Monday, May 4, 2009
Channell v. Erica I.
Flowing and paying attention matters. Channell had 3 well prepared arguments and therefore puts any opponent on the defensive immediately. This was Erica's situation. Erica came to the podium with a good "better off as slaves" arguments but without 2 more, she had a mountain to climb. She was also accused of being a rapist (James Hammond) and a heathen by her opponent Sojourner Truth. This accusations were ignored leaving the judges no choice but to vote for Channell. Take notes at all times, even during cross examination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe Channell took control of this debate. I believe this because she had alot of evidence and her voice was welled rounded. But she didnt make alot of eye contact. And during the cross examination she did really answer the question. Erica she did ok but she had a disadvantage beacuse she only had one argument and it was strong but it didnt cross out none of channell arguments. And during her cross examination she was avoiding the question. and she didnt tried in deiend the clams throwed at her.ANd during erica rebuttal she didnt have anything to say so that messed up her debate structure.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why i think Channell won this debate was because she had a lot of evidence for both of her debates. But her argument with The Inconsistent with Christianity was stronger than The Inhumane Treatment because she didnt state that much evidence for that argument as she did the other one. Erica could have won this debate if she had more evidence, stated her second argument clearly, and stated her rebuttal clearly. As she was stating her rebuttal, she was stuck and didnt know what to say. Overall, this was a very good debate.
ReplyDeleteWell I could hear them both loud and clear. Channel made eye contact really well. I liked that Erica asked a questions with a document to back it up tht was great. Channel arugments were good , so were Erica's. They sited a lot of informantion so it was clear to me that they worked on it. The one thing Channel should have done when Erica said the were employed,she should have said "Employs get paid slaves dont therefore they are not employed but forced to work against there will". Erica in her rebuttal tried (its hard doing a rebuttle for the first time) but next time she could have restated her agrument and said why this means more than any of the other two agruments across the flow. The would be like attacking without really atacking and would be great to see someone do. All in all they did a great job for there first time!
ReplyDeleteThis debate had to be the most funniest and anticipated debate ever. Both girls came prepared and delivered strong arguments. Erica had a pretty powerful argument but she had only one argument to deliver. This said to me she focused on one argument (slaves are better off as slaves)This argument was good and well stated but she could have said it liked she believed what she was saying . I don't know why she didn't give a second argument, she had enough time. She probably could have won the debate if she researched more and prepared a second argument. You did one why can't you do another. She quoted slaves are not al the time overworked. She also said that their only dispined when they disrespect or disobey their master. This argument was good but she could have included her input. Also when it came to saying her rebuttal she was clueless, she didn't know what to say but she presented a good well organized argument. All she had to do was restate her main points and why slavery shouldn't be aboilshed. I thought thats what made her argument look bad in my eyes. Channel did a wonderful job. i loved everything she did. She did a good job with incoperating two arguments into one, (1. Inconsistent with the tenants of Cristianity, 2. Inhumane treatment. What she was saying made sense and it was fully clear. I liked how she sayed and I quote, "It is inconsistent with the ten commandments, thou should not kill and by allowing us to be slaves your kiling us meantally and physically by abusing us." This was good!!! I also liked how she had passion in her voice from the beginning to the end she made me interested in what she had to say I never got bored throughout her speech. Both debaters did well through cross examination. They asked alot of questions and were able to answer them completly. Overall I agree that Channel should have won because she did a good job presenting her arguments with evidence and passion in her voice she continously gave eye contact, and projected her voice. She made the audience listen to her and maybe persaued their opinions to vote for the abolishment of slavery. Both girls did an amazing job. Well done!!!!
ReplyDeleteAlso during the rebuttals both girls should of had a prepared rebuttal and if need be write nd include as you go along!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis debate here could of probably been even better if Erica had 1-2 more outstanding arguments. Anyway though Erica had a great "Better off as slaves" argument, cited with evidence very well. Also, it was during CX she strengthen her argument. Then Charnell just pummeled Erica with 3 arguments, especially the Christianity argument. It just comes to show that all students (Who haven't debated yet) should come prepared to class ready with their 2-3 arguments. Also they should be keeping track with their opponent's arguments and maybe possibly use their arguments against them. Student Debaters must flow when opponents speaking. It will help you when you write your rebuttal. In the end though, it was a great job by both speakers.
ReplyDeleteThis debate was awesome! i really like channels arguments and the cross examination. Erica was good had a strong argument and strong questions but her rebuttal was not the best, if you projected your voice and attacked channels arguments you would of won, but i really like how you guys were prepared and had evidence
ReplyDeleteThis debate was good but Channell took the win because she was able to put Erica in a bad position that she was unable to get out of when Channell used her knowledge of the background of Erica's character (James Hammond). Channell accused Erica of molesting and raping Erica's neices and nephews. Both debaters had strong opening argument but Channell's questions were much more effective. Neither had very strong rebuttals.
ReplyDeleteChannell took the led no doubt. although Erica had a very good better of as slaves argument, Channell had two srtong arguments. Also Channell had got dirt on Erica's person about how he raped his nieces, and Erica never really adressed being accused as a rapist. Both of them could of have better rebuttals but congradulations to both debaters.
ReplyDelete