Debate Evaluation:
Warning: Ansgt/10. Read at your own disgruntled risk.
What are the main things that you've learnt about Media Studies through taking part? (Try to list at least three new ideas, theories, etc.)
Lets see. First, I’ve learnt the obscure name Carolyn Miller. And what she said about genre. Sure, I don’t know if she’s a learned individual who carefully studied demography and the media, and then came up with an intelligent piece of information, or if she’s some random lunatic that spouted gold in front of someone else that was making a media book, and then decided to stick it in...but, hey, that’s life. Then, there was that American Nightmare thing by Malcom Little (Also Known As “Malcom X” to the mass audience). Finally, I got the idea of A-list actors and the Actors Equity Association in my head, and that they’re for American and British actors. That’s about it.
What other skills have you developed? (e.g. debating skills, team-working, researching, public speaking, etc.)Has it been an effective way to motivate you and to help you learn? Why? Why not?
How should I know? If there’s been a change in me, I sure as hell don’t see it. I’m still a lazy, book-reading recluse. If I have to pull something outta my...well, then, sure, I’ve developed my knowledge. The only reason it motivated me – personally, and at the last possible second – to come prepared with anything, is that I didn’t want to look like a dumb-ass. That’s the only reason. There were three-four people that overall gave me encouragement that I didn’t shoot down for one reason or the other (one of them seconds before I went up, although I’ll never understand the “water in the back of the head” thing).
I wanted to impress all of six-seven people in the entire room. Everyone else was pretty much just another judge. They came along specifically, each and every one of them, in their own special and unique way, to make me feel that extra bit more self-conscious that I’m doing everything wrong. God damn. I swear if I read this somewhere else, I’d think from all the anxiety that the person who wrote it was a girl. Stereotypes for the win!
Rate your personal performance for...a. research/preparation; b. performance on the day, and explain why.
Research and preparation? Har-har-har-har-har-har-har! Captain, they be as elusive as that scurvy White Devil! My performance on the day? I really don’t know how I came across. People on my side looked bored. People on the other side looked bored and confused. Well, I won half the battle there. Besides the annoying PING, that was why I stopped. I half-way expected some wise-ass comment to interject and say, “Fell free to make sense any time now.” Thank god for Ms Stevens though. I think in the whole mass that I addressed with eye-contact, for the sake of “Ritual” points, she was the only one I couldn’t actually imagine saying a cynical comment. That was probably one of the few encouraging things that stopped me from saying “never mind” and sitting down. I hate crowds. At least, I hate having to be the attention-holder. I bet you’re bored reading this garbage. Hey, I’m not stopping you from going elsewhere.
What could you personally have done better?
Worried and studied more? Been a better crowd-pleaser? Gotten more points so we would have actually won the debate? Developed my counter-counter-point of information better? You just pick one and I’ll go from there.
Special mention for their contributions?
Que? No entiendes. Hablo usted Ingles?
How could your team have done better? (Don't blame individuals but think about general points).
What type of jerk blames team-mates for shortcomings? Probably me. Anyway. My team kicked every kind of ass imaginable. There was no damned weak link. Iena did more than I ever could. She was fluent and resourceful throughout. AT THE LAST SECOND! WHEN THE HOPES AND DREAMS OF EVERYONE ASPIRED WITH HER! WITH THE IMMENSE PRESSURE OF IT ALL! WHEN IT ALL CAME CRASHING DOWN! LIKE AN INFERNO OF HELLFIRE FALLING ON AN INFANT! She was the saving grace when we absolutely needed someone. That, THAT, was just friggin awesome. Yeah. Also, Danny pretty much showed why he was Captain to begin with. He pulled in the highest points for us, and constantly kept the audience in a hushed rapt. Nothing more to say. Both of them are quite cool. You want criticism of good team members, go elsewhere. They did their best.
Rate your opposing team's overall performance. What was particularly good about it? In your opinion, who deserves a special mention for their contributions?
Hmm. Lets see. Well, considering I saw one of them preparing these good points and speech and getting herself ready to bash back every “point of information” we could have grabbed together...well, I expected the great fight they gave. Like hell I wasn’t floored by the statistics and points about directors that they emerged with. I saw a few problems, but I thought they were little traps that they already knew how to attack back with. In other words, wow. Special mention? The leadership was good, as was the second speaker, as was the summary. But, I suppose overall the second speaker, of course, was best. Second speakers are just cool like that. Renuka for the win?!
Was it a fair result? Why? Why not?
No. I’ll say it now: by right of annoying, exasperating, teeth-grinding technicality, they won. Two out of three rounds. By an inch or a mile, they did it. I would be annoyed if I won something, and then I’m given a “well, the opposition and this one were both mighty fine, so we’ll just say this a draw!” It’s just as bad as schools removing the word “failure” from their vocabulary, or the weather-report removing words that are “depressing” (yes, they actually are considering/doing both). I mean, if the other side was that incredibly humble to do that, then, well, great, more power to them. And we can all rejoice. But otherwise? Bleh. It feels cheap. It was not a draw. We lost. =/
Was the whole event like you expected it to be? How was it different?
Yeah, except I expected something less annoying than the ping. And more useful. Like actually announcing “beginning first/second/third minute”. The pings only made me more aware of what I was doing wrong and a part of me was wondering “Am I ending or beginning this minute?” I didn’t think I was allowed to take in notes. I was “WHOAMG! Speech from my mind?! Ah HELL naw! Notgoodnotgoodnotgoodnotgood.” But then I saw all those little cards and such, and did a few notes for myself. That made things easier than anyone will ever know. For me, anyway. Yeah.
Do you feel that you had the right level of support from your teachers in preparing you? What else could we have done for you?
Nothing. You both listened, gave encouragement, and information. To me, anyway. Good job.
How could the whole organisation of the debate have been improved? (Over the last few weeks and on the actual day).
Well, we were jumbled up at the beginning. Herding us into a little room was probably good for keeping us together, even if both sides had to stare in the face of pure evil (also known as, “our opposition”). I liked the relaxed (or was that unintentional disorganisation?) way we were let it. It helped because it wasn’t strict.
What do you suggest we could do next to test the relative abilities of Year 13 Media Studies students?
Tic-tac-toe competition. Short and brutal. Yes, I’m being serious. Well, sort of serious. I’m not sure. Yeah.
Are you pleased that we had a Media Studies debate? Was it interesting and enjoyable? Why? Why not?
I’m...I’m not even going to touch this one.
Would you recommend that we have a debate for Year 12 students next year? Why? Why not?
Only if they, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO SPEAK, want it. Why? Because the country that signs up for war will often, and blissfully, ignore the frontline soldiers. Or something like that. Yeah.
posted by Steven @ 10:21 AM
0 comments
