Argumentation and Debate Assignment Packet

Communication 311
D. Fabionar
Toulmin Model Warrant worksheets
Five Common Types of Reasoning
Media Fallacy Scrapbook
Lincoln-Douglas Speech mini debate description
Lincoln Douglas Grading criteria
Lincoln Douglas Critique Sheet
Policy Stock Issues worksheet
Negative Strategy worksheet (policy)
Pro/Government Value Stock Issues worksheet
Con/Opposition Value Stock Issues worksheet
Sample Evidence Card
Evidence Card assignment description
Evidence Card/Outline assignment grading criteria
Parliamentary Debate (Policy) grading criteria
Parliamentary Debate (Value) grading criteria
Refutation exercise
Debate Critique (self-critique)
Flowing tips
Dialogue Presentation Description
Group member grading forms
Individual evaluation form
Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment

Toulmin Model Warrant Worksheet

One key to evaluate and/or refute an argument is to discover the bridge, or warrant, between the grounds
and the claim. Warrants can almost always be stated in terms of one of the five types of reasoning (see
Chapter 2 in your text). Fill in the backing of the warrant (can be fictional, as long as the backing
supports the form of reasoning you choose.)
Example
1.
Grounds: The price of steel has gone up.
Claim: The price of automobiles will definitely go up.
Warrant: causation
Backing for the warrant: Automobiles are 90% steel.
Or
Grounds: The price of steel has gone up.
Claim: The price of automobiles might go up.
Warrant: correlation
Backing for the warrant: Most automobiles arent made of steel.
Both responses would be correct because the backing supports the warrant
2.

Grounds: As a result of stricter drivers license tests and periodic retests, Alabama has cut its
accident rate by 20 percent.
Claim: Massachusetts can cut its accident rate significantly.
Warrant:
Backing for the warrant:

3.
cost.

Grounds: In the United States, medical care is usually delivered to those who can afford the
Claim: Most poor people will forego medical care.
Warrant:
Backing for the warrant:

4.

Grounds: Alan Greenspan has argued that the budget deficit will destroy this countrys
economic growth by the year 2007.
Claim: The United States Congress should pass the balanced budget amendment.
Warrant:
Backing for the warrant:

5.

Grounds: 55 percent of the people in a Channel 11 poll believe that marijuana is a gateway drug
Claim: Marijuana should not be legalized
Warrant:
Backing for the warrant:

Having successfully completed the warrant for each argument, suggest reservations to these arguments.
(1)

Activity 2
Examine the following arguments. Decide what reasoning pattern each one follows. Then locate the
parts of the argument, using the signs G, C, and W for grounds, claim, and warrant. If a part of the
argument is missing, fill in a statement that would provide a reasonable completion of the argument.
1.

Covert CIA activities succeeded in Iran. They also succeeded in Chile, Guatemala, Cuba,
Vietnam, and Nicaragua. These covert activities were carried out under a variety of political
conditions, at various points in recent history, and against various types of opposition. It is
safe to assume that CIA covert activities will be successful in the future.

2.

Identify the claim, warrant, grounds, and modality of the following argument.

Because she stood holding a gun over a man that was bleeding on the floor from a gunshot wound and
she has a history of committing violent crimes, she definitely shot him.
Claim:
Warrant (form of reasoning):
Grounds:
Modality:
(2)

Five Common Types of Reasoning

Causal Reasoning:
Ex:
Tests:
Sign (Correlation):
Ex:
Tests:
Reasoning by Example:
Ex:
Tests:
Reasoning by Analogy:

Ex:

Tests:
Reasoning by Authority:
Ex:
Tests:

Implies a causal connection between two phenomena.

When A happens, B results.
Cigarette smoking causes cancer.
Poor reinvestment strategies led to the collapse of the steel industry.
Low-fiber diets can lead to bowel cancer.
1. Is the cause sufficient?
2. Are there any alternate causalities?
Implies a correlation between two events rather than a causal connection.
When A exists, B also exists.
Where theres smoke, theres fire.
A flag at half mast is a sign that someone important has died.
A large deficit is an indication of a budget out of control.
1. Is the sign consistent?
2. Do other phenomena result in the same sign?
Presents cases in which the argument holds true. Statistics and survey data
are often included in this group.
Decriminalization of marijuana works. The experience in Oregon proves it.
Rock stars do care. Look at USA for Africa and LiveAid.
1. Are the examples representative?
2. Are there any important counter-examples?
Presents a comparison between two like phenomena and draws
conclusions based on their similarity. Includes both figurative and literal
analogies.
National health care works in Britain; it will work in the United States.
(Literal analogy)
The deficit is like an ever expanding balloonsomeday it is going to
burst. (Figurative analogy)
1. Are the two phenomena sufficiently similar to allow comparison?
2. Do the two phenomena differ in important respects?
Accepting the conclusions of experts.
The EPA says that acid rain will increase three fold by 1995.
1. Is the source qualified? In the relevant field?
2. Is the source crippled by bias or self-interest?
3. Is this reluctant testimony?
(3)

Media Fallacy Scrapbook

Your goal: To create a scrapbook filled with fallacies found in various media.
Materials needed: 1) a slim binder, 2) construction paper, 3) tape or glue, 4) scissors.
Step 1.
Identify ten different examples including at least five different fallacies among the following media:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)

Newspaper articles (such as editorials) and advertisements

Web sites
Magazine articles and advertisements
Political cartoons and comic strips
Direct marketing (junk mail)

Do your best to choose your fallacies from different kinds of media. Ideally, you will find two fallacies
from each kind of media. Please do not give me more than two examples of a single fallacy. For
instance, a hasty generalization is pretty easy to find, but I dont want more than two examples. If you
prefer, you can give me one example each, of ten different fallacies.
Step 2.
Cut out your fallacy and tape or glue it to an 8.5 x 11 sheet of construction paper. Next, provide a label
and definition of the fallacy. MOST IMPORTANTLY, you need to provide justification supporting your
claim of why the text or picture is, for example, a hasty generalization. Without this justification, you
will receive no credit for your fallacy.
Step 3.
Please make sure your scrapbook is bound together securely and text and pictures are affixed securely. I
dont want it falling apart on me when I evaluate it. Please make sure that names of fallacies are printed
boldly and easily found and that your name is on the FRONT of your binder. Please provide a table of
contents detailing the type of fallacy, the source and the page of your scrapbook in which it will be
found.
GRADING CRITERIA
Three points for each accurately identified example of a fallacy. I will only award points for two
examples of a single fallacy. The third example will not receive any points.
You must define your fallacy clearly and explain your justification clearly. You will lose points if you
reach or force-fit. Do not label your example a particular fallacy if it is not clearly identifiable.
You must identify at least five different fallacies and display ten total examples (two of each). Your
scrapbook must also include an example from each of the five types of media listed above. I dont want
all of your examples coming from comic strips, etc. If your scrapbook lacks certain types of media, I
will subtract points.
This assignment is worth 30 points. If you have questions, call me at 558-2558.
(4)

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS POLICY Mini-Debate

Your task: You and your partner will decide on a resolution/proposition and advocate the pro and the
con side of the issue by using giving speeches that consist of a five minute constructive and a two
minute rebuttal. Each person will turn in an annotated bibliography summarizing each source cited.
The Process: The speaker in favor of the resolution (pro/affirmative/government) will give a five minute
constructive speech supporting the resolution. The speech should consist of POLICY stock issues
(harms, inherency, plan, solvency, advantages). Your speech should focus on a clearly outlined plan.
Your goal is to convince the audience that your plan should be implemented because there are far more
benefits than costs of passing and implementing the plan.
The Second Speech: The second person will give a five minute speech opposing the resolution. You
may use a combination of case attacks, disadvantages, and counter-plan arguments in your speech. It is
up to you which strategy you choose. The goal of the speech is to convince the audience that they
should NOT implement the affirmatives plan because there would be too many negative impacts. You
should effectively weigh the impacts and show that, ultimately, there are more costs than benefits of the
plan. (Costs dont have to focus on monetary costs. Lives lost, freedoms lost etc. are other examples of
costs).
After each constructive speech you will be allowed to ask your opponent ONE question regarding their
case. This is cross-examination practice.
Wrapping it up: The final two speeches are rebuttal speeches that summarize the important issues of the
debate. The Con speaker gives a two-minute rebuttal. So basically, the Con side gives their speeches
back-to-back. The Pro side speaks first and last. The rebuttal speech is your opportunity to present
closing arguments, highlight reasons, or specific arguments that are the most convincing to the audience.
Pro 5 min speechCon 5 min Speech---Con 2 min rebuttalPro 2 min rebuttal
(5)

Lincoln-Douglas Policy Mini-Debate Grading Criteria

1. Your constructive speech (first speech) should contain a minimum of five pieces of evidence
(Including Who? What? And When?). Sources must be complete with this information to
receive full credit.*** (Please turn in an annotated bibliography with all five sources
summarized)
10 points possible2 points per citation
2. Your speech should be delivered effectively. This means making eye contact with the audience
and speaking with enthusiasm and clarity. If you dont appear to care about your speech,
chances are your audience wont either.
5 points possible
3. Your speech should be well organized. Previewing your contentions in the introduction and
reviewing them in the conclusion is important. Also, signposting is key. For example, My
first contention is or my first harm is will keep your speech organized and easy to
follow.
5 points possible
4. Overall ability to persuade will be awarded points. This includes your cross-examination
question and rebuttal speech. At the end of the discussion, were you persuasive?
5 points possible
25 points total
Any Questions? Call me at 558-2558 or email at fabiond@scc.losrios.edu
(6)

Lincoln-Douglas Critique Sheet

EExcellent
GGood
SSatisfactory
PPoor
NNonexistent
Content:
Three credible source cites were verbally stated? EGSPN
Was the Who? What? and When? Clearly stated? EGSPN
Were the stock issues or negative strategies developed sufficiently? EGSPN
0-10 points______
Comments:
Organization:
Were definitions addressed? EGSPN
Were the contentions previewed? EGSPN
Was the criteria clearly explained? EGSPN
Did the speaker signpost each contention? EGSPN
Did the speaker link back to the criterion? EGSPN
0-5 points______
Comments:
Delivery:
Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN
0-5 points______
Comments:
Overall ability to persuade the audience? EGSPN
Did the speaker use questions in cross-ex? EGSPN
Did the speaker identify voting issues in the rebuttal? EGSPN
0-5 points______
Comments:
(7)

Policy Stock Issues Worksheet (Pro/Affirmative/Government)

Resolution/proposition:
1. Definitions
2. Criterion
3. Brief intro: (synopsis of the issue, preview your contentions)
4. Harms: (Who is hurt by the problem? To what extent? Will the problem worsen if nothing is
done to solve it? What will happen? Are the harms significant enough to warrant a change?)
5. Inherency: (What are the barriers to solving the problem? Are they attitudinal? Economic?
Physical? Or can the harms be solved in the status quo?)
6. Plan: (What specific changes do you want to implement?)
Agent:
Mandates:
$:
Enforcement:
Timeframe:
7. Solvency: (What evidence is available that supports your assertion that the plan will truly solve
the harms? Is there a model of a similar plan that has been effective elsewhere i.e. a precedent
set? Is there an expert in the field who would advocate your plan, or a similar one?)
8. Net Benefits: This is your conclusion. Drive home the point that the plan will solve the harms.
Most importantly, clearly explain how the benefits of your plan will outweigh the costs.
(5)

Negative Strategy Worksheet (Policy)

Resolution/proposition:
1. Definitions
2. Address the criterion
3. Brief intro: (quick synopsis of the issue, preview your contentions)
4. You have a choice between case attacks and disadvantages. You may offer one counter plan as
well. You should have 2-5 contentions, but be sure to focus on the contention that you feel is the
strongest.
A. Case attacks: (What about the pro/affirmatives case doesnt make sense? Which stock
issue will you choose to argue? You may choose one or all of the stock issues to be your
point of stasis.)
B. Disadvantages: (What future doom and gloom effect will the plan cause? How is the
status quo negatively changed? What are the impacts of the disadvantage? What evidence
can be found to prove that the plan will cause the disadvantage to happen? [Causal link] )
C. Counter-plan: (You have the option to offer the audience another plan to compete with
the pro/affirmatives plan. The plan should not support the resolution and should provide
a better way to solve the harms.)
** Make sure you preview and signpost your arguments very clearly. The
con/negative side is more difficult to organize because you have the option to use
any combination of positions, unlike the Pro who has to use SHIPSA. (Significant
Harms, Inherency, Plan, Solvency, Advantages) Ask if you have any questions.
D. Net Benefits: This is your conclusion. Weigh the impacts of your disadvantages and
show how the costs of the pro/affirmatives plan will outweigh the benefits. Also, if you
used case attacks, explain how the pro/affirmative has not met its prima facie burden.
(6)

Value Stock Issues Worksheet (Pro/Affirmative/Government)

Objective:

To create a case (outline) for a value resolution/proposition

Procedure:

On a separate piece of paper follow the steps below and create an outline of your
government/pro strategy.

Resolution/proposition:
Prime Minister:
1. Define the terms of the resolution
2. Justify your definitions: (For what reasons should your definitions be accepted by your
opponents and the critic? You dont have to use all of these suggested justifications)
A. Clarityyour definitions are clear and provide a bright line between what is and is not
being discussed. For example, the term good old days = the 1950s, provides a
clearer bright line than good old days = our grandparents era. We know exactly
when the 1950s begins and ends, but who knows when our grandparents era begins
and ends?
B. Accuracyyour definitions are accurate. For example, the term vegetarian = vegan
provides a more accurate definition than vegetarian = dieting. Dieting is not as
specific to what vegetarians can or cannot eat.
C. Educationyour definitions will lead to a discussion that will be educational.
D. Debate-abilityyour definitions will make it fair for both the pro and the con side.
There are arguments on both sides of the resolution.
3. Identify a value: This is your thesis or weighing mechanism meaning all of your contentions
should support this value. The success or failure of the case will be determined by how well you
support your value. Common values are: The greater good for the greater amount of people,
equality, life, quality of life, freedom, information, and education etc.
4. Justify your value: Why is your value important to your audience?
A.
B.
C.
D.

ScopeMany people feel that this value is important.

MagnitudeThose who feel that this value is important, feel that it is very important.
Moral ImperativeThis value is morally correct.
Traditional ImportanceThis value has been important for a long time.

5. Establish Criterion: Criterion explains to the critic how the game is won. For instance in
basketball, the criteria is the number of points scored. The criterion for the game of chess is that
one wins when checkmating the opponents king. The criterion for a value debate is that the
team (government or opposition) who proves their value to be true through their contentions
more than the other team wins the debate.
(7)

6. Establish contentions and support them: Just like main points of an essay, or speech. The
contentions must support the value.
A.
B.
C.
(8)

Value Stock Issues Worksheet (Con/Negative/Opposition)

Purpose:

To construct an outline that directly responds to the stock issues of the

government/affirmative/pro.

Procedure:

On a separate piece of paper, follow the steps below and provide an outline of your
opposition strategy.

Resolution/proposition:
Leader of Opposition:
1. Accept the governments definitions? If YES, skip to step 3
2. If not, redefine and identify reasons to prefer your definitions.
3. Accept the governments value? If YES, skip to step 5
4. If not, offer a counter-value and identify reasons to prefer your value.
5. Accept the governments criterion? If YES, skip to step 7
6. If not, identify new criterion and provide reasons to prefer it over the governments criterion.
7. Refute each of the governments contentions.
8. Establish opposition contentions and support them:

A.
B.
C.
(9)

EVIDENCE CARD #_____

Name:
SOURCE (Completely written out):
Circle one: Book
ARTICLE SUMMARY:

Website

Magazine

Newspaper

Other

HOW DOES THE HIGHLIGHTED OR BRACKETED TEXT OF THE ARTICLE SUPPORT

YOUR CASE? Be very specific, does it support the harms? The solvency? If youre the opposition
team does it establish a case attack? Disadvantage? Etc. If you are debating a value which part of
your case does this article support? Which contention? Which counter contention? If you are
preparing for the dialogue presentation, which claim(s) does the highlighted portion support?

WHAT TYPE OF REASONING( Identify at least one of the five types) DOES THIS ARTICLE
USE? EXPLAIN.

HOW COULD YOUR OPPONENT TEST AND/OR REFUTE YOUR REASONING? Any
fallacies present?

ON A SCALE FROM 1-10 HOW EFFECTIVE IS THIS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORTING YOUR

CLAIM? WHY?
(STAPLE YOUR COPY OF THE HIGHLIGHTED ARTICLE AND COMPLETE THIS
WORKSHEET FOR FULL CREDIT FOR THIS EVIDENCE CARD)
(10)

Evidence Card Assignment

Step 1 Gathering Information
You are responsible for researching for two debates (a value and a policy debate) which can be a great
undertaking if you do not work as a team. Communication with your partner and opponents will be
valuable in keeping the scope of this assignment reasonable. Make sure each team communicates its
plan (for the policy debate) and value and contentions (for the value debate). By this time your class has
chosen the resolutions to be debated, your group of four will choose one policy topic and one value
topic. You must be prepared to argue both sides of BOTH resolutions. Therefore, you should start
gathering research for each resolution immediately.
Step 2 Organizing the Information
READ the evidence and begin identifying the strong arguments and sorting out the weaker evidence.
Once you have a stack of evidence that you think will be useful, sort it into the following categories:
Prime Ministers speech
Member of Governments speech
Leader of the Oppositions speech
Member of Oppositions speech
After you finish, the big-picture of your debate will be clearer. You will be able to see what points each
speaker will make by laying out the evidence beforehand. Next, begin making evidence cards by
bracketing the important part of the articles that you will read into the debate. Fill out and attach a copy
of the evidence card worksheet to each one. Make sure you answer each question very specifically and
number each highlighted portion of an article to correspond with the same number evidence card.
Step 3 Outlining your Cases
One outline of the Prime Ministers speech and one of the Leader of Oppositions speech should be
turned in for each team of two. This means that if you turn in an outline of the Prime Ministers speech,
your debate partner needs to turn in an outline for the Leader of Oppositions speech and vice versa.
ONE OUTLINE PER PERSON. The same goes for the value debate. These outlines will be very useful
during the debates in keeping you organized. I will give you a sample outline so you will have an idea of
what is expected.
(11)

Step 4 Preparing for Specific Arguments

After you have researched a topic thoroughly, you will be able to identify specific arguments that are
common, or more obvious. For example, if you are going to debate the topic of capital punishment, you
should be ready to discuss the cost issue. If you are pro-death penalty, you should have answers ready
for the high cost of appeals argument. You should have your research organized in such a way that
your have answers ready for arguments that you think your opponent will use against your case. This
evidence is very useful in the member speeches where you will have the best opportunity to address
your opponents case.
Step 5 Turn in your evidence cards in a binder
(Please do not use sheet protectors!)
You must turn in your evidence and cases immediately following your debate.
Each individual will be responsible for:

1st debate:

2nd debate:

10 evidence cards and 10 additional sources summarized in an annotated bibliography

for each debate:
10 evidence cards for the policy topic broken into:
5 government/pro evidence cards
5 opposition/con evidence cards
10 additional sources listed in an annotated bibliography
10 evidence cards for the value topic broken into:
5 government/pro evidence cards
5 opposition/con evidence cards
10 additional sources listed in an annotated bibliography

Please provide a table of contents at the beginning of your binder and a tab for each evidence card.
You must bind your work, number the evidence cards and highlight the specific information in the
articles to which your evidence card is referring or you will lose points.
(12)

Grading Criteria for the Evidence Card Assignment

I will be grading you on the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Are your evidence cards STAPLED to the articles?

Do you explain specifically how the article supports your case?
How thorough is your work? Do you answer all of the questions completely?
Do you clearly outline the text from the article you are citing?
Do you number the bracketed text so it corresponds with a particular evidence card? i.e. Is
the number 2 written next to the text, so that it clearly corresponds to the number 2
evidence card?
6. Are your evidence cards and articles consistent with your summaries?
7. Do you provide me with a thorough outline?
8. Do you meet the required number of evidence cards?
9. Does your evidence support your contentions?
10. Are you able to correctly identify reasoning and tests of reasoning on your evidence card
worksheets?
11. Did you rate the article accurately, or did you over-rate the article when evaluating the
strength of the article. (They all cant be tens) Also, you dont want to include weak (1-4
rating) in your cards/debate.
12. Is your name on EVERY card?
I will provide a sample of past evidence card assignments so you have a clear idea of what constitutes an
A assignment.
Once again, each individual will be responsible for:
1st debate:

10 evidence cards for the policy topic broken into:

5 government/pro evidence cards
5 opposition/con evidence cards

2nd debate:

10 evidence cards for the value topic broken into:

5 government/pro evidence cards
5 opposition/con evidence cards

This assignment is worth 30 points PER PERSON

3 points per evidence card (thoroughly and accurately completed)
Outline requirements
All outlines must be:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

be typed.
include consistent indentation and symbolization.
should include source cites and your personal analysis of each contention.
should be free from spelling and grammatical errors.
should include definitions, criteria, and contentions.
should accurately divide the information into main points and sub points.

Make sure you take a look at the various sample cases that I will be passing around the class.

(13)
Debate Grading Criteria

Research: Do you have a minimum of five sources that are clearly cited? Are the Who? What? and
When? questions answered? Five sources per team for each case are required. Did you develop your
case sufficiently?
Refutation: Tests of Reasoning/Fallacies: Each person must refute their opponents contentions. You
will lose points if you drop fail to answer an opponents contention. Additionally, each team member
must test the reasoning/identify fallacies in their opponents advocacy. For example, I question your
causal reasoning by pointing out that the disadvantage is not uniquely caused by my plan. Lung cancer
can be caused by numerous factors, not only auto exhaust. You must clearly say Im testing your
reasoning in order to get credit. You will only receive an A grade if reasoning is tested.
Delivery: Make eye contact and deliver with energy. Remember: If you look like you dont care about
your speech, why should your audience?!
Organization: Make sure that you preview, signpost, and review your main points so all of us can flow
the debate!
Ability to persuade your audience: Do I feel persuaded after your speech?!
Cross-examination/point of information: Do you use points of information and order effectively?
I will let you know the topic you are debating and the side of the issue that you must advocate
approximately one week before your debate. Dont procrastinate!
The debate is worth 30 points:
Research .10 points total
Delivery.5 points total
Organization..5 points total
Testing reasoning/fallacies5 points total
Cross-examination.5 points total
Total
30 points total
14

Parliamentary Debate Critique Sheet

(Policy)
G Good
S Satisfactory
P Poor

E Excellent
N Nonexistent
Content:
Five credible source cites were verbally stated? EGSPN
Was the Who? What? and When? clearly stated? EGSPN
Were the stock issues or negative strategies developed sufficiently? EGSPN
Does the speaker make convincing arguments using sound reasoning? EGSPN
Did the speaker provide analysis along with source cites? EGSPN
Did the speaker impact his/her arguments? EGSPN
0 10 points________
Comments:
Organization:
Were definitions addressed effectively? EGSPN
Was the criterion explained? EGSPN
Were the contentions previewed? EGSPN
Did the speaker signpost each contention? EGSPN
Was the speaker easy to flow? EGSPN
Did the speaker drop any arguments? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Refutation:
Did the speaker refute line-by-line? EGSPN
Did the speaker test reasoning and/or identify fallacies? EGSPN
Did the speaker identify dropped arguments by their opponents? EGSPN
Did the speaker impact his/her refutation? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Delivery:
Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Intangibles:
Overall ability to persuade? EGSPN
Did the speaker ask useful points of information? EGSPN
Did the speaker identify voting issues in the rebuttal? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
(15)

Parliamentary Debate Critique Sheet

(Value)
G Good
S Satisfactory
P Poor

E Excellent
N Nonexistent
Content:
Five credible source cites were verbally stated? EGSPN
Was the Who? What? and When? clearly stated? EGSPN
Were the stock issues or negative strategies developed sufficiently? EGSPN
Does the speaker make convincing arguments using sound reasoning? EGSPN
Did the speaker provide analysis along with source cites? EGSPN
Did the speaker impact his/her arguments? EGSPN
0 10 points________
Comments:
Organization:
Were definitions addressed effectively? EGSPN
Did the speaker justify the definitions? EGSPN
Did the speaker clear state and justify the value? EGSPN
Was the criterion explained? EGSPN
Were the contentions previewed? EGSPN
Did the speaker signpost each contention? EGSPN
Was the speaker easy to flow? EGSPN
Did the speaker drop any arguments? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Refutation:
Did the speaker refute line-by-line? EGSPN
Did the speaker test reasoning and/or identify fallacies? EGSPN
Did the speaker identify dropped arguments by their opponents? EGSPN
Did the speaker impact his/her refutation? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Delivery:
Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Intangibles:
Overall persuasive ability? EGSPN
Did the speaker ask useful points of information? EGSPN
Did the speaker identify voting issues in the rebuttal? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
(16)

Refutation Exercise
Purpose: To improve the students ability to refute arguments using a formalized structure.
Procedure: Refute the following arguments using the following progression:
A) Identify your opponents argument
B) Number and provide a counterclaim
C) Explain and support your counterclaim
D) Impact your refutation
Example:
Your opponents contention:
1. The death penalty is less expensive than life imprisonment because life imprisonment
means a lifetime of charging the public with housing, healthcare and food for prisoners.
Refutation:
A ) Regarding my opponents first argument
B) I have one response, the death penalty is definitely MORE expensive than life
imprisonment.
C) The excessive number of appeals costs the public far more in taxes than housing
criminals.
D) Think about all of your hard earned money that will be wasted on court appeal after
court appeal. This mitigates my opponents cost argument and it should have no weight
in the debate.
Your opponents contention:
2. The death penalty is a deterrent to crime
because states that have the death penalty
reported a decrease in crime.
Refutation
A)
B)
C)
D)

(17)

Your opponents contention:

3. The death penalty upholds victims rights. By executing the murderer, the victims
families gain closure.
Refutation
A)
B)
C)
D)

Your opponents contention:

1. Outsourcing U.S. companies to developing nations will strengthen our
our economy in the long run.
Refutation
A)
B)
C)
D)

(18)

Your opponents contention:

2. Outsourcing U.S. companies will help the developing nations economies and ultimately
increase their quality of life.
Refutation
A)
B)
C)
D)

Your opponents contention:

3. Outsourcing U.S. companies leads to lower prices for U.S. consumers
Refutation
A)
B)
C)
D)

(19)

Flowing Tips
Flowing is the informal name for the note-taking process in debate. There are usually more arguments
brought up in a debate than one person is inclined to remember. Furthermore, without effective notetaking, it is difficult to focus on one issue at a time and present your arguments in an organized manner.
FLOWING PROVIDES A MAP OF THE DEBATE!
Just as a map shows major cities, small towns, and the roads that lead to them, the debate flow will
include main stock issues with minor arguments and evidence for support. Heres how to make your
mapthe Flow:
Take your paper and divide it into columns according to the number of speeches:
Prime Minister
(PM)
(PM)

Leader of Opp
(LO)

Member of Govt Member of Opp

(MG)
(MO)

Opp Rebuttal
(LO)

Govt Rebuttal

The main arguments will be numbered within the constructives. Follow the speakers organization. Use
letters to signpost (like a map) the main issues:
If the speaker says: Observation One: Harms: 10,000 people are dying in Iraq because of U.S.
sanctions
Flow this: O1: US sancts = 10K dead in Iq
These are usually the main issues within an advocates case:
R = Resolution
T = Topicality (Definitions of terms)
H = Harms, Ills, or Motives (the problem with the status quo)
I = Inherency (the circumstances, causes, barriers, or characteristics contributing to the problem)
P = Plan (for policy debate) or WM = weighing mechanism (for value)
S = Solvency (how the plan solves the problems with the status quo)
AV= Advantages (the benefits to the affirmatives plan) or SC = Scenario (the bad world w/o plan)
DA = Disadvantages (presented by either the govt or opp)
CP = Counterplan
The roads that the speaker will take are Observations, Contentions, and sub-points A, B, etc.
You can abbreviate these as well:
O = Observation

Con = Contention

Sub-points can be represented by letters (a, b, c, etc.)

Each contention will have a main argument or claim; your goal is to tag this claim:
A tag sums up the evidence in approximately 10 words or less; this should read like a headline.
If the debater states: Contention One: 3,000 acres of the Northwest Forests are likely to be cut by the
year 2000 because these lands are privately owned
You could flow as follows: Con1: 3K acres of NW forests to be cut by 2K.

(20)
Dialogue Presentation
What I question is using opposition to accomplish every goal, even those that do not require fighting,
but might also (or better) be accomplished by the word dialogue. I am questioning the assumption
that everything is a matter of polarized opposites, the proverbial two sides to every question that we
think embodies open-mindedness and expansive thinking. -Deborah Tannen Ph.D. from The Argument
Culture
By now you have been introduced to a highly-structured, very traditional form of academic debate. Dr.
Tannen identified numerous shortcomings of this adversarial format in The Argument Culture. This
assignment is an opportunity for you to explore an alternative format when discussing a controversial
issue. Your dialogue can be presented in a variety of forms. Your presentation may incorporate a skit,
video, film, lecture, class activity, a completely different debate structure, or a combination of formats.
You are free to experiment with alternative methods in an effort to find the truth about an important
value issue. The goal of the presentation is to explore your value resolution in a non-confrontational
manner and to incorporate concepts we have discussed in the first part of the course (listed below as
general grading criteria). Additionally, you will be required to find some common ground between the
various positions. You do not have to resolve the issue, but at least find a position(s) that each side can
agree upon. The parameters will be relatively open. However, I will expect you to turn in a rough draft
of your presentation.
This assignment is worth 30 points, 20 points will be allocated by me, and the remaining 10 will be
awarded by your group members.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------ -- -- -- - - - - - Evaluate your group members using the following criteria:
Group member__________________________
Total points________
Meeting attendance 0-3 points
Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?
Was the person easy to contact?
Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process?
Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel
that the persons contribution was equal to others in the group?
Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during
presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?
Explain:

(21)

Group Member Grading Forms

Group member__________________________
Total points________
Meeting attendance 0-3 points
Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?
Was the person easy to contact?
Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process?
Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel
that the persons contribution was equal to others in the group?
Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during
presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?
Explain:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------ -- -- -- - - - - - Group member__________________________

Total points________
Meeting attendance 0-3 points
Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?
Was the person easy to contact?
Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process?
Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel
that the persons contribution was equal to others in the group?
Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during
presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?
Explain:
(22)

Group Member Grading Forms

Group member__________________________
Total points________
Meeting attendance 0-3 points
Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?
Was the person easy to contact?
Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process?
Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel
that the persons contribution was equal to others in the group?
Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during
presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?
Explain:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------ -- -- -- - - - - - Group member__________________________

Total points________
Meeting attendance 0-3 points
Did the person attend every meeting? Did the person arrive on time and stay for the entire discussion?
Was the person easy to contact?
Explain:

Contributions made while preparing for the presentation. 0-4 points

Did the person contribute ideas to the presentation? Did the person remain engaged during the process?
Did the person complete his/her portion of the work? Was the person easy to work with? Do you feel
that the persons contribution was equal to others in the group?
Explain:

Contributions made during the presentation. 0-3 points

Did the person follow-through during the presentation? Did the person show up on time during
presentation day? Did the person contribute to the overall success of the group during the presentation?
Explain:
(23)

Dialogue Presentation
(Individual Evaluation Form)
G Good
S Satisfactory
P Poor

E Excellent
N Nonexistent
Content:
Five credible source cites were verbally stated during your portion of the dialogue? EGSPN
Does the speaker make convincing arguments using sound reasoning? EGSPN
Did the speaker provide analysis along with the sources? EGSPN
Did the speaker impact his/her arguments? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Organization:
Were definitions addressed effectively? EGSPN
Was the speaker easy to follow? EGSPN
0 2 points________
Comments:
Refutation:
Did the speaker offer refutation to any of the ideas presented? EGSPN
Did the speaker impact his/her refutation? EGSPN
0 3 points________
Comments:

Delivery:
Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Intangibles:
Was the speaker persuasive overall? EGSPN
Did the speaker identify common ground between the various ideas? EGSPN
Did the speaker speak for an equitable amount of time?
0 5 points________
Comments

(24)

Pre-Assessment and Post-Assessment

Rate your confidence level when speaking in public.____
No confidence-------------------A little confident--------------Moderately confident-------Very confident
1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10
Explain:
Rate your ability to effectively deliver a speech.____
No ability-------------------A little effective---------------Moderately effective------------------Very effective
1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10
Explain:
Rate your knowledge of current events and controversial issues.____
No knowledge----------A little knowledge----------Moderately knowledgeable-------Very knowledgeable
1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10
Explain:
Rate your ability to construct arguments______
No knowledge----------A little knowledge----------Moderately knowledgeable-------Very knowledgeable
1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10
Explain:
Rate your ability to deconstruct arguments (Rebut arguments, identify fallacies etc.)______
No knowledge----------A little knowledge----------Moderately knowledgeable-------Very knowledgeable
1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10
Explain:
Rate your ability to research a given topic (navigate the library, internet etc.)______
No knowledge----------A little knowledge----------Moderately knowledgeable-------Very knowledgeable
1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10
Explain:
Rate your level of interest concerning participating on the speech and debate team._____
No interest-------------A little interested-------------Moderately interested------------Very interested
1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10
Explain:
Rate your level of interest concerning the study of Communication as a major._____
No interest-------------A little interested-------------Moderately interested------------Very interested
1-------------2-------------3------------4------------5----------6---------7----------8-----------9----------10
Explain:
(25)

Parliamentary Debate Self Critique Assignment

STEP ONE: GIVE YOURSELF A GRADE (30 points possible)
E Excellent
G Good
S Satisfactory
P Poor
N Nonexistent
Content:
Five credible source cites were verbally stated? EGSPN
Was the Who? What? and When? Clearly stated? EGSPN
Were the stock issues or negative strategies developed sufficiently? EGSPN
Does the speaker make convincing arguments using sound reasoning? EGSPN
Did the speaker provide analysis along with source cites? EGSPN
Did the speaker impact his/her arguments? EGSPN
0 10 points________
Comments:
Organization:
Were definitions addressed? EGSPN
Was the criteria explained? EGSPN
Were the contentions previewed? EGSPN
Did the speaker signpost each contention? EGSPN
Was the speaker easy to flow? EGSPN
Did the speaker drop any arguments? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Refutation:
Did the speaker refute line-by-line? EGSPN
Did the speaker test reasoning and/or identify fallacies? EGSPN
Did the speaker identify dropped arguments by their opponents? EGSPN
Did the speaker impact his/her refutation? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Delivery:
Did the speaker use effective nonverbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker use effective verbal communication? EGSPN
Did the speaker deliver with a high level of energy? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
Intangibles:
Overall persuasive ability? EGSPN
Did the speaker ask useful points of information? EGSPN
Did the speaker identify voting issues in the rebuttal? EGSPN
0 5 points________
Comments:
(26)

STEP TWO: SUMMARIZE YOUR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Write a two-three page critique focusing on the content, organization, delivery, evidence, reasoning and
refutation used in the debate. Comment on what elements of the debate were strengths of yours and
why? Additionally, clearly identify what you would do differently if you were to debate this topic again.
Your written critique should consist of a paragraph for each of the categories stated above.
STEP THREE: SOPHISTRY OR A SEARCH FOR TRUTH?
Was this experience an exercise in sophistry, or to a certain degree, a search for truth about the issue?
Maybe a little of both? Explain. Ultimately, what did you learn about the topic? What is your true
stance? Did your stance change because of the research you did? Explain
Please type and double space your responses to step two and three in order to get full credit. This
assignment is worth 25 points.
Any questions? Call me at 558-2558 or email fabiond@scc.losrios.edu
(27)