Teaching Through Formal Debate

Structured discussion in class can lead naturally to the most formal method for using Taking Sides®: the formal debate. This method requires students to synthesize everything they have learned to this point and to present a coherent, well-researched, well-supported position before classmates and instructor. The articles themselves have been selected to provide as much material as possible for debate, both in terms of content and forcefulness of presentation. Debates may well expose differences and similarities in the arguments more clearly than written assignments can. Although formal methods are presented here, debates can also be more informal, if appropriate for a particular issue. An expository debate can be created simply by asking two students to come to class prepared to discuss the issue at the next meeting. This form of debate may take no more than a few minutes and will leave you free to amplify or detract from either argument. Whether formal or informal, debates have many advantages: They force students to speak in front of their peers (a beneficial college experience). They force students to adopt a point of view and defend that position--as they may well have to do in the real world. Debates, with the provided text materials, are fairly well outlined and may require a minimum of student research in order to successfully defend a position. Debates relieve you of extensive lecture preparation and give students responsibility for generating their own learning experience. Debates allow issues to move freely into areas not necessarily covered by the text materials. Debates are excellent formats for group discussion and are easily adapted to situations where teaching assistants are responsible for discussion groups outside of the standard classroom lecture. Debates give students a role and structure in which to express opinions that may differ from the instructor's. Two methods for formal debates are presented here. The first was designed as an additional mode by psychology professors Joseph Rubinstein and Brent Slife for Purdue University. This is an extension of their discussion modes, which were presented in detail in the discussion section. Formal Debate Debate involves having specified class members form teams to test competitively two sides of an issue. The remainder of the class can then vote for the most convincing team. The assignment and organization of students into debate teams can be similar to that of the panel discussion. The procedure in debate begins with a proposed solution to a problem. A series of carefully timed, formal, spoken arguments are then alternated between an affirmative speaker and a negative speaker. If some members of the class have had experience with formal debating, you might do well to have them assume some responsibility for procedural management and timing. Propositions. The proposition is the statement being debated. It is stated affirmatively and conclusively, much in the manner of a scientific hypothesis. A debatable proposition is considered to be one of three types: fact, value, or policy. An effective debater can spot the type of proposition he or she must work with and determine what its specific demands are. FACT. Propositions of fact state that a phenomenon is true or false--for example, "Several modern religious cults use brainwashing techniques to convert young people." (In this case, it might be useful to delimit the proposition by naming a specific religious group.) Fact propositions demand that the proponent: Assert some externally established criteria of definition, rule, or law generally agreed upon as the basis of fact--"The techniques of brainwashing consist of...." Demonstrate that the phenomenon in question is consistent with the criteria--"X and Y religious groups use the following brainwashing techniques to convert young people." VALUE. Propositions of value state that a phenomenon is consistent with criteria for evaluating its acceptability--for example, "Psychology can best improve the human condition by directing its efforts toward controlling human behavior." Value propositions demand that the proponent: Convince the audience that the proponent's own criteria of personal values are acceptable--"The human condition will be improved when everyone is happy and productive." Convince the audience that acceptable criteria of value are fulfilled by the phenomenon in question--"Psychology now has within its grasp the means to make everyone happy and productive." POLICY. Propositions of policy call for some form of action. In general, they may contain some elements of both fact and value. They are often recognizable by use of the word should and must speculate about the consequences of the action--for example, "As a national policy we should eliminate all forms of violence from television programming." Policy propositions demand that the proponent convince the audience that the opposed action will be beneficial--"When violence on TV is eliminated, violence in our streets will diminish." Note that although most of the issues contained in Taking Sides lend themselves to one or another type of proposition, some may be treated as you choose. One issue may ask, for example, "Should Animals Be Used in Psychological Research?" Possible propositions may be as follows: Fact: "Experiments using animals are essential to the development of many life-saving medical procedures." Value: "Animal experimentation benefits both humans and animals." Policy: "Experimental treatments should always be tested on animals before they are tested on humans." Argument. The argument consists of using both facts and opinions as evidence in the logical analysis of a proposition to enable judges to arrive at a decision. It is essential that all team members be thoroughly familiar with the opposing side's argument. They must be able to select those arguments that are pertinent to the proposition and reject those that are irrelevant in providing rebuttal to the opposing team's evidence. An excellent preparation would be for students to make a list of points of agreement and disagreement for the two teams. (Note that a large number of the multiple-choice questions in the individual instructor's manuals are specifically oriented toward points of agreement and disagreement.) Points of disagreement should be stated so that the affirmative side can unambiguously say "yes" to it and the negative side can clearly say "no." Debate Format. There are generally two types of format: the traditional and the cross-examination. Each format may have two or three members for each side. At the introductory level, we recommend that you stay with the traditional format, since the cross-examination format requires more debating skill, is more complicated, and takes longer. In the traditional format, each constructive speech is usually given eight minutes and each rebuttal speech is usually given four minutes. However, you will need buffer time for the class to vote and for you to add a few words of your own at the close of the class session. Be sure to work out your timing in advance and stick to your schedule. TRADITIONAL FORMAT

Constructive speeches: First affirmative First negative Second affirmative Second negative Rebuttal speeches: First negative First affirmative Second negative Second affirmative The vote

More on the Debate Format The following formal debate plan has been in use at Salisbury State College, Salisbury, Maryland. It is used in an advanced course that follows the introductory psychology course but can easily be integrated into a first course--especially if it is the type of class that utilizes discussion sessions as well as formal lectures. First, be advised that students are wary of this form of education, and they will have to know what you expect of them. In order to convey this, you may wish to produce a handout similar to Preparing for a Formal Debate, created by Professor Dan Gallagher, Salisbury State University, which describes roles and rules for debates. The major roles that seem sufficient are those of stater, prover, and attacker. A given debate will thus involve six students: a stater, a prover, and an attacker on each side of the Taking Sides issue. Stater. The stater for any given issue will start the discussion, stating how the "yes" or "no" side views the issue. This introduction is generally brief, possibly only going as far as presenting and explaining the introductory material given in the issue introductions and postscripts. The stater may have prepared notes but should be advised that this is a conversation, not a reading experience. This role generally takes from two to five minutes, depending on the student and the complexity of the point of view. Prover. The prover is possibly the most difficult role. This student must bring up relevant research to back up the statements made by the stater. He or she must have good knowledge of the position and must understand the assigned article--facts, opinions, and other elements--in order to do well. This may take from five to 15 minutes, depending on the depth of proof. The prover may also be encouraged to use outside sources to strengthen the arguments. An opinion survey may be in order. The prover should be aware that his or her facts and data may be disputed later and should be prepared to defend his or her empirical sources when the attacker speaks. Attacker. The attacker is responsible for leading the arguments against the other team. His or her research may be minimal, but he or she will be required to listen well, think quickly, ferret out logical flaws and opinions that are disguised as facts, and question the empiricism of quoted materials. The attacker should be well prepared and have read the opposite side of the issue. The students should think of these as roles. Attacks should not be made on personal attributes of the participants but on the merits of the prepared presentations and the ideas put forth in the issues. A given debate thus might consist of the following exchanges between pro and con teams: "Yes" team--The stater brings forth the propositions of the "yes" side of the issue. "Yes" team--The prover from the "yes" side backs up the stater. "No" team--The stater from the "no" side puts forth the team's perception of the issue. "No" team--The prover from the "no" side shows why the stater holds this position with facts and data. "Yes" team--The attacker from the "yes" side may direct several questions to the other side or point out errors noted in the issue as presented. "No" team--The attacker from the "no" team gets a chance to do the same. Other formats are possible. For example, the "yes" stater may be immediately followed by the "no" stater. Then the two provers can take their turns. Either side may go first; this can be determined by a coin toss or by your decision as to which side should logically initiate the debate. Audience. The students in the class not directly participating in the debate have two roles. They may serve as further attackers, after the team attackers have finished, and they may serve as part of the grading and evaluation process (see Chapter 3: Evaluation and Grading). Instructor. You will do well to stay out of the debates. Once the debate has begun, no further interference is necessary. Often the students will have prepared trains of thought, and interruptions may spoil the points that they are developing. After the attackers have finished, you may wish to pursue issues. It is strongly suggested that you not reveal any biases on either side of these issues. Your biases would inhibit students who think they are defending a position that you do not support. After the debate is over, you may wish to influence the class conclusion, but this should be reserved until the end. Two forms of "interruption" are acceptable and often necessary during debates. These may be used by debaters on the other team, by the members of the debate audience, or by the instructor. Clarification. This may be requested by anyone who is not certain of what a presenter has said. It may be asked for if a student is uncertain how a research study supported the issue or how a study was done, or questions may be raised in relation to any other point of misunderstanding. Clarifications should not be used as an attack device, however. Question. This may be employed by any nondebater at any time after the major arguments have been made. Theoretically, the attacker on the opposite panel should be asking the questions, but the audience also has this right (after, of course, allowing the attacker enough time to develop his or her line of interrogation). Assigning Debates. Students generally have formed opinions concerning these important issues before formal study takes place. They bring these opinions with them from their previous schooling or experiences in the world. These opinions are often useful to you, and you may assign students to a debate team based on what they already feel is the "right" answer on a particular issue. The Opinion-Assessment Pretest is useful for determining these opinions. This site contains an Opinion-Assessment Pretest for each of our current Taking Sides® titles. Students may also have a preference based on their interest in a particular topic from the text. Within reason, it is a good idea to take advantage of students' interests. Their efforts will generally be greater if they are doing something that is important to them. You may find it beneficial to let students select both the topic they wish to debate and the position they wish to defend. Professor Kurt Finsterbusch, Department of Sociology, University of Maryland, surveys his students this way early in the semester. We have his Debate Preference Surveys for each of our Taking Sides® titles. All students are required to read the introductions to all the issues and indicate their preferences on the survey. After the survey forms are collected, it is a fairly simple matter to collate the requests. Most students' preferences can be accommodated. You may find that some issues elicit no interest for a given class. In this case, you may elect to skip that issue or use one of the other methods for issue analysis. An alternative plan for assigning debates is a system developed at Howard Community College. This approach calls simply for the students to sign up for a particular debate regardless of their reasons for preferring one topic over another. Dates are supplied, since that may often be a factor in favoring one topic over another. Simple Debate Format. For those instructors who are convinced of the value of debate but are limited in terms of time or other resources, a simple debate format has been developed at Howard Community College. This method uses a variation of the traditional debate. This variation has some distinct advantages over the total involvement of the formal methods. The simple debate does not necessarily require the entire class period and can allow for the coverage of other material or emphasis on a particular aspect of the discussion. The simple debate requires less preparation time on the part of the instructor and can be less intimidating for the students. A simple debate system can be created using the student handout Guidelines and Format for the Simple Debate, which was developed by Professor Larry Madaras, Department of History, Howard Community College, and designed to be handed out to students early in the course. Summary of Major Steps Involved in a Complete Formal Debate Method The major steps involved in completing the formal debate method are as follows: Surveys are distributed to the class to assess student topic preferences. Topics are then assigned. All students are required to read the opposing issues before the debate date (less formal methods may be applied at this stage). A quiz or lecture might be given prior to a debate on the assigned day. After the debate, the class surveys may be collected, students' grades may be determined, and the data may be collated by any computational method chosen. Feedback in the form of grades and comments may then be given at the next class. Final grades may be determined by averaging grades earned in each debate. This system may seem at first glance to entail a lot of effort, and it does require advance planning. However, once the ground rules have been explained to the students, they generally perform pretty well. You might be wise to select several of the better students in a class for the first debate so that a "good" example may be set. Give appropriate feedback--let students know what they did well and, in a graceful fashion, what they did poorly. After two or three debates, the method falls into a rhythm, and they are easily run. As mentioned earlier, this system has been in use at Salisbury State College. The classes total about 20 to 25 students, and 10 to 12 formal debates are held each semester in a given course using the Taking Sides text. Each student must participate on three debate teams and ordinarily serves in each role (attacker, prover, or stater) once each semester. A Final Note Debates and other methods are not mutually exclusive. One topic may be best handled by less formal methods, others by debates; or students not debating may be required to report on an issue via issue reports or analysis reports (provided in Part 2: Student Handouts). Let the importance of an issue, your student population, and your goals as a teacher guide you as you select methods. Any of them are valuable as you help students arrive at personal conclusions.

Copyright ©2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of The McGraw-Hill Companies. Please visit our Technical support website at http://mhhe.com/support.