Total Users: 241 | Total Files: 6, 581+

Stefan Bauschard

Classes and Learning Objectives — Bauschard

PF 204-3 — 9-12-18 Today three of the students presented contentions from constructive speeches they worked on and a fourth shared some evidence cards that he found. We reviewed the contentions and arguments with an emphasis on four things. Common Core Standards Does the evidence match the tagline/claim the debaters associated with the evidence?  CSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.8.8 “Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is sound and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; recognize when irrelevant evidence is introduced.” Does the evidence have reasons? We worked to identify the reasons/lack of reasons in some of the quotations/pieces of evidence. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.8.1 9.10.1  Cite the textual evidence that most strongly supports an analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RI.9-10.8 “Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, assessing whether the reasoning is valid and the evidence is relevant and sufficient; identify false statements and fallacious reasoning.” Does Is the evidence qualified? We discussed how some of the authors of the evidence were not especially qualified.  All students were encourage to find better evidence, using the search techniques we discussed in the last class. CSS.ELA-Literacy.W.8.8 “Gather relevant information from multiple print and digital sources, using search terms effectively; assess the credibility and accuracy of each source; and quote or paraphrase the data and conclusions of others while avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation.” General —  CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.9-10.7 “Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question (including a self-generated question) or solve a problem; narrow or broaden the inquiry when appropriate; synthesize multiple sources on the subject, demonstrating understanding of the subject under investigation.” We also generally discussed the use of “market’ references in much of the Con evidence the Con found and how that could be used as Pro evidence on a topic about public health services. Student feedback C prepared a pretty well-reasoned case with some paraphrased and some quoted evidence. I encouraged her to use more quoted evidence and to work on the consistence between the health impacts to discrimination and the case. M prepared a pretty well researched case, though I encouraged her to improve the quality of her sources and to carefully consider the whether or not the “market’ evidence belonged on the Con. She also produced a lot of good evidence at the end of the document that she tagged well.  Again, some source quality improvements could be made. L added some great inequality impacts to his case, but I pointed out the missing internal link between health care spending and inequality. We worked to find that evidence as well as increase the explanation in the second contention. W provided some quality evidence and is working to build it into a contention PF 203-1 9-4-18 Today we covered an explanation of all of the arguments related to the debate topic. Learning Objectives Students will develop a strong understand of all of the major

Gene Editing Topic Vocabulary

Gene Editing Topic Intro  Gen Editing Topic PPT Gene Editing Vocabulary CRISPR.  This is the gene editing technology that has been developed now. Gene editing. Gene editing simply refers to making changes in human genes that change the genetic make-up of a living organism Germline editing. The germline refers to the genes on the reproductive line — sperm, eggs, embryos. Editing the germline is uniquely controversial because those edits impact future generations.  In 2016, Chinese scientists made the first germline edits. Off-target.  This refers to what happens when scientists edit genes but end up with a result that is not what is intended. Many of the negative arguments about the negative consequences of gene editing are talking about off-target editing. Public health services.  Public health services are health services that are either provided by or overseen by the the government. Genetic disease.  A genetic disease is a disease that one is likely to develop based on their genes. Gene mutation.  An unexpected change in the make-up of the gene. Designer babies.  The idea of a designer baby is based on the idea that we could essentially design babies at birth who would be born with a certain genetic make-up. Off-target.  If a gene is editing the wrong way, there could be off-target effects that produce unintended negative consequences.   Related Vocabulary Libertarianism. Libertarianism is the idea that the government should exist only to protect the security of its people. Libertarians would object to public health services from a values perspective.   A popular libertarian website is misses.org  

image

Argument Comparisons and Weighing Mechanisms

In the final speeches of the debate, it is important that all debaters weigh arguments – that they compare their arguments against their opponents’ arguments and then explain why their arguments are more important than their opponents’ arguments. Traditionally, debaters use a number of “weighing mechanisms” to compare arguments. Magnitude.  Magnitude is the simples of the weighing mechanisms to understand, as it simply asks which argument has the biggest impact.  If the Pro’s advocacy saves 500 lives but kills 200 people according to the Con, the Pro will argue they outweigh on magnitude.  Magnitude is a simple utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest number) impact calculus and helps to explain why debaters are always searching for large impacts. Probability.  Probability simply relates to how likely an impact is to happen. For example, if the Pro’s advocacy  (perhaps increasing employment) could lead to increased wages and increased jobs, but how likely is it that inflation will result and how likely is it that greater inflation will lead to an economic downturn?  Public Forum debaters often try to quantify these impacts in terms of percentages (there is a 2% chance that arms races trigger war, for example), but most risks are difficult to quantify and convincing anyone that something is a big enough risk to worry about involves persuasion, which is a core part of debate. Time frame. Time frame just speaks to which impact happens first.  For example, economic development may increase employment and reduce poverty in the short-term but trigger global warming and environmental decline in the long-term.  Debaters will argue that the impact that happens first should be prioritized, as we can always try to address other impacts later. Plus, we should try to live as long as we can J Reversability. There are two ways to think about reversibility.  First, is an impact reversible? For example, death is not reversible but broken arms and some forms of environmental damage are reversible. Economic decline is almost always reversible J. Second, does one impact reverse another impact?. For example, if the Pro’s advocacy causes economic decline, the Con can argue that it makes any impact the Pro claims to solve for (health problems, racism, etc) worse.  This is often expressed as, “our impact turns their impact…” Moral side constraint.  Some debaters will argue that we have a “moral obligation” to support their advocacy, regardless of the consequences.  This is a simple Kantian “moral side constraint” argument. Scope.  While the impact framing methods discussed above apply to all events, discussions of “scope” as a “weigh mechanism” only occur in Public Forum.  Scope deals with how many people are affected as compare to how many people die (which a magnitude claim usually gets at). So, for example, a policy may cause 100 broken arms, negatively affecting many people, but no one dies. In a straight comparison on any of these tests, the team that is ahead will win.  So, for example, if one team’s argument has a larger magnitude than another team’s

Topic Prep Course

Class 1 — Topic introduction lecture, discussion of contention ideas Homework: Write a contention Free topic essay Free topic bibliography Class 2 — Review 1st contentions work on second contentions, lesson on search engines (Bing, Baidu, Google), lesson on sample evidence, more topic brainstorming Homework: Finish second contention Class 3 — Review cases, practice cases, practice crossfire, discuss rebuttals Homework:  Start rebuttal prep Class 4 — Practice rebuttals against specific contentions, advanced rebuttal techniques instruction, crossfires Homework: Work on more rebuttals against contentions Class 5 — Practice rebuttals against specific contentions, crossfires, crossfire practice Homework: Work on more rebuttals against contentions Class 6 — Practice debates through rebuttals and crossfire — one on each side, feedback Homework: Improvements as suggested Class 7–  Summary speeches & weighing, practice weighing Homework: Start Summary speeches Class 8 — Summary speech practice, improvements; weighing mechanisms practice Homework: Weighing mechanisms exercise Class 9 — Topic revisit — cover other arguments on the topic we haven’t covered yet; check for understanding Homework: Adjust cases and rebuttal briefs Class 10 — Practice debate, feedback Class 11 — Practice debate, feedback (switch sides) Class 12 –How to win debates on turns, practice and execution Class 13 — Prepping crossfire questions Class 14 — Practice debate Class 15 — Final and review Learning Objectives Students will develop a strong understand of all of the major arguments on the debate topic. Students will learn how to research and write their own constructive speeches. Students will learn how to prepare their own rebuttal briefs on the topic and practice rebuttals against major arguments Students will develop their crossfire skills and practice crossfire questions on the topic. Students will develop their Summary speech skills and learn how to create Summary speeches on the topic. Students will develop their Final focus speech skills and learn how to create Final Focus speeches on the topic. Students will learn how to develop framework arguments, answer framework arguments, and weigh arguments. Students will develop flowing skills. Students will develop advanced strategies (as appropriate for experience level) that can be applied to any topic.

NSDA China Demo Classes

In cooperation with NSDA China, Global Academic Commons offers the following demonstration classes. Please register for the courses at [email protected] Topic Preparation This demonstration course is designed for students who already know the basics of Public Forum debate and wish to work on preparing for tournament competition.  The following will be covered during this course – 5 minutes — Introductions and getting to know the students 10 minutes — Very basic discussion of the topic 20 minutes — Key definitions and what the different definitions mean for the topic 10 minutes — Review Q & A 5 minutes — break 20 minutes — Quick discussion of major Pro arguments 20 minutes — Quick discussion of major Con arguments The lecture and discussion will be adapted to the general experience level of the students Introduction to Debate This demonstration course is designed for students who do not have previous experience with speech and debate and wish to work on learning the basics. For high school students, we will use the Fall NSDA China topic (gene editing) as an example. For elementary and middle school students, we will use school uniforms as the example topic. The following will be covered during this course – 5 minutes — Introductions and getting to know the students 10 minutes —What is debate and why do we do it? 15 minutes — What are the basic components of an argument? 15 minutes — Discuss with students as to what constitutes an argument. Students will give the instructor an example and we will work with the students to develop parts of an argument 5 minutes — break 5 minutes — Review Q & A 10 minutes — Introduction to sample topic 10 minutes — Generating arguments using the sample topic 10 minutes — How to construct a basic contention 5 minutes —  Review Q & A Introduction to Public Speaking This demonstration course is designed for students who do not have previous experience with public speaking and wish to work on learning the basics. For high school students, we will use the Fall NSDA China topic (gene editing) as an example to write a persuasive speech. For elementary and middle school students, we will use school uniforms as the example topic to write a basic speech. The following will be covered during this course – 5 minutes — Introductions and getting to know the students 10 minutes —What is public speaking and why is it important? 15 minutes — What are the key philosophies/ides behind public speaking? 15 minutes — The major parts of a speech 5 minutes — break 5 minutes — Review Q & A 10 minutes — Introduction to sample topic 10 minutes — Outline — students will outline the major parts of an introduction for the topic 10 minutes — Outline — students will outline the major parts of the body for the topic 5 minutes —  Review Q & A        

image

Resolved: Public health services should expand access to gene editing technologies (Bibliography))

[Topic introduction,  PPT General — Background Everything You need to Know about CRISPR and Gene Editing (MIT Technology Review) Experts debate the risks of human gene editing Potential Benefits and Ethical Implications of Gene Editing (Fox News) A Technique that lets scientists edit DNA is changing things Gene Editing Technique Could transform the future (BBC) Gene editing: The next frontier in America’s abortion wars (Politico) Scientists debate ethics of gene editing (Guardian) Pro — Gene Editing Good Gene Editing Isn’t About Designer Babies — It’s About Hope (The Guardian) DNA surgery successfully cures diseases (Miami Herald) Gene Editing Prevents Inherited Disease (UK NIH) Gene Editing is like Playing God: And What’s wrong with that? (The Guardian) Why human genetic editing must not be stopped (The Guardian) Con — Gene Editing Bad Open letter calls for ban on human germ line editing How CRISPR and gene editing could ruin human evolution (Time) Gene editing has off-target effects that researchers have been  ignoring Can CISPR technologies be used in biological warfare? (IB Times) Gene editing poses inescapable ethic problems (Catholic News) Will editing your genes be mandatory? (The Atlantic)  

image

Resolved: Public health services should expand access to gene editing technologies (Introduction)

[Bibliography, PPT, Gene Editing Topic Vocabulary] Introduction The Fall 2018 Public Forum debate topic for NSDA China is, Resolved: Public health services should expand access to gene editing technologies. In this essay we break-down and discuss they key terms, essential background information, and introduce Pro and Con arguments. As will discussed throughout the essay, there are two key issues on this topic — are gene editing technologies desirable and should they be accessible through public health services? Different Pro and Con teams will emphasize different aspects of that debate. Resolution Terms There are three key terms in the resolution and we will discuss them in the order that will help you best understand the meaning of all three Gene Editing Technologies In order to understand what gene editing technologies are it is important to understand what genes are (or to recall, if you already know). (Genes are) the biological templates the body uses to make the structural proteins and enzymes needed to build and maintain tissues and organs. They are made up of strands of genetic code, denoted by the letters G, C, T and A. Humans have about 20,000 genes bundled into 23 pairs of chromosomes all coiled up in the nucleus of nearly every cell in the body. Only about 1.5% of our genetic code, or genome, is made up of genes. Another 10% regulates them, ensuring that genes turn on and off in the right cells at the right time, for example. The rest of our DNA is apparently useless. “The majority of our genome does nothing,” says Gerton Lunter, a geneticist at the University of Oxford. “It’s simply evolutionary detritus.” What are all those Gs, Cs, Ts and As? The letters of the genetic code refer to the molecules guanine (G), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and adenine (A). In DNA, these molecules pair up: G with C and T with  [The Guardian] Genetic diseases result when there is an inappropriate mutation in a cell. Gene editing allows the gene that underlies the mutation to be edited — changed or replaced –t0 eliminate the problematic mutation. Patronus Medical, http://blog.patronusmedical.com/the-benefits-of-gene-editing The Benefits of Gene Editing In many cases, genetic diseases occur when a mutation appears inside a cell. Although researchers have been able to identify which cells the mutations occurred in, little could have been done to repair the defective genes. Gene editing allows doctors to use specialized molecular tools to remove, repair or replace damaged genes with a healthy copy. Although the technology is still a bit far off from being used regularly by medical professionals worldwide, animal trials have been successful. In fact, a team of Chinese scientists will be the first to test gene-edited cells in human patients this month. CRIPSR, or “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats,” is the most advanced and effective gene-editing technique being utilized by scientists. CRISPR is inexpensive, easy to use and precise. Gene modifications using CRISPR have extended from corn and rice to mice and pigs…..While scientists have long

image

A universal basic income will not promote gender equality — some cards

A UBI will not solve gender inequality and could reinforce some of its worst patterns Smith& Shanahan, March 7, 2018, https://theconversation.com/is-a-basic-income-the-solution-to-persistent-inequalities-faced-by-women-92939 Mark Smith, Dean of Faculty & Professor of Human Resource Management, Grenoble École de Management (GEM) Genevieve Shanahan, Etudiante PhD, Grenoble École de Management (GEM) The unequal division of labour in the home is perhaps the root cause of much gendered inequality. An unconditional basic income means there is no requirement that the recipient perform any care work, meaning that men who do very little at home would still get the same payment. On the one hand, those who work more, relying on others to do the care work, would effectively contribute to carers receiving basic income via their taxes. As basic-income advocates highlight, _everyone _relies on the unpaid care work disproportionately performed by women – basic income might thus be a way to address the freeriding of those who fail to do their fair share. On the other hand, a basic income might serve to entrench the gendered division of unpaid labour, encouraging those with home-care responsibilities to further withdraw from the labour market. This concern is not limited to basic income: in Sweden, a subsidy to support parents caring for their own child at home faced strong opposition as a “trap for women”. A decision for the lowest-paid workers – often woman – to withdraw might seem rational at the household level and in the short term. However, this apparently autonomous choice then combines with pay inequality, gendered disadvantages and cultural biases, leading to problematic outcomes for the woman in the medium to long term and at the societal level. The value unpaid work for society A basic income could be regarded as one that truly values unpaid care work by recognising the non-market nature of the activity and its interaction with cultural and ideological influences. Indeed even sceptics recognise that such a payment would be more transparent than disguised subsidies for carers in receipt of unemployment benefits as a source of income. A basic income could also be a way to free up the gendered division of labour in the home for a more equal society. However, those same cultural and ideological influences are also a “force” that leads to women – even the well-paid ones in full-time work – doing more of the unpaid work in the home. Proponents of gender equality argue that real change requires a rebalancing of the distribution of labour both inside and outside the home, but so far progress on the latter has outstripped the former. This leaves women with a “double shift”. So a basic income, even for proponents, should perhaps only understood as one element of a wider package of policies aimed at reducing inequalities whether by age, class, education or gender. Part of the solution or a risk? Ultimately, a basic income might be an effective way to treat some of the symptoms of wage inequality and unequal access to the labour market. However, it does not

image

UBI Topic Resources

General/Background Intro essay — Should countries of the world adopt a UBI? UBI Argument Outline Pro UBI, freedom, and what it means to radically change your idea of work In support of UBI — Answering opposition economy arguments UBI, the Protection of Gender Equality, and the State interest Con A UBI will not promote gender equality