During the first term of Political Science we had two debates. The first debate was about the Electoral College and whether it should remain in effect or whether a new system should be implemented. I was on Pro-electoral college team. I chose to rebuttal against someone in the other group. I thought my rebuttal went very well. I felt as though I made multiple good points. The debate finished and my team lost by a slight margin. I was proud of myself and felt that I had done the best I could. However, when I received feedback I was confused. I was told that my argument had lacked structure and was more rambling than anything. I was told that I had to slow down and structure my argument better. At first I was surprised and frustrated that I had not done as well as I had once thought. However, when I went back to check over what I had prepared, I realized that the feedback was correct. The points I had brought up were simply stated facts. I failed to analyze what I discovered. This led to my rebuttal feeling like a rambling rant as opposed to an organized comeback.
The next debate we had was on whether Super PACS were legal or whether the constitution should be amended to make them illegal. For this debate I was on the pro side, arguing that super PACS should remain legal. For this debate I demonstrated a growth mindset and carefully organized my argument. I stated a piece of relevant evidence, immediately followed by thoughtful analysis. During the actual debate I made sure to slow down, and focus on what I was saying. I demonstrated a growth mindset by changing my debate preparations, and rhetoric in order to appear more composed as opposed to rambling. I was able to use feedback I received from the first debate to improve my performance in the second debate.