MASTER TAPESCRIPT TRACK 1 Introduction TRACK 2~15 Unit 1 Discover Run to the corner game Listen to the opinion. Do you agree or disagree? Run to the corner marked agree or disagree. Repeat for each opinion. 1. The country is better than the city. 2. The city is better than the country. 3. Cats make better pets than dogs. 4. Cats are superior to dogs as pets. 5. Math is the most important subject. 6. English is the most important subject. 7. The government should lower taxes. 8. The government should decrease taxes. 9. Baseball is more exciting than soccer. 10. Baseball is not as exciting as soccer. 11. Eating fast food is not healthy. 12. Eating fast food is good for you. 13. Spaceships have visited Earth already. 14. UFO's have already visited Earth. =========================== TRACK 16~20 Unit 1 Language Focus At the Party Listen to the four conversations at the party. What are the people talking about in each conversation? Do the speakers agree or disagree? Are they talking about an opinion of fact, value or policy. Fill in the boxes. TRACK 17 1. Man: Would you like something to eat? I'll go get you one of those little sandwiches over there. Woman: Oh, Thank you. Can you get me one of those sandwiches on whole wheat brown bread? Man: Why? Don't you like white bread? Woman: Yeah, white bread is O.K. but I think that brown bread tastes better. Man: Really? I've never liked brown bread very much. TRACK 18 2. Man: Would you mind not smoking? Woman: Excuse me? Man: I said, "would you mind not smoking?" Woman: Are you serious? This is a party. People always smoke at parties and I think that I have the right to smoke in here. Man: I'm sorry but cigarette smoke makes me sick. Woman: Well, why don't you go outside on the balcony? Man: I think I have the right to be in here. Smokers should smoke outside on the balcony. TRACK 19 3. Man 1: I was watching sports classics on T.V. the other day and they had this show about Michael Jordan. Man! I believe that he is the greatest athlete of all time. Man 2: I know what you mean. I think so too. But you know, soccer fans, especially in Brazil, think Pele is the greatest athlete of all time. Man 1: Yeah, I've heard that. But I still think Jordan was a better athlete than Pele. Man 2: Yeah me too. Remember that last shot in game 6 of the 1998 finals against Utah when he stole the ball and... TRACK 20 4. Woman 1: Do you wanna go to a concert this weekend. There's a big outdoor concert in the park. Woman 2: Nah, not really. I think it's going to rain this weekend. Woman 1: No it's not....I saw the weather forecast in the paper. It's gonna be beautiful weather. Woman 2: I doubt it. It always rains when I go to an outdoor concert. ============================= TRACK 21~27 Unit 2 Discover Explaining your opinion Listen to the short conversations. What is each person's opinion? What reason do they give? Write the reason under each picture. The first one is done for you. TRACK 22 1. Archie: Look at that woman on T.V. She sure does know how to do those math problems. Math is probably the most important subject in school. Ethel: Really? What makes you say that? Archie: Well, because we use math everyday of our lives. Ethel: Oh! TRACK 23 2. Guy: Science fiction movies are so cool. Don't you think? Marilyn: Un huh. Oh, I love science fiction movies too. Ya know, I'm certain that U.F.O.'s have already visited Earth. Guy: Why is that? Marilyn: Well, it's because many people have seen them. TRACK 24 3. Son: Mom, I'm sure glad we live in the city. Mom: Oh, Really? Why is that hun? Son: Living in the city is better than living in the country because there are so many cool computer stores in the city. Mom: Ah, that's nice honey. TRACK 25 4. Chuck: Look at this Harry! Another tax increase. Harry: Yeah, I know what you mean. The government should lower taxes. Chuck: Yeah! The government should lower taxes because lower taxes help the economy to grow. Harry: Right! TRACK 26 5. Wife: What are you reading? Hubby: The sports page, dear. There's an article here about soccer. Wife: Oh, I like soccer. Soccer is so much more interesting and exciting than baseball. Hubby: Mm? What makes you say that? Wife: In soccer the action never stops. In baseball, players just stand around a lot. TRACK 27 6. Radio: Food scientists have discovered that eating fast food is not healthy. Driver: Hmm? I wonder why they said that? It must be because fast food is high in fat. Radio: The reason, the scientists said, was because fast food is high in fat. Driver: I thought so. Radio: Stay tuned for sports next on WFAT ========================== TRACK 28 Unit 3 Model Types of Support The government should raise taxes. Listen and check your answers. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Ladies and Gentlemen, the government should raise taxes. The government needs more money to provide better services. First, according to the Finance Minister, important services will have to be cut if taxes are not increased. Second, it will take 15 million more dollars to complete construction on that new subway. Third, without more money the government can't provide training for people without jobs. And finally, tax increases in Sweden have improved the quality of government services for everyone in that country. Thank you for your support. ======================== TRACK 29 Unit 4 Discover Organizing your Opinion Listen to the speech and fill in the blanks with the numbers from the house. Some numbers may be used more than once. The first one is done for you. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. Today we are debating the resolution, "soccer is a better sport than baseball." We on the affirmative team strongly support this resolution. We have four reasons: cost, excitement, simplicity, and color. Our first point is cost. Soccer tickets are much cheaper than baseball tickets. In this city, the price of a ticket to a baseball game is about three times higher than the price of a ticket to a soccer game. Our second point is excitement. Soccer is much more exciting than baseball. In baseball, 90% of the time the players are just standing around waiting. Soccer has action all the time. Our third point is simplicity. Soccer is much easier than baseball. Baseball rules take hours to explain, and you need a bat, glove and baseball diamond to play. Soccer rules are easy, and all you need is a soccer ball and a field. Our fourth point is color. Soccer uniforms are much more colorful than baseball uniforms. The New York Yankees, for example, have one of the most boring uniforms in the world. In conclusion, we have talked about cost, excitement, simplicity, and color. We have shown that soccer is a much better sport than baseball. For these reasons we beg to propose. ========================== TRACK 30 UNIT 4 Language Focus Introductions and conclusions INTRODUCTION FORMAT Listen and fill in the words Thank you ladies and gentlemen, We are debating the resolution "Soccer is a better sport than baseball." We on the affirmative team strongly support this resolution. We have 4 reasons: cost, excitement, simplicity, and color. TRACK 31 CONCLUSION FORMAT Listen and fill in the missing words Ladies and gentlemen, we have talked about cost, excitement, simplicity, and color and have clearly shown that soccer is a better sport than baseball. For these reasons we beg to propose. TRACK 32 UNIT 4 Controlled Practice Strip Speech First Affirmative Speech Part 1 Listen and check your answers. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. Today the resolution is: "Smoking should be banned." We, on the affirmative team, strongly support this resolution. We have 3 reasons: health, hospital costs, and pollution. Our first point is "Health." Cigarettes fill your lungs with poisonous chemicals causing cancer and lung disease. According to the American Cancer Society, every cigarette you smoke shortens your life by approximately 7 minutes. Furthermore, this has directly affected my life. My grandfather died of lung cancer two years ago. It was a long illness, and it caused my family much stress and sadness. Our second point is "hospital costs." Smokers cost the country a lot of money. This is because smokers get cancer and other diseases more than non-smokers. Smokers miss more work, and spend more time in the hospital. Also, according to the Ministry of Health, the average smoker requires over $200,000 in hospital costs over the course of their lives. The total bill for the country is over $50,000,000 a year. Our third point is "Pollution." Cigarettes make the air dirty. This is because when people smoke they blow many poisonous gases into the air. This is a big problem on train platforms, where many people ignore the "no smoking" signs and blow smoke in your face. We should ban cigarettes to get rid of this problem. We have talked about health, hospital costs, and pollution. We have shown clearly that cigarettes should be banned. We beg to propose. == TRACK 33 Part 2 Listen and check your answers. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. The resolution today is "Cigarette smoking should be allowed." We, on the affirmative team strongly support this resolution. We have 3 reasons: smokers' rights, taxes, and jobs. Our first point is "smokers' rights." We believe that people have the right to smoke. People should have the freedom to do what they want, as long as they donŐt hurt others. According to Dr. Marsha Blacktooth of California University, "Smoking cigarettes in your own home doesnŐt hurt anyone else. In a free country, people should be allowed to smoke." (Smokers' Magazine, May, 1999) Our second point is "taxes." Cigarette taxes make much money for the government. According to the Tax Office, the government collected 400 million dollars in cigarette taxes last year. Furthermore, those tax dollars are important. The Minister of Finance said in an interview recently, "If we lose the taxes from cigarettes, we will have to take money away from schools and hospitals." (NewsHour, May 3, 1998) Our third point is "jobs." Millions of people all over the world work in the tobacco industry and will lose their jobs if cigarettes are banned. According to the Agricultural Ministry, at least 200,000 people work on tobacco farms. In addition, according to the Department of Commercial Affairs, as many as 500,000 more people work for cigarette companies. Finally, many more people work in convenience stores. If there are no cigarette sales, convenience stores will lose money and have to cut the number of workers. We have talked about smokersŐ rights, taxes, and jobs. We have shown that cigarette smoking should be allowed. We beg to propose. TRACK 34 Unit 5 Controlled Practice Listening and making Refutations Listen to an affirmative speech on the resolution: "It's better to be married than single" Take notes in the left column. For each reason think of a refutation. Write your refutations in the right column. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. We are debating the resolution: "It's better to be married than single." We on the affirmative team strongly support this resolution. We have 4 reasons: housework, cost, love, and advice. Our first point is "housework." If you are married, your husband or wife can help you around the house. Your wife or husband can help you with the cooking or cleaning, which takes a lot of time. According to a new government survey, husbands and wives now help equally in the household. It makes your life much easier. Our second point is "cost." It is much cheaper to be married than to be single. This is because you can share expenses such as food or rent. Also, married people pay lower taxes than single people. Our third point is "love." Marriage increases the amount of love in your life. It's wonderful to come home every night to someone who cares about you. It's sad to be home at night all by yourself. Our fourth point is advice. If you are married, you can talk about your problems with your husband or wife. It helps to talk to other people about your problems, keeping your feelings to yourself is not healthy. It has been shown that married people live longer than single people. Ladies and Gentlemen, we've talked about housework, cost, love, and advice, and have clearly shown that "It's better to be married than single" For these reasons we beg to propose. TRACK 35~41 Unit 6 Controlled Practice Challenging Supports Part 1 A debater is proving the resolution: "Cats are better pets than dogs." Her first point is that Cats are cheaper than dogs. She has six supports, but each support has a problem. Listen and match each support with it's problem. The first one is done for you. My first point is cost, Cats are cheaper than dogs. TRACK 36 1. According to the May 1999 issue of Animal Weekly magazine, cats make far better pets than dogs because cats are less expensive. TRACK 37 2. Cats cost only $100 while on the other hand, dogs cost $200 or more. TRACK 38 3. Also, according to my English teacher , cats are cheaper than dogs because cats are smaller. TRACK 39 4. Furthermore, in her book "Cats for Me" famous pet expert, Dr. Woof claimed that keeping a cat as a pet cost less than keeping a dog because of their size differences and the amount of food they eat. TRACK 40 5. According to the pamphlet "Ten Reasons to Buy a Cat" published in 1998 by the Necko Cat food company, Cats are the economical choice because the cost of feeding a cat is lower than the cost of feeding a dog. TRACK 41 6. Finally, at one pet store I saw recently there was a cat on display in the front window priced at $100 while the dog on display in the very same window was priced at over $350. This statistically proves that dogs on the average are more expensive than cats, thus cats would make the cheaper pet. TRACK 42 Unit 7 Discover Organizing your Refutation Listen to an affirmative speech on the resolution "All people should be vegetarian" Fill in the blanks in the affirmative's house. Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. We are debating the resolution: "All people should be vegetarian" We, on the affirmative team, strongly support this resolution. We have 3 reasons: health, animal rights, and the environment. Our first point is "health." It is not healthy for people to eat meat. Meat, especially beef, is very, very high in fat. Meat is also more difficult to digest than fruits or vegetables. Vegetables have all the vitamins, minerals and protein that we need to live. If we eat only fruits and vegetables, we will be much healthier. Our second point is "animal rights." Eating meat violates the rights of animals. It is wrong to kill an animal or take a baby animal away from its mother. We should not cause animals to feel pain and suffering. We should respect all living beings. Our third point is "the environment." Raising animals hurts the environment. We cut down rain forests to make farms for cows. We also destroy life in the sea, catching more and more fish. Vegetables need less space, and grow much more quickly. They do less damage to the environment. By eating only vegetables, we help protect our planet. We have talked about "health," "animal rights," and "the environment," and have shown that all people should be vegetarian. We beg to propose. TRACK 43 Now, listen to the first half of a negative speech against the affirmative speech. Check the refutations you hear. Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today, we are debating the resolution, "All people should be vegetarian." We, on the negative team, strongly oppose this resolution. First, I will refute the affirmative side, then I will give our points. Their first reason was "health." they said that it is not healthy to eat meat, since it is high in fat and difficult to digest. We have three responses. First, it is not true that meat is difficult to digest. Our bodies are made to digest both meat and vegetables. Second, it is not always true that meat is higher in fat than vegetables. Some fruits and vegetables, such as bananas and avocados. have a lot of fat. On the other hand, some kinds of meat, such as turkey, have very little fat. Their second reason was "animal rights." They said that animals have a right not to suffer. We have two responses. First, it is not true that animals have rights. Rights come from our country's constitution, and our constitution says nothing about animals. Second, animal rights are not as important as human rights, and if we stop fishing or raising animals, millions of people in the food industry will lose their jobs. Their third reason was "the environment." They said that fishing and raising animals harm nature. We have two responses. First, this is not necessarily true. It is possible to raise animals and catch fish without harming the environment. Second, it is not true that animal farming hurts the environment, since animals produce the carbon dioxide that plants require. We must keep the balance of nature. TRACK 44 Listen to the second half of the speech, and fill in the blanks in the negative's house. I have refuted the affirmative points; now I will give ours. We have three points: "health," "the economy," and "taste." Our first point is "health." We must eat meat and fish in order to stay healthy. Meat has a lot of protein, and fish has both protein and iodine. It's difficult to get these nutrients from vegetables. Our second point is "the economy." Millions of men and women work in agriculture, fishing, and the food industry. If we stop eating meat, they will lose their jobs. This will cause much hardship. Our third point is "taste." Meat tastes good, and many countries use meat in their national dishes. Can you imagine Thai food without shrimp, Japanese food without sushi, American food without hamburgers or German food without Wiener schnitzel? Eating meat is enjoyable, and an important part of our culture. We have talked about "health," "the economy," and "taste,' and have shown that we should not all be vegetarian. For these reasons, we beg to oppose. ===================== TRACK 45 UNIT 7 Controlled Practice National Service Part I Listen to a first affirmative constructive speech on the resolution, All people should have to serve in the army. Take notes. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. Today, the resolution is: "All people should have to serve in the army." We, on the affirmative team, strongly support this resolution. We have 3 reasons: strength, equality, and jobs. Our first point is strength. National service will give us a stronger army. If all people serve in the army, we will always have a large body of trained, ready-to-fight soldiers in case of an emergency. In Israel, all people serve 2 or 3 years in the army. This has made Israel, which is a very small country, one of the most powerful in the world. Our second point is equality. National service promotes greater equality and fairness in a country. In a war, many soldiers are killed, causing great sadness to their family and friends. We believe that all citizens of a country should share equally in this danger. If you have a volunteer army, many people join simply because they are poor. This means that poor people die in war, but rich people do not. Our third point is jobs. National service will lower unemployment. Because most young people will be in the army, there will be fewer people looking for jobs. This will make it easier for other people to find work. Also, soldiers receive training in things like computers, driving, leadership, and so on. This training will help them find jobs after they leave the army. We have talked about strength, equality, and jobs, and have shown that all people should have to serve in the army. We beg to propose. TRACK 46 UNIT 7 Controlled Practice National Service Part 2 Listen and check your answers. Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. Today, the resolution is: "All people should have to serve in the army." We, on the negative team, strongly oppose this resolution. First, I will refute the affirmative's 3 points, then I will give our own. Their first point was strength. They said that if we have national service, our army will be stronger. We have two responses. It is not true that national service results in a stronger army. If you serve in the army for only 2 years, you don't learn enough to be a good solider. It's better to have a professional army, where people serve between five and twenty years, and receive more training. Furthermore, if the young people are forced to join, and don't want to be there, they will have a poor attitude and weaken the army. Their second point was equality. They said if we have national service, all citizens will share the risk of dying in a war. However, it is totally untrue that national service treats everyone equally. Rich people can always find excuses to avoid national service. During the Vietnam War, Bill Clinton avoided serving in the army by moving to England. Their third point was jobs. They believe that we can reduce unemployment by putting all young people in the army. First, this point is not necessarily true. France, for example, has national service, but also very high unemployment, especially among young people. Second, there are easier ways for the government to solve unemployment. It can always create jobs by building more roads and train lines. I have refuted their 3 points; now I will give the negative points. We have three points: cost, freedom, and war. Our first point is cost. National service is very expensive. Every year, one soldier costs the government over $100,000. If we multiply $100,000 by the number of young people in this country, we see that the cost is much too high. The money would better spent on hospitals and schools. Our second point is freedom. National service violates human rights. In a free country, people should be able to choose their own jobs. Our third point is war. National service will increase the chance of wars with other countries. If we have a large army, other countries will be afraid, and have to increase their armies too. In general, when two neighboring countries have very large armies, they are more likely to use them in time of conflict. We have talked about cost, freedom, and war, and have shown that all people should not have to serve in the army. For these reasons, we beg to oppose. TRACK 47 Unit 8 Controlled Practice Flowing a Debate Listen to the following debate on the resolution: "Cats are better pets than dogs" Finish flowing the debate. TRACK 48 The 1st Affirmative Constructive Speech Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today, the resolution is: "Cats are better pets than dogs." We, on the affirmative team, strongly support this resolution. We have three points: cost, care, and noise. Our first point is "cost." Cats are much cheaper than dogs. According to "Pet Magazine," the average cost for a cat is $50 dollars while a dog costs $75. That's 50% more than a cat! Furthermore, cats are smaller than dogs, so they eat less food. Less food, means less money. Now, our second point is "care." Cats are much easier to care for than dogs. Cats, they clean themselves and walk themselves. If you have a dog, however, you must take care of it everyday. It's a large burden. Now, our third point is "noise." Cats are much quieter than dogs. Dogs bark at cats, dogs bark at people, dogs bark at other dogs, and dogs even bark at the moon! Cats, on the other hand, meow quietly, and won't disturb your neighbors. Oh! Well, we have talked about cost, care, and noise, and have clearly shown that cats, um, are better pets than dogs. We beg to propose! TRACK 49 The 1st Negative Constructive Speech. Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today, the affirmative team is proposing that cats are better pets than dogs. We, on the negative team, strongly oppose this resolution. First, I will refute the affirmative points, and then I will give our own. The affirmative talked about "cost." They said that cats are cheaper than dogs. I have three responses. First, this is not always true. Many dogs are cheaper than cats; you can even get a dog for free from an animal shelter. Second, it's not always true that dogs eat more than cats, since many dogs are quite small. Third, the price difference between dogs and cats is not significant. Dogs tend to be only a bit more expensive. They tried to prove their point by quoting from "Pet Magazine," a source that I have never heard of, have you? The affirmative also talked about "noise." I have two responses. First, that point is not true. Cats are often very noisy, particularly at night! There are at least 5 cats near my house, and they often spend all night screaming at each other and waking me up. Secondly, this point is not important because it's very easy to solve. You can teach a dog to be quiet. Cat teaching, however, is impossible! Now, let me present our case. We have two points: protection, and help. Our first point is "protection." Dogs protect you and your home; cats don't. Imagine that you have gone to bed and have gone to sleep. And suddenly, you hear a window smash! A thief has entered your house! If you have a dog, it barks loudly and can chase the thief away. On the other hand if you are a cat owner with no dog, well maybe the thief will steal your things, and even steal your life! Our second point is "help." Dogs often help you around the house. For example, they can bring you the newspaper, or get your slippers. If you're blind, dogs can guide you around. Cats do none of these things. Cats just eat your food, and then run off and forget all about you. We have talked about protection and help, and have shown that dogs are much better pets than cats. We must oppose. TRACK 50 The 2nd Affirmative Constructive Speech Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. My partner and I are proving that cats are better pets than dogs. First, I will refute the negative team's points and then I will support my partner's. The negative's first point was "protection." They said that dogs can protect your home. But this is not important because it is easily solved. A house-alarm system is cheaper and more effective than a dirty, noisy, smelly dog. Their second point was "help." They said that dogs are more useful than cats. We have two responses. First, it is not always true that dogs are helpful. Most dogs just lie around the house all day. Well of course, some dogs do help blind people, or offer special help, but they require very expensive and special training. Second, it is not true that cats are useless. Cats catch mice, which is a far, far better thing than any dog has ever done before. Well, I have refuted their two points. Now let me support my partner's points. Our first point was "cost." My partner showed that cats are cheaper than dogs, and that they cost less to feed. The negative team said that this is not always true because you can get a stray animal for free. But stray dogs are often dirty, sick, unhealthy beasts. We think you should always get a new pet from a professional breeder. This makes sure that the pet is healthy and easy to train. From a professional breeder, dogs are almost always more expensive than cats. The negative also said that the cats are just a little bit cheaper than dogs, and the difference is not significant. This is not true, Ladies and Gentlemen, particularly for poor people. For poor people, even $5 a week is significant. Our second point was "care." We clearly showed that cats are much easier to keep than dogs. The negative team must have agreed because they had no answer to that point at all! Our third point was "noise." We explained that cats are quieter than dogs. The negative team said that this was not true since cats often make noise at night. But this is easy to solve: cats only make noise when they are outside with other cats. So, if you keep your cat inside, there is no problem. The negative team also said that you can teach a dog to be quiet. This is not true. Dogs almost always bark whenever a stranger walks by their home, no matter how many times, and in how many ways, you teach them not to. We see that the negative team's points are all not true, not important, and not relevant, but our points are all strong, true, and relevant. We have shown very clearly again that cats make better pets than dogs. And we beg to propose. TRACK 51 The 2nd Negative Constructive Speech. Ladies and Gentlemen. Dogs are beautiful, friendly, loyal, loving animals. My partner and I strongly believe that they make much better pets than those selfish cats! ***************************************************************** Let us look at the affirmative points. They have said that cats are cheaper than dogs. But, as my partner said, this is not always true. You can get a dog for free from an animal shelter. The affirmative team doesn't want animals from the shelter. They prefer to waste lots of money on a pet from an expensive professional breeder, rather than a free animal from a shelter. Many people have adopted beautiful, healthy, and free pets from animal shelters. ***************************************************************** The affirmative also said that cats are quieter than dogs, since dogs bark at strangers. But we already explained that you can train dogs to be quiet. The book, "How to Train Your Pet," by Dr. Caleb (1999), has a whole chapter on how to teach your dogs to be quiet. Let us look now at our points. Our first point was "protection." The second affirmative speaker said that this is not important because it is easily solved with an alarm system. Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, an alarm system is expensive, and money, Ladies and Gentlemen, is always important! Besides, you can't cuddle up and pet an alarm system, can you? Our second point is that dogs are more useful than cats. The affirmative team responded that cats catch mice. I have three responses. First, this is not a significant problem. Most people don't have problems with mice. Second, even if they do have problems with mice, they can easily solve this problem by buying cheap mousetraps. Third, it is not always true that cats catch mice, some cats are very lazy and prefer pet food. In conclusion, we have shown that dogs protect you and that dogs help you. Therefore, Ladies and Gentlemen, please join us in opposing the resolution that cats are better pets than dogs. Thank you. TRACK 52 The Negative Rebuttal Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. Today's resolution is: "cats are better pets than dogs." We, on the negative team, have clearly shown that this is not true. Let us look again at the important points in this debate. First, the affirmative talked about "cost." They lose this point because they have not proved cats are cheaper than dogs. Moreover, we have shown that you can get a perfectly healthy pet for free from an animal shelter. The affirmative team also talked about "noise." They said cats are quieter than dogs. They lose this point, however, since my partner gave expert evidence showing that dogs can indeed be trained to be quiet. On our side, we have two main points: "protection" and "help." Our first point was "protection." We explained that a dog can protect you from thieves. They responded by saying that house alarms are better than dogs. We win this point because they never explained why an expensive alarm system is better than a loving dog. Our second point was "help." We showed that dogs are more useful than cats. The affirmative team responded that cats catch mice. But this is not important. My partner showed that mousetraps are a cheap, easy solution. Therefore, we win this point because the affirmative team never showed that cats have any significant use. Overall, we win our key points, and we have refuted the affirmative team. Therefore, we win this debate and ask you to choose dogs instead of cats! Thank you. TRACK 53 The Affirmative Rebuttal Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. In this debate, the resolution has been that cats make better pets than dogs. We, on the affirmative team win this debate because we have clearly shown this to be true. The negative team loses because they have not listened to, understood, or answered our points. Let's look at the important points of this debate. The negative team had two points: "protection" and "help." They lose their "protection" point because we showed that you can always buy a house alarm. They said that house alarms are more expensive than dogs, but this is not true. You don't have to feed a house alarm for years and years and years. The negative team also loses their "help" point. They said that dogs help people, but my partner clearly showed that this is not always true. Please remember in the 2nd affirmative speech, my partner said that most dogs don't help people. Only special dogs, with special training, do. They never answered this refutation. So, this point falls. Let us look now at our points. Our first point was cost. We said that cats are cheaper than dogs. They responded that you can get dogs for free from the animal shelter. However, my partner explained that dogs from the animal shelter are often difficult to train and are not healthy. Again, the negative never answered this response. Therefore, we win this point, too. Our second point was "care." We said that cats are easier to train than dogs. The negative team never answered this point at any time during the debate! Therefore, we win this point, too. Our third point was about noise. We said that cats are quieter than dogs. The negative team responded that cats make a lot of noise at night. We showed that this is easy to solve: keep your cat inside at night. The negative team never answered this. Instead, they showed us a book saying that you can teach a dog to be quiet. However, books about teaching don't always work. There are many math textbooks at the bookstore; it doesn't mean that everyone can learn math easily. Similarly, you cannot teach all dogs not to bark. So, in general cats are quieter than dogs and we win this third and final point. In conclusion, we have won all three of our points and the negative has lost both of theirs. And clearly, we have won this debate. Thank you. ============= TRACK 54 Unit 9 Flowing a complete debate TRACK 55 The 1st Affirmative Constructive Speech Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today we are debating the resolution, "Cape Town, South Africa, should host the next Olympic Games." We, on the affirmative team strongly support this resolution. We have three reasons, "money," "fairness to Africa," and "national unity." Our first point is "money." South Africa can make a lot of money from the Olympic Games which can be used to build more roads, more hospitals, and more schools for its people. In recent years, the Olympics have been very profitable. The 1996 Olympic Games made millions of dollars for the city of Atlanta, as the 1992 Games did for Barcelona. Our second point is "fairness to Africa." Africa is the only continent that has never hosted the Olympic Games, and it too should have a chance. Europe has hosted the Olympics 27 times, North America, 12 times, Asia, 4 times, Australia twice and Latin America, once. Africa, which the world so often ignores, should have a turn. Our third point is "national unity." The Olympics would bring South African people together. Right now, South Africa is divided by race, language, and wealth. Sports tend to make everyone in the country proud, and help promote unity. To quote Archbishop Desmond Tutu -- a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize -- "Sports can be a vehicle to reconcile our Rainbow Nation. We can light a torch that will bring prosperity to our country, and all the people of Africa. " In conclusion, we have talked about "money," "fairness to Africa," and "national unity" and have shown that South Africa should host the next Olympic Games. For these reasons, we beg to propose. Stop here and predicte the negativeŐs response TRACK 56 The 1st Negative Constructive Speech. Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen. Today, we are debating the resolution, "Cape Town should host the next Olympic Games." We, on the negative team, strongly oppose this resolution. First, I will refute the affirmative points and then I will give our own. Their first point was "money." They said that South Africa would make a lot of money from the Olympics. We have two responses. First, it is not true that the Olympics always make a profit. The 1976 games in Montreal Canada lost six hundred and thirty million dollars! The Canadian people are still paying for that even today! Second, it is probably not true that South Africa can make money off the Olympics. South Africa doesn't have enough rich people to buy tickets, or enough large companies to sponsor events. Their second point was "fairness to Africa." They said that Africa has never hosted the Olympics, and therefore should have a turn. This is not important. This is not relevant for two reasons. First, this is not relevant because many places have never hosted the Olympics, such as India or China, both of which have more people than all of Africa. Second, it is not relevant because the International Olympic Committee chooses the host by deciding who will host the best Olympic games, not who hasn't had a turn yet. Their third point was "national unity." They said that the Olympic Games would bring South Africans together. This is clearly not true for two reasons. First, it is not true that all South Africans will support the Olympics. Probably many people, particularly the poor people, will be angry when they see the government wasting money on stadiums and swimming pools instead of building much needed schools, hospitals, libraries, roads, and health programs for the poor. Second, it is not true that the Olympic Games will benefit all people of South Africa. It will only help people in Cape Town. People who live outside Cape Town will be very angry and feel ignored. Clearly, Ladies and Gentlemen, an Olympics hosted by South Africa will further divide the country, not unify it. I have refuted the affirmative points, now I will give ours. We have two: "cost" and "other cities." Our first point is "cost." We believe that the Olympics will cost South Africa too much money. To host the Olympics, the government will have to build many stadiums and swimming pools. The total cost may come to millions of dollars . South Africa is a poor country and the money should be used to build roads, hospitals and schools, not Olympic sized swimming pools! Our second point is "other cities." There are other cities better able to host the Olympics. For example, Toronto, Canada already has many beautiful stadiums and a lot of experience hosting sporting events. It also has many large companies able to act as sponsors. Beijing is another city that could host the Olympics better than Cape Town. In conclusion, we have talked about "cost," and "other cities," and have shown that Cape Town should not host the next Olympic Games. We must oppose. TRACK 57 The 2nd Affirmative Constructive Speech Ladies and Gentlemen, hosting the Olympics would have great benefits in South Africa, Africa, and the rest of the world, which is why we must support this resolution today. Let me first refute the negative team's points, and then I will support my partner's. Their first point was "cost." They said that the Olympics would cost South Africa a lot of money. We have two responses. First, it is not true that preparing for the Olympics will be expensive for South Africa. Many people in South Africa don't have jobs, so labor is very, very cheap. This will keep costs down. Second, the problem of cost is easy to solve, since most of the money will come from sponsors all over the world. The South African people will not have to spend much money preparing for the Games. Their second point was "other cities." They said that other cities like Toronto or Beijing would be better Olympic hosts because they have more experience and money. We have two responses. First, experience is not important. Most Olympic cities are first time hosts, and Cape Town has experience hosting large African sporting events. Second, it is not important that Toronto has lots of money. Toronto is a very expensive city compared to Cape Town, so its money will not buy as much. I have refuted their points, now let me support our points. Our first point was "money." We showed that the Olympics could make a lot of money for the South African people. The negative team responded that the Olympics could lose money. This is not necessarily true. Every Olympics over the past 20 years has made a profit. We have learned from Montreal's mistakes. Also, the negative team said that South Africa doesn't have rich companies to sponsor the Games, or rich people to pay for tickets. This is not important. Most Olympic sponsors are international companies, and many rich people will travel to South Africa to see the Games. Our second point was "fairness to Africa." We explained that Africa should have a chance to host the Olympics. The negative team responded that India and China have also never hosted the Games. But this is not relevant. India and China are countries, while Africa is a continent. The negative team also said that giving new countries a chance to host the Games is not important. We strongly disagree! The true Olympic spirit is about promoting international communication and understanding. Africa is an important part of the world community and should be given the chance to host this important world event. Our third point was "national unity." We explained that the Olympics would bring pride and unity to all South Africans. The negative responded that the Olympic Games will anger poor people, as well as people outside of Cape Town. This is totally not true! We know from experience that hosting the Olympics makes an entire country proud. Also, the Olympics will attract more tourists and more money to all of South Africa. In conclusion, we have talked about "money," "fairness to Africa," and "national unity" and have clearly shown that South Africa would benefit from hosting the Olympic Games. We strongly beg to propose. Thank you. TRACK 58 The 2nd Negative Constructive Speech. Ladies and Gentlemen, Hosting the Olympics would be a big waste of time, and a bigger waste of money for the people of South Africa. We strongly oppose this resolution. First I will refute the affirmative points, then I will support my partner's. Their first point was "money." They said that no Olympics has lost money in the last 20 years. Well, Ladies and Gentlemen, in the last 20 years there have only been five Olympics! Five is not a significant number. It is a very, very small sample size of all the Olympic Games. They also said that the Olympics will have international sponsors. That is true, but again it is insignificant! The amount of international sponsorship is much, much less than the amount of money required from the host country. Their second point was "fairness to Africa." They said that Africa is a continent and China and India are countries. This is totally irrelevant! China has more people than all of Africa. Just because Africa has more space doesn't mean it should get the Olympic Games. Their third point was about "national unity." They said that the past has shown that the Olympics make a country proud. We think that South African people would be much more proud if money was used to improve education, and to improve health care. My partner has explained that poor people will feel angry if the government spends lots of money on sports stadiums. They have not answered this point. I have refuted the affirmative points. Let me now give our points. Our first point was "cost." They said that in South Africa labor is cheap. This may be true, but it is not important. Building materials are very expensive and the government will have to borrow money at high interest rates. So, as we said before, the Olympic Games will be expensive for South Africa. Our second point was "other cities." Everything the affirmative said about Cape Town can also be said about Beijing, Plus, Beijing has more money, more sports stadiums, and more and better roads. We have shown again, Ladies and Gentlemen, that the South African government should not waste its money on playing sports! We must oppose! TRACK 59 The Negative Rebuttal Thank you Ladies and Gentlemen. We have been debating the resolution "Cape Town should hold the next Olympic Games" and we have clearly shown that this is not true. Let's look at the major points of this debate. The affirmative points were "money," "fairness to Africa," and "national unity." They lose the point about money because they never showed how Cape Town would make money from the Olympics. The examples that they gave, such as Atlanta, are not relevant. These are rich cities from rich countries with rich people and rich companies. They lose their point about fairness to Africa because they never refuted our example of China. They said that the continent of Africa has never hosted the Olympics. So what? That is totally irrelevant! Africa is a big piece of land surrounded by water. China is a big piece of land surrounded by more land and water. They lose their point about national unity because they never explained why poor people who don't have enough food to eat would enjoy new sports stadiums in their neighborhoods. Our most important point was "cost." We win this point because they never gave any evidence that international companies would give enough money to pay for the Olympics. Without international sponsorship, the South African government will have to borrow money at very high interest rates. This is a big cost to the country. We win this debate because the most important point was money. We have clearly won this point. Therefore, we strongly oppose today's resolution. TRACK 60 The Affirmative Rebuttal Ladies and Gentlemen. Today we have been debating the resolution, "Cape Town should host the next Olympic Games" and we have clearly shown this to be true. Let's look at the major points of this debate. The negative points were "cost," and "other cities." In the negative's first point about cost, they said that South Africa has high interest rates and is expensive. Of course it will cost money to prepare for the Olympics. However, the Olympics will also bring in lots of money. The negative loses this point because they've never shown why the cost would be greater than the income. We, on the other hand, have shown that the last 5 Olympics have made a profit. Their second point was other cities. The negative team talked a little bit about Beijing and a little bit about Toronto but didn't make a clear organized case for either city. They didn't even talk about this in their rebuttal! So, they lose this point because they did not develop it. Our main points were "money," and "fairness." As I said before, we win the point about money because we have offered evidence from the last five Olympics. The Olympics will bring in lots of money to South African people and improve their lives. We also talked about fairness to Africa. The Olympics will bring honor and respect to the entire continent. The negative has never denied this. Africa deserves greater respect and recognition. Therefore, we win this point, also. The Olympic Games will give South Africa money, jobs, and world recognition. Clearly, Cape Town should host this great event. We strongly propose!