Reflection to debate

Argument length: 2:45

without looking at the paper I got for feedback:

Pros: I think I had good research and mention of good sources (names). I also believe that I did a Pretty good job countering.

Cons: Transitions were rough, I was solely Logos. I said "ummm." Definitely not one of my best. I didn't get into it like I usually do.

What my feedback from other people said:

Pros: Good points, good engagement with target audience, good eye contact, good citation of research, good use of B.F. Skinner and Watson's work.

Cons: Argument seemed fragmented. Where is this research from? I need to work on transitions.


I thought it was rough and I didn't try my best to put my heart into like I normally would have. I think this is because I didn't have a audience to stand up in front of. I wasn't here the week it was supposed to be preformed in front of the class, so I only had to deal with the pressure of Mr. Craze and Lindi watching me, which was a lot easier. This was an alright debate (because of the effort) but actually (for once) fun to research. I enjoyed this topic and found in interesting. Finding things from both sides helped me counter Lindi's argument. I would just like to throw in that I thought that Lindi did a great job with her debate especially because she was emotionally connected to one side. The problem is, it wasn't the side she believed in. She believed in the side I was fighting for. And it is impossible to win an argument if you don't believe in it.