Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

HP Debate Team Part A: How to write a plan? Part B: What to expect when debating?

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "HP Debate Team Part A: How to write a plan? Part B: What to expect when debating?"— Presentation transcript:

1 HP Debate Team Part A: How to write a plan? Part B: What to expect when debating?

2 Latin America Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela. Emerging from a 19th century dominated by European colonialism and a late 20th-century existence as a proxy battlefield for the Cold War, Latin America is arriving on the world scene in ways that are likely to reshape the international political landscape. This resolution focuses on the nations of Cuba, Mexico and Venezuela, each having its own unique dynamic which provides fertile ground for a year of debating. Cuba features a long-standing leftist government that will undergo a transition in the not too distant future, while Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez is fighting to hold onto power in his country. Mexico has a long-standing relationship with the United States but has seen a power shift back to the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which had run the country as effectively a single-party state for seven decades. Because of the prevalence of Mexico in the news and Cuba in the study of American history, novice debaters should be able to make their entry into the topic relatively easily, while issues related to indigenous peoples and deeper discussions of capitalism will provide fertile educational ground for advanced and kritik-oriented debaters. Affirmative cases may examine the role of embargoes and sanctions, remittances from immigrants, foreign assistance and issues regarding the drug economies. Negative arguments may address the efficacy of foreign assistance, non-economically oriented solutions to issues raised by the affirmative, kritiks of capitalism, the state and the United States specifically and the effects of these policies on United States hegemony. Source: http://www.nfhs.org/content.aspx?id=7349

3 There are two plans to be written because there are two speakers These must be 5 minutes long!!!! Affirmative 1 Affirmative 2

4 Every affirmative 1 must define the resolution, but… …What does defining the resolution look like?

5 Affirmative 1 State the resolution Define each word in the resolution- you need to get a dictionary and actually define each word. The definition of each word should help back up the plan you are about to speak about. Tell us the source of these definitions. Explain the current situation in the world as it relates to the resolution - If you are going to talk to about the US relationship with Cuba, describe what the situation is at the moment. Explain you team’s proposal ( you plan) and how that would change things Use the words Fundability, Feasibility, Solvency, Inherency and Topicality ( I will explain this in a future slide)

6 The Resolve states that The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. I will begin by defining some keys terms in the Resolve. United States: A country of central and northwest North America with coastlines on the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It includes the noncontiguous states of Alaska and Hawaii and various island territories in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. Federal Government: a government with strong central powers (The United States falls under this category because of how the government is based around and under the Constitution and Bill of Rights including the formation of our government structure, the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches) Substantially: True or real; not imaginary Increase: To make greater or larger Transportation: A means of conveyance (conveyance: a means of transportation) Infrastructure: The basic services needed for the functioning of a community or society Investment: A commitment, as of time or support This is what defining the resolution looks like using last year’s resolution: All the aforementioned definitions came from the Free Dictionary by Farlex.

7 Every point you make must be backed up with evidence. You must also be able to cite your sources. This includes the sources you got your definitions from for your resolution.

8 Great links to legitimate sources for this year’s resolution: http://www.cfr.org/cuba/us-cuba-relations/p11113 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12159943 http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-mexico-relations-1810-present/p19092 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1229348.stm http://www.cfr.org/venezuela/timeline-venezuelas-chavez-era/p13504 US-Cuba Relations timeline: US-Venezuela Relations timeline:

9 Affirmative 2 – 1 sentence summary of the current situation – 1 sentence summary of why you’re idea would help – Explain how that’s going to happen. This is where you give the details of the plan.

10 5 Pillars of Debate These pillars must be addressed in your plans! These pillars are actually what will fill-up your plans. a.Necessity/Inherency: The plan addresses a problem in need of a solution. b. Topicality: The plan meets the requirements of the topic within the resolution. c. Feasibility: The plan can be executed by available physical means. d. Fundability: The plan is fully paid for as explained by a detailed accounting. e.Efficacy/Solvency: The plan will solve the given problem.

11 How do I apply the pillars to the plan? As you write your plans, as your self questions to make sure you are addressing the pillars. Here is an example of a check list of questions: Does this plan address a problem in need of a solution? (Inherency, Necessity) Does this plan stay on the topic of the resolution? (Topicality) Is this plan realistic? (Feasibility) Did I address how this plan will be paid for- ie., specific taxes? ( Fundability) Can this plan truly solve the problem? ( Efficacy, Solvency)

12 What does the actual debate look like? (This part will make the most sense after you‘ve gone through an actual debate.) Part B

13 Participants & Set-Up Each debate round has no more than six participants: 1. Affirmative team (2 people) 2. Negative team (2 people) 3. Judge 4. Time keeper Both the affirmative and negative teams face the judge with the affirmative team to the judge’s left and the negative team to the judge’s right. The time keeper sits next to the judge facing the teams. Before the debate begins, all debaters write their names and letter/number identification on the board in front of the classroom. The affirmative team must also write the resolution on the board. Part B

14 1st Affirmative Constructive Speech (4.5 – 5.0 minutes) The first affirmative speaker must: 1. Define the significant terms of the resolved 2. Argue that a problem exists and that the status quo is insufficient to solve it 3. Support assertions with appropriate evidence 4. Present a summary of the affirmative plan lasting at least 30 seconds 1st Negative Cross-Examination (2.0 minutes) Either member of the negative team must cross-examine the 1st affirmative speaker. Part B

15 1st Negative Constructive Speech (4.0 – 5.0 minutes) 1. The first negative speaker must attempt to refute all or part of the 1st affirmative presentation by at least one of the following means: a. Argue that there is no problem b. Argue that the problem is not worth solving c. Argue that the status quo is sufficient to solve the problem d. Argue that the problem and/or plan are not topical e. Argue that the 1st affirmative’s evidence is not sufficient to prove the 1st affirmative’s assertions 2. The negative speaker must support assertions with appropriate 1st Affirmative Cross-Examination (2.0 minutes) Either member of the affirmative team must cross-examine the 1st negative speaker. Part B

16 2nd Affirmative Constructive Speech (4.5 – 5.0 minutes) The second affirmative speaker must: 1. Present the affirmative’s plan in detail in accordance with the five pillars of debate: a. Necessity/Inherency: The plan addresses a problem in need of a solution b. Topicality: The plan meets the requirements of the topic of the resolution c. Feasibility: The plan can be executed by available physical means d. Fundability: The plan is fully paid for as explained by a detailed accounting e. Efficacy/Solvency: The plan will solve the problem 2. Support assertions with appropriate evidence. Part B

17 2nd Negative Cross-Examination (2.0 minutes) The member of the negative team who has not yet done so must cross-examine the second affirmative speaker. 2nd Negative Constructive Speech (4.0 – 5.0 minutes) The second negative speaker must: 1. Refute significant elements of the affirmative team’s plan by arguing that the plan is deficient in one or more of the five pillars of debate. 2. Support assertions with appropriate evidence. 2nd Affirmative Cross-Examination (2.0 minutes) The member of the affirmative team who has not yet done so must cross-examine the second negative speaker. Part B

18 Rebuttal Preparation (3.0 minutes) Both teams work quietly to prepare their rebuttals. Negative Rebuttal (3.0 minutes) Either member of the negative team may present the negative rebuttal. The speaker may: 1. Restate and/or elaborate upon the arguments previously made by the negative team 2. Present further evidence against the affirmative team’s plan 3. Present a new line of attack against the affirmative’s plan that does NOT include a description of a new problem and/or plan (counter plan). Affirmative Rebuttal (3.0 minutes) Either member of the affirmative team may present the affirmative rebuttal. The speaker may: 1. Restate and/or elaborate upon the arguments previously made by the affirmative team 2. Present further evidence for the affirmative team’s plan 3. Present a new line of attack against the negative team’s arguments that does NOT include a description of a new problem and/or plan (counter plan). Part B


Download ppt "HP Debate Team Part A: How to write a plan? Part B: What to expect when debating?"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google