I decided to make the e-version of my introductory debate textbook free. It's an appropriate guide for middle schoolers or high schoolers.
To download The "How to" of Debate in kindle format, for free, click here. (By the way, the easiest way I know to get an ebook onto any kindle device is to download it to your computer, then email it to your kindle's special email address. Look on Amazon, in your account info, for "manage content and devices." Then go to Settings, and the email address for your kindle device should be under "Personal Document Settings." Make sure your kindle device is enabled to receive emails from your personal email address, then you are ready to go! Just email it to yourself, and a few minutes later, it will sync onto your kindle device. This is much easier than trying to figure out where your device stores kindle files.)
For the paperback version of The "How to" of Debate, click here (still $15.95).
Showing posts with label Public Forum debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Forum debate. Show all posts
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Friday, March 7, 2014
Debating Policies
It also had not occurred to me, until today, to post a copy of my policy debate textbooks. The new, improved version, The "How to" of Debate, is available on lulu. The old version, Debating Policies, is below for free.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Debate topics
I always wished I had gotten a government reform topic, but I never did in my eight years. It seems like these are never used for policy debate. Reform topics seem like these would be great for Public Forum or Parliamentary debate.
On elections:
On structure:
Substantive:
I'm sure there a lot more fun topics on general government reform, but these are the ones that occurred to me off the top of my head. Please post additional ones in the comments.
On elections:
- The U.S. House of Representatives districts should be drawn by non-partisan commission, not legislatures.
- The U.S. House of Representatives should be elected using multi-seat, proportional districts. (I also wrote an earlier post here.)
- The U.S. Senate should be elected with an open primary system, allowing the top two primary finishers, regardless of party, advance to the general election.
- The Federal Election Commission should ban private funding of elections, substituting comprehensive public funding.
On structure:
- The U.S. Speaker of the House should not have the power to delay a vote on a motion if a substantial minority of Representatives desire the vote. (abolish the "Hastert rule")
- The U.S. Senate should abolish the filibuster.
- Congressional pay should be suspended if Congress is unable to pass a budget.
- The U.S. Congress should only be allowed to pass a spending bill if it contains a suitable increase to the debt ceiling.
- The U.S. Congress should be required to take an immediate up-or-down vote if the President proproses raising the debt ceiling.
- U.S. Supreme Court justices should be limited to 18-year terms (also here).
- The U.S. Supreme Court should no longer have the power of constitutional review (also this, this, and this).
- Amendments to the U.S. Constitution should require a substantially lower threshold for passage.
Substantive:
- The U.S. federal government should not use block grants to administer federal programs.
- The U.S. should increase the federal gasoline tax.
- School funding should be collected and dispensed at the state, not local, level.
I'm sure there a lot more fun topics on general government reform, but these are the ones that occurred to me off the top of my head. Please post additional ones in the comments.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Making debaters focus on arguments, not cards
Every time my debaters say, "I found a good card," I cringe. Is there a good argument in the card, perhaps?
I have found that my debaters, especially my beginning debaters, get overwhelmed when trying to do research to put an argument or case together. One part of the difficulty is that there are so much new information coming at them (they are learning the content about their topic); another part of the difficulty is that the structure of an argument is new to them, and so they have trouble (a) interpreting the structure of the arguments they are reading (and trouble evaluating these arguments) and (b) imagining how to use these arguments for their own case. The result is that beginning debaters tend to focus on the conclusions in a quotation, missing the arguments that get the author there, and thus essentially are guilty of an appeal to authority.
But the same thing happens, in a different way, when an advanced debater turns in a file with fifty uniqueness cards that all repeat one basic fact. I have a hard time persuading advanced debaters that a ten-card file might be the most excellent disadvantage they have seen all year. I have tried different techniques to get my point across, most notably handing a debater back a card he says is good with the instruction to highlight every argument and fact but not any claim. This can help the advanced debater who reads without reading, but it does not help the beginning debaters in the moment of research.
Rather than ask themselves, "Does this argument or fact help me?", beginning debaters -- maybe even many advanced debaters, too -- focus on whether something is "card"-able. The beginning debaters spin themselves into fits worrying about the threshold for cutting something, mostly ignoring the content. (And my injunction that, if the fact or argument is good but the author is lousy and unclear, then they should look for and will find the same fact by a better writer is completely ignored.) Direct quotation is a labor-saving device: it is easier to copy and paste than paraphrase, and it is easier to verify the claim (tag) is a correct interpretation of the author's work. But it can short-circuit the thinking process. I have been sorely tempted to prohibit my debaters from direct quotation in debating, forcing them to paraphrase, to get them to focus on the actual, essential arguments and facts they are gleaning from their research. (It is certainly a great technique for practice rounds.)
Instead, I have come up with argument sheets. I tell them that the first stage of research is merely about mapping out the terrain; they can fill in the sheet and save links or PDFs but not cut cards. Of course, I created different sheets for the three types of claims: factual (uniqueness or harms), causal (links or solvency), and value and philosophical claims. If a student is researching uniqueness for a disadvantage, I give her the first kind of sheet, which directs her to pay attention to what facts she finds, how those facts were collected by the original researcher (e.g., statistics do not fall from the sky), and what the facts mean for her claim. For example, perhaps she is making a claim about the effect of a law for her inherency. I want her to point to specific text in the law or to point to Congressmen's statements, and to recognize that each method has limits. With causal arguments, I want students to pay attention to the complexity of causation. I want them to move away from the simple, pat story or scenario; I want them to think about effects being overdetermined. The hardest arguments for most debaters to analyze are value arguments. I want my debaters to pay special attention to the broader philosophical ideas that are tied into, as well as to clearly think about what is included and what is excluded in a philosophical judgment. The idea I am trying to hammer home is that philosophical concepts are all about distinctions. (I am reminded of the old joke about a philosopher, asked how he liked his job: "I make some distinctions. It's a living.")
Below is an example of what filled-in sheets might look like.
After they have filled in a sheet, then we will discuss the case and organize the key ideas into an idea map or web. (I have found that they can not jump straight from reading, without note-taking, to idea-mapping.)
Finally, they go back to start to cut cards. I have found that debaters now tend to cut cards on factual claims that are shorter than before, but that are more likely to have some context for the collection or meaning of the data presented. I have found that debaters now tend to cut cards with causal claims that are longer than before -- they are trying to include more complex analysis. And I have found that debaters are now less likely to cut cards making value claims that are just conclusions. The students look a little more carefully for cards that link an issue to a big philosophical concept. Which is to say, the debaters are more thoughtful and discriminating.
I have found that my debaters, especially my beginning debaters, get overwhelmed when trying to do research to put an argument or case together. One part of the difficulty is that there are so much new information coming at them (they are learning the content about their topic); another part of the difficulty is that the structure of an argument is new to them, and so they have trouble (a) interpreting the structure of the arguments they are reading (and trouble evaluating these arguments) and (b) imagining how to use these arguments for their own case. The result is that beginning debaters tend to focus on the conclusions in a quotation, missing the arguments that get the author there, and thus essentially are guilty of an appeal to authority.
But the same thing happens, in a different way, when an advanced debater turns in a file with fifty uniqueness cards that all repeat one basic fact. I have a hard time persuading advanced debaters that a ten-card file might be the most excellent disadvantage they have seen all year. I have tried different techniques to get my point across, most notably handing a debater back a card he says is good with the instruction to highlight every argument and fact but not any claim. This can help the advanced debater who reads without reading, but it does not help the beginning debaters in the moment of research.
Rather than ask themselves, "Does this argument or fact help me?", beginning debaters -- maybe even many advanced debaters, too -- focus on whether something is "card"-able. The beginning debaters spin themselves into fits worrying about the threshold for cutting something, mostly ignoring the content. (And my injunction that, if the fact or argument is good but the author is lousy and unclear, then they should look for and will find the same fact by a better writer is completely ignored.) Direct quotation is a labor-saving device: it is easier to copy and paste than paraphrase, and it is easier to verify the claim (tag) is a correct interpretation of the author's work. But it can short-circuit the thinking process. I have been sorely tempted to prohibit my debaters from direct quotation in debating, forcing them to paraphrase, to get them to focus on the actual, essential arguments and facts they are gleaning from their research. (It is certainly a great technique for practice rounds.)
Instead, I have come up with argument sheets. I tell them that the first stage of research is merely about mapping out the terrain; they can fill in the sheet and save links or PDFs but not cut cards. Of course, I created different sheets for the three types of claims: factual (uniqueness or harms), causal (links or solvency), and value and philosophical claims. If a student is researching uniqueness for a disadvantage, I give her the first kind of sheet, which directs her to pay attention to what facts she finds, how those facts were collected by the original researcher (e.g., statistics do not fall from the sky), and what the facts mean for her claim. For example, perhaps she is making a claim about the effect of a law for her inherency. I want her to point to specific text in the law or to point to Congressmen's statements, and to recognize that each method has limits. With causal arguments, I want students to pay attention to the complexity of causation. I want them to move away from the simple, pat story or scenario; I want them to think about effects being overdetermined. The hardest arguments for most debaters to analyze are value arguments. I want my debaters to pay special attention to the broader philosophical ideas that are tied into, as well as to clearly think about what is included and what is excluded in a philosophical judgment. The idea I am trying to hammer home is that philosophical concepts are all about distinctions. (I am reminded of the old joke about a philosopher, asked how he liked his job: "I make some distinctions. It's a living.")
Below is an example of what filled-in sheets might look like.
After they have filled in a sheet, then we will discuss the case and organize the key ideas into an idea map or web. (I have found that they can not jump straight from reading, without note-taking, to idea-mapping.)
Finally, they go back to start to cut cards. I have found that debaters now tend to cut cards on factual claims that are shorter than before, but that are more likely to have some context for the collection or meaning of the data presented. I have found that debaters now tend to cut cards with causal claims that are longer than before -- they are trying to include more complex analysis. And I have found that debaters are now less likely to cut cards making value claims that are just conclusions. The students look a little more carefully for cards that link an issue to a big philosophical concept. Which is to say, the debaters are more thoughtful and discriminating.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Literature base
I'm going to enter into cantankerous old man territory by making this post: the National Forensic League is not doing a great job with Lincoln-Douglas topics, but it is doing a decent job with Public Forum topics. My problem is the scope of the topic literature bases. It is unreasonable (and counter-productive to education) to give students a big topic to research and little time to do it. Students learn best when they can thoroughly explore a topic and are able to prepare on most of the key arguments. Of course, because debate is a competitive activity, some opponents will always search out unusual, squirrelly arguments, but my point is that being caught off-guard should be a rare experience for debaters. If the topic is too broad to prepare and debaters are regularly caught off-guard, then the value of research and preparation is undermined.
Given that topics are used for one month in PF, two months in LD, and ten months in Policy debate, I think the literature bases should follow a 1:2:10 proportion for these various formats. In other words, the length of time a topic is used should be roughly commensurate with how big the literature base is. This only makes sense: LD debaters might prepare for four to six topics during the year, so it only makes sense that they would invest about one-fifth the research and preparation time into each one as policy debater do; PF debaters might prepare for nine to eleven topics, so one-tenth the work seems fair. How would the N.F.L. do against this benchmark?
I started with the last five years' policy topics. The N.F.L. does NOT write the policy debate topics; those are written by the National Federation of High School Associations. Generally, the policy topics are just about the right breadth to spend a whole year researching. This result is probably no accident, because their process requires the topic framers to consider the literature base qualitatively, and to a lesser extent, quantitatively. To make a very rough gauge of the size of the literature bases, I typed in key terms and terms of art into ProQuest. ProQuest is a general use research database, containing both news articles and some academic journal articles, which is commonly available to high school students. I chose search terms that seemed appropriate to find the core articles of each topic. I make no apologies for the very provisional method; don't infer too much from this. I think this gives a sense of scale for comparison, but not much else.
Policy topics:
2012-2013 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States."
Search terms: "transportation infrastructure" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 16,069
2011-2012 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere."
Search terms: ("space exploration" or "development of space") and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 25,657
2010-2011 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey."
Search terms: ("military presence" or "police presence") and ("United States" or "U.S.") and ("South Korea" or Japan or Afghanistan or Kuwait or Iraq or Turkey)
Results: 17,954
2009-2010 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States."
Search terms: "social services" and poverty and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 22,133
2008-2009 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States."
Search terms: "alternative energy" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 36,728
There is a wide variation from topic to topic. But the mean of 24,000 articles seems about right and a reasonable place to start from.
How do PF topics compare? They are in the right ballpark.
2012-2013 PF topics:
Sept. topic: "Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban."
Search terms: "assault weapons ban"
Results: 3,367
Oct. topic: "Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change."
Search terms: "developed countries" and ("mitigate" or "mitigation") and "climate change"
Results: 2,546
Nov. topic: "Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security."
Search terms: ("U.S. foreign policy" or "United States foreign policy") and "Middle East" and "national security"
Results: 3,105
Dec. topic: "The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts."
Search terms: ("tax increase" or "spending cut") and "fiscal cliff" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 1,200 (66,279 without "fiscal cliff" term)
Jan. topic: "On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process."
Search terms: "Citizens United" and election
Results: 3,885
Feb. topic: "On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States."
Search terms: China and ("United States interests" or "U.S. interests")
Results: 5,756
Search terms: "rise of China" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 3,350
The China topic seems to be dangerously large, but the remaining seven topics have an average of 2,800, just about one-tenth of a policy topic. How do LD topics compare?
2012-2013 LD topics:
Sept./Oct. topic: "The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens."
Search terms: terrorist and "due process" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 5,505
Nov./Dec. topic: "United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens."
Search terms: "universal health care" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 10,696
Jan./Feb. topic: "Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system."
Search terms: (rehabilitation or retribution) and "criminal justice" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 10,546
With the exception of the first topic, they are all quite large topics. The health care topic is essentially the 1993-1994 policy debate topic! The criminal justice topic is similar to the Jan./Feb. 2011 LD topic, except that one was limited by its focus on juveniles.
What specific recommendations would I make to the N.F.L.?
First, when writing topics, please consider the size and quality of the literature base. Perhaps develop some standard statistics to gauge the size of the literature base. If the potential topic generates too many hits, narrow the topic in some way; if the potential topic generates too few hits, broaden it.
Second, please report out the statistics to us members whenever we vote between different wordings of the same topic. It would be helpful to know which version is the more narrowly worded.
Given that topics are used for one month in PF, two months in LD, and ten months in Policy debate, I think the literature bases should follow a 1:2:10 proportion for these various formats. In other words, the length of time a topic is used should be roughly commensurate with how big the literature base is. This only makes sense: LD debaters might prepare for four to six topics during the year, so it only makes sense that they would invest about one-fifth the research and preparation time into each one as policy debater do; PF debaters might prepare for nine to eleven topics, so one-tenth the work seems fair. How would the N.F.L. do against this benchmark?
I started with the last five years' policy topics. The N.F.L. does NOT write the policy debate topics; those are written by the National Federation of High School Associations. Generally, the policy topics are just about the right breadth to spend a whole year researching. This result is probably no accident, because their process requires the topic framers to consider the literature base qualitatively, and to a lesser extent, quantitatively. To make a very rough gauge of the size of the literature bases, I typed in key terms and terms of art into ProQuest. ProQuest is a general use research database, containing both news articles and some academic journal articles, which is commonly available to high school students. I chose search terms that seemed appropriate to find the core articles of each topic. I make no apologies for the very provisional method; don't infer too much from this. I think this gives a sense of scale for comparison, but not much else.
Policy topics:
2012-2013 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States."
Search terms: "transportation infrastructure" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 16,069
2011-2012 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere."
Search terms: ("space exploration" or "development of space") and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 25,657
2010-2011 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey."
Search terms: ("military presence" or "police presence") and ("United States" or "U.S.") and ("South Korea" or Japan or Afghanistan or Kuwait or Iraq or Turkey)
Results: 17,954
2009-2010 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States."
Search terms: "social services" and poverty and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 22,133
2008-2009 topic: "The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States."
Search terms: "alternative energy" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 36,728
There is a wide variation from topic to topic. But the mean of 24,000 articles seems about right and a reasonable place to start from.
How do PF topics compare? They are in the right ballpark.
2012-2013 PF topics:
Sept. topic: "Congress should renew the Federal Assault Weapons Ban."
Search terms: "assault weapons ban"
Results: 3,367
Oct. topic: "Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change."
Search terms: "developed countries" and ("mitigate" or "mitigation") and "climate change"
Results: 2,546
Nov. topic: "Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security."
Search terms: ("U.S. foreign policy" or "United States foreign policy") and "Middle East" and "national security"
Results: 3,105
Dec. topic: "The United States should prioritize tax increases over spending cuts."
Search terms: ("tax increase" or "spending cut") and "fiscal cliff" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 1,200 (66,279 without "fiscal cliff" term)
Jan. topic: "On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process."
Search terms: "Citizens United" and election
Results: 3,885
Feb. topic: "On balance, the rise of China is beneficial to the interests of the United States."
Search terms: China and ("United States interests" or "U.S. interests")
Results: 5,756
Search terms: "rise of China" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 3,350
The China topic seems to be dangerously large, but the remaining seven topics have an average of 2,800, just about one-tenth of a policy topic. How do LD topics compare?
2012-2013 LD topics:
Sept./Oct. topic: "The United States ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process protections it grants to citizens."
Search terms: terrorist and "due process" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 5,505
Nov./Dec. topic: "United States ought to guarantee universal health care for its citizens."
Search terms: "universal health care" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 10,696
Jan./Feb. topic: "Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system."
Search terms: (rehabilitation or retribution) and "criminal justice" and ("United States" or "U.S.")
Results: 10,546
With the exception of the first topic, they are all quite large topics. The health care topic is essentially the 1993-1994 policy debate topic! The criminal justice topic is similar to the Jan./Feb. 2011 LD topic, except that one was limited by its focus on juveniles.
What specific recommendations would I make to the N.F.L.?
First, when writing topics, please consider the size and quality of the literature base. Perhaps develop some standard statistics to gauge the size of the literature base. If the potential topic generates too many hits, narrow the topic in some way; if the potential topic generates too few hits, broaden it.
Second, please report out the statistics to us members whenever we vote between different wordings of the same topic. It would be helpful to know which version is the more narrowly worded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)