1 / 23

XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010

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

shaman
Download Presentation

XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. 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. XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010 Workshop: Judging Debates! April 29, 2010 Universidad Casa Grande

  2. Today’s Tasks #1 (45 min.) Reflect on IDGE debate issues • Debate type • Judges • Case development criteria and ballot #2 (60 min) Mini-Debate: Practice using case development criteria #3 (60 min) Judging a debate or attend IDGE meeting

  3. What is a debate? Debate is the foundation of democracy. The purpose is to persuade. In an IDGE debate two sides (negative and affirmative) speak alternately for and against a resolution based on an issue.

  4. Task #1 IDGE Debate issues • What kind of debate format should IDGE use – Policy (cross-examination) or an IDGE adapted version? • What criteria should be used when selecting Tournament judges? • Would Argument/Rebuttal section of debate be clarified by using THISS?

  5. Task #1 Input based on… • Childress, R. (2009) The Super-Novice File: A Guide to Entry Level Policy Debate

  6. Question #1 IDGE Debate format

  7. Question #2 Criteria for selecting tournament judges There are many types of judges, but the most common types of judges in Missouri are… • lay judges • current varsity debaters/recently graduated high school debaters, • former debaters, • coaches

  8. Question #2 - Judges

  9. Question #3 – Building the Affirmative Case With policy debate, the foundation for the affirmative team is the affirmative case. If debating on the affirmative side, you must have a strong, well-developed case with evidence to support your claims. You must fulfill ALL of the following 5 criteria to win.

  10. Case development criteria: Thiss

  11. Winning a Debate – the case should do the following… Affirmative has the burden of the proof. It must prove ALL of the following. • 1. That a change is necessary (Harm, Inherency, Significance) • 2. That the proposed change is the best solution (Topicality + above) • 3. That the change will solve the problem (Solvency)

  12. Winning a debate (cont.) Negative has to prove ONE of the following (or argue convincing against ONE THISS) • 1. That the change is not necessary – a problem does not exist. • 2. A problem exists, but there is a better solution. • 3. That the change will not solve the problem.

  13. Task #1 – Debate issues (30 min.) Group work • Divide into 2 groups • Answer the 3 questions and report • What debate format should IDGE use? • What criteria should be used when selecting Tournament judges? • Would the ballot criteria for Argumentation and Refutation be improved by adding THISS? Propose revisions be for “Adequate Argumentation.”

  14. Task 2 – Mini Debate Same groups – Draw for negative and affirmative positions Case outline: • Review sources for quality, arguments and evidence • Write case outlines thinking about THISS Debate - Raffle for who debates Discuss judging criteria using THISS

  15. Task 2 – Criteria for good sources • Relevant • Recent • Reliable (accurate) – respected newspaper, magazine, expert • Representative (should have both sides of an issue)

  16. Problem A question Define issues Write debate resolution Ss sneak cell phones to school Should students bring cell phones to school? Individual good (like it, useful) versus common good (courteous, focused class) Schools should permit students to bring cell phones. Where do you begin?

  17. DEBATE Practice • Resolution: Schools should permit students to bring cell phones to school.

  18. Debate positions Affirmative Negative

  19. Aff 1 Introduce resolution Define term: permit List 2 Aff arguments Defend Arg 1 using evidence Concluding statement Aff 2 Restate arguments Present Arg 2 Summarize Aff position indicating why it is better than the Neg case Concluding statement Organization: constructive speechAff proves resolution will solve problem

  20. Neg 1 State negative position Definition: agree or disagree? List 2 Neg arguments Defend arg 1 with evidence and sources Closing Neg 2 Restate negative postion and arguments Defend Arg 2 with evidence and sources Closes stating why neg position is better than aff postion. Organization: constructive speechNeg proves resolution is false.

  21. Speaker 1 Speaker 2 Summarize own case and arguments Address 1 weakness of opponents’ arguments and/or evidence in order to prove own case is better. Poor evidence = no evidence, unreliable source, outdated Concluding statement Address another weakness Repeat strongest arguments Closing statement indicating why public should support case Organization: Rebuttal (both sides)

  22. Mock debate formatConstructive speeches (10 min.) Aff 1 Constructive speech (90 sec) Cross exam by Neg 2 (60 sec) Neg 1 Constructive speech (90 sec) Cross exam by Aff 2 (60 sec) Aff 2 Constructive speech (90 sec) Cross exam by Neg 1 (60 sec) Neg 2 Constructive speech (90 sec) Cross exam by Aff 1 (60 sec)

  23. Rebuttal (5 min.) Neg 1 Rebuttal (60 sec) Aff 1 Rebuttal (60 sec) Neg 2 Rebuttal (60 sec) Aff 2 Rebuttal (60 sec)

More Related