Friday, May 1, 2009
Jeff v. LaBria
Jeff introduced a new type of argument to the debates. Jeff relied heavily on asking questions and answering them in a logical fashion. More emphasis on the answer with more evidence would have made this a harder speech to counter. However, using "why freedom" as a theme was very interesting. LaBria's command over the documents, especially the Hugh Jones document, proved to be the foundation to win this debate when she was able to prove the blacks have no need for slave masters. Congratulations to both speakers, it was a great debate!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jeff had so many opening to win but never took any of them. When Libria pointed out that slavery is need for the economy to work, Jeff should have said this is why slavery shouldnt be abolished, but sadly he never did. Jeff had the makings of a great debate but not enough evidence to back it up with (if he did he didnt site it). Libria did a good job with taking control of everything. Her ending was better then Jeff because it hit most of her points. Jeff had a great start just never finished it off with evidence. They both did very well!
ReplyDeleteEven though I didn't see this debate I think that Labria might have done a good job and that's why she won.
ReplyDeleteWow. That's all I could say while watching this debate. Both Labria and Jeff did a good job with their arguements. it was hard for me to choose who won. This whole debate was a very emotional debate. Jeff had a great arguement but it was hard for me at times to understand what exactly was he arguing. I didnt know whether or not he was arguing slavery shouldn't be abolished because slaves are the backbone of the economy or slaves are well treated for. I was lost a litlle. Towards the end of his argument I was able to conclude that Jeff wasn't arguing one topic of why slavery shouldn't be abolished he was including everything. Because he did that I thought that he made him self stand out to the audience. He grabed the audience attention. Labria on the other hand did an amzing should incooperating every document of The slavery reader. She made every document connect to her argument. She did a good job staing more than three arguments on why slavery should be abolished in the maxium time of five minutes. Good job. I could have never done that. She went slow and steady so that way everyone could understand were she was coming from. I loved how she questioned Jeff after his speech. i don't exactly remember what she was asking him because it was alot of questions. and I thought that was good. I also think that both debaters gave a good opening argument. They inculded there persons in it. That is what made this whole debate beliveable. To me there wasn't a true winner because both Jeff and Labria did a good job. They both had someting that the other didn't have. They are both winners in my book!!!! good job you guys!!!!
ReplyDeleteThis was debate was great! The technique used by Jeff was different. Instead of attacking Labria's debate and strengthing his, he instead just tore Labria's debate apart. Which at the time, seemed like a good ideal. Since I am on the Pro-Slavery side, I thought that our side had won this debate just with his agruments. But slowly this turned to a negative point for Jeff because Labria began to attack the holes in Jeff's agrument. In the rebbutal, Jeff failed to answer Labria's question and even answering "yes", to make Labria's arguments stronger. Labria did a great job, at the end. Jeff just needed to show more evidence so when the weak spots in his argument got attacked, he could could defend his agrument(s).
ReplyDeleteAs a student judge for "Jeff vs. LaBria", I seen Jeff's argument which I believe was "Why give slaves freedom" that argument made me think Jeff dug him in a hole without even debateing yet. But when time came Jeff surprised me with all these facts but he was not citing his evidence which was hard for me to follow. So my stance on Jeff was unclear. When it came to the Rebuttals, it was LaBria who threw the KO punch. LaBria capitalized on Jeff's not well-prepared rebuttal which only lasted 30 seconds. She criticized James Madison (Jeff), for saying how slaves are smelly, lazy, dum, people, but while at the same time James Madison owns slaves. Great job to both speakers. Also, I hope this shows that students who haven't debated should be prepared and ready to go at any given time.
ReplyDeleteSignature: Nicholas Mutignani Jr.
This was a very good debate over all. Love the new introduction to Jeff's point. LaBria did have the proof of slaves not needing maters. Loved the while debate. Both speakers were GREAT!
ReplyDeletei like how Jeff introduced a new argument, but Labria was the stronger debater by proving that slaves do not need masters. that put jeff in a hole. Jeff was a good debater too.
ReplyDeleteListen I know I am a bad debater but nick,sharifa,briana I know yous hate me but don't rub it in god.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jeff was really creative by making a new arguments. I think that he could have backed them up a little more, because i was a little loss and at first I didn't understand what they was at first. Labria supported her arguments very well. Labria attecked Jeffery's person during her rebuttal, and at the same time made her arguments. Good job to obothe debaters.
ReplyDelete