Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity. Next, I would like to give our motion today. The definition of Motion is:. And Abdi Rahim Yudani as a second speaker, who will deliver arguments from negative impacts for schools and education levels perspective. And last Indah Puspita Sari as a third speaker who will deliver more proof and brief summary of our arguments. Next ladies and gentlemen, I would like to give my argument from individual perspective.
First point is National Examination give negative impacts for student healthy, because national examination be a standard graduation from the schools, students be-harder to study before ready to face UN. So far, national examination become a dilemma for student who will past a exam. On one hard, it can make student study hard before they are face to face with the exam, but on the disturb then healthy many student had sick before they are face to exam. Dead while be was doing the national examination.
Secretariat of minister of education in north Sumatra province say that he was dead because have a complication disclosed are bronchitis, lair and impertinence for from before national examination beheld. He was supported from his parents to do the national examination. From the evidence it clearly that national examination they think they can pass or not and whether national examinations report release and they are not able to pass, they will get stress and do many was, wrong or right way.
Debate Speech Examples
For example, my friends she got stress before she face the national examination, and distress her memorize because she forget she got wont to have breakfast in the morning because she too much think about preparation of national examination.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, that enough for my arguments. It will be continued by the second speaker later. Okay, ladies and gentleman. We are from the the opposition team, that against this motion.
Before we deliver our points of arguments I want to introduce our team-line and team-split. We will show the good split, because we are the best soulmate? They said that UN give negative impacts for students healthy. Because UN be a standard graduation from the school we halve to responses, it clearly that is not on by UN be standard graduation from the school. But from in Indonesia. And if we UN think that UN is only one to determine the graduation, we sure feel stress but factually is not true.
UN is not only one to determine graduation UAS be an important scone too. We have to responses, first 1 the purpose of an exam in school, UAS or UN is to practice our mental to pace the nations exam this is very useful to continue higher education bad get work doatest.
Government try to show the fair muse for all students in Indonesia so they firm up UN disturb students psychology? Next ladies and gentlemen i will deliver our points in individual i perspective. We have there points. On the first point, UN can be score competition among the students. For example in SMAN 1 SimpangEmpat from November all students have a study guidance at the school, to prepare to fact UN 6 subjects UN are math, Indonesia, English, biology, physic, and chemistry that they puts prepare they do many various question with their teacher trough various method.
We can see, it clearly that UN can when their ability, intelligence, and competence trough a score competition of UN with high motivation and strong belief so, it can fix the character of students especially in study harder to reach their dreams. And now he is in tutelary to continue higher education that in university because he get best score in UN for senior its again from evidence. See advantages UN for students are very WOW and they can be a motivation for me and for you as a student, without exams student would be more and more stupid, lazier and less motivated to learn.
Thank You J. At the first i want to refuse the opposition side i have 3 points. Do you think a score competition of UN is good? Like you have said.Bunga Langit. Honorable adjudicator, time keeper, my beloved team, my beloved opponent and member of the House. For His blessing and merciful, we can be here without any obstacles. Also, thanks for time which given to me as first speaker from positive team. Let me introduce my self and my teammate.
Well, audiences Modern is present or recent times. Technology is some innovation which made by human to make their works easier to realize their life. Foe is something which make worst influence and make harm.
Now, we only talked about modern technology in this case genetics engineering for human is a foe than a friend. Genetics engineering is one of modern technology.
The latest issue said that genetics engineering will applied for human being. Genetics engineering begins at Genetics engineering are technique for modifying, copying and recombining gene of organism. And now, let me deliver my arguments from health perspective:.
Genetics engineering has many types. And I will explain one of them. Uncertainty and Unsafe Result. Dolly the Lamb, icon of cloning as we know, need many trials to get good result. Project of Dolly had destroyed many embryos before desired result achieved. Clone pregnancy commonly weak, is that many baby clone die soon after birth. Inheriting Disease. Cloning create a copy of its predecessor.
This includes genetics abnormalities and disease.
Sample Formal Team Debate
Cloning also has high risk of gene mutationssomatic mutations, and improper imprinting. If the mother had genetics abnormalities or disease, the clone will also have it.
From that explanation, we can conclude that genetics engineering are have uncertainty and unsafe results, and also have high risk of gene mutations, and inheriting abnormalities and also disease. That is very dangerous for health, moreover if clone as one of genetics engineering applied to human being. So, I stressed again that the motion THBT Technology modern in this case genetics engineering is a foe than a friends.
Kirimkan Ini lewat Email BlogThis! Berbagi ke Twitter Berbagi ke Facebook. Label: School Task. Tambahkan komentar. Muat yang lain Langganan: Posting Komentar Atom. Cari Blog Ini. Angular unconformity Angular unconformity adalah permukaan yang menghDuring these challenging times, we guarantee we will work tirelessly to support you. We will continue to give you accurate and timely information throughout the crisis, and we will deliver on our mission — to help everyone in the world learn how to do anything — no matter what.
Thank you to our community and to all of our readers who are working to aid others in this time of crisis, and to all of those who are making personal sacrifices for the good of their communities. We will get through this together. Updated: January 29, Reader-Approved References. Opening a debate the right way will make your audience more interested and help you win your argument.
Article Edit. Learn why people trust wikiHow.
This article was co-authored by our trained team of editors and researchers who validated it for accuracy and comprehensiveness. Together, they cited information from 9 references. It also received 44 testimonials from readers, earning it our reader-approved status.
an example of first affirmative speaker speech for a debate?
Learn more Explore this Article Grabbing the Audience's Attention. Beginning the Debate. Presenting the Debate. Debate Help. Show 1 more Show less Related Articles. Article Summary. Method 1 of As you may have already inferred, my partner and I stand in firm affirmation of this topic: English should indeed be made the official language of the United States of America.
In our first speech, I will be talking to about how our country is suffering without an official language and why we need one. After taking some time to respond to our opponents, my partner will address how adopting an official language policy will be tremendously helpful to everyone, whether they presently speak English or not. The first point we want to bring up is something vital: communication. Without it, a business owner could never sell her products.
A patient could never tell his doctor what his symptoms are. If you do not speak the same language as a person, it is basically the same as not being able to communicate at all.
Right now, in the United States, we deal with language barriers by making government documents and materials available in a wide array of languages via translation. The problems with this are twofold. First, this is a band-aid solution that forces a dependency on the beneficiary of the translations. Second, translation is not cheap and there is no end in sight. If the government continues on this course, it will have to dump money into translating all official materials at an ever-increasing rate.
The second point we would like to address is the equity of the American Dream. No matter who you are or where you are from, hard work and determination will give you a fair shot to succeed in the USA. For that to be the case, however, we need to make sure that we are doing everything possible to make sure that everyone is getting an equal chance at success. We can only do this by making sure that everyone served by our government, which is everyone who lives in the USA, can speak the same language.
If we fail in this, our government is neglecting the needs of non-native English speakers and indirectly favoring those born into families that speak English.
Ladies and gentlemen, our opponents are correct in one thing, and that is stressing the importance of this topic. To begin, their definition of what an English Only policy would be like is flawed.
By claiming that there would still be translations but they would save money by switching to ESL education, they are attempting to claim the benefits of their position without addressing the harms it does to society.
My partner and I disagree with the other team and believe that the United States should not adopt English as its official language. The US has never had such a policy, has never needed one, and certainly does not need one now. The two points my opponent presented can be grouped into one single point, which is as follows: We need an English Only policy to benefit the people who do not speak English.
The fact is, such a policy would not help them at all. They could only make a difference with this policy if money were taken out of providing translations. If that were done, however, tens of thousands of non-English speaking adults would be disenfranchised unless they were forced to attend ESL classes, which would quickly become a financial hardship and a violation of personal liberty.
Fortunately, the United States has always been a nation of immigrants. Since our inception, people have poured in from all corners of the globe to make the United States of America what it is today. Indeed, it is our diversity, rather than our homogeneity, that is our greatest strength. We only have the strong economy we do because our infrastructure was built by hard working immigrants from places including Italy, China, Germany, and Switzerland.
In the past, these demographics were mistreated severely. Along with the violation of their civil rights, they were stereotyped as being isolationist foreigners and a threat to American culture and the English language. History has shown this notion to be nothing more than alarmist xenophobia. These groups have integrated into our linguistic culture and even helped American English to become more distinct from English spoken in other parts of the world.
Allow me to start off by restating that the United States of America definitely needs to declare English as its official language, and what our opponents have said supports that. The biggest example that supports our position is the hardship suffered by the immigrant groups they listed. When Italian and Chinese immigrants came over to the US in waves, they had a very hard time obtaining higher education, securing loans, and generally enjoying the privileges that should, supposedly, be available to everyone.
Is it not possible that this was due, at least in part, to their inability to speak English? If you and a friend both move to a country where he speaks the language and you do not, who do you think is going to succeed? Your friend is, of course, and it was the same way for these poor immigrants.As first affirmative debater you introduce the issues.
In your constructive speech, you tell the audience and judges where your side is going, and you begin building the affirmative's case in support of the proposition. Your case, which your team prepares before a policy debate, should consist of three stock issues: need for the change stated in the resolution, plan for effecting the change, and benefits of making the change. In turn, each issue requires specific arguments backed by evidence.
By doing preliminary tasks and by establishing the need for the change in your constructive speech, you lay a solid foundation for your team's case. Once having told what you will tell them, then tell your listeners who will tell them.
Tell them that you will handle the need issue and that your partner will handle the practicality plan and benefits issues.
As with your summary, this preview helps your listeners know your position, for only by knowing it can they adopt it.
Preliminaries over, you enter into the main body of your case which your partner will continue in his or her constructive speech. Begin the first plank of your case, which is the need issue. Give contentions and evidence that support the need issue. A contention is a causal statement backed by a line of reasoning. For example, "We contend that many thousands of patients with incurable disease can end their anguish and torment only by euthanasia. This is because medical science has not found ways of alleviating their pain, even with massive and addictive pain-killers.How to debate - first speaker affirmative
Similarly, many thousands of the families of these patients, and patients who are comotose, can end their distress only by euthanasia. This is because they would do anything to relieve the suffering of their loved ones, yet the law does not allow such relief. You authenticate your information by giving its sources. And, you can dramatize the situation with a personal experience, but do not your story telling kill your time allotment.
In presenting your case, specifically this need section, give at three different arguments for changing the status quo. Why three? The answer was discovered by Ancient Greeks and given by Aristotle: structures with at least three columns of support are strongest.
If your case rests on a single reason for change, it can be toppled easily by an attack on that reason. Two different reasons make your case stronger but are more vulnerable than three. However, those reasons must be significant and different. For example, the three reasons might be different types: political, economical, and psychological. So, why stop at three reasons? After doing your preliminary tasks, you scarcely have time to develop and substantiate three arguments for change.
If you try more, you will only talk too fast and impress your listeners with the shallowness of your arguments.
Moreover, they will not remember them.Recently our class had a debate on the justification of President Lee of South Korea on his visit and mention on Dokdo Island. Good morning ladies and gentlemen, this is the first speaker from the opposition side. This house believes that the recent attitude of the President Lee on the issue of Dokdo Island was rather inappropriate and sensational.
I would first like to rebut to the arguments the first speaker of the government side has made. First, he insisted that to state our position clearly, the Korean government should firmly take appropriate actions. On this assertion, I would like to emphasize that this issue — the issue of whether the Island being called Dokdo or Takeshima — is delicate and complicated. I say that President Lee should have taken a cautious attitude. Also, the government side elaborated on the historical relationship between Korea and Japan.
On this, I would simply like to say that past historical conflicts are irrelevant.
This house believes that the issue of Dokdo Island should be individually considered and that no more of any intricate historical issues should be brought up. Now I would like to move on to our proposals but before I move on, I would like to reassure upon the sensitivity of this issue.
Because the relationship between Japan and Korea is so fragile, and because this relation gets affected so easily, the precedent politics have been tranquil.
After the 10 th of August, when the President visited himself the Dokdo Island, and after he quoted that the Japanese emperor should apologize to the Korean government before visiting any Korean land, severe international problems occurred. Apart from these major issues, several minor conflicts also happened among Japanese and Korean people. The relationship between Korea and Japan worsened to an extreme extent and both socially and economically, the two countries are getting affected.
This house would like to emphasize that President Lee should have foreseen these intricate conflicts coming up as consequences of his own action. To move on, our second main argument is that the Presidents method of claiming the authority of the Island was not appropriate.
To look at Japan, they have nationally been taking rather big political steps. Inthe Korean Japanese Fisheries Agreement was adopted. Through this agreement, Japan put the island on the border between Korea and Japan, secretly putting the island on a line on conflict.
The Korean government, though, did not manage to notice and complain on this matter, but only preceded the agreement. Since then, up to now the year ofKorea has been condoning and neglecting, but not criticizing nations own authority of the land. Ladies and gentlemen, of course Dokdo Island is the property of Korea and of course we have the right to claim our own authority, but what we must be careful of are the consequences.
This house believes that the president should have been more considerate. Dokdo Island is an international problem between Korea and Japan. This meaning that just as how we think that Dokdo Island is our own property, Japan thinks the Island is their property. Where the cross line of two different perceptions lay, the Island exists. Only insisting that the Island belongs to us is simply not enough.
Saying that Korea holds its authority no matter what is rather short seeing. Whether we want the Dokdo Island to be an international conflict of not, we must recognize this as an international conflict, and act accordingly. We all much acknowledge that this issue is delicate and intricate that the government should approach to the problem cautiously.
This house believes that the government should not stand to evoke severe international problems. The government should approach to the problem with rational methods and at appropriate timing. The government side argued that the authority of Dokdo Island should be stated more actively and that the historical issues should be counted within too.
Ladies and gentlemen, we, the oppositions, are not here to deny our own claim to the Island. Nor we are here to criticize the government and their actions for no reasons.First speakers are largely substantive or constructive speakers, building up their own team's case, but the first negative speaker must also respond to their opposition's case. This first response is crucial.
In most debates, first speakers use set arguments that can be relatively easily predicted. These arguments, in a normative debate, progress as follows:. First speaker structure is often rigidly set, as first speakers need to lay out clearly the parameters for the debate and outline the shape it will take. This means they must:. This structure needs to be followed closely for a speaker to be sure that they have included all the groundwork for the rest of the debate. Sign In Don't have an account?
Start a Wiki. In a debate first 1st speakers play out an important role in any debating team. The position of first speaker is a key one in winning any debate. As the first speaker of their side in the debate, the first speaker must discuss the status quo, i.
Arguments Edit In most debates, first speakers use set arguments that can be relatively easily predicted. These arguments, in a normative debate, progress as follows: The imperative argument-for the team advocating for a change, this is the time to discuss the problems seen in the status quo.
For the team advocating against a change, instead argue that the current system in place has succeeded. This argument needs to be directed towards the largest stakeholder in a debate; as such, it may seem obvious, but it still needs proof.
The principled argument-this argument is often present, based on either a right, a government responsibility, or a principle of our society. The principled argument is related to, but distinct from the effectiveness argument-it deals with the basic morality of one side's model.
This means they must: Give a thoughtful introduction, often about the status quo. Define the topic, using a definition or a model, and accept or reject this definition on the negative side. Rebut the opposition's key arguments as a first negative speaker. Introduce the model, explaining how it will work. Allocate arguments to different speakers. Put forward substantive matter. Attempt to put forward a rhetorically powerful conclusion, often challenging the opposition to justify some wrong.