Debate teams - Psychology of Aging - 2001
Amber Brown                            <----         Team A - Your position: The elderly should accept their appearance.
Devon Obenauer
Matt Hines

vs                   April 16                                       Cosmetic Surgery: Who needs to look "old"?

Maria Kay
Sarah Wayland
Carrie Cradlin                            <-----         Team B - Your position:  What's wrong with a little nip-n-tuck?

Brooke Powell                           <----           Team A - Your position: The elderly should not be committed against
Sarah Weimer                                                                                            their will.
Kim Tapscott

vs               April 18                                             Against Their Will: Institutional Commitment of the Elderly

Pretzel Kelly
Leigh Huntington
T Sodo                                      <----           Team B - Your position: The elderly can't make that decision on their own

Jenny Holmes                            <---              Team A - Your position - The elderly should accept nature's way
Maggie Foster
Melissa Goss

vs      April 23                                Mending Love's Broken Arrow: New Aids for Sexual Activity in Late Adulthood

Melanie Romano
Jeffrey Tindle
Amy Williams                          <---               Team B - Your position - What's wrong with giving nature a helping hand?

Dustin Lowe                            <---               Team A - Your position - The elderly shouldn't be able to vote, drive,
Kim Jackson                                                                                         stand in line, get the "senior citizen discount"
Sandy Moore                                                                                        for hotels & meals, etc...

vs         April 25                                                      Rights and Privileges in Society

Jennifer Self
Maggie Tipton                        <---                Team B - Your position - The elderly should be given special priveledges.

Debate Evaluations will include:

1.  Ratings from Dr. Bjornsen will be based on:

A. How well prepared each individual was.
B. How well each individual presented his or her case.
C. How professional was the demeanor of each individual?
D. How well did each individual respond to the arguments of the other team?
E. The work individuals put into researching the topic during the semester.
F.  How well each individual argued her or his side based on the facts during the debate.

2.  Ratings from students NOT debating that day (all students should attend!)

Students in the "audience" will rate the two TEAMS (not individuals) on the following questions:

Rating Scale:                                                             Excellent   Fair     Poor

A. How well prepared do you think Team A was?            5     4     3    2     1
B. How well prepared do you think Team B was?            5     4     3    2     1

    (Well prepared means: Was the content of the
    arguments directly related to our course, and
    did the arguments seem to be based on good
    evidence? Evidence=Good; Opinion only = Bad)

C. How well did Team A present its case?                        5    4      3    2    1
D. How well did Team B present its case?                        5    4      3    2    1

    (Present its case means:  Logical arguments
    that flowed from one point to another, making
    a good case for the team's side.)

E. How professional was the demeanor of Team A?          5    4     3     2    1
F. How professional was the demeanor of Team B?          5    4     3     2    1

    (Demeanor means: Looked and sounded
    professional, and gave the other team
    professional courtesy.)

G. How well did Team A respond to
            the arguments of Team B?                                  5    4     3      2    1
H. How well did Team B respond to
            the arguments of Team A?                                  5    4     3      2    1

    (Respond to means: Rebuttal, any
    arguments against the other team's
    arguments?)