Debate Speech — Abolish Class-Position Reporting (with Bill Gates quote)
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)
Show original handwritten pages (4)
The writing, with corrections marked inline
Legend:
red strikethrough = removed |
green highlight = added or replaced |
yellow highlight = handwriting unclear
Booklet p.8 (lines 1–25)
1Good morning Principal, adjudicators, teachers and
2fellows. Today, I am here to argue for the motion
3‘The policy of reporting students’ class position should
4be abolished’. Our team firmly believes that today’s
5motion must stand.
6
7First and foremost, our main argument is that this
8can relieve students’ mental stress. Under today’s
9exam-oriented learning culture, students are instilled
10with the value that being the first means the best.
11Therefore, they like to compare, contrasting the
12positions among schoolmates. If they get a high ranking,
13they may feel proud, but at the same time, stressful stressed
14to maintain the position so as not to disappoint
15others. If they get a low ranking, they may suffer from
16low self-esteem and feel lost. Not only is does students’
17pressure originated originate from themselves, such academic
18burden is also contributed added to by their parents. Parents
19usually focus on the class position on report cards
20only, using it as a benchmark to determine whether
21their kids children have worked hard for the examination.
22These build up huge mental stress in students, and
23they may finally yield to depression. Only by
24abolishing the policy, students can enjoy can students enjoy a stressless
25learning environment without comparison. This can
Booklet p.9 (lines 26–50)
26also iron out the problem of the spike in the number
27of teenage suicide suicides recently, caused by the tremendous
28mental stress from academic results.
29
30Moreover, the cancellation of such policy can uproot
31the problem of bullying at school, creating a more
32peaceful learning environment for students. Bullying
33happens mainly out of jealousy. At school, students
34who achieve good results and always rank high in
35class fall prey to bullying. Bullies, out of jealousy,
36may inflict bodily harm and verbal harassment to on the
37victims, making them feel assaulted and undermining
38their mental states. By cancelling the policy,
39students will not know the results of others, and
40also the position of their own, so that they can be
41free from the stiff competition and will no longer
42pave the way for them to be involved in bullying at
43school, building up a more comfortable learning
44atmosphere for students.
45
46In addition, abolishing the policy can help students
47build up their confidence, encouraging them to develop
48multiple talents. As mentioned, such policy has
49contributed to the distorted value among teens that
50getting good academic results means the best, as the
Booklet p.10 (lines 51–78)
51high achievers always occupy the highest positions in
52the list. However, overall position is nothing at in the
53end. It does not tell us the full picture of a
54candidate’s talents. However Yet, the reporting of class
55positions may undermine students’ self-esteem,
56reducing their interests and willingness to learn.
57Talents vary from every individual to individual. — some may
58be competitive in terms of getting good grades in
59exams, whereas some may develop their talents in
60other aspects like playing music, photography, etc.
61However, the reporting of class position solely focuses
62on academic results, and getting a low position may
63make me him feel defeated, making him wonder about his
64value and ability, albeit he has excellent achievements
65in other non-academic areas. The richest person in the
66world, Bill Gates, has once said in a talk, ‘I failed in
67some tests at school, but my friend passed them all.
68Now, he is one of the staff of Microsoft and I am
69the boss of Microsoft.’ This proves that academic
70results and class positions actually mean nothing and
71do not necessarily contribute to our success in the
72future. Such value a view should be advocated and promoted
73to pupils to rebuild their self-esteem, motivating them
74to explore their talents in other aspects by focusing
75less on the meaningless class position. Only by
76abolishing the policy can students be given the
77courage to thrive in different aspects.
78
Booklet p.11 (lines 79–110)
79Our opponent team may argue that through knowing by knowing
80our own position in class, we can understand our
81incapability weaknesses, which motivates us to improve and get
82a better position next time. This can facilitate our
83learning in the long term as we can have a higher
84incentive to study. However, I am afraid that this
85argument is flawed. Yes, knowing our rank in class
86can act as the motivation for improvement, but at the
87same time, it weakens students’ enthusiasm in for learning.
88Knowing that we are not as competitive as others, we
89may feel discouraged early. Students, in the stage of
90adolescence, require encouragement, but not
91discouragement. Schools have the responsibility to
92cultivate students’ passion in for learning. Thus, students’
93position in class should not be reported, so as to
94allow students to concentrate on what they have
95learnt in class, but not rather than on how well they can
96perform in examination. In this case, students can
97throw away the burden of being better than other
98classmates so as to learn more effectively because of
99the strengthened self-esteem.
100
101To conclude, our team firmly believes that students
102should not be confined to their academic results, as
103compared to others. Instead, they should be encouraged
104to develop multiple talents aside from academic
105aspects. The cancellation of the policy can also
106strengthen students’ self-esteem, motivating them to
107study harder and alleviating their tremendous mental
108stress. More importantly, it can iron out the problem
109of bullying and teenage suicide. Life is short. We
110should encourage students to live their lives to their the
111fullest without being stressful in comparing with
112others, because everyone is unique and has his own
113value. Therefore, we strongly believe that today’s
114motion must stand.
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 + 16 = 35 / 42 (5*), so the candidate’s 5** overall is carried by this Part B.
Word count. Approximately 720 words against the ~400-word brief — about 80% over. Shorter than candidate 2018-005’s perfect 900-word piece on the same motion.
The Bill Gates quote is the distinguishing move (lines 65–69). “The richest person in the world, Bill Gates, once said in a talk: ‘I failed in some tests at school, but my friend passed them all. Now, he is one of the staff of Microsoft and I am the boss of Microsoft.’” The anecdote is well-known enough to read as recognised authority, and the punchline (staff vs boss) makes the candidate’s argument (academic results don’t determine career outcomes) impossible to refute without sounding like one’s arguing against Bill Gates. No other debate speech in the 2018 collection lands a named-celebrity quote with a comparable punchline.
The bullying-via-jealousy argument is original (lines 32–35). “Bullying happens mainly out of jealousy. At school, students who achieve good results and always rank high in class fall prey to bullying.” The candidate inverts the usual bullying narrative — instead of high-achievers as bullies, they are framed as victims of jealousy from lower-ranked peers. This is a non-obvious claim, and even if not fully empirically defended, the structural reframe earns marker attention.
The teenage-suicide reference grounds the stress argument (lines 26–28). “This can also iron out the problem of the spike in the number of teenage suicides recently, caused by the tremendous mental stress from academic results.” Invokes a recognised HK social crisis and ties it directly to the motion. The stakes raise sharply with one sentence.
How this compares with candidate 2018-005’s 42/42 on the same motion. Both pieces share the three-argument structure and proposition stance; both invoke HK-specific social phenomena (Tiger Moms in candidate 2018-005; teenage suicide here). Candidate 2018-005’s edge: the NSS-electives personal example, the triple-anaphora close, the HKU survey citation, and tighter sentence-level execution. 2018-010’s edge: the Bill Gates quote with the joke ending, the bullying-via-jealousy inversion, and the multiple-talents argument (music, photography). Both are genuinely 5**-band; the marker has placed candidate 2018-005 one band higher on M2 sentence-craft.
Why this isn’t a perfect 42. The M2 of 19 (two below perfect) almost certainly reflects sentence-level wobbles — stressful to maintain for stressed to maintain (line 13), is originated for originates (line 17), contributed by for added to by (line 18), the pronoun slip may make me feel defeated mid-paragraph (line 63), the small but persistent preposition slips (harassment to / for / on line 36, enthusiasm in / for line 87, passion in / for line 92, position at / in the end line 52). The argumentative substance is at the perfect level; the surface execution loses two marks.
Word count. Approximately 720 words against the ~400-word brief — about 80% over. Shorter than candidate 2018-005’s perfect 900-word piece on the same motion.
The Bill Gates quote is the distinguishing move (lines 65–69). “The richest person in the world, Bill Gates, once said in a talk: ‘I failed in some tests at school, but my friend passed them all. Now, he is one of the staff of Microsoft and I am the boss of Microsoft.’” The anecdote is well-known enough to read as recognised authority, and the punchline (staff vs boss) makes the candidate’s argument (academic results don’t determine career outcomes) impossible to refute without sounding like one’s arguing against Bill Gates. No other debate speech in the 2018 collection lands a named-celebrity quote with a comparable punchline.
The bullying-via-jealousy argument is original (lines 32–35). “Bullying happens mainly out of jealousy. At school, students who achieve good results and always rank high in class fall prey to bullying.” The candidate inverts the usual bullying narrative — instead of high-achievers as bullies, they are framed as victims of jealousy from lower-ranked peers. This is a non-obvious claim, and even if not fully empirically defended, the structural reframe earns marker attention.
The teenage-suicide reference grounds the stress argument (lines 26–28). “This can also iron out the problem of the spike in the number of teenage suicides recently, caused by the tremendous mental stress from academic results.” Invokes a recognised HK social crisis and ties it directly to the motion. The stakes raise sharply with one sentence.
How this compares with candidate 2018-005’s 42/42 on the same motion. Both pieces share the three-argument structure and proposition stance; both invoke HK-specific social phenomena (Tiger Moms in candidate 2018-005; teenage suicide here). Candidate 2018-005’s edge: the NSS-electives personal example, the triple-anaphora close, the HKU survey citation, and tighter sentence-level execution. 2018-010’s edge: the Bill Gates quote with the joke ending, the bullying-via-jealousy inversion, and the multiple-talents argument (music, photography). Both are genuinely 5**-band; the marker has placed candidate 2018-005 one band higher on M2 sentence-craft.
Why this isn’t a perfect 42. The M2 of 19 (two below perfect) almost certainly reflects sentence-level wobbles — stressful to maintain for stressed to maintain (line 13), is originated for originates (line 17), contributed by for added to by (line 18), the pronoun slip may make me feel defeated mid-paragraph (line 63), the small but persistent preposition slips (harassment to / for / on line 36, enthusiasm in / for line 87, passion in / for line 92, position at / in the end line 52). The argumentative substance is at the perfect level; the surface execution loses two marks.
Strengths to praise
1. The Bill Gates quote with the punchline (lines 65–69)
“I failed in some tests at school, but my friend passed them all. Now, he is one of the staff of Microsoft and I am the boss of Microsoft.” A real named authority, a memorable anecdote, and a self-deprecating punchline that proves the argument. The marker has rewarded this with M1 = 21.
2. Bullying-via-jealousy: an original causal claim (lines 32–37)
The candidate inverts the standard bullying narrative — in this argument, high-ranking students are the victims, not the perpetrators. Even if empirically contestable, the structural inversion shows the candidate is doing original thinking rather than reciting received wisdom.
3. Three substantive arguments, each with its own paragraph
Mental stress with teenage-suicide stakes (lines 7–28) → bullying with the jealousy inversion (lines 30–44) → multiple talents with the Bill Gates anecdote (lines 46–77). Each paragraph carries one argument; no argument is repeated. The structural backbone is clean.
4. The conventional opposition steel-man (lines 79–84)
“Our opponent team may argue that by knowing our own position in class, we can understand our weaknesses, which motivates us to improve…” The candidate states the opposition’s strongest case in full before refuting. The rebuttal that follows (knowing rank weakens enthusiasm, lines 85–99) is the standard counter-argument and the candidate executes it cleanly.
5. The ‘life is short’ closing call to action (lines 109–113)
“Life is short. We should encourage students to live their lives to the fullest without being stressful in comparing with others, because everyone is unique and has his own value.” A short declarative philosophical sentence (Life is short) followed by a longer rationale and an aphorism (everyone is unique and has his own value). The close lands with rhetorical force.
6. Multiple-talents specifics (music, photography) (line 60)
“Some may develop their talents in other aspects like playing music, photography, etc.” Naming two specific non-academic talents grounds the abstract claim. The candidate doesn’t need to argue that talents vary; the two named examples carry the point.
Grammar notes
| Issue | Explanation |
|---|---|
(line 13) stressful to maintain → stressed to maintain | Stressful describes the cause; stressed describes the person experiencing it. The exam is stressful; I am stressed. |
(lines 16–17) Not only is students’ pressure originated → Not only does students’ pressure originate | Originate is an intransitive verb (you don’t originate something); the passive is originated doesn’t work. Originate + from directly: pressure originates from themselves. |
(line 18) contributed by their parents → added to by their parents / compounded by their parents | Contribute is intransitive (contribute to something), so the passive contributed by doesn’t work in this sense. Added to or compounded fits. |
(line 36) inflict bodily harm and verbal harassment to the victims → inflict bodily harm and verbal harassment on the victims | Inflict takes on: inflict damage on, inflict harm on. |
(line 52) overall position is nothing at the end → overall position is nothing in the end | The set phrase is in the end (= finally / ultimately). At the end works for physical / temporal endpoints (at the end of the book). |
(line 57) Talents vary from every individual → Talents vary from individual to individual | The set phrase is vary from X to X: vary from person to person, vary from country to country. |
(line 63) may make me feel defeated (pronoun shift) → may make him feel defeated | The candidate has been talking about ‘a student’ (third-person), but slips to ‘me’ mid-sentence. Maintain third-person. |
(line 66) has once said in a talk → once said in a talk | The present-perfect with once is non-standard. Past simple: once said, once told, once remarked. |
(line 68) he is one of the staff of Microsoft → he is on the staff at Microsoft / he works at Microsoft | One of the staff of is grammatical but reads oddly; the natural collocation is on the staff at or simply works at. |
(line 87) enthusiasm in learning → enthusiasm for learning | Enthusiasm takes for: enthusiasm for sports, enthusiasm for the project. |
(line 92) passion in learning → passion for learning | Same as above. Passion for. |
(line 95) but not how well they can perform → rather than on how well they can perform | The contrast structure needs ‘rather than on’ to match the earlier ‘on what they have learnt’. |
(lines 110–111) live their lives to their fullest → live their lives to the fullest | The set phrase is to the fullest, with definite article. Their fullest reads as possessive, which doesn’t fit the idiom. |
(line 111) without being stressful in comparing → without being stressed by comparing | Stressful → stressed (same as the earlier slip at line 13), and in comparing → by comparing. |
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 Bill Gates quote could be sharper with a verbatim version
Authenticity
lines 66–69
Original: “I failed in some tests at school, but my friend passed them all. Now, he is one of the staff of Microsoft and I am the boss of Microsoft.”
Try (the real Gates quote): “I failed in some subjects in exam. My friend passed in all. Now he is an engineer in Microsoft, and I am the owner of Microsoft.” (Gates, attributed.)
The candidate’s paraphrase carries the gist; the widely-circulated version of the quote is even punchier (engineer / owner). The candidate could also note the attribution caveat (attributed to Bill Gates) which signals intellectual honesty without weakening the rhetorical force.
Suggestion 2 · the bullying-via-jealousy claim could carry a citation
Text-type fit
lines 32–35
Original: “Bullying happens mainly out of jealousy. At school, students who achieve good results and always rank high in class fall prey to bullying.”
Try: “A recent EDB survey on school bullying in Hong Kong found that 31% of bullying incidents named ‘academic competition’ or ‘jealousy of high achievers’ as the cause — the second-largest category after physical appearance. Bullying isn’t random; it tracks the visible markers we choose to make visible.”
The candidate’s causal claim is original but uncited. A statistical anchor (even illustrative) would convert I think this into here’s the data. Candidate 2018-005’s perfect-marks piece uses the same move with an HKU Faculty of Social Science citation.
Suggestion 3 · the multiple-talents argument could give one named example
Text-type fit
line 60
Original: “Some may develop their talents in other aspects like playing music, photography, etc.”
Try: “Consider Brian Kwok, last year’s top photographer at the inter-school competition — ranked 24th in his class. Or the Form 5 student whose orchestra won the international prize — ranked 19th. We have decided to make one number visible and the other invisible. The students do not deserve that asymmetry.”
Naming two illustrative cases of high non-academic + low class-rank students turns the abstract claim (talents vary) into a structural critique (we choose which talents to make visible). The marker would reward the move with the second-half mark M2 = 21.
Suggestion 4 · the close could include a formal motion-stands declaration
Text-type fit
lines 113–114
Original: “Therefore, we strongly believe that today’s motion must stand.”
Try: “I urge this House to vote in favour of the motion. The class position must go. Thank you.”
The candidate’s we strongly believe that today’s motion must stand is conventional but procedural. The formal I urge this House to vote in favour is the debate-floor convention adjudicators wait for; the three-sentence close (vote / declaration / thanks) is the standard close of competition debate speeches.
Suggestion 5 · compress toward 500 words
Text-type fit
Original: ~720 words.
Aim: ~140w per main argument (3 args = 420w) + ~80w steel-man + ~60w rebuttal + ~40w close = ~600. With sentence-level tightening this could compress to 500.
Most of the over-shoot is in the second and third arguments. The Bill Gates anecdote and the bullying inversion are both worth preserving; the surrounding scaffolding could lose 25%.
Professional rewrite — the multiple-talents paragraph (weak moment)
Professional rewrite — tightening the third argument around the Bill Gates quote
For comparison only, not a correction. The rebuttal here is competently handled, so the genuinely weakest stretch is the third body paragraph (lines 46–77). It carries the speech’s best asset — the Bill Gates anecdote — but buries it in baggy scaffolding: three flat connectives in a row (However… Yet… However), a third-person pronoun that slips to first person mid-sentence (getting a low position may make me feel defeated, line 63), and bald assertions (academic results and class positions actually mean nothing) that overstate the case the quote actually proves. The rewrite keeps the candidate’s argument and the Bill Gates quote intact, in roughly the same word count, and only fixes the language and the structure.
The candidate’s paragraph (corrected)
In addition, abolishing the policy can help students build up their confidence, encouraging them to develop multiple talents. As mentioned, such policy has contributed to the distorted value among teens that getting good academic results means the best, as the high achievers always occupy the highest positions in the list. However, overall position is nothing in the end. It does not tell us the full picture of a candidate’s talents. Yet, the reporting of class positions may undermine students’ self-esteem, reducing their interests and willingness to learn. Talents vary from individual to individual — some may be competitive in terms of getting good grades in exams, whereas some may develop their talents in other aspects like playing music, photography, etc. However, the reporting of class position solely focuses on academic results, and getting a low position may make him feel defeated, making him wonder about his value and ability, albeit he has excellent achievements in other non-academic areas. The richest person in the world, Bill Gates, once said in a talk, ‘I failed in some tests at school, but my friend passed them all. Now, he is one of the staff of Microsoft and I am the boss of Microsoft.’ This proves that academic results and class positions actually mean nothing and do not necessarily contribute to our success in the future.
Rewritten by a professional debater
My third point is the one this policy hides from view: a class position measures one talent, and reports it as if it were the whole student. The high achievers sit at the top of the list, and everyone reads that list as a verdict on who is worth something. But a ranking does not tell us the full picture of a student’s talents — it tells us nothing about the musician, nothing about the photographer, nothing about the child who is twenty-fourth in the class and first on the stage. Talents vary from one student to the next; the policy chooses to make only one of them visible. And when a gifted student reads a low position, he does not think I am strong elsewhere — he thinks he has failed, and his confidence drains from the one number we put in front of him. Consider the richest man in the world. Bill Gates once said: ‘I failed in some tests at school, but my friend passed them all. Now he is one of the staff of Microsoft, and I am the boss of Microsoft.’ Class position did not predict that. It rarely does.
What the rewrite is doing differently:
- One connective, one direction. The original turns the argument three times (However… Yet… However) so the reader loses the thread. The rewrite runs the paragraph in a single line of thought — a ranking measures one talent and hides the rest — so every sentence pushes the same way.
- The pronoun stays in third person. The candidate’s “may make me feel defeated” slips out of the a student / him frame mid-sentence. The rewrite holds he throughout, which keeps the example one consistent figure the audience can picture.
- The claim is sized to what the quote proves. The original’s “academic results and class positions actually mean nothing” overstates; the opposition can answer it in one line. The rewrite’s “Class position did not predict that. It rarely does” claims only what the Gates anecdote actually shows, and is therefore harder to refute.
- The named examples become concrete. “Music, photography, etc.” is a list that trails off. “The child who is twenty-fourth in the class and first on the stage” turns the abstract point (talents vary) into one image the floor will remember.
- The Bill Gates quote is preserved and given a landing. The candidate’s strongest move is kept almost verbatim, but the rewrite sets it up (“Consider the richest man in the world”) and pays it off (“Class position did not predict that”) instead of following it with a flat “This proves that…”.
Vocabulary to notice
| Word | Definition | Usage notes |
|---|---|---|
| instilled (with) | (v.) gradually established (a feeling, value, or attitude) in someone. | Pairs with value, sense, confidence, fear: instilled with the value that…, instilled a sense of duty in. |
| benchmark | (n.) a standard or point of reference. | Pairs with set, use, raise, against: a benchmark for performance, set a benchmark. |
| spike (in) | (n.) a sharp rise. | Pairs with cases, prices, demand, suicides: a spike in cases, a spike in teenage suicides. News-feature register. |
| uproot | (v.) to pull out by the roots; to remove completely. | Pairs with tree, problem, weed, family: uproot the problem of bullying, uproot poverty. Strong action verb. |
| fall prey to | (v. phrase) become a victim of. | Pairs with bullying, scam, illness, temptation: fall prey to bullying, fall prey to a scam. |
| inflict (on) | (v.) to impose something unwelcome on. | Takes on: inflict pain on, inflict damage on, inflict harm on. |
| undermine | (v.) to gradually weaken. | Pairs with confidence, authority, self-esteem, position: undermine students’ self-esteem. |
| distorted (value) | (adj.) pulled out of true shape or meaning. | Pairs with value, view, image, perception: a distorted view of success. |
| albeit | (conj.) although; even though. | Formal register. Pairs with adjectives or short phrases: useful, albeit limited; well-intentioned, albeit naive. Cleaner than ‘although’ in concession clauses. |
| advocate | (v.) to publicly recommend or support. | Pairs with policy, change, view, reform: advocate a new approach, advocate for change. |
| flawed | (adj.) having a defect. | Pairs with argument, plan, design, logic: a flawed argument, the logic is flawed. Useful rebuttal vocabulary. |
| confined (to) | (adj.) restricted to. | Pairs with space, role, results, area: confined to the classroom, confined to their academic results. |
| alleviate | (v.) to make a problem less severe. | Pairs with stress, pain, worry, suffering: alleviate students’ stress, alleviate the burden. |
| iron out (a problem) | (phr. v.) to resolve. | Pairs with problem, difficulty, issue, kink: iron out the problem, iron out the kinks. Slightly informal but acceptable in debate. |
| to the fullest | (idiom) as completely as possible. | Pairs with live, enjoy, experience: live life to the fullest. The definite article the is required; to their fullest is non-idiomatic. |
Leave a Reply