(240)-343-2585

Please READ ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS carefully


REFERENCES SHOULD BE IN APA STYLE FORMAT AND MUST HAVE AT LEAST 7 REFERENCES

For nyanya nursing assignment
CONDUCTING A DEBATE A FEW MORE TIPS YOUR TEAMS O Each team will have 2 to 4 members O Each group will have 2 teams:  an affirmative team and  a negative team O Normally, the affirmative team present first . However … O If there is an odd number in a team, the team with the most members will go first GETTING ORGANISED O The whole group works together to prepare the debate O Each team will know what the other team is arguing – so, can prepare rebuttals to the opposing team’s arguments O The group mark is awarded to all group members, as described in the marking criteria O The assessor has the ability to adjust the group mark if the planning and participation sheet indicates that some students did not contribute equally to the preparation RESEARCHING YOUR TOPIC O Each student must research their own part of the debate and pass on any helpful articles/ other sources to group members that could inform the debate O Some useful resources are available on LEO O Use the course material (human dignity, human rights, ethical theory, the principles of health care ethics, codes of ethics, codes of professional conduct etc ) to support your arguments O Use some (less) material sourced independently WORKING IN YOUR GROUP O Provide your contact details to each other when you join your group O Arrange regular meeting times O Plan your preparation – each team member should fulfil their agreed responsibilities in a timely way O If you are unable to contact a team member (they are not responding after several attempts), please contact the LIC at least one week prior to the debate PAPERWORK TO BE SUBMITTED O ONE ACU assessment cover sheet signed by all debate team members (affirmative & negative) O ONE OVERVIEW of your debate, set out in the same order that your debate members will present e.g. I. Title of Debate II. Affirmative 1 st Speaker (Mark Jones)  Arguments (Smith.2014)  Arguments (Ozlins , Grainger, 2014) III. Negative 1 st Speaker (Susie Lee)  Arguments (Rowley, 2010)  Arguments (Kant, 1800)  Arguments (UDHR, 1864) and so forth until all team all group members’ arguments are recorded in dot form Paperwork to be submitted cont’d … O ONE REFERENCE LIST IN APA CONVENTION  this should reflect the whole debate group’s references (affirmative & negative). Include only those references you have cited on your overview O ONE PLANNING AND PARTICIPATION SHEET  All meeting dates, times and sufficient information included to display the depth of work undertaken at each meeting – minutes can be included  Each member’s name, student no and % of work put into the team effort recorded and signed by the individual student O ONE GROUP MARKING CRITERIA SHEET  List all group members names & student numbers Paperwork cont’d … O ONE INDIVIDUAL MARKING GUIDE FOR EACH STUDENT  completed with each student’s name and number O Each student’s script/ notes (with name on each page). You are encouraged to submit your script/ notes to enable the tutor to follow and recall your argument O Your written script/notes are not marked and do not need to follow any format or be referenced. PAPER WORK O Must be submitted prior to the debate O One student in the group should assume responsibility for compiling the papers, stapling them, and handing them to the tutor prior to the debate THE DEBATE ITSELF O Each debate team member will have 5 minutes to present their arguments – if you go over this time by more than one minute you will be asked to be seated by the debate moderator (i.e. your tutor ) O This is an equity matter – each student should have the same amount of time to present and defend their arguments DEBATE STRUCTURE O FIRST SPEAKER OF EACH TEAM:  Introduces the team’s argument (e.g. “as the affirmative team, we will be arguing that …”)  Introduces each team member and the main points of their argument (e.g. “our second speaker is Bill Wu and he will argue x, y & z”)  Raises an objection (rebuttal) to the other team’s argument  Proposes an argument to support own team’s position DEBATE STRUCTURE CONT’D… O SECOND (& THIRD) SPEAKER S OF EACH TEAM:  Raise objections (rebuttals) to alternative side’s arguments  Proposes main arguments in favour of their own side’s position DEBATE STRUCTURE CONT’D … O FINAL SPEAKER FOR EACH TEAM  Raises any further rebuttals  Sums up team’s argument  Adds any remaining points/ arguments in favour of their team’s position O At the completion of the debate , the floor is open for class discussion (facilitated by tutor). Debate group remains seated at front of class PRESENTATION STYLE O Arguments should be presented in an engaging manner O Do not just read from your notes (hand cards are useful) O It is a mature and respectful discussion – not a fight PRESENTATION CONT’D O Speak slowly (at least, don’t rush), clearly & audibly O Express enthusiasm/ passion, but remain objective O A reasoned opinion differs from being ‘opinionated’ O https:// www.youtube.com/watch? v=iC6WEFuhk6o Watch the debate at the above link Some more links to debates O https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRzjYNLbDXs Physiotherapy research is not relevant to clinical practice O https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlFbuqunb1I Mental health O https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNED7GJLY7I “animals should be off the menu” O https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEOssW1rw0I Stan Grant in IQ2 debate O https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KtqGkq2CU “Democracy is not for everyone” Don’t forget to have fun!
For nyanya nursing assignment
Academic Skills Unit Mastering the Debate Academic Skills LEO module : Writing at ACU ACU Study Guide Chapter 14 Session outline  What is a debate?  Format and structure  Supporting evidence  Rebuttal  Critical thinking  Delivery  Online resources A structured argument with two sides arguing for and against a particular contention. What is a debate? • Team based argument on single topic • Work to persuade a judge or audience • Each team presents and sticks to the team line Why debate? Improve speaking skills Develop convincing arguments Work against your natural point of view Enhance self-esteem and academic confidence Future competitive success Format Affirmative team •Presents arguments • Listens and takes notes preparing for rebuttal • Presents rebuttal Negative team •Listens and takes notes preparing for rebuttal • Presents arguments • Presents rebuttal Structure Think essay •Introduction, body and conclusion Each point builds on the last Decide as a team: •Save the best to last or lead with your strongest? The team line • Main line of argument (affirmative or negative) • All members reaffirm the team line – Take their individual arguments – All build together • Not necessarily word-for-word repeated Sample (simple) structure Affirmative team First speaker define, present team line, outline order, present first point. Second speaker reaffirm team line, rebut previous negative, present next point. Third speaker reaffirm team line, rebut remaining points, present summary of entire case and round off debate. Negative team First speaker Accept or reject definition, present team line, outline order, rebut 1st positive, present first point. Second speaker reaffirm team line, rebut previous positive, present next point. Third speaker reaffirm team line, rebut remaining points, present summary of entire case and round off debate. Supporting evidence -types Systematic reviews Randomised controlled trials Uncontrolled studies Observational case studies Expert opinion Supporting evidence –who? Rubric Clues Theories on health care ethics National and international frameworks Professional codes of ethics Professional codes of conduct Cultural, social, legal and spiritual factors Supporting evidence -use Distinguish one point of view from another Cause and effect link Refute opposing argument Substantiate a claim Compare or link to redirect argument What skills are needed? Public speaking Critical thinking Researching Writing Listening Organising Rebuttal • Logic – Why were they wrong? – What evidence do you have? • Choose your battles – Link to what your team has said • Play the ball – Focus on the facts and evidence – Respect Critical thinking • Questioning your own conclusions (reflection anyone?) • Anticipation of opposing points • Formulating counter arguments • Considering multiple (competing) perspectives • Theoretical foundations for ethical perspective Delivery To n e Speed Clarity Language Body language Humour Online resources •https ://www.artsunit.nsw.edu.au/speaking- competitions/debating- and-public – speaking- resources •http://idebate.org/debatabase /
For nyanya nursing assignment
THE DEBATE ASSESSMENT: A FEW TIPS BASED ON AN EXAMPLE “Euthanasia should be legalised in Australia” Constructs & demonstrates a reasoned critical argument using ethical (theoretical) frameworks & elective module content to defend an ethical position First speaker introduces the topic , and states which posi tio n the team is defending (e.g. ‘we will convince you that euthanasia should be legalised in Australia’). The first speaker goes on to introduce each member of their team & very briefly out lines what each speaker will be doing (e.g. Susie will define what we mean by the term ‘euthanasia’ and argue that the practice of euthanasia occurs elsewhere under conditions that are controlled and reasonable …., Tom will argue that health care practitio ners have a moral responsibility to alleviate suffering, as required by the principle of beneficence, and to respect patient autonomy …. And, finally, Mary will sum up our arguments and demonstrate that … All speakers should attempt to employ one of the e thical theories studied in this unit (e.g. euthanasia can be justified from a deontological perspective inasmuch as it …). They should also include reference to the principles of health care ethics (e.g. the principle of respect for patient autonomy would require h.c.p’s to …. And the prin ciple of justice w ould rule that …. Of course, a compassionate h.c.p. would see ….). Ethical theories are covered in week 3 of the unit. All speakers would refer to elective eModule material and any other academic sourc es in which the topic of euthanasia is considered from a legal and ethical perspective. For instance, one speaker might refer to an author who ar gues that there is no difference between killing (deliberately ending a patient’s life) and letting die (withd rawing medically futile treatment). They could say: “i f it is ethically and legally acceptable to withdraw medically futile treatment, then it is should follow that euthanasia also be legalised because the outcome is the same” . Or, if a patient wishes to have their lives ended, then, subject to certain conditions (such as those required in countries where euthanasia is already legalised), health care professionals are duty bound to provide it and to object to doing so would be a violation of the principle of respect for patient autonomy . The principles of health care ethics are covered in week 4 of the unit. Other arguments would need to be proposed and defended. Some speakers could address the notion of human dignity and what it means in relation to th e topic. To argue in favour of legalising euthanasia would be to defend the attributed notion of human dignity, but not the intrinsic notion of human dignity (human dignity is discussed in weeks 1 and 2). Human rights are understood to protect human dign ity (week 1) The last speakers should respond to some of the points raised by the opposing team. The final speaker then sums up the team’s points. Argument demonstrates knowledge, understanding and application of national and international ethical frameworks, professional codes of ethics and conduct Some speakers should include reference to international charters , e.g. the UDHR (the negative team could argue that the UDHR was founded on the very basis of human dignity and an equal right to life …. It was a response to the atrocities committed during world war II when some lives (e.g. the disabled) were considered to be ‘unworthy of life’. To legalise euthanasia, would be a return to this very concern . They could also interpret professional code s of ethics to su pport the view that deliberately acting to end a patient’s life is beyond the scope of professional practice and, indeed, contrary to the values promulgated within that code of ethics. If the debate was about research ethics, then the D eclaration of Helsinki would be relevant. Other charters and codes were covered in week one eModule and lecture material and could be drawn on to support arguments in favour of (or opposed to) other topics Argument demonstrates knowledge and understan ding of cultural, social, legal, and spiritual factors influencing health care conduct In a liberal democracy (like Australia), there are different worldviews …. . Some people object to legalising euthanasia because … (mention cultural, religious, spiritu al factors here). In a multicultural society (like Australia), some people will object to being implicated in … The role of conscientious objection could also be employed in a debate about euthanasia. Health care professionals promote a culture of … and, for this reason, ….. The social organisation of professions …. . Societies in which professionals practice expect that … or, rightly, require that … The role of the law is not to dictate morality … (s ee prescribed text book for further arguments about this matter). The law can be changed or upheld to … Team work A successful team has prepared the debate together so that:  all participants have contributed their (agreed upon) part in the debate  the debate itself has been rehearsed prior to the day, as becomes evident in class. That is, different speaker don’t repeat the same points raised by another speaker  the team arrives to class in time with all the paperwork signed and stapled together before h anding it to the tutor  speakers don’t go over time (or too much under time) – the need to time the debate when practising  team has prepared some responses/ rebuttals to points that the opposing side might argue