 |
Literary Debate Guidelines
By Gail Lindenberg
This document provides useful tips for creating a debate unit for the classroom. The information has
been organized into five sections that may be used to construct class handouts. In particular, students should have a copy of the protocol and strategies of debate so that they may refer to it throughout the year as different formats are employed.
Terms: Useful debate vocabulary that students ought to be familiar with
Protocol:
Rules for debate conduct and etiquette
Strategies: Tips for organizing and communicating arguments
Logical Fallacies: Hints on how to identify poor arguments
Debate Formats
: Outlines and instructions for four debate formats
Terms
1. Argument = a position or statement of opinion to be supported
2. Contention = as part of an argument, a contention is a statement to be proven
3. Affirmative = the positive side (pro) of the debate that supports the resolution statement
4. Negative = the side of the debate that is against the affirmative position (con)
5. Resolution = a specific statement of what is to be proven or refuted; the formal resolution statement
begins: "Be it resolved that . . ."
6. Refute = to disprove
7. Rebuttal = questions to challenge points made by opposition
8. Summation = conclusion, the last appeal to the audience/jury
9. Brief = pre-planned statements of position before rebuttal
Protocol
1. Contentions should be stated clearly (perhaps listed) at the onset of the debate.
2. A moderator should
serve as a source of appeal for rulings about etiquette or breach of protocol.
3. If the debate is timed, the timekeeper signals the moderator, not the debate members.
4. The moderator only interjects
comments or rulings when appealed to by a debate member.
5. Questions or challenges should not be personal or insulting.
6. Initial briefs are to be offered without clash or reference to the statements
made by the other side. Clash and refutation occurs only in rebuttal.
7. Each speaker is accountable for team position statements and research; speakers should be able to defend team positions.
8. Order and timing must be agreed upon in advance.
9. The moderator may declare a recess to consult with the instructor if in doubt concerning an appeal.
10. Members may appeal to the moderator for environmental or personal needs.
11. A debate member may appeal for a point of order at any time; the moderator may rule immediately or hold ruling until a
later time.
12. Points challenged during rebuttal must be part of the initial brief statements; a member/team may not be challenged for information not discussed.
13. Rebuttal must be posed in question form and not further the brief position.
Strategies
1. If you don't want to debate a point, don't bring it up.
2. Don't get mad—get even through use of logic.
3. Use the moderator to your advantage. Know the rules and insist they be followed.
4. Control the floor when it's your turn. Asking an open question gives the floor to the other side.
5. Negative body language (like rolling the eyes) does not serve to give the judge/audience a positive impression of you.
6. Appear to be listening sympathetically—then devastate the other side with
logical attack.
7. Use formal language. Slang, name-calling or cursing makes you appear unintelligent and ill-prepared.
8. Ham it up. Speak with passion and intensity, but not melodrama.
9. Loud is not logic. A quiet voice can command the most attention. An old trick of politicians is to lower the voice so that everyone listens more closely.
10. Choose your experts and
sources wisely. One young woman who has had an abortion is not an expert on the subject.
11. Take time to read or quote the literature exactly.
12. Use short anecdotes and famous quotes when possible.
13. Know the position of the other side as well as you know your own. This way you won't be surprised.
14. Study the logical fallacies and hold the opposition accountable for logic blunders.
15. Save your best quote, strongest point and highest-impact emotional appeal for summation and final statement.
16. Don't sound patronizing or condescending. It doesn't come across well.
17. If possible, stand to speak. Walk around courtroom style. It's very impressive and intimidating to
the opposition.
18. Don't overuse any single strategy.
19. Don't say "I don't know" or "you're right" without following it up with a redirecting statement such as, "That may be true, but
have you ever thought about . . ."
Logical Fallacies Fallacies are errors in thinking and mistakes in logic. A study of samples can assist the debate team member to think more clearly and to see the flaws in the arguments
from the opposing side. These fallacies are given different names by different authors, but recognition of the term for the flaw is not important. Detecting the false pattern is. Note that in addition
to the ones described below, there are many more types of logical fallacies that may be explored.
1. Post Hoc Fallacy: The assumption that because one thing happens before another, that one thing causes the other. The classic story is of the arrogant rooster who brags to
the hens that he crows, causing the morning sun to rise. One old biddy who has been around the barnyard block challenges him. "Stay quiet tomorrow," she taunts, "and see if the morning stays dark."
Poor old master rooster has to leave in disgrace the next day when the sun shines bright as ever without his cock-o-doodle-doo.
2. False Authority: A rock star is not an expert on the right
kind of car to buy no matter how good he or she may look behind the wheel. Also, a criminal is not an expert on the causes of crime. An expert is one who has broad and creditable knowledge of the subject
due to study and credentialed expertise in the field under discussion.
3. Part/Whole: Proving part of an argument wrong does not necessarily discredit the entire list. Proving part of
an argument valid does not validate the entire argument. If a woman can run 100 yards in 10 seconds, then she should run 1000 yards in 100 seconds?
4. Either/Or: The assumption is
that if one thing is true it makes the other choice false. Usually there is a third option. A man works 65 hours a week, and is too tired to enjoy life. He says he must either work
himself to death or starve.
5. Rationalization: A fuzzy thinker can convince himself that an unpleasant outcome was due to uncontrollable external circumstances: "I rushed the essay
and got an F, but it was because that teacher doesn't like me."
6. Red Herring: Originally, a strong-smelling fish was used to fool a blood hound by dragging the herring across the trail of
scent. Some debaters can throw such distractions into the discussion and completely disrupt the course of the debate.
7. Improper Date: When generalizations are formed from a faulty
understanding that the argument built is flawed. In literature, interpretation must be based on excellent reading comprehension and strong analysis.
Debate Formats
1. Students read the same piece(s) of literature.
2. Class is presented with an issue or controversy that is sparked by the literary selection.
3. The class works to write a resolution that is a positive statement of the issue.
4. Students are to take sides by physically moving to the left side of the room for pro (support of the resolution)
and the right side of the room for con (refutes the resolution).
5. The teacher sits between (or other selected moderator) and calls on speakers from each side, in turn. Anyone may speak.
6.
The object is to convince classmates to vote "with their feet" by joining the other side of the classroom. They may not move while someone is speaking, but should shift between speakers.
7. In a large
class, a student monitor for each side might assist the instructor by keeping a list of students who contribute as well as the number of students who move.
8. The winner is declared according to the number
of students who shift to the other side. The instructor may wish to award extra points to the winning side while assessing participation points to those who
contribute.
B. Formal Team Debate Performance (Traditional Oxford Style)
1. Groups of six (3 each side) or eight (4 each side) work best. A moderator and timekeeper are selected. Time limits and
recesses between debate sections are agreed upon in advance and announced.
2. Each whole group works to draft an affirmative resolution concerning the topic of controversy taken from the literary
work. The moderator will read this resolution and introduce the teams to begin the debate.
3. Each drafts an individual brief, a speech of two minutes in length. The combined speeches form the
case presented by each side.
4. The order of debate is:
a. Briefs
1. First affirmative (introduction)
2. First negative (introduction)
3. Second affirmative (body)
4. Second negative (body)
5. Last affirmative (conclusion)
6. Last negative (conclusion).
b. Rebuttal
1. First negative controls a minute of questions
2. First affirmative
controls a minute of questions; rotation continues through panel until rebuttal is finished or becomes circular
c. Summation
1. Affirmative panel selects most effective speaker
to sum up the strengths of their case and the weaknesses of the opposition
2. Negative panel sums up
d. Class Vote
Moderator calls for a class vote based on tally sheets noting
logical points made by debate members as well as comments for individual speakers (these may be used to assess or as feedback).
e. Class Open discussion
C. Panel Debate with Class Participation
1. Teams are established of even sides with two to six members per side.
2. The teams work to write a resolution statement
regarding a controversial issue from a literary piece.
3. Each speaker presents individual viewpoints as the moderator calls in turn, rotating from affirmative to negative until all have presented their
views. There is no absolute time limit necessary.
4. While the debate members speak, classmates fill out index cards of questions addressed to the affirmative or negative side. These are
collected by proctors and delivered to the moderator between speakers.
5. After views are presented, the moderator begins to read the questions from the class, again following a rotation and allowing
members to respond to the questions posed to their side.
6. To close, each side selects one member of the panel to present a summation that points out the strengths of their side and the weaknesses
of the opposition.
7. The moderator calls for a class vote. As time allows, open class discussion may follow.
D. Hot Seat Debate
1. An affirmative position
statement is presented to the class who then divide according to the view they wish to support.
2. A "hot seat" is established on each side. One person sits on the "hot seat" and speaks for the side
he/she represents.
3. Students may feed written comments, questions, and points to the person on the "hot seat."
4. The student on the "hot seat" may vacate the seat at any
time. Someone from that side must take over the chair and duties.
5. An individual may tag the "hot seat" sitter, replacing him. Tagging may only take place during pauses or between
speakers.
6. The instructor or a chosen moderator tallies logical points earned by each side. Double points are awarded for specific book citing in support of a position. If the "hot
seat" remains vacant, then that side loses.
7. Points may be assessed for participation by taking names of those who speak from the "hot seat" as well as collecting cards at the close of the
debate. This allows your less willing speakers to participate.
Gail Lindenberg teaches at Nogales High School in La Puente, California. |
