Posted: Wed May 19, 2010 11:42 pm Post subject: The Debate Continues...
Please post your thoughts on today's debate. Some items to consider:
* What was the strongest argument your team made? What was the best argument you DIDN'T make?
*What was the most compelling argument that the other team made? What was the great argument that they DIDN'T make?
* What did we do well in our debate? What could we use to work on? What are some ideas/suggestions/goals for our next debate?
One of the stronger point/not compleatly said point for the save carthage side was the argument, what is the point of destroying carthage? Even if they were a threat to Rome, we are effecient and more powerful enough to twist the treaty, or take them over (absorb them) or any other options, but we should not destroy them. We gain nothing from their destruction, all we do is waste energy that we could use to make them supply us with some of their resorces.
One of the stronger points from the destroy carthage side was that history has shown us thay they are vengful people. They have re-attaked once so why wouldnt they do it again? Rome should destroy them before they have the chance to attack us, becuase right now they are a major threat to us because of all their military resorces, when we thought they were still in ruins from our previous wars.
I believe that we did well with having everyone talk and mostly get their points in. We should work on gerring into discussion faster, which we can do by preparing for opening discussion and formal rebuttle more at home so we spend less time on it in class and more time for the debate.
* What was the strongest argument your team made? What was the best argument you DIDN'T make?
*What was the most compelling argument that the other team made? What was the great argument that they DIDN'T make?
* What did we do well in our debate? What could we use to work on? What are some ideas/suggestions/goals for our next debate?
I feel our evaluation of the Carthaginian threat was greatly supported by the evidence we later presented. Cato's report, previous encounters, and especially the trend of Carthage's retaliation all strengthen our reason to destroy Carthage. I feel a supporting portion of our argument we failed to mention was hannibal. He is considered one of the greatest military mind ever to have existed. The Carthaginian's were influenced by such a leader, therefore I would assume they absorbed a tactical state of mind.
The opposing side conveyed the message "Carthage is damaged beyond recovery" well. Although the delegates opposed to this maintained their ground, I myself had to reassure myself. The point was made well, especially with the comparison between Carthage and a five year old, which may have been too extreme. I believe they failed to mention Carthages use for trade but it may appear minor, considering the Romans were in wartime.
I feel a more regulated approach would be great. People need to have a mutual respect for eachother and refrain from interfering while others are speaking. I really enjoyed this experience and look forward to our next debate.
* What was the strongest argument your team made? What was the best argument you DIDN'T make?
The strongest argument we made as the "[b]destroy Carthage[/b]" team was that Carthage has recovered from the second punic war and supporting the argument with Cato's report to Rome. One of the best argument that we didn't make was that there was no economic benefit by not destroying Carthage due to the fact that Carthage has paid off its debt (10,000 talents) completely by 151 B.C. Therefore, eliminating a possible threat/future enemy would be much safer for the republic than to leave it alone.
*What was the most compelling argument that the other team made? What was the great argument that they DIDN'T make?
The other team didn't make the argument that Carthage, after Rome declared war on it, quickly surrendered and handed over all its armors, weapons, and even hostages. Carthage had NO intention to question Rome's power or to fight it at ALL.
* What did we do well in our debate? What could we use to work on? What are some ideas/suggestions/goals for our next debate?
I think the debate was fairly respectful and the arguments were reasoned well. Although I know that formal debates have rules, I would have enjoyed more, if it was more of an open discussion, where people get to answer or argue freely without having to worry about the time or the rules.
i think the best argument we made was that carthage was not a threat to us and that we should assimilate them instead of dthem. we shuld've said something about how we are a growing nation and need more places in which to grow the essentials for us to live.
the best argument they said was that they probably have some bad blood towards us and will fight again.
i think we should be more pumped up tomorrow. we should all drink coffee.
1. I think the strongest argument my side made was that we would lose more than we would gain if we went into war, and destroyed Carthage. A war costs money and it would not be worth it to spend all of that money. Also we would lose a lot of men in that war, and would have less strong men to defend rome after the war was over.
2. I think the best argument that the other side made was that Cartherage was preparing to fight us and would most likely win if we didn't go in first. They had evidence that backed up what they said saying that they were getting stronger each day, and that there naval force was very good.
3. We all talked in my group at least once, and people helped to contribute to the ideas. We stayed focused and used the time that we were given. on our next debate what we could do better was get more into the debate in the beginnign instead of waiting until the end to really get all of our good points across. maybe also we could brainstorm ideas that the other team might say so we have good rebuttals already planned.
1. The strongest argument our team made was that Carthage was a threat to Rome because Carthage had proven they were vengeful and even though they had been defeated they still rebelled. The best argument our team didn’t make was that by defeating Carthage Rome would set an example for other defiant nations.
2. The most compelling argument the other team made was that our only proof that Carthage was rebelling was the word of a man still angry about Carthage’s rebellion. The great argument the other team didn’t make was that it is barbaric to preemptively completely destroy a nation without sufficient proof that they were going to rebel.
3. There was a lot of good countering of points and ideas in the debate, but it would be better if we had more time to prepare and/or regroup and also if there was more time for the open rebuttal.
I think the strongest point my team made was when we brought up Cato. When we quoted the text, we had substantial evidence to back us up. Before that, we seemed to be talking ourselves in circles, especially when someone brought up "breaking the treaty" (they must have mentioned that about 5 times).
The most compelling argument the other team made was when Sam G. talked about how sparing carthage was in our best interest ecomonically, but also complies with our virtus. When one brings our values into the discussion, it automatically reaches to our emotions. However, they too brought up the same point many times (economics).
As a class, I think we need to come in with points prepared, so we take less time to get going.
I think all of our arguments were in general pretty strong, and well supported and well phrased. However, I think that a few of our arguments could have required evidence to further support our ideas, thereby making them more effective. I think there was one main argument for our team, that Carthage wasn’t a real threat to us, was particularly well expounded upon, but we lacked a lot of diversity in other ideas, which may or may not have been our fault. However, I feel we could’ve argued that it wasn’t true Roman virtus to destroy Carthage, and this would appeal to the moral standpoint; but it could easily be countered, and thus would have required a lot more time to think than was given. I think the other team had a lot of great ideas; I especially thought that their “If we don’t act now, we’ll regret it later” argument was particularly effective. But I was surprised that overall, neither team recognized it as the “Roman” thing to do in their case, that virtus was almost never brought into the discussion. But I think overall the debate was very entertaining, with each side showing a clear knowledge of the subject matter, and almost everyone participated frequently, which brought a lot of different ideas to the table. I think for next time, we could continue this trend, as well as adding a little bit of evidence to support the two teams’ arguments. Also, preparation would have served everyone well; this would have afforded more time to think, and thus, more ideas and more things to say, which would have served to make the debate a lot more effective.
Our strongest argument is that "funding the destruction of something that Rome could easily make great use of is an unnecessary waste of potential power." An argument we could have made is that if we destroy Carthage, we destroy all their knowledge of naval advancements. The other team's best argument was that Carthage is an increasing threat to Rome, and they should be dealt with before it gets out of hand. A good argument the other team could have had is: "Rome, with an intimidating reputation of violently dealing with its enemies, gains other nation's loyalty through fear. Therefore, in order to maintain this reputation and scare others into submission, Rome needs the occasional sacrificial nation; a sort of demonstration of the consequences that would be administered should a nation be disloyal." In our next debate, we should try to propose some sort of compromise.
Were the Gracchi brothers the fathers of socialism and populism, or were there earlier ideas about those kinds of societies?
Our teams best argument was on carthage being a potential threat. it was the strongest reason to take out carthage, and provided the best argument. we were able to present textual evidence that carthage was very capable of building an army.
The opposing side efficiently argued that there was no need to destroy carthage, because Rome had a stronger army, and government. therefore they did not need to waste the effort. they shoul have also mentioned that carthage was continually weaker in its government. there is textual evidence for that, and it would probably have a large factor in the over all power of carthage.
we need more time to rehearse, and come up with organized statments. i had that awkward moment where i forgot what i was going to say, because i was to busy thinking of what we should do next. we did however do fairly well seeing we had to rewrite our notes because lysander wasn't here
yall shud use the smileys to enhance your point. theyr pretteh sweet
I think that my team's strongest argument was the point that was made that Carthage had 50 years to rebuild their army, and that was long enough to have an army of fresh legs(young men). The group was able to emphasize how much of a threat Carthage was, even if it was possible that Carthage might not even try to fight back. One of the best skills you can have in debates is being able to support a side with strong ideas to back things up, even if you completely disagree, or history seems to favor the other side. Which I think BOTH groups did very well. However, I did like the argument I think Sam made about taking 50 years to rebuild, because after a series of THREE wars, Carthage may not have been well backed up economically, so it could've taken more than 50 years to get back to where they were.
The strongest argument that our team made was we would loose more than we would gain by going to war with Carthage. We already know we're stronger and another war would just kill more of our soldiers and cost more money. Instead of becoming weaker by starting another war, why not go out on top? An argument we didn't make was that the opposing side was fighting with their emotions (pride, anger, etc) and not strategically. They really wanted to go to war (mainly for pride) but we're thinking more strategically whats best for Rome in the long run.
The most compelling argument the other team made was when they said that Carthage was getting stronger by the day. Sam already mentioned this in his post but if, "we don't act now, we'll regret it later." that made me re think our position. Yes, they aren't as much of a threat to us NOW but what if Carthage DID grow strong enough to win against us? They could have argued Rome needed to expand their empire and Carthage was a key place to have control over.
I think we should have had more time for the open debate because we ran out of time so things felt rather rushed. I liked that my team brought everyone from our group into the discussion. We all planned who would say what and when, we worked very well together. However, I think we should have come up with more NEW ideas and arguments.
* What was the strongest argument your team made? What was the best argument you DIDN'T make?
I believe that the strongest argument that my team made was the fact that there was truly no benefit in destroying carthage since Rome would gain nothing. The best argument we did not make was perhaps that Rome was growing and needed some place that was still able to function properly to grow onto, instead of a place killed by war.
*What was the most compelling argument that the other team made? What was the great argument that they DIDN'T make?
The other team made a very good argument that Carthage was a posing threat and that if we did not put them in their place soon enough, they may end up harming Rome. However, one point they did not make was stating how they could use destroying Carthage as an example for other countries that were hesitant to follow Rome.
* What did we do well in our debate? What could we use to work on? What are some ideas/suggestions/goals for our next debate?
I think that in our debate we all did well because everyone talked and was able to say their ideas. there were a few interruptions from people while others were talking but not too many.
I think that both teams had some really good points and we were all good! I think that the best point that we made was that Carthage was still growing and that it has been known to be vengeful in the past. Plus, Rome suffered massive damages during the second Punic War, and really just barely won. And also, the Romans expected Carthage to be weak and struggling, but Cato found that there were actually a lot of strong, young men with many weapons.
I think that the other team made some really good points in saying that Rome has displayed their power to Carthage in the past, and that they kept a devestating mark to remember them by. Also, there isn't that much to gain from destroying Carthage, and unneeded bloodshed isn't good D: This isn't really a point that they made, more about the team itself, but they all worked together and added onto each other's ideas and it was great
I think that in the future we should have more time for an open discussion, and it should be more... open, where people can just add on to what someone says without being called on and it doesn't nessessarily have to go back and forth YAY
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
we did however do fairly well seeing we had to rewrite our notes because lysander wasn't here 
