• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Debate and diplomacy in history
 

Debate and diplomacy in history

on

  • 12,612 views

2011 Theme discussion and explanation

2011 Theme discussion and explanation

Statistics

Views

Total Views
12,612
Views on SlideShare
12,605
Embed Views
7

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
49
Comments
0

1 Embed 7

http://whystudyhistory.wikispaces.com 7

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Debate and diplomacy in history Debate and diplomacy in history Presentation Transcript

    • History Day Workshop September 28, 2010
      • This is a brand-new theme
      • Contrary to past History Day rules, interpret this theme as “Debate AND/OR Diplomacy”
      • Staff encourages students to include connections to both, if possible
      • Debate:
        • A discussion involving opposing points; an argument
      • Debate
        • A discussion involving opposing points; an argument
        • Deliberation, consideration
      • Debate
        • A discussion involving opposing points; an argument
        • Deliberation, consideration
        • A formal contest in which the affirmative and the negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers
      • To be a “debate,” a topic needs to be more complex than a disagreement
      • Debate implies large issues, long-term discussion of opposing sides, and impactful consequences
      • For example, students and teachers can disagree about school dress code, but can debate about students’ rights to use dress as a method of free speech (Tinker v. Des Moines)
      • Most debates, disagreements and arguments involve controversy
      • The difference is that debates must have a historical significance
      • Use the postscript “Successes, Failures, Consequences” to define the historical significance and impact
      • Physical debates:
        • Kennedy/Nixon, Lincoln/Douglas, other presidential debates. Instead of focusing on the mere presence of these debates, focus on the substance behind the debates.
      • Ideological debates:
        • Subjects debated within communities or nations. Change, or non-change, is a motivating factor behind participants’ efforts. Ideological debates may be resurrected throughout history.
      • Pick a social/political/economic issue and find points in time when it was debated.
            • Women’s Suffrage
      1848 1869 1872 1890 1912 1919 Declaration of Sentiments Split from Susan B. Anthony’s arrest Merger of AWSA and Alice Paul forms 19 th amend. abolitionists NWSA militant NWP passed
      • Modern debated issues: Find the origin or similar topics in the past
      • Current debate may become a part of the impact, but define the debate in historical terms
      • For example: Gays in the military
        • Women in the military, women in combat
        • Blacks in the military, separate companies
        • Compulsory draft, conscientious objectors
        • Young people in war, unable to vote
      • Places to look for debates…
        • Court cases (the context of the court case will generally demonstrate debate). Gideon v. Wainwright
        • Medical controversies (as new issues arise, new technologies are discovered, changes in social viewpoints). Methods of polio treatment
        • Within a movement (methods, leadership, warring factions). Different methods of Malcolm X and MLK
        • Governmental change (look for the source of the change, act, amendment, leadership shift). Alien and Sedition Acts.
      • Diplomacy
        • The art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations, as in alliances, treaties or agreements.
      • Diplomacy
        • The art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations, as in alliances, treaties or agreements.
        • The conduct of the relations of one state with another by peaceful means.
      • Diplomacy
        • The art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations, as in alliances, treaties or agreements.
        • The conduct of the relations of one state with another by peaceful means.
        • Tact, skill or cunning at dealing with people.
      • Generally, diplomacy is defined as international relations
      • But diplomacy can also be conducted by sovereign nations, nations in a civil war, within governments, between defined interest groups
      • Define diplomacy as an organized gathering with a resolution in mind. The goal of diplomacy is an outcome
      • Diplomacy is not always equal.
      • When looking at current diplomatic topics, look for other diplomatic events between the same countries, or similar issues between different countries.
      • For example: U.S. hikers hostage in Iran
        • Iran-Contra
        • British hostages in China, 1960s
        • Iran Hostage Crisis, 1979
        • Iranian Coup D’Etat, 1953
      • Places to look for diplomacy…
        • Treaties between nations, sovereign nations, or large collections of nations. Geneva Conventions
        • Agreements (as resolutions to end wars or conflict, aid allies, forge alliances). Surrender at Appomattox
        • Federal Acts (intended to resolve or deal with controversies). Cherokee Removal Act
      • Debate often precedes or succeeds diplomacy
      • Debate can lead to diplomacy, and diplomacy can spark debate
      • For both to be included, students must be able to argue that the discussion before or after diplomacy is actually debate, or that the agreements surrounding debates are actually diplomacy
      • Students’ “main point” will likely be either debate or diplomacy, and the other will fall in the context or impact section.
      • For example, the main topic might be the Three-Fifths Compromise, which is diplomacy. But the preceding debate over slaves’ status and the following debate regarding slavery itself would be, respectively, context and impact.
      • This is not the debate team. In other words, the student is not part of the argument and should not be projecting opinions.
      • Students must be objective and should not join in the debate.
      • It is necessary to address both sides of the debate. In order for it to be a debate, there must be two or more sides. Both must be understood and explained.
      • Do not make a debate into a tennis match.