click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
PHL01_CO2_Set #4
đ¤đ2ď¸âŁ2ď¸âŁ PHL01_CO2_Set 4 â Debate Roles, Rules, and WW2 Prep - #4
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| First Speaker Role | Presents the argument on whether the measure is necessary or unnecessary; delivers a structured 4âminute speech and conducts a focused interpellation questioning the first speaker of the opposing side. |
| Second Speaker Role | Explains whether the measure is beneficial or harmful; delivers a 4âminute speech supported by evidence and conducts an interpellation targeting the second speaker of the opposing side. |
| Third Speaker Role | Argues whether the measure is practical, feasible, or doable; delivers a 4âminute speech and conducts an interpellation challenging the third speaker of the opposing side. |
| Researchers Role | Assist speakers in writing speeches, gathering evidence, crafting interpellation questions, and identifying fallacies committed by the opposing team. |
| Interpellation (Definition) | A structured questioning period where a speaker challenges the arguments, assumptions, or evidence presented by the opposing speaker. |
| Debate Format | Uses the OxfordâOregon format with three speakers per side, each focusing on necessity, beneficiality, and practicality. |
| Business Attire Requirement | Participants must wear formal business attire during the debate to maintain professionalism and seriousness of the academic exercise. |
| Written Work 2 Requirement | Students must submit compiled speeches and a documented list of fallacies committed by the opposing team as part of their graded output. |
| Debate Topics | Possible resolutions include sex education, abortion, sameâsex marriage, and divorce legalization in the Philippines. |
| Speech Criteria | Evaluated based on organization, clarity, relevance to the topic, and effectiveness of delivery. |
| Argument Criteria | Assessed on logical strength, persuasiveness, coherence, and use of evidence. |
| Interpellation Criteria | Judged on the quality, relevance, and strategic value of the questions asked during crossâexamination. |
| Answer Criteria | Measures how well a speaker responds to interpellation questions with clarity, logic, and confidence. |
| Purpose of Debate in CO2 | Develops critical and analytical thinking by requiring students to construct, defend, and evaluate arguments. |
| Spotting Fallacies | Researchers must identify errors in reasoning made by the opposing team and explain why each statement is fallacious. |
| Example of Interpellation | A speaker may ask the opponent to clarify assumptions, challenge evidence, or expose logical inconsistencies in their argument. |
| Why Structure Matters | A structured debate ensures fairness, logical flow, and equal opportunity for both sides to present and defend their arguments. |
| Role of Logic in Debate | Logical reasoning strengthens arguments and prevents fallacies that weaken credibility. |
| Role of Evidence in Debate | Evidence supports claims, increases persuasiveness, and reduces bias in argumentation. |
| Goal of CO2 | To enhance studentsâ ability to think critically, analyze arguments, and communicate ideas clearly and logically. |