My thoughts/understanding of arguing has changed a lot but there is still room to improve. I did not realize it until Mr. McGarry said something but we do argue all the time and do not realize it. i am good at that kind of arguing but I am NOT good at debating apparently. Everybody argues all the time because everybody wants to get a point across or to just always wanting to be right. Me personally, if I already know I am right, I get flustered and can not say what I want to say fast enough because I am thinking faster than my lips are moving. Anyways, so I usually let the other person, or persons, say their point and go right to explaining why they are wrong and then hit them with the facts. I argue with many people so I do not really pay attention to how they argue but they usually always want to argue first and that helps me out more. When we were debating, we had to have an opening statement and basically say why we were right and state facts and what not about our topic. When my opponent was going, I was having such a hard time listening and typing out things to use against them. I was getting flustered because of being in front of many people and having to do stuff on the spot. When she was asking me questions I literally froze and did not know what to say. Looking back at it after having time to ponder, I figured out what I should have said. When I had to talk, I pretty much threw away everything I had written down and blurted out whatever came to mind. Again, looking back at it, I did not get to say HALF of the stuff I wanted to say in the first place. I think differently about how to attack my opponent and to listen to their side a lot more than I did and to do a LOT more research for both sides of the argument. Developing a persuasive speech was hard for me because I am not good at typing out what I want because then I overthink and get very flustered very quickly. Overall, my viewpoint on debates and arguing as a whole has changed and hopefully I can come back better prepared for the next debate/argument than my last one.
For my debate i had to defend that policemen are not racist. At first I was like “well crap, I’m not winning this. It is impossible” but then I did more research and I started to believe in my side more. My opinion on the topic has definitely changed since I was introduced to this debate. I look at it in a new way now.
One of the most interesting and/or compelling factual piece of information on my topic would have to be the cases involved. I like it because there is such a variety of actual cases that happened and an argument either way could be backed up sufficiently by statistics. I think it should be interesting or compelling to others because it is a very controversial topic and one that will not go away any time soon. Before doing research and looking up all of the cases, I did not know many things that I know now such as massacres that happened to policemen in Dallas or killings of police in New York. I got my information from many sources but I found most of it on the Daily Wire, New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal.
I do not have a preferred side to this topic. I came into the debate preparation thinking that I would lose the actual debate but in present time, I am not pro or con racism in police. I do believe it is a rising concern but not an immediate problem to our society. For my topic I think some big emotions are sympathy and guilt. My topic activates these emotions because it is talking about people, citizens of the United States, losing their lives for possibly no reason at all except for the ever misunderstanding racism. I definitely had to figure out how to reach people on an emotional level because I had to defend how the police are not racist and it is extremely hard to connect on that level. For my opponent’s side, they have it easier because they can say “do you really want police officers to get away with taking innocent lives?”. How do I come back at that?
This debate topic is extremely important right now because of how relevant it is. There have been controversial shootings of blacks in the past few years and the awareness is constantly rising. Without the awareness of this topic there would be little justice, fairness, or legality in our system, against the police forces or not. For the pro side, police officers know what they are doing when it comes to putting the law into effect which shows fairness in their acts. For the con side there is the fact that cops have to follow every lead to the full extent of the law and that if they do find the person no matter who it is if the person refuses arrest and puts up a fight then the officers will do what they seem fit to protect themselves. That goes into the justice and fairness as well as Right vs. Wrong categories.
I think of the three appeals, logic is the most important for this debate. The most commonly used one is also logic and the most common argument for and against is also logic. Logic is the most useful here because the facts are impossible to argue with if used correctly. The most common fallacy would be red herring because it strays away from the facts the most and does not aid the person arguing much at all because of the opinions.
I learned that if you think you have finally done all of the research you can to win an argument, do a little more because there is always more out there for you to learn and to help you. The more prepared = more confident = better game plan = defeated opposing argument. Feel great, debate great. I will definitely DEFINITELY be doing a LOT more research for my side and my opponents side of our argument.
The topic for my debate is racism in police. I am going to argue that police are not racist. It is not my personal opinion on this controversial topic but I think I can find enough information to win the debate. I know racism in police is a big, current controversial topic around the United States especially and that it is not really being solved right now. I also know that there have been a large number of African Americans being killed by policemen compared to white people, at least from what has been plastered on the news. Articles on police racism and white power. I mostly see articles on a class at Florida University and having police be assigned to them. Don’t you see that police are only trying to help? Among the rest, about half of the URLs lead to articles of police not actually being racist. I plan to use logical appeal by bringing up past killings of African Americans who seem innocent to the public but was in fact endangering others or breaking the law. Many past killings have gone against the police and they have received heavy fire from the pubic. I plan to talk about the statistics of white cops actually killing innocent African Americans and African American cops killing white men. I will also point out statistics on killings of other skin that were only necessary to help keep citizens safe. To utilize ethical approach I would say how the policemen were in fact just doing their job and following orders. Not every cop is a bad cop and some news reports get blown out of proportion. Everybody deserves the same rights and cops are only trying to help enforce that. Cops also have to enforce the actual laws and the events that happened, happened to involve people of another color. If a person was committing a very serious crime that endangered others and would not stop, do you really think that a cop would care about what skin color that person had to keep the peace?