Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Saturday, June 9, 2007
The Debate is no more
I can see that we are all glad that the debate is behind us now. I am honestly surprised that I got as high a grade that I did. I had all the basic issues out lined in my introduction which is probably why I did as well as I did. Unfortunately my presentation was poor. I am curios why the Professor had us do a debate. I do not feel that I got that much out of it as far as learning goes. I do however feel that the research paper taught me allot, both about the subject that I wrote about as well as the process of writing.
Debates
I am so glad that the debate it over! I was ready with my facts, but not ready mentally to go up in front of the class. Iam not an agressive person...soon I will be learning how to in a speech class...I am learning from this, I am glad I didn't chiken out on this debate, and did the best I could!
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Debate
I want to mention our group is ready for debate. We will try to learn, understand, and how to listent to the opposite of our idea.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Debate
I AM SO NERVOUS FOR THE DEBATE ON SATURDAY!!! I have never taken a speech class before, so I am just going to get up there in front of the class and do the best I can!!!
Saturday, May 19, 2007
debates
i believe using the rest of the time we have left, until debates day, helpful to all of us. What do you guys think?
Friday, May 18, 2007
Research Paper
Can our research paper be on anything that we are interested about or does it have to be on what we are debating on?
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Debate sequence
The order of events in our debates will be like so:
In a 3 vs 3 debate:
1. First pro speaker speaks 5 minutes and presents the debate proposition from the Pro POV, and supports it as well as possible.
2. Cross-Examination -- One speaker from the con side stands with the first pro speaker and asks questions, and only asks questions. The pro speaker only answers questions. Typically, the questioner's strategy is to attempt to pin the speaker down to specific statements that can later be attacked. The speaker, of course, whats to be sure to properly qualify his or her opinion.
3. First Con Speech -- the first con speaker states the con disagreement with the pro position and supports that, rebutting the pro arguments, and adding whatever other arguments the con side may find useful.
4. A pro speaker cross-examines the con speaker just as a con speaker cross-examined the first pro speaker.
5. The second pro speaker defends the first pro speaker's positions insofar as they have been attacked, attacks the first con speaker's arguments insofar as that may be done, points out where the con team has failed to answer or adequately answer the pro argument, and introduces any new arguments that the first speakers may have failed to mention.
6. Cross examination.
7. The second con speaker rebutts the second pro speaker, defending the first con argument and attacking the pro arguments.
8. Another cross examination.
9. The third pro speaker gives the concluding pro speech, hopefully wrapping up all arguments into a convincing conclusion for the pro side.
10. The third con speaker gives the concluding speech, hopefully wrapping up all arguments into a convincign conclusion for the con side.
As you can probably tell by the format, it makes no sense to try to divide a topic into various aspects in order to have individual speakers specialize in different aspects of the topic. For instance, an abortion debate may have moral, social, and medical aspects, to name only a few; a speaker who prepares to deal with only moral issues may be poorly prepared to defend the arguments of a first speaker who presented social or medical issues. Likewise, a speaker who opens the debate by addressing only one small part of the overall question has probably not made a very effective argument, since any informed decision regarding the topics you have decided to debate would involve the weighing of many factors.
In a 3 vs 3 debate:
1. First pro speaker speaks 5 minutes and presents the debate proposition from the Pro POV, and supports it as well as possible.
2. Cross-Examination -- One speaker from the con side stands with the first pro speaker and asks questions, and only asks questions. The pro speaker only answers questions. Typically, the questioner's strategy is to attempt to pin the speaker down to specific statements that can later be attacked. The speaker, of course, whats to be sure to properly qualify his or her opinion.
3. First Con Speech -- the first con speaker states the con disagreement with the pro position and supports that, rebutting the pro arguments, and adding whatever other arguments the con side may find useful.
4. A pro speaker cross-examines the con speaker just as a con speaker cross-examined the first pro speaker.
5. The second pro speaker defends the first pro speaker's positions insofar as they have been attacked, attacks the first con speaker's arguments insofar as that may be done, points out where the con team has failed to answer or adequately answer the pro argument, and introduces any new arguments that the first speakers may have failed to mention.
6. Cross examination.
7. The second con speaker rebutts the second pro speaker, defending the first con argument and attacking the pro arguments.
8. Another cross examination.
9. The third pro speaker gives the concluding pro speech, hopefully wrapping up all arguments into a convincing conclusion for the pro side.
10. The third con speaker gives the concluding speech, hopefully wrapping up all arguments into a convincign conclusion for the con side.
As you can probably tell by the format, it makes no sense to try to divide a topic into various aspects in order to have individual speakers specialize in different aspects of the topic. For instance, an abortion debate may have moral, social, and medical aspects, to name only a few; a speaker who prepares to deal with only moral issues may be poorly prepared to defend the arguments of a first speaker who presented social or medical issues. Likewise, a speaker who opens the debate by addressing only one small part of the overall question has probably not made a very effective argument, since any informed decision regarding the topics you have decided to debate would involve the weighing of many factors.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Debate
Have any of you had the opportunity to debate before? In my Speech class we had debated a few times.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Debate
I can only speak for myself when i say this, I feel it will be hard to argue a topic I am not passionate about.....does anyone agree with me?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Today's class discussion
Today in class, we had a discussion in regards to our troops being in war for, according to some people, no excused reason and I feel that I disagree with some of the things that were being pointed at and want to get them out of my chest. Feel free to put your personal input if you have something to say. Am sure everyone has an opinion on this.
First of all, I don't feel that we are there just to "kill" people. I think, we at times get so blinded with all the confusing media that rather goes to get their information with some people other than those ordinary people that have actually had interacted with the soldiers; and, forget our original purpose for going after this war. I am no way in favor of George Bush's decisions, but now that we (our troops, that is) are there, we might as well do what we need to do. In addition to that, I think that by being there, Americans are also setting an example of freedom to those Iraqi people that have been exposed to a very cruel treatment due to the regime in which they lived. Believe me, we are not worse than what they have experienced in their lifetime, our country is making them free.
Having said that, maybe instead of saying something so unacceptable as being there to "kill" people, we should at a minimum try to understand the other reasons why we are still there, realize that most of the countries we have fought against are either prosperous or just better (take Kuwait for instance) and that if wasn't because of our soldiers you wouldn't even have the freedom of speech you currently enjoy of. Also, if some countries such as Belgium have so much appreciation for our military (check d-day history, Bastogne historical center,)why do we disrespect our military or our country by calling it "world police" and even dare asking why aren't we looking after some other country. Our country is the country with the highest defense budget and does its best to help out the world yes, at our expense; however, if it is criticized already as it is, imagine if our troops were in every single country's business!
First of all, I don't feel that we are there just to "kill" people. I think, we at times get so blinded with all the confusing media that rather goes to get their information with some people other than those ordinary people that have actually had interacted with the soldiers; and, forget our original purpose for going after this war. I am no way in favor of George Bush's decisions, but now that we (our troops, that is) are there, we might as well do what we need to do. In addition to that, I think that by being there, Americans are also setting an example of freedom to those Iraqi people that have been exposed to a very cruel treatment due to the regime in which they lived. Believe me, we are not worse than what they have experienced in their lifetime, our country is making them free.
Having said that, maybe instead of saying something so unacceptable as being there to "kill" people, we should at a minimum try to understand the other reasons why we are still there, realize that most of the countries we have fought against are either prosperous or just better (take Kuwait for instance) and that if wasn't because of our soldiers you wouldn't even have the freedom of speech you currently enjoy of. Also, if some countries such as Belgium have so much appreciation for our military (check d-day history, Bastogne historical center,)why do we disrespect our military or our country by calling it "world police" and even dare asking why aren't we looking after some other country. Our country is the country with the highest defense budget and does its best to help out the world yes, at our expense; however, if it is criticized already as it is, imagine if our troops were in every single country's business!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)