The Phone Debate: Generalisation, Concession and Register
A school debate asks: 'Mobile phones should be banned for all secondary school students.' The motion is opposed by a Form Five speaker. Her draft contains: 'Every single student who has a phone is a criminal waiting to happen. My cousin in Douala failed his exams because of WhatsApp. Teachers are jealous because we know more than them. We must fight this evil before it destroys everybody.' The debate rules require formal English, at least one concession to the opposing side, and evidence rather than personal attack. She has four minutes and must not exceed 600 words. The audience includes parents and a panel of three judges; the opposing speaker has just argued that phones help with research and emergency calls. The rehearsal is on Thursday, and the debate is on Friday.
1. Identify two logical weaknesses in the draft and rewrite one sentence to avoid them.
Read the worked answer
First, Every single student who has a phone is a criminal waiting to happen is a hasty generalisation: one property, having a phone, is treated as proof of a future crime. Second, My cousin in Douala failed his exams because of WhatsApp is a false cause and a single anecdote; many factors could explain failure, and one cousin cannot support a rule for all students. A rewrite: Some students may misuse phones, but a ban should be based on evidence about how phones are actually used in schools, not on one family story. This keeps the speaker's concern about misuse while removing the sweeping claim and the unsupported causal link. The debate rule requires evidence, so the speaker should cite school records or a survey rather than an anecdote.
2. Add a concession paragraph that strengthens the speaker's case rather than weakening it.
Read the worked answer
I accept that phones can help students with research and with emergency calls. Those are real advantages, and a ban should not pretend otherwise. But the motion proposes a blanket ban for all secondary students, and the evidence of distraction in classrooms is strong enough to justify limits. A better policy would allow phones in designated areas or for supervised lessons, not in every pocket during every lesson. The concession does not weaken the case; it narrows the disagreement to the word all in the motion. This is stronger than denying that phones have any use. It also answers the opposing speaker's point directly, which the judges will reward.
3. Explain why 'Teachers are jealous because we know more than them' is inappropriate in this debate.
Read the worked answer
Teachers are jealous because we know more than them is a personal attack, not an argument. It insults the judges' colleagues, ignores the motion, and invites the audience to defend teachers rather than weigh evidence. It also contains a grammatical error: more than them should be more than they do in formal English. Debate register requires respect for opponents and focus on the proposition. Replace it with a claim that can be tested, such as: Some rules are enforced inconsistently, which makes students resent them. That keeps the speaker's feeling of unfairness but gives the audience a reason rather than an insult.