Debate kit Grade 6 English Language Arts
Recycled Water for Verde Springs Park: A Grade 6 Debate Kit
A grade 6 debate kit on whether a fictional drought town should use recycled water to irrigate its park, with genuine two-sided evidence and a rubric.
Objectives
- Students will weigh two-sided evidence about using recycled water at a public park.
- Students will build and deliver a rebuttal supported by named evidence from the file.
Vocabulary
- Recycled water
- Wastewater that has been cleaned and used again, often to water parks, golf courses, and crops instead of being thrown away. Purple pipes usually carry it.
- Drought
- A long stretch of drier-than-normal weather that leaves too little water for people, farms, and nature. Droughts build slowly and can last for years.
- Purple pipe
- The purple-colored pipes that carry recycled water for watering lawns and other non-drinking uses. The color warns everyone that the water inside is not for drinking.
Also: irrigate, rebuttal
Teacher overview
This is a two-team debate for a class period, with prep time that can spill into a second session. Students argue for or against a fictional town using recycled water to irrigate its public park during a drought. The resolution is genuinely contested: reuse can save drinking water, yet it raises fair questions about cost and about safety in a place where children play. An informed adult could argue either side, which is what makes it a real debate rather than a lesson with a hidden right answer.
Resolution & Background
Resolution: "Verde Springs should use recycled water to irrigate its public park, even though building the system costs money now."
Background: Verde Springs is a fictional town in its third dry year. A drought is a long stretch of time with little rain. The town's drinking water is running low, so leaders are looking for ways to save it. One idea is to water the public park with recycled water instead of drinking water. Recycled water is wastewater that has been cleaned again at a plant. To carry it to the park, the town would need to lay a separate set of pipes, often colored purple so no one confuses them with drinking-water pipes. The council has asked residents to weigh in before it votes.
Roles: Split the class into two teams. The affirmative team argues for the resolution. The negative team argues against it. Each team prepares an opening, then a rebuttal that answers the other team's points, then a closing. A few students can act as judges who score both teams with the rubric.
Evidence File
Case for using recycled water at the park:
- Verde Springs is in a drought, and watering the park with recycled water would save drinking water for homes and schools. (Illustrative point based on the fictional Verde Springs scenario.)
- Recycled water can be cleaned and tested until it is safe for watering plants. In California, one large system already cleans wastewater into safe water at about 130 million gallons a day. (Source: Orange County Water District.)
- With recycled water, the town would not have to stop watering during the driest months, so the park's trees, grass, and ball fields would stay alive. (Illustrative point based on the fictional scenario.)
Case against using recycled water at the park:
- Laying the separate purple pipes to the park would cost the fictional town about 400,000 dollars, money some residents say should go to roads or the library first. (Illustrative figure created for this debate.)
- A fictional parents' group, the Verde Springs Family Safety Circle, worries about recycled water in a place where young children play and might touch it, and wants more proof that it is safe there. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)
- The park is small, so the drinking water it would save may be only a small share of the town's total use, meaning the savings might not be worth the cost yet. (Illustrative point based on the fictional scenario.)
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Rubric
| Criterion | Emerging | Developing | Proficient | Advanced |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence use | Repeats a claim with no evidence from the file | Names one point from the file without explaining it | Names at least two points from the file and explains how each supports the team's side | Names several points, explains each, and shows how they connect to the resolution |
| Rebuttal quality | Does not answer the other team's points | Answers one point but adds no evidence | Directly answers a specific point using evidence from the file | Answers several points and explains why the team's evidence is stronger |
| Organization and delivery | Hard to follow, with no clear order | Has an order, but the parts are unclear | Follows a clear claim, evidence, and closing order | Clearly ordered, confident, and closely tied to the resolution |
Differentiation
Support
Give these students a single evidence card listing the strongest point for their side, and a rebuttal sentence frame: "The other team says ___, but our evidence shows ___." Let them prepare from the frame before speaking.
Extension
Ask students to research, using only the Background and the Evidence File, what a "purple pipe" system is meant to prevent, and to fold that reasoning into a stronger rebuttal about safety.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "recycled water," "irrigate," "drought," and "rebuttal" with simple definitions and a picture of purple pipes beside blue pipes. Allow students to deliver their rebuttal from written notes rather than from memory.
Extensions
After the debate, hold a short class vote and ask students to write one sentence naming the single piece of evidence that most changed their thinking, whether or not it changed their side.