RECENT ASSIGNMENT

can u help ?
Government security agencies should use surveillance cameras and identification software to monitor our movements because it is for our own good

AGAINST
DEBATE TOPIC: Government security agencies should use surveillance cameras and identification software to monitor our movements because it is for our own good

NEGATIVE ARGUMENT
1ST SPEAKER: Student Number: ________ Name: _________________________________
2nd SPEAKER: Student Number: ________ Name: _________________________________
[Add SPEAKER: Student Number: ______ Name: _________________________________
3RD SPEAKER: Student Number: ________ Name: ________________________________
HANDOUT
Provision of sources before debate Yes No
Suitability of sources. Good Adequate Poor
Referencing Good Adequate Poor
Presentation (formatting/ spelling/ grammar) Good Adequate Poor
NEGATIVE ARGUMENT – 1ST SPEAKER
Individual mark: /10; team mark (team avg/ handout): /5 OVERALL: /15
Accepted or rejected 1st affirmative’s definition of topic. Provided own context for the debate if needed. Good Adequate Poor
Provided a team split (key arguments of 1st and 2nd speaker). Good Adequate Poor
Put forward disagreements with 1st affirmative’s speech, explaining why points made were incorrect (‘rebuttal’). Good Adequate Poor
Put forward 2-3 substantive arguments that supported the team’s case. Good Adequate Poor
Conclusion: Presenter provided a concluding summary of his/her presentation Good Adequate Poor
Presentation skills: spoke clearly; looked at audience Good Adequate Poor
Preparation Good Adequate Poor

NEGATIVE ARGUMENT – 2nd SPEAKER
Individual mark: /10; team mark (team avg/ handout): /5 OVERALL: /15
Rebutting: Presenter provided clear rebuttal and valid counter argument to the 2nd affirmative presenter. Good Adequate Poor
Provided a ‘personal split’ (very briefly outlined his/her own key arguments) Good Adequate Poor
Put forward 2-3 substantive arguments that supported the team’s case. Good Adequate Poor
Conclusion: Presenter provided a concluding summary of his/her presentation Good Adequate Poor
Presentation skills: spoke clearly; looked at audience Good Adequate Poor
Preparation Good Adequate Poor
[NEGATIVE ARGUMENT – add SPEAKER]
Individual mark: /10; team mark (team avg/ handout): /5 OVERALL: /15
Rebutting: Presenter provided clear rebuttal and valid counter argument to the 2nd affirmative presenter. Good Adequate Poor
Provided a ‘personal split’ (very briefly outlined his/her own key arguments) Good Adequate Poor
Put forward 2-3 substantive arguments that supported the team’s case. Good Adequate Poor
Conclusion: Presenter provided a concluding summary of his/her presentation Good Adequate Poor
Presentation skills: spoke clearly; looked at audience Good Adequate Poor
Preparation Good Adequate Poor
NEGATIVE ARGUMENT – FINAL SPEAKER
Individual mark: /10; team mark (team avg/ handout): /5 OVERALL: /15
Rebut points made by 1st and 2nd affirmative presenters (Main focus should be on the 2nd affirmative’s speech, but 1st affirmative’s speech OK as well) Good Adequate Poor
Rebuttal should have made up the majority of the speech. Good Adequate Poor
Summarised the negative team’s case Good Adequate Poor
Conclusion: Presenter provided a concluding summary of the presentation reiterating the scenario, problem, system and recommendation Good Adequate Poor
Presentation skills: spoke clearly; looked at audience Good Adequate Poor
Preparation Good Adequate Poor
Assessment 3a – Debate (20%) [Due in class, Tuesday Week 9] Teams will be formed in week 5 (these will be different from the literature survey and presentation teams) and a topic will be assigned to each team and which side of the argument the team is to speak to. The debates will be conducted in class in week 9. The team should prepare their case and organise the order in which they are going to speak. The team members will each speak for 5 minutes, alternating with their opponents. The first speaker for the proposition will define the question and introduce the argument, the first speaker for the opposition will introduce their case, the second speakers will sustain and or refute the arguments, the final speakers for both sides will summarise their teams arguments and any rebuttals and close their case. Note the following: Timing will be strict and you must stop speaking when your time has elapsed otherwise a penalty will be imposed. Each member of the team may not receive the same grade for the debate (part of your mark will be based on your performance and part on your overall team performance. It is important to work as a team during the debate – for instance, it is quite appropriate for other team members to pass notes to the second and third speakers to advise them what to include in their argument). BCO6672 study guide Page | 12 A Brief Guide to Debating (by Sarah Zeleznikow, B A (Hons), LLB (Hons), Dip Mdn Lng 1/5/09) There are generally six speakers in a debate. Three speakers represent the ‘affirmative’ team, who must make arguments supporting the proposed topic. The other three speakers represent the ‘negative’ team, who must make arguments that disagree with the topic proposed. An outline of each speaker’s role can be summarized as follows: 1 st affirmative: • Define and set up the topic. This means that you must provide a definition for the key terms used in the topic, and explain why the debate is relevant. • Provide a ‘team split’ – i.e. very briefly outline the key arguments that you and your second speaker will be making. • Put forward 2-3 substantive arguments that support your team’s case. 1 st negative: • Either accept or reject the 1st affirmative’s definition of the topic, and provide your own context for the debate if necessary. • Provide a team split. • Put forward any disagreements you have with the 1st affirmative’s speech, explaining why you think the points made were incorrect (this is referred to as ‘rebuttal’). • Put forward 2-3 substantive arguments that support your team’s case. 2 nd affirmative: • Rebut any points arising from the 1st negative’s speech. • Provide a ‘personal split’ (i.e. outline very briefly the arguments that you will make). • Put forward 2-3 substantive arguments that support your team’s case. 2 nd negative: • Rebut any points arising from the 2nd affirmative’s speech. • Provide a ‘personal split’. • Put forward 2-3 substantive arguments that support your team’s case. 3 rd affirmative: • Rebut points made by 1st and 2nd negative. Your focus should be on the 2nd negative’s speech, but if points from the 1st negative’s speech were not adequately dealt with in earlier rebuttal, you should concentrate on these too. Rebuttal should make up the majority of your speech. • Summarize your team’s case. 3 rd negative: • Rebut points made by the 1st and 2nd affirmative speakers (see 3rd affirmative for an explanation of how your time should be divided). • Summarize your team’s case. Note that each speaker will be assessed individually according to each of these roles. Debating topics • All information systems professionals should be a member of a professional association • Professional codes of conduct can be relaxed when IS Professionals are dealing with family and friends • Employees should be allowed to use social networking at work • Businesses should be able to employ hackers to test the security of their own systems • Government security agencies should use surveillance cameras and identification software to monitor our movements because it is for our own good • ‘Green IT’ is too expensive • IT outsourcing provides the benefits that are promised. For these topics the first two speakers on each side are expected to provide the main arguments. Where possible, these should be provided from peer reviewed journals, but as the topics are quite current it is permissible to use arguments from sources such as newspapers or magazines. The source of these arguments should be provided in the debate to allow the opposition to have the chance to challenge them – eg they might claim that a particular source is biased. BCO6672 study guide Page | 13 By 11.59pm on the day before their debate, each team should submit a one page printed sheet to VUCollaborate that outlines the main points/arguments made by each of the first two speakers (in bullet point format) and the source of each argument – referenced properly in academic format [APA]. These will form part of the overall assessment of the team in the debate. The sheet should take the following format: Debate team: [put student numbers and names in presentation order] Debate topic: Debate position: [Affirmative or Negative] Speaker One [name] • Point/ argument 1 (each point/argument should be at least a sentence or two in length) (author, year) • Point/ argument 2 (author2, year). • … Speaker Two [name] • Point/ argument 1 (author3, year) • Point/ argument 2 (author2, year). • … References (make sure that your referencing is consistent [APA style] and comes from reliable, unbiased sources [such as refereed journal articles]. The opposition team may try to discredit sources that are not reliable) Author (year), publication details Author2 (year), publication details Author3 (year), publication detai