The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hey everyone, I've only just started posting in life but you all seem to be quite intelligent so I thought I'd ask for some help. I have recently signed up to participate in a debating competition. I will actually be representing my school however I have never even taken part in an official debate before in my life.
I have until the 3rd of November to prepare but I amn't even at school due to holidays until not this Tuesday but Next. However I do know that the topic of debate will be "This house would ban reality TV shows" and our time has been assigned the task of opposing this motion. In essence we want to keep them going. Anyway I say team...well it's just me and an American guy who just moved to our school last month and although he's argumentative he's not exactly reasonable. He seems to think everything is either right or wrong but if it was as simple as being right or wrong we wouldn't have to debate.
Anyway I was wondering if any of you could give me some help in preparing? Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
I have until the 3rd of November to prepare but I amn't even at school due to holidays until not this Tuesday but Next. However I do know that the topic of debate will be "This house would ban reality TV shows" and our time has been assigned the task of opposing this motion. In essence we want to keep them going. Anyway I say team...well it's just me and an American guy who just moved to our school last month and although he's argumentative he's not exactly reasonable. He seems to think everything is either right or wrong but if it was as simple as being right or wrong we wouldn't have to debate.
Anyway I was wondering if any of you could give me some help in preparing? Any advice will be greatly appreciated.
Page:
Cubist wrote:
> Can you give me and example of when I haven't been very concise then?
> I feel I have just been using proper grammatical skills and analogies
> which work quite well but give the illusion of circumlocution.
But I don't feel that I do give "the illusion of circumlocution". And anyway, if it is an illusion of circumlocution, then it isn't really circumlocution. Isn't my point proved?
> You can quite clearly see the difference no?
Yes, I can. Mine is merely a more verbose style. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make, then think about it for a few seconds. I won't lower myself to robot-speak to make your end of the debate a little easier. If we all spoke in the same way that you're proposing the forum would become dull, bland and pointless, and to be honest there's no need to even bring up the fact that you believe I am circumlocute.
One more thing, when I asked for an example, I meant an example of where you got the idea from in the first place.
> Can you give me and example of when I haven't been very concise then?
> I feel I have just been using proper grammatical skills and analogies
> which work quite well but give the illusion of circumlocution.
But I don't feel that I do give "the illusion of circumlocution". And anyway, if it is an illusion of circumlocution, then it isn't really circumlocution. Isn't my point proved?
> You can quite clearly see the difference no?
Yes, I can. Mine is merely a more verbose style. If you can't see the point I'm trying to make, then think about it for a few seconds. I won't lower myself to robot-speak to make your end of the debate a little easier. If we all spoke in the same way that you're proposing the forum would become dull, bland and pointless, and to be honest there's no need to even bring up the fact that you believe I am circumlocute.
One more thing, when I asked for an example, I meant an example of where you got the idea from in the first place.
Blank wrote:
> Can you give me an example of where I haven't been as concise as I
> could be? Actually having reasonable grammatical skills for most of
> the time and putting a little thought into what you say doesn't make
> you less concise. I think the fault is with you not having the
> patience to think for a mere few seconds about what I'm trying to
> say, hence you're posts in which you say exactly the same as you have
> for the last ten. If you're referring to the analogies I've made, I
> think they work quite well.
You see all you had to say there was -
Can you give me and example of when I haven't been very concise then? I feel I have just been using proper grammatical skills and analogies which work quite well but give the illusion of circumlocution. You seem to repeat yourself though.
You can quite clearly see the difference no?
> Can you give me an example of where I haven't been as concise as I
> could be? Actually having reasonable grammatical skills for most of
> the time and putting a little thought into what you say doesn't make
> you less concise. I think the fault is with you not having the
> patience to think for a mere few seconds about what I'm trying to
> say, hence you're posts in which you say exactly the same as you have
> for the last ten. If you're referring to the analogies I've made, I
> think they work quite well.
You see all you had to say there was -
Can you give me and example of when I haven't been very concise then? I feel I have just been using proper grammatical skills and analogies which work quite well but give the illusion of circumlocution. You seem to repeat yourself though.
You can quite clearly see the difference no?
Can you give me an example of where I haven't been as concise as I could be? Actually having reasonable grammatical skills for most of the time and putting a little thought into what you say doesn't make you less concise. I think the fault is with you not having the patience to think for a mere few seconds about what I'm trying to say, hence you're posts in which you say exactly the same as you have for the last ten. If you're referring to the analogies I've made, I think they work quite well.
You aren't as concise as you could be.
This isn't practice it is the arguing of two parties with no referee or chance of the debate being resolved.
"I am what I am"
This isn't practice it is the arguing of two parties with no referee or chance of the debate being resolved.
"I am what I am"
Please explain how my style is that of circumlocution.
And also, from debating me you get practice for that £500. But I shouldn't think you'd need it, Halloween's just around the corner.
Oh, and thanks for showing everyone what type of person you are too. Appreciated.
And also, from debating me you get practice for that £500. But I shouldn't think you'd need it, Halloween's just around the corner.
Oh, and thanks for showing everyone what type of person you are too. Appreciated.
Thanks for the input Dr Duck. Unfortunately i don't get any of that particular information until the end of the holidays but at least now I know what to ask about. All I know is there is one team for each school and there are quite a few school participating. In the first round my team is in heat 8 and i don't think that's the highest heat number as the teacher's booklet had multiple pages after it.
Blank wrote:
> "i really don't think any of our views are going to change so do
> we really have to debate it"
>
> This from a person who is actually going to represent his school at a
> debate? Does that not strike you as being slightly...wrong?
>
> So if you, the person asking for help on what to do in a debate,
> wants to end a debate in which the opponent is trying to put things
> reasonably and plainly to you, then that's fine with me. I'll end it
> here, because you're doing a pretty good job of showing yourself up
> without input from me.
You see Blank the thing is. That when debating for my school there is something in it for me. It looks good on my CV, the topic is worth debating and oh yes there is £1000 for the winning team and considering there is two people in my team that is £500 for the winning team. What do I get from debating you? A guy who's preferred style of writing is in that of circumlocution and a headache...score...
> "i really don't think any of our views are going to change so do
> we really have to debate it"
>
> This from a person who is actually going to represent his school at a
> debate? Does that not strike you as being slightly...wrong?
>
> So if you, the person asking for help on what to do in a debate,
> wants to end a debate in which the opponent is trying to put things
> reasonably and plainly to you, then that's fine with me. I'll end it
> here, because you're doing a pretty good job of showing yourself up
> without input from me.
You see Blank the thing is. That when debating for my school there is something in it for me. It looks good on my CV, the topic is worth debating and oh yes there is £1000 for the winning team and considering there is two people in my team that is £500 for the winning team. What do I get from debating you? A guy who's preferred style of writing is in that of circumlocution and a headache...score...
Debating:
If you and the other guy have never debated before (and the private school guys probably have), I'd make a point of finding out about how the system works and getting some experience in it.
Know the system - are there two teams or four in the dabate (1 proposition and 1 opposition, or 2 of each). When you know, you'll need to look into the specific roles of each team (especially important for 4 teams format).
I'd really suggest you find a teacher or someone who has a bit of debating experience and can help you.
Failing that, if there's a university near you then see if they have a debating society, and try to go along to one or two of their meets. They'll probably be more than happy to help you on your path.
My first ever debate, I was dropped in it with no practice. We got given a subject with no notice and half an hour to prepare.
In the practice we made a bunch of points to make, then gave it a dry run, practicing our speeches.
Thank f we did. I stumbled through mine like a total novice (which I was), but thanks to the practice I was able to reasonably well in the real debate.
You know your subject, so you can prepare a bit better. You won't need to know your speech word for word, but definitely give it a dry run or two beforehand.
And one key lesson: If you run out of stuff to say, make the same point you've already made, only in a slightly different way.
You'd be very surprised how little you can say in 5 minutes.
And if you can dress it up well, you'll have as good a chance of winning as if you'd made a number of good points.
As for the issue?
Well, as opposition you'll need to tailor your argument to fit around the points the other team make, to an extent.
But I'd focus on:
Why make it illegal? It does no real harm to anyone, and if just a form of entertainment.
Making it illegal would be... -see Belldandy's argument-.
If they argue it has no value, compare it to other forms of entertainment.
Big Brother vs The Tempest - both are merely forms of entertainment with no other value. Ban reality TV and surely Shakespeare (and everything else) has to go too.
The only distinction to argue Shakespeare to be better is as a matter of personal preferences, and so any attempt to ban one would be tantamount to a dictatorship.
If they argue the bahaviour shown by participants isn't 'acceptable' argue that it's nothing illegal, and again a matter of personal preference as to what should be shown.
If they go further to claim that it sets a bad example, 'wrongly' influencing viewers,
You can take the point further to argue that any attempt to falsely control/restrict what people are 'allowed' to see is in fact what wrongly influences viewers.
At least by allowing open choice, people get to decide for themselves.
That's all for now, any questions on any of that (not sure how clear it was) then ask.
And if you find out more about the debate format I might be able to give you some more help / some web links.
If you and the other guy have never debated before (and the private school guys probably have), I'd make a point of finding out about how the system works and getting some experience in it.
Know the system - are there two teams or four in the dabate (1 proposition and 1 opposition, or 2 of each). When you know, you'll need to look into the specific roles of each team (especially important for 4 teams format).
I'd really suggest you find a teacher or someone who has a bit of debating experience and can help you.
Failing that, if there's a university near you then see if they have a debating society, and try to go along to one or two of their meets. They'll probably be more than happy to help you on your path.
My first ever debate, I was dropped in it with no practice. We got given a subject with no notice and half an hour to prepare.
In the practice we made a bunch of points to make, then gave it a dry run, practicing our speeches.
Thank f we did. I stumbled through mine like a total novice (which I was), but thanks to the practice I was able to reasonably well in the real debate.
You know your subject, so you can prepare a bit better. You won't need to know your speech word for word, but definitely give it a dry run or two beforehand.
And one key lesson: If you run out of stuff to say, make the same point you've already made, only in a slightly different way.
You'd be very surprised how little you can say in 5 minutes.
And if you can dress it up well, you'll have as good a chance of winning as if you'd made a number of good points.
As for the issue?
Well, as opposition you'll need to tailor your argument to fit around the points the other team make, to an extent.
But I'd focus on:
Why make it illegal? It does no real harm to anyone, and if just a form of entertainment.
Making it illegal would be... -see Belldandy's argument-.
If they argue it has no value, compare it to other forms of entertainment.
Big Brother vs The Tempest - both are merely forms of entertainment with no other value. Ban reality TV and surely Shakespeare (and everything else) has to go too.
The only distinction to argue Shakespeare to be better is as a matter of personal preferences, and so any attempt to ban one would be tantamount to a dictatorship.
If they argue the bahaviour shown by participants isn't 'acceptable' argue that it's nothing illegal, and again a matter of personal preference as to what should be shown.
If they go further to claim that it sets a bad example, 'wrongly' influencing viewers,
You can take the point further to argue that any attempt to falsely control/restrict what people are 'allowed' to see is in fact what wrongly influences viewers.
At least by allowing open choice, people get to decide for themselves.
That's all for now, any questions on any of that (not sure how clear it was) then ask.
And if you find out more about the debate format I might be able to give you some more help / some web links.
"i really don't think any of our views are going to change so do we really have to debate it"
This from a person who is actually going to represent his school at a debate? Does that not strike you as being slightly...wrong?
So if you, the person asking for help on what to do in a debate, wants to end a debate in which the opponent is trying to put things reasonably and plainly to you, then that's fine with me. I'll end it here, because you're doing a pretty good job of showing yourself up without input from me.
This from a person who is actually going to represent his school at a debate? Does that not strike you as being slightly...wrong?
So if you, the person asking for help on what to do in a debate, wants to end a debate in which the opponent is trying to put things reasonably and plainly to you, then that's fine with me. I'll end it here, because you're doing a pretty good job of showing yourself up without input from me.
Blank wrote:
> I brought it up because you mentioned it recently in the other
> thread, where we were engaged in similar discussion, and referenced
> it in this. it was not a mistake at all.
Whatever you say...
> Yes, I see your point here. Obviously, the men on the actual planes
> didn't need to be from Iraq, they could have worked for an Iraqi
> company, or Saddam himself. But where is the evidence? There must be
> something to make you believe Iraq was behind it. What is it? Are you
> privy to information the rest of us aren't?
Never said I knew it for sure but as you just admitted there is no evidence so shock shock it is my opinion which I believe I am entitle to.
> Because of course, you were there, examined the whole of the cities
> etc etc
Obviously not but when you have about 100 News channels and each one is showing you footage of bombs crippling Iraqi cities i find it hard to believe that a few miles away there's another little Iraqi city with fully running water etc.
> Comparing Desert Storm II to WW2 is ridiculous. For a start, Hitler's
> Germany had actually done something wrong to start with.
Well we thought the Iraqis had done something wrong and in the end we over threw a dictator. Two phrases come to mind. You live you learn, You can't argue with results.
> What I'm trying to say is, if there are people in Iraq who do not
> agree with Saddam (the person who we are against...so that makes them
> closer to us than Saddam), and they do exist in their thousands, why
> should they have to suffer because of him? Put yourself in the
> position of an innocent Iraqi. You do nothing wrong, just get on with
> your life under a regime you don't agree with. And suddenly your city
> is being "levelled" because of this man who you don't agree
> with. And your friends, family, and the whole community in which you
> live and work will be killed because of someone you don't agree with.
> If another country suddenly dropped bombs on your city because they
> dislike Blair, I highly doubt you would say "Oh well, I'm just a
> casualty of war" and not be at all annoyed.
>
> Nazi Germany were making advances on other countries and were
> actually fighting back, so in a way our bombing campaign was
> necessary. But to compare it to Gulf 2 isn't viable.
Were the woman working in the fields to feed their children while their husbands were fighting any more innocent than the Iraqis now? No they were both equally innocent and all the ones that died in both wars have simply been cast aside as casualties of war. I'm not saying the system is right I'm saying that is the system.
> I will bother - I've presented points to rebutt and even refute those
> put forward by yourself. I've asked for evidence to prove your
> position and ask why you believe such. What happens if you don't like
> the person you'll be debating? Just gonna storm out in a hissy fit?
No but then again I respect them which seems to be the major problem between us. I don't respect you or what you have to say in any way shape or form and may I just point out that this is the second time you've come in to one of my topics, brought up what I said about Sep 11th and started debating it with me? I don't know about you but I've said all I want to say about the topic and for the final time I am going to say that i really don't think either of our views are going to change so do we have to debate it?
> I brought it up because you mentioned it recently in the other
> thread, where we were engaged in similar discussion, and referenced
> it in this. it was not a mistake at all.
Whatever you say...
> Yes, I see your point here. Obviously, the men on the actual planes
> didn't need to be from Iraq, they could have worked for an Iraqi
> company, or Saddam himself. But where is the evidence? There must be
> something to make you believe Iraq was behind it. What is it? Are you
> privy to information the rest of us aren't?
Never said I knew it for sure but as you just admitted there is no evidence so shock shock it is my opinion which I believe I am entitle to.
> Because of course, you were there, examined the whole of the cities
> etc etc
Obviously not but when you have about 100 News channels and each one is showing you footage of bombs crippling Iraqi cities i find it hard to believe that a few miles away there's another little Iraqi city with fully running water etc.
> Comparing Desert Storm II to WW2 is ridiculous. For a start, Hitler's
> Germany had actually done something wrong to start with.
Well we thought the Iraqis had done something wrong and in the end we over threw a dictator. Two phrases come to mind. You live you learn, You can't argue with results.
> What I'm trying to say is, if there are people in Iraq who do not
> agree with Saddam (the person who we are against...so that makes them
> closer to us than Saddam), and they do exist in their thousands, why
> should they have to suffer because of him? Put yourself in the
> position of an innocent Iraqi. You do nothing wrong, just get on with
> your life under a regime you don't agree with. And suddenly your city
> is being "levelled" because of this man who you don't agree
> with. And your friends, family, and the whole community in which you
> live and work will be killed because of someone you don't agree with.
> If another country suddenly dropped bombs on your city because they
> dislike Blair, I highly doubt you would say "Oh well, I'm just a
> casualty of war" and not be at all annoyed.
>
> Nazi Germany were making advances on other countries and were
> actually fighting back, so in a way our bombing campaign was
> necessary. But to compare it to Gulf 2 isn't viable.
Were the woman working in the fields to feed their children while their husbands were fighting any more innocent than the Iraqis now? No they were both equally innocent and all the ones that died in both wars have simply been cast aside as casualties of war. I'm not saying the system is right I'm saying that is the system.
> I will bother - I've presented points to rebutt and even refute those
> put forward by yourself. I've asked for evidence to prove your
> position and ask why you believe such. What happens if you don't like
> the person you'll be debating? Just gonna storm out in a hissy fit?
No but then again I respect them which seems to be the major problem between us. I don't respect you or what you have to say in any way shape or form and may I just point out that this is the second time you've come in to one of my topics, brought up what I said about Sep 11th and started debating it with me? I don't know about you but I've said all I want to say about the topic and for the final time I am going to say that i really don't think either of our views are going to change so do we have to debate it?
Page: