Debate about TV: We would introduce ethnic and gender quotas for film and television programs

This lesson plan is about organizing a classroom debate. We are not — this is crucial — organizing a discussion. A debate differs from a discussion because it is structured and has clear rules:

• The debate topic is worded as a proposition that some speakers will support and some will oppose. There is no working towards a compromise; one team wins, and the other loses;
• In this version of formal debate (adjusted for classroom use), we have two participating teams (proposition and opposition);
• Debaters cannot choose which side they represent in a debate - the sides (proposition and opposition) are assigned randomly with a coin flip:
• The rules clearly specify who speaks when and for how long.

For a classroom debate, we propose the following format:

• Each team has three speakers, who will each hold a 4-minute speech;
• During the main speeches (but only after the first 30 seconds and before the last 30 seconds of the speech), the opposing team can stand up and offer a question. Every speaker must accept and answer one question from the opposing team. Alternatively, you can have a 1-2 minute time slot for questions after each speech – we recommend this option if you want to engage more students and if your students are new to public speaking and might be intimidated by interruptions;
• The students who are not delivering speeches act as debate adjudicators.

First speakers (on both sides) should set up the debate and provide the initial arguments. Setting the debate means establishing the main definitions and clearing up what the debate is about (for more information, see the lesson plan “Motion analysis”). Second speakers should be bringing in final arguments, responding to the opposing team’s arguments, and rebuilding their first speaker’s arguments. Third speakers should analyze all arguments, respond to their opponents, and rebuild their own argumentation. In other words, they should provide an overview of what happened in the debate and why their team won.

The rest of the class should serve as debate adjudicators. They should be taking notes and weighing proposition and opposition arguments. Instruct them to be objective and to evaluate only the speeches they’ve heard, putting aside their personal opinions and/or arguments and examples they would have used as debaters.

If you want to engage the students more actively, you can always adapt the proposed format to fit more students - have 6 students per team, and have each of them deliver a 2-minute speech. A separate pair of students per team can also be used for asking and answering questions. If you are curious about more classroom debate formats, we recommend you read the chapter “Debate in Classroom” in the Melita Methodological Guide.

After you form the teams, they should have time to prepare. Students who are not debating should also participate in preparing arguments.

Students are allowed to use textbooks and the internet while researching for their arguments. If your students are still struggling, we recommend you pause their group work and do a quick brainstorm as a class, making note of all the reasons to propose and oppose the motion.

To the extent possible, the students should try to build arguments on their own. If they are struggling, use any of the arguments listed below to provide them with an idea of what an argument for or against this motion could look like.

Proposition

Definitions:

Ethnic and gender quotas: minimum percentage of regular characters who have to be members of marginalized ethnic communities and characters who have to be women or gender minorities. This can be a flexible rule whose precise numbers do not necessarily matter; what matters is the principle of doing this.

1st argument: Increasing representation would combat xenophobia.

Explanation:

1. Most xenophobia stems from ignorance. We are naturally built to fear the unknown — therefore, minorities, either ethnic or gender, whom we do not know, elicit xenophobic responses. But most of this is not actual hatred, it is misunderstanding. If there were more such characters on television and in movies, we would be more likely to be open to them in real life, too.

Example:

Many examples exist of people easing their prejudice through exposure. One notable example is how many Liverpool FC fans overcame their Islamophobic predispositions due to the success of Mo Salah, a Muslim football player.

Impact:

Less xenophobia means a more inclusive society with more solidarity — this in itself is already a good enough goal to achieve.

2nd argument: This would allow for more diverse stories to be told

Explanation:

1. A lot of the issues that members of ethnic minorities, women, and gender minorities face are relatively unknown to the rest of the society who cannot understand their plights. If you include them as characters in shows and films, there is a far higher chance they will support them. Often, the lack of support comes from the fact that the rest of society does not understand what issues they face or that they face.

Example:

People became more aware of the issues faced by women and people of color through the show “Orange is the New Black,” which featured diverse characters. Many people learned a lot about the issues of institutional racism through that, for example.

Impact:

If we want to discuss how to help marginalized groups, we first need to understand their issues. Shows and films are a great way of fostering that.

3rd argument: This would allow more minority actors to get a chance

Explanation:

1. The show business is currently dominated by white, male, cis-het population — followed closely by white women. This is especially problematic in places that are, in fact, much more diverse.
2. This is due to internalized racism that exists within the industry and is replicated institutionally.
3. If we force the industry to hire more minority actors and actresses, we can create a positive feedback loop with which we are going to distribute power within the industry more fairly.

Example:

Even though the United States is very diverse, white actors take an overwhelming majority of the roles, in some years more than 70%.

Impact:

We care about fairness in show business because it is a special industry with far-reaching consequences, but also because we want all sectors of society to be fair and inclusive.

Opposition

Unless there is a serious issue with proposition definitions, the opposition should not contribute here.

1st argument: Quotas will cause a big backlash

Explanation:

1. Many people will be angry over quotas. This is so because populist politicians will use this opportunity to rile up anger and hatred towards minorities.
2. This anger will mean that for a lot of people, the shows and films are going to be bad no matter what the actual content is going to be.

Example:

When the movie Ghostbusters was remade, this time with female characters, it was widely unpopular and riled up a lot of misogyny.

Impact:

The quotas will not have the intended effect — they will actually hurt the standing of minorities in the public, while the positive effects will not work due to this very same anger.

2nd argument: The problem is already solving itself

Explanation:

1. There is no need to introduce this change. Because societies got more diverse, the tastes of the public are slowly changing as well and the market is adapting.
2. If you do this as a policy, you might even harm this process as explained in the first argument — because organic change will now seem as though it was planned by the government.

Example:

In the past decade, the percentage of minority representation in art and media has steadily increased.

Impact:

If you do this policy, you actually endanger the organic solution. Therefore, this policy is harmful and also unnecessary.

3rd argument: Art should be about freedom of expression

Explanation:

1. We believe that art should be free. Only if it is free can we get the best results and highest quality: the unrestrained artistic process, the undisturbed original idea. If we meddle in this process, we force the writers to include things they did not originally want to include, which leads to less natural, more forced, and overall worse art.

Example:

Imagine you have to write a story for homework, but after you are done writing, your teacher tells you you need to add certain characters you never intended to have. This would make your story much worse.

Impact:

We want the best possible art, because this is the one way of getting entertainment and quality of life, therefore we do not want to disturb it.

The debate takes place; some students debate, the others take notes and adjudicate.

1. Who do you think won the debate and why?
2. What would you do differently?
3. Did your opinion on the topic change after watching the debate?