Debate Speech — “Watching TV Makes Us Smarter”
Question prompt — Q6, Learning English through Debating
As captain of the debate team you have been asked to write a debate speech. The task is to argue that ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’.
In your speech you should include three reasons to support the statement.
Write your speech. (~400 words)
Show original handwritten pages (3)
The writing, with corrections marked inline
Legend:
red strikethrough = removed |
green highlight = added or replaced |
yellow highlight = handwriting unclear or wording reconstructed
Booklet p.9 (lines 1–23)
1Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is my pleasure
2to be here today to justify today’s notion motion — “Watching TV Makes
3Us Smarter”. On behalf of the affirmative side, I would
4like to explain why watching television programmes will improve
5our intelligence. My justifications arguments are as the follows.
6To commence with, television provides cultural exposures exposure
7to individuals that they fail to explore experience in the reality. I guess
8all of you here have watched the recent well-received TV
9show “The Travel Guide to Korea North Korea”. It goes went viral in
10the city and receives received hundreds of positive feedbacks reviews. What is
11the reason behind it? Are there any famous celebrities or strong
12casts in the show? No. It’s just simpily simply because of that
13North Korea is unreachable for most people. Apparently, the
14show caters to their needs and introduces them to the world of
15North Korea. Most of us enjoy travelling as because we can experience
16other’s others’ cultures, traditions or trying try exotic food. However,
17are we able to visit every place in the world? Hardly could us we
18reach some cultures in the counter far-flung parts of the world. Television
19shows ^can act as a means to expose us to a variety of cultures in
20different places, ranging from common places like Taiwan to
21isolated places like North Korea. Through watching cultural
22programmes, we can boarden broaden our horizon horizons and keeps keep our
23mind open to different cultures. It is crystal clear that
Booklet p.10 (lines 24–46)
24watching televisions makes us smarter through learning
25about cultures all around the world.
26Apart from widening our horizon horizons, watching television
27can keep us on track with things happening all around the
28world and equip us as a global citizens. I bet most
29of you here would watch TV news pathologically [habitually]. TV news
30is a critical, crucial, and comprehensive way for us to
31understand what is happening in the world. In such a
32globalised world, we must be community-minded and be
33sensitive to global issues like terrorism, global warming
34and civil wars. These issues are global concerns, that
35every single individual should not turn a blind eye to them.
36Citing the recent United Nations Climate Conference as an
37example, the conference has was widely reported in various
38television shows. It illustrates that television can channel
39global issues or grave concerns in the world to every single
40individual; without them it, we could never be aware of how
41severe the situation is. It is essential for us to keep
42our minds updated with the current world situation, ; it
43plays a vital role on in our wisdom. Needless to say, watching
44television refreshes our knowledge about world problems
45and contributes to a smart mind.
46Our honourable opponents may claim that, watching
Booklet p.11 (lines 47–69)
47TV shows may provide us with fake information or false
48values, which are detrimental to an intelligent mind.
49This claim gets me to brings me to my third point. Although
50false information or values do exist in television programmes,
51are they really deleterios deleterious? Instead of threatening our
52correct thinking, they actually trigger our thoughts and
53reflections. Through reflecting on the contents of television
54shows, we keeps keep our mind in a critical condition. We
55may doubt about the validity of arguments or values
56provided in on television. Isn’t it this developing our critical
57thinking? It is commonly known that we need hard-
58nosed critical thinking skills to prevent us from being
59easily influenced by others. Everyone of us here knows
60that we are nothing but a fools if we don’t have
61a critical mind. Television programmes keep us smart
62as we are more aware of the validity of information or
63arguments. With no doubt, television programmes promote
64critical thinking and make us wise.
65I hope that everyone of you here can grasp the full
66picture about of the benefits and correlations of television
67watching and wisdom. In conclusion, there is no
68doubt that watching television makes us smarter and
69today’s motion must stand. Thank You.
The third-point structure is unusual and worth noting. Most Q6 affirmative speeches follow the textbook pattern three reasons → rebuttal → conclusion. This candidate does something cleverer: the rebuttal IS the third reason. The opponent’s likely counter (TV gives us fake information / false values) is named, then re-framed as evidence for the affirmative case (those false values trigger reflection and develop critical thinking). The opponent’s strongest weapon is turned into a third reason to vote affirmative. The structural move is genuinely sophisticated, but the execution at the sentence level (the deleterios spelling on line 51, the doubt about preposition slip on line 55, the we keeps agreement on line 54) prevents the piece from reaching higher.
The opening lapses motion/notion (line 2). The candidate writes “today’s notion” in the opening — the wrong word, on the most important line of the speech. Motion (the proposition being debated) and notion (an idea or impression) are easily confused; in a debate speech the slip is unmissable. The closing line (line 69) restores motion correctly.
Word count. The speech runs to roughly 600 words against the 400-word brief — about 50% over. The first reason (cultural exposure, lines 6–25) is the longest at ~225 words; the third reason / rebuttal hybrid is the most efficient.
The opening lapses motion/notion (line 2). The candidate writes “today’s notion” in the opening — the wrong word, on the most important line of the speech. Motion (the proposition being debated) and notion (an idea or impression) are easily confused; in a debate speech the slip is unmissable. The closing line (line 69) restores motion correctly.
Word count. The speech runs to roughly 600 words against the 400-word brief — about 50% over. The first reason (cultural exposure, lines 6–25) is the longest at ~225 words; the third reason / rebuttal hybrid is the most efficient.
Strengths to praise
1. Three substantive reasons with named, current examples
Each reason is anchored in a specific TV programme or event: The Travel Guide to North Korea (line 9) for cultural exposure, the United Nations Climate Conference (line 36) for global citizenship, and the implicit fake-news ecosystem for critical thinking. Naming a specific show and a specific recent international event — not a category — is what separates a 5* speech from a 4. Each named instance carries the abstract claim above it.
2. The North Korea Socratic mini-dialogue (lines 10–13)
“What is the reason behind it? Are there any famous celebrities or strong casts in the show? No.” The candidate sets up the audience’s wrong guess and demolishes it, before delivering the right answer (North Korea is unreachable for most people). That is the rhetoric of a real debater — controlled use of the audience’s expectations.
3. The third-point-as-rebuttal structure is genuinely clever (lines 46–64)
Instead of the conventional three reasons + rebuttal, the rebuttal IS the third reason. The opponent’s strongest counter-argument is named in the rebuttal’s usual position, then re-framed as evidence for the candidate’s own case (the false values trigger reflection, which develops critical thinking). A difficult move to land — you have to give the opposition a clean run before turning their gun on them — and the candidate makes it work.
4. Rhetorical questions placed at argumentative hinges
Four rhetorical questions, each at a paragraph’s argumentative pivot rather than for decoration: “What is the reason behind it?” (line 10); “However, are we able to visit every place in the world?” (line 17); “are they really deleterious?” (line 51); “Isn’t this developing our critical thinking?” (line 56). Each gives the audience a beat to reach the right answer with the speaker.
5. The “hard-nosed critical thinking” phrase is a small lexical jewel (lines 57–58)
The compound modifier hard-nosed (tough-minded, no-nonsense) shifts critical thinking from a school-curriculum phrase to something muscular and active. Most candidates would write strong or good critical thinking; hard-nosed is reaching for a register higher.
6. The “turn a blind eye” idiom lands at the right place (line 35)
The idiom (ignore something one knows about) is exactly the right metaphor for the speech’s subject — the speech is about not turning the eye away from what TV could show us. Pre-emptive of the opponent’s line that TV is passive consumption: the candidate is implying that TV-watching is the active opposite of looking away.
7. The closing repeats the motion in its exact wording (lines 67–69)
“In conclusion, there is no doubt that watching television makes us smarter and today’s motion must stand. Thank You.” The motion is repeated exactly, the formal debating-room verdict phrase is used (the motion must stand), and the speech lands on the brisk Thank You. This is the standard top-band debate close, executed cleanly.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
(line 2) today’s notion → today’s motion |
The wrong word at the worst possible moment. Motion = the proposition being debated; notion = a vague idea or impression. The candidate uses motion correctly in the closing line (line 69), which suggests this is a one-off slip — but it’s the second sentence of the whole speech. |
(line 5) My justifications are as the follows → My arguments are as follows |
Two slips. (i) Justification means “the reason something is morally acceptable”, not “the reasons supporting a position”. The right word in a debate is arguments or reasons. (ii) The fixed phrase is as follows (no article). |
(line 6) cultural exposures → cultural exposure |
Exposure in the sense of “contact with new ideas, cultures or experiences” is uncountable: exposure to art, exposure to risk, exposure to different cultures. The plural exposures is the photographic sense. |
(line 7) fail to explore in the reality → fail to experience in reality |
Two slips. (i) Explore is the verb of investigation; the candidate wants the verb of contact (experience). (ii) In reality (no article) is the fixed phrase; in the reality is a literal-translation slip. |
(lines 9–10) It goes viral… and receives hundreds of positive feedbacks → It went viral… and received hundreds of positive reviews |
Three slips. (i) Tense: the show went viral (past) — a completed action being cited as evidence. (ii) Feedback is uncountable in modern English: not feedbacks. (iii) For the public response to a TV show the right noun is reviews, not feedback. |
(line 12) simpily → simply |
Spelling slip. Sim-ply (no i): the -ply is the adverbial ending. (Compare deeply, sharply, quickly.) |
(line 14) introduces them the world of North Korea → introduces them to the world of North Korea |
Introduce X to Y is the fixed pattern. Without to, the verb reads as if them and the world were both direct objects. |
(line 16) other’s cultures → others’ cultures |
Apostrophe placement. Other’s = belonging to one other person; others’ = belonging to multiple. The candidate means “other peoples’” cultures, so the plural possessive is needed. |
(line 16) traditions or trying exotic food → traditions, or try exotic food |
Parallel-structure slip. Experience cultures and experience traditions share the head verb, but trying exotic food is a gerund phrase. Either keep the verb (try exotic food) or make all three nouns. |
(line 17) Hardly could us reach some cultures → Hardly could we reach some cultures |
Subject pronoun in an inverted clause. After fronted hardly, the auxiliary inverts with the subject, and the subject is in the nominative case (we), not the accusative (us). |
(lines 22, 26) broaden our horizon → broaden our horizons |
Idiomatic plural. Broaden / widen / expand one’s horizons is the fixed phrase — always plural. The singular horizon is the literal sense (the line at the limit of vision). |
(lines 22, 24, 54) keeps our mind, we keeps, watching televisions makes → subject-verb concord |
A cluster of agreement slips. We takes keep. Watching television (gerund subject) is singular and takes makes, with television here as mass (no -s). |
(line 28) equip us as a global citizens → equip us as global citizens |
Determiner-noun mismatch. A global citizens mixes the singular determiner with the plural noun. The plural is the right fit for the plural object us. |
(line 29) would watch TV news pathologically → watch TV news habitually |
Pathologically means “in a way related to disease” or “compulsively in an unhealthy way” — wrong for “regularly”. The intended sense is habitually or religiously. Would watch also reads as conditional; present watch fits a habitual claim. |
(line 36) United Nation Climate Conference → United Nations Climate Conference |
Spelling of a proper noun. The body is the United Nations (always plural), even attributively: the United Nations Charter, a UN report. |
(line 37) the conference has seen widely reported → the conference was widely reported |
Tense/voice slip. The candidate is reaching for the passive but writes has seen reported, which mixes the present perfect of see with the past participle of report. Simple past passive: the conference was widely reported. |
(line 43) plays a vital role on our wisdom → plays a vital role in our wisdom |
Preposition slip. Play a role in X, not on X. |
(line 55) doubt about the validity → doubt the validity |
Doubt as a verb is transitive — direct object with no preposition. The construction with about exists only with the noun: have doubts about. |
(line 56) arguments or values provided in television → provided on television |
Preposition slip. Content appears on television, not in. |
(line 60) we are nothing but a fool → we are nothing but fools |
Number agreement. The subject we is plural, so the predicate noun is plural: we are fools. |
(line 51) deleterios → deleterious |
Spelling slip on an ambitious word. De-le-ter-i-ous (-ious ending like spurious, gracious). The misspelling looks like a phonetic reach. |
(line 66) grasp the full picture about the benefits → grasp the full picture of the benefits |
Preposition slip. The picture of X, not about X. |
Style suggestions (where strong writing could become outstanding)
Categories:
Fluency sentence flow, collocations, rhythm.
Authenticity places that sound student-y or translated; how a native voice would say it.
Text-type fit matching the conventions of the genre — here, a competitive debate speech.
Suggestion 1 · the opening needs the debate-room salutation in full
Text-type fit
line 1
Original: “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.”
Try: “Adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen, and members of the opposing team. Good morning.”
The conventional opening of a school-debate speech names three groups in order — the panel that will decide (adjudicators), the audience, and the opposing team. The full salutation signals the candidate knows the genre. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen alone reads as a general-audience speech, not a debate.
Suggestion 2 · fix “today’s notion” in the opening
Text-type fit
line 2
Original: “It is my pleasure to be here today to justify today’s notion — ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’.”
Try: “It is my pleasure to speak for the affirmative on today’s motion — ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’.”
Two fixes. (i) Motion is the right word for the proposition (the candidate uses it correctly in the closing); notion in the opening is the single most costly slip in the speech. (ii) To speak for the affirmative is the standard formula for proposing-side openings, sharper than to justify.
Suggestion 3 · the rhetorical-question mini-dialogue in paragraph 2 is very strong — protect it
Fluency
lines 10–13
Original: “What is the reason behind it? Are there any famous celebrities or strong casts in the show? No. It’s just simply because North Korea is unreachable for most people.”
Try: “What did the show have that the others didn’t? It wasn’t the cast. It wasn’t the production budget. It was the simple fact that none of us will ever go to North Korea ourselves.”
The candidate’s instinct is right — set up the audience’s wrong guess, knock it down, deliver the right answer. The rewrite keeps the same three-beat rhythm but tightens it: a single setup question, two short denial sentences, then the punchline.
Suggestion 4 · the “feedbacks”/“exposures” plurals are tells — drill the uncountables
Authenticity
lines 6, 10
Original: “cultural exposures… positive feedbacks…”
A short uncountables list to learn: information, research, equipment, furniture, advice, feedback, evidence, news, knowledge, exposure, hardware, software, baggage, luggage — none of these take a plural -s in modern English. Use pieces of, items of, or kinds of if you need to count them.
The pluralised uncountable is one of the most common HK student errors and one of the most reliable signals to a marker. Each instance pulls the eye for half a second; over five paragraphs that adds up to a noticeable loss of polish. The fix is mechanical — just memorise the list.
Suggestion 5 · replace “pathologically”
Authenticity
line 29
Original: “I bet most of you here would watch TV news pathologically.”
Try: “I bet most of you here watch the evening news religiously — or at the very least, scroll through TVB headlines on your phone every morning.”
Pathologically means “in a way related to disease” or “compulsively in an unhealthy way” — not what the candidate means. The intended sense is “regularly, devotedly”, for which the standard adverb is religiously. The rewrite also softens the bet by offering the phone-scrolling alternative.
Suggestion 6 · the “turn-the-opponent’s-counter-into-your-third-point” move deserves to be named out loud
Text-type fit
lines 46–49
Original: “Our honourable opponents may claim that TV shows may provide us with fake information or false values, which are detrimental to an intelligent mind. This claim brings me to my third point.”
Try: “Our honourable opponents will tell you that TV gives us fake information and false values. They will treat that as a closing argument. I am going to treat it as my opening one — because exactly that flood of false values is what forces us to develop a critical mind in the first place.”
The structural move is genuinely sophisticated. The rewrite makes the move visible by naming it out loud (they will treat that as closing; I will treat it as opening). Calling out your own rhetorical move is a high-status debating technique.
Suggestion 7 · second-paragraph end-of-list cadence is heavy — trim
Fluency
lines 41–45
Original: “It is essential for us to keep our minds updated with current world situation, it plays a vital role on our wisdom. Needless to say, watching television refreshes our knowledge about world problems and contributes to a smart mind.”
Try: “The TV news desk is, for most of us, the only sustained look we get at the world beyond our own street. That is how a smart citizen is made.”
The original tries to close the paragraph with three different formulations of the same idea. One sentence will do. The rewrite picks the image (only sustained look at the world beyond our street) and lets it carry the conclusion in two beats.
Suggestion 8 · replace “Isn’t this developing our critical thinking?” with the harder rhetorical move
Text-type fit
lines 55–57
Original: “We may doubt the validity of arguments or values provided on television. Isn’t this developing our critical thinking?”
Try: “We doubt. We test. We compare what one channel says against what another channel says. That is critical thinking in its most basic form — and the screen taught us to do it.”
The original’s rhetorical question is correct but unambitious. The rewrite uses short verbs in parallel (doubt, test, compare), names what they amount to (critical thinking in its most basic form), then attributes the credit (the screen taught us to do it). Showing the cognitive activity in short verbs is more persuasive than naming the abstract category.
Suggestion 9 · the closing’s “benefits and correlations” phrase is the speech’s only clumsy moment — tighten
Fluency
lines 65–67
Original: “I hope everyone of you here can grasp the full picture about the benefits and correlations of television watching and wisdom.”
Try: “I hope you have seen tonight that television is not the enemy of an intelligent mind — it is one of its busiest teachers.”
Correlations is a statistical word and doesn’t fit a speech’s closing rhetoric. The rewrite picks the speech’s thesis and re-frames it for the audience’s exit (not the enemy — one of its busiest teachers). The contrast is the kind of pivot a debate-room closing should aim for.
Suggestion 10 · compress to about 420 words
Text-type fit
Original: ~600 words against a 400-word brief.
Aim: full debate-room salutation + motion + thesis in 60 words; each of three reasons in ~100 words (including one named example); conclusion in 40 words. Target: ~420.
A 4-minute competitive debate speech runs about 480–520 words; the 600-word draft would push past five minutes. The cultural-exposure paragraph alone runs to ~225 words and can absorb a 30% cut without losing the North-Korea example, the mini-dialogue, or the broaden-horizons close.
Professional rewrite — the third-point / rebuttal hybrid (the speech’s most sophisticated structural move)
Professional rewrite — making the move visible to the audience
For comparison only, not a correction. The candidate’s third-point structure (lines 46–64) is the speech’s most interesting move: instead of a conventional three reasons + rebuttal, the rebuttal IS the third reason — the opponent’s counter is named, then re-framed as evidence for the affirmative case. The rewrite below shows what the move looks like when the candidate names what they are doing out loud, lets each step land as a short sentence, and closes on a single short declarative.
The student’s version (lightly corrected)
Our honourable opponents may claim that TV shows may provide us with fake information or false values, which are detrimental to an intelligent mind. This claim brings me to my third point. Although false information or values do exist in television programmes, are they really deleterious? Instead of threatening our correct thinking, they actually trigger our thoughts and reflections. Through reflecting on the contents of television shows, we keep our mind in a critical condition. We may doubt the validity of arguments or values provided on television. Isn’t this developing our critical thinking? It is commonly known that we need hard-nosed critical thinking skills to prevent us from being easily influenced by others. Everyone of us here knows that we are nothing but fools if we don’t have a critical mind. Television programmes keep us smart as we are more aware of the validity of information or arguments. With no doubt, television programmes promote critical thinking and make us wise.
Rewritten by a professional debater
Now I want to do something unusual. Let me make my opponents’ argument for them. They will tell you, in a moment, that television is full of fake news, dishonest advertising and shallow values. They will tell you the screen poisons the mind that watches it. They are not wrong about the content. They are entirely wrong about what it does to the viewer. A river of half-truths and dubious values is exactly the environment in which a critical mind learns to swim. The teenager who has watched a thousand commercials has learned, by the thousandth, what a commercial is. The viewer who has seen the same political event spun three different ways on three different channels has learned, without being told, to doubt the spin. The screen does not protect us from bad information. It trains us to recognise it. That is the third reason watching TV makes us smarter — not despite the noise, but because of it.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- Names the rhetorical move out loud. “Now I want to do something unusual. Let me make my opponents’ argument for them.” Telling the floor what you are about to do, before you do it, is the highest-status debating move — it shows the adjudicators you understand the structure of the argument, not just its content.
- The opponent’s case is stated more generously than the opponent will state it. The rewrite gives the opposition three specifics (fake news, dishonest advertising, shallow values) where the candidate gives two. Steel-manning the opposition is what makes the rebuttal that follows look unanswerable — you are seen to have refused their best version, not their easiest one.
- The pivot is one short sentence. “They are entirely wrong about what it does to the viewer.” A short declarative after the long opposition setup is the rhetorical hinge. In a debate room the speaker would pause here.
- The river metaphor does the heavy lifting. “A river of half-truths and dubious values is exactly the environment in which a critical mind learns to swim.” The image converts the abstract claim into something the audience can picture: critical thinking is a survival skill in a wet environment.
- Two concrete examples follow the metaphor. The teenager who has watched a thousand commercials; the viewer who has seen the same event spun three ways. Naming two specific viewer-learning experiences makes the claim verifiable in the audience’s own life.
- The closing inverts the opposition’s assumption. “The screen does not protect us from bad information. It trains us to recognise it.” The rebuttal lands on a sentence that converts the opponent’s case into a statement of the candidate’s thesis. “Not despite the noise, but because of it” is the verdict line the adjudicators will write down.
- Word count is similar. Student version ~175 words; rewrite ~190 words. Same length, sharper rhetoric.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word | Definition | Usage notes | Synonyms / alternatives |
|---|---|---|---|
| motion | (n.) the proposition being debated. | Always with the verbs propose, support, oppose, second, table, withdraw. Key phrases: the motion stands, the motion falls, today’s motion is…. The candidate uses motion correctly in the closing but slips to notion in the opening. | proposition, resolution, proposal, question |
| affirmative side | (n. phrase) the side in a debate that argues for the motion. | Paired with negative side (against). Standard debating-room vocabulary; signals genre fluency. The candidate uses the term correctly: on behalf of the affirmative side. | proposing side, the “Yes” side, for the motion |
| commence | (v.) to begin (formal). | The fixed debating-speech connector To commence with is the candidate’s opener for reason one — equivalent to To begin with or First of all. Slightly more formal than First. | begin, start, kick off, open |
| cater to | (phrasal v.) to provide what someone wants or needs. | Slightly negative in some uses (cater to popular taste); neutral in others (cater to dietary needs). The candidate’s “the show caters to their needs” is the standard collocation. | serve, accommodate, satisfy, address |
| exotic | (adj.) characteristic of or coming from a distant foreign country; strikingly unusual. | Pairs with fruit, food, location, dancer, plant, bird. Carries a slight tourist-gaze register. The student’s “trying exotic food” is the right register for the travel-anecdote frame. | foreign, unusual, novel, unfamiliar |
| go viral | (idiom) (of an image, video, or piece of information) to be circulated rapidly and widely through the internet. | Modelled on the medical sense of viral — spreading like an infection. The candidate’s “It went viral in the city” is the right phrase but should be in the simple past for a completed circulation event. | spread rapidly, blow up, take off, trend |
| unreachable | (adj.) unable to be reached or contacted; not accessible. | Two senses: physical (an unreachable peak) and social (an unreachable celebrity). The candidate’s “North Korea is unreachable for most people” uses the physical-political sense well. | inaccessible, out of reach, off-limits, isolated |
| global citizen | (n. phrase) a person whose identity transcends geography or political borders. | Common in education, NGO, and journalism contexts since the 1990s. Pairs with raise, educate, develop, become. The candidate’s “equip us as global citizens” uses the phrase in the standard pedagogical sense. | world citizen, cosmopolitan, internationalist |
| community-minded | (adj. compound) considerate of and willing to act in the interests of the wider community. | Pairs with be, become, raise (children to be), citizen, approach. Slightly civic-vocabulary register; common in policy and education contexts. The candidate’s use is exact. | civic-minded, public-spirited, socially conscious |
| turn a blind eye (to) | (idiom) to pretend not to notice; ignore something one knows about. | Pairs with injustice, abuse, wrongdoing, problem, issue. The expression originates from Admiral Nelson’s deliberate use of his blind eye to ignore a signal to retreat. The candidate’s usage is the standard idiom. | ignore, overlook, look the other way, disregard |
| channel (something to) | (v.) to direct (something) towards a particular end or via a particular medium. | Pairs with energy, anger, funds, message, information. The candidate’s “television can channel global issues… to every single individual” uses the verb in its “conduit” sense. | convey, direct, route, transmit |
| grave concern | (n. phrase) a serious worry or matter for anxiety. | Pairs with cause for, of, raise, express, share. Grave is slightly formal / journalistic. The candidate’s “global issues or grave concerns” hits the right level of formality for a debate speech. | serious worry, deep anxiety, pressing issue |
| hard-nosed | (adj. compound) realistic and tough-minded; not influenced by sentiment. | Pairs with businessman, journalist, approach, attitude, skills, critical thinking. Carries a hint of approval. The candidate’s “hard-nosed critical thinking skills” is a small lexical jewel — the modifier shifts the noun from school-curriculum register to active-defence register. | tough-minded, no-nonsense, pragmatic, unsentimental |
| detrimental (to) | (adj.) tending to cause harm. | Pairs with health, environment, interests, development, performance, mind. Slightly formal; often in policy or scientific writing. The student’s “detrimental to an intelligent mind” is on-register for a debate. | harmful, damaging, injurious, deleterious |
| deleterious | (adj.) causing harm or damage. | Near-synonym of detrimental but more formal / Latinate. Pairs with effect, consequence, impact, influence. Worth the lexical reach but only if spelt correctly — the student writes deleterios, which costs the credit. | harmful, damaging, detrimental, injurious |
| validity | (n.) the quality of being logically or factually sound. | Pairs with question, doubt, test, assess, establish, of an argument, of a claim. The candidate’s “the validity of arguments or values” is the right collocation for testing whether something is well-founded. | soundness, legitimacy, cogency, accuracy |
| honourable opponents | (n. phrase) the polite-formal way to address the opposing team in a debate. | Modelled on parliamentary address (my honourable friend, the honourable gentleman). Always plural in school debates. The candidate’s “Our honourable opponents may claim that…” is the textbook opening to a rebuttal section. | worthy opponents, the opposing team, my colleagues across the floor |
| refresh (knowledge) | (v.) to update or renew (information held). | Pairs with memory, knowledge, skills, brief, account, page. The student’s “watching television refreshes our knowledge about world problems” uses the verb in its “keep current” sense, which is correct — though updates is more usual for current-affairs knowledge specifically. | update, renew, revise, brush up on |
Leave a Reply