Southeast Europe Youth Leadership Institute 2004
DEBATE PROGRAM CURRICULUM
Revised by Gordon Mitchell from SEEYLI 2002 & 2003
(Ken Broda Bahm, Daniela Kempf, Gordon Mitchell)

INTRODUCTION

The debate program takes place during the last segment of the SEEYLI institute and is designed to further four objectives: 1) To provide students and community leaders with hands-on training in the theory and practice of organizing and convening public debates; 2) To create live forums for students to amplify the messages being developed in their personal projects; 3) To enrich public discussion in the Winston-Salem area; 4) To refine a portable model of public debate curriculum suitable for use by other organizations. During the program, participants will work together in a variety of group settings:

- General assemblies. All-institute gatherings convened to discuss overall logistics and basic starting points for selected exercises.
- Lab groups. Specific public debate projects will germinate out of four lab groups composed of 12-13 students each. Two faculty members and several community leaders will lead each lab group.
- Team groups. Each lab group will form approximately two to five debate groups that will develop their own public debate to be presented at the Public Debate Festival. Each debate team will have at least one moderator (this could be a student, faculty member, or community leader).
- Special sessions. During certain periods when lab groups are meeting, select participants will leave the lab groups to attend narrowly tailored group meetings that address special topics such as moderating and coaching.

LAB GROUP TEACHING TEAMS

• Valon Berani - Nate Dunn
• Arbjan Mazniku - Cate Morrison
• Damien Pfister - Bogdan Epure
• Gordon Mitchell - Zorica Razic

COMMUNITY LEADER ROLES AND PREPARATION

All debate program community leaders are expected to:

• Prepare for and attend special seminars
• Participate in execution of the staff demonstration debate
• Work with a lab group teaching team and participate in lab group meetings
• Direct and possibly participate in a public debate organized by one debate team
• Participate in organizing and executing the Public Debate Festival

SESSION DESCRIPTIONS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

Monday, July 19, 2003

9:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
[General assembly]
Introduction to Public Debate
Discussion leader: Gordon (assist from Cate & Damien)

This discussion will explore reasons why it may be desirable to pursue public debates (e.g. provides a unique form of social learning, empowers citizens to participate as democratic actors, hones student speaking skills, creates dynamic linkages between schools and wider society; provides reference points for future deliberation). While there is some overlap between these objectives and the reasons for pursuing competitive tournament debating, there are significant differences (e.g. modes of resolution; competitive focus, terminology; audience roles). Since powerful public debates can have a significant impact on public opinion, there are a host of ethical issues raised in public debate organizing that are not necessarily present in academic simulations such as tournament contest rounds. For example, while many consider it natural for one to argue against convictions (for pedagogical purposes) in tournament contest rounds, such a stance is more problematic in a public debate setting, where advocacy has the potential to shift public opinion. Participants may have different perspectives on the purposes driving their participation in public debates – some debaters may see it as an opportunity to amplify their personal advocacy of firmly held beliefs, while others with more fluid beliefs may see debating as an opportunity to contribute to public understanding by presenting multiple sides of a question to public audiences. Discussion of these themes will be broken up by brief spontaneous argument combustion between Damien, Cate and Gordon (opening several minutes), and two or three example SPAR debates conducted near the middle and end of the talk.

10:45 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
[Lab groups]
SPAR Debating Exercise and Debate Principles
Discussion leaders: Lab group leaders

Spontaneous Argumentation (SPAR) debating is a lively, ice-breaking activity for lab group members to get to know each other and build debating momentum. This is an introductory activity designed to familiarize students with the notion of making arguments, asking questions about arguments, refuting arguments and judging the relative strength of competing arguments. The quick start-up time and short speeches involved in this exercise allow space for teachers and students to build excitement and interest in debating. The format also allows opportunities for teachers to frequently interject constructive comments that begin to frame debate as a comfortable, supportive and creative intellectual form of interactive communication.

SPAR Debate Format
	Affirmative opening speech	60 seconds
	Cross-examination by negative	60 seconds
	Negative opening speech	60 seconds
	Cross-examination by affirmative	60 seconds
	Affirmative closing speech	45 seconds
	Negative closing speech	45 seconds

Step One: Review Introductory Model. Remind students of the format and procedure for SPAR debating that was demonstrated at the close of the morning’s general assembly:

Debaters step up to the front of the room, and one debater calls a coin flip.
Winner of the coin flip gets the option to either:

• Select the topic for debate (topics should be listed on the chalk board or written on small slips of paper and collected in a hat).
• Defer selection of topic choice to their opponent and then pick the side of the topic they wish to defend.

Once a topic and sides are determined, debaters get two minutes of preparation time to brainstorm arguments and write them down on a notepad. For the demonstration, this may work best using two overhead projectors or writing arguments on the chalkboard. A very brief discussion of the process of argument invention and strategy would be useful here (e.g. the difference between assertion and argument, role of evidence in strengthening arguments, importance of ethos as key dimension of persuasion in public debate).

Possible Topics. This exercise will probably work best with light SPAR topics that are easy and fun to argue. Examples of previously successful topics include: 

• Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
• Soccer is the best sport in the world.
• Ice cream on a cold day is refreshing.
• Dogs make better pets than cats.
• Passing notes in class is an important form of communication.
• The school day should start at noon.
• Crushed ice is better than cubed ice.
• The pen is mightier than the sword.

Step Two: Student SPAR Debating. Following the above format and introductory model, pairs of students will come to the front of the room in sequence, select topics and sides, brainstorm arguments, then engage in SPAR debating. To keep the exercise running fluidly, it is suggested that at all times there be an “on deck” pair of debaters preparing their arguments while the preceding pair is debating. In this system, two pairs need to selected initially and given five minutes to prepare arguments in a designated “preparation space.” After the first SPAR debate is completed, a new pair should be invited to the front of the room to select a topic and sides, while the “on deck” pair that has been preparing takes the stage and immediately begins its debate.

Step Three: Discussion. Students should be given the opportunity to discuss things about the debate process that they noticed, things they liked / disliked, things that were learned, etc. Teachers should take the opportunity to point out examples of strong arguments and outstanding performances. Ideally, lab members will leave the activity feeling like they already know how to debate and that the rest of the institute will be spent honing those skills and working them into public debate contexts.

Preliminary Discussion of Debate Team Groupings. Close the session by previewing the next step that will be taken tomorrow – beginning to organize the lab group into several small “debate teams,” each which will organize a public debate on a topic of common concern to each group members. Explain that lab groups were designed to cluster together students with shared topic interests. Share some specifics of the overlapping topic areas of interest shared by students (refer to the interest sheet input gathered earlier in the institute). Lab leaders may find it useful to chart these interests schematically on the chalk board so students can begin see how the challenge of forming distinct debate teams will unfold.

Tuesday, July 20, 2004

9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
[General assembly]
Staff Demonstration Debate
Discussion leader and debate moderator: Gordon
Debaters: Arbi, Bogdan, Cate, Damien

By the end of Sunday, July 17, the four debaters should come to a consensus on the wording of the proposition to be debated, the format for the debate, and the sides taken by speakers. Damien, please take the lead in organizing this dialogue. During this process, bear in mind the following constraints:

• The proposition should meet all the following criteria: 1) Very debatable and controversial; 2) Easy for staff to research quickly; 3) Will intersect with the knowledge base of students. Given how the UN proposition from Towson SEEYLI 2003 worked out nicely, we might consider the following proposition for Wake Forest SEEYLI 2004: “Resolved: That the United Nations Security Council Should be Expanded.”
• The overall time for debate (including audience questions) should not exceed 60 minutes. Thus, short speeches will be in order.
• Parliamentary “points of information” should be used instead of cross-examination periods to liven up the debate and show students how to use this style. One possible format:

First affirmative opening speech (with points of information)	6 minutes
First negative opening speech (with points of information)	6 minutes
Second affirmative opening speech (with points of information)	6 minutes
Second negative opening speech (with points of information)	6 minutes
Audience questions	25 minutes
Affirmative closing statement	3 minutes
Negative closing statement	3 minutes

11:15 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
[Lab groups]
Demonstration Debate Reflection, Team Organization
Discussion leaders: Lab leaders

There will be many questions and comments following the staff demonstration debate, so the first part of this session should be devoted to reflection of what the students just witnessed. Some useful discussion questions include:

• Which argument was most persuasive and why?
• What did you think of the format of the debate?
• How could each side have improved their case?
• Did the debate change your mind about the issue?

When the discussion reaches a good breaking point (somewhere midway through the session), shift gears and explain to students that it is now time to turn to the lab group’s challenge of generating their own debates, and the first step is to develop from 3-5 debate “teams” in the lab, with each team working together for the rest of the week to develop, practice, and organize a public debate on a topic of their own choosing.

After having surveyed the interests of students in their lab groups, and discussed the grouping concept the previous day, lab leaders should already have some idea of the overlapping areas of interest that link various students together. Building on these preliminary linkages, the lab group will organize itself into approximately three to five smaller team groups, each focusing on a different area for public debate organizing. Perhaps this could be accomplished most effectively by first deciding upon rough areas of overlap in the large group, then breaking out into smaller groups to let each team work with one or two faculty/teachers who help focus the area of interest. Specific propositions for debate need not be decided here, only general areas of interest.

Lab leaders should take careful note of the chosen areas of interest and develop five SPAR topics in each area to be used in the final exercise of the following day.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

9:30 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.
[General assembly]
Propositions, Formats and Roles: Theory
Discussion leader: Gordon

Students will have organized themselves into public debating teams based on overlapping areas of interest. Next they will need to think about choosing a specific proposition to frame their public debating project. Since the proposition structures and steers argumentation and speaks for the debate in promotional material, careful wording of the proposition is important. A good proposition will raise relevant and timely issues, attract the interest of prospective audience members, and divide argumentative ground in such a way that creates favorable conditions for debaters to produce productive clash. In short, the challenge of developing a good proposition for public debate is one of finding a meaningful point of controversy. Team groups that feature students with starkly differing opinions in a given area of interest may find this process rather straightforward, as the fault line of disagreement can form the basis of the proposition. However, the process may be more challenging for team groups that share more homogeneous opinions regarding a general topic area. Here, finding a good proposition may require clever invention of topic wrinkles to generate nuances that support productive clash.

Public debates can be conducted using many different formats. The number of advocates, role of the moderator, role of questioners, number and length of speeches, speaking order, and opportunities for audience participation can all be adjusted to fit the occasion. This presentation should provide many examples that will stimulate the imagination of students, who will soon be asked to reconvene in their team groups to develop formats well-suited for their specific debate.

10:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
[Lab groups]
Propositions, Formats and Roles: Practice
Discussion leaders: Lab leaders

Step One: Students will return to their lab groups and split off into teams (accompanied by one or two faculty/teachers) to take on the challenge of finding a meaningful point of controversy and developing a suitable proposition for their given interest area. The objective is to develop a debatable proposition that satisfies most of the criteria explained during the assembly discussion. It is important that all team members share a sense of investment in the proposition that is eventually negotiated. It is not disastrous if it is not possible to reach a consensus on a proposition during this time period, as it will be possible to revise the proposition as students gather more research and develop their idea for a public debate.

Step Two: Reassemble as a lab group and have each debate team share the preliminary proposition they developed. Encourage constructive feedback from other groups.

Step Three: Break back into debate teams (accompanied by one or two teachers) to take on the challenge of choosing a format for their debate and settling on student roles. Teachers should assist students in considering how the expected audience, proposition, speakers’ strengths, and speakers’ interests all affect format choice. Teachers and community leaders may become participants here (for example assuming the role of moderator) if it is needed to help fill out the roles in a favored format. It may also be appropriate to revisit the earlier discussion about arguing against convictions if some students consider taking that role. If the role assignment is turning out lopsided (e.g. all students want to speak in favor of the proposition), this is a good time to begin tweaking the proposition so that it is more controversial, enabling some students to move over to the other side, thus creating a more lively debate.

Step Four: Reassemble as a lab group and have each debate team share the preliminary format and roles they developed. Encourage constructive feedback from other groups.

Close of Session: Run a few on-topic SPAR debates. Repeat Monday’s SPAR exercise, but instead of using light topics, substitute topics matched to the areas of student interest – political topics designed to get students thinking seriously about their debates. These SPAR debates could be conducted one at a time in front of the entire lab group, or they could proceed simultaneously in the team groups. The topics should probe a wide array of issues under the general umbrella of the specific areas of interest chosen by the respective team groups. Teachers and community leaders should take careful notes, as the arguments given by students here will suggest hints about productive areas of research to pursue the next day.

3:00 p.m. – 4:40 p.m.
[Lab groups]
Topic Research and Proposition Refinement
Discussion leaders: Lab leaders

One faculty member should lead a discussion on the importance of research as well as guidelines for general and specific research techniques. This general discussion should transition into an illustration of how to generate a research “wish list.” Invite a student volunteer to share the key arguments in their debate case. Then invite everyone to help brainstorm a “wish list” of evidence that student might like to have to strengthen his/her case. Some research assignments might search for answers to specific questions that arose during on-topic SPAR debating or during format planning. Other projects might browse more generally for new ideas to support particular positions. Circle back to the general discussion of research techniques to isolate strategies the student might use to find items on the “wish list” (e.g. narrow Google search terms, investigate specific databases such as Lexis/Nexis, visit websites for specific organizations working in that issue area). Finally, give each student 10 minutes to develop their own “wish list” and develop strategies for finding items on the list.

For the second part of the session, lab groups go to the library to execute their “wish list” research strategies.

Thursday, July 22, 2004

9:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.
Case Development and Argument Construction
[Lab groups]
Discussion leaders: Lab leaders

Having formed public debating teams, developed preliminary propositions, and chosen formats, students will now be in a position to begin preparation for their public debating performance. By the end of the day, the goal will be for students to perform a “walk-through” of their debate.

The first part of this session should introduce the concept of case development and argument construction, highlighting key issues such as: 1) How to construct an argument; 2) The difference between an argument and a mere assertion; 3) Different forms of evidence; 4) The essential elements of a debate case, including introduction, body, and conclusion; 5) The differences between strong and weak arguments and cases [see sample exercise for teaching “Case Development and Argument Construction”].

The second part of this session should invite students to work within debate teams to put this knowledge to work in writing cases for and against their particular propositions [consider using copies of the sample “Argument Flowsheet” to facilitate this process]. The goal is that by the end of the session, each student will at least have a rudimentary case sketched out for his or her particular debate speech – there will be a natural incentive to complete this task given that practice debates will commence after lunch.

2:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Practice Debates
[Lab groups]
Discussion leaders: Lab leaders

Students’ speeches will probably still be quite rough at this point, but each debater should have a few basic points to share. These points can be shared during the course of informal practice debates with shortened speech times and frequent pauses to discuss concerns. Each team in the lab group, assisted by one or two faculty and community leaders, should conduct these debates simultaneously, in different rooms. The objective is to further student understanding of their specific roles, improve overall vision, and stimulate further speech refinement.

A good procedure for this is to conduct a “walk-through” of the practice debate, then discuss possible refinements of the proposition and format. Then students can focus on improving their cases by adding evidence and analysis, incorporating extra arguments, and brainstorming ways to refute their opponent’s arguments.

The major goal of this session is for debate teams to finalize the wording of their debate propositions and settle on the format and roles for participants. NOTE: This is especially important since Public Debate Festival promotional material will be finalized over the weekend during the trip to Washington, D.C.

Friday, July 23, 2004

DC visit

Saturday, July 24, 2004

DC visit

Sunday, July 25, 2004

DC visit

Monday, July 26, 2004

9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
Public Debate Promotion
[General assembly]
Discussion leader: Gordon

This general meeting will begin with some quick SPAR debating on Washington, D.C.-related topics – an activity that will provide students with an opportunity to relate the experience of their weekend visit back to debate. The principles of debating may seem a bit fuzzy after an entire weekend away, so the SPAR speeches will provide teachers a good opportunity to comment on exemplary practices exhibited by students during their SPAR debates. This will provide a bridge to discussion that reviews the overall project, looks back briefly on what was accomplished in the first week, and looks ahead to the coming week of preparation getting ready for the public debate festival. This will also be a good time to release promotional materials for the event and use such materials to spur brief discussion about the pitfalls and challenges of promoting public debate events. 

10:45 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Refutation & Questioning
[Lab groups]
Discussion leaders: Lab leaders

After having developed a skeletal case structure for their presentations, students will be in a position to consider more specific techniques in argumentation and refutation. One teacher should begin this session by leading a discussion to explain the concept of refutation, its role in debate, and how to prepare for it. Discussion of the importance of transparency, disclosure, and cooperation in public debate would be well placed here [see Daniela Kempf’s excellent powerpoint presentation on “Argumentation and Refutation” for ideas].

The session could then move into a more practical realm, with volunteers being asked to share the basic structure of their speeches and then the rest of the lab group brainstorming ways of refuting its key claims, and then moving on to brainstorm one more step down the line, to suggest ways for the speaker to rebuild their case by answering such refutations. This will also serve as a good opportunity to suggest avenues for final research to fill holes in speeches and acquire evidence to deal with late-breaking arguments.

Finally, discuss the role of questions in public debate. Some formats may feature direct advocate cross-examination, some may include parliamentary “points of information,” others may have panelists assigned to ask questions during designated periods, and all will include an audience question segment. Focus on the importance and dynamics of good questions, different ways to ask questions, the purpose of asking questions (clarify, expose weaknesses, set up later arguments). A breakout exercise at the end might randomly assign students to different roles (advocate defending a scripted argument paragraph, moderator, respectful questioner, heckler) to set up practice.

1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Case Refinement and Individual Practice Speaking
[Group I labs only – Group II labs go to Food Bank]
Discussion leaders: Lab leaders

Debate teams meet in small groups to continue work on refining their speeches, developing refutation strategies for countering their opponents’ key arguments, tightening up their supporting evidence, and polishing their speaking deliveries. This is a good time for teachers to provide a lot of one-on-one attention.

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Library Research
[Lab groups]
Co-ordinators: Lab leaders

This time block will provide students with an opportunity to fill in the holes identified in their cases yesterday and conduct any final research necessary to prepare for their public debates.

1:30 p.m. – 3:00 p.m.
Case Refinement and Individual Practice Speaking
[Group II labs only – Group I labs go to Food Bank]
Discussion leaders: Lab leaders

Debate teams meet in small groups to continue work on refining their speeches, developing refutation strategies for countering their opponents’ key arguments, tightening up their supporting evidence, and polishing their speaking deliveries. This is a good time for teachers to provide a lot of one-on-one attention.

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

9:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
Preview of Public Debate Festival
[General assembly]
Discussion leader: Gordon

10:15 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Inter-lab Dress Rehearsals
[Lab groups]
Co-ordinators: Lab leaders

Full practice debates will be conducted for audiences from other lab groups [exact schedule TBA]

2:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.
Final Debate Preparation
[Lab groups]
Co-ordinators: Lab leaders

Lab groups meet for the last time to iron out details and finalize preparations for public debates.

Thursday, July 29, 2004

Public Debate Festival

The festival will be designed to provide forums for students to perform public debates in front of real live audiences and serve as the final project and focal point of whole debate program. As such, the festival will also promote the general concept of public debate and SEEYLI in the local community and beyond. All participants will be involved in some role (as debater, questioner, moderator, or coach). The debates will be spread evenly throughout the day so that there will be approximately four to seven debates running simultaneously. Promotion materials will be distributed and posted in advance. Debates will be recorded for possible transcription and distribution.

Appendix:

DESIRED OUTCOMES FOR 2004 SEEYLI PUBLIC DEBATE PROGRAM: 

Day 1 (MONDAY) – themes: INTRO, PRINCIPLES & PRELIMINARY STEPS
- understand the rationale for why to do public debate
- get a taste of the debate process
- grasp how debate labs will work

Day 2 (TUESDAY) - themes: DEMO DEBATE & TEAM ORGANIZATION
- appreciate the myriad ingredients of a finished public debate
- learn how to ask questions from the audience
- form debate teams within labs

Day 3 (WEDNESDAY) - themes: PROPOSITIONS, FORMATS, ROLES & RESEARCH
- understand what makes a good proposition
- learn about various debate formats and roles one can have in a debate
- formulate a debatable proposition for final debate
- choose an appropriate format for final debate and allocate roles
- understand the process of debate research
- learn specific research techniques
- generate a specific research “wish list”
- begin applying research techniques in library

Day 4 (THURSDAY) - themes: CASE DEVELOPMENT & ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION
- understand the difference between an argument and an assertion
- learn how different forms of evidence can support an argument
- start developing cases for final debate

Day 5 (MONDAY) - theme: DEBATING SKILLS (refutation & questioning) 
- understand, practice and improve argumentation skills
- understand, practice and improve refutation skills
- understand, practice and improve questioning skills

Day 6 (TUESDAY) – themes: DELIVERY
- understand and cope with speaking anxiety
- become conscious of and improve delivery
- find a comfortable ‘speaking style’ and cultivate it
- understand need for good organization of speeches (structure)

Day 7 (WEDNESDAY) – themes: FINAL PREPARATION
- practice audience adaptation during dress rehearsal debates
- practice integrating all dimensions of debating practice into a cohesive performance

Day 8 (THURSDAY) – theme: PUBLIC DEBATE FESTIVAL
- experience real public debate as a participant
- attend debates of SEEYLI peers as responsible and active audience member
- exchange ideas and plans for follow-on