Debate Speech — Against Abolishing Class-Position Reporting (Opposition First Speaker)
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)
This candidate argues against the motion — i.e., in favour of keeping the class-position policy — speaking as the first speaker of the opposition team. The natural sibling in the collection is candidate 2018-003 (also opposition, 40/42): same prompt, same side, six-mark gap.
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 almost certainly slipped
Booklet p.8 (lines 1–18)
1Good morning, honourable adjudicators, members of the
2proposition team, ladies and gentlemen. I am the first
3speaker of the opposition team, and I would like to
4express my firm disagreement on with the motion of
5abolishing the policy of reporting students’ class
6position. I believe it is essential for students to be informed about
7their rankings, as it allows us a more comprehensive understanding
8of our performance, and motivates us to strive for excellence.
9
10To begin with, a more helpful evaluation
11on of our exam performance can be achieved by knowing our
12class position. As you may notice, the difficulty of our
13exam papers varies from time to time, which
14makes the actual score a relatively poor indicator
15of our performance. Sometimes we may struggle when attempting
16a paper and score low as a result, though I can
17but can we conclude that it is solely caused by our lack of
18knowledge and practice? No, because the case may be
Booklet p.9 (lines 19–40)
19that the questions are simply too tough and demanding.
20It is then that the actual score must not only reflect
21our application of academic knowledge, but is also significantly
22influenced by the difficulty of the paper itself.
23In contrast, the ranking serves as a fabulous reliable
24indicator in this case, as the impact of the difficulty
25will induce roughly similar effects on all students, and
26an overall upward or downward shift of scores will be
27resulted will result. Therefore, we can see that students can
28have a good grasp of their relative performance by referring
29to the class position, which is rather independent
30of the difficulty of the paper. As one of the aims
31of examination is to let us evaluate our performance
32and improve, the provision of class positions can definitely
33assist with this purpose, since the evaluation can be
34carried out more accurately.
35
36Another benefit brought by rankings is the fact that
37they triggers positive competition among the students. In
38most cases, students would like to perform better
39than their peers, so as to stand out and obtain
40recognition. In order to top the leaderboard,
Booklet p.10 (lines 41–64)
41we have no choice but to study diligently. Beyond doubt,
42when we are pursuing good grades, we can have gain more
43depth and our understanding on various aspects of
44knowledge can be improved. Consequently, the academic
45performance of all students will be uplifted, so that more
46knowledgeable students can be nurtured by staying in
47a suitable environment of peer pressure.
48
49The first speaker of the proposition raised
50his concern regarding the fact that students getting
51poor class positions will feel miserable, so it is
52detrimental to their mental health and self-esteem.
53It is indeed true that these students will have
54negative feelings, though those feelings will not vanish,
55or may even intensify if class positions are
56abolished. The student with performance not up
57to standard will still know his situation, even
58though not through competitiveness, as it is not
59uncommon for pupils to share their examination
60results with their neighbours. These low-performers
61will… In The class without class positions, the sense
62of uncertainty will be even higher, which will simply add
63to the pressure of these low-performers, making them
64panic and feel worried. Therefore, abolishing class positions
Booklet p.11 (lines 65–73)
65don’t does not address the problem raised by the proposition
66effectively.
67
68All in all, it is immediately apparent that
69abolishing class positions does not bring any
70benefits, while the achievements of class position,
71namely increasing understanding on performance and inducing
72constructive competition, will be lost. Let us
73say ‘no’ to the cancellation of class position
74policy! Thank you!
Marks earned: 18 + 16 = 34 / 42 (5*). The marking record shows M1 = 18, M2 = 16, R1 (third reviewer) = 12; the closest pair is M1 (18) and M2 (16), so the third panel was dropped. The Part A in the same booklet earned 19 + 19 = 38 / 42 (5*, on the 5** boundary).
The natural pair piece. The closest comparison in the collection is candidate 2018-003 (also opposition first speaker, 40/42). Same prompt, same side, six-mark gap. 2018-003 wins on three measures: (1) the Kong-Kids / adversity-training framing gives the opposition case a culturally-specific anchor; (2) the suicide-rate opening steel-mans the proposition before answering it; (3) the rebuttal reframes the proposition’s remedy as a category mistake (treat the workload, not the ranking).
Where this piece still scores high. The exam-difficulty argument (lines 10–34) is genuinely original — rankings normalise against variable test difficulty — and is not present in 2018-003. The rebuttal of the proposition’s mental-health point (lines 49–66) engages directly with the imagined opposition speaker rather than a generic strawman. With cleaner syntax on lines 60–61 (the broken “These low-performers will…” cascade) this could easily have been 36–37/42.
Word count. Approximately 500 words against the ~400 brief — about 25% over. This is the most disciplined of the three 2018 pieces in the collection (the 42/42 Q4 letter and the 39/42 Q5 affirmative-side speech both ran ~600 words).
No supplementary sheet used. The candidate finished within booklet pages 8–11 (END OF PAPER printed on the last line of page 11). The supplementary (page 12) is blank.
The natural pair piece. The closest comparison in the collection is candidate 2018-003 (also opposition first speaker, 40/42). Same prompt, same side, six-mark gap. 2018-003 wins on three measures: (1) the Kong-Kids / adversity-training framing gives the opposition case a culturally-specific anchor; (2) the suicide-rate opening steel-mans the proposition before answering it; (3) the rebuttal reframes the proposition’s remedy as a category mistake (treat the workload, not the ranking).
Where this piece still scores high. The exam-difficulty argument (lines 10–34) is genuinely original — rankings normalise against variable test difficulty — and is not present in 2018-003. The rebuttal of the proposition’s mental-health point (lines 49–66) engages directly with the imagined opposition speaker rather than a generic strawman. With cleaner syntax on lines 60–61 (the broken “These low-performers will…” cascade) this could easily have been 36–37/42.
Word count. Approximately 500 words against the ~400 brief — about 25% over. This is the most disciplined of the three 2018 pieces in the collection (the 42/42 Q4 letter and the 39/42 Q5 affirmative-side speech both ran ~600 words).
No supplementary sheet used. The candidate finished within booklet pages 8–11 (END OF PAPER printed on the last line of page 11). The supplementary (page 12) is blank.
Strengths to praise
1. Full debate-convention salutation (lines 1–3)
“Good morning, honourable adjudicators, members of the proposition team, ladies and gentlemen. I am the first speaker of the opposition team…” All four audiences addressed and the speaker’s role named — the polished inter-school form, not the generic “Good morning everyone.”
2. The exam-difficulty argument is genuinely original (lines 12–34)
The candidate argues that rank-order normalises against task difficulty — a real piece of psychometric reasoning. Most candidates say “rankings motivate” or “rankings let you compare”; this one identifies a specific failure mode of raw scores and offers ranking as the corrective.
3. First-person plural is doing rhetorical work
Our exam performance, our class position, we have no choice but to study diligently. The pronoun stays anchored to students throughout, positioning the speaker as a member of the affected class rather than an external commentator — the rhetorical asset of an opposition-side first speaker.
4. The rebuttal of the proposition speaker is direct and named (lines 49–52)
“The first speaker of the proposition raised his concern regarding the fact that students getting poor class positions will feel miserable.” The candidate cites a specific speaker on a specific point — the cross-floor engagement adjudicators expect of debate speeches but rarely receive in essay-format answers.
5. The “comparison happens anyway” pivot (lines 58–60)
“It is not uncommon for pupils to share their examination results with their neighbours.” Instead of denying the mental-health harm, the candidate concedes it and shifts ground: abolishing official rankings won’t end the comparison, it’ll just push it underground. The move a real policy debate would make — concede the harm, contest the remedy.
6. The closing call to action lands (lines 72–74)
“Let us say ‘no’ to the cancellation of class position policy! Thank you!” The closing call (Let us say ‘no’) gives the audience a verb to follow; the exclamation gives the speaker a beat to bow on. Many candidate debate speeches fade out; this one lands.
7. Word-count discipline (~500 words)
Against a 400-word brief, this is the tightest word-discipline of any 2018 piece in the collection (the 42/42 Q4 letter ran ~600, the 5** Q5 affirmative speech ~600). Each paragraph carries a single argument or move; nothing is repeated for length.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
(line 4) my firm disagreement on → my firm disagreement with | Disagreement takes with for a position or person, and over for the topic. On doesn’t collocate here. |
(lines 10–11) evaluation on our exam performance → evaluation of our exam performance | Evaluation takes of (the thing being evaluated): an evaluation of the proposal, an evaluation of student work. On would work with commentary on, reflection on. |
(lines 16–18) though I can conclude that it is solely caused by…? → but can we conclude that it is solely caused by…? | The question mark requires a question structure (can we?), not a declarative (I can). The candidate is using a rhetorical question to set up the refutation; the syntax has to match. |
(lines 26–27) an overall upward or downward shift of scores will be resulted → will result | Result is intransitive in this sense: X results in Y or Y results from X. Be resulted is not a valid passive form. |
(line 29) which is rather independent of the difficulty of the paper → ok | Acceptable. Rather here means fairly / quite, which is fine; a tighter version would drop it. |
(lines 36–37) the fact that it triggers positive competition → they trigger positive competition | The subject earlier in the sentence is rankings (plural), so the pronoun and verb should follow: they trigger, not it triggers. |
(line 42) we can have more depth → we can gain more depth | Have depth describes a state; gain depth describes acquiring it — which is what the sentence means. (Develop deeper understanding would be even cleaner.) |
(line 43) our understanding on various aspects of knowledge → our understanding of various aspects | Understanding takes of, not on. Same rule as evaluation of. |
(line 45) be uplifted → be elevated / be improved | Uplift in modern English mostly carries the sense of emotionally raising / inspiring, not improving academic performance. For academic outcomes, improve, raise, elevate. |
(lines 45–47) more knowledgeable students can be nurtured by staying in a suitable environment → more knowledgeable students will be nurtured in a suitable environment | Two refinements: (a) drop by staying — the participial phrase is doing the work the preposition in does more cleanly; (b) will be is the more natural modal here than can be. |
(line 58) even though not competitiveness → even though not through competitiveness | The contrast is between through competitiveness and the alternative route (sharing results with neighbours). Adding through repairs the parallelism. |
(lines 60–61) These low-performers will… → (broken off) | This sentence appears to break off mid-thought, then the next sentence (The class without class positions…) restarts on a new topic. Likely a transcription gap; the intended sense is something like these low-performers will be deprived of accurate information about their standing. |
(line 61) The class without class positions, the sense of uncertainty → In the class without class positions, the sense of uncertainty | Missing preposition In — without it, the noun phrase becomes a dangling absolute that the next clause has to ignore. |
(lines 64–65) abolishing class positions don’t address → abolishing class positions does not address | The gerund abolishing is the singular subject; verb takes does, not don’t. |
(line 73) the cancellation of class position policy → the cancellation of the class position policy | Missing definite article. Class position policy as a noun phrase needs the in this construction. |
(lines 70–71) the achievements of class position, namely increasing understanding on performance → the achievements of class-position reporting — namely, a clearer understanding of performance | Two minor improvements: hyphenate class-position reporting as a compound modifier; replace on with of. |
Style suggestions (where strong writing could become outstanding)
Categories:
Fluency sentence flow, collocations, rhythm.
Authenticity places that sound student-y or translated.
Text-type fit matching debate-speech conventions.
Suggestion 1 · the thesis sentence is doing two things at once
Fluency
lines 3–8
Original: “I would like to express my firm disagreement with the motion of abolishing the policy of reporting students’ class position. I believe it is essential for students to be informed about their rankings, as it allows us a more comprehensive understanding of our performance, and motivates us to strive for excellence.”
Try: “I oppose this motion. Reporting class position is not a relic; it is a tool — one that gives every student a clear map of their performance and a reason to keep climbing.”
The original takes 50 words to do what 30 can. Splitting the thesis into opposition statement + two-clause justification with a metaphor (map, climbing) is the move a polished debate opening makes.
Suggestion 2 · sharpen the exam-difficulty argument with a worked example
Text-type fit
lines 15–19
Original: “Sometimes we may struggle when attempting a paper and score low as a result, but can we conclude that it is solely caused by our lack of knowledge and practice? No…”
Try: “Consider the 2019 Maths Extended Module: the cohort averaged 40%. Without a class ranking, a student scoring 45% would conclude they had failed. With one, the same student learns they outperformed two thirds of the class — and what looked like failure was, in fact, a quiet success.”
The candidate’s abstract claim about exam difficulty is genuinely good — but it stays abstract. A worked numerical example (illustrative, not real) turns the claim into an image. Debate adjudicators reward the move from general principle to specific scenario.
Suggestion 3 · the “fabulous indicator” word choice (corrected on the page)
Authenticity
line 23
Original: “the ranking serves as a fabulous indicator in this case…” (candidate self-corrected to reliable)
Alternative options: “a stable proxy for performance” or “a robust measure of relative standing”.
Fabulous means amazing / fantastical and carries an emotional register too light for a debate argument. The candidate’s own substitution (reliable) is correct; stable, robust, valid are other right-register options.
Suggestion 4 · “Beyond doubt” is a stronger discourse marker than the sentence carries
Fluency
lines 41–44
Original: “Beyond doubt, when we are pursuing good grades, we can gain more depth…”
Try: “Pursuing good grades pulls us into deeper engagement with the material…”
Beyond doubt claims certainty, which the sentence doesn’t earn (it’s a contestable causal claim about grade-chasing improving learning). Dropping the marker and tightening the sentence makes the claim sound less arrogant and more defensible.
Suggestion 5 · the rebuttal paragraph needs to lead with the named concession
Text-type fit
lines 49–55
Original: “The first speaker of the proposition raised his concern regarding the fact that students getting poor class positions will feel miserable, so it is detrimental to their mental health and self-esteem. It is indeed true that these students will have negative feelings…”
Try: “My honourable opponent argued that ranking damages the self-esteem of the lowest-ranked students. He is right that the damage exists. He is wrong that abolition is the cure.”
The rebuttal’s strongest move is the concede the harm, contest the remedy structure. The original buries it; the pro version puts it in three sentences. The opening (my honourable opponent argued…) is also conventional debate-floor address.
Suggestion 6 · the neighbour-comparison point deserves a sentence of its own
Text-type fit
lines 56–60
Original: “The student with performance not up to standard will still know his situation, even though not through competitiveness, as it is not uncommon for pupils to share their examination results with their neighbours.”
Try: “Abolish the ranking and the comparison does not stop — it moves underground. Pupils still share results with their neighbours; parents still ask about the cousin in the next class. The school’s data is replaced by the family’s gossip, with all its inaccuracy and exaggeration.”
The strongest empirical claim in the paragraph — that informal comparison persists when formal data is removed — is buried in a subordinate clause. A stand-alone three-sentence treatment lets it carry the rebuttal’s weight.
Suggestion 7 · the closing could follow full debate convention
Text-type fit
lines 72–74
Original: “Let us say ‘no’ to the cancellation of class position policy! Thank you!”
Try: “For these reasons, I urge this House to oppose the motion. Thank you.”
The candidate’s exclamation is energetic but informal. The standard inter-school debate close is I urge this House to oppose the motion — the adjudicators are listening for the formal phrase, and the candidate is one phrase short of getting it.
Suggestion 8 · the second argument could be tighter
Fluency
lines 36–41
Original: “Another benefit brought by rankings is the fact that they trigger positive competition among the students. In most cases, students would like to perform better than their peers, so as to stand out and obtain recognition. In order to top the leaderboard, we have no choice but to study diligently.”
Try: “Rankings also trigger competition — the constructive kind. Students who can see the top of the leaderboard try to reach it; students who cannot see it, do not.”
Three sentences become two; the substantive argument (visibility drives the behaviour) gets a sharper formulation. The phrase constructive kind also pre-empts the natural opposition reply (but what about destructive competition?).
Professional rewrite — the exam-difficulty argument (the strongest moment)
Professional rewrite — the normalisation-against-difficulty argument
This is the candidate’s most original argument: rankings normalise away the noise of variable exam difficulty. A professional rewrite tightens the logic and lands it on a sharper image.
The student’s paragraph (corrected)
To begin with, a more helpful evaluation of our exam performance can be achieved by knowing our class position. As you may notice, the difficulty of our exam papers varies from time to time, which makes the actual score a relatively poor indicator of our performance. Sometimes we may struggle when attempting a paper and score low as a result, but can we conclude that it is solely caused by our lack of knowledge and practice? No, because the case may be that the questions are simply too tough and demanding. In contrast, the ranking serves as a reliable indicator in this case, as the impact of the difficulty will induce roughly similar effects on all students.
Rewritten by a professional debater
My first point is simple. Exam papers vary in difficulty; ranks do not. A student who scores 45% on a hard paper and 75% on an easy one has not improved — they have been handed a different test. But a student ranked tenth on the hard paper and tenth on the easy one knows, with confidence, that nothing has changed. Ranking is the natural ruler of academic performance, because it measures students against each other rather than against an unstable scale.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- The claim is announced in five words. “Exam papers vary in difficulty; ranks do not.” The original needs forty words to get to the same place. In debate, the audience needs to grasp the argument before the evidence arrives.
- The worked example is numerical. “45% on a hard paper and 75% on an easy one” gives the audience figures to anchor the abstract claim. The candidate’s version stays at the level of difficulty varies, scores vary.
- The closing line is the keeper. “Ranking is the natural ruler of academic performance.” A metaphor (ranking-as-ruler) compresses the entire argument into seven words. The candidate’s closing line (the evaluation can be carried out more accurately) is correct but procedural.
- The rhetorical question is gone. The original’s “can we conclude that it is solely caused by our lack of knowledge?” was clever but indirect. The rewrite makes the claim positively and lets the audience supply the rebuttal on the opposition’s behalf.
Professional rewrite — the rebuttal paragraph (the weakest moment)
Professional rewrite — the mental-health rebuttal
Paragraph 4 (lines 49–66) has the most interesting claim in the piece (that abolition doesn’t end the comparison, it just pushes it underground), but the sentence-level syntax falls apart in the middle — the half-sentence at lines 60–61 (These low-performers will…) breaks off, and the next clause is missing its preposition (The class without class positions, the sense of uncertainty). A professional rewrite preserves the substance and repairs the sentences.
The student’s paragraph (corrected)
The first speaker of the proposition raised his concern that students with poor class positions will feel miserable, so the policy is detrimental to their mental health and self-esteem. It is indeed true that these students will have negative feelings — but those feelings will not vanish, and may even intensify, if class positions are abolished. The student whose performance is not up to standard will still know his situation, even if not through competitiveness, because it is not uncommon for pupils to share their results with their neighbours. In the class without class positions, the sense of uncertainty will be even higher, adding to the pressure on low-performers and making them anxious. Therefore, abolishing class positions does not address the problem the proposition has raised.
Rewritten by a professional debater
My honourable opponent argued that ranking damages the self-esteem of low-performing students. He is right that the damage exists. He is wrong about the remedy. Abolish the ranking, and the comparison does not stop — it moves underground. Pupils still share results with their neighbours; parents still ask about the cousin who got into the science stream. What the school’s data made transparent, the family’s gossip will make distorted. The low-performer doesn’t escape comparison — they lose the one source that knew, accurately, where they actually stand. The proposition’s remedy makes the wound deeper while pretending to heal it.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- The opening triplet is the rebuttal’s structural spine. “He is right that the damage exists. He is wrong about the remedy.” In three short sentences the candidate has named the opponent, conceded the premise, and contested the conclusion — all without losing rhetorical posture.
- The empirical claim is given specific instances. “The cousin who got into the science stream” is the kind of household-level example that makes a Hong Kong audience nod — everyone has heard this comparison made at a dinner table.
- The metaphor of distortion vs transparency carries the argument. “What the school’s data made transparent, the family’s gossip will make distorted.” The contrast (school = accurate, family = inaccurate) gives the audience a way to remember the argument 20 minutes later.
- The final image (makes the wound deeper while pretending to heal it) is the closer. A debate rebuttal that doesn’t close with an image is forgettable; this one ends on the strongest possible characterisation of the opposition’s position.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word | Definition | Usage notes |
|---|---|---|
| honourable adjudicators | (n. phrase, debate) the formal address to competition judges. | Standard inter-school debate convention. The full opening salutation runs honourable adjudicators, members of the proposition / opposition team, ladies and gentlemen. |
| opposition team / proposition team | (n. phrase, debate) the two teams in a competitive debate. | The proposition argues for the motion; the opposition argues against. In American conventions: affirmative / negative. |
| comprehensive | (adj.) complete; including all or most aspects. | Pairs with understanding, view, overview, analysis, coverage. More formal than complete. |
| strive (for) | (v.) to try very hard to achieve something difficult. | Pairs with excellence, perfection, improvement, justice. Used in motivational and exam-paper rhetoric: strive for excellence, strive for the best. |
| indicator | (n.) a sign or measure that shows the state of something. | Pairs with reliable, leading, key, useful, poor. Common in policy and statistical writing: a leading economic indicator, a poor indicator of ability. |
| induce | (v.) to cause or bring about. | Pairs with abstract effects: induce sleep, induce panic, induce a response. Slightly more formal than cause. |
| grasp (n.) | (n.) understanding or hold. | Pairs with good, firm, clear, weak: a good grasp of the subject, a firm grasp on the issue. |
| trigger (v.) | (v.) to cause something to happen. | Pairs with competition, response, reaction, emotion, memory. Often used in arguments about cause-and-effect chains. |
| leaderboard | (n.) a ranked list of competitors. | From sports / gaming. Common in education writing about competitive academic environments. Slightly informal but acceptable in argumentative essays. |
| nurture (v.) | (v.) to care for and encourage growth. | Pairs with students, talent, ability, environment. The noun phrase nature vs nurture is a fixed idiom. |
| peer pressure | (n. phrase) influence from one’s social group. | Usually negative (succumbing to peer pressure), but can be positive (positive peer pressure). The candidate uses it positively here, which is the less common but valid sense. |
| detrimental (to) | (adj.) harmful or damaging. | Takes to: detrimental to health, detrimental to one’s career. More formal than harmful. |
| intensify | (v.) to make or become stronger. | Pairs with feelings, pressure, conflict, debate, search. Often used in arguments about escalating effects. |
| deprive (of) | (v.) to prevent from having or enjoying something. | Takes of: deprived of sleep, deprived of opportunity, deprived of information. Common in arguments about rights and access. |
| apparent | (adj.) clearly visible or understood. | Pairs with obvious, plainly, immediately: it is immediately apparent that… — useful conclusion-setter in debate and essay writing. |
| constructive (vs destructive) | (adj.) helpful and tending to produce good results. | The opposite is destructive. Common policy contrast: constructive criticism vs destructive criticism, constructive engagement, constructive competition. |
Leave a Reply