That where English is not the national language, we should prefer debating in English to another language

Judge: Bugsy460    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cultured

Judge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cultured
Reasoning:
PRO makes the sole point that debating in English should be preferred in a non-english speaking country such as Hungary - because it will force the debaters to expand their vocabulary, and improve their English.
There's a subtle second point where PRO states that English should be preferred for ALL debates because it's a more global language and it will make debates, especially important ones, more accessible.

CON's case is that forcing people to argue in a language which is not they are not fluent leads to miscommunication. CON also brings up that this miscommunication may not be restricted to the debaters themselves, but will likely also extend anyone listening to it.

PRO's forfeits the remaining rounds so this point is never countered and must stand. CON wins.


Feedback:
PRO:
Well Ironically, your case actually proves CON's point. Your case was really hard to understand. Or, to be more specific, I understood all the words you used, but there were long periods where what you were saying didn't appear to be in line with your case, which made me question whether I was understanding you correctly.
You spent a decent chunk of your case arguing that English should be preferred everywhere - this was not the resolution and actually contradicted your main point. Your main point was that forcing someone to debate in a non-native language was preferred, but if all debates should be conducted in English, then you'd need to explain why it's not preferred that native English speakers shouldn't debate in a different language. Surely if your first point is true, then it should follow that ALL debates should take place in an alternative language so that everyone can improve their language skills?

You had stated that English was not your first language, so it's possible that I'm misreading what you said there, but I read it pretty carefully so I don't think so.

For any debate, it's crucial that you define the resolution. Your opening line conceded that there was a chance that you were misunderstanding the resolution. This makes it REALLY important for you to define YOUR understanding of it in the first round. As PRO, you basically get to set the resolution to whatever you want, so don't worry about misreading it. But you need to be very clear about what it is you're arguing.
Is it that English is preferred for everyone, or that debating in a non-native language is preferred... this wasn't clear.

The other thing that could have helped is for you to use formatting to better space your points out.
See how this point stands out from the one I just made?
That's because I left a nice blank line between the points. It lets the reader know that one point is finished and this is a new one. It also allows me to emphasis certain points, because most people pay more attention to the first line of any paragraph. More paragraphs, more first lines, more points to force the reader to pay attention to.

Finally, don't forfeit. This is a debate - it's partly about who makes the best points, but it's also about who can rebut the opponent's points. You allowed CON to rebut yours, but you didn't rebut theirs. That's weak.

CON - nothing much to feedback here. You did a text book job. I especially like the way you defined the issue, (people may not be fluent) and then explained WHY that was important. (risk of miscommunication)

If I could find one very small criticism to make, it would be that you could have made that point in less than half the space. There's a certain impact that a short but concise argument has. It's not often a case is so simple that you can get away with it, but this one was.
Think of it this way, the more words you use, the more words there are for a good opponent to use against you. There are a lot of times where you NEED to use a lot of words - this wasn't one of them.

Nice job!

---

1 user rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: JackSprat
Win awarded to: cultured
Reasoning:
Pro: English is a universal and as such should be the de facto language for debate. This increases global access to the discussion, and forcing learning and improvement of the language.

Con: Forcing English in non-native English speaking areas reduces comprehension of the debate and may reduce participation. While English is a good language to learn, you alienate parts of the population.

The problem with Pro's argument is that they did not say why a local debate in a local Hungarian school actually required global access. Con Does not directly address this point but dances a little around it bringing up some persuasive comments about the linguistic ability, access of the local population, etc.

In all Con made a better argument for access. Win to Con.

Feedback:
Pro: Structure is important. Please make sure you break your arguments down into small chunks. Have a good thesis of what you are going to say, provide support for it, and then conclude. You should avoid run-on sentences.

Remember debates have multiple rounds. It is important to provide some followup for each round. Con had the advantage to respond to you.

Con, Reasonable layout and structure. Try to avoid personal references in a debate.

BOTH: There was no sources. Perhaps a reference to an international debate done in another language that is prestigious?

---

1 user rated this judgement as constructive

Judge: dpowell3543    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: cultured
Reasoning:
Pro completely forfeited after the first round.

---

Judge: ccullen123
Win awarded to: lysithea
Reasoning:
Pros point came across more effectively.

---