Friday, January 20, 2006

Final portfolio

DUE DATE: January 27th in my mailbox (香柏館1階)

1. Cover sheet
Please make an A4 cover sheet. In the middle of the sheet, centered, type the following information:

Your name
Your class name
Your teacher’s name
The title of the assignment
The date the assignment is due

2. Speeches
You made two individual speeches at the beginning of the semester
 Please choose ONE speech.
 Rewrite it, making any changes you wish.
 MINIMUM length is 300 words.
 Please write a short REFLECTION of about 25 to 50 words.

3. Debates
We had four debates in this class.
 Please choose TWO speeches you made as a member of a debate team.
 Write them as closely as you can remember to what you actually said.
Then, please write a short REFLECTION of about 75 to 100 words. Think about the following questions:
 Which speech was more effective? Why?
 How could you improve on your speech writing?
 How could you improve on your speech delivery?
 What are the benefits of debate in English?

Results of the Final Debate

I would like to give a brief outline of my notes for this debate:

Affirmative Team:

72 points

Best refutations, though slightly out of order
Best rebuttal, though a little short

Highly organized, excellent points, needs more gestures

Negative Team:

62 points

Best opening speech.
Good use of eye contact overall.

Used too much Japanese.
Disorganized refuations and rebuttal, bad speech posture.

The Affirmative Team wins this debate.

HOWEVER, both teams could benefit from:
-More gestures
-More quotes from experts
-Accurately define where statistics come from
-Most of all, practice speaking at home! This will eliminate nervousness and hesitation when speaking.

Thank you for all your hard work this semester!

M.Apple

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Fwd: =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCN29MPiRKJDcbKEI=?=

Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. Today, we are debating the resolution “Japanese university students should not drink alchohole.” We, on the negative team, strongly oppose this resolution. First, I will refute the affirmative reasons, and then I will give the negative points; study, toxicy, obligation.

Affirmative’s first point is 18 years old people have some period of life, so it is good for people who go university should be allowed to drink. It is true that there are mature university students and who are more adult than other adult. However, they are still immature in mental parts. Also when they drink with bunch of other university students and since they become very high, they have no limit in drinking. The start of tossing down causes severe amount of alcohol.

Income for liquor taxes is not good reason for drinking in the students of university. It is because liquor taxes will be gain in a big amount, but the more liquor taxes increases, the more and more medial expenses increase. Alcohol cause many sicknesses, like alcoholic. It is hard to treat and the government needs more budget for medicine. It is bigger than the income for liquor taxes.

Their last point is feeling isolated by drinking for him or herself. As I said for first point, when drinking with other people who are same age, they cannot limit their drinking amount. As a result, they could easily become addicted to alcohol. Also this idea accelerates the concept of drinking together for fun only. It is okay for your age because your age is near mine. I can legally drink and you are younger only three months, so you can drink freely. If this role is accepted, like affirmative team says, this is the idea elementally school’s pupil can drink together.

First of all, our university students’ work is to study. Drinking make us feel high and lose our control. Sometimes we lose our memories and don’t know what we did. University students often hold party and they turn pale and throw up, make a lot of noise, put off their clothes by drinking. It is clearly not good situation for students and that kinds of behavior bothered other people. After they drink, they suffer from hang over. It makes students difficult to go to school and learn in a good way, so they had better avoid alcoholic beverages.

Second point is its toxicy. From the medical aspect, our body will mature completely about 20. Drinking in the young age causes heart attack, cerebral atrophy, disorder of sex hormone, of brain cells easily than not. Also under age, aldehyde degradation function level is very low. Please look at this graph. 10% of Japanese people don’t have the aldehyde-degrading enzyme, 45% of Japanese people could drink little. People who don’t have aldehyde-degrading enzyme drink alcohol, aldehyde accumulating in their body and turn to be red or feel bad. That people drink more and go on, they will be a high-risk digestive cancer carrier. Lethal dose of alcohol is only 3 times bigger than effective dose. This range is very narrow compared by other drugs.

Last point is obligation. In Japan, 20-year-old people regard as an adult and given the light in law. I already say that alcohol make us high and lose our control. That situation have the possibility for causing case like destroying something, Under 20 person can’ t have the responsibility for his or her behavior. That kind of case, they can’t say “I don’t remember. ”or ”I don’t intend that” University students in Japan include under 20 people. So, drinking must be banned till graduation.
Thank you for listening.

reflection: I could add more information for this. I could gather our ideas more simply. I could see more audience...

Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. Today, we are debating the resolution “Japanese university students should not drink alchohole.” We, on the negative team, strongly oppose this resolution. First, I will refute the affirmative reasons, and then I will give the negative points; study, toxicy, obligation.

Affirmative’s first point is -----. It is -----and this is not -----. So, we think it -------.
Your second point is -------.

First of all, our university students’ work is to study. Drinking make us feel high and lose our control. Sometimes we lose our memories and don’t know what we did. University students often hold party and they turn pale and throw up, make a lot of noise, put off their clothes by drinking. It is clearly not good situation for students and that kinds of behavior bothered other people. After they drink, they suffer from hang over. It makes students difficult to go to school and learn in a good way, so they had better avoid alcoholic beverages.

Second point is its toxicy. From the medical aspect, our body will mature completely about 20. Drinking in the young age causes heart attack, cerebral atrophy, disorder of sex hormone, of brain cells easily than not. Also under age, aldehyde degradation function level is very low. Please look at this graph. 10% of Japanese people don’t have the aldehyde-degrading enzyme, 45% of Japanese people could drink little. People who don’t have aldehyde-degrading enzyme drink alcohol, aldehyde accumulating in their body and turn to be red or feel bad. That people drink more and go on, they will be a high-risk digestive cancer carrier. Lethal dose of alcohol is only 3 times bigger than effective dose. This range is very narrow compared by other drugs.

Last point is obligation. In Japan, 20-year-old people regard as an adult and given the light in law. I already say that alcohol make us high and lose our control. That situation have the possibility for causing case like destroying something, Under 20 person can’ t have the responsibility for his or her behavior. That kind of case, they can’t say “I don’t remember. ”or ”I don’t intend that” University students in Japan include under 20 people. So, drinking must be banned till graduation.

Thank you for listening.

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Euthanasia is not an easy topic.

Some classes ago we had a debate about euthanasia. But I think something was wrong in that debate. I slightly noticed before the debate that we were not ready for the debate. Why?

We don't know what euthanasia is.

Euthanasia is not a black and white topic. Talking about medical ethics is not as easy as about a 6-days-a-week or the-tral-by-jury-system topic. I believe the debate without understanding euthanasia has a crucial problem.

At the beginning of my reserch, the further I study euthanasia, the more confused I became. We should have defined exactly the definition of euthanasia (even it is temporary). In Japan (and perhaps also in other countries) the definition of euthanasia is vague.

In the debate, we made some contradictory statements to each other. For example:

"The only country where euthanasia is legalised is Netherland." and "Euthanasia is legalised in some countries including Japan and many states in America."

"Euthanasia is often a part of medical practice." and "Euthanasia is banned and is actually never performed in hospitals."

"Patient's living will isn't necessary in euthanasia." or "Family can decide to perform euthanasia without patient's living will."

and so on, and so on...

What we should have clearfied was what was legal and what was not (And confusingly it differs from country to country!). For example, the unique point of Netherland is doctors can give a lethal injection ("active euthanasia"). In any country except Netherland it is banned. Or, in Japan sometimes euthanasia is practiced without patient's will (kind of "mercy killing"). In addition, some treatments which indirectly accelerate death ("passive euthanasia") are undergone in hospitals every day, even though doctors know it for the purpose of reducing pain.

You may notice euthanasia is very vague.

In my opinion, considering complicated various aspects of euthanasia, we should have had a debate about more precise topics, such as "Is mercy killing without the patient's acceptable?", "Do we need to sign the document to perform euthanasia?", "Is it worth to live being vegitable?", or "Is mercy killing culturally acceptable in Japan?".

I don't think we have to worry about the same kind of problems in the next topic. :)

link:
countdown to the truth : what we shouldn't forget about euthanasia
(This is my further comments about euthanasia in Japanese.)

Friday, December 16, 2005

3rd debate: "euthanasia", 1st negative rebuttal

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

To summarise what they have said, to be a patient costs a lot, they are in pain and they have rights to stop it, and finally family cannot endure that thier patient is suffering from pain, which means they want to legalise Tokaido euthanasia case.

We would like the affirmative team to answer our questions.
No 1: Is death the only way to end the pain?
No 2: If the family cannot afford medical expenses, can they perform euthanasia for their money?
No 3: Can family decide to perform euthanasia without their patient's will, just because the patient looks in pain?


If we may answer these questions, ladies and gentlemen,

The first question is, 'Is death the only way to end the pain?' No. These days the number of pain clinics and hospices are increasing, and they put the first priority to reduce pain. Patients can feel better there, so euthanasia is not necessary.

The second question is, 'If the family cannot afford medical expenses, can they perform euthanasia for their money?' No. Medical insurance is not perfect. If euthanasia is performed because of financial matters, a person's life depends on economical power. It would be unfair, and should not happen. We shouldn't die because of money.

The third question is, 'Can family decide to perform euthanasia without their patient's will, just because the patient looks in pain?' No. The fundamental requirement for euthanasia is patient's will. And in that case(*1), euthanasia is highly artificial, because doctors accelerate the death. It sounds like a murder to kill on purpose.

In conclusion, as for the resolution, "euthanasia should be legalised in Japan", euthanasia is not suitalbe medically, ethically, or culturally, because there are other way to end pain these days. In addition, euthanasia for money is absolutely immoral. Furthermore, euthanasia without patient's will could be a murder.

Therefore, unless they can properly beat our points, the affirmative team deserves losing!

Thank you very much for losin...listening.(*2)

*1 I should have said, "Otherwise,..." instead of "And in that case")
*2 Believe me, I didnt't say it on purpose, really!


****

After 4 debates, in my opinion, I found somehow a nice way to manage debates in class.

The person who make 1st affirmative constructive speech just need to prepare before the debate. (The easiest person!)

The other people have to
1: prepare before the debate just like the first person who make 1st affirmative constructive speech.
2: brainstorm as many aspects as possible.
3: creat a template of what you always have to say (the introduction, the conclusion...).
4: write down as many paragraphs as possibe to prepare for whatever the other team say.


If you do "4:", you don't have to be paniced during debates making sentenses in a short time. You just choose which one you're going to use (sometimes you may need to change it a little bit). Only when the other team talk about what you haven't prepared, you need to make sentenses during the debate.

Otherwise...
I am paniced during debates, and don't know what to talk about and cannot write down a memo in a short time (and it is in English!).


It's just my suggestion.

Saturday, December 03, 2005

The

Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. We have been debating the resolution, “Japanese elementary school should have 6days a week. We have clearly shown that this is not true. Let’s look at the major point of this debate.
Their only important points have been that there will be a gap between some students who go to cram school and other students who don’t. They lose their point about this because they never gave any strong reason or supports.
Our first reason is giving time to spend free for children. We said that spending free time with their friends is much more important than studying on paper in school. This is because spending time with friends gradually create the students’ personality. It will become their precious long lasting-treasure.
The most important point in this debate is children’s feeling. Needing study harder is just parents’ opinion. Most children want to have more time for favorite thing. So that, we have won!!

Thursday, December 01, 2005

First draft 12/2 Debate 2

Good afternoon, ladies and gentleman. Today, we are debating the resolution “six-days a week system for elementary school.” We, on the negative team, strongly oppose this resolution. First, I will refute the affirmative reasons, and then I will give the negative points.

...

I have refuted the affirmative team’s points. Now I will give the negative team’s points. We have 3 points. Firstly, “six-days a week system for elementary school” can’t give time to spend free for children. Secondly, the system causes the cramming system of education. Finally, the system makes it hard for children to have time with their families.

Our first reason is give time to spend free for children. If they have a free time for weekend, they can spend time for favorite thing. And it can increase their personality. Besides if they have 2 days or more for weekend, the school makes extracurricular classes and it can involve volunteer work or the experience of nature.

Second, this system causes cramming system of education. It makes dropouts, because there are many kinds of students. Sometimes there are slow learners or remedial students. So if they wish to catch up to other students, they can use the weekend to study. Therefore there shouldn’t be the cram of six-days a week for elementary school student.

The final reason is that it is hard to have time to spend with your family. In our society, dual-income families are increasing. So hardly any parents can spend much time with their children. Neither children nor parents have time, so it is difficult to spend time together. But if either of them have time, it might match each other’s plan. It is important to spend time with the family to educate children.

For these reasons, we beg to oppose.

Thursday, November 17, 2005

First Negative Constructive speech

Their first reason was democratic. By jury system we can give death many people who has guilty. This system is finally official murder.
Their second reason was good for education. But less strenuous education show poor results and government decide to teach most contents back to junior high school and elementary school. Teaching law will postpone clerly.
Their third reason was efficiency. Competent people study hard and will become lawyer or judge.We don't know the technical term and judge must explain the meaning to jury. So, it is not efficient but more time will be needed.
I have refuted the affirmative's points. Now I will give the negative's points. We have four points.
First, most citizen don’t have the specialized knowledge about law.Some people may major in law or manage to legal fields but they know little about technical terms. Therefore judge must assist them for explaining words whenever a lawyer or a prosecutor uses the legal terms. Also they don’t understand the law completely, so judge suggests them what point is against the law or which article is applied for the case.
Second, now Japanese trial needs a long time to judge. Selected people maybe have jobs. Especially an independent company’s owner will have troubled by attending the trial. Adding this, judge will have to explain the term or law contents and this work will take more time to judge.
Third, some people feel sympathy for the suspects. If a suspect had an unhappy childhood or such like situations, many people feel sad. Then, most lawyers would try to attract sympathy. People must judge objectively, but they are just citizen. They are not used to judge or hearing such story, so they can’t judge objectively.
Last, Japanese are poor at discussing. When 11 people have different opinions, 1 person can’t insist his or her own opinion. This is because Japanese was taught that `If you can’t beat them, join them.` since they were children. This is Japanese culture. Japanese hate to claim `This is my opinion!`.In conclusion, we, of the negative team think the jury system is not fit for Japanese.
Therefore our resolution is that Japan should not implement in trial by jury system.


Thank you for your listening.

Their first reason was democratic. By jury system we can give death many people who has guilty. This system is finally official murder.
Their second reason was good for education. But less strenuous education show poor results and government decide to teach most contents back to junior high school and elementary school. Teaching law will postpone clerly.
Their third reason was efficiency. Competent people study hard and will become lawyer or judge.We don't know the technical term and judge must explain the meaning to jury. So, it is not efficient but more time will be needed.
I have refuted the affirmative's points. Now I will give the negative's points. We have four points.