DWRL Lesson Plans - Debate

Identifying Reasons and Evidence with Friends

sariddick — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 19:21:31 +0000

Author:

Image Credit:

his"File:Friends (letras brancas, fundo preto.svg." Wikimedia Commons. Last modified 24 Dec 2014. Web. 5 Mar 2015. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Friends_letras_brancas,_fundo_preto).svg>.

Brief Assignment Overview:

This lesson uses the popular sitcom Friends and the classic public debate of "Faith Vs. Reason" to create a fun, accessible way of understanding the relationship between claims, reasons, and evidence.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Partial Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Textual Analysis

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Multimedia

Video

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Required Materials:

1. A media console/projector

2. A computer

3. A whiteboard or chalkboard

4. Access to Friends "The One Where Heckles Dies" (Season Two, Episode Three).

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Early in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

In this lesson, students will watch a few brief clips between two characters, Phoebe and Ross, on the sitcom Friends. In these clips, Phoebe and Ross argue about whether or not evolution is real, but not in the way that this argument tends to be portrayed. Ross, a paleontologist, insists that evolution is real, but Phoebe is unconvinced that it is absolutely better than any other possible theories. In teams, students will locate the reasons and evidence that their character gives in support of his/her claims, and they will look at how these components contribute to the most convincing argument, as identified by them, the show's audience.

This lesson is intended to be a fun, fast-paced, and engaging way to illustrate the differences between and significance of reasons and evidence in an argument. Because the argument featured in this assignment is an inoffensive play off of a common, longstanding public debate ("Faith vs. Reason"), this lesson also reminds students that looking at the parts of an argument from a rhetorical standpoint can be done without letting personal opinions affect the process. The "Faith vs. Reason" debate is one that students will likely have encountered before this lesson, but its comical, unusual, and lighthearted treatment in this episode will allow the students to easily respond from an analytical perspective, rather than an emotional one.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Instructors must have a way of playing the episode of Friends called "The One Where Heckles Dies" (1995). This can be viewed on DVD, online rentals (e.g., iTunes, Amazon), or through a paid streaming service (e.g., Netflix).

If the instructor does not have a chalkboard or whiteboard on which to write, they should prepare a chart that clearly separates the following: Ross's reasons, Ross's evidence, Ross's claims, Phoebe's reasons, Phoebe's evidence, and Phoebe's claims.

Instructions For Students:

Instructor should divide the room into two teams: Team Ross and Team Phoebe. From there, half of each team should be responsible for reasons and the other half for evidence. For example, in a room of twenty students, there should be ten Ross students and ten Phoebe students. There should be five students looking for reasons from Ross, five for reasons from Phoebe, five for evidence from Ross, and five for evidence from Phoebe. Everyone is responsible for recording any claims that they hear. This should make the task feel more manageable to the students, and it increases the chances that the students will capture a wide variety of points from the clips.

1. On your computer or tablet, or on a piece of paper, record any claims that you hear from your Team Leader (Ross or Phoebe) as you watch this debate. Also, write down all of the reasons or evidence that you hear he/she give. You may hear multiple claims, and you may hear reasons/evidence that support different claims. Do not worry about putting those pieces together yet. Just write down the reasons or evidence that you hear (depending upon your assignment), and write down all of the claims that you hear from your Team Leader.

The instructor should play clips at the following minutes: 4:10-6:00, 7:00-8:00, 9:00-10:00, and 15:00-17:10 (6 minutes total).*

2. Share all of the reasons, evidence, and claims that you identified.

Instructor should record these on a visible chart for the class. As the discussion progresses, students can see (1) who provided more reasons and/or more evidence (2) and which pieces of reasons and evidence affected them more as an audience. Have the class vote on who they believed won the argument, and have them discuss why that is based on the reasons, evidence, and claims that they heard and the ways in which all of those components were presented.

*Note: A bonus round can be the female characters vs. Chandler at the end of the episode (beginning at 17:10). If time permits, students really enjoy this round, and it ought to be worthwhile because it reinforces the lesson. Watching the show from 4:10 through the end may be helpful because it contextualizes the content a bit more, but it is not necessary.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students loved this episode, and later in the semester I received praise for it from a student.

Course Type:

Intermediate Writing Course

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

This lesson was designed for "RHE 306: Rhetoric & Writing," an introductory writing and research course.

Tags:

Using Debates to Teach Rhetorical Analysis

Sloan — Wed, 04 Dec 2013 16:19:55 +0000

Author:

Casey Sloan

Image Credit:

Image Credit: Short Excursions Into Allyson's Mind

Brief Assignment Overview:

This assignment asks students to watch a debate and evaluate the participants' use of ethos, pathos and logos given their goals and their audience. It then asks students to select a debate “winner,” construct an argument justifying their position, and debate the issue with other students, incorporating concession, refutation and rebuttal.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Homework Assignment

Assignment Length:

One-Two Class Periods

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Literature:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Media Requirements:

Media Console/Projector

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Late in the Semester

Full Assignment Description:

This assignment has students evaluate speakers' use of ethos, logos and pathos, perform a rhetorical analysis on the effectiveness of that use, and debate their own conclusions with their classmates by relying on concession, refutation and rebuttal. Ideally, this assignment will help students solidify their understanding of rhetorical appeals and allow them to practice calling upon argumentative strategies to persuade a skeptical audience. The debate chosen can be a fantastic hook to catch student interest in rhetorical analysis. Presidential debates or heated public debates could be introduced for a class that seems particularly politically conscious, but I personally used a semi-humorous debate between comedian Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, television host and social commentator. The debating then required of students should help them develop their own use of persuasive strategies.

Students will first watch a debate in class. A classroom equipped with a computer and screen is necessary for this assignment. While viewing the debate, students should take notes on both (or one, if you want to divide your students neatly into two camps) speakers' use of ethos, logos and pathos. Ask them also to think about the audience for this debate and whether or not the rhetorical moves made by the speakers would be received well by that audience. This should take up one class period.

For homework, have your students write up a brief report arguing why one speaker “won” the debate. They should use the notes taken during the debate and focus on the use and effectiveness of rhetorical appeals.

During the next class period, ask students to share their arguments. Go back and forth between the two camps, asking students to use various combinations of concession, refutation and rebuttal to answer one another.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

Be sure to pick a debate video that will fit neatly in with your available class time. Decide whether you want to assign students to a single debater or offer them the option of picking their own side. If you assign students to a single speaker, you can ask them to focus solely on her while watching the debate video.

Instructions For Students:

Ideally, before performing this exercise students should already be familiar with rhetorical analysis and refutation, concession and rebuttal. I used this assignment as an end-of-semester wrap-up to synthesize various ideas and skills.

1) For the first class period, students should closely watch this debate video. They should focus on both speakers' (or a single speaker's) use of ethos, pathos and logos. Instruct them to take detailed notes, citing specific examples. Ask them to pay special attention to these questions: what kind of ethos do the speakers establish? How? When do they use pathos and why? When do they use logos and why? Also, define the audience for this debate.

2) For homework, students should write up a 1-2 page argument about why one debater "won" the argument by more effectively using rhetorical appeals to convince her audience.

3) For the next class period, ask a volunteer on each side summarize why her debater won. Then, ask opposing sides to use various combinatinos of refutation, rebuttal and concession to argue against one another.

Course Type:

Introductory Writing Course

Course Description:

I used this assignment for Rhetoric 306, an introductory course.

Tags:

Agonistic Debate on a Course Blog

coulson — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:01:44 +0000

Author:

Doug Coulson

Image Credit:

Wikipedia Commons

Brief Assignment Overview:

Students break up into two groups to engage in agonistic debate regarding an issue in an assigned reading in the course. One group offers a critique of the ideas in the text in a brief written critique posted on a course blog, then the second group formulates a response also posted on the blog, followed by a reply by the first group and an oral debate to finish the assignment and debrief.

Type of Assignment:

Class Discussion

In-class Exercise

Assignment Length:

Single Class Period

Pedagogical Goals - Rhetoric:

Pedagogical Goals - Writing:

Pedagogical Goals - Digital Literacy:

Additional Pedagogical Goals:

The goals of the assignment are to practice written agonistic debate for purposes of discussing forensic debate, particularly the form most commonly found in legal disputes. The assignment is also designed to teach principles of online writing in dispute resolution contexts.

Media Requirements:

Technology-Based Classroom (computers for each student)

Required Materials:

In-class computers with internet access and a course blog.

Timeline for Optimal Use:

Useful Anytime

Full Assignment Description:

The assignment requires students to engage in agonistic debate regarding an issue in an assigned reading in the course through both written and oral forms of debate. This facilitates discussion of rhetorical strategies for each for of discourse as well as how they often intersect, while also furthering critical discussion of an assigned text. The assignment is particularly useful for helping students understand the time management and emotional considerations involved in agonistic dispute resolution, particularly the form most commonly found in legal disputes.

Suggestions for Instructor Preparation:

This assignment is best used after the text in question has already been discussed in at least one class period or at least after the students have been given a general introduction to the text in class. To begin the assignment, discuss the purposes of the assignment and the instructions with students. Have students log in to the classroom computers and to the course blog. After the students discuss and submit their blog posts, moderate the discussion in the order of the posts and discuss the challenges and tactics involved in written forensic debate as well as how the students experienced the debate, including a discussion of the emotional component typically involved in taking sides in a dispute. The assignment should ideally be completed in a single class period.

Instructions For Students:

After breaking into groups, Group 1 will have 15 minutes to prepare 3-4 points of criticism of the ideas advanced in the text and post a brief description of the criticisms on the course blog. These may include rebuttals of the arguments advanced or important issues neglected or unanswered by the text. During this time, Group 2 should begin discussing potential points of criticism in an effort to anticipate Group 1's arguments and prepare possible responses. Once Group 1 submits its criticisms on the blog, the roles of the groups will be reversed as Group 2 prepares written responses to Group 1's cricitisms and Group 1 discusses potential points of rebuttal in an effort to anticipate them and prepare a reply. Group 2 will have 15 minutes to prepare its response and post it to the blog. After Group 2 submits its response, the roles will again switch and Group 1 will have 10 minutes to submit any desired reply. At the conclusion of this initial 40 minutes, the groups will orally debate the arguments posted to the blog and discuss how they experienced the debate.

Evaluation Suggestions:

I've never graded this assignment. It's primarily designed to engage students in questions considered during the course and facilitate class discussion.

Notes on Reception, Execution, etc.:

Students have enjoyed the assignment and it has led to critical and engaged discussion regarding key readings in the course.

Course Type:

Advanced Writing Course

Course Description:

In his book On the Contrary, rhetoric scholar Thomas Sloane writes, ”Rhetorical thought is—let us admit it—highly perverse and lawyerly in nature.” In this statement, Sloane not only alludes to the closely intertwined history of rhetoric and law from the earliest days of Western thought to the modern era, but highlights the shared promotion by both of these fields of an agonistic “art of controversy” which seeks to facilitate controversy through the practice of arguing both sides of a case, a practice classical rhetoricians called in utramque partem (“on either side”). The principal theorists of classical Greek and Roman rhetoric promoted agonistic contests in which speakers argued opposite sides of disputed issues, often with specifically judicial contexts in mind, and the American legal system’s adversarial system of justice is founded on a contest of accusation and defense between parties in which each seeks to persuade a judge or jury of disputed issues on opposite sides of a case.

Despite the close relationship between rhetoric and law, however, and the fact that the lawyer remains, in the words of legal scholar James Boyd White, “the modern rhetorician in its purest form,” the modern professionalization of law has frequently attempted to deny or repress the rhetorical aspects of legal discourse and the agonistic conflict on which the adversarial system of justice is founded. Instead, modern law has promoted a view of legal discourse as a value-neutral “science” based on logical deduction and immune to social and political influence. This paradoxical relationship between law and rhetoric in modern legal discourse has produced a recent revival of questions about modern law’s denial of rhetoric, including important questions about the role of character and emotion in legal argument, the role of narrative in the analysis of legal evidence, the effect of the adversarial system of justice on social cohesion and division, and the relationship of legal rhetoric to democracy, coercion, and violence.

We’ll study these questions by first examining the forms of argument used in the legal profession today, focusing on arguments regarding the interpretation of circumstantial evidence in legal cases and the analogical, or case-based, form of legal argument known as “legal reasoning” which is used to argue for or against the application of judicial precedent to new cases. Specifically, we’ll study arguments regarding the evidence in controversial trials such as the 1935 Richard Hauptmann (“Lindbergh Kidnapping”) trial, the 1982 Lindy Chamberlain (“Dingo”) trial, and the 1992 Randy Weaver (“Ruby Ridge”) trial, as well as arguments and judicial opinions in U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure clause and the minimum standards of effective legal advocacy found in the Sixth Amendment’s right to assistance of counsel. After examining the forms and purposes of legal rhetoric as it is actually employed in the legal profession, we’ll then consider contemporary critiques of the adversary system and the agonistic rhetoric on which it depends, including critiques implicit in public perceptions of the legal system and cultural representations of lawyers.

Tags:

Refutation and Rebuttal