Location: UMDNJ-NJMS, MSB (Medical Sciences Building)
GENERAL OVERVIEW
Date: Saturday, May 11, 2013
Time: 9 A.M.- 5:30 P.M.
Cost: None
Location: UMDNJ-NJMS, MSB (Medical Sciences Building)
Transportation: If you have a problem with transportation, please contact Megana Dwarakanath. We can probably arrange for one of the University shuttles to bring you if you are in the area.
Contact: Megana Dwarakanath; E: ; C: (201) 841-1786
PURPOSE
First, thank you for interest in the first Health Care Reform Debates at UMDNJ. We feel fortunate to have so many schools interested in what we hope will be a recurring joint learning opportunity. Considering the scale of changes in health care reform and the relative immediacy of transitions, there is a substantial deficit in public awareness and understanding—one that equally affects future and current health care providers. We cannot conceive of better ambassadors to bridge the gap between the information and education than some of the most articulate young adults in the community.
One of the more challenging limitations of debate is that “the game” can function as an end unto itself, with the actual political political and social implications of the issues becoming secondary. We hope that we can provide a forum where these debates can be a meaningful form of advocacy and education. And together, we can encourage public dialogue in ways that are both engaging and accessible.
FORMAT
The debates will be Public Forum (PF) style, which minimizes jargon and should be readily accessible to a judging pool that reflects the general public. The judges will be medical students and faculty. Based on the range of experience levels across participating teams and the range of expertise among judges, we encourage students and coaches to focus on clarity and quality. The “Guide to Public Forum Debate” outlines the specifics of the debate, as well as the general format for arguments.
RESOLUTION
We were fortunate enough that health care reform topics were popular in the 2012-2013 academic year and will be using the March/April Public Forum topic.
Resolved: The U.S. Government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.
Teams should prepare two cases—one affirmative case upholding the resolution and one negative case opposing it.
EVIDENCE
In order to minimize the research burden on teams, we have provided a packet of evidence compiled by VictoryBriefs and graciously donated. While the analysis and evidence provides for a sufficient jumping-off point, we encourage outside research, since we believe that having students research and develop their own arguments provides for better understanding. The only caveat is that these arguments should be constructed with the same standards for evidence—proper citation is required (author, source, date).
FOR NEW TEAMS
We understand that learning the format, sorting through the unwieldy 100+ pages of analysis and evidence, and getting comfortable speaking in public can initially be very challenging for students. While the guides are helpful, we would like to support you through the preparation period as much as possible—both by reaching out to you weekly and visiting as our schedules allow (especially at the beginning). If you have any questions/concerns, please do not hesitate to get in touch.
ADAPTATION (or: how to win the hearts and minds of caffeinated, underslept judges)
With the judging pool composed primarily of medical students and some faculty, we again will be emphasizing clarity and quality over technical prowess. Therefore, we encourage some of the teams with more experience to potentially modify their approaches with this in mind.
Some recommendations:
1)Big picture over line-by-line: judges are likely going to be looking for a comprehensive story. One good way to accomplish this is to:
- summarize every argument in 1-2 sentences in your own words
- tie this to an overarching impact (financial meltdown, exploding Medicare costs)
2)Organization
This should have probably come first (and is true for any debate), but bottom line is not every judge is going to write down who responded to which arguments when (and, based on stereotypes, they might not be able to read what they wrote). The assessment will likely be qualitative and not quantitative. Therefore, students are encouraged to remind the judge what they are responding to, whether/not it was responded to, and how the argument functions in the hierarchy of what the judge should evaluate, which leads into...
3)Weighing Arguments
Again, since the judges should not have their own biases concerning what is important, students should set out a decision-making calculus for the judges. The last speech should lay out the important issues in the round in the first 1-2 minutes and then demonstrate how these issues are (hopefully) comparatively won.
4)Pace and Tone
Speaking at a conversational pace is recommended as is a generally respectful tone.
5)Statistics
This is likely one of the few judging pools where everyone is crazy about statistics (i.e. finds them more meaningful than the population at large by a factor of...name your favorite number). Having a good understanding of how studies are conducted will make your arguments more persuasive, since the judges are likely to be familiar with this. You can use this to your advantage as you see fit.
6)Examples
While LD debate focuses on analytic arguments, empirical arguments will likely be more persuasive/easier for judges to follow. If you can make it concrete, you can win it.
PRACTICE GUIDELINES
PREPARATION: DAY ONE
The analysis provided in the packet is certainly useful, but we encourage students/coaches to forge their own dialogue concerning the issues at stake. This could be a helpful strategy to generate unique arguments.
Before even opening the packet, we recommend gauging where students are in their understanding. The following set of questions could be an easier first lesson into the topic.
BIG PICTURE
- What do you know about health care reform?
- What does individual mandate mean?
- Where does individual mandate feature in the legislation?
- Why do you think the policy is getting introduced? What problems exist if people do not buy health insurance?
- Who profits from this policy? Who loses?
- What challenges do you think the government will face in getting the policy implemented? (It might be a good idea to think of a less abstract form of legislation—i.e. Mayor Bloomberg trying to restrict soft drink sizes).
- Can the government “make people” buy insurance? What would this mean for the role of government? Why might people support/resist this? Can you think of other examples where policies have increased the role of government?
AFFIRMING:
Because the resolution is written in the negative form, affirming can actually be accomplished in one of two ways:
1)by proving that individual mandate is inherently a bad idea or cannot be implemented or
2)suggesting a better alternative (i.e. the U.S. Government should not require health insurance but should require ____ instead)
Based on the interest of the students, either of these strategies is completely viable. The second requires a bit more outside research, but could be a creative way to affirm. There is a ton of readily-accessible literature on alternatives.
Some articles are listed below:
NEGATING:
There aren't a ton of ways to get around supporting individual mandate. In fact, there are none at all. Again, gauging students' understanding of why a policy like this may have come up might be useful before delving into the evidence.
Some questions to ask students:
- Why does the government need to require health insurance?
- Why doesn't everyone buy insurance?
- What are some reasons buying insurance shouldn't be a choice?
- What are the benefits of having everyone insured?
- What are the short-term and long-term effects of not having everyone insured?
JUMPING INTO THE EVIDENCE
If there is time, one of the best ways to break down the evidence presented is to simply go through the table of contents. Make a map/list of all the arguments (these are generally in italics) on both sides.
Ask the students which arguments are offensive (i.e. arguing to vote for this position) or defensive (i.e. arguing to vote against the other position)
Ask the students to evaluate which arguments could be the strongest to a judge. How would they tell a judge that these arguments are, in fact, the most important in the round?
Determine any questions students might have (i.e. what does it mean for a piece of legislation to be constitutional?)
STARTING WITH THE END IN MIND:
Before students begin writing cases, it might be helpful to spend the 20 minutes of practice having students put together 3-4 sentences which summarize the final arguments they want to win on both sides. What are the major ideas/the major story they want to tell the judge?