Debates Analysis
In the first debate on Houston Astros, the affirmative side raised a vital point claiming that the Act should go unpunished since it means critical repercussion on the sport in general. The negative side also was significant on the assertion that taking away the title is short-sighted and unpopular decision given that fans memories and matches matters significantly; thus, finality is the most important thing. In the next debate, the affirmative side raised important aspect on the fact that the country as over 300 million people while only 538 people will pick the president thus fall short of representing the will of the people. The negative side also contributed significantly by arguing that the body of electors chosen every four years helps Americans significantly to pick the appropriate candidate for the job.
Debate Reflection
I observed the debate on Houston Astros, and I learned that in some laws application the end justifies the means. The negative side looked more weighted in the debate arguing that the experience is heartfelt; thus, no way to revert to correct the injustice. I realized that the results could apply as the variable to determine the verdict of some cases. In the next debate that I participated, l learnt that condoning the ideas of others is crucial towards achieving the necessary strength in your line of logic. For instance, in arguing against the popular vote concurring with the opinion on the outside party in attracting inequality was the basis for why electoral vote can address the issue.
My critical listening skills were crucial in understanding the areas of emphasis by the speaker as a way of attracting more weight on their side. For instance, in my observation, I realized that the centre of the debate was on the repercussions of the Act in title award. The listening skills played a crucial role in comprehending the conclusion and renew points in the motion. I could well detect where one speaker concurred with the facts while raising more concerns. In the debate that I participated my critical listening skills was crucial for me in identifying the weaker areas in the opponent argument. It gave me the power to refute weak arguments while identifying the areas that am best suited to. It made my argument more thoughtful by rectifying the areas of weakness and raising more concerns from their statements. It also enabled me to detect the intentions of the other side, easy to find a constructive response to affirm my position.
I have significantly improved from the Lincoln Douglas debate to parliamentary ones by learning the aspect of motion-oriented towards problem-solving. It’s a matter of presenting one line of logic with supporting evidence to create platforms for correcting or accepting the facts. I have comprehended the ability to tolerate another side of ideas as well as a correction on my own. For instance, in the Lincoln Douglas debates, I learned that all the parties were right, but only the most suitable with less legal implications usually carry the way. However, I still need to improve significantly on avoiding biased attitude when debating. One always feels that their argument are correct where such an approach compromises the ability to think freely. I find it challenging to comprehend refutations from the opponents turning me more oriented towards my side to have its way. I need to improve on the take and win situations without the impact of exchange compromising my free-thinking. The debates have made me realize that in the discussion of the solution to a problem wins the process as opposed to individuals. It is a matter of finding the solution that can be achieved by intensive analysis of the issue, and it should be my primary interest.