Debate feedback

Thanks again to everyone who debated yesterday! Please remember to post your sources to the blog.

Remember, these are simply observations, not criticisms. Both debates were well fought. I hope these comments will help improve future debates.

Debate #1
For

• The debate began with an extended discussion of a particular example of a class using a blog and various other technological innovations in one class. It's good to use sources, and there were some useful and appropriate quotes & ideas that came out of this one, but:
• There was too much reliance on this one example, which may not be representative.
• The article was said to have come from "the newspaper", which is vague. Be specific: e.g., "an article recently published in the Toronto Star."
• There were lots of claims about what was being achieved because of technology, but there was no evidence to back up those claims.
  
• There were some other good stats there, such as >90% of schools are connected to the net.
• There was talk about "building communities". This is a buzz word. You need to think carefully about using buzz words because some readers will find the cliche annoying.

Against

• Had three strong points:
  
• distractions such as facebook
  
• information may not be well source
• opportunity for cheating
• These points were well argued with personal examples. That's fine, but again, systematic data from a reputable source will be more convincing than personal examples.

For

• Addressed the issue of distractions, but failed to mention the other points.
• You need to be prepared to answer your critics' arguments so that you're not caught off guard. Imagine what they'll say and prepare your defense.

Debate #2
For

• The debate started with a blistering list of reasons. This can sometimes be an effective debate tactic, but it is NOT effective in writing where you should limit your number of main points and hopefully choose them so that they seem to belong together.
• Ended up with a few stats, but they were mostly informational rather than supportive. For example, they gave the number of kids with ADD. That's great, but it doesn't show us that technology actually helps any of those kids.
  

Against

• This side took a similar strategy, though they expanded a little more on their reasons, which is always a good thing to do.
• The didn't actually come out and say it, but they suggested that use of technology would mean no personal instruction. This strategy could go either way.
  
• They used emotive language like, "just electronic waves", which can be useful, although it shouldn't be the basis for your arguments.
• Some personal examples, but not much research to back things up.
• Said, "You can restrict access to the internet during tests to avoid cheating, but such barriers can be overcome." This is a good preemptive strike.

For

• They started out by clarifying that they're not talking about the extreme position of getting rid of teachers that the against side was hinting at. Scored some good points here.
• Addressed a number of the other against points too.
• Failed to sum up.
  

Against

• They began by challenging the validity of the claims and asking if they could be backed up. They suggested that the examples were not representative. This is a very strong tactic.
• Introduced a new argument: people are getting lazier because of technology. This is not the best time to introduce a new point.
• Failed to sum up.