Law & Order Universidad de Nariño

Licenciatura en lenguas extranjeras con énfasis en inglés

Class Debate Guidelines English Communication Independent User III

Background:
The setting is the close-knit community of “La cierrita”, a remote town nestled in the mountains of Colombia.
La Cierrita is a colorful, beautiful and peaceful town. However, La Cierrita faces its fair share of hardships,
including limited healthcare resources. The heart of the town is young Sarita, a critically ill child battling a rare
condition. Her condition has become a symbol of resilience for the community, and they've always rallied
around her. Her life depends on a specific, extremely rare medication that's not easily accessible, so the
whole community have contributed to collect enough money to buy the extremely expensive medication. The
mediation is expected to last for 3 years, which is the time needed to complete the treatment. However, this
medication needs to be stored at a specific temperature and under specific conditions, so it is kept in the
town’s pharmacy.
The Event:
In a shocking turn of events, a robbery occurred at the pharmacy in town, and the thieves made off with the
entire stock of the life-saving medication. Panic grips the community, as Saritas' life hangs in the balance.
The town is on the brink of despair, knowing that the stolen medication is irreplaceable and without it, Sarita
will soon die. Suddenly, the rumor that the thieves were captured started to spread around town, so everyone
is now rushing to the police station and demanding that the criminals are prosecuted at once.
A few minutes later, there is a formal report by the police. The thieves have turned themselves in and
confessed their crime. They have even helped the police to locate the medicine and are now asking for
leniency in their punishment arguing their willing to cooperate. All of a sudden, the town is divided into two.
Half of the town think that they deserve a lenient punishment, while the other half still think that they deserve
to be severely punished. Very rapidly, a jury is formed, and the trial begins.
Two Possible Decisions:
Defense Team's Argument for Leniency:
The defense team contends that leniency should be considered for the suspects because they've already
helped locate and recover the stolen medication. Their cooperation has potentially saved Saritas’ life, which
is of paramount importance. Furthermore, they express the intention to rehabilitate, undergo counseling, and
work towards reintegration into society.
Conditionals in Argument: "Since the suspects have cooperated and helped recover the medication, Saritas’
life might be saved, and there's potential for them to turn their lives around."
Consideration: This perspective highlights the immediate life-threatening situation and the potential for the
suspects' rehabilitation, focusing on redemption and the chance to contribute positively to society.
Prosecution Team's Argument for Severe Punishment:
The prosecution team argues that despite the suspects' assistance in recovering the medication, the gravity
of the pharmacy robbery should not be diminished. They insist on strict punishment to set a deterrent
example for potential criminals, emphasizing the need to protect the community from similar crimes in the
future.
Conditionals in Argument: "If we offer leniency, it could set a dangerous precedent, potentially encouraging
more criminal activities and endangering the town's safety."
Consideration: This perspective underscores the broader implications of the decision, with an eye on
discouraging criminal acts and safeguarding the town's well-being.
 Debate Session: "The Stolen Medication Dilemma"
This dilemma pits the urgent need to save Saritas’ life and the philosophy of redemption against the moral
responsibility to uphold the law and discourage criminal behavior. The defense team underscores the
suspects' cooperation, willingness to reform, and the potential for their redemption, while the prosecution
team stresses the need for strong deterrence and law enforcement. You must craft persuasive arguments
based on your assigned stance, employing conditionals and the learned vocabulary to express the potential
outcomes of their decisions, and weigh the immediate and long-term consequences.
Objective: To engage students in a structured debate related to the topic of "Law and Order," using
conditionals and unit-specific vocabulary, in the context of a complex ethical dilemma.

1. Team Roles:

Defense Team (Team advocating for leniency):

Lead Defense Attorney: Responsible for presenting the argument for leniency due to the suspects'
cooperation in recovering the medication.
Assistant Defense Attorney: Supports the lead defense attorney's argument.
Reformed Offender Witness: Shares a personal story of rehabilitation after criminal involvement.
Counseling Expert Witness: Provides insights into the suspects' readiness for rehabilitation.
Brother/sister of one of the thieves: Explains the reasons behind his/her brother’s actions.

Prosecution Team (Team advocating for severe punishment):

Lead Prosecutor: Responsible for arguing for severe punishment to set a deterrent example.
Assistant Prosecutor: Supports the lead prosecutor's argument.
Pharmacy Owner Witness: Describes the emotional and financial impact of the robbery.
Law Enforcement Expert Witness: Discusses the importance of law enforcement in maintaining community
safety.
Saritas’ father/mother: Describes Saritas’ pain and suffering and why protecting children’s rights is so
important.

Jury:
Jurors 1 and 2 (Defense-leaning): Required to use conditionals to express a leaning towards leniency.
Jurors 3 and 4 (Prosecution-leaning): Required to use conditionals to express a leaning towards stricter
punishment.
Foreperson (Neutral): Responsible for moderating the jury deliberation.

2. Format of the Debate:

Opening Statements (10 minutes):

The defense team presents their argument for leniency, emphasizing the suspects' cooperation and potential
for rehabilitation.
The prosecution team argues for severe punishment to set a deterrent example.

Witness Testimonies (15 minutes):

Each team calls witnesses to provide testimonies in support of their arguments.
The defense presents the reformed offender and the counseling expert.
The prosecution presents the pharmacy owner and the law enforcement expert.
The witnesses exchange arguments and ask questions among them.

Saritas’ family member vs. the thief’s family member (10 minutes)
Each family member gives their testimony and provides reasons to support their positions.
The family members engaged in a discussion, each defending their point.

Cross-Examination (10 minutes):

Lawyers from both sides question the opposing witnesses to scrutinize the testimonies and extract relevant
information.

Closing Arguments (15 minutes):

Each team's lead attorney presents their closing arguments, reiterating their stance and using conditionals to
emphasize potential outcomes.
The defense highlights the suspects' cooperation and willingness to rehabilitate.
The prosecution emphasizes the need for strict punishment as a deterrent.

Jury Deliberation (15 minutes):

The jury, consisting of four jurors with opposing views and a neutral foreperson, engages in discussions.
Jurors 1 and 2 (Defense-leaning) must use conditionals to express a leaning towards leniency.
Jurors 3 and 4 (Prosecution-leaning) must use conditionals to express a leaning towards stricter punishment.
The foreperson moderates the deliberation.

Verdict (5 minutes):
The foreperson announces the jury's verdict based on the discussions, and the debate session concludes.

3. Use of Conditionals and Unit Vocabulary:

• Emphasize the use of conditionals (e.g., second and third conditionals) throughout the session to
make hypothetical arguments.
• Encourage the use of unit-specific vocabulary related to law, justice, and ethics.

Rubric for Individual Assessment

Content (40 points):

Effective use of grammar and language mechanics (15 points)
Clear and persuasive presentation of arguments (15 points)
Effective use of conditionals (5 points)
Skillful use of unit-specific vocabulary (5 points)

Delivery (20 points):

Clear and articulate speech (10 points)
Effective use of non-verbal communication (5 points)
Evidence of preparation (5 points)

Participation (20 points):

Active engagement in discussions (15 points)
Respectful and cooperative interaction with team members (5 points)

Overall Impact (20 points):

Persuasiveness and the ability to convince the jury (10 points)
Group organization and commitment (10 points)

Good luck!
Mr. Juan C. Acosta