Debate is an activity that has existed for an extremely long time. People all over the world have participated in debates, whether a debate in a formal setting or a friendly argument between acquaintances. Policy debate is a form of debate in which high schoolers and college students discuss policy ideas to fix problems happening in society. This has also expanded to include philosophical ideas to fix social situations. Numerous students enter debate hoping to learn skills that could help them one day to actually fix the problems of the status quo. This idea of why students do debate begs the question of “How does being in the policy debate community change and/or support one’s desire for creating change in the broader community?” In regard …show more content…
When debaters read the 1AC they read scenarios that will cause a catastrophe in the current society that we live in and that ends in violence or extinction as referenced in “There will always be War.” However, since at the end of every round no matter who the judges votes for everyone knows that nothing changes. This seems to be problematic as the extinction scenario becomes immensely likely as nothing will change for the foreseeable future and the scenario outlined in the 1AC will never be addressed. This can actually change debaters into people without fear, those who have overcome the fear of death. This is made clear in the evidence “Fear of Death” which is a piece of evidence which illustrates debaters critiquing people’s use of death in their 1AC’s. It might seem that this would cause unscrupulous debate as great risk impacts like global warming can never be discussed. However, this argument only creates better debate. It asks for an explanation of the violence rather than the number counting which is commonly done. This brings insight to how the death occurs and the types of suffering that lead to these death, to construct us as less sanitized to violence and death and that better mobilizes us as activists and creators of …show more content…
In the “Help will always be there” evidence it is evident that debaters will always help other debaters. This also references the evidence in which people in debate feel superior for the reason that they feel that helping others makes them better than those who don’t. This also applies to those who run affirmatives in which they discuss social issues that affect minorities, since they feel the need to help those in pain, however most claim to be a part of that minority. Nevertheless, the debate community is full of people who believe that they are actually creating change when they debate. This is evident in the piece of evidence called “Differing Views of Debate.” Both teams were willing to risk the round to chance seeing that they felt like the debate space is a place for education and community and that a discussion of issues would be more productive in creating change. However, no one else is the room to hear this discussion and thus the ideas and messages conveyed during the discussion wouldn’t likely move far past the room. On the other hand, as indicated in the evidence “Why we do debate,” there is a whole heap to learn by doing debate. The author of this comment clearly shows the valuable skills one learns from doing debate such as, greater political knowledge, better speaking skills, greater philosophical knowledge, and research skills. These can all shape the student to
I have had debates in previous classes, but just with partners, not a large group debate like in this tutorial activity. Our group was pro two tier healthcare and the other group was opposing it. For
This is a time where pages have the chance to debate and vote on bills. Each page was had the opportunity to present a bill before fellow pages. I co-sponsored a bill with another page. The bill we presented was HB . This bill was about banning the use of handheld communication devices while operating a motorized vehicle. While our bill didn’t pass, it was great opportunity to debate the bill we presented. Fellow pages questioned our bill. Questions such as “Would AppleWatches be considered as a part of this?” or “How would the officer have the authority to pull you over for it, as it can be hard to know for certain an individual is using their device?”. These were all questions we had prepared for and expected questioning from fellow peers. Moreover, other page bills were also presented bills during this session. Having the opportunity to prepare and question their bills led to questioning on the floor and occasionally surprising votes. Often times if questioning had been high on a particular bill, it would raise more debate when closing debate was presented. Along with going through the process of passing a bill it was sobering to be a part of an experience that is every day of for those we elect into office. Our elected officials sit at those same desks and debate over hard topics, topics that will affect those all around
Conflict is inevitable in any personal relationship or among members of any group. While we encounter many types of conflict in our lifetime, we often look for ways to avoid conflict. So, why do we run away from dealing with our conflict? It is often because many of us fear the conflict will escalate into a situation we will not be able to sustain. “As conflicts escalate, they go through certain incremental transformations. Although these transformations occur separately on each side, they affect the conflict as a whole because they are usually mirrored by the other side. As a result of these transformations, the conflict is intensified in ways that are sometimes exceedingly difficult to undo” (Pruitt, and Kim 89). We
Have we become a world that has forgotten how to listen and debate? Why are people so quick to argue? Everyone wants to prove their point these days. In “The Argument Culture,” Deborah Tannen discusses how today’s society no longer honors the noble American tradition of debate. She explains how we no longer want to take the time to listen to both sides and definitely not all sides of an issue. We have become a society that would rather fight and argue, often to the point of violence.
Throughout high school, I harbored a deep admiration for debate and dreamed of joining the team. Its quintessence of ideals in rational argument, tolerance for conflicting points of view, and rigorous self-examination appealed strongly to me. Yet simple things, like pronouncing a word wrong or having an accent, were enough to hold me back. Thus, I passed through my high school years unnoticed.
debate. Politics are not the same as they use to be. We as a people now live in an era, which
Noticing the difference between completing research in effort to inform policy and those who are in school to impact and create policy. P23
I have noticed from my friends that even though the election is over, the dialogue has not stopped. Instead, people are more vocal about their options and thoughts. I agreed when Professor Gillespie stated that she does not look to the government to have all the answers, because they too are human, and are flawed. I enjoyed how both sides had good arguments and were able to back up their positions. When students posed questions, they answered them with thought. Listening to two different perspectives allowed me to see how people think differently that I do, but in the end just want the best for their
Student Learning Outcome #6 "Engage in reasoned civic discourse while recognizing the distinctions among opinions, fact, and inferences" supported with my Summaries Essay.
Without that, I never would have learned about this remarkable passion of mine and my life would have been completely different and most likely would have been much worse without the things I learned from debating. In the end, whether I end up being right and getting that little bit of extra meaningless pride by defeating someone who I’ll never encounter again in an online battle of wits behind a mask of anonymity or being disgracefully wrong and learning as much as I can from my mistakes, debating is one of my favorite activities to partake in and I wouldn’t give it up for the world, although I’d welcome you to try and convince me
Because truth contains the power to bring our nation together, prosperity to our citizens, and purpose to our role as a nation, I seek to let it be my guide in policy. As I compete in Congressional Debate, I draft legislation that knows no party, with policy that adjusts to the current geopolitical landscape. True conservatism is not exhaustive conservative policy. True conservatism responds to the voice of the nation at that time. One day after debate, one of my opponents commended me for flexibility and thoughtfulness in debate. That commendation means more to me than any first place award. Participating in Congressional Debate is one of the most fulfilling parts of my life. In the debate chamber, I speak not for points or awards, but to guide people to truth. I speak not always to persuade or convince, but to share perspectives that create the kind of dynamic existence President Coolidge achieved in his life, constant examination of policy for his constituents. My desire is that my speeches do not fool others into supporting one policy over another. My desire is to share policy options, only for the most effective to be chosen at the end of the round. This is not always the policy on which behalf I spoke – dynamic
The statement that “Working at the policy level is natural to our profession is summarized in the quote below. ‘ Involvement in policy decisions and the political process is an integral part of the role because of our history, practice, education, and professional organizations. (Milstead, 2016, P.4) Let’s take a closer look at these topics.
In the excerpt by Deborah Tannen entitled, The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue Tannen speaks about the oppositional nature of public discourse. She expressed her thoughts on how we are determined to seek certainty by using arguments from two different standpoints, as if there are no additional angles that can be examined. Oftentimes, there are more than two sides of an issue, but due to the way society has taught us, we only look at issues from two extreme perspectives. I find Dr. Tannen to be extremely intelligent in her observations of how people communicate using debates and opposition as a means to express what we believe to be true. Although Americans habitually view issues from only two extreme points of view, dialogue solves more problems than debates because it does not cause division among people as frequently as debates does.
Ideologies refer to a set of ideas and values that provides a base for organised political action. They justify and influence the different theories of society and human nature. Ideologies have a big impact on policy making, as the government of the day will base their policies around these political ideologies. The two major political parties in New Zealand, National and Labour, each have different beliefs and values which lead to different ideologies. Looking at both parties previous and current policies, we can observe the impact of the ideologies they have adopted on their policy making. The National party in the last 20 years has driven policies from a
When making public policy decisions, policy makers must face a world with imperfect information and a finite amount of resources. Both of these realities put limitations on how effectively a policymaker can make people’s lives better off. Obviously, it is impossible for anyone to perfectly predict how a certain policy will play out when it is enacted. This includes policymakers, who despite their noble goals of increasing the well-being of society, can only make an educated guess about the effects a policy will have. Factors such as the fickleness of human nature or hidden information creates uncertainties that are hard to address when making policy. For example, in 1929 the causes of the Great Depression were not fully understood, but