General Structure of the Debates

« Back to Materials for Debates

Each issue will be debated by a panel of four to six students: 2-3 "pro" and 2-3 "con." Each team has members with primary responsibilities as follows (individuals may provide different roles if there are not enough members on a single team):

The stater. This person will be primarily responsible for stating the position taken by the group. He or she will bring up, point by point, the issues inherent in each part of the argument. A prepared written outline may be quite helpful, but direct reading of a prepared statement will not be appropriate. A conversational presentation of the position in the stater's own words will be much more acceptable. The stater will also be responsible for watching the flow of the arguments. At the end, the stater will summarize, recap, and state which of the points made can be salvaged to ultimately support the team's position.

The prover. The prover will be responsible for citing relevant research to back up any of the statements given by the stater. He or she must have intimate knowledge of the empirical content of the positions taken and should understand the research supporting the side chosen. The prover can do well by looking up outside sources in order to strengthen the stater's arguments. He or she can support points by using survey data gathered in class or outside. Any effort (short of murder) is legitimate for generating support for a position. However, the prover will be "attacked" at some length by the opposition—so he or she had better be able to back up his or her supporting data. It should be empirical and responsible.

The attacker. The attacker will be responsible for probing the opposite team for weaknesses in their arguments. He or she may question data, disprove, counter, and use any rational method to discredit the opposition's position or data. An appreciation for research design and data analysis may help the attacker. It is also strongly suggested that the attacker be very familiar with the articles and materials being used by the opposing team. Unless role-playing is extremely good, personal attacks are considered in poor taste. The questioner may insult one of the authors but should refrain from attacking the student who has that position.

An example of a debate could consist of the following order:

• Pro team — the Stater makes his or her points. The Prover brings on his or her evidence.
• Con Team — the Attacker critiques the other team’s statements
• Pro Team — the Prover (or really any of the team members) respond to the critique.
• Con Team — the Stater defines his or her counterpoints. The Prover delivers his or her data.
• Pro Team — the Attacker critiques the other team’s statements.
• Con Team — the Prover (or other team member) respond to the critique.
• Pro — the pro stater salvages all the undamaged arguments he or she has left and makes a summary.
• Con — the con stater salvages all the intact arguments he or she has left and makes a concluding statement.

The audience. The students not involved in a debate are still a part of the situation. They will get special points for participation (fits in the extra credit section of the syllabus, see syllabus). Two kinds of audience participation can be expected: clarification and question.

Clarification — If a student is uncertain of a point, counterpoint, interpretation of data, a study, or any other portion of a presentation, the students in the audience can ask for clarification. Whoever is explaining the concept or supporting members on the team should clear the problem up for the student as a teacher would do in any class. Clarification questions should be asked at any time (interruptions are fine).

Question — This kind of audience participation can come after a position is clarified and the research is in. Questioning is appropriate when a student is disturbed by an answer or has data to counter or expand upon a position taken by the panel. Please note that the panel (pro and con) is primarily responsible for this sort of question, and the audience should wait and see if the panel will develop the response before they question too deeply. Other kinds of audience participation and general discussion will be discouraged after the attackers have completed their jobs.

You will know you are doing a good job if I (the professor) don't have to lead you by the nose to each point. I want you to do this work. There are no correct answers — no blacks and no whites. The important point of this course is to find out how you view those gray areas, how well you understand the different points of view, the underlying ethical reasons for each view, and being able to articulate these views.

Introduction — two minutes per side

Side 1 — Present first point (Stater and Prover) [4 min]
Side 2 — Cross examination (Attacker) [2 min]

Time out– 2 min

Side 1 — Refutation [2 min]
(repeat for next point by Side 1)

Side 2 — Present first point (Stater and Prover) [4 min]
Side 1 — Cross examination (Attacker) [2 min]

Time out — 2 min

Side 2 — Refutation [2 min]
(repeat for next point by Side 2)

Time out — 2 min

Side 1 — Concluding Statements [3 min]
Side 2 — Concluding Statements [3 min]

Cross examination from the audience
Audience writes down questions and/or responses during the debate.