Partnered Debate.Students will be assigned a partner to work with. Together, student partners will prepare both positions for the case study as outlined below:
Question: You have a client who has been diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor and has less than 6 months to live. Instead of letting the disease slowly progress, the client has opted instead for an assisted-suicide which is legal where he lives.Position A will debate: provide a reasoned and substantiated argument to demonstrate that it is ethical to support  your client’s decision to end their life.Position B will debate: provide a reasoned and substantiated argument to demonstrate that even though it is legal, some may still consider it unethical. After establishing this postion, offer an ethical solution that is supported with evidence from the code of ethics.  On the day of the debate…

• Students will arrive in class on the day of the debate and will sit with their partner with their prepared materials. One student will be prepared to speak outloud in support of position A (person A) and the other student will be prepared to speak out loud about position B (person B).
• Partnered groups will sit across from (facing) another partnered group.
• Now students are sitting in a group of four.
• Before the first debate the instructor will determine which students in each small group debate first and which students in each group will serve as the evaluators.
• Each debater will have a specific amount of time to present their case (please refer to the debate structure below). The instructor will run a timer at the front of the room to provide structure and order – so that each person can speak and be heard and evaluated by the evaluating students in their small group.
• After the debate the evaluators will discuss the information presented, grade the rubric, and provide written (but not oral) feedback on the grading rubric. The grading rubric will be turned into the instructor immediately.
• Once this is completed, the evaluators will then switch roles and become the debaters. And the students who were just presenting their debate will become the evaluators.
• The instructor resets the timer and coordinates the second round of debates.
• The second round of debates concludes with an opportunity for the evaluators to provide written (but not oral) feedback on a grading rubric. The grading rubric will be turned into the instructor immediately.
• The instructor will take all of the evaluation forms, average the scores, and post the scores out on blackboard.

Debate Structure:Person A (3 minutes) makes a case for their position, providing evidence from sources (COE, textbook, scholarly journal articles) as proof of position based on 2-3 major points. Person B (3 minutes) makes a case for their position, providing evidence from sources (COE, textbook, scholarly journal articles) as proof of position based on 2-3 major points. Person A (3 minutes) should continue to build their case, ensuring to defend their position against remarks made from the other position.  The person is presenting a persuasive well-formulated counter argument. Person B (3 minutes) should continue to build their case, ensuring to defend their position against remarks made from the other position.  The person is presenting a persuasive well-formulated counter argument.  Person A (3 minutes) wraps up debate with potential solutions to the proposed question asked and articulate finally support for their position.Person B (3 minutes) wraps up debate with potential solutions to the proposed question asked and articulate finally support for their position. Evaluators discuss amongst themselves (5-10 minutes) regarding how they evaluated each debater based on the rubric provided. Evaluators should be sure to focus on the delivery of the arguments (was it effective and clear) and did the debater articulate an understanding of the ethical dimensions and dilemmas present. Evaluators will indicate a grade on the rubric and will provide written (but not oral) feedback on the grading rubric.