2013 IDEA Global Youth Forum in Ireland

Transcription

1 2013 IDEA Global Youth Forum in Ireland Coaches and Judges Track Participant packet August 13 th 26 th Ireland, Galway Curriculum Prepared by: Lazar Pop Ivanov Mark Woosley Dovile Venskutonyte Sergei Naumoff Many materials prepared by: Sharon Porter Kenda Cunningham Margo Loor Joseph Zompetti

2 Coaches and Judges Track Schedule Group A Group B Group C Sunday, August 18 Session I Introduction to Coaches and Judges Track Getting to know you Getting to know you Getting to know you Session II, III Overview of MTT topic, Overview of MTT topic, Overview of MTT topic, Argument Construction, Refutation, and Use of Evidence Argumentation Argumentation Session IV Case Construction: Affirmative and Negative Case Construction: Affirmative and Negative Monday, August 19 Session I Key MTT topic arguments KPDC format and speaker roles; Value of cross- Examination Case Construction: Affirmative and Negative Judging Essentials (CA + CJT ) Session II KPDC format and speaker roles; Crossexamination strategies Improving your judging abilities (CA + CJT ) Key MTT topic arguments Session III Tricky Judging Situations (CA + CJT ) Key MTT topic arguments Session IV Tuesday August, 20 KPDC format and speaker roles; Crossexamination "How to teach" labs (each person can choose 1): How to teach research; How to teach public speaking/delivery; How to build a debate program; How to teach using debate skills in everyday life; How to teach listening and note taking Session I Demo debate on video to practice judging and flowing Session II Practice debates Practice debates Practice debates

3 Session III "How to teach" labs (each person can choose 1): How to teach research; How to teach public speaking/delivery; How to build a debate program; How to teach using debate skills in everyday life; How to teach listening and note taking Session IV Review and Q&A - Participants choose topics Review and Q&A - Participants choose topics Wednesday, August 21 Review and Q&A - Participants choose topics Session I Session II Specific judging scenarios/ Judging Q&A Limited Prep Debate Session III Judging practice debates and receiving feedback on judging Session IV Judging practice debates and receiving feedback on judging Friday, August, 23 MTT tournament 09:30-11:00 Judging MTT Round 1 11:30-13:00 Judging MTT Round 2 14:00-15:00 Judging Feedback/ Q&A 15:30-18:00 Judging MTT Round 3 Saturday, August, 24 09:30-11:45 Judging MTT Round 4 12:15-13:00 Evaluation 14:00-15:30 Judging MTT Round 5 15:45-17:30 Judging MTT Round 6 Sunday August, 25 9:30 Judging/Observing MTT Quarterfinals 15:15 Judging/Observing MTT Semi finals 17:15 Judging/Observing Mixed Team Track Finals

4 Sunday, August 18 Introduction to Coaches and Judges Track (All together) To understand the uniqueness of IDEA s Youth Forum To provide an orientation to the Coaches and Judges Track To arrive at an understanding of commonly held ideas of debate Orientation to IDEA s 2013 Youth Forum Orientation to the Coaches and Judges Track and labs A, B, and C Challenges of coaching at the Forum Establishing common ground Getting to Know You (A,B,C groups) Getting to know each other Finding common ground across different debate traditions Icebreakers and other activities to become acquainted with one another Sunday, August 18 Overview of MTT Topic (All together) To provide coaches and judges with background information on the MTT topics To demonstrate how to strategically analyze a new topic Define and analyze terms and issues of the MTT topics Summarize how topic analysis is done Supplemental Materials: Topic Analysis Worksheet Argument Construction, Refutation, and Use of Evidence (A,B,C groups) To examine how to construct arguments and how to refute arguments Learn how to follow and evaluate main arguments To discuss and isolate potentially effective arguments on the MTT topics Recognize various types of evidence and the importance of it Summary of argument construction concepts and coaching teams in argument construction

5 Analyze and practice the four key steps of refutation Identify and discuss potential arguments and ways to refute them on 2013 MTT topics. Supplemental Materials: Is it an Argument? Create an Argument, using material from research packet Sunday, August 18 Case Construction: Affirmative and Negative (A,B,C groups) To review case construction To share strategies for coaching MTT debaters on how to construct cases To discuss and isolate potentially effective affirmative and negative cases on the MTT topics Summary of MTT case construction concepts and coaching affirmative teams Practice constructing both affirmative and negative cases on the MTT topic Supplemental Materials: Creating an Affirmative Case Negative Positions Monday, August 19 (Each group will work on each of the three topics during 1 of the 3 time slots) MTT Topic Arguments (A,B,C groups) To review key topics to be debated on the 2013 MTT Resolution To understand arguments on the topic To analyze the key perspectives on the topic To discuss a research plan for the topic Analyze and Discuss the topic Practice going through argument construction, refutation, and rebuttal Go through a research plan on the topic Supplemental Materials: Research Plan Worksheet

6 Format, Speaker Roles, Cross-Examination (A,B,C groups) To understand the KPDC format, including use of preparation time To review the role of each speaker in a debate: constructive speeches, cross-examination, and rebuttals To discuss the role and significance of cross-examination Discussion of KPDC format and speaker roles Review of differences between extended and limited prep debates Small group exercises on cross-examination, its significance, and how to teach strategic use of CX Judging (A,B,C groups) To explain/review judging expectation for the IDEA Global Youth Forum Establishing what constitutes the general standards of judging etiquette Understanding the proper way to fill out a ballot and give oral feedback To clarify what to do in unique judging situations and help anticipate what may go wrong in a debate To alleviate any judging anxieties by responding to judging questions Understand IDEA judging standards Review demo debate Discuss what constitutes appropriate and thorough feedback to debaters Use specific scenarios from debates to generate discussions regarding judging scenarios Open space for questions and discussion on judging Monday, August 19 How to teach (Each CJT participant chooses which session to attend) Learn how to teach research Learn how to teach public speaking/delivery Learn how to build a debate program Learn "how to teach using debate skills in everyday life" Learn how to teach listening and note taking Learn through discussions how to teach a particular aspect of debate Activities practice teaching each of the particular topics

7 Tuesday, August 20 Demo Debate: Judging and Flowing (All together) To practice judging appropriately To stress the importance of flowing while judging debates Watch a demo debate together Observe someone flowing the demo debate Practice writing ballots, making a decision, and giving feedback to debaters Tuesday, August 20 Practice Debating (A,B,C groups) To apply the concepts learned thus far To understand what debaters experience To focus areas for future questions Tuesday, August 20 How to teach (Each CJT participant chooses which session to attend) Learn how to teach research Learn how to teach public speaking/delivery Learn how to build a debate program Learn "how to teach using debate skills in everyday life" Learn how to teach listening and note taking Learn through discussions how to teach a particular aspect of debate Activities practice teaching each of the particular topics Tuesday, August 20 Review and Q&A (A,B,C groups) To cover debate topics CJT participants find important yet undercovered thus far To review any previously presented materials that may not be clear To clarify any areas of debate/idea Global Youth Forum 2013, as needed

8 Open the floor for review and Q&A on any and all debate topics Cover a couple of new topics after asking participants for suggestions Wednesday, August 21 Specific Judging Scenarios and Q&A (All together) To help understand the origins and merits of different approaches to judging Write personal judging philosophy if not previously done To alleviate any judging anxieties by responding to judging questions Lecture on judging paradigms Judging philosophies provided by each judge Open space for questions and discussion on judging ***** IDEA Information Session (All together) To develop a clear understanding of IDEA as an organization To discuss the various debate formats and programs IDEA has globally Seminar on various IDEA activities, projects, programs Questions answered regarding how to be involved in other IDEA activities Discussions regarding how to attend future youth forums, successfully apply to be a trainer, etc. Wednesday, August 21 MTT Labs: Limited Prep Debates To explain and review limited preparation debates To detail strategies for preparing limited preparation teams Summary of limited preparation debate How to prepare for limited preparation debate Examine limited prep lab to learn how to teach limited preparation topics Supplemental Materials: Using Prep Time Efficiently Handout

9 Wednesday, August 21 Judging Practice Debates To practice judging skills which have been discussed in sessions on judging To gain a deeper understanding of international migration arguments by seeing debates To give adequate and useful feedback to all debaters so as to improve tournament arguments and debating Each judge will adjudicate assigned debates Friday, August 23 Judging MTT Rounds 1, 2, and 3 To use knowledge gained regarding best judging practices To advance one s understanding of debate and debate judging To give adequate and useful feedback to all debaters in each debate To accurately and fairly complete ballots Each judge will adjudicate assigned debates Friday, August 23 Judging Feedback/Q&A To provide judges with feedback from the previously judged debates To answer any questions regarding judging scenarios that came up during Rounds 1 and 2 To ensure that judging mistakes that occurred in rounds 1 and 2 have a low chance of being repeated Feedback to generate a discussion on the key judging problems during the first two tournament debates Open space for questions and discussion on anything in need of further clarification for judging rounds 3-6 Saturday, August 24 Judging MTT Rounds 4, 5, and 6 To use knowledge gained regarding best judging practices To advance one s understanding of debate and debate judging To give adequate and useful feedback to all debaters in each debate To accurately and fairly complete ballots

10 Each judge will adjudicate assigned debates Saturday, August 24 CJT Evaluation To reflect on the quality of the 2013 Youth Forum CJT To allow IDEA to improve upon the CJT for future IDEA Global Youth Forums Provide written feedback regarding the CJT Sunday, August 25 MTT Elimination Debates To improve understanding of argumentation and debate To learn from watching advanced debates To enhance one s future judging by learning from observing advanced judging Judge or observe quarterfinal debates, semi-final debates, and the final round of the 2013 MTT tournament Observe how judges elected for elimination rounds make decisions and provide feedback to debaters.

11 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS INDEX Topic Analysis Worksheet Is it an Argument Exercise Create an Argument Exercise Creating an Affirmative Case Handout Constructing Negative Arguments Handout Research Plan Handout Using Preparation Time Effectively Handout

12 Topic Analysis Worksheet This resolution and its background are important and relevant because 2. What are the key terms and phrases in this resolution? 3. How can we define the key terms? 4. This resolution contains several key issues to be debated, including. 5. Likely affirmative arguments include.

13 6. Likely negative arguments include. 7. Important points each side should remember include

14 Is It An Argument? 1. People should ride bicycles more, because air pollution is really a problem in the city. 2. Survival is the most important and most highly respected human value. 3. Our awareness of environmental problems is increasing. Already we have reduced the emission of chemicals that destroy the ozone and have banned many pesticides. 4. My opponent argues that acid rain is destroying the environment, but that is an inaccurate, incomplete and irrelevant argument. 5. Species loss is at a crisis level. Harvard Biologist Edward Wilson estimates that nearly 140 species are lost every day. 6. The most important action for any of us to take is to protect the environment. Please, take whatever action you can. 7. Since all pollution laws have economic consequences, we need to look at this law's effect on the economy. 8. When a species loses its natural habitat, it is nearly impossible to prevent it from going extinct. There are only a few thousand Giant panda, for instance, now that their habitat is taken over by development. 9. How can we wait, even a single day, to take action to protect the environment. 10. The move to a more ecological society will require big changes. The industrial revolution brought with it changes in government, family, and the economy. In the same way, the move to an ecological society will likewise require a fundamental change in our way of living. 11. The affirmative argues that global warming will destroy the world, but they don't prove that because they present no evidence that global warming is happening in the first place. 12. The affirmative says that carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment. That is false.

15 Constructing an Affirmative Case I. Principles of Constructing a Case A. A case for the proposition is one or more arguments that support the framework presented by the team defending the proposition. B. Three common methods of constructing a case: 1. Comparative Advantages Case 2. Need Plan Benefits Case 3. Principles case II. Comparative Advantages Case A. Plan of action 1. Who or what is the appropriate actor? Who or what should implement your plan? 2. What specific actions do you propose? 3. What other important details are needed? (Funding, enforcement, etc.) B. Advantages 1. Show that the current system cannot attain your advantages. Identify the source of the problem. a. What is the cause of the problem? (Who or what is to blame)? b. How is the cause of the problem associated with current policy? (Does the current policy contain gaps?) (Does the current policy contain barriers?) 2. Show how your plan creates the advantages. 3. Demonstrate the magnitude of the advantages. a. Quantitatively b. Qualitatively C. Need Plan Benefits Case 1. Need: Is there a need for a change in policy? a. Identify the problem. b. Demonstrate the magnitude of the problem. 1) Quantitatively 2) Qualitatively c. Identify the source of the problem. 1) What is the cause of the problem? (Who or what is to blame?) 2) How is the cause of the problem associated with current policy? 2. Plan Present your plan of action a. Who or what is the appropriate actor? Who or what should implement your plan? b. What specific actions do you propose? c. What other important details are needed? (Funding, enforcement, etc.) 3. Benefits Show how your plan satisfied the need for a change a. Show that the current system cannot attain your advantages. b. Show how your plan creates the advantages. c. Demonstrate the magnitude of the benefits. 1) Quantitatively 2) Qualitatively

16 D. Principles Case 1. Designate the principle a. Identify and name the principle b. Make an argument to support the principle 2. Describe the proposed action (Since the focus of the case is on principles, the proposed actor and action might not be as specific as they would be in the other types of cases). a. Who is the proposed actor? b. What is the proposed action? 3. Apply the principle to the proposed action a. Does the principle demand the action as a matter of ethical and moral values? b. Does the principle prohibit any action other than our plan as a matter of ethical or moral values?

17 1. Constructing Negative Arguments A good negative case includes: 1) a statement of the negative team s stance, and 2) constructive arguments that simultaneously support that stance and oppose the affirmative proposal. I. Developing a stance for the negative. The negative side should do more than oppose; they should stand for something. The stance that the negative side will take should be explained very early in the debate. The following are some of the possible stances the negative team can take. A. Defend an alternate value system. B. Explicitly defend the actions of the present system C. Defend the actions of the present system in principles and offer minor repairs D. Offer a counter proposal II. Constructing arguments against the affirmative team s case Some kinds of common arguments that can be constructed by the negative team include: supporting alternative values or principles, arguing that the status quo need not be changed, arguing that the affirmative team s proposed plan will not succeed, arguing that the affirmative team s plan will lead to serious disadvantages, and arguing that an alternative plan of action (counter proposal) is better. Remember that the negative team does not need to present all of these arguments. They should consider whatever combination of these arguments would be the most persuasive in a given debate. A. No need for change in the status quo 1. Show that the problems described by the affirmative team are not occurring or are not significant. Show that the problems described by the affirmative team doe not occur. Show that the problems described by the affirmative team are not significant. Show that the problems are not significant quantitatively that they do not affect a large number of people Show that the problems are not significant qualitatively they do not negatively link to important values. 2. Show the present system is able to solve the problem. The gaps described by the affirmative are in the process of being closed in the status quo. The barriers described by the affirmative are in the process of being closed in the status quo. B. The plan will not succeed. This kind of argument is designed to suggest that the proposed plan will not solve the problems described by the affirmative team or that the advantages of their proposed plan will not occur. 1. Show how the problems described by the affirmative team are not caused by the status quo. 2. Show how the plan is not sufficient to solve the problem or to produce the advantage or to solve the problem. C. Disadvantages of the Affirmative Plan Disadvantages are a particularly important part of a good negative strategy. Even if the negative proves that the need for a change is not as great a the affirmative team suggests, and even if the Opposition proves that the plan will not totally succeed at creating the

18 benefits, adoption of the affirmative team s proposal may still solve some problems of the status quo even if not as much as they originally claimed. Therefore, the Opposition side needs to suggest disadvantages in order to balance the advantages of the proposed action. Three claims can be linked together to support a negative argument that the proposed action leads to serious disadvantages: 1. Describe some feature of the affirmative team s plan 2. Relate that feature to some effect. 3. Show how that effect is worse than the problem the affirmative team claims to solve. D. Alternative moral or ethical principles When the Affirmative team advances a principles case, the opposition may want to argue that an alternative moral or ethical principle is more appropriate as a basis for action. Even when the Affirmative team presents a case based on the consequences of action, the Opposition team can suggest a moral principle that argues against taking the action proposed by the Affirmative team. 1. Suggest that the ethical or moral principles advanced by the Affirmative team are not appropriate. This argument is only needed when the Affirmative team bases their case on principles. Identify the Affirmative team s ethical or moral principle. Show why this ethical or moral principle is inappropriate. 2. Designate alternative moral or ethical principles that the opposition believes should be the basis for our action. This argument may be used even when the Affirmative team s case is based on consequences of action rather than on principles. Identify the alternative principle. Create an argument in favor of the principle. Show why your alternative moral or ethical principles are preferable to those of the Affirmative Team 3. Apply the alternative principle to the Affirmative team s proposed action. Show why the Affirmative team s proposal violates alternative moral or ethical principles. E. Show a counterproposal is better than the affirmative team s proposal. 1. Present an alternative course of action. 2. Show why your counterproposal is a true alternative Why should your alternative preclude the affirmative team s plan of action. 3. Show why the counterproposal is a better proposal than the affirmative team s proposal. Does the counterproposal solve the problem outlined by the Affirmative Team? Does the counterproposal avoid some of the disadvantages of the affirmative team s plan?

19 Research Plan Phase 1: General Knowledge: General knowledge is the "big picture" of an issue of controversy. Stage 1: Accumulate General Knowledge Ask others about the proposition and inquire about arguments that have been made on previous propositions that may be similar Brainstorm ideas concerning the proposition to determine the main arguments that will most likely occur with the proposition. Begin an active search for general knowledge by conducting searches on the Internet or electronic database for books on the topic. These more general, abstract sources will contextualize the topic to begin to narrow it. Stage 2: Process General Knowledge Look for two things: information that describes the topic in historical and contextual ways, and clues that might help to see what specific issues are important when discussing the controversial aspects of our topic. A basic understanding of the topic will also be useful when researching specific issues since sources will frequently refer to historical and contextual information when discussing specific arguments. Stage 3: Determine the Vital and Specific Issues Think about what specific issues might be important when debating the proposition. Discern the vital specific issues from the irrelevant ones Stage 4: Review Footnotes and Bibliographies Footnotes and bibliographies include information that doesn t have to be researched from scratch. Footnotes and bibliographies frequently include information that supports more sophisticated and nuanced arguments, thereby helping us to narrow our research focus. Phase 2: Specific Knowledge Specific Knowledge is the information concerning specific, key arguments of a central issue of controversy. Stage 1: Outline the Vital, Specific Issues With the knowledge of what specific and vital issues exist, organize the specific issues into categories, preferably into stock issues. Reviewing the specific arguments accumulated is important to see if any key arguments still need to be researched. In other words, by mapping out specific issues, determine if more work needs to be done. Stage 2: Brainstorm Concepts To decide what the missing arguments are, brainstorm or think of all the different options possible the potential specific arguments relating to the topic. The material acquired thus far should provide clues as to how others discuss the controversial topic in popular literature. Quite frequently there are multiple ways of stating an argument or issue. Identifying the alternative ways of stating the arguments helps in understanding how other people refer to the arguments, and they provide additional keywords that can be used when researching databases and the Internet.

20 Stage 3: Accumulate Research on Specific Issues Once specific issues are indicated, notice any important missing elements, brainstorm other vital arguments and discover alternate keywords, and research them. Focus on being as thorough as possible to ensure all of the vital specific arguments are covered. Stage 4: Review and Research Footnotes/Bibliographies Review and research all of the footnotes and bibliographies from both the general and specific knowledge stages. After reviewing and comparing the citations in the footnotes or bibliographies to the material already obtained, determine if important arguments or sources from the footnotes or bibliographies still need to be researched.

21 Using Preparation Time Effectively Affirmative: 1. What type of resolution is this? 2. What is the intended focus of the resolution? Both #1 and #2 will make up your topic analysis - what you will tell the judge the resolution requires - at the beginning of your first speech. 3. What do I want to talk about? 4. How could I define the resolution to stay with this focus, but talk about what I want? 5. Define it that way, if this is reasonable and the judge will enjoy such a debate. 6. If I were negative, would I argue abusive definitions? 7. Is there a way I can correct this problem or avoid such accusations? If yes, do so. 8. Redefine, if necessary. 9. What's your case supporting the resolution? a. Always run a case that both partners can convincingly support. b. Agonize over the case statement c. Outline the key affirmative arguments but keep it simple. d. Plan the opening and closing during preparation time 10. What's the plan (if a policy resolution)? 11. What are your advantages (if a policy resolution)? 12. What's your value (if a policy or value resolution)? 13. What's your criterion for judging which team has won? Negative: 1. What type of resolution is this? 2. What is the intended focus of the resolution? Both #1 and #2 will make up your topic analysis - which you will tell the judge the resolution requires at the beginning of your first speech. 3. What are the key terms for my side of the resolution? 4. How could I define these terms to tilt the debate in my favor, without being too abusive? 5. Define the term(s) that way, if it is reasonable and the judge will enjoy the debate. 6. What burdens must the affirmative meet to support the resolution? Write them. 7. What is likely to be the plan (if a policy resolution)? 8. Would a counter plan be your best chance of winning (if a policy resolution)? Remember, a counter plan needs a counter value, advantages and must not uphold the resolution. 9. What's your case against the resolution or counter-case? 10. What are disadvantages of their plan (if a policy resolution)? 11. What's your counter-value (if a policy or value resolution)? 12. What's your counter-criterion for judging which team has won?