THB: The Story of Stuff is suitable curriculum for elementary school students.
Hello 11L1,
This debate was decent, but not great, and I blame that partly on the amount of time you were given to prepare. More would have been nice. However, you all wrote critical responses on your blogs which were very thoughtful, and I was hoping to see more of that in the debate - which did seem to lose touch with the video. I heard Jean Piaget's name mentioned more than Annie Leonard's, and while her studies serve as a great clash for one argument, the issue of "impressionable young minds being brainwashed" dragged on too long. The arguments from both sides weren't that potent, and the GOV especially had weak/similar arguments. I think the OPP actually has a bit of an advantage for this motion, but there are plenty of arguments and gimmicks the GOV can use to their advantage.
Are we in a "crisis" as Leonard preaches throughout the video? That's an argument right their for the GOV. They should do everything possible to say that sky is falling, and that if we don't scare our youth into making changes to their daily routines that we will be leave them with a world missing ALL the original forests (and this is when the OPP can POI and ask if kids should sleep on potato sacks so they get get "toxins in" from the fire retardant poison pillows). Basically, a utilitarian argument to say that the greater good will be served if we allow some degree of bias to enter the classroom (and then the OPP can jump in and say that's what Hitler had in mind with the Nazi revolution). All in all - this debate could have been more fiery and anchored in the video. Very briefly - some individual feedback:
Celine began with an anecdote/preamble. This is good - creative and it does potentially hook. However, this one about "student happiness" seemed a bit unrelated to the motion. You made some allowances and admitted the video is, at times, against common sense. Your team's strategy, in my opinion - should have been more aggressive and stuck up for the video. Argument 1 - video will be used in a balanced way and encourage open thought taught by balanced teachers. Will it? How can we guarantee that? I can't recall how the OPP attacked this but logically we can never guarantee how a teacher will treat the video. The GOV tried to maintain this kind of argument through the debate, but it doesn't hold water.
Changhoon rebutted right away with his appeal to authority - Jean Piaget. Yes the video is "easy to understand" as the GOV stated, but that's the problem - "too easy" in the OPP's opinion. I think this rebuttal is pretty solid. Good roadmap. Inaccurate stats as an argument is an easy one - so the OPP could have milked this more and referenced more of these false stats in the video. Good volume and decent flow.
HyunUk, as I said earlier, tried to stick up for teachers and kids, and had good tone, saying textbooks are also biased and that it's not like we're going to memorize everything Leonard says. But who knows? Some teachers probably test their students after watching the video. Can you imagine a multiple choice test question asking how much the US government spends on military or how much of our "original forests" are left? The OPP didn't dig in their claws as much as they could have and spared HyunUk's life.
Victoria put up politely with a POI - rejecting the Piaget theory as just a theory. I think you could have nailed the GOV here and simply dismissed them - a theory is a theory is a theory. Annie Leonard is FULL of theories. Some more emotion and consistency is something to work on, and no need to be polite during a POI.
Changhoon had some decent sounding arguments, but at one point (or even two) he sounded like he was arguing for the OPP. More of the same weaknesses that plague the Gov throughout.
Youngsoo was the most impressive speaker in this debate. His tone, pacing, and conversational mode was a bit refreshing. He referenced the video the most, and cleverly pointed out that the video simply doesn't encourage and objective view - so why even use it?
Rachel was also impressive, but in some cases seemed rushed - emotion and quantity was taking it's toll on clarity. But effective closing arguments.
Diane followed suit and opened our ears and commented intelligently on "bias." She also did an excellent job of telling the OPP to SIT DOWN. Very nice.
All in all, not a bad debate, but not as stat driven or environmentally concerned as I'd hoped. The video is biased, has false stats, and is preachy. But that's for a reason - because Annie Leonard wants her future grandkids to have trees to climb and oceans to swim in. The video is well made. It creates conversation and awareness. If the GOV can convince us that we are in a "crisis," and can list BP Oil, the tar sands, plastic bags, dying dolphins, falling red woods, and homeless Amazon tribes all in one sentence - they might have taken this debate. So, the decision went to the OPP.
Class 11L1 | CR#2 | Debate |
Hendrix | 9.2/10 | 9.2/10 |
Lennon | 8.9/10 | 8.9/10 |
Page | 9.2/10 | 8.9/10 |
Presley | 9.5/10 | 8.9/10 |
Dylan | 9.1/10 | 9.3/10 |
Clapton | 9.3/10 | 9.2/10 |
McCartney | 9.1/10 | 8.9/10 |
Young | 9.1/10 | 9.1/10 |
No comments:
Post a Comment