Thursday, 27 February 2020

Earth Day Megaconference 2020


What: Clean Energy Debate(s)
When: April 20, 21, 22, or 23
How: Video conference 
Who: Student ages approximately 17&18

Please note: At least one of these debates will be scheduled on April 22 as part of "Earth Day Megaconference!" - a 12 hour stretch of environmentally focused live video conference programming coordinated by Video Conference for Global Learning in collaboration with many partners, including Internet2, Zoom, Vscene and many wonderful individuals in the field! (more info about "Earth Day Megaconference" soon)
Building on previous work of those involved in the Global Alternative Energy Debate, we are offering coordination for, and moderation of, the third iteration of the “Clean Energy Debates.” Our goal is to promote discussion and education about the Global Climate Disruption impact of our energy source choices. For the debate, one school will be assigned the affirmative and the other school will be assigned the negative on the following proposal:

Proposed:
The world should move to solely clean, non-nuclear, renewable energy sources by 2030”
While we suggest the following “agenda” for a debate lasting approx. 70 minutes, paired teachers may seek to mutually agree to modifications. (but should do so in advance of the date of their debate and in consultation with debate moderator René Carver)
  • 5 minutes – audio video verification, welcome, introductions, recap of etiquette guidelines
  • 10 minutes – School-A school - affirmative school - makes its ‘constructive’ speech that presents research-based arguments
  • 10 minutes – School-B - negative school - makes its ‘constructive’ speech that presents research-based arguments
  • 15 minutes -  lively ‘cross-examination’ period, between constructive speeches, where schools ask each other questions about their research and respective positions
  • 10 minutes – School-A makes its ‘rebuttal’ speech that advances a strategically relevant portion of its arguments while responding to the other team’s answers.
  • 10 minutes – School-B makes its ‘rebuttal’ speech that advances a strategically relevant portion of its arguments while responding to the other team’s answers.
  • 10 minutes – convivial closing.  Open discussion. Appreciative remarks from both sides.

Our goal is for students to educate themselves as much as possible about:
  • energy consumption levels, current and projected
  • methods of energy consumption reduction
  • “start to finish” environmental impacts of energy sources; solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, heat exchange systems, coal, nuclear, gas, oil, hydro-power
  • Current and projected production levels for each energy source
  • Micro and macro options for all of those
  • Energy storage potential, micro and macro scale

PREPARATION:
1) We encourage each side to prepare well enough to sway the argument to their point of view. We have not constructed this in a manner to evaluate or declare a “winner” of the debate. The level of “winning” is determined by the level of learning about required action to ensure a viable future. To that end, we encourage paired schools to share their research resources prior to the debate as a means of promoting learning and discussion.

2) Plan to orchestrate/participate in a test call with your assigned partner class and the moderator!

3) Organizers will do their best to match registrants with partner classes, and will create those matches as sites register to participate.

REGISTRATION:
Pleaser register at this link: https://tinyurl.com/cleanenergy2020 or send email to René Carver, newyorkdl@gmail.com

As further background, plus a note of appreciation and attribution, we used ideas from the Cornell University Speech and Debate Society’s website regarding “Policy Debates”

Policy debate, also called Cross Examination debate, is one of the oldest formats of collegiate debate practiced in the U.S. ....... Each debater speaks twice: a ‘constructive’ speech that presents research-based arguments and a ‘rebuttal’ speech that advances a strategically relevant portion of those arguments while responding to the other team’s answers. Each debate round also involves a lively ‘cross-examination’ period, between constructive speeches, where debaters ask each other questions. The affirmative team typically recommends a plan of action that proves by example that the resolution is true. The negative team will often try to prove that the affirmative proposal is unworkable and disadvantageous. Both affirmative and negative teams will also sometimes engage in broader discussions about the paradigms and norms that inform the understanding of the resolution. In these cases, arguments will be introduced that make use of philosophy, communications theory, and cultural studies. Policy debate involves advance strategy, cultivates critical thinking skills, and trains students to make use of cutting-edge academic theory in a wide variety of disciplines.

No comments:

Post a comment