Unit 11 — Issue-Framed Debate

Learning objectives Link to heading

• I can deliver a 5-minute argued speech in an issue-framed debate, with one rebuttal of a specific previous-speaker claim.
• I can chair a 30-minute panel-format debate.
• I can synthesise a 3-minute closing statement for a team.

curriculum framework (“Bildungsplan”) alignment Link to heading

• 3.4.1 / 3.5.1 Soziokulturelles Orientierungswissen / Themen
• 3.4.3.1 / 3.5.3.1 Hör-/Hörsehverstehen
• 3.4.3.3 / 3.5.3.3 Sprechen – an Gesprächen teilnehmen
• 3.4.3.4 / 3.5.3.4 Sprechen – zusammenhängendes monologisches Sprechen

(Sources: https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/,Lde/LS/BP2016BW/ALLG/GYM/E1/IK/11-12-LF / https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/,Lde/LS/BP2016BW/ALLG/GYM/E1/IK/11-12-BF)

Lead-in story Link to heading

Final speaking Unit. Mr. Yilmaz set up an issue-framed debate at quasi-Oxford-Union format: two teams of three, each speaker has 5 minutes, plus a 3-minute team closing. The motion: This house would treat platform algorithms as public utilities subject to mandatory transparency. The debate lasts 30 minutes and is chaired by a student.

1. Activate Link to heading

Argument-stack scan. Teams of three. Each team prepares 3 strongest arguments for their side + 3 anticipated rebuttals.

2. Input Link to heading

Debate format (~30 minutes) Link to heading

1. Proposition Speaker 1 (5 min). Frame motion + 1st argument.
2. Opposition Speaker 1 (5 min). Frame counter + 1st argument + 1 rebuttal.
3. Proposition Speaker 2 (5 min). 2nd argument + 2 rebuttals.
4. Opposition Speaker 2 (5 min). 2nd argument + 2 rebuttals.
5. Proposition Speaker 3 closing (3 min). Synthesis + final urge.
6. Opposition Speaker 3 closing (3 min). Synthesis + final urge.

Chair role Link to heading

Chair (1 student): introduces motion, calls speakers, manages time, opens floor for 2 short questions per team, calls the close. Chair must remain neutral on the motion.

3. Practise Link to heading

Niveau E — controlled Link to heading

1. Match: Speaker 1 → frame + 1st argument; Speaker 2 → 2nd argument + rebuttals; Speaker 3 closing → synthesis + urge.
2. T or F: chair argues the motion; rebuttals must name the specific previous-speaker claim; closing speaker can introduce a new argument.

Niveau E — productive Link to heading

3. Draft Speaker 2’s bullets: 2nd argument + 2 named rebuttals.

4. Produce Link to heading

Class issue-framed debate (30 minutes). Two teams of three + chair. Audience scores each speaker on Bewertungsraster (Textgestaltung + Sprache). Class debrief at the end.

Sample Link to heading

Madam Chair, I’d like to argue in favour of the motion. Firstly, the available evidence suggests that platform algorithms — like electricity grids before them — produce systematic externalities (privacy erosion, attention rents, civic-discourse distortion) that the market has consistently under-priced. Accordingly, the structural comparison to public utilities is not metaphor; it is policy. Secondly, the regulatory experience of energy and telecoms shows that mandatory transparency (capacity reporting, allocation reporting, tariff publication) is a precondition of competition rather than its enemy. Speaker 1 of the opposition will, I anticipate, claim that transparency requirements would expose trade secrets. I accept that some transparency designs would; the OFT-style compromise of the 1990s energy privatisation showed that commercial-in-confidence aggregation permits both transparency and competition. By contrast with the opposition’s expected framing, the motion does not require open-source algorithms; it requires aggregate amplification reporting. In response to the anticipated innovation counter-argument, I would point out, more specifically, that the regulated-utility comparison has not historically killed innovation — it has redirected it toward infrastructure improvement. To summarise: the motion is moderate, the comparison is structural, and the precedent exists. I urge this house to support the motion.

5. Reflect Link to heading

• I can deliver a 5-minute argued speech in issue-framed format with one specific rebuttal.
• I can chair a 30-minute panel debate.
• I can synthesise a 3-minute team closing.

One thing in your notebook: Write one sentence using something you learned in this Unit.

Exam example Link to heading

Comprehension Link to heading

Listen / read twice the Speaker-1-in-favour sample above.

1. Frame: ___ . 2. Two arguments: ___ . 3. Anticipated rebuttal: ___ . 4. Final urge: ___ .

Analysis Link to heading

Read the sample speech above.

1. Structural comparison: ___ . 2. Specific rebuttal: ___ . 3. Concession + qualifying move: ___ . 4. Closing summary: ___ .

Composition / Mediation / Reflection Link to heading

Composition prompt: Write Speaker 2 of the opposition’s 5-minute speech (~400 words). Use 5 debate signposts + 2 named rebuttals + 1 cleft.

Additional task Link to heading

Reflection prompt: In 200 words, reflect on your performance in the class debate. Which Bewertungsraster category was strongest? Which needs the most rehearsal before the actual Komm-Prüfung?

Downloads Link to heading

Common pitfalls Link to heading

• Generic rebuttals; name the specific previous-speaker claim.
• New arguments in closing; synthesis only.
• Chair drift toward one side.

Further reading / listening Link to heading

• ESU (English-Speaking Union) — student debate footage.
• Oxford Union — selected debate recordings (with caution: register varies).

Downloads

Presentation

Download .pptx

Worksheet

Download .pdf