•Formal type of argumentation•Intelligent exchange of points between the affirmative and negative sides

In debate Proposition

Proposition Topic or issue that is argued upon

In exploring Do some to Takesome Utilize down Do Referthe ORGANIZED library-it’s the interviews thesource notes! first web research!

introduction discussion conclusion Parts of an argument

To arouse the To explaininterest of the the audience proposition introductionTo state the To state theissues to be parameters of debated the debate

REMEMBER!You should arouse the attention of your audience.

How?Make them seethat the topic is important.

How? Show them thatthe topic is timely.

How?Preserve afavorable attitude.

REMEMBER! Second aim ofintro is to explain the proposition.

How? Define all importantwords. (1st A)

How? Set theparameters/ limit of the debate (1st A)

How?The whole ideamust be clearly explained.

How? Present a shortbut lively history of the topic.

REMEMBER! Third aim ofintro is to state the ISSUES.

UNDERSTAND ISSUES are thequestions that when answered, may destroy a side.

UNDERSTAND ISSUES are thequestions that when answered, may destroy a side.

TEST FOR ISSUESResolved that the K+12be implemented inSPCIS. (PROPOSITION) •How would the proposition affect SPCIS? The students?

TEST FOR ISSUESResolved that the K+12be implemented inSPCIS. (PROPOSITION) •Is there really a need to implement the proposition?

introduction discussion conclusion Parts of an argument

OPPOSING SIDES Affirmative Negative

Burden of proofProve all aspects of the caseCannot win based on inabilityof the negative

Burden of rebuttalMust destroy either thenecessity, beneficiality andpracticability of (+)Cannot discuss anything theaffirmative didn’t discuss

NECESSITYBENEFICIALITYPRACTICABILITY

NON-NECESSITYNON-BENEFICIALITYNON-PRACTICABILITY

Need for the propositionDiscusses thepresence/absence of aninherent flaw in the statusquo

Discusses theadvantages ordisadvantages ofadopting or rejectingthe resolution

feasibility of a propositionincludes matter of:*law *clamor *finance

Constructive speechInterpellationRebuttal

Constructive speechpresentation of each team member’s arguments and evidence for each aspect of the case

Interpellation The opportunity forthe opposing debater to ask questionsregarding the speech of the speaker

Rebuttal The summary anddefense of each team’s arguments and evidence, to be delivered by the team captain

Speaker roles1A speaker-NECESSITY1N speaker-NONNECESSITY

Speaker roles2A speaker-BENEFICIALITY2N speaker-NONBENEFICIALITY

Speaker roles3A speaker-PRACTICABILITY3N speaker-NONPRACTICABILITY

Outline of speech-1AI. IntroductionII. State the proposition,and task of each memberA. Define the termsB. Give the status quo

Outline of speech-1A-what is the status quo?-what’s wrong with it?C. State your standIII. CaselineA. State all your argumentsfirst

Outline of speech-1AB. Go back, then strengtheneach oneC. Always give transition.IV. Conclusion

Outline of speech-1NI. IntroductionII. State the proposition,Negate or show clashtowards it.III. Rebut the 1st speakers’arguments

Outline of speech-1NIV. Caseline-same as thecomponents of caselineof 1Av. Conclusion

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A BENCH TRIAL AND A JURY TRIAL?The U.S. court system has two different types of trials: bench trials and jury trials. Knowing the

differences between the two, and the benefits and drawbacks of each, is an important part of

preparing an effective trial strategy when faced with legal matters.

Bench TrialsA bench trial takes place in front of a judge only; there is no jury involved. The judge is both the

finder of fact and ruler on matters of law and procedure. This means that the judge decides the

credibility of the evidence presented at trial and also decides what happens at the trial according

to laws and rules of procedure.

A bench trial can be beneficial when people want a speedy resolution to a legal matter. Bench

trials usually take less time than jury trials because the attorneys do not need to go through the

jury selection and instruction process. Bench trials also tend to be slightly less formal than jury

trials. A bench trial may also be useful in particularly complex cases that a jury might not

understand.

The drawback to a bench trial is that there is only one finder of fact, so there is not the

opportunity that exists in jury trials for at least one person to agree with a given side.

Jury TrialsIn a jury trial, a jury composed of members of the community is present at the trial to act as the

finder of fact. The jury listens to the evidence that each side presents during the trial and renders

a verdict based on how persuasive each side's evidence is. The judge handles questions of law

and procedure during a jury trial, such as addressing attorneys' objections to questions or

evidence or ruling on motions that the attorneys make.

The benefit of a jury trial is juries do not need to answer to anyone for the decisions they make,

whereas judges may be influenced by the fact that they face re-election or review from the

governor to keep their jobs.

The drawbacks to jury trials are that they are time-consuming and jurors may not always follow

the law, instead rendering verdicts based on emotions.

Consult an AttorneyChoosing a bench or jury trial is just one of many decisions a person dealing with a lawsuit must

make. If you are facing a lawsuit, talk to an accomplished litigator who can discuss your

situation with you and advise you of the steps you should take to resolve the matter in the best

possible way

Why Trial by Jury is Usually a Better Choice than a Bench Trial

People – including lawyers - often ask me if they should “go for a bench trial, or a jury trial”. For those of you don't know, a “bench” trial, is a trial in which a judge, not a jury, determines if you are guilty or innocent.

For me the answer is simple: absent very unusual circumstances, you always want a jury trial. The Founding Fathers of this country understood how hard it was for a judge, who is on the government's payroll, to rule against the very entity that butters its bread. 

Don't get me wrong, there are some very good judges out there, but judges have to answer to people, which include those who gave them their judgeship, law enforcement, and the media. Jurors only have to answer to their own consciences. 

Many of my colleagues are very cynical when it comes to bench trials, and for that reason, most of them do not like the juvenile court system in which you cannot get a jury trial under any circumstance, and nearly all of those trials end up in a guilty finding. 

It has been my experience that district court judges are fairer than town (justice-court) judges. In fact, I have seen some judges find people guilty, and I really had to scratch my head as to how. On the other hand, I have seen some judges find people not guilty, even though the judge actually felt the person was indeed guilty. When a judge goes against his or her own gut instinct and properly applies the “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, it is very refreshing. Most defense attorneys feel that is the exception, however, not the norm.

Let's assume you are accused of a felony in Utah, and your lawyer tells you that the Judge is very fair. You may want to consider a bench trial. However, with a jury, you only have to convince one person of the eight in the jury that you are not guilty. So, the odds are better for you.

Judges are not only human; many of them are former prosecutors, too. Whereas, jurors are people just like you, and as they look at you, they may be thinking, “but for the grace of God, there I sit!” Also, judges have put so many people in jail that many of them seem to have become a bit numb to finding people guilty. That is not to say that they are bad people, but it is human nature. 

Another problem is this: the judge may be friends with the prosecutor, or be on very familiar terms with him or her. This is especially the case in smaller towns. A small town may only have one judge and one prosecutor. That prosecutor and that judge have likely had friendly chats literally hundreds of times, and may even be friends outside of the courtroom. 

However, if any juror knows the prosecutor, chances are that juror will be dismissed from the jury “for cause”.

Also keep this in mind: the judge may know all of your defense attorney's tactics. Anybody who follows sports knows that it is tougher to prepare for a team that is not “in your division”. This is because if a team plays another team a lot, that team gets a good feeling for what that team is likely to do. 

A defense attorney may want to make emotional arguments that stir jurors' emotions, and these may include reminding them of how many people died fighting for our freedoms, and so forth. A juror who hears that once in his or her lifetime will likely be far more moved by it than a judge who has heard that argument a hundred times. 

The Barons forced King John to sign the Magna Carta about 1000 years ago, and that sacred document gave them the right to juries. King John hated the document, and was going to void it, but died before he could. Our Constitution was modeled after that, and the Supreme Court of this country has referred to it more than 100 times. The keystone of the Magna Carta was the right to a jury trial. 

For those reasons, I would say that you nearly always will want to demand a jury trial. And ask the Court if they have any protocol that must be met to keep the jury demand intact. With some courts, if you do not verify the jury within a certain amount of days before the trial, they will “strike” the jury, and give you a bench trial instead