Your name
Professor’s name
Course number
Date
Debate
Debates are formal arguments where individuals describe the advantages and disadvantages of the issues at hand. Ethical issues can be highlighted in discussions where individuals decide on which argument to rely on such as a pro and con debate. In a debate forum, an individual gets the opportunity to speak out and on a given topic and provide reasonable information to the opposing side. Debates are faced with plenty of criticism because all the individuals involved believe that they are on the right side. Validity of the discussion highlights the scope of the debates. Although debates serve as argumentative fields, they should be well-coordinated and should have some informative ranges of outcome. Some individuals may differ, but debate should be appropriately guided with facts that can be reasoned.
In this debate, Governor Bradley is against the capital punishment of an individual. The person has been accused for the rape and murder of a college student. Bradley is against such types of punishments despite the wrongdoings. However, the elections are oncoming and the rival predecessor suggests that the criminal should be served with capital punishment. This means that a death penalty should be administered to the convicted criminal (D’Addesa 3). The debate highlighted the sides for Kidder’s argument since there was a pro and con in the debate. The coordination with the debate as outlined in the required manner since the pro and con took part extensively in the debate. The discussion was well arranged and informative because comparisons were highlighted and argued out as to what decision Governor Bradley should have taken. The con team was stronger because the predecessor of the governor relied on whether Bradley would pardon the prisoner. This would have been used as a route for victory in the oncoming elections. The reflection was well highlighted since the decision to be taken by Bradley was left unanswered and an individual could make appropriate conclusions. This was my debate presentation #3.
This debate shows how individuals can use fraudulent ways to get into colleges. Kidder’s nine sides were excellently covered compared to presentation #3. The points were well highlighted and discussed. Marcy is faced with a dilemma after she lands a new job as a swimming instructor. A new student, Cary has joined the swimming team on a scholarship however; the student who won the scholarship does not know how to swim. Marcy finds out that the scholarship was obtained illegally and reports to the head coach Jack who is her close friend. Jack tells Marcy not to mind the situation at hand (Jordao 2). The pro team was stronger than the con because they highlighted the difficulties faced by Marcy. The details provided had good information guidelines and the facts in this debate were much better than those in Presentation #3. Marcy is seeing that reporting the incident will lead to Jack losing his job while at the same time it is the right thing to be done. She has to consider the consequences of her actions. The reflection was achieved by the fact that Marcy had to choose what is right. This was my debate presentation #4.
The context in this debate shows Caleb who was injured at a baseball game and was rushed to hospital. When his parents arrived, they insisted that their religious culture and could not allow any blood transfusion to be done. The doctors were left in a dilemma on what action to take to save the life of Caleb. The parents who are Jehovah Witness faithful insisted that they could not go against the religious teachings. The debate coordination was highlighted in a way that is easy to comprehend. The details of the debate were informative especially the fact that the Jehovah’s Witness faith was explained in detail (Annoiser et al. 7). This debate was well explained compared to presentation #3 since most of the terms were defined. The pro have a stronger point compared to the con because in this situation, the life of Caleb is more important despite the consent of the parents. The doctors are faced with an obligation to choose between right and wrong. Performing the blood transfusion will save Caleb from death and this means the doctor will have to select the appropriate action to take and this reflects the idea of the debate.
In conclusion the debates were informative. Individuals are able to learn how to distinguish pro and con and also some of the discussions within the debates are informative. The debates highlighted show the pro and con of making informed decisions. They provide reflections on how individuals should handle certain matters in the society. An individual such as Governor Bradley is tasked with making a decision on whether to offer a death sentence or not. The implications of this decision can affect his career as governor since the elections are approaching. In another instance, Marcy is faced with a dilemma on whether she should report a student or not. The student acquired a scholarship inappropriately and therefore it is the moral obligation of Marcy to do what she considers right . She is however afraid that her actions can cause problems to Jack who is her close friend. In another debate, Caleb gets an accident and it is up to the doctors to make the right decision to save his life. This is after the consent from his parents endangered his life. Debates help in learning and acquisition of skills.
Works Cited
Annoiser, A., Schoburgh, A., Hyzak, J., and Kinyon, C. “Religion: Parental Refusal of Care”. Religion debate #5 (n.d): 1-25
D’Addesa, N., Nguyen, A., and Boucher, K. “Capital Punishment”. Debate#3 (n.d) 1-11
Jordao, M., Valigorsky, B., Izzo, A., and Ratsabout, J. “Education: Buying College”. Debate#4 (n.d): 1-25