Debate Speech — Abolishing the Reporting of Students’ Class Position
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, to provide context for what ‘class position’ refers to.)
Write a debate speech arguing for OR against the motion. (~400 words)
Candidate 2018-008 argues for the motion (affirmative) — pair-comparison with candidate 2018-005 (proposition, 42/42 PERFECT) in the same collection.
Show original handwritten pages (5)
The writing, with corrections marked inline
Legend:
red strikethrough = removed |
green highlight = added or replaced |
yellow highlight = handwriting unclear or word almost certainly slipped
Booklet p.8 (lines 1–22)
1Good Morning Everyone! Today’s motion is: ‘The
2policy of reporting students’ class position
3should be abolished.’ The topic has been
4under controversy for the past decade, and
5there still has not been a conclusion up to
6this date. Today, I will be arguing for the
7affirmative side. But before I present my
8arguments, there are some questions which
9needed need to be asked. What is the purpose of
10disclosing students’ class position? What benefits
11to does it reap?
12
13Disclosing students’ class position has
14long been a practice at the at traditional
15and historical schools. They argue that
16it allows students to have a better
17understanding of their academic situation and that it serves
18to motivate the students internally and externally.
19However, nowadays students are offered a
20detailed report on their academic performance
21graded upon on every aspect of every subject.
22Times have changed,; it is high time the
Booklet p.9 (lines 23–45)
23traditional practices practice was replaced by the new. Disclosing the
24class position of the under-achievers will
25not just lead drive them to work more arduously, but
26only have will deal a double whammy to their self-esteem and self-confidence
27given the double whammy of the difference.
28The setback can only pose a destructive setback effect
29rather than a constructive influence.
30Profoundly Moreover, disclosing class position
31to academic achievers brings
32no benefits as well. Knowing they are the top
33achievers of the class will give them
34a sense of superiority, resulting in a
35poor learning ambience in the classroom. They will
36look down on those having less fewer achievements
37and scores, failing to appreciate the strengths
38of others. Moreover, this may also lead to
39them being disincentivised to work harder, as their
40achievements have already been recognised and they
41feel they are much far superior to others.
42
43In addition, disclosing class position may
44also become another source of stress from
45students. A typical secondary student spends around
Booklet p.10 (lines 46–66)
467 hours a day in school, and afterwards
47they would need to take part in extra-curricular
48activities, which is account for around 2 hours. Compared to
49other teenagers worldwide, these figures are
50staggering. Hong Kong adolescents not only
51have extra-curriculars piled upon them, but
52also face the intense pressure of getting into
53a top university from amid the stiff competition.
54It is fair to say that Hong Kong students
55are one of, if not the most pressurised
56students worldwide. Disclosing class position cannot
57provide much assistance to students’ academics,
58nor would it have a positive influence on
59students’ mental health. It would only become
60another burden of stress burden and a long list
61of worries students already have on their
62hands. Students would have to contend with stress
63as a result — be it expectations of parents,
64peer pressure or self-expectation. It is not
65beneficial to the students’ mental health and
66will just become another source of pressure
Booklet p.11 (lines 67–90)
67and stress.
68
69Opponents may argue that the downsides of disclosing class position may exceed
70be outweighed by the benefits, it may bring,
71stating holding that it can promote competition
72between classmates which would be able to
73improve students’ academic achievement. At
74this tender age, students’ competitive nature with will
75push them to work relentlessly and and try to outshine
76their peers. For these reasons, opponents maintain
77that class position should not be abolished, and
78that the practice should continue.
79
80On first place At first glance, the argument seems to
81hold water. However, in reality the argument
82is actually based on no solid ground. Teenagers,
83being susceptible and easily influenced by peers,
84will become over–competitive. They would try
85everything in their power to perform better than
86their peers and the friendly nature of the
87competition would soon be eliminated. Competition will
88turn fierce and incidences will follow, resulting
89in acts such as cheating. The learning atmosphere
90will be damaged and students could not effectively
Booklet p.12 supplementary (lines 91–106)
91learn. Hence, the fallacy that disclosing class position
92can promote competition and improve students would do
93not stand stands.
94
95Through the arguments I have presented above,
96I have come to the conclusion that the policy
97of disclosing class position should be
98abolished. Having studied in a school where the
99policy does not exist, I have been able
100to stay motivated while being relatively
101stress-free. I have stayed in remain in conviction that the
102policy should be abolished. It is a
103scourge rather than a blessing of the negative
104effects brought upon , given the negative effects it brings. Do not be deceived
105by its supposed benefits. Thank you for your
106time.
Marks earned: 20 + 19 = 39 / 42. The marking record shows M1 = 16, M2 = ^20, R1 (third reviewer) = ^19. The two marks closest in value — M2 (20) and R1 (19) — are the closest pair and form the final mark; M1 (16) was disregarded under the closest-pair rule. So this piece scored in the 5** band per the brief’s cutoff (>~38/42), even though the candidate is recorded as 5* overall. The Part A in the same booklet earned 19 + 18 = 37/42 (5*).
Word count. Approximately 600 words against the ~400-word brief — roughly 50% over, on a par with the perfect-marks Q4 piece in the same year.
Dual-band convention. Per-piece grade is reported as 5** (this piece) · 5* overall because the candidate’s overall English Language subject grade is 5*, but the marks on this individual answer land in the 5** band.
Structural read. The speech follows textbook debate architecture: greeting + motion + topic framing (Para 1, lines 1–11) → refutation of the historical defence (Para 2, lines 13–41: under-achievers + top achievers) → HK-stress argument (Para 3, lines 43–67) → opposition steel-man (Para 4, lines 69–78) → opposition rebuttal (Para 5, lines 80–93) → personal-experience conclusion (Para 6, lines 95–106). The opposition acknowledgement is the move that lifts the piece above many candidate debate speeches at the 5* boundary — though, as Suggestion 5 below notes, the candidate’s framing of that acknowledgement is the single move that needs the most repair.
What separates this from the perfect-marks Q5 proposition piece (candidate 2018-005). Both candidates over-write substantially, both reach for sophisticated vocabulary, both build clean tripartite arguments. The differences: (1) the perfect-marks piece never lets a sentence fall apart structurally — this one has at least three sentences where the syntax breaks (lines 25–29, 88–93, 103–104); (2) the perfect-marks piece reinforces its persona at every sign-post — here the ‘debater’ voice flickers in the middle paragraphs; (3) the perfect-marks piece names sources (HKU Faculty of Social Science survey with 65% / 48% figures) — here the closest equivalent is the 7-hours / 2-hours figure at lines 45–48, which is excellent but isolated. Two or three additional specific citations would have moved this to 21 + 21.
Word count. Approximately 600 words against the ~400-word brief — roughly 50% over, on a par with the perfect-marks Q4 piece in the same year.
Dual-band convention. Per-piece grade is reported as 5** (this piece) · 5* overall because the candidate’s overall English Language subject grade is 5*, but the marks on this individual answer land in the 5** band.
Structural read. The speech follows textbook debate architecture: greeting + motion + topic framing (Para 1, lines 1–11) → refutation of the historical defence (Para 2, lines 13–41: under-achievers + top achievers) → HK-stress argument (Para 3, lines 43–67) → opposition steel-man (Para 4, lines 69–78) → opposition rebuttal (Para 5, lines 80–93) → personal-experience conclusion (Para 6, lines 95–106). The opposition acknowledgement is the move that lifts the piece above many candidate debate speeches at the 5* boundary — though, as Suggestion 5 below notes, the candidate’s framing of that acknowledgement is the single move that needs the most repair.
What separates this from the perfect-marks Q5 proposition piece (candidate 2018-005). Both candidates over-write substantially, both reach for sophisticated vocabulary, both build clean tripartite arguments. The differences: (1) the perfect-marks piece never lets a sentence fall apart structurally — this one has at least three sentences where the syntax breaks (lines 25–29, 88–93, 103–104); (2) the perfect-marks piece reinforces its persona at every sign-post — here the ‘debater’ voice flickers in the middle paragraphs; (3) the perfect-marks piece names sources (HKU Faculty of Social Science survey with 65% / 48% figures) — here the closest equivalent is the 7-hours / 2-hours figure at lines 45–48, which is excellent but isolated. Two or three additional specific citations would have moved this to 21 + 21.
Strengths to praise
1. The opening uses rhetorical questions as a framing device, not as filler (lines 8–11)
“What is the purpose of disclosing students’ class position? What benefits does it reap?” Two questions, posed to the audience, that immediately put the burden of proof on the policy’s defenders. This is a classic debate move — before refuting, force the other side to justify the status quo — and the candidate executes it cleanly.
2. Lexical reach is genuine and sustained
Affirmative side, under controversy, arduously, double whammy, destructive setback, ambience, disincentivised, staggering, pressurised, susceptible, fallacy, scourge, conviction. The vocabulary doesn’t sit decoratively — disincentivised (line 39) compresses the “they stop working hard because they’ve already won” idea into a single verb; scourge (line 103) in the conclusion makes the closing claim sound civic and weighty.
3. The two-pronged attack on the “motivation” defence (lines 23–41)
The candidate doesn’t just say “class rankings demotivate weak students” — they make a symmetrical case: rankings hurt weak students (lines 23–29) and they make strong students complacent (lines 30–41). Showing that the policy fails at both ends of the class is rhetorically much stronger than picking only the more obvious half.
4. The Hong Kong-specific stress argument is hyper-local and concrete (lines 45–48)
“A typical secondary student spends around 7 hours a day in school, and afterwards they would need to take part in extracurricular activities… around 2 hours.” The numbers may be approximate but they make the audience’s mental image vivid. Embedding the motion in the lived experience of the HK student is the kind of context-aware argument that lifts a debate speech out of the generic.
5. The candidate steel-mans the opposition before knocking it down (lines 69–78)
Paragraph 4 sets up the strongest plausible counter (‘class position promotes competition, competition improves achievement’), and Paragraph 5 (lines 80–93) refutes it (‘teenagers are susceptible… competition turns hostile… cheating… the friendly nature is eliminated’). Many candidate debate speeches forget the opposition entirely; this one engages it directly.
6. The personal-experience conclusion is doing real work (lines 98–101)
“Having studied in a school where the policy does not exist, I have been able to stay motivated while being relatively stress-free.” The candidate offers themselves as living evidence of the alternative they’re proposing. In debate the personal anecdote is often a closer’s tool — it humanises the abstract policy claim and gives the judges a face to anchor the position.
7. The “times have changed” pivot disposes of the historical-practice defence (lines 22–23)
“Times have changed; it is high time the traditional practice was replaced by the new.” Conceding that the practice has historical legitimacy, then arguing that history isn’t a defence, is exactly the move needed to neutralise the ‘but we’ve always done it this way’ objection without seeming dismissive.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
(line 9) questions which needed to be asked → need to be asked | The questions are being asked now (in the speech), not earlier. Present-tense passive: need to be asked. |
(line 11) What benefits to does it reap? → What benefits does it reap? | Stray to before the verb — almost certainly a pen-slip. |
(line 21) graded upon every aspect → graded on every aspect | Grades are given on a criterion, not upon. (Upon works in formal time expressions: upon arrival, upon reflection.) |
(lines 22–23) Times have changed, it is high time the traditional practices… to be replaced → Times have changed; it is high time the traditional practice was replaced | Two issues: (a) comma splice between the two independent clauses — use a semi-colon or full stop; (b) high time takes the past subjunctive: it is high time we left, not it is high time to leave. |
(line 25) will not just lead to work more arduously → will not just drive them to work harder | The verb lead needs an object (lead them to), and the adverbial more arduously can be replaced with the simpler harder for clean parallelism. |
(line 36) having less achievements → having fewer achievements | Countable noun rule: fewer with count nouns, less with uncountables. Achievements are countable (you can have one, two, several). |
(lines 38–39) this may also lead to them being disincentivised → ok / slight refinement | Acceptable. A tighter version: this may also disincentivise them, dropping the passive. |
(line 48) around 2 hours, which is → which account for around 2 hours | Verb agreement: the subject is activities (plural), so account, not is. |
(line 53) getting into a top university from the stiff competition → amid stiff competition | The competition isn’t a source they emerge from; it’s the medium they have to navigate. Amid or in the face of fits the picture. |
(line 58) nor would it have positive influence → nor would it have a positive influence | Missing article. Influence in this sense is a count noun: a positive influence, a corrupting influence. |
(line 80) On first place the argument seems to hold water → At first glance, the argument seems to hold water | On first place is not a standard English phrase. The idioms are at first glance, on the face of it, at first sight. |
(lines 82–83) Teenagers being susceptible and easily influenced by peers, will become → Teenagers, being susceptible and easily influenced by peers, will become | Comma placement: the participial phrase being susceptible… is non-restrictive, so it needs commas on both sides. |
(lines 88–89) resulting acts such as cheating → resulting in acts such as cheating | Result takes in: X results in Y, resulting in Y. |
(line 90) students could be effectively learn → students could not effectively learn | Almost certainly be is a mis-write for not. The sentence requires a negation to match damaged and cheating in the previous clauses. |
(lines 92–93) the fallacy that… would do not stand → does not stand | Subject is the fallacy, singular present-tense; does not stand is the natural form. (Would do not is grammatically tangled.) |
(line 101) I have stayed in conviction → I remain in the conviction / I remain convinced | Stay in conviction isn’t a fixed phrase in English; remain convinced is the natural form. |
(lines 103–104) a scourge rather than a blessing of the negative effects brought upon → a scourge rather than a blessing, given the negative effects it brings | The clause “of the negative effects brought upon” dangles — brought upon needs an object (upon whom?). Replacing it with a participial clause repairs the syntax. |
Style suggestions (where strong writing could become outstanding)
Categories:
Fluency sentence flow.
Authenticity places that sound student-y or translated.
Text-type fit matching genre conventions.
Suggestion 1 · name the school of thought, not “the traditional and historical schools”
Authenticity
lines 13–15
Original: “Disclosing students’ class position has long been a practice at the traditional and historical schools.”
Try: “The practice of disclosing class position dates back to the rote-learning, exam-rank tradition of Confucian schooling — a model many Hong Kong schools still partly follow.”
The traditional and historical schools is a stock phrase that doesn’t commit to anything specific. Naming the cultural tradition (rote-learning, Confucian heritage, exam-ranking) gives the historical-defence side something concrete to be wrong about.
Suggestion 2 · the “double whammy” colloquialism
Text-type fit
line 26
Original: “will deal a double whammy to their self-esteem and self-confidence”
Try: “will deliver a double blow to their self-esteem and confidence” or “will compound the damage to their self-esteem and confidence”
In a formal inter-school debate, double whammy tips the register toward informal commentary. Double blow keeps the same image with a tone better suited to the genre.
Suggestion 3 · “Profoundly” as a discourse marker
Fluency
line 30
Original: “Profoundly, disclosing class position to academic achievers brings no benefits as well.”
Try: “Moreover, disclosing class position to the top achievers in the class is no better.”
Profoundly means deeply / intensely; it doesn’t function as a connector between paragraphs. The slots are moreover, furthermore, on the other side of the spectrum, equally.
Suggestion 4 · numbers earn their keep when they have a source
Text-type fit
lines 45–48
Original: “A typical secondary student spends around 7 hours a day in school, and afterwards they would need to take part in extracurricular activities, which account for around 2 hours.”
Try: “According to the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups’ 2017 survey, the typical secondary student is in lessons for seven hours a day and committed to extracurriculars for another two — a nine-hour working day before the homework starts.”
Naming a source (HKFYG 2017 survey or similar) gives the figures civic weight. The closing clause (before the homework starts) is the rhetorical pay-off — numbers should always land on a vivid image.
Suggestion 5 · the opposition steel-man needs explicit framing
Text-type fit
lines 69–78
Original: “Downsides of disclosing class position may exceed the benefits, it may bring, stating that it can promote competition… However, a class position should not be abolished and continue to be reported.”
Try: “The strongest argument against my position is this: that ranking promotes healthy competition, and healthy competition raises the whole class. I want to address that argument directly.”
The original paragraph is doing two things at once — setting up the opposition’s claim AND announcing it as the candidate’s view. A clean debate paragraph would announce the move (the strongest argument against my position is this) and then state the opposition’s case in their best light, before refuting it in the next paragraph. This is the single most important repair in the piece.
Suggestion 6 · the “turn fierce / incidences will follow” sequence
Fluency
lines 87–89
Original: “Competition will turn fierce and incidences will follow, resulting in acts such as cheating.”
Try: “Competition turns fierce; cheating follows. The friendly classroom rivalry the policy was meant to promote becomes the thing the policy creates.”
Short sentences land harder than long ones in spoken debate. Replacing the cluttered resulting in acts such as cheating with the punchy cheating follows recovers the rhythmic punch that debate prose lives on. The follow-up sentence converts the claim into a paradox (the policy creates what it was meant to prevent), which is the strongest possible framing.
Suggestion 7 · the closing “Do not be deceived by its supposed benefits”
Text-type fit
lines 104–106
Original: “Do not be deceived by its supposed benefits. Thank you for your time.”
Try: “Do not be misled. The benefits are imagined; the harms are real. I urge this House to vote in favour of the motion. Thank you.”
A debate close has a fixed convention: urge / commend / commit the motion to the House. The candidate’s “do not be deceived by its supposed benefits” carries the substance but skips the conventional sign-off. The pro version preserves both. Note also: in a formal debate context the speaker addresses this House, not the audience generically.
Suggestion 8 · the personal-experience conclusion could land harder with one specific detail
Authenticity
lines 98–101
Original: “Having studied in a school where the policy does not exist, I have been able to stay motivated while being relatively stress-free.”
Try: “My own school dropped class rankings three years ago. Since then, the school has placed more students into top universities, not fewer — including, I am told, the speaker before me.”
The personal experience earns its place by being specific. Naming a date (three years ago), an outcome (more students into top universities), and a rhetorical jab at the opposition speaker turns the closing from autobiography into argument. (The version above is illustrative; the candidate would adapt to their actual school.)
Suggestion 9 · the “stiff competition” cluster needs more variation
Fluency
lines 53–67
Original: “getting into a top university amid the stiff competition… It would only become another burden and a long list of worries… another source of pressure and stress.”
Try: vary the stress-vocabulary. The competition for university places, the pile of homework, the parental expectation, the comparison with the neighbour’s child — class rankings would add yet one more.
Stress, pressure, worry, burden appear five times in two paragraphs (lines 44–67). Naming the specific stressors (parental expectation, comparison with the neighbour’s child) is more vivid than restating the abstract noun.
Professional rewrite — the opening (the strongest moment)
Professional rewrite — the opening framing (lines 1–11)
The opening is the candidate’s most confident move — greeting, motion, decade-long context, rhetorical questions, statement of side, all in one paragraph. A professional rewrite tightens the syntax and lets the rhetorical questions land as the centrepiece they’re designed to be.
The student’s opening (corrected)
Good Morning Everyone! Today’s motion is: ‘The policy of reporting students’ class position should be abolished.’ The topic has been under controversy for the past decade, and there still has not been a conclusion up to this date. Today, I will be arguing for the affirmative side. But before I present my arguments, there are some questions which need to be asked. What is the purpose of disclosing students’ class position? What benefits does it reap?
Rewritten by a professional debater
Good morning. The motion before this House is that the policy of reporting students’ class position should be abolished, and I propose it. Before I make my case, I want to put two questions to the floor — the same two questions the proponents of this policy have never satisfactorily answered. What is class-position ranking for? And whose interests, exactly, does it serve? My speech will argue that on both counts the policy is indefensible.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- Conventional debate framing. “The motion before this House is… I propose it.” This is the formula adjudicators expect; the original’s “I will be arguing for the affirmative side” is correct but loose.
- The two questions are placed where they can do their rhetorical work. The original buries them after “some questions which need to be asked”; the rewrite makes them the structural device of the speech.
- The second question turns the attack outward. “Whose interests, exactly, does it serve?” is sharper than “what benefits does it reap?” because it implies the policy serves someone — presumably not students — and demands the opposition name them.
- The closing line previews the structure. “On both counts the policy is indefensible” tells the audience the speech will answer both questions and find them wanting. The original’s closing sentence (“What benefits does it reap?”) is itself one of the questions, leaving no preview.
Professional rewrite — the opposition steel-man paragraph (the weakest moment)
Professional rewrite — the opposition’s case before the rebuttal (lines 69–78)
Paragraph 4 in the original tries to do two things at once: name the opposition’s argument and seem to endorse it (“a class position should not be abolished”). The result is a paragraph the audience can’t parse — is this the candidate’s view or the opposition’s? A professional debater would explicitly flag the move.
The student’s paragraph (corrected)
Opponents may argue that the downsides of disclosing class position may be outweighed by the benefits it may bring, holding that it can promote competition between classmates which would be able to improve students’ academic achievement. At this tender age, students’ competitive nature will push them to work relentlessly and outshine their peers. For these reasons, opponents maintain that class position should not be abolished, and that the practice should continue.
Rewritten by a professional debater
I anticipate the opposition’s strongest reply, and I want to engage it honestly. Their case runs as follows: ranking creates competition, competition creates effort, and effort lifts the whole class. Take the strong student off the leaderboard and the weak student loses a target to chase. It is, on its face, the most attractive defence of the policy. I will now show why it does not survive contact with how teenagers actually behave.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- The framing is announced. “I anticipate the opposition’s strongest reply, and I want to engage it honestly.” The audience now knows: this paragraph is a steel-man, not a concession.
- The opposition’s case is stated in their best light. “Ranking creates competition, competition creates effort, effort lifts the whole class.” The three-clause cadence mimics the rhetorical move opponents themselves would use — the steel-man works only if the audience finds the opposition’s case temporarily attractive.
- The most attractive specific is named. “Take the strong student off the leaderboard and the weak student loses a target to chase.” This is the concrete mechanism the opposition would point to; naming it is the move that earns the right to refute it.
- The pivot to the rebuttal is announced. “I will now show why it does not survive contact with how teenagers actually behave.” The candidate’s next paragraph (susceptibility, cheating) is given its target ahead of time; the audience knows where the argument is going.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word | Definition | Usage notes |
|---|---|---|
| affirmative side | (n. phrase, debate) the side proposing the motion. | The opposite is the negative side. Always paired in debates: I will be arguing for the affirmative / negative side. The British convention is proposition / opposition. |
| controversy | (n.) prolonged public disagreement. | Pairs with under, surrounding, over: the issue is under controversy, surrounded by controversy, the controversy over X. |
| arduously | (adv.) with great effort and difficulty. | Adjective: arduous. Pairs with work, climb, journey, task. More formal than hard. |
| ambience | (n.) the character or atmosphere of a place. | Soft, often positive connotation: a calming ambience, a friendly ambience, the ambience of the classroom. Variant spelling ambiance (French) is also accepted. |
| disincentivise | (v.) to discourage someone from doing something by removing an incentive. | Newer verb but well-established in policy and education writing. The reform disincentivised early retirement; the bonus structure disincentivised collaboration. |
| staggering | (adj.) astonishingly large or shocking. | Pairs with numbers, statistics, sums: a staggering 90%, a staggering loss, the figure is staggering. Works well in argumentative writing. |
| pressurised | (adj./v., BrE) subjected to pressure. | Note: in physics use pressurised cabin; in social use HK English / British English uses pressurised students where American English would say pressured. |
| susceptible (to) | (adj.) easily influenced or affected by something. | Takes to: susceptible to colds, to flattery, to peer pressure. The collocation teenagers being susceptible to peer pressure is standard. |
| fallacy | (n.) a mistaken belief, especially one based on faulty argument. | Pairs with logical, common, popular. The verb is commit a fallacy; the rebuttal phrase is this is a fallacy because…. |
| scourge | (n.) a cause of great suffering, often used metaphorically. | Pairs with social ills: the scourge of unemployment, the scourge of racism, the scourge of bullying. Slightly biblical/civic register — works well in formal closings. |
| conviction | (n.) a firmly held belief. | Pairs with deep, strong, personal, religious. I remain convinced / I hold the conviction that… — useful for closing positions. |
| whammy | (n., informal) a powerful blow, especially a disadvantageous one. | Usually double whammy, occasionally triple whammy. Informal register — tone is closer to journalism than to formal debate. |
| on solid ground | (idiom) on a firm and defensible basis. | Often negated: the argument is on no solid ground, the claim does not stand on solid ground. Useful rebuttal phrase. |
| hold water | (idiom) to be sound, defensible, or logically valid. | Almost always used with arguments, claims, or theories: the theory does not hold water, the argument holds water on the surface but not in detail. |
| at first glance | (idiom) on first impression, before closer examination. | Standard rebuttal opener: At first glance the argument seems plausible, but…. Variants: on the face of it, at first sight, prima facie. |
| steel-man | (v./n., rhetorical) to present an opposing argument in its strongest form before refuting it. | Opposite of straw-man (presenting it in its weakest form). The steel-man is the move debate judges reward most heavily. |
Leave a Reply