For this debate (this year), my topic is pay to play sports in your high school years. I got the con side of things, but personally I would have choose the other side of the debate. I say that because, well that will just take away my position on the debate. So, I will not help my opponent in any circumstance. To start off, some things I know about this topic is that in some schools it can be beneficial. But, for other schools it is not even discussed because it is “unfair” to kids who do not have the money to play the sport they want to play, whatever. Some results I get with a simple Google search is a link with the title of, “Will pay-to-play ruin school sports?”, this would be research gold for the sole reason that the title is the topic for the argument. Some things I can do logically that can play into my advantage is how everybody deserves a chance no matter what. To show off their skills to the coach of that sport, also to earn a chance to play in the games to represent your school. An ethical issue I can bring up in this debate is the issue of people not having the money to pay to play the sport they want to play. I can play into people’s emotions by maybe relating them to a situation they have been in before, and show them how it is unfair that not all people get the opportunity. Because of their financial situation.
Over time with arguing and making an attempt to make a controlled argument I’ve noticed that it’s harder than expected. The debate topics and the set up debate session was alright but honestly it was not fun, it sucked. Making a debate against a classmate is much more difficult than when it’s with my parents. My parents are so easy to argue against because they never have any evidence that the decision I made deserves the punishment I acquired. I will always argue the same way because I find that if I’m not a stubborn person people won’t pick on you for always thinking your way is the correct way. Including the topic I got which was build a wall pro was the worst, every website I went on had practically the same thing so it really just frustrated me. On the revisit of my earlier blog not much has changed besides the fact that constructing an argument really isn’t easy; especially when it’s a topic that really isn’t interesting. I hate politics I don’t care about politics, but I will say I am in favor of the wall being built. My interests are more towards sports, and for the sake if someone says something that is not true. I will have to call myself out but it’s almost like a habit for me to do such things because sometimes it’s just me trying to get a person fired up, or a time when I want to see if someone can prove me wrong. The ways I argue haven’t changed from the time we started to the time we finished it because when it comes to school I don’t worry about it much outside of the building. Developing a persuasive speech was an awful experience. Why? Because I found no interest in my topic to argue about this and like I said every website I visited had pretty much the same stuff. So trying to get out 3-6 minutes worth of talking was not easy. I have a feeling that it may have been a harder topic to research because of this wall not be a concrete answer. I think if the wall was built there would be more sources that told you how the wall has effected something and/or studies with more concrete facts of how the wall will be constructed. So in all I did not really like this unit it was not fun, it was more stressful than anything for me. When it came to classmates too some of them really rocked it, it was awesome to hear a good debate on a topic where people had solid information. Even better when someone could tear down their opponent in their rebuttal. And obviously there are those people who just don’t know what’s going on. If I could never do that again I wouldn’t mind, in fact I’d be happy about it. Debates were horrible it’s only fun when I argue with my parents I enjoy a good laugh with that because they say the same thing every time.