Critical Analysis of the Debate Video
Debating is a beautiful example of the ability to communicate effectively and passionately. The debate started strong, with all sides presenting their arguments and rebuttals clearly and concisely. The debate process was very well structured and organized. The debaters could clearly state their opposing viewpoints, and they both provided clear arguments that were easy to follow. One can appreciate how they defined the terms they used, which makes it easier to understand what they meant. One can tell that the debaters have a long history together and are very comfortable with each other. They have a great rapport, and the debate flows very smoothly. The debaters have done their research and are knowledgeable about the topic.
One thing that stood out well was how the debaters incorporated humor into the debate without being overly flippant or rude. It helped them keep the audience engaged and made them seem more relatable, which is always essential when debating an idea that may be controversial or outside someone’s comfort zone. Overall, this was an interesting debate because all sides presented valid points and made good arguments throughout most of the discussion. They did get off-topic at times but had good structure throughout most of the presentation.
Summary
There is a sweet spot between the romanticized view of freedom and legislation. One team believes that people should be free to navigate waterways in any way they choose (Wirth, 2019). However, some rules must be implemented to protect those unwilling or unable to navigate waterways independently. People must ensure that everyone who wishes to navigate a waterway has been adequately trained. It will allow them to enjoy all the benefits of being on the water without putting themselves or others at risk.
In addition, people must ensure that all vessels are safe for travel before they leave port. It means checking for leaks, ensuring proper maintenance, and ensuring everyone on board knows how to handle themselves if something goes wrong. Finally, they need laws protecting anyone injured while navigating a waterway from liability issues arising from injuries or loss of property or life. Without these laws in place, it would be too easy for someone hurt by another person’s negligence while navigating a waterway to sue them and get money from them even if they were at fault themselves.
Background
The debate is about the maritime license and how it affects trade, tourism, and other societal factors. There should be no restrictions on waterways as this could lead to increased piracy, which would be detrimental to business, tourism, and the overall economy (Wirth, 2019). Some countries do not allow the free use of waterways as they have seen increased piracy (Wirth, 2019). It affects their economy negatively as well as their citizens’ lives who are affected by this act. The groups arguing are pros and cons, and they make some great points that one could agree with. The pro group makes a good point that when one has a boat, it does not have to go through customs. They do not have to wait in line with everyone else trying to enter the country on a plane or bus. This means they can get where they need to go much faster than if they waited in line at customs like everyone else traveling by plane or bus.
Further, when traveling by boat, you do not have to deal with security checks or any other things like that because there is no one else on board except for maybe one other person who can help out if there is an emergency happening while they are at sea. The con group makes a good point about how, if people were allowed to travel freely by boat, terrorists would be able to get into the country more accessible than before. The debate is an excellent example of how legislation can effectively protect the environment. The discussion starts with a statement that “there are laws that protect the environment” and then goes into an argument based on pragmatism rather than ideology (Churchill et al., 2020). This approach gives people an idea of what kind of legal system this country has, which makes it easier to understand their point of view on other issues. They also use anecdotal evidence from people affected by pollution and other environmental issues, which adds a human element to the argument and helps you understand why they feel so strongly about it.
For instance, the first debater argues that legislation is the way forward because it helps people make informed decisions about their lives. He says that if someone wants to use their body or property as they please, they should be able to do so with no restrictions or regulations. However, he also acknowledges that this could lead to negative consequences such as pollution or unnecessary injuries. He believes that if people want freedom, they should have it with certain conditions so that society can function properly without being harmed by its citizens’ actions.
Review of The Manner and Methods Employed
The debate is between two sides, one that argues against freedom of the waterways and one that claims for it. The team arguing for freedom of the channels uses logic, reason, and evidence to support their argument. They begin by stating why they believe this is a good idea. They also point out that many other countries in Europe allow this type of activity without any problems occurring as a result. They then say that if people want to do something illegal, they will do it regardless of the laws.
They also state that allowing this activity would be safer for everyone involved. It would lessen the likelihood of accidents happening due to inexperienced drivers trying to navigate through unfamiliar waters. It can happen while trying out new things like jet skis or boats during their first time using them out on open water. People may not see them doing so safely, so they would not feel embarrassed about themselves afterward if they did something wrong while learning how to drive safely. It could happen while using these vehicles without causing any harm to anyone, either physically or mentally, or spiritually.
Critical Analysis
In the video, the students from both sides use many techniques to convince their opponents and viewers that freedom of the waterways is a necessary right for all people. The first speaker for the pro side starts by using personal anecdotes to establish himself as a credible source of information on this topic. Then, he uses logic and facts to support his argument that freedom of the waterways is a right everyone should have (Churchill et al., 2020). He also acknowledges the opposing viewpoint so that it does not seem like he is trying to impose his own beliefs on others without considering any other views or opinions.
The student does an excellent job of explaining why the maritime license is important for everyone, even those who do not currently enjoy it because they live in areas where this right is not respected yet, such as countries where women are not allowed to drive cars. It helps him establish credibility as someone who understands what it is like for others who cannot freely enjoy this right but still strongly believes in its importance for society. In addition, the second speaker uses a method called “pathos.” It is a technique in which the speaker appeals to the audience’s emotions and feelings to persuade them to agree with their point of view. The speaker uses personal stories to make his argument more compelling. She also employs pathos by using emotion-laden words such as barrier, dumping ground, and pollution.
Moreover, the student who argues that the waterways should be free uses logical fallacies to support their argument. One example is the false dilemma fallacy, which occurs when only two options are presented as possibilities when there are many more than that. The student also uses the logical fallacy of appeal to authority by having a professor support his claim about freedom for waterways with no evidence other than an expert’s opinion. This argument does not require evidence or proof because it comes from a source with authority over the subject matter being discussed; however, it is not always appropriate or valid to use this strategy because it relies on popularity rather than fact to convince someone else.
Subjective view
The techniques used in this debate were fair, and the debate reached a fair result. The opponents of the maritime license made their case by citing examples of how freedom of the channels would lead to environmental destruction and economic harm. In contrast, their opponents cited examples of how it would lead to economic prosperity, including increased trade and tourism (Churchill et al., 2020). They also argued that the government should not be able to tell citizens what they can do with their property as long as it does not negatively impact others.
While one could agree with both sides on some points, the audience would ultimately side with the debaters who opposed the maritime license. Citizens need to have as much freedom as possible regarding what they do with their property. It includes being able to sell or rent out their land without having to get permission from anyone else. It also means using any resources found there without having to ask permission first. In addition, people should be allowed access to waterways so they can enjoy them without having restrictions placed on them by someone else’s property rights over those waters.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the maritime license should be a high priority for any foreign policy, particularly in naval control. While people can see the advantages of limiting and controlling the use of waterways by other nations, it seems impractical when doing so places restrictions on naval dominance. It also seems unfair that other countries would be allowed to use them while they are not. As long as every nation has full access to every waterway, there is no reason to ban anyone from it, as this would cause diplomatic problems and likely eventuate in a war. These ideas should be incorporated into foreign policy and future treaties.
Reference
Churchill, R., Lowe, V., & Sander, A. (2022). The law of the sea. In The law of the sea. Manchester University Press.
Wirth, C. (2019). Whose Freedom of Navigation? Australia, China, the United States and the making of an order in the ‘Indo-Pacific’. The Pacific Review, 32(4), 475-504.Web.