link to some stuff i found

this one is better nvm

Moot: THW phase out private schools.

Why would you want to phase out private schools?

- Private schools allow you to make better connections

- More opportunities, overseas and
- Private schools set an international standard and they play on the international field,
representing our country and

Possible counterpoints:
- People in public schools feel inferior to private schools. But they actually have to
work for it, with so much pressure.
- Everyone wants to be the best and so the competition pushes you to be the best
- Our aim is to reduce educational inequality. Surely it makes more sense to improve
schools for state pupils, rather than lower the quality of education available to
wealthy children who likely receive other advantages anyway?
- Even in state schools there will always be students who have more privileges, such
as more exchange trips, more extracurricular options, just because their parents
have money. This has nothing to do with private schools, and phasing them out won’t
do anything for this.
- The rich will continue to live in fancy neighbourhoods and attend the same schools,
finding ways to insulate themselves from the struggles of the working class. Phasing
out private schools will only further encourage wealthier parents to monopolise state
schools, moving to specific areas to ensure their children are entered into the leading
schools. These children will likely have additional tuition outside of school, creating a
culture of academia which will ultimately attract the best teachers and resources.
- Why are we deluding ourselves into thinking that school type is the only thing giving
certain children a social and educational privilege? More important than the school
you attend is your parents' attitudes to education and ability to fund it.
- Did your parents read to you? Did they take you to museums and exhibitions? Did
they hire a piano teacher twice a week? These things are all provided at home.
Going to a private school doesn’t guarantee these things and going to state school
doesn’t rule them out. These are class issues, not school issues, and phasing out
private schools will not do anything for this.
- The only real difference between state and private schools is that one is funded by
the government, and one is independently funded. While, yes, this usually means
that the independently funded institution can provide more resources and assets, that
does not mean that the students are automatically superior to those in public schools.
- Those in favour of abolition are under the illusion that if the children of the wealthy
can’t attend them, they will not be socially and educationally privileged. But they will.
Their parents will continue to pay for private tuition, music lessons, dance classes
and so on. And by phasing out the private schools, we are just redistributing all these
more privileged kids
Speaker 1: Introduce everything and everyone, Economy and more opportunities, rebuttal
Speaker 2: Rebuttal, overcrowding
Speaker 3: Rebuttal, summary.

To Start: Adjudicator and audience…

Chairperson and audience. By now it will be clear to you that [moot] despite the affirmative
team’s argument to the contrary.

Notes for debating:

- Be confident, make the adjudicator believe that you ARE the winner of the debate
- Hold the adjudicator’s hand, clearly show them how and why you have won
- Just keep talking. Repeat points, go over what’s already been said, as long as it’s not
literally contradicting yourself and worsening your case and argument, then just keep
talking because saying anything is usually better than saying nothing.

Structuring a speech:

1st speaker:
Because you are negating, you don’t really have to define the moot unless you disagree with
the aff side’s definition/idea of what the moot means.

As the negating team, we strongly believe that private schools should not be phased out…
As the first speaker, I will be talking about… and… our second speaker will talk about… and
our third speaker will be summarising our points and rebutting.

Talk about two points, and do a bit of rebuttal too. Clearly indicate your points and
rebuttals.

Now, onto my first point…

That leads onto my second point/now onto my second point…

The first speaker of the negating team said this… however…

They also said…. But…. because…

2nd speaker:
Usually, the second speaker would talk about their point first for half the time and then go
into rebuttal, however If you think that it would be easier you can say your rebuttal first and
then go onto your point. As long as it is a relatively even split between rebuttal and your
point, you can flip the order and rebut first. As with the first speaker, clearly signpost when
you are doing rebuttal and when you are making your predetermined points, and also
signpost what you are rebutting or referring to.
Neg’s second speaker said… but…

3rd speaker:
Make sure the adjudicator knows what you are rebutting, as with the second and first
speaker. And make sure that you have enough time to summarise everything. Try to identify
‘points of clash’ which are the main points that you have been arguing about throughout the
debate. Clearly outline the main points of the debate, what was said originally, what was this
responded with, and then because of that how your team has won. Hold the adjudicator's
hand so that they can clearly see how and why you won. ‘The first speaker of the negating
team said this, however we rubutted with the point that… and for this reason we won that
part of the debate…’
‘There was also the point brought up about… the other team said this… but we said this.. So
we won it…’

Argument weighing:
If both sides have two good arguments that can’t really be rebutted against, it is important to
then acknowledge what the other team says and then explain why your point is more
important. (I’ll give you a better explanation/example of this on Wednesday)