@stephenh
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
-
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.
-
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, Raymondhttps://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]
http://archive.debatingmatters.com/topicguides/topicguide/universal_basic_income_germany_edition/ -
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.
-
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]
-
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]
-
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/
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 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 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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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]
-
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]
-
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!]
-
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!]
-
