The moment of truth

GRUPA G	OJV 2	speaking points	writing	test	In class	Total	OCENA
		25	20	50,00
Radijevac	Tamara	18,75	13	33,13	3	68	7
Radin	Vladimir	19,75	19,2	38,75	4	82	8
Radonjić	Aleksandra	21	15	44,38	3	83	8
Rockov	Ana	25	20	45,63	4	95	10
Rodić	Sonja	23,5	20	48,13	5	97	10
Rokvić	Maja	20,75	15	29,38	4	69
Samardžija	Sunčica	19	11	27,50	1	59
Stepić	Nikola	25	0	0,00	4	29
Stojanović	Nevena	19	11	24,38	4	58
Stolić	Bojan	21,25	19	40,00	2	82	8
Šarić	Anja	21,75	20	38,75	4	85	9
Tančik	Milan	25	17	44,38	3	89	9
Trkulja	Tanja	21,25	17	41,88	5	85	9
Ulardžić	Jelena	20,75	12	41,88	3	78	8
Uzurov	Sanja	20	13	35,63	4	73	7
Vicai	Dejan	21,25	19	44,38	5	90	9
Višnjovski	Ivan	17,5	13	33,13	2	66	7
Vukičević	Jelena	19,5	16,8	34,38	1	72	7
Vurdelja	Gorica	25	17,4	35,63	5	83	8
Živković	Mile	25	20	48,13	5	98	10

 

Well, since the majority wrote the dictation like you never heard of Dorian Gray, not a bad day in the office...still, I wish you more discipline and even more patience in the future, particularly to those  who haven't been managing their potential properly. 

My congrats go to the hero of the day, Ivan Višnjovski - 66 pts. earned fair and square, and only 17 mistakes in dictation.

 

CU on Saturday, and the four of you in September, too.

Writing

Svi ste položili, i svi izlazite na test.

 

CU

dangerous knowledge

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
William Blake - Auguries of Innocence

In Class

	OJV 2	In class
Radijevac	Tamara	3
Radin	Vladimir	4
Radonjić	Aleksandra	3
Rockov	Ana	4
Rodić	Sonja	5
Rokvić	Maja	4
Samardžija	Sunčica	1
Stepić	Nikola	4
Stojanović	Nevena	4
Stolić	Bojan	2
Šarić	Anja	4
Tančik	Milan	3
Trkulja	Tanja	5
Ulardžić	Jelena	3
Uzurov	Sanja	4
Vicai	Dejan	5
Višnjovski	Ivan	2
Vukičević	Jelena	1
Vurdelja	Gorica	5
Živković	Mile	5

 

Utorak, 26. maj, bio je poslednji rok da se pošalju izveštaji, i prema mojoj evidenciji stanje u bodovima u pogledu učestvovanja u aktivnostima na času je kao u tabeli. Ako imate primedbi, molim da ih javite na mejl do petka 29. maja u 9:00.

DEBATE 3

1

An outstanding debate has taken place today in one of the classrooms of the College of Philosophy. Two teams going battle royal, and debating about whether MTV is a good influence.

Two teams, two sides. The affirmative side consisting of Sanja who took the introduction role and probably bringing in arguments, but i failed to notice her pointing them out. Even though she succeeded in presenting the topic well. Nevena and Nikola shared the second speakers post, and they bought did good on argumentation, and on rebutting the opposing team, even though Nevena focused too much on reality shows which she shouldn't have done so much, Nikola did a great job as well rebutting and presenting hise part. And we have Milan as the last speaker, who did well on rebutting and explaining the last points. Could have done better on the conclusion but it was good.
On the other hand we had the negative side, Tamara as the introductionary speaker, could have done a shorter intro, but at least she presented the arguments. Ana and Ivan sharing the second speakers role did excellent on rebutting and giving further argumentation to their belief. They presented well and gave convincing arguments. And the third speaker, the negative side's "ace", Mile, has given the final blow to deciding which side would win in this debate, he did an excellent job rebutting, recaping and giving a final definiton to their arguments and beliefs as negative team.
To sum it up, it was fun and entertaining, and had that element of brutality needed in a debate. Both teams did splendidly well, but it is obvious which side one. 

2

Before I start commenting on the speakers I have to say that I don’t watch MTV, what is more, I don’t even have that cannel on my TV, so I might not be competent to judge whether MTV has a positive or negative impact on the viewers but listening the debate I draw a couple of conclusions and these are my comments on both teams and on each speaker individually.

Both teams seemed very sure of their arguments and each speaker supported the point of their team mates. There were no contradictory statements which is obviously the result of a good team work in which every member of the team was equally involved.

Sanja, as the first speaker of the affirmative team made, in my opinion, a little too long introduction, with too many details which I consider unnecessary and irrelevant to the topic. Also, it seemed to me like she hadn’t brought up any arguments or at least she didn’t emphasize them so I had the impression like she was giving some kind of “informative speech” and not starting the debate.

As for Tamara, the negative team’s first speaker, she did a good job with introducing us to their team line and telling us what we are about to hear from the representatives of a negative team. Her argument that MTV actually focuses more on the song video instead on music itself wasn’t really convenient because TV equals picture/video and even on a music channel you are not expecting to look at a blank screen and just listen to the music (that’s what radio is for), but you are expecting to see something connected to the song as well.

Nevena’s arguments were informative and suitable. She mentioned quite a few reality shows and tried to point out the good sides of them. If I weren’t completely disgusted with the whole concept of any kind of reality show, I would say she did a good job representing their attitude.

Ivan made the point with his first argument. Musicians “living the American dream” in their videos indeed can be a bad influence to the children watching them. As for his other argument about commercials, as the affirmative team later on mentioned, they are everywhere and every other TV channel has them and yes, we might not want to buy the products they’re trying to sell us, but that’s not the reason why they shouldn’t exist on TVs.

For Nikola, I agree with all he said except for the reality shows which in his words have a good purpose. As Ana later on pointed out, why would anyone want to watch a bunch of drug addicts and alcoholics?!?

As for Anna, I don’t have any remarks neither on her rebuts nor arguments. She did a very good job.

Milan made a suitable conclusion and I especially liked the comparison he made with MTV and NBA on the topic of racism.

And finally Mile, as the last speaker of the negative team managed to rebut pretty much all the arguments of the affirmative team, but was in my humble opinion too explicit in his last lines which although nicely and wisely said sounded like all the people who watch MTV have no personal opinion and taste for music and should be considered as stupid.

All in all, it was a successful debate.

3

Team 1 : the affirmative team (for MTV)

Speaker 1 (Sanja Uzurov): It was a good idea to say something about MTV in general but it should have been quick and to the point concentrating more on arguments because that was exactly what the first speaker of the opposing team did. Also, she could have spoken faster, but in general it was good.

Speaker 2 (Nevena Stojanović): I liked her arguments especially the one about MTV’s activism and the variety of music genres played on MTV. All in all, the content of what she said was fine but I found it hard to understand her English.

Speaker 3 (Nikola Stepić): Not much to say here. I cannot find any negative thing in what he said or the way he said it. Nikola had excellent arguments which he expressed clearly. He rebutted the arguments of the negative team (music videos, rasism, violence) and on the way he managed to explain what is the role and aim of MTV.

Speaker 4 (Milan Tančik):  Everything he said was in its place and actually I do not have much to say except that it was excellent.

The affirmative team did their job well. They used facts and arguments to win the debate and presented them in a good way respecting the rules of debating.

Team 2: the negative team (against MTV)

Speaker 1 (Tamara Radijevac): Tamara obviously prepared well and it gave good results. She gave many arguments and spoke well.

Speaker 2 (Ivan Višnjovski):  I have the impression that he didn’t contribute much to the team. He seemed a bit confused and lost. He repeated the same argument twice (commercials).

Speaker 3 (Ana Rockov): I dare say that some of her arguments were completely untrue. For instance the one that MTV plays only disco and techno music or that songs’ lyrics are simple. Other were too subjective, like the one about the bad (for who?) music taste that MTV creates or that this music has no quality (people should be treated as individuals who have different tastes in music). Nevertheless Ana was very convincing and she also had some very good arguments including those about elections and women treated as sexual objects in some of the videos.

Speaker 4 (Mile Živković): Mile was so passionate about what he believes in that he couldn’t suppress his feelings. He made a good point by saying that MTV is a global corporation and undoubtedly had very effective arguments. But, his last sentences were harsh, rude, offensive and inappropriate.

I think that the negative team expressed too much  of subjective opinion and they also expressed intolerance for some cultures and music genres (especially hip hop).

Both teams were organized and well-prepared.

In my opinion the affirmative team was better than negative and deserves the title of winner.

4

After seeing a debate I had no problems on deciding a „ winner“. I have heard a lot of interesting arguments but the negative team had better ones . As far as Tamara is concerned she was pretty good,she didn’t talk for too long and said everything she was supposed to. Ana on the other hand was slightly better,she rebutted affirmative's time arguments in an excellent way. Her vocabulary was excellent and she spoke so clearly. As far as Ivan is concerned he was pretty good,he managed to ˝defend˝ them.  And Mile...he was outstanding. I think that it is unnecessary to comment. I was amazed.  And the whole team was well prepared and convincing.

 As far as the affirmative team is concerned  I wasn’t as satisfied. Sanja had no mistakes,but she was kind of slow and unconvincing. And Nevena was good but she made few mistakes. Nikola.... I didn't like his arguments,some of them even made no sense to me. And he was ˝pretending˝ more than he actually knew what he was talking about. I was most satisfied with Milan. He was the ˝natural˝ one and so convincing and positive somehow. As the team the functioned in an excellent way.

5

In my opinion this was the best debate, with very interesting arguments. I had a good time listening to it. It was strange, but good, to see Ana vs. Nikola, and Milan vs. Mile.

Fist speaker, Sanja, had good arguments. Unfortunately, she was too quit and sounded insecure and failed to present them appropriately.

Nevena, on the other hand, was quite opposite, aggressive and straight to the point providing solid arguments and excellent rebut.

Nikola also had marvelous rebut. I especially liked the part with Michael Jackson, it completely rebutted arguments of the first two speakers of the negative team.

Last speaker of the affirmative team, Milan, mentioned censoring. Although it was excellent argument I think it was against the rules of the debate. Other than that his conclusion was almost perfect.

Tamara, speaker one of the negative team, introduced some, I would say, unreliable arguments about afro Americans being forbidden to perform on MTV during the 80’s.

I liked Ivan’s rebut that we all are free to choose what will or wont we watch. But, rest of his presentation was hard to understand and contradictory. He mentioned Tupac, rebutting his teammate.

Ana was probably the one with the best arguments in whole debate, especially the one that women are presented as sexual objects in videos. Most certainly the one who turned the tide in favor of negative team

Last but not the least was Mile. What more could I say than brilliant, absolutely brilliant conclusion.

6

In my opinion this was the best and the most interesting debate.
Both teams had very good arguments and I enjoyed their presentation of them.

- Sanja, as the first debater pro, was good, I liked her arguments about different kinds of music on MTV and how we can listen what we want and also how we can learn something while watching that channel.
- Nevena mentioned Ozzy Ossbourne and his family as one of the arguments why is watching reality shows on MTV good thing, which I found a little confusing..
But her other argument, that MTV gives opportunity to large number of people to work there was great.
- Nikola also had various arguments, but the one I found the best was the one about commercials. He said that the point of commercials is to persuade people to buy things, which is true. He also talked about how MTV has various programs, for example, go out and vote "choose or loose".
- Milan was the last debater in this team, I liked his speech and particularly his finishing line when he said that MTV does not have bad impact on children, because he listened it since he was five and he appreciate other kinds of music as well.
- Tamara, as the first debater con, was excellent and I really liked her arguments. She said that the primary purpose of MTV was to play music all the time, but today we cannot call it music television because they play a lot of reality shows and she also mentioned that MTV, today, is largely concerned with videos than with music they play in that videos.
- Ivan had confusing argument about commercials, but I liked his argument when he said that MTV play provocative videos, which has a bad influence on children.
- In my opinion Ana won this debate! She was very calm and self confident with strong arguments. She rebutted all debaters from the other team with her arguments. I especially liked when she talked how women are treated as sexual objects in videos, how songs which are played on MTV have no artistic quality and if your song does not sound ''something between techno & disco'' :) you cannot make it on that TV.
- Mile had excellent finishing line and was brilliant as always. I totally agree with everything that Mile said because he had one of the best rebuttals with the sentence: " 80% of teenagers watch MTV, who should vote?!"

7

In my personal opinion, this was the best debate we did. It was dynamic and interesting, and I really enjoyed it. Both teams had some good arguments, and they both had satisfying finishing lines.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Sanja Uzurov was the first speaker and she made good arguments, but I didn’t find her very persuasive because of her unsecure tone of voice, too many ‘uhms’ and the fact that part of her speech sounded like a learned history lesson. I guess that’s the handicap of affirmative team’s first speaker since they don’t have anything to rebut.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Tamara Radijevac was the first speaker of negative team. I liked her rebut and arguments, but the end of her speech sounded somehow… unexpected. Well, that’s only how it seemed to me.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Nevena Stojanovic mentioned Ozzy Osbourne for the first time. Hehe, I had to say this because I <3 Ozzy. I liked her nice view of MTV – antiracism  (teams disagreed about this a lot) and promotion of local events.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Ivan Visnjovski seemed very confused, and to be honest, he really sounded like he had no idea what he was talking about… He just repeated what Tamara said. But still, we love him :)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Nikola Stepic managed to rebut negative team’s argument about commercials very efficiently but I completely disagreed with his rebut of the fact that there are scenes of sex and violence in MTV music videos; even though he said that MTV edited some videos, there is still plenty of this material in them.  His mentioning of Tupac was quite funny, since he used it to rebut Ivan, who mentioned both Tupac and that MTV didn’t show Afro-American musicians. :) Surprisingly for everyone, he mentioned Madonna as well…  Having sounded like he really believed in what he was saying, I found his part in this debate really refreshing.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Ana Rockov said some mean things about Ozzy, and Ivan was unfriendly towards him too, and that made me sad (;_;)… I’m just kidding. I didn’t understand what she said about MTV being full of prejudices, but I think she was right about its political influence which is really unfair towards the poor viewers who don’t have mind of their own and would believe in any kind of gaudily packed up rubbish. The scene in which Ana is against Nikola was particularly interesting part of the debate :) When she, with such a confident tone of voice, said that women are treated as sexual objects  in MTV music videos and that by forcing certain trends MTV makes bad taste in music, I wanted to cheer her up and shout ‘go Ana’ so much that I almost wished I had pompoms in my hands :D

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Milan Tancik made a really smart observation – don’t watch what you don’t want to watch! I liked the fact that he based his finishing lines on his own experience – that a person can turn up normal even though they have MTV since they were five :)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Mile Zivkovic was, at the beginning, logical and rational as always, but later he let his passionate side prevail.  His statements like ‘fascism has impact, does it mean it’s good’ and ‘if you admit you like MTV you just admit that you have bad taste in music’ made his speech one of the best finishing lines, and just because of him, I think that victory belongs to the negative team.  It was a tough decision, since, in general, both teams were excellent!

 

DEBATE 2

1

The Affirmative Team
Jelena Ulardzic - had good arguments, but I got a feeling that she went into details too much...She could say something more in general... But, all in all, I like her presentation.
Anja Saric - really good arguments and I liked the way she rebutted! Maja's arguments. She is born for some kind of a public speaker, because she has a strong intonation while speaking... :) Good.
Dejan Vicai - His role was to conclude his team's line, but I  had an impression that he introduced something new, which he is not supposed to do.

The Negative Team
Maja Rokvic - good presentation. She rebutted Jelana's arguments really good, but her arguments were a bit weak, in my opinion...
Gorica Vurdelja - the best! Good arguments, for presenting and for rebutting!!! Really liked her presentation!
Bojan Stolic - Ha ha ha... Sorry! :) Made the whole debate quite interesting! ;) He rebutted not just the arguments of the affirmative team, but also the arguments of his own team and made us all laugh! COOL! :)))
 
In conclusion, good debate!

2

 

 

The purpose of this report is to point out the advantages and disadvantages of teams.

 

Debate was quite good, but it has some failures.

All the participants respected the rules of a debate and both groups came quite prepared, but I would say that the PRO group was more persuasive and provided better arguments.

 

Jelana made great introduction about shopping online, chatting with friends, etc.

Maja was also good as 1^st negative giving examples that computers are destroying our social life, etc.

Anja in my personal opinion was far much better than Gorica. Anja is a great speaker. She rebuts all the points from negative team and gave great examples.

Gorica was also good, but had a few arguments that were not really useful for their purposes and the other group easily beat them.

Dejan was better than Bojan, but all in all both of them were not listening carefully, so the conclusions were quite funny.

 

All in all it was an interesting debate with many good arguments.

 

3

Team 1 : Computers are more cool than tool

Speaker 1 (Jelena Ulardžić):  Jelena defined the topic, outlined in short what each speaker will say and introduced good arguments. Therefore she mentioned everything  she should and did well. She spoke fluently and clearly.

Speaker 2 (Anja Šarić): Made a good point by talking about sending real letters and cards(instead of e-mails)  but she didn’t rebut Maja’s argument  that e-mails are faster. Anja also introduced new arguments:  developing social and other skills by online gaming and doing homework on computer. The first argument is more or less good but, in my opinion, the second would be more appropriate for the other group. She spoke lively in a persuasive tone.

Speaker 3 (Dejan Vicai): Dejan pointed out that if you chat with someone you know it doesn’t have to be dangerous and talked about the good sides of doing your homework on computer .This was the rebutting part. But with the argument about e-mail he was actually rebutting his own team. He didn’t present a summary of his team’s case either.

Team 2: Computers should be used only as a tool

Speaker 1 (Maja Rokvić): She included all the points: rebutted Jelena’s arguments and introduced the new ones. Maybe she shouldn’t have mentioned that there is no clear boundary between cool and tool (when talking about e-mail). Using computer in business and various professions is an excellent argument. She spoke slowly with long breaks in speech.

Speaker 2 (Gorica Vurdelja): As was her task she completely rebutted the arguments of the other team and introduced some new. She spoke fast and clear. Another good thing is that she mentioned only the most important things and did not elaborate on unimportant detail.

Speaker 3 (Bojan Stolić): Bojan should have made some notes of what he was going to say (to help his natural talent for speaking). His not preparing resulted in peals of laughter and tears of everyone present. But, when it comes to the debate and his contribution to the team he did not do well: he repeated Dejan’s mistake and did not round off the debate for his team.

I cannot decide which of the teams was better, they were equally good. It is probably due to the topic which proved to be very unfavourable to both teams. It seems that the boundary between cool and tool is fuzzy so there were some problems with the choice of arguments. Nevertheless, both team 1 and team 2 should have organized themselves better and defined what each speaker would say.  Although this debate did not follow all the rules it was successful and fun.

4

The debate started affirmative team with Jelena’s presentation, who presented the main arguments of her team, which were keeping in touch with your friends by chat or facebook and shopping on-line. She did her task well by being concentrated and speaking fluently. Maja made an introduction part for negative team emphasizing that computer’s primary task is to be a tool and assistance for a man, and also rebutted few of the main points of affirmative team successfully. The only minor mistake she made was expressing her own opinion by saying “I think…” Anja rebutted Maja by describing computers as nothing else but a machine made by man. The other argument was the advantage of writing a letter over sending an e-mail, but I haven’t really understood its purpose. On the other hand, she was very convincing while speaking and sounded very natural.  Gorica pointed out the harmful effect computers have on our social life, our sight, and provided the arguments such as reading e-books or searching for traveling agency, booking tickets… She was very confident while speaking and made her point. Dejan successfully rebutted all arguments remained and made a conclusion for his team. Bojan from the negative team started very well by summing the topic up, but he got lost on half of the way. Despite that, he was very interesting and made us all laugh, so his presentation definitely a success!

 

The only reproach to this debate would be unclear border between two opposite sides.

 

To conclude I would like to add that in spite of few small mistakes, debate was successful because of its dynamics, and was enjoyable to watch and listen to it.         

 

5

Pro team:
Jelena: Sounded like she was speaking to a wall. Systematic overview through the points. Not too long, not too short, perfect.

Anja: Very confident, great performance. What was she rebutting? Mixed her arguments up, but hey, who didn't? Best speaker in this team.

Dejan: Confident attitude, nice. Also mixed his arguments up. Introduced new facts = not good.


Con team:

Maja: Sounded a bit distracted. Very, very good points introduced.

Gorica: Perfect length, good points. Confident enough. Best speaker in this team.

Bojan: Completely lost it. Sort of summed it up.


Who won? No one, the debate topic was extremely unclear.

6

Well, I find this topic to be very tricky so I guess it’s no wonder that the whole debate was confusing and the debate teams were constantly bringing up some irrelevant points. I think that neither team came up with good arguments to defend their team line, and they practically changed their topic from ‘whether computers should be used for fun or for work’ to ‘should we do it in electronic or the old-fashioned way’.  However, the atmosphere was really refreshing, and it was fun and entertaining to watch this debate. It was totally opposite from the first debate, which was undoubtedly dull.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Jelena Ulardzic was the first speaker, and I must say that I didn’t find her reasons for computer being used as device for fun and entertainment much persuasive. But she was cute (^_^)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Maja Rokvic was a little nervous and confused (well, she had her mobile phone stolen that day, and she didn’t sleep for 28 hours), but she had some good arguments.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Anja Saric attacked with full power! I guess she was the dominant one in the group, hehe :) I didn’t understand how her argument (letters vs. emails) actually rebutted other team’s arguments, but I liked the view that playing on-line games builds team work skills (she actually managed to find something positive in on-line gaming (O_o) ). Still, I remained clueless about how is doing homework on a computer  a cool thing. Since when was doing a homework ever a cool thing? ;)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Gorica Vurdelja was quiet as usual, but I still managed to hear a good point she made – that people start wearing glasses and get fatter while sitting in front of the computer, but what I didn’t hear is how this argument was related to the topic ‘comuter – tool or cool’  :) I liked her later rebut.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Dejan Vicai was relaxed while he was talking, and that was a completely new thing, hehe (he also wore converse t-shirt, yay). Everything he said I found correct, but the only problem was the one I already mentioned – I couldn’t see how what he said defended their team’s line.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->-          <!--[endif]-->Bojan Stolic was the star of the day! Not only did he manage to rebut everything that the opposite team said,  but he also rebutted everything that his team said! Well, his words were actually a good conclusion, since computers are used both as a tool and a cool thing, and it’s very hard to separate these two. Even though he didn’t help his team a lot with his finishing lines, he has my vote! Lol :D

So, considering this, I can’t decide who actually won. Both teams won… or they both lost! :)

7

The most confusing thing about this debate was the topic. As Maja pointed out it is difficult to determine whether something is cool or tool. It is a matter of personal opinion. Considering that, I found some arguments to be confusing and from time to time couldn’t recognize who was in affirmative and who was in negative team. For example, argument of the affirmative team was that cool thing is using a computer to improve your spelling and learn from the net, which, in my opinion should have been the argument of the opposite side. There were also a few confusing rebuts. In the end it all came to a discussion whether it’s better to write an e-mail or a letter to your friend and which of the two is more personal. That was completely off the topic.

Jelena’s presentation was excellent, not too long but not too short either,fluent and straight forward      

In affirmative team the most dominant speaker was Anja. She constantly attacked the negative team, her performance was very good. But she had one argument I personally disagree with, mentioning that on-line games improve social life of children, which I find false.

During Dejan’s rebuttal I’ve noticed that affirmative team insisted on letter vs. e-mail topic, which I found irrelevant. Otherwise he was good.

Negative team had its ups and downs. Maja’s opening was almost prefect, she presented the best arguments. She sounded a bit nervous though.

Gorica had solid presentation, although she was a bit paradoxical. In her rebuttals Gorica mentioned illegal purchases on the net. Afterwards her argument was that we can use computer to download books from internet, but downloading books is also illegal.

Finally, Bojan, the speaker who made us all laugh to the tears, had very good rebuttal. The only bad thing was that he also rebutted most of his teammates’ arguments too.

If I had to choose I would vote for the negative team despite of Bojan’s ‘effort’ to rebut everyone and everything.

 

 

DEBATE 1 comments in order of appearance

1

"After seeing a debate I had no problems on deciding a „ winner“. I have heard a lot of interesting arguments but the negative team had better ones . As far as Saska is concerned she was pretty good,she didn’t talk for too long and said everything she was supposed to. Jelena on the other hand was slightly better,she rebutted Vladimir and Tanja in an excellent way.  And Sonja... she was perfect. She finished their  part in an extraordinary way with very good arguments.  And the whole team was well prepared and convincing.

 As far as the affirmative team is concerned  I wasn’t satisfied at all. Tanja had no mistakes  and she was convincing but her part was too long. Vladimir wasn’t prepared at all and he had long pauses in speech. And as far as Suncica is concerned she tried to be interesting but what she was saying made no sense at all. Like she didn’t know what she was talking about. And they as the team weren’t prepared nor organised."

 

2

"Debate in the classroom, a not so ordinary discussion took place, between two sides arguing if That reading a novel is a more rewarding experience then watching a film based on the book.

Two teams clashed in an argue-fest, the Affirmative and Negative team! Showing us what a real debate should look like.
The Affirmative team going first with Tanja, Vlado and Suncica really showed good research and understanding their job, presenting not 3 or 4 but 6 arguments, with additional examples as well.Tanja did an excellent job argumenting followed by Vlado's rebuting and Suncica finnishing off with a huge rebute-a-derby. They all did splendidly well! Even though they mad an impact with shere number of facts and examples, yet they failed to keep interest and attention at a maximum, with long and somewhat unnecesary speeches.
The Negative team consisting of Aleksandra, Jelena and Sonja also did a great job, but failed to prove that movies are better. Aleksandra failed to mention their arguments, and her debating skills need improvement, it felt more like a stroy telling. Jelena did manage to steer the Negative team in the right direction by her excellent rebuting and good contra-argumenting. And last but not least we had Sonja to finnish off this debate with a not so impressive rebuting and final word.
All in all it was good, and in my opinion the Affirmative team has done a slightly better job. But congratulations to both teams on a job well done."

3

Introduction

On Tuesday, April 24^th a debate took place with the topic: “That reading a novel is a more rewarding experience then watching a film based on the book". There were two teams, both consisting of three people. The purpose of this report is to give an overview of their arguments and to choose which team did better.

Affirmative Team

The affirmative team did fairly good. The first speaker gave many examples with very good points. Her presentation was systematical and easy to understand. The second speaker was also very successful in rebutting the negative team’s first arguments giving some great examples. However, the speaker was very slow in presenting, making it hard for the audience to follow his line of speech. The last speaker, even though she gave some forced and not well thought trough arguments, made an excellent point against the negative team’s statement that reading is isolating oneself.

Negative Team

The second team had a bit of a rough start; nevertheless they managed to make up for it later during the debate. The opening speaker did not manage to give good arguments. She included too many of her personal opinions. Furthermore, she gave one particular example (that The Lord of the Rings is a bad book), which is not only a bad exemplar but also contradictory to the opinions of most critics. The second speaker had very good points, some of which were:

1. that a movie viewer can see the emotions of the character on the screen, making it easier to understand them
2. that it is easier to learn a language from a movie
3. and that movies have a greater social influence because they are more widespread.

The closing speaker was very skillful in rebutting the affirmative team’s arguments, and also gave a couple of fine examples.

Conclusion

Both teams did a reasonably good job, considering that this was their first debate. The first team started off great, still their manner of presenting was hard to follow, and overall not satisfactory. On the other hand, the second team, even though some of their arguments were poor, managed to present their points and arguments more in a more interesting way; and because of this they are the ones who should be thought of as the more successful ones.

4

The purpose of this report is to give advantages and disadvantages about groups who were representing and debating about >films and books<.

 

Both groups were well prepared.

First of all I’ll make some advantages and disadvantages of each individual in both groups.

 

Group with theme >films< was well prepared.

Aleksandra Radonjic- made an excellent introduction about comparison between books and films, saying that they are both questionable, because they are two different arts and etc.

On the other hand she was a bit scared.

Jelena Vukicevic - had also great arguments about advantages such as:

Humour is better when you watch movies.

All components of art are included in making a movie.

It is faster and better to learn language.

But I think she could give more arguments like Vlada.

But on the other hand she was better speaker than Vlada.

Sonja Rodic - like the last person, in my opinion had far much better conclusion than the opposite group. She was very calm and patience and she also defend all their arguments.

 

Group with theme >books< was also well prepared.

Tanja Trkulja - like Aleksandra had a great introduction like for example that we learn from books not movies and etc.

Her introduction was better than Aleksandra’s, because she was very calm and strict about  their ideas.

Vladimir Radin - had great arguments, and it was far much longer than in opposite group, but his disadvantage is that he was very confused and not so well prepared.

Suncica Samardzic – gave us great arguments such as:

That we get into the book and characters much better.

Writer need to know and to read other book to create some good deeply work.

I like her conclusion because unlike Sonja, Suncica was full of emotions and she was very into it, but Sonja defend better her group.

 

Both groups were excellent.

It was very hard to make a conclusion which group was better, because both groups were similar with different shapes.

But looking in general group with >films< was better prepared as group than the opposite group, but on the other hand I must laud the opposite group for great job!

 

5

First of all I would like to confess that I’m not sure I can be objective about this subject because I have always been more of a book fan, but I’ll try...

For the “books team” I would say that as a team, they were fairly well prepared and they had pretty good arguments. However, as individuals, in my opinion they failed to present facts in such way so that they make an impact on the audience. In other words, as much as I prefer books over movies, they didn’t convince me that reading a book really is more rewarding experience than watching a movie based on it.  

I think that Tanja did a great job as a first speaker. She introduced the subject and her team’s attitude towards it perfectly. She came prepared which we could conclude from her fluency. The arguments she pointed out were very well supported with facts.

On the other hand, Vladimir seemed as if he hadn’t gone through the things he was supposed to present before coming to class, so it looked like he wasn’t really sure about what he was saying. Additionally, when he was comparing Jane Austen’s book Pride and Prejudice to the movie with Keira Knightley based on it, if I’m not mistaken he didn’t pronounced “prejudice” properly and I see that as the consequence of him being unprepared. Regardless of the fact that I think he wasn’t prepared, his arguments were also very good, and he in a way succeeded in his mission to rebut Aleksandra.

As for Suncica, I got the impression that she was really into this whole debate thing more than others, which is a plus for her. She was carefully listening to “movie team’s” arguments and as a third speaker she didn’t miss to try to rebut all of them. Except for her opening part, which admittedly I didn’t understand, she did really well in the rest of her performance.

The movie team was on the other hand excellently prepared both as a team and as individuals.

Aleksandra did very good as an opening speaker and she successfully introduced their point of view and announced their arguments. I have nothing to add to her presentation because in my opinion she completely fulfilled her assignment.

Jelana’s presentment was as well very carefully prepared and she successfully rebutted Vladimir’s arguments. She also added a couple of well supported arguments in favor of the movies. From my point of view, she did a great job.

Finally, as for Sonja, all I have to say is that she was focused throughout the whole debate and as a closing speaker succeeded to rebut the arguments of the book team and is  probably the one responsible for me giving a small advantage to movie team.

To sum up, although I would always chose a book over a movie, this time I’m giving my vote to movie team, simply because I have the impression that they were better prepared.

 

6

The aim of this report is to expess our personal opinionabout a debate in which participation took Tanja, Vladimir, Suncica forming onegroup and Aleksandra, Jelena and Sonja forming the another one. I think theyall did their best and tried to make their speeches as convincing as theycould.

 First, I would like to say that I consider Tanja's speechvery interesting, she spoke very fluently, made a point. I got the impressionthat she didn't learn her speech by heart, didn't have any grammar mistakes. Asfar as Vladimiris concerned, there are some things about his speech I didn't like. If I am notwrong, at some point he said "that's all" and then continuedspeaking. He made so many pauses while speaking, and that's what I mostdisliked. Suncica was, in a word, brilliant! Although she also had trouble withtalking fluently, I find her way of presenting exquisite, she made me laugh somany times.

 The other group also did their job very well. Aleksandra,Jelena and Sonja succeeded in rebutting opinions of the first group, I thinkthat they were slightly better prepaired. Aleksandra managed to rebut Tanja'sopinion very recourcefully.  Jelenamentioned that it is more interesting to watch a movie and watch the landscape init than to read 15 pages of descriptions and get bored, which I agree with.Generally, I enjoy watching movies, but that doesn't mean reading a book isboring, in fact books can sometimes provide you more pleasure. Jelena didn'thave any grammar mistakes as well as Aleksandra and Sonja. Sonja made a goodpoint at the end and said that learning foreign language would be much easierwhile watching a movie, which is,as far as I'm concerned, totally true.

 All things considered, this debate was more thaninteresting, both groups fulfilled the assignment. I won't say whose opinion Ilike best because even I don't know whether I like reading books or watchingmovies based on them. I can just say, which I already mentioned that, in myopinion second group prepaired slightly better.

7

The debating started affirmative team with Tanja’s presentation, who pointed out contribution that books have on spiritual affirmation, that they are widening our vocabulary and help developing our imagination. She was focused on presentation line and made good introduction into a debate. Debate continued Aleksandra whose arguments were that watching films improves a social aspect of an individual, and helps us feeling relaxed. In that way she succeeded in defending her team’s side and left a space for further debating. Vladimir from the opposite team mentioned unsuccessful filming of some books and problem of wrong selection of actors for a particular role. While presenting he hesitated, made a lot of pauses which caused lack of concentration in my case, so I was no longer able to focus on his presentation and got the impression that he was not very well prepared for the debate. During further debating Jelena put the stress on the importance of motion picture and its advantage over elaborate descriptions. She also mentioned that film attracts larger number of audience and in that way made strong arguments to defend her team’s side. Suncica made it more interesting and less monotonous with raising the tone of her voice and gesticulation, although it was hard to follow her occasionally. Sonja concluded the debate by emphasizing the importance of music for a film and explaining the advantages of omitting scenes in films. She rebutted all the remaining points, sounded more convincing than the others, her speech was very fluent and she sounded very natural.

 

A general reproach to the whole debate would be its monotony and lack of dynamic, but despite that they achieved its goal.

 

In conclusion I would like to add that although this debate has some lapses it certainly was successful.             

8

Affirmative:
Tanja: exposing too much at the beginning, not confident enough, had several valid points which she delivered in a good way

Vladimir: went straight to the point, no delays; Responded on all of the points the opponent stated beforehand, very good arguments, composition of the speech was weak

Suncica: Wasn't she supposed to just conclude, not rebut as well? Confident and strong speech, attacking the weakest parts of the opponents' composition; Introduced some new points - I think she's not supposed that.

Negative:
Aleksandra: Stating the obvious (We're against etc.), supported only one side of the argument, had weak and easily debatable examples; Insulted Anna Karenina - very, very positive in my book.

Jelena: Repeating that her team is against - I know that by now. Attacked oppponents' weak point, presented some very well-balanced points

Sonja: Calm, but very effective speech; Was she supposed to rebut as a third speaker? Made some odd general statements about imagination. Presented valid points.


Generally, everyone except Suncica was not confident enough, and absolutely everyone went through the 5-minute limit. Who won? The affirmative team.

9

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to review the performance of both teams participating in the debate
held Tuesday 24.3. with the title "Reading books is a more rewarding experience than watching movies".

Affirmative team

The affirmative team's first speaker displayed a solid performance, opening the debate with some strong arguments. The second speaker also had valid arguments, but displayed a somewhat weaker presentation, while the third speaker had an aggressive approach, breaking some rules, but did not have strong arguments.

Negative team

All three of the negative team's speakers did extremely well, both in terms of arguments and presentation, as they provided the audience with facts from the beginning until the end, rebutting all of the affirmative teams arguments in the process.

Conclusion

Both of the teams did a good job, but overall the negative team displayed a more convincing performance.

10

'That books are better than movies based on those books' was a very interesting debate with both sides being prepared (for the most part) and actively taking part in it.

 

The pro-books team consisted of Vladimir Radin, Suncica Samardzija and Tanja Trkulja. Their main arguments dealt with books developing one's imagination better than any movie could, books' openness to interpetation, whereas movies are usually bound by the director's vision, as well as books being historical artifacts and more permanent than movies. Later on, they added that books give more overall information and that movies are simply shorter versions of the books' storylines. They closed by stating that ultimately, books provide better catharsis, and that catharsis in movies is forced and predictable.

 

This team had some very good points, but is in my view the lesser one. They often presented questionable statements as arguments, generalizing a bit too much and sometimes completely losing their focus. Tanja Trkulja was very good as the opening debater. Her arguments made sense and were very innovative (the argument that movies are limited by the vision of the director is very interesting, though a bit counter-productive, since it is obvious that it is not solely the directors who work on movies, whereas it is exactly just the author writing a book). Vladimir had obvious issues keeping the speech momentum going, which was a bit distracting, but most of his arguments were acceptable. Suncica was also problematic at times. It was sometimes hard to understand her viewpoints because at times it sounded like she was actually rebutting her own team, though she did present some very valid points, plus her heated presentation brought much-needed dynamics into the debate, though a bit too late. All in all, it was a good team effort, but it fell flat in the end.

 

On the other hand, the team consisting of Jelena Vukicevic, Aleksandra Radonjic and Sonja Rodic was very good when it came to presenting their points. Defending movies in this case was not the most rewarding position to be in, but they pulled it off by clearly presenting their arguments and sometimes even using the holes in the other team's concept to counter-attack. Aleksandra kicked off their side of debate, and was clear and understandable when it came to presenting their major viewpoints, such as both books and movies being different types of art, there being both good movies and bad books on the same subjects, focusing on inner struggles and conflicts, etc. Though some of her examples might have been a bit too risky (namely, 'The Lord of the Rings' being an improvement over the book it was based on, which could have easily been used by the other side), she managed to cover all the general points. Jelena provided a nice twist by mentioning how learning languages is much easier than movies and how films are more obvious ways of turning attention to something. Sonja finally brought it home by succesfully rebutting most of the other team's points and adding that books require time and energy and that films are more accessible. All in all, the team worked together very well, and although it lacked a certain spark that the 'pro-books' team had, they have my vote.

 

As for the whole debate, it was interesting and insightful, though at times unfocused and repetitive. It also could have been more dynamic, though I do understand that it is dificult to reach this in the given debate format. Kudos to both teams!