4 Debate
Overview |
A debate online can be set up between two or more groups or “teams” to argue a subject that is open for discussion. |
Rationale |
Debates work well to practice skills in critical thinking and is very effective in actively engaging students. |
When this works well |
|
Connections |
QM: 4.4, 4.5 5.2, 5.4, 6.2 UDL: 7.2, 9.1, 8.3, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 3.2, 3.4, 4.1, 6.2 |
Instructions for Learners and Faculty
Initial Post Instructions
This graded debate accounts for X% of your final coursework grade. It will take the form of an online debate. During Week 4 you were asked to argue either positive or negative of this statement, using references and examples/illustrations that support your position. I will not award grade points for simple participatory practices such as statements to the effect of “I agree” or “I disagree.” Grade points will be awarded for demonstrating a deep knowledge and understanding of the subject-matter, as well as interpretation/application and evaluation
Discussion Prompt
Topic: “Affirmative action is necessary to create diversity in Higher Ed institutions.”
Some examples of arguments for and against are listed below.
Arguments For |
Arguments Against |
Equality of opportunity |
Achievements should be earned, not given |
Overcomes prejudice |
Affirmative action can create social tensions |
Changes negative perceptions of university life |
Affirmative action will not work |
Increases the number of minorities |
Reduced appreciation for easy opportunities |
(Use online debates to enhance classroom engagement – Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository, 2020)
Grading Criteria
Levels of Performance for AFFIRMATIVE Team
Criteria |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1. Organization & Clarity: Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way. |
Completely clear and orderly presentation |
Mostly clear and orderly in all parts |
Clear in some parts but not overall |
Unclear and disorganized throughout |
2. Use of Argument: Reasons are given to support the resolution |
Very strong and persuasive arguments given throughout |
Many good arguments given, with only minor problems |
Some decent arguments, but some significant problems |
Few or no real arguments given, or all arguments given had significant problems |
3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttal: Identification of weakness in Negative team’s arguments and ability to defend itself against attack. |
Excellent cross-exam and defense against Negative team’s objections |
Good cross-exam and rebuttals, with only minor slip-ups |
Decent cross-exam and/or rebuttals, but with some significant problems |
Poor cross-exam or rebuttals, failure to point out problems in Negative team’s position or failure to defend itself against attack. |
4. Presentation Style: Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. |
All style features were used convincingly |
Most style features were used convincingly |
Few style features were used convincingly |
Very few style features were used, none of them convincingly |
Levels of Performance for NEGATIVE Team
Criteria |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1. Organization & Clarity: Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way. |
Completely clear and orderly presentation. |
Mostly clear and orderly in all parts. |
Clear in some parts but not overall. |
Unclear and disorganized throughout. |
2. Use of Argument: Reasons are given against the resolution |
Very strong and persuasive arguments given throughout. |
Many good arguments given, with only minor problems. |
Some decent arguments, but some significant problems |
Few or no real arguments given, or all arguments given had significant problems. |
3. Use of cross-examination and rebuttal: Identification of weakness in Affirmative team’s arguments and ability to defend itself against attack. |
Excellent cross-exam and defense against Affirmative team’s objections. |
Good cross-exam and rebuttal, with only minor slip-ups. |
Decent cross-exam and/or rebuttal, but with some significant problems. |
Poor cross-exam or rebuttal, failure to point out problems in Affirmative team’s position or failure to defend itself against attack. |
4. Presentation Style: Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. |
All style features were used convincingly. |
Most style features were used convincingly. |
Few style features were used convincingly. |
Very few style features were used, none of them convincingly. |
(DEBATE GRADING RUBRIC, 2020)
Example
Discussion Thread:
SUBJECT: Affirmative Action Debate
Is Affirmative Action necessary to create diversity in Higher Ed institutions?
Re: Affirmative Action Debate
“I believe is Affirmative Action necessary to create diversity in Higher Ed institutions, because it creates equality and opportunity for all faculty, staff, and students.
Re: Affirmative Action Debate
“Affirmative actions can create social tensions at universities.”
Re: Affirmative Action Debate
“Affirmative Action, overcomes prejudices and changes negative perceptions of university life.”
Re: Affirmative Action Debate
“I respectfully disagree, because achievements should be earned, not given.”
References
Csun.edu. 2020. DEBATE GRADING RUBRIC. [online] Available at: <http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm> [Accessed 22 July 2020].
Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository. 2020. Use Online Debates To Enhance Classroom Engagement – Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository. [online] Available at: <https://topr.online.ucf.edu/use-online-debates-to-enhance-classroom-engagement/> [Accessed 22 July 2020].
Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository. 2020. Use Online Debates To Enhance Classroom Engagement – Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository. [online] Available at: <https://topr.online.ucf.edu/use-online-debates-to-enhance-classroom-engagement/> [Accessed 22 July 2020].
Eskridge, S., 2020. How To Use Technology To Improve Political Discussions In The Classroom (Opinion) | Inside Higher Ed. [online] Insidehighered.com. Available at: <https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2020/01/14/how-use-technology-improve-political-discussions-classroom-opinion> [Accessed 22 July 2020].
Updated 7/21/2020 –