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 (4)
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)
1Honourable adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen, today’s is a motion
2is is that ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’, and as the Captain
3of Side Affirmative the Affirmative side, I strongly support this motion. In the past
4decades, the TV industry has developed and flourished constantly,
5with watching TV becoming an indispensable part of our leisure.
6It has survived the rapid rise to power of the likes of the
7Internet and smartphones, staying strong where its fellows like radio
8and MP3 players gradually meet their demise demise. Have you ever
9wondered how they gain gained such popularity? Why could they
10drive through the decades and maintain their appeal in the eyes of
11of picky, pesky human beings? The answer is simple and
12straightforward: watching TV makes us smarter, and I’m going
13to tell you why, in three seperate separate ways.
14
15Firstly, watching TV broadens our horizons and gives us access
16to various knowledge kinds of knowledge. The A TV can be described as an ency-
17clopedia without pages, such is the breadth of the knowledge it
18can provide. From news reports and commentaries on current
19issues to detailed, sophisticated documentaries on specific topics,
20the information flow provided by watching TV is unlimited; and
21if people advocates reading as a way to acquire knowledge, why
22is watching TV not regarded as another way? The likes of City
23Forum and Tuesday Report are the most highly-recommended
Booklet p.10 (lines 24–46)
24programmes used by Liberal Studies teachers, while National
25Geographic and Discovery Channel provide ‘great feasts’ to
26the minds of geography and history fanatics. With great
27diversity and depth of knowledge on offer when watching TV,
28it can definitely make us smarter.
29
30Secondly, watching TV provides us with an interactive,
31interesting way to acquire knowledge. I’ve compared TVs to
32books in my previous argument, but there is one key
33difference that I haven’t mentioned — which is the fact
34that TVs are accompanied with visual images and audio,
35whereas in traditional books we have boring, dull blocks of
36text. This is where watching TV could even trump reading:
37being interested in the particular subject is the prerequisite
38to effective learning, and the easy, interactive presentation
39mode of TV programmes is definitely more effective in arousing rousing
40our interests interest. There is a particular reason why teachers often
41use TV programmes to introduce students to a topic, and many
42of you are also likely to have the experience of seeing
43an interesting show on TV, then going on to search for further
44information on the topic. In short, watching TV arouses
45interest and prompts us to acquire and digest knowledge
46more easily with its interactive programmes, thus making us smarter.
Booklet p.11 (lines 47–69)
47Finally, watching TV inspires us to think and reflect.
48A common criticism against TV is that it is filled with
49exaggerated, slapstick comedies comedies trying to gain the attention
50of the audience, thus making people more stupid as
51well under prolonged influence or even promoting distorted,
52inappropriate values. However, this argument is heavily flawed
53as it is based on an assumption that TV-viewers only
54receive information from the TV screens, but not digest.
55In fact, very few programmes nowadays are completely for
56entertainment purposes only, and most TV dramas, variety
57shows or even cartoons try to gain popularity with intricate
58plots and sophisticated themes. For example, superhero shows
59often emphasizse the concepts of justice and righteousness,
60while a famous Chinese programme depicting children going on
61trips with their fathers is meant to provide insights on parent–
62child relationships. Even with inappropriate behaviour like violence,
63any viewer with an independent thinking mind could judge on
64their own on what is right and what’s not. Many effects
65and dillemma dilemmas in TV shows are deliberately created to
66provide food for thoughts thought for the audience, inspire people to
67think more, think deeply about their lives. Therefore, watching
68TV makes one smarter but not more stupid.
69
Booklet p.12 (lines 70–77, then blank)
70I end my speech here, and my fellow team members are
71going to further elaborate on how watching TV makes us
72smarter, but, from the three reasons I’ve raised, it’s
73clearly clear which side the motion favours. If you support
74the opposing view, it’s definitely not a ‘smart’ choice —
75well, perhaps because you’ve not watched enough TV!
76To sum up, watching TV certainly makes us smarter and
77today’s motion must stand. Thank you.
Marks earned (^16 + ^15 = 31 / 42, closest-pair adjusted). Both markers landed in Band 5 (low end of the band — the 5* threshold begins at 33). The carets indicate the closest-pair adjustment was triggered by a more distant third reading. M1 and M2 are only one mark apart, which signals they are reading the script the same way: this is fluent, intelligent prose that doesn’t quite behave like a debate speech. The two-band gap from Part A (42/42 5**) is unusually wide for the same candidate within one paper; the writing voice is the same, but the genre fit is markedly weaker.
Word count. The speech runs to roughly 450 words against the 400-word brief — just slightly over, which is the right length for a four-minute debate-room speech. Length is not the issue here; tightness of structure and authenticity of voice are.
What the structure misses. The three reasons are knowledge / interactivity / reflection — sensible, but they overlap. The second reason (TV is more interactive than books because of visuals + audio) effectively re-uses the first reason (TV is a source of knowledge); the third reason (TV inspires reflection) is doing the rebuttal work without being signposted as a rebuttal. A textbook 5** Q.6 speech uses three distinct reasons (e.g. knowledge / critical thinking / global awareness) and handles the opposition’s counter as a separate move. This script collapses reason and rebuttal in paragraph four without naming what it is doing — the kind of structural confusion that costs the speech its second mark.
The opening is a slight muddle. The opening sentence is grammatically scrambled: “today’s is a motion is that ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’”. The candidate writes is a in the middle of today’s motion is that… and doesn’t strike it through. A debate-room opening is the highest-stakes sentence in the speech (the adjudicators decide their first impression in the first five seconds) and a syntactic stumble there is more costly than the same stumble in paragraph three.
The closing is the strongest moment. “If you support the opposing view, it’s definitely not a ‘smart’ choice — well, perhaps because you’ve not watched enough TV!” The closing flourish is genuinely witty (a self-referential joke that turns the motion against anyone disagreeing with it) and lands the right register for a debate close. If the rest of the speech operated at this level it would be at 5* — the closing shows the candidate has the rhetorical instinct, but the body of the speech hasn’t reached for it.
Word count. The speech runs to roughly 450 words against the 400-word brief — just slightly over, which is the right length for a four-minute debate-room speech. Length is not the issue here; tightness of structure and authenticity of voice are.
What the structure misses. The three reasons are knowledge / interactivity / reflection — sensible, but they overlap. The second reason (TV is more interactive than books because of visuals + audio) effectively re-uses the first reason (TV is a source of knowledge); the third reason (TV inspires reflection) is doing the rebuttal work without being signposted as a rebuttal. A textbook 5** Q.6 speech uses three distinct reasons (e.g. knowledge / critical thinking / global awareness) and handles the opposition’s counter as a separate move. This script collapses reason and rebuttal in paragraph four without naming what it is doing — the kind of structural confusion that costs the speech its second mark.
The opening is a slight muddle. The opening sentence is grammatically scrambled: “today’s is a motion is that ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’”. The candidate writes is a in the middle of today’s motion is that… and doesn’t strike it through. A debate-room opening is the highest-stakes sentence in the speech (the adjudicators decide their first impression in the first five seconds) and a syntactic stumble there is more costly than the same stumble in paragraph three.
The closing is the strongest moment. “If you support the opposing view, it’s definitely not a ‘smart’ choice — well, perhaps because you’ve not watched enough TV!” The closing flourish is genuinely witty (a self-referential joke that turns the motion against anyone disagreeing with it) and lands the right register for a debate close. If the rest of the speech operated at this level it would be at 5* — the closing shows the candidate has the rhetorical instinct, but the body of the speech hasn’t reached for it.
Strengths to praise
1. The full debate-room salutation is in place
“Honourable adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen…” The opening names the panel (adjudicators) and the audience (ladies and gentlemen) in the conventional order. Most Q.6 candidates open with the generic “Good morning, ladies and gentlemen” (which is a speech salutation, not a debate one); this candidate uses the genre-specific opener. A small but immediate signal to the adjudicators that the candidate knows the room.
2. The “encyclopedia without pages” metaphor is the speech’s strongest single line
“A TV can be described as an encyclopedia without pages, such is the breadth of the knowledge it can provide.” The metaphor reframes the TV not as a screen (the lazy image) but as a reference book (the high-status image). The inversion is doing rhetorical work the candidate doesn’t need to explain: if the audience accepts the encyclopedia-comparison, they have implicitly accepted that TV is a knowledge instrument. The candidate has reached for a metaphor that converts the case before the case is argued.
3. Named programmes carry the first reason — City Forum, Tuesday Report, National Geographic, Discovery
Four named programmes appear in the first-reason paragraph, two of them HKDSE-classroom-relevant (City Forum and Tuesday Report are the standard examples Liberal Studies teachers use for current-affairs discussion), two of them globally recognisable (National Geographic, Discovery Channel). Naming the programmes makes the abstract claim (TV provides knowledge) verifiable in the audience’s own viewing experience. Most Q.6 candidates name one programme; this candidate names four. The specificity is the move that distinguishes the first-reason paragraph from the rest.
4. The Liberal Studies teacher framing anchors the speech in a school context
“The likes of City Forum and Tuesday Report are the most highly-recommended programmes used by Liberal Studies teachers…” Naming Liberal Studies (the HK secondary subject that explicitly uses TV current-affairs programmes as teaching material) is the rhetorical move of a student who knows the audience — the adjudicators are themselves Liberal Studies-aware teachers. The shared reference makes the example carry institutional weight rather than personal taste.
5. The “great feasts” metaphor for documentary content is a small lexical jewel
“National Geographic and Discovery Channel provide ‘great feasts’ to the minds of geography and history fanatics.” The food metaphor for intellectual content (a feast of knowledge, a banquet for the mind) is correctly deployed with quotation marks signalling the metaphorical use. The pairing of great feasts with fanatics (a word stronger than enthusiasts) makes the appetite for content the central image — viewers are hungry for the content these channels serve.
6. The Chinese-programme reference at paragraph 4 is culturally specific in the right way
“A famous Chinese programme depicting children going on trips with their fathers is meant to provide insights on parent–child relationships.” The candidate is alluding to Where Are We Going, Dad? (爸爸去哪儿) — the Chinese reality show that ran from 2013 to 2016 and was enormously popular in Hong Kong. The reference signals media literacy beyond the English-language canon and addresses an audience that watches both. The choice doesn’t name the show explicitly (which is sensible under exam pressure — getting the romanised title wrong would cost more than the unnamed allusion gains), but the description is unmistakable to anyone who watched HK TV in 2013–2016.
7. The closing self-referential joke is the speech’s rhetorical high point
“If you support the opposing view, it’s definitely not a ‘smart’ choice — well, perhaps because you’ve not watched enough TV!” The closing folds the motion back on itself: anyone disagreeing has, by the motion’s own logic, failed to watch enough of the thing under debate. The construction is a self-referential paradox played for laughs (the kind of move a debate audience will applaud) and the candidate signals the play with the scare quotes around smart. This is the wittiest moment in any of the 2017 Q.6 speeches; the marker has registered the closing as the speech’s peak.
What the speech doesn’t do — structural and authenticity gaps
The gap between Part A’s 42/42 and this script’s 31/42 is the story of this analysis. The strengths above identify what the speech does right; the suggestions in the next section name the moves a top-band debate speech makes that this one doesn’t. The grammar slips are real but mostly minor (and the candidate’s Part A has the same kind of slip-rate without it costing the marks) — the issue is genre fit. Three diagnoses:
Diagnosis 1 · The three reasons overlap; they aren’t three distinct cases
Reason 1: TV provides knowledge. Reason 2: TV is more interactive than books (because of visuals + audio) and therefore acquires knowledge more easily. Reason 3: TV inspires reflection (and rebuts the “TV makes us stupid” counter). Reasons 1 and 2 are both about knowledge acquisition; the second reason is essentially reason 1 but with a delivery-mode argument. A debate brief asking for three reasons is asking for three structurally independent cases — e.g. knowledge / critical thinking / cultural exposure, where each can stand if the others fall. Two reasons that overlap will be heard as one-and-a-half reasons. This is the most structurally costly issue in the speech.
Diagnosis 2 · The rebuttal is hidden inside reason 3, not signposted
Paragraph 4 opens as “Finally, watching TV inspires us to think and reflect” — framed as the third reason. But the paragraph’s real argumentative work is rebutting the opposition’s expected counter (“TV makes people more stupid as well under prolonged influence”). The rebuttal is good (the candidate names the opposition’s assumption and shows it is wrong) but the framing is wrong: the audience is told they are getting a third reason and is instead given a rebuttal. The compare-and-contrast with sister 2017-010 is instructive — that candidate uses the same hybrid structure but names the move out loud (“This claim brings me to my third point”); this candidate just slides between reason and rebuttal without flagging the shift. A debate-trained reader expects the structural move to be visible.
Diagnosis 3 · The voice is mostly essay-prose, not speech-prose
The speech reads as if it had been written to be marked, not spoken. The sentences are long (the diagnostic sentence at the centre of paragraph 4 runs to 50 words); the transitions are textbook connectives (firstly, secondly, finally); the rhetorical questions are rare (only three in 450 words). A real debate speech uses short declarative sentences for pivots, switches to longer sentences for elaboration, and folds rhetorical questions into the rhythm at roughly one per paragraph. The candidate’s essay-prose register is the same register that earned 42/42 on Part A — but Part A is a letter, where essay-prose is right, and this is a speech, where it isn’t. The candidate’s Part A voice has been imported wholesale into a genre that requires a different one.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
today’s is a motion is that → today’s motion is that |
Scrambled opening syntax. The candidate writes both today’s is a motion and motion is, producing the duplicated verb pattern is…is. The intended sentence is the clean today’s motion is that ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’. The slip is high-cost because it is the first sentence the adjudicators read. |
Captain of Side Affirmative → Captain of the Affirmative side |
Word-order slip on a debate-vocabulary item. The standard order in HK school debating is the Affirmative side (head noun side with adjective Affirmative in attributive position); Side Affirmative reverses the order in a way that reads as French-style postposition. Some HK schools do use Side Affirmative / Side Negative, but it is a regional variation; the safer form for the marker is the Affirmative side. |
seperate → separate |
The classic ESL/EFL spelling slip on this word. The correct spelling has a in the middle syllable (sep-a-rate), not e. A teacher’s mnemonic: there’s a rat in sep-a-rate. |
gives us access to various knowledge → gives us access to various kinds of knowledge |
Knowledge is uncountable; various implies countability (different kinds). The fix is either various kinds of knowledge / various forms of knowledge (which preserves the countable framing), or a wide range of knowledge (which keeps knowledge uncountable). Without either, various knowledge reads ungrammatical. |
The TV can be described as an encyclopedia → A TV can be described as an encyclopedia / Television can be described as an encyclopedia |
Article slip on a generic statement. The TV with the definite article points to a specific TV set; the candidate means the medium in general. Two clean fixes: A TV (any TV, generic singular) or Television (the mass-noun form of the medium). The metaphor itself (encyclopedia without pages) is the line’s strength; the article is the line’s residual scrappiness. |
if people advocates reading → if people advocate reading |
Subject-verb agreement. People is plural and takes the bare verb (people advocate, people believe, people watch). The -s ending is for the third-person singular only. |
then go on to search further information on the topic → then going on to search for further information on the topic |
Two slips. (i) The verb in the parallel needs to be a participle (seeing… then going), not the bare infinitive. The candidate has likely to have the experience of seeing an interesting show on TV, then go on to search…; the parallel requires the gerund/participial form to match seeing. (ii) Search for X (where X is the thing being sought) requires the preposition for; search X means to examine the thing itself (search the room, search the database). The candidate is searching for information, not searching information. |
more effective in arousing our interests → more effective in rousing our interest |
Two slips. (i) Arouse in everyday English carries a slightly suggestive register (arouse desire, arouse suspicion); for the “awaken curiosity” sense, rouse is the neutral verb. (ii) Interest in this sense is uncountable: rouse our interest, not our interests. Interests (plural) refers to topics/hobbies one is interested in (her interests include music), which isn’t the meaning here. |
emphasize → emphasise |
Style consistency. The candidate writes emphasize with -z- (AmE) but earlier writes maximize-style verbs with -s- in other contexts. HKDSE conventions lean BrE: the -ise ending is the safer default. The split form (-ise in some places, -ize in others) signals inconsistency more than error; a script-wide convention is the polish move. |
any viewer with an independent thinking → any viewer with an independent thinking mind / any independent-thinking viewer |
The candidate has a noun-phrase shape mismatch. An independent thinking reads as if thinking were the head noun (which it can be as a gerund: independent thinking is rare), but the article an followed by the modifier independent thinking doesn’t parse to a complete head. The cleanest fix is to add the noun mind (an independent thinking mind) or to hyphenate as an attributive (an independent-thinking viewer). |
could judge on their own on what is right and what’s not → could judge for themselves what is right and what is not |
Two slips. (i) The fixed phrase is judge for oneself (not judge on one’s own), meaning to reach an independent conclusion. On one’s own means “without help” or “alone”, which is close but not the standard collocation with judge. (ii) Judge on what — the verb judge here takes a direct object (the matter being judged: what is right), not a preposition + indirect object. The doubled on in judge on their own on what is right reads awkwardly. |
Many effects and dillemma in TV shows → Many effects and dilemmas in TV shows |
Two slips. (i) Dillemma with double-l is a spelling slip; the correct spelling has single-l, double-m (di-lem-ma). (ii) Many requires a plural countable noun; dilemma is countable, so the plural dilemmas is required. |
food for thoughts → food for thought |
Fixed-phrase number. The idiom is food for thought (singular), meaning something to think about. The pluralised food for thoughts isn’t standard; thought in this idiom is uncountable. |
from the three reasons I’ve raised it’s clearly which side the motion favours → from the three reasons I’ve raised, it’s clear which side the motion favours |
Two slips. (i) Missing comma after the introductory adverbial phrase (from the three reasons I’ve raised,) — a small punctuation slip that costs little but is a polish point. (ii) Clearly is an adverb; the construction needs the predicate adjective clear (it’s clear, not it’s clearly). Clearly which side reads as in a clear way, which side, but the candidate means it is clear which side. |
watching TV makes one smarter but not more stupid → watching TV makes us smarter, not more stupid |
Pronoun consistency. The speech has been using us throughout (matching the motion Watching TV Makes Us Smarter); the closing line of paragraph 4 switches to the impersonal one. The pronoun shift in the rhetorical summary line is a small registerless moment — us is what the audience expects to hear because that’s what they’ve been hearing for four paragraphs and what the motion itself uses. |
Style suggestions (where strong writing could become outstanding)
Categories:
Fluency sentence flow, collocations, rhythm.
Authenticity places where the writing sounds essay-y rather than spoken.
Text-type fit matching the conventions of the genre — here, a competitive debate speech.
Suggestion 1 · fix the scrambled opening sentence
Text-type fit
Original: “Honourable adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen, today’s is a motion is that ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’ and as the Captain of Side Affirmative, I strongly support this motion.”
Try: “Honourable adjudicators, ladies and gentlemen. Today’s motion is that ‘Watching TV Makes Us Smarter’, and as the Captain of the Affirmative side, I rise to propose it.”
Two structural fixes. (i) The duplicated verb (is…is) and the inverted Side Affirmative are both cleaned up. (ii) I rise to propose it is the parliamentary-debate formula (the speaker rises in their place to support the motion); it lands the right register more sharply than I strongly support this motion. The opening is the highest-stakes sentence of the speech — the adjudicators’ first impression is set in five seconds. A clean, recognisable formula is worth the substitution.
Suggestion 2 · restructure the three reasons so they don’t overlap
Text-type fit
Original reasons: (1) TV provides knowledge; (2) TV is interactive, so it transmits knowledge effectively; (3) TV inspires reflection (and rebuts the “TV makes us stupid” counter).
Try three structurally distinct reasons: (1) Range of knowledge — TV exposes us to subjects no single school or library can cover (current affairs, documentaries, foreign cultures). (2) Critical thinking — TV trains the viewer to sort credible information from spin, the cognitive skill the digital age requires. (3) Cultural empathy — TV lets us inhabit lives we will never live (different countries, different generations, different professions) and makes us smarter about how other people think.
The current reasons collapse into one-and-a-half: TV gives knowledge, then TV gives knowledge in a particularly effective way, then TV gives critical-thinking knowledge. The redesign separates the three so each can stand independently if the opposition attacks it. The marker reading for structural rigour can verify the independence on a re-read — none of these three reasons is a refinement of the others. That is the structural condition for full marks on a three-reason speech.
Suggestion 3 · name the rebuttal explicitly when you make it
Text-type fit
Original (paragraph 4 opens): “Finally, watching TV inspires us to think and reflect. A common criticism against TV is that it is filled with exaggerated, slapstick comedies trying to gain the attention of the audience…”
Try: “Before I close, I want to address what my honourable opponents will tell you in a moment — that television is full of slapstick, exaggeration and distorted values. The claim is half right. The screen is full of those things. What my opponents will not tell you is that watching them is exactly how a critical mind is built.”
The original treats the rebuttal as the third reason without naming the move. The rewrite separates them: the rebuttal is named (I want to address what my opponents will tell you), the opposition’s case is given a charitable hearing (the claim is half right), and the pivot is explicit (watching them is exactly how a critical mind is built). Naming what you’re doing rhetorically is a high-status debating move — it tells the floor you understand the structure of the exchange, not just the content.
Suggestion 4 · the long diagnostic sentence in paragraph 4 needs to be broken into three
Fluency
Original: “A common criticism against TV is that it is filled with exaggerated, slapstick comedies trying to gain the attention of the audience, thus making people more stupid as well under prolonged influence or even promoting distorted, inappropriate values.” (40 words, three subordinate clauses)
Try: “The opposition’s case is familiar. They will say television is full of slapstick comedies that dumb the viewer down. They will add that prolonged exposure pushes distorted, inappropriate values onto people who can’t resist them.”
A 40-word sentence with three subordinate clauses is essay-prose, not speech-prose. The rewrite splits the same information into three short declaratives at the right cadence for a spoken delivery (subject-verb-object, period, breathe). A debate speech is consumed at the speed of speech, not the speed of reading; sentences over ~25 words start to lose the audience around the second comma. This is the most consequential prose-level move the speech could make.
Suggestion 5 · insert at least one short rhetorical question per paragraph
Fluency
Original: the speech has three rhetorical questions (“Have you ever wondered how they gained such popularity?”, “Why could they drive through the decades…?”, “Why is watching TV not regarded as another way?”) — all clustered in paragraphs 1 and 2.
Try one per paragraph. For paragraph 3: “Why else do teachers reach for the documentary, and not the textbook, when they want a class to remember a topic?” For paragraph 4: “Has anyone in this room ever watched a news report and not, somewhere in the back of their mind, asked whether the report was true?” For the closing: “Which side has the better evidence tonight?”
Rhetorical questions are the lever a debate speaker uses to bring the audience inside the argument: they give the listener a beat to reach the right answer with the speaker, instead of being told. Three questions in five paragraphs is below the rate a polished debate speech runs at (one per paragraph minimum, sometimes two). The candidate has the instinct — the existing questions are placed at the right structural pivots — just at too low a frequency.
Suggestion 6 · the “picky, pesky human beings” phrase is a register slip
Authenticity
Original: “Why could they drive through the decades and maintain their appeal in the eyes of picky, pesky human beings?”
Try: “Why have they lasted, when so much else has fallen away?” Or: “Why have they kept their hold on an audience that has so many other places to look?”
Picky, pesky human beings is the only moment in the speech where the register slips downward to the colloquial. Pesky in particular is a children’s-fiction word (the pesky kid next door) that doesn’t belong in a competitive debate. The rewrite preserves the question’s rhetorical work (why is TV still here when everything else has gone) without the register dip.
Suggestion 7 · name the Chinese programme explicitly if exam pressure allows
Text-type fit
Original: “a famous Chinese programme depicting children going on trips with their fathers is meant to provide insights on parent–child relationships.”
Try: “The Chinese reality show Where Are We Going, Dad? follows celebrity fathers travelling with their young children and is doing the cultural work a parenting manual cannot: it shows us what tenderness, patience and ordinary fatherhood look like on screen.”
The unnamed allusion is a defensible exam-time choice (getting the romanised title wrong would cost more than the unnamed version costs), but a named reference carries more rhetorical weight than a description. The rewrite also folds in the cultural-work claim (doing the cultural work a parenting manual cannot) which the candidate’s version implies but doesn’t state. Naming the cultural work makes the example land harder than naming the show alone would.
Suggestion 8 · the closing self-referential joke deserves a stronger setup
Text-type fit
Original: “If you support the opposing view, it’s definitely not a ‘smart’ choice — well, perhaps because you’ve not watched enough TV!”
Try: “Let me leave you with one final thought. The motion before us is that watching TV makes us smarter. If anyone in this room votes against that motion tonight, the irony is that there is one obvious explanation — they haven’t watched enough TV.”
The candidate’s closing joke is genuinely good but it’s buried inside a longer paragraph. A debate close needs a setup beat (let me leave you with one final thought), the motion restated (watching TV makes us smarter), the pivot to the joke (the irony is), then the punchline italicised in delivery (they haven’t watched enough TV). The rewrite spaces out the components so the joke lands with the audience clear about the structure. A good closing joke that the audience misses because the setup was rushed is the same as no joke at all.
Professional rewrite — the third-reason / rebuttal paragraph (genre fit)
Professional rewrite — separating reason from rebuttal, sentences spoken not written
For comparison only, not a correction. The student’s paragraph 4 collapses two different rhetorical moves (the third reason and the rebuttal of the opposition’s expected counter) into a single block of essay-prose. The rewrite below shows what the same content looks like split into the two moves it actually contains, with sentences sized for a spoken delivery and the rhetorical move named out loud.
The student’s paragraph (lightly corrected)
Finally, watching TV inspires us to think and reflect. A common criticism against TV is that it is filled with exaggerated, slapstick comedies trying to gain the attention of the audience, thus making people more stupid as well under prolonged influence or even promoting distorted, inappropriate values. However, this argument is heavily flawed as it is based on an assumption that TV-viewers only receive information from the TV screens, but not digest. In fact, very few programmes nowadays are completely for entertainment purposes only, and most TV dramas, variety shows or even cartoons try to gain popularity with intricate plots and sophisticated themes. For example, superhero shows often emphasise the concepts of justice and righteousness, while a famous Chinese programme depicting children going on trips with their fathers is meant to provide insights on parent–child relationships. Even with inappropriate behaviour like violence, any viewer with an independent thinking mind could judge for themselves what is right and what is not. Many effects and dilemmas in TV shows are deliberately created to provide food for thought for the audience, inspire people to think more, think deeply about their lives. Therefore, watching TV makes us smarter, not more stupid.
Rewritten by a professional debater
Before I close, let me deal with the opposition’s strongest weapon — the one they will deploy in a moment.
They will tell you that television is full of slapstick. Full of exaggeration. Full of distorted, inappropriate values. They are correct about the content. They are completely wrong about what it does to the viewer.
Here is the thing about a superhero show. The villain commits an injustice. The hero responds. The viewer — even a young viewer — sorts the two acts into right and wrong. That sorting is moral reasoning. Here is the thing about Where Are We Going, Dad?. A celebrity father loses his patience with a tired child. The viewer sees both sides and decides which one they would rather be. That seeing-both-sides is empathy.
The screen does not hand us our values. It hands us the dilemmas, and lets us do the sorting. That is the third reason watching TV makes us smarter. Not despite the slapstick. Because of it.
They will tell you that television is full of slapstick. Full of exaggeration. Full of distorted, inappropriate values. They are correct about the content. They are completely wrong about what it does to the viewer.
Here is the thing about a superhero show. The villain commits an injustice. The hero responds. The viewer — even a young viewer — sorts the two acts into right and wrong. That sorting is moral reasoning. Here is the thing about Where Are We Going, Dad?. A celebrity father loses his patience with a tired child. The viewer sees both sides and decides which one they would rather be. That seeing-both-sides is empathy.
The screen does not hand us our values. It hands us the dilemmas, and lets us do the sorting. That is the third reason watching TV makes us smarter. Not despite the slapstick. Because of it.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- The rebuttal is named as a rebuttal. The student version slides between reason and rebuttal without naming the shift; the rewrite tells the floor exactly what move is about to be made. Naming the move signals to the adjudicators that the speaker is operating on a meta-level — the rhetorical equivalent of showing your working.
- The opposition’s case is steel-manned in three short sentences. Three short anaphoric sentences make the opposition’s case sound stronger than the opposition will probably make it — which is the rhetorical condition for the rebuttal that follows to look unanswerable.
- The pivot is one short declarative. A 12-word sentence after the longer setup is the rhetorical hinge — in a debate room the speaker would pause here.
- The two examples are shown, not described. The student version describes the superhero show and the Chinese programme in the abstract; the rewrite shows the viewer’s actual cognitive sequence. Showing is harder than describing and a marker can register the difference.
- The closing inverts the opposition’s assumption. “Not despite the slapstick. Because of it.” Two fragments at the end of the paragraph — the kind of short-burst close that lands in a debate room because the speaker can pause between them.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word | Definition | Usage notes | Synonyms / alternatives |
|---|---|---|---|
| motion | (n.) the proposition being debated. | Pairs with propose, support, oppose, second, table, withdraw, stand, fall. Key phrases: today’s motion, the motion before us, the motion must stand. The candidate uses the term correctly in both opening (after the corrected syntax) and closing. | proposition, resolution, proposal, question |
| adjudicator | (n.) a judge or arbiter, especially in a debate or competition. | Always plural in school-debate salutations (a panel of three or five judges). Pairs with panel of, honourable, distinguished. The candidate’s opening “Honourable adjudicators” is the textbook genre-specific salutation. | judge, panel, arbiter, referee |
| indispensable | (adj.) absolutely necessary; that cannot be done without. | Pairs with tool, resource, part, member, aid, ally. Stronger than important; signals “without this, the system fails”. The candidate’s “watching TV becoming an indispensable part of our leisure” is the standard high-register collocation. | essential, vital, crucial, irreplaceable |
| demise | (n.) the end or failure of an enterprise, institution, or person’s career. | Pairs with imminent, sudden, premature, slow, untimely, professional. Slightly literary / journalistic. The candidate’s “its fellows like radio and MP3 players gradually meet their demise” uses the noun in its standard “technology obsolescence” sense; meet one’s demise is the fixed verb-noun collocation. | downfall, end, collapse, decline |
| encyclopedia (without pages) | (n., metaphorical) a comprehensive reference source. | The candidate’s metaphor reframes the TV not as a screen but as a reference book. The image is doing argumentative work — if the audience accepts TV = encyclopedia, they have implicitly accepted that TV is a knowledge instrument. This is one of the speech’s strongest single lines. | compendium, reference work, knowledge base |
| commentary (on) | (n.) an expression of opinions or explanations about an event or situation. | Pairs with running, expert, political, social, sports, news. The candidate’s “news reports and commentaries on current issues” is the standard journalism collocation. | analysis, explanation, expert opinion, op-ed |
| sophisticated | (adj.) developed to a high degree of complexity; cultured and worldly. | Pairs with analysis, audience, technology, theme, palate, equipment. The candidate’s “detailed, sophisticated documentaries” and later “intricate plots and sophisticated themes” both use the word in its “intellectually complex” sense. | complex, refined, advanced, nuanced |
| fanatic | (n.) a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause; an enthusiast. | Two registers. (i) The strong sense (religious fanatic) carries negative connotations. (ii) The mild sense (football fanatic, geography fanatic) is enthusiastic, neutral-to-positive. The candidate’s “geography and history fanatics” uses the mild sense; readers will recognise the playful intensification. | enthusiast, devotee, buff, aficionado |
| feast (for the mind) | (n., metaphorical) an abundance of intellectual stimulation. | Pairs with visual, audio, sensory, intellectual. The candidate’s scare-quoted “great feasts to the minds of geography and history fanatics” uses the metaphor correctly — the quotation marks signal the figurative use. | banquet, abundance, smorgasbord, rich diet |
| prerequisite (to/for) | (n.) a thing required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist. | Pairs with essential, key, basic, course, qualification. Takes for or to + noun/gerund. The candidate’s “being interested in the particular subject is the prerequisite to effective learning” uses the right preposition. | requirement, precondition, necessity, condition |
| trump (a competing claim) | (v.) to surpass or outdo (something else). | From card games (a trump card beats a card of any other suit). Pairs with everything, all, the lot, any consideration. The candidate’s “watching TV could even trump reading” is the standard rhetorical usage — one option decisively beating another. | beat, surpass, outdo, override |
| intricate (plot) | (adj.) very complicated or detailed. | Pairs with plot, design, pattern, machinery, network, web, scheme. The candidate’s “intricate plots and sophisticated themes” is a standard collocation in TV/film criticism. | complex, elaborate, complicated, multifaceted |
| slapstick | (adj./n.) comedy based on deliberately clumsy actions and humorously embarrassing events. | Pairs with comedy, humour, routine, film, gag. Originally from a paddle-like device used in farce to make slapping sound; now a register-marker for a particular kind of physical comedy. The candidate’s “exaggerated, slapstick comedies” uses both the adjective and the implicit noun (the slapstick genre). | physical comedy, farce, knockabout, broad comedy |
| distorted (values) | (adj.) misrepresented or twisted from a true or natural state. | Pairs with values, view, picture, account, perception, sense. Slightly stronger than incorrect or wrong; implies deliberate or systematic misrepresentation. The candidate’s “promoting distorted, inappropriate values” hits the right register for a debate critique. | twisted, warped, skewed, misrepresented |
| righteousness | (n.) the quality of being morally right or justifiable. | Pairs with self-, sense of, claim, defend, fight for. Slightly old-fashioned / Biblical register; works well as the abstract noun in a debate context. The candidate’s “superhero shows often emphasise the concepts of justice and righteousness” is the right pairing — justice as the systemic value, righteousness as the personal one. | morality, virtue, uprightness, rectitude |
| dilemma | (n.) a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives. | Pairs with face, pose, ethical, moral, real, false. The classic spelling slip-trap (single l, double m); the candidate writes dillemma with the doubling on the wrong letter. The intended use (many effects and dilemmas in TV shows are deliberately created) is the correct policy/literary register. | predicament, quandary, conundrum, hard choice |
| food for thought | (idiom) something that warrants serious thought or consideration. | Fixed phrase — thought always singular. Pairs with provide, give, offer, plenty of, real. The candidate’s use is right; the slip is the pluralisation (food for thoughts) which breaks the idiom. | something to think about, matter for reflection, considerations |
| elaborate (on) | (v.) to develop or present (a theory, policy, or system) in detail. | Pairs with further, in detail, on a point, on a theme, on an argument. The candidate’s closing “my fellow team members are going to further elaborate on how watching TV makes us smarter” is the standard debate-handoff formula — passing the argument to the next speaker on the team. | expand, develop, explain further, flesh out |
| motion must stand | (fixed phrase) the formal debating-room declaration that the proposition has been successfully argued and should be accepted. | Standard close to a proposing-side speech. Paired with the motion falls (the opposition’s equivalent close). The candidate’s “today’s motion must stand” is the textbook verdict request — the right phrase in the right place. | the motion carries, the proposition holds, vote in favour |
Leave a Reply