Intro To University Debating
•Transferir como PPT, PDF•
5 gostaram•4,820 visualizações
The Monash Association of Debaters (MAD) Member Training Program 2010 presents: INTRODUCTION TO UNIVERSITY DEBATING by Viv Jones, Top-10 Speaker and Semi-Finalist at the 2009 Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships and Nita Rao, Semi-Finalist at the 2009 Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships. An introduction to debating at university, introducing the 3-on-3 debate format before moving on to general discussion about the importance of matter, manner and method in debates. Also covers definitions and a number of useful tips. Presented as session 1, semester 1 in the Novice Stream and session 2, semester 1 in the Beginner Stream.
![Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Destaque
Destaque (17)
Semelhante a Intro To University Debating
Semelhante a Intro To University Debating (20)
Último
Último (20)
Intro To University Debating
- 1. Introduction to 3-on-3 Debating Viv Jones
- 3. Why Debate? Improve yourself Make friends at uni Travel the world funded by Monash!
- 7. Debate is structured argument
- 9. 3-on-3 Debate: the format 1st Aff 3rd Neg 2nd Neg 1st Neg 3rd Aff 2nd Aff AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE 30 minute prep 6-8 minute speeches
- 10. MATTER, MANNER and METHOD The elements that contribute to persuasiveness in debates
- 27. How it all happens…..
- 30. Timeline for Prep together Walking to the debate! Brainstorm opposition case Individually, with 3rd speaker help 10 minutes Flesh out arguments together 10 minutes Prioritise arguments, build case and split Individually, then together 10 minutes Brainstorm arguments Who Time Activity
Notas do Editor
- Rules to fascilitate discussion on topics - people speaking and responding to ensure it’s godo!
- Improve yourself: Tute presentations a sinch, job interviews etc
- Heaps of Opportunity to get involved Casually Seriously As much as you put in you can take out DEBATING = IMPROVEMENT MAD has enormous history of debaters coming in with very little experience; Kim Little did a little bit at UQ in undergrad, but joined MAD, got into and became WORLD CHAMPION! Opportunity is there for you to carpe diem
- 1) We want to be able to express our opinions clearly and powerfully. We like to Argue, or we recognise it’s important; Important for study, work, and life.
- First principles: Role of Govt: big vs small govt - topic: criminalise hate speech, holocaust denial, ban abortions Harm Minimisation - topic: legalise polygamy, prostitution Page 50 classic concepts
- Ddebate:That we should arm Afghani Tribal Militias
- Eg; That smokers should be denied access to medicare. Aff say: smoking related illnesses are the no. 1 drain of public health care Rebut: not a true fact. Why? Smokers die younger - old age and associated paleative care costs are the real drain on health care. BUT even if it is: - smokers are human beings too - people who pay taxes to the states, engaging in a legal activity - govt’s role to provide them with healthcare = unacceptable implications
- What are you like to listen to? How credible are you as a speaker? Find YOUR OWN STYLE and work to perfect it Humour
- VARY: You want to be considered (ie; rational and logical), passionate at times, logical always, confident, TONE: Debate: that we should legalise euthanasia - terminally ill people You want to sound: calm compassionate, realistic & respectful You don’t want to: makes jokes about people who are terminally ill - be the speaker who advocates killing old people off to cut costs LANGUAGE: - umms, ares, repetitive ladies and gentlemen, ‘you know..’ Indigenous Australians: Aboriginal people, indigenous people, aboriginies Femininism: Women or girls? -
- Context helps - eg; that google has made the right move. Ie; Jan 2010 - decision to end operations in China following the targeting of Chinese HR activists = will no longer censor
- That we should ban homeschooling aff: homeschooling is bad for children - education and socially (3) Neg: homeschooling is not bad = negate problem (2) Neg: there are some problems with homeschooling and with certain religious groups who homeschool their children BUT when you ban you isolate these groups and exacerbate the problem - govt can no longer mandate curriculum. (1) don’t do this.