Should slavery be abolished? Students at Constitution High School debate the advantages and disadvantages of abolishing slavery from an antebellum 19th century perspective. Having students focus on the social, economic, cultural, and to some extent political nature of this debate, helps students understand the context of America's "peculiar institution", roadblocks African Americans needed to overcome in order to abolish slavery, as well as frame the upcoming 10th grade American history course. The purpose of this blog is to create a forum in which students can self-reflect and continue the process of peer-to-peer evaluation as they debate in class.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Marina v. Miquel
Miquel came to the podium prepared with two arguments. Marina brought one. In the end, it was a debate between inhumane treatment and versus better off. Judges felt that Miquel's better off argument was more powerful. What do you think?
Miguel's and Marina's arguments were both strong, really they seemed to be on the same level when stating them, strength wise. If Marina had more edvidence and I wish she had came more powerful with her agruments and rubbtal. Miguel's 'better off as slaves' agrument was a good one too.
This debate wasn't the greatest debate, but at least both Marina and Miguel had the basics and had two solid arguments. Miguel's "Better off as Slaves" argument was strong but not very strong but it was sufficient because it was supported with evidence. Then his CX was calm and basic, and his rebuttal was just restating his opening speech except in lesser time instead of using that time to thoroughly explain his reasons for why slavery shouldn't be abolished, and why their better off as slaves. What Marina should of did being that she was one of the students to go up last in the debates, she should of had at least the minimum of 2 arguments backed up with evidence. Also she should of used her Rebuttal time to write wisely, as she gave only a 10 second rebuttal. Also it is the Rebuttal which is the turning point in the debate for anyone to take advantage and go home with the W (Win).
Theres really not much to say about this debate. Both debaters did a good job presenting their arguments. I do believe they could of delivered more strong. To me Marina's Inhaumane treatment argument was the best even though that was her only argument. She had time to deliver two. Why didn't she? Miquel had an o.k argument about slaves being the backbone of the economy. I do like that during cross examination that he asked Marina if slaves weren't forced to be slaves they would just die, so why would you want to risk that. I think that question made his argument stand out from Marina's. Both debaters could have more to say during their rebuttals so they can bac up their arguments and make them clear. They should of taken advantage of that. Also, I like the question Marina asked Miquel during cross examination, she said "How are slave masters loving and caring". As the audience we already knew the answer. Slaves are treated bad considering the conditions their masters place them with. Good question. Marina's opening argument was good because she introduced her person and gave a sense of what her person and she believed in. Overall, both speakers were good but they could work on providing their arguments with more evidence and asking more questions during cross examination. Good job you guys!!
Miguel's and Marina's arguments were both strong, really they seemed to be on the same level when stating them, strength wise. If Marina had more edvidence and I wish she had came more powerful with her agruments and rubbtal. Miguel's 'better off as slaves' agrument was a good one too.
ReplyDeleteThis debate wasn't the greatest debate, but at least both Marina and Miguel had the basics and had two solid arguments. Miguel's "Better off as Slaves" argument was strong but not very strong but it was sufficient because it was supported with evidence. Then his CX was calm and basic, and his rebuttal was just restating his opening speech except in lesser time instead of using that time to thoroughly explain his reasons for why slavery shouldn't be abolished, and why their better off as slaves. What Marina should of did being that she was one of the students to go up last in the debates, she should of had at least the minimum of 2 arguments backed up with evidence. Also she should of used her Rebuttal time to write wisely, as she gave only a 10 second rebuttal. Also it is the Rebuttal which is the turning point in the debate for anyone to take advantage and go home with the W (Win).
ReplyDeleteSignature: Nicholas Mutignani Jr.
Theres really not much to say about this debate. Both debaters did a good job presenting their arguments. I do believe they could of delivered more strong. To me Marina's Inhaumane treatment argument was the best even though that was her only argument. She had time to deliver two. Why didn't she? Miquel had an o.k argument about slaves being the backbone of the economy. I do like that during cross examination that he asked Marina if slaves weren't forced to be slaves they would just die, so why would you want to risk that. I think that question made his argument stand out from Marina's. Both debaters could have more to say during their rebuttals so they can bac up their arguments and make them clear. They should of taken advantage of that. Also, I like the question Marina asked Miquel during cross examination, she said "How are slave masters loving and caring". As the audience we already knew the answer. Slaves are treated bad considering the conditions their masters place them with. Good question. Marina's opening argument was good because she introduced her person and gave a sense of what her person and she believed in. Overall, both speakers were good but they could work on providing their arguments with more evidence and asking more questions during cross examination. Good job you guys!!
ReplyDelete