Ms Goh's GP blog

Debate 06/10

Advertising

Proposition 1st speaker

Content Definition.
E.g. diamonds
Quote.

Response: not answering the question clearly.
OP Pronunciation is not clear. Heavy accent. Difficult to understand.
Lack confidence.



Proposition 2nd speaker

Content Rebuttal: adverts encourage desire for products.

Definition: persuade audience to buy products.
385 billion US$ worldwide how does this link up to the effectiveness of advertising?
Adverts everywhere  how does this link up to the effectiveness of advertising?
Celebrity branding  need to explain how it persuades.
Evidence-based advertisement  more persuasive.
Quotes are not proof.

Response to question: able to answer question with a practical real-world example.
OP Uhm. Uhm.
Expression.
Confident.



Proposition 3rd speaker

Content E.g. Football player do not drink beer before a game. So Adverts do not portray a true picture.
Celebrities are used to endorse products because???
To create desire than to transmit information.

OP Needs more confidence.
Uh. Uh. Uh.
Fluency?



Opposition 1st speaker

Content ‘Speak Good English’ campaign
Adverts to give information, to build awareness.
Not very focused. Irrelevance.
No evidence.

Response: not able to answer question clearly in a way that links to the topic of advertising.
OP Speaking in full sentences.
Eye contact with audience.
Hand gestures used.



Opposition 2nd speaker

Content Advertising cannot create a need that previously exist. Scarcity is a fear that one will miss out on something or on buying a product.
Anti-smoking campaign is prevalent but no of smokers have not dropped.
Consumers are not helpless victims. Should not underestimate…

Response: Need to elaborate.
OP Reading from notes.
Monotonous.
No expression.



Opposition 3rd speaker

Content e.g. Calsberg beer. Advertisements are informative and allow for comparison.
Consumers have to be willing. Advertisements cannot create a need that did not previously exist.
No rebuttal?
OP Clear. But reading. Lacks eye contact. No hand gestures.
Quite soft.













Pleasure of reading can never compete with the pleasure of visual entertainment

Proposition 1st speaker

Content Definition? Examples given instead.
Image???? Point is not clear.
E.g. Twilight.
Watching the movie is more engaging.
The special effects are particularly exciting.
Clearer understanding of the story, especially of action sequences
OP Need to be louder.
Lacks confidence.
A little accent.
Not prepared.



Proposition 2nd speaker
Content Virtual world versus real world.
Different perspectives??? Can see from different perspectives?
Point is not clear.
Can be enjoyed by many at the same time social activity??? Vs reading as an individual activity.
TV is the most popular activity as proof of its entertainment value.
OP Not very clear pronunciation.
Smiles.
A little eye contact.
Mostly reading.



Opposition 1st speaker Wen Ya

Content Gives structure.
More details in the book as compared to the movie. Much of ‘Twilight’ is cut out for the 2-hour movie.
Books  imagination  many possibilities.

Need to define the type of pleasure derived.

Response to question: Dependent on different ppl? NOT a good response.
OP Loud. Clear. Fluent. Pronunciation is clear.
Need hand gestures.



Opposition 2nd speaker Lin Yuan
Content Sensational world.
Process the written information  we are invited to engage in more complex activity.
Only 1 perspective  that of the director.
Books have lasted for thousands of years. SO???
How is knowledge entertainment?
Visualization is necessary to understand something.
Response to question: Not able to accurately answer the question.

OP Reading.
Clear and loud. But not all pronunciation accurate.
More confidence needed.
No eye contact.



Opposition 3rd speaker Yi Wei

Content Can control the speed and interval of their activity so it adds on to the pleasure.
They are able to reflect and exercise their creativity and feel their intellectually challenged.
Imagination is better than special effects.
Rebuttal: Confused stand?
OP Need to be more confident.
Fluency?
Eye contact limited.



Proposition 3rd speaker
Content Movies make a person think, so it’s not a mindless boring activity.
Movies require us to think in terms of predicting what’s going to happen. The suspense is enjoyable.
Social activities.
ALL Lack EVIDENCE!
OP Hesitant and choppy.
Need to be more fluent.






Computers versus Mobile phones

Proposition 1st speaker
Content Definition given.
Decline of social manners due to decline in face-to-face communication.
Reference to expert.

Response to question: Video-chat is not widely used yet.
OP Clear and loud.
Eye contact.
Quite confident



Opposition 1st speaker (Ming-xuan)
Content Talking includes instant messaging and sms??
Anonymity give ppl the freedom of speech
Avoid awkward formalities
Advantage for those who are shy
Not threatened by the tone of the person

Response to question:
OP Clear. Fluent
But not enough confidence.



Proposition 2nd speaker
Content No rebuttal? Should rebut their definition!
Body language included in communication.
Losing out a large portion of communication i.e. tone
Lack of consciousness of body language due to lack of interaction
Abbreviations are not universally acceptable. This results in lack of clarity in communication.
No editing of text so being used to text but not to face-to-face interaction results in problems.
OP Confident. Clear. Fluent.
Eye contact with audience.



Opposition 2nd speaker
Content Anytime anywhere
More convenient so??? How does it make talking better?
Think before one sms = Think before one speaks
Communicate easily across countries so allows for efficiency of communication?
OP Clear and loud.
Fluent.



Proposition 3rd speaker
Content Due to the time lag in sms, this has resulted in people being unused to respond naturally and appropriately during actual interactions.
The appropriateness of the mode of communication depends on the situation or the person one is speaking to, e.g. will not speak the principal.
Body language is not limited to the face! Must include hand gestures.

Response to question: Able to respond on the feet in a clear way.
OP Clear and fluent.\



Opposition 3rd speaker (Ming-xuan)
Content Rebuttal: Abbreviations are used but pronunciation is the same? LOGIC?
Act before they think  learn to think before they act??? Link is not shown.
Quality of communication, technology has resulted in improvements?
Not very relevant.
OP Needs more confident and fluency.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Dear 03/10

Please use these constructive comments to achieve our motto: BE BRILLIANT!

DEBATE 1 MARCH 03/10

This house believes that young people are selfish and apathetic.

Prop Speaker 1:

1) Definition given.
2) Spending time in front of computers  no interaction with ppl  selfish & apathetic?
3) Lack of interest in politics  selfish & apathetic?
4) Just care about their own studies and career and not care about matters to do with the nation.
5) Everything is set up for them so they don’t participate in politics therefore selfish and apathetic??? WHERE’s the link???
6) No evidence given 
7) More materialistic therefore? STOPPED.
8) LINK NOT GIVEN
9) Need to show more confidence and fluency. Needs more energy.

Opp Speaker 1:

1) Rebuttal  computers can’t be blame for selfishness. Obama uses computer right? Good rebuttal
2) Case division given.
3) Kids are stressful? How is this related?
4) Volunteer work done cos’ they care for others than for portfolio
5) Pronunciation is not clear.
6) Evidence given. Good example given.
7) More good things in life. So they’re willing to enjoy the good life? So how is this linked/ relevant?

Prop Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: Obama is NOT a young person. Correct. Students do CIP only as part of the curriculum  Scope is NOT just Singapore!
2) Only care about how they feel  selfish & apathetic.
3) Example from Japan. Known to be selfish and apathetic. Not say good morning  so???
4) 62% of ??? say they’re apathetic. 85% say they’re rebellious. JAPAN/?????
5) China –reference to authority. One-child policy  self-centred next generation.
6) Care only about themselves.
7) Pronunciation not too bad.
8) Fluent and understandable.

Opp Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: Computers can be used for raising awareness. Upbringing??? But this does not disprove the motion.
2) Passion & engagement in environment, social, economic issues. So NOT ALL are passive about ALL these matters.
3) Survey:
4) Clear speaker with confidence and some interaction with audience. However, there can be more energy.
5) They CAN BE LESS selfish. So are they or not?
6) Students have passion but there are no platforms for them to demonstrate their passions.
7) America: 3 ppl? Who are they? Their parents are politicians so they have an avenue for participation.

Opp Speaker 3:

1) Weak enunciation.
2) CIP done for CIP hours? How many do after their academic studies are over?
3) NO rebuttal?
4) No eye contact? No confidence.
5) Summary/ Conclusion: No clear line of argument.
6) GROUP: Limited area of coverage.

Prop Speaker 3:
1) Summary: Care more about themselves. Political & Social factors.
2) Rebuttal: Using computers  much time  less interaction with their peers BUT did not clearly kill the opp.
3) Rebuttal: CIP causes one to be more caring and less apathetic. So out of point since youth are already apathetic.
4) Confident and loud and interacting.


This house believes that the Singapore education system has been effective in preparing the young people for the future.

Prop Speaker 1:

1) Definition clear in particular of the education system. But how much of this is relevant?
2) Reading. Some eye contact but not enough. No energy.
3) Evidence/ reference to leaders of Singapore as proof of effectiveness but more elaboration is lacking.
4) practical vs academic

Opp Speaker 1:

1) Rebuttal
2) World class system but does not adequately prepare???
3) Widen the gap between the different classes. So not all prepared. NT students???
4) Confident and energetic and loud.
5) For the best  they’re the best and become complacent.
6) RJC student who put up insensitive comments. The elites are the capable and the only class capable. Elite teacher who could not adapt to neighbourhood school. They look down on common class  working society. Can’t adapt to a more diverse types of people. Luckily the link is consistently made.


Prop Speaker 2:

1) Reading but clear attempt to eye contact.
2) No rebuttal.
3) Effectively prepare – different stages? How to prove that it has been successful? Ss should be able to … but is it effective?
4) Instead of exams, there are other programmes to prepare students in presentation/ speaking skills. Communicating and thinking skills taught. Increase in oral exams weightage. Developed from young.
5) Academically inferior??? Exp. ITE prepares the students of a lower academic ability.

Opp Speaker 2:

1) Rebuttal: points out the weakness in whether they show effectiveness. Changes  effectiveness? Only primary school syllabus?
2) Expressive. Interacts with audience and eye contact.
3) Elitism is relevant?
4) teacher-oriented. Spoon-feeding.  ss’s mindset is that there’ll be feeding and no need to go beyond the syllabus. This creates a dependent generation which hampers them in the future and in the workplace. The school environment is very different from the real world.
5) exam-oriented. Future is dependent on exams. Exam-smart vs knowledge. Social skills??? Interaction with society?

Opp Speaker 3:

1) Enunciation is not very clear.
2) Rebuttal: elitist mindset? In the students of branded schools so they’ll not be prepared in the future. ‘lousy’ mindset?? Exp???
3) Confident. But need more eye contact.

Prop Speaker 3:
1) Rebuttal: points out the weakness how they keep harping on elitism. Pri syllabus  idea not clearly brought out.
2) They become mature.
3) Prepare their mental abilities.
4) Pronunciation & enunciation is somewhat of a struggle.
5) Learn in educational institutions like Polytechnic.
6) Wide range of opp to develop strength.
7) Life and soft skills brought out.
8) But did not tackle the idea of exam-oriented education system.
9) Concrete and specific examples.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Dear 06/10

I did not put down the names, but you can identify the comment relevant to your presentation by looking at the motion and the speaker.

Please use this constructive comments for future improvements!

OUR AIM: BE BRILLIANT.

Debate 3: This house believes that education turns students into robots.

Prop: Speaker 1

Definition; Makes them less creative and less outstanding. Robot = mechanical, unemotional. Definition overly elaborate in a way that is not linked to the question.
Point: Tell the students how to do but not why.
No eye contact. Natural reading pace and clear pronunciation. Loud and clear.

Opp: Speaker 1

Case division. 
Not targeted their definition.
Point: Prepare students for adulthood  linked to robots??? Students have a choice not to become robots? Not linked.
Not look prepared/ confident. Not loud.
Not able to think on feet and answer the question.

Prop: Speaker 2

Point: getting into university??? Competition  not linked to robots.
Same answers rather than their own. Memorized. Activities are controlled.
No eye contact. Reading. Pronunciation is ok but inflections not very natural/ expression?

Opp: Speaker 2

Point: Rebuttal  picks out the lack of link between working hard and becoming robots.
Education as a stimulation of their minds.
What is tested requires application. Need to think to answer the question, not just regurgitation.
Confident. Hand in pocket. Interact with audience.

Prop: Speaker 3

Point: Rebuttal  Develop their characters? Is this relevant? Activities for portfolio. Not linked.
Clear. Confident.

Opp: Speaker 3

Point: Rebuttal  the why of theories is not important. The application of the theories is what is relevant.
Confident. Interacts with audience.

Opp: Speaker 4

Point: Education  teaching style. Students decide their subject combination in school. Have freedom to engage in leisure activities in school, e.g. sports. Arts & Sports nurture talents  linked to robots??? GP & PW less robotic, so it’s not just memorization (link has to be consistently made). Independent learning, not robotic.
Confident. Clear. Loud. Interacts with audience. Answers the question adequately.

Prop: Speaker 4

Point: Tone. Must understand the WHY to APPLY??? 1 clarification. Less creativity?
Lacks confidence. Fidgeting. Restless.

DEBATE 1: Youth is never cherished.

Prop Speaker 1

CONTENT: Definition. Setting out the line of argument. Find purpose in life. Just preparing for the future. 6/10
STYLE: Ending with ‘Ah’, ‘lah’, ‘everything’. Eye contact. Need to be louder and clearer. Interacts with the audience. 6/10
Ans Qn: To Grow, to Learn. Trying to reinforce her definition of cherishing youth.

Opp Speaker 1

CONTENT: Case division. Definition from Wikipedia??? Fun in youthful years. Building friendships.
STYLE: Reading. A little eye contact. Clear though lacks energy and expression. 5/10

Prop Speaker 2

CONTENT: Spending time on the Internet. Short. Not very clear ideas. Advice? Compared to other times of their lives? How is this relevant? 2/10
STYLE: Inflections not natural. Accented. Soft. Not clear. Not prepared? Facial exp. 2/10
Ans Q: Not able to respond.

Opp Speaker 2

CONTENT: Need to clearly bring out point. 3/10
STYLE: Lacks confidence. Not very loud/ clear. Need eye contact. 4/10

Prop Speaker 3

CONTENT: Rebuttal—how does making friends  cherishing youth? Lacks rebuttals.
STYLE: Not very confident, Loud or Clear.

Opp Speaker 3

CONTENT: Rebuttal  bring out the lack of explanation of the other team. Add colour to our lives  cherish. Learn to make important decisions. 3/10
STYLE: Not loud or clear or confident.

Opp Speaker 4

CONTENT: Lacks rebuttals. Summary.
STYLE: Unconvincing.

Prop Speaker 4

CONTENT: Rebuttal. E.g. to rebut
STYLE: Weak pronunciation. Diff to understand.

Debate 2: Youth is wasted in preparation for adulthood.

Prop Speaker 1
STYLE: Pronunciation is entirely clear due to accent. Needs to be more energetic.
CONTENT: Case division. Definition is not clear  time vs person? Toughest education system in the world?? Cannot enjoy their lives. Cannot learn new skills that are more useful than what they are studying??? Don’t care about learning process. Just memorization. So wasted youth. Not prepared either.
Ans Qn: able to respond.

Opp Speaker 1

STYLE: Clear. But lacks interaction with audience.
CONTENT: Case Division. Lacks Responsibilities to take care of. So use this time to prepare for the future, for the future responsibilities/ skills needed of adulthood.
Youth have the energy and vigour to pursue interests.

Prop Speaker 2

CONTENT: Too much time = ¼ of life preparing for adulthood. Inflection is not very clear. Skills wasted as many of these skills as it’s fast changing world. Predicting opp’s arg. Not answering the question.
STYLE: Exp  Clear. Interaction. Confident. Loud.

Opp Speaker 2

CONTENT: Rebuttal = youth have time to pursue interests e.g. during CCA. Preparing for their future is important  how is this linked to question?
STYLE: Reading. Need more eye contact.

Prop Speaker 3

CONTENT: Not using time to do what they want and enjoying themselves. No rebuttal.
STYLE: No interaction. Soft. Without energy.

Opp Speaker 3

CONTENT: Using time productively for the future. Lacks rebuttal.
STYLE: Not clear/ loud/ confident.

Opp Speaker 4

CONTENT: skills that are impt. Robotic studying??? Time is used NOT wasted. Clear line of argument.
STYLE: Able to rebut. Able to think on feet.

Prop Speaker 4

CONTENT: Line of argument of team: Skills learned are unnecessary. Rebuttal is unclear.
STYLE: uh uh. Needs more energy and be louder. Needs confidence.

• 
• 
• 
• 
•