NPDA Debate Ballot, Coursework Example
This debate addresses the significance of Native Americans and their status in the United States. This role is presented on two different sides: 1) the proposition; and 2) the opposition. The proposition addresses the belief that Blood quantum laws, created by the United States government, should be abolished on the basis that they are racist and do not equally represent Native American tribes. In addition, they are offensive and are ethically inappropriate in their context and purpose and should not continue to serve as a regulation in determining the status of Native American tribes. From this perspective, this law does not properly classify individuals who are true members of Native American tribes and is primarily racially motivated in nature. The belief is that Native Americans are not against these laws; however, they do not support these laws because they take away individuality within the different tribes that exist within the Native American population. These laws support “cultural genocide” and exclude this population from having any real rights as part of American society, as they are disenfranchised and are threatened by the American government as they threaten to cease funding for these tribes.
On the opposing side, Blood quantum laws are not racist and do not discriminate against Native American tribes on the basis of racial motivators. Therefore, it is important to continue to enforce Blood quantum laws because they are not discriminatory in nature. If these laws are terminated, then there is no significance to each individual tribe within the Native American population because there is no real individuality if this law did not exist. Therefore, this law must continue to prevail and provide a basis for the exploration and classification of Native American tribes. In addition, this law does offer an ethical approach to classifying Native Americans and in spite of its compensatory strategy, this law should not be abolished. This law represents an opportunity for Native Americans to be classified in such a way that their individual tribes are identified and recognized for their contributions to society and for their cultural identities.
Each speaker used different approaches to get their points across and appeared to be very passionate regarding their views. The speakers as a whole sought to express their views and to be convincing in this process; however, the level of success of each speaker is not equal. The speakers on the proposition side often talked too fast to make any real sense of the arguments and the video had to be rewound on several occasions just to hear what was being said. Fast talking is not always the best option, even in a debate setting. As some of the speakers on the proposition side appeared to mumble and talk too fast to be well understood by the viewer, this demeanor detracted from their arguments and was very distracting. On the other hand, the opposition team appeared to be more composed and spoke more clearly, slowly, and consistently throughout their arguments. This was an important strength of their arguments because they did not appear to be outshining each other and trying to over talk each other as the debate went on. This was a significant difference between the two sides and provided support in favor of one side over the other.
The proposition, opposition, and rebuttals were effective in some ways and less successful in others. The debate topic obviously brought forth much passion and reverence for the Native American population on both sides of the fence; however, the arguments were uneven and often repetitive in nature. Although the debaters attempted to convey and address all sides of this important argument, the differences in their styles of approaching the topic were clear and created a challenging listening environment. Both sides of the argument had their merits, but at the same time, there was a clear winner.
In response to the debate and both sides of the argument, it became clear during the first phase that the opposition side clearly had the upper hand in the argument because their perspective and opinions were easier to understand and easier to swallow. In this context, the opposing debaters were able to get their points across more effectively and communicate on a level that was more appropriate. In contrast, the proposition side was ineffective in its arguments because of their lack of clarity and the difficulties associated with understanding what was being said because the dialogue went too fast. In this context, the opposing arguments were more memorable and I was able to recall what was said more clearly. This is a clear sign that this team won the debate from my perspective. However, in reference to their actual arguments, the opposing side was effective in demonstrating that Blood quantum laws are not racist and that Native American tribes should be given the opportunity to be recognized for their individual identities and tribes. This was a very important component of the opposing argument and provided a basis for the exploration of new ideas and principles that were effective in supporting the argument in question. Blood quantum laws, from the opposing side’s perspective, are not discriminatory and are not racist; therefore, they should continue to be upheld because they reflect an opportunity to continue to support Native American tribes on the basis of their individuality and strength in numbers. Therefore, the clear winner of this debate is the opposing side against the abolishment of Blood quantum laws because their overall clarity, the content of their arguments, and their fair approach to the topic was more attractive and more favorable for the issue in question.
Time is precious
don’t waste it!