Debating Society Germany e.V.

Debating Society Germany e.V.

Purpose of debating 'The audience should not be able to tell whether you personally believe something. The process forces you to at least respect the other side of an argument and it makes you question your own opinion.' 'When you get up to speak you have to set aside your emotions and put yourself in someone else’s shoes. It’s like acting in that sense.' Ife Grillo, member of England’s 2016 champion debating team  Learner’s “desire to connect emotionally” (Lynne Cameron, 2001) Debating Society Germany e.V.

Learning… in a more tangible context connecting emotionally
through allowing more and longer speech acts as a critical process of questioning while based on research with multi-modal input by aiming at a goal by aiming at an audience Communication… face-to-face through physical co-presence through speaker-based referencing with paralingual and non-lingual elements as an open progression  non-routine situations deviation from standardised norms Debating Society Germany e.V.

 "Process Speaking" through feedback
Methodical learning procedural theory trial runs repetition  "Process Speaking" through feedback Debating Society Germany e.V.

SKILLS TRAINED THROUGH DEBATING
Method skills Content skills Intercultural skills Doing research Reducing material Adding structure Giving presentations Improving rhetoric skills Self-confidence through presenting skills Team work Communicative skills Business fluent English Extensive general knowledge Topicality Broad knowledge beyond standard school curricula Diverse issues: economy, social, ethical and moral issues, the media, politics, law, environment, history Promoting cultural understanding in Europe and the world Freedom of expression and exchange Tolerance Diplomatic skills Pleasant appearance (dress code) Rhetoric etiquette Debating Society Germany e.V.

SCHOOLS DEBATING – AN INTRODUCTION
THBT parents should be able to vote by proxy for their children Debating Society Germany e.V.

MOTIONS R1: This house believes that important decisions about children’s health should be made by medical professionals and not by their parents. R2: This house would prohibit the media reporting stories that intrude on the private lives of public figures. R3: This house supports greater US military presence in East Asia. R4: This house would allow prisoners to choose death over life sentence. R5: This house would cease the exploitation of resources in the Arctic region. R6: This house would require government schools to teach religious studies. R7: This house supports sovereign debt default as a legitimate economic strategy for countries. R8: This house would require university students to work in their country of origin for a number of years after graduation. Debating Society Germany e.V.

GF: THBT states should be allowed to pay other states to relocate and settle refugees. SF: THBT versions of history taught by states through the education system should not be designed to promote national pride. QF: THBT governments should ban their citizens from joining overseas groups fighting against terrorism which are not official military forces. OF: THBT large tech companies should refuse to provide data on their customers to governments, even if it involves refusing to comply with a law which compels them to do so. PDO: THW abolish religious primary and secondary schools. R8: THW require individuals to pass a political general knowledge test in order to vote. R7: THBT Obama’s administration has done more harm than good. R6: THBT it should be a criminal offence to make comments which could promote hatred against people of particular races, religions, disabilities, sexualities or gender identities. R5: THBT technology companies with significant market shares should not be eligible for patent protection. R4: THW televise criminal trials. R3: THW require democratic states to hold a national referendum to ratify free trade agreements. R2: THBT major film and television awards shows should abolish awards categories separated by gender. R1: THBT, after meeting their basic needs, individuals have a moral responsibility to donate their wealth towards poverty alleviation. Debating Society Germany e.V.

THBT advertising shouldn't aim at kids
Suitable junior level motions THBT advertising shouldn't aim at kids THW make teacher evaluation mandatory THB in patchwork families THW ban same-sex marriages THBT comprehensive schools are the solution THW ban private health insurance THBT the American government is a model for the world THW ban Carnival THB in patriotism THW limit immigration THW lower the voting age Debating Society Germany e.V.

THE DEBATE LAYOUT Debating Society Germany e.V.

Debate layout (Speaking time: 5 minutes, no reply speeches)  30 mins
Debating Society Germany e.V.

SPEAKER ROLES Debating Society Germany e.V.

REGIONAL IMPACT Exchange achieved by teams debating from different school classes schools schools representing regions regional mixed teams national teams Schools draw attention to themselves through public debates teams debating in other regions or abroad local press apprearance create reputation in the debating community Debating Society Germany e.V.

19-29 JUL 2016 Debating Society Germany e.V.

ADJUDICATION STYLE (40%) CONTENT (40%) STRATEGY (20%) Debating Society Germany e.V.

Judging style Did the speaker have a convincing and persuasive appearance? Did the debater make appropriate use of the palm cards or sheets (did they present the argument or read out the argument?) Did I like to listen to him/her? Was I able to follow? Did the speaker make it easy to follow (with sign-posting, clear voice, gestures and facial expressions, adequate speed and use of vocabulary)? Did the speaker deal with POIs in a polite but persuasive manner? Debating Society Germany e.V.

Judging content Was the line of argumentation logical, coherent and consistent? Have the arguments of the opponent been clashed sufficiently? Were the arguments convincing, relevant, strong or weak? Were the arguments substantiated or mere statements? Have the arguments been supported by examples? Were the examples factually true? Debating Society Germany e.V.

Judging strategy Was the most important argument brought forward/clashed first? Has the opponent engaged with rebuttal from the beginning or late? Have the speaker roles been distributed evenly or were they carried by an indivudual? Has the speaker stayed within time limitations? Has the speaker offered/accepted enough POIs? Were the POIs of good quality? Debating Society Germany e.V.

Agenda What will we see today? Profile of a “perfect” Judge
Intro to WSDC format Judging Criteria Marking Criteria Range of marks Agenda What will we see today?

1. Profile of a “perfect” Judge

Profile of a “perfect” judge
Impartial A perfect judge doesn’t judge teams they have a personal bond with (nation of affiliation, teams they have coached etc.) Unbiased Before the debate starts, a perfect judge has no idea who is going to win the debate. Their own opinion on a motion, no matter how strong that opinion is, is put aside during the debate. Observant A perfect judge listens carefully to what debaters bring to the table. However, judges are lazy in the sense that they do not construct ideas that haven’t been explained well. Aware of current affairs A perfect judge is aware of basic current affairs, but is able to not let their specific knowledge interfere with the debate. A perfect judge takes on the role of an average intelligent voter. Constructive A perfect judge creates a fun atmosphere for debaters and gives them constructive and concrete points of feedback after the result of the debate is announced, so that debaters understand their view of the debate, and also take useful advice with them, that can be applied in the future.

2. Introduction to the WSDC format
General outline Role of teams Role of speakers 2. Introduction to the WSDC format How does it work?

World Schools Format 2 teams: Government (Prop.) and Opposition
3-5 members on a team 3 speakers per team in a debate 3 substantive speeches + 1 reply speech (per team) Substantive speeches: 8 min Reply Speeches: 4 min POIs & protected time Case division – 1st & 2nd vs. 3rd or reply Here and now rule! No low-point wins or draws!

Roles of the TEAMS Government (Prop.) Opposition
It has the burden of proof: significant majority of cases. It has to define the motion and keep the debate tracked to what the motions proposes. This can be done implicitly (i.e. no need to say “these are our definitions”), but Proposition’s understanding of the motion has to be clear. It has to describe the status quo. It can present a solution to the current problem, and demonstrate that said solution is both practical and effective. Cast reasonable doubt on the Government’s case, by proving that it does not apply in significant minority of cases. It can set up its case purely on rebuttal of Prop, but this is strategically very risky It can have substantive arguments of its own Strategic choices an opposition can make: accept the issue as given by the Gov. and debate challenge the definition and propose another one broaden the definition present an “even if” case Lisa: I changed the last bulletpoint of opposition. Initially it was: ‘It should present a case of its own, not only refute the Govt’s case:’ I changed that into ‘strategic choices an opposition can make’ to show that the following options can be legit depending on the debate. Suggestions are welcome!

Roles of the SPEAKERS Order of speaking → First Prop, First Opp; Second Prop, Second Opp; Third Prop, Third Opp and then Opp Reply, Prop Reply. Who can introduce new constructive material? Proposition First – of course! Second – yes Third – yes, but* Reply – no Opposition First – yes Second – yes Third – yes, but* Reply – no * Does the third speaker bring an entirely new argument? Rules of WSDC allow for this to happen when the first speaker announced such material. it is almost always seen as a strategically risky choice, since material has more weight when it has been developed throughout the debate. Third speakers are always allowed to bring new rebuttal and to add some explanation to arguments that have already been brought.

Roles of the SPEAKERS 1st Speakers Proposition
Explain Proposition’s understanding of the motion (e.g. define the motion or frame it) Introduce plan if the team chooses to tackle the motion with one Bring constructive material (Introduce arguments :) ) Opposition Challenge definition if necessary Attack plan if necessary Bring Rebuttal Bring constructive material* * Opposition is allowed not to bring constructive material, but strategically it is advisable to bring some.

Roles of the SPEAKERS 2nd Speakers Proposition
Deal with challenges of the definition, if necessary Bring rebuttal to first opposition speaker Extend and further develop the constructive case of proposition Opposition Bring rebuttal to extension and extend and further develop the case of the proposition Extend the constructive case of opposition, if they have one

Roles of the SPEAKERS 3rd Speakers Proposition
Extend and further develop the Proposition’s constructive case Bring rebuttal to opposition’s constructive case, if they have one. Opposition Bring rebuttal to Proposition’s constructive case Extend and further develop Oppoisition’s constructive case, if they have one

Roles of the SPEAKERS Reply Speakers Proposition
Bring a holistic overview of the debate Compare and analyse both teams’ argumentative cases. Explain why they think their team won, without adding new material. Opposition Bring a holistic overview of the debate Compare and analyse both teams’ argumentative cases. Explain why they think their team won, without adding new material.

Third vs Reply Speeches
Roles of the SPEAKERS Third vs Reply Speeches Only the reply speech is a holistic summary speech. Sometimes they perform similar roles – but: Reply speeches should give you a holistic analysis of the debate. Third speeches can be structured in various ways, e.g. thematic, chronological, but rebuttal will be the most significant part.

Judging Criteria What do we look at? Content Style Strategy ---
Points of Information Judging Criteria What do we look at?

1. Content Deals with WHAT is being presented.
Evaluates the quality of content as if they were written down. Covers both a speaker’s own arguments and the rebuttal of the opposition’s arguments. It is irrelevant whether or not/ to which extent the judge personally agrees with the argument. Includes: Quality of analysis (missing logical links or nicely logically structured? → claim, explanation, example, conclusion) Quality of examples (broadly applicable or cherry-picked? scientifically supported or personal anecdotes?)

Why is content important in a debate?
Teams both give reasons why a motion should be accepted (proposition) or should fall (opposition). The better these reasons are explained, the more the judge will be persuaded. The content-category doesn’t just apply to constructive material, but to everything that is explained by a speaker: The legitimization of the definition The way in which they explain that their plan is effective The way in which they explain the context they set up for the debate The way in which they rebut their opponents The Key: To which extent are you, as an average intelligent voter, persuaded by the content delivered by the speaker?

Content - Best Practices
Arguments Do the debaters substantiate their arguments or do they make claims? When the debaters talk about a consequence of the motion, do they actually explain why the consequence will happen or do they merely state it? Examples Do the debaters use relevant examples that make their arguments more persuasive or do they use irrelevant (or overly specific) examples? Do debaters use scientific evidence, examples from credible sources, or personal anecdotes? Rebuttal When rebutting their opponent, do they attack the actual argument the opponent made or do they misrepresent the argument to make it easier for themselves? When rebutting their opponent, do they use logical steps of analysis or do they simply claim that the argument is false?

Content - What to keep in mind as a judge?
An adjudicator is an average intelligent voter - your specific knowledge on a certain topic is irrelevant during the debate. A judge should never say: “The proposition claimed that 1 million electric cars were produced in the UK last year, and it wasn’t attacked by the opposition, but since this is my field of expertise I know that the correct number is which is why the argument falls.” → adjudicators judge the debate as it happened. An adjudicator doesn’t assess content based on possible other arguments a team could have brought. A judge should never say: “I penalized you because you didn’t bring an argument about the economy, even though I think that is really relevant in the debate.” → adjudicators can not penalize teams for not bringing certain arguments. They can, however, give this as explicit feedback for teams to improve. Not as a legitimization of the call for the given debate.

An adjudicator assesses the strength of an argument based on analysis, not based on possible refutations they can think of. A judge should never say: You explained your arguments about violence pretty well, but I thought of 3 different ways to rebut it which is why I penalized you on content. → Judges only take into account what has been said, not what could have been said in the debate. An adjudicator does not improve arguments that were poorly explained for the debaters. A judge should never say: You tried to explain why this policy harms minorities, and even though you didn’t give the right reasons, I do agree with you that it’s an important argument because of reason X, Y and Z. This is why I awarded you on content. → Judges only take into account what has been said, not what could have been said in the debate. They can only give such advice during feedback for improvement purposes, if teams want to know how to make their argument(s) stronger, not as a justification of awarding marks.

An adjudicator never rewards a weak argument This argument was weak but I rewarded it because it was not adequately rebutted. → A weak argument can be penalized or ignored as peripheral. If the other team effectively rebuts it, that team can be further reward it.

2. Style Deals with HOW the content is presented.
Not judging their command of English language! (i.e. everyone has a funny accent but you) Includes: Body language, pace of speech, loud/silent Choice of vocabulary (too technical or too lay?) Eye contact or fixated on notes? How engaging and persuasive is the speaker? Persuasiveness is also achieved via leading the audience to pay attention to what they are saying There are plenty of good styles.

Why is Style important in a debate?
Good style makes a speech: Easy to follow Clear Non-repetitive Interesting Persuasive There is no “correct style”. All speakers can have different manners of presenting their speech, but what matters is how convincing the speech was, and part of that is a result of Style: it combines some of the elements that make for a convincing speech that are not represented by the value of the information presented. A good style makes debaters be effective communicators: a speech is not just about presenting information, but also about getting the information through to the audience, letting them understand what is being said and being drawn to the speech.

Clarity (lang. & express.)
Eye Contact Use of props Voice Modulation Topic 2 Elements of Style Clarity (lang. & express.) Hand gestures These elements have to be weighed in an overall assessment. Use of pauses

Style - Best Practices Visual Style Eye Contact:
to ensure the audience feels that the debater is speaking to them, not just in front of them. a speaker should address the entire audience, without seeming as if he/she is speaking to only some part of it, or just the judges for example. when using notes, the speaker should read through them, not read them out loud. Gestures: when speaking everyone uses gesturing, so it’s normal and credible if a debater gestures in a debate. However, excessive gesturing or repetitive movements could be distracting, so they should be avoided. Use of props: this would include lecterns, microphones, desks, stopwatches, etc. Speakers should bare in mind not to repeatedly direct attention to them: they are there to help them, not to cause distraction. Stance: debaters should face the audience, and avoid turning their backs to it or speaking directly to their opponents in the debate. ideally, a speaker’s posture should reflect calm and confidence, so it’s best to avoid moving around too much.

Style - Best Practices Oral Style
Accent: This element should not impact the score a speaker receives, neither positively nor negatively. However, a speaker should try to be as clear as possible during their speech (this is also related to the choice of words). Speed: Despite having a limited amount of time to give their speeches, debaters should try to speak as slowly as possible, giving the audience enough time to think and understand what they are listening to, and to evaluate the debate. Debaters can make emphasis on the most relevant things via speed variation (as seen before), for example. Voice modulation: Varying the volume of their voice during a speech allows debaters to be clearer by putting emphasis over the content that is more relevant, keeping the speech interesting and providing more sense to it. It is the same that one does when speaking. Volume: This also depends on the context of the speech, as the two previous points, and debaters should apply variations to it. Best speakers also adjust their volume and oral style based on the properties of the room they are speaking in (is it a small classroom with an echo or a large auditorium, etc.).

Style - Best Practices Oral Style (cont.)
Clarity (language): This refers to the overall way in which the debater speaks, and in this case it’s particularly related to the choice of words and expressions they make. There are a few best practices regards this: Complex vocabulary should be avoided, it is most times not necessary and might create confusion. Same is the case for technical terms. Acronyms are also prone to creating confusion, but they can be used. If it’s the case of an acronym that is not well known (i.e. that the average audience member would not understand), then it might be used if necessary, but it should first be explained in the speech. Mannerisms: These tend to distract the listeners from the speech, so debaters should avoid them as much as possible. They can be a repeated sentence, gestures or verbal crutches. Pauses: To add emphasis to a certain idea or point, and are good transition makers. They help create a specific atmosphere during the speech. Short Sentences: To make it easier for the audience to follow the speeches and not get lost in the reasonings.

Style - What to keep in mind as a judge?
There is no one size fits all style. Some speakers are more persuasive when they stand still, others like to walk around. The key is: does the style make this speaker more persuasive or less persuasive? Most speakers will vary theirs style during the speech to emphasize numerous parts of the speech differently. A judge should never say: Even though you were quite persuasive by using a calm manner, you would get more speaker points if you are more passionate because that is objectively always better. It is important not to take into account what your personal preference concerning style is as a judge. The scores should be as objective as possible. A judge should never say: You are a very calm speaker and I penalized you because personally I enjoy passionate speeches more. But another judge could have judged you differently, this is just a matter of taste.

3. Strategy Deals with WHY content is said.
Is it relevant to the motion/debate? Reasonable interpretation that allows for substantive debate Squirreling or weaseling out of the debate Includes: Interpretation of the motion Time allocation (is the argument so important to the debate?) Structuring of the speech (prioritization) Consistency between arguments and speeches

Why is Strategy important?
Even though it weighs less in the marksheet, strategy should be considered because it reflects the decision that teams make on: what arguments to present when to present each argument how much time to allocate to each argument when to refute a topic or offer a POI how to answer to a POI from the opposing team (whether they dodge it or address it; how well they address it is also a matter of Content) how to define the motion whether or not to attack the definition, and to which extent how to present summaries at the end of the speeches when to use examples (to sustain their arguments) what examples to use in each case

Strategy - Best Practices
Whether the speaker understood the issues of the debate: the crucial topics of the debate have all been answered by the team, and that its members have not wasted time in dealing only with the details. For example: a speaker who answers the critical issues with weak responses would not have a good level of Content but a good level of Strategy. Issues A well structured speech should: include a clear beginning, middle and end; contain signposts along the way to allow the audience to see where the speaker is going. A well timed speech should: last no more than the allowed time limit; give an appropriate amount of time to the issues in the speech. Organization

Strategy - Best Practices
Having a good strategy means teams prioritize content presentation, and understand when it is time to focus on which aspect of the content in the debate, and how. It shows good time management: more time is dedicated to the most important issues, and less to the lesser ones. Using time wisely is a great advantage for a team, as there is a limit to the amount of time that each debater can speak for, and it is the team’s responsibility to use it properly. Good strategy helps teams present consistent arguments and refutation. Speakers: should not contradict their own arguments; should not contradict their teammates’ arguments. must argue the case directly. It also leads to an effective comparison of arguments in summary.

Strategy - What to keep in mind as a judge?
Strategy points are awarded when a speaker identifies and addresses the right issues in the debate, even if they don’t analyse these issues very well. A judge should never say: I penalized you on strategy because even though you addressed the right points of rebuttal, you didn’t manage to fully rebut them. → In this case you award a speaker on strategy, and penalize them on content. A team should always engage with their opponents. If their opponent’s bring a weak argument, it is still important to rebut that argument. A judge should never say: It was really clever that you didn’t engage with argument X, because it was a very poor argument so you didn’t have to spend any time on it. → It would be good strategy to spend little time on rebutting the weak argument, but it would be poor strategy to ignore it, unless there is specific need to devote more time to other issues in the debate.

Let’s take a look at some FAQs
What to do if teams don’t clash? What if I think the debate should go to Opp, but my marks say Prop? How does POI adjustment work? What do I do with a team that’s much better than the other? What if I can’t understand the speaker? Can I award a debate based on style? What can I do as a judge when my personal knowledge interferes? What should I do as a judge when a weak argument is made?

Points of Information What are they? Why are they important?
Short, brief comments or questions addressing what the speaker is immediately saying Why are they important? they provide immediate engagement between the speaker and the opposing team they can be used to a strategic advantage How many should be offered: Enough to demonstrate opposing team’s speakers’ engagement with the arguments made in the given speech. POIs should be offered in a way that doesn’t obstruct the speaker from delivering the speech (i.e. no “barracking”) How many should be accepted: Ideally, 2 per speech In case not enough POIs are offered or they are offered heavily in the first part of the speech, prohibiting the speaker from addressing 2 POIs, judges should take this into account when evaluating POI engagement

Points of Information How are they marked: Accepting a POI:
(un)willingness to take a POI would be given credit under the Strategy column quality of the response to a POI would then be appropriately credited in the Content section Offering of a POI: Quality and quantity of POIs is awarded under the POI adjustment column This column is only used when the quality of the POIs is significantly different from the quality of the speech delivered by the speaker (i.e. speaker gave a below average speech, but provided very strong poignant POIs, or gave a poor speech, but offered multiple strong POIs). It is not used when speakers quality of POIs is similar to the quality of speaker’s substantive speech. Useful way to think of POI adjustment column: Everything that happens within the 8 minutes of a speech is marked within the 3 categories of Style, Content and Strategy. Everything that happens outside is marked within POI adjustment column (if necessary).

PRACTICES Debating Society Germany e.V.

„My name is X, and if I ruled the world, I‘d…“
Practice 1 IF I RULED THE WORLD „My name is X, and if I ruled the world, I‘d…“ Practice 2 The WHY game One person is standing in front of the audience and makes his first statement, for example: „I believe we should close all zoos“. The audience asks „WHY?“. The speaker has to answer the question, until this answer is faced with the next question: „WHY?“. There are as many questions as the speaker can answer. Debating Society Germany e.V.

Practice 3 MAD DISCUSSION Pairs of speakers receive a random word each. To determine a winner of the following debate between the two, one must be more convincing than the other on why his word has had a more important impact on the world. ships the wheel the internet pizzas bras plastic spoons lampshades airplanes coffee detective novels stairs modern art architects newspapers necklaces rowing boats socks mini skirts flags tables typewriters dentists electricity cars politicians ice cream calendars TV windows money xerox machines actors Debating Society Germany e.V.

Practice 4 ALLEY DEBATE Group 1: You have found a purse full of money. Side PROP would like to give it to the police, whereas side OPP wants to keep it. Exchange one argument per person. Group 2: Your child wants more allowance. Side PROP supports the idea, whereas side OPP has to contradict. Exchange one argument per person. Debating Society Germany e.V.

Argument structure (ARE/SEE models) According to the ARE procedure students will learn to understand the significance of backing up an argument. ARE stands for Argument , Reason for that argument and Example. SEE stands for Statement, Explanation, Example and essentially means the same thing, but is just called differently. Examples are also known as evidence. Take the motion "THBT smoking should be banned from public places". Debating Society Germany e.V.

One argument could be: "Passive smoking is a threat to public health" One reason why you choose this argument could be: "Because smoking is allowed in public places, virtually everybody could be a victim of passive smoking. Studies show that one's health is at risk if exposed to cigarette fumes on a repeated basis. This harm could weigh heavily on a society if there is no stopping this condition. Health risks such as circulatory problems and lung diseases could be avoided as well as people becoming ill early and drop out of the workforce or even die younger than the average citizen." Examples to prove this are: "Young school kids going to school through train stations, every person commuting to work for that matter could be affected." "Waitresses working in restaurants and bars aren't protected from exposure." "The city/country of X has seen an increase of lung-related diseases in the period from Y to Z that can be related to second-hand smoking" "Component X in cigarettes causes reaction Y in the body, which could ultimately lead to condition Z and possibly death." Debating Society Germany e.V.

FOUR-STEP REFUTATION (Revealing the flaws of the counter-argument)
Practice 5 FOUR-STEP REFUTATION (Revealing the flaws of the counter-argument) Use the following phrases: They say... We disagree... because... (insert refutation) therefore… Debating Society Germany e.V.

North and South Korea should reunify. It worked for Germany.
Angela Merkel is from East Germany and therefore unfit to govern all of Germany. If the US economy is not doing well, Barack Obama is the only one to blame. If immigrant families are not happy in their host country, they should go back to where they come from. Economic experts say that the economic situation will improve next year. They must be right. McDonald's is the most popular restaurant in the world. It must be the best food. The only way to improve the educational system is to spend more money on it. North and South Korea should reunify. It worked for Germany. The EU is the world’s best democracy, so others should copy the EU’s form of government. Mister Y, the baseball star, says, "Smokies are the least harmful of all cigarettes." Freedom of speech is more important than security from terrorism. Public nudity at beaches is obscene and dangerous All over the world we must guarantee equal rights for women. Economic growth should always be pursued as a goal. Freedom of the press is more important that the privacy of government officials. Debating Society Germany e.V.

Teenagers should be given more homework so they stay out of trouble. High school students should have closed campus because there isn’t enough time to go anywhere for lunch in a safe manner. A school uniform should be implemented so there is less time wasted on enforcing a dress code. Students should park in the back portion of the parking lot because teachers have so much to carry in to the building every day. Students shouldn’t be required to go to school because then there will be kids there who don’t want to be there and they might cause trouble. The school day should be shortened because more time in school does not increase the quality of learning. The school should abolish all organized sports and put all money into music because it has been proven that students involved with music are more successful in school. Students should be allowed to eat and drink any time and anywhere during the school day because students have different needs for eating times. Debating Society Germany e.V.

One person gives a 2-3 minute speech on
Practice 6 REBUTTAL PRACTICE One person gives a 2-3 minute speech on - making teacher evaluation compulsory introducing school uniforms - lowering the voter age to 16 for all elections After the speech, three members are asked to give one line of attack per person. The fourth person sums up all the points as part of a rebuttal speech. Get into three groups of approx. six people. Debating Society Germany e.V.

Classroom role assignments Debating Society Germany e.V.

Practice 7 – A Model Debate
THW ban zoos THBT public transport should be free of charge THW ban beauty contests THW make fast food more expensive THW shut down social networks THW introduce school uniforms THW ban video game consoles THBT the internet is the better teacher THBT pupils should pay money for not doing homework THW ban pets THBT there should be more discipline in schools THBT there should be less reading and more watching films in schools THBT kids should be forced to read books THW ban talk shows THBT every pupil must learn a musical instrument in school Debating Society Germany e.V.

Debating Society Germany e.V.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Debating Society Germany e.V."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Debating Society Germany e.V.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Debating Society Germany e.V."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback