Analysis of Team
I think the debate on the “Pinto Case” went very well. For this being the first debate we did a very respectable job. I thought both sides debated the case well, and interest in the case was definitely shown. I will elaborate a little on certain aspects of the debate such as, what type of research was done, composure, and cohesiveness as a group.
As far as research, I though both teams did a relatively good job. There were moments during the debate where I thought there could have been a little more “outside” research done. I mean to say that most of the information that was presented came directly from the case material in the book. I feel that if there was a little more information gathered from outside the book, the debate could have been a little stronger. For example there could have been more statistics shown as to how many accidents were actually caused by the gas tank explosions.
Composure in my opinion was surprisingly strong. Both teams presented their side of the case with confidence and compassion. As you had pointed out the teams did actually buy into their side of the argument. I have to be honest, at first I was definitely more on the “for” side of Ford being responsible, however after we did our research and created our argument I felt there was definitely a chance that Ford may not have been responsible. All speakers kept the audience interested, maintained eye contact, and spoke very intelligently about the case.
Cohesiveness, in my opinion was a bit weak. I think for our side it was because we were unable to all get together for the workshop. We did practice a lot to try and seam the case together, but as I said it would have been a bit easier had we all attended the workshop. The “for” side I thought also had a bit of a problem with the flow of the arguments. Many were thrown in as extras or just did not apply to the individual’s specific topic. I think this also comes from...