CAP Debates 2021 Project Packet

OBJECTIVE: Assemble a coherent and well

supported argument on an issue and defend your
argument in a formal debate setting.
● For this project, you will participate in a formal debate
● You will have a topic with a proposition that will
present a claim
● Your goal is to present an argument in favor of, or
against the claim.

STEP 1: Find Out Your Topic! - December 21

On Monday, December 21, CAP10 will meet as a whole group to discuss the CAP Debates Project
and dole out the debate topics and sides. Once you learn your topic and side, add in your information
below! If you need to check back on the list, CLICK HERE!

My Topic: Defunding the police

My Topic Proposition: The U.S government should not defund the police system.

My Side (pro or con): Con

My Debate Partner and their Izzy Martinez

458062
Student ID number:
My Debate Opponents: Anna Uehlein and Sedise Tiruneh

PRO = Affirmative CON = Negative

The side that “affirms” or argues for the proposition The side that argues the status quo, against the
or change proposition.

Has burden of proof, therefore goes first and last. Can cast doubt on the arguments or proposition, not
introduce alternative

Must outline the case and introduce new points of Responds by refuting Affirmative, rather than
argument formulating new arguments
STEP 2: Research! - Over Winter Break
Now that you know your topic and the side you will debate, you will need to do some research. Use
the charts below to organize your claims, key quotes and statistics, and make notes on reasoning and
credibility. You will also want to collect some opposition research, including the opposition’s claims, so
that you are able to build your crossfire and rebuttal. Finally, you will collect a works cited list of
credible sources.

Your Side:

Notes, Quotes, Evidence, Statistics,

Claims
Reasoning
Claim #1 We must focus on more Rigorous police training will educate officers and help
rigorous police training, modeling ours deter escalation and abuse of power.
after the forces of other countries with
more nonviolent, and statistically
effective police forces.

Claim #2 Make the requirements to The requirements to become an officer are very basic.
become an officers stricter By making the requirements stricter and harder, it will
cause only equipped officers to join the force.

Claim #3 Mandate stricter repercussions
for officers
Officers have a power complex where they don't fear
consequences for abusing their power, which is why
they have no problem doing so. Mandating strict and
defined repercussions for certain offenses will force
officers to do better.

Add more claims as needed by adding

rows to this chart!
Opposition Research: To craft your rebuttal!
Refuting - There are three basic techniques of refuting arguments -
1. Directly attack the data upon which your opponents’ claims rest. An example would be
arguing that the data for global warming is faulty.
2. Absorb their argument. Rather than disagree with the data behind their argument, you provide
an alternative interpretation of the data that accords with your overall arguments. In other
words, concede the data and refute the claim. For example, you might say, “Yes, it is historically
true that we have never used our nuclear arsenal; however, that example merely proves my
point that stockpiling these weapons has been an effective deterrent, because…”
3. The strategic concession. Rather than disagree with either the data or warrants of your
opponents, explain why their arguments are irrelevant. For example, you might say, “Even if our
opponents win that our plan will cost several billion dollars, we still win the debate because the
plan’s benefits outweigh its costs, since…” These last two techniques allow you to defend your
strongest ground rather than get sucked into argumentative quagmires that you have no chance
of winning. If the data is good and credible, then start looking for ways to spin it to your
advantage.

Opposing Claims Your Rebuttal

Claim #1. The majority of the diversity in the police force is in its
younger and newer officers. When budget cuts are
introduced, these officers will be the first to go, creating
a remaining police force of almost exclusively older,
straight, white men.

Claim #2 Defunding police will not leave them equipped to deal

with rising population numbers and crime rates rising
again.

Claim #3 While change may be needed in many areas, most

residents and cities are unable and unwilling to meet the
new requirements, due to a lack of understanding,
motivation, and funds.

Add more claims as needed by adding

rows to this chart!

Works Cited: Add your list of credible sources in here. Make sure to use proper MLA citations.
You will put together a formal team copy of this to turn in on Debate Day!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xZ18zqoeFnD_-Pq7Z--dnW71JkPH_bZ924zgK1HtqBk/edit?u
sp=sharing
STEP 3: Debate Prep! - January 4 (9am-11am)
On Monday, January 4, you will have the chance to meet with your debate partner in a breakout room to
combine your research and build your debate. First, take a look at the debate format, so you will know what
you need to prepare. Visit the Debate Prep slideshow to see more information.

Constructive Speech (4 minutes): Make

sure to include a hook, your introduction, your claims, and your analysis. Constructive Speeches Introduce
New Issues.
● For the PRO (Affirmative) side, this is the only entirely scripted speech, in that it is composed almost
entirely of expert quotations, clearly organized into solid positions. The affirmative team sets forth a
case. A case defends a new policy, called a plan.
● For the CON (Negative) side, this should lay out the choices for how you will attack the affirmative. It
is important to remember that the negative team attacks the affirmative plan, not the topic. For this
reason, the negative side constructive can never be completely scripted.

Team member responsible: Mary

My partner and I argue that U.S police departments should not be defunded. We do agree on the basis of
relocation of funding but we argue that distribution of police funding must go toward police training.
Rigorous and informative police training is needed in the police system in order to deter escalation in
dangerous situations and abuse of power. According to Insider, “There is no standardized code of police
education.” There needs to be set national standards in police training. Harvard Author David Gutierrez
stated, “Currently, training focuses too much on firearm skills and omits vital exposure to non-lethal
weapons and conflict management.” Police need more rigorous training pertaining de-escalation, conflict
management, mental health and more. According to Brookings, “Data show that 9 out of 10 calls for service
are for nonviolent encounters. Now, this does not mean that an incident will not turn violent, but police at
times contribute to the escalation of violent force.” If officers were properly trained and mandated to learn
how to handle situations better the likelihood of them turning violent would decrease. The requirements to
become a police officer also needs to be stricter. Discoverpolicing.org states the minimum standards for
becoming an officer for most agencies are U.S citizenship, an 18 or 21+ age requirement depending on the
agency, a high school diploma or GED, a drivers license, and a fitness requirement. And for most
departments the passing grade for the police written test is a 70% and above. Training requirements vary
based on agency but according to golawenforcement, “it [police training] usually takes about 13 to 19
weeks on average.” To put it in simple terms its really not that hard to become an officer. Stricter
requirements regarding training, background, and testing should be more rigorous and informative. We
argue one of the most important regulations that needs to be implemented is stricter repercussions for
officers. According to mappingpoliceviolence.org, 98.3% of killings by officers have not resulted in the
officer being charged for a crime. If one knows they will be able to commit a crime without facing
repercussions there is nothing stopping them from committing crimes. The U.S needs set defined
requirements for officer repercussions as a response to murders and overall abuse of power, doing so will
deter police brutality. During 2020, the Minneapolis Police department defunded the the police budget by 1
million dollars. According to the Minneapolis crime records there was a rise in crime rates shortly after. We
should not jump to defunding the police without fully attempting these regulations and standards that could
vastly affect the police system in a positive way. When there are issues in other career backgrounds such
as education and healthcare more money is put into those systems to solve the problem, not defunded.
Defunding the police is taking money from one broken system to fix another broken system instead of just
fixing both systems. And ultimately defunding the police isn't something American citizens want according
to surveys done by both YouGov and Fortune the majority of Americans are against defunding the
police.The minorities opinion shouldnt overrule the majority in our democracy. Once again my partner and I
reaffirm our opposition of defunding the police.

Crossfire #1 (3 minutes):
● Be prepared with questions for your opponents. You will add questions to this section BASED ON
WHAT THEY SAID
● Answer your opponent as succinctly as possible. Don’t evade and try to be honest. Be prepared to
fire back with a question of your own

Team member responsible: Mary

The team member that did the Constructive Speech should do this part!

Brainstorm questions you will ask the opposition here, but leave room to add more as you listen to
the debate: Why are you advocating to take away money from a broken system? How will
defunding the police result in officers being held accountable for murdering innocent people?
Rebuttal Speech (4 minutes):
● Rebuttal speeches refine and explain previously introduced issues (no new issues allowed).
● Each speaker should have narrowed down the number of arguments, focusing on the most
important. Use a declining amount of quotations.

Team member responsible: Izzy

The team member that did NOT do the Constructive Speech should do this part!

Draft your rebuttal speech here:

My partner and I argue that U.S police departments should not be defunded. Populations are increasing,
and the police are being told to deal with a larger and larger population every year. The National Police
Support fund claims that due to these increased numbers combined with their lower pay, it can make for a
very stressful job that can inspire less effectiveness and fewer dedicated officers. In rural areas, where
money is tight and the number of residents is smaller, they simply do not have the funds to create new
institutions and spread mental health awareness. The little amount of money they DO have dedicated to
policing is spent on the officers wages mostly, though in places like Thornston, Georgia, the officers
reported, “family health benefits were not available, which made the job less appealing for those tasked
with supporting dependents.” (National Police Fund). Walter Katz, a police auditor, adds that since
defunding restricts the funds and thus the number of officers, the new and young officers are going to
be the first to go. Unfortunately, this is where the majority of the diversity of the police force lies, limiting
the remaining force to almost exclusively older, straight, white men. This population is the most
resistant to change and has the least experience with mental health awareness; these two very
different approaches to policing will result in too much dissonance to ultimately work effectively as a
team. David Weisburd, a professor of Criminal Justice, argues that while some jobs should be handed
to other departments, such as handling the homeless or the mentally ill, most cities and residents
simply aren’t willing to put in the massive amounts of time, effort, and money required to do so. Data
compiled by The Guardian found that 59 people in the US were shot and killed by police in the first 24
days of 2015, a stark contrast to only 55 people fatally shot by police in England and Wales in the past
24 years. Vikram Dodd, a Police and Crime correspondent for the Guardian, reports that Police in other
countries do have much stricter laws concerning officers and gun-usage, as well as behavior of
officers. “In Finland, an officer must get supervisor approval before using deadly force and, in Spain,
officers must fire a warning shot or shoot a non-vital body part before using lethal force. Officers in
Europe train for an average of three years, compared to about 19 months for American.” Based on
statistics from other countries with more effective and non-violent police forces, my partner and I argue
that the police should not be defunded in order to work on modifying their practices to reflect those of
other countries.
Once again my partner and I reaffirm our opposition of defunding the police.
Crossfire #2 (3 minutes):
● Be prepared with questions for your opponents. You will add questions to this section BASED ON
WHAT THEY SAID
● Answer your opponent as succinctly as possible. Don’t evade and try to be honest. Be prepared to
fire back with a question of your own

Team member responsible: Izzy

The team member that did the Rebuttal Speech should do this part!

Brainstorm questions you will ask the opposition here, but leave room to add more as you listen to
the debate:

Killed 28 percent- law enforcement system is flawed- attack 5x more Black citizens-- ratio of 34 to
every 10,000-- crime rates have not risen --- should be revoked due to how racist the system is

You say crime rates have not risen, but according to a 2020 report in the New York Times, they
HAVE risen since 2019, how will defunding the police help these rates drop down.

Defunding the police may give more money to other systems such as mental health, but how will
those stations get the support they need? If the police are an inherently flawed system, as you
argue, how will adding new stations that are essentially sub-sections of the police force reform
those. Will those psychologists be exempt of implicit bias simply because they have a better
understanding of mental health

Will these on-call psychologists need many years of training similar to police training? What if the
person they are dealing with is armed or physically larger than the psychologists

As part of the reform my partner and I argue that we could modify our police systems to reflect
those of other countries with less violent police forces- how will defunding be modeled after.

Summary Speech (2 minutes): Summarize the main points in the debate and your side’s main
arguments.

Team member responsible: Mary

The team member that did the Constructive Speech should do this part!

The U.S police force should not be defunded. As I stated previously, defunding the police is taking money
from one broken system to fix another broken system instead of just fixing both systems. The police system
does have its downsides but abandoning it instead of actively pushing more efforts to fix it is not the
approach we should take. Defunding the police won't necessarily stop officers from abusing their power the
issue is behavioral, education wise, and lack of accountability. Which is why we need to push for fixing this
system. Funding should be shifted to training and making requirements to become an officer more rigorous
in order to push more qualified officers into force. Officers have a power complex because they are able to
get away with committing crimes while on duty which is why my partner and I strongly push for strict and
defined repercussions for officers. National standards for police agency checks and balances must be
mandated. Americans do not want our police force to be defunded as well. As a democracy we should not
let the opinions of the minority affect the majority, so we must work around this in order to create the most
effective police reform. Rebuilding and rehabilitating officers and the police system as whole is what's
necessary. We advocate for working hard to make the system and officers better in order to ensure the well
being of the american public.

Grand Crossfire (3 minutes): Brainstorm questions that you will ask the opposition to drive home
the rightness of your argument and wrongness of their argument.

BOTH Team members will be responsible for this part!

TIP: You may want to take your 2 min to organize just prior to this part!

Add questions in here during the debate!

Final Focus Speech (2 minutes): Tell the judge why your side won the debate. For this part, you
will speak directly to the judge.

Team member responsible: Izzy

The team member that did NOT do the Constructive Speech should do this part!
TIP: You could also take your 2 min to organize just prior to this part, if you didn’t take it before!

Add some ideas in here prior to the debate, but you will likely need to draft this section as you
listen to the debate.

We have more citizen support and thus our law are more likely to be voted for and passed. We
understand that the police system needs to be reformed and changed, but defunding them will not
stop them from abusing their power. Even if specific subsections are created to address mental
health, those people will not be exempt from their biases. Modeling our police system after those
of other countries that have a fraction of the violence reported in the US will ultimately benefit the
system as a whole, and will not require any additional support or funding. Additionally, senators
and governors that lean conservative who are mostly unwilling to pass police reform would be
MORE likely to pass our laws, due to no additional money being required and fewer entire new
systems needing to be built. Our main focus is helping the people of the united states who are
disproportionately affected by police brutality. While extremity may be necessary for addressing
the issues, it unfortunately is not what gets passed in congress, and thus can’t help anyone. WE
need to have a long-term solution
The healthcare system is deeply rooted in racism. Experimentation was done on slaves in order to
shape the healthcare system and modern medicine. The effects are distinguishable today because
there is a long standing stigma that black people have a high pain tolerance which is why black
people are dying and black women are more likely to die during childbirth due to the racism deeply
embedded in the healthcare system. But we would never take funding from that instead we would
better train healthcare workers which is why we need to take the same approach and better train
officers.

STEP 4: Debate Team Check-in! - January 6 (@ assigned time)

On Wednesday, January 6, you will check-in with your debate teacher during your assigned check-in time.
Prior to this time, make sure to check in with your debate partner via email, text, zoom, etc to get organized
and discuss your goals for the day. During your meeting with your debate teacher, be prepared to run through
major arguments with the teacher grading you. You should have final speeches and lines of reasoning to show
them, even if there is a part of it that you are unsure of.

Notes from meeting with your debate teacher:

More bad cops (good cops will leave because of low wage and bad cops will rise because of anger)
Increased citations
Increased crime rates
Cops already make low wage (linked to increased citation they get paid more for more citations written)
Move more budgeting to training
Most americans are anti police defunding
Standard nation regulations

STEP 5: Debate Day! - January 7 (9 am)

Welcome to Debate Day, Thursday, January 7. Prior to class on Thursday, make sure to format, revise, and
polish. Make changes based on the feedback from your teacher. Adjust thoughts, formats, etc. and seek out
any additional research you may need. Think about questions you may ask the other side, and questions they
might ask you. Practice improvising questions, answers and rebuttals.

● 9:00am Meet in our Interdisciplinary Zoom to get instructions for the day

Debate Grading Rubric: