1. Claim (opinion, statement)
2. Warrant (Reasoning behind the claim)
3. Facts/Data/Evidence to support the reasoning

This structure requires all statements in a debate to have the best support possible and gives multiple ways for ideas to clash:

	Argument
Claim	<-----
Warrant	<-----
Evidence	<-----

An argument can attack the claim, but it can also attack the warrant or the evidence. This could be 1, 2, or 3 individual arguments.

The possibilities for clash are increased because while a person may agree with someone s claim in a debate, they may disagree about the warrants or the interpretation of the evidence.

back to top

Evaluate the evidence!
Refute the arguments!

Example:
Claim: We are having particularly
Warrant: nice weather; it is very enjoyable.
Evidence: Today is sunny, not too windy and warm for November. It's in the high 60s. It was close to 80 degrees in Washington, D.C. this weekend.

Arguments
1. It is always temperate in fall in NYC, so it is not particularly nice.
2. It is still cool, and a bit windy, and it will be much colder earlier with shorter days.
3. We just had a downpour Sunday night weather in the NE is very temperamental.
4. And it was TOO hot in D.C.
5. We re actually due for one of the snowiest winders this year, so it won t last.
6. Other areas...

back to top

THE COMPETITION: FORMAT

There are 8 speeches in the debate. The first four are 5 minutes each, followed by cross-examinations from the other team.

1st Aff. Speech (5 minutes) | Cross-ex. By Negative (2 minutes)

1st Neg Speech (5 minutes) | Cross-ex. By Aff (2 minutes)

2nd Aff. Speech (5 minutes) | Cross-ex. By Neg. (2 minutes)

2nd Neg. Speech (5 minutes) | Cross-ex. By Aff. (2 minutes)

In these speeches, put out your arguments, supporting data, and, initial responses to the other side.

back to top

The next four speeches are 3 minutes long, and called REBUTTALS.

1st Negative Rebuttal (3 minutes) | 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (3 minutes)

2nd Negative Rebuttal (3 minutes) | 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (3 minutes)

These speeches are the comparison of the merits of the arguments.

back to top

Strategic Tips by Speech

1. Use cross-ex's strategically
   a. Get clarity on your opponent s points so you respond accurately.
   b. Lead your opponent to answer questions to set up arguments in your next speech.
   
2. Choose who asks cross-ex's strategically
   a. Do you want the person speaking next to ask questions to set up their speech?
   b. Do you want the person speaking next to not ask questions so the can prepare?
   c. Do both?
   
3. 3. All: Use cross-ex's. to establish credibility and control.
   

1st Aff. Speech: Establish the reasons the U.S. should adopt a policy of universal community service.

Two Choices:

1. Defend the idea in general
2. Defend a specific course of action (implementation) [Example: Americorps should administer...]

*This may be the best time to refer to supporting evidence
**Speech can be pre-written

1st Neg Speech: Establish the reasons the U.S. should not adopt such a policy. Identify flaws in Aff. arguments.

Types of Arguments:

Evaluate the consequences of the policy (world worse)
Issues affected by such a policy the Aff. does not address
Attack assumptions of affirmative
Argue philosophical opposition

2nd Aff. Speech: Engage and respond to the negative arguments specifically. Compare to your reasons for supporting the policy.

Continue justifying your own arguments by both referring to and elaborating on what was previously said, and by adding new points if there is time.

2nd Negative Speech:

AND           ----->  These are very similar, try to avoid repetition!

1st Negative Rebuttal:
The negative should develop its reasoning in depth, perhaps dividing arguments between speakers. This is the negative key time to develop their side.

*Here would be the best point for citing data and evidence.

Give evidence and warrants to all claims.
The rebuttal should begin comparing the validity of these claims.

1st Aff. Rebuttal:
Highlight your best arguments AND your side s best responses to negative arguments.As this is a short speech, try to reference previous ideas to save time. Focus on the key ideas to bring clarity to the issues.

2nd Negative Rebuttal:
Pick the issues you re winning on. (Trust me, you re not winning on everything!)
Explain why those issues mean you win the debate.
Predict the aff s best arguments and pre-empt them explain how you ve refuted them already or they are less important. (Malcolm X speech example)

2nd Aff. Rebuttal:
Identify your best claims, how they are supported, and why they should win the debate.

*Give the judge criteria for evaluation

back to top

COMPETITIVE TIP: Note-taking

Registration

*Different papers for different ideas can be used

OR

______US__|__THEM_____
                        |
                        |
                        |
                        |

back to top

EVIDENCE

All specific quotes from experts or data are restricted to the materials provided by the Zuckerman Forum. You may refer to analogies, popular culture references, and other theories, but the support data is restricted to provide an in-depth preparation.

Essentially, yes, you can bring in other ideas, but you may only quote directly from the lists of resources provided by the ZF. Your credibility then becomes a key component of the validity of the arguments you bring in.

back to top

Complete Debate Resource Bibliography for 2006-07 United Nations Topic

1. The United Nations Website
Any information on any part of this page is usable for the competition, including updated information. Specific links within the larger page that may be useful are listed below. The site has a "Daily Updates" link at the top.

2. An Agenda for Peace Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping
Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to the statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January, 1992

3. Can the financing gap be closed?
UN panel suggests new international taxes to help fund development, By Jullyette Ukabiala, From Africa Recovery, Vol.15 #4, December 2001, page 22

4. Radical U.N. Tax Plans Threaten America
December 18, 2003

5. Tobin Tax Initiative

6. The Tobin Tax and Exchange Rate Stability

7. Currency Transaction Taxes

8. Jospin in fantasy land over Tobin tax:
Silly distraction is unenforceable, Thursday August 30, 2001 The Guardian

9. The UN Tax Grab
by Congressman Ron Paul, MD

10. Financing of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus
G.A. res. 49/230, 49 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 278, U.N. Doc. A/49/49 (1994).

11. Brace for the U.N. Tax Man
by James J. Na, Seattle Times, October 11, 2005

12. Putting the United Nations on Notice
by Ted Galen Carpenter, February 10, 2001

13. Departing UN aid chief urges Security Council to never falter in defending civilians
12/4/06

14. UN hosts meeting aimed at tackling problems of sexual abuse by field personnel
12/4/06

15. Reports: Sexual Abuse in UN Peacekeeping

16. WorldPublicOpinion.Org
Any link off of this page is available for quotation.

17. Global Policy Forum

18. Norway's Brahimi strategy | Annex I Parameters for Following Up the Brahimi Report

19. PEACE AND SECURITY | Summary of the Brahimi Report

20. Refashioning the Dialogue: Regional Perspectives on the Brahimi Report on UN Peace Operations

21. Gender and Frontline Perspectives on Peacekeeping and the Brahimi Report
March 1, United Nations, Felicity Hill

22. Website of links to further organizations with research on peace operations

23. UN Peacekeeping, American Politics, and the Uncivil Wars of the 1990s
by William J. Durch

back to top

Training and Information Sessions, Nov. 2005

I. Introduction and Welcome: Why Debate?

A. Training
In rhetoric, response, and analysis

B. Career skills: Communication
The #1 demand of current employers

C. Life Skills: Persuasion
You may not always get what you want, but it makes people think before Saying "no"

D. Critical Thinking
Ads, politics, informed choices

II. What is an Argument?

A. Debate is not arguing in the traditional combative sense, it is defending

B. Redefine "Argument":
An argument is a claim (opinion) supported by a warrant (reasoning that claim is true) and evidence to support the conclusion of your reasoning. Example: Theory of Gravity

Debate trains us away form the trend of claims with no substance. It is much harder to refute both opinions and substantive warrants.

C. "Switch-Side-Debate" forces you to defend both sides of an issue, forcing you to understand the warrants on both sides. Often we don't articulate our own ideas as best as we can because the warrants are intuitive to us. By learning what others would say in response, we learn what we should say to be persuasive.

D. This also taps into the Hegelian Dialectic and the idea of achieving synthesis.

III. Format and Strategy

A. Why this format?

    i. Both people speak

    ii. Both speak twice

    iii. Both team members participate in cross examination

    iv. A mirror of legal procedure

    v. The advantages of each side cancel each other out

B. What to do in each speaker position?

IV: Public Speaking

A. Style

B. Stance

C. Comfort

D. Balance

V: The Topic:

RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES SHOULD ADOPT A POLICY OF UNIVERSAL COMMUNITY SERVICE FOR ALL ITS CITIZENS.

back to top