Final Debate

Overview:

Our penultimate class session will be devoted to a debate between the four ancient schools on whom we’ve focused this semester, each one represented by all the students in a single section.

Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 have been assigned the specific schools listed above. Section 1 will serve as our cross-examiners and jury pool.

For students in sections 2, 3, 4, and 5: each of you will need to consider with the peers in your section the best arguments you can develop for your assigned position, drawing on what you’ve learned about the different approaches to the good life we’ve covered so far in this course. While your main goal is to argue for your position, you’ll also be arguing against the positions of the other sections’ teams and responding to questions and challenges raised by students from section 1 during the debate.

For students in section 1: your role in this debate is to serve as cross-examiners and to get the members of each team to improve the quality of their arguments. After pooling a set of questions together in your groups during round 1, a cross-examiner from your section will need to raise questions in round 2 that challenge the arguments of sections 2, 3, 4, and 5. (You can have as many cross-examiners as you like participate in this round.) At the end of the debate, all students from section 1 will rank-order the teams to determine a winner. Please note here that your section is both cross-examining and providing a verdict at the end of the debate: rather than being an advocate for any position, students in section 1 should think of themselves as judges (in the style of Supreme Court justices) examining the merits and demerits of a case.

For all sections: by Fri. December 1, please convey to your professors who will be representing your section during the debate. Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 each need to select: one spokesperson for round 1; one or two respondents for round 2; one spokesperson for the concluding round. Section 1 needs to select a cross-examiner (or group of cross-examiners) for round 2.

Format:

This debate consists of two rounds and a conclusion. Each section’s team should select a different representative for each phase of the debate.

1. In round 1, a spokesperson for each team in sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will give a 5-minute presentation arguing for their team’s position. During and after each of these presentations, students in section 1 are encouraged to raise questions/challenges on a shared Google Doc to help the cross-examiners in their section prepare for round 2.
2. In round 2, the views of each team in sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will be cross-examined by members of Section 1. The cross-examination of each team will last 5 minutes.
   
3. Each team in sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 then confers for 5 minutes to prepare for their conclusion.
   
4. To conclude, a final spokesperson for each of the teams gives a 3-minute summary of their position.
   
5. After the debate, all students in section 1 will vote on which team’s arguments they found most convincing overall.

Preparation:

In order to be ready for this debate, part of your breakout section this week on Wednesday and your dialogue session on Friday will be devoted to preparing.

For students in Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5: you will be advocating for a specific school in this debate. Come to your Friday meeting ready to discuss:

1. What are the central tenets of your school’s approach to the good life?
2. What distinguishes your school’s approach to the good life from those of other schools? Why is the position of your school superior?
3. What are potential vulnerabilities for your position? You’ll need to be prepared to defend your position against these criticisms.
4. What are the weaknesses of the other positions that you can highlight to demonstrate the overall superiority of your own position?

While you must work from the historical version of these philosophies as found in our texts, if you feel that modifications would make the doctrines stronger without violating the essential spirit of the philosophy, you can include such ideas as long as you make clear that they are reasonable developments. (The cross-examiners in section 1 will be pressing you here!) You might also use ideas that came to you during your week of living like an Aristotelian, Confucian, Daoist, and Stoic, especially if you see ways that some of those exercises might help you develop your arguments.

At your meeting, discuss the above four questions and compile a list of at least three answers to each question. Your Dialogue Facilitators should record these answers on Friday and share them with the three professors in advance of the debate, as well as the names of the students who will be spokespeople/cross-examiners during the debate.

For students in section 1: remember, your role in this debate is to serve as cross-examiners and to get the members of each team to improve the quality of their arguments. To do this effectively during the debate, brainstorm with one another in your dialogue session this week potential vulnerabilities you see in the views of each school. Come up with a list of at least three questions/concerns/challenges you have for each school’s approach to the good life.

For all sections: please complete the Google Form that will be shared with you in your Dialogue Session on Friday, December 1.