final+debate+assignment

Overview: Once the 2 debate topics are chosen, each group of four students consisting of two teams should //collectively choose// a) which topic you will debate and b) which team will be affirmative and which team will be negative. Once teams have chosen to be affirmative or negative, the individual teams should decide which speeches each student will deliver. Choose your roles: **Affirmative roles** (1AC/1AR //or// 2AC) - **Negative roles** (1NC //or// 2NC).

1. First Affirmative Constructive (**1AC-4min**): Both partners should make sure that the 1AC is clearly organized into an inherency contention, a harms contention that isolates consequences of inaction, a plan or advocacy statement, and a solvency contention. For the affirmative, this should be the most //thoroughly evidenced// speech in the debate whereby most of the speech’s four minutes are spent developing the affirmative’s case through expert evidence. Stylistically it is to the affirmative’s advantage if this speech is delivered as clearly and persuasively as possible. __In order to maximize clarity of argument between the two sides, it is required that the affirmative team should disclose their general plan for this speech to the negative 3 days prior to the debate. Disclosure can consist of an outline of your planned speech, your sources, or the entire speech if it is ready. Be thorough here; there is no reward for withholding information from your opponents. Frankly, your grades will improve the better the debate is.__ //Copy me on all disclosures//. //Failure to disclose in a timely manner will result in a point deduction//.

2. Cross Examination (**2 min**) – The 2NC speaker should cross-examine the 1AC speaker and attempt to highlight analytical, logical, or evidentiary problems in the 1AC. Use this time to ask questions that set up arguments you plan to make. The 1NC should be doing speech preparations during this period.

3. First Negative Constructive (**1NC-4min**) – The 1NC should consist of two parts. First, the 1NC should answer with the affirmative’s case responding with evidence or analytic arguments to the 1AC. These are called “on case” arguments and can be offensive turns or defensive arguments. Second, the 1NC should develop “off case” positions that usually consist of disadvantages, topicality arguments, or other offensive arguments. For the negative, this speech should be the most //thoroughly evidenced// speech in the debate and should be delivered persuasively. __The negative should disclose the arguments they plan to make 1 day prior to the debate. Disclosures should consist of a list of the major offensive and defensive arguments the Negative plans to make in the 1NC. //Copy me on all disclosures//. //Failure to disclose in a timely manner will result in a point deduction//.__

4. Cross Examination (**2 min**) – The 1AC speaker should cross-examine the 1NC speaker noting analytical, logical, or evidentiary problems in the negative’s strategy. Use this time to ask questions that set up arguments you plan to make. The 2AC speaker should prepare during this period. The 2AC should be preparing during this period.

5. Second Affirmative Constructive (**2AC-4min**) – The 2AC is best organized as a speech that answers the 1NC point-by-point. In debate terms, this is called “line-by-line” because the speaker answers arguments successively as they appear on the flow. The key here is to provide answers to all of the 1NC arguments, to use your 1AC evidence to provide your answers, and to identify portions of your case that have been insufficiently addressed by the negative. Before the speech you should identify how you plan to win the debate and spend the most time on the arguments that help you achieve that goal. In debates, those arguments that are best developed by one side and poorly answered by the other side carry the heaviest weight regardless of how anyone feels about the “truth” of the argument. Put simply, if it is unanswered, it is true.

6. Second Negative Constructive (**2NC-5min**) – The 2NC is the negative’s last speech in the debate. Given the finality of this opportunity, the 2NC should consist of three parts. First, the 2NC must make a preliminary choice about which arguments you have made have the best chance of winning the debate. Do not try to extend every argument you have made. Second, give the audience an overview that makes “impact assessments” where you explain clear reasons why voting affirmative creates a more dangerous world than voting negative. Finally, go to those arguments that you plan to win the debate on, extend them, and answer the relevant arguments made by the 2AC.

7. First Affirmative Rebuttal (**1AR-2min**). This is the affirmative’s last opportunity to speak. Your job is to frame the complexities of the debate in a clear and persuasive overview. Make strategic choices about what arguments will win the debate. Do not extend every argument made by the 2AC. Instead, spend about 30-45 seconds on your overview and then go to the specifics of one or both advantages to explain that despite the negative’s arguments a change to the status quo must be made or we risk dire consequences. Focus on the aspects of your case that have been inadequately answered by the negative.

*Each team will get **3 minutes of preparation time** to use as you wish. Use this time between speeches. If you are negative, this may mean taking 1 minute before the 1NC and 1 minute before the 2NC. Split this time wisely in order to best organize all of your speeches.

Grades: This is a group and individual assignment (50% individual/50% group). Those arguments that are backed by qualified evidence and are consistently developed throughout the debate are considered the strongest. Your debate performance will be judged by the quality of your individual speeches, the evidence produced in these speeches, and the arguments developed in these speeches. Your group grade is determined by the cooperative effort put forth by the two partners in researching prior to the debate and extending one another’s arguments during the debate. Please note that “winning” the debate is not the sole determinant of your grade. A great effort by a dedicated and organized team will be rewarded even if they make a minor technical error that costs them the debate. Please play well with others.

Annotated Bibliography

This assignment will be fairly research intensive; each side will need to consult, at a minimum, **10 expert sources about their topic**. Each two-person debate team will turn in an **annotated bibliography of these ten or more sources** (50 points of the assignment) on the day of their debate.

Format:
 * 1) Begin your annotated bibliography with a one-paragraph summary of the key lessons about your community that you have learned through the research process.
 * 2) After your summary, review your sources alphabetically. Begin with the full citation for the source. Citations should be in APA format. Part of this assignment is that you will need to look up how to cite books and journal articles correctly in the most recent edition of APA.
 * 3) A 1-2 paragraph summary should follow each citation. Summarize the entire source. If you quote from the source, you should note the page number where you got the quotation in parentheses at the end of the sentence (see example). However, please note that the main feature of the summary should be your voice. Producing a clear, thorough, and readable summary of complex material should be your goal. To that end, using a full-sentence quotation is highly discouraged; paraphrase long quotations in your own words and/or use key words from the article/book where necessary.
 * 4) Once you have finished summarizing one source, move onto the next one following the same citation-then-summary format. When you have finished four sources, you do not need to add a conclusion.

__ Example __ DeLuca, K. and Peeples, J. (2002). From public sphere to public screen: Democracy, activism, and the violence of Seattle. //Critical Studies in Mass Communication// (__This citation is a non-APA example__).

DeLuca and Peeples theorizes how the public makes sense of globalization through the common experience of television and movie screens. DeLuca and Peeples’ overall claim is that it is no longer useful to conceptualize the public sphere with government as one of the foremost points of analysis. The already blurred line between civil society and the state is nearly erased by the presence of corporations and extra-national organizations like the WTO. In this regard, DeLuca and Peeples extend what other scholars have called the “deterritorialization thesis” (p. 127). DeLuca and Peeples move from this theoretical vantage point to criticize contemporary conceptions of rhetoric as outmoded and exclusive of mass-mediated images. The traditional conception of the public sphere itself continues this exclusion of imagistic rhetoric by evoking images of the Greek agora. These metaphors for the public sphere invite artificial memories Athenian citizens competently arguing over issues like Spartan and Persian aggression. DeLuca and Peoples replace this idyllic “public sphere” theory with the “public screen” (129). Activists, such as protestors at the 1999 WTO conference in Seattle, can take advantage of mass mediation to create “image events” that publicize their cause (140). Protester-friendly image events can counter image events friendly to corporate interests, as was the case in Seattle where the conference itself was designed as positive image event for the Clinton administration.