Who won the debate in your mind and why? Give concrete examples as to why the person or side won in your mind. Talk about facts, how the person came back, the information they seemed to know (or not know), how persuasive they were, etc...
I honestly think that my group won, not because I was a better debater, or was more persuasive, but because the other side really had nothing to argue.
Our group knew that the first amendment already provides for every religious freedom we could ever have need of, and the proposed act would only take away the rights of the minorities, as well as make them feel left out, or even leave the school. Why fix a system that already works perfectly, and has for over two hundred years?
Other things also played in our favor. We both had pretty good rebuttals, and we both had really good points that stabbed back at each others' opening statements. The other side had a lack of information to back them up, no court cases to help them out, and really nothing to go after.
I think I had a really bad opening statement, as well as some of the other times I spoke, simply because I did not have very much time to prepare. My speech was generally unorganized and I did not sound very good because I was putting the whole thing together as I went.
As far a persuasiveness, I think that I was probably more persuasive, because I had information to back me up, a quote from the bible that helped me out, and I am just a swell guy!
Our side would have proved a remarkable debate if it had been worded correctly. "The expression of religion in schools is not illegal". This was only part of the whole idea. What was to be further discussed was that you have free time to school to pray whenever it felt needed, and an intercom announcement/moment of silence shouldn't be necessary. It would be disruptive and nonsensical, seeing as not only do we have churches and homes to ourselves, but there is always a time in class you can take a break and pray in a bathroom stall if needed. I'm sure you can find a moment of silence in there. School is built for academics, not to practice religion. And even if there is no local church for your religion, there is no reason why practicing your prayers in your own home should be a problem.
So, trying to establish a law based on public prayer in schools is just plain silly. Yes, we should have the right to pray whenever we'd like, but we have plenty of opportunities to do that alone where there is no disruption or potential opportunities of harassment and bullying based on religious belief.
Overall, I think our debate could definitely have been better.
I believe Rachael won. In my mind Cody's examples that his team had him talk about made no sense to what he was trying to persuade us to think. Although both teams had very good rebuttals, Rachael's just seemed so much stronger and more effective. I don't think Cody's side really knew what was going on.
I think Rachael's team won because they had better information. we only lost by one point but they still had better come backs and gave better deabte's then our team. also we said "uhh" and "umm" alot.
I think that our group won because of our examples, Rachael was able to speak clearly and say what she wanted to say. Cody had good information but wasn't talking as well and was saying things that didn't quite make sense to me.
I think rachael won. I liked how she said that having the amendment was just for expressing your beliefs and not just expressing your religion. I think she had a good first and last round to express how she feels about her subject, but the middle rebuttal rounds weren't the greatest.
Our group would've won, besides Cody's last statement. " The expression of religion in school is not illegal." We were trying to show how praying in school should be banned. Cody pretty much lost it for us.
I think they won because they had really good facts and rachael did really good at proving her point.
when we said that we dont want to prey in school cause it will be distracting to other students. Rachael said that they wont be talking they will just be sitting there with there heads down.
it is illegal to prey in school but they want it to be legal.
Well I believe that my team won the debate (for the religious amendment) we did a good job of explaining why we wanted it and how it won't hurt anyone or bother them. Our speaker (Rachael) mentioned that everyone has a belief so everyone has something that they could think about in the time designated for prayers or whatever they want to do during those minutes. They could just think about what they want to do after school. We were a little unorganized...okay very unorganized. We lost sheets or couldn't find them, but I think that we did a pretty good job or persuading our side.
I also failed to mention that Rachael did prove a great debate, whether or not I was for it or against it. She spoke strongly and had great rebuttals, and hardly stuttered a word. She brought up points much better than we had, and brought up support for them. She was very persuasive, and had what we lacked - preparation and clear points.
I think the groups were kind of even actually. I didn't think the side I was on would win because we weren't working together all that well. I thought we would've lost by a lot, but we didn't. :]. Rachael was good at come backs and thinking on her toes. Cody was good at that too, but he kind of got flustered I think.
Cody had some really good points like, "We're not asking you to give up your religion, but we're asking that if you MUST pray in schools or other public places, then at least make sure you give a moment of prayer for every religion." Rachael had some good ones too, but I can't remember exactly what they were. Either way, I think the outcome was good.
I would say Rachael won the argument between her and Cody. At the beginning of the debate Cody was not clear with what he was talking about and didn't annunciate very well. Rachael was more clear and precise with her words. In the rebuttal I think Cody did better. However in the end I think Rachael did a better job of selling her ideas overall.
I think that my team won. I think this because we got more points haha. But if we didn't go off of points i'd think we tied. We both had great points. Cody said that people don't want to have to sit there when other people are praying. Because they'll get picked on. Cause there are cases against it. I said that everyone can practice their beliefs at that time. If you are atheist you can shout to god that you hate him. Its what you wanna do then.
I think Cody had a bad opening, but i had a bad closing. i think we were close, neck and neck tell the end.
I think that my side, for the act, should have won. If we had more time to talk. We needed a stronger debater with more organized information. The act we were representing was clarifying the constitution to provide a base for religion practices in public places. This act just says that no one can take that away. The other side was fighting that the 1st Amendment already stated that there was freedom of religion, but it does not say anything about freedom to practice that religion wherever the person chooses to. The act I was supporting gave the people the choice to practice their religion without forcing it on others. Tyler made a few points that would have done him in if we had had more time to talk. Lindsey was focused on a different point of the act from what Tyler was talking about. Overall, I think my team should have won.
My side won this debate and I believe fairly deserved it. We had facts. While the other side had beliefs. I think the statement that Tyler stated right out of the gospel is what won our debate. He had good points and came back to what she said, well. Although Lindsey was persuasive she didn't have any cold hard facts. I think it was a fair debate and the winners were well chosen.
I deffinetly think our group won, but I think that it was easier for our group to win just because I really believe that one religion shouldn't be left out.If I were Lindsey I would have brought up the fact that the people getting educated choose the school and if the majority of the students are one religion maybe they should be able to educate about that religion. Tyler made a example that if 1 persons muslim outta 5,000 christans they cant leave someone out. I think lindsey couldve jumped on that oppurtunity and said if the schools trying to benefit the majority of the people whats wrong with it? (if that makes sense). I think lindseys rebutals were basically the same every time..more facts wouldve been better. Like I said in the begining I think our side was a easier side to debate; I think we had more to go off of.
I think that Tyler's group won because they presented their facts and had good come-backs. Our group had solid information but we had to look for a good come-back and not right away. I would have to agree with Katie, our rebuttals were about the same each time. We could've had some good material said if we organized it more.
I say that Tyler's team won. just because they did not need to cheat to win the debates. I did not know if Lindsey's team was organized or not but Tyler team was well organized. I think we though through a little bit more also. We used chat and email while the debates was going. Another thing as well is that he talked broadly about the topic relating with all the religions, not one. He was also care full of what he said as well.
I think Tyler's team won because they were more organize and had more to say about the debate. We already knew that our amendment already promoted freedom to do basically whatever. I think Tyler was way more pervasive about the amendment. They both did good but Tyler had better information and better come backs and seeing what we already have is good enough and to much would be bad.
I think our group won we were more persuasive and had better facts. Tyler was talking about kids can pray on the playground thats pretty much the same as in the class room so i think we won
I don't think my group won or did very well I would have to say that Tyler's group won. Tyler was a lot more persuasive than lindsey and he also knew what to say during the debate. Lindsey seemed that she was not very prepared and she kind of babbled a little bit.
I think that Tyler's did very well presenting his information. He had good facts, but stumbled a few times and we could have took advantage of them if we had more time. I think that Tyler won fair and square...I jumbled up a few times, I don't think that we were at prepared as we should have been.
I think Lindsey's group won because she was actually making sense talking about what she felt. Now Tyler was just stating a whole bunch of facts from his computer. So i think Lindsey's group won!!!
I think my group won because tyler had good things to say when he would talk back to them. He was good at noticing the things lindsey said and would find info to back himself up.
I personally thought that the Tyler's side had the upper hand, because i think our team was more organized with our information (google docs, gmail chat, etc) and were using more teamwork and working better together. Don't get me wrong, both teams did amazingly, but I think that the our had clearer points and were more on the attack side; getting straight to the point and had good information to back up their points. Some of Lindsey's arguments were really good, but some of them didn't really make sense. With tyler, everything was clear and we were constantly sending him little messages telling him points to argue. Tyler may have been mostly facts, but he was also arguing using feelings.
I honestly think that my group won, not because I was a better debater, or was more persuasive, but because the other side really had nothing to argue.
ReplyDeleteOur group knew that the first amendment already provides for every religious freedom we could ever have need of, and the proposed act would only take away the rights of the minorities, as well as make them feel left out, or even leave the school. Why fix a system that already works perfectly, and has for over two hundred years?
Other things also played in our favor. We both had pretty good rebuttals, and we both had really good points that stabbed back at each others' opening statements. The other side had a lack of information to back them up, no court cases to help them out, and really nothing to go after.
I think I had a really bad opening statement, as well as some of the other times I spoke, simply because I did not have very much time to prepare. My speech was generally unorganized and I did not sound very good because I was putting the whole thing together as I went.
As far a persuasiveness, I think that I was probably more persuasive, because I had information to back me up, a quote from the bible that helped me out, and I am just a swell guy!
Our side would have proved a remarkable debate if it had been worded correctly. "The expression of religion in schools is not illegal". This was only part of the whole idea. What was to be further discussed was that you have free time to school to pray whenever it felt needed, and an intercom announcement/moment of silence shouldn't be necessary. It would be disruptive and nonsensical, seeing as not only do we have churches and homes to ourselves, but there is always a time in class you can take a break and pray in a bathroom stall if needed. I'm sure you can find a moment of silence in there. School is built for academics, not to practice religion. And even if there is no local church for your religion, there is no reason why practicing your prayers in your own home should be a problem.
ReplyDeleteSo, trying to establish a law based on public prayer in schools is just plain silly. Yes, we should have the right to pray whenever we'd like, but we have plenty of opportunities to do that alone where there is no disruption or potential opportunities of harassment and bullying based on religious belief.
Overall, I think our debate could definitely have been better.
I believe Rachael won. In my mind Cody's examples that his team had him talk about made no sense to what he was trying to persuade us to think. Although both teams had very good rebuttals, Rachael's just seemed so much stronger and more effective. I don't think Cody's side really knew what was going on.
ReplyDeleteI think Rachael's team won because they had better information. we only lost by one point but they still had better come backs and gave better deabte's then our team. also we said "uhh" and "umm" alot.
ReplyDeleteI think that our group won because of our examples, Rachael was able to speak clearly and say what she wanted to say. Cody had good information but wasn't talking as well and was saying things that didn't quite make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteI think rachael won. I liked how she said that having the amendment was just for expressing your beliefs and not just expressing your religion. I think she had a good first and last round to express how she feels about her subject, but the middle rebuttal rounds weren't the greatest.
ReplyDeleteOur group would've won, besides Cody's last statement. " The expression of religion in school is not illegal." We were trying to show how praying in school should be banned. Cody pretty much lost it for us.
ReplyDeleteI think they won because they had really good facts and rachael did really good at proving her point.
ReplyDeletewhen we said that we dont want to prey in school cause it will be distracting to other students. Rachael said that they wont be talking they will just be sitting there with there heads down.
it is illegal to prey in school but they want it to be legal.
Well I believe that my team won the debate (for the religious amendment) we did a good job of explaining why we wanted it and how it won't hurt anyone or bother them. Our speaker (Rachael) mentioned that everyone has a belief so everyone has something that they could think about in the time designated for prayers or whatever they want to do during those minutes. They could just think about what they want to do after school. We were a little unorganized...okay very unorganized. We lost sheets or couldn't find them, but I think that we did a pretty good job or persuading our side.
ReplyDeleteI also failed to mention that Rachael did prove a great debate, whether or not I was for it or against it. She spoke strongly and had great rebuttals, and hardly stuttered a word. She brought up points much better than we had, and brought up support for them. She was very persuasive, and had what we lacked - preparation and clear points.
ReplyDeleteI think the groups were kind of even actually. I didn't think the side I was on would win because we weren't working together all that well. I thought we would've lost by a lot, but we didn't. :].
ReplyDeleteRachael was good at come backs and thinking on her toes. Cody was good at that too, but he kind of got flustered I think.
Cody had some really good points like, "We're not asking you to give up your religion, but we're asking that if you MUST pray in schools or other public places, then at least make sure you give a moment of prayer for every religion." Rachael had some good ones too, but I can't remember exactly what they were. Either way, I think the outcome was good.
rachaels team
ReplyDeletethey were better prepared
I would say Rachael won the argument between her and Cody. At the beginning of the debate Cody was not clear with what he was talking about and didn't annunciate very well. Rachael was more clear and precise with her words. In the rebuttal I think Cody did better. However in the end I think Rachael did a better job of selling her ideas overall.
ReplyDeleteI think that my team won. I think this because we got more points haha. But if we didn't go off of points i'd think we tied. We both had great points.
ReplyDeleteCody said that people don't want to have to sit there when other people are praying. Because they'll get picked on. Cause there are cases against it.
I said that everyone can practice their beliefs at that time. If you are atheist you can shout to god that you hate him. Its what you wanna do then.
I think Cody had a bad opening, but i had a bad closing. i think we were close, neck and neck tell the end.
I think that my side, for the act, should have won. If we had more time to talk. We needed a stronger debater with more organized information. The act we were representing was clarifying the constitution to provide a base for religion practices in public places. This act just says that no one can take that away. The other side was fighting that the 1st Amendment already stated that there was freedom of religion, but it does not say anything about freedom to practice that religion wherever the person chooses to. The act I was supporting gave the people the choice to practice their religion without forcing it on others. Tyler made a few points that would have done him in if we had had more time to talk. Lindsey was focused on a different point of the act from what Tyler was talking about. Overall, I think my team should have won.
ReplyDeleteMy side won this debate and I believe fairly deserved it. We had facts. While the other side had beliefs. I think the statement that Tyler stated right out of the gospel is what won our debate. He had good points and came back to what she said, well. Although Lindsey was persuasive she didn't have any cold hard facts. I think it was a fair debate and the winners were well chosen.
ReplyDeleteI deffinetly think our group won, but I think that it was easier for our group to win just because I really believe that one religion shouldn't be left out.If I were Lindsey I would have brought up the fact that the people getting educated choose the school and if the majority of the students are one religion maybe they should be able to educate about that religion. Tyler made a example that if 1 persons muslim outta 5,000 christans they cant leave someone out. I think lindsey couldve jumped on that oppurtunity and said if the schools trying to benefit the majority of the people whats wrong with it? (if that makes sense). I think lindseys rebutals were basically the same every time..more facts wouldve been better. Like I said in the begining I think our side was a easier side to debate; I think we had more to go off of.
ReplyDeleteI think that Tyler's group won because they presented their facts and had good come-backs. Our group had solid information but we had to look for a good come-back and not right away. I would have to agree with Katie, our rebuttals were about the same each time. We could've had some good material said if we organized it more.
ReplyDeleteI say that Tyler's team won. just because they did not need to cheat to win the debates. I did not know if Lindsey's team was organized or not but Tyler team was well organized. I think we though through a little bit more also. We used chat and email while the debates was going. Another thing as well is that he talked broadly about the topic relating with all the religions, not one. He was also care full of what he said as well.
ReplyDeleteI think Tyler's team won because they were more organize and had more to say about the debate. We already knew that our amendment already promoted freedom to do basically whatever. I think Tyler was way more pervasive about the amendment. They both did good but Tyler had better information and better come backs and seeing what we already have is good enough and to much would be bad.
ReplyDeletechris--i think it was a very close debate but i see how tyler won tho cuase he had his info was on the spot but we had a good idea
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think our group won we were more persuasive and had better facts. Tyler was talking about kids can pray on the playground thats pretty much the same as in the class room so i think we won
ReplyDeleteTylers group. Because he had more reasons of that topic, better reasons than Linsey. He didn't stutter throughout the debate.
ReplyDeleteI don't think my group won or did very well I would have to say that Tyler's group won. Tyler was a lot more persuasive than lindsey and he also knew what to say during the debate. Lindsey seemed that she was not very prepared and she kind of babbled a little bit.
ReplyDeleteI think that Tyler's did very well presenting his information. He had good facts, but stumbled a few times and we could have took advantage of them if we had more time. I think that Tyler won fair and square...I jumbled up a few times, I don't think that we were at prepared as we should have been.
ReplyDeleteI think Lindsey's group won because she was actually making sense talking about what she felt. Now Tyler was just stating a whole bunch of facts from his computer. So i think Lindsey's group won!!!
ReplyDeleteI think my group won because tyler had good things to say when he would talk back to them. He was good at noticing the things lindsey said and would find info to back himself up.
ReplyDeleteand tyler found good facts.
ReplyDeleteI personally thought that the Tyler's side had the upper hand, because i think our team was more organized with our information (google docs, gmail chat, etc) and were using more teamwork and working better together. Don't get me wrong, both teams did amazingly, but I think that the our had clearer points and were more on the attack side; getting straight to the point and had good information to back up their points. Some of Lindsey's arguments were really good, but some of them didn't really make sense. With tyler, everything was clear and we were constantly sending him little messages telling him points to argue. Tyler may have been mostly facts, but he was also arguing using feelings.
ReplyDelete