• Pay particular attention to discussions about the pros and cons of GMOs. 
• Think about it and try to develop your own philosophy relative to GMOs. 
• In your written essay: 
• develop a sentence or two that summarizes your philosophy on GMOs. 
• under the statement, present a bulleted list of the major reasons for this philosophy.

your philosophy may be pro, con or a combination of the two 

• Each group will meet for about 5 minutes. 
• They will draft a list of pro and/or con reasons.
• They will decide who will present the list.  Everyone in the group must participate in some manner.
• Background on a debate from the instructor for about 5 minutes.
• The instructor will briefly present the information on Backgound on Debate and the kinds or arguments and reasoning that is used in presenting one's case.
• The instructor will briefly present the information Outline of a Debate.  An abbreviated version will be developed for today's debate.
• Debate. The debate will be conducted for about 30 minutes according to the following sequence.  Five minutes maximum for each step.
• Pro GMO Group:  presents their pro reasons, and list them on the board

(First Affirmative Constructive Speech, 1AC)
• Con GMO Group: cross examines the Pro Group and ask questions of clarification of  list

(Second Negative Speaker Cross Examines 1AC)
• Con GMO Group: presents their con reasons, and lists them on the board

(First Negative Constructive Speech, 1NC)
• Pro GMO Group: cross examines the Con Group and ask questions of clarification of  list

(First Affirmative Speaker Cross Examines 1NC)
• Pro GMO Group: answers criticism of the Con Group, and introduces new arguments.

(Second Affirmative Constructive Speech, 2AC)
• Con GMO Group: answers criticism of the Pro Group, and introduces new arguments

(Second Negative Constructive Speech, 2NC)
• All shake hands and have a seat
• Each students hands in their "vote" of which groups they think "won" the debate.

Debate is an inherent part of democracy and is used in many phases of life. Presidential candidates such as Lincoln and Douglas as well as Kennedy and Nixon used it in campaigning. Congress, state legislators and boards of aldermen debate the laws which are being considered for enactment. Educators as well as investigators debate the soundness of conclusions. Those participating in discussion will often use debate when discussing "What is the best solution? "In any phase of life, when confronted with solving problems, people will often find debate a superior method of testing solutions in order to discover the best. So important is debate within a democracy and in solving daily problems, that progressive high schools and colleges have well developed programs of formal interscholastic debate. Such progressive educators know that training in debate is training in argument, that training in argument is training in logic, and that logic is the basis of critical thinking. 

Rhetorical Criticism. Criticism may be defined as the process of evaluating the worth of a thing. This is the meaning of the word, particularly when we are thinking of criticism of art, literature, or speaking. In the last half century great advances have been made in the area of rhetorical criticism, which may be defined as the study of great speeches and great speakers of the past. Experts in the field of rhetoric and public address have studied these works and made critical evaluations of them. Examples of these can be found in the three volumes of History and Criticism of American Public Address.' True criticism is impartial and objective in nature; it makes great use of the reasoning processes but avoids advocacy. At most, arguments tend to be limited to those necessary to support the critic's conclusions on the worth of the speeches or the eminence of the speaker. The student of argumentation, on the other hand, if she/he can remove tendencies toward advocacy, can be a better critic for having studied the reasoning processes. In fact, some of the better courses preparing an individual for graduate study are logic and argumentation. 

Evidence. Evidence is any matter of fact used in gaining the belief or changing attitudes of others. It is any factual matter used to prove a proposition. Reasoning is a process of drawing conclusions from facts or truths. We often call the conclusion drawn by this process inference. When an inference is drawn from facts or truths and used to gain belief or change attitudes, we have the process of argument. Thus, evidence is a dominant element of argument. A distinction may be made between the use of evidence for argument and the use of facts in general study. Argument is a process of communication, a process of gaining the belief of other people, and facts are necessary to it. In general study and in discussion where we are not trying to change attitudes, facts are used to substantiate conclusions. Here the process is one of reasoning from facts to conclusions. The advocate, then, uses the same process as we do in general study but be demonstrates her/his process to an audience or to listeners in order to influence them. 

Deductive Reasoning.  Deductive reasoning is that form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from premises. The following is an example of deductive reasoning, but are not necessarily free from fallacies. Any form of government which destroys freedom of speech and freedom of press, and does not allow the people to elect their own representatives, is a bad form of government. 

Causal Reasoning.  Causal reasoning is that form of reasoning in which an individual demonstrates that an event that happens first has the means, power, facilities, and/or desire to produce a second event. We often suggest to a friend, "You'll got wet because it is raining. "In this case, we are suggesting a certain conclusion, namely, that the person will get wet. This is our proposition to be proved. Our support or proof for the proposition is the statement that it is raining. Or, again, we may argue, "Since you have the measles, you must have caught them from Johnny Frank; you were playing with her/him the day be was becoming sick with the measles. "The actual process of causal reasoning in its simplest form is merely the statement of either a cause or an event as sufficient support for the whole reasoning process. This Was -true in the first case where the individual cited rain as the obvious reason why one would get wet. In most of your speaking, however, your causal reasoning will take the form of explaining why the cause produces the means, the power, the facilities, and/or the desire to result in the effect suggested, as previously stated. For example, if you are an advocate of guaranteed annual wages, and you are trying to develop the proposition that guaranteed annual wages will bring greater security for the workman, you will point out why this will be the case. 

Reasoning from Analogy.  As we have said, reasoning from analogy is that form of reasoning in which it is demonstrated that what occurred in one situation will occur in a similar situation. In its simplest form we merely suggest to an audience that what happened there will happen here. We are assuming, of course, that the two situations are similar. The following is the diagram of this reasoning process: 

Induction. Induction can be used effectively in gaining the belief of people on propositions of past or present fact or value. Should you, as an advocate, desire to show that "evils exist in the present system, "or that "we are confronted with a problem, "inductive reasoning will often be a superior method in persuading others. On the other hand, if you choose to defend the present system or policy, induction may be your best weapon. In this case you will inductively prove that advantage one, advantage two, and so on exist. Almost without exception, historical trends are proved by the inductive process. Public opinion polls are the result of inductive surveys. Much of the research in both the sciences and the social sciences has been verified by the inductive process. There are times when you will be confronted with the task of proving the workability of some policy or course of action. Induction may be used if that policy or course of action has had widespread adoption and use in the past. Humankind has come to accept universal laws and truths because of the frequent inductive verification of them. Such is the case wit "All women/men die, "Honesty is the best policy, "and "Democracy preserves the greatest amount of freedom for humankind. "You, too, may find induction a valuable tool in developing propositions of a similar nature. 

Refutation. Refutation is that process of communication in which an individual directly attacks the arguments of others in order to reduce the effectiveness and influence of those arguments upon audiences. Refutation is employed in courtroom trials both by the defense attorney, who uses it to weaken the arguments which could convict her/his client, and by the prosecuting attorney, who must refute any new arguments brought into the trial by the defense attorney and also be prepared to counter refute the refutation of the defense attorney. In legislatures those who are opposed to the passage of bills will use refutation to try to weaken the arguments for their passage. Those in favor of the bill will refute any arguments brought up by the opposition and will also counter refute the refutation to their own. So it will be whenever differences of opinion arise and individuals become strong advocates of their own points of view. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH (1AC)
8 minutes 
There is a problem that could be solved - SIGNIFICANCE, HARM, ADVANTAGE 
Here is our specific proposal of what ought to be done - PLAN 
Our plan will solve the problem/harm - SOLVENCY 

SECOND NEGATIVE SPEAKER CROSS EXAMINES 1AC
3 minutes 
   1. Ask question to help you understand their arguments. GET INFORMATION 
   2. Ask questions to set up your arguments to come. USE ANSWERS AGAINST THEM LATER 
   3. Show the judge what a wonderful person you are. ACT LIKE A POLITE, FRIENDLY PERSON. 

FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH (1NC)
8 minutes 
Attacks affirmative and begins laying out additional issues negative 
Make arguments against the specifics of the aff case. CASE ARGUMENTS. 
Argue that if the plan is adopted bad things will happen. DISADVANTAGES. 
Argue that the fundamental assumptions of the affirmative are flawed/incorrect. CRITIQUE. 
Argue that the plan is not a representation of the topic. TOPICALITY. 
Argue that there would be a better alternative to the plan. COUNTERPANE 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE SPEAKER CROSS EXAMINES 1NC
3 minutes 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH (2AC)
8 minutes 
Defend aff positions, attack negative positions, last chance to introduce new issues for aff. 
Argue that the disadvantages are really reasons to vote affirmative. TURNS. 
Argue that the counter plan and the affirmative plan can co-exist. PERMUTATIONS. 
FIRST NEGATIVE SPEAKER CROSS EXAMINES 2AC 
3 minutes 

SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH (2NC)
8 minutes 
Attack aff positions, defend negative positions, last chance to introduce new issues for the neg. 
2NC and 1NR should cover different issues. DIVISION OF LABOR. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE SPEAKER CROSS EXAMINES 2NC
3 minutes 

FIRST NEGATIVE REBUTTAL (1NR)
4 minutes 
Attack aff positions, defend negative positions. . DIVISION OF LABOR. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL (1AR)
4 minutes 
Answer all negative issues, defend aff positions. 

SECOND NEGATIVE REBUTTAL (2NR)
4 minutes 
Select winning issues and sell them to critic. WEIGH THE ISSUES. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL (2AR)
4 minutes 
Select winning issues and sell them to critic. WEIGH THE ISSUES. 
Teams are given a total of 5-10 minutes prep time to use before their speeches. It is different at different tournaments. 

Shake Hands.