1 / 15

Fortbildungsveranstaltung Debating: Sprachpraxis, Methoden, Internationalität

Fortbildungsveranstaltung Debating: Sprachpraxis, Methoden, Internationalität 3. September 2012, Paul- Natorp -Schule, Berlin Christopher Sanchez sanchez@schoolsdebate.de Vorstellung Debating Society Germany e.V. WSDC-Format Praktische Anwendung von Debating in AG-Form oder im Unterricht

lavada
Download Presentation

Fortbildungsveranstaltung Debating: Sprachpraxis, Methoden, Internationalität

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fortbildungsveranstaltung • Debating: Sprachpraxis, Methoden, Internationalität • 3. September 2012, Paul-Natorp-Schule, Berlin • Christopher Sanchez • sanchez@schoolsdebate.de • Vorstellung • Debating Society Germany e.V. • WSDC-Format • Praktische Anwendung von Debating in AG-Form oder im Unterricht • WSDC 2016 in Berlin

  2. Debating Society Germany e.V. • Schirmorganisation für Debating an Schulen in Deutschland • Vereinssitz: Stuttgart • Vorstand: • David Whitehead (1. Vorsitzender) • Christopher Sanchez (2. Vorsitzender) • Tanja Ferraro-Wolf (Kassiererin, Konstanz) • Amelie Schreier (Schriftführerin, Tübingen) • Schirmherr: • Britische Botschaft in Berlin (Simon McDonald)

  3. Debating Society Germany e.V. • Debating: • zwei Teams à drei Personen • Proposition vs Opposition • „Thishousewouldbanbeautycontests“ • Prepared oder Impromptu Debate • Sprechzeit: 8 Minuten pro Sprecher, Dauer der Debatte: 1h 15 • Bewertungskriterien • („World Schools Standard“): • Stil, Inhalt, Strategie • drei bis neun Juroren

  4. Debating Society Germany e.V. • Streitthemen („Motions“) • Bereiche: Politik, Soziales, Kultur, Umwelt, Wirtschaft, Recht, Ethik • Beispiele: • TH would lower the voting age in Germany to 14 • THBT free trade is good for the developing world • THBT autocracy is doomed in the age of Facebook

  5. Debating Society Germany e.V. • Wettbewerbe zwischen Schulen • Junior League (Klassen 8/9) • ganzjährig • Regionen: • BaWü • Sachsen • 20/6 Teams • Senior League (ab Klasse 10) • ganzjährig • Regionen: • BaWü/Hessen/Bayern • Sachsen • Berlin • 34/10/12 Teams • Ziel: fünf bis sechs Schulen je Bundesland

  6. Debating Society Germany e.V. • German Schools Debating Championships • alternierend in Stuttgart/Dresden/ Berlin • alle deutschen Teams • Dauer: vier Tage • EurOpen (internationales Turnier) • in Stuttgart • seit 1996 • 40 Teams (davon 25 international) • Dauer: eine Woche

  7. Debating Society Germany e.V. • Internationale Teilnahmen • WSDC (World Schools Debating Championships) • Heart of Europe (CZE) • Slovenian Debating Weekend • EurAsians (TUR) • NorAms (North Americans) (CAN) • PanAms (Pan Americans) • Minsk Open Spring Tournament (BEL) • Macedonian Open (MAC) • Slovakian Debating Championship (SLV) • IDEA Youth Forum (alternierend) • … • … 2009 Athen, Griechenland 2010 Doha, Katar 2011 Dundee, Schottland 2012 Kapstadt, Südafrika

  8. Debating Society Germany e.V. Warum Debating fördern?  Schlüsselkompetenzen in Studium und Beruf

  9. Debating Society Germany e.V.

  10. Debating Society Germany e.V.

  11. Practice 1 IF I RULED THE WORLD „Mynameis X, andif I ruledtheworld, I‘d…“ Practice 2 The WHY game Onepersonisstanding in fromtoftheaudienceandmakeshisfirststatement, forexample: „I believeweshouldclose all zoos“. The audienceasks „WHY?“. The speakerhastoanswerthequestion, untilthisanswerisfacedwiththenextquestion: „WHY?“. Thereareasmanyquestionsasthespeakercananswer. Debating Society Germany e.V.

  12. Practice 3 MAD DISCUSSION Pairs ofspeakersreceive a randomwordeach. Todetermine a winnerofthefollowingdebatebetweenthetwo, one must bemoreconvincingthantheother on whyhiswordhashad a moreimportantimpact on theworld. • Practice 4 • REBUTTAL PRACTICE • Onepersongives a 2-3 minutespeech on • re-introducingthedeathpenaltyas a deterrent. • introducingschooluniforms • - makingdebatingcompulsory in schools • After thespeech, 4 membersareaskedtogiveonelineofattack per person. The fifthperson sums up all thepointsaspartof a rebuttalspeech. Getintofourgroupsofapprox. 6 people. Debating Society Germany e.V.

  13. Practice 5 ALLEY DEBATE Group 1: Youhavefound a pursefullofmoney. Side PROP wouldliketogiveittothepolice, whereasside OPP wantstokeep it. Exchange oneargument per person. Group 2: Yourchildwantsmoreallowance. Side PROP supportstheidea, whereasside OPP hastocontradict. Exchange oneargument per person. • Practice 6 • FOUR-STEP REFUTAION • Use the following phrases: • They say... • We disagree... • because... (insert refutation) • therefore… Debating Society Germany e.V.

  14. Debating Society Germany e.V.

  15. Judging • Did the speaker have a convincing and persuasive appearance? • Did the debater make appropriate use of the palm cards or sheets (did they present the argument or read out the argument?) • Did I like to listen to him/her? • Was I able to follow? • Did the speaker make it easy to follow (with sign-posting, clear voice, gestures and facial expressions, adequate speed and use of vocabulary)? • Did the speaker deal with POIs in a polite but persuasive manner? Debating Society Germany e.V.

More Related