HeLa Unit: Policy Debate. Packet

Transcription

1 HeLa Unit: Policy Debate Packet

2 Policy Debate Argumentation/ Persuasion/ Public Speaking HeLa Policy Debate Project Why would people wish to learn to better argue with each other? Debate helps people learn valuable skills such as researching, organizing, speaking and listening. Many professions require these skills. Debate is a contest of spoken argument between two teams or individuals. It is a contest with rules and procedures, winners and losers. In many ways, debate is easier than arguing. Debates have rules, time limits, and judges. In-class debates provide an opportunity to engage in oral argumentation. The final assignment for our The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks unit, is designed to challenge students to apply the course material to the construction of arguments and counterarguments. Much of the work for this assignment will be the preparation of the debate itself- researching evidence, writing case briefs, and preparing responses to arguments from the opposition. The debate project grade will come from three parts: an evaluation of your written briefs, formal and informal debates and a self and team evaluation. In groups of two, there will be teams of two. Each team will be responsible for conducting research and preparing a case in preparation for the debate. Each team will select a position, either affirmative or negative, research the position based on the agreed resolution, theses and definitions. Beyond this research, to prepare for the debates, each team will have to conduct research in order familiarize themselves with the topic. Each team will have the opportunity to refute the opposition, so you will be well served to know your topic inside and out. Obviously, you will not turn in all this research; it will only appear on your works cited page and in your oral debate. The policy debate is broken into two parts, the development of your brief and the debate itself. The debate is formal, so debaters are expected to dress formally. Avoid jeans, tennis shoes, and other informal attire. Remember, the ways we package our thoughts are often as important as the thoughts themselves. If you look sloppy, I ll assume you think sloppy. Public speaking elements such as volume, pitch, clarity, enunciation, eye contact, and gestures will be discussed in class.

3 Debate Format On the day of your debate, you will actually participate in 3 types of debates. This will be a busy day for you, but you ll get through it. The following is a timeline for your debate day. 16 minute Formal Team Debate Opening Statement for the Affirmative - 2 minutes Opening Statement for the Negative 2 minutes First Constructive Argument for the Affirmative - 2 minutes First Constructive Argument for the Negative - 2 minutes Second Constructive Argument for the Affirmative - 2 minutes Second Constructive Argument for the Negative - 2 minutes Closing Statement by the Affirmative - 2 minutes Closing Statement by the Negative 2 minutes 6 minute Informal Debate Crossfire Debate: team back and forth - 3 minutes Town Hall Debate: questions from audience - 3 minutes

4 Debate Documents 1. Cover Page Title Names Date of Debate Class and Instructor 2. Resolution Statement Page 3. Topic Definitions 4. Opening Statement 5. Case Thesis One 6. Case Thesis Two 7. Closing Statement 8. Works Cited 9. Annotations 10. Questions for the Opposition 11. Other Documents Handouts Visuals

5 Definitions: Persuasive Speech Bandwagon Appeal: An appeal based on the fallacy which assumes that because something is popular, it is therefore good, correct, or desirable Card Stacking: A technique that seeks to manipulate audience perception of an issue by emphasizing one side and repressing another Cause-effect Reasoning: Reasoning that seeks to establish the relationship between causes and effects Deductive Reasoning: A form of thinking that begins with a generally accepted truth, connects an issue with that truth, and draws a conclusion based on the connection Ethical Reasoning: Sound ethical reasoning involve weighing a potential course of action against a set of ethical standards or guidelines Faulty Reasoning: incorrect or false reasoning; sometimes used to persuade Glittering Reasoning: Reasoning that uses important-sounding, vague "glad words" that have little or no real meaning. These words are used in general statements that cannot be proved or disproved. Inductive Reasoning: Method of reasoning from particular to general; the mental process involved in creating generalizations from the observed phenomenon or principles Name Calling: The use of language to defame, demean, or degrade individuals or groups Persuasion: The art of convincing others to give favorable attention to our point of view Unrelated Testimonials: Reasoning that involves using statements from a person who is not an expert to create positive feelings for a person, thing, idea, or event Debate Affirmative: Supports the wording of the debate proposition Brief: An orderly arrangement (outline) of all the arguments needed to prove or disprove a proposition Case: The arguments and the evidence on which a debate team bases its stand on a given proposition Debate: Formalized public speaking in which participants prepare and present speeches on opposite sides of an issue to determine which side has the stronger arguments Negative: Opposes the wording of the debate proposition Policy Debate: Research based formalized public speaking in which participants prepare and present speeches on opposite sides of an issue to determine which side has the stronger arguments Proposition: A topic stated in debatable form. It is a persuasive specific purpose that establishes a fact, establishes or changes a belief, or recommends a policy. Types of propositions: o Proposition of Fact: determines what is true or false o Proposition of Policy: recommends a policy to determine what action should be taken o Proposition of Value: seeks to establish or change a value Rebuttal: Rebuilds an argument Refutation: Attacks the ideas of the opposition

6 Debate Topics These are only suggestions. Your group may decide on almost any topic it wants so long as it falls under the policy debate umbrella, and so long as it has some connection with what we were studying in the HeLa book. When you decide, please okay it with me. Only one group may have a topic; first come, first served. Abortion is the only topic that I don t allow under any circumstance. The debate is old, and it can t be won or lost in twenty minutes. Avoid topics that don t have many resources, or topics that require the Bible as a source. The Bible, or any religious text, cannot be used as a source in debate. Assisted Suicide Funding for Medical Research Cloning Animal Rights Stem Cell Research Genetic Engineering Organ Sales Drug Research

7 Qualities of a Good Proposition 1. The proposition should be debatable. It should have two sides, no more, no less. The proposition Resolved: That our streets should be made safe is poor. There may be disagreement about how to make the streets safer, but everyone agrees that the streets should be made safe. This proposition only has one side. 2. The proposition should be worded so that the affirmative supports the change. The affirmative team must argue for a change. If the proposition is stated, Resolved: That the federal government should not establish a required seat belt law, the affirmative team would be arguing a negative position. This can make the debate confusing, so be sure to word the proposition as clearly as possible. 3. The proposition should be worded as a statement, not a question. The proposition should be worded to call for a change in the present system. Do not present the proposition as a question, such as Should Congress establish a required seat belt law? or How should a seat belt law be established? 4. The proposition should contain only one issue. The exact issue of difference should be clear. A statement such as Resolved: That Wright County should start free lunch program for senior citizens and a full-day kindergarten program is actually a double proposition. This is two separate debates because these are two separate issues.

8 Affirmative Position: Ms. Lingofelt Proposition Page Sample Statement of Resolution: Resolved: The United States should enact second hand smoke laws, barring smoking tobacco in public places. Thesis One: Exposure to second hand smoke causes disease and premature death in children and adults that do not smoke. Thesis Two: Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to second hand smoke.

9 Affirmative Ms. Lingofelt Definitions Bar: to exclude or except Eliminate:to remove or get rid of Enact: to make into an act or statute Exposure:subjecting to the action or influence of something Second Hand Smoke: also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning end of a cigarette, pipe or cigar and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers Ventilate:to provide (a room, mine, etc.) with fresh air in place of air that has been used or contaminated

10 Affirmative Ms. Lingofelt Opening Statement We are a nation at risk. According to the Surgeon General, roughly 60% of children between the ages of 3 and 11 are exposed to second hand smoke in the United States. Imagine, 22 million developing children exposed to cancer- causing chemicals. There is little surprise that the World Health Organization is predicting that cancer will replace heart disease as the leading cause of death by the year Due to the dangerous consequences of inaction, my partner and I taken the affirmative to the resolution, the United States of America must enact second hand smoke laws, barring people from smoking tobacco in public places. We intend to prove that there is a real danger if we don t change the current laze faire policies regarding second hand smoke. We will prove the following theses: exposure to second hand smoke causes disease and premature death in children and adults that do not smoke, and eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to second hand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to second hand smoke. According to Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, involuntary exposure to second hand smoke remains a serious public health hazard that can be prevented by making homes, workplaces, and public places completely smoke- free, and the only effective solution is the creation of smoke- free environments. Richard Carmona, MD, goes on to state, Restrictions on smoking can control exposures effectively, but technical approaches involving air cleaning or greater exchange of indoor with outdoor air cannot. Consequently, nonsmokers need protection through the restriction of smoking in public places and workplaces and by a voluntary adherence to policies at home, particularly to eliminate exposures of children. Clearly, the medical community agrees that second hand smoke is harmful, and that the only effective solution is a public ban on second hand smoke. The Declaration of Independence states that we are all born with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. People shouldn t have to risk their lives to enjoy a night out. We don t propose to deny smokers the right to smoke. We simply want to assure our rights to live free and clear of tobacco smoke. For insurance of public health, the United States of America must enact second hand smoke laws, barring people from smoking tobacco in public places.

11 Affirmative Ms. Lingofelt Thesis 1 Exposure to second hand smoke causes disease and premature death in children and adults that do not smoke. The Center for Disease Control estimates that between 22,000 and 69,000 people die each year from premature heart disease caused by passive smoking. Second hand smoke has also proven to cause the formation of bad cholesterol, the kind that leads to heart attacks, and it causes blood platelets to become stickier, increasing the chances of heart attack and stroke. A healthy heart is the key to a healthy life. Second hand smoke is clearly bad for the heart. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies second hand smoke as a group A carcinogen. They consider second hand smoke a known cause of cancer in humans. This group of cancer causing agents includes chemicals found in weapons, and different forms of radiation. The EPA doesn t give this classification without thought. For a product to be placed on this list, there must be empirical evidence of a causal relationship between the product and cancer. Cancer is scary. Even when cancer is cured, it leaves a lasting impact on victims and families. Second hand smoke also is a cause of chronic pulmonary diseases such as emphysema and bronchitis. These conditions are sometimes fatal, and as they progress, most will require medical attention and full- time hospital care. Children that are exposed to second hand smoke are more likely to develop asthma than children who are not exposed. Second hand smoke isn t always fatal, but often it lowers the quality of life. Second hand smoke has been linked to conditions like type- 2 diabetes, chronic ulcers, cataracts and osteoporosis. These are not conditions that should be dismissed lightly, and they are not typically associated with healthy people. People who choose not to smoke shouldn t be subjected to chemicals that cause so much harm. *Roughly 300 words *Yours may be longer, but shouldn t be shorter *Thesis two follows the same format

12 Affirmative Ms. Lingofelt Thesis Two Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to second hand smoke. This smoke has what scientists for Americans for Nonsmoker s Rights call non- linear dose response. Although visible smoke may leave the air, the harmful smoke particles are still present. The American Cancer Society states that there is no safe level for exposure to second hand smoke. If any is in the air, the ventilation system has failed In general, the systems that restaurants use to clean the air are not sufficient. In 2006, Consumer Affairs investigated the ventilation systems many bars and restaurants installed to avoid a smoking ban. These high- tech systems were no match for the second hand smoke. In fact, some of the systems did no more than an open window. These systems can actually do more harm than good. They give owners and patrons a false sense of security. When there is a visible smoke, people naturally spend less time in the affected area. Second hand smoke is a mixture of gases and particles. There is currently no technology that can completely remove all the different components of second hand smoke. Ventilation companies don t make health claims for this reason. These companies are more concerned with visibility and odor. Banning the smoking of tobacco is the only effective way of protecting the public from the effects of second hand smoke.

13 Affirmative Ms. Lingofelt Closing Statement The National Toxicology Program estimates that at least 250 chemicals in secondhand smoke are known to be toxic or cancer causing. Secondhand smoke also contains a number of poisonous gases and chemicals, including hydrogen cyanide (used in chemical weapons), carbon monoxide (found in car exhaust), butane (used in lighter fluid), ammonia (used in household cleaners), and toluene (found in paint thinners). Some of the toxic metals contained in secondhand smoke include arsenic (used in pesticides), lead (formerly found in paint), and cadmium (used to make batteries). How do we, as a nation, protect ourselves from these dangerous chemicals? We can begin by enacting second hand smoke laws throughout the country. We have proven that second hand smoke causes disease and premature death. The role of government should be to protect its citizens from harm. We ve shown that current technology cannot clean second hand smoke from the air. There can no longer be smoking sections in public places; the air is still dangerous for the nonsmoker. For these reasons, my partner and I strongly support laws that put an end to second hand smoke in public places. As stated by Julie Louise Gerberding, MD, of the CDC, smoke free policies are the most economic and effective approach for providing protection from exposure to second hand smoke separating smokers from nonsmokers in the same airspace is not effective, nor is air cleaning or a greater exchange of indoor with outdoor air. Doctors know that smoke free is the way to go if we want to protect ourselves. The government has a history of banning products and activities that pose a threat to our lives. Asbestos, lead- based paint, and the use of benzene as a teaching aid were all banned for the good of public health. These chemicals cause cancer, much like second hand smoke. Why should the government treat second hand smoke any differently?

14 Affirmative Ms. Lingofelt Works Cited Leavitt, M.O. (2006). The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A report of the surgeon general. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved Dec. 1, 2008 from pdf Tobacco Free Initiative. (2007) Protection from exposure to second hand smoke. World Health Organization. Retrieved Dec. 3, 2008 from Affirmative Annotations Ms. Lingofelt The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke is a document written by Michael Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human Services for the Surgeon General of the United States. Leavitt describes the dangers of second hand smoke and gives recommendations for avoided health complications associated with the inhalation of second hand smoke. Protection From Exposure to Second Hand Smoke gives recommendations from the World Health Organization for effective protection from the effects of second hand smoke. The World Health Organization compiles statistics from around the globe regarding the health effects of tobacco smoke.