- This topic has 13 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated December 14, 2020 by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 22 September – Intermediate Series, Lesson 1 (1915 HK Time)
Thank you to all students for a great first session of our intermediate group. It was good to begin with introducing the students to each other as some were not in the same class previously, and to see a cross-fertilisation of speaking styles and debate techniques. As the students get to know each other better, I hope that we will develop even more lively rebuttal.
The students did not have much advance notice of the topic for our debate, but they still had a good range of research and arguments.In terms of the style of speaking and delivery, the usage of rhetorical questions was impressive. This is when a speaker asks a question not seeking an answer, but inviting the audience to agree with them. At times, some students began to speak too fast when delivering prepared speeches – the most effective speeches will slow down, and have pauses!
The main way this debate could have been improved was if students made more arguments about freedom/autonomy, especially when opposing mandatory vaccination. We had a good feedback discussion about this at the end of the class, and we will build on this in the coming weeks. The most important thing is to think about the debate topic a bit before doing any research – what arguments come to you directly? These will likely be the big principled issues.
Preparation for next week:
Next week, we will introduce ‘points of information’ and ‘summary speeches’.
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.
- https://www.britannica.com/science/space-exploration/Science-in-space [good scientific background]
- https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2011/10/debate-for-and-against-space-exploration-is-space-research-a-waste-of-time/
- PS do not worry if some of the business or technical terms are too complicated – make a list and ask me during our session!
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 29 September – Intermediate Series, Lesson 2 (1915 HK Time)
This was an excellent debate, which featured a good balance of scientific knowledge, rhetoric about space, and closely analysed comparisons. I was pleased that students clearly understood the new feature of a summary speech, and I was impressed that the summary speeches we heard exhibited a clear understanding of the debate as a whole. One thing we will work on is making sure that summary speeches are just that – a short summary of key issues, rather than getting into too much detail.
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.’ Interesting to see a focus on some of the alternatives for investment that governments could focus on instead of space, but make sure the speech is not spending more time on other new investment areas than space exploration. It was good to see a contrast between space exploration and climate funding, so the way to tie this back to the topic would be to conclude with an explanation of why space exploration is so much less important comparatively.
Next week’s debate
Next week, we will introduce a time limit for speeches to ensure that the debate is engaging for all students. There will be a time limit of 3 minutes for the first speech of a student, and then 2 minutes for subsequent speeches. We did not have a chance to develop points of information this week, so we will also look at those next week.
Topic: ‘This house would legalise all drugs’. ‘This house’ refers to a parliamentary/legislative body – so students should imagine they are members of a legislature debating this motion (technical term for topic), and those on the proposition side want the motion to pass, and those on the opposition want it to fail.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23374228
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/legalize-drugs [no need to watch it all!]
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 6 October – Intermediate Series, Lesson 3 (1915 HK Time)
The students did well to grapple with this difficult topic about drug legalisation. Although it was certainly a challenging motion, I was particularly impressed by some speeches connecting to the issue to wider debates about policing and law enforcement. It was great to see more abstract arguments about free will and the rights over your own body, as we had discussed these a few weeks ago.
When the motion refers to such a blanket policies (i.e. all drugs), it would be helpful if students could be more specific in their speeches and identify which sort of drugs they are talking about at different points. Be wary on the proposition of taking on more of a burden than needed: banning all drugs does probably not refer to currently legal substances like caffeine. Either way, be clear about this at the start of the speech!
Next week
I will be assigning at the start of each round one student to act as the summary speaker for each team, to ensure that everyone gets a go at trying this new skill. I did introduce points of information this week, but I will give some examples of these next week to encourage all students to offer them.
Debate topic: ‘Homeless people should be given free accommodation by the government in hotels or unoccupied residential properties’
· https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/11/coronavirus-homelessness-uk-rough-sleepers-lockdown-tories
· https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8736083/New-York-City-reverses-decision-homeless-people-luxury-hotel-Upper-West-Side.html
· https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/world/europe/homelessness-uk-coronavirus.html -
Lesson Report: Tuesday 13 October – Intermediate Series, Lesson 4 (1915 HK Time)
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. 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? It is important to consider the ‘knock-on effects’ or ‘big picture impacts’ – we can go over these terms next time.
I was impressed by the summary speeches in our debate today, and I will continue with the routine of assigning one summary speaker per team per round. We discussed today how to make notes for a summary speech, and I thought those who followed this practice gave well-structured and comprehensive summaries. As I also said, it is totally fine to use the names of the other speakers to help structure the summary. As we develop this skill, we will look to also include the key points of rebuttal to the other side in our summaries.
Homework
Please note that there will be no class next week, as I am moving into a new apartment on Monday 19 October and Tuesday 20 October. I do apologise for any inconvenience. Our next class will be Tuesday 27 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/ -
Lesson Report: Tuesday 27 October – Intermediate Series, Lesson 5 (1915 HK 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 impressed that the students had a number of arguments that engaged with the abstract / theoretical aspects of the topic, as well as more pragmatic analysis of the consequences of this policy. It was great to hear some detailed points about the purpose of voting and the responsibilities of all citizens.
There is a risk at times, especially in rebuttal, of getting too bogged down in examples. There were lengthy exchanges about the merits or Trumps vs. Biden, or about the Cultural Revolution. Whilst very interesting, they were not really tied into the motion – it is important to challenge the argument of the other side, rather than their examples or references. In terms of other arguments that could be considered, 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? This is referred to as ‘backlash’, i.e. a negative reaction to the motion.
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.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]
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 3 November – Intermediate Series, Lesson 6 (1915 HK Time)
The speeches today demonstrated a good blend of personal anecdotes and research about the importance of flying for business and tourism. The proposition was therefore able to put forward a vivid case in defence of flying. I was also particularly impressed by the opposition’s consideration of the knock-on effect this would have for prices, and how this would make flying even more financially exclusive. This showed a good understanding of the topic and careful thinking, as well as some impressive economic knowledge.
In the first round, the arguments were mainly about the environment, so I encouraged the students in the second round to consider coronavirus and other illnesses more. I was pleased to see that students had done research so could bring in good material about the risk of spreading illness abroad. 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.
I would encourage the students next week to try and come up with several different ways of looking at the debate, so they have plenty of points to offer, as well as listening carefully for ways to rebut the other side. We will also try and get back into summary speeches and points of information!
Homework – Prepare for next debate on 8 November
“This house believes religion is a force for good”
Some debates you could watch [even just 15 minutes!]
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 10 November – Intermediate Series, Lesson 7 (1915 HK Time)
Well done to everyone on today’s debate. The red team won the first round, whilst the green team won the second. I was impressed by the discussion of religion as a source of scientific discovery, particularly algorithms and algebra from Islamic scholars. The rebuttal to this was good, but could have been even stronger – was it really the scholar being religious that led to him discovering these things? The strongest argument in this debate honed in on aspects of religious life that marked humans out as unique, which demonstrated some good rhetoric and nuanced analysis.
One source of confusion was whether the debate was just about Islam or Christianity. Make sure you follow the wording of the motion closely – this debate was about all religions, and the best speeches referred to a variety of religions. In terms of style, the speeches today were very strong. One thing to remember though is not to speak for too long – around two minutes is usually enough, as otherwise it can become more narrative than argumentative.
Please make sure that you prepare at least one argument on each side before the class. Summary speeches are one area we will need to keep working on, but some students are definitely grasping the task.
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.’
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]
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 17 November – Intermediate Series, Lesson 8 (1915 HK Time)
Thanks to everyone for a good debate today, especially as the participation was very enthusiastic and respectful today. I was impressed by the reasoning used to explore the potential consequences of military expansion or readiness, especially for smaller countries. In particular, there was a very mature argument connecting increase economic tensions with the potential for military conflict. It was good that in our second round there was more consideration of those who might object to service for religious or ethical reasons, as this is an important part of the debate.
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 felt the non-military aspects were a bit neglected in our rounds today.
Debate for next week
‘This House Fears the Rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI)’
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
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 24 November – Intermediate Series, Lesson 9 (1915 HK Time)
Well done for a good debate today – although I feared the topic would be challenging, the students rose to the occasion! I was pleased that we followed a good definition of AI and stayed on relevant points throughout. This was certainly our best debate so far, and the detailed discussion about the impact AI will have on jobs was very impressive. I like the way that some students particularly focused on some forms of manual or service sector jobs, and whether it would be possible for these workers to retrain as AI engineers or technicians.
One issue that we could have spent more time exploring was dual use civilian-military technologies, or to put it more plainly, advanced weapons such as cyberattacks and some forms of drones. These could be very costly to human life, but also could help increase security.
Please note that our class next week on December 1 will be the final class.
Debate for next week
‘This house believes couples should have one or two children, and no more’
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
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 1 December – Intermediate Series, Lesson 10 (1915 HK Time)
Thank you to everyone for a good debate on a difficult topic, and to each student for listening well and respectfully to all others. Each team managed to win one round of our debate, which gave me the impression that students found the proposition side a bit easier. The proposition speakers did their best when they tied their points on family size to ongoing trends on inequality, climate, and hunger. To improve on the opposition side, I would recommend thinking more about personal choice and privacy regarding the family sphere, and framing having children as a natural right.
Although this was meant to be our final session, I am pleased to confirm that we will have two further sessions: Tuesday 8 December from 1115 – 1215 GMT and Monday 14 December from 1050 – 1150 GMT.
Debate for next week
‘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/
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]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm [helpful for opposition]
-
Lesson Report: Tuesday 8 December – Intermediate Series, Lesson 11 (1915 HK Time)
Well done to everyone for a good debate today, which showed reflections on personal experience as well as good research. It was good that the proposition identified bullying as an important negative aspect of high school, but the opposition rebuttal that teachers can and should intervene was a useful point. To make this counter argument even stronger, why does that system currently not work? The strongest point for the opposition was identifying the relevance of high school to the general achievements needed for getting a good job, as well as university admission.
There was good use of humour in speeches today, which can be very effective in debating. The opposition might have benefited from considering technical or vocational training a bit more, as this could be a good alternative to academic high school.
Next week’s debate
Please note that next week our class will be on Monday, from 1850 to 1950 HK time. This will be our final class!
‘This house believes torture should be used in certain cases of crime and terrorism.’
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. Torture is defined here.
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]
-
Lesson Report: Monday 14 December – Intermediate Series, Lesson 12 (Group moved from 1915 HK time on Tuesday to Monday 1850 HK time)
I was very pleased that the students tackled the challenging motion on torture in a mature and balanced way – a fitting final debate! References to detectives and police agencies (both fictional and real) were a useful way to illustrate the situations where torture might be relevant, and also brought out a good style of speaking. I encouraged the students to consider practical issues such as how effective torture might be or if it will produce many lies, which was good to see incorporated into our second round today.
It has been such a pleasure to work with every student in this group, both in our earlier basic sessions, and now as a class for the intermediate series. I am pleased to say that there has been real improvement in each and every student. Each speaker feels comfortable making speeches that combine multiple strong arguments with responses to the other side, and their speeches are clear and engaging. Their research skills, which were strong at the beginning, have been polished as students now frequently use relevant reports to support their arguments. To achieve all this 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.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.