Ce sunt dezbaterile? WIKI

Formatul de dezbateri Karl Popper
WIKI
este o forma structurata de dezbatere educationala, compusa formal din 10 sectiuni distincte: 6 discursuri si 4 chestionari incrucisate.Cele doua echipe compuse fiecare din cate trei membri sunt pusi in situatia de a pune in valoare pro si contra argumente diferite pentru ambele fatete ale unor chestiuni asupra carora oamenii, desi bine intentionati, pot fi in dezacord

A1: Prima pledoarie constructive afirmatoare: 6 minute

Prima pledoarie a unei runde de dezbateri, in care echipa afirmatoare isi prezinta complet cazul, aratand toate motivele pentru care motiunea in discutie ar trebui acceptata. Se prezinta criteriul ca standard din perpectiva caruia echipa interpreteaza tema. Desi echipa sa isi prezinta de-a lungul dezbaterii extinderi si dezvoltari ale argumentelor din acest prim discurs, membrii echipei trebuie sa pastreze pe tot parcursul rundei definitiile, criteriul si argumentele prezentate.

Chestionarea incrucisata(CX)

CX1  N3 pune intrebari lui A1: 3 minute
Este folosita pentru a clarifica, a identifica punctele slabe din argumentele oponentilor, cat si pentru a obtine concesii generale. Pentru ca avantajele si concesiile obtinute in CX sa conteze la arbitraj, acestea trebuie sa fie utilizate in urmatoarele discursuri, pentruca arbitrii nu au dreptul sa sesizeze din oficiu importanta rezultatelor obtinute in CX.

N1: Pledoaria constructiva negatoare: 6 minute Echipa negatoare prezinta un caz complet impotriva motiunii. Aceasta sectiune este inceputul respingerii argumentelor afirmatoare, care sunt contra-argumentate in ordinea prezentata de afirmatori. Daca definitiile propuse de afirmatori nu sunt contestate in aceasta sectiune, ele raman valabile. Tot astfel, daca negatorii nu avenseaza un criteriu propriu, atunci runda va sta sub emnul cerintelor impuse prin criteriul conceput de afirmatori.

CX2: A3 pune intrebari lui N1: 3 minute

A2: Pledoaria afirmatoare de reconstructie: 5 minute
Al doilea vorbitor al echipei afirmatoare prezinta respingerile aduse de echipa sa impotriva argumentelor prezentate de n1 si raspunde respingerilor aduse cazului afirmator de catre echipa negatoare-reconstructie. Daca nu respinge o anumita idee din cazul negator, acea idee ramane valabila.

CX3: N1 pune intrebari lui A2: 3 minute

N2: pledoaria negatoare de reconstructie: 5 minute idem cu A2, doar cu rolurile schimbate.

CX4: A1 pune intrebari lui N2: 3 minute

A3: pledoaria finala a echipei afirmatoare: 5 minute
Prezinta, urmarind structura prezentata de la inceputul dezbaterii, argumentele forte ale echipei sale, atragand atentia arbitrilor asupra eficientei propriei echipe, a fisurilor echipei oponente si asupra celor mai importante zone de controversa:arii de conflict.incearca sa convinga arbitrii ca echipa afirmatoare este cea care a castigat runda, fara sa poate aduce noi argumente sau dovezi.

N3: pledoaria finala a echipei negatoare: 5 minute idem cu A3, cu rolurile schimbate

Regulament pentru dezbateri parlamentare si norme de arbitraj
WIKI

Inainte de inceperea dezbaterii
 
O motiune diferita va fi anuntata inainte de fiecare runda la o ora specificata. Ora de incepere a dezbaterii va fi stabilita prin adaugarea a 30 de minute la ora la care se face anuntul motiunii. Echipele si arbitrii au obligatie de a fi prezenti in locatia stabilita in momentul expirarii termenului de 30 de minute. O echipa este asteptata maximum 10 minute dupa care este declarata castigatoare echipa prezenta, vorbitorii acesteia vor primi media aritmetica a punctajelor individuale obtinute in celelalte runde.
 Echipa Guvernului, daca doreste, poate folosi incaperea rezervata dezbaterii in vederea pregatirii in timpul alocat. Daca echipa Guvernului foloseste spatiul in care se va desfasura dezbaterea pentru pregatire, atat arbitrul cat si Opozitia trebuie sa elibereze incaperea pana la inceperea dezbaterii.
 Nu sunt permise pregatirile in grup pentru runde, construirea unui caz este obligatia unei singure echipe. Incalcarile vor fi sanctionate cu eliminarea din competitie.
 
In timpul dezbaterii

1. Orice sursa de informare care a fost consultata inainte de inceperea dezbaterii (dictionare, reviste s.a.) nu poate fi folosita sau consultata in timpul dezbaterii propriu-zise. Cu exceptia notitelor luate in timpul de pregatire si o copie a regulamentului dupa care se desfasoara competitia, nici un fel de materiale ajutatoare nu sunt permise.

2. In cadrul dezbaterii se poate face referire la orice informatii la care poate avea acces un cetatean care doreste sa se informeze. Daca vreunul dintre participanti considera ca informatia prezentata e prea specifica, acesta poate solicita oponentilor sa ii fie explicata informatia care nu ii este familiara. In cazul in care sunt solicitate explicatii suplimentare, persoana careia ii sunt solicitate trebuie sa furnizeze suficiente detalii astfel incat participantii sa poata intelege legatura dintre informatia prezentata si afirmatiile pe care le sustine. Arbitrii vor considera informatie specifica doar acel tip de informatii la care nici o persoana rezonabila nu poate avea acces (ex. informatii ce provin din experienta familiala, istoria personala a debaterului).
 
3. Formatul dezbaterii
Discursul constructiv al Primului Ministru 7 minute
Discursul constructiv al Liderului Opozitiei 8 minute
Discursul constructiv al Membrului Guvernului 8 minute
Discursul constructiv al Membrului Opozitie i 8 minute
Discursul conclusiv al Liderului Opozitie i 4 minute
Discursul conclusiv al Primului Ministru 5 minute
 
4. Discursuri constructive si conclusive
Argumente noi pot fi aduse in cadrul oricaruia dintre discursurile constructive. Argumente noi nu pot fi insa aduse in cadrul discursurilor conclusive, cu exceptia celor care constituie contraargumente aduse la argumentele noi aduse in timpul celui de-al doilea discurs constructiv al Opozitiei (la acestea poate raspunde Primul Ministru in cadrul discursului sau conclusiv).
 
5. Motiunea
Motiunile pot fi caracterizate drept motiuni deschise sau inchise. O motiune deschisa ofera mai multa libertate de interpretare Guvernului. In acest caz, legatura dintre caz si motiune poate fi una indepartata (de cele mai multe ori motiunile deschise sunt abstracte,de tipul Acest Parlament crede in minuni ). In acest caz legatura dintre motiune si interpretare nu poate constitui un criteriu de vot pentru arbitru. Motiunile inchise ofera mult mai putina libertate de interpretare Guvernului. Acest tip de motiune obliga Guvernul sa ofere o interpretare conforma cu motiunea. Debaterii nu trebuie in acest caz sa incerce sa folosesca definitii obscure pentru termeni, definitii care le-ar permite sa ofere o interpretare indepartata de motiune. De exemplu, in cazul motiunii Acest Parlament considera ca Statele Unite ale Americii ar trebui sa intervina militar in Iran , Guvernul trebuie sa demonstreze exact necesitatea unei interventii militare, altfel spus sa inteleaga motiunea literal.
 
6. Cazul
Guvernul propune o interpretare a motiunii si are obligatia dea prezenta un caz specific, a carui corectitudine trebuie sa o demonstreze. Opozitia nu trebuie sa propuna nimic, dar trebuie sa infirme adevarul cazului prezentat de Guvern. La sfarsitul rundei, arbitrul decide, in baza argumentelor prezentate, care dintre cele doua echipe si-a indeplinit sarcina mai bine,acordandu-i astfel votul sau. Opozitia decide daca accepta sau nu definitia data de Guvern motiunii, in cazul in care se va ataca aceasta definite, Opozitia are obligatia de a oferi o alta in schimb.
Opozitia are libertatea dea decide daca propune sau nu un contra-caz. In cazul in care LO propune un contracaz, acesta trebuie sa fie diferit de status-quo si trebuie sa fie in competitie cu cazul Guvernului. Mai mult decat atat, Opozitia are obligatia de a demonstra superioritatea cazului propriu iar in cazul in care un contraplan a fost propus are obligatia de a demonstra beneficiile nete ale contraplanului.
O alta obligatie a Opozitiei, in cazul in care Guvernul propune o anumita strategie, este aceea de a arata cel putin un dezavantaj pe care aceasta il aduce, neindeplinirea acestei cerinte inseamna ca planul afirmator nu dauneaza status-quo-ului , motiv pentru care Guvernul va castiga meciul.
Un concept important este cel legat de planurile mutual exclusive. In cazul in care Opozitia propune un contraplan, aceasta trebuie sa demonstreze ca adoptarea contraplanului este superioara adoptarii planului Guvernului sau adoptarii simultane a ambelor planuri (altfel spus, chiar daca planurile nu sunt aparent mutual exclusive, Opozitia are obligatia de a demonstra necesitatea adoptarii planului propriu,si numai a planului propriu).
 
7. Puncte de informare
Oricare dintre participantii la dezbatere poate solicita un punct de informare-fie verbal fie ridicandu-se in picioare- dupa primul si inaintea ultimului minut in timpul oricaruia dintre discursurile constructive. Debaterul care are cuvantul poate sa accepte sau sa refuze punctul de informare. Daca acesta este acceptat, cel care a solicitat punctul de informare are maximum 15 secunde pentru a pune o intrebare.O varianta a punctului de informare este clarificarea. Un punct de clarificare poate fi cerut in momentul in care se considera ca cel care are cuvantul nu a inteles cazul sau un anumit argument. Debaterii au obligatia de a nu abuza de ideea de clarificare
solicitand prea multe clarificari sau prezentand argumente in cadrul clarificarii. Timpul alocat celui care are cuvantul este lasat sa curga in timpul punctului de informare.
NU se vor folosi puncte de ordine, se considera ca arbitrul cunoaste regulamentul de dezbateri si va sanctiona ca atare argumentele noi sau depasirea timpului de catre un vorbitor.
 
8. Puncte de privilegiu personal
Oricand in timpul dezbaterii se poate solicita un punct de privilegiu personal daca vreunul dintre participantii la dezbatere considera ca a fost grav insultat de catre un alt debater. Presedintele camerei va decide apoi daca comentariile au fost sau nu acceptabile. Punctele de privilegiu personal ar trebui ridicate doar in cazuri extrem de grave, fara a se abuza de ele. Participantii la dezbatere trebuie sa ia in considerare faptul ca posibilele comentarii inadecvate vor fi luate in considerare de catre arbitrii si fara solicitarea unui punct de privilegiu personal.
 
9. Timpul
 Arbitrul sau persoana care indica timpul pe parcursul unei runde are obligatia de a semnala printr-o bataie in masa scurgerea primului minut dintr-un discurs constructiv, precum si momentul in care vorbitorul mai are la dispozitie ultimul minut din discurs. Astfel vor fi marcate timpul protejat al discursului si minutele in care se permit punctele de informare. Scurgerea timpului alocat va fi marcat prin doua batai, vorbitorul avand la dispozitie din acel moment 15 secunde pentru a incheia. Dupa scurgerea a 15 secunde arbitrul nu va mai nota afirmatiile vorbitorului iar dupa 30 de secunde va soma vorbitorul sa incheie discursul.
 
10. Punctaje individuale
 Punctajul mediu al campionatului va fi 22. Directorul de turneu are obligatia de a verfica orice punctaj de 29, 30 sau orice punctaj mai mic de 14, solicitand justificarea acestora. Intervalul punctajelor acordate este recomandat a fi 18-26. Se permite acordarea jumatatilor de punct.

Dupa dezbatere

1. Dupa ultimul discurs conclusiv, Presedintele Camerei va solicita echipelor sa paraseasca sala, va completa foaia de arbitraj si o va returna directorului de turneu. Arbitrii nu trebuie sa dea feedback paticipantilor la dezbatere inainte de completarea foii de arbitraj.
2. Periodic un clasament general va fi anuntat. Arbitrii trebuie sa se abtina dela verificarea situatiei unei echipe pe care o vor arbitra.
3. In cazul in care rezultatul nu este anuntat in timpul feedbackului, participantii trebuie sa se abtina de la a solicita informatii arbitrului. Dupa predarea foii de arbitraj, decizia arbitrului este finala si o atitudine nepotrivita sau agresiva a unei echipe poate atrage dupa sine eliminarea din competitie

Exemple de teme

In orice polemica stiintifica, sociala sau politica, discutia trebuie sa se rezume la schimbul de idei si numai la acelea care au contingenta cu problema respectiva. Partile nu au dreptul sa aduca in discutie caracterul, temperamentul sau trecutul adversarului, deoarece acestea nici nu infirma, nici nu confirma validitatea ideilor sustinute (Oxford University, 1890)

1. experimentele pe animale ar trebui interzise?
2. reclamele sunt nocive?
3. legalizarea eutanasiei e justificata?
4. feminismul este o ideologie depasita?
5. educatia in limbile minoritatilor favorizeaza izolarea?
6. introducerea religiei ca materie de studiu e justificata?
7. globalizarea ameninta identitatea nationala?
8. merita sa emigrezi?
9. libertatea presei e mai importanta decat dreptul guvernantilor la viata privata?
10. merita sa te implici in viata comunitatii?
11. pedeapsa capitala ar trebui abolita?
12. scoala de azi ne pregateste pentru viata?
13. imunitatea parlamentara ar trebui eliminata?
14. nesupunerea civila e justificata intr-o democratie?
15. televiziunea are efecte daunatoare asupra publicului?
16. legalizarea prostitutiei e justificata?
17. avortul ar trebui interzis?
18. dezvoltarea economica e mai importanta decat protectia mediului?
19. competitia e superioara cooperarii in obtinerea performantei?
20. uniformele ar trebui reintroduse?
21. universitatile ar trebui privatizate?
22. elevii cu probleme de comportament ar trebui discriminati pozitiv?
23. adoptiile internationale ar trebui reluate?
24. interventia militara pentru instaurarea democratiei este justificata?
25. clonarea umana ar trebui interzisa?
26. integrarea Romaniei in UE va intari identitatea nationala?
27. democratia e un lux?
28. politicile de toleranta zero sunt indreptatite?
29. condamnarea la moarte a unui dictator este justificata?
30. parintii ar trebui sa mearga la scoala?
31. restrangerea libertatilor individuale este justificata in situatii care aduc atingere sigurantei nationale?
32. societatea ar trebui sa foloseasca mecanismele discriminarii pozitive pentru a promova egalitatea?
33. media de bacalaureat nu ar trebui sa conteze la admiterea la facultate
34. folosirea blanurilor de animale in moda ar trebui interzisa?
35. protectia mediului e mai importanta decat dezvoltarea economica?
36. olimpiadele scolare ar trebui reinventate?
37. ar trebui introdus votul obligatoriu?
38. ar trebui pastrate icoanele in scoli?
39. regula majoritatii ar trebui amendata?
40. cetatenii ar trebui sa aiba dreptul sa poarte arme de foc?
41. discursurile xenofobe ar trebui cenzurate?

in perioada 10 aprilie - 17 mai 2008 se va desfasura in Romania proiectul Stranger Festival www.strangerfestival.com 
 
Proiectul este sustinut de European Cultural Foundation iar IDEA www.idebate.org partenerii ei nationali sustin partea de dezbateri. In Romania, ARDOR va introduce acest proiect in cadrul manifestarilor nationale care celebreaza Anul European al Dialogului Intercultural care s-a lansat chiar in aceste zile.
 
Contributia ARDOR  la proiect va consta intr-o  serie de 5 dezbateri publice si un forum national, in care se vor investiga problematica migratiei, ospitalitatii si multiculturalitatii.  Dezbaterile vor fi organizate in Timisoara, Bacau, Oradea, Ploiesti, Cluj in perioada 10-24 aprilie. 
 
Dezbaterile sunt "lansate" in urma vizionarii unor videoclipuri care prezinta modurile in care tinerii inteleg relatiile dintre concepte ca diversitate, dialog, cultura, migratie.  Seria evenimentelor se va incheia in 16-17 mai cu un "forum de primavara" de o zi, la care avem partener national Asociatia Cultura Pacii si care se poate constitui intr-un eveniment de referinta pentru noi.  In urma dezbaterilor de la Bucuresti vor fi selectati doi elevi care vor participa la Festivalul de la Amsterdam, in iulie 2008.

www.idebate.org

Debate clubs work best when there is a strong sense of group identity, when members feel that they are part of something. The individual debater should not feel that he or she is a soloist, meeting casually with other soloists for the sake of a competition, only to go off independently afterward. Rather, the debater should feel that the debate club is like a symphony orchestra, which exists as an ongoing corporate entity. When this feeling exists, the reward is a broad sense of well being. Everyone in the group shares the joys of victory; the disappointment of loss, when shared, is assuaged. A sense of group identity is not a mystical goal that can be achieved only through a lucky combination of people. Rather, it is something that can be created by concrete steps. These steps involve the management of space, the management of time, and the organization of the club structure.

Club Space
It is important for a debate club to have a home, a room that is largely devoted to the club and its activities. The club room should be a place where serious work can be done-where issues can be discussed and speeches written. It should provide resources for debaters: dictionaries, reference books, periodicals - whatever the club's funds allow. It should also function as the repository of the club's history. It is a place to keep tournament records, both formal and anecdotal; it is a place to store copies of cases and notes; it is a place to display trophies and pictures. Ideally, the resources should be directly available to the debaters, without the intercession of a coach or teacher.

The club room should also be a place that permits the casual interaction of students on the team. A sense of camaraderie can be built on the experience of collaborative work, but it also needs an infusion of fun. Friendships cannot be manufactured by decree. They can, however, be encouraged; providing students with a friendly place to meet is one simple step. When they go to the debate room, debaters should feel that they are entering a space that belongs to them, where they will find friends who share their enthusiasm for debating.

Club Meetings and Working Sessions
Needless to say, the club space is of little value if there are no activities to fill it. Debate clubs should meet regularly. One model is to have a mandatory weekly meeting for all club members. Even if members are not involved in an upcoming competition (or even if there is no competition in the immediate future), they join together with their partners on the team to find out what issues or events are affecting the team as a whole. But it should also go without saying that a significant amount of time must be devoted to regular working sessions. In the sporting world, there are varying practice to performance ratios. In some sports, teams practice very little but play constantly; in others, a week of practice will precede a single game. The routine of a good debate team is more like the latter model. Good cases cannot be thrown together at the last minute; they require thinking and discussion. Ideas must be mulled over and distilled; speeches must be drafted and revised. Of course, every school must operate within the constraints of its own schedule, but in some successful programs, debate clubs have daily working sessions involving at least some of the team members. Working sessions are devoted, in part, to preparation: that is, to constructing arguments and strategies for a particular competition. But they are also given, in part, to practice. Members of the team spend time debating each other, either with a pending resolution or with resolutions composed or selected for the occasion. We must emphasize that practice and preparation time are where most of the education involved in the activity of debate takes place. There is much to be learned in competition as well, but it is in the day-in and day-out business of practice and preparation that critical thinking and public speaking skills are developed and honed.

Club Leadership and Organization
In its infancy, a new debate club will depend heavily on the leadership and expertise of adults acting as teachers and coaches. But after programs become established and grow, a fair amount of leadership can devolve upon the students themselves. Some successful teams seem to be self-perpetuating, although this is only truly possible when they are multi-generational. That is, such teams include younger as well as older students. In well-established programs, the older students joined when they, too, were young. In the last year of their careers as debaters, these students have had three or four years of experience and have developed some wisdom and expertise with that experience. As 17- or 18-year-olds, they meet 14-year-old neophytes who are starting where they started and must learn what they learned. They are positioned to be effective and sympathetic teachers. In practical terms, this means they can act as judges when younger debaters are practicing; they can watch them compete in actual competitions and share notes with them afterward. During preparation sessions, they can work with younger debaters as they craft their cases. What is more, the reverse is also profitable: as they start their careers as debaters, novices can benefit from listening to more seasoned debaters argue. With this kind of organization, team members naturally feel more involved with the organization as a whole. Specifically, older members come to take pride in the accomplishments of their younger peers and feel a sense of responsibility for them, and younger members follow the careers of their mentors with enhanced interest.

The team broadly shares the leadership roles described above. In addition, many teams have more carefully defined roles for individuals. In other words, they have students who are elected president, secretary, treasurer, director of recruitment and orientation, and so forth. The students who fill these roles are not necessarily the most successful debaters in competition. They are students who have shown significant commitment to the well being of the team. In their various roles, they can be responsible for many of the administrative duties involved in running a team. For example, preparing tournament registrations, keeping club records, collecting dues or travel payments, etc.

Recruitment and Retention
The first task demanded in the recruitment of members for a debate club is education. Many students (and teachers) simply do not know what debate is. It is essential to inform them. Many people who don't really know about debate think that it is for students who are aggressive or naturally argumentative. They may associate it with slickness of style, rather than solidity of substance. They need to see that debate offers benefits to a broad range of personalities and draws its inspiration from political philosophers, not from smooth-talking politicians. One way to educate the public is to stage a debate demonstration. Students also need to know how the team operates and what opportunities are available for neophytes. Many students will be attracted by the thrill of competition, and they must be assured that competition is not limited to seasoned veterans. But students should also be educated about the broad intellectual benefits gained from involvement. At its best, a debate program provides an intellectual experience comparable to that offered by the finest academic courses. In keeping with the principle of inclusion, team leaders must work at retaining debaters rather than cutting the team roster. This means providing club members with meaningful activities. If teams rarely compete or rarely practice, students will quickly lose interest. Teams that rarely practice will rarely win. Students will be quick to desert a losing enterprise. It also means, in some cases, designing special leadership roles for some students. The student who is a perennial loser may become disheartened and think of quitting the club, but will be more likely to stay if given special responsibility for training a cadre of new debaters. Sponsoring non-debate events for club members will also help keep students committed to the team. Ping-Pong matches, basketball games, and entertainment outings can help to build the ties of a permanent community. Above all, students must understand that the only requirements for club membership are commitment and a willingness to work. Success in competition cannot, and will not, come to every member of the team. Debaters need to know that even if they fail, their places on the team are secure and their participation is valued.

The Role of Coaches and Teachers
Any adult who has an abiding concern for the creative education of young people can serve as a debate coach. Coaches do not need to be specialists with extensive training in oratory or logic (although training is certainly a plus). A debate coach is not expected to pass along a body of knowledge to his or her students the way that a chemistry teacher might. The rules and procedures of debate that must be taught are comparatively few. The coach's job, actually, is to foster the development of thinking skills. The coach is there to draw things out of the students rather than to pour things in. The coach must listen, question, and react. The coach may guide discussions and give them direction; she may help students focus on the appropriate issues, but she should not be regarded as the repository of ultimate truth. Indeed, students need to feel free to disagree with the coach and to engage with the coach in the same way they would with anyone else involved in the discussion. The coach must also provide moral leadership for the team. Team members must understand that debaters will behave honestly and ethically in competition. Moreover, the coach must set the moral tone for the regular activity of the team. Students will disagree in discussions. If they didn't, the discussions would not be terribly productive. But the coach must ensure that disagreements do not become personal and that comments do not become insulting or demeaning. Students need to be able to take risks and test ideas in discussions; they must feel that they can do so without being mocked or disregarded. The coach must create a climate of respect, not simply by offering a model in his or her personal behavior but by articulating and enforcing standards. In the classroom, the relationship between students and teachers is sometimes formal and impersonal. Coaching, however, requires a degree of personal involvement. Coaches must encourage and monitor the development of each debater individually. In effect, this means that coaches must act as judges for intramural debates and comment on the performance of participants. They must review and criticize written work. And inevitably, coaches become involved with students on a casual basis not only on the home turf of the debate room but also during debate tournaments. Many coaches have come to know their students well as they wait in hallways for a round to begin or for results to be posted. Coaches have more mundane responsibilities as well. The coach has the ultimate responsibility for managing the internal affairs of the team: its schedule, its membership roster, and its finances. Finances may involve raising money as well as managing a budget. The coach also must handle its operations on the road: the coach decides who will participate in a given tournament, makes travel arrangements, and handles all the administrative paperwork. Coaches must also recruit and provide the requisite number of judges when the tournament arrives. The coach also serves as a judge. It is standard practice that coaches never judge their own debaters, however.

The Role of Parents
Debate offers parents a unique opportunity for involvement in a school activity. Usually, parents are asked to perform the role of spectators at athletic events and artistic performances. In debate, they have the chance to become active participants by serving as judges. Judges do not need to have special expertise: they are meant to be the reasonable people of the political paradigm; they need simply to be good listeners and to say who offered them the best argument. Coaches inevitably recruit judges from a wide pool: family members, friends, former debaters, teachers, administrators, etc. It is, by the way, a good idea to involve teachers and administrators as a way to educate the school community. But in many programs, parents form the backbone of the judging pool. Parents who don't wish to serve as judges can be involved in other ways. They can provide transportation, meals, and even housing to team members when tournaments are underway. They can also serve as spectators and sources of moral support for their children and their friends. Often, parents value debate not simply because of the benefits it provides their children, but because of the opportunity it offers them to become personally involved, in a supportive way, with their children's education. And, sometimes, too, parents form their own communities around debate that parallel the communities formed by debaters. They, too, form lasting friendships as a result of the activity.

The Debate Club in the Community of the School and Beyond
Obviously, the benefits of debate are enjoyed most by the people who actually do it. And yet, there is much to be said for listening to debates as well: spectators often learn a new way of thinking about a problem or an issue. It makes sense, then, to fashion a strong public profile for the debate team. Spectators can be invited both from within the school community and from outside of it. (For the uninitiated, the team can provide materials that outline the rules and procedures of debate.) As a matter of habit, the debate club should publicize its competitions. It should announce debate resolutions to the community in advance of the debate. And certainly, the debate club should publicize its results. A team that does well deserves the recognition of the school community. Sometimes this means making use of the school newspaper or announcement system. Some clubs also publish their own newsletters.

Teaching Resources: Debate Formats Different styles of debate offer their own distinct format and focus. IDEA predominantly employs the Karl Popper Debate format with secondary school students and Parliamentary Debate format with secondary and university students. Below is a list of different formats with links to the IDEA Standards that list the rules for each distinct format. Internet Debates - https://www.idebate.org/standards/rulesinternetdebates.php</TD< tr> The Internet Debate format is meant to allow debaters to engage in short debates using instant messaging software. These debates will have one debater representing the 'affirmative' and another debater presenting the 'negative'. While Internet debaters are not meant to replace face-to-face communication, they are a way to bridge geographic distances and to allow for discussion between people who might not otherwise have a chance to meet. IDEA expects the opportunities for debating on the Internet to improve as technology improves and believes this format will be dynamic and open to change. Karl Popper Debates - https://www.idebate.org/standards/ruleskarlpopper.php</TD< tr> The Karl-Popper format focuses on relevant and often deeply divisive propositions, emphasizing the development of critical thinking skills, and tolerance for differing viewpoints. To facilitate these goals, debaters work together in teams of three, and must research both sides of each issue. Each team is given the opportunity to offer arguments and direct questions to the opposing team. Judges then offer constructive feedback, commenting on logical flaws, insufficient evidence, or arguments that debaters may have overlooked. Legislative Debate </TD< tr> Legislative Debate is based upon the notion of having representative student leaders consider some of the problems that actually confront lawmakers. In doing so, Legislative Debate provides unparalleled insight into the way legislation is drafted, and establishes in its participants leadership and deliberation skills crucial to effective participation in democratic processes. Legislative Debate also offers a vehicle for teaching parliamentary procedure and helps students internalize the value of decision making processes that draw on consensus building and majority rule. Lincoln-Douglas Debate - https://www.idebate.org/standards/ruleslincolndouglas.php</TD< tr> In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, the motion is a statement, phrases as a sentence that focuses on an issue of philosophical or political concern, and which will be analyzed from a moral perspective. Lincoln-Douglas Debate places primacy on the ability of debaters to make original, coherent, and philosophically persuasive arguments on issues of ethics. Debaters should present a persuasive moral position that they can defend from criticism and use to argue against an opposing case, without falling into self-contradiction or denying the complexity of the issues at stake. Students should familiarize themselves with the work of major ethical philosophers and should inform their cases with real-world examples and analysis. Middle School Debate - https://www.idebate.org/standards/rulesmiddleschool.php</TD< tr> Fostering debate and speech activities on the middle school level is consonant with IDEA's commitment to empowering youth as participants in democratic processes. Middle school students can benefit uniquely from exposure to speech and debate. They are at an age, psychologically and socially, when they can make considerable strides in acquiring research competence, media and argument literacy, reading comprehension, evidence evaluation, public speaking and civility skills. Finally, through cultivating middle school speech and debate activities, not only are youth and teachers empowered, but an appreciation of speech and debate is instilled in students who may well pursue it on higher levels. Mock Trial </TD< tr> IDEA Mock Trial is an exercise in argumentation and legal procedure, and the only educational trial format based upon the International Criminal Court established by the Treaty of Rome. The IDEA Mock Trial hones both legal reasoning and courtroom technique while it familiarizes participants with a vital arena of public debate. Teams representing the prosecution and defense take on the roles of all attorneys and witnesses. A judge, or judging panel, oversees the round, provides educational criticism, and makes a decision based upon each team's performance. Each case argued is an original scenario that the participants must master. Facts are presented through a variety of legal documents and through the testimony of witnesses. Although the underlying facts are the same, each round unfolds differently according to the actions, decisions, and interactions of the participants. Teams contest the facts of the case through direct examination, cross-examination, re-direct, and re-cross of both prosecution and defense witnesses. Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate </TD< tr> Like other forms of debate, Cross-Examination Debate focuses on the core elements of a controversial issue. Cross-Examination Debate develops important skills, such as critical thinking, listening, argument construction, research, note-taking and advocacy skills. Cross-Examination Debate is distinct from other formats (with the exception of two team Parliamentary Debate) in is use of a two person team, along with an emphasis on cross-examination between constructive speeches. While specific practices vary, Cross Examination Debate typically rewards intensive use of evidence, and is more focused on content than delivery. Public Debate - https://www.idebate.org/standards/rulespublicdebate.php</TD< tr> IDEA believes that debate should not be limited to the setting of competitive debate tournaments in which only students take part, but instead feels that debate should operate within a broader context of public participation and should embrace different segments of a community. IDEA strongly encourages its members to promote and support public access to debate through the organization of public debates and by inviting the public to debate competitions. Public Forum Debate - https://www.idebate.org/standards/rulespublicforumdebate.php</TD< tr> Public Forum Debate offers students a unique opportunity to develop on-their-feet critical thinking skills by situating them in contexts not unlike US political (radio and TV) talk shows. Public Forum debaters must anticipate numerous contingencies in planning their cases, and must learn toadapt to rapidly changing circumstances as discussions progress. Public Forum's open-ended cross-examination format encourages the development of unique rhetorical strategies. Public Forum debates should be transparent to lay audiences while providing students with real-world public speaking skills through the discussion of contentious ideas. Two Team and Four Team Parliamentary Debate - https://www.idebate.org/standards/rulestwoteamfourteam.php</TD< tr> Parliamentary Debate is a team format modeled on the British House of Parliament, with one or more teams representing the government, and the others speaking for the opposition. In general, parliamentary debaters have the freedom to offer both practical and philosophical arguments for their side (a combination of the Lincoln-Douglas and policy debate formats). In addition to constructive and rebuttal speeches, speakers are allowed points of order, of privilege, and of information - interruptions that highlight erroneous claims and/or breaches of etiquette. Parliamentary debaters are also permitted to heckle one another with short, whitty, and relevant comments, which challenge some aspect of the opponent's case and entertain the audience. Individual Events - https://www.idebate.org/standards/rulesindividualevents.php</TD< tr> Limited Preparation Events</TD< tr> Impromptu Speaking.</TD< tr> In Impromptu Speaking, students learn to prepare and deliver an original speech on the spur of the moment. Impromptu Speaking topics range from the meaning of proverbs and abstract words to the significance of events and quotations by famous speakers. Extemporaneous Speaking.</TD< tr> In Extemporaneous Speaking students must prepare and deliver an original speech on a current events topic with a limited amount of preparation time. Extemporaneous topics are presented in the form of questions, and contestants are expected to take a position on the question as well as to justify their stance. Platform Speaking Events </TD< tr> Informative Speaking.</TD< tr> In Informative Speaking students prepare and deliver an original speech designed to fulfill the general aim of providing new information to the audience. The speech should describe, clarify, illustrate or define an object, idea, concept, or process. Persuasive Speaking/Original Oratory.</TD< tr> In Persuasive Speaking/Original Oratory students prepare and deliver an original speech designed to inspire, reinforce or change the beliefs, attitudes, values or actions of the audience. Interpretative Events </TD< tr> Prose Interpretation.</TD< tr> In Prose Interpretation students must select, analyze and share a cutting from literature other than verse or plays through the art of oral reading. Prose Interpretation expresses thought through language recorded in sentences and paragraphs. Prose Interpretation includes fiction (short stories, novels) and non-fiction (articles, essays, journals, biographies). An effective Prose Interpretation consists of a selection or selections of materials with literary merit. Poetry Interpretation.</TD< tr> In Poetry Interpretation students must find, analyze and share a cutting or rhyme through the art of oral reading. Poetry selections express ideas, experience, or emotion through the creative arrangement of words according to their sound, they rhythm, their meaning. An effective Poetry Interpretation consists of selections or selections of material with literary merit. Dramatic Interpretation.</TD< tr> In Dramatic Interpretation a student must select, analyze, and share a cutting from a play that may have one or more character through the art of oral reading. A Dramatic Interpretation consists of a selection or selections of literary merit that may be drawn from more than one source. Duo Dramatic Interpretation.</TD< tr> In Duo Dramatic Interpretation, two students must find, analyze and share a cutting from a play through the art of oral reading. A Duo Dramatic Interpretation can be either humorous or serious. The cutting should represent the portrayal of one or more characters presented by the two individuals. Programmed Oral Interpretation.</TD< tr> In Programmed Oral Interpretation students must find, analyze and share a program of thematically linked selections through the art of oral reading. The selections should be of literary merit, and must be chosen from at least two of the three recognized genres (prose/poetry/drama). 'Different genres' here means that the material must appear in separate pieces of literature, and that, for example, a poem included in a short story that appears only in that short story does not constitute a poetry genre.

To establish confidence in a point-of-view and the ability to present a convincing statement. At the same time, to be able to improvise on-the-spot to refute opposing arguments. Decide on an Issue: i.e., 'Should pets be allowed to live in cities?' Divide the group into two teams -- pros and cons. Allow the group 5 to 10 minutes to consult and come up with a point for each person to present. Seat the groups opposite each other. The first person presents a point for their side (pros usually should begin). The first person on the opposite side makes a statement refuting the previous person; then proceeds to present their point. Continue down the line with each person refuting the previous opposition argument, then presenting a new point of their own.