Debate kit Grade 7 English Language Arts
Should Elsmere Junction Replace Its Grass Field With Turf?
A grade 7 debate kit on a school district choosing between a watered grass field and synthetic turf, with two-sided evidence on water use, runoff, heat, and cost.
Objectives
- Students will construct an argument supported by at least three cited pieces of evidence.
- Students will restate the opposing side's strongest point accurately before answering it.
- Students will distinguish a documented figure from a fictional local estimate when speaking.
Vocabulary
Key words: resolution, rebuttal, infill, runoff, irrigation
Teacher overview
Two teams of four debate a live school-district question across two class periods, with constructive speeches on the first day and rebuttals and judging on the second. The resolution is genuinely contested because the two sides value different kinds of water problems: one team is answering a summer irrigation bill, and the other is answering what leaves the field when it rains. Neither side can win on water alone, since heat, replacement cost, and usable playing hours all pull in different directions.
Resolution & Background
Resolution. Resolved: the Elsmere Junction school district should replace its grass athletic field with synthetic turf.
The situation. Elsmere Junction is a fictional town. One middle school and one high school share a single grass field. The field is watered all summer to keep it playable. After heavy rain it closes for two or three days, because cleats tear up soft ground. The district has a grant that would pay part of a turf installation. The grant expires this year. The school board has asked students to present both sides at a public meeting.
Format and roles. Each team has four speakers. The first speaker gives a three-minute speech with the claim and two reasons. The second speaker gives a three-minute speech that adds a third reason with evidence. The third speaker gives a three-minute rebuttal. That speaker must name the other side's strongest point before answering it. The fourth speaker closes in two minutes and adds no new evidence. A moderator keeps time. Three judges score with the rubric and write one sentence per criterion.
A rule about sources. Some items below are real and documented. Others are fictional local estimates written for this debate. Speakers must say which kind they are using. A team that calls a fictional memo a national statistic loses points on evidence use.
Evidence File
Case for replacing the grass with turf
- Grounds log (fictional): Keeping the grass alive in July and August takes water nearly every other day. Turf needs no water to stay playable. That summer watering would end.
- Water costs, real trend: Water and sewer bills rose about 24% from 2019 to 2024. They rose about 5.1% more in 2025, faster than inflation (Bluefield Research and industry rate surveys). Ending the summer watering would take that rising cost out of the district's budget permanently.
- Athletic schedule (fictional): The grass field closed on eleven school days last year after rain. Those closures push practices onto the high school field, which is already booked. Turf drains and reopens within hours.
- Chemical record (fictional): Grass needs fertilizer to hold up under cleats. Some of that fertilizer washes off in storms. Turf needs none.
- Facilities note (fictional): Mowing takes about six hours of staff time each week in the growing season, plus a tank of fuel.
Case for keeping the grass field
- Extension agent (fictional): On a hot, sunny day a turf surface gets much hotter than living grass. Grass cools itself as water evaporates from its leaves. Practices may have to shorten on the hottest days, which are also the days the field is used most.
- Runoff, standard practice: Engineers estimate runoff with a number for how much rain a surface sheds. Pavement runs about 0.9 and a lawn about 0.2 (standard stormwater engineering method). Some local stormwater rules treat turf over a stone base as closer to the pavement figure, especially when underdrains pipe the water straight to the storm drain. More water leaves the site, and it leaves faster.
- Creek monitors (fictional): Turf sheds small rubber or cork bits and plastic fibers. Those wash toward the storm drain. Fertilizer can be reduced by testing the soil and applying less, while plastic that reaches the creek cannot be taken back out.
- Business office (fictional): A turf field has to be replaced every eight to twelve years. The grant pays only for the first one. Grass can be reseeded a section at a time from the regular budget.
- Alternative plan (fictional): Deeper-rooted grass, soil testing, and watering before sunrise could cut summer watering sharply. The field would stay a living surface.
Points either side may use
- The grant expires this year, so the board must choose now.
- Both surfaces cost money and need care. The question is which costs and which risks to accept.
- Nobody says the field is unsafe today. The dispute is about water, heat, cost, and playing hours.
From Water for Schools (waterforschools.org). This material is in the public domain (CC0) and may be copied, edited, and shared freely.
Rubric
Judges score each team on four criteria, four points each, for a possible sixteen.
| Criterion | Emerging (1) | Developing (2) | Proficient (3) | Advanced (4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence use | Claims are asserted with no source named | Some claims name a source; others float free | Every major claim names its source, and at least three distinct items are used | Items are chosen for fit, and the team explains why a given source is credible on that point |
| Source honesty | Fictional and documented items are mixed without distinction | The distinction is made once and then dropped | Each item is labeled as documented or as a local estimate when it is used | The team uses the distinction as an argument, noting where the other side leans on estimates |
| Rebuttal quality | The opposing case is ignored or caricatured | One opposing point is named but answered with a repeat of the team's own claim | The strongest opposing point is restated accurately and answered with a reason | The team anticipates the opposing case and answers it with specific evidence before it is delivered |
| Organization and delivery | Hard to follow; speakers run over or duplicate one another | Order is present but signposting is thin, and roles overlap | Each speaker performs the assigned job within time, with clear signposting | Speeches build on one another, pacing is controlled, and the team addresses the judges directly |
Judges write one sentence per criterion naming the moment that decided the score, so feedback points to specific speech content rather than to a general impression.
Differentiation
Support
Give these students the evidence file with each item already tagged as documented or fictional, and assign them the second constructive speaker role, which uses one prepared reason rather than framing the whole case. Provide a rebuttal frame reading "The other team said ___. That matters, but ___, because ___."
Extension
Assign these students the third speaker role and require them to prepare answers to the two strongest points on the opposing list before the debate begins. A further task asks them to write the one question they would put to the grounds manager, and to explain what answer would change their position.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "resolution," "rebuttal," and "infill" with a labeled cross-section of a turf field showing fibers, infill, and the stone base underneath. Allow speakers to use a written script for the constructive speech and notes for the rebuttal. Provide a printed strip of signposting phrases such as "our first reason" and "the other team argued."
Extensions
After the debate, students write a one-page letter to the fictional school board taking a position and answering the strongest point from the side they did not argue. Students who argued the winning side must write from the opposite position, which forces them to use the evidence they spent two days answering.