Debate What is Debate? Analyzing The Resolution Forming the Argument Thesis and Contentions Evidence Reasoning Strategies Cross Examination Rebuttals

What is Debate? Structured Argument Concerning a Resolution. Resolution: A statement that expresses a relationship between values or purposes. Two Points of View on A Resolution Affirmative: In favor of the resolution Negative: Opposes the resolution.

Resolved: Public safety comes before the individual's right to bear arms. Affirmative’s thesis: The resolution! Negative’s thesis: The Individual’s right to bear arms Comes before Is equal to Is separate from Public Safety

Analyzing the Resolution What does it mean? Summarize it Rephrase it Break it into phrases Define the key terms Definitions go beyond dictionary definitions Specific issue definitions

Resolved: Public safety comes before the individual's right to bear arms. What does it mean? Regarding guns, the group good comes before private freedoms What are the key terms? Public safety Comes before Individual Right Bear Arms

Forming the Argument Structure is like an essay: Thesis = Your side of the debate Affirmative’s thesis is the resolution Negative’s thesis is a either –Opposite of the resolution –The resolution is not totally correct (Qualification) –The resolution makes a judgment that should not be made. –The two things compared either equal or not comparable. Thesis may not have a complete “so- what/why/because” but it is better if it does.

Contentions Contentions are mini-theses. Why your thesis is correct Statements that prove the thesis Two to four only! Clear debatable statements

Affirmative: Resolved: Public safety comes before the individual's right to bear arms The safety of many is more important that the security of a few. The individual right to bear arms is depriving members of society of their individual rights. The right to bear arms is out of date and is no longer as important as public safety.

Negative: The individual’s right to bear arms is equal to the public’s need for safety Society must strike a balance between public and individual needs. The constitution, unless amended, currently guarantees the right to bear arms and the right of public safety. Prohibitions of any kind have proven to be detrimental to individual rights in the past.

Evidence Proof that your contention is true or correct Facts (weakest form of proof) Statistics Stories and examples Opinions of experts (strongest form of proof) Show how your thesis is consistent with basic human values and needs State – Relate - Restate

Evidence Samples Affirmative: Constitutional rationale for “bear arms.” Gun Death Statistics Stories of those affected by gun deaths Opinions of Law makers, judges, etc. Negative: Constitutional Amendment Process Gun Ownership Statistics Stories of those who needed their guns Opinions of Civil Libertarians, Law Makers, etc.

Reasoning Using evidence to form conclusions Putting evidence together to support contentions Making connections

Reasoning: Generalization Generalization Deduction: General rule applied to specific Induction: A set of examples that come together to form a general rule. Are there enough examples? Are the examples typical? Are there any good counter examples?

Generalization Example Affirmative: Anything we can do to protect people from unnecessary death is a good thing. All countries that have gun control laws have significantly reduced gun related deaths. Negative: Any attempt to subvert the constitution without an amendment is wrong. All attempts at any form of prohibition in the United States have failed.

Reasoning: Statistics A collection of examples based on the scientific method Are there limits to this method? Statistics can be manipulated Statistics must be placed in context Use visuals (graphs, charts, etc.) with statistics

Statistics Example Affirmative: Gun Death Statistics Gun Ownership Statistics Negative: Gun Safety Statistics Numbers of current gun laws on the books

Reasoning: Analogy Analogy Comparison It worked in Peoria, so it will work here. It didn’t work with them, it won’t work with us. Are the two truly similar? Is the comparison good?

Analogy Example Affirmative: Analogy to the control of automobiles Comparison of other countries with gun control laws Negative: Analogy is the success of prohibition of drugs or alcohol. Analogy to countries that do not have good civil rights records.

Reasoning: Cause and Effect A conclusion based on the relationship between two events. “If……then.” What are the possible causes? Causality vs. Sign vs. Coincidence Sign: One event merely accompanies another Coincidence: One event randomly occurred with the other Causality: One event created the other

Cause and Effect Example Affirmative: If guns are removed, there will be fewer gun related deaths. If guns are not removed, further public safety harm will result. Negative: If guns are illegal, then a black market for them will develop to provide criminals with guns. If guns are not removed, we will not threaten our tradition of liberty and civil rights.

Reasoning: Opinion Drawing conclusions because someone who knows what s/he is talking about says so Is the source an expert in this area? Is the source trustworthy? Is the source biased? Do other authorities agree with this source?

Opinion Example Affirmative: Important figures who advocate for gun restrictions. Government officials from countries that have had success with gun control. Negative: Important figures who oppose gun restrictions. People whose lives have been saved by guns.

Affirmative Strategies: Prove the resolution is true Determine the values that are relevant to the resolution.

Affirmative Strategy Example Provide examples of where we have given up our individual rights for the purpose of public safety. Values Involved: Protection/Safety Selfishness Society’s needs vs. individual’s needs Progress and Change

Negative Strategies Prove the resolution is either: Not true at all Not totally true Problematic or impractical

Negative Strategy Example Prove that anything that threatens liberty and the constitution is a step towards a totalitarian government. Values: Liberty Individual Rights Upholding the Constitution Safety Fairness

Cross-Examination: Questions Questions only! Questions can be used to: –Ask for clarification –Prod for weakness in reasoning –Repeat points you missed –Expose poor use of evidence –Expose illogical analysis

Cross-Examination: Goals The Goals of Cross-Examination are: Weaken your opponent’s case by exposing: False arguments Inadequate evidence Internal contradictions Irrelevancies –Evaluating arguments in light of new evidence –Evaluating the impact of an argument (extending and exaggerating) –Exposing lack of attack from opponent –Gaining admissions You cannot do ALL of these – Focus your questioning to achieve a clear purpose then USE the cross-examination answers in your following speeches.

Cross-Examination Question Examples Affirmative: Would you feel safe if your neighbor had a nuclear device? Are guns dangerous? Does the ownership of a gun guarantee safety? Negative: Do you value your constitutional rights? Does the government have the right to tell you can or cannot help your family? Do you think the current war on drugs is succeeding?

Rebuttals Attack: –Anticipate what your opponents thesis and contentions might be and prepare attacks for each one. Defend: –Anticipate how your opponent will attack your thesis and contentions and prepare responses for each attack. Extend: –Finish areas of your constructive speech or further develop and explain your contentions.

Preparing Your Rebuttal “What If…..” Have note cards prepared for both defense and attack. As your opponent uses arguments that you have prepared, pull that note card. Take notes on arguments that you have not anticipated and use preparation time to formulate responses to these. Don’t forget structure: State Relate Restate Summarize and Signpost!

The Clash! AffirmativeNegative The safety of many is more important that the security of a few Society must strike a balance between public and individual needs. The individual right to bear arms is depriving members of society of their individual rights. Individual rights are the foundation of our social order. Without them, there is no public safety. The right to bear arms is out of date and is no longer as important as public safety. The constitution, unless amended, currently guarantees the right to bear arms and the right of public safety. Regardless of their chance of success, the government must protect its citizens, by prohibition if necessary. Prohibitions of any kind have proven to be detrimental to individual rights in the past