Debate Speech — Against Abolishing Class-Position Reporting (Opposition First Speaker, “Kong Kids” framing)

2018 HKDSE English Paper 2 · Q5 (Part B) · analysed 17 May 2026
Year: 2018 Part: B Question: Q5 Genre: debate speech (opposition) Grade band: 5** Marks: 21 + ^19 = 40 / 42 Candidate: 2018-003

Question prompt — Q5 Learning English through Debating

The motion is: ‘The policy of reporting students’ class position should be abolished.’ Write a debate speech arguing for OR against the motion. (~400 words)

Candidate 2018-003 argues against the motion — i.e., in favour of keeping class-position reporting — matching the opposition stance taken by candidate 2018-007 (also in this 2018 collection, at 34/42). The two opposition speeches make a clean pair-comparison: same side, six-mark gap.

Show original handwritten pages (4)

Page 20 — opening with suicide-rate framing + motivation argument — PDF page 20 (booklet p.8) — opening + motivation argument

Page 21 — motivation continued — PDF page 21 (booklet p.9) — strong vs weak students argument

Page 22 — Kong Kids / adversity training — PDF page 22 (booklet p.10) — Kong Kids + adversity training

Page 23 — opposition steel-man + rebuttal + close — PDF page 23 (booklet p.11) — opposition rebuttal + close

The writing, with corrections marked inline

Legend: ~~red strikethrough~~ = removed | green highlight = added or replaced | yellow highlight = handwriting unclear

Booklet p.8 (lines 1–22)
1Good morning, adjudicators, the opposing team, ladies and
2gentlemen. Today’s motion is ‘The policy of reporting
3students’ class position should be abolished.’ Beyond
4question, most students nowadays suffer from tremendous
5academic pressure as shown by the soaring suicidal suicide
6rate of teenagers. Some attribute this saddening
7phenomenon to the policy of reporting students’ class
8position, for it leads to mounting mental burden for
9students who are determined to outcompete their peers.
10However, is such a policy really a demon that does
11harm to students?
12 
13Our team believes that the policy has its own merits,
14and thus should not be abolished. The most prominent
15advantage of such a policy is that it offers stronger
16motivation to students to strive for academic excellence.
17Students are able to reflect on their academic
18performance with reference to their position shown on
19the report card. For more capable students, they will
20gain a sense of achievement by ranking top. Sometimes
21they may not be able to attain a position as high as the
22last one. This acts as a gentle reminder to tell them that
Booklet p.9 (lines 23–44)
23they may not have made enough efforts effort, or they may
24have encountered a bottleneck in their studies. As for
25weaker students, it is also encouraging, if not
26rewarding, to see their position rise gradually as their
27hard work pays off. On the contrary, without a regular
28report indicating their position in class, it is relatively
29easy for intelligent students to be satisfied with their
30current academic results and give up on trying harder
31to maximize their potential. Worse still, weaker
32students will care even care less about schoolwork as they
33do not feel that they have accomplished anything
34regardless of their strenuous efforts. Therefore, such
35a policy plays a significant role in encouraging students
36in their learning journey.
37 
38No less substantial is the argument that knowing
39their own class position can be a training for students’
40adversity in question resilience in the face of adversity.
41It is quite a phenomenon that the young generations are
42generation is criticized as ‘Kong Kids’ for their poor
43ability in grappling with failures and difficulties. Having
44to receive multiple report cards which are printed with
Booklet p.10 (lines 45–66)
45their class position throughout their secondary school
46life, students undoubtedly will come across disheartening
47situations in which they experienced regression in their
48academic performance. Seeing the number shown on
49the report card growing larger may not be the most
50pleasant thing for students, but it is indispensably a
51life lesson that every youngster has to learn when they
52grow up — accepting the mistakes we have made,
53embracing the failure we have to face, and simply,
54moving on. Therefore, it is crystal-clear that reporting
55students’ class position can be conducive to their
56personal development.
57 
58The opposing team may contend that it is necessary
59for the school to withdraw the policy in light of the
60stressful and intense learning environment and education
61system, suggesting that such cancellation will be the
62best remedy for the tremendous burden. However, let us
63take a step back and look at the whole picture. Is it
64really the case? Our team admits that the withdrawal
65of such a policy does help alleviate students’ stress level.
66Nevertheless, it is a short-sighted move. What the
Booklet p.11 (lines 67–78)
67school ought to do is sometimes the workload of students
68address the workload of students, which is sometimes (and
69isn’t) often the culprit of causing students’ stress. Are
70we doing good to students when we just abolish a
71policy instead of teaching them to cope with adversities
72and failures? I believe we all know the answer.
73 
74Before we cheer for the abolition of the policy of
75reporting students’ class position, ask yourself this
76question.

Marks earned: 21 + ^19 = 40 / 42 (5**). M1 = 21 (full marks); M2 = ^19 (adjusted, two off perfect). The Part A in the same booklet earned 19 + 19 = 38/42 (5*), so the candidate’s 5** overall is carried by this Part B.

The pair-piece with candidate 2018-007 (also opposition, 34/42). Same prompt, same side, six-mark gap. Candidate 2018-003’s advantages over 2018-007: (1) the Kong-Kids / adversity-training framing gives the opposition case a culturally-specific anchor; (2) the suicide-rate opening reframes the standard pro-abolition argument before the speech makes its own case; (3) the rebuttal ‘What the school ought to do is address the workload, not abolish a policy’ reframes the proposition’s strongest argument as a category mistake.

Word count. Approximately 640 words against the ~400-word brief — about 60% over. Long, but considerably tighter than the longest 5** debate speech in this collection (candidate 2018-005 at 900w).

Why this isn’t a perfect 42. The M2 of ^19 (two below perfect) reflects sentence-level wobbles: missing articles (such policy, sense of achievement, the tremendous burden), the broken syntactic cascade in the rebuttal paragraph at lines 67–69 (What the school ought to do is sometimes the workload), the close that trails off (ask yourself) at lines 75–76. The substance is at the perfect level; the surface execution loses two marks. With one careful re-read pass, this would be 21+21.

Spotlight — the Kong Kids framing (lines 41–56)

This paragraph is the single biggest reason for the M1 = 21. The candidate names a real HK colloquial anxiety — Kong Kids (港孩), the privileged HK youth perceived as unable to cope with adversity — and uses it to flip the proposition’s framing. The class-position policy is reframed not as a stressor but as resilience training. This re-purposes a cultural anxiety in service of the opposition case.

The paragraph then lands on a three-clause aphoristic close (lines 52–54): “accepting the mistakes we have made, embracing the failure we have to face, and simply, moving on.” A culturally-anchored argument plus a rhythmic, philosophical sentence — this is the move that distinguishes a HK-context-aware writer from a generic essayist.

Strengths to praise

1. The Kong Kids framing is culturally specific and rhetorically smart

The candidate names a real HK anxiety and uses it to flip the proposition’s framing. The policy isn’t a stressor; it’s adversity training. This is the kind of culturally-anchored argument that distinguishes a HK-context-aware writer from a generic essayist. (See Spotlight above for the extended treatment.)

2. The opening steel-mans the proposition before the speech starts arguing

Lines 4–11: by stating the proposition’s strongest case first (soaring suicide rate, mounting mental burden) and then turning on it with a rhetorical question (is such a policy really a demon?), the candidate earns the right to challenge it. This is the ‘steel-man-then-reframe’ opening that polished debate writing uses — engaging the opposition’s case head-on rather than ignoring it.

3. The strong-students vs weak-students symmetry

Lines 19–27: “For more capable students, they will gain a sense of achievement by ranking top… As for weaker students, it is also encouraging, if not rewarding, to see their position rise gradually…” The proposition usually argues the policy hurts weak students; the candidate shows it can serve both. The symmetry forces the proposition to defend a more demanding claim.

4. The rebuttal’s category-mistake move

Lines 66–72: “What the school ought to do is address the workload of students, which is often the culprit… Are we doing good to students when we just abolish a policy instead of teaching them to cope with adversities and failures?” The candidate reframes the proposition’s remedy as misdirected: the stress is real; the cause is the workload; abolishing the policy treats a symptom and leaves the cause. The strongest single argumentative move in the speech.

5. The closing rhetorical question

Lines 74–76: “Before we cheer for the abolition of the policy of reporting students’ class position, ask yourself this question.” Ending on an open imperative to the audience rather than the conventional I urge this House… leaves the moment of decision in the listener’s lap. Less formal than the standard close convention, but rhetorically pointed.

Grammar notes

Issue	Explanation
(line 5) `suicidal rate` → `suicide rate`	Suicidal is the adjective describing the person (suicidal thoughts, suicidal teenagers); the rate is a suicide rate (using the noun as modifier).
(line 10) `is such policy really a demon` → `is such a policy really a demon`	Such + singular count noun takes an indefinite article: such a policy, such a problem, such a person. The candidate omits the article here, again on line 15, and again on line 65.
(line 20) `gain sense of achievement` → `gain a sense of achievement`	Missing indefinite article. A sense of achievement, a feeling of satisfaction.
(line 23) `made enough efforts` → `made enough effort`	Effort in this collocation is uncountable: make an effort / make efforts (plural OK in some contexts), enough effort (singular). Enough efforts reads slightly oddly.
(line 32) `weaker students will even care less` → `weaker students will care even less`	Adverb placement: care even less (the intensifier modifies the comparative less, not the verb).
(lines 39–40) `training for students’ adversity in question` → `training for students’ resilience in the face of adversity`	Adversity in question reads as ‘the specific adversity being discussed’; the intended sense is ‘the capacity to face adversity’, which is resilience.
(lines 41–42) `the young generations are criticized` → `the young generation is criticized`	Generation in this sense is singular (referring to the current cohort), so generation with singular agreement.
(line 47) `they experienced regression` → `they experience regression`	Sequence of tenses: the surrounding sentence uses present tense (students will come across), so the embedded verb should be present too.
(line 50) `indispensably a life lesson` → ok / slightly elevated	The adverb indispensably works but reads slightly formal; undeniably would fit too.
(lines 67–69) `What the school ought to do is sometimes the workload of students, which is sometimes (and isn’t) culprit` → `What the school ought to do is address the workload of students, which is often the culprit`	The original’s syntax collapses: it’s missing the verb (address) and the parenthetical (and isn’t) contradicts the claim. The rewrite supplies the verb and resolves the ambiguity.
(line 70) `doing good to students` → `doing students a favour` / `helping students`	Do good to is grammatical but archaic; the natural form is do someone a favour, do good for, or simply help.
(line 71) `cope with adversities` → `cope with adversity`	Adversity is usually uncountable in this sense: cope with adversity, face adversity.
(lines 75–76) `ask yourself` (terminal sentence with no object) → `ask yourself this question` / `ask yourself whether the cure is worse than the disease`	The candidate’s close trails off (ask yourself.) without naming what to ask. Adding a referent (this question) or specifying the question completes the sentence.

Style suggestions (where 5** could become perfect)

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 “is such a policy really a demon?” could land harder

Text-type fit line 10

Original: “However, is such a policy really a demon that does harm to students?”

Try: “Before we cancel the policy, let us be sure we have the diagnosis right. Is the rank the disease — or is it the symptom of a deeper sickness in how we ask students to learn?”

The candidate’s demon metaphor is striking but slightly cartoonish for a debate-floor opening. A diagnostic / disease frame matches the medical seriousness of the suicide-rate evidence and pivots cleanly to the speech’s eventual claim (the workload is the cause; the ranking is downstream).

Suggestion 2 · gloss “Kong Kids” for non-HK listeners

Authenticity lines 41–43

Original: “The young generation is criticized as ‘Kong Kids’ for their poor ability in grappling with failures and difficulties.”

Try: “Our culture has even given the phenomenon a name — ‘Kong Kids’, the privileged HK youth who cannot, when life refuses them, cope with the refusal. The class-position policy is one of the few institutional moments that prepares them for that refusal.”

In an inter-school debate, most adjudicators will know the term; a brief gloss plus the operative claim lands the cultural reference and ties it directly to the motion.

Suggestion 3 · split the rebuttal into three short sentences

Fluency lines 67–72

Original: “What the school ought to do is address the workload of students, which is often the culprit of causing students’ stress.”

Try: “The stress is real. But the cause is the workload, not the ranking. Abolishing the ranking will leave the workload intact and the stress untouched.”

Three short sentences carry the rebuttal’s logic step by step: (1) acknowledge the stress, (2) name the actual cause, (3) show the proposed remedy fails. The original combines all three into one compound sentence that buries the argument.

Suggestion 4 · complete the imperative at the close

Text-type fit lines 74–76

Original: “Before we cheer for the abolition of the policy of reporting students’ class position, ask yourself.”

Try: “Before this House votes to abolish, ask yourself one question: do you want to graduate a class of students who can read the ranking, or a class of students who cannot bear it? I urge this House to vote against the motion. Thank you.”

The candidate’s close trails off mid-imperative. The pro version completes the question (with the strongest framing of the opposition case), then adds the formal close-of-debate convention (I urge this House to vote against the motion) and the thanks.

Suggestion 5 · compress toward ~510 words

Text-type fit

Original: ~640 words.

Aim: opening + reframe (~80w) · motivation argument (~140w) · adversity argument (~120w) · opposition steel-man + rebuttal (~120w) · close (~50w). Target: ~510.

The motivation paragraph could lose 30–40 words without losing substance. The over-shoot at 640 is more disciplined than candidate 2018-005’s 900 but tighter still would let each move land harder.

Professional rewrite — the Kong Kids paragraph

Professional rewrite — the adversity-training argument

This is the candidate’s most distinctive paragraph and the single biggest reason for M1 = 21. A professional rewrite preserves the Kong Kids framing, glosses the term for full impact, and lands the argument’s closing aphorism harder.

The student’s paragraph (corrected)

No less substantial is the argument that knowing their own class position can be a training for students’ resilience in the face of adversity. It is quite a phenomenon that the young generation is criticized as ‘Kong Kids’ for their poor ability in grappling with failures and difficulties. Having to receive multiple report cards which are printed with their class position throughout their secondary school life, students undoubtedly will come across disheartening situations in which they experience regression in their academic performance. Seeing the number shown on the report card growing larger may not be the most pleasant thing for students, but it is indispensably a life lesson that every youngster has to learn when they grow up — accepting the mistakes we have made, embracing the failure we have to face, and simply, moving on. Therefore, it is crystal-clear that reporting students’ class position can be conducive to their personal development.

Rewritten by a professional debater

My second argument is the one I most want this House to hear. Our culture has a word for the young people we are producing — Kong Kids, the privileged HK teenagers who, when life refuses them anything, cannot cope with the refusal. We have made an entire generation tender to disappointment. The class-position policy is one of the few institutional moments in their secondary lives when they meet a number that says you can do better. Take that moment away — and what are we doing? We are protecting them, at thirteen, from the experience of being thirteenth. We are not. The world will rank them. The workplace will rank them. The university will rank them. The kind thing — the educational thing — is to let them meet the rank in the protected environment of their own school, with their teachers beside them, and to learn how to stand back up.

What the rewrite is doing differently:

The paragraph announces its weight. My second argument is the one I most want this House to hear. A debate paragraph signposted this way commands more adjudicator attention than one introduced procedurally.
The Kong Kids term is glossed. The privileged HK teenagers who, when life refuses them anything, cannot cope with the refusal. The candidate’s poor ability in grappling with failures is correct but procedural; the rewrite’s phrasing is the kind of definition a sociologist would write.
The argument is concretised with a number. The experience of being thirteenth. A specific rank-number turns the abstract regression in academic performance into something the audience can picture.
The triple-anaphora ‘the world / workplace / university will rank them’ lands the inevitability. The candidate’s original implies this but doesn’t state it; the rewrite makes the post-school ranking environment explicit, which is the argument’s actual stakes.
The closing sentence is a small philosophical statement. To learn how to stand back up. Five words. The candidate’s conducive to their personal development says the same thing in seven words and the wrong register.

Vocabulary to notice

Word	Definition	Usage notes
soaring	(adj.) rising rapidly.	Pairs with rate, prices, costs, demand: the soaring suicide rate, soaring inflation. News-feature register.
attribute (to)	(v.) to regard as caused by or belonging to.	Takes to: attribute the phenomenon to the policy, attribute success to hard work.
outcompete	(v.) to do better than (a rival).	Pairs with peers, rivals, competitors: outcompete their peers. Slightly elevated.
Kong Kids (港孩)	(n., HK colloquial) HK youth perceived as privileged, sheltered, and unable to cope with adversity.	Real HK media / sociological term. Originated in 2010s discourse about over-protective parenting. Often used critically.
grapple (with)	(v.) to struggle to deal with.	Pairs with problem, issue, difficulty, question: grapple with the question, grapple with failures. Active engagement implied.
bottleneck (in studies)	(n., metaphorical) a point of obstruction or congestion.	Used in education and business: a bottleneck in learning, hit a bottleneck in their studies. Useful for the ‘plateau’ sense.
disheartening	(adj.) discouraging.	Pairs with experience, situation, result, news: a disheartening situation, disheartening results. Stronger than discouraging.
indispensable	(adj.) absolutely necessary.	Pairs with part, role, lesson, member, tool: an indispensable life lesson, an indispensable role. Adverb: indispensably.
conducive (to)	(adj.) making something likely to happen or develop.	Always takes to + noun/gerund: conducive to personal development, conducive to learning.
strenuous	(adj.) requiring great exertion.	Pairs with effort, work, exercise, opposition: strenuous efforts, strenuous training. Formal register.
substantial	(adj.) of considerable importance, size, or worth.	Pairs with argument, evidence, increase, amount: no less substantial is the argument that…, substantial evidence.
regression	(n.) a return to a less developed state.	Pairs with academic, statistical, mental: regression in academic performance, regression analysis. Slightly technical.
culprit	(n.) the person or thing responsible for a problem.	Pairs with real, main, true, hidden: the workload is the real culprit, the main culprit behind the crisis. Useful in causal-attribution arguments.
short-sighted	(adj.) lacking imagination or foresight.	Pairs with move, decision, policy, plan: a short-sighted move, a short-sighted policy. Used critically in policy debates.
in light of	(prep. phrase) considering; taking into account.	Pairs with fact, evidence, situation, news: in light of the stressful environment, in light of recent events. Formal register.
remedy	(n.) a means of counteracting or removing.	Pairs with find, propose, offer, seek: the best remedy for stress, find a remedy. Medical / policy register.