Speech

ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMUNICATION DEBATE INSTRUCTIONS

Purpose: From this point forward each week we will have two public forum debates and students will gain

experience in: (1) debate preparation and research: (2) types of public forum speeches used in debate; (3) working in

teams to develop cases and arguments; and (4) argument structure that incorpora tes claims, warrants and impact

statements; (4) responding to opponent’s arguments; (5) thinking on your feet; (6) staying within each speech’s time

parameters; and (7) public speaking skills.

You will have the opportunity for three practice debates and I should see significant improvement in each debate in

terms of preparation, argument structure, ability to respond to opponents’ arguments, ability to navigate crossfire,

ability to work in teams, and your public speaking skills. Your level of participation, prepared briefs, and

improvement will count toward your participation grade. You will not be given a debate grade until the final debate.

Preparation:

You will be assigned a debate resolution and will argue in favor of the resolution (Pro) or against the resolution (Con).

Each team will be responsible for developing a brief that identifies pro and con arguments for each side of the debate.

You will need to generate a list of 5-7 pro and con arguments with supporting evidence for each side of the debate.

Remember to write these out as claims that are appropriate to the argument structure used in public forum debate:

simple, concise, and consist of one clear point. This chart of arguments should be formulated as a document and will

be included in the brief you provide your instructor as well as the first pro and con prepared speech.

Briefs: Will be typed and turned into your instructor and should include:

1. Team members names and assigned speeches for each debate

2. Summary list of con and pro arguments for resolution

3. List of complete arguments (claim, warrant, impact) for your stance on the resolution (Pro/Con)

a. This should include your three primary contentions and secondary arguments you might make

b. Backup evidence for each contention that can be used to reinforce or rebut your opponent

4. List of complete arguments that can be used to refute your opponents’ three contentions

5. Copy of first pro or con speech case written according to established case parameters

6. Bibliography of minimum 10 sources

a. Please identify what specific databases you found sources from

b. Please identify Advanced Public Com Lib Guide category source drawn from

i. Pro and Con Topic Briefs ii. Newspapers

iii. U.S. Government and Agency Resources iv. Congressional Legislation and Analysis v. Executive Branch and Presidential Documents

vi. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and Analysis vii. Policy Think Tanks

viii. Political Magazines ix. Statistical Data x. International and World News/Analysis

xi. Scholarly Resources xii. Legal Reasoning and Law Reviews

xiii. Polling Resources xiv. Fact Checking xv.

7. Information Literacy Source Evaluation (Graded Separately 2.5%)

Graded Items:

• Information literacy source evaluation (2.5% each debate)

• Online student feedback for each debate

• Online critical reflection for each debate

• Counts toward debate participation grade: preparation and improvement

RESOLUTIONS: CMST 2800-01 8:00-9:00am

Oct 5: Resolved: Are New Surveillance Technologies Effective and Legal?

• Pro: Chase Bresler & Varun Senthilraja

• Con: Alex Tobias & Stokley Berg

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: High-Tech Policing

Oct 7: Resolved: Can News Outlets Regain the Public’s Confidence?

• Pro: Amber Clarvit & Katrina Rathband

• Con: Sydney Parker and Katy Trainer

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Trust in Media

Oct 12: Resolved: Are Students Learning How to Be Good Citizens?

• Pro: Julia Carlota & Emily Ram

• Con: Jenna Duran & Aliyah Del Rosario

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Civic Education

Oct 14: Resolved: Do U.S. Laws Adequately Protect Religious Rights?

• Pro: Blake Marques & Evelyn Chandra

• Con: Marissa Canton Guerrero & Andrea Elias

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Religious Freedom

RESOLUTIONS: CMST 2800-04 4:00-5:30pm

Oct 5: Resolved: Are New Surveillance Technologies Effective and Legal?

• Pro: Sophia Burrows & Sophia Kraake

• Con: Natalie Robinson &Antonia Abramowtiz

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: High-Tech Policing

Oct 7: Resolved: Can News Outlets Regain the Public’s Confidence?

• Pro: Brisa & Anai Rosales

• Con: Owen Pollard & Manuel Alencar

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Trust in Media

Oct 12: Resolved: Are Students Learning How to Be Good Citizens?

• Pro: Sarah Cheung

• Con: Alexandra Christophilis

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Civic Education

Oct 14: Resolved: Do U.S. Laws Adequately Protect Religious Rights?

• Pro: Alexandria Cardwell & Nathan Cardwell

• Con: Ethan Patrick & Ben Grunberg

• CQ Researcher Brief Name: Religious Freedom