not a utopian, and he admitted that problems could occur in unchecked free markets; he simply believed these problems would eventually take care of themselves. The increasing productivity of capitalism would eliminate poverty; the sense of "fair play" in market competition would eliminate injustice; nations would open up to each other through trade and not through conflict, etc.

Problems: 1. An overly optimistic view of human nature? How could Adam Smith believe that human nature was acquisitive and competitive‑‑yet still believe that if we are left alone the best results will progressively come about? Why wouldn't our nature make us more prone to unethical behavior?

2. The instability and crises of capitalism: Marx and others later pointed out that Smith's vision of capitalism didn't take many things into account. Specifically, capital tends to end up in the hands of fewer, not more people. The drive to expand markets leads to, and does not prevent, international conflict. The need to keep labor costs low means that more and more people will be forced out of work. It will not, ultimately, be in the interests of the wealthy to eliminate poverty, since a large pool of unemployed workers will ensure low labor costs, etc.

3. Finite limits to growth: In the 20th century, many scholars have pointed out that at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, thinkers like Smith envisioned an infinite amount of renewable resources. But environmental pollution and resource depletion suggest that this is not the case.

AYN RAND AND ROBERT NOZICK

We put these two together because they both make eloquent and convicted cases for individual autonomy at the expense of all else; Nozick spends a great deal of time laying out the theoretical foundations of individualism, while Rand makes a strong ethical case for "egoism," the view that individuals should always act in their own self‑interest.

RAND: Major Works: Many, including THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS and THE

ROMANTIC MANIFESTO; Major Theories: 1. Ethical egoism, which can be laid out in the following manner: "1. We ought to do whatever will promote the best interests of everyone alike. 2. If everyone acted exclusively in their own best interest, everyone's interests would be promoted. 3. Therefore, we ought to live by the principle which calls for everyone to act exclusively in their own self‑interest." 2. Radical individualism‑‑the individual as the "starting point." Both Rand and Nozick believe it makes no sense to speak of "collectives" or "communities" as having identities in themselves. There are no "collective" entities, only varying groups of individuals. This means there is no "collective responsibility," only individual responsibility. Combined with ethical egoism, this gives us the following ethical maxim for Rand: My responsibility is completely to myself. Whatever I choose to do to promote my own interest is my sovereign choice. I give others the right to do the same thing.

NOZICK: Major Work: ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA. Nozick wrote this as a response to John Rawls' A THEORY OF JUSTICE, which called for limited redistribution of wealth. Major Theories: 1. Individual as the starting point. See Rand, above. 2. The Minimal State: Nozick supports a minimal state to ensure the protection of individual rights, but his leeway for state action stops there, just as it did for Locke. Nozick believes that a minimal state, that is, a state with very little power to do anything (especially with no power to acquire material goods beyond that which is needed for light maintanance) will disuade machiavellian politicians from trying to gain a disproportionate share of power. After all, what is to be gained from being at the head of a state which can do nothing but enforce individual rights?

3. The Acquisition Principle: Goods are legitimately owned if they are legitimately acquired. If I work to earn money, that is my money. The state can no more take that money from me (even in order to give it to someone less fortunate) than can some individual take money from me.

PROBLEMS WITH BOTH RAND AND NOZICK: 1. Can the individual really be the starting point? There seem to be two reasons why we would reject this: a. The "ontological" priority of the community. "Ontological" means having to do with the underlying nature of how we construct reality. Our reality is defined, from the moment of our consciousness, by the community in which we find ourselves. All further self‑definition must inevitably take the community as its starting point. For example, try to describe yourself without making reference to general, community categories (I am tall‑‑in relation to people who are short...I am Irish...My parents named me Matthew...I work at a college...etc.) You can't do it. Language itself, which is what we use to think, is communal. b. The necessity of community survival: Authors such as Etzioni argue that in order for our society to survive, we must put the community first, even if this means sacrificing some personal interest or freedom. If the community dies, all individuals within the community die as well. 2. The unethical nature of ethical egoism. The argument goes something like this: 1. Any moral doctrine that assigns greater importance to the interests of one group than to those of another is unacceptably arbitrary unless there is some difference between the members of the groups that justifies treating them differently. 2. Ethical egoism would have each person assign greater importance to her own interests than to the interests of others. But no general difference can justify this. 3. Thus, ethical egoism is unacceptably arbitrary.

LEO STRAUSS Major Work: NATURAL RIGHT AND HISTORY Major Theories:

1. Natural Law: A major theme of Enlightenment political philosophy is the idea that there is a transcendent realm of moral values, from which is obtained the idea that all people are created with certain rights which no government can legitimately deny. In fact, however, it is not simply "rights" which are included in the notion of "natural right" (also called natural law). All moral values are believed to proceed from the facts we know about normal human behavior, both ethical and political. Leo Strauss believed that these norms could be discovered through reason and history, and that they applied equally to all cultures and historical periods.

2. Traditional conservatism: Strauss believed that social engineers who tried to rearrange society (such as Marxists) were misguided. The natural order of things appears in political arrangements and should not be tampered with.

Problems: 1. Transcendent values or merely western values? Almost all conservative, natural right proponants are also people who believe that Western culture is superior to other cultures and that society should reflect a nature that is patriarchal and elitist. Strauss is no exception; although he grounds these beliefs in an appeal to classical philosophy, many people see his ideas as simply another manifestation of narrow‑minded bigotry.

2. Can Natural Law be proven? Many "relativists" do not think so; they point to the vast differences in customs, morals and ethical codes among different historical periods and societies.

PART TWO: COLLECTIVISTS AND COMMUNITARIANS. The other side of this issue is the case made by collectivists. They generally proceed from the following two assumptions: 1. Wealth is essentially social and should be used to benefit the community (see, for example, W.E.B. DuBois, in Philosopher and Value Handbook volume 2). 2. The state, if it is a just state (operating in the interests of the majority) has the right to intervene for the good of the community, even if this hurts or inconveniences a few privileged individuals.

KARL MARX Major works: THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (with Friederick Engels), CAPITAL Major theories: 1. Dialectical materialism. a. Human history consists of a long struggle over resources. b. Slavery gave way to feudalism, which gave way to capitalism, characterized by antagonisms between the wealthy (capitalists) and the poor (laborers). c. These antagonisms are the root of all social problems‑‑racism, crime, sexism, environmental devastation, war. It's all about resources. 2. Socialism. As the result of irreparable antagonisms under capitalism, the working class will revolt and establish a classless society where the people own the means of production. This will put workers in a stronger position to solve and prevent these social problems. Problems: 1. Economic determinism. Many disagree with the idea that economics and resources determine everything else in history and society. What about ideas? Religion? Gender? Race? All these are secondary to Marx, but should they be? 2. Socialism seems not to have worked (self‑explanatory).

JOHN RAWLS Major works: A THEORY OF JUSTICE, POLITICAL LIBERALISM Major theories: 1. The veil of ignorance. As criteria for choosing the way society operates, Rawls suggests we imagine how we would plan it if we had no idea where we would end up in it. He argues that not knowing whether we'd be rich, poor, black, white, male, female, healthy, disabled, etc., would make us want to make sure everyone was provided for in society. 2. The most unfortunate should benefit. According to these thoughts about the veil of ignorance, Rawls concludes that we would decide a good principle would be: Whatever inequalities exist in society should benefit those least fortunate. Economic redistribution may be necessary for this. 3. Pluralist democracy. In PL, Rawls' second major work, he goes on to argue that people of differing comprehensive views regarding religion, politics, etc., must put enough of their views aside to enter public discourse and argue their points reasonably. Problems: Nozick's objections to Rawls are especially effective. 1. Against state intervention: Rawls believes that justice demands equal rights, even when the state must intervene economically to ensure such equality. Nozick believes economic equality is not, by any means, more important than individual rights. 2. Rawls believes that social principles should be decided based on what individuals would decide behind a "veil of ignorance," with no knowledge of how they would fare in that society. Nozick, on the other hand, attacks that criteria at its root, saying individuals simply do not have the right to decide a society's principles for other individuals, veil of ignorance or none.

PART THREE: POST‑STRUCTURALISTS AND CRITICS OF THOUGHT. These thinkers question the underlying assumptions of modern thinking. They can be used to refute, or "critique" opponents' positions. Volume 3 of the Philosopher and Value series contains many examples of such "critiques" in the sections on Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sontag.

FRIEDERICH NIETZSCHE Major works: THE ANTICHRIST, BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, HUMAN ALL TOO HUMAN, others. Major theories: 1. Nihilism. Though Nietzsche never used this term, it applies to the rejection of all value systems. Such systems are hypocritical lies which mask the real truth, which is... 2. The Will to Power. All we really do is try to take power over one another; that's our nature. Weak people invent morals like "good and evil" to condemn the strong; Christianity, socialism, democracy and utilitarianism are examples of these weak, "slave" values which are really just power‑plays. Problems: 1. Isn't the judgment that we should not make value judgments a value judgment itself? 2. Many thinkers object to the claim that all we do is pursue power; they point to examples of great sacrifice, cooperation, etc. 3. Nietzsche as patriarchal: Feminist thinkers have major qualms with Nietzsche and his extremely male‑centered concept of true virtue: Nietzsche's world of muscle‑bound heroes hacking their way through humanity reads like an adolescent pipe dream, feminists say. Do all humans really want to take over the world, to exploit, to forge new paths of adventure and wallow in bloody glory? Or is this simply testosterone?

JEAN‑PAUL SARTRE AND SIMONE DEBEAUVOIR Major works: Sartre: BEING AND NOTHINGNESS, EXISTENTIALISM, CRITIQUE OF DIALECTICAL REASON DeBeauvoir: THE ETHICS OF AMBIGUITY, THE SECOND SEX Major Theories: 1. Existentialism. Humans are totally free and wholly responsible for their actions. One cannot appeal to any transcendent system of morals, nor can one deny that they have supreme choice in their actions. The Nazi guard who says "I was just following orders" could have refused those orders, even at the cost of his life. 2. Collective responsibility. Later in his life Sartre (and throughout most of her career DeBeauvoir felt the same way) decided that individual responsibility alone was not enough. I not only define myself by my choices; I define others as well, just as they define me. 3. A radical answer to nihilism: Sartre and DeBeauvoir argued that we inevitably embrace values through our choices and decisions. Once it is realized that there is no "transcendent" source of values, many people, DeBeauvoir argues, respond to this "moral void" by celebrating the darkness of the value‑less life. She points out that nihilism is dangerous because it is a glorification of the negative, rather than an attempt to fill the void with one's own personal meaning. The consequences of such nihilism are dangerous because nihilists often give themselves over to the sheer, raw, cynical power of hatred and to the love of power itself, and this leads to totalitarian movements such as Nazism.

MARTIN HEIDEGGER Major Works: BEING AND TIME, THE QUESTION CONCERNING TECHNOLOGY Major theories: 1. Another answer to nihilism: Heidegger did not deny the validity of truth, but he did seek to show that ultimately we cannot speak of truth without first understanding that truth has no meaning outside of the human beings which reveal it. Before a truth is revealed and elucidated by humans, it has absolutely no meaning; this is not to imply that it is "untrue," but only to point out that we are the grounding of truth; it comes to us through us. In other words, we need to be aware of how we construct our own "truths," whether they be moral, metaphysical, or whatever. Those who ignore this basic existential fact will often conceal the most important processes of philosophy, such as the linguistic importance of philosophical statements and the way that what is conceived of as "truth" changes over time. 2. Critique of all "isms," all metaphysical or technological thinking: Systems are self‑referential; they are closed and exist according to the purposes for which they are designed. But a revealed truth itself has no purpose, until it is assimilated into that already‑existing system. Hence, we undermine the meaning of the truth‑in‑itself and instead simply make that revelation a subset in a mental and linguistic "machine." By assimilating everything into "isms," we destroy the uniqueness of existence. (I have not included problems for Heidegger. They mostly concern his supposed "relativism," a charge which he answers throughout his works.)

Murray Bookchin: This American environmental philosopher argues that the root cause of impending ecological apocalypse is hierarchical social relations. He proposes the alternative of social ecology, where humans will live in decentralized bio-regions under radical democracy. He believes that this society, a humanistic, rationalistic, and anarchistic vision of a utopian future, is the only one that is sustainable.

Martin Heidegger: This twentieth-century German philosopher believes first and foremost that action and knowledge are inseparably related. He continues to confound today’s thinkers with arguments such as “existence can be apprehended only through the analysis and description of human ‘being’” and “every choice is understood as the exclusion of the alternative, through which the ‘nothingness’ aspect of existence is expressed.”

Friedrich Nietzsche: This nineteenth-century German writer attacks democracy in favor of aristocratic ideals. He attacks Christian and utilitarian ethics in favor of atheism (“God is dead”). He stresses the unconscious, voluntary, self-destructive sides of human nature, and touches on questions about the origins of knowledge and humanity’s need for philosophy.

Thomas Hobbes: Writing in the early 1600s, this British philosopher and political scientist is best known for his seminal work entitled The Leviathan. He argues that to understand the nature of government, we must consider what it would be like if there were no state, a state of nature, which Hobbes insists would be a “war of every man against every man.” He concludes that our lives would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Therefore, our only security lies in concentrating all power into a sovereign power under the common consent based in a hypothetical social contract.

Niccolo Machiavelli: Machiavelli responded to repeated military attacks by France by writing The Prince in 1513. His political philosophy is summarized by “the ends justify the means”; that is, pragmatism for government is moral. Since human nature is inherently corrupt, the state must look out for its own best interests. The state is justified in using whatever means it sees fit to preserve itself.

Ayn Rand: This contemporary American philosopher insists that laissez-faire capitalism is the highest form of human society. In such books as The Virtue of Selfishness, she espouses a radical libertarian like philosophy, which believes in whole-hearted political and economic liberalization and opposes any social and legal constraints on individual or corporate choice.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: This eighteenth-century political philosopher’s key idea was the general will grounded in the social contract. Individual rights are not protected in the state of nature because there is no government to enforce obligations. Political society arises from total voluntary subjection of every individual to the collective general will, the sole source of legitimate government since it expresses the common good.

Immanuel Kant: This German philosopher of the eighteenth century wrote three Critiques that outline a deontological ethics based on two formulations of his Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is founded on the belief that all humans are rational, and declares that we must first act so that we treat other human beings “always as an end and never as a means only.” Furthermore, we must act in a way so that it may become a “universal law,” such as to never lie or break promises.

John Locke: An influential English philosopher, Locke’s essays provided many of the philosophical foundations for the American constitution. He believes that although the state of nature is somewhat peaceful, individuals have no protection against invasions of natural rights (such as those of property) except for vigilante justice. He proposes that the social contract be formed, where individuals created government to protect individual liberty. He argues that the sole purpose of government is to preserve the rights of others.

Karl Marx: Marx is best known for his belief that communism would be the ideal society and the inevitable result from the failures of capitalism. Marxism declares itself as materialist (only that which exists such as material goods are real), and therefore the social inequalities of the market are best rectified by the abolition of private property. Public ownership of society’s resources would create equity and begin a transition toward a better society.

Abraham H. Maslow: Maslow was a psychologist, not a philosopher; he undertook investigation of human needs and wants and hypothesized that safety (security of food, water, and shelter) is necessary to realize other desires. The highest state of human existence is self-actualization, after all other needs have been fulfilled (best exemplified by Martin Luther King or Ghandi).

John Rawls: This contemporary Harvard philosophy professor’s greatest work is A Theory of Justice, where he argues that individuals are rational and should seek a fairer and more just society. He argues that the society be based on the “veil of ignorance” where people would not know their position in the new society so they would be impartial when handing out benefits. His position of distributive justice argues that any inequalities in society must not be biased against any particular group or individual in society.

USING THE LESSON PLANS FOR LECTURES

In this section, I offer an explanation of how to use the lesson plans for your lectures. The lesson plans have been carefully constructed so that you can give organized, clear lectures. Students can easily take notes of the lectures because they use outline organization. At the same time, the lectures include activities, examples, stories, and more that keep student interest and keep them doing instead of just listening.

For each day, the lesson plans explain what you need to do. Specifically, they include the MATERIALS that you need to prepare and bring to class, the OBJECTIVES for the class session including what students should do, and an outline of the lecture with suggested activities, examples, stories, etc. Obviously, and I encourage you to do this, adjust the plans to match your teaching style and your own specific objectives.

To use the lecture notes, I suggest that you begin on the first day of class when you present the "benefits of debate" lecture that you tell students to take careful notes of the lectures. They need to do this for several reasons. First, it gives them practice for flowing in their debates. Second, in order to keep up with the course, they need to take notes to serve as a reference for the many concepts taught. Third, you will engage in class reviews where you will call on students to answer questions about the material you have discussed. Begin each following lecture by telling students to take out a piece of paper on which to take notes.

When you lecture, present the outline organized points to the students. So, you will say, "Observation I: Using evidence to prepare arguments." You should do this slowly--frequently three words at a time, because students have a hard time keeping up. I sometimes write down my outline notes on a overhead projector as I lecture, so I can better gauge whether I am going too fast for students. Whatever you do, students will tell you if you go too fast. If you are, just repeat the point.

When you get to a boxed section, you need to shift gears. Boxed sections look like this:

ACTIVITY: Tell students that they need count off 1, 2. When they . . .

To do the boxed sections, you switch from the outline notes to an activity, story, example, etc. which you explain to the students and/or incorporate into your lecture. When you finish the boxed section, you return to your outline notes. The boxed sections explain what you should do, but some of the boxed sections follow a format that the following descriptions will help you present more effectively.

PREPARE AHEAD: Take the suggested action ahead of time so that you are prepared for future class days.

ACTIVITIES: Here you engage in practice argumentation, debate games, or fun exercises designed to emphasize the importance of a concept. Just follow the directions.

EXAMPLES: Give an example of the concept you are discussing. For example, if you are talking about inherency, you might say, "An example of an affirmative inherency argument would be, 'Current programs for the homeless are inadequate.'"

STORIES: Here you tell a story in which you or someone you know or heard of did what you are talking about. For example, a story about a debate might begin: "In one debate that I watched, one of the debaters was so nervous, she kept biting her lip. She bit it so hard--she began to bleed!"

WORKING EXAMPLES: With working examples, you develop an example throughout a section of your lecture. So, if you are describing how to construct a mini-debate case, your working example would be to develop an example mini-debate case as you go through each of the step by step instructions. So, to do such a working example, you would begin by saying, "Subpoint A. Choose the three best pieces of evidence. (moving away from the outline) I have chosen three of my best pieces of evidence. Here they are (showing them on the overhead projector or blackboard). Let's continue (returning to the outline) Subpoint B. Number the arguments. (moving away from the outline) I put the evidence in this order. Then I number it very simply--1, 2, and 3 (writing the numbers on the overhead transparency or blackboard)." Continue this process throughout the section for which the working example is designed.

CLASS REVIEWS: With class reviews, you call on students to see if they know the class material. Give students two or three minutes to review their notes. Then, tell them to close their notes. Then, begin calling on students randomly to answer the review questions. Call on every student if you can. Reward students who answer questions correctly. Make students who cannot answer restudy their notes and answer again in a minute.

LECTURE OUTLINES

DAY 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE CLASS

MATERIALS:

1. Class Syllabus

2. Class Schedule

3. Enough People Bingo Sheets (explained below) for each student in the class

CLASS PRESENTATION:

1. INTRODUCE YOURSELF.

Tell who you are, why you find debate interesting, what your goals are, etc.

2. REVIEW THE COURSE.

Handout syllabus and schedule. Tell students what you expect. Make it very clear that this class is not like other classes. First, the material is sequential--so they must master each step. Second, the class is much more difficult than any other class they have ever had. Third, the class requires a lot of work, a lot.

3. QUICK LECTURE:

I. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF DEBATE?

STORY: Tell them stories of debates you have seen and students you have seen become successful.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Have students generate a list of benefits of debate. Add ones that you feel they are missing. Examples of benefits include:

A. BETTER CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS

B. FUN

C. COMPETITION

D. DISCUSS INTERESTING ISSUES

E. LEARN HOW TO SPEAK BETTER

F. LEARN HOW TO ARGUE MORE EFFECTIVELY

4. Students should MEET EACH OTHER.

I suggest "People Bingo." To play People Bingo, handout a sheet with five row and five columns that make twenty five boxes of different activities or characteristics of people. The first student to find twenty five other students with those characteristics or who engage in those activities wins.

PREPARE AHEAD: Tell two experienced debaters on your team that they have one week to prepare for an example mini-debate. Remind them that they must go very, very slow, that their cases should have just three pieces of evidence, and that they should use no debate jargon/theory like "inherency," "disadvantages," "caseside," etc.

DAY 2: INTRODUCTION TO DEBATE

MATERIALS:

1. Overhead Projector or chalkboard.

OBJECTIVES:

1. Students should define and give examples of "resolution," "affirmative," and "negative."

2. Students should define "case," "analysis," "sound reasons," and "appealing arguments."

3. Students should make cases with sound reasons and appealing arguments.

LECTURE NOTES:

I. INTRODUCTION TO DEBATE

A. WHAT IS DEBATE? Debate occurs when two sides attempt to persuade another person that their position on an issue is more convincing.

B. WHAT IS A RESOLUTION? A resolution is the topic of debate, a statement in support of a stand on an issue.

C. WHAT ARE THE AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE? The affirmative supports the resolution. The negative rejects the affirmative's support of the resolution.

WHILE YOU DO THIS: Visually motion to where debaters and judges sit and stand in a debate.

STORY: Tell a story of an interesting debate that you saw or heard about. Be sure to identify the resolution, the affirmative and negative positions, and the judge or audience.

D. THIS YEAR'S RESOLUTION IS: (State it).

ACTIVITY: Tell students that knowing the exact wording of the resolution is very important. Give them 1 minute to memorize the topic. Then call on students to stand up and recite the resolution word for word.

E. AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE SIDES NEED TO MAKE STRONG ARGUMENTS.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Call on students for three affirmative and three negative points on their debate resolution. Write them on the blackboard or overhead projector.

1. WHAT IS A SOUND REASON? A sound reason offers strong support for an argument.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Call on students to give reasons for the points they offered. Comment on the reasons. Ask others to comment on the reasons. Get students to improve the soundness of the reasons they offer.

2. WHAT IS AN APPEALING ARGUMENT? Appealing Arguments are arguments that the judge believes are sound.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Point to one or two of the arguments that students have constructed. For each argument, tell them that their judge will not like the argument. Ask them, "What should we do with the argument for this judge?" You should look for answers like, "Get rid of the argument," and "Change it." For students who suggest changing the argument--ask them how they would change the argument. Then comment on whether the change is appealing or not. For students who say, "Keep the argument as it is," hear them out--but encourage them to adjust their arguments to their judges. Otherwise, they will make arguments that will be rejected and ignored and they will lose debates. Plus, they will not learn the value of adapting to their audience.

CLASS REVIEW

1. What is debate? Give an example of a debate.

2. What is a resolution? State the wording of this year's resolution.

3. What is the affirmative? Give an affirmative stand on the resolution.

4. What is the negative? Give a negative stand on the resolution.

5. What is an appealing argument?

6. Make two arguments for the resolution.

7. Make two arguments against the resolution.

DAY 3: INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC LECTURE

Discuss affirmative and negative approaches to the topic.

SUGGESTION: Include potential basic affirmative and negative arguments. Save technical discussion of definitions and specific affirmative plans and negative disadvantages for the topic lecture that comes later.

SUGGESTION: Have one of your experienced debaters that attended a debate institute give topic lectures. They usually know a lot about the topic and new students get introduced to your experienced debaters.

DAY 4: PREPARING ARGUMENTS

MATERIALS:

1. Copies of three to six pieces of evidence for each student.

2. A short section of an article in which you have already found several pieces of evidence. Choose one with obvious pieces of evidence--students get frustrated quickly. Have enough copies of the article for each student in the class.

3. An overhead transparency of one page of a section of an article that has evidence in it.

4. Overhead projector.

5. At least one handbook.

6. A newspaper with a front page with no headlines and no pictures. To make such a newspaper, take any regular newspaper and glue sections of small newsprint over the headlines and pictures.

7. A newspaper with a front page with preferably exciting headlines and color pictures.

8. Copies of six pieces of evidence with which students can make two or three briefs.

9. Three pieces of evidence typed on a transparency for the overhead.

10. Bring extra scissors, glue or tape, and typing paper for the inevitable students that forget.

OBJECTIVES:

1. Students should define evidence.

2. Students should state why evidence is needed.

3. Students should state what constitutes good evidence.

4. Students should bracket evidence in articles.

5. Students should source cite evidence.

6. Students should tag evidence accurately, concisely, and persuasively.

I. PREPARING ARGUMENTS

A. WHAT IS EVIDENCE? Evidence is support for an argument from a published work.

EXAMPLES: Hand out example pieces of evidence.

B. WHY USE EVIDENCE?

CLASS PARTICIPATION: Have students generate reasons why. Make their answers subpoints under B. The textbook mentions the following points:

1. To better support arguments

2. Judges expect debaters to document nearly every argument.

3. To inform students what experts believe.

C. WHAT MAKES A GOOD PIECE OF EVIDENCE?

CLASS PARTICIPATION: Have students generate standards for good evidence. Make their answers subpoints under C. The textbook mentions the following points:

1. It is concise

2. It makes a strong point

3. It’s argument is well supported.

ACTIVITY: Give students three to five minutes to critique the evidence you passed out using the standards you have constructed for good evidence. Call on students to offer their evaluations of the evidence. After the students answers, comment on their answer--rewarding good answers and explaining why weaker answers are weak. If a student uses another standard--critique her or his standard. If the standard is good--tell standards to add it to the list of points under subpoint C. If the standard is not good--tell the student why and tell them to try one of the standards you have already identified.

D. HOW TO DO PRIMARY RESEARCH

STEP 1: GET ARTICLES. To find good articles use the Library, write to Special Interest Groups, or search the Internet.

STEP 2: BRACKET EVIDENCE IN ARTICLES

WORKING EXAMPLE: Find evidence in an overhead transparency of an article.

1. Skim--find articles with evidence--move on when there is no evidence.

2. Photocopy the article

3. Find two to seven sentences that make a clear, persuasive, supported point.

4. Put brackets around the sentences you want for evidence.

ACTIVITY: Pass out a photocopy of an article. Give them five minutes to find evidence in the article. Call on students to state which sections of the article they used for evidence. Critique the evidence using the criteria you set for good evidence in subpoint C.

STEP 3: CUT OUT THE EVIDENCE

STEP 4: GLUE OR TAPE THE EVIDENCE TO PAPER

STEP 5: SOURCE CITE THE EVIDENCE

Explain what kind of source citation they should use (full source citation, short citation, or qualifications citation)

STEP 6: TAG THE EVIDENCE

ILLUSTRATION: Show students the newspaper with no headlines and no pictures. Ask them why it would be difficult to read the newspaper. Students will tell you that it would be boring, hard to find the right article, etc. Then say that those are the same reasons that they need labels for evidence.

STEP ONE: Read the evidence.

STEP TWO: Glue it on a brief or card.

STEP THREE: Label the evidence. Labels should be accurate, concise (5-9 words), and persuasive.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Label three pieces of evidence on an overhead. Have the students help you do it. Comment on the accuracy, conciseness, and persuasiveness of the labels.

ACTIVITY: Pass out six pieces of evidence. Give students ten minutes to label each piece of evidence and make briefs or blocks. As they construct the briefs or blocks, critique their work. When you critique their work, emphasize the following criteria: 1) complete sentence labels that are accurate, concise, and persuasive; 2) neatness; 3) efficient use of space on briefs--i.e. no large gaps between pieces of evidence; 4) the briefs/blocks should address one specific issue--not huge topics. When they are finished, have students state how they briefed or blocked the evidence. Comment on their approaches.

CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATION: Hold up the colorful newspaper with headlines and pictures and compare their labeled arguments with this exciting and clear newspaper.

STEP 7: ADD IN OTHER EVIDENCE

Show a handbook to students. Explain the table of contents and the evidence in it. You may also wish to discuss how to use a handbook properly.

CLASS REVIEW:

1. What is evidence?

2. State two reasons why evidence is needed.

3. State how to find evidence in an article.

4. State how to source cite evidence.

5. State how to tag evidence.

DAY 5: PREPARING CASES

MATERIALS:

1. Overhead projector.

2. Three or four pieces of labeled evidence typed on transparencies that you can use to make an affirmative case.

3. Overhead transparencies of completed backup briefs for the affirmative case.

4. Copies of eight pieces of evidence on one case for each student.

5. Five slips of paper with a word or phrase written on the slips (for use during the transition activity below).

6. Prepare four different kinds of introductions including a story that exemplifies your case, famous quotes that support your case, philosophy or value that backs your case, and a startling statistic or fact that supports your case. You will use these introductions for the case that you construct from the evidence in number 2 above.

7. Paper, scissors, or tape or glue for students who forget to bring them.

OBJECTIVES (DAY 5, USING ARGUMENTS TO MAKE CASES):

1. Student should number arguments in a case.

2. Students should impact arguments.

3. Students should make transitions between arguments.

4. Students should state the four kinds of introductions a debater can use.

5. Students should state the necessary elements of a conclusion.

6. Students should write an affirmative and negative case.

A REMINDER: Breaking Down Barriers begins by teaching students how to debate without theory. So, this lecture describes how to construct an affirmative and negative case with three simple arguments and no theory. Students learn how to construct full affirmative cases with significance, inherency, and solvency and negative disadvantages with links and impacts later. If you want to include these theory elements, just add them to the lecture.

LECTURE:

I. HOW TO PREPARE A CASE

A. CHOOSE THREE OR FOUR OF THE BEST PIECES OF LABELED EVIDENCE.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Tell students you chose three pieces of labeled evidence and put it in the order that students now see on the overhead. Use this evidence to construct a case on the overhead projector as you go through each of the following steps.

B. GLUE OR TAPE THE ARGUMENTS TO PAPER

C. NUMBER THE ARGUMENTS.

D. IMPACT THE ARGUMENTS. How to impact arguments: "Because of (the label or the reason in the evidence), therefore the argument or resolution is true".

WORKING EXAMPLE: Impact the arguments in your overhead case.

E. ADD TRANSITIONS.

ILLUSTRATION: Get five students to volunteer and come to the front of the class. Hand out five slips of paper with a word or phrase to the five students. Tell them to make one sentence connections between their word and the word of the previous person. For example, a student could link her word "dogs" to the previous student's word "cats" by offering the transition, "they fought like cats and dogs". When each has offered their transition--note, without attacking any of the student's transitions specifically, how some of the transitions were better than others.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Tell students to make transitions between the arguments in their cases by using the same effective kinds of connections. Do one or two transitions in the overhead case with student help.

F. WRITE AN INTRODUCTION. An introduction must include an attention getter and a word for word statement of the resolution. The attention getter can include the following:

WORKING EXAMPLE: Give examples specific to the overhead case for each type of attention getter.

1. A startling fact or statistic

2. A philosophy or theme

3. A quotation from a famous person

4. A story or example.

G. WRITE A CONCLUSION. Your conclusion should be short (2 or 3 sentences), tie in with the introduction and urges the judge to vote affirmative or negative.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Have students construct a conclusion for the overhead case.

H. CONSTRUCTING BACKUP BRIEFS/CARDS. Use the evidence that you did not use in your case, for backup briefs/cards. Organize the evidence so that you have briefs/cards that will defend your case arguments and that will answer negative case arguments you predict opponents will present.

WORKING EXAMPLE: On the overhead projector, show students transparencies with example outlines of briefs to backup affirmative case arguments and to attack negative case arguments.

ACTIVITY: Give students eight pieces of labeled evidence and fifteen minutes to construct a case and backup briefs. Collect these cases, critique them outside of class, then return them at a later class.

CLASS REVIEW:

1. Before each argument tag what do you need to include? (a number!)

2. How do you impact an argument?

3. What must an introduction include?

4. What are four kinds of an attention getter?

5. What should a conclusion include?

ASSIGNMENT HANDOUT: HANDOUT ASSIGNMENT FOR WRITING AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE CASES. (See extra class materials--handouts)

DAY 6: PRACTICE PRESENTING CASES

LECTURE:

I. SPEAKING

A. DEAL WITH YOUR NERVOUSNESS BY USING YOUR ENERGY THE RIGHT WAY.

STORY: Tell a story when you or others were very nervous. Tell them how you overcame your nervousness. Remind them that no one is perfect and that this is a chance to practice--not to be perfect. Practicing is a chance to become better.

B. DELIVER WITH EXCITEMENT AND ENERGY.

EXAMPLE: Give examples of dry delivery versus energetic delivery.

SPECIAL NOTE: Encourage them. Tell them they can do it and then get them doing the activity noted below. I would avoid going into any more detail than the above lecture. I have found that telling them what they should and should not do does not help--they only get more nervous. Get them delivering their cases as soon as possible and then critique where necessary.

C. TIPS FOR PRESENTING CASES

WORKING EXAMPLE: For each of the following, have a student come to the front and have them present the portion of the case noted. Offer comments and have them redo it so students can see how to do it properly.

1. Read intro with enthusiasm

2. Read numbers and tags so that they stand out

3. Reading the source citations—explain what they need to read (all of the citation? Just the name and date?)

4. Emphasize key lines in evidence—this will take practice

5. Looking at the judges more when reading impacts and transitions

6. Conclusion—make a persuasive appeal.

D. MAKING CRITIQUES POSITIVE

WORKING EXAMPLE: Show a videotape of a mini-debate case presentation or have an experience debater present a mini-debate case. For each of the following three points you and students should offer examples. Comment on student critiques. Are they specific? Are they positive? Do they offer suggestions for improvement or just statements of how the speaker failed?

1. State one good point about the speaker

2. Offer one suggestion for improvement

3. Make your comments specific

ACTIVITY: Students should break into groups of three to five people. Each student should present one of his or her cases and then each person in the group should offer one good point and one suggestion for improvement. Monitor the groups and make sure that students offer specific suggestions and that their critiques are encouraging. Chime in with positive comments on student's good points and how students can improve. Keep the practice positive.

ACTIVITY: Assist students in constructing their affirmative and negative cases. Expect students to overload you with many questions. If you can, have experienced debaters help you--especially if you have a large class.

SIGN-UP: Students should sign up for the day that they want to present their affirmative or negative mini-debate case. No more than 8 students should sign-up for one 50 minute class period.

COLLECT COPIES OF STUDENTS' AFFIRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE CASES. Students should keep their original for class practice and presentations.

DAY 7: EXAMPLE MINI-DEBATE

CLASS PRESENTATION: Two experienced debaters on your team should present a very slow mini-debate for the class. Ask students to take notes, though I suggest that you skip flowing instructions and just let them take notes on whatever they think is important. At the end of the debate, have a question and answer session.

DAY 8 AND 9: DELIVER CASES

PRESENTATIONS: Students should present one of their cases. Critique their speeches using the critique sheets included in the extra materials sections. After each presentation--students should offer at least two positive comments and two suggestions for improvement.

DAY 10: RESPONDING TO ARGUMENTS

MATERIALS:

1. Overhead projector.

2. Example arguments on a transparency that students can easily refute and counterarguments on a transparency that clash with those arguments.

3. Have a case with two arguments that you are certain students have briefs against--i.e., you have seen students with the opposing briefs.

OBJECTIVES (DAY 10, CLASHING):

1. Students should prepare responses to arguments

2. Students should flow arguments.

3. Students should respond to arguments.

ACTIVITY: Play the "I disagree game". Have students split into two groups, go to sides of the room, line up single file and face each other. Start by having the first student in one of the two lines (line A) make an argument. On the other side (line B), the first student should say, "I disagree because . . .", and should complete the sentence. The second person in line A should make an argument and the second person in the line B should respond with, "I disagree because . . ." and the process continues until everyone has made an argument. Then, reverse roles and have line B make arguments and line B make responses.

LECTURE:

I. HOW TO RESPOND TO ARGUMENTS

A. TO CLASH YOU NEED TO REFUTE AND COUNTERARGUE

WORKING EXAMPLE: Show students example arguments on the overhead.

1. TO REFUTE, YOU EXPOSE FLAWS IN YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Refute one of the overhead arguments. Have students refute the other arguments.

2. TO COUNTERARGUE, YOU PRESENT A DOCUMENTED POINT THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT

WORKING EXAMPLE: Present a counterargument against one of the overhead arguments.

3. REFUTATION AND COUNTERARGUMENTATION SHOULD GO HAND IN HAND.

The flaw you expose in your opponent's argument should not be a flaw in your argument.

EXAMPLE: If you argue that their evidence is outdated, your evidence should have up-to-date evidence.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Point out how your counterargument does not suffer from the same flaw you pointed out in your refutation argument.

ACTIVITY: Give students eight minutes to prepare counterarguments against the other arguments on the overhead projector. Tell them that they can makeup evidence for this one activity.

ACTIVITY: Present three arguments with obvious flaws on the overhead that you know students have briefs or cards against. Give them ten minutes to prepare a refutation and counterargument against each of the arguments using their briefs or cards. Choose students to present responses. Comment on their responses. Are they refuting and counterarguing? Is their refutation and counterargument persuasive? Does their counterargument suffer from the same flaw they claim exists in the overhead argument?

B. WHEN DO I REFUTE AND ARGUE?

When you debate, you will need to refute, argue, and make specific arguments during specific speeches. Here is what you do in a debate:

AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE: 2.5 minutes

Present the affirmative case.

CROSS-EXAMINATION: 1 minute

The negative questions the affirmative speaker. (Tell students you will discuss details on cross-examination later.)

NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE: 4 minutes

Present the negative case and attack the affirmative case arguments.

CROSS-EXAMINATION: 1 minute

The affirmative questions the negative speaker.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL: 3 minutes

Defend the affirmative case and attack the negative case.

NEGATIVE REBUTTAL: 4 minutes

Defend the negative case and reattack the affirmative case.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL: 2.5 minutes

Defend the affirmative case and reattack the negative case.

NOTE: Your students will ask many questions at this point about the general debate process. I suggest that you answer their questions now--even if they are not directly related to speaker duties, refutation, or flowing. If you will cover a subject, like rebuttals or cross-examination, tell them you will answer their question shortly.

C. HOW TO FLOW.

1. WHAT IS FLOWING? Flowing is taking notes of the arguments in a debate.

EXPLANATION: Tell students to take out a piece of paper. As you explain, draw an affirmative case flowsheet on the overhead. Tell students: "To make an affirmative case flowsheet, lay down a piece of paper horizontally. Draw four vertical lines so that there are five columns. Label each of the columns AC, NC, 1AR, NR, and 2AR. This is your affirmative case flowsheet. You use this flowsheet for all arguments directly related to the affirmative case arguments." Tell them to turn the paper over. As you explain, draw a negative case flowsheet on the overhead. Tell students: "To make a negative case flowsheet, draw three vertical lines so that there are four columns. Label each of the columns NC, 1AR, NR, and 2AR. This is your negative case flowsheet. You use this flowsheet for all arguments directly related to the negative case arguments."

NOTE: Students usually confuse the affirmative and negative case flowsheets. Frequently, they think that only the affirmative speaker uses the affirmative flowsheet and the negative speaker uses only the negative flowsheet. If students make statements that demonstrate they do not understand what the purpose of each flowsheet is, correct them. Otherwise, hold off until the three step refutation lectures to fully clarify the role of each flowsheet.

2. WHAT DO I FLOW?

When you flow an argument, write down the label, the source, and the main reasons or facts that the evidence offers in support of the label.

EXAMPLE: Have a student present two documented arguments. Flow the arguments on the overhead. Tell students to space an inch or so after each argument so that they have space for later columns if opponents make many responses.

ACTIVITY: Present two arguments for them to flow. Have two or three students reconstruct the arguments out loud by using their flows. Comment on their flowing skills based on their reconstruction. Collect their flowsheets, evaluate them outside of class, and return them.

CLASS REVIEW

1. What is flowing?

2. What is the affirmative case flowsheet?

3. What is the negative case flowsheet?

DAY 11: 4 STEP REFUTATION

MATERIALS:

1. Two affirmative mini-cases. Be prepared to respond to the case arguments.

2. Prepare one overhead transparency affirmative case flowsheet with two arguments. Be ready to refute and counterargue against the arguments on the first overhead transparency.

OBJECTIVE:

1. Students should use Four-Step refutation.

LECTURE:

I. HOW TO DO 4 STEP REFUTATION

A. THE 4 STEP PROCESS

WORKING EXAMPLE: Present overhead transparency affirmative case flowsheet of arguments. Use the first argument to offer examples of each of the three steps.

STEP ONE: State the opponent’s argument.

STEP TWO: Make a transition statement.

STEP THREE: Make your arguments.

STEP FOUR: Sum up the arguments and transition into the opponent’s next argument.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Now, do a complete 4-Step refutation against the second argument.

B. HOW TO DO 4 STEP WHEN YOU DEBATE

WORKING EXAMPLE: Have a student read a mini-debate case slowly. Interrupt them so that you can make each of the following points.

1. FLOW. Flow your opponent's arguments carefully.

2. THINK UP REFUTATION RESPONSES. As you flow, listen to your opponent's arguments. What flaws do you see in their arguments?

Prepare to present these flaws you see in their arguments by drawing an arrow across from their argument and writing down the flaw.

3. PULL OUT BRIEFS. Pull out briefs that attack the argument. Prepare to present these flaws you see in their arguments by drawing an across from their argument and writing down the response.

4. NOTE: WRITE DOWN RESPONSES WHEN YOU CAN. Flow your arguments as you flow your opponent's case or when your opponent is finished.

5. USE YOUR FLOWSHEET TO DO YOUR 4 STEP REFUTATION.

ACTIVITY: Have one student read an affirmative case, preferably an experienced student. Tell students to flow the case. Give students ten minutes to prepare to respond to the case using 4-Step refutation. Call on volunteers and then have each student go to the front of the class and do 4-Step refutation. Inevitably, they do not do it correctly. Critique their refutation and make them do it again until they get it right. Encourage students to use accurate, clear, and concise labels, clear 4-Step refutation, and the use of both refutation and counterargumentation. Be sure to point out what students do well in addition to what they need to improve upon.

DAY 12: REBUILDING ARGUMENTS

MATERIALS:

1. An overhead projector.

2. Prepare two overhead transparencies. One with an affirmative case flowsheet with a 1AC argument and 1NC responses. Be prepared to do a rebuttal to rebuild the affirmative argument. The other with a negative case flowsheet with a 1NC case argument and 1AR responses.

OBJECTIVES:

1. Students should identify the four parts of rebuilding arguments.

2. Students should present rebuttal arguments using Four-Step refutation.

LECTURE:

I. HOW TO DO A GOOD REBUTTAL

A. WHAT IS REBUTTAL? Rebuttal occurs when you rebuild your arguments.

B. THE ELEMENTS OF A GOOD REBUTTAL

WORKING EXAMPLE: Show students the overhead transparency with the affirmative case argument and two first negative responses. Use this argument to exemplify each of the following four elements of a good rebuttal.

1. IDENTIFY THE UNTOUCHED PART OF YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT.

2. RESPOND TO YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS.

3. RESUPPORT YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT WITH EXTENSIONS.

4. IDENTIFY WHY YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT.

ACTIVITY: Show students the other overhead transparency with the negative case argument and two first affirmative rebuttal responses. Give them ten minutes to create rebuttal arguments to rebuild the original negative argument that include all four elements. Continue this activity after you complete subpoint C of the notes.

C. HOW TO DO 4 STEP REFUTATION WHEN YOU REBUTTAL

State the original argument, state the negative responses and then present your rebuttal arguments. The key is to spend as little time as possible restating your opponent's arguments and to maximize the time you spend on your arguments.

EXAMPLE: Do 4 Step Refutation using the rebuttal arguments you constructed on the overhead projector.

ACTIVITY: Choose students to present their rebuttal arguments. Critique their presentations. Point out what they are doing well and what they can improve upon.

DAY 13-14: REFUTATION AND REBUTTAL DEBATES

ACTIVITY: One student presents a point in an affirmative case, the other students presents one point in his/her negative case and attacks the one point in the affirmative case. Then, the first student defends his/her affirmative point and attacks the negative case point. The negative speaker then defends his/her negative point.

NOTE: Expect students to ask questions about the negative flowsheet. Answer their questions.

DAY 15: CROSS-EXAMINATION

OBJECTIVES:

1. Students should ask effective questions (criteria given in subpoint B).

2. Students should answer questions effectively (criteria given in subpoint C).

LECTURE:

I. HOW TO DO CROSS-EXAMINATION

A. WHEN DO YOU ASK AND ANSWER? After the first two speeches.

B. WHERE DO YOU CROSS-EXAMINE? Stand up, stand side by side with your opponent, and face the judge--not your opponent.

C. HOW TO QUESTION EFFECTIVELY

1. ASK QUESTIONS--DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS (Give example)

2. DON'T ASK CANNED QUESTIONS--DEVELOP A LINE OF QUESTIONING (Give example)

D. HOW TO ANSWER EFFECTIVELY

1. GIVE CLEAR, SPECIFIC, WELL-SUPPORTED ANSWERS (Give example)

2. DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS EXCEPT TO CLARIFY A QUESTION (Give example)

NOTE: I do not recommend going into any more detail than the above simply because students learn much more by doing cross-examination rather than hearing about it. The cross-examination game will give you plenty of opportunity to offer additional suggestions for effective cross-examination.

ACTIVITY: Play the cross-examination game. To play, divide the class into groups of not more than six. One student begins as the questioner. The other students line up and ready themselves to answer the questioner's questions. An experienced debater or you should evaluate the student's questions and answers to determine if they are effective or ineffective. If the respondent answers the question effectively he or she takes over as the answerer (who goes to the end of the line). If the questioner asks a poor question or makes a statement or is discourteous, he or she goes to the end of the line and the current respondent becomes the questioner. If the respondent answers the question poorly, he or she goes to the end of the line. The questioner should ask questions about arguments or cases that everyone knows about or they should ask about the respondent's case (the respondent should state her or his case to the questioner before being questioned).

DAY 16, 17, 18 AND 19: MINI-DEBATES

MATERIALS:

1. An overhead projector and an overhead transparency with an example posting.

2. Have enough rooms for the mini-debates. The number of rooms you need is (# of students) divided by four. For example, if you have 24 students, you need 24/4 rooms or 6 rooms.

3. Have enough experienced debaters to judge all but one of the mini-debates. You need as many experienced debaters as rooms.

4. Schedule debates carefully over the four day period so that you can grade each student once and preferably twice (once on the affirmative and once on the negative).

IN YOUR ROOM:

Critique the debates that you watch. Use the mini-debate ballot included in the teacher materials section of your lesson plans.

NOTE: Students can complete two debates per 50 minute class session. In each room, during the first 25 minutes, two students debate while the other two watch. Then, during the second 25 minutes, the other two debate while the first watch. Time gets very tight with less than 50 minutes. If you have less than 45 minutes--you will need to have just one debate per day in each room or, better, shorten speaking times.

NOTE: If you cannot get enough rooms or experienced debaters to judge, make appropriate adjustments. Suggestions: Extend the number of debate days; Have students critique themselves; Have afterschool mini-debates; shorten speaking times. I encourage you to give every student a chance to debate at least once.

ON THE FIRST OF THESE TWO DAYS, DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING:

SCHEDULE/POSTINGS: Show them the overhead transparency of an example posting. Explain to them how to read the posting. Tell them they go to the room and debate immediately.

QUESTIONS: Ask students if they have any questions. Answer their questions. Remind them that they will be learning how to debate and so they should not expect perfection or anything near it. Instead, they should just do their best.

NOTE: Watch the time--you need at least 45 minutes for these debates unless you have shortened them.

VALUE LECTURES

VALUE DAY 21/49: ISSUES IN VALUE DEBATE

MATERIALS:

1. An overhead projector would be useful.

OBJECTIVES:

1. Students should identify, define, and give examples of arguments for the four main value issues.

LECTURE:

I. The issues of value debate

WORKING EXAMPLE: Write the Lincoln-Douglas topic on the board or overhead projector. Use the topic to make examples for each of the following points.

A. The key elements of the resolution.

1. The value object. The value object is the subject of the resolution.

EXAMPLE: Point to the value object in the topic.

2. The criteria phrase. The criteria phrase is the word or phrase that describes how to evaluate the value object.

EXAMPLE: Point to the criteria phrase in the topic.

ACTIVITY: List four resolutions. Give students two minutes to identify the value object and criteria phrase in each resolution. Call on students to give answers. Comment on their answers.

B. Affirmatives frequently use value examples. A value example is the affirmative example of the value object.

EXAMPLE: Give examples of value examples for the topic.

C. Affirmatives use value support. Value support shows that the value object or value example supports the criteria phrase.

EXAMPLE: Give examples of value support for the topic.

D. Negatives may argue:

1. that there is no value support for the value object/example.

ACTIVITY: Give students four minutes to make responses to the examples of value support you gave in subpoint C.

2. a value objection against the value object/example. A value objection shows that the value object or value example rejects the criteria phrase.

ACTIVITY: List three potential affirmative cases on the topic. Give students five minutes to make value objections against these cases on the topic. Call on students to give their value objections. Comment on their arguments.

3. that the value example is not topical. A Topicality ARGUMENT ARGUES THAT the value example DOES NOT support the value object.

ACTIVITY: Choose two new value examples that are marginally topical. Give students four minutes to make topicality arguments against the value examples. Call on students to give their topicality arguments. Comment on their arguments.

4. that the value support does not justify the resolution. A Justification ARGUMENT ARGUES THAT the value support does not support the criteria phrase.

EXAMPLE: Give examples of value supports that do not justify the resolution.

E. THE affirmative CAN DEFEND ITS VALUE SUPPORT AND ATTACK NEGATIVE VALUE OBJECTION, TOPICALITY, AND JUSTIFICATION ARGUMENTS.

ACTIVITY: Give students eight minutes to respond to the negative attacks made in the D subpoint of this lecture.

F. AFFIRMATIVES CAN ALSO ARGUE THAT THE NEGATIVE VALUE OBJECTION DOES NOT JUSTIFY REJECTING THE RESOLUTION. AN AFFIRMATIVE JUSTIFICATION ARGUMENT ARGUES THAT THE VALUE OBJECTION DOES NOT REJECT THE CRITERIA PHRASE.

EXAMPLE: Give students an example of a value objection that does not reject the resolution.

CLASS REVIEW:

1. What is a value object, the criteria phrase, and a value example? Give examples of each.

2. What are the four issues of value debate?

3. What is a value support and give an example of one.

4. What is a value objection and give an example of one.

5. What is topicality and what is justification?

VALUE DAY 22/50: MAKING AND DEFENDING A VALUE AFFIRMATIVE CASE

MATERIALS:

1. Overhead projector.

2. Six pieces of evidence that include three criterion and three criterion support pieces of evidence for an affirmative case. Have copies of the six pieces for each student.

3. Prepare an outline of an affirmative case.

OBJECTIVES:

1. Students should construct an affirmative value support including criterion and criterion support.

2. Students should define and give examples of the two elements of value support (criterion and criterion support) and the three elements of criterion (specificity, sets a level, and comparative)

LECTURE:

I. How to make and defend a case.

A. Choose a case and research it.

HINT TO THE STUDENTS: Point out that it is frequently a good idea to choose a value example to reduce potential value objections.

EXPLANATION: Tell the students which case you will develop during the lecture and pass out the evidence.

B. Develop value support.

1. Criterion. A criterion states what must be proven to support the criteria phrase. Make sure that the criterion is specific, sets the level, and is comparative.

EXAMPLE: Give examples using the case evidence you passed out.

2. Criterion support. Criterion support shows that the value object or value example supports the criterion.

EXAMPLE: Give examples using the case evidence you passed out.

ACTIVITY: Give students ten minutes to construct case outlines with the evidence you passed out. Then, call on students to present their case outlines. Comment on their outlines.

C. PREPARE Backup briefs. With briefs/evidence that remain after writing YOUR affirmative case, make backup briefs.

CLASS REVIEW:

1. What are the two elements of value support?

2. What are the three key elements of a criterion?

VALUE DAY 23 TO 26/51 TO 54: RESEARCHING AND PREPARING AFFIRMATIVE CASES

MATERIALS

Bring scissors, tape or glue, and paper.

ACTIVITY: Students should construct their affirmative cases and backup briefs.

VALUE DAY 27/55: MAKING A NEGATIVE CASE

MATERIALS:

1. An overhead projector.

2. An example affirmative case flow written on a transparency.

3. Evidence to construct a value objection (about four to six pieces of evidence).

OBJECTIVE:

1. Students should prepare effective negative cases against affirmative value cases, including building counter-criteria and value objections and attacks against criterion and criterion support.

LECTURE:

I. Preparing to respond to value support

A. Develop a countercriterion. Make sure it is specific, sets a level, and is comparative.

B. Develop a value objection. Include:

WORKING EXAMPLE: Tell students the kind of value objection that you want to construct. As you go through the following four points, construct a value objection.

1. a title. A title is the main point of the value objection.

2. links. Links show that the value object/example meets or harms a goal.

3. impacts. Impacts show that meeting or harming the goal meets the countercriterion.

4. if you want, a brink. A brink shows that we desperately need to meet or avoid a goal.

ACTIVITY: Pass out evidence. Tell students to use the evidence to construct value objections outlines. Call on students to present their value objection outlines. Comment on their answers.

C. The kinds of arguments to make against value support:

WORKING EXAMPLE: Present a case on the overhead that includes a full value support. Then as you go through each of the following five kinds of arguments, have the students offer examples of each kind of response that they could use to respond to the case

1. The criterion is not good.

2. The criterion is bad.

3. The criterion is not important.

4. The value example/object does not support the criterion.

5. The value example/object actually rejects the criterion.

VALUE DAY 28 TO 30/55 TO 56: PREPARE NEGATIVE CASES

ACTIVITY: Work on negative value objections and case attacks.

VALUE DAY 31/58: LAST MINUTE AFFIRMATIVE CASE WORK

ACTIVITY: Give students the class time to make last minute changes to their affirmative case and backup briefs.

NOTICE: Collect affirmative cases and backup briefs.

VALUE DAY 32/59: WHAT TO DO IN A LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE

PRESENTATION: Have experienced debaters give a short version of a Lincoln-Douglas debate with the following times: 1AC: 3 MINUTES; CROSS-EXAMINATION: 1 MINUTE; NC: 5 MINUTES; CROSS-EXAMINATION: 1 MINUTE; 1AR: 3 MINUTES; NR: 4 MINUTES; 2AR: 3 MINUTES. NOTE: Tell these debaters to go very slow.

BEFORE THE DEBATE:

1. Before the debate, tell students how to construct L-D flowsheets. Draw flowsheets on the board.

2. Tell students to flow the debate.

DURING THE DEBATE:

1. State the order of the speeches and where to flow the speeches. For example, "This next speaker is the first affirmative rebuttal. You flow this speaker in the 1AR flow column (point to the column on the board).

2. Describe what the speakers are doing during the debate. For example, "Note the affirmative flows and prepares during the negative rebuttal," and "Note how the 1AR both attacked the negative value objection and rebuilt her case."

3. Answer the many questions that students ask. Let the debaters answer questions too.