Debate Speech — Abolish Class-Position Reporting [PERFECT 42/42]
Question prompt — Q5 Learning English through Debating
You are representing your school at an inter-school debating competition. The motion is: ‘The policy of reporting students’ class position should be abolished.’
(The prompt also includes a sample class list showing student names with subject grades and a column for Overall Position.)
Write a debate speech arguing for OR against the motion. (~400 words)
Candidate 2018-005 argues for the motion (proposition) — pair-comparison with candidate 2018-003 (opposition, 40/42) in the same collection.
Show original handwritten pages (6)
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, guests, the opponent team,
2teachers and students. I am Chris Wong, the captain of
3the affirmative team. Today, it is my privilege to be
4standing here to argue for the motion — ‘The policy of
5reporting students’ class position should be abolished.’
6
7To all the guests and students sitting here in the hall, can you
8still vividly recall your feelings when you last received
9your report card with a long list of numbers indicating
10your position? Excited? Delighted? Deflated? Desperate? Are
11you satisfied with the fact that your academic results are
12determined by a set of numbers? While some contend that
13these numbers are good indicators that drive students’
14improvements in school results, my team holds firmly to
15the belief that these ranks are merely evils suffocating
16students, and the policy of reporting students’ class position
17should be abolished without delay in no time. My team have has 3 points to
18make.
19
20Among all demerits the demerits of this system, the most worth-noting worth noting
21one would be that the class positions create a distortion on of
22the genuine purpose of education in students’ mind minds. Under
Booklet p.9 (lines 23–45)
23such the grade-fixated examination system in Hong Kong,
24students attach inordinate importance towards to examinations
25as they believe that achieving flying colours in exams
26would guarantee them a spot in university and thus a
27prosperous future. This notoriously demanding education
28system has already afflicted students for long, and the
29system of reporting students’ class position has
30aggravated this phenomenon. Just imagine: after
31seeing these numbers in on the report card, what would
32be your first intention to do impulse? Probably to have a
33glimpse of the results of other classmates and to make a
34comparison with them. If one wins over others, they
35will become complacent, and the belief of keeping this
36‘social status’ will stem up in their mind minds, making them
37work tooth and nail just to get a good class position.
38Education would become a ranking game from their
39perspective, overshadowing the genuine meaning of education.
40If one loses this game against others, they will find
41themselves fallen into a dark abyss and deem
42themselves as a failed individual. The system of
43reporting class position would, therefore, favorable , therefore, be favourable to the
44churning out of exam machines, but not upholding uphold the
45meaning of education — to cultivate the talent of individuals.
Booklet p.10 (lines 46–68)
46With this in mind, this system should not be advocated.
47
48On top of distorting the purpose of education, equally
49important would be the fact that the system of
50reporting students’ class position is in fact unfair
51to students, especially the higher form students. As
52you all know, the NSS curriculum allows students to
53opt for diversified electives, and the combinations
54of electives are countless. While each subject may
55impose a different mode of assessment to on students,
56it makes no cence sense to compare students’ ‘class
57position’ based on the average score calculated using
58the marks of subjects of different realms. I am
59a striking example of this. As I am keen on
60linguistics, I chose English Literature and Chinese
61History as my electives. Yet, the scores obtained on
62exams for these subjects were lower than those of
63science subjects even if though I topped the list among
64the students taking my elective last year. It turned
65out my class position is far from excellent nowhere near excellent. Does this
66imply that I didn’t perform well in exams? Does this
67imply that others who came before me were necessarily
68better than me? Obviously not. Given that students
Booklet p.11 (lines 69–91)
69took different electives in senior secondary, the class positions
70mean nothing and should thus be abolished.
71
72Here comes now my final argument to make — the
73system of reporting students’ class positions will
74exacerbate the phenomenon of ‘Tiger Moms’ in
75Hong Kong, ultimately putting huge strains on students.
76Our city is ‘famous’ for Tiger Moms and Helicopter
77Parents that exert massive pressure on their
78children, be it over extra-curricular activities or academic
79results. As parents may not know much about the
80curriculum of the subjects or the daily performances
81of their child, the one and only indicator for them
82to grasp their child’s performance would be the
83class positions. According to a research study done by
84the Faculty of Social Science of the University of
85Hong Kong, 65% of students agreed that parents have showed
86their parents have shown dissatisfaction towards their class position
87before, and 48% of students believed that
88parental expectations are were one prime source of pressure.
89These speak volumes about the fact that having
90class positions shown to parents may make them
91become more demanding towards children’s results their children’s school results.
Booklet p.12 supplementary (lines 92–115)
92It is lamentable to see that such trivial and small numbers
93on report cards can ironically conjure up a huge
94argument within a family, impeding parent-child
95relationships. Under this line of thinking, I am
96inclined to the view that the system should be
97abolished.
98
99Our dearest opponent team would counter my
100stance, contending that class positions are driving
101forces for students to elevate their performance
102in exams and provide incentive for them to
103mitigate their problems in learning. Such belief is
104based on the foundation that scores do not mean
105anything as it they cannot reflect their performance
106relative to other students, and ranks are the
107best indicators to allow them to reflect on their
108shortcomings and initiate actual plans to improve their
109performance next time. Yet, such claim a claim is in fact
110ill-founded. While it is acknowledged that
111scores do not reflect anything, I bet the
112opposition team has overlooked the importance of
113grades. Grading students into different distinct distinct
114groups is already sufficient for them to realize
115the domains that they haven’t achieved well, while
Extra supplementary S1 (lines 116–140)
116simultaneously will not impose not imposing a huge burden on students
117as their actual rank is not revealed. With this in
118mind, the opponent’s argument cannot stand.
119
120To conclude, it is the system of revealing students’ rank
121that distort distorts the real meaning of education; it is the
122system of exposing students’ class position that creates
123unfairness to students; it is the system of showing
124class ranks on report cards that triggers the
125formation of Tiger Moms. To all the audience,
126do you want to see teenagers, who are future
127pillars of society, grow to grow in such pressurized a pressurised
128environment? To all the adjudicators, as a teacher, would
129you want children to be immersed in an
130environment in which utilitarianism prevails? To all
131students sitting here, do you want your success to be
132judged by numbers on report cards any longer anymore? It is
133patently obvious that abolishing the system of reporting
134students’ class position is the prerequisite for upgrading
135our problematic education system. Today’s motion
136must stand. Thank you!
Marks earned: 21 + 21 = 42 / 42 (PERFECT). Both markers gave full marks; this is the only debate-speech genre to score a full 42 in the collection. The Part A in the same booklet earned 18 + 20 = 38/42 (5*), so this Part B carries the candidate’s overall 5**.
Word count. Approximately 900 words against the ~400-word brief — more than double, the longest 2018 Part B in the collection. The marker decided every word earns its place.
What makes this perfect. Three things distinguish it from very strong 5** pieces. (1) Genuine debate-form conventions: full salutation, named captain and team, ‘my team has three points to make’, each point named in turn, full opposition steel-man + rebuttal, formal ‘Today’s motion must stand’ close. (2) Personal-story content inside a structural argument: the candidate offers themselves as Exhibit A on the NSS-electives unfairness (lines 58–65). (3) Sourced empirical evidence: the Tiger Mom argument is anchored to a specific HKU Faculty of Social Science survey with two figures (65% / 48%) at lines 83–88.
Word count. Approximately 900 words against the ~400-word brief — more than double, the longest 2018 Part B in the collection. The marker decided every word earns its place.
What makes this perfect. Three things distinguish it from very strong 5** pieces. (1) Genuine debate-form conventions: full salutation, named captain and team, ‘my team has three points to make’, each point named in turn, full opposition steel-man + rebuttal, formal ‘Today’s motion must stand’ close. (2) Personal-story content inside a structural argument: the candidate offers themselves as Exhibit A on the NSS-electives unfairness (lines 58–65). (3) Sourced empirical evidence: the Tiger Mom argument is anchored to a specific HKU Faculty of Social Science survey with two figures (65% / 48%) at lines 83–88.
Spotlight — the triple-anaphora close (lines 120–136)
The single most teachable rhetorical moment in the piece. Three sentences with identical ‘it is the system of [+gerund] that [+verb]’ structure, each mapping one of the three earlier arguments — revealing/distorting (purpose), exposing/creating unfairness (NSS), showing/triggering (Tiger Moms). The candidate isn’t just decorating the close; they are retrieving the three-point structure announced at line 17 and binding it to the motion. Real debate coaches teach exactly this manoeuvre.
Then a second triple lands: three direction-shifts (To all the audience… To all the adjudicators… To all students…), each carrying a rhetorical question. Then the formal Today’s motion must stand. Thank you! Teach this paragraph as the model of how a debate speech ends — recap, address, declare.
Strengths to praise
1. Full debate salutation in conventional order (lines 1–5)
Five named audiences (adjudicators, guests, opponents, teachers, students) plus self-identification with role and team, plus motion stated verbatim. The formal debate-floor opening that adjudicators listen for in the first five seconds — observed more thoroughly here than in any other Q5 in the collection.
2. The four-adjective question “Excited? Delighted? Deflated? Desperate?” (line 10)
One of the most distinctive openings in the collection. Four single-word questions, each an emotional state, alliterating on /d/, walking the audience through the emotional gradient of a report card. The questions construct shared recognition before the argument arrives.
3. The “dark abyss” / “exam machines” / “cultivate the talent of individuals” sequence (lines 34–45)
From complacent winner → loser fallen into a dark abyss → system favourable to the churning out of exam machines → the meaning of education — to cultivate the talent of individuals. Four moves that escalate from individual psychology to institutional critique to philosophy of education, in roughly 70 words.
4. The personal-testimony move on the NSS argument (lines 58–65)
“I am a striking example of this… I chose English Literature and Chinese History as my electives… even though I topped the list among the students taking my elective last year. It turned out my class position is nowhere near excellent.” The candidate stops being a debater and becomes Exhibit A — the move that makes the abstract claim impossible to refute as merely theoretical.
5. The HKU survey citation with two specific percentages (lines 83–88)
Naming the institution (HKU Social Science), giving two figures (65% / 48%), and using both to triangulate the same claim. The figures don’t need to be real for the rhetorical move to land — the marker is rewarding the form. No other Part B in the collection cites academic research.
6. The steel-man + rebuttal respects the opposition’s strongest case (lines 99–118)
The opposition’s argument is stated in its full form (driving forces, elevate performance, mitigate problems) before being refuted, and the rebuttal turns on a substantive distinction (grades, not ranks) rather than dismissal. The formal structure debate adjudicators reward most.
7. Lexical reach that earns its band
Inordinate, afflicted, aggravated, complacent, deemed, churning out, exam machines, NSS curriculum, flying colours, ill-founded, exacerbate, lamentable, impede, utilitarianism prevails, future pillars, patently obvious, prerequisite. The broadest range of any 2018 Part B. Each word does work.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
(line 17) should be abolished in no time → should be abolished without delay | In no time means very quickly (informal); for legislative claims, without delay is the standard collocate. |
(line 17) my team have → my team has | BrE allows plural agreement with team, but in formal writing the singular is the safer choice, especially when the unit is treated as a single agent. |
(line 20) worth-noting → worth noting | Compound-adjective form is noteworthy; the gerund construction worth noting takes no hyphen. |
(line 21) distortion on the genuine purpose → distortion of the genuine purpose | Distortion takes of: a distortion of the truth, a distortion of the data. |
(line 24) attach inordinate importance towards → attach inordinate importance to | Attach importance to is the fixed collocation. Importance towards doesn’t collocate. |
(line 31) seeing these numbers in the report card → seeing these numbers on the report card | A report card is a surface, not a container. On the card. |
(line 32) first intention to do → first impulse / first instinct | Intention to do requires an infinitive (intention to leave); for the spontaneous reaction, impulse or instinct fits. |
(line 43) would, therefore, favorable to the churning out → would, therefore, be favourable to the churning out | Missing copula be. The sentence has the modal would but no verb. BrE / HK English spelling: favourable. |
(line 44) but not upholding the meaning → but not uphold the meaning | Parallelism with would be favourable to: both branches of the contrast need the same form. |
(line 55) impose a different mode of assessment to students → impose a different mode of assessment on students | Impose on is the fixed collocate: impose a rule on, impose a tax on, impose a burden on. |
(line 56) makes no cence → makes no sense | Spelling slip. |
(line 63) even if I topped the list → even though I topped the list | Even if introduces a hypothetical; the candidate’s context is factual (I did top the list), so even though. |
(line 65) far from excellent → nowhere near excellent | Far from excellent reads as a slight understatement; the intended sense is sharper with nowhere near. |
(lines 85–86) parents have showed → their parents have shown | Past participle: shown (irregular). Also: clarify possessive (their parents). |
(line 88) parental expectations are one prime source → parental expectations were one prime source | Sequence of tenses: the survey is a past finding (believed), so the reported claim takes the past too. |
(lines 93–94) conjure up huge argument within family → conjure up a huge argument within a family | Missing indefinite articles. |
(line 105) scores do not mean anything as it cannot reflect → scores do not mean anything as they cannot reflect | Pronoun number: scores is plural, so they, not it. |
(line 116) while simultaneously will not impose → while simultaneously not imposing | Parallelism: is sufficient… while not imposing. The original’s will not impose breaks the parallel. |
(line 121) distort the real meaning → distorts the real meaning | Subject is singular (the system) — verb agreement. |
(line 128) as teacher → as a teacher | Missing indefinite article. |
(line 132) anymore → any longer / any more | BrE / HK English: any more (two words) for time/quantity. Anymore (one word) is more AmE; both are widely accepted now. |
Style suggestions (where 42/42 could become legend)
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 could telegraph structure
Text-type fit
lines 1–5
Original opening: salutation + role + motion + emotional-state opener.
Try: insert one sentence between the role announcement and the emotional opener — “In my eight minutes, I will make three arguments and then engage the opposition’s strongest counter directly.”
If an editor were forced to find something, this would be it: real debate openings telegraph structure within the first 30 seconds. The candidate’s my team has three points to make lands later (line 17) and is mixed with the motivational claim; promoting it to its own top sentence would help the adjudicator follow.
Suggestion 2 · the personal-story could land harder with one number
Authenticity
line 65
Original: “It turned out my class position is nowhere near excellent.”
Try: “I ranked 22nd in a class of 32 — behind students whose subject averages were 15 marks higher than mine.”
The testimony already works on the abstract claim of unfairness; a specific rank-and-class number (illustrative) would turn it into a vivid grievance the audience remembers.
Suggestion 3 · the steel-man could be even more honest
Text-type fit
lines 99–110
Original: “Our dearest opponent team would counter my stance, contending that…”
Try: “The opposition will say — and they will be partly right — that ranking creates competition, and competition raises performance. Where they are right: students who can see the leaderboard work harder. Where they are wrong: ranking and feedback are not the same thing.”
The highest-band version concedes the opposition is partly right before drawing the line. And they will be partly right is a phrase debate adjudicators wait for — it signals honest engagement, not a straw-man.
Suggestion 4 · the triple-anaphora close could shorten the last line
Text-type fit
lines 132–136
Original: “It is patently obvious that abolishing the system of reporting students’ class position is the prerequisite for upgrading our problematic education system. Today’s motion must stand. Thank you!”
Try: “Abolish the ranking. Today’s motion must stand. Thank you.”
Two short sentences hit harder than the elaborate prerequisite for upgrading our problematic education system. The triple-anaphora has done the heavy lifting; the close should land in the cleanest possible language.
Suggestion 5 · compress toward 600 words
Text-type fit
Original: ~900 words.
Aim: ~150w per substantive argument (3 arguments) + 100w opposition + 80w rebuttal + 50w close = ~600.
At 900 words this is the longest 2018 Part B. The marker decided every word earns its place — but the same architecture at 600 words would be the more impressive feat. Not a fix; the next exercise.
Professional rewrite — the rebuttal paragraph (text-type fit)
Professional rewrite — the opposition steel-man + rebuttal
The candidate’s steel-man is genuinely strong; the rebuttal that follows it has one of the few sentence-level wobbles in the piece (scores do not mean anything as it cannot reflect… while simultaneously will not impose at lines 105 and 116). What an editor would change if forced to find anything: tighten the syntax, sharpen the concession, make the grades-vs-ranks distinction structurally explicit.
The student’s paragraph (corrected)
Our dearest opponent team would counter my stance, contending that class positions are driving forces for students to elevate their performance in exams and provide incentive for them to mitigate their problems in learning. Such belief is based on the foundation that scores do not mean anything as they cannot reflect their performance relative to other students, and ranks are the best indicators to allow them to reflect on their shortcomings and initiate plans to improve their performance next time. Yet, such a claim is in fact ill-founded. While it is acknowledged that scores do not reflect anything, I bet the opposition team has overlooked the importance of grades. Grading students into distinct groups is already sufficient for them to realize the domains that they haven’t achieved well, while simultaneously not imposing a huge burden on students as their actual rank is not revealed. With this in mind, the opponent’s argument cannot stand.
Rewritten by a professional debater
The opposition’s strongest case is this: ranking creates competition, and competition raises performance. Without ranks, the argument runs, a student doesn’t know where they stand — a raw score of 65% means nothing unless they know whether 65% is the top of the class or the bottom.
Where the opposition is right: students do need to know how their work compares to their peers’. Where the opposition is wrong: that comparison does not have to be a rank. A grading band — A, B, C, D — tells a student their work is strong, adequate, or weak, without telling them they came 22nd out of 32. Grades give the feedback. Ranks give the wound. Today’s motion asks us to keep the first and abolish the second.
Where the opposition is right: students do need to know how their work compares to their peers’. Where the opposition is wrong: that comparison does not have to be a rank. A grading band — A, B, C, D — tells a student their work is strong, adequate, or weak, without telling them they came 22nd out of 32. Grades give the feedback. Ranks give the wound. Today’s motion asks us to keep the first and abolish the second.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- The opposition’s claim is stated as two sentences. The original packs the steel-man into a long compound sentence; the rewrite gives it space to land.
- The concession is named. Where the opposition is right… Where the opposition is wrong is a formal debate convention the candidate gestures at but doesn’t use.
- The distinction is made as a binary. Grading bands vs ranks — the candidate’s argument is sound but lives inside one long sentence; the rewrite extracts it.
- The aphorism closes the paragraph. Grades give the feedback. Ranks give the wound. A debate paragraph that ends on a quotable line is one the adjudicator remembers when scoring.
- The motion is restated in the closing line. The original ends procedurally; the rewrite returns to the motion.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word | Definition | Usage notes |
|---|---|---|
| affirmative team / proposition | (n. phrase, debate) the side proposing the motion. | HK / American convention: affirmative. British: proposition. Always paired: affirmative vs negative. |
| inordinate | (adj.) unusually or disproportionately large. | Pairs with importance, pressure, amount, time: attach inordinate importance to, an inordinate amount of. |
| flying colours | (idiom) with great success, especially in an exam. | Fixed phrase: pass with flying colours, achieve flying colours. BrE / HK English. |
| churning out | (phr. v.) producing in large quantities, often mechanically. | Often pejorative: churning out graduates, churning out exam machines. The candidate’s use captures the industrial-education critique. |
| utilitarianism | (n.) a doctrine that judges acts by their usefulness or outcomes. | Used here as critique — utilitarianism prevails implies values reduced to measurable usefulness. Sophisticated for an HKDSE answer. |
| exacerbate | (v.) to make worse. | Pairs with problem, situation, condition, phenomenon: exacerbate the housing crisis, exacerbate the phenomenon of Tiger Moms. Formal. |
| lamentable | (adj.) regrettable; deserving sorrow. | Pairs with state, condition, fact, situation: it is lamentable to see. Slightly literary register; works in formal speech. |
| conjure up | (phr. v.) to bring into being as if by magic. | Pairs with image, memory, argument, scene: conjure up an image, conjure up an argument. Slightly poetic. |
| impede | (v.) to obstruct or delay. | Pairs with progress, growth, relationship, performance: impede progress, impede the parent-child relationship. Formal. |
| ill-founded | (adj.) (of a claim) lacking sound basis. | Pairs with claim, argument, belief, fear: an ill-founded claim. Useful rebuttal vocabulary. |
| prerequisite | (n.) something that must come first. | Pairs with for, of: a prerequisite for promotion, a prerequisite of admission. Useful for closing arguments. |
| patently obvious | (adv. + adj.) extremely clear; manifestly. | Used emphatically: it is patently obvious that, patently absurd. The intensifier patently signals certainty. |
| future pillars (of society) | (n. phrase) people who will hold up future society. | Stock political-speech phrase, often applied to young people. Slightly grand register; suits debate closes. |
| Tiger Mom / Helicopter Parent | (n., HK / popular psychology) controlling parenting styles. | Tiger Mom: strict, high-achievement-focused (from Amy Chua). Helicopter Parent: hovering, over-involved. Both common in HK education discourse. |
| grade-fixated | (adj., HK English) obsessively focused on grades. | Hyphenated compound modifier. Used critically about HK education: the grade-fixated examination system. |
| stem up | (phr. v., HK English) to spring up; to arise. | Common HK English coinage; not idiomatic in standard English (which would use well up, rise up, take hold). Defensible in context but worth replacing for the highest band. |
Leave a Reply