In this SOPA PIPA debate both sides had high and low points. I thought that the negative side was very well prepared and presented the audience with testimony from other sources. I thought that the pro SOPA PIPA side was very conversational and directly addressed the other teams arguments as well as talked about the actual bill.
I am not sure whether I am suppose to talk about which side had better arguments or whether I was persuaded to agree with one. I am going to leave what I think about SOPA and PIPA out of this and just talk about which side had better arguments.
In my opinon the pro SOPA PIPA side presented their case in a manner that was flexible (not overly planned out), and easily understandable. I found that they were less confusing and explaining more to the audience. I found this effective. The downside to that was sometimes they ran out of things to say or lost their train on thought. I thought they they could have used their time in a better manner.
The con SOPA PIPA side was very well rehearsed and they never had a moment where they lost their thoughts, they always had more information to present so they were using all their time correctly. The things I didn't like is that they didn't address the content of the actual bill and they were talking and shaking their heads when the other team was presenting. I found this to be disruptive to the flow of the debate, and a little unnecessary.
It is very hard to decided between the two teams but I thought that they con SOPA PIPA side used their time in a better way and therefore won the debate.
-Alex Mountain
Hi Alex -
Yes, the decision should be based on which team you thought presented stronger arguments - at the same time, you definitely could factor in which side persuaded you. I'm thinking that in most cases these two things coincide.
Thanks for submitting!
-Liora