G.P.+Debate+Resources























































//Links for Students and Teachers Alike:// Also, check out the ProCon Website…a special thank you to **Elizabeth Balcombe** **from Clearwater HS** for sharing what she found!!! This website is absolutely AWESOME for young debaters and GP writers! I just took a look at the Tablets vs Textbooks issue (it’s “new”) and was amazed at what this site provides; they give a list of “Did you Know” fun facts about the topic, a HUGE pro/con list of arguments, along with a “Background” section and even videos. Love it. More Teacher Resources:
 * iDebate Database
 * iDebate Topic Index
 * Topics Information
 * Debate Resources
 * National Forensics League
 * Canadian Student Debating Federation

On this page, you will find links to all the hot topics being discussed in other forums around the world. Reading them will help you have a glimpse of what other people think about the topics that are making the headlines.

**Hot Topics Being Discussed BBC World have Your Say Online**

[|Sex education- what’s the problem?]

[|Should we tell children nothing but the truth?]

[|Are leaders born?]

[|Is love overestimated today?]

[|Are women better at peace-making than men?]

[|Should some books be banned?]

[|Do speeches change the world?]

[|Should public money be spent on art?]

[|Is the UN impotent?]

[|Should all births be natural?]

[|Should scientists talk about race?]

[|The dawning of a new era in China?]

[|Does democracy deliver?]

[|Death Penalty - can it be humane? - LIVE]

[|Should children be brought up without religion?]

[|Should we confront prejudice?]

[|Giving your kids a smack]

[|Should the rich pay more tax?]

[|Do we overprotect our children?]

[|Do we mollycoddle our children?]

[|What’s the big deal with cosmetic surgery?]

[|Can paedophiles ever be released safely into society?]

[|Is there a bad way to win?]

[|Going for Gold (Olympics)]

[|Is the internet making us stupid?]

[|Do the strongest countries always get their way?]

[|Are women taken seriously in politics?]

[|What should be done about the food crisis?]

[|Does immigration make you and your country wealthier?]

[|Does religion stand in the way of science?]

[|Does your skin colour define you?]

[|Is the western media biased against China?]

[|Where do you draw the line in scientific research?]

[|Do the strongest countries always get their way?]

[|Has AIDS hijacked the world health agenda?]

[|Should women stay at home after all?]

[|Is there ever an excuse for murder?]

[|Does fame come with responsibility?]

[|Is illegal downloading immoral?]

[|Do you trust nuclear power?]

[|Should athletes be allowed to take drugs?]

[|Should the unemployed be made to work?]

[|Does American culture enrich your own?]

[|Is being HIV positive a stigma in your country?]

[|Is Cristiano Ronaldo a modern day slave?]

[|Is it ever acceptable to pay a bribe?]

[|Is democracy for all inevitable?]

[|When is it time to wipe the slate clean?]

[|Is patriotism poisoning politics?]

[|Is it easier to be gay in your country than ever before?]

[|Is big business crucial to countries in crisis?]

[|Does everyone need a gun to feel safe?]

_
 * What is the right balance to strike between freedom of and restrictions upon artistic expression?**

The concept of "censorship" is somewhat ambiguous but a better debate results if the Prop side takes the commonly accepted definition – that certain texts, images, or films should be banned. If "censorship" is defined as any form of regulation or law, then it becomes almost truistic as a definition, since the opposition would (if they accepted such a silly definition) have to argue that Art somehow exists above all laws.The Proposition can also include age restrictions as part of their definition of censorship. For example, certain texts, images, or films may only be viewable by people of a certain age, or under the grounds of official academic research.This debate sometimes becomes one about the broader concept of censorship, rather than a debate specifically about whether the arts should be censored. The debate can also go in other directions – some debates will instead evolve into a discussion about the nature of art and how we can decide that a work has redeeming artistic value.


 * Arguments**


 * Pros ||  || Cons ||
 * An individual's rights end when they impinge on the safety and rights of others. By enacting laws against incitement to racial hatred and similar hate speech, we have accepted that freedom of expression should have limits. In addition, art, like any other form of free speech, should be subject to the same restrictions on an individual's freedom of expression. To create an exception for art would be hypocritical and create a legal loophole for content such as hate speech, which could then seek protection on the grounds that it was a form of art. ||  || Civil rights should not be curtailed in the absence of a clear and present danger to the safety of others. The Proposition has a duty to demonstrate this risk is genuine. Furthermore, we would argue that so long as no illegal acts were committed in the creative process, the public should have a choice in deciding whether to view the resulting content. Proposition arguments about child pornography and bestiality being filmed and then displayed as art are irrelevant arguments, as these acts are illegal in the first place. ||
 * Censorship can also be a finely tuned system of protecting our children. Just as we recognise that certain content should not be accessed by society at all, we can also recognise that certain content (e.g. sexual content) is unsuitable for children, and we can pass censorship accordingly. For example, certain forms of erotic artwork might be unsuitable for children, despite their artistic merits. ||  || Censorship, even when age rating systems are used, is a very blunt tool. It takes no account of the differing standards of education or maturity between children and youths, or the varying attitudes towards parenting in different households. By imposing an external standard of censorship, the government is depriving parents of the right to raise their children in a manner that they see fit. We lose the element of parental discretion, which is arguably part of the right to lead a private and family life as one sees fit – a right that is enshrined in many international human rights conventions. Looking at adults, we see that they have the right to vote, bear arms, and die for the country. Why should they be deprived of the ability to decide what they wish to see, or what their children should be allowed to watch?Lastly, we should note that people are not being forced to view artwork at gunpoint. Every member of the public has the right to avert their eyes and not look at art that offends them. Similarly, they can refrain from entering a gallery with an exhibition of offensive works. ||
 * Censorship may actually help the artistic cause -- e.g. the general public is far more likely to support and fund erotic art with sexual content if they do not have to worry about their children seeing it! ||  || Censorship is far more likely to hurt the Arts – if something has been decreed by the Government to be unsuitable for children, the odds of the general public wanting to buck the trend and fund it are somewhat slim. ||
 * Many forms of modern art seek to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, or aim for the lowest denominator in taste. Both situations can give rise to content that is unacceptable, and which governments should not permit. ||  || The risks of stifling free expression far outweigh the potential for unacceptable material. Content which we consider perfectly acceptable today would have been regarded as taboo 50 years ago – if the Proposition had their way, we would all still be stuck in the Victorian Era. Besides, if a novel and controversial art form proved to be completely out of touch with society, then the individuals in society would reject it rather than be corrupted by it. ||
 * Excessive sex and violence in the media can lead to similar behaviour in viewers (studies in the USA have shown this). There is a very real risk of copycat crimes inspired by depictions of criminal activity in the media, even if no criminal act was committed during the creative process. This alone should be justification for censorship. ||  || The statistical correlation between watching sex & violence and committing such acts is dubious. Firstly, these studies are not exhaustive and are often funding by special interest groups. We must also realise that correlation is different from causation – an alternative interpretation is that people with violent tendencies are more likely to be connoisseurs of violent art, and the same applies for rapists and pornography.Even if we believe that some people with weaker morals are likely to be corrupted, why should the rest of society be penalised for the moral weakness of a few? Why should innocent people have their civil rights curtailed when the small minority we are concerned about has not even committed a crime yet! There are far better ways of reducing the crime rate, with far less cost in civil liberties, such as better policing, tougher penalties on actual crimes being committed, CCTV cameras, and improved street lighting. ||
 * Even if some individuals manage to circumvent the censorship measures, the Government has sent an important message about what society considers to be acceptable. The role of the state in sending social messages and setting social standards should not be underestimated, and censorship (be it through bans or minimum age requirements) is an important tool in thisprocess. ||  || Censorship is ultimately infeasible. Try censoring art on the internet, for example! With the advent of modern technology, text, photography and film can now be distributed on the internet. The sooner we recognise the reality, the better. In addition, if we censor art which depicts an unacceptable act or viewpoint, it merely sends it underground. It might also glamorise the prohibited artwork and play to the forbidden fruit and counterculture tendencies inherent in human nature. Far better to keep such art accessible to the public, where people can see for themselves that it is “bad”. If the censorship board is truly acting in line with public morals, it has nothing to fear from transparency and letting the public decide for themselves that a piece of art is unacceptable. ||
 * Many forms of modern art seek to push the boundaries of what is acceptable, or aim for the lowest denominator in taste. Both situations can give rise to content that is unacceptable, and which governments should not permit. ||  || The risks of stifling free expression far outweigh the potential for unacceptable material. Content which we consider perfectly acceptable today would have been regarded as taboo 50 years ago – if the Proposition had their way, we would all still be stuck in the Victorian Era. Besides, if a novel and controversial art form proved to be completely out of touch with society, then the individuals in society would reject it rather than be corrupted by it. ||
 * Excessive sex and violence in the media can lead to similar behaviour in viewers (studies in the USA have shown this). There is a very real risk of copycat crimes inspired by depictions of criminal activity in the media, even if no criminal act was committed during the creative process. This alone should be justification for censorship. ||  || The statistical correlation between watching sex & violence and committing such acts is dubious. Firstly, these studies are not exhaustive and are often funding by special interest groups. We must also realise that correlation is different from causation – an alternative interpretation is that people with violent tendencies are more likely to be connoisseurs of violent art, and the same applies for rapists and pornography.Even if we believe that some people with weaker morals are likely to be corrupted, why should the rest of society be penalised for the moral weakness of a few? Why should innocent people have their civil rights curtailed when the small minority we are concerned about has not even committed a crime yet! There are far better ways of reducing the crime rate, with far less cost in civil liberties, such as better policing, tougher penalties on actual crimes being committed, CCTV cameras, and improved street lighting. ||
 * Even if some individuals manage to circumvent the censorship measures, the Government has sent an important message about what society considers to be acceptable. The role of the state in sending social messages and setting social standards should not be underestimated, and censorship (be it through bans or minimum age requirements) is an important tool in thisprocess. ||  || Censorship is ultimately infeasible. Try censoring art on the internet, for example! With the advent of modern technology, text, photography and film can now be distributed on the internet. The sooner we recognise the reality, the better. In addition, if we censor art which depicts an unacceptable act or viewpoint, it merely sends it underground. It might also glamorise the prohibited artwork and play to the forbidden fruit and counterculture tendencies inherent in human nature. Far better to keep such art accessible to the public, where people can see for themselves that it is “bad”. If the censorship board is truly acting in line with public morals, it has nothing to fear from transparency and letting the public decide for themselves that a piece of art is unacceptable. ||
 * Even if some individuals manage to circumvent the censorship measures, the Government has sent an important message about what society considers to be acceptable. The role of the state in sending social messages and setting social standards should not be underestimated, and censorship (be it through bans or minimum age requirements) is an important tool in thisprocess. ||  || Censorship is ultimately infeasible. Try censoring art on the internet, for example! With the advent of modern technology, text, photography and film can now be distributed on the internet. The sooner we recognise the reality, the better. In addition, if we censor art which depicts an unacceptable act or viewpoint, it merely sends it underground. It might also glamorise the prohibited artwork and play to the forbidden fruit and counterculture tendencies inherent in human nature. Far better to keep such art accessible to the public, where people can see for themselves that it is “bad”. If the censorship board is truly acting in line with public morals, it has nothing to fear from transparency and letting the public decide for themselves that a piece of art is unacceptable. ||
 * Even if some individuals manage to circumvent the censorship measures, the Government has sent an important message about what society considers to be acceptable. The role of the state in sending social messages and setting social standards should not be underestimated, and censorship (be it through bans or minimum age requirements) is an important tool in thisprocess. ||  || Censorship is ultimately infeasible. Try censoring art on the internet, for example! With the advent of modern technology, text, photography and film can now be distributed on the internet. The sooner we recognise the reality, the better. In addition, if we censor art which depicts an unacceptable act or viewpoint, it merely sends it underground. It might also glamorise the prohibited artwork and play to the forbidden fruit and counterculture tendencies inherent in human nature. Far better to keep such art accessible to the public, where people can see for themselves that it is “bad”. If the censorship board is truly acting in line with public morals, it has nothing to fear from transparency and letting the public decide for themselves that a piece of art is unacceptable. ||


 * What do you think?**



**THE ISSUE:** As some of you may know, New York’s Board of Health recently approved a ban on large sugary drinks, with restaurants, movie theaters and street carts no longer allowed to sell those beverages exceeding 16 ounces in size. So long, large sweet tea from McDonald’s…bye-bye, massive energy drink seen in the hands of sleep-deprived teens or ceaseless workaholics. According to the article, this is the latest of Mayor Bloomberg’s “ambitious” public health policies, yet another action taken to slow the rate of obesity, which reportedly affects over //half// the city’s population. New York is the first in the country to enact such a ban. Looks like the soft drink industries are planning to do whatever is necessary, however–including the pursuit of legal action–to stop the ban from taking effect. With this recent event in mind, let the logically-based, research-rooted argument begin! **THE ACTIVITY:** //Imagine that the soft drink industry DOES decide to take Bloomberg to court…// Divide the class into two courtroom-esque sides: Once the students are assigned to a side, have them **pair up** with a partner on that side to work more closely on their case. Any partner pair may be called upon to defend the case once the debating begins, so thoughtful preparation is crucial!
 * __FOR THE BAN__: Students representing…the New York Board of Health and Mayor Bloomberg [[image:http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif?m=1129645325g caption=";-)"]]
 * __AGAINST THE BAN__: Students representing…national soft drink companies

**THE PREPARATION:** Students can get ready for the debate (in and out of class) by completing the following steps: Hopefully, the Hand Approach brainstorming they did with their partner //in class// will inspire them by providing a direction for their continued research //at home//, but if it doesn’t, remind them that the research they find doesn’t have to be about //NY’s// ban on sugary drinks specifically…it can be about **banning a different product at a different time in our nation’s history** and the good or bad impact this had. For instance: These broader avenues for research will help students reinforce their logical arguments by learning how to utilize the basis of comparison, analysis of trends, etc. For example, notice how (early on) in this article, entitled ” ‘Fat Tax’ to Lower Obesity,” the reporter indicates that just as a tax on cigarettes lowered the number of smokers in America, a tax on fatty foods **could** potentially lower obesity numbers in the **same** way. **THE DEBATE:** When the students enter the classroom the next day, the courtroom should be set. Have your “hotseats” stationed in the front of the room OR have a podium-style scene set. **Students approach the floor to present their research and argue their case.** (Of course they can use their notes! Let them reap the benefits of their hard work!) As the teacher, you will need to find the balance between freedom of speech and organized discussion. This is meant to be a fun, informal debate, much //less// structured than the later “big” debate unit to come, but the kids still need to observe proper etiquette in speaking and listening, and they must be held to task when it comes to note-taking all of these good ideas! By maintaining order in your courtroom, you will honor your learning targets for the day, and you will model for your students how important it is to stay FOCUSED on the task at hand! There are SO many ways to approach this activity, but this basic form will help you get started with what should be a **consistent** activity in your classroom for the duration of the year. The //more// kids TALK about these issues, the better they’ll RETAIN them; and the more they try to OUTSMART each other in the name of fun classroom discussion, the //better// they are becoming at ANTICIPATING their audience, both of which will ultimately make them more **logical** thinkers and better **persuasive** writers. **POST-DEBATE…FROM SPOKEN TO WRITTEN:** Once students get a baseline of information in this department, they can begin to apply it to their writing. Below are a few essay prompts you could share with your students to help them see how what you learn in class eventually transforms into the GP task they’ll be challenged with come May. You might just have them write a sample paragraph, or if they have enough perspective and confidence, you might have them write the entire essay. What would Furman do? I would follow up this debate with a whole group essay…walk them through breaking down the prompt, brainstorming the ideas, and outlining the essay’s layout. Write the intro with them so all students have the same intention via thesis statement. Then break body paragraphs down by groups or pairs. The groups will write their assigned body paragraph, then have another group edit it. Once it’s in a more polished form, have them type it up for class the next day. Put them on the doc camera to share and revise further, noting the elements of a good body paragraph. Select the best paragraphs for the whole group essay, put them in a logical order with the class, then write the conclusion together. Voila! Awesome essay sample. Type it up for them or have a student do it, then give everyone a copy to showcase in their portfolios and to store as reference in their binders.
 * 1) The debate target is clarified and (+/-) roles are assigned:
 * **//Do you support NY’s ban on large, sugary drinks? Why or why not?//**
 * 1) Students will read and annotate the article, “Health Board Approves Restriction on Sale of Sugary Drinks” with their partner; as they do so, they should make note of the argument’s pros and cons by placing a ** (+) ** next to //benefits// of the ban and a **(-)** next to the //drawbacks// of this restriction; they should also categorize these pros and cons by determining which Hand Approach[| theme] the idea caters to, while making note of it in the margin next to the evidence //(i.e. the article reads that “critics [of the ban] said the measure could lead to small businesses losing money on sales,” so students could write, –**POL/GOV’T: Economy**– in the margin).//
 * 2) Students should then transfer the ideas from the article onto their [|T-Chart Brainstorm] by **paraphrasing** them in the corresponding columns. Despite the fact that the kids are clearly favoring one side in the debate, **the T-Chart requires them to know BOTH sides of the issue**. This is great for future discursive writing practice, but it will also help them anticipate and refute (counter) their opponent during the debate.
 * 3) Then students should talk with their partner about what **other, additional ideas** they could use to support their side of the argument; ask them to consider the rest of the Hand Approach themes that the article did not address…(i.e. the article hits on //Political// reasons why the ban is a good or bad idea, so now they might explore //Environmental// reasons why it’s good or bad since this //didn’t// come up in the reading).
 * 4) Finally, have students take the T-Chart notes home and **extend** their case for tomorrow by seeking out striking, unique (and compelling!) evidence to further shut down the opponent’s skepticism…now they’re looking for a “secret weapon,” if you will, a sub-point to their argument that the opponent is not necessarily expecting. They should **find and print at least one, medium-sized article** that (hopefully) accomplishes this. Tell them to read and annotate it like they did to the first article in class, then paraphrase the information on their T-Charts as well. //Any evidence in support of their side is fair game for the debate!// (Remind them, however, that they must bring their source to class in order to be granted permission to submit the input as evidence in your courtroom! Oh, and to get the credit [[image:http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif?m=1129645325g caption=";-)"]])
 * 1920s Prohibition Era, banning the sale of alcohol in the U.S…what pros and cons did this have?
 * OR maybe they could look at an article about the more modern sin taxes some states are imposing to deter citizens from undesirable behaviors like smoking and gambling…what are the benefits and drawbacks cited here and how can this strengthen the current argument about banning sugary drinks?
 * Keeping your courtroom organized:**
 * ** DEBATE ADVICE TO STUDENTS: **My favorite piece of advice to offer my great debaters…if you KNOW YOUR STUFF, you never have to raise your voice…do your homework to guarantee the ‘win’ if that is what you seek! (Even though the //real// win here is that they’re learning, heehee!)
 * ** FORMATTING THE DEBATE: ** Use a timer (I just use the one on my cell phone with the fun music to indicate that time is up). Give the PRO side 2-4 minutes to say what they’d like to say as a team. Then, //without audience conversation in between//, do the same for the CON team. Once the baseline arguments are exposed for each team, give the whole class a 5-minute time frame to regroup…this is where they can consider what was said, discuss openly/rowdily, and prepare ideas for rebuttal…trust me, they’ll ALL have something to say in refutation, I’m sure! Now it’s time to call new speakers to the stand for some rebuttal action; pick two, new pair-sets to approach the PRO and CON sides of the floor and give them a time frame to present their ideas in light of the first round of speeches. Once that is done, you could open up the floor to the whole class and let the crazy hand-raising wars begin. So basically, your INFORMAL DEBATE FORMAT would look something like this:
 * 1) **ROUND 1** //(2-3 minutes)//…Team IN FAVOR of the ban
 * 2) //(30 second preparation)//…NO audience discussion yet!
 * 3) **ROUND 2** //(2-3 minutes)//…Team IN OPPOSITION to the ban
 * 4) //(30 second preparation)//
 * 5) **ROUND 3** //(2-3 minutes)//…REBUTTALS from IN FAVOR side
 * 6) **ROUND 4** (//2-3 minutes)//…REBUTTALS from OPPOSITION side
 * 7) **ROUND 5**…DEBRIEF: whole Group Discussion (debate continues without clock, all participate, including teacher), Sub-Points reviewed, alternatives discussed, strategy-strengthening covered (i.e. counter-argumentation strategies could be talked about here in a mini-lesson to awaken them to this!)
 * **NOTES:** Students should be recording as many ideas as they can, but it is also good to have a “secretary” jotting these ideas on the board for all to see. And it helps you keep track too [[image:http://s1.wp.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif?m=1129645325g caption=";-)"]]
 * **POINTS/GRADING:** Spot check articles/research, T-Chart Notes; give a score for active use of class time; points for participation in the debate; maybe even //bonus// points for outstanding arguments and/or research…I like to set up a sketch of the “average” ideas one should generate for each side of the debate, and depending on how aligned the student is with this set of guidelines, I issue a letter grade from there. However you want to do it, go for it, then share it with us! **Bottom Line with Grading:** hold them to the work, but this should be as positive of an experience as possible!!!
 * Sample Prompts:**
 * Should obesity be regarded as a serious health concern?
 * How true is it that the pleasurable things in life are bad for you?
 * How far would you agree that we should ‘eat to live,’ not ‘live to eat’?
 * What more should be done to discourage people from damaging their own health?