Jump to content
TheBrain

Teaching?! *gulp*

Recommended Posts

Hi! Well, I have a slight story for you. My school, due to budget cuts, cut the debate program from our school the end of my Freshman year. Due to two friends of mine and myself, we have managed to start it back up again. I'm now a Junior.

 

However, our coach doesn't know anything about debate, so it's our job to teach all of the noobies.

 

The first meetings tomorrow, and I just realized I'm not exactly sure what I should go over first!!!

 

 

Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go over all the jargon only after you explain the basic concept of debate - always teach the novices, pound it into their brains, to make common-sense arguements. It doesn't always solely win rounds, but it reminds them where they're coming from and helps them comprehend more complicated arguements.

 

We went over the stock issues, and always made sure they knew what they were doing and how to apply it before moving on.

 

Tell them to go home and try out speed-reading after about three or four weeks. Remind them to practice. It's helpful, mainly because it's simple, it has a goal, and it's a measurable way to see if you're making progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm a senior -- my partner and I taught one novice our sophmore year, one our junior year, and are teaching three this year... it can be a handful (we're in the same situation -- no CX coach). Hey, I'll post more when I get a chance, but if you email me (greg_is(at)comcast.net), I can send you the schedule we used. The way it's worked best for us is try and cover more bredth than depth, actually -- throw everything at them (piece by piece, of course), help them understand as much as possible in the short timeframe, turn them loose for a tournament, and then go piece by piece through their rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm sending you something i put together last year, that i lectured with this year and ithas helped tremendously with the strategic thinking of my students. my email is tsilvernail at gmail dot com. if you don't get an emai let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im in basically the same situation, and yeah this thread has given me some good ideas. props.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be a better idea to start with the structure of the activity and only then progress to more content-ish things:

  • "Goals" of debate: learning, having fun, etc.
  • Switch side debate, each side has 2 debaters
  • The resolution and an intro to the notion of plan
  • The speeches: 1AC, CX...
  • What’s in an argument: claims, warrants, etc
  • The short version of: Turns/Takeouts and Offense vs Defense
  • Stock issues and structuring an affirmative case
  • What a card looks like
  • Some activity involving cards and case construction to reinforce
  • Flowing
  • four step refutation (reinforces argumentation concepts)
  • Basic disadvantages
  • intro to answering disadvantages
  • topicality and how to answer it
  • Advantages
  • The man/womyn on the cliff
  • Counterplans
  • Perms and other answers
  • Kritiks
  • answering the k
  • more advanced topics

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Start with the stock issues. SHITS. Give them that acronym as well, it helps new debaters remember it.
Speaking as someone who has to actually JUDGE debates occasionally as well as coach a team, I would strongly urge against this particular trope. First, Topicality is NOT a stock issue. Whatever else we do, we ought not to be teaching falsehoods to students. Second, the "H" and one of the "S"s stand for the same thing; just as we should not be teaching falsehoods, we ought not teach redundancy either. Finally, given the central role disadvantages play (for better or worse) in contemporary debate praxis, I don't think a model (however catchy its acronym) that ignores them is something we should be promulgating.

 

Honest to goodness, folks, it isn't like Significance (Harms, if you prefer), Inherency, Solvency, and Disadvantages are the periodic table or something. If a debater can't manage to keep these four concepts separate in her/his head, an acronym isn't going to help... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking as someone who has to actually JUDGE debates occasionally as well as coach a team, I would strongly urge against this particular trope. First, Topicality is NOT a stock issue. Whatever else we do, we ought not to be teaching falsehoods to students. Second, the "H" and one of the "S"s stand for the same thing; just as we should not be teaching falsehoods, we ought not teach redundancy either. Finally, given the central role disadvantages play (for better or worse) in contemporary debate praxis, I don't think a model (however catchy its acronym) that ignores them is something we should be promulgating.

I think signifigance and harms are differnt, but "signifigant harms" is clearly better.

Harms implies uniqueness (bad stuff now)

Signifigance implies impact calculus (bad stuff is realy bad, like way more bad than that disad)

Honest to goodness, folks, it isn't like Significance (Harms, if you prefer), Inherency, Solvency, and Disadvantages are the periodic table or something. If a debater can't manage to keep these four concepts separate in her/his head, an acronym isn't going to help... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think signifigance and harms are differnt, but "signifigant harms" is clearly better.

Harms implies uniqueness (bad stuff now)

Signifigance implies impact calculus (bad stuff is realy bad, like way more bad than that disad)

"Impact calculus" isn't an issue, it is a way of thinking about issues. Significance as an issue has traditionally been described in textbooks as the issue dealing with what you are calling "harms." Snider's Code of the Debater, for instance, says Significance is "an explanation of the serious problems that exist now."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! Okay, so we have gone past the basics and we're onto researching the resolution. Oh, what fun, I have to say. I don't think that this is the best resolution to start out novices on.

 

So, RESOLVED: That the United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving on one or more of the following national service programs: Americorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.

 

I am coaching the negs, and let's face it, I'm pretty much "new" to debate as well. I have one year of actual debate under my belt. I have taught them how to write cards, and right now they are all researching the negitive points on all of the service programs. We have articles saying that AmeriCorps is inneffective, and the like... and I suppose that could get them through a debate... but we haven't actually BEEN to one this season. I was wondering if someone could give me a hint of what to direct them towards to be able to argue effectivly when they come up against an aff case?

 

Currently two of my debaters are in the process of writing a counter-plan, which I hope will improve their chances. Do any of you have any advice on teaching counterplans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Currently two of my debaters are in the process of writing a counter-plan, which I hope will improve their chances. Do any of you have any advice on teaching counterplans?

 

 

Use real-world examples to illustrate the point:

 

Bob and Fred are brothers. The parents tell Bob to mow the lawn (Aff plan) because the tall grass is allowing mosquitos to breed, which threatens the neighborhood with malaria.

 

Bob says "I have hay fever & mowing the lawn makes me sick" (disad to plan)

 

Parents say "Malaria is worse than your hay fever" (case outweighs the disad)

 

So Bob says: "Why doesn't Fred mow the lawn?" (agent of action CP). "that solves for the malaria."

 

Parents say "You can both mow the lawn." (permutation of the CP)

 

Bob says "Even if Fred helps me it will still aggravate my hay fever. the best policy is for Fred to mow the lawn alone." (net benefits competition, counterplan alone is better than the plan + counterplan)

 

OR

 

Bob says "It upsets the neighbors when I mow the lawn when they are trying to sleep; I'll talk to them and see if they are OK with me mowing the lawn today. After all, we want them happy because we need their help hosting the block party next week." (consultation CP)

 

 

OR

 

Bob says "Lets buy 3 goats and let them eat the grass; in addition to keeping the grass short (thus gaining the malaria advantage) we also get goat cheese to eat, plus we save on lawnmowers, gasoline, etc" (method of solvency CP, net benefits)

 

OR

 

Bob says "Lets dig up the lawn & pour concrete and paint it green; that way we save on lawnmowers, gasoline, etc." (ban CP)

 

OR

 

Bob says "We should never cut the lawn; cutting the lawn just entrenches man's domination over other life forms (the grass) which is the root cause of genocide and war." (ban CP with a K)

 

 

It works :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bob says "We should never cut the lawn; cutting the lawn just entrenches man's domination over other life forms (the grass) which is the root cause of genocide and war." (ban CP with a K)

 

 

It works :)

 

And malaria's good - it checks overpopulation and keeps the druggies out of our neighborhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, Topicality is NOT a stock issue.

 

Why?

 

I'm guessing there is a semantical distinction of some sort addressing why T is not a stock issue. Either way as often as negatives argue it, I think it is one of the stock issues even if it is determined it is not A stock issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Start with the stock issues. SHITS. Give them that acronym as well, it helps new debaters remember it.

 

we always did DASHITS the DA meaning disadvantage.

 

 

Umm yeah i have to ask why isnt Topicality a stock issue. Because my entire district and then some seem to think so... and one of the coaches in our district has been around for 30 years so i find it hard to believe that hes just lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our novices have been worried about answering kritiks and what a kritik is... Any one have specific material on that, please email me or give me comments. jellobiafradk@gmail.com

 

thanks

 

Um, perm it? Theory? Alt can't solve? Discourse Bad? Prag? Realism Good?

 

I think that the best way for novices to answer Ks is theory...It is easier to teach them that than every common K and theory is simple to understand. Also, in a theory debate, there is a high chance of a drop at the novice level, and so a high chance of an easy win, especially if the judge doesn't like novis running Ks anyway...

 

They need to understand simple theory (CP/K Alt status theory, perm theory, fiat theory, argument theory) anyway for later...

 

BTW, extend the perm works too. Ask long as you prove you don't push over the brink. Most novices cannot explain the philosophical and moral imperitives well enough to win "every intrusion must be rejected" and so the perm will solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...