This debate is worth UP TO 60 points (Total for parts 1 and 2).
Part 1 will be in your TEAM area from Saturday, June 27 to Friday,
July 3. This part will be worth UP TO 40 points.
Part 2 will be public discussion/response/critique of other teams'
results. It is worth up to 20 points. This is an INDIVIDUAL exercise
in a public conference that will go up when the team exercise is finished.
The expectation for full credit: You must post at least several times
in a discussion, not just a single post-and-run. Team responses will
be ranked:
FIRST PLACE TEAM: UP TO 40 points (less of quality isn't good)
SECOND PLACE TEAM: UP TO 35 points
THIRD PLACE TEAM: Up TO 30 points
FOURTH AND BELOW: UP TO 25 points
PART 1 - TEAM PREPARATION
Building Justice with Plato/Socrates (DEBATE #1)
Throughout the Republic and other readings, several different notions of
justice are expressed. In the following exercise, each group will be
assigned to argue a competing view of justice as put forth by one of the
following characters in Plato's Republic: Thrasymachus, Cephalus &
Polemarchus, Socrates, and Glaucon. Also, one group will be assigned to
argue Singer's view of justice. Each team is expected to present
substantive arguments in support of their assigned view and to oppose the
other arguments in the same manner as well. Furthermore, each team will
seek to determine whether or not the view they are arguing is compatible
with Christian notions of Justice, and in particular, Liberation Theology.
REMEMBER: It's not Plato talking in this material. He's presenting
Socrates' words and dialogues.
PART 1: (Developing your position) Deadline: Friday, July 3, 2009
(up to 40 points)
Each team will be assigned a 'view' of justice from the readings.
All members of a group are to research this view
and to argue in favor of it and to oppose the others through supporting
evidence and logical reasoning. These arguments will, in turn, be
presented on a separate conference on Webboard. Initially, only the view
of justice that you are arguing will be viewable on Webboard until Part 2
begins. For a team to get full credit for Part 1 of the exercise, each
team member is expected to post AT LEAST ONCE in support of their assigned
view of justice, (and in opposition to the other views)
PART 2: (PUBLIC Debate): July 6 - July 8 (up to 20 points)
THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL effort, but you can discuss your responses first
in your teams if you want to divide up labor. Grades are individual,
not team, but you are encouraged to work with your team in your
private team area to sharpen your response and decide what to critique
and how. You cannot critique your own team, but you are expected
to respond to others who critique your team's post by raising
questions are challenging what you're written.
After all the teams post their arguments on Webboard in their respective
conferences, they will become viewable to all groups for the debate
portion of this exercise. Each group is then expected to critique a
competing view of justice in a different conference.
To get full credit for Part 2 of the exercise, each team member
is expected to post AT LEAST ONCE in a thread that argues a competing view
of justice.
Keep in mind that to truly argue a point, you must be able to understand
contrary viewpoints as well. In other words, don't just simply present
your view without being able to defend it. It will help to gain a firm
understanding of all of the views of the aforementioned philosophers
beforehand.
Each team will defend the following as the best model of justice and
be able to attack the others:
TEAM A: Singer
TEAM C: Polemarchus
TEAM D: Cephalus
TEAM E: Glaucon
TEAM F: Thrasymachus
TEAM G: Plato/Socrates (Plato is presenting Socrates' material)
Give a concrete, real-word example in your discussions to illustrate your
point(s). Be sure to cite text and not just general commentary.
Return to Jim Thomas's homepage