Water for Schools
Menu

Debate kit Grade 7 English Language Arts

Bottled Water or Refill Stations? A Weller Valley Debate Kit

A grade 7 ELA debate kit on whether a school district should replace bottled water with refill stations, with genuinely two-sided evidence and a scoring rubric.

Objectives

  1. Students will use evidence from a two-sided file to build an argument on the resolution.
  2. Students will deliver a rebuttal that answers a specific point from the opposing team.

Vocabulary

Key words: resolution, refill station, rebuttal, evidence, tradeoff

Teacher overview

This is a two-team structured debate for a 60-minute block, with prep spilling into a second session if needed. Students argue for or against a school district ending bottled-water sales and installing refill stations instead. The resolution is genuinely contested: refill stations cut waste and cost, yet older buildings and event-day needs raise fair concerns, so a well-informed student could argue either side.

Bottled Water or Refill Stations? A Weller Valley Debate Kit — Grade 7 English Language Arts
Name: ____________________________ Date: ______________

Resolution & Background

Resolution: "The Weller Valley School District should stop selling bottled water and install water-refill stations in every school."

Background: The fictional Weller Valley School District sells single-use bottled water in every cafeteria and gym. A refill station is a wall-mounted fountain built to fill a reusable bottle quickly, and many stations have a counter that shows how many bottles they have saved. The school board must decide two things: whether to spend money on refill stations, and whether to stop buying cases of bottled water. Tap water in the United States is tested by the water utility, yet the pipes inside an older building can still add problems such as lead, which is why testing a building's own fountains matters.

Roles: Split the class into two teams. The affirmative team argues for the resolution. The negative team argues against it. One student is the moderator and keeps time. One or two students are judges who score with the rubric. Each team prepares an opening, a rebuttal, and a closing from the evidence file.

Evidence File

Case for the refill stations:

  1. Refill stations cut plastic waste. For this debate, assume a Weller Valley report estimates the district throws away many thousands of single-use bottles each year. Reusable bottles filled at stations would lower that waste substantially. (This figure is invented for the debate, not a real statistic.)
  2. Tap water is tested by the local water utility, so it is not automatically worse than bottled water. The district could post its water-test results so people trust the tap. (A general fact about public water; no number given.)
  3. Over several years, filling reusable bottles costs less than buying cases of bottled water. For this debate, assume a district budget note expects savings once the stations are paid off. (This estimate is invented for the debate.)
  4. Refill stations build a habit of carrying a reusable bottle. That habit saves water and cuts litter around the school.

Case against the refill stations:

  1. Putting a station in every school costs money up front. For this debate, assume a district budget note projects a large first-year cost for a district with other needs. (This estimate is invented for the debate.)
  2. Some Weller Valley buildings are old, and old indoor pipes can add lead even when the utility's water is safe. The negative team can argue that the district should test every fountain first and fix any problems before it drops bottled water as a backup. (A general point about public health; no number given.)
  3. Bottled water is easy to hand out at sports events, field days, and water-main emergencies, when a fountain may be shut off. For this debate, assume a parent group called the Cedar Court Families argues in a note that bottled water should stay available for those times. (This group and its statement are invented for the debate.)
  4. A station can break. If there is no bottled water for backup, students could be left with no easy way to get water that day.

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 Cites one point without explaining why it matters Cites at least two points and explains how each supports the team's side Cites several points, explains each, and shows why they outweigh the other side
Rebuttal quality Does not respond to the other team Responds to a point but adds no evidence Directly answers a specific opposing point using evidence from the file Answers several opposing points and explains why the team's evidence is stronger
Organization and delivery Hard to follow; no clear structure Some structure, but transitions are unclear Clear claim, evidence, and conclusion, delivered clearly Clear, purposeful structure, confidently delivered, fully on the resolution

Differentiation

Support

Give each team a simplified evidence card listing their two strongest points in plain language, and provide rebuttal frames such as "The other team says ___, but our evidence shows ___." Let these students speak from written notes.

Extension

Ask students to research, using only the evidence file, what a fair pilot test would look like, such as trying refill stations in one school first, and to add that middle-ground option to their closing argument.

ELL supports

Pre-teach "resolution," "refill station," "rebuttal," and "tradeoff" with a picture of a refill station and short definitions. Allow students to deliver their rebuttal from written notes rather than speaking without preparation, and provide the sentence frames from the Support section.