Critical Analysis of The Munk Debate: “The Global Refugee Crisis”

Specifically, you are required to:
(1) provide brief overview of the debate and the debaters.
(2) summarize and evaluate the introductory arguments for both the affirmative (pro) and negative (con) teams,
(3) identify and evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the teams’ initial arguments.
(4) summarize, identify, and evaluate the teams’ cross examination and rebuttals against the
other team’s arguments; and analyze and critique each team’s debating style. 

You are also required to
(5) describe your personal position on the resolution, and whether your positioned changed throughout the debate, and or following the debate. If it changed, what made you change your position? 
Lastly, you are asked to
(6) comment on your impression of which side won the debate, and what you believe to be the most persuasive argument that may have shifted the Munk audience’s position from preto post debate. 
applicable), double spaced, 12 pt. Arial, Calibri, or Times New Romain font, with 1-inch margins, following APA 7th edition style, including level headings.

The following components are required for this assignment:
Title page: In proper APA format including a shortened title (running head), the title of your critical analysis.

Content:  The article critique should have five sections:
•    Introduction. In this section introduce your reader to the resolution of the debate- the main statement being argued for and against- what does the statement mean to you in your own words, describe who the affirmative and negative debaters are- (here you might want to do some additional research to learn more about the four debaters on your own), and briefly mention the overall purpose of the debate- what is the importance of this debate? [~ 1 page]
•    Main introductory statements. In this section you are to briefly summarize the main introductory statements put forth by both the affirmative (pro) and negative (con) teams, and then thoroughly critique the persuasiveness of the statements for both teams. Some guiding questions include: what was the most convincing statement? Did your opinion change after hearing the team’s opening statements? What about the individual team members- was one more persuasive than the other? Please don’t just summarize the introductory statements- the reader is most interested in your critique-this is your opportunity to express your opinions in an academic and professional way [~1 page]

Rebuttals and reactions. In this section your focus is on your critical assessment of each team’s rebuttals and reactions to the other team’s statements. Here you should summarize the key points raised in each team’s rebuttal, and then critique the strengths and weaknesses of the rebuttals. What arguments were most persuasive? What arguments were least effective?, Were any arguments/responses inappropriate or off-side? [~1 page]

•    Debate style. The focus of this section is to analyze and critique each team’s debating style. Consider the tone of voice, the clarity of expression, precision of arguments, audience’s reaction to the team’s statements and rebuttals [~1/2 page]

•    Personal position. In this section the aim is to describe your personal position on the resolution, and whether your positioned changed throughout the debate, and or following the debate. If it changed, what made your position shift [1/2- 1 page]
 
•    Conclusion. In this final section of your paper, you will describe your impression of which side won the debate, and what you believe to be the most persuasive argument that may have shifted the Munk audience’s position from pre-to post debate [1/2 page]. 
Textbook:
•    (1) Maxwell, D. & Gelsdorf, K. (2019) Understanding the Humanitarian World.
•    Routledge.
•    (2) Alexander, J. (2013). Chasing Chaos: My Decade In And Out Of Humanitarian
•    Aid. Penguin Random House.

Order your Copy Today