Search Results

Have you ever been in a debate where your opponent’s argument just didn’t feel right, but you couldn’t quite explain why? Maybe they twisted your words, made an extreme claim, or played on emotions instead of logic. That’s because they were using a logical fallacy: a flawed argument that sounds convincing but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. If you want to level up your debating skills, you need to learn how to spot and dismantle these sneaky tactics. Common Logical Fallacies and How to Respond Strawman Fallacy One of the most frustrating fallacies is the strawman fallacy, where someone misrepresents your argument to make it easier to attack. Imagine you’re debating whether schools should regulate junk food. You argue that healthier options should be promoted, and your opponent responds, “They want to take away all student choices!”  That’s not even close to what you said. If someone tries this on you, call them out: “That’s a misrepresentation. My argument is about offering better choices, not eliminating them.” Ad Hominem Another cheap trick is ad hominem, which is when someone attacks you instead of your argument. Let’s say you’re debating social media restrictions, arguing that platforms should prevent harmful misinformation. Instead of addressing your point, your opponent snaps back, “You don’t even understand free speech.”  That’s not a counterargument, it’s a distraction. Stay focused: “My background isn’t the issue. Let’s talk about whether restricting content actually protects people.” Slippery Slope Fallacy Then there’s the slippery slope fallacy, which assumes that one small step will lead to an extreme, unlikely outcome. Imagine debating AI in classrooms. You argue that AI can help personalize education, and your opponent jumps to, “If we allow AI in schools, teachers will become obsolete, and robots will take over!” That’s a wild exaggeration. Shut it down: “There’s no evidence that AI is replacing teachers—it’s designed to assist, not take over.” False Dilemma Fallacy The false dilemma fallacy, or black-and-white thinking, tries to box you into only two extreme choices. Say you’re debating free healthcare. Your opponent claims, “Either we provide free healthcare and go bankrupt, or we do nothing and let people suffer.”  That’s not how real-world policy works. A strong rebuttal would be: “There are other solutions, like hybrid systems used in other countries, that provide healthcare without financial collapse.” Appeal to Emotion And then there’s appeal to emotion, which manipulates feelings instead of using logic. Picture a debate on animal testing. You argue that it’s necessary for medical advancements, and your opponent responds, “How can you support such cruelty? Imagine a poor, innocent puppy suffering!” While emotions matter, they don’t replace reasoning. A solid response would be : “I understand the ethical concerns, but we need to weigh them against the medical benefits and explore alternative solutions.” Why Avoid Logical Fallacies? Falling for logical fallacies makes your argument weak. Even if they seem persuasive at first, a skilled debater will tear them apart. But if you can spot these tricks in your opponent’s case, you gain the upper hand. Debating isn’t just about confidence: it’s about thinking critically and staying sharp under pressure. The next time an argument sounds off, ask yourself: Is this actually logical? The more you practice, the faster you’ll be at exposing weak reasoning and turning debates in your favor.

When you hear the word ‘debate,’ you might think about arguments, facts, and logic. But strong debaters know that beyond evidence and reasoning, there are fundamental principles that shape their arguments. These principles, like fairness, justice, life, health, and freedom, serve as the backbone of persuasive and impactful debating. Why Are Principles Important? Principles help debaters go beyond just facts and statistics. They give arguments a sense of purpose and urgency. When used correctly, principles make arguments more powerful by connecting them to values that people care about. They help judges and audiences relate to the debate on a deeper level and they make logical reasoning stronger by providing a solid foundation for arguments. Examples of Principles in Popular Debates To understand how principles work, let's look at some real-world debates happening today. Efficiency vs Human Touch One of the most talked-about topics today is whether AI should replace teachers in classrooms. Supporters argue that AI improves education by making learning more personalized and accessible, reinforcing the principle of fairness in education, ensuring that all students, regardless of background, have access to the best possible learning tools. However, opponents stress that human teachers provide emotional support and moral guidance that AI simply cannot, emphasizing the principle of human connection in education. This debate highlights the struggle between the principles of efficiency and the human touch in learning environments. Personal Responsibility vs Public Health Another common debate revolves around banning junk food in schools. Those in favor argue that schools have a responsibility to promote good health among students, and banning junk food aligns with the principle of public health, ensuring that children have access to nutritious food that benefits their well-being. On the other hand, critics claim that such bans limit students’ freedom to make their own choices, appealing to the principle of personal responsibility and individual freedom, the belief that students should learn to make informed decisions rather than have choices made for them. This debate showcases the tension between the principles of personal responsibility and public health measures. Protecting individuals vs Preserving freedom Social media and free speech is yet another hotly debated issue. Some believe that platforms should restrict harmful speech because it can lead to real-world consequences, aligning with the principle of protection from harm. Others argue that free speech is a fundamental right, and imposing restrictions could set a dangerous precedent for censorship, reinforcing the principle of freedom of expression. This debate illustrates the ongoing struggle between the principles of protecting individuals and preserving freedoms in the digital age. How to Use Principles Effectively in Debates To use principles effectively, debaters should first identify the core principle their argument supports. Is it fairness, justice, health, or something else? Once identified, they should clearly connect their argument to this principle and support it with real-world examples and evidence.  By understanding and applying principles in debate, young debaters can improve their reasoning, persuasion, and ability to connect with their audience. Next time you prepare for a debate, think beyond just the facts. Ask yourself, What principle am I defending?

Interpretation events, such as impromptu speaking, are more than just an exciting challenge for students who enjoy public speaking—they are an incredible tool for developing skills that translate into academics, test-taking, and real-world success. The ability to think quickly, structure ideas effectively, and confidently communicate has far-reaching benefits, whether in the classroom, during standardized exams, or in future careers.  Sharpening Critical Thinking and Adaptability  Impromptu speaking requires students to organize their thoughts on the spot. Given a topic with only minutes to prepare, they must decide on a clear argument, find supporting examples, and deliver a compelling speech—all within a strict time limit. This ability to think under pressure is invaluable in countless real-life situations, from responding to unexpected questions in class to handling difficult conversations in the workplace. Building Confidence in Public Speaking  Public speaking is one of the biggest fears many students face, but impromptu speaking gradually eliminates that fear. The more students practice thinking and speaking on their feet, the more comfortable they become expressing themselves in front of others. This confidence carries over to class presentations, interviews, leadership roles, and any situation that requires clear communication. Strengthening Organization and Time Management  A well-structured impromptu speech must have a clear introduction, well-developed main points, and a strong conclusion—all within just a few minutes. This forces students to be concise and intentional with their words. The ability to structure ideas quickly and stay within time limits is crucial for public speaking, essay writing, debates, and standardized tests.  Enhancing Performance on Standardized Tests Many students don’t realize how closely impromptu speaking aligns with the demands of major standardized tests. Exams like the IELTS, TOEFL, SAT, and AP English all require quick thinking, clear organization, and strong communication skills. Speaking Exams (IELTS, TOEFL): Impromptu speaking is excellent preparation for the speaking sections of English proficiency tests, where students must quickly form responses to unpredictable questions. The practice helps students develop fluency, expand their vocabulary, and speak confidently without excessive pauses. Essay-Based Tests (SAT, AP Exams, GRE): Like an impromptu speech, high-scoring essays require a strong argument, clear structure, and persuasive reasoning—all within a limited time. Practicing impromptu speaking helps students generate ideas faster and express them compellingly, making it easier to tackle essay prompts under pressure. Critical Thinking for Multiple-Choice Sections: Many standardized tests assess reasoning skills, whether in reading comprehension or logic-based math problems. The ability to analyze information quickly, a core skill in impromptu speaking, improves test performance across various subjects. Interpretation events like impromptu speaking aren’t just about winning competitions—they’re about developing skills that will benefit students for life. From critical thinking and time management to test-taking and confidence-building, the ability to communicate ideas clearly and persuasively is an asset in nearly every academic and professional setting. Whether preparing for a debate, an exam, or a future career, students who practice impromptu speaking gain an edge that extends far beyond the classroom.

What does it mean to seek truth? How do we define freedom, morality, or even time itself? These are the kinds of questions explored in the Philosophy II Winter Camp, a journey through the greatest ideas in history, guided by Sophie’s World. Through lively discussions, challenging debates, and deep reflection, students didn’t just learn about philosophy, they lived it. They questioned their assumptions, explored different perspectives, and discovered how philosophy shapes not just history, but their own lives. The Power of Thinking for Yourself Philosophy isn’t about memorizing facts; it’s about thinking in ways that expand your mind. Unlike subjects with clear-cut answers, philosophy challenges you to form your own ideas, defend them, and refine them. As Chenchen put it: “I appreciate philosophy because you only have to think, think, and think. There are no right or wrong answers.” That freedom to explore, to wonder, and to think without limits, that’s exactly what makes philosophy so important. Is Freedom a Curse or a Gift? One of the biggest debates in the course was about freedom: is it always a good thing, or does it need limits? The students had different perspectives, making for a fascinating discussion. Chenchen saw freedom and responsibility as connected, explaining: “Following the rules allows us to enjoy the happiness of freedom.” Bonbon believed that freedom is a personal journey, writing: “Being free means following your heart and enjoying whatever you want to do.” Jonathan added another layer to the discussion, arguing that freedom must be understood in relation to laws and social stability: “If all things are measured solely by the individual, then social norms such as morality and law will lack universal objectivity and authority.” These perspectives highlight an important truth: freedom is not just about doing whatever you want, but about understanding what makes life meaningful. Supermen: Greatness or Isolation? Nietzsche’s idea of the Superman sparked another deep discussion. What happens to those who strive for greatness? Does it bring them closer to others, or does it set them apart? Bonbon gave a historical example, explaining: “Alexander the Great could be considered a Superman, since he expanded the Macedonian empire in all directions.” But striving for greatness isn’t always positive. Matthew pointed out that being seen as a Superman can lead to loneliness and distance from others, writing: “The journey to becoming a Superman can be a double-edged sword. It depends on how one balances ambition with relationships.” These discussions revealed an important insight: greatness doesn’t exist in isolation. The impact of a leader, an innovator, or a creator depends on how they connect with the world around them. Can We Ever Know Reality? Kant’s question about the “thing in itself” led to one of the most fascinating debates: Can humans ever truly see the world as it is, or are we forever limited by our own perceptions? Chenchen reflected on this limitation, writing: “We may never fully grasp the ‘thing-in-itself,’ but our quest for understanding continues.” Matthew referenced Wittgenstein, arguing that language itself creates a boundary to what we can know: “The limit of language is the limit of the world.” Bonbon agreed, stating: “We can never escape our logical limitations and stereotypes.” Jonathan offered another philosophical perspective, drawing on Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, explaining how human perception can trap us into mistaking illusions for reality: “Plato wrote that people who only see shadows in a cave believe those shadows are all there is. Those who escape and see the real world struggle to convince others that there is more beyond the cave.” Despite these different takes, one thing was clear: even if we can’t know everything, the search for understanding is what makes life meaningful. Is There One True Moral Rule? Ethics is full of tough questions. Kant’s Categorical Imperative says that moral rules should apply universally, but is that always practical? Bonbon argued that rigid rules don’t always work in real life, explaining: “Sometimes satisfying our own needs means hurting other people, while saving others could hurt ourselves.” Matthew agreed, rejecting the idea entirely: “No, no, and no. The Categorical Imperative is not flexible enough to deal with all the problems in the world.” Jonathan highlighted Socrates’ method of questioning, showing how moral truths are not absolute but must be examined through constant reflection: “Socrates guided people to realize the weaknesses in their own views by constantly asking questions, so they could get closer to truth.” These discussions showed that morality is not always black and white; it’s a complex balance of reasoning, consequences, and personal values. Are We Moving Toward a Better Future? Hegel’s theory of historical progress suggests that conflict and change drive humanity forward. But are we truly improving, or just advancing? Chenchen looked at how much societies have evolved, writing: “We must be moving towards a better future. Comparing ancient China to modern China, everything has changed—from our clothes to our values.” Bonbon compared history to a river, flowing forward but full of obstacles: “ As we work for better technology, we are refreshing the water in the river of reason. There are rocks in the river, but if we cope with these obstacles with teamwork, we can move toward a better future.” Matthew, however, was more skeptical: “Time is consecutive (the river), we are moving to a more advanced future but not necessarily a better one.” Jonathan added that history is shaped by both individuals and society, which means progress is never simple: “Philosophy took a new direction in Athens because people needed to be educated to take part in democracy. The way we think changes based on what society needs.” These different perspectives remind us that progress is complex; it can bring both good and bad, depending on how we navigate it. Philosophy as a Way of Life Beyond theories and debates, the most powerful part of the Philosophy II course was how students applied philosophy to their own lives. Angela saw philosophy as a way to discover meaning and purpose, writing: “We should seek truth to discover who we are. You only live once, so make your life a journey to remember.” Bonbon reflected on Confucian wisdom, explaining how understanding one’s role in life leads to peace: “Confucius said people must control their desires and return to their position in order to maintain a generous heart.” Chenchen expressed a deep appreciation for philosophy, capturing what makes it so special: “Philosophy is very, very easy. You only have to think, think, and think. There are no right or wrong answers.” And finally, Jonathan summed up the true spirit of philosophy by echoing Socrates’ wisdom: “Admitting your ignorance is the foundation of continuous learning and progress.” Final Thoughts: Why Philosophy Matters The Philosophy II camp, guided by Sophie’s World, was more than just a class: it was a journey into the deepest questions of life. Students debated freedom, analyzed power, questioned reality, explored ethics, and reflected on history. But more importantly, they learned to think in a way that will stay with them forever. As Angela wisely put it: “Stay true to yourself! True wisdom lies not in the answers we seek, but in the questions we dare to ask.” And that is the essence of philosophy. It is not about memorizing facts: it is about learning to think, to question, and to see the world with new eyes.

The Public Forum Debate Semester Course is designed to transform students into confident, strategic, and articulate debaters. Over the course of 14 classes (1.5 hours each), students will engage in dynamic discussions, hands-on practice, and real-world debate simulations, developing the skills necessary to succeed in both competitive and academic environments. Why Choose Public Forum Debate? Public Forum Debate is one of the most engaging and widely practiced debate formats. It encourages students to tackle real-world policy and ethical issues while developing logical reasoning, research skills, teamwork, and strategic argumentation. Whether they are preparing for debate competitions, sharpening critical thinking, or building confidence in public speaking, this course offers the perfect foundation for success. What You’ll Learn in 14 Power-Packed Sessions Throughout the semester, students will develop a strong foundation in debate structure, strategy, and delivery. Students will start by mastering the essential components of a debate, including constructive speeches, rebuttals, crossfire, summary speeches, and final focus. They will learn how to craft persuasive arguments, refute opposing points effectively, and structure their speeches for maximum impact. In addition to argumentation, students will develop research and evidence-based persuasion skills. They will practice "cutting cards," a method of preparing evidence for use in debates, and learn to analyze real-world policy issues through fact-based argumentation. Public speaking is another major component of the course. Students will work on voice control, clarity, pacing, and engaging delivery to ensure their arguments are both persuasive and professional. Impromptu speaking exercises will train students to think on their feet, a crucial skill for responding to questions and counterarguments in live debates. Beyond theory, this course is highly practical. Students will participate in weekly mini-debates, applying their skills in structured rounds before moving on to full-length debates. A highlight of the semester is the mock Public Forum Debate tournament, where students will put their training to the test in a competitive setting. Throughout the course, students will receive detailed feedback on their performance, allowing them to refine their strategies, strengthen their argumentation, and improve their speaking style. Skills You’ll Walk Away With By the end of the course, students will have mastered a broad range of valuable skills. They will have developed strong argumentation techniques, the ability to deliver persuasive speeches with confidence, and the capacity to analyze and counter opposing arguments effectively. Students will also improve their research and evidence analysis skills, learning to gather, organize, and present compelling data to support their positions. The course will enhance critical thinking and logical reasoning, enabling students to assess complex issues from multiple perspectives. Who Is This Course For? This course is designed for students of all experience levels who want to refine their debate and public speaking skills. It is ideal for aspiring debaters looking to compete in Public Forum tournaments, future leaders, lawyers, or public speakers who want to develop persuasive communication techniques, students who love intellectual challenges and want to enhance their critical thinking and reasoning skills and anyone who enjoys debating ideas and forming strong, well-supported arguments. Spots are limited, so sign up today and get ready to think critically, speak powerfully, and win debates like a pro!

Imagine a world where doctors can fix harmful genes before they cause serious diseases. Families suffering from conditions like sickle cell anemia or genetic heart defects might finally find hope. Sounds like something out of a sci-fi movie, right? But this is the very real promise of human gene editing. Yet, with great power comes great responsibility, and many risks. Could this technology lead to new problems, like rich families designing their “perfect” children while others are left behind? This is what you, as debaters, need to tackle: Is expanding access to human gene editing technologies more beneficial or harmful? First, let’s break down what we’re talking about. Human gene editing is a tool that lets scientists make precise changes to a person’s DNA. CRISPR, one of the most famous tools, works like a pair of molecular scissors, cutting out bad genes and replacing them with healthy ones. When we say “expanding access,” we mean making this technology cheaper, easier to use, and available to more people, especially those in poorer countries who can’t afford expensive treatments. The key question is: Will giving more people access lead to a healthier world or create new dangers? Arguing for the Positive: Hope for a Healthier Future If you’re on the Pro side, your job is to show that expanding access will improve lives in huge ways. Think about how many people suffer from genetic disorders today. For example, sickle cell anemia causes severe pain and limits life expectancy. Gene editing offers a chance to fix the very DNA that causes this disease, potentially saving millions of lives. You can compare this to vaccines. A hundred years ago, diseases like polio were terrifying. But once vaccines became widely available, they nearly disappeared. Gene editing could do the same for many genetic diseases. Imagine a future where parents no longer fear passing on harmful conditions to their children. It’s not just a dream; it’s something we’re on the brink of achieving. On top of that, healthier people mean lower healthcare costs. When fewer people need long-term treatments, hospitals spend less money, and families save on expensive care. This frees up resources for other things, like education or infrastructure. It’s like investing in a new bridge—yes, it costs money at first, but in the long run, it makes travel easier and helps the economy grow. Arguing for the Negative: Proceed with Caution If you’re on the Con side, your job is to remind everyone that just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should rush into it. Gene editing might seem like a miracle cure, but it also opens a Pandora’s box of potential problems. One big worry is designer babies, genetically modified children chosen for their looks, intelligence, or athletic abilities. Imagine if only wealthy families could afford these enhancements. The gap between rich and poor would widen even more. It’s like giving one group a head start in a race while the rest struggle just to keep up. That’s not a world most people want to live in. Another concern is safety. Even though CRISPR is powerful, it’s not perfect. Scientists have found cases where gene editing caused unexpected changes, leading to new health problems. Think of it like fixing a small leak in a dam; you patch one hole, but another might appear somewhere else. If we don’t fully understand the risks, rushing to expand access could lead to unintended harm. Finally, there’s the issue of genetic diversity. In nature, diversity helps species survive tough conditions. If everyone starts editing out what they think are “bad” genes, we could end up with a population that’s less adaptable to future challenges, like new diseases. It’s like planting only one type of crop: if a disease hits that crop, the entire harvest could be wiped out. Tips to make your speech stand out Instead of diving straight into scientific jargon, explain things in simple terms. For example, compare gene editing to editing a document on a computer. If you delete the wrong part, you can mess up the whole file. Get the judges thinking. On the Pro side, you might ask, “Wouldn’t you want a future where no child has to suffer from a preventable genetic disease?” On the Con side, you could ask, “What happens if we start playing with human genes without knowing the long-term effects?” Even if your opponent brings up something you didn’t expect, don’t panic. Take a deep breath, smile, and respond thoughtfully. Judges notice poise under pressure. Leave your judges with something to remember. Maybe a short story or a powerful quote that sums up your position. For example, if you’re on the Con side, you might end by saying, “In the rush to solve today’s problems, let’s not create bigger ones for future generations.” Good luck, and go show the judges what you’ve got!

Watching a skilled debater can be fascinating—there’s something about the way they speak that commands attention. It’s not just the strength of their arguments, but the way they deliver them with clarity and confidence. The secret? Smart phrasing. Great debaters may not always have the best ideas, but they know how to express themselves in a way that sounds thoughtful and convincing. Starting Strong: Set the Stage The way you begin your argument matters. Instead of going straight into your points, use a phrase to grab attention and show confidence. Try saying: “Let’s break this down step by step…” “The core issue we need to focus on is…”   These phrases make your audience feel like you’re in control and know exactly where you’re going.   Presenting Your Argument: Make It Clear You can have the smartest idea in the room, but if you can’t explain it clearly, it won’t matter. Use these phrases to make your points sharp and easy to understand: “First and foremost…” “This leads us to an important conclusion…” “To put it simply…” These phrases show that your argument is well-organized and easy to follow. Using Examples: Show, Don’t Just Tell Facts and stories are what make your argument convincing. When you want to give an example, don’t just blurt it out—introduce it smoothly! Try these: “For instance…” “To illustrate this point…” “A perfect example of this is…” Refuting Opponents: Fight Back Smartly Refuting your opponent’s argument (proving they’re wrong) is one of the coolest parts of a debate. But instead of saying, “You’re wrong,” use smart phrases to sound more professional. Try these: “While my opponent raises an interesting point, it overlooks…” “That argument might seem strong at first, but upon closer inspection…” “Here’s why that idea doesn’t hold up…” Wrapping It Up: Leave a Lasting Impression A strong conclusion is the final thing your audience will hear, so it needs to be powerful. Use these phrases to end your speech with confidence: “In summary, the evidence clearly shows…” “Ultimately, what we’ve proven today is…” “And that’s why this matters…” Pro Tip: It’s Not Just About Words, It’s About Confidence Even with the best phrases, you won’t sound smart if you’re nervous and mumbling. Practice speaking clearly, use hand gestures to emphasize your points, and make eye contact. The more confident you are, the smarter you’ll sound. Using these smart phrases will take your debating skills to the next level, but they won’t work without practice! Try using a few in your next class discussion or speech at ThinkTalk. You’ll notice how much more confident and professional you feel, and how much more impressed your listeners will be.

Have you ever started speaking in a debate and found yourself stuck saying "uh..." or "um..." because you didn’t know what to say next? You’re not alone! Many students feel nervous when they have to speak in front of others, especially when they need to think quickly during a debate. But here’s the good news: fluency isn’t about being perfect, it’s about speaking confidently without long pauses or hesitation. In this article, we’ll share 8 fun and easy tricks that will help you speak smoothly, stay calm, and say goodbye to those awkward "uh..." moments! Think in Ideas, Not Words One reason people pause is because they’re searching for the perfect word. Instead, focus on expressing your ideas clearly, even if the words aren’t fancy. It’s okay to explain things in simple terms. The goal is to keep your ideas flowing without freezing up. Don’t forget: Less is more! Use Transition Phrases Sometimes, we hesitate because we don’t know how to move from one point to the next. Learn a few simple transition phrases to help guide your speech, such as: “Another important point is…” “To give an example…” “On the other hand…” Using these phrases gives you a second to organize your thoughts while sounding smooth. Replace Filler Sounds with Filler Phrases Instead of saying “uh…” or “um…” when you’re thinking, use smart filler phrases like: “Let me think for a moment…” “That’s a great point…” “What I mean is…” These phrases buy you time while keeping your speech fluent and engaging.   Play Debate Games with ThinkTalk! Make practice fun by playing quick-thinking games. Try choosing silly debate topics like "Would you rather live in a treehouse or a spaceship?" and argue your side for one minute without stopping. These games improve your ability to think and speak quickly, which is super helpful in real debates. Don’t Panic if You Forget a Word If you forget a word or phrase, don’t stop speaking. Instead, paraphrase: use other words to explain your idea. For example, if you can’t remember the word “difficult,” say “not easy” or “really hard.” The key is to keep the flow going. Record Yourself Speaking Recording yourself during practice sessions is a great way to notice where you pause or hesitate. Listen back and think about how you could replace those pauses with smooth transitions. This also helps you build confidence because you’ll see how much you improve over time! Use Your Body to Stay Engaged Using hand gestures while you speak isn’t just for looking confident; it also helps your brain stay active and keeps the flow of words coming. Plus, your audience will be more interested when you look energetic and involved. Take a Deep Breath and Pause Fluency doesn’t mean talking super-fast; it means speaking smoothly. If you need a moment to think, take a short pause. Pausing is natural and shows that you’re thoughtful. A calm, confident pause is much better than filling the silence with "uh..." or "um...". Speaking fluently in debates takes time, but it doesn’t have to be stressful. Remember, even great debaters started out with a few “uhs” and “ums.” The key is to keep practicing and keep speaking!

Meet Maranda, a dedicated educator who brings warmth and expertise to every classroom. Originally from Minnesota, she now lives in Murray, Kentucky, with her husband, Ryan, and their four cats. After earning her bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate in Communication, she became an Assistant Professor at Murray State University, specializing in media effects, body image, and mental health. When she’s not teaching or researching, Maranda enjoys reading, spending time with loved ones, and playing with her cats. What inspired you to become a teacher? Growing up I always loved when I would help someone with something and see the light go off when they understand something. I also grew up having some really great teachers who taught me how to look at the world from different perspectives and question things and enjoy learning. I wanted to help others feel those same emotions when they are in class. What are the standout moments in your career? I definitely feel like getting my PhD stands out. Working for that long on something that difficult to come out on top was a really great feeling. Also – my first time I got a really positive class evaluation stating I was their favorite instructor meant a lot to me. How do your personal interests or hobbies outside of the classroom influence your approach to teaching? I love reading and losing myself in a story. I also enjoy working out and going on hikes. All of these things help me to push my students to enjoy what they are learning but also to have the discipline to work through things they are having a hard time with. Practice really does help a person get better, just like working out. You don’t start out being able to lift 50 pounds or run a mile in 8 minutes; you have to keep working for it. What is the most surprising lesson you’ve learned from your students that has influenced how you approach teaching? That as much as I want to be an approachable, easy-going teacher, someone does have to give the students a reality check sometimes. Sometimes their hand does need to be held to do the work, and sometimes I need to give them tough love in order for them to succeed. What do you hope students will remember most about you and your classes after they move on? I really hope my students remember learning a lot in my class, but that they also felt like they could ask me questions in order to help them get better. I want them to have fun in class, but also feel like they took away helpful knowledge as well.

For debaters, the time between semesters isn’t just a break—it’s an opportunity to refine argumentation skills and dive deeper into structured reasoning. Using models like Toulmin , Super Toulmin , or TaBLI , students can maintain their edge and elevate their performance for the next debate season. Build Your Knowledge Base Read Widely Broaden your perspective by exploring newspapers, academic journals, and books that cover diverse fields such as politics, economics, philosophy, and technology. Daily reading habits build awareness of current events and deepen your understanding of foundational theories. For example, reading economic analyses can help you understand global trade disputes, while philosophy texts sharpen your ability to reason through ethical dilemmas. By staying informed, you’ll develop a nuanced perspective that can be applied to debates across various topics, giving you an edge when faced with complex motions. Analyze Current Events The news isn’t just informative—it’s a goldmine for debate practice. Take stories from trusted media outlets and dissect them into claims, evidence, and potential counterarguments. Identify the stakeholders involved, predict their positions, and consider the issue's short- and long-term impacts. For instance, a story about renewable energy initiatives can be used to practice framing arguments around environmental sustainability versus economic costs. This exercise trains you to think critically and respond quickly when new information arises in a debate setting. Conduct Deep-Dive Research Use this downtime to explore topics that might not often come up in casual conversation but are increasingly relevant in debate rounds. Choose a niche issue—artificial intelligence ethics, water resource management, or cultural heritage preservation—and immerse yourself in it. Start by reading introductory articles, then progress to more specialized materials like research papers or expert interviews. By building expertise in less common areas, you’ll be prepared to argue motions others may find daunting, giving you a unique competitive advantage. Engage in Self-Evaluation Self-evaluation is a powerful tool for growth as a debater, allowing you to identify strengths and areas for improvement. Start by recording yourself delivering arguments using structured models like Toulmin, Super Toulmin, or TaBLI. Watching these recordings helps you assess your clarity, logic, and delivery, giving you insight into how effectively your points resonate with an audience. Additionally, create a detailed checklist to ensure your arguments include all essential components—such as warrants, links, and impacts—and evaluate whether these elements are compelling and logically sound. This reflective practice enables you to refine your argumentation skills, ensuring your presentations are well-structured and impactful when debate season resumes. Final Note The break between semesters is an excellent time to grow as a debater, sharpening your skills and expanding your knowledge. With consistent practice and a proactive mindset, you’ll be ready to tackle any challenge when classes resume. And don’t forget—our Winter Camp  and Spring Semester  are just around the corner! These programs are designed to help you refine your abilities and connect with other passionate debaters. We look forward to seeing you in class and continuing this exciting journey together!

Imagine this: the Prime Minister (PM) finishes their opening speech, defining the debate in a way that feels just a little too convenient for their side. As the Leader of the Opposition (LO), you sit there thinking, Wait a second, that doesn’t seem fair!  Here’s the good news—calling out and challenging the PM’s interpretation is not just your right but one of your most powerful tools in British Parliamentary (BP) debate! Let’s break down how to do it with confidence, clarity, and style. Why the LO’s Challenge Is a Game-Changer The PM sets the tone for the debate with their interpretation of the motion, but that doesn’t mean it’s the final word. Sometimes, their interpretation is too narrow, too broad, or just plain unfair. That’s where you come in. As the LO, you have the power to call out any sneaky definitions, reframe the debate, and show the judges why your approach is the better one. How to Challenge Like a Pro Challenging the PM’s interpretation isn’t just about pointing out flaws—it’s about offering a better path forward. Follow these steps to make your challenge effective: Step 1: Call Out the Problem Explain why the PM’s interpretation is flawed. Use clear reasoning and reference debate principles, like fairness and balance. The PM focuses on a tiny part of the topic, leaving you little room to argue. Example:  Motion: “This House would prioritize economic growth over environmental protection.” PM interprets it as solely discussing the timber industry. LO:  “The PM’s definition, which limits this debate to the timber industry, is unreasonably narrow and doesn’t reflect the broader implications of the motion. This restricts our ability to engage meaningfully.” Step 2: Propose a Better Interpretation Give the judges and audience an alternative that makes the debate fairer and more engaging. Example:  “A more reasonable interpretation would explore the trade-offs between economic growth and environmental protection across multiple industries, allowing both sides to engage fully.” Step 3: Reframe the Debate Once you’ve proposed your interpretation, set the stage for your arguments within this new framework. Challenging the PM’s interpretation isn’t just about winning the moment—it’s about setting the tone for the debate. By reframing the discussion, you can shift the spotlight onto your arguments while forcing the government team to play on your turf. Remember, judges love a debate that’s engaging, balanced, and thought-provoking. By challenging unfair or lazy interpretations, you’re not just helping your team—you’re elevating the quality of the entire round. How to Disagree with the PM’s Model Sometimes, the PM will introduce a model—a specific plan or rule—to support their case. As the Leader of the Opposition, this is your chance to show why their model doesn’t work and bring the spotlight back to your side. Here’s how you can tackle their model like a pro: “The model is too strict…”  If the PM’s plan feels like a one-size-fits-all solution, explain why it doesn’t leave enough room for real-world flexibility. For example: “The PM’s plan to ban all social media for kids under 16 is way too strict. What about apps that help kids learn or stay in touch with family?” “The model won’t work…”  Point out why the PM’s plan isn’t practical or realistic. For instance: “The PM’s idea of giving everyone free money sounds cool, but how will they pay for it without making taxes super high?” “The model doesn’t fix the real problem…” Show why their plan doesn’t actually solve what the motion is about. For example: “The PM says we need to focus only on economic growth, but their plan ignores how environmental damage can hurt the economy later on.” Step Up and Own the Debate As the Leader of the Opposition, you have the unique opportunity to shape the debate and hold the PM accountable for their framing. Spot the flaws, propose a better interpretation, and steer the discussion toward a fair and dynamic exchange of ideas. With practice, this skill will become second nature—and who knows? Your well-placed challenge might just be the turning point that wins your team

Grace is a passionate teacher with over a decade of experience in public speaking and debate, ready to help students find their voice and shine. A graduate of the University of Utah, she competed with the John R. Park Debate Society while studying communication, anthropology, and Spanish. Upon graduation from the University of Utah, Grace ended her collegiate debate career with more final round appearances during the regular competition season than any other competitor in the team’s 154-year history. Originally from Moab, Utah, she’s now pursuing a Master’s in Biocultural Anthropology and Public Health at East Carolina University, focusing her research on health trends in the Southern U.S. What sparked your interest in debate, and what was your first experience like? When I was an 8th grader, one of my friends suggested I come to a debate team to see if it was something I’d be interested in. I was! The meeting was fun, and the team members were very welcoming. My first experience at a debate tournament was exciting. The topic was whether the benefits of genetically modified organisms outweighed the harms. I participated in Public Forum (PF) debate and Original Oratory. My PF partner was one of my best friends at the time. He and I lost by a landslide our first round but the team we went against was very nice and they helped us work on our case to improve it. Everyone was so friendly and happy to be at the tournament. It was a really good time!   Can you share a memorable win or loss from your debating days? What did it teach you? One memorable experienced happened during a British Parliamentary debate my second year in college. My partner and I had just won a particularly difficult round, and one team resorted to unfair tactics to try and knock us out of the round. Thankfully, the judges noticed, and we were actually the only team from that round to make it to semifinals. We were so excited because we were on track to make it to finals. The semifinal round went great; my partner and I felt confident and we had fellow competitors and friends who told us, from their perspective, we had won the round and should be guaranteed for finals. In debate, people are usually good about giving honest feedback. We felt confident coming out of the round and were shocked when we did not make it to the final round. It was unfortunate and we were disappointed, but we had an amazing season. That tournament was a tournament I had to attend right after a close friend of mine passed away suddenly, so to even make it to semifinals was something I was proud of. By not making it to finals, I was able to take some time to decompress and relax, surrounded by my friends doing what we all loved to do, and that was really a healing experience after something so horrible. Rather than being alone to grieve, I was with my friends, fully supported. We had a great time watching the final round and I was finally able to relax after a long, emotionally-taxing weekend. Sometimes, the show must go on and we have to participate in debates when we feel like the world around us is crashing down on us. But if we’re doing debate surrounded by people we cherish, who support us and care about us, and who we likewise support and care about, it makes those dark times easy to navigate. Debate is very much an outlet, an academic and intellectual space where you have the opportunity to debate with others who feel the same. Debating with friends makes it even more fun. That was a particularly difficult tournament for me.  This semifinal round was a bit of a reality check and reminded me, taught me, that a loss is not always a bad thing; you grow and learn and it gives you motivation to win the next round! (We ended up winning the next several tournaments!) Keep pushing forward! How did you prepare for big competitions, and what advice would you give to current debaters for handling competition stress? First and foremost, I try not to panic. The worst thing someone can do to themselves right before a big debate tournament is make themselves feel incapable of succeeding. When I was in high school, I struggled to keep myself in a good headspace when I got intimidated. Eventually, I realized I had to stay in a positive mindset because I was just as capable, just as good, as any other debater in the room. This was particularly true when I was competing at the Tournament of Champions, a large national competition. Students in attendance practiced and trained rigorously for years at that competition and I was some kid from a small town in Utah- holding my own against these schools with unlimited resources that were funneled into speech and debate coaches. That alone is a feat. In college, I had a partner for at least some of the events and I was good friends with him, so being able to talk to him and talk ourselves through any doubts or hesitancies we had was very helpful. In events where I couldn’t do that, like extemporaneous speaking or communication analysis, the only thing you can do is practice ahead of time- and I mean practice a lot. If you’re doing an event that requires memorization, you have to practice. That’s the best way to be confident at tournaments. How has your perspective on debate changed since you became a teacher? I now recognize many of the issues my debate coaches used to point out and the strategies they suggested for approaching arguments. My speeches were generally organized, but sometimes I struggled with having clear warrants and using too many impacts at the end of a speech. Teaching debate has allowed me to take a step back and observe the event from the outside looking in instead of the other way around. Working with students of all levels of debate helped me understand, retrospectively, what my coaches worked with me to improve, but I love working with new debaters, or experienced debaters learning a new event. There’s just so much enthusiasm and you can tell when students are really excited about learning a new piece of debate or even a new skill. Being able to watch students work through challenging concepts is so rewarding because I know what those struggles were like and I know what it feels like when you can finally put all of the pieces together and excel! What’s one thing you wish you knew as a debater that you now know as a teacher? I wish I had understood the value of organization in debates. I’ve competed in many debates and I’ve judged many debates. The more organized a speaker is, the more likely I am to vote for them in a debate because they make it easy to follow the round and they tell a clear story about what the debate was about. I was usually decent at staying organized, but I don’t think that nearly as much of a priority for high-school debater Grace as it should have been. In college, my organization got much better because judges were very picky about organization but in high school, knowing that organization could make or break a round would’ve helped me do better when I was first starting out. I really struggled with finding an organization I liked and reference quickly. Even into college, my flows changed round by round sometimes depending on how overwhelmed or confident I was with a topic! I did TRY to keep it consistent!