Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Justice by Michael Sandel--thought provoking and great for debaters
from Michael Sandel--Justice
The principle of utility tells us to do whatever is necessary to minimize pain and unhappiness, but pain and unhappiness have many sources. There are times when telling people the truth would make them very unhappy. Should you lie to a person whenever lying is the only way to spare his or her feelings and prevent unhappiness?
The principle of utility says that we should always maximize happiness. It does not matter whether we are deciding on the laws of our country as citizens and officials, or whether we are deciding what to do in our own private lives. In every possible case, the principle of utility tells us to choose the course of action that will produce the greatest amount of happiness. Is that right?
Episode 1 – Discussion Guide (Beginner)
Welcome to the study of Justice!
Let’s start with utilitarianism. According to the principle of utility, we should always do whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness and whatever is necessary to prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness. But is that right? Should you always try to maximize happiness? Should you always do whatever is necessary to minimize unhappiness?- There are times when the only way to prevent harm to a large number of people is to harm a smaller number of people. Is it always permissible to harm a smaller number in order to prevent harm to a large number?
- Suppose you are driving through a narrow tunnel and a worker falls onto the road in front of you. There is not enough time for you to stop. If you keep straight, you will hit the worker and kill him, but if you swerve left into oncoming traffic, you will collide with a school bus and kill at least five children. What’s the right thing to do? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?
- Ten thousand innocent civilians live next to a munitions factory in a country at war. If you bomb the factory, all of them will die. If you don’t bomb the factory, it will be used to produce bombs that will be dropped on fifty thousand innocent civilians in another country. What’s the right thing to do?
- Suppose a man has planted a bomb in New York City, and it will explode in twenty-four hours unless the police are able to find it. Should it be legal for the police to use torture to extract information from the suspected bomber?
- Now suppose the man who has planted the bomb will not reveal the location unless an innocent member of his family is tortured. Should it be legal for the police to torture innocent people, if that is truly the only way to discover the location of a large bomb?
The principle of utility tells us to do whatever is necessary to minimize pain and unhappiness, but pain and unhappiness have many sources. There are times when telling people the truth would make them very unhappy. Should you lie to a person whenever lying is the only way to spare his or her feelings and prevent unhappiness?
- Suppose your friend likes to sing in the shower, and he thinks he is an excellent singer. In fact, however, he sounds truly awful. Should you tell him the truth, even if it will ruin his self-confidence? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?
- Suppose a man has been missing for many years, and you have just learned that he is dead. Should you tell the man’s father, even if it will crush his hopes and send him into despair? Does utilitarianism have the right answer?
- If you think it would be wrong to lie in one or both of these cases, do you think there is sometimes a moral duty to tell the truth despite the consequences? Does this duty mean that the principle of utility is mistaken?
The principle of utility says that we should always maximize happiness. It does not matter whether we are deciding on the laws of our country as citizens and officials, or whether we are deciding what to do in our own private lives. In every possible case, the principle of utility tells us to choose the course of action that will produce the greatest amount of happiness. Is that right?
- here are many needy people in the world who could benefit from your help. If you were to volunteer one evening per week, you could reduce need and thereby increase the sum of happiness. But if you were to volunteer all of your evenings, then you could produce even more happiness. Should you volunteer all of your spare time to helping the needy? Would it be wrong not to do so?
- There are many poor people in the world who lack the money to buy food, clothing, shelter, and medicine. If you were to donate $100 to a charity such as Oxfam, then some of these people would get what they desperately need and you would thereby increase happiness. But if you were to donate all of your spare income each month, then even more people would get what they desperately need and you would produce even more happiness. Should you donate all of your spare income to charities such as Oxfam? Would it be wrong not to do so?
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Friday, June 21, 2013
Value debates
Value debates typically have motions that require TH regrets/celebrates something--portrayal of women in media, the treatment of non-combatants at Guantanimo bay. These debates are talking about something that has occurred--so the debate becomes a strange one. Judging it is very difficult as there really is no harm/model requirement so the standard format is gone. In it's place, we have a situation where the debate becomes what the debaters set it up as. What are the grading criteria--who wins the debate and why?
In the debate, TH regrets the portrayal of women in the media--the three key words--women, portrayal, and media are the parameters of the whole debate. An argument must be formulated with those three elements involved--but the terms is indicative of what course your argument should take--women, portrayal, and media isn't that synonymous with stereotypes. Thus, your first argument could be that media creates stereotypes that are poor actual descriptions of what women can do. For example, often in television, women are portrayed as the weaker sex when in reality, that may not be true. This leads to--and that is the key, you establish the parameters then for further discussion, you set the argument's context.
As a judge, the first argument becomes the first indicator of who is winning or losing the debate and the view can also be holistic as in who makes the more appropriate case for their side. Depending if it's All-asians, the opposition should counter and provide justification--while in Worlds, you can just say contrary things to the gov without offering your side. To be truly effective in a value debate, you should be offering reasons why your side is stronger.
Overall, what helps the judge is clear burdens of proof showing that your side is fully aware of the value setting as well as being able to engage and use logical argumentation to show why you win.
In the debate, TH regrets the portrayal of women in the media--the three key words--women, portrayal, and media are the parameters of the whole debate. An argument must be formulated with those three elements involved--but the terms is indicative of what course your argument should take--women, portrayal, and media isn't that synonymous with stereotypes. Thus, your first argument could be that media creates stereotypes that are poor actual descriptions of what women can do. For example, often in television, women are portrayed as the weaker sex when in reality, that may not be true. This leads to--and that is the key, you establish the parameters then for further discussion, you set the argument's context.
As a judge, the first argument becomes the first indicator of who is winning or losing the debate and the view can also be holistic as in who makes the more appropriate case for their side. Depending if it's All-asians, the opposition should counter and provide justification--while in Worlds, you can just say contrary things to the gov without offering your side. To be truly effective in a value debate, you should be offering reasons why your side is stronger.
Overall, what helps the judge is clear burdens of proof showing that your side is fully aware of the value setting as well as being able to engage and use logical argumentation to show why you win.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Ebook on How to Debate--teacher and student versions Special Price
Based on over 16 plus years of coaching and teaching, this easy to use manual will help the teacher teach debate and help the debater become a better debater. The teacher's manual and student book accesses videos for easy learning and examples. The student book has worksheets that can be printed, the teacher's has answers. The cost is nominal--for both student and teacher books $29.99 USD or 999 Thai Baht. For just the teachers, 600 Thai Baht.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Teaching Debate - Speaking Drills
it will be sent via email to you and when we update it, we update your copy for one year.
Nearly every page has clear diagrams and pictures to help with your understanding. Difficult topics have a video link for added understanding. Hawaii Tennis Pro Tennis for everyone. Covers mental toughness, match preparation, practice techniques to work on the shot and shot selections
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
For US$29.99 How to Play SIngles
Nearly every page has clear diagrams and pictures to help with your understanding. Difficult topics have a video link for added understanding. Hawaii Tennis Pro Tennis for everyone. Covers mental toughness, match preparation, practice techniques to work on the shot and shot selections