Acetraveler deserve to win this debate. > 영어토론방

• 목록

• 페이스북 공유
• 트위터 공유
• 구글+ 공유
• 

Debate topic :
In my opinion, I think WSDC participants can be allowed to speak their mother tongue.


▶ Pro

(Link : DEBATE 1. http://www.debate.com DEBATE 2. http://www.debate.com )

*the standards of 3M(As I know)
1. Manner : style of writing, tone and other manner in conversation
2. Matter : more faithful evidence, more sharp as a razor in logic development
3. Method : more well using debate skill in each debate
*The basic rule of debate(As I know)
1. Debaters must keep the subject of each debate.
2. Debaters must point out opponents words related to the subject of each debate, not to point out other things like opponents itself.

Debaters in this site decide between win or lose in the each debate by vote. The standards to decide win or lose is this : "Who won this debate?" I think this question mean this definition. "Who do more well debate in the view of the standards of 3M and the basic rule of debate?' If I have more mistake in the standards of 3M and the basic rule than my opponent in these 2 debates so the votes well applicated this, I accept this is my lack of debate ability and it is the problem of my practice. But, If I see completely my lose in these debate because of other reasons like which my opinions are only different than majority or other things, I have no more means to recover my lose in those debate. In this case, only I can lean the possibility to win or lose next time. So, I must conclude the cause of my lose in these debate and find solutions so I start in this debate. If someone can point out my mistakes are more serious in the standards of 3M and the basic rule than opponents in those debate, please participate in this debate and help me.

I'll wait my opponent.
Report this Argument

▶ Con

In this debate I will prove that by my opponent's own standards, nobody on this site should vote for him in these debates. Keep in mind that since the resolution includes both debates, I only have to show why he lost one of them to disprove it. However, I will address both debates. Also please keep in mind that I did not vote in either debate, so if he is losing it is not because of my own actions.

Debate 1: "The whole world should witch to the metric system".

1. Manner: Your grammar was questionable, causing possible misinterpretation.

2. Matter: When making your rebuttal, you questioned your opponent's pure logic. For example, "What make you think metric system have scientific and logical reason? Because it is based on scientific phenomenon? Widely used around the world? Being chosen by scientists? Or anything else?" Do you really think that a system of random numbers is more logical than easy multiples of 10? In addition, he provided real evidence of why different measurement systems cause problems, while you had no evidence.

3. Method: Your opponent showed a better debating skill by using logic and reason, and also because you failed to refute his points.

Debate 2: "In my opinion, I think WSDC participants can be allowed to speak their mother tongue."

1. Manner: See #1 for Debate 1.

2. Matter: You never fully refuted your opponent's points about using English, as you admitted that some English is necessary, agreeing with him, and didn't realize that he was saying you CAN'T use two different languages in debate. Also, he provided examples of why using English is better. You had no evidence.

3. Method: Once again, you fail to refute points correctly while defending your own.
Report this Argument


▶ Pro

I appreciate you accept my challenge. I don't understand 'I will address both debates.'. Anyway, it is not a serious problem in this debate, so I start my reply.

1. 'Manner' in those two debates. : Of course, My English is still little. So I can more easily accept your point related to this part than the other parts. Of course I will practice more writings. But, I want more detail example related to my debate from you because I think Biowza and Brian eggleston showed proper replies related to my opinion that I had predicted during the debate. This mean they did not have special trouble to understand my writings, and they did not have misinterpretation related to my opinion. In addition, if they cannot understand my words, they should have asked to me, and if they have misinterpretation related to my words, I should have pointed out the mistake. I can show you this process did well finished by displaying the example.

(ex)In his or her response, my opponent wrote:
'I can't exactly understand 'English-only debates will give those less able to speak English an extra incentive to learn.'
Please allow me to elaborate. The type of young people who join debating societies are usually very intelligent and destined to become people with influence and elevated social positions. They may become politicians, captains of industry, scientists, military officers, or they may join one of the professions. Whatever career path they follow, however, in whatever country they live and work, they are likely to need to speak good English.

2. 'Matter' in the Debate 1
Please elaborate on 'When making your rebuttal, you questioned your opponent's pure logic'.
And, Did I suggest no evidence? No. I told him round 4 like this by using his evidence. : 'Kilogram- is equal to the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram, it is also almost exactly equal to one liter of water.
Celsius- Temperature scale whereby 0 degrees is the freezing point of water and 100 degrees is the boiling point of water.
This is the example that you showed me and you say it is the evidence metric system have more reasonable. But, originally Meter is based on 1/40000000 of the meridian line. The definition of meter in your example appeared later because of making more accurate system. In addition, yard can also be defined again by using the speed of light to pursue more accurate system. Just, metric system appeared more faster and widely used in the world, to the frankly speaking, it have no logical reasons metric system is more advanced system than the imperial system. What on earth 1/299,792,458 and 1/40000000 are not random definition also? Then, pound also can be defined again by using new 'yard' and using water. So, kilogram are also random choice by scientists in the past time. Celsius are also the same thing in this aspect. Do you still argue metric system are not a random choice like imperial system?'

Like this way, no matter how he show me much evidence, I showed him the evidence have a week power to support his argument like this way, plus, I use his evidence to support my argument, so if I had not failed in this process, my logic can have power of persuasion.

3. 'Matter' in debate 2
Please elaborate on 'You never fully refuted your opponent's points about using English, as you admitted that some English is necessary, agreeing with him, and didn't realize that he was saying you CAN'T use two different languages in debate.'.
And, 'he provided examples of why using English is better.'. I also agree this. But, I also showed him why simultaneous interpretaters are useful like this. : ' I admit English language has the ability to promote international understanding. But I don't agree that would not otherwise be possible. In your example, your friend and participants of meetings can use English at least the appropriate level in the meeting. But, If they also have the appropriate level of the Swiss and Turkish or they can be helped by well-trained simultaneous interpreters, do you really think other languages would not possible to promote international understanding? Of course English Users in the other worlds can be more hard to understand and access the outcomes of the meetings, but the Swiss and Iranians who are the interested parties but who have English relatively short can be more understand and access more easily the outcomes of the meeting so international understanding can be also improved in the aspects. In addition, when simultaneous interpreters be allowed to participate in the Championships, they can also translate English to their mother tongue and this situation can be also filmed to videos so non-English users around the world can also have no special obstacles to understand whole debate, and international understanding can be more improved more than English-only to be allowed in the Championships.'

4. 'Method' in Debate 1.
'Your opponent showed a better debating skill by using logic and reason, and also because you failed to refute his points.'
No, he shows many examples, but I had direct opposes completely against his example, but often, he could only refute my analogy partially. I can show you the example next round, In addition, he declared his point in round 5 :
-My opponent agrees with me that the metric system is a more logical system
-I have demonstrated that the switch needs to be made for unity, for safety (due to dangerous mix-ups caused by dual systems), and for logical reasons that one system is clearly superior to the other (a point which, as I have said, my opponent agrees with me on)
So, I also declare my point in round 5 :
1. I don't agree that the metric system is a more logical system. Although if I agree, my opposition are not damaged because I already point out the trouble by changing standards.
2. 'I have demonstrated that the switch needs to be made for unity, for safety' But, He did not more consider 'the side effects of changing standards like the cost of changing USA science textbooks, complexity of scientists and students who want to be the scientists who already learned by using old-type science textbooks who already skilled to use two systems of measurements, and so many other things that can set back of the level of USA science.' and many other my proper questions.
IN A NUTSHELL, The main purpose of standards of units is improving convenience for people. We should not forget this thing. Changing standards should be considered more carefully.

Do you really think I really failed to refute his points?

5. Method in Debate 2
Please show me an example. It is your argument so you have the charge of prove it more detail in the current situation.

THEN, I'll wait your reply.
Report this Argument

▶ Con

"I don't understand 'I will address both debates.'."

It means I'll show why people should not vote for you in both debates, not just one.

1. Even if they understood you enough, some voters may have had a hard time understanding you, which can affect their voting. I know that I, as an example, had trouble with some of your arguments. I don't mean to insult you/your use of English, but clarity is very important in a debate.

2. "Please elaborate on 'When making your rebuttal, you questioned your opponent's pure logic'."

I meant that while your opponent backed the meter up with a random system and you used that against him, he also established the point that the metric system goes in multiples of 10 (a logical and easy to use system), while you had no sufficient argument to back up the logic behind the SI system.

"Like this way, no matter how he show me much evidence, I showed him the evidence have a week power to support his argument like this way, plus, I use his evidence to support my argument, so if I had not failed in this process, my logic can have power of persuasion."

True, you did use his own evidence against him, but the point about using a multiple of 10 was still left uncontested.

Also, by "real evidence" I meant the example of a plane crashing because of mixed-up measurements, showing why using different systems of measurement can be harmful.

3. "But, I also showed him why simultaneous interpretaters are useful like this."

Your opponent refuted this in his final round.

4. "Do you really think I really failed to refute his points?"

In my opinion, yes. First, he used evidence to support his position, like the plane example. Second, you agreed that the metric system is more logical ("You go on to talk about how the metric system has been adapted to be more and more accurate . . . "), winning him that point. So it comes down to safety vs. convenience. And in most people's opinions, safety is much more important than convenience.

5. Here are some examples:

"This example is the out of topic in this aspect."

With his bar example, he showed that English is more widely spoken than other languages, and is easy and sometimes necessary for many foreigners to pick up; but you simply dismissed it as off topic.

"Therefore, English is employed in many large Taiwanese companies to avoid any such confusion."

"Therefore, representatives in Parliament from outside the Han Chinese provinces must debate in a second language."
With the above quotes, your opponent, in his last round, showed why simultaneous translators are not a good idea.