Speak Out 2/28: Debate Exchange
Posted by Mr. Reed on February 29, 2008
Turn your topic that you will debate next week into a script in which two people debate your topic, one taking the affirmative side (your side) and another arguing the negative side (the opponent’s side). Demonstrate a clear grasp of the main issues related to your topic, supporting details for BOTH sides, and an ability to understand both sides of the topic. YOU CANNOT DEBATE any topic unless you have researched the topic thoroughly. This “script” should show some evidence of having researched your topic.
March 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Debate Script
Topic: Should blood testing be allowed in baseball to locate players who use steroids.
Joe: Of course blood testing should be allowed in baseball, I mean look at the mess that commissioner Bud Selig has this league in.
Bob: How can you say that. These highly paid professionals should deserve more than to have their skin pricked every day. The players association will not stand for this and if that happens baseball will have another strike.
Joe: If a strike is what it’s going to take to clean up America’s Pastime then I’m all for it. The players can’t go on strike forever, for some of them, baseball is all they have. They need to get paid to support their families, especially the rookies and young players because they haven’t gotten their salaries yet.
Bob: The Players Association will not allow for the youngsters to go broke. The Players Association will not allow it to happen. If they want a strike they will pay the players to stay on strike against Major League Baseball.
Joe: What are you talking about! Aren’t you a fan of Major League Baseball? Don’t you want to see the greatest game in the world cleaned up? Bud Selig will do what he thinks is right for the League and of course the Players association will contradict it but the league needs to stand strong. We can’t continue letting cheaters come into the game and get highly paid. That money should go to the hard working players of the world.
Bob: Yes steroids are illegal and yes I do want to see our game cleaned up but I don’t think blood testing is the way to do it. Currently baseball has urine tests that it gives to its players periodically, what’s wrong with that
Joe: It is true that baseball is trying harder and harder to banish steroids and Human Growth Hormone from the game today. However, urine tests are not the way to go. Anabolic steroids show up in urine testing but Human Growth Hormone does not and Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is also illegal in baseball and like steroids, it can do permanent damage to your body.
Bob: Eventually the Steroid Era will just die down. Why should baseball even worry about it? Its not like they don’t know that the steroids are killing their bodies, that’s their choice if they want to take it or not.
Joe: It is their choice, but young people look up to people like baseball players, and they might not know that the steroids could hurt their bodies. If Barry Bonds is taking it and Roger Clemens then why shouldn’t I if it increases their chances of winning and becoming professionals.
Bob: That’s the parents of the kids faults for not teaching them the difference between good things and bad things. The athletes are in no control of if the youth looks up to them or not. They should be able to do whatever they want.
Joe: Athletes should not get special treatment just because their athletes. You sicken me!
March 3rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Jody vs. Jamie
Is it easier to focus in private schools than in public schools?
Jamie: I absolutely think it is much easier to focus in private schools than in public
schools.
Jody: Why?
Jamie: Well for one, there is not as many students in private schools and they have to
wear uniforms. Also kids get better grades in private school compared to students in
public schools.
Jody: That may be true but kids do not get to express their individuality when they
have to wear uniforms. And most families can not afford their students to go to private
school, that is why they have public schools.
Jamie: Even though they can not afford their kids to go to public school, if uniforms
are enforced they could save a lot of money. They would still be able to show their
individuality by their hair, make-up, shoes, and accessories. The uniform rule would
not be to punish but to be able to focus on school work instead of trying to pick out
what to wear. So instead of finding what to wear they will have more time to study.
Jody: That is true, but what about the class sizes in private schools. There is about 35
kids in a class and those are the only kids in your grade in that school. What about
friends?
Jamie: Friends are very important don’t get me wrong, but in private schools there is
less drama because of the class size and there is no judgment in what they wear,
resulting in more friends. They could also do after school activities such as city
soccer, baseball, softball, hockey, swim, basketball, or volleyball.
Jody: What about grades? You say kids get better grades in private schools compared
to kids in public schools. But that is not always true.
Jamie: No its not a difference between public schools and private schools, but in
privates schools they wear uniforms so they do focus and it does result in better
grades. I know it is just the student’s choice whether they want to do good in school or
not but these things definitely do contribute to higher grades.
Jody: How do we know that all of what you are saying is true. Are you just making this
stuff up or what?
Jamie: Actually no, I am not making this stuff up. I actually happened to go to a
private school and a public school and all of this stuff is true for me and some of my
other friends. I was still able to have a lot of friends at the private school I went to, I
was able to focus more at the private school, and I got better grades when I went there.
I was still able to show my individuality and I really liked it there.
Jody: Well it sure sounds like you do know your stuff. I guess I will just leave it at that.
Jamie: It was nice debating with you.
Jody: Same here.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
The Katie Sunderland Talk Show:
Script
Characters:
Katie Sunderland (K)-Talk Show Host
Lily Taylor (L)-Pro change school hours
Duncan Conley (D)-Con change school hours
K: Hello everyone, this is Katie Sunderland. Today, we’re going to be debating a major issue in the school systems. Should we change the regular school day to a split day or not? And with us is Lily Taylor and Duncan Conley! Welcome!
L: Thanks Katie I’m glad to be here.
D: Yes me too.
K: So Lily, tell me what you represent.
L: Gladly, I represent the side of the argument that says that the regular school day should be split into shifts.
K: And, how would that work?
L: Well, since you asked, kids would be able to choose what shift of school they’d rather go to. They could choose the 7am-12pm shift or the 12pm-5pm shift.
D: Now, wait just a minute that doesn’t make any sense whatsoever! If kids are only at school for five hours they won’t learn as much.
L: Yes they will. For one thing there is no lunch break on either shift and only a 10-minute snack break each. So, the whole shift is teaching.
D: Well, what if there are 6 classes, 55 minutes each? There won’t be enough time for all those classes.
L: See the thing is, certain classes will take place every other day.
K: What do you mean Lily?
L: Well, say that someone has PE on a Monday, they’ll have it again on a Wednesday because on Tuesday some other class will have taken its place. You get it?
D: Yes I do, but the kids won’t get as much learning that way!
L: Yes the will…
D: How?
L: Well, I guess the only bad part about this idea is, in order to have the kid receive the full curriculum the school year will have to be longer.
D: Kids won’t like that.
L: I know but just think about it. If kids choose the morning shift they get out of school at 12pm and have the entire afternoon to do homework. And, if kids choose the afternoon shift they get to sleep in and have all morning to do homework if they forgot to do it the night before.
K: That makes a very good point!
D: Yes, I guess it does.
K: Well, that’s about it for our show today. Thank you Lily Taylor and Duncan Conley for coming onto the show and debating a very controversial issue.
L: Your very welcome!
D: Yes, glad I could help!
K: And remember people…don’t judge without knowing the facts…thanks and have a good night!
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Civil Rights Guaranteed?
David: I think that it is wonderful that in this country we have the right to speak without fearing that we will be put in jail. We must never allow our civil rights to be taken away. I think that passing legislation such as the Patriot Act limits our freedom as Americans, something we have always counted on. It is not good for this country.
Mary: Yes, I also believe that the idea of having the rights we all enjoyed as Americans before the Patriot Act was enacted, is and has always been, a unique privilege here in this country. But, I also believe that the government has a right to take away some of those privileges during certain times, especially when our country is being attacked.
David: But that would mean that the government would have the right to arrest someone without evidence and hold them even if they did not commit a crime. It is giving the government too much power and taking away the inherent rights of American citizens.
Mary: Look at the time when there were riots in West L.A. after the Rodney King trial. People were looting shops, grabbing innocent people out of their cars and beating them senseless, burning entire neighborhoods and creating a state of fear. The government and police were forced to start a curfew and patrol the area, arresting anyone that looked suspicious.
David: But that is not the way America is supposed to be. We cannot just bully our citizens just because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocent people get hurt that way. We must uphold the rights we have.
Mary: Under circumstances like the riots and the tragic events of 9/11, we need to allow the police, FBI and other government agencies to bend the law and follow their own instincts when they feel that someone is potentially going to do something wrong. We need to allow them to wiretap phones, conduct surveillances and other ways of finding out what the people are up to. Some innocent people might be accused of something they didn’t do, but they would ultimately be set free.
David: That is not justice. How can we just accuse someone of a crime with no evidence? That is completely against the Bill of Rights. It is simply wrong.
Mary: I would rather put 10 people in jail who didn’t do anything and set them free when matters are cleared than have one terrorist roaming around our cities and allow him to kill people before we can do anything. Why do we have to wait until someone actually commits a crime to arrest them, especially when we suspect they are up to something? It is better to be safe than sorry.
David: I will never believe it is better to violate someone’s civil rights. We have struggled too long in this country and seen so many injustices to go back to the day when men had few rights. Look at the struggle African Americans went through to finally get treated as equal.
Mary: Yes, that is true, but imagine the case of someone stalking another person. The person being stalked has no right to protection unless the stalker has done something. We are allowing the criminal more rights than the victim. Does the victim need to get badly hurt before anyone will listen and act?
David: Civil rights were given for a reason. Changing the laws, cutting back those rights can be dangerous. It can allow those who are in charge to abuse the law.
Mary: Maintaining our civil rights is important. But at certain times we must be able to “bend” the law to protect the public.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Does the Iraq War cause more harm than good?
This debate covers the events of the Iraq War and how they affect the United States and other countries fighting in Iraq. The debaters are John Martin and Thomas Hammond; both are political analysts with different points of view on the Iraq War and are debating their different opinions. Mr. Martin believes it is more harmful than beneficial while Professor Hammond believes the Iraq War is justified and is in America’s best interest.
Moderator: Welcome to this special debate edition of NBC. We have two of the finest political analysts around and we are very lucky to have them here tonight, Mr. John Martin from USA Today and Professor Thomas Hammond from the University of Pennsylvania. Thank you for being here with us this evening.
Martin: Thank you.
Hammond: Yes, it is certainly a pleasure to be here.
Moderator: OK, let’s get right to business. As you already know, tonight’s topic is the Iraq War and its effect on the US and the rest of the world. The first question is “Do you think that there is still need for troops in Iraq at this time?” Professor Hammond?
Hammond: Well the civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites already has major bloodshed. If we withdraw the troops the bloodshed will increase ten times than what it is right now, so we have to keep the troops in Iraq to help control this violent war.
Martin: If I may add, sir.
Moderator: Yes, go ahead.
Martin: The war between the Sunnis and the Shiites has nothing to do with the United States. It is Iraq’s problem that we just happened to be in the middle of the situation and got involved in it. The point of the war was to fight against the threat of terrorism to the United States. With Saddam Hussein out of the picture, that threat has been greatly reduced. There no reason why we should get into Iraq’s business when we have our own issues to deal with. Plus, it puts more soldiers at risk for death and can cost more money to keep the soldiers there longer.
Hammond: But if we stay and help out, hundreds of civilian lives will be saved and safety will be brought back to the good people of Iraq.
Moderator: Sorry to disturb you but since we’re a little low on time we’re going to move on to the next question. “Has the war, overall to this date, paid off in the end?” Mr. Martin?
Martin: Well here are some statistics that I think can help answer that question. As of February 24, 2008, there have been a total number of 3,971 US soldier casualties and 29, 203 injuries. The money spent on the war has added up to $600 billion and President Bush has requested for $200 billion more dollars for 2008 which would make $800 billion. The US government is already about $1 trillion in national debt and $800 billion nearly doubles that amount. And who knows how much more debt will come in the future.
Moderator: Professor Hammond? This will be the last comment because we are about to run out of time.
Hammond: This war, I believe, has gone through a lot already and has had its success and failure but has, indeed, paid off in the end. We have captured and executed Saddam Hussein, ending his rein of terror. We are still fighting to stop terrorism by stopping al-Qaeda.
Moderator: OK, thank you Professor Hammond and Mr. Martin. We are out of time but this exclusive and controversial debate will continue tomorrow evening here on NBC. Good night. (credits)
March 4th, 2008 at 1:02 am
Driving Age
Leave as is?
The Beginning of the Debate
Opening statement: Them
“The current driving age is set at 16 years old. Such a young age is bound to come with deadly problems. There are more than 360,000 young drivers injured in car accidents and 3,800 teens killed in traffic collisions. Traffic accidents are the number one causes of death among young adults and children. We must raise the driving age and protect the youth of today, 18 is the proper age for new drivers.”
Opening statement: Us
“16 years old is the proper driving age! We should not change this age to 18; this is to old for teens to learn to drive. We cannot rely on 18 year olds to continue listening to teachers. Many young adults this age believe that they are grown and do not listen to tutors or instructors. Also, at this age teens do not need have adults driving with them, for their permits to allow them to drive. The driving age is perfect as is.”
The Debate: Opposing side begins
“Statistics show that 16 year olds have the most automotive accidents that people of any other age. It has been proven that 16 year olds have 3 times more accidents than 17 year olds, 5 times more accidents than 18 year olds, and 2 times the accidents that 85 year olds. In 2003 teenagers alone had approximately 1 million and a half car accidents.”
“This may be true but it is also proven that 30% of ca accidents involve alcohol. Raising the driving age would only mean raisin these numbers. As teens get older the risks of alcohol increase. Its has been proven that 45% of the time, in teen car accidents another youth was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. This will only get worse if the driving age increases.
“There will not be an increase in teen deaths. If, by some odd chance, that these number do improve they will be nothing compared to the massive drop in fatalities of teens when the age is raised to 18. It would be a mistake to leave the age as it is.”
“The only mistake would be to allow reckless teens out of high school out to wreak havoc on the streets. This would make more accidents occur and would do damage to the society. At least at the age of 16 teens have the chance to continue learning to drive with parents or teachers at school. If we were to raise this age youths would not receive the opportunity to broaden their knowledge of traffic and driving.”
“Teens are already causing problems in society, because they are to young to be driving. Allowing this age to continue would only cause more death of our society’s youth and make it so that teens are continuing to crash, bring up insurance bills, and make up the majority of our total fatalities. We cannot allow this to continue, the driving age must be raised!”
March 16th, 2008 at 2:27 am
English speak out
The Iraq war debate By:zack Boyd-snee
I believe in many cases that we should be in Iraq fight ing for our country and for what is right for our nation. The us military has found weapons of mass destruction from gurilla fighters in Iraq and were posing a threat to our economy. America is under the attack of terrorism and chose to declare war on a putrid man and his people named Sadam Husain,Sadam is an evil dictator and tortures and kills innocent people and is soon to commit genocide.
The Iraq war benefits America in many ways. For example instead of buying oil for four dollars a gallon we shall go to a country that is evil and unruly for oil if we do not appose action to Iraq our nation will become corrupt and over run by disaster and depression because of the Iraqis overtaking the world in a chaotic rule. You may argue that the war is costly and outrageous but wouldn’t you want that instead of high oil costs and high costs on foreign goods and be apposed against with foreign continents.
wouldn’t you feel better saving thousands and thousands of innocent lives over ruled by dictatorship? Compare Iraq as if you were a Jew in Normandy while Hitler was in rule, you would feel horrified and scared for your life and live in the shadows until caught and have a life wasted. The Iraq war is a should and we must stay in Iraq for protection and the safety of others vulnerable of attack from an evil dictator though saddam is dead his idea lives on through the eyes of those in Iraq and are killing and bombing innocent lives and discriminating against them. Last but not least are you just going to forget the attack of nine eleven when thousands of our people died from a terrorist group in Afghanistan? If we let up on these things other countries will find our weakness and attack and attack until we our overruled by a dictatorshipped land of misery and pleading for help and we will be in square one with the innocent people killed in Iraq. Also America is protecting the holy and good land that was in the bible, Jerusalem this will be over run and maybe blown up by our enemies because they are evil and disheartened. So as a change of heart I hope that you will change your mind and look at the critical side of things in Iraq and picture us in the innocent shoes of enslaves beaten, killed people for no reason at all because evil will rule America if we do not take a stand for what is bad and retched for our country. Keep America safe and strong against bad things and depression because we want to make it last for generation to generation. So support our troops for keeping America alive and well at the moment.