Current Affairs: My Epic Screwup

Hi all,

         Before proceeding on, however, I just want to state certain conditions to declare myself successful. This being a debate, let's analyse it from the point of view of a judge. Firstly, I must have answered the requirements of this debate. Seeing as it requires us to make addiction a medical condition due to the fact that it has benefits to society, we then must consider: What justifies making any condition a medical condition? Why should or shouldn't addiction be classified as a medical condition? Does doing so really benfit society? How does it benefit society and if it doesn't, how will it harm or remain neutral to society? Secondly, I must have spoken persuasively. Thirdly, I must be organised and have a good structure within my speech. Lastly and most importantly, I must have adhered to my role.

          Having stated these conditions, let's now take a look at how I screwed up, with an advantage of 20/20 hindsight. Let's take a look at the first condition. I stated that for condition to be made a medical condition, it means that the condition must affect the person's judgement, such that he is unable to be represented as a thinking adult in front of the judiciary system, and therefore we are removing his freedom of choice to be represented like that. I stated that this freedom of choice should be removed as it causes third party harm and it affects the rationality of his choice. On the society point, I didn't link, and as that was half of the motion, this should warrant the term "an epic screwup"

          On style, I don't think I was too bad. In terms of organisation, I wasn't the best, making a string of accusations that weren't grouped into contentions. In terms of role however, ah, here is where I really flunked it. As the mother whose son died, I'm supposed to be emotional, crying all over the place etc. I'm also supposed to ask for regulation. Did I do this? No. Though I sort of justified my hardline, angry stance when I said I'm fighting for change, there was no excuse for forgetting the second clause of change. 

          Therefore, this is how my speech should have been. Three main points of clarification: Firstly, on the whole nature of video gaming (addiction is easy, not due to teens) , nature of its company(mercenary, don't care about players) and nature of players (play only for coolness, soon get addicted). Then, onto more elaborated and concrete substantives on freedom of choice, with third party harm and rational choice as main issues. 

          Yup, that's all. Just providing a self analysis.

Cheers,

Darrel