Politics and Government Debate Links

Church and State:

http://secular.org/issues/faith_based/position

http://www.innocenceproject.org/

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/10794/in-oregon-a-profile-in-incoherence

Mellisa Harris Perry Show - Death Penalty 

 http://www.now.org/nnt/08-95/affirmhs.html

Debate Scoring Rubric and Score Sheet

Background and Historical Context


 16 - Demonstrates a clear and sophisticated understanding of the historical context of topic and the cause and effect relationship between significant events; discusses essential legislation and/or court cases that relate to this topic.

12 - Demonstrates a clear understanding of the historical context of topic and the cause and effect relationship between significant events; discusses how the courts have ruled on this topic.

8  - Demonstrates some understanding of the historical context of topic and the cause and effect relationship between significant events; attempts to discuss how the courts have ruled on this topic

4 - Demonstrates little to no understanding of the historical context of topic and the cause and effect relationship between significant events; fails to discuss how the courts have ruled on this topic.

Constitutional/Legal Understanding

16 – Succinctly and persuasively discusses the relevant legal provisions and constitutional question(s); provides concise summary of relevant Supreme Court opinions; communicates a clear understanding of opinion arguments in a sophisticated manner; uses level three vocabulary

12 - Discusses the relevant legal provisions and constitutional question(s); provides concise summary of relevant Supreme Court opinions; communicates an understanding of opinion arguments in a sophisticated manner

8 – Attempts to discuss the relevant legal provisions and constitutional question(s); provides concise summary of relevant Supreme Court opinions; communicates a some understanding of opinion arguments in a sophisticated manner

4 – Does not or weakly addresses the relevant legal provisions and constitutional question(s); provides concise summary of relevant Supreme Court opinions; communicates a clear understanding of the opinion arguments in a sophisticated manner

Evidence

16 – Persuasively uses relevant legal, historical, numerical/statistical data, and current events to support arguments; succinctly and accurately quotes majority and/or dissenting Supreme Court opinions; explains how evidence connects to values and arguments.

12 - Uses relevant legal, historical, numerical/statistical data, and current events to support arguments; succinctly and accurately quotes majority and/or dissenting Supreme Court opinions; explains how evidence connects to values and arguments.

8 – Attempts to use relevant legal, historical, numerical/statistical data, or current events to support arguments; attempts to quote majority and/or dissenting Supreme Court opinions; attempts to explain how evidence connects to values and arguments.

4 – Does not use relevant legal, historical, numerical/statistical data, or current events to support arguments; inaccurately quotes majority and/or dissenting Supreme Court opinions; does not explains how evidence connects to values and arguments

Presentation of Values and Arguments 

16 – States and defines team’s values; presents strong and nuanced arguments in a persuasive, succinct and cogent manner; demonstrates command of a variety of sentence structures, phrases (noun, verb, adjectival, etc.), and clauses (dependent, relative, etc.) consistently throughout the speech; resolves issues of complex or contested usage; speaks clearly in a manner that engages audience. 

12 - States and defines team’s values; presents teams arguments in a persuasive and succinct manner;

demonstrates command of variety of sentence structures, phrases (noun, verb, adjectival, etc.), and clauses (dependent, relative, etc.) consistently throughout most of the speech;  speaks clearly in a manner that engages audience

8 – States but does not define team’s values; presents teams arguments in a manner that is somewhat persuasive; speaks somewhat clearly and attempts to engage audience;  demonstrates command of variety of sentence structures, phrases (noun, verb, adjectival, etc.), and clauses (dependent, relative, etc.) consistently throughout sections of the speech; engages the audience at points during the speech

4 – Does not state values; arguments are convoluted and hard to follow; does not engage audience.

Refutation  

·       Based on cross examination performance for First Affirmative Constructive

·       Based on cross examination performance and refutation component of speech for all other Constructives

·       Based on cross examination questions and closing speeches for Rebuttalists

16 – Summarizes, critiques, deconstructs, and challenges opponents’ arguments and values in a persuasive and sophisticated manner; challenges and disputes opponents’ evidence and provides evidence to the contrary

12 - Summarizes, critiques, deconstructs, and challenges opponents’ arguments and values; challenges and disputes opponents’ evidence and provides evidence to the contrary

8 – Attempts to summarize, critique, deconstruct, or challenge opponents’ arguments and values; attempts to challenge and dispute opponents’ evidence and provides evidence to the contrary

4 – does not summarize, critique, deconstruct, or challenge opponents’ arguments and values; does not challenge and dispute opponents’ evidence or provide evidence to the contrary

School of the Future

Politics and Government – J. Copeland

Debate Scoring  Sheet

Affirmative 1:  _______________________

Affirmative 2:  _______________________

Affirmative Cross Ex: _______________________

Affirmative Total: ______________________

Negative 1:  __________________________

Negative 2:  __________________________

Negative Cross Ex:  ___________________________

Negative Total: ________________________

Rank speakers between 1 and 6. 

1.     (20 pts) ______________________________________________________

2.     (18 pts) ______________________________________________________

3.     (16 pts) ______________________________________________________

4.     (14 pts) ______________________________________________________

5.     (12 pts) _______________________________________________________

6.     (10 pts) _________________________________________________________

Affirmative total  (rubric totals + speaker points total)

_____________________________

Negative total   (rubric totals + speaker points total)

_____________________________

Winner ________________________________

Reason for decision:

Debate Schedule

Debate Schedule – Wednesday, May 2

Time	Groups
8:50-9:40	The Death Penalty is consistent with the 8th amendment Affirmative: Ruth, Kady, Lucas Negative: Davendra, Kristin, Travis
9:40-10:30	Access to firearms is a fundamental right in a free society. Affirmative: Casey, Matt, John Negative: Henry, Alina, Alex
10:30-11:20	The Death Penalty is consistent with the 8th amendment Affirmative: Ly, Bianca, Amanda H. Negative: Sarah, Sophia, Lawrence
11:20-12:10	Religious institutions that use government funds to provide social services should receive exemptions from laws that violate their core beliefs Affirmative: Jay, Sharif, Mecca Negative: Sarah, David, Abdul
1:00-1:50	Affirmative action is consistent with the principle of equal opportunity. Affirmative: Shamira, Simone, Emily Negative: Patrick, Julia, Celeste
1:50-2:40	Access to firearms is a fundamental right in a free society. Affirmative: Willie, Red-Tiger, Justin Negative: Alaudin, Destinay, Ruben
Friday 1:00 - 1:50	Religious institutions that use government funds to provide social services should receive exemptions from laws that violate their core beliefs. Affirmative: Ben, Elizabeth, Jonathan Negative: Amanda, Chloe, Elijah

Democratizing Twentieth Century Resources

Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto London, 1971, revised 1978

 Don Pedro Albizu Campos Speech

Politics and Government - Debate Schedule

Resolution	Affirmative	v.	Negative
Religious institutions that use government funds to provide social services should receive exemptions from laws that violate their core beliefs.	Jay, Sharif, Mecca		Sarah, David, Abdul
Religious institutions that use government funds to provide social services should receive exemptions from laws that violate their core beliefs.	Ben, Elizabeth, Jonathan		Amanda, Chloe, Elijah
The Death Penalty is consistent with the 8th amendment	Ruth, Kady, Lucas		Davendra, Kristin, Travis
Access to firearms is a fundamental right in a free society.	Willie, Red-Tiger, Justin		Alaudin, Destinay, Ruben
Access to firearms is a fundamental right in a free society.	Casey, Matt, John		Henry, Alina, Alex
Affirmative action is consistent with the principle of equality opportunity.	Shamira, Simone, Emily		Patrick, Julia, Celeste
The Death Penalty is consistent with the 8th amendment	Ly, Bianca, Amanda H.		Sarah, Sophia, Lawrence

Democratizing Twentieth Century Classwork 4/16

I have tried to align folks with things they've expressed interest in. If there are any problems with the groups, we can discuss changes. If you want to talk to someone about switching with you, realize that each group must contain a minimum of three people. And, it is impossible for everyone to get her or his first choice.

For today, split up into these groups and answer each of the following questions. Use your break homework to support your answers. You will answer these questions in your presentations. I will check tomorrow.

A - Why then? Why did this movement(s) get underway when it did?

B - What gains were won? What gains were sought but not won?

C - If the reform was only partially achieved, what limited its attainment?

1) Women’s Liberation

· Rosa, Claudia, Nisha, Wendy

· Angelica, Diego, Larisa, Michael, Kammie

2) Anti-War and Free Speech Movements

· Jason Li, John Crespo, Chris C, Demetri G

· James, Stephen, Christian, Dmitry, Jemma

3) LGTB Liberation Movement

· Lila, Samantha, Grace

· Jackie, Miguel, Lina, Aaron

4) Puerto Rican, Latino, Native American and Multicultural Movements

· Jesus, Carlos, Mei Ling

· Dylan, Brandon, Candice, Matt

5) Black Power Movement

· Nija, Emily, Jason, Najzali, Sydney, Sophia

· Robert, Brian, Patrick, Robert

Any questions can be referred to John, Jay or any other students who debated in Democratizing last year

Poly Govt Classwork pt 3

In your presentation groups, come up w values, arguments and a list of tentative evidence for each of the following. Remember that your value is your morally guiding principle. It is why you believe what you believe.

Divide your work into two categories. You should have two sets of values: affirmative (agrees) and negative (disagrees). Finish for homework.

a) Affirmative action is consistent with the principle of equal opportunity.

b) The right to bear arms is fundamental in a free society.

c) The death penalty is consistent with the eight amendment.

Poly Gov't Classwork pt 2

Read over, copy into notebook or print and tape in notebook

II. Lincoln Douglass Debate - Format

Order of speakers:

1. First Affirmative Constructive (4 min):
• Defines key terms in resolution
• Presents the team’s values
• Presents evidence that supports at least one of the values

2. Negative Cross ex/rebuttalist (2 min)
• Asks specific questions that attempt to dismantle the affirmative argument
• Asks general questions that attempt to promote the negative arguments

3. First Negative Constructive (4 min):

• Rebutts affirmative team’s initial argument
• Defines key terms in resolution
• Presents the team’s values
• Presents evidence that supports at least one of the values

4. Affirmative Cross ex/rebuttalist (2 min)
• Asks specific questions that attempt to dismantle the negative team’s argument
• Asks general questions that attempt to promote the affirmative arguments

5. Second Affirmative Constructive (4 min):
• Rebutts negative team’s initial argument
• Re-presents affirmative values
• Continues to present the affirmative team’s arguments
• Presents evidence that supports the affirmative team’s values

6. Negative Cross ex/rebuttalist (2 min):
• Asks specific questions that attempt to dismantle the affirmative argument
• Asks general questions that attempt to promote the negative arguments

7. Second Negative Constructive (4 min):
• Rebutts affirmative team’s initial argument
• Re-presents negative values
• Continues to present the negative team’s arguments
• Presents evidence that supports the negative team’s values

8. Affirmative Cross ex/rebuttalist (2 min):
• Asks specific questions that attempt to dismantle the negative team’s argument
• Asks general questions that attempt to promote the affirmative arguments

9. Negative Cross ex/rebuttalist ( 3 min):
• Restates the mistakes made by the affirmative team during cross ex
• Restates flaws in affirmative arguments
• Summarizes the negative team’s arguments

10. Affirmative Cross ex/rebuttalist (3 min):
• Restates the mistakes made by the negative team during cross ex
• Restates flaws in negative team’s arguments
• Summarizes the affirmative team’s arguments


Jobs of Speakers:

First Affirmative Constructive (4 min)
Introduction:
• Hook with quote or anecdote
• Resolution Stated
• Team’s Position Stated

Background and Context
• Key Terms Defined
• Values Stated and Defined
• Arguments stated

Argument Constructed
• Argument stated
• Connection to value stated
• Evidence to support value provided:

a) at least one court case and/or piece of legislation
b) at least one relevant reference to the United States Constitution
c) several pieces of numeric/statistical data
d) at least one primary source
e) sources are all cited

First Negative Constructive (4 min)

Refutation:
• Directly responds to the values and arguments presented by the Affirmative Team
Introduction:
• Hook with quote or anecdote
• Resolution Stated
• Team’s Position Stated
Background and Context
• Key Terms Defined
• Values Stated and Defined
Arguments stated

Argument Constructed
• Argument stated
• Connection to value stated
• Evidence to support value provided
a) at least one court case and/or piece of legislation
b) at least one relevant reference to the United States Constitution
c) several pieces of numeric/statistical data
d) at least one primary source
e) sources are all cited

Second Affirmative Constructive (4 min)

Refutation
• Directly responds to and challenges the values, definition and evidence provided by other team

Argument Constructed
• Next value(s) restated and defined
• Argument stated
• Connection to value stated
• Evidence to support value provided
a) at least one court case and/or piece of legislation
b) at least one relevant reference to the United States Constitution
c) several pieces of numeric/statistical data
d) at least one primary source
e) sources are all cited

Second Negative Constructive (4 min)

Refutation
• Directly responds to and challenges the values, definition and evidence provided by other team
Argument Constructed
• Next value(s) restated and defined
• Argument stated
• Connection to value stated
• Evidence to support value provided
a) at least one court case and/or piece of legislation
b) at least one relevant reference to the United States Constitution
c) several pieces of numeric/statistical data
d) at least one primary source
e) sources are all cited

Cross Examiners/Rebuttalists

Deconstruction: asks questions to pick apart the values, arguments and definitions
Reconstruction: asks questions to re-frame the debate on your terms
Summation: makes a final speech to summarize teams overall position and the inferiority of the opponents' values

Poly Govt Classwork pt 1

Copy into notebook:

I. Lincoln Douglass Values Debate

A) Values: The morally guiding principle upon which your argument is based. The reason why you argue what you argue.

1. Each team should have 2-3 values; each value should be clearly defined in speech.
2. Sample values: Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, Equality, Personal Liberty, Equal Opportunity

B) Argument: A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

1. Each value should be supported by 1-2 arguments.
2. Sample argument: The use of race as a criteria for college admissions impedes racial progress by discouraging colorblindness and individualism.

C) Evidence: The constitutional, legal, statistical and anecdotal information used to support your team's position