You have been invited to participate in a debate on the topic: Technology has eroded our values. Write your argument for or against the motion.
This task tests your ability to write a persuasive debate speech: to take a clear side on a motion, defend it with well-organised arguments and concrete examples, answer the opposing view, and use the fixed courtesies of debating (salutation, definition of terms, and a rousing close). The model speech below argues for the motion, that technology has eroded our values.
Model debate speech (FOR the motion)
The chairman of this occasion, the accurate and dependable timekeeper, our panel of distinguished judges, the co-operative and captivating audience, my worthy opponents on the other side, fellow debaters, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I stand before this honourable house to speak in strong support of the motion which states that technology has eroded our values.
Definition of terms. By technology I mean the modern application of scientific knowledge in tools such as the mobile phone, the internet, and social media platforms. By values I mean the treasured moral principles, respect, honesty, hard work, decency, and communal love, that bind our society together and give it dignity. My duty this morning is to prove that technology, for all its dazzling promise, has steadily worn these values away.
My first point is that technology has weakened respect and family unity. In the not-too-distant past, children knelt or bowed to greet their elders, and families gathered at dusk to share proverbs, stories, and correction. Today, a family may sit in one room while every member bends silently over a glowing screen, deaf to a greeting and blind to the person beside them. The dining table that once nourished conversation now competes with the notification. When a child would rather chat with a stranger online than answer a parent at home, the value of respect has plainly been eroded.
My second point is that technology has opened the floodgates to immorality. The same internet that can teach a child mathematics can, at the tap of a finger, deliver indecent films, gambling, and vulgar content that a young mind is not ready to receive. Behaviour that our society once regarded as shameful is now displayed proudly for likes and followers. When decency becomes something to be mocked and immodesty something to be rewarded, our moral compass has clearly been damaged.
My third point is that technology has bred dishonesty and idleness. Examination malpractice has grown bolder because answers can be smuggled into halls on a phone. Fraudsters deceive innocent victims through cloned websites and fake messages, and celebrate their stolen wealth online without shame. When our young people learn to admire quick, dishonest gain over patient, honest labour, the value of hard work has been quietly buried.
My fourth point is that technology has coarsened human empathy and truth itself. Rumours and falsehoods now travel across a nation in seconds, inflaming hatred before the truth can lace its shoes. Behind the safety of a screen, people insult, bully, and slander others in words they would never dare to speak face to face. A tool that promised to bring us closer has too often made us crueller and less truthful.
Rebuttal. My worthy opponents will rise to say that technology brings knowledge, connects families across distances, and drives national progress, and I concede that the tool itself is neither good nor evil. But a knife that slices bread can also spill blood; the fault may lie with the hand, yet the wound is real all the same. The question before this house is not whether technology can do good, but whether, in practice, it has eaten into our values, and the sad evidence of broken homes, examination fraud, and celebrated indecency answers that question loudly. Progress that leaves a people rich in gadgets but bankrupt in character is no true progress at all.
Conclusion. Ladies and gentlemen, I have shown that technology has cooled the warmth of our families, corrupted our sense of decency, rewarded dishonesty over honest toil, and dulled our empathy for one another. Until we learn to master this powerful tool rather than be mastered by it, the painful truth stands firm: technology has eroded our values. I therefore urge this honourable house, with all the strength I can summon, to support the motion. Thank you, and long live our great school.
A note on how debate answers are marked. Examiners at this level reward the speech across a few clear areas, so make sure your answer earns marks in each:
- Content and argument: a definite stand on one side, three to four developed points, and concrete, relevant examples rather than bare assertions.
- Debate features: a full salutation or vocatives, a definition of key terms, a rebuttal of the opposing side, and a strong concluding appeal to the house.
- Organisation: a logical order, one clear idea per paragraph, and linking expressions that guide the listener from point to point.
- Expression and mechanics: persuasive, audience-aware language (rhetorical questions, vivid comparisons), correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.
Examination takeaway: the surest way to lose easy marks in a debate question is to write a plain essay that forgets the debate conventions. Always open with the vocatives, define the motion's key words, name your side without hedging, answer the opposition directly, and close by urging the house to vote your way.
