Current Affairs and Debating

› Forums › Debating Club1 › Current Affairs and Debating

Viewing 27 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • at 12:45 #4623
      VMWEdu
      Keymaster
    • at 16:24 #4629
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 1 report

      Group 1 (10 – 11 AM British Time)

      The students were very attentive and engaged, and I was pleased that they participated more as the class went on. It was great to get to know them and I look forward to working with them in the coming weeks.

      We began by defining public speaking and debating, and looking at the goals of public speaking. After considering different settings and different audiences, we moved onto to different techniques in public speaking, including body language. The students shared some experiences of giving presentations and getting nervous, so I gave some advice on on how to give a confident speech. We practiced identifying good examples of public speaking, drawing on the preparation done in the homework exercise.

      Group 2 (1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      I greatly enjoyed our first debate, in which students demonstrated good knowledge of the topic and a strong ability to come up with a variety of arguments. We did the debate on banning cars in cities twice, so each student had a chance to make arguments from both sides. My feedback then focussed on how students could use the framework of ‘problem – action – solution’ to improve the structure and detail of their arguments.

      Group 3 (1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      I greatly enjoyed our first debate, in which students demonstrated good knowledge of the topic and a strong ability to come up with a variety of arguments. We did the debate on banning cars in cities twice, so each student had a chance to make arguments from both sides. My feedback then focussed on how students could use the framework of ‘problem – action – solution’ to improve the structure and detail of their arguments.

      Homework for Lesson 1

      ·      The motion for the debate is ‘individuals should adopt a vegetarian lifestyle and diet, and schools should only serve vegetarian meals in cafeterias’

      ·      Pre-reading:
      o   https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/vegetarianism/609722
      o   https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/learning/what-students-are-saying-about-vegetarianism-parental-advice-and-how-we-listen.html [1st section]
      o   https://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/features/6-minute-english/ep-190314
      o   http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/eating_1.shtml

    • at 19:27 #4950
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 2 report

      Group 1 (10 – 11 AM British Time)

      This group clearly rose to the challenge of moving from public speaking to our more debating and current affairs focussed sessions. For some of the students who did not join last week, it was great to see their peers helping to recap some of the advice on speaking we covered last week. Our debate was on the motion that ‘individuals should adopt a vegetarian lifestyle and diet, and schools should only serve vegetarian meals in cafeterias.’ We did two rounds of the debate, so each student spoke for both the proposition and the opposition.

      It was encouraging to see enthusiasm for the topic and a range of arguments being offered. The main goal for improvement is to explain in detail processes (what does it mean if a debater says ‘this is bad for the environment’), and to use this detail to help develop clear arguments and longer speeches (around 1 minute in duration).

      Group 2 (1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      I was impressed by the careful research done in advance and the clear arguments offered in speeches: this was a very well-evidenced debate. Our debate was on the motion that ‘individuals should adopt a vegetarian lifestyle and diet, and schools should only serve vegetarian meals in cafeterias.’ We did two rounds of the debate, so each student spoke for both the proposition and the opposition.

      To improve, students will focus on trying to sit still and present their speech directly to the camera. I felt that students were already getting better at this presentation by the end of the lesson, which was excellent. The other area to focus on is developing the conclusions to arguments, and explaining why an argument is so important in the context of the debate.

      Group 3 (1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      Our debate was on the motion that ‘individuals should adopt a vegetarian lifestyle and diet, and schools should only serve vegetarian meals in cafeterias.’ We did two rounds of the debate, so each student spoke for both the proposition and the opposition. I was pleased to see that most students were able to give at least one speech that lasted around a minute and fully developed an argument, as well as some students even directly responding to other arguments.

      The clear and logical explanation of incentives and consequences was an encouraging sign that students were absorbing the material from the first lesson. Occasionally, students used metaphors, similes, and analogies to help explain complicated arguments (such as those about climate change); the main constructive feedback is to try and do more of this! I am also encouraging the students to begin to make very quick notes before they speak, so their argument is fully developed.

      Homework from lesson 2: preparation for next debate

      The homework is to prepare for the debate through some research, and making a very brief note of one argument on each side. I will suggest some articles, but it is also great that students are using the internet to do their own research – this is definitely to be encouraged.

      The motion, or topic, for debate is ‘Rich people and countries should pay more in taxes and international donations to respond to the coronavirus pandemic’.

       

       

    • at 21:01 #4980
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 1, Group 4 (Wednesday 15 July, 1115 – 1215 UK time)

      Our debate was on the motion that ‘individuals should adopt a vegetarian lifestyle and diet, and schools should only serve vegetarian meals in cafeterias.’ We did two rounds of the debate, so each student spoke for both the proposition and the opposition. After some feedback from me on how to develop arguments in more detail, we did an exercise where each student presented their favourite food and gave reasons for this.

      It was a pleasure to meet this lovely group, who all contributed to our debates and asked useful questions. There was a good range of knowledge and issues raised. The main goal for improvement is to use more detailed explanations and build arguments to make speeches more persuasive.

      Homework from lesson 1: preparation for next debate

      The homework is to prepare for the debate through some research, and making a very brief note of one argument on each side. I will suggest some articles, but it is also great that students are using the internet to do their own research – this is definitely to be encouraged.

      The motion, or topic, for debate is ‘Rich people and countries should pay more in taxes and international donations to respond to the coronavirus pandemic’.

       

    • at 04:49 #5440
      Harry Wang
      Participant

       

       

      Attachments:
      You must be logged in to view attached files.
    • at 17:01 #5496
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 3 Report

      Group 1 (10 – 11 AM British Time)

      The motion for debate was ‘Rich people and countries should pay more in taxes and international donations to respond to the coronavirus pandemic’. This topic is very current and it was clear that the students were well-informed, and it was good to introduce some further knowledge of economics and inequality. The idea of international aid took some explanation, but it was pleasing to see some students bring in points on this aspect of the topic towards the end of the session.

      Group 2 (1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      The motion for debate was ‘Rich people and countries should pay more in taxes and international donations to respond to the coronavirus pandemic’. This topic is very current and it was clear that the students were well-informed, and it was good to introduce some further knowledge of economics and inequality. The idea of international aid took some explanation, but it was pleasing to see some students bring in points on this aspect of the topic towards the end of the session.

      To make one small request: please can students leave their cameras on, and not change their names, during the session? This would make it easier to have a smooth running session, and also helps work on body language and presentation during public speaking.

      Group 3 (1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      The motion for debate was ‘Rich people and countries should pay more in taxes and international donations to respond to the coronavirus pandemic’. This topic is very current and it was clear that the students were well-informed, and it was good to introduce some further knowledge of economics and inequality. The idea of international aid took some explanation, but it was pleasing to see some students bring in points on this aspect of the topic towards the end of the session.

      To make one small request: please can students leave their cameras on, and not change their names, during the session? This would make it easier to have a smooth running session, and also helps work on body language and presentation during public speaking.

      Group 4 (Wednesday (Lesson 2), 1115 – 1215 UK time)

      The motion for debate was ‘Rich people and countries should pay more in taxes and international donations to respond to the coronavirus pandemic’. This topic is very current and it was clear that the students were well-informed, and it was good to introduce some further knowledge of economics and inequality. The idea of international aid took some explanation, but it was pleasing to see some students bring in points on this aspect of the topic towards the end of the session.

      It would be great if we could have more students volunteering next week, as this will help speed up the flow of debate. It will help if each student has briefly noted down one or two arguments for each side, so they are ready to volunteer.

      Homework (for all groups)

      The debate for next week is ‘capital punishment (the death penalty) should be used for the most serious violent crimes, such as murder’. We will focus our session on how to generate ideas for the debate, including techniques for brainstorming and different ways to frame or slice the debate. This should help us develop lively and sophisticated debates. Below are some overviews of relevant arguments, which may help in developing your own arguments.

      ·      https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/15007511
      ·      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XltuOU1A8Sk
      ·      http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capitalpunishment/

    • at 12:10 #5749
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 4 Report – 28 & 29 July

      Group 1 (10 – 11 AM British Time)

      This class is already naturally engaging with (to further support or to criticise) the arguments of other debaters, which is excellent. After the first round, I introduced the concept of ‘rebuttal’ (rejecting the argument of the other side), and tried to encourage students to consistently do this at the start of their speeches. It was great to see that the students took this on board in the second round of debate – well done on a highly interactive set of debates!

      We need to make sure to remember whether we are on proposition or opposition, and to ensure our points land firmly on the side we are allocated. I also introduced two ways of generating more points in all debates: considering the gap between ‘ideal and reality’, and identifying the relevant alternative solutions. All students seemed to grasp these frameworks in the third round of debate, as they were coming up with some new ideas.

      Group 2 (1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      It was excellent to see the speeches this week were more sophisticated: not only longer than in previous weeks, but also more complex. The students embraced some of the complex principled arguments that were relevant to the topic of capital punishment. After a quick reminder early on, students incorporated our goal from last week of using clear introductions and conclusions in their point – well done. This week, I introduced two ways of generating more points in all debates: considering the gap between ‘ideal and reality’, and identifying the relevant alternative solutions. All students seemed to grasp these frameworks in the third round of debate, as they were coming up with some new ideas.

      Group 3 (1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      The students were particularly engaged this week, with more volunteers to raise points, clear signs of good research, and some creatively thought through arguments. After a quick reminder early on, students incorporated our goal from last week of using clear introductions and conclusions in their point – well done.

      This week, our focus was on responding directly to arguments raised by the other side in each round of debate – the students demonstrated some quick-thinking, and I helped them learn how to structure and to introduce their ‘rebuttal’. It was good to see students incorporating these responses alongside their own substantive arguments on the issue.

      Group 4 (Wednesday, Lesson 1: 1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      It was so lovely to meet this hard-working group, who had clearly researched the topic in detail and considered the arguments carefully beforehand. I was impressed at their clear speaking and structured argumentation.

      After the first round of our debate on capital punishment, I explained in my feedback how to use introductions and conclusions to support speeches. I also encouraged the students to integrate their research and statistics into their wider arguments. It was excellent to see that this feedback was taken on board in the second round of the debate. After all students had spoken on both sides of the debate, I introduced to them a framework for analysing debates on criminal justice, including some technical vocabulary.

      I am looking forward to working with this group, and seeing them debate more. Next week, I will turn on the ‘allow record’ feature in Zoom so my feedback can be recorded.

      Homework: preparation for next week’s debate

      The motion for next week’s debate is ‘Zoos should be banned’. Some resources to help in research and preparation:

    • at 18:27 #6042
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 5 Report – 3 & 4 August

      Group 4 (Monday, 2nd Lesson: 1300– 1400 PM British Time)

      It was great to see this class again for our second session, where we had longer rounds of debate. The students had clearly prepared strong speeches, which were well-researched and included some nicely developed arguments on the topic of zoos. I was very pleased that at the start of the session, the class remembered that the main goal from last week was to use clear introductions and conclusions – this was done well in our rounds of debate today. Another point of feedback from last week, about integrating facts or statistics into the argument, was also picked up on.

      After the first round of debate, I encouraged students to differentiate different types of animals: it is always important to break down categories in debates. In the final round, it was good to see some responses to other speakers, and we will work on rebuttal in our next session.

      Please note there will be no session next week as I am away – our next session will be 17 August.

      Group 1 ( Tuesday, 10 – 11 AM British Time)

      This was an excellent session, and it was great to see students even more enthusiastic to volunteer to give speeches. The students had clearly prepared strong speeches, which were well-researched and included some nicely developed arguments on the topic of zoos. Following feedback from last week, about integrating facts or statistics into the argument, the research was certainly used to good effect. After the first round of debate, I encouraged students to differentiate different types of animals: it is always important to break down categories in debates. When students were able to achieve this level of detail, they developed sophisticated arguments!

      I do apologise for a slight delay in starting, due to an issue with Zoom meeting rooms. The class was extended by 10 minutes to make up for this. In our next class, in addition to the debate, I will be asking students to remind the class of what they have learnt in feedback: the meaning of proposition and opposition, illustrating points, rebuttal, introductions and conclusions. Please note there will be no session next week as I am away – our next session will be 18 August.

      Group 2 (Tuesday, 1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      This group have improved a great deal: students have an excellent attitude and offer a lot of arguments, as well as asking useful questions. I am very pleased to see that students built on the feedback from last week, and were responding well to arguments from the other debaters. In the debate on zoos this week, I tried to encourage the students to explain not just why their argument is true, but why it matters. The key to taking the quality of debating to the next level will be considering the impact of arguments, and comparing these impacts to those offered by the other side.

      Please note there will be no session next week as I am away – our next session will be 18 August.

      Group 3 (Tuesday, 1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      The students had done a great deal of careful research on the topic of zoos, bringing in many different species, places, and issues into the debate. I also appreciated that the speeches were longer this week, as students incorporated responses to other debaters and also more illustrated examples. Given that all students had good research and arguments, it would be great if they volunteered at the start – they should all be confident that their contributions are good. I tried to encourage the students to explain not just why their argument is true, but why it matters. The key to taking the quality of debating to the next level will be considering the impact of arguments, and comparing these impacts to those offered by the other side.

      Please note there will be no session next week as I am away – our next session will be 18 August. In our next class, in addition to the debate, I will be asking students to remind the class of what they have learnt in feedback: the meaning of proposition and opposition, illustrating points, rebuttal, introductions and conclusions. It would greatly help me as a teacher if students turn their video cameras on in the class, if possible.

      Please note there will be no session next week as I am away – our next session will be 18 August.

      Homework: preparation for next debate (week commencing 17 August)

       

    • at 11:49 #6734
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 6 Report – 17 & 18 August

      Group 4 (Monday, 3rd Lesson: 1300– 1400 PM British Time)

      It was great to see this group again after our week off last week, and to welcome a new student to the class. The class was highly attentive. In our debate on billionaires this week, I was particularly impressed by the quality of background research, and the consideration of issues such as racial discrimination, poverty, and charity. The global consideration of inequality issues was certainly sophisticated, and built on my feedback from our zoo debate to break down categories such as ‘billionaires’.

      As students are now giving longer speeches, I am reminding them to ensure they are clearly linking facts or examples they may use to their conclusions – the debater must connect their points back to the topic. We also looked at how to clearly structure the speech when there is both rebuttal and a new argument, which the students were doing well by the end.

      Group 1 ( Tuesday, 10 – 11 AM British Time)

      It was great to see this group again after our week off last week, and to see a strong range of research and speeches prepared in advance. At the start of the session, the students were able to answer all of my quickfire questions about recent issues we have covered – well done! Our next focus for improvement will be on ‘weighing up’ the arguments of both sides in the speeches: comparing the argument you have just rebutted to the argument you are making. It is important that we try and establish what the most important aspects of the debate are, and this will help us develop more advanced speeches.

      Group 2 (Tuesday, 1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      Our debates in this group are progressing well, especially as they have now become more interactive and engaging because the students are responding well to the arguments of other debaters. In terms of the research and substantive arguments, one area for improvement will be broadening horizons globally. Often arguments are quite rooted in an American context or examples, and it would be good to consider other countries – particularly in our billionaires debate, I pressed the students to think more directly about developing economies. The structure of speeches is really progressing, with students speaking in a clear manner to deliver their arguments – well done!

      Group 3 (Tuesday, 1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      After our week off, I was delighted to see that this group were engaged, ready to offer points and ask questions, and also responded in a dynamic way to other arguments. With this pleasant attitude, the quality of debate certainly improved as students were offering well-thought through arguments that considered a variety of different types of billionaires. Our next focus for improvement will be on ‘weighing up’ the arguments of both sides in the speeches: comparing the argument you have just rebutted to the argument you are making. It is important that we try and establish what the most important aspects of the debate are, and this will help us develop more advanced speeches.

      Homework: preparation for next debate (week commencing 24 August)

      Debate topic: “Children are using too much technology and spending too much time on screens.”

    • at 14:58 #7023
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 7 Report – 24 & 25 August

      Group 4 (Monday, 4th Lesson: 1300– 1400 PM British Time)

      This group really thrived as we considered the relatable and very relevant topic of screen-time and technology. In the first two rounds of the debate, a good range of issues was raised in each speech. When this is the case, it is important that students use a clear internal structure when they are moving between their arguments. Numbering may seem clunky, but it is certainly useful.

      I also encouraged the students to make ‘obvious’ or simple arguments, particularly looking at the context of the pandemic for online learning – it was great to see more of these arguments in our third round. The third round featured strong quickfire rebuttal, which demonstrated attentive listening. We need to remember to incorporate this form of rebuttal in the first rounds of debating each week, which will definitely be facilitated by making short notes during the speeches of the other students. The other strong feature of this third round was the points were pleasingly specific about different websites or technologies.

      Group 1 ( Tuesday, 10 – 11 AM British Time)

      We had a smaller group this week, which allowed those in attendance from the start to really shine. I was particularly impressed with the well-developed structure of the speeches, which incorporated rebuttal alongside new arguments very well. The topic of technology and screen-time yielded some detailed and specific arguments, although students would benefit from considering the uniquely international/global aspects of the internet as an educational tool. We will continue to work on weighing up arguments and trying to identify the core of the debate, but there was some improvement for last week.

      Group 2 (Tuesday, 1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      I was pleased to see that students this week combined careful research with well-reasoned arguments from their own experiences using technology, especially in light of the ongoing pandemic. As well as strong responses to other speakers, the debate also featured detailed examples within lengthy speeches. It is important that students use a clear internal structure when they are moving between their arguments, especially as we now have longer speeches. Numbering may seem clunky, but it is certainly useful.

      Group 3 (Tuesday, 1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      This group continued to demonstrate an enthusiastic attitude and real improvement. Speeches were in the first two rounds were of a good length, which meant we did not even have time to do a third round – this is a notable improvement from just giving a short few sentences a month or so ago! The rebuttal continues to animate lively debates, with students challenging each other based on how technology was impacting them. To make the rebuttal more impactful in the debate, students need to establish which arguments from the other side are most important. There is a tendency to sometimes rebut only the weaker arguments, not the stronger ones.

      Homework: preparation for next debate (week commencing 31 August)

      Debate topic: “Modern celebrity culture and reality television has a negative effect on our societies”.

    • at 16:01 #7247
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 8  Report – 31 August & 1 September

      Group 4 (Monday, 5th Lesson: 1300– 1400 PM British Time)

      The topic of celebrity culture was a challenge for a group of students who prefer books to television, which I can only applaud. Despite the difficulty of the topic, there were some excellent points about the sort of values society should uphold. The debates were at their best when illustrated with examples, and it was good to see that this week they were not as America-focussed as in previous weeks. It would be good to have even more examples or references used to illustrate points, as this will make the chains of analysis in the argument even stronger. The rebuttal in the second round was very good, but we must remember to include this from the start without prompting.

      Next week, we will do a team debate consisting of one round only. The proposition will be Jonathan, Macus, and Raymond, the opposition will be Annabel, Mandy, and Yvonne. Students on the same team are encouraged to co-ordinate arguments in preparation, and to save time for rebuttal in their speeches. We will also have a chance for some summary speeches from each side, as well as generally longer speeches. The topic can be found below, with thanks to Annabel for suggesting the area.

      Group 1 ( Tuesday, 10 – 11 AM British Time)

      The topic of celebrity culture proved a challenge, and we did not start the sessions with quite as many prepared points as useful. This was, however, a useful springboard for thinking of different categories of arguments, and we looked at how to understand ideas like consumerism. Students were able to grasp these concepts, and began to develop some sophisticated arguments about the impact on young people of watching reality television. We do need to remember to do the basics in terms of structuring speeches with a proper introduction and conclusion, and replying to the arguments of the other side. This slipped a bit in the first round, but was much better by the end. The strongest feature of our third and final round was the range of arguments raised, which should give the students confidence that even on a challenging topic they have lots of relevant ideas.

      Group 2 (Tuesday, 1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      I was very pleased with this group in our debate rounds today on celebrity culture. Not only was our first round strong, the students paid great attention and made extensive effort to incorporate my feedback in-between each round: round 2 had much more rebuttal, and round 3 had many more examples. I feel that we are making quick progress because of this attentive willingness to take on board my feedback. Further, students build on our goal from last week to have a numbered structure when raising multiple points, and are giving clear speeches of a good length now.

      The debates were at their best when illustrated with examples, and it was good to see that this week they were not as America-focussed as in previous weeks. It would be good to have even more examples or references used to illustrate points, as this will make the chains of analysis in the argument even stronger. In this topic, that could take the form of mentioning different television shows or different celebrities.

      Group 3 (Tuesday, 1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      The topic of celebrity culture brought out some sophisticated and interesting arguments from the students. I particularly appreciated the connection of reality television to American politics at present, which showed some quite original thinking. I was also impressed with the distinction students made as to the need for leisure and learning to be separate, which got to the core of the debate. There was also good usage of detailed examples from reality show in China involving dangerous activities, as well as American lifestyle shows. It would be better to have even more examples or references used to illustrate points, as this will make the chains of analysis in the argument even stronger. Going forward, students also need to remember to do rebuttal even in the first round, and to listen out for new points of rebuttal after giving their speeches – as it is necessary to respond to a range of arguments from the other side, not just those arguments immediately preceding your speech.

      Homework: preparation for next debate (week commencing 7 September)

      ·      Debate topic: “Animals should never be used as testing subjects for either scientific or commercial purposes.”
      ·      https://animal-testing.procon.org [balanced overview of both sides]
      ·      https://www.peta.org/teachkind/lesson-plans-activities/animal-experiments-debate-kit/ [gives a proposition argument – PLEASE NOTE that this resource contains some potentially distressing pictures of animals].
      ·      http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/experiments_1.shtml [good scientific background and reference to relevant legal proposals]
      ·      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/learning/is-animal-testing-ever-justified.html [information on alternatives]
      ·      Consider the idea of ‘rights’ more broadly – we will discuss this in the class, so the following week can be a debate on prisoners’ rights.

    • at 14:08 #7476
      StephenH
      Participant

      Lesson 9  Report – 7 & 8 September

      Group 4 (Monday, 6th Lesson: 1300– 1400 PM British Time)

      Our first team-based and extended debate went very well – it was excellent to see that all students had prepared extensively, but also helping each other develop arguments. The calibre of speeches across the board was high, and they were also more interactive. I was impressed with the clear explanation of relevant scientific concepts, such as bacterial or robotic alternatives to animal testing. The strongest feature of the debate was the consideration of these alternatives, and the implications this had for the necessity of banning testing. Students should continue to compare ‘the world now’ and ‘the world if we do this’ as a tool to come up with arguments. Next week, we will do another team debate: Isabella, Mandy, Yvonne on proposition; Jonathan, Macus, Raymond on opposition.

      Group 1 ( Tuesday, 10 – 11 AM British Time)

      The debate on animal testing was certainly the best debate we have had so far, and also one of the longest thanks to a very good range of points and some quick-thinking in rebutting other arguments. Students were strong on the basics once more this week, with well-structured speeches. We still need to try and include responses to other speakers earlier on, but there is definitely progress in rebuttal. The quality of research was clear in the usage of detailed examples and scientific studies, but it would be beneficial if students also spent a bit more time thinking through some of the ‘big ideas’ underpinning the debate – why do animals and humans have different types of right? We need to move beyond asserting claims like this, to explaining them.

      Next week will be the final session of this introductory series. As well as our usual debate, we will have a quick-fire review of key terms and concepts we have learnt, and I will be giving some more extensive feedback. I will also be giving details of the intermediate debating course, and including these details in the reports next week. Of course, please do share with me any feedback on my teaching.

      Group 2 (Tuesday, 1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      The topic of animal testing brought out some rhetorically powerful speeches, as well as demonstrating some lateral-thinking from the students to connect this debate to the present pandemic. Students were strong on the basics once more this week, with well-structured speeches. We still need to try and include responses to other speakers earlier on, but there is definitely progress in developing rebuttal. I am particularly pleased that some students who just a few weeks ago were struggling to make one short speech are now routinely volunteering to give several speeches in a single round – confidence has really risen!

      Next week will be the final session of this introductory series. As well as our usual debate, we will have a quick-fire review of key terms and concepts we have learnt, and I will be giving some more extensive feedback. I will also be giving details of the intermediate debating course, and including these details in the reports next week. Of course, please do share with me any feedback on my teaching.

      Group 3 (Tuesday, 1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      The topic of animal testing brought out some rhetorically powerful speeches, as well as demonstrating some lateral-thinking from the students to connect this debate to the present pandemic. Students were strong on the basics once more this week, with well-structured speeches. The quality of research was clear in the usage of detailed examples and scientific studies, but it would be beneficial if students also spent a bit more time thinking through some of the ‘big ideas’ underpinning the debate – why do animals and humans have different types of right? We need to move beyond asserting claims like this, to explaining them.

      Next week will be the final session of this introductory series. As well as our usual debate, we will have a quick-fire review of key terms and concepts we have learnt, and I will be giving some more extensive feedback. I will also be giving details of the intermediate debating course, and including these details in the reports next week. Of course, please do share with me any feedback on my teaching.

      Homework: preparation for next debate (week commencing 14 September)

       

    • at 14:04 #7632
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 14 September Lesson Report — Group 4 (7th Lesson: 1300– 1400 PM British Time)

      Students had attentively researched both prison labour and prison rights generally, and worked very well within their teams to develop some great arguments. I thought that the time to write speeches in advance clearly improved the rhetoric and speaking style of the students, but there were still some quickly-developed points of rebuttal as the debate went on. Well done for an enthusiastic debate with some sophisticated speeches!

      The main area for improvement is in making our analysis more detailed. It is helpful to imagine a small child asking ‘why?’ at the end of every statement. For example, one argument in today’s class was ‘if prisoners vote, they will feel a part of society’ – why is this bad? What will that change in the prisoners? This sort of underlying and further explanation will help us move to more advanced arguments. There are a few smaller stylistic features that could be tidied up as well. There is no need to mention the name of other debaters or speakers that have come up in online research. At the end of the speech, slow down into the conclusion – this is more professional than saying ‘done’ at the end.

      Homework: preparation for next debate (week commencing 21 September)

    • at 14:09 #7633
      StephenH
      Participant

      EDIT to above homework for Monday Group:

      The debate will also be a team debate, and the teams will be:

      Proposition: Jonathan, Mandy, Annabel
      Opposition: Macus, Yvonne, Raymond

    • at 17:35 #7647
      StephenH
      Participant

       Tuesday 15  September Lesson Report – Lesson 10

      Group 1 ( Tuesday, 10 – 11 AM British Time)

      This was quite a long topic title, with some challenging words. It was good to clarify at the beginning what position each side would be arguing, although I would encourage students to try and clarify before the class what the proposition and opposition position is on the topic. Further, it is important that both parts of the motion should be addressed – some speeches only talked about labour, not about other rights. The quality of rebuttal in this debate was especially good, and I was pleased to see the students listening critically to the other debaters.

      It has been such a pleasure to teach this class. They have exhibited a real enthusiasm for learning about new topics, and each student has developed strongly during the sessions. Students now routinely offer several lengthy speeches – this is a real transformation from when we started. Well done to everyone, and many thanks for your hard work.

      Group 2 (Tuesday, 1115 AM – 1215 PM British Time)

      Congratulations to all students on a strong final debate, where everyone was very engaged in offering some excellent points and good rebuttal. A fitting conclusion to a great series of lessons! I was particularly impressed by some of the arguments that brought in a contrast between prisons in America, Scandinavia, and China. It was good to see consideration of different categories of prisoners, as this added a notable degree of nuance to the debate.

      The main area for improvement is in making our analysis more detailed. It is helpful to imagine a small child asking ‘why?’ at the end of every statement. For example, one argument in today’s class was ‘if prisoners vote, they will feel a part of society’ – why is this bad? What will that change in the prisoners? This sort of underlying and further explanation will help us move to more advanced arguments. It would also help to break down the categories of prisoners – violent, serial, juvenile etc. There are a few smaller stylistic features that could be tidied. At the end of the speech, slow down into the conclusion – this is more professional than saying ‘done’ at the end.

      Group 3 (Tuesday, 1230 – 1330 PM British Time)

      The students quickly got to grips with this complex motion, and spoke well in our two rounds of debates. They are at the strongest when it comes to bringing in different research ideas into their arguments, and they can now confidently and clearly deliver a speech with multiple sequential arguments. I was impressed by the range of examples and studies brought into the debate today.

      To improve, it would be great if students could try and offer more rebuttal to other speakers in the debate. A good way to practice this is to watch a video of a debater or politician making an argument, and to try and come up with three reasons why you might disagree.

      I have very much enjoyed teaching this class and watching them develop their debating and current affairs skills! It has been a pleasure to watch their enthusiasm grow.

      Intermediate Debating and Current Affairs – course overview

      The first introductory course has developed the essentials of a good debater: clearly structured speeches, well-explained arguments with relevant examples, and critical responses to the other side. This next series will build on all of these skills, whilst introducing more challenging topics from current affairs.

      We will develop new technical skills in debating, such as giving ‘summary speeches’ at the end of the round, and offering ‘points of information’ during other speeches. This will work on listening skills, as well as helping students to identify what parts of the debate really matter. These features will be embedded in team-based debates. Instead of switching sides and doing several rounds of debate, students will be encouraged to work together within a team assigned to either proposition or opposition.

      Topics for the debates will also move on to some more complex issues, including international politics (the United Nations & the WHO, nuclear weapons), labour economics (minimum wage and unpaid internship), culture (morality in films and television). Early in the series of classes, we will also have a workshop focussing on developing abstract arguments about ‘big ideas’ like rights, values, and justice.

    • at 13:13 #7784
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 21 September – Lesson 8 (Group 4, 1300 – 1400 UK time)

      It was excellent to see reference to other debates on health and choice, which showed real understanding of the key issues in this debate. I was pleased to see that other diseases/vaccines were usefully brought into the arguments here, without distracting us from the core current issues. There were some particularly strong moments of rhetoric in the introductions to speeches, which made for a great debate all around. Well done to the Proposition team for a narrow victory!

      At points, speeches (especially early on) were guilty of making cheap shots at the other side in terms of suggesting the opposition did not care about the community. Whilst these arguments may sound good rhetorically, it is always best to ‘take the other side at their strongest’. This means students should be thinking and using phrases like ‘I understand the other side is concerned about safety and freedom, but our argument best addresses these concerns’. Also, there were quite a lot of difficult scientific words in this debate – if students send me the words on chat during the class, I can help show the pronunciation and clarify the meaning. With rebuttal, there is no need to only reply to recent speeches – it was great to see some rebuttal reaching back a few speeches earlier. Indeed, students should try and see the links between multiple speeches on the other side in their rebuttal.

      Homework

      Next week’s debate: “Cities should ban cars”.

      o   https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/clips/zt2r6fr
      o   https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-50287565
      o   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/07/banning-cars-alone-is-not-the-answer
      o   https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191011-what-happens-when-a-city-bans-car-from-its-streets

      The teams will be:

      Proposition: Annabel, Mandy, Yvonne
      Opposition: Raymond, Macus, Jonathan

    • at 19:16 #7990
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 28 September – Lesson 9 (Group 4, 1300 – 1400 UK time)

      Well done on an excellent debate, with good knowledge as well as clear arguments from both sides! I was particularly impressed by the range of arguments in the debate, especially as I emphasised last week that simple arguments made well go a long way in a debate. Congratulations to the proposition on their victory, which was due to the fact that their material was most relevant to the topic in hand.

      The main area for improvement in this debate would be to go into more detail about different types of car and different types of environmental damage. We need to distinguish electric and diesel cars, fumes from petrol versus greenhouse gases, and so on. On opposition, it may be useful to say that hybrid/electric cars should be encouraged, but diesel cars phased out, as this accepts the core proposition but in less severe terms.

      It was pleasing to see speeches containing a good amount of rebuttal and new points. One way to move between the two is the phrase ‘having finished with my rebuttal, I want to introduce 1/2/3 new points.’ I think it is always great to say the number of points that will be delivered at the start of the speech. A reminder also that students can rebut any speaker, not just the most recent speaker.

      Next week will be the final session of this introductory series. As well as our usual debate, we will have a quick-fire review of key terms and concepts we have learnt, and I will be giving some more extensive feedback. I will also be giving details of a more advanced debating course, and including these details in the reports next week. Of course, please do share with me any feedback on my teaching.

      Homework: Next week’s debate

      Debate topic: ‘Space exploration is a waste of money and resources – governments should not fund it.’ This debate is very topical following recent discoveries on Venus. Students should consider this development in the news, as well as the issue of privately funded space exploration by business leaders.

      Proposition: Macus, Jonathan, Raymond
      Opposition: Mandy, Annabelle, Yvonne

    • at 16:57 #8220
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 5 October – Lesson 10 (Group 4, 1300 – 1400 UK time)

      The Proposition won this debate as their arguments were more closely tied to the question of government funding and other state expenditure, whereas the opposition was at times a defence of the merits of space exploration rather than an argument for government funding. I am as ever impressed by the degree of detailed research, but I have also encouraged the students in rebuttal not to get bogged down in minor criticisms of examples.

      The students now all have a confident and clear delivery, but there are still some small points of style that could help us improve. Remember to signpost the number of points or the aspect of the topic you are considering when you start your speech. Slow down when speaking – it may sound odd to you, but it makes your speech easier to follow and also sounds more confident. In particular, pausing between points helps the listener catch up with the train of thought.

      I understand that we will be continuing with sessions going forward, which I am very pleased to hear. The main new feature I hope to introduce into our debates will be ‘summary speeches’ as well as ‘points of information’, as well as further developing the level of analysis used in arguments.

      Next week 

      Debate topic: ‘Homeless people should be given free accommodation by the government in hotels or unoccupied residential properties’

      Proposition: Mandy, Jonathan, Annabel
      Opposition: Macus, Yvonne, Raymond

    • at 16:52 #8409
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 12 October – Lesson 11 (Group 4, 1300 – 1400 UK time)

      The topic of homelessness is obviously an emotional and moral issue, and I think this brought out two strong aspects in our class. First, the proposition side used strong rhetoric to make a good case for why it was so unjust to not prioritise the homeless. Second, the opposition were still respectful of the issue whilst criticising the policy. The main point for improvement would be to try and think more broadly about some of the impacts of this policy. On proposition, what would having a fixed address mean for access to banks, healthcare, or employment agencies? On opposition, what does this due to crime, property prices, and incentives?

      I was particularly pleased with the way that empirical studies and examples were incorporated into the arguments today, as it felt seamless and did not interrupt the flow of analysis – great work.

      It was great to see speeches containing a good amount of rebuttal and new points. One way to move between the two is the phrase ‘having finished with my rebuttal, I want to introduce 1/2/3 new points.’ This should help smoothe out the speech stylistically. When introducing a long section of rebuttal, it is important to try and structure it – either by saying the number of points that you will be responding to, or by identifying a topic or theme.

      Homework

      Please note that there will be no class next week, as I am moving into a new apartment on Monday 19 October. I do apologise for any inconvenience. Our next class will be 26 October.

      Topic: ‘Voting in elections should be mandatory.’ The example of Australia is what makes this debate very topical, and should be a good way to being research into the topic.

      ·      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/world/australia/compulsory-voting.html
      ·      https://classroommagazines.scholastic.com/election/civics-in-action/voting–should-voting-be-mandatory.html [try simple and advanced reading level]
      ·  http://archive.debatingmatters.com/documents/DM_TopicGuidesVotingamended.pdf
      ·      https://debatewise.org/2528-compulsory-voting/

      Proposition: Jonathan, Macus, Raymond
      Opposition: Mandy, Annabel, Yvonne

    • at 15:56 #8652
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 26 October – Lesson 12 (Group 4, 1300 – 1400 UK time)

      It was lovely to see the students again after our break of one week, and we had a great debate on mandatory voting. I was particularly impressed to see quick implementation of new ideas from recent sessions, as well as feedback today. It was great that students remembered to use ‘this house believes’ without even being prompted. When I explained the idea of a ‘snowball effect’, one student quickly used this to make an advanced argument. This refers to how social behaviours can escalate from a small starting point. The topic of justice and representation also led to some very good turns of phrase being used – I thought there was great rhetoric in our debate today.

      When the ideas were running low a bit towards the end of the debate, I encouraged students to consider different types of elections, or the option of adding a ‘none of the above’ option to a ballot. One more advanced technique is to consider how different actors would react under this hypothetical – will some populists claim mandatory voting is rigging the election? When looking at a hypothetical and claiming major consequences (such as rioting), lay out the logical steps clearly. Why does this snowball gather so much momentum?

      It was unfortunate that towards the end of the class we had one or two students persistently interrupting other students when they were giving speeches. I had to put the whole class on mute and then unmute the relevant speaker to deal with this poor behaviour. This class normally has such a good attitude, and most students are always respectful of others. I hope next week will be a return to this normal polite routine of waiting one’s turn. I will also introduce a time limit of 2 minutes per each speech in the rebuttal section of the debate, which should help.

      Homework – Prepare for next debate on 2 November

      ‘This house would limit each person to one return airplane journey each year.’ In light of covid-19 travel restrictions, concern about future pandemics, and the environmental costs of airplane emissions, this is a very topical ongoing debate!

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/05/17/europe-discusses-banning-short-haul-flights-climate-change-is-suddenly-top-campaign-agendas-worldwide/ [overview]

      https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/25/8881364/greta-thunberg-climate-change-flying-airline [overview and arguments for the proposition]

      https://www.debatingeurope.eu/2019/07/11/should-we-stop-flying-to-help-the-environment/#.X5bw7S-l1QI [some arguments for both sides]

      https://debatewise.org/561-cheap-flights-do-more-harm-than-good/ [some arguments for both sides]

      Proposition: Annabel, Mandy, Yvonne
      Opposition: Raymond, Macus, Jonathan

    • at 16:03 #8772
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 2  November – Lesson 13 (Group 4, 1200 – 1300 UK time)

      It was lovely to see continued progress in our debates, with the motion on air travel bringing out some detailed analysis. I was also happy that behaviour was better this time, and students did not interrupt each other or me as much. The new 2 minute time limit on speeches after the first speech worked well. It would still be nice to use the raise hand feature more, so that we ensure everyone gets a turn.

      On the proposition, I liked how examples of flights that transmitted coronavirus were very specific. Remember to explain these examples – the reason why flying is higher risk is because there is no flow of air, so everyone is breathing in the same air. The consideration of short-term benefits of flying against long-term consequences was mature, and a good way for the proposition to frame the debate. I liked how this appreciated that both sides have reasonable arguments. It was excellent in rebuttal to see the proposition set this debate in a more global context than Hong Kong, including areas with far greater prevalence of the virus.

      I was impressed that the opposition built on feedback from previous debates about the environment and coronavirus. I felt that the opposition did not spend enough time considering the argument that personal freedom means flying should be permitted, even if there are some consequences. One way to further develop this would be to consider the limited environmental impact of any individual flying against the strong degree of government control. Particularly given the role of flying in international business (or the crucial tourism industry), this state interference is a good point for opposing the motion. Sometimes the opposition case explained why people might not want to fly, but did not make it clear why the government should restrict their right to fly. Point out this gap in the argument – as a society, we tend to let people take risks or make bad decisions sometimes!

      One slight issue in the rebuttal was that we got into a very micro level of detail about how or where to eat on the airplane, without linking it back to the motion. Remember not just to dispute the other side, but to explain why this shows the motion should stand or fall: ‘because it is impossible to socially distance or wear a mask effectively, then the government must restrict flying to prevent the spread of the virus’.

      In terms of style, there is no need to state the full motion at the start of your speech. Some of the speeches today were a little bit too fast, which made it hard to fully follow the logic at times. I was especially pleased by the summary technique of the opposition summary speaker in our debate today, so it is good to see the improvement here.

      Homework – Prepare for next debate on 7 November

      “This house believes religion is a force for good”

      Proposition: Raymond, Macus, Jonathan

      Opposition: Annabel, Mandy, Yvonne

      Some debates you could watch [even just 15 minutes!]

       

       

    • at 17:26 #9005
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 9 November – Lesson 14 (Group 4, 1200 – 1300 UK time)

      This debate was intentionally challenging, as it covered a broad range of topics. Congratulations to the proposition on winning. Well done to all students  for careful research about a variety of religious figures, as well as the role of religion in the non-violent protests of figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. It is good that religious services were considered as a coronavirus spreader – but remember that in many plagues in the past, religious services were suspended. This does not necessarily mean religion is a force for bad. We need to consider the issue in a wider context.

      Especially given how broad this motion is, it is best to give some introduction to identify what aspect of the motion you will tackle before diving into a very detailed speech. Otherwise, the listener may find it hard to follow. Be careful when using lots of technical social science words, such as ‘qualitative’ and ‘correlate’. It is great to see students learning new terms, but they should be used correctly. Define them for the class too!

      I raised some issues that could be considered in the second round: religions relationship with women and gender equality, religion and science. It would have been good if we had spent more time on these issues. We got distracted, especially in the rebuttal, by the question of whether god exists. Whilst interesting and somewhat relevant, it does not actually point to either proposing or opposing the motion. It was good that one speaker pointed this out – highlighting that an issue is not actually key to the debate is itself a good form of rebuttal.

      Debate for next week 

      ‘This house would require all young people to carry out two years of national service after they graduate from high school or university.’

      Proposition: Annabel, Mandy, Yvonne

      Opposition: Raymond, Macus, Jonathan

      https://www.theweek.co.uk/94653/should-the-uk-bring-back-national-service [overviews both sides]

      https://debatewise.org/123-national-service-should-be-re-introduced/ [overviews both sides]

      https://www.procon.org/headlines/mandatory-national-service-top-3-pros-and-cons/ [America focussed, but good overview of volunteering as an alternative for the opposition]

      https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxewyz/bring-back-national-service-uk [opposition]

      https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-bring-back-national-service-but-lets-do-it-differently-11846370 [proposition]

       

       

    • at 14:06 #9136
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 16 November – Lesson 15 (Group 4, 1200 – 1300 UK time)

      Congratulations to the proposition on winning this debate. Both sides made very strong arguments about the military aspects of national service, but the proposition had the edge when talking about community service projects. This is the sort of debate where it would be useful to have a clear definition given by the proposition at the start. Will the national service require you to go and live somewhere new? Is it military service, volunteering, or a choice? These details did come out over the course of the proposition, but it would be great to define the motion clearly at the start of the first speech on the proposition. Further, it would be great to give more illustration of ideas like ‘community service’ – what sort of opportunities would this create above and beyond existing volunteering?

      I was impressed by the reasoning used to explore the potential consequences of military expansion or readiness through this. The arguments about wasting years of life were also strong. One area that could be expanded upon was the freedom of those who object to serving in the military (maybe for religious reasons), or even find the idea of working for the state in national service to violate their personal ethical code.

      When you are doing online research, make sure that you look up words or ideas you do not understand before using them. This makes the debates more educational, but also will help delivery – I notice sometimes students are reading from notes that they are struggling with. Remember, I am just as interested in your own ideas and arguments as those from research! Think about sci-fi books and movies for this week.

      Debate for next week 

      ‘This House Fears the Rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI)’

      Proposition: Raymond, Macus, Jonathan

      Opposition: Annabel, Mandy, Yvonne

      https://debatingmatters.com/topic/humanity-should-fear-advances-in-artificial-intelligence/ – this has a good summary of the topic and key arguments, and also has links to some other articles.

      https://www.futureforwork.com/en/why-we-should-not-fear-artificial-intelligence/ – some ideas for the Opposition

      https://www.chevening.org/news/artificial-intelligence-to-fear-or-not-to-fear/ – both sides

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/10/31/should-we-be-afraid-of-ai/ – some ideas for the Proposition

    • at 17:11 #9339
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 23 November – Lesson 16 (Group 4, 1200 – 1300 UK time)

      I was especially impressed with the arguments about the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the loss of jobs that may arise from automation and the rise of AI. The proposition raised a number of interesting concerns about the impact this would have on people in manual labour, which was a key reason why they won the debate. It was also good to see students remembering concepts from previous weeks, and there was a great argument that there would be a snowball effect in getting rid of these sort of jobs.

      One aspect of the topic that sometimes got muddled is the difference between the internet or social media or espionage, and artificial intelligence. Drones are not necessarily artificial intelligence – sometimes they are just cameras in the sky operated by real people, but of course there are AI implications. A clear definition at the start would help avoid these issues. A stylistic issue in this debate was that some students spoke far too quickly. I understand that this can be tempting when there is a lot of technical detail or a long speech, but in these cases it is all the more important to speak at a measured tempo. Each syllable in each word needs to be enunciated, there should be pauses between sentences, and even longer pauses between ideas.

      Debate for next week 

      ‘This house believes couples should have one or two children, and no more’

      Proposition: Annabel, Mandy, Yvonne

      Opposition: Raymond, Macus, Jonathan

      https://debatingmatters.com/topic/climate-emergency-people-should-not-have-more-than-two-children/ – Overview and link to further articles

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zdcwxnb/revision/2 – Information on Chinese One Child Policy

      https://debatewise.org/667-is-it-selfish-to-have-more-than-two-children/ – arguments for both sides

      https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/21/health/india-two-child-policy-debate/index.html – arguments for opposition

       

       

    • at 14:08 #9574
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 30 November – Lesson 17 (Group 4, 1200 – 1300 UK time)

      Well done on a thoroughly researched debate. I was pleased with the structure of the initial speeches, which introduced a wide range of issues. The proposition won as they were able to tie their points on family size to ongoing trends on inequality, climate, and hunger. The rebuttal started off very strong, but we got slightly bogged down in the question of household chores. Remember to bring the focus back to the initial points and main arguments as the debate goes on!

      I had to remind the class to slow down in their speeches a bit, but I was pleased that it was easier to follow along compared to last week. One trick I recommend is writing ‘SLOW’ in your notes between points, to remind you to pause when speaking. One other similar issue is that some students were repeating the topic at the start and end of the speech. This is perfectly fine, but it is not necessary and is not as strong as your own introduction or conclusion.

      Debate for next week

      Proposition: Raymond, Macus, Jonathan

      Opposition: Annabel, Mandy, Yvonne

      ‘This house believes high school should be optional’. This means no-one would have to go to school after they are 13 or 14 years old.

      https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5097/economics/should-school-leaving-age-be-raised-to-18/

      High School Should Be Optional

      https://www.brookings.edu/research/going-to-school-is-optional-schools-need-to-engage-students-to-increase-their-lifetime-opportunities/ [bit technical but shows benefits of school]

      High school should be optional

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm [helpful for opposition]

       

       

    • at 17:17 #9731
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 7 December – Lesson 18 (Group 4, 1200 – 1300 UK time)

      This debate was definitely well handled, with a good variety of ideas and research combined with anecdotal experience. The students are clearly more comfortable debating a topic that they can relate to. The proposition won the debate because they really analysed the age-group specific consequences of high school education and social dynamics, but the opposition did raise many excellent points of rebuttal.

      I was pleased that the topic of peer pressure was well-defined and that there was a sophisticated understanding of why this might be negative especially for teenagers. The back and forth about high school dropouts like Albert Einstein featured some good logical analysis. We got bogged down a little in rebuttal about homeschooling or tutoring, but it was an improvement on last week that we returned to major issues after – such as the importance of high school as preparation for university.  There were some stronger conclusions in this week’s debate, which restated arguments clearly rather than just repeating the motion. The rebuttal was particularly good this week, and I was pleased to see students able to blend this into their main speeches.

      Next week’s debate

      ‘This house believes torture should be used in certain cases of crime and terrorism.’

      We will do this debate ‘old style’: we will have two rounds, so each student can get a chance to speak on both sides of this challenging motion,

      Round 1

      Proposition: Raymond, Macus, Jonathan

      Opposition: Annabel, Mandy, Yvonne

      Round 2 – swap sides

      The relevant scenarios are situations such as where a criminal may have taken hostages, or if there is a ticking bomb that authorities are trying to find. This debate can be tricky, but when it gets complicated, think back to basic scenarios as in the description here [http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/torture/ethics/tickingbomb_1.shtml#h2]. Torture is defined here [http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/torture/law/definitions.shtml].

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/torture/ethics/wrong_1.shtml [opposition ethical arguments]

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/torture/law/practical.shtml [rules for torture proposition could use]

      https://www.huffpost.com/entry/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993?guccounter=1 [proposition arguments]

      https://www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/reasons-why-torture-does-not-work/ [range of opposition arguments]

       

       

    • at 16:47 #9981
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 14 December – Lesson 19 (Group 4, 1200 – 1300 UK time)

      Our lesson was disrupted as Google crashed right at the start, and the students were unable to access the documents where they had done their research and written their speeches. We therefore had to adapt: I put each team into supervised breakout rooms so they could try and remember some of their arguments and allocate them to speakers. I was impressed that the students had retained a lot of the information from their research, and they were able to deliver good speeches focussing on the ideas/arguments even without detailed research notes. This goes to show that debating is really about arguments and speaking, not about reading from a research document! Well done to the students for adapting to this challenging situation.

      I would also like to note my appreciation for the mature approach to the difficult and gruesome topic of torture. All students rose to the occasion of this challenging debate. One area for improvement would be to consider practical issues such as how effective torture might be or if it will produce many lies that waste police resources.

      Next week

      Please note that next week will be our final session together! I hope we will finish with an excellent debate, and have some time to reflect on our progress during these five months. It would be great if each student could prepare a short answer to the question ‘what is the most important thing I have learnt in debate class?’

      “This house believes Governments should introduce a universal basic income (UBI)”, where UBI is a monthly payment made by the government to all citizens over a certain age (usually 18). The topic has become particularly relevant in light of the spread of covid-19 amongst those who cannot afford to take sick leave, or are unable to work from home.

      Proposition: Mandy, Annabel, Yvonne
      Opposition: Macus, Jonathan, Raymond

      https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2018/universal-basic-income-pros-cons.html
      https://debatemate.org/student-zone/featured-motion/ [second motion at bottom of this page]

      Arguments For & Against a Universal Basic Income


      http://archive.debatingmatters.com/topicguides/topicguide/universal_basic_income_germany_edition/

    • at 17:27 #10178
      StephenH
      Participant

      Monday 21 December – Lesson 20 (Group 4, 1200 – 1300 UK time)

      I was so pleased to end on a high note with a fantastic debate on the complex topic of universal basic income (UBI). This issue is relevant in Hong Kong and across the world, and students used Hong Kong’s experience during the pandemic well. It was excellent to see this topic well-linked to the ongoing pandemic, which showed good understanding of current affairs. Further, some speakers built on our previous debate about automation to make sophisticated arguments.

      I notice that the tendency to speak too quickly is more common when the topic matter is very technical or detailed, but this is when it is even more important to slow down. The issue with being “speedy” is that it is hard for the judge to give credit to the argument fully, or for the opposition to respond. In general though, the style and confidence for all students in their speaking has improved greatly.

      To achieve all of this progress through online learning has been most impressive. Thank you to everyone for their hard work and enthusiasm! Please tell the students that they are welcome to keep in touch with me over email: horvath.stephen.4@gmail.com.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 27 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Skip to toolbar