CS 4345-SQ97-Debates
April 10, 1997
**CHANGED** May 7, 1997
Peter Freeman

DEBATES

DUE: Tuesday, May 13, by noon (physically or electronically) to Alex Snoeren.

You must submit this form from a College of Computing machine.

Your Name:

Your Email:

NAME OF STUDENT #1:

NAME OF STUDENT #2:

PREFERENCE FOR DATE OF DEBATE:

Tuesday, June 3
Thursday, June 5


Please list your first, second and third choice for the topic which you prefer (you may suggest a topic that was not listed on the assignment):

First:
Second:
Third:

Is there a legitimate reason or strenuous circumstance that makes it imperative for you to conduct your debate on the date you chose? If so, please explain, so that we can take this into consideration when we schedule the debates (remember to let us know which team member this applies to):

DEBATES

DUE: April 17, May 8 and June 3 in Class.

FINAL DEBATES WILL BE HELD ON JUNE 3 AND 5.
FORMAT AND TEAM FORMATION WERE DISCUSSED IN CLASS ON MAY 6.
CHOOSE FROM NEW TOPICS BELOW

 

On the above three dates, the class will participate in team debates. For the first debates, on April 17, you will debate on one of the following resolutions, as recommended by the "League for Information Freedom".

 A. Resolved: That computers will finally bring about a truly just society in which there is no poverty.
 B. Resolved: That computers will enable a vast improvement in education at all levels.
 C. Resolved: That computerization will improve working conditions for almost everyone.
 D. Resolved: That electronic communication is a great boon to human communication.
 E. Resolved: That it is important and good for society in general for marketeers to have an accurate profile of everyone's individual preferences.
 F. Resolved: That computerized control of transportation should be aggressively pushed to improve safety.
 G. Resolved: That because of the complexity of software, no one person can be held liable for any damage it may cause.

You should imagine the debates have been organized by the Congressional Research Service and that your audience is composed of congressional staff members who will be advising their bosses on policy decisions. Thus, the debates will be judged primarily on the cogency and relevance of the arguments rather than on technical debating skill.

As in traditional debate, however, the affirmative side has the burden of proving its case. The negative must simply refute the resolution and need not propose any action on its own.

Each debate will occur between teams with 2-4 members each and will proceed according to the following model:

4 mins. - opening statement from affirmative side
6 mins. - opening statement from negative side
2 mins. - first rebuttal from affirmative
4 mins. - rebuttal by negative
4 mins. - final rebuttal by affirmative

If time permits, each side will be asked to respond to questions from the audience.

For the opening statement, the time may be used by one team member, or the time may be split between statements by two team members. Similarly, for the rebuttals, either a single team member or more may present. However, each team member must present at least once during the debate.

There will be two debate sets. The first, to be held on April 17, will be composed of teams of up to four members to be assigned by the instructor. The second round will be in teams of two. These debates will be split over the remaining dates. Teams will be self-chosen at a later date. Each student is required to attend all of the debate sessions so that all of the debates have an audience (attendance will be taken). If, for some reason, you must miss class one day, please notify Alex Snoeren ahead of time.

For this assignment, you will receive a group grade. For each debate, the audience will vote in order to decide which side won.




Scoring Sample

RESOLUTION
 
 

 

PRESENTATION

   Appearance     Organization
   Poise (Confidence, eye contact, etc.)      Preparation
   Timeliness      Other -

 

CONTENT

Opening Statement (4 mins)
 
 
 
 

 

1st Rebuttal (2 mins)
 
 
 
 


Final Rebuttal (4 mins)
 
 
 
 


GENERAL

Credibility of Arguments
 
 
 
 



Strength of supporting examples, quotations, citations, etc.