I am one of the students that attended the Debate on September 12th, 2012. The debate featured students from Clark Atlanta University, Spellman College, and two fellow UWG wolves. The topic was HBCUs (Historically Black Colleges and Universities), and rather you attend one or choose another post-secondary school to attend. It was quite interesting, because I have a personal, first-hand experience in that particular subject; because I too wanted to attend one of the most highly prestigious HBCUs in the land.... MOREHOUSE COLLEGE!!! I got accepted and everything, but when that bill came for $46,000 a year, I quickly abated that option.
The Students from UWG took the counter side of the argument, and argued why you should not attend an HBCU. There delivery was solid, and it was well-developed. They were able to reach my Pathos, by having a stern and affluent exterior and speaking really well. They were able to reach my Logos, because the cleverly utilized the sources found they were using statistics; a lot more heavily than the opposing team. Although I cannot recall the exact sources used, I can say that they hit a home run when it came to that aspect. I was greatly surprised at how capable two young men were able to connect with my Ethos. they utilized quotations that actually hit the heart. Both their passion and there dignity were outstanding and it definitely enhanced their part of the argument. The only real flaw that I saw that weaved its pesky little head into mere perfection, was the fact that they kept on bringing the Student Debt and Default concept up. Yeah! we get it that HBCU's cost an arm and a leg, but please harp on some more reasons on why a regular College or University is better than a Historically Black One.
On to the opposing team it may seem as though I may become biased, but I witnessed some horrendous argumentative skills when it came time for the HBCUs to hit the microphone...
The young lady from Spellman, was extremely abrasive. Her vocal skills were not bad at all, but her delivery was... (let's just say you could tell she had been up all night practicing that exact speech, so she can say it exactly verbatim.). When it came time for the Cross-examination part of the argument, one could tell she either wasn't prepared, and that she did not know the answer to the tough questions, or that she just wanted to be a smart, crass, and sarcastic individual just for the sole purpose of arguing. For that...respect was lost!!!
The young man from Clark, was miles better than the female, but yet still was not nearly comparable to the calm, cool, and collected, Wolves. about 50% of his argument was considered invalid to me. mainly for the sole reason that, he seemed slightly scatter-brained almost as if, he was fishing for information in the deep recesses of his brain.
*IF AT ANY TIME IN AN ARGUMENT YOU SEEM LIKE YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF... THAN YOUR ARGUMENT BECOMES NULL AND VOID TO ME*
And that is precisely what happened, the young man just talked himself into an unforgiving hole of rhetorical peat. So for that, if I had to choose which party one, the evidently clear answer would be the mighty wolves of West Georgia!!!
This one experience of this debate just increased my interest in the debate team. EXPONENTIALLY!!! I would most definitely return.