Ms Goh's GP blog

Debates 03/10

13 July 2010

Question 26

Prop 1st speaker:
Definition partly appropriate, as team’s argument will be focused on the relevant aspects based on the question.
1st point: ??? Need to directly address the question.
Not prepared—no appropriate or relevant points mentioned.
Mumbling.
Weak in Pronunciation. Not easily understandable.


Prop 2nd speaker:
Advertisements target audiences that appeal to the specific audiences and shown to be appealing (too descriptive and not very focused on answering the question/ motion).
Sales trigger desire due to the discounts being highlighted but are not useful.
Advertisements draw an image that appeal. It is a lifestyle.
(Not very focused on the question???)
Use of celebrities to create trust or to trigger desire or to create an image for consumers to aspire to.
Examples given: jewellery. The Straits Times.
‘University’ advertisement??? (not relevant)
Taglines.

Response to question: Real-life example (but anecdotal) shows that people consume beyond their needs. This is because advertisements create wants and desires. Sales/ discounts advertised in supermarkets (confusing sales with advertisements).
Needs to be more fluent.
Eye contact but only with teachers.
Quite confident.


Prop 3rd speaker: Rebuttal: 1st opp speaker says that ppl are rational. 2nd opp speaker says that ppl are emotional and not rational.

Redefines ‘advertising’.
Advertisements encourage ppl to buy but do not compel. They trigger desire but do not force. So opp has to address the question directly.
Financial ability is not relevant.

Response to question: clear answer.
Confident and clear and audible. Fluent.
Eye contact with teacher and audience.


Opp 1st speaker: Definition: appropriate.
Through traditional media and alternative media.
E.g.: luxury accessories. Makeup. Mentioned specifically adverts in The Straits Times.
Those who can afford them will not have the desire to buy them even if these products are advertised.
Pre-existing desires required for them to be triggered by any advertisements.
Public will be aware of the effects of products, e.g. slimming products.
Eye contact only with the teacher.
Clear, loud. Good pronunciation. Fluent. Confident.


Opp 2nd speaker: Advertisements can generate awareness but cannot create what previously did not exist. Advertisements capitalize on fear or desire for pleasure or vanity—motivators of behavior.
Advertisements are messages.
Everyone is able to make a choice. One must be willing and able to do.
Even campaigns such as anti-smoking adverts do not reduce the numbers while the lack of such advertising has not had any visible results.
Educational function of advertising (relevant).
Innovations brought about by advertising (relevant).
Confident.
Eye contact with the teacher only.
Fluent.
Audible and clear.


Opp 3rd speaker Rebuttal: have to address the fact that ppl have different personalities and are triggered by different things, diff adverts.

Ppl will make decisions based on financial ability.
Adverts do not ALWAYS trigger desire.
Need to think quickly on feet. Response not fast enough.
Loud and clear.
But no eye contact.







Q22: Computers & mobile phones

Question is NOT:
Use of such devices affects our relationships.

YES:
a) Social graces and mannerisms.
b) Body language
c) Listening skills
d) Public speaking
e) Thinking on the feet


Prop 1st speaker:
Content:

Defines ‘talking at one another’.
Computer & hp: use sms & msn chat
Different ‘lingo’.
Become over-reliant on such short-forms.
Not very focused. Need to discuss why being focused on short-forms  informal. No basic mannerisms? Confused.
Barrier. Not know about the outside world.
No evidence.
Overview?
Language:

Too much uhm, like… how do I say…



Prop 2nd speaker Includes forum. Ppl communicate ideas through such mediums.
Less verbal communication which is affected. Command of English affected. Is this logical?
No evidence.
Handphones allow for other apps besides just the basic function.
Again, need to focus on the key issue.
Lang: confident and clear. Eye contact.


Prop 3rd speaker Rebuttal: clearly pointing out the lack of relevance in the opp’s argument. Short forms spill over to communication—is that accurate?
Superficial getting to know each other is that relevant? Need to link.
Less ppl have relationships. Is this relevant?
Blunt and insensitive.
Ability to not reply.
Clear and confident and loud.
The occasional awkward expressions.
Opp 1st speaker Rebuttal: frequency in communication has increased. So better at talking to one another? Explain!!!

Responsibility of the person in using the technology  possible balance but not really tackling the key issue.

Video-conferencing. Substitute to Face-to-face interaction.
Facial expressions and volume and tone are conveyed.
Ease in communication has made us better at communicating? This is correct.
Language Lingos!!!
Confident. Clear. Loud.


Opp 2nd speaker Content: Again, repetition of idea for video-conferencing.
Facebook  get to know friends better???
Help ppl to see common interests? Is this relevant for ‘talking to each other’???
Language: Weak pronunciation. Difficult to understand.
Lacks convincingness. Lack of confidence. Need to be more confident.


Opp 3rd speaker Frequency of typing increases. So??? How is that relevant?
Short forms means more efficient communication which aids communication than less.

• 
• 
• 
• 
•