Teacher's FAQ

A: The competitive debate coach should plan two weekly 1-hour meetings. The meetings should be fast paced and should provide modeling and instruction on how to compose arguments for topics. Additionally, the students should have ample opportunity to practice debate. Just like anything, practice makes permanent. The classroom teacher can plan to allow 2-3 days preparation time and one day per debate. The time allocation depends on the depth and complexity of the topic. The classroom teacher can cut preparation time as the students experience more debates.

Q: What should we debate about?

A: The conference handout contains a plethora of topics successfully debated by middle school students. Your topics can revolve around current events and/ or literature. However, make sure each topic debated is balanced and researchable. Stay away from topics that contain more emotion than substance. It is suggested that you start with basic topic like: "The death penalty should be banned in the United States." Many topics can be derived from situations developed in novels and short stories as well. Richer debates will be attached to a reading rather than relying on a student's prior knowledge.

Q: Is this limited to English?

A: Debate is not limited to English classes. Many MSPDP teachers encourage other teachers at their school to use debate in their classrooms. Students can debate about topics relevant to the Social Studies curriculum, science instruction, and even mathematics. Attached to this FAQ is a list of sample topics drawn from the California 6-8 History/Social Science Content Standards. Even though the skills taught in debate meet many of the Language Arts content standards, these skills can also be productively reinforced across the curriculum. Furthermore, skills such as causal reasoning and distinguishing fact from opinion (highlighted in the Historical and Social Sciences Analysis Skills for 6-8) are met through debate practice.

Q: How much money will this cost?

A: The Middle School Public Debate Program does not require money for implementation. Having debates in class is free. If your school wishes to attend competitions and participate in league events, the costs incurred are primarily (and often exclusively) transportation costs. If a school goes to 6 tournaments, there may be 6 buses. If there are other schools in your district are MSPDP schools, you can make cost-sharing arrangements for shared transportation to lighten the financial load and maximize opportunities for students. Many schools host tournaments to raise money for their own debate participation. While event attendance is free, schools sell concessions to make money for the debate program, and can make up to $700 or so in this manner. Other schools have been very successful in getting community sponsorships and other fund-raising initiatives through to enable participation.

Schools form leagues to share the costs of trophies for competition. The Inland Valley Debate League (the pilot MSPDP league) asks schools to pay dues: $75 yearly for new schools, and $200 yearly for returning schools. Schools attend all league competitions for free with up to 30 students per event. The league apparatus is modeled on California's high school speech and debate league structure.

Q: How can I use these ideas for students who read below grade level?

A: One of the stumbling blocks of literacy education is that we often convey technical literacy (diagramming sentences, etc.) but do not teach functional literacy (which includes a strong oral literacy component). Debate participation can help accelerate literacy development in low-literacy populations. There is substantial research that suggests students' language development may be limited to the level of their oral and aural literacy and comprehension development. Debate also creates an incentive structure to students to read above grade level in their research and preparation for competition and classroom debates .

Q: Does debate teach writing?

A: Most certainly. Debate reinforces the importance of organization, evidence, and editing within one's writing. The teacher will see immediate progress in the students' ability to outline, respond to literature, and compose persuasive compositions. Additionally, debate provides a forum for students to practice research abilities.

Q: How do I grade debate?

A: Debate embodies each of the major categories of the Language Arts California Standards: Reading Comprehension, Writing, Literary Response, Listening Skills, and Oral Language. The products of a debate cycle include, but are not limited to: persuasive essay, arguments derived from researched articles, oral presentations, and flow chart(s). Prior to debating, a good idea is to have the students produce, as a group, a persuasive essay that integrates research that represents the side they are defending. This essay can be graded with your school or district writing rubric. The oral presentation can be assessed with a simple oral rubric (included in this handout). The flow chart may be assessed as a credit/ no credit assessment. Either quality notes were taken or they were not taken. Last but not last, included is a group assessment rubric. Although this is not a standards-based assessment, the value of working effectively with others is of prime

importance. At the end of the debate cycle, each of the group members assesses one

another in twelve different social skills. This is one of the more meaningful pieces of feedback for the students as it comes from their colleagues.

Q: During a debate, what do I do with the other students in class?

A: The other students in class have a responsibility to maintain a flow chart of each of the arguments presented during the debate. The audience may also be used to decide what side was more convincing during the debate. The audience must justify their vote with evidence from their flow chart. They can also be asked to give their own version of speeches made in the debate, write essays explaining their decision, or to function as "coaches" for each side.

Q: Is this limited to my GATE students?

A: No! Although GATE students may make great debaters, many are overcommitted and can't add another activity. Our experience with programs that limit debate to GATE students is that those programs are not as large as others, do not have as much success as others, and do not generally last as long. Your best option is to make the program open to all interested participants and to try to track down the orally gifted students in your school.

Q: What kind of students are good debaters?

A: Many coaches have made the mistake of only recruiting students with high grades and loud talkers. A strong debate team has a mixture of personalities. Many of your best debaters are underachieving students that are bored with the school system. The easiest place to start is your classroom. Conduct a few strong oral based activities in your class and you will immediately find talent. You can find many diamonds in the rough in discipline office and retention classes. Generally, the underachieving GATE students are also an asset. Last but not least, recruit from your special education population. For many of these students, their oral language skills act as tools of survival.

Q: How does debate help students with standardized tests?

A: Data across the country suggests students struggle with writing, critical analysis, and interpretation questions during standardized assessments. Each of the aforementioned skills are constantly used in the debate process. Many fail to look at the number of skills (all of which are measured by standardized tests) involved in the process of preparing for a debate. Chances are these skills will "stick" better to a debater due to the fact they see firsthand the connection between these skills and their success as a debater.

Q: What should my students wear to competitions?

A: Your students should wear whatever they are most comfortable in. Since for most of you this event is an authorized field trip, students need to follow the dress codes of your school district. Students should be neat, but are not required to wear suits or other dress clothes.

Q: What do my students need to know before the event?

A: Your students need to know the order of the speeches in the debate, the time limits for those speeches, and what to do during those speeches. You might distribute a one-page sheet that the students can use to prepare.

Your students also need to know the basic roles of the proposition team and the opposition team - they should be able to explain that the proposition's job is to make a case for the motion for debate, while the opposition's job is to refute the proposition team's case.

Your students should know what points of information are, and should be able to demonstrate how to attempt to make a point of information (rise and say "Point of information," or "On that point," or something similar). Students should be able to demonstrate how to accept a point of information ("Yes, I'll take your point"), and how to reject a point of information ("No, thank you."). Students should be able to make points of information within the 15 second time limit after being recognized. Students should also know how to answer points of information ("That's a good point, but we've already addressed that concern," or "Thank you for your point," or "We disagree with that point, and let me explain why," or similarly answering the issue raised in the point of information).

This means that students should understand the rules of the event. The best way to ensure that students understand the rules is to have them debate several times on different topics.

Finally, students should have had practice preparing for debates during limited time. Use the announced topics before every event and have "mini-debates" with abbreviated time limits and no points of information (try 1 or 2-minute constructive speeches and 30-second rebuttals). Teach students how to effectively use their pre-prepared notes to prepare for debates.

Q: How do I prepare my students for competition?

A: Students will need to have done research in order to be prepared. As we've said, topics are likely to be related to current events or educational issues. This means that students will have to know something about current events. They should probably read the newspaper. One way to use this effectively in the club is to assign students to keep track of or research a specific issue and then report on it every week in the club. One student could keep track of whether or not we should invade Iraq, for example, and could have to give a 2-minute oral report every week to the rest of the class. Other students could take notes and keep them in a debate notebook. This will allow for effective information-sharing as well as fulfilling public speaking practice.

We suggest that you draw up a list of topics that you think are likely to be debated - like "the death penalty should be banned," "students should have to wear uniforms," etc. Then have students practice coming up with a case for those policies and knocking down those cases. Encourage students to keep their debate notes in a notebook that they can take to competition. This way, they will be able to use club preparation for preparation at the tournament.

When the topics are released for the upcoming tournament, organize students to prepare "issue briefs" to share with the rest of the team. These briefs can include a fact set, some vocabulary words, and arguments for and against the motion for debate. Encourage students to keep a debate notebook with this information and other notes to help them prepare for debating during the year.

You will be able to work with your teams during their designated preparation time before each debate, but since there will be more of them then there will be of you, it will make things easier if you have already discussed the issue and you can just refer them to their notes.

It is very important that students have practice in impromptu and extemporaneous speaking before the event. This will allay their anxieties about not knowing the topics ahead of time. If you practice with classroom games, however, they will gain confidence and be eager for the chance to use their new skills.

Q: What will the topics be like at the tournament?

A: All of the topics will be chosen by middle school teachers like you. The MSPDP packet and this website includes a list of topics used at past tournaments. Topics will not be arcane. They should be topics that debaters will be prepared to debate if they have some knowledge of current events, the world around them, and issues relevant to their lives as students and urban residents. The topics will most likely take the form of "policy" topics; that is, the proposition team will usually have to propose some kind of change to improve the world or remedy a problem and make a case for it, while the opposition team will have to oppose the case made by the proposition team. A sample topic might be "School should be year-round." The proposition team will make a case for year-round school, and the opposition team will answer the case for year-round school by refuting the proposition team's arguments and making arguments of their own against year-round schooling.

Q: Can my students use notes while they are speaking?

A: Yes. They can use notes that they prepare during the 20-minute preparation time before the debate. They should also take notes during the debate so that they can track the course of arguments and appropriately organize their speeches. We suggest that you teach your students how to take notes in a stylized manner appropriate to debating. We call this method of note taking "flowing" because arguments "flow" across the page from speech to speech. There is a "taking notes" handout with exercises in the teaching resource center.

As a reminder, topics will be announced 20 minutes before the beginning of each debate. Any published information (dictionaries, magazines, etc) that may have been consulted before the debate cannot be brought into the debating chambers for use during the debate. No published materials may be used during debates. Debaters may use any notes or outlines they create during the preparation time between the announcement of the topic for debate and the start of the debate.

Let's talk about the flowsheet a bit. Notice that the flowsheet is divided into columns. Each column is labeled for a speech (or speeches- more on that in just a second) - "1PC" is the first proposition constructive, "1OC" is the first opposition constructive, "2PC" is the second proposition constructive, "2OC" is the second opposition constructive, "OR" is the opposition rebuttal, and "PR" is the proposition rebuttal. "2OC" and "OR" are in the same column because the speeches are back to back and function as a kind of unified front for the opposition.

Students should use each column to keep track of arguments made in that speech. Let's say that the proposition team makes a brief case for student uniforms. They might advance three basic arguments:

Cost. Many students can't afford to look sharp every day for school, and students get embarrassed if they don't have the latest fashions.
Uniforms aren't as distracting, and will help students focus on their classwork, not their clothes.
Uniforms reduce violence, because students can't wear gang clothes or gang symbols.

As the first proposition speaker makes their case, everyone else should take notes on their flowsheet.

Then the first opposition speaker refutes the case. She might begin by bringing up the issue of freedom of expression. She could say that uniforms are a bad idea because students need to be able to express their individuality in schools. Then she would move on to answer the arguments made in the proposition's case. On the "cost" point, she might say that uniforms are expensive, too, particularly since people have to buy a bunch of them at once. On the "distraction" point, she could say that there are always things to distract students, and that districts have dress codes in place to deal with distracting clothing. Finally, on the "violence" point, she could say that dress codes already prevent gang clothing, and that uniforms won't reduce the gang problem because students who want to be in gangs will be in them whether or not they have to wear uniforms.

Then the second proposition speaker has to answer the opposition's arguments while rebuilding and extending on the proposition's case. The flowsheet will help her do this, as she knows what arguments she has to answer and extend upon. She should begin by answering the freedom of expression argument by saying, for example, that students have many ways to express themselves, and that clothes are a shallow and unimportant method of expression. Then she can move on to rebuild her team's case. To extend on the "cost" argument, she should probably reiterate it briefly before beginning her refutation: "We said that many students can't afford to keep up with the latest trends, and that's embarrassing. Now, they said that uniforms are expensive to buy, but they're cheap compared to the latest pair of Nikes or Hilfigers, and that means that poorer students won't be made fun of for their clothes." She could repeat this process by moving through the other opposition arguments and rebuilding her case.

Arguments are refuted, extended, and compared through the debate. Every speech, therefore, has a rebuttal component. There should be new arguments as well, but only in the constructive speeches.

Q: How can my students keep track of the time elapsed during their speeches?

A: Students can bring small kitchen timers with them to debates to time themselves, if they wish. Judges will be expected to keep time for students and give hand signals that show 4 minutes remaining, 3 minutes remaining, 2 minutes remaining, etc. Judges will also slap the table after the first minute of every constructive speech and before the last minute of every constructive speech. This slap signals the end and beginning of "protected time." As you have already read in the MSPDP packet, the first and last minute of every constructive speech is called "protected time" because it is time that is free from attempts at points of information. .

Q: Will I be expected to judge at the tournament?

A: Yes. You will judge a few debates. Judging debates is one of the best ways to train students. During the course of a competition, students are able to get constructive feedback from many individuals with many points of view. Judging and critiquing debates is also one of the things that makes debate events so collegial - everyone is helping out all of the students, maximizing education for everyone involved.

Q: But I don't know how to judge a debate!

A: Yes you do. You are a debate coach who has successfully started a team from scratch. You are also a professional educator who knows a lot about what students are capable of and what they need to succeed. You are already one of our most capable judges. We will also send you a handout that explains how to judge a debate. But, as we said, you already know how to judge a debate.

Q: How will judges decide who won the debate?

A: Usually the judge will decide based on the criteria that the debaters establish in the round- for example, if the debaters agree that what we need to do is try to save lives, than the judge should decide whether the proposition's proposal saves more lives than the present system. If the debaters agree that we are trying to preserve liberty, then the judge decides based on whether the proposal preserves more liberty than it hurts. Rarely, however, do debaters agree on decision criteria. If the subject for debate was "This House would sacrifice liberty to promote security," then the proposition team would most likely argue for restrictions on freedom to improve security -- let's say that they might propose a system of national identification cards. They would argue that this proposal would keep us safe from terrorists and the like. Then the opposition would probably say that this proposal would be bad because it invades privacy.

How would you decide who wins? It would be tough, unless the debaters explicitly compare their arguments to each other:

"The risks of terrorism are so great that they are more important than the incremental loss in privacy. Therefore, even if they win this argument, we should still adopt our policy."

"We've argued that these identification cards won't work to help us prevent terrorism. All they will do invade our privacy and help the government intrude into our lives. We shouldn't adopt this policy."

So it is up to the debaters to set up decision criteria in the debate. If they don't, it is difficult sometimes for judges to know who to vote for. But they should just remember that they should vote for whichever side won the debate based on the arguments advanced in the debate. Judges should not vote on who won the MOST arguments, for example. Neither should they vote on who was the funniest, or best dressed, or any other specious criteria. Judges should take seriously the arguments made by the debaters and try to identify which team won which arguments, and then compare those arguments to each other.

Judges should also avoid personal bias about the topic. The job of the judge is to evaluate student performance, not to say what is right or wrong about the topic.

Judges should disclose their decision after the debate and explain who won the debate and why they won. They should keep comments brief but constructive. It is very important that all judges offer at least one constructive comment to each debater. Judges will also fill out ballots where they should explain the reasons for their decision at length and offer additional comments to the debaters they saw.

Q: A lot of our ballots use the acronym "RFD." What does this mean?

A: It means "Reason for Decision," and the college debaters use that because a lot of their judges do. Like all acronyms, it is confusing and only marginally useful.

Q: We'd like to train more judges. How do we do that?

A: Use the judging manual and have your parents and teachers gain their certificate at a training or at a tournament. CCDO staff are available to help lead judge training seminars at your schools. Just consult with us about a date and we'll be there. Most of you already have experience judging, and should be able to do most of the training yourself. But of course we are always ready to help.

Q: How do we get a program started at our high school? We have some 8th graders who are nervous that they won't be able to debate next year.

A: If there is not a program at your high school, there are some things your team can do to help this process along.

Parent involvement. Never underestimate the power of parents. Parents who wish to see a debate team at your high school can contact Kate Shuster at the CCDO office (909-607-9383) for information about how to lobby the school. They can also contact the principal directly to express their concerns, organize letter-writing campaigns with other parents, and otherwise work to build a constituency for debate at the high school.
Identify a teacher. If you or someone you know knows a teacher at the high school who might be interested in teaching debate, you may refer that person to Kate (or vice-versa), so that she or he can get more information about coaching debate at the high school level. There is often an existing high school league that schools can easily join at a relatively low cost. The CCDO will help interested schools and teachers build high school programs to meet their school's needs.
Organize 8th graders who wish to continue debating. Help students stay in touch with each other once they get to the high school. This will allow them to argue for a debate team once they get to the high school.
Put on a demonstration for the high school. The CCDO will help you organize to demonstrate debate at the high school. This can help build a constituency for debate among existing high school students.
Use the CCDO as a resource. We have many years of experience lobbying school and district administrators for their support of debate. We want to support you, your parents, and your students in their debate endeavors.

Q: How do I learn to run a tournament?

A: Take one of the tabulation classes offered by the CCDO, or ask a local high school coach to show you. There is a good bit of tournament tabulation software available on the Internet. At MSPDP tournaments, we use STA - Smart Tabroom Administrator. It only runs on a PC, which is too bad, but it is very reliable. You can find the software and the manual at: ftp.wheaton.edu/pub/debate . You can also tabulate a tournament by hand.

Q: We seem to be having a hard time winning debates on the proposition side. What are some ways our students can win more when they are defending the proposition?

A: Since most motions for debate ask the proposition to defend a change from the present system ("Human cloning should be permitted in the United States," "The United States should invade Iraq," and so forth), it is sometimes harder to win on the proposition than it is on the opposition. This makes sense - after all, it is often harder to build something than to tear it down - particularly for middle school students. A few tips may help you better prepare your students for their debates on the proposition side.

First, to win debates on the proposition, you need to make a specific case for your side of the motion. Usually this means you need to show that there is a problem, propose a solution, and show that the solution will fix the problem. Many of your students are making more general arguments for the motion, which is a good start but can be productively refined. You may want to teach them to propose a plan when the motion warrants such a thing. A plan is a specific proposal for change.

Consider that some of the topics we use are pretty broad. Even a topic like "Human cloning should be permitted in the United States" is broader than it may seem at first - permitted by whom? For what purposes? As some of your students found out at Frisbie, there is even substantial debate about what we mean when we say "human cloning." Does this mean cloning whole humans? How about parts of humans? How about individual cells?

In addition, there are dozens (or perhaps thousands or more, if you consider all of the possible permutations) of arguments for human cloning. The proposition team cannot make all of these arguments in their allotted 13 minutes of speaking time, much less defend them against opposition attacks.

All of this means that the proposition team should have a specific interpretation of the motion for debate. The proposition team cannot fairly be expected to defend all possible examples of policies on human cloning in the United States and all of the possible arguments for these policies in their 13 minutes unless (and maybe even if) they receive training as auctioneers.

Consider what happens in a criminal trial. If someone is on trial for murder, there are many different ways to go about prosecuting that individual. A clever lawyer will select from among those options the best case that has the best evidentiary support. They will not offer all of the theories that prove why that person is a murderer. They will select a specific case and make it. Selecting multiple cases and presenting them at once may undermine the possibility of a conviction because it gives the defense more grounds to argue and create doubt. In other words, she (the hypothetical prosecutor) will narrow the arguments to those that best support a conviction.

So what does this look like in practice? You may want to use it as an outlining lesson, where I is where you show there's a problem, II is where you propose the solution, and III is where you show that the solution is a good thing. This outline might look something like this:

Existing bans on human cloning are bad because they prevent the use of human cloning to save millions of lives. Human cloning is necessary to produce organs for transplantatation. Millions of people die in the U.S. every year because there are not enough organs available to transplant. This is a senseless waste of life.
Because of these problems, human cloning should be permitted in the United States. Specifically, the National Institutes of Health should establish standards for the production of organs for transplant.
If the U.S. lifts the ban on cloning, it would be able to regulate human cloning and save millions of lives every year. Also, if the government regulates cloning, this will be better than letting cloning occur on the black market or in unsafe environments.

That's a brief outline for a case. Of course, you would need more than that. You would need evidence, examples, and ideas. But you get the gist of it - it's a specific case for the motion for debate.

You could make another, similar case for this motion - a case for allowing human cloning to facilitate stem cell research. The case could claim that allowing this research would save millions of lives because it would cure Alzheimer's disease.

Why should the proposition team make a specific case for the motion? One reason is so they do not have to defend all possible cases that could be made for the motion, as I've already said. There are hundreds of possible cases for any topic. Some are bad, or counterproductive, or nonsensical, or just plain foolish. The proposition should not have to defend all of these cases. They should be able to pick. Also, picking and developing a specific case helps to build argument skills. One skill a student should learn is to select from the possible interpretations one that would make the best case. Students, in other words, should learn how to pick good arguments.

What makes a good case? A good case utilizes the best evidence and examples. It tries to establish that there is a consensus for agreeing with the motion. It proposes a debateable plan and argues that the judge should agree that the proposal is a good idea. The specific case is a proof of the motion for debate. It is not the proof, and it may or not be the best proof, but it tries to prove the motion for debate.

Now, what if the motion does not call for a change in policy? Take two of the topics from this semester: "Television is a bad influence," and "Peer pressure is more beneficial than harmful." These topics are also best proven by a specific case, just one that does not feature a proposal. Should your teams prepare to deliver all possible arguments for the benefits of peer pressure? Of course not. They should pick some and debate them.

Multiple examples and the consensus of opinion make for a good case. On the opposition, one example can sometimes be enough to win a debate. On the proposition, you will win more debates if you present a consensus of evidence and examples.

Q: Does this mean that we will be cheated of our tirelessly researched arguments for the opposition?

A: No. It just means that students will have to engage in argument anticipation, another important debate skill. Argument anticipation is just what it seems like: the ability to anticipate the arguments that may be made by the other side. Development of this skill will help your students win more debates. It's like chess - if you think a few moves ahead, you can better plan your opening strategy.

Some arguments might apply to a variety of cases on a given topic. For example, the opposition might argue that human cloning would allow creation of a "slave army" (a popular argument at the 2002 Frisbie tournament, judging from my reading of the ballots) But, the proposition could say, stem cell research would not lead to a "slave army" because it would be regulated. Of course, if the opposition team were really serious about linking their "slave army" argument to the proposition team's plan, they might say that sure, this might sound like a good idea, but regulations would be easily circumvented to allow "slave armies" to be created. Oho, the proposition team might say, but if that's the case, then the existing ban would be circumvented anyway, so this "slave army" argument isn't a reason to reject our case, as it could happen with or without the plan. And then we'd be having a debate.

Sound tricky? Not especially. What having a specific case does is ensure that there will be "clash" in the debate. Some of you have heard me be somewhat evangelical on the issue of clash. Clash is what makes debates good. Without clash, we have dueling oratories and no way to decide debates since arguments don't relate to each other. This is why one of the first things we teach debaters is how to engage in refutation. Opposition arguments should relate to the specific case for the motion that the proposition makes. (Some of you may say- "But wait a minute, we prepared to debate human cloning, not stem cell research." Good comment. I'll answer that one next.)

The concept of a "link" is one you may want to teach your students. As proposition teams begin to present specific proposals or plans, opposition teams will need to develop their causal reasoning skills to come up with more sophisticated arguments to beat these proposals. The "slave army" example shows that often, opposition teams are trying to show that the proposition team's plan causes something bad to happen. That consequence is said to link to the proposal in a causal way.

Q: So, wait a minute. Is it true in a debate that the proposition "defines" the parameters? For example, if the prop says weapons of mass destruction are guns and knives, the opp can't talk about chemical weapons, etc. or if the prop says cloning only applies to organs the opp can't discuss cloning humans?

A: Well, yes and no. The proposition team interprets the motion for debate. As I've already argued, the proposition team cannot be fairly expected to defend all possible cases that could be made for the motion. So they interpret the motion, providing a case for debate. The opposition must clash with this case. They can do so with direct refutation - that is, refuting directly the claims made in the proposition's case. They may also provide indirect refutation, by bringing up issues that were not discussed in the propositions case but which are nevertheless relevant to the disposition of the debate.

For example, in the previous FAQ, we walked through the first bit of a school uniforms debate. In that debate, the opposition brought up the argument that school uniforms will hurt freedom of expression. This issue was not discussed by the proposition team, but the opposition nevertheless brings it up as an example of a problem created by adopting school uniforms. This argument is an example of indirect refutation of the case. The "slave army" debate above is another example. The proposition team tries to limit the debate to discussing organs, but the opposition team wants to convince the judge that cloning will eventually et out of hand no matter how many regulations you try to impose.

So it's not a matter of what the opp can and cannot discuss. Instead, it's a matter of how well the opposition has anticipated possible arguments that could be made for the topic. It is also a matter of how well the opposition can make their "generic" arguments against the topic apply directly to the proposition's case.