Debate kit Grade 9 English Language Arts
Should Copper Bluff County Borrow to Replace Water Mains Now?
A grade 9 debate kit on whether a fictional county should issue a bond to replace aging water mains now, with two-sided evidence on need and affordability.
Objectives
- Students will evaluate evidence on both sides of a water-infrastructure financing resolution.
- Students will construct and deliver a rebuttal supported by named evidence.
- Students will distinguish between a documented fact and an illustrative example created for this debate.
Vocabulary
Key words: bond, aging infrastructure, rate increase, fixed income
Teacher overview
This is a two-team structured debate for a 55-60 minute class period, with a shorter prior session set aside for teams to prepare their opening cases from the Evidence File. Students argue for or against a fictional county issuing a bond to replace aging water mains ahead of schedule, a resolution with real tension between documented infrastructure need and documented affordability concerns.
Resolution & Background
Resolution: "Copper Bluff County should issue a bond now to replace its aging water mains, even though the bond will raise every household's water bill."
Background: Copper Bluff County is a fictional rural county. Its water mains were installed decades ago. Many are approaching the end of their expected life. Nationally, the American Society of Civil Engineers gives US drinking water systems a grade of C-. It gives wastewater systems a D+. A water main breaks somewhere in the US roughly every two minutes. The EPA estimates that $625 billion in drinking-water investment is needed nationally over the next 20 years. Distribution pipes account for about two-thirds of that total. Combined water and sewer bills nationally already rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024. They rose about 5.1 percent more in 2025. A widely used rule of thumb, built from two EPA benchmarks, treats combined costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden. Some Copper Bluff households are already near that line.
Evidence File
Case for issuing the bond now:
- Nationally, the American Society of Civil Engineers rates drinking water infrastructure a C- and wastewater a D+. A water main breaks somewhere in the country roughly every two minutes. Delayed maintenance is a documented national pattern. It is not just a Copper Bluff problem. (Source: ASCE 2025 Report Card for America's Infrastructure.)
- A fictional Copper Bluff County engineer wrote a report for this debate. The report says reactive repairs on a broken main cost far more per foot than planned replacement. Emergency crews, traffic control, and unplanned digging all add cost. A planned project avoids that extra cost. (Illustrative estimate created for this debate, not a documented figure.)
- The EPA's needs assessment attributes roughly two-thirds of the nation's $625 billion drinking-water need to distribution pipes. Waiting to act does not make that cost disappear. It only delays when the county has to pay it. (Source: EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment.)
Case against issuing the bond now:
- Combined water and sewer bills nationally already rose about 24 percent from 2019 to 2024. They rose about 5.1 percent more in 2025. A widely used rule of thumb treats combined costs above roughly 4.5 percent of household income as a high burden. The figure comes from adding two EPA benchmarks: 2.5 percent for drinking water and 2 percent for wastewater. EPA has no single official cutoff, and its 2024 affordability assessment used both 3 percent and 4.5 percent. Some Copper Bluff households are already close to the 4.5 percent line. (Source: EPA Water Affordability Needs Assessment; Bluefield Research rate surveys.)
- A fictional local group, the Copper Bluff Fixed-Income Alliance, wrote testimony for this debate. The group says a bond-funded rate increase would hit retired residents hardest. Those residents live on a fixed income. They cannot offset a higher bill the way a working household can. (Illustrative testimony created for this debate.)
- Not every aging main fails at the same time. Not every main needs replacement on the same schedule. A pay-as-you-go approach repairs the most urgent breaks first. It does not borrow to replace pipes broadly. That approach avoids new debt and interest costs. It still addresses failures as they occur.
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 cited evidence | Cites one piece of evidence without explaining its relevance | Cites at least two pieces of evidence and explains how each supports the team's position | Cites multiple pieces of evidence, explains their relevance, and clearly distinguishes documented facts from illustrative examples |
| Rebuttal quality | Does not respond to the opposing team's points | Responds to an opposing point but without new evidence | Directly rebuts a specific opposing point using evidence from the file | Rebuts multiple opposing points and explains why the team's evidence outweighs them |
| Organization & delivery | Argument is difficult to follow; no clear structure | Argument has a structure but transitions are unclear | Argument follows a clear claim-evidence-conclusion structure | Argument is clearly structured, confidently delivered, and directly responsive to the resolution |
Differentiation
Support (below grade level)
Provide a simplified evidence card for each side listing only the single strongest point, and give sentence starters for rebuttals ("Our opponents claim ___, but the evidence shows ___.").
Extension (above grade level)
Ask students to research what a state revolving loan fund might offer as an alternative to a county-issued bond, and incorporate that reasoning into a stronger rebuttal.
ELL supports
Pre-teach "bond," "aging infrastructure," "rate increase," and "fixed income" with simple definitions and a labeled diagram of an old water main being replaced. Allow students to deliver rebuttals from written notes rather than extemporaneously.