Go here: https://www.kialo.com/invited?token=005-de6063cf-ad60-4b74-9fce-f40cf4cfc2c5

Debates

Here is a good resources for your debates: https://mydebateresource.com/for-debaters

Outline for the debates tomorrow:

Aff Constructive: 4 mins  (this sets up your case - it is a mini oration)

Clash: 1 min (Neg gets to ask Aff questions about their case)

Neg Constructive: 4 mins (same as Aff above)

Clash: 1 min (Aff gets to ask Neg questions about their case)

Neg Rebuttal: 3 mins (Neg tries to refute Affs arguments/case)

Aff Rebuttal: 3 mins (Aff tries to refute Neg arguments/case)


You will have 2 minutes of downtime that you can take anytime during the debate

Pro Case	Con Response to Pro Case	Con Case	Pro Response to Con Case
Claim 1: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):		Claim 1: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):
Claim 2: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):		Claim 2: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):
Claim 3: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):		Claim 3: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):

Debates

So - today we will talk about the structure of a debate:

1) Constructive Arguments (thesis and claims)
2) Cross Examination sections
3) Rebuttals and Flowing
4) Ethos, Logos, Pathos in debate
5) Personal Connection, Expert Testimony, Facts and Statistics, Logical connections.
6) Who wins and why.

Pro Case	Con Response to Pro Case	Con Case	Pro Response to Con Case
Claim 1: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):		Claim 1: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):
Claim 2: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):		Claim 2: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):
Claim 3: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):		Claim 3: Warrants (Proof): Impact (So What):

After we go over this information, I will give you time to set up your debate topics and the resolves.  Please go over these resolves with me before you start research.

Okay - so we need to continue with the research for your debates.  Remember to think about the HARMS or IMPACTS of your Claims.  What will happen if you side isn't listened to.  Also research the opposite side and begin to think about rebuttals.

FRIDAY - Oration

For those of you using YouTube as a source - you might check HERE for a link for proper steps to cite the source.  NOTE - Purdue OWL offers the following help on citing YOUTUBE videos:

The MLA does not specifically address how to cite a YouTube video. This has, it appears, led to some confusion as to the best method of for citing YouTube videos in MLA. 
Based on MLA standards for other media formats, we feel that the following format is the most acceptable for citing YouTube videos:
Author’s Name or Poster’s Username. “Title of Image or Video.” Media Type
Text. Name of Website. Name of Website’s Publisher, date of posting. Medium. date retrieved.

Here is an example of what that looks like:

Shimabukuro, Jake. "Ukulele Weeps by Jake Shimabukuro." Online video clip.
YouTube . YouTube, 22 Apr. 2006. Web. 9 Sept. 2010.

Thesis Statement, Ideas, Defining your argument, backing up your argument with proof	Ideas are fresh and original.  Thesis is narrow and manageable. Order of development clear and precise and helps development one clear main idea.  Hook and thesis connect.   Clear important details for support	Ideas are clear but might be overused.  Topic/ Thesis is fairly board.  Order of develop may ramble and may not back up thesis.  Hook is present but may not connect with thesis.  Support is attempted but not quite fulfilled with specifics.	Paper lacks a central idea or purpose.  Ideas are not developed or seem to go in several directions.  Information is limited or unclear.  Details are missing.	Not Evident
Organization	Original title. Transitions connect main ideas. Effective opening and ending.  Easy to follow.  Important ideas stand out.  Clear beginning, middle and end.  Details fit where placed.	Appropriate title.  Transitions connect sentence to sentence but not necessary idea to idea.  Good beginning.  Attempted ending.  Logical sequencing.  Key ideas are beginning to surface.  Readable.	Paper is hard to follow because transitions are weak or absent.  There is no clear beginning or ending.  Ideas may not fit together or ramble.  Paragraph structure might not be evident.	Not Evident
Voice	Point of view is evident Clear sense of audience Enthusiastic about topic.  Says more than is expected.  Words elicit both ideas and emotions.  Work is engaging and persuades	Personal treatment of standard topic.  Perspective becomes evident.  Some sense of audience.  Conveys ideas to reader.  The writer likes the topic, but is not passionate about it.  Writing persuades in some places	Paper is lifeless, mechanic, stilted.  Predictable treatment of topic.  Energy lacking.  Audience could be anyone.  Writer is indifferent to the topic.  Does not persuade at all.	Not evident
Word Choice	Precise, fresh, original words.  Vivid images.  Avoids repetitions, clichés, vagueness.  Use of figurative language.  Everyday words are used well.	Uses favorite words correctly.  Experiments with new words.  Attempts to use descriptive words to create images.	Ordinary and recognizable words.  Language is generic or cliché.  Uses repetitions or relies on slang.  Overuse of “to be” verbs.	Not Evident
Sentence Fluency	Consistent use of sentence variety.  Sentence structure is correct and creative.  Varied beginnings, varied structures, and varied lengths.  Natural flow and rhythm.  Writing is not wordy.	Sentences are usually correct, but some may not flow smoothly.  Simple and compound sentences are present.  Varied beginning.  Sections have rhythm and flow.  Writing could be cut to avoid wordiness.	Sentences are choppy, incomplete, rambling or awkward.  Meanings are not always clear.  Words are strung together.  Sentences could be extremely wordy.	Not Evident
Mechanics	There may be occasional errors in mechanics (spelling, fragments, run-ons, punctuation, capitalization, usage, etc.).  However, it is hard to find errors.	Errors in writing mechanics are noticeable but do not impair readability.	Numerous errors in usage, grammar, spelling, capitalization, and/or punctuation distract reader and impair readability.	Not Evident
Uses of Persuasive Tools	Uses 4 or more tools: expert testimony, quality of reasoning, points out flaws in opposing views, appeal to audience self-interests, radically different topics or new twists on old topics	Uses 2-3 tools.	Relies heavily on one tool.	Not Evident
References and Sources	More than five sources.  All sources of information are noted in correct in-text citation (MLA format) and correct Works Cited page.	Three to five sources. Some sources of information are noted incorrectly or not in MLA format.  Minor problems with Works Cited page.	Less than three sources.  Most information noted incorrectly.  MLA format completely missing.  Many problems with Works Cited page.	Not Evident

 

REMEMBER - PERSUASIVE TOOLS:

1) Personal Connection

2) Expert Testimony

3) Statistics and Facts

4) Counterargument of the other side 

5) Why should the audience care

6) New Topic or radical twist on an old topic

Ethos, Logos, Pathos