8th Annual Great Corporate Debate Corporate Team Training Session # 2 June 3 / June 5 Stephen Buchanan Education Consulting

Outline of Session # 2 Persuasion Presentations Great Corporate Debate Review Contest, Rules, Judges Criteria, etc. Quick Review of previous session Debate Format and Strategies Debate Format and Process Teamwork Judging Criteria Basic Strategies Affirmative - Negative Constructive - Rebuttal Detailed Format, Timeline of Responsibilities Homework – Selection of teams/topics for Session 3 debates Topic A - Topic B

Training Sessions Schedule May 27 May 29 June 3 June 5 June 10 June 12

Persuasion Presentations 8 - 10 Individuals 2 – 3 minutes each

REVIEW Contest, Rules, Judges Criteria, etc See AMCHAM Participant Manual and Training Materials http://www.amchamchile.cl/ http://debate.uvm.edu/

REVIEW Argument, Reasoning Argument Reasoning Definition Facts/premise + (assumption)  Conclusion Reasoning Reasoning is the process of drawing conclusions from facts or premises

REVIEW What is debate? Debate is the process of presenting arguments for or against a proposition Propositions of fact, value and policy We will argue propositions of policy in our debates Policy propositions will propose a course of action for the future The purpose of debate is to Persuade

Debating Propositions of Policy REVIEW Debating Propositions of Policy GOAL: Understanding the elements of a proposition allow debater to better attack, argue, support & defend it.

Debating Propositions of Policy REVIEW Debating Propositions of Policy Propositions How to analyze and address the proposition: What is the problem and how serious is it? What are the various solutions, with the advantages and disadvantages of each? What is the best solution?

Debating Propositions of Policy REVIEW Debating Propositions of Policy Main Issues in Propositions of Policy: Are evils caused by the present system? Are these evils great enough to demand a change? Are the evils inherent and impossible to repair in the present system? Will the proposed solution remove the evils? Is the proposed solution free from objections? Is the proposed solution the best?

Research, Preparation and Development of Evidence Sources of Material Yourself Opinions and Knowledge of Others Discussion Personal Interviews Letters and e-mail Observation Experiments and Research Libraries Internet Research

Research, Preparation and Development of Evidence Types of Evidence Factual Statistical Opinions of Authorities Testimony of Witnesses Documents, legal papers

Research, Preparation and Development of Evidence Recording Data Computer (not permitted in the actual debate) Paper Index cards

Policy Debate Format and Process

Debate Elements and Format Format – Constructive and Rebuttal (Affirmative and Negative) Affirmative: for the motion, problem in the status quo, solution or proposal to solve that problem: burden of proof, prove the case. Negative: against the motion, just denies, say no (and why), rebuttals. Could present a case. Team Order of Presentations Responsibilities of Presenters Flowing or Flow Sheeting

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 Debate Elements and Format 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 Rebuttal 1A (Counterplan) Close case Prepare opposition block Rebuttal 1N Rebuttal 1A and 2A Defensive arguments (Close case) Ethos, Pathos, Logos Logos

Debate Format 2nd part: rebuttal speeches Debate Elements and Format 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 Logos, Pathos

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 from which you speak. . . More than any other skill besides speaking itself, flow sheeting is important to your debate experience....and important to winning.

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

Judging Criteria Knowing the criteria by which you are judged will be the first strategy to effective and successful debating

Judging Criteria Criteria from GCD Committee See Handouts Challenges

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 his/her vote for winning team: Content: Argumentation Evidence/Information Strategy Speaker’s role Team strategy Style Oral expression Body Language English is not graded

Evaluation Format / Criteria 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. Only Chief judge penalizes.

Question / Answer Process Challenges Question / Answer Process Process Only Speakers 2 and 3 One to two “challenges “ to each speaker Penalization Failure to challenge Failure to respond Poor questions / answers

The Affirmative and Negative Cases Debating Strategy The Affirmative and Negative Cases

Debate Format Affirmative Case First Affirmative Constructive Second Affirmative Constructive First Affirmative Rebuttal Second Affirmative Rebuttal

Debate Format 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 Cases The Stock Issue Case Status Quo needs change Plan will provide change Proposed plan is better than Status Quo and provides Advantages Chain of Reasoning Case Topical Case Disjunctive Case Residue Case 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; 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 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 Competes with the affirmative; net benefits; better to adopt this solution rather than both Mutually exclusive Affirmative responses: Our own 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 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 definitions

Detailed Format and Timeline of Responsibilities – Some additional 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 read it. Practice it so that you sound good and know how to correctly say all of the words in it. Make sure you have covered all the requirements -- read the topic, significance, inherency, plan, solvency. Make sure each of the major issues has evidence which proves it.

1NC - FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE Respond to the affirmative. 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 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.

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 the 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.

1NR - FIRST NEGATIVE REBUTTAL 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, BUT THEY SHOULD NEVER COVER THE SAME GROUND.

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.

2NR - SECOND NEGATIVE REBUTTAL Now is the time to “put all of your eggs in one basket.” The negative search for truth ends in the 2NR. Winning requires the 2NR to choose the issues and approach to create a persuasive bottom line negative position. The 2NR cannot pursue everything in the debate because the judge 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 the 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 the 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 good conclusion.

Practice Debates Topics assigned. Which topics/side did you receive? Setting up the teams: What are your respective roles? Do Research and Develop Arguments Let’s debate (and evaluate) next week A vs. B, C vs. D

Practice Debates Each team will have four debaters We will follow same time limits as in official debates Everyone flows All others not debating will be judges BE PREPARED BE PERSUASIVE

Education Consulting Asesoría Educacional en Chile www.educonsul.cl Av. Apoquindo 3600 - Piso 5 – Las Condes - Santiago – Chile (56-2) 446-8453 - (56-2) 433-2226 fax info@educonsul.cl