Recycling stuff from Dropbox

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oek4p180g3bz8jw/recycling%20stuff%201.docx
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d2xdmleegy0r2nz/recycling%20stuff%202.docx

Welcome Bak!!!!

Debate has started once again. This blog will be a way for you all to keep in touch with me, as well as any new research/ ideas/ arguments/ I may come up with. This year we will have Lincoln/ Douglas debate, which is one vs. one, as well as policy debate. The topics this year have to do with recycling and reducing Utah's plastic waste.

Just a reminder:

1. First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)

a. Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative

2. First Negative Constructive (1NC)

a. Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative

3. Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC)

a. Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative

4. Second Negative Constructive (2NC)

a. Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative

5. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR).

6. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)

7. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)

8. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)

Policy Debate Format

First affirmative constructive (3 – 5 minutes) can be completely written and learned in advance!

Introduction

·       Opening - state your name and partner’s name and that you are speaking for the affirmative; express pleasure for opportunity to debate the topic; state the resolution

·       Define key terms

·       Present your thesis statement to show where you are going, e.g., This is a serious problem and the present system will not solve the problem; our plan will solve the problem

Body

·       Describe the issue, using a combination of logos, ethos, and pathos

·       Support the affirmative case with 4 –6 contentions, have at least 3 supporting pieces of evidence and reasoning (save at least 1 for rebuttal)

o   Establish the need for change – why this is a serious problem (qualitative/quantitative)

o   Establish the harm of the present system – people or other living beings are hurt physically, emotionally, financially, socially

o   Establish how the present system contributes to the problem (inherency)

·       Briefly introduce your plan and how it solves the problem

Conclusion

·       Summarize your position.  Say “Thank you.”

                                     

First negative constructive (3 – 5 minutes)

Introduction

·       Greet - state your name and partner’s name and that you are speaking for the negative; express pleasure for the opportunity to debate the topic of ____

·       Either accept the affirmative’s definitions or correct definitions presented by affirmative

·       Describe the issue from the point of view of the negative

·       Introduce your case with your thesis statement: “We intend to prove that there is no need to  . . .

Body

·       State negative philosophy by presenting 4 – 6  contentions; have at least 3 pieces of evidence and reasoning to support them (save at least 1 to reestablish during rebuttal)

o   Refute the need for change; explain why the status quo is preferable (defend present system)

o   Deny that the present system contributes to the problem (inherency)

o   Why there is no reason for change; diminish significance (quantitative/qualitative)

o   Why change could be worse than the present system

·       Attack the need for a plan, possibly why it will cause more harm than good

·       (Optional advanced strategy! You can accept that the status quo could be changed in a MINOR way; then introduce a counter plan that is significantly different from the affirmative’s plan.)

·       Clash: Refute affirmative’s points with evidence and reasoning

Conclusion

·       Summarize the negative case so far.  Say “Thank you.”

                                     

Second affirmative constructive (3 – 5 minutes)

Introduction

·       Present overview of the debate so far, contrasting affirmative and negative positions

·       Defend definitions of terms and topicality, if necessary

·       Present a thesis statement to show where you are going, e.g., _______ is a problem that must be solved and our plan will do it.

Body

·       Attack the negative philosophy defending the present system, especially harm and significance

·       Clash.  Directly address each of the specific challenges issued by the negative

·       Reestablish why change is necessary

·       Explain your plan with details; describe the benefits of the plan, how the plan will solve the problem 

Conclusion

·       End with an appeal to adopt the resolution.  Say “Thank you.”

Second negative constructive (3 – 5 minutes)

Introduction

·       Review / reinforce negative philosophy

·       Present thesis, e.g., We will prove that there isn’t a problem, that the plan is bad, that the plan is unnecessary

Body

·       Present contentions, attacking the plan as undesirable, unable to solve needs, or unnecessary

o   Practicality, workability – specific elements of the plan

o   Solvency – demonstrate that the plan is not capable of solving the problem

o   Disadvantages – explain that more harm will result from the plan than the status quo

o   Injustices – explain that the plan affects some individuals or groups more than others

o   Deny the supposed benefits of the plan

·       If the affirmative neglected to present a plan, make a HUGE deal of its omission

·       Clash.  Counter all affirmative challenges directly and specifically

·       Refute the affirmative case as a whole

Conclusion

·       Summarize problems of the plan; say: That is why we cannot adopt the resolution.  Thank you.

First negative rebuttal speech (2 – 3 minutes) – summarize and reiterate

·       Clash:  Refute the arguments introduced by the second affirmative, point by point

·       Again attack affirmative’s justification for change

·       Summarize the entire negative block

·       End with instructions: We must not allow . . .

           

First affirmative rebuttal speech (2 – 3 minutes) –be the savior- regain control after 8 negative minutes!

·       Refute negative’s plan objections; point out fallacies in reasoning

·       Rebuild your case at major points of attack; offer new evidence to support your contentions

·       Clash.  Respond to all the arguments from the second negative constructive arguments and first negative rebuttal; defend and resupport the arguments you can

Second negative rebuttal speech (2 – 3 minutes) - last chance for the negative side to speak      

·       Rebuild your case at major points of attack; offer new evidence to support your contentions

·       Explain why your side should win:  Review plan objections and disadvantages, refuting affirmative’s responses; point out any issues dropped by the affirmative

·       Summarize the negative position in a dramatic way; call for rejection of the proposal

·       Thank the audience and judge(s)

Second affirmative rebuttal speech (2 – 3 minutes) - last speech!

·       Point out any arguments dropped by the negative; these are considered your points now

·       Respond to objections negative made to your plan and point out those that were dropped by the second negative rebuttalist; dropped arguments are conceded arguments!

·       Remind the judges of your arguments and why they are more important than the negative’s

·       Be dramatic in your big picture.  Make your audience care!  End with a strong appeal to adopt the resolution, to accept the proposal.

·       Thank the audience and the judge(s)

Outline. Check it out. May help.

Decide, with your partner, what harms under the topic are the most important. Develop a structure of harms. Let us suppose, for example, that this year's topic requires the Affirmative to provide a program to guarantee employment for all U.S. citizens now in poverty. You might consider all of the many problems associated with poverty: homelessness, malnutrition, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, poor education, and even suicide.
Structure the major harms into an outline form:

1. Poverty breeds significant harms in American society.
	A. Poverty implies inadequate shelter.
	B. Poverty leads to malnutrition and starvation.
	C. Poverty leads to psychological harms.
		1. Substance abuse.
		2. Mental illness
		3. Domestic violence.
		4. Suicide.

The next step is to develop an inherency contention: locate the causes of the harms, and show how the harms are direct outcomes of current laws and policies. What causes poverty? Lack of jobs, for a start. But what about people who have low productivity, and thus are earning low wages? Such people often have large families, so that their tiny paychecks can't stretch far enough. And what about federal programs to relieve poverty? They function, but they don't reach all the poor, and they don't usually give enough money to end poverty. The inherency contention might put this all together.

2. Poverty is ingrained in the status quo.
	A. Millions of people are poor.
		1. The unemployed live in poverty.
		2. Those working for low wages are often poor.
	B. Government poverty-relief programs have failed.
		1. Rules exclude many of the working poor.
		2. Benefits are inadequate.

Important research

Ashley May  & Victoria Villarroel

Debate Research

Affirmative-green Negative-red

​Utah’s source of main energy is coal, mined deep from the Earth and found abundantly in Utah’s mines. It is a fossil fuel, a nonrenewable energy source made thousands of years ago from compressed dead animals and plant remains. eia.gov has a list of CO2 emissions from various fossil fuel sources from 2011, coal releases 205.3 pounds of CO2 per million BTU,  distillate fuel oil 161.38, geothermal 16.6, natural gas 117.1, petroleum 225.13 pounds of CO2 per million BTU. Nuclear power plants release 90-140g per kWh of electricity. (timeforchange.org)relatively low emissions make nuclear energy a better choice than coal, petroleum, natural gas, or solar.

Nuclear power plants consume 400 gallons megawatt per hour once through cooling 720 gallons every time cooling process initiates. 20% of water returned [nei.org]

Nuclear power plants cost 4 billion and largest Stanford fund. Construction costs, worker wages,  $4000 per kW

Tax increase for pay of nuclear plant 3,000 construction workers create jobs communities near projects see economic benefits long term jobs- Georgia and South Carolina.

“The Green River is main source of water in Utah, nuclear radioactivity can leech out and seep into an underground aquifer, then the Colorado River” said Steve Lopez a spokesperson for the Fort Mojave Indian tribe who are opposed to nuclear waste dumps and activity sites along the river.

Parts of constructive speeches

Each speech has responsibilities and things to cover. Here is a list of those things to keep in mind as you begin to outline and research.

1AC:

State resolution (what you are arguing for)

Define terms (remember the words desirable, and substantial)

State the affirmative case (why status-quo is failing, HARM)

Present affirmative plan

1NC

Object to affirmative definitions of terms (attack topicality)

State the negative position

Attack specific affirmative contentions

2AC

Respond to any objections to definitions of terms

Attack the negative philosophy

Respond to the objections to the affirmative contentions

2NC

Attack the affirmative solvency

Present disadvantages to affirmative case

develop any new argumentation on topicality

First Negative Rebuttal

Renew attack on topicality

renew attack on affirmative case

First Affirmative Rebuttal

Refute the new material presented by the second negative constructive.
Select the most important issue in the first negative rebuttal
Refute the key issues against topicality and case

Second Negative Rebuttal 

Select the negative's strongest issues.
Explain why these issues are sufficient to merit a negative ballot.
Explain why other issues do not merit an affirmative ballot.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal

Respond to remaining negative objections against plan
Respond to remaining negative objections against case

Cause ya'll don't read your packet!

Yo! You betta read dis action

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_(policy_debate)

Also you should look up the definitions and be comfortable with their usage for the following terms:

Inherency 
Solvency
Harm
Stock issues 
Topicality 

SAMPLE OUTLINE FOR THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE AND PLAN

This outline is an example of a structure for an Affirmative Case and Plan that they would present in their First Affirmative Constructive. It consists of three main “contentions” and the affirmative Plan. Each contention represents one of the three burdens the affirmative must demonstrate for a complete Case: Inherency, Harms and Solvency. Under each major

contention there might be sub-points, although there is no set number for that. For each contention and sub-point there would be evidence supporting those claims.

1. Inherency – The Status Quo Fails to Improve Schools
   
   1. Insufficient Resources Being Spent on Schools
      
      1. Federal Government
         
      2. State Governments
         
   2. Teacher Salaries Are Way Too Low
      
2. Harm – Schools in the United States are Bad Shape
   
   1. Schools All Through the U.S. are Falling Apart
      
   2. Test Scores are Declining for Millions of Students
      
   3. Academic Achievement is Crucial
      
      1. Success in College
         
      2. Employment Opportunities
         
      3. There is a “Right” to Adequate Education
         

Affirmative Plan: The United States Federal Government should adopt a policy of raising teacher salaries, modeled after the program in the State of Ohio.
III. Solvency – Our Plan Will Improve Schools

1. Higher Teacher Salaries will Attract More Qualified People
   
2. Teachers are the Key to Better Schools
   
3. This Proposal is working in the State of Ohio 
   
   
   
   
   THE MECHANICS OF HAVING A DEBATE: FLOWING
   Debates will become complicated. Even in relatively simple rounds there are often 20 or 30 claims that must be addressed. Keeping these arguments organized is crucial for success and to make sure you don’t miss anything. If you miss something you will likely lose.
   As a way to keep track of both teams’ arguments debate has developed a convention known as “flowing.” Flowing is basically a system for organizing and following along the details of the debate. While most young debaters view flowing as a chore, more experienced debaters quickly understand that having a good flow makes winning debates much easier.
   Flowing is keeping a record of the speech-by-speech course of each argument. There is a standardized way to do it, but each person tends to develop her or his own variations. Learning how to flow may be one of the most difficult and boring tasks in learning how to debate, but it is among the most important. Some people flow on paper, and some flow using a computer spreadsheet program. Here are some basic steps to get started.
   Step 1: Divide each sheet (paper or computer) into seven columns. Each column represents one speech in the debate. There are eight speeches in the debate but the two Negative Block speeches can be put in one column. Seven is the most columns you will ever need. Start in the left-most column then keep moving one column to the right for each later speech. At first, you’ll find it helpful to write the speech abbreviations (1AC, 1NC etc.) at the top of each column.
   Step 2: Start with the Case Flow. Do this by writing the details of the 1AC Case in the left-most column, from top-to-bottom. Try to write down the numbers or letters, the tags, the main point of the argument, and any details you can of the evidence that is read. You can use several sheets for the Case Flow to keep the major points of the 1AC separated.
   Step 3: The 1NC speech will be flowed partly on new sheets and partly on the Case Flow sheets. When the 1NC presents Off-Case arguments they should start on their own new sheets (the Off-Case Flows) in the left-most column. Each Off-Case argument should be on its own sheet. When the 1NC starts to attack the affirmative Case, the flowing should switch over to the Case Flow where you would write in the second column, next to the related parts of the 1AC.
   Step 4: The 2AC (and subsequent speeches) responses should be written down on their appropriate sheet, depending on whether they are answering the Off-Case arguments or rebuilding their Case. Off-Case arguments stay on the Off-Case Flows, and all the Case arguments stay on the Case Flow. Keep the Off-Case Flows separate from each other.
   Step 5: When it is your own turn to speak, prepare by writing out your arguments in the columns that belong to you. Try to keep your writing in those columns. You might want to make your columns wider so you’ll have more space to write things out in detail.
   Step 6: Develop shorthand abbreviations. You’ll quickly learn that you don’t have time to write out words all the way otherwise you’ll miss too much. Come up with a shorthand that you (and your partner) can recognize. You can use “AF” to abbreviate “Africa”. You can use the letter “T” to abbreviate “Topicality”. You can use symbols, like an up-arrow to stand-in for “increase”. Even words that aren’t jargon can be shortened. In the place of the word “engagement” you could write “eng”.
   Step 7: Practice, practice, practice. This is really the only way to learn how to flow and to improve. Flow practice debates and any other debates you see, even if you are just an observer. Practice abbreviations when you are taking notes in school. 
   
   
   
   

Dependence on oil

We are dependent on oil, both foreign and local. There are constant debates about drilling in Alaska and increasing off shore drilling in the gulf. If nuclear power can replace oil then we would be preserving Alaska as the wilderness it is. Also, take into consideration the massive spill in the gulf a few years back, how often does a tanker tip over and what are the repercussions of such accidents? What are the environmental responsibilities to stop off shore drilling? If nuclear power will preserve our natural world, why sacrifice that to maintain the status quo ?