The debate was initially a bit flat at the beginning due to the unfamiliarities for the debating procedure and style, despite of the rubric. However, as more and more questions were raised on each individual’s method in explaining their arguments, their arguments became clearer. The strongest emphasis on the weakness of the debtors were the lack of reason-evidence-analysis method, in which most skipped evidence and was unable to provide an in-depth explanation. For the opposition side, it was understandable for them to be caught unexpected of debating due to the absence of 2 of the debaters. As a judge, I was able to see what the strengths and weaknesses were. However, there were occasional confusions over whether I should or should not be reminding the debtors that they can not bring up new arguments and not take heed of it.
I believed that I have to be less lenient at some time and that when questioning both sides I should prepare in advance and at a faster speed. Sometimes when taking notes of the debate I am not able to create a question as fast. My strengths were that i was able to take several detailed notes, so it was easier for me to refer back to my notes when questioning and determining the winning side. However, one of the weaknesses I had in debate was that I was finding it hard to determine the winning side because of weightings in the evidence, speaking, and critical thinking skills. I would like to improve on developing faster note and not just asking questioning that were concerning on clarifying or providing evidence to the statement. Taking faster notes can give me more time to develop questions and I can create abbreviations to shorten the time I need to write. The proposition side was a better debater despite the initial lack of evidence at the beginning. In the end, the concluding side provided a better evidence with the mention of the beef but would’ve done better if the didn’t bring up a new argument and placed it at the beginning of their speeches.
The opposition side had a strong 2nd rebuttal and the conclusion, but in the 2nd rebuttal it was mainly adding on to the 1st speaker so not many persuasive arguments were made. I believe for the opposition side, they provided a better argument when using the argument on trying to reduce monopolies amongst copyrights and especially for medical uses. However, it would be better to provide evidence for that. The proposition had a good argument on trying to explain how the evidence of beef and support their final conclusion and rebuttal, However, when explaining and analysing using the evidence of imported and exported beef, the speaker added more arguments in their which had to be disregarded seeing as it is a new argument for the side.
The weakest argument for the proposition side was the argument on exploitations in foreign country once they’ve signed the TPP because it was only stated and wasn’t given enough examples or evidences to analyse. The opposition side’s weakest argument was the copyright infringements because the TPP itself has excluded China amongst its signatures but when asked upon it the speaker wasn’t able to explain. I think Taiwan should hold the interest in joining the TPP because of the exclusion of China amongst the trading agreement. Despite the fact that some have state the United States may hold the capability to monopolise the entire Asian market, Taiwan holds on the of the top reserves in the world so Taiwan would not be severely jeopardised by the United States’s plan to monopolise the markets in the TPP. With China’s exclusion from the TPP can allow Taiwan to be able to advance more in the markets with bigger countries and allowing it to progress more and more. China’s monopoly in Asia has not allowed Taiwan to rise our of China’s shadow and not being constricted in any way, which is why Taiwan should join the TPP.
I believed that I have to be less lenient at some time and that when questioning both sides I should prepare in advance and at a faster speed. Sometimes when taking notes of the debate I am not able to create a question as fast. My strengths were that i was able to take several detailed notes, so it was easier for me to refer back to my notes when questioning and determining the winning side. However, one of the weaknesses I had in debate was that I was finding it hard to determine the winning side because of weightings in the evidence, speaking, and critical thinking skills. I would like to improve on developing faster note and not just asking questioning that were concerning on clarifying or providing evidence to the statement. Taking faster notes can give me more time to develop questions and I can create abbreviations to shorten the time I need to write. The proposition side was a better debater despite the initial lack of evidence at the beginning. In the end, the concluding side provided a better evidence with the mention of the beef but would’ve done better if the didn’t bring up a new argument and placed it at the beginning of their speeches.
The opposition side had a strong 2nd rebuttal and the conclusion, but in the 2nd rebuttal it was mainly adding on to the 1st speaker so not many persuasive arguments were made. I believe for the opposition side, they provided a better argument when using the argument on trying to reduce monopolies amongst copyrights and especially for medical uses. However, it would be better to provide evidence for that. The proposition had a good argument on trying to explain how the evidence of beef and support their final conclusion and rebuttal, However, when explaining and analysing using the evidence of imported and exported beef, the speaker added more arguments in their which had to be disregarded seeing as it is a new argument for the side.
The weakest argument for the proposition side was the argument on exploitations in foreign country once they’ve signed the TPP because it was only stated and wasn’t given enough examples or evidences to analyse. The opposition side’s weakest argument was the copyright infringements because the TPP itself has excluded China amongst its signatures but when asked upon it the speaker wasn’t able to explain. I think Taiwan should hold the interest in joining the TPP because of the exclusion of China amongst the trading agreement. Despite the fact that some have state the United States may hold the capability to monopolise the entire Asian market, Taiwan holds on the of the top reserves in the world so Taiwan would not be severely jeopardised by the United States’s plan to monopolise the markets in the TPP. With China’s exclusion from the TPP can allow Taiwan to be able to advance more in the markets with bigger countries and allowing it to progress more and more. China’s monopoly in Asia has not allowed Taiwan to rise our of China’s shadow and not being constricted in any way, which is why Taiwan should join the TPP.