Debate Practice - 5/3/21

May 3, 2021 - Public Speaking Period 9

Nicholas Storniolo and Philip Gaston

Practice Debate

Joint Notes:

Today we are doing impromptu debates. We are starting class with a short conversation on the question: “read the book or watch the film?”

We already have our teams for the upcoming debates

Grading for debaters: 10 points total for any given speaker with the following breakdown:

• Delivery (5 Points): posture and nonverbal communication, pacing, and volume
• Reference (3 Points): Listen and adapt your argument to counter or incorporate your opponents
• On Topic (2 Points): Speech does not deviate from assigned topic and remains respectful of partner and opponent

Practice debate: Resolved, all fast food restaurants should offer healthy options in addition to fried foods

First group (Pro speakers): Brooke Zhou (Main Pro speaker), Andrew, Grace Lin

Second Group (Con speakers): Anton Slesarevich (Main Con Speaker), Matthew Shvorin, Ian Yoon

Since our previous class, the length’s of certain speeches were adjusted slightly to the following:

Role of audience: Note fair points, what could have been expanded on, what questions can be asked to the subsequent speaker. Start questions with “would the speaker agree..” or “if this is the citation, would you agree…”

Brooke’s Pro Opening (given 6 minutes):

She begins with an anecdote about getting fast food in an attempt to appeal to pathos. She appeals to logos when she talks about the reality that fried food is available in vast quantities, in the United States, in comparison to the lack of healthier options in fast food chains. She continues this argument by saying how it is the “easy” option to get fast food and the healthy option is much “more work” for people.

Brooke then yields her time with 3 and a half minutes remaining.

Anton’s Con Opening (given 4 minutes): 

Anton brings up the ever growing issue of obesity in the United States. He then provides a logical argument by stating healthy options are more expensive and that this applies to the businesses that are selling them as well. On top of that he mentions that these are healthier “options,” meaning that even if a healthy alternative is on the menu, that doesn’t necessarily mean people will be less likely to choose the classic fried foods they have grown accustomed to.

Anton then yields his time with one minute remaining.

Andrew’s Pro Subsequent (given 4 minutes):

Andrew brings up the point that even if the healthier options are on the menu, without the support of proper advertising campaigns fired foods would still have far greater popularity than their healthy counterparts. He makes a point that the accessibility of fast food is far greater than healthy options and that fast food providing healthy options would greatly alter the health food market. He then provided a counterargument to Anton by mentioning that personal health is more important than the cost of food.

Andrew then yields his time.

Questioning (Outside of debate from Mrs. Sanguinedo):

• How would the speakers respond to the idea that health options may cause more waste because healthy food spoils faster due to lack of preservatives?

Ian responded: This would be an issue which means added costs and additional infrastructure would be required to support the alternative health food options on the end of businesses.

Matthew’s Con Subsequent (given 4 minutes):

In response to Andrew, he began his time with the idea that fast food is more accessible for a reason. He elaborated that it is because it is more convenient for people who are seeking a quick meal that fast food has evolved into the market that it is today.

He then yielded his time with 2 minutes remaining.

Ian's Con Closing (given 2 minutes):

He mentioned that even though there are already a number of "healthy" options available however their unpopularity is a result of people simply not wanting them.

He then yielded his time with 30 seconds remaining.

Grace's Pro Closing (given 3 minutes):

According to the CDC heart disease is viewed as the leading cause of death in the United States, and part of that is diet. Her argument is that it is because of the availability of these foods that these issues arise.

She then yielded her time with one minute remaining.

Anton then spoke up that this is a Point of Order:

Grace brought up new information in her closing argument. Since this is an impromptu debate there was certainly some confusion and not everyone was sure what each other had said. In a well-prepared debate, this would have been considered improper and somewhat disrespectful towards the topic and other speakers.

Closing Vote:

By a show of hands, first the moderator asks "all in favor", then they ask "all opposed" and lastly ask if there are any abstentions.

The resulting class vote ended 9 in favor and 8 opposed meaning the outcome of the debate was that all fast food restaurants SHOULD offer healthy options in addition to fried foods (won by the Pro speakers).

After Class:

In an attempt to work around upcoming AP exams, changes started being made to the debate schedule. Mrs. Sanguinedo made the realization that certain students were going to unavailable for their debates due to testing and began to shift a few students around in their debate groups.

Reflections:

Nicholas':

    Prior to the debate beginning, and first going into this blog, I was unsure how we were going to organize our notes. Working together on the same shared document Philip and I were forced to dive right into things as class began, with it quickly becoming apparent that chronology was the best way to keep track of things. When the Debaters went into break-out rooms in order to prepare their arguments and the whole class discussed the role of an audience it became clear that spectators were also very much involved in the debate.

    Listening to the debate itself, I learned a lot about how convincing and effective argumentative speech can be. Even though today's debaters weren't standing ready with a script in their minds they were all able to come up with strong arguments that utilized logos and pathos in just a short period of time. The goal of argumentative speech such as this is to try to alter the opinions held by the audience. Brooke opened the debate with the strategy to first win over the hearts of the audience and later their minds. Since I didn't give much thought to the resolution as I focused my attention on the blog, listening to her relatable fast food story quickly swayed my mind towards the pro argument. The follow up logically based argument about the availability of these foods locked my support in for the Pro group, or so I thought.     Anton's argument came next, and I believe his speech was the strongest that I heard. His clear and concise argument was based on some principle ideas of economics and psychology while providing a counter to Brooke's argument which was not well defended by her team later. Although the back and forth later in the debate was also well-spoken and solid it was not enough to sway my opinion from Anton's. In my opinion, the Con side had a stronger argument overall. After the debate, Anton was also quick to recognize and motion the "Point of Order" made while Grace was speaking.

    In the end, I realized how differently people can interpret the same information and accordingly how I need to create more well-rounded arguments in the future. Although I believed the Con argument had been stronger, the debate went to the Pro speakers. I viewed the logical argument of the Con speakers as stronger than the logical argument of the Pro speakers and the "Point of Order" as reasons for the Con speakers to have won. Then the Pro speakers received more votes- I believe this happened because the Con speakers failed to make any emotional appeals within their argument. The two half decent (logical and emotional) arguments made by the Pro side combined into an argument so strong that even with the negative point of order it still won out the day over the strong logical argument of the Con side.

Philip's:

    The class started with a brief do-now where students had to side between “reading the book or watching the film.” The majority of students supported the classic argument that “reading the book” is better than watching the film. I, on the other hand, decided to play devil's advocate and presented an argument for “watching the film.” Through the power of cinematography, a director can easily set the scene and depict it in such a way that clearly illustrates the director's vision. With “reading the book” however, much is left up to the reader's imagination and interpretation. Oftentimes readers will interpret books differently essentially meaning that they each read “their own version” of the book. The do-now was very short lived without much time to be discussed or debated. I think the controversial topic of “reading the book or watching the film” is one that a whole debate could be allocated to next time.

The main assignment in class was a debate on whether or not all fast food restaurants should offer healthy options in addition to fried foods. Dividing the class into three groups, fifteen minutes prior to the start debate allowed for each group to prepare. The two debating groups of three people each prepared their statements, while the largest group discussed the role of the audience. This brief period of peace didn’t last as the debate started with an opening statement. Brooke, the main pro speaker, landed a swift strike in appealing to the logos of the audience by mentioning the reality that fried food is available in vast quantities, in the United States, in comparison to the lack of healthier options in fast food chains. Anton, the main con speaker, wasted no time in firing off some logos of his own by building a logical argument stating healthy options are more expensive to establish, produce, and maintain for all business. So went on the battle, trading blow for blow the groups fell evenly matched.
With three minutes to go, the final speaker was up. Grace, the closing pro speaker, was wrapping up the debate with information from the CDC that heart disease is viewed as the leading cause of death in the United states, and part of that statistic is diet. This was the critical turning point of the debate. Anton wasted no time in motioning for a “Point of Order,” drastically changing the trajectory of the debate. Grace brought up new information in her closing argument. In a well-prepared professional debate, this would have been considered improper and somewhat disrespectful towards the topic. Unfortunately for Anton and his heroic last ditch effort, this was not a well-prepared professional debate, but simply practice. With the closing vote tallied in nine to eight the outcome of the debate was that all fast food restaurants should offer healthy options in addition to fried foods. With a valiant loss for the con speakers, there was plenty to learn from after this debate.
No matter how close you are to the finish line you have to keep stride. Grace almost lost the debate for the pro speakers with that critical blunder so nigh on the end of the debate. Always capitalize on the mistakes of your opponents. Anton and his “Point of Order” would have won the debate under normal circumstances. One of the larger challenges faced by everyone was that the debate was conducted fully remotely. This was easily overcome with patience and our species' uncanny ability to quickly adapt to new situations as well as environments. Next time I would love to have a future debate in person, as it would provide a far better atmosphere. Another benefit would be that in person the communication wouldn’t be so limited as it was on Zoom. I would expect side conversations between debaters, deliberation between members of the audience, all in all it would have provided a more professional, senate-like, environment.