Speech and Debate Discussion

 

 

For this discussion I want you to watch the following debate (????????) and then tell us what you think. Be critical in that tell us what they could do better or what was great. Initial post due Wednesday at 11:59pm

In your responses to two people talk about what you agree with or what you do not. The replies are due Tuesday 16th at 11:59

These post should be a detailed paragraph and not something short that does not really show interactions with your fellow students.

1.From the start of the debate, Justin Williams presented himself very well by articulating who he was and what he was representing. He begins the argument by stating why we should be voting no on Proposition 22, but immediately goes into a quote his opponent stated. The quote was “people can be cut”. He provides the evidence as to how that quote is just speculation from Uber’s website itself, therefor his opponent’s argument should be treated as it is and not a fact. This was a good point because it had backing, however I still do not understand why we should be voting no. To better understand Justin’s argument, I feel as though he should’ve stated a fact about why voting no on Prop 22 is a good thing before moving onto his opponent’s fallacies. He could also explain what the proposition entails as well so that the audience such as myself can understand what it means. Justin could’ve been debating in real time, so I understand if I may be wrong for suggesting these fixes.

His transition into the next argument was hard to hear, but I’m not sure if it was because of the recording or if he skipped a word. Either way, he was definitely moving on really fast. The next argument was about the equality of those who received coverage for working more than 15 hours and those that didn’t. Justin explains that this is the reason why we are having this debate because those that didn’t work more than 15 hours would not receive the benefit. He then goes onto explain Prop 22 and what it is about. This segment would’ve been more effective right after his introduction because it explains what Prop 22 is and it better supports why he is going against it.

The rest of the segment goes on well enough. I understand what Prop 22 is and there are enough evidence as to why we should be voting no. Ride sharing apps want to make more money by keeping their employees at a disadvantage in pay and benefits.

Overall, in my personal opinion, I think the argument was okay. There were definitely a lot of good points being made. The issue I have is that the segments felt disorganized. To fix this, I will list bullet points explaining what I feel would best help the argument.

• Intro
• What prop 22 is
• Why its bad and why we should vote no
• What his opponent quotes and why they’re wrong
• Conclusion

The other issue I have is that Justin was talking really fast. It was hard to absorb all of the information that was being said that I had to rewind the recording a few times to make sure I got everything. To fix this, I would have Justin talk just a little bit slower and have him say his lines with a little more, I don’t know, punch? Have him say his lines with time in between for the audience to understand his point I suppose. However, I could be wrong in suggesting these fixes because Justin was probably in the middle of a debate. I understand that time is of the essence, but having your audience understand your argument in an organized fashion is definitely more effective than getting to the point as quickly as possible.

2. I think both sides did a fantastic job, great work Gowtham and Justin. You had me switching back and forth, you both were well spoken and provided well thought out evidence. It takes a lot of skill to stay focused and make a clear and concise argument without getting lost in your facts and figures, the highest respect to you both.

However, at times I found their arguments repetitive and relying too heavily on appeals to their audiences emotions rather than presenting hard evidence. Likewise they would become entangled with their opponents previous points instead of reinforcing their own side. I understood where Justin was coming from when he defined Uber as being a Corporation with working employees that deserved to be treated as such. However he became hung up on the fine print when Gowtham rebutted that the great majority of Uber drivers reaped from these benefits, due to their full time status. I agree that these benefits should be available to the employees that are in need of them, which according to Gowtham they are with the contingency they work 15 or more hours. Which is part time and isn’t difficult to achieve. Making these benefits to all employees despite their working hours would be unfair to the drivers working full time.

Although Justin does provide a good point, when it comes to filing taxes employees are at a huge disadvantage as they are forced to file as self employed when making over $400 which again is easy to accomplish, when in actuality they should be able to file as an independent contractor. I don’t believe Gowtham made any attempt to argue against this point, rather reinforced his own points. This fact alone sways me heavily towards the negative, due to all the employees getting taken advantage of on their returns.