This week is the second time our group take part in group debates as a observe team. After the first week’s observation, we know quite well about from what kind of aspects we should look at and what things we should focus on.
This week, the two debates groups (group 5 and group 7) both did pretty good job. Every member of each team tried their best to achieve the criteria for debating. After our group discussion, we think that the negative team won this debate. Because first of all, about the credibility; both teams did reach this standard. The third member of affirmative team had quite strong confidence and good body language, however, almost all the members of negative the team had good credibility too, especially the first and last team members, as one of them was beginning, the other was the end. Good credibility made their arguments more convincing.
Secondly, using the evidence, both teams tried to use some evidences to support the arguments. But we think negative team’s examples were better, because their examples were more relevant and use statistics, eg, survey in London, pussy cat dolls, quote the framework and quote the case in Sweden.
Thirdly, reasoning. We like the way that negative team giving their reasons for supporting the argument ‘marketing to children should not be banned’. The first member gave the background and stated their teams point that marketing to children should not just be banned, and then next member stated that the ads for marketing should not be banned just because it is not good for…