(rev. 06/01/2007)

We're going to try something new over the next couple of days.  We're going to have a hearing of sorts in which two cases are presented on the issue of whether or not Charlie Wales should be awarded permanent custody of his daughter Honoria.  We'll divide into three teams: one team will argue on Charlie's behalf and present an argument in favor of awarding him custody, one group will argue on his sister-in-law Marion's  behalf against custody, and one group will serve as Parisian Child and Family Welfare Agency and will render the final decision based on the evidence and the cases that are presented to them.  I will serve as the Director of PCFWA.  Here's how the process will go:

Day 1

• Break into teams based on random drawing.

• Charlie's team will develop a case with at least three reasons why Charlie should attain custody.  These reasons should be developed with evidence from the transcripts (the story).  The team will also anticipate counterarguments (reasons that the other side will use) and be ready to refute those counterarguments.

• Marion's team will develop a case with at least three reasons Charlie should not gain custody.  These reasons should be developed with evidence from the transcripts (the story).  The team will also anticipate counterarguments (reasons that the other side will use) and be ready to refute those counterarguments.

• The PCFWA committee will formulate questions to ask each team at the hearing .  They will need to sketch out what they think the likely arguments will be on both sides, prepare questions to ask each side, and begin thinking about how they will make their final decision.

Day 2

• Charlie's team will present a case with reasons, evidence, and explanation arguing why they think he should gain custody.  (4)

• Marion's team will present a case with reasons, evidence, and explanation arguing why they think Charlie should not gain custody and respond to the reasons that Charlie's team presented. (8)    

• Charlie's team will respond to Marion's team's argument and attack Marion's team's reasons and defend their own reasons. (4)

• Marion's team will ask Charlie's team questions for clarification. (3)

• Charlie's team will ask Marion's team questions for clarification. (3)

• The PCFWA Committee will ask each team questions for clarification.  (6)

• Charlie's team will sum up their case and reinforce their argument. (2)

• Marion's team will sum up their case and reinforce their argument. (2)

• The PCFWA Committee will have five minutes to vote and make its decision.  (5)

• The PCFWA Committee will explain the reasons for its decision. 

 General Guidelines:

• Each team should decide how it will divide up the work at the beginning of its first meeting.  For example, you might decide all the reasons for and against your position, then divide up the reasons/counterarguments and have each person (or a pair of people) develop those reasons and counterarguments and be prepared to argue for/against them, and then have a quick review of the whole group before class is over. 

• EVERYONE needs to speak in this activity—I'll be keeping track and will factor this into your participation grade.

• Keep your tempers under control.  Sometimes controversial topics like this one get people upset.  Please maintain your composure!

• Make sure you have evidence (Direct Quotations) to support your views and that you're able to explain how the evidence supports your view.

• Make sure to develop organized outlines that are detailed with reasons, evidence, and explanation.