Debate Review
In the debate, each side emphasized that protecting American lives should be the bottom of everything. The AFF pointed out the enactment of Good Samaritan laws and mandatory gun buyback programs to reduce the occurrence of drug overdose-related deaths. NEG also recognized the need to mitigate preventable deaths, but their concerns are providing law cover for the criminals by either immunity or loopholes. However, either side should have focused more on the gaps in their opinions to make the argument more resourceful. NEG won the debate due to their strict regard to human rights enshrined in the constitution.
Debate Reflection
In the debates, I have learned that respect for human rights is paramount to obeying legislation itself. In the two contests, the solutions given by AFF were efficient in reducing preventable deaths such as overdose and gun possession. The idea of timely reporting of overdose close and reducing the guns in circulation are crucial towards preventing such deaths. However, the NEG, the winning side, was considerate of upholding of human rights such as security, unfair detention, and harassment. The consensus is that protecting someone’s rights does not give a ticket to infringe those for others. The government is responsible for protecting American lives by measures such as Good Samaritan Laws and mandatory by the back program. However, the standards possess side effects such as unfair arrests, detention and prosecution, and security through withdrawing personal weapons. Therefore, I have realized that respect for human rights is the initial step towards making and implementing other laws. My consensus is that no legislation should go beyond the limits of upholding human rights and freedom.
Critical listening was crucial in understanding the flow of debate by comprehension of significant terms. It was pivotal for me to understand the close but different lines of logic and argument. For instance, critical listening skills empowered me with an adequate understanding of the difference between buyback and confiscation. The buyback initiative entails surrendering personal guns to the government agency in exchange for compensation. It implies that the weapon is owned under lawful procedures, which is needed for payment, although the exercise is mandatory. However, there is no compensation for confiscation since the gun has been held in an unverified way. Critical listening skills empowered me to understand the side, possessing more weight by proper comprehension of past quotes and constitution clauses. I listened carefully about the relationship between the provisions thus could see the alternation of strength during the argument.
In the next debate, the first preparation is to understand key terms that are used in law debates as a way of following the discussion quickly. In the past review, I faced the challenge of developing the argument since some words made me either hang or continue listening without understanding the whole conversations. I have realized there is a need to familiarize one with some crucial constitution clauses such as human rights. For instance, in the debate, one member of the discussion quoted a section of the constitution that I had no clue that left me puzzling. Before the next debate, I want to work on learning non-verbal cues that are essential in understanding the discussion entirely. In the debates, I realized that the speakers make use of non-verbal cues as a way of attracting influence on their argument. Also, the other side makes use of non-verbal cues to react either in affirmation or disagreement. The participants were keen to read non-verbal reactions from the rest to guide the shape of the next argument. Therefore, I would work to understand available non-verbal cues used in the debate as a way of getting more insights into future ones.