Places to Chat
Debate Camp!
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
Debate Camp!
Debate Camp!
..I feel like I need to sing a few bars of a theme song now.
Anyway, I'm going to a debate camp this summer starting tomorrow (Monday the fourth). I have ZERO experience with any kind of debate AT ALL. Our topic is Universal Basic Income (UBI). So if you have any advice or knowledge about public speaking, debate, or thoughts and/or opinions about UBI- please bestoweth them on me.
I'm really excited. I've wanted to debate for years now. :) :) :)
*bounces excitedly*
submitted by Marigold, The State of Mind
(June 3, 2018 - 9:37 pm)
(June 3, 2018 - 9:37 pm)
(June 6, 2018 - 7:04 pm)
Tippity top top top!
CAPTCHA has a gun: vpeu! vpeu! vpeu!
(June 8, 2018 - 5:04 pm)
Hey Marigold! I'm September, and I'm not on here too often, but I ABSOLUTELY LOVE LOVE LOVE DEBATE, sorry, a bit overexcited there, anyways. Debate camp is super duper fun, and you have an awesome topic! I'd love to help you-- also, I debated UBI at my regionals tournament, so I know quite a bit about it! Before I launch into a bunch of speaking/research tips, do you know if you will be debating Parliamentary style, World Schools, Lincoln-Douglass, Policy, or Public Forum? That'll be helpful for me to help you!!
(June 9, 2018 - 4:09 pm)
Thanks!
So we ended up not using the UBI- which was unfortunate since I'd already read a bunch of articles >.<
Anyway, I'm doing Public Forum. We're supposed to construct an affirmitive and a negative argument for the issue of Universal Background Checks. I'm having trouble finding good information. I'm not sure how standard the cutting card format is, but for our camp the constructive argument is supposed to be almost entirely cut cards. So the result of that is that I have to find a lot of credible sources. Any tips for that are super appreciated!
To make matters worse, they gave us.. oh... four-five hours (tops) of study time over the entire week cam and then told us to have our arguments by Monday.Oh well.
What format do you primarily debate in?
(June 10, 2018 - 3:01 pm)
Ooh! My debate team did public forum this year! Public forum is really fun, but it takes a lot of quick thinking! You've got to really know your material.
Anyway, in terms of finding good sources, I have a couple suggestions:
- Start your searches broad, then go into specifics. For example, you might start with "universal background checks." Then maybe you find an article that talks about a court case. You might want to google that court case to get more information on it.
- Use .org, .net, .gov, and .edu websites as much as you can. Anyone can make a .com website, so you'll find some of your most unreliable research from them. .gov and .edu are the best websites, because they require certain authorization.
- Use big-name magazines and newspapers! My debate was on whether NCAA college athletes should be considered employees, so we were referencing a lot of NBC. You may be looking for more political sources.
- Use Google searching strategies! For example, any phrases you put in quotes (for example, "Universal Background Checks") must be found word-for-word in the results. You can also search filetype:pdf or something similar to get a certain file type, and utilize Google's sub-engines like Google Scholar! (Google Advanced Search is a way to use those tips without having to memorize them.)
Good luck with your debating! I hope these helped!
(June 10, 2018 - 11:05 pm)
Awesome!! So I'm not super familiar with Public Forum since I usually debate in Parliamentary, but I can definitely help you! Are you on a team with other people, and if so, what's your speaker order? Secondly, is 'Universal Background Checks' the exact topic wording?
(June 11, 2018 - 7:52 pm)
M'kay, so I did a bit of research on Universal Background Checks, and I'm going to assume it's the firearm related one? If not, let me know. . . weirdly partisan topic though. . . anyways, the first thing you're going to want is a hook, which can be anything from a quote to a statistic or something like that.
So in the case of Universal Background Checks, for affirmative, which I suppose is for UBC, you're going to want maybe an anecdote about someone who is able to get a gun but shouldn't have, on negative, you want something about how maybe they don't work as intended or something like that.
The second thing you're going to want is a definition and/or a plan. Depending on the wording of your motion, you may not even need a plan, but what you definitely need to do is define exactly what a universal background check means, and make sure your definition is from a reputable source. The reason why you want to do this is so that way negative can't come up with their own definition that makes you look bad, or a definition that isn't exactly related to the topic. As for a plan, (this may or may not be necessary) you want to come up with 1) your method for carrying out Universal Background Checks 2) A couple of sources who say it will work (Good ones include big name universities e.g. Harvard, Yale, etc. )
Next, you're going to want theme. I'm not sure you really need one, but these are useful to have anyways. A theme basically summarizes the overarching theme of your case. It should be a short one sentence blurb that's easy for the judge to remember. You should write out your theme after you put together your case.
Now onto the actual arguments. I'd recommend three arguments, each with 2-3 pieces of evidence and impact. I don't know much about this topic, but from what I've found, you definitely want to go for the Utilitarian perspective (= most good for the most people). What you should be trying to prove is three things: 1) Why the current system is bad/inefficient/needs to be fixed 2) Why universal background checks work/PROVE IT!!!/use statistics and other countries' models if this is a U.S. based topic 3) What good comes out of universal background checks , ex. lives saved
Always try to win a debate on lives. When weighing a debate, remember this. Lives trumps money, unless money saves lives. Now I've got to go, but I'll help you a bit with negative later.
(June 11, 2018 - 8:08 pm)
Thank you so much! Today is the last day, and thanks again for your help. There was a whole lot of emphasis on the lives thing with all the cases, with the reversibility weighing and all. Also, I agree with you that it's a bit of an odd choice or topic.
(June 15, 2018 - 7:32 am)