Sadistic Teaching Methods...

Overblow your anti speech. Make yourself and your sources as un-credible as possible. Quote a MMM leader in a sarcastic whiny voice.

Or take as mild a stance on gun control as possible (IE that they should be kept out of the hands of _____. Don't even talk EBR bans, etc.) Then balance that out by talkin about harsher penalties for gun crime. Transition it right and no one will notice. You get a good grade. You don't go against your principles. Good luck, let us know how you get around it.

Dude, just base your speech on the press releases coming out of the VPC.

It's comedy gold that practically writes itself!

If you get to choose the order.
Argue Pro Control first , using all the BS automatic weapons in the street 3 million kids a year killed and guns turn on their owners " facts" you can get from the Brady Bunch.
And then debunk them, using legitimate sources, with the second speech

Present both sides as objectively as possible let your audience choose their positions based on a review of the evidence.
Anything skewed towards a pro gun stance will be counter productive to the goal of actually educating them.

One speech will be in favor or pro-something. And the other speech will be the opposite.

Click to expand...

This is your idea of sadistic? We used to do this sort of thing for FUN during long, dull chromotography column loads at my previous place of employment. Find an issue we differed on, then argue the other person's point of view.

You'll need to be able to understand and internalize the Pro gun control arguments. joab is right, if you can put the Pro control first, then debunk it with logic and facts.

Joab speaks gospel. Listen well. You can choose the order quite easily. If you must argue for and then against; argue for gun control, then against. If the other way around, then just argue against lax gun laws, then for lax gun laws.

You will probably be more persuasive if you address one particular issue, such as the AWB or Concealed Carry, rather than tackling the whole controversy.

This should be easy for you, you hear all the stuff against guns all the time, and you know counter arguments. Just keep personal opinion out of both and let data and facts speak.

This will be a good exercise for you. Done correctly it will strengthen your power of persuasion.

Knowing how to argue the other side is a vital tool for winning arguments. It gives you the ability to predict your opponents arguments and allows you to privide the counters before they even have a chance to use them. Take advantage of the opportunity.

You think that is sadistic?
Try being givin till the next day to have 260,000 word report written & handed in!

That's what I call Sadistic....

This is a pretty common tool in speeches/debates. You state the other sides viewpoints, and why they think thier viewpoints are correct. You then state your sides viewpoints, and why the other sides views are wrong, and misguided in a very calm, collected and rational manner. Dont name call, or say any nasty things, just go point by point and debunk each one. I did this with gun safety and gun lock programs and put my antigun/ antihandgun english teacher to tears with the strenght of my arguments. For mine I went through all the "Its for the children argument", and using locks only, and then pointed out the proself defense reasonings of locked guns being useless, and why education not locks was a better tool. I would definitly pick one part of the massive gun control debate and debate both sides. You can have a lot of fun with this, and probally sway some classmates too if you do it right. Have fun, and let us know how it goes.

I agree that ther's a lot to learn by arguing two sides. I admit to scoping ou the enemy websites and books now and again to try to see things their way.

The problem with this situation is that the speech is being presented in front of a bunch of young American students. They're brains are just too spongy and impressionable - they'll absorb the anti-gun rhetoric but have filters which block any thoughts of 2A for self defense.

Like Sindawe and his buds, my brother and I "used to do this sort of thing for FUN ... Find an issue we differed on, then argue the other person's point of view" {or pick an inflammatory issue, just grab either side of it on a whim and go from there}. We grew up doing it at the dinner table, and it was good intellectual exercise. Later (still years ago), we'd go into a bar, start arguing in public, and gradually adopt each other's positions without taking a break. We'd end up each using phrases that the other had used before the reversal, and pretend that we thought we were arguing consistently. It was fun to watch people's reactions.

On your presentation, I'm with joab, fistful, WhoKnowsWho, trapperjohn and c_yeager.

Oh boy, this will be fun.

"You'll need to be able to understand and internalize the Pro gun control arguments. "

Follow through your argument for gun control to one of its logical conclusions, that is, the elimination of personal responsibility.

"Overblow your anti speech. Make yourself and your sources as un-credible as possible. Quote a MMM leader in a sarcastic whiny voice. "

Or take the easy route.

It's comedy gold that practically writes itself!

Click to expand...

Yeah, but the Three Stooges did it a lot better.

Find out what the rules are and you can present the order of the arguments by your choosing. If the rules are the pro argument must go first (which is logical, you must may a case before someon can rebutt it) then rather than "pro-2A" being your thesis, you just make "pro gun control" your thesis. By changing your thesis, you decide what is argued first/last.

I caution you against doing anything that would blatantly undermine the view you oppose when making the argument for that side. It could severely hurt your grade, and you won't convince anyone of your case, if it's obvious that you stacked the deck. If you truly believe in your position, you should be able to make the most logical, and credible argument of the opposition, and rebutt it with the most logical and credible argument from your side. You prove nothing by rebutting an obviously flawed and weak argument.

For the pro side, just show that gun control is making good hits on the target if you practice everything properly and show them your target. Then for the con side, show a lousy target and show them your punishment of having your dad close your thumb in an M1's bolt and forces you to hold the rifle at arms length with the M1 dangling from your thumb for an extended period of time while threatening your with mean looks, bodily harm and derogatory words. (hey, what can I say, my dad was an old Marine DI ) Very graphic and good lesson as to why gun control is better than not having it.

Believe me, I know how you feel.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=90369