blog #9

On both debates my team had good points, and the points that each of us created a good argument with the other team. The first debate was our first one debating against something that wasn't a big conflict towards most the people in the United States, but it was still an argument for the young teens about violence in video games. In that argument we had good points, but we did make a valid point to what we wanted to argue exactly because our points had good information, but not really experiencing the fact of video games (me) it was kind of hard to argue about. The second debate, I also had the same situation, I did not have any experience with the topic, but my partner did coming from a 18 age limit drinking age. During that debate we did better because of the advice that was given after the first debate. We had stories and more valid point that we could relate to the real world today.

In the first debate I was nervous because I didn't really know what I was exactly talking about because I have never played violent video games and I didn't know what they were all about, but I was all for that violence in video games need to stop because of what happened in the world today, so I was able to argue a little bit, but I didn't have valid points that proved our point. During the second debate, I was much confident even though I was on the side of keeping the drinking age at 21. I was more confident because I knew what to do, what to look up, how to argue against them, and more.

The other team was majority over us because they had three people and we had two. During each debate they had valid points that we were able to argue against, which was good. And also there closing and beginning statement were very detailed in life today and also facts that were valid enough so we could relate back to them.

In my opinion each debate was even, but the first one the other group won it and the second one we won it. The first group won it because they acted more confident in what they were saying, and had valid points that were hard to argue back to because it's either you didn't find anything that was against it, or you couldn't because you knew that it was true. In the second argument, we won it because we had valid points, and when we made them it was hard for them to argue back. And we could relate more to the drinking age being set at 18 years old.