Debate Guideline Urbanization and

Module Urbanization and Urban Development Management (IUDS 5033)
ASSIGNMENT A-001: DEBATE

FOR INSTITUTE OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
POST GRADUATE MASTERS PROGRAMS 2014 1ST YEAR 1STSEMESTER
PARTICIPANTS
Debate subject: The viability of urban expansion vs. urban containment policy options for Sub
Saharan African countries
Resolution: “Urban expansion is a more viable policy option than urban containment for Sub
Saharan African countries”
1. Introduction
Policy options to manage urban growth more or less vary between containment and expansion approaches.
On the one hand containment policies are incorporated into the growth management programs by several
states to attain various objectives. The underlying assumption behind containment policy options is that if new
territory is no longer available to the development market, the market will look inward and seize by-passed
opportunities. Central cities would not need to expand their boundaries outward but merely wait for and
facilitate the back wave of development after it hits the containment boundary. On the other hand, there are
views that the urbanization process, while it still in full swing, cannot be stopped or reversed. Many
governments have attempted to control rural-urban migration flows in the past, nevertheless if not all, have
ended in utter failure.
Sub Saharan Africa countries, though it is true that they exhibit significant intra-regional urbanization
differences, they do share more or less some common urban features.The average level of urbanization for
SSA is about 30%. Ethiopia’s level of urbanization is about 17 % which is very low even by SSA standard.
Sub-Saharan African economic performance has been markedly worse than that of other developing areas
since the 1970s. It has been characterized by chronic rather than episodic poor economic growth at rates often
below those of population growth. Widely across the subcontinent, endemic poverty has deepened as: debt
has increased, export market shares have declined, foreign direct investment has gone elsewhere; and
reliance on aid has increased. However there is hope also. Africa is becoming one of the dynamic regions in
the world.
Debate begins with the debaters having developed or been assigned a position on an issue. Participants have
to know that in debate what matters is their strength of argument not what they have been preached in the
classes. The intention is to persuade others that their position is the proper one. The arrangement for the
debate is as follows: The whole participants of a class would be divided into two groups of debaters: one group
in the support of the resolution (pro) and the other group in opposition to the resolution (con). Participants
should prepare constructive arguments. The constructive arguments need to be based on the three major
propositions: Namely:
1. The sustainable densities proposition
2. The decent housing proposition
3. The public work proposition
Study groups in each of the pro and con debaters group would be assigned one proposition. However they
can also include other parameters which they fill are important. For example the urban ecological foot print and
loss of cultivated land.
2. Objectives
The classroom debate is an exercise designed to allow you to strengthen your skills in the areas of leadership,
interpersonal influence, teambuilding, group problem solving, and oral presentation. The learning objectives of
the debate sessions are:
1
 To appreciate the conflicting views about urban expansion and containment policies specifically as
related to SSA countries
 To develop the ability of being very critical against whole sale policy options in reference to specific
context of region or country
 Through debate to convince their mind about which policy option is more viable to the specific context
of SSA countries.
3. Assessment
The debate is assessed at two levels: one at the debater group level (at the pro group and con group
level) which makes up to 5%; and individual contribution up to 5% totally making the mark weight for
each participant up to10%. Groups and individuals who developed their constructive arguments by
making use of other literature sources in addition to the text book used for the sessions will be highly
rewarded. Assessment of individual debaters and groups will be based on 3 content related criteria
(1-3) and 2 process related criteria (4-5). The criteria include:
1. The substance of the point of constructive argument raised

2. The relevance and strength of the rebuttal argument and response to what has been raised
by the opponent group (no idea raised by the opponent group should be left unattended)
3. The quality of preparation (exploring many literature sources during preparation)
4. Presentation including articulation while arguing ( verbal behavior, clarity/choice of words , voice
level); and nonverbal behavior (gesture/posture)
5. General coherence (ability to follow points) and timing
4. Debate date
The debate is to be held on Monday of the last week of Block I (i.e. the 6 th week according to the
modified organizational-process plan) throughout the CUDE post graduate programs. Prior
arrangement has to be made with the respective department heads to exchange with other instructors
who do have other module sessions on Monday of the 6 th week. All other sessions of Block I (UUDM)
have to be completed before the sixth week by what so ever means including makeup classes. A
contingency plan has to be prepared by each instructor who was not able to finish according to the
schedules.
5. Principal responsibility of the instructor
1. Assign debaters a position on the issue.

2. Insure that participants are familiar with the procedures for conducting a debate.
3. Help participants see the dimensions of the problem and develop clear, logical, and
supportable arguments for the position they present during the debate.
4. Help participants gain an understanding of some of the educational objectives which can be
achieved by debate.
5. Assess the performance of each debater and the performance of each group (pro and con)
and record the marks.
Annexes 1-4
Debate procedures, time budget allocation, group marking and individual marking formats are attached.
2
ANNEX 1
Debate on urban expansion vs. urban containment policies
Procedures for the debate
1. The chairperson (the instructor) and time keeper (with a table bell or buzzer) sit in front of the class.
2. Debaters in favor of the resolution (pro group) will sit to the right side of the class while debaters in
opposition to the resolution (con group) will sit to the left of the class facing the other group.
3. Each group is to write its group name, debate position (pro or con), and debate position statement and
post on the wall behind their desks. Note that absolutely no changes may be made to the position
statements presented. You must argue them exactly as written!
4. The chairperson briefly introduces the subject and states the resolution that is to be debated.
5. The chairperson allows the first speaker from the group in support of the resolution (pro
group).
6. The first speaker from the team in support of the resolution is allowed a set amount of time to
present the constructive argument (s)he has prepared. Each speaker is given a maximum of 3
- 4 minutes. The timekeeper, seated in front of the class, indicates when the time limit has
been reached. The speaker must stop immediately when the allocated time runs out (see time budget
allocation of the debate session in Annex 2).
7. Each speaker will introduce herself /himself when (s)he is given the floor and proceed by
mentioning from which major proposition s/he will forward her/his argument.
8. Group members are prohibited from speaking to the audience or opposing team except at the times
specifically allocated to them.
9. The first speaker from the group in opposition to the resolution is allowed and asked to give
her/his constructive argument. This procedure of presenting pro and con speakers alternately
is continued until each debater has given his/her constructive argument. After the first speaker,
those who follow will probably need to adjust their prepared speeches to allow for what has
been said by preceding speakers.
10. "Rebuttal arguments" follow the series of constructive arguments given by both debaters
groups. The debate group in opposition to the resolution always begins the rebuttal argument
series. Each debater is given an opportunity to speak extemporaneously (without advance
preparation or thought) for a set amount of time, attempting to weaken the position presented
by the opposing team. Rebuttal (falsifying a claim made by the opposite group) arguments also
provide an opportunity to answer attacks that have been made by the opposing team. While
rebuttal arguments are presented extemporaneously, debaters should anticipate possible
positions the opposition might take and be prepared with appropriate counter arguments. Note
that no new issues may be introduced during rebuttal arguments.
11. Debrief and/or evaluate the debate and the performance of the debate groups by the
instructor. Class members should be asked to explain whether or not their own positions were
strengthened or changed as a result of hearing the debate and to explain why.
3
ANNEX 2 Time budget allocation& sequence of debate activities
Assuming an average class size of 36 participants (6 study groups 3 pro groups and 3 con groups)
(i) Briefing of debate subject and resolution by the instructor
2 minutes briefing => 2 minutes
(ii) Position presentation by both groups

3 debaters from each pro group from the perspective of the three propositions (i.e. 6 debaters), each
debater will take 3 minutes of position presentation
6*3= 18minutes position presentation =>18 minutes
3 debaters from each con group from the perspective of the three propositions (i.e. 6 debaters), each
debater will take 3 minutes of position presentation
6*3= 18 minutes position presentation =>18 minutes
5 minutes work period => 5 minutes
(iii) Rebuttal (by con group)
2 or 3 new debaters from each con group from the perspective of the three propositions (i.e. 4 or 6
debaters), each debater taking 3 minutes will proceed with rebuttal
4*3 = 12 minutes rebuttal =>12 minutes
5 minutes work period =>5 minutes
(iv) Response (by pro group)
2 or 3 new debaters from each pro group from the perspective of the three propositions (i.e. 4 or 6
debaters), each debater taking 3 minutes will proceed with response
4*3 = 12 minutes response => 12 minutes
3 minutes work period => 3 minutes
(v) Position summary (by both pro and con groups)
1 new member from each con and pro group from the perspective of the three propositions (i.e. 2 debaters
from pro group and 2 from con groups) will present 2 minutes position summary
4*2 = 8 minutes =>8 minutes
Break 30 minutes (if well carried according to plan all the above activities require 74 minutes or 1:15 hour s. This
requires the effort of the time keeper. Break will be from 10:30 -11:00AM)
(vi) Debriefing and evaluation by the instructor
Debriefing and evaluation by the instructor on the debate and the performance of the debate
groups will be followed starting from 11:00 AM.

Debate Guideline Urbanization and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate Guideline Urbanization and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate Guideline Urbanization and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module Urbanization and Urban Development Management (IUDS 5033)

ASSIGNMENT A-001: DEBATE

1. The substance of the point of constructive argument raised

1. Assign debaters a position on the issue.

2 minutes briefing => 2 minutes

(ii) Position presentation by both groups

You might also like