A debate is an opportunity to hear two sides of a story, with equal weight given to each side. Holding one on nuclear weapons will require you to think hard about the problem—and how to solve it!
You could invite your parents and community leaders along to watch. You’ll get to hone your public-speaking skills and have to think on your feet. These are important skills to have, particularly if you wish to work as a politician, diplomat or campaigner.
Steps
- Set up your classroom as shown in the diagram above.
- Divide the class into groups of six plus an adjudicator.
- Allocate each group a topic (see sample topics below).
- Divide each group into two teams of three.
- Allocate each team member a speaking role(see below).
- In teams, brainstorm arguments that support your position.
- Divide these arguments between the first and second speakers.
- Decide on a time limit for each speaker, e.g. two minutes.
- Commence the debate with the first speaker for the affirmative.
- Alternate between the negative and affirmative teams.
- Announce which team won the debate!
Sample topics
- That the risk of nuclear annihilation is as high today as it has ever been.
- That nuclear weapons pose a more serious threat to the world than climate change.
- That it's only a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used again.
- That terrorists will probably get their hands on nuclear weapons one day.
Speaker roles
Allocate each team member one of the following speaking roles:
Affirmative
(Agrees with the topic)
Speaker 1
- Defines what the topic is
- Presents the affirmative team's main line
- Outlines what the rest of the affirmative team will argue
- Presents the first half of the case for the affirmative.
Speaker 2
- Rebuts what the first negative speaker has said
- Presents the second half of the case for the affirmative.
Speaker 3
- Rebuts all the remaining points of the case for the negative
- Presents a summary of the case for the affirmative
- Concludes the debate for the affirmative.
|
Negative
(Disagrees with the topic)
Speaker 1
- Accepts or rejects the affirmative team's definition of the topic
- Presents the negative team's main line
- Outlines what the rest of the negative team will argue
- Rebuts what the first affirmative speaker has said
- Presents the first half of the case for the negative.
Speaker 2
- Rebuts what the affirmative speakers have said
- Presents the second half of the case for the negative.
Speaker 3
- Rebuts all the remaining points of the case for the affirmative
- Presents a summary of the case for the negative
- Concludes the debate for the negative
|
Sample arguments
Topic: That the risk of nuclear annihilation is as high today as it has ever been.
Affirmative
(Agrees with the topic)
- More countries have nuclear weapons today than ever before: the more fingers on the triggers, the more likely it is they will be used.
- There's a greater risk that nuclear weapons will be used by accident given that many nuclear weapons systems are now old and faulty.
- North Korea has joined the nuclear club and Iran has ambitions to follow suit.
- The United States and other nuclear-armed states have placed increased emphasis on the utility of their nuclear weapons.
- Several countries have said they would be prepared to use their nuclear weapons in a broader range of circumstances.
- Because of the spread of nuclear power, more countries now have the know-how to create nuclear weapons.
- Today's nuclear weapons tend to be much more powerful than nuclear weapons of the past.
|
Negative
(Disagrees with the topic)
- There are considerably fewer nuclear weapons today than during the Cold War: tens of thousands have been dismantled.
- Relations between the United States and Russia-the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals-have improved significantly since the Cold War.
- There is generally greater cooperation among nations nowadays.
- Opinion polls show that most people around the world now believe that nuclear weapons threaten rather than enhance a country's security.
- More countries than ever before are calling for a Nuclear Weapons Convention-a treaty that would ban nuclear weapons.
- Nuclear war would be unthinkable given our improved knowledge of the immediate and long-term effects of radioactive fallout on human health.
|
