8th Annual Great Corporate Debate Corporate Team Training Session # 3 June 10 Stephen Buchanan Education Consulting

Quick Review of previous sessions Debate Elements, Format, Timeline Outline of Session # 3 Great Corporate Debate Quick Review of previous sessions Debate Elements, Format, Timeline Basic Strategies Affirmative - Negative Constructive – Rebuttal Detailed Format and Timeline of Responsibilities

Each participant has a role Debate Teamwork Team vs. Individuals Each participant has a role Everyone participates and contributes Everyone flows

Judges’ Evaluations Criteria for winning Formula for winning Strategy for winning BE PREPARED BE PERSUASIVE

Judges’ Evaluations Evaluation Format Style Each speaker will be graded (1- 7) in the following criteria. The scores will be added up by each judge to determine the team receiving his / her vote: Content: Argumentation Evidence / Information Strategy Speaker’s role Team strategy Style Oral expression Body Language

Evaluation Format Content Argumentation 1 - 7 Information / Evidence Strategy Individual Role 1 - 7 Team participation Style Body language 1 - 7 Oral expression Three Judges evaluate for Content, Strategy and Style in Round Robins and Semi-Finals Debates.

Penalization Only the Chief Judge will deduct points from the total scores based on minor and grave violations. Penalization: Reading Time Inappropriate behavior Challenges Quality of Challenges & Failure to make/accept challenges In the case of challenges, all judges score on a scale from -2 to +2. They will add or deduct points depending on the quality of the answers. If a speaker doesn't accept at least 1 challenge, judges will automatically score -2 . If any team doesn’t make any challenges or abuses process, Chief Judge will penalize team.

“CHALLENGES” Process of challenging 2nd or 3rd speaker during the debate process. Challenger stands up & raises hand waiting to be recognized. Presented in form of question only. Each team should make several challenges of speakers. Each 2nd or 3rd speaker should accept one or two challenges during his/her presentation. Teams penalized for failure to make/accept one challenge, poor questions and poor answers. Be reasonable and relevant. This is not an opportunity to distract / disrupt your opponent.

Flowing / Flow Sheeting Debate Elements and Format Flowing / Flow Sheeting Taking notes properly ("flow sheeting“ or "flowing“ is the debate term) is an essential entry level skill . . . In order to answer arguments by your opponents, you must be able to write them down so that you can remember them and respond to them in order. Likewise, your flow sheet becomes the text which you use when you speak. . . it becomes the notes which you speak from . . . More than any other skill besides speaking itself, flow sheeting is important to your debate experience....and important to winning. See Handouts

TIMELINE FOR A POLICY DEBATE CONSTRUCTIVE First Affirmative Constructive 1AC – 3 min First Negative Constructive 1NC – 3 min Second Affirmative Constructive 2AC – 6 min Second Negative Constructive 2NC – 6 min REBUTTAL First Negative Rebuttal 1NR – 6 min First Affirmative Rebuttal 1AR – 6 min Second Negative Rebuttal 2NR – 3 min Second Affirmative Rebuttal 2AR – 3 min

Debate Format 1st part: constructive speeches 1st Affirmative 3 minutes Introduction 1st Negative 2nd Affirmative 6 minutes Constructive 2nd Negative Case: thesis, definition of terms, arguments Framework Decision criterions Clash Topicality Rebuts 1A (Counter plan) Close case Prepare opposition block Rebuts 1N Rebuts 1A and 2A Defensive arguments (Close case) Logos

Debate Format 2nd part: rebuttal speeches 3rd Negative 6 minutes Rebuttal 3rd Affirmative 4th Negative 3 minutes Conclusion 4th Affirmative No new arguments Defensive arguments Refute all Summary Synthesis Logos

Primary Debate Format & Strategies Affirmative Case First Affirmative Constructive Second Affirmative Constructive First Affirmative Rebuttal Second Affirmative Rebuttal

Primary Debate Format & Strategies Negative Case – Attacking the Affirmative Case First Negative Constructive Second Negative Constructive First Negative Rebuttal Second Negative Rebuttal

Debate Strategies – The Affirmative Case The problem Status Quo is “evil” Attention (solution) is needed, must be relevant & important. Nothing has been done; nothing has solved the problem. The solution / plan Inherency: causal relationship with the problem Solvency: solves the problem

Debate Strategies – The Affirmative Case The Stock Issue Case Status Quo needs change Plan will provide change Proposed plan is better than Status Quo See the TM outline of Affirmative Case

Debate Strategies – The Negative Case Attacking the affirmative case : Basic Attack Disadvantages Counterplan Critiques (K) Topicality

The Negative Case Basic Attack: Deny the problem Attack Significance: no attention (solution) is needed; or it’s been attended, solution is on the way. Attack the solution/ plan Attack Inherency: deny causal relation between the problem and the plan. Attack Solvency: deny that the plan solves the problem. Beware of contradictions if you deny the problem.

The Negative Case Disadvantages Attack: Affirmative choices: Disadvantage is that if we adopted the policy of the other team (plan), something bad / worse would result. Link: causal relation with the plan. Internal links: causal relation within the disadvantage. Beware of the “slippery slope” Impact: something bad /worse WILL happen. Uniqueness: only the affirmative plan will cause this. Affirmative choices: Deny link with the plan. Prove slippery slope fallacy. Turn impact: is not bad, actually is good. Deny uniqueness: whatever we do, that will happen.

The Negative Case Counterplan: Counterplan is alternative plan to solve the problem Inherency and solvency = non-topical. Competes with the affirmative; net benefits; better to adopt this solution rather than both. Mutually exclusive. Affirmative responses: Our plan is better, adopt only one. Permutation test = not competitive. Solvency Disadvantages

The Negative Case Critiques (“K”): Critiques are a way to attack the critical assumptions an affirmative makes or the language debaters use to make their arguments. What is an assumption? Is a part of an argument which people think is true, but they never explicitly prove to be true and serves as the major premise of the argument or the case. How does a negative attack the assumptions? First, the negative must identify the assumption and how it is revealed. Second, the negative must explain how the assumption links to the critique. And, third, the negative must explain the implications of the critique.

The Negative Case Topicality : Topicality deals with arguments about what words mean; arguing about definitions regarding the motion or resolution: “be at home at a reasonable hour”. Affirmative definition of terms must be topical; both the problem and the plan must be within the motion: LIMIT what the affirmative may talk about so the negative can have a reasonable chance to argue against the case Negative tasks: Define terms and give reasons to prefer negative definition:

Detailed Format and Timeline of Responsibilities - Strategy Tips

1AC - FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE Have your speech written out and well organized. Time it in advance so that you know how long it takes you to present it. Practice it so that you sound good and know how to correctly say all of the words in it. Don’t read ! Make sure you have covered all the requirements -- restate the topic, significance, inherency, plan, solvency. Make sure each of the major issues has evidence which proves it.

1NC - FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE Respond to 1AC. Your disadvantages need links and impacts; your topicality arguments need definitions, violations, and voting issue; and your counterplan needs a counterplan text, topicality, competitiveness, advantage, and solvency.

2AC - SECOND AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE FINISH YOUR TASKS. Harms, plan, advantages. ANSWER EVERY NEGATIVE ISSUE: You cannot win the debate if you fail to answer an off-case argument like topicality, a disadvantage, a counterplan, or a critique. Have some good answers for each one. Explaining their arguments is their duty, not yours. Your duty is to answer them. Don't waste time telling the judge what their arguments are about. Answer 1 or 2 challenges.

2NC - SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE 2NC and 1NR occur back to back, so you need to divide up the issues in the debate. The 2NC should take some issues and the 1NR should take others. You need to deal with each and every one of the answers 2AC makes to your arguments. Have your best evidence on the issues you will be "going for“ out and ready to use before you speak. Answer 1 or 2 challenges.

1NR - FIRST NEGATIVE REBUTTAL Attack Affirmative case. Respond to their attacks on Negative case. 2NC and 1NR occur back to back, so you need to divide up the issues in the debate. 2NC should take some issues and 1NR should take others, BUT YOU SHOULD NEVER COVER THE SAME GROUND. Answer 1 or 2 challenges.

1AR - FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL The purpose of the 1AR is simple: don't lose the debate. The strategy is equally simple: don't drop anything. Cover every important argument. You cannot answer each sub-point on an argument, but you should answer any argument which could potentially win the debate for the negative. Answer 1 or 2 challenges.

2NR - SECOND NEGATIVE REBUTTAL Now is the time to “put all of your eggs into one basket.” Winning requires 2NR to choose the issues and approach, to create a persuasive “bottom line” negative position. The judges must be told which arguments to consider. There are two ways to win in the 2NR: "Win the Drop" or "Win the Position."

2AR - SECOND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL The general strategy of 2AR is to re-establish case advantage(s) and to minimize or take out the impacts of the negative arguments. In order to minimize the impact of the negative arguments, go to the best issue in the middle of your speech. This trick tends to de-emphasize the arguments that 2NR claimed were critical in the debate. In order to re-establish your case advantage, begin your speech with your own agenda or overview that puts forth the most compelling reason to vote affirmative. Have a strong conclusion.

Practice Debate Assignment was to: Choose Team and Designate Team Roles Do Research and Develop Arguments What strategy(ies) did you choose? What are your respective arguments? Let’s debate and evaluate

Practice Debates Debate Topics A vs. B “Public school teachers’ bonus for student performance” C vs. D “Same sex couples allowed to adopt children” Challenges process Flowing Judging Criteria Evaluation Forms / Feedback to debaters and teams

Feedback / Evaluation Review of training program Strengths / weaknesses Evaluation of teams, participants What / where do “we” need to improve? What can “we” do between now and the first round of debates? Practice, practice, practice