|
Drugs, Society, and Behavior |
Guidelines for Debates* |
|
|
Before
the debate, make sure you have carefully read all assigned material on both
sides of the issue and that you have done some additional research to
strengthen and back-up your arguments. Remember
this is a group project, which means that you will receive a group grade. It
also means that I will expect the work of the members of each debate team to
be well coordinated. I will look unfavorably upon team presentations in which
members unnecessarily repeat each other's points. To avoid this type of problem,
make sure you meet more than once with the other members of your team in
preparation for the debate. Although
the core issues to be debated are presented in the assigned readings, you
will need to supplement the information supplied there with additional
sources. This will be a good opportunity to become acquainted with resources
available in the library. Each issue will be debated by a panel of four to six students: two (or three) "pro" and two (or three) "con". The Stater. Staters will be primarily responsible for stating the position taken by their group. They will bring up, point by point, the issues inherent in each part of the argument. A prepared written outline may be quite helpful, but direct reading of a prepared statement will not be appropriate. A conversational presentation of the position in the stater's own words will be much more acceptable. The stater will also be responsible for watching the flow of the arguments. The Prover. Provers will be responsible for citing relevant research to back any of the statements given by the stater. They must have intimate knowledge of the empirical content of the positions taken and should understand the research supporting the side chosen. Provers can do well by looking up outside sources in order to strengthen the stater's argument. They can support points by using survey data gathered in class or outside. Any effort (short of murder) is legitimate for generating support for a position. However, the provers will be attacked at some length by the opposition -- so they had better be able to back up their position with supporting data. The prover should be empirical and responsible. The Attacker. Attackers will be responsible for probing the opposite team for weaknesses in their arguments. They may question data, disprove, counter and use any rational method to discredit the opposition's position or data. An appreciation for research design and data analysis may help the attacker. It is also strongly suggested that the attacker be very familiar with the articles and materials being used by the opposing team. Stater's summary. At the end of the debate, staters will summarize, recap, and state which of the points made by their teams can be salvaged (or were left undamaged by the opposing team) to ultimately support their position. At the beginning of each debate we will let the toss of a coin decide which team will begin the debate. A given debate might consist of the following points: · Pro - The pro stater makes his or her points. · Con - The con stater defines his or her counterpoints. · Pro - The pro prover brings his or her evidence. · Con - The con prover delivers his or her data. · Pro - The pro attacker can move in. · Con - The con attacker can respond in kind. · Pro - The pro stater salvages all the arguments left undamaged and makes a summary. · Con - The con stater salvages all arguments left intact and makes a concluding statement. Other team formats are also possible. For example, it would be feasible for the stater and the prover to work together, with each statement being supported by research as it is made. The questioners (pro and con) should restrain themselves until this procedure is over. Each team may lay out its attack in advance. Members should stick as close to their formats as possible unless it becomes cumbersome when they are rebutted. The Audience. The students not involved in a debate are still a part of the situation. They will get points for participation (and it will be noted by the professor). Two kinds of audience participation can be expected: clarification and question. Clarification: If students in the audience are uncertain about a point, counterpoint, interpretation of data, a study, or any other portion of a presentation, they can ask for brief clarification. Whoever is explaining the concept, or other members on the team should clear the problem up for the student as a teacher would do in class. Clarification questions can be asked at any time (interruptions are fine). Question: This kind of audience participation can come after a position is clarified and the research has been presented. Questioning is appropriate when a student is disturbed by an answer or has data to counter or expand upon a position taken by the panel. The panel (pro and con) is primarily responsible for this sort of question and, if possible, the audience should wait and see if the panel will develop the response before they question too deeply. I believe that students learn best by applying their own efforts. I cannot "give" you the kind of knowledge you will obtain from these debates; you must learn these things by thinking and arguing them out for yourselves. There are no correct answers -- no black or white. There are only shades of gray. The important point of these debates is to find out how you view those gray areas. *Excerpts taken from Using Taking Sides in the classroom.
Thje Dushkin Publishing Group: Guilford, CT. 1993
|
