Keep Calm, and Debate On!

For our first class debate, I think think my team (the negative side) did okay on the debate.  The other team was a little more organized than us, and got their points across clearer.  The affirmative team (the other team) won the debate mainly because they had a clearer argument on why the drinking age should be lowered.  However, there is room for improvement for both teams.

First off, our opening statement (for the negative side) stated our position clearly and had a good thesis, but didn't get into enough depth of why the drinking age should not be lowered.  The whole opening statement was a total of only a minute long.  Next, our rebuttals weren't very strong.  It was mine and another persons job (two people) to rebut the argument, but I don't think either of our rebuttals were that affective to the overall argument.  For me, it was hard to think of what do rebut against because the affirmative team made good points in their opening statements that I didn't think they would mention.  Therefore, I couldn't think of a quick argument to go against what the other team said. The other person rebutting after me, however, should have mentioned the points I forgot to bring up in the argument about what the other team had said.  I also didn't realize how little time we got for the rebuttal.  I was cut off when time was over, and I hadn't finished making my point yet.  The second rebuttal was the opposite of mine.  It was short and didn't really argue anything that the opposing team had brought up in their argument.  Finally, I think our closing statement was good.  It served its purpose of wrapping up the argument, and also gave the audience a good point to think about that wasn't mentioned previously in the debate.

The affirmative team's opening statement has some good points in it.  I especially liked the pathos incorporated into the debate by telling a brief story relating to the legal drinking age controversy.  Unfortunately, the other teams opening statement was very fast.  Therefore, it was hard to hear and understand/remember all of the good points that were mentioned.  Secondly, their rebuttals weren't too strong.  The first rebuttal only brought up one point about how you have rights to go to military, but can't go home for a drink.  The second rebuttal, also, only talked about one thing.  In this case, it was how I made a false assumption about European countries.  I suppose this is a good thing to call me out on though, because it makes their argument stronger and ours less reliable.  Lastly, in their closing statement, a section of it was trying to rebut the European country drinking age concept saying that it was in fact comparable to the United States, but this made the closing statement very confusing.  It would have been better if that argument was left out of the closing statement. 

Overall, since this was our first experience with debate, the debate wasn't too bad.  Yet, there are definitely some things that can use improvement for both teams.  For the opening statements, both teams needed to talk slower.  This will ensure that the audience is able to clearly understand what you are trying to say.  In the future, it will be beneficial for both teams to try and think of arguments that the other argument might bring up and think about rebuttals to the arguments ahead of time.  This required more preparation, but will immensely improve the strength of an argument.  Lastly, especially for the affirmative team, it is critical to make sure that the closing statement is clear and concise.  It is also a good idea to leave the audience with a point that was not made before in the argument.