Debate guidelines - Energy Systems updated 12.Oct.2004

In order to develop depth of understanding in select areas, and to improve skills in critical thinking and communication, students will debate topics in Energy Systems in class about once a week. See the Syllabus for debate schedule. Class notes on ordering debates. Ballots.

Student Roles:

Three pairs of students will participate in each debate. The debates will be contests between two pairs, one team defending the "pro" and the other team defending the "con" position on each resolution or claim. 

The third pair will serve as facilitators for the debate, and the class will serve as judges.

Each debating team will write a 1-2-page position paper, based on her or his speech, plus an annotated bibliography of 1-3 pages. Your position paper may consist chiefly of bulleted sentence fragments and evidence, and should include one or two narrative paragraphs clearly articulating both pro and con positions and your conclusion. Include your title/topic, pro or con, names of teammates, date, and Energy Systems.  Example

Each facilitator team will be responsible for timing debators, for tallying class votes and responses, and for briefly summarizing the debate and outcome online.

Topics:

The four members of the debating teams will choose from suggested topics, and will agree on the specific wording for their debate topic one week in advance. In general, topics will have this form:

Resolved:  that  _________ (insert proposed energy system) has short-term and long-term positive potential as an energy system, and its expanded use should be actively supported.

Candidate topics:
Hydropower - Wind - Coal vs Oil - Nuclear fission vs Coal - Nuclear Fusion - Solar - Hydrogen - Geothermal - Biomass - Hybrid cars -

In-Class Debate Format:

Each team will have a first and second speaker; and each will be allowed to speak for 8 minutes. The speeches will proceed in the following order:

        First Pro Speaker will discuss the energy system and its general benefits, and sketch a proposal for its expanded use.

        First Con Speaker will challenge the arguments presented by the First Pro Speaker, and point to general negative impacts of the proposed system.

        Second Pro Speaker will explain specific benefits of the system, and address the arguments raised by the First Con Speaker.

        Second Con Speaker will point to specific problems with the proposed system, in response to the Second Pro Speaker's claims.

        Conclusions - Each side will then have 4 minutes to summarize the strongest points of their arguments.

When necessary, the facilitators will also be allowed to ask a few questions of each side (to clear up confusion, raise questions not addressed in debate, etc).

Example: Hydropower in the Pacific Northwest
    PRO:  Renewable resource, cleaner than burning fossil fuels, cost-effective, applicable on small and large scales. More dams should be built.
    CON:  Causes environmental damage to land, waterways, and fish. Diversion of natural waterways can cause flooding. Not efficient on small scales. Dams should be removed
    Pro rebuttal:  Facts and figures on economics. Dams can moderate flooding and support agriculture. Removal of existing dams damages lake-dependent species and pollutes downstream with released sediments. X number of dams can replace Y number of coal plants and their dangerous emissions. Build new dams in specified locations to maximize energy output, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and minimize ecological damage.
   Con rebuttal:  Ecological damage due to dams is irreversible. As large centralized power sources, dams contribute to poltical-economic problems by concentrating power and wealth. Dams are expensive, in capital investments and real costs to the environment. There are better options, specifically ...

Example:  Nuclear fission vs Coal
    PRO:  Nuclear fission: plentiful resource, cleaner than burning fossil fuels, cost-effective, safer than ever. More fission plants should be built, to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and slow greenhouse warming.
    CON:  No safe means of disposing of long-lived radioactive waste. Danger of contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. Danger of reactor failure and release of radioactivity into air or water. Coal is plentiful, cheaper, and safer.
    Pro rebuttal:  Coal burning routinely releases more radioactivity into the air than fission plants. Onsite storage is adequate for short-term handling of nuclear waste, and vitrefication of nuclear sludge into glass stabilizes it for the long term. Fission plants are engineered so that they can't generate weapons-grade materials. Coal is not cheaper if you figure in real costs to the environment over the long term, e.g. strip mining and global warming.
  Con rebuttal:  Scrubbers can eliminate many pollutants from coal plants' exhaust. While coal may contribute more daily pollution than fission, fission accidents can pollute catastrophically - unacceptable risk. Coal is the lesser of two evils.

Preparation:

After agreeing on wording of debate resolutions, debators will flip a coin (or draw) in class to choose sides. In preparing for debates, students will read carefully about their topics. Be sure to read about both sides of the argument. Collect evidence and think through your arguments.  It will be much easier to challenge the other team's assertions if you are already familiar with their arguments and reasoning behind them. In class, we will take time to work out the final wording of each topic and to assign positions. Note: you are likely to end up speaking for a position that is not entirely your own. This is an excellent way to strengthen your understanding of the issues.

Recommmended sources:  program texts and high-quality journals such as Nature, Science, Science News, Mother Jones, The Nation, The Economist, Scientific American, ....  Online sources:  National Research Council, NOAO, NASA, and other recognized national and international scientific organizations.  Not recommended:  random web pages. 

Judging ballots (or feedback forms) will be distributed to the class for each debate.  All students must attend all the debates, to serve as judges, if not as debators or facilitators. Class judges will fill in their ballot to indicate who they think won the debate. They will evaluate individual speakers using criteria such as: the logic and validity of the arguments, the analysis the speaker uses, the evidence presented, the organization of the speech, and how persuasively a speaker presented his or her views.

Debators will hand in their papers and a handout, based upon their speeches and research, immediately before the debate.  Debators will then post their papers (or rewrites) on WebX to share with the class.

Assignments and timetable:

Debators: One week before debate:  two teams agree on wording;  create a WebX discussion in Debate folder and post your topic.
Week before debate:  Teams research and write up their positions. Practice arguing with your teammate.
Day before debate:  Each team write short position paper + annotated bibliography.  Print out three hardcopies:  one for each team member, and one for faculty. Example
Post your paper, bibliography (and handout, if you make one) to WebX. Start your post with "Pro position" or "Con position".
Your paper can serve as a one-page handout for the class, or you may develop a separate handout. If it is two pages long, make sure it is copied double-sided so it is only one page of paper. You may email your handout to program secretaries at least 4 hours before class, with a polite request to make copies for the whole class.  Ruth and Pat:  joynesr@evergreen.edu and kolstadp@evergreen.edu.  Subject header:  Energy Systems Handout.  Remember to say thank you.
Day of debate:  give your handout to the class, and your paper to the faculty before class starts.  Then present your best case!
Day after debate:  read responses to your WebX discussion, and post your followup thoughts.

Facilitators:  day of debate:  keep time for speakers;  give 8-minute speeches a 3-minute warning;  switch to the next speaker PROMPTLY when it's time; take good notes summarizing strong and weak points of each debator.
Collect student response sheets, read them and summarize class judgment on who won the debate.
Day after debate:  Post (to WebX) your judgment on the strongest case, with a brief summary the evidence and arguments that you found most compelling. You may post as a team or individually. Start your post with "Facilitator summary".

Class members:  day of debate:  listen carefully and score each team, using the feedback form your professor will provide.
Day after the debate:  read position papers on WebX, and post followup points or questions.

BE OPEN TO VOTING FOR A POSITION YOU DO NOT FULLY AGREE WITH, if the team supporting that position makes the strongest case.