Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Debate and Communicaton Club Meetings

Touro Communication Club Notes #28
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com
The week in Presidential campaign brought new attention to the impact of the choice of words in our communication. The word in question was “assassinated.” In a speech this past week, Senator Hillary Clinton was defending her continued Presidential campaign through the June Democratic nominating convention in Denver. She pointed out that her husband, Bill Clinton, did not win the Democratic nomination until June 1992. She made a reference to the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy during his Presidential campaign in June 1968.
Many people took offense to her using the word. Several factors conflate to produce the reaction. Senator Edward Kennedy was in the news for his brain cancer. We certainly know of the assassinations of Kennedy’s two brothers and Martin Luther King Jr. Senator Barack Obama has been endorsed by Senator Kennedy. Senator Obama has been traveling with increased Secret Service protection recently because of concerns for his safety.
Despite Senator Clinton’s apology in which she mentioned RFK’s assassination as a matter of historical record and did not intend anything negative, many people were still upset as to why she brought up the event at all. On Friday night, May 23rd, MSNBC host Keith Olberman blew a gasket over the insensitivity of Clinton’s use of the word “assassination in one of the longest (easily 15 minutes) emotional rants I’ve ever watched him deliver. Olberman delivers these rants frequently, but with President George W. Bush as his usual target.
Words have been frequently controversial in this campaign. In addition to Clinton’s use of “assassinated,” last week, Clinton raised a few eyebrows with her comment about “white voters,” highlighting the ever sensitive race issue. Earlier, Obama was criticized by using “bitter” His wife, Michelle, has been taken to task for saying, “For the first time as an adult life, I am proud of my country.” Several weeks ago, Obama was criticized for “plagiarizing” the statement “Words count” with several examples from his friend, Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts.
Word we write are “in space.” Words we speak are “in time.” When we write words, we have a chance to consider and reconsider our word choice. However, when we speak our words, the emotional pressure of the speaking situation can often cause us to not carefully reflect on the vocabulary. Sometimes we choose wrong, inappropriate or inexact words.
That’s why in an argument we tend to use profanity. Under pressure to respond to an emotionally charged situation, we resort to using four-letter words because the anger dominates our mental dictionary. As a Touro professor once remarked, “I don’t use profanity because I have a vocabulary.”
The constant lesson of this or any other political campaign is that words – and deeds – do matter. We have to be especially careful in speaking situations. The topic is worth much more exploration at another time.
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is
Wednesday, May 28 – 1 pm -Debate Team – Final Contest
This is the week! The Debate Team’s final public presentation on Gun Control. Richard Green will video the debate and we will analyze it afterwards. This public debate is the culmination of about 3 months of preparation. No matter what happens, the Debate Team is clearly in a different place from when we started. When we’re finished, we need to give ourselves some perspective on our very challenging journey to discover and exercise our mental muscles. I am very proud of the Team’s progress and look forward a bright future.
Wednesday, June 4, 20081 pm - Club meeting –“Awareness II + Memory” led by Jason Carvell
The first session on “Awareness” raised so many thoughts and feelings among the group that they felt that a 2nd session would be necessary to extend our exploration of what elements are involved in “Awareness.” Tanya Howard suggested that we add “Memory” to the exploration. Jason Carvell will again lead the session.
We are entering a period of limbo – in the middle of finals with the upcoming graduation on Sunday June 15 at Lincoln Center’s Avery Fisher l... We need to talk about continuing our activities during the summer. There’s always something interesting to “conversate” about.
What happened on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 – “Awareness” seminar led by Jason Carvell.
We had a good turnout for Jason Carvell’s interactive seminar on “Awareness.” Newcomer Tanya Howard joined Dennis Kniasev (from Touro Berlin) and Club regulars Drani Gabu, Jetante Morris, James Millner, Olushile Atkintade. Faculty David Nussbaum, Richard Green and Hal Wicke participated equally in the fascinating seminar. David took the valuable notes.
Awareness is a concept that all of us feel we know something about. So Hal Wicke asked the group to brainstorm what they thought “Awareness” mean to them before Jason arrived from his morning class. Responses to the word included
· Information
· Environment
· Who you are
· Knowing that you care perceiving through the senses
· Living in the now/the moment
· Know that you know that you know
· Emotional response to your own perception
Then Hal asked “What does it mean to be ‘Not Aware?” Only one person responded, “Something brought to your attention,” was developed before Jason took over the seminar.
Jason introduced the concept of “Circles of awareness”. A small circle with a dot in it.

The dot in the center represents the internal environment - the self as contained within “one’s skin”.
The next area out (1) represents the immediate environment – things that affect one physically such as people next to oneself
The next area out (2) represents an intermediate environment such as the room.
More circles can be added as larger spheres outside the internal environment are considered.
Exercise 1
Participants were asked to take a minute or so to be aware of their internal environment exclusively.
When asked what they experienced, participants said they were aware of:
Muscle tension of relaxation level
Location of where feelings such as anxiety are felt
Exercise 2
Participants were asked to become aware of the immediate environment. Awareness of area focused on the five senses – sight, hearing, taste touch and smell. And temperature, Jason added.
Jason emphasized many times the goal of these exercises is to maximize the amount of information we take in. What would happen, he asked, if we didn’t do this? The common thread among the answers was that our life might be in jeopardy.
Exercise 3
Next Jason asked us to expand the circle to the perimeters of the room, using all our senses. Participants were asked if they could recall specific things such as the placement of the chairs, who in the room was left-handed, the color of Drani’s shoes and the message in a sign in the room (all without looking or checking, of course). There were three left-handers, but people noticed only two.
We have to be aware of “psychological noise,” Jason reminded us. This noise included worries, family problems, exams, hunger. This noise keeps us from being able to be able to be “open.” When we are “open,” we are able to “focus.”
We talked about many things – how children seem to be empty vessels, changing the way we think, Drani’s cologne (and shoes),.respiration among others.
Exercise 4
The final exercise involved having participants in dyads (and one triad) look at each other without speaking and try to convey as little as possible while gleaning as much as possible about the other person. This gave the participants a heightened sense of awareness of both conveying and reviving messages and cues.
These exercises were synthesized with interspersed discussion of how we perceive these environments, and how we can be aware of just how aware we are. Toward that end, a broader discussion followed on awareness in everyday situations, such as walking on the street. Another part of the discussion focused on which of our senses we rely.
As participants became aware of their own levels of awareness, the concept of barriers was introduced, participants defined some of these such as internal noise and being overly self-conscious as opposed to self-aware. It appears that many of these barriers are acquired as one “grows” from childhood to adulthood. These exercises, which were new to the participants, and the discussions, which represented for all the first time the concept of awareness was discussed, gave the group a new perspective and a sort of meta-awareness – an awareness of awareness.
This session was an excellent follow up a previous meeting which addressed being in the moment, and it was decided that yet another session in covering this area using a similar format would benefit all.
Jason closed with a selection from his favorite poet, Emily Dickinson – “The brain is wider than the sky.” He commented that our exploration suggested, “How the weight of a single brain is equal to the weight of God.”
As I look at my notes and David’s excellent notes above, I realize that any distillation on paper doesn’t come close to capturing the energy and intensity of the session. Everyone was gripped by the interchange under Jason’s guidance. We look forward to “Awareness II + Memory” in two weeks.
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Debate and Communication Club Meetings

Touro Communication Club Notes #27
tourocommunicationclub.blogspot.com
Everyone has started to hunker down for the finish line at the end of school. Summer internships summer jobs, getting ready for graduation are all on the horizon. Representative Charles Rangel, the famous and powerful Harlem Congressman who is Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, will be the SGS graduation speaker at Lincoln Center. Rangel also spoke at the 2002 Graduation. As always, Hal Wicke will coach the oral presentations of the Valedictorian (the Bachelor degree speaker) and the Salutatorian (the Associate degree speaker).
Some students would like to continue meeting during the summer. If there is enough interest, we will continue the process. Learning about communication doesn‘t stop just because school stops!
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is
Wednesday, May 21, 20081 pm – Club – “Awareness” with Jason Carvell
Jason will explore the concept of “awareness” and how it affects so many aspects of our daily living. He speaks of “being present” conscious of our thoughts, our surroundings and the people with whom we interact. In addition to teaching Communication at Touro, Jason is a professional actor, director, voice-over specialist and a sculptor.
Wednesday, May 28 – 1 pm -Debate Team – Final Contest
The Debate Team has one more week before the final public presentation on Gun Control. on Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public debate on It’s during the stressful Finals period. We have much to do as we finalize the affirmative and negative cases and practice presenting them and enduring cross-examination. As you will see in the summary below of the Debate format, Affirmative and Negative Constructive speeches where the debater builds or tears down the case. Each Constructive speech is followed by a Cross-Examination (+x). The entire debate concludes with the Rebuttals where each side gets a brief chance to repair and restate their respective cases. A very intense experience for both debaters and audience!

What happened on Wednesday, May14, 2008 – Debate Team run-through on Gun Control?
Since Drani Gabu and James Millner were the first to arrive, they were chosen to face each other. James took the Affirmative side while Drani took the Negative side. Olushile Akintade, Amina Bibi, and Alba Campuzano were observers at the beginning, but participated later. After Hal Wicke left for a meeting, Richard Green and David Nussbaum managed the debate. David took the notes on which this entry is based. Thank you, David.
The order of the debate speeches was written on the board with their time limits.
Constructive Speeches & Cross Examinations
1. 1st Affirmative Constructive Speech 3 minutes
2. +x by 2nd Negative Cross Examination 2 minutes
3. 1st Negative Constructive 3 minutes
4. +x by lst Affirmative Cross Examination 2 minutes
5. 2nd Affirmative Constructive 3 minutes
6. +x by lst Negative Cross Examination 2 minutes
7. 2nd Negative Constructive ` 3 minutes
8. +x 2nd Affirmative Cross Examination 2 minutes
Rebuttals
9. 1st negative 1 minute
10. 2nd affirmative 1 minute
11. 2nd negative 1 minute
12. 1st affirmative 1 minute
Time elapsed: 24 minutes
Responsibilities of each team:
Burden of proof is on the Affirmative
Affirmative must prove correctness of its position
Negative must “punch holes” in argument – see previous Blog #25 for various strategies
Review of Affirmative Constructive Speech format
Amenities
Statement of Resolution
Definition of terms of Resolution
Statement of Status Quo – review to establish Need
No clear laws
Chaotic laws
Injuries
Medical costs
Establish the Need for Resolution
Sketch of ideas for 2nd Affiirmative Constructive
Repair the damage from the First Negative +x
Review of some possible solutions
Task force enforcement
Raise prices
Limit gun manufacture
Monitor gun sales centers

The following is a summary of the debate as noted by David Nussbaum:
1st affirmative

3 minutes
After a review of the first affirmative protocol involving amenities, James began with amenities and stated the resolution
+x 2nd negative

2 minutes
Drani put forth that guns are not the only things that can kill, giving cars as an example. He also stated that we need guns for protection
1st negative

3 minutes
The points made were:
1. The resolution would limit the constitutional right to bear arms
2. People’s actions kill, not guns in and of themselves.
+x by affirmative

2 minutes
What about children who may find the guns,
2nd affirmative

2 minutes
1. Blame the manufacturer
2. Eliminate guns and the children won’t get them
3. Parents set the example
4. Eliminating guns would eliminate the debate
+x by 2nd affirmative

3 minutes
1. Change constitution
2nd negative

3 minutes
Here Anima joined in
1. Resolution infringes rights
2. One should be able to protect oneself
3. Changing the constitution would tamper with the intention of the founding fathers
(Anima pointed out that she really believes the affirmative and felt funny arguing the other side)
+x 2nd affirmative

2 minutes
1. People may overreact
2. We don’t want “gunfight at the Ok corral”.
Rebuttals
1st negative
1 minute
1. Doesn’t reduce hospital bills
2. “Thou shalt not kill” an integral part of moral foundation
2nd affirmative
1 minute
Restricting Irresponsible access does not restrict liberty
2nd negative
1 minute
Constitution defends right
1st affirmative
1 minute
Additional amendment
In the post debate analysis, Richard Green analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.
A discussion arose as to what the constitution means by “militia”. This brought out the need to define terms, even those outside of the resolution, such as “militia” and “law enforcement” it was pointed out that law enforcement, under the terms of the resolution, would be the “right people” yet through error, emotion or other unusual factors, one may be killed by the “right people”, so a definition is needed here as well. The elephant in the room with any discussion on law enforcement and guns in the current news climate is the Sean Bell case, and there was some discussion about that.
Shile summarized the post debate discussion on the blackboard as follows:
Affirmative
Negative
Law enforcement officials
Why shouldn’t any individual be the “right person”
Second amendment – militia; right to bear arms
You have the right to defend yourself, even from the government
Militia should mean police
What good is freedom of speech if we cannot defend ourselves to enjoy it? Murder is still illegal, answering that issue
Training before bearing arms – What is the right training?
Sean Bell’s case should be addressed by the negative
A child may find a gun in the street
Who is the “right person” to bear arms?
What is the definition of militia?
Does one retain the “right to bear arms” if they go crazy?
What is the Second Amendment addressing?
How many fatalities are caused by guns in relation to other causes?
It was decided that the affirmative won. The participants found the session useful and have noted that the meetings are having a cumulative effect in that they are learning by doing and by discussion. The process is now clearer to all, as are the issues in this particular debate. Thinking on one’s feet and controlling emotion while speaking are two skills participants are acquiring as well.
Going through your first extended debate is a mind bender for everyone! The debaters’ minds are in over-drive, trying to listen, take notes, thinking of arguments and counter arguments, think of and anticipating questions in the cross-examination. Listeners are trying to follow the arguments of both sides. When you’ve done your first debate, all you want to do is to sleep. I can assure you the process gets easier with more practice!
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!

Hal Wicke

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Debate and Communication Club Meetings

Touro Communication Club Notes #26
With the end of semester in sight, the pace of everything at Touro picks up dramatically. Our eyes turn toward the academic tasks at hand. Students have final projects and finals to complete. Teachers have meetings and the grading of projects and exams on their agendas. Everyone is juggling the impact of the economy on our lives.
Even though our peripheral vision about the outside world is somewhat diminished, we still are aware of the headlines – the subject of our Club meeting today. The Democratic Presidential campaign seems to have turned a corner with Barack Obama as the apparent winner and Hillary Clinton fighting for her political life. As she says, “It ain’t over until the lady in the pants suit sings, “ she says. The Myanmar cyclone has reminded us once again of how Mother Nature can cause extensive devastation. Both the local and national events continue to create surprising or unsettling news that is worth examining in our session today.
This is the time to test our juggling ability! How many things can we juggle without dropping any or getting sick? School, work, family, finances? Playtime? All I hope!
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club:
Wednesday, May 14 – 1 pm -Debate Team
The team has set Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public debate on Gun Control. That’s 2 weeks away. It’s during Finals period. We have much to do as we finalize the affirmative and negative cases and practice presenting them and enduring cross-examination. We will now add the Rebuttal segment of the debate cycle.
Wednesday, May 21, 20081 pm – Club – “Awareness” with Jason Carvell
Jason will explore the concept of “awareness” and how it affects so many aspects of our daily living. He speaks of “being present” conscious of our thoughts, our surroundings and the people with whom we interact.
What happened on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 “Bully Pulpit II – Media and the News” ?
Debate team members Drani Gabu, James Millner, Amina Bibi and Olushile Atkintade participated. Poet and English instructor, Jan de Castro joined Richard Green and David Nussbaum. Jason Carvell came late. Hal Wicke led the session.

This session was “Bully Pulpit II – The Media and the News,” a continuation of the first session which focused on the Presidential campaign. Hal asked everyone for the stories the group had heard a lot about on the “news” on the “blackboard.” The group mentioned these stories:
  • Presidential Campaign – Barack vs. Hillary
  • Sean Bell trial decision
  • Rev. Jeremiah Wright
  • Myanmar Cyclone
  • Texas polygamy
  • Housing Foreclosures
  • Gasoline prices
All of the stories are very different, but what are their similarities. This was a tough one, but the group came up with several similarities:
  • There are controversial aspects of every story.
  • All the stories are highly emotional.
  • Almost all stories affect a lot of people.
  • People have an opinion about all of these stories
  • Most of the stories affect everyone’s daily lives or their beliefs.
  • Many stories question the fairness of the outcome.
  • Many disagreements are part of each story.
  • Many stories concern money.
  • There are sensational (eye/ear-catching) qualities of each of these stories.
We all agreed that no one in the room had first hand knowledge of these issues. That means that we learned about all these stories through the media. We made a List of Media from which we heard these stories:
  • TV
  • Internet
  • Newspapers
  • Radio
  • The courts
  • Places of worship (churches, synagogues and mosques)
  • School (teachers, classes)
  • Gossip (overheard and directly told)
Every media source has a Media Tool Box with which it transmits these stories. We arrived at these general categories:
  • Every media uses Language(words) to tell these stories
  • In the media where people tell or write these stories, they use Non-Verbal behaviors (space, time, touch, eye gaze, facial expressions, body language, the voice, and dress) to support the meaning of their language.
  • In order for the audience to make sense of these stories, the people who tell or write these stories use a director or hidden Logic which may or may not include Logical Fallacies which the audience may or may not recognize.
  • Since we agreed that no one is without Bias, the audience needs to be aware of a variety of Strategies to understand, neutralize & defeat bias.
  • As we hear, read or watch these stories being told to us, we also need to sharpen our Critical Thinking abilities to analyze these news stories.
We were running out of time by the time we got to the list of Filters through which all information is delivered. Filters are part of our Media Tool Box. Consciously or unconsciously, these filters change or “color” the stories we tell, hear watch or read. Unfortunately, we didn’t have time to go into any detail to demonstrate how these filters can change the receipt of the information in the story. Here’s the list (to be discussed later).
  • Self- Concept
  • Perception
  • Beliefs and values
  • Emotions
  • Gender
  • Power
  • Economics
  • Culture
As the session was coming to an end, Amina told the group of her encounter with a senior Touro administrator regarding her campaign to get a student lounge at the Midtown site. She felt the meeting went well and they planned to meet again. Amina is interested in politics and plans to return to her native Pakistan to participate in politics. In a very small way, she gained a little experience in local politics by proposing an improvement for her constituency – the students.
Jason commented that to become more conscious of all the elements that occur simultaneously, we needed to become very aware of what is happening around us. The discussion that followed led to Jason volunteering to lead the next Club session in two weeks on “Awareness” strategies. In addition to teaching Communication at Touro, Jason is a professional actor, director, voice-over specialist and a sculptor.
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke


Hal Wicke
Deputy Chair/SGS
Department of Speech and Communication
Touro College
50 West 23rd Street - Suite 621
New York, NY 10010

212-242-4668 ext 6040

Sunday, May 4, 2008

Debate and Communication Club Meetings

Touro Communication Club Notes #25
As the semester comes to a close, this is a very busy time for everyone. The debate team is gearing up for a public presentation on Wednesday, May 28. This is a huge leap for every member of the team. But I am confident that they will do well. More details as they are confirmed.
Meantime, the Presidential campaigns continue with two important primaries this coming Tuesday in Indiana and North Carolina. These look to be make-or-break events for Senator Clinton in her attempt to catch Senator Obama in the delegate count. As of this writing, the Pastor Jeremiah Wright controversy, although not at the top of the news, is still a subject of conversation – even at Touro. Senator Clinton is looking to have her 21st debate with Senator Obama, although he is reluctant because he has a delegate lead.
If you watch the cable TV shows, you’d think that the Presidential campaign was the only thing happening in the world. Because of the explosion of news media in the last 20 years, each of us has to look at several sources to get a broader picture of what is happening in the world. Among the many headlines is the controversial Sean Bell decision, the Texas polygamy investigation, the leap in gas prices and the growing shortages of food.
Because of the enormous impact of the media as our principal filter of news, we will explore some of these issues in the upcoming “Bully Pulpit II: - The Media and the News.”
Here’s the upcoming schedule of the Communication Club is
Wednesday, May 7, 20081 pm – Club – “The Bully Pulpit Meets Politics”
Professor George Backinoff has a funeral to attend to that day, so Hal Wicke will lead the discussion. George’s original intention was to focus on how the media filters politics. Hal will start with politics and then, hopefully broaden the discussion to a range of topics that the audience is interested in.
Wednesday, May 14 – 1 pm -Debate Team
The team has set Wednesday, May 28 as the date for our public debate on Gun Control. That’s 2 weeks away. It’s during Finals period. We have much to do as we finalize the affirmative and negative cases and practice presenting them and enduring cross-examination. Now is the time to test our juggling ability!
What happened on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at the Debate Team?
We had an excellent turnout of 7 new and old debaters. Regulars Drani Gabu, Tetyana Averkina, Theresa Wright and James Millner welcomed 2nd timer Olushile Atkintade and newcomers Osa Ogieva and Jetante Morris (a Finalist in the 5th Speech Contest). Richard Green and David Nussbaum helped Hal Wicke to run the session.
After an intense review of the format of the lst Affirmative speech and the issues involving gun control, we divided into arbitrary teams who reviewed the issues and their strategies.
Drani and Theresa were the Affirmative team while James and Tetyana were the Negative team. Each side presented 2 2-minute Constructive speeches and 1 minute Cross-Examinations. There were no formal rebuttals.
After the tense 10 minute debate, the judges voted a tie. David Nussbaum thought the Negative Team won the debate, while Richard Green thought the Affirmative team won the debate. Following the decision, the group reviewed their experience and what they learned. I was impressed with the honesty and candor of everyone’s comments. This openness says a lot about the trusting atmosphere of the experience. With a supportive atmosphere, we can begin to raise our sights.
Then, in a brief encore debate, Olushile and Drani defended the Affirmative case while Jetante and Osa presented the Negative case. Tetyana coached the Negative Team during the prep session. The Affirmative team won the votes of both judges.
It is easy to see how the judges came up with different decisions in the first debate. Each listened for different things and came up with different conclusions. (Sounds like your daily life, doesn’t it?) In the debriefing, all the debaters were very nervous. That goes with the territory in each debate. Only with practice do the nerves subside; but they never disappear.
In post-debate conferences with Drani and James, Hal suggested that they write out their points rather than try to think on your feet. When Tetyana told Jetante to “Prepare more,” that was wise advice. “You sound like a teacher, Tetyana!” Hal exclaimed. But the advice remains true. The real question is “HOW” – and that takes practice. “Inch by inch is a cinch; yard by yard is hard,” says Rev. Robert Schuler.
We made significant strides today. Much more is to be accomplished, but several things are obvious –
  • dealing with nerves- more progress next time.
  • taking a “flow chart” of the opposing team’s case – these are the debater’s notes
  • using the research you’ve already collected – inserting it at the right time.
  • Creating and following a clear plan of what you are going to talk about. – an outline?
This part of learning debate is extremely hard and exhausting (my brain is about to explode, said someone.).I would say this is the hardest part of the entire experience – getting all the elements in your head. In order to succeed at this or anything else, staying with the process is crucial. If you quit now, climbing the same mountain gets harder.
Here is another review of the basic responsibilities of the Affirmative and Negative teams:
The Affirmative team must support the Resolution (“Resolved that New York State enact a law which prohibits the sale of hand guns, except for law officers.”) The basic rule of any debate is that the Affirmative must prove its case, that their ideas to change the status quo are the best.. Similar to the prosecuting attorney in a trial, the Affirmative team has the “burden of proof” to present arguments and issues that demonstrate that their position is the valid one.
As always, the Negative, like the defense attorney, has a Chinese menu of options
  • The Negative can say the Affirmative Team has failed to carry their ”burden of proof” – they dropped the ball. Listing point by point, the Negative could say that the Affirmative’s case was very weak because of “x-y-z” reasons.
  • The Negative can agree with the position but attack the Affirmative’s analysis or evidence or plan is inadequate;
Attack the Analysis – The Affirmative didn’t understand the current situation – the status quo – therefore they couldn’t prove their case.
Attack the Evidence – The Negative has equally valid evidence that contradicts and negative the Affirmative’s evidence, thus nullifying their position.
Attack the Plan – The Negative find enormous flaws in the Affirmative’s plan to carry out the resolution – financing, monitoring, black market, etc.
  • The Negative can attack the entire case, disagreeing with the resolution and everything else.
  • The Negative can tear apart the various Affirmative points and refute them one by one, with opposing arguments and evidence.
  • The Negative also has the option of agreeing with the Resolution and presenting an opposing analysis and plan that is superior to the entire case of the Affirmative team.
Affirmative Team Case Format
1st Affirmative
Amenities:
Statement of Resolution
Resolved: New York State enact a law which prohibits the sale of handguns with the exception of sale to law enforcement
Definition of terms of Resolution
Summary /History of topic – What is the status quo?
Establish Need
Why do we need the plan? (There are many, many more that this list!)
Safety
Reduce deaths
Reduce health care costs
Reduce/Control drugs, deaths/burglary
Accidental killings
One law is desirable – Why?
One law will make a coherent statewide plan for enforcement
Hard to enforce current laws
Summary/Review of Position
2nd Affirmative
Amenities
Summary of the lst Affirmative’s statement
Repair Case based on lst Negative’s attack
Explain the plan – how with the resolution work – (Needs to be developed much more)
1 Tougher penalties
2. Background checks
3. Stricter rules for manufacture
4. Funding
5. Quotas for manufacturers
6. PR campaign
7. Raise price
8. Destroy illegal guns
9. Database
10. Certification of gin stores
11. Control/eliminate black market
12. Enforcement agency
13. No imports
Join us as we try to promote more light than heat! See you next time. Bring a friend!
Hal Wicke