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 are very effective in actively engaging students.

When this works well

• Leadership Roles – Useful when students have had limited exposure to varying forms and need exposure to different ideas. Debates allow students to explore what works in particular situations.
• Interpretation of Literature – This is an excellent way to tease out multiple interpretations of texts. They are appropriate only for texts which have clearly defined opposing interpretations, such as portions of the Bible.
• Theory – Good forum for the discussion of different schools of thought within a discipline. May be very exciting for students to challenge the theoretical conventional wisdom within the structure of the formal debate.
• Ethical Considerations – This may be the best way to explore ideas without controversy, but students may resent the Devil’s Advocate during this more sensitive subject matter. May be difficult for students to remain objective when topics are emotionally compelling to them.
• Problem Solving – Supportive online environment may encourage creative thought and solutions through exploration of the topic. Encourages students to practice problem-solving techniques in their coursework.
• Current Events – Allows students to explore many angles of issues in a non-threatening atmosphere and critique of common judgments will help students be precise in defense of their own beliefs. Encourages students to develop compelling arguments about current, relevant topics.
• Political Action – This may make students more comfortable expressing “politically incorrect” views. Can create an adversarial atmosphere.
• Changes Within Discipline – Students can theorize different possibilities or outcomes for a course of action and develop their own philosophies regarding possible changes. Students become well-versed in the directions their field may take or has taken.

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

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

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

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.