ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE

Outcomes-Based Course Syllabus

GENERAL INFORMATION
College College of Arts and Sciences
Pre-requisite
Program
Course Title Argumentation and Debate Co-requisite
Course Code PSELECT5 Instructor/
Prof. John Peter G. de Leon
Course Credit 3 Professor
Contact Hours 3 hour lecture Department Political Science Department
Term/Sem/AY First Semester Date Created 1 Aug 20
UNIVERSITY VISION
A leading technology-driven University responsive to the developmental needs of changing societies.
UNIVERSITY MISSION

To develop globally competitive and socially responsible professionals through technology-driven instructions, innovative researches, sustainable extension programs that will enhance the lives of people in the communities.

COLLEGE GOALS
1. Cultivate an environment where disicpline, integrity, mutual respect and honesty prevail above all;
2. Heighten appreciation for the sciences and stress its importance in shaing the world of tomorrow;
3. Uplift the aesthetic, cultural and literary taste through the exposure in the fields of arts and letters;
4. Develop basic skills of comprehension, communication and critical thinking geared towards illustrating the interrelationship between various dimension through research and extension program; and
5. Proclaim and affirm the ideas of a free society while preserving the fundamental rights of the human being.

COURSE DESCRIPTION
The biggest dilemma of today's generation is the availability and accessibility of information gained through digital platforms. However, there is a need to strain information in order to make, critique, debate and assess the arguments in order to be an engaged and
active consumer of media and communication. Through this course, the student shall be introduced to the general principles of argumentation, logic, and debate. There will be survey of different models of argument, learn how to structure and support arguments, and
PROGRAM OUTCOMES
1. Understanding, identifying and evaluating the various types of arguments, reasoning processes, and logical fallacies;
2. Knowing what evidence is, how to use it prove a claim, and how to evaluate the adequacy of the student and opposing evidence;
3. Learning to organize arguments into a persuasive case;
4. Developing skills in refutation and cross examination;
5. Being able to use these skills in a variety of formats.

COURSE OUTCOMES
CO1 Prepare and deliver speeches for a variety of audiences and settings;
CO2 Demonstrate speaking competencies including choise and use of topic, supporting materils, organizational pattern, language usage, presentational aids, and delivery; and
CO3 Demonstrate listening competencies by summarizing, analyzing, and paraphrasing ideas, perspectives, and emtoional content
LEARNING EVIDENCES
Learning Evidence Description and other Details Writing Speaking Listening Total Grade
Each student shall create their own research-based speeches on topics assigned to them Written Speech (30
LE1 Speech Presentation Delivery (40 pts.) Ballot (10 pts.) 80 (16%)
individually pts.)
Reflection Paper (30
LE2 Fact Debate Research-based debate from the current social events assigned to the groups Debate (30 pts.) Relevancy (10 pts.) 70 (14%)
pts.)
Research-based debate focused on arguing a proposition of policy. Each group will choose a topic Group Strategy Paper
LE3 Policy Debate (Mid) Debate (30 pts.) 50 (10%)
for this debate. (20 pts.)
Trial Brief (20 pts.),
Legal debatte addressing a fictional problem based on a historical legal controversy. (Ex. Rizal's
LE4 Moot Court Simulation Judge Question (10 Debate (40 pts.) Questioning (10 pts.) 80 (15%)
innocence on his trial)
pts.)
LE5 Inter-class Debate (Fin) Debate of chosen class representatives against the other class representatives Class Grade 100 points 100 (20%)
LE6 Course Preparation Homeworks, Quizzes, and Scholarly Conduct 120 points 120 (25%)
Total Points: 500 points
LEARNING PLAN
Learning
Weeks Intended Learning Outcome Topics and Content Teaching and Learning Activities Assessment Activities Required Reading / Video to Watch
Evidences
1 Welcoming and Introduction to Orientation: Discussion of the mechanics of the
the University and its VMG a. School Policies and Intro to Flexys course
b. University VMG
Introduction to the Course c. Course Description Introducing the requirements and course
d. Course Requirements preparation
Discuss the Rationale and Syllabus of the Course

Explain general policies, course description, and Class Activity: Getting to Know Me and
other requirements of the course to establish You and Class Grouping
connection to their respective program
 2 Define Key Terms on Argumentation and I. Critical Thinking Individual Decisions: Keep a journal of decisions Persuasion: 2 minute
Debate a. Concept of Debate and Application to that the student made. Categorize them on the impromptu speech
daily living level of importance. Provide for the basis
Articulate the different classification of b. Concept of Group Discussion of their decisions
critical thinking skills c. Persuassion
d. Propaganda Conduct SPAR Debates (Spontaneous
Apply key terms to case scenario e. Coercion Argumentation)
f. Combination of Methods
g. Ethical Decision Making Group Discussion: Case Scenario

Rybacki, K. C. & Rybacki, D. J. (2004). How is a

unit of argument created? In Advocacy and
3 II. Applied vs. Academic Debate Watch and online debate and identify whether Each group should make
opposition: An introduction to argumentation. (5th
ed., pp. 74-91). New York, NY: Pearson.

Differentiate Applied Debate from a. Applied Debate that is applied or academic debate a proposal of ethical
Academic Debate b. Academic Debate standards of debate in
Create Class Ethical Standards on Debate c. Ethical Standards of Debate the class

4 to 6 III. Understanding Controversy

Freeley, A.J. & Steinberg, D. L. (2000). Stating the

controversy. In Argumentation and debate: Critical
A. Stating Controversy thinking for reasoned decision making. (10th ed. pp.
35-49). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson
Learning.

Summarize the importance of defining terms a. Defining the Terms a. Examining Propositions Write-up: Create 5
Reframe Propositions from Current Social b. Phrasing Debate Proposition b. Phrasing Propositions propositions from the
Issues c. Presumption and Burden of Proof current social issues
d. Types of Debate Proposition

Freeley, A.J. & Steinberg, D. L. (2000). Analyzing

the controversy. In Argumentation and debate:
B. Analyzing Controversy a. Group Activity: Find competing definitions SPAR: (with the other Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. (10th
ed. pp. 50-71). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson
Learning.
Contrast the different ways of defining terms a. Importance of Defining Terms of the terms given group) Which defintion
b. Methods of Defining Terms is better
c. Issues
LE1: Speech
Delivery
C. Exploring the Controversy Continuation of SPAR a. State your
Demonstrate skill on resource research a. Brainstorming the Ideas a. Online Research of Topic Sources proposition
b. Locating Materials b. Define the terms

c. Reading with a Purpose c. State the issues

d. Reading Critically
e. Recording Materials
f. Organizing Materials

Presentation of Speech Delivery

Presentation of Speech Delivery

Rybacki, K. C. & Rybacki, D. J. (2004). How do I

reason with my audience? In Advocacy and
7 to 8 IV. Evidences Tresure Hunt: From Newspaper or Online
opposition: An introduction to argumentation (5th
ed., pp. 208-231). New York, NY: Pearson.
Identify the different evidences as source a. Sources of Evidence Article, find examples of the use of the following
of content b. Types of Evidence in Philippine Legal System sources of evidence to support a contention:
Illustrate the kinds of evidences c. The Probative Force of Evidence a. Judicial Notice, b. Public records,
Formulate Evidence for their propositions d. Use of Tests of Evidence c. Public writings, d. Source originally a
e. Test of Credibility private writing, e. Testimony of Witness
f. Test of Materiality LE2: Fact Debate
 Fact Debate
Fact Debate

Freeley, A.J. & Steinberg, D. L. (2000). Test of

evidence. In Argumentation and debate: Critical
V. Reasoning and Fallacies (further discussion
9 to 10 thinking for reasoned decision making. (10th ed. pp.
on Logic Class)
108-131). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson
Learning.
Articulate tests of reasoning in a. Elements of an Argument Find a full text of any of the SONA's given
argument propositions b. Tests of Reasoning and their Uses by any Philippine Presidents. Find any
Illustrate dfferent kinds of fallacies c. General Types of Reasoning fallacy of ommitted evidence in the text.
d. Fallacies of Evidence
e. Fallacies of Reasoning
f. Fallacies of Language
g. Fallacies of Pseudoarguments LE3: Policy Debate

Policy Debate
Policy Debate

Rybacki, K. C. & Rybacki, D. J. (2004). How are

11 to policy propositions argued? In Advocacy and
VI. Moot Court Debate
12 opposition: An introduction to argumentation (5th
ed., pp. 121-141). New York, NY: Pearson.

A. Requirements of the Case From the Propositions given as a speech

Develop persuasive skills in presentation 1. Requirement to Present Prima Facie Casie in the previous chapter, find:
of evidence through actual facts delivery 2. General Case Requirements a. Definitive issues, b. criteria for the values,
c. application of values
Design affirmative and negative case brief B. Building the Affirmative Case
1. Objectives of Affirmative Case Prepare a full manuscript for a frist
Evaluate opponent's case brief and develop 2. Propositions of Affirmative Case affirmative speech with all the evidence
refutations for the brief a. Proposition of Value and reasoning necessary to establish a prima
b. Proposition of Policy facie case.
Demonstrate reasoning skills in legal 3. Alternative Debate Approaches
cases
C. Building the Negative Case In pairs, exchange each affirmative speech. SPAR: Where to Eat?
1. Objectives of the Negative Case From your opponent's case, prepare trial
2. Propositions of Negative Case briefs.
a. Proposition of Value
b. Proposition of Policy

Broda-Bahm, K., Kempf, D., & Driscoll, W.J. (2004).

Refutation. In Argument and audience: Presenting
D. Refutation from Speaker Return the trial briefs with the student's partner.
debates in public settings (pp. 277-297). New York,
NY: International Debate Education Association.
1. Shifting the Burden of Rebuttal Create a Refutation from the Negative Case
2. Prupose and Place of Refutation
3. Preparing the Refutation
4. Arranging Material for Refutation
5. Selecting Evidence and Reasoning
6. The Structure of Refutation
LE4: Moot Court
7. Methods of Refutation
Simulation

13 Moot Court Simulation

Moot Court Simulation

Broda-Bahm, K., Kempf, D., & Driscoll, W.J. (2004).

Crafting a proposition. In Argument and audience:
VII. Academic Debate Formats and Cross-
14 Preparation for the Inter-class Debate Presenting debates in public settings (pp. 109-129).
Examination
New York, NY: International Debate Education
Association.

Summarize differet debate formats 1. Formats of Debate

2. The Audience
3. Adapting the Debate to Communication LE5: Inter-Class
Media Debate
 Freeley, A.J. & Steinberg, D. L. (2000). Refutation.
VIII. Preparation to Parliamentary Debate / In Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for
Preparation for the Inter-class Debate
reasoned decision making. (10th ed. pp. 250-260).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
Procedure
Explain terms of Parliamentary Procedure 1. Briefing for the Parliamentary Procedure
as sequal to Argumentation and Debate Process and Procedures

15 LE5: Inter-Class Debate

GRADING SYSTEM (refer to Learning Evidences)

Course Grading Scale

Grade Points Percent Grade Points Percent
1.00 470-500 97-99 2.50 340-359 80-82
1.25 440-469 94-96 2.75 300-339 78-79
1.50 420-439 91-93 3.00 260-299 75-77
1.75 400-419 88-90 4.00 200-259 70-74
2.00 380-399 85-97 5.00 <200 0-69
2.25 360-379 83-84 INC

REFERENCES

Adler, Mortimer. Dialectic. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929.

Anderson, Jerry M. and Paul Dovre, eds. Readings in Argumentation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1968
Bartanen, Michael, and David Frank. Non-policy Debate, 2nd. Ed. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick, 1994.
Benoit, William, Dale Hample, and Pam Benoit, eds. Readings in Argumentation. New York: Foris, 1992.
Berube, David. Nonpolicy Debating. New York: University Press of America, 1993.
Branham, Robert James. Debate and Critical Analysis: The Harmony of Conflict, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991.
Campbell, Cole. Competitive Debate. Chapel Hill, NC: Information Research Associates, 1974.
Capp, Glenn R., and Thelma Capp. Principles of Argumentation and Debate. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1965
Fadely, Dean. Advocacy: The Essentials of Argumentation and Debate. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, 1994.
Freeley, Austin J., and Steinberg, David L. Argumentation and Debate, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009
Rieke, Richard D., and Malcolm O. Sillars. Argumentation and the Decision Making Process, 4th ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996
Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

COURSE COMMITTEE
Prepared:

John Peter G. de Leon

Faculty,
Checked: Recommending Approval: Approved:

COLLEGE CURRICULUM REVISION COMMITTEE DR. RAFAEL PARAGAS DR. SUSAN E. PUYAT
Chair, CCRC Head, Political Science Department Dean, College of Arts and Sciences