ENGL 1711 03

Hirut Tessema

Mary Crispin

ENGL 1711-03

July 7, 2021

"Should College Students Be Allowed to Take Smart Drugs?"

My initial opinion about the topic

It was an interesting public policy related topic. I liked the topic from the very beginning I read on D2L before I even watched the debate. I forecasted beforehand that it was going to be a battlefield where great scholars of the field would fight for delivering a convincing argument and I found it was. Initially, I was against the notion of ‘’ "Should College Students Be Allowed to Take Smart Drugs?"

Debate did or didn't have an impact on your opinion......

The debate definitely had a significant impact on my opinion. For some reason, from the very beginning, I was supporting the view that ‘’ College Students shouldn’t be Allowed to Take Smart Drugs’’ no matter what. However, later on I was able to change my opinion a little bit after carefully watching the debate. Those contestants who argued in favor of the topic were able to substantiate their arguments by providing specific examples of the impact of taking drugs on students' daily life at campus in particular and the whole public in general. Literally, they began explaining the impact of taking drugs from drinking coffee in the morning to some other types of energy giving drugs to stay awake for longer period of time to work harder, longer and better. They also explained the side effects of taking drugs to some extent. They frankly explained the prescription that there could possibly be a sudden death or heart attack as a result of taking the drugs. What I found as a weakness from this side of the argument’s contestants was that they were unable to defend their idea from the rhetoric of the team that argued against them that they do not have sufficient data to convince college students and other segments of the society to take drugs for the good end.

On the other hand, team that argued that ‘’ College Students Should not be Allowed to Take Smart Drugs’’ did not perform well to convince me well to the extent of my initial opinion towards the argument. In other words, they did not provide sufficient evidence in the argument so that I would continue supporting them. I think that was what happened to the entire audience. For instance, in the first round of the voting they won 44% of the vote and hence won the debate. However, in the second round a very significant majority of the audience voted for their opponent, and they defeated them by 59%. For instance, some of the fundamental arguments that changed my opinion was that I always drink coffee every morning before I start doing my Homeworks and study that enabled me to stay awake and work harder and better with good outcomes. I did not see them talking the side effect of this simple example. Rather than giving specific examples to convince people, they focused on invalidating their opponent's argument by saying there is no sufficient evidence or data to recommend college students to take smart drugs. one thing that got my attention from their arguments though was the glaring reality fact on the ground that science did not yet figure out for whom the drug work better and for whom it does worse. I think this is a legitimate underlying truth as people are different.