This week we will be learning how to “flow” a debate and understanding the concepts of refutation/rejoinder. Your reply to this week’s assignment is due Sunday, May 5th by midnight. There are 3 prompts for you to respond to below. Please follow the detailed instructions below:
1.) Review SLU Chapter 11.ppt on “flowing” a debate. Flowing a debate is critical to keeping up with all the arguments inside a debate. I don’t expect you to memorize any or all of the shorthand offered in this PowerPoint, but you do want to get in good practice of learning how to write your opponent’s arguments in real time.
2.) Watch the video below “How to flow – By Triumph Debate” (17:06 long). You’ll notice the narrator discussing a couple different formats of debate (Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, and Policy for example). This video is still productive for you as a debater even though we are debating IPDA style debate because the same skills still apply. The big takeaway I want you to focus on in this video is writing in shorthand and outline format. The video will also discuss the importance of flowing. You are not expected to memorize the details in this video, but I do want to expose you to the intricacies of flowing in competitive debate. 
3.) Prompt A: reply to this discussion post by providing 3 tools the narrator from the video above speaks about on how to effectively flow in a debate round. Your response should be in 3 complete separate sentences.
4.) Review SLU Chapter 10.ppt
Actions on refutation and rejoinder. This PowerPoint is very important. You should already have a basic understanding of Toulmin Argumentation.ppt
Actions
from last week. Chapter 10 explains how to refute an argument in a debate.
5.) Watch the following IPDA debate in full “The United States Federal Government should significantly reform healthcare”:
6.) Prompt B: reply to this discussion post by first identifying an argument in the FIRST speaker (the Affirmative), then identify a refutation to that argument by the SECOND speaker (the Negative), and finally identify a rejoinder to the Negative’s refutation by the Affirmative speaker. Your response should be in complete sentences and at least a paragraph long. The point of this exercise is to notice how each debater SHOULD respond to their opponent’s arguments and NOT ignore them. If you ignore an argument, that argument is counted as “dropped” and now your opponent is winning that particular argument. 
7.) Prompt C: Finally, who do you think won this debate and why? Your response should be a minimum of 7 complete sentences and your justification should include using the arguments the debaters used in the round (not arguments you personally know that you think the debaters should have used). I highly recommend flowing the debate above so you don’t miss any arguments (use the skills you developed from the flowing video). Flowing will allow you to accurately judge the debate. As you think about who won the debate, consider these things: their use of evidence, persuasion speaking skills, structure/organization of speech, and argumentation/refutation skill. This prompt is meant to show you the back-and-forth nature of a good debate in how the debaters directly RESPOND to one another.
Chapter 11
Flowing
Flowing
• This chapter explains the importance of
debaters and judges taking notes during a
debate. Debaters call this process flowing a
debate. You will learn how to use a flow sheet
in flowing and will compare a completed flow
sheet to the actual debate that it flowed.
Importance of Notes
• To win in debate, you need to take good
notes. You have to remember the other team’s
arguments and the order in which they were
presented. You also need to jot down your
responses so that you can present them in an
organized manner. Taking organized notes is
important because you must be able to tell
the audience exactly where an argument fits
in the debate before you state your own
points.
Flowing a Debate
• Skilled debaters, audience members, and
judges use a flow sheet to follow the
progression of arguments in a debate. When
you write down the arguments in a debate,
you are “flowing the round.” You do this by
dividing a sheet of paper into columns—one
for each speech—and then write your notes
on each speech in its own column.
Flowing the Debate
• When the first speaker presents the
affirmative case, write down the main points
in the first column. Good debaters will
number the points they present so that
everyone can track the argument during the
debate. You should write down the arguments
regardless of the team you are on. Both sides
need to flow the entire debate.
Flowing the debate
• Make sure that you remain organized so that
the judge can flow the arguments. Many
judges will say a point for a team counts only
“if it gets written on the flow.” What this
means is that if the judge misses your
argument because you were disorganized in
your speech, you will have lost that point.
Shorthand
• Arguments can come very fast in a debate, so
you will not be able to write down every word.
Consequently, you need to find ways to
abbreviate words (also called shorthand) to
make sure you record all the information you
need. You may also use arrows (→) to show
where each argument fits into the debate.
Abbreviations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
agent of action
because
better
billion
contention
cost benefit analysis
criteria
decrease
Disadvantage
dollars
dropped
A of A
b/c
B
bil
C
CBA
Crit
↓
DA
$
[D]
Abbreviations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
enforcement
evidence
funding
greater than
impact
increase
inherency
is/equals
less than
linear
link
million
Enf
ev
fund
>
imp
↑
INH
=
< / L mil Abbreviations • not equal • not • number • Observation • policy • quantify • question • should not • should ≠  # O, obs P, pol Q ? s/n s/ Abbreviations • Significance • solvency • status quo • therefore • thousand • topicality • Uniqueness • voting issue • with • without sig sol SQ  K or M T U VI w/ w/o Exercise • Let’s flow! • https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=745&v=4 6FByEisQww Chapter 10 Refutation and Rejoinder Refutation • This chapter explains one of the most crucial parts of a good debate—refutation. Before refutation takes place, the two teams are really just presenting what they want you to know about their side of the issue. Refutation is when you show that your argument is stronger than your opponent’s or that your opponent’s argument is weaker than yours. 4-Step Model of Refutation (4 Rs) • 1.) Reveal • 2.) Repeat • 3.) Refute • 4.) Replace 1.) Reveal • Reveal where on the flow you are. If the judge doesn’t know where on the flow you are, you aren’t going to score any points. Revealing where on the flow you are makes the debate more organized and positions yourself to gain the maximum amount of points. You also look more organized which means you look more credible. 2.) Repeat • Repeat the argument you are going to refute. After you signpost where in the debate you are (reveal), you should briefly repeat the argument the other team made. Make sure you do this fairly and accurately or else you will not look credible and people will not give you credit for refuting an argument you manipulate to be something the other team did not say. 3.) Refute • Refute the argument. Explain what is wrong with the other team’s argument. Look to the claims, grounds, or warrants. You might say, “Their evidence is old; it is from two years ago.” If you have many reasons why the argument is flawed, let the judge know how many arguments you have and number each one (“I have four arguments against this point, first . . .”). 4.) Replace • Replace the argument with your argument. For example, “My evidence from two weeks ago proves the situation has changed from the time of their evidence.” Refutation Techniques • There are some standard refutation techniques that can do a lot of work for you. It is not a realistic expectation that you will have knowledge or content against every argument the other team makes. • Fortunately, refutation techniques can help you still be offensive/defensive on an argument without having specific knowledge. 1. Use signposting in the repeat phase • Signposting is when, at the beginning of the speech, you tell everyone the organization and order of your refutation. This is also called presenting a roadmap, because you are telling the judge, your teammate, the other debaters, and the audience the order of your arguments. 2. Clash in the refute phase • Clash means that the two teams are directly debating each other’s arguments. You want to clash with your opponent’s arguments. This is a technique used in the refute phase. When the other team does not clash with your arguments, you need to point that out to the judge. Remember, “Silence is admission.” If you don’t counter the other team’s arguments, you are agreeing with those arguments. 3. Employ direct refutation in the refute phase • Direct refutation is when you point out the flaws in the opponent’s argument. Sometimes you will go straight down your flow sheet in the same organization as the earlier speeches in the debate. When you say something about every point, this is called line-by-line refutation. 4. Group arguments in the replace phase • Grouping arguments is when you refute multiple arguments of the other team with only one argument of your own. If an entire contention is flawed because it is based on old evidence, you may defeat it with one argument attacking the relevance or reliability of the evidence. 5. Include impact in the replace phase • Impact is why the argument is important. You should always ask yourself, “What does this argument do for my position?” Use your answer to explain the impact to the judge. If the other team does not explain the impact of its argument, you should point that out to the judge. On-case versus Off-case • You can use two types of arguments during refutation: on-case and off-case. When the negative attacks the issues that were defended in the first affirmative speech, it is presenting an on-case argument. When the negative offers a new argument that does not directly address those the affirmative has presented but is a significant reason for rejecting the case or plan, it is presenting an off-case argument. On-Case • On-Case argumentation refers to affirmative team arguments that are related to their case. • For example, contentions in value debates are on-case argumentation because contentions support the affirmative team’s case. Off-Case • Off-Case argumentation refers to negative team arguments that are not directly refuting on-case argumentation but help reject the affirmative team’s advocacy. • For example, counter-contentions in value debates are off-case argumentation because counter-contentions reject the affirmative team’s advocacy. Rejoinder • Remember that both teams have a “burden of rejoinder” (to address the responses of the other team). A good debate is like a table tennis match: both teams keep returning the argument back to the other side. So, when it is your turn to speak, be sure that you give a rejoinder to the argument and do not just repeat it. Exercise • Read a newspaper editorial. Think of reasons why you might support the editorial and why you might reject it. Give a 1-minute speech about both sides. • http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinio n/sunday/are-college-lecturesunfair.html?ref=opinion Purchase answer to see full attachment