12
Thanks to Ilya who has successfully uploaded the video clips of the presentations to Youtube.com. Slightly later today I will post some info on how to analyze each presentation and the tasks involved. Please comment on this blog website rather than the Youtube site, als keep the posts and comments under this folder for Issue #1. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/user/CHC3Fall08
Have a good weekend.
Joshua
I think a lot of people did a good job, especially those who spoke very naturally. It made the discussion seem a lot more real.
Sorry for the double post. In particular, I think Alexandra did a good job in her introduction. I think she spoke clearly and made a good connection with the audience. I also think Bushra did a good job in speaking naturally. I also liked some of the rhetorical techniques some of the speakers used like repetition of catch phrases. I think they were effective when trying to drive a point across.
After watching the presentations, I noticed a couple of things.
First, not to sound self-centered, but I really could have improved my delivery. If this was a real debate, I’m sure no one would have any confidence in what I said. I seemed very nervous, didn’t keep eye contact with my audience, and kept doing nervous hand movements. I thought I could have prepared a better argument and presentation and delivered it much smoother.
Overall, I thought everyone did a good job. Again, we all seemed to suffer from a bout of stage fright, and everyone could have worked on the public speaking section.
Everyone’s arguments were coherent and made sense and proved a valid point. However, I think presenters from both viewpoints could’ve made their arguments more believable if they incorporated some of the opposing viewpoints, admitted some of the advantage that they had, but then countered it with a better reason/explanation of their own. It would’ve shown that the presenter was not absolutely one-sided and took the time to think about what the other side was saying, analyze their ideas, and come up with a logical point that is superior to the opposing viewpoint.
The first half of the debate ran smoothly and it was really interesting to hear the various sides of the arguments. However, after listening to the debates, I have a suggestion for the next half of the debate. Instead of choosing a question for each member of the opposing group. I think it would be better, if we could just simply have a response to the argument of a member. As in we could not only ask questions, but also just comment back refuting their argument.
I think everybody did an excellent job, especially consdering that many of you are first timers. You will also have plenty of chances to improve yourself throughout the term. The key is to learn from each other and make yourself better and maturer.
Thanks for the suggestions on the debate format - certainly we can adjust to your needs. You can state a response to an argument and get a reply to comment, and so forth. The reason I initially asked each person to pose a question was more a push to get EVERYONE involved.
I was thinking when we do the next debate, we have a moderator or several moderators to keep that debate orderly and on track.
I think I could have done a better job picking the order in which my group presented their arguments and looked less at my paper. Although Ilya thought I had a good intro, after hearing Ilya’s intro I was a little nervous that I didn’t have a speech to deliver. I planned to make up for it with the closing (but it didn’t happen =P).
Also, about the opposing group’s presentation…the beginning was on track, but the end seemed out of place. Before the class where we asked questions, I took notes on the videos and I realized that what several people were saying was a repetition of 3 sentences stretched out to last a minute. I think it would have been more effective to just say those 3 sentences.
Finally, this is more of a comment on the last class and not these videos…I think if the judges interjected in the midst of all the confusion (i.e. order in the court) and asked questions while we were debating and not at the end, it would have been better. The “camera break” caused a lot of the arguments to get lost. After one side proved a good point, the other side would be stumped, and then there was a camera break during which the stumped group could huddle and either respond effectively or change the direction of the debate all together. When the videos get posted, I guess this will be clearer.
Overall, I think the debate went very well. Many things were addressed very well. However, as a judge who did not take part in it the whole time, I found that some points were addressed to much. They were repeated often and made it boring at times. I expected that when the specific points would be repeated, they would be repeated in a different light. This was a little bit addressed though during the questions and answers session.
Additionally, being that it was the first time I needed to actually score classmates, I found it hard. I found it hard judging everyone on different aspects I probably wouldn’t have excelled at. How could I judge someone when I don’t know if I’m good at it?
I also think everyone did a good job especially as it was the first debate however. I especially liked the introductions given by the two leaders as for the debates. I’ll comment on what I liked in particular about a few of them:
Alexandra Chudner went into the details she gave concerning how the body absorbs the radioactive materials. It was very informative and truly suited her role as a doctor.
Miriam Hari did a superb job in getting across the strength of her emotions. She also did a good job in presenting well-informed facts concerning what the average farmer would fear most about the issue. Very convincing!!
Nickeitta Leung listed out the opposing side’s arguments and then went on to refute the arguments with very strong points supporting her stance on nuclear power.
Ling
Though it seemed tricky taking a stance against Nuclear Power while assuming the role of a Stock Holder, I believe Ling pulled it off quite well. She did a good job building her arguments on pointing out the disadvantages of Nuclear Power.
YES
Jonathan Lin
He makes a strong argument based on his role as the CEO of an oil company. I like the fact that he gives details on how different aspects of the economy would improve with a switch to nuclear power.
Bushra Wazeed
As John McCain, Bushra came on as strong and convincing. Even though she was on the opposing side I must say I like the way she made very strong and positive statements about her conviction on the advantages of Nuclear Power.
Collette Salame
As Illya pointed out already, Collette’s response was very well built upon her role as a store owner. Her arguments were very detailed and using the graphs during the presentation was great!
First off, I’d like to say that I think this is the coolest class ever. It never gets boring, except maybe for the judges, who can’t speak.
Speaking of not speaking, what I think I need to work on is speaking less. Hopefully this will get easier with practice.
Otherwise, I think the debate was really good in that everything was addressed and that everyone participated.