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. 

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.

debate books

Teacher's book $19.99 USD Teacher plus Student $29.99 USD Student only $15.99 USD

Ebook on Debate

We're writing an ebook on debate and offering a pre-order discount of 200 baht. Your pre-order price is 499 baht  

The book will cover debating, the format, and HOW TO COACH IT as well as how to make cases from the simple principle case converting an illegal into a legal, such as legalize gambling, to comparative cases such as economics vs environment, to value judgement cases TH regrets the effect of media on men, and entwine principle and practical motions.  It will show you how to make proper rebuttals as well as how to research and make cases.  There will also be instruction videos to help make you a better judge and show you the differences between World School and All Asians.

Order today for the discount--publishing date September 31, 2012 just in time for Eu -Thailand. 499 baht

How to Flow World Schools

HUDL 2012: How to Flow World Schools debate for Beginners from Steve Llano on Vimeo.

LFA: Flowing, or, Note-taking for Debaters

Black OPS: Use of Mercenaries by US to achieve it's objectives

Lecture - Debating the Free Market Rhydian Morgan

Lecture - Opposition in Worlds Format

World Schools Debate 2: Speaker Roles

Questions to ask debaters as a coach

Argumentation

1.         The Pm outlines a case where they will bomb Iran when they fail an inspection of their nuclear facilities.  What are problems with this?

2.       The POI Is given that don’t you think bombing Iran without a UNSC, United Nations Security Council approval an act of war?  What is your response?

3.       TH regrets the media in their portrayal of women.   What are positive statements about this?

4.       On the motion, THW prioritize education over infrastructure, what are the key issues?

5.       The government team makes a model to legalize prostitution.

a.       Step 1.  There will be a zone of the city for legal prostitution.

                                                               i.      All prostitutes will be licensed—there will be health checks given monthly.

                                                             ii.      Anyone failing a health check will receive appropriate treatment.

b.      Step 2.  The national police force will regulate the area.

c.       Step 3.  Overseeing the police force will be the judicial system.

d.      Step 4.  Clients will be checked for their health.

e.      Step 5.  All tax money will go to education.

What are problems with this?

How to debate a Regrets Motion

-->
When debating a regrets motion, such as Th regrets the portrayal of women in media.
The first thing you must do is:
1. Answer the question directly.
The challenge is what does Regret means and what does Portrayal mean? When we think of regret, we think of it means it’s a bad thing for example in a Regretting motion—what is opposite of regret—celebrate/enjoy/embrace people who thinks it’s good and thus you have what the government will be doing, you’ll be saying that the media portrayal of women is a bad thing—that you regret it. Portrayal means the image that is being shown.
Do you have to have a policy—not necessarily—but you could.
Burden—judge needs markers to go by, these are the things that must be connected to the motion and it sets the ground for the judge, this is the debate these are the boundaries.
Step by step
a. Problem/content—logical.
a. Gender stereotype in television
b. Define the problem
b. Policy or solution—ideally, we would like acceptance of all kinds of people.
c. Burden—why portrayal has been harmful—regret it. While opp shows how it’s been beneficial.
a. Regret vindicative women, rich beautiful women, etc.
d. Substantive—two general markers
a. Principle to go by—more important
i. Everytime gender portrayal occurs, it’s influences each generation and hampers change
ii. Bad because people are stuck with traditional gender stereotypes and can’t escape.
iii. Two important questions
1. Why
2. So what?
iv. Example—why are stereotypes bad? hurt women why? because gender stereotypes can’t change
so what?—women are weak.
How does this make a difference reflects the way women are treated.
b. Practical. Gender stereotypes create positive role models for people.
As opposition
c. Stereotype, murder is very negative. So is stereotype.
d. Policy opposition—show we enjoy gender stereotypes that we can talk about being fat, we embrace it and celebrate our differences.

Note Taking in Debate Matches

Have your students listen to a debate and have them take notes, teach them how to take notes, walk through the debate and examine their notes.   Common errors are there is no template before they start.  For example, you know for the PM speech, the format is background, definitions, harms, model/principle, and advantages.  Divide the paper in half so they can take notes and have an area to write a short reply.

Secondary issues are they take notes trying to write down every word and get bogged down and cannot complete the note taking.  Teach them to do shorthand.  Finally, they must write down notes on the POI's.  The POI's don't enter the debate until they're brought up by the next speaker. 

After you examine their notes, teach them to write down quick replies in the sidebars on their sheets to help them get ready for their speeches.



this sample debate pm speech is excellent as it's very slow and clear along with good structure.

Three levels to a rebuttal

What are the three levels to a rebuttal?  The first level is cannot.  The second level is should not.  The third level is even if.   What does this mean?  The first level is the practical level, you cannot do this because it's not feasible, it's not cost effective, or it's not possible due to money.  The second level is the principle level, you should not do this because it's not a good thing, not a moral thing, or it's goes against the society/culture.  The final level the even if--these are the disadvantages that occur because of the model or principle.  Whenever you are opposition, you have an advantage because there normally are reasons why something has not been done.  Keep the structure and run the three level of argumentation in the rebuttal.

Team Prepping

One of the most important elements for debaters is current events and a working knowledge of the world.  This is to address the impromptu motions.  Highly encourage your students to read the www.bangkokpost.com, bbc.com, or cnn.com.  These websites have highlights, but the language although difficult is very consistent and helps improve their vocabulary.


Secondly, have them get used to using http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_index.php for background information.  Some coaches disagree with this, but to be fair, it's a good resource with pros and cons allowing the students to have self-expression and to build on it.  The topics don't have to match exactly.  For example, if the topic is to invade Korea, but the closest topic to it is to invade Afghanistan--the issues are still the same--sovereignty, economic impact, political repercussions, and significance.  This is only a starting point.  You use Google to finalize your information and get your statistics.  This is easier than having your student come up with their own ideas initially. 


Thirdly, after the students have written the shell of the case--harm, principle/model, and advantages.  The team brainstorms and addresses it.  This is huge because with the greater circle of viewpoints, the case can become more well-rounded.


Finally, the team must debate it to see how the debate flows.  After the debate, you go through and outline the key players, the issues, how the arguments evolve, and then, discuss how you want to make the debate go.  Lastly, the students then go through and write out their speeches.  The PM speech will be rock solid and set.  The LO will write down his possible arguments and the tie-ins with the DLO while the whip will have an idea of the possible issues to be discussed, the clashes.   The DPM will have their arguments and expansions of the model or principle with a list of possible rebuttals.  This preparation allows for the students to practice the delivery on their speeches. 


If you do not pre-write and debate the motions before hand, you will not beat a well-prepared team.

the other day during practice, an interesting pattern started to arise.  the pm would give a speech, the LO did her job and rebutted and proceeded to argue.  The DPM did likewise, but the DLO came up and did the rebuts and argued, but didn't really go back and rebuild the LO's case.  And it became apparent, we were doing 6 individual speeches, and not one cohesive extended debate.  the LO would rebut and argue, the DPM would rebut the previous arguments and then, proceed to new arguments without regard to the LO's rebuttals on the PM.  It's important to remind your debaters to stay focused on the global aspect of the debate as opposed to the micro, where it's all about the previous speaker.

Argument Format

Argument
I.  State the argument
a.  Premise--> conclusion
b.  Principle--underlying argument


II.  Nature/principle
a.  How it is/works
b.  Actors
a.  actors interests
1.  opposing interests
2.  clash of interests
III.  Bias characteristics
a.  reasons why you are right
IV. Practical Application
1.  example of how it works
2.  or explain how principle works in real life
3.  two sides of the coins/ even if argument
a.  consequence if you do
b. consequence if you do not.
V.  Linking
a.  reverse explanation

japan vs thailand oral adjudication

THB: UPE is a misallocation of funds

LO Shell

I. Stance
a.  Motion--argue definitions, scope.
1)  attack harm:
a)  no harm, thus no reason to adopt gov.
b)  harm is being solved  by status quo--no reason to adopt the govt.
c)  harm is present and is not being solved by govt case, no reason to adopt the govt case.
2)  attack the model/principle

  Rebuttals format
a. principle
b.  Practical
c.  even if.  how it will work short/long
 split
Opp case presentation:
a.  arguments

PM Speech General Shell

I.  Introduction
    a.  background  (where, when)
     b.  context
      c.  definition key terms

II.  Problem
a.  dire need (why now)
b.  harms
    1.  significance
        a.  quantity
              1.  life
               2.  rights autonomy
              
         b.  quality --standard of living
    2.  inherent barrier --problem in the status quo that cannot be solved by the status quo.  can be attitude.



III.  solution
a.  model
b.  mechanism
1.  who, when
2.  why
3.  how
split--say what the second/third speaker is going to say

IV.  arguments
1.  why
2.  how
V summary

Ireland vs Singapore Secession Debate Commentary

The comment was made that this topic was slightly favoring the opposition.  the key will be as you watch the videos--what are the key issues, where are they engaging, and what is the larger picture.  World schools is often more about the larger principle issue and not so much the substantive or practical application.  The judges favor manner/style vs content/matter also the speech pattern is slower and more refined.  As you watch the video, analyze what are the key issues and how are they being addressed.  This case would be difficult for the govt to win even in an all-asians setting