You will each pick one topic, and notify me. You are also to indicate a preferred date. I hope to create an online sign-up sheet soon; in the meantime, just email me.
Your choice is not final until someone else also signs up for the same topic. You are encouraged to find a classmate and sign up together, for this reason. (You and your debate opponent can also propose a topic, if you wish.)
On the designated day, I'll flip a coin and each person will have up to five minutes to present either the For or Against position. This means, of course, that you have to prepare both sides beforehand. You don't have to say a lot; you just need to be able to outline the arguments for your assigned position. It might only take you one or two minutes.
You must have your position chosen by the coin flip.
After both people have spoken, the rest of the class will vote for which side they thought "won". The outcome of the vote doesn't really matter, but you should be trying to persuade your classmates.
After the vote, I'll give you a chance to state what you really believe, if you feel you were stuck defending a position you did not agree with. This is entirely optional, however.
If your debate partner doesn't show up, you can still go ahead with your side.
Numbers in the [bracket] represent an estimate of the class day in the course (1-12) by which we'll have covered the relevant material. If you go earlier, you'll need to explain a bit of background too (or perhaps I will).
Sample topic: Cultural Ethical Relativism is a serious ethical theory.
For: We can only judge the ethical rules of other cultures by placing them in the context of those cultures. Cultural mores and values depend on cultural experience. To understand justice and freedom in other cultures -- for example, China -- we must first understand those cultures, and how they work socially. Europe places a higher value on privacy than on freedom of speech, as compared to the United States. Europe also has many more rules forbidding "hate speech". This difference is due, in part, to the European experience in the World Wars, when demagoguery and governmental intrusions of privacy were the norm. At least some Chinese intellectuals have argued that freedom of expression is a negative in the light of the goal of broad social cohesion and egalitarianism.
If you ask people to rank a variety of customs, they will almost always rank the customs of their own culture first. In particular, people's views on ethical mores and values cannot be separated from their cultural background.
Against: First, basic human freedoms are universal. Freedom of political expression in China today is quite limited (as it is in many countries). Cultures may negotiate the details of freedom of speech, with respect, say, to privacy or defamation or calls to violence, but throughout Europe and the United States citizens are free to criticize their governments and social institutions. Such feedback is important for governmental legitimacy.
For the larger moral issues there is a great deal of unanimity across cultures: it is wrong to harm innocent people, or to deprive them of their property.
Finally, the claim in the first sentence of the For argument is not the slightest bit relative. It is a blanket rule: we should not judge people in other cultures. As such, it contradicts the principle of relativism!
Co1:  File sharers are really stealing from those who purchase content
legally, not from the artists themselves.
Co2:  Consumer ISPs should be legally required to assist the RIAA and MPAA in their anti-piracy investigations and prosecutions.
Co3:  The government should make significant personal copyright infringement (eg movie file-sharing) a criminal offense, in order to preserve the viability of the copyright incentive to creativity.
Co4:  Something like the SOPA/PIPA approach to online server-based file-sharing is necessary in order to stop flagrant server-based file-sharing.
Pr1:  Blanket government surveillance is worth it because it makes us all safer, by allowing the government a chance to detect terrorist plots ahead of time.
Pr2:  The European notion of a "right to be forgotten", and to have your name removed from Google's search results, is an important aspect of personal freedom.
S1:  Section 230 protection should not extend to "gossip" sites like theDirty.com
S2:  It is important that we preserve forums for safe anonymous speech, where other parties cannot easily demand the identity of the original poster.
S3:  It is time to require Facebook to police its content more carefully; huge platforms like Facebook should not be allowed to hide behind Section 230 protection when it comes to election spending, hate speech, or disinformation campaigns.
Pt1:  To fix the patent system, it is sufficient to create consistent
standards for the Patent Office to follow when reviewing technology
patents, and to require a reasonable threshold of innovation. More radical
changes are not needed.
Pt2:  Thomas Campana came up with a really innovative idea and the patent system should reward him.
Pt3:  Protections for intellectual property are essential for encouraging technological innovation and thus the tech industry's contributions to society.