1. Introduction (15 minutes)
Objective: Engage students and introduce the topic.
Activities:
1. Open-ended ACTIVITY (5 minutes):
- Fact-checking websites to verify statistics and claims- Websites like Google Scholar for academic articles on the impact of car bans.
2. Discussion on Types of Questioning in Debate (10 minutes):
Explain the different types of questioning as a debate strategy, focusing on:
- Points of Information (POIs)
- Clarification Questions
- Exploratory Questions
- Rebuttal Questions
- Provide real-world examples from debates (parliamentary, televised, or recorded debate tournaments).
2. Core Lesson: Questioning Techniques (25 minutes)
Objectives: Teach students effective POI strategies and how to expose logical fallacies. Activities:
Strategies for Effective POIs
- Explain the strategic timing of POIs and their function.
- Teach concise questioning techniques to:
- Weaken the opponent’s argument.
- Highlight contradictions.
- Introduce new perspectives.
Examples of Effective POIs:
1. A question exposing a logical fallacy. (this act can have positive consequences)
2. A request for clarification. (this act will cover all days/all period?)
3. A controlled provocation (would this decision improve tourism?).
Techniques to Expose Logical Fallacies:
Show how well-structured POIs, clarification, and rebuttal questions can reveal common fal lacies such as:
- Hasty Generalization
- Ad Hominem Attacks
- False Causality (Correlation vs. Causation)
- False Dilemma
3. Practical Exercise (35 minutes)
Objective: Allow students to practice and refine their ability to ask strategic questions in debates. Activity: Role-Playing Debate
- Divide the class into groups for a simulated debate.
- Focus Areas:
- Strategic insertion of POIs.
- Responding to POIs.
- Identifying and refuting fallacies.
Debate Topic: " The mayor wants to ban the circulation of cars in the historic center”
Each student prepares:
- Three possible POIs
- Analysis of potential fallacies
Example POIs:
1. Pedestrian-Only Squares
- Example: Piazza del Duomo – A central square featuring the city’s famous cathedral and a gathering place for tourists and locals. Banning cars would make it more accessible and sa fer for pedestrians to explore the historical and architectural marvels.
2. Historic Landmarks and Monuments
- Example: Colosseum (Rome) or Palace of the Popes (Avignon) – These landmarks would benefit from car-free streets that preserve their heritage and ensure that visitors have a more immersive and peaceful experience.
3. Cultural and Art Museums
- Example: The Prado Museum (Madrid) or The Louvre (Paris) – Museums located in the hi storic center would see an influx of visitors with more pedestrian-friendly streets, as they provide better access to cultural sites without the distraction or pollution from vehicles.
Potential Fallacies to Identify:
- Hasty Generalizations
- False Causality
- Ad Hominem Attacks
1. Hasty Generalizations
- Example: "If we ban cars in the historic center, it will automatically improve the city for all tourists."
- Explanation: This is a hasty generalization because it assumes that the ban will uni versally improve the experience for every tourist without considering possible varia tions. For instance, some tourists may prefer access to the historic center by car for convenience, especially elderly tourists or those with mobility issues. This claim overlooks these factors and generalizes the outcome for all tourists.
2. False Causality
- Example: "The historic center was much cleaner and more enjoyable last summer when cars were banned, so banning cars must be the reason why the city was so much better."
- Explanation: This fallacy assumes a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the ban on cars and the improvement in the city's condition without considering other factors. For example, better cleanliness could be the result of improved city services or more tourists visiting, not necessarily the car ban itself. The claim suggests a cau sal relationship without enough evidence to prove that the car ban was the sole or primary cause.
3. Ad Hominem Attacks
- Example: "The mayor's decision to ban cars in the historic center should be ignored because they clearly don't care about the needs of business owners or drivers."
- Explanation: This is an ad hominem attack because it attacks the mayor personally instead of addressing the merits of the actual policy. Rather than discussing whether banning cars is a good or bad decision, the argument focuses on undermining the mayor's character or motives, which is irrelevant to the actual debate on the ban.
- These fallacies detract from a logical and fair discussion about the pros and cons of banning cars in the historic center and can derail a meaningful conversation about the policy’s effectiveness.
4. Conclusion & Reflection (15 minutes)
Objective: Reinforce learning, awareness, and encourage self-evaluation.
Discussion Topics:
- Challenges encountered during questioning.
- Most effective techniques used.
- Awareness of strategies employed.
1. Challenges Encountered During Questioning
- Vagueness of Questions: One of the challenges in questioning is when the question isn't specific enough, which can lead to broad or imprecise answers. For example, if the question asked about the potential impacts of banning cars in a historic center without clarifying whether it was focused on economic, environmental, or social impacts, the responses may lack focus or nuance.
- Resistance to Change: People might have preconceived notions about the impact of ban ning cars in the historic center, such as believing it would harm businesses or tourism. This can result in defensive responses or a reluctance to consider alternative viewpoints.
- Bias or Assumptions: Interviewees might bring their own biases, such as assuming that cer tain groups will be universally opposed or in favor of the ban without recognizing the diver sity of opinions on the matter.
- Lack of Data: In some cases, interviewees may not have the necessary data or evidence to back up their opinions, leading to unsupported claims or a reliance on anecdotal evidence
2. Most Effective Techniques Used
- Clarifying Questions: To overcome vagueness, using follow-up or clarifying questions helps ensure the responses are specific and relevant. For instance, asking, "Can you explain how banning cars might affect local businesses in the area?" narrows the focus of the con versation.
- Active Listening: Paying attention to the interviewee’s responses, including body language (if in person) and tone, helps to identify areas where they may need more explanation or may be hesitant to discuss a particular aspect of the issue.
- Probing for Specifics: Asking for examples or more details when people give broad or ge neralized answers is useful. For example: “Can you give an example of a city that has suc cessfully banned cars in its historic center?”
3. Awareness of Strategies Employed
- Framing the Question: It's important to be aware of how questions are framed to avoid lea ding the conversation in a particular direction. Neutral wording, such as "What do you think about the mayor's decision to ban cars in the historic center?" instead of "Don’t you think banning cars is a great idea for the historic center?" is crucial in maintaining objectivity.
- Listening for Hidden Assumptions: Being aware of underlying assumptions in responses helps avoid falling into biases or confirming stereotypes. For instance, if someone says, "Banning cars would hurt local businesses," it's important to ask, "Why do you think it would hurt businesses?" to understand their perspective more deeply
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)