The Cask of Amontillado, by Edgar Allen Poe

An assignment that I turned in to my professor this semester. It included a short group presentation in debate-format. I had to write a response to it.

If you have never read the short story, or would simply like to re-read it, here is a link: Poe's The Cask of Amontillado 

The following is what I wrote as a response:

    The style that we chose was debate for Edgar Allen’s Poe The Cask of Amontillado. The four-person group was divided into two sides with two persons on each. We formatted it so that one group would be arguing that the character Fortunato had died because of illness (indicated by his “cough”) and the other group arguing that the character Montressor had murdered Fortunato by bricking him up in the nitre.
 
    Some concerns that I would have with this style of debate and how the cooperating students proceeded are the following:
 
1.    It is apparent that only a few students would actively participate more than others. This may perhaps only happen during the first few debates within the class, meaning that as time progresses (and this format is used more often), other students would chime in.
 
2.    The lack of professionalism and formality among students, i.e. students that will use whatever means to “win” an argument, rather than seeing the purpose of having debates. The competitiveness of certain students may influence others to think the same way. Constant reminder of the purpose in debating to the students will become necessary on the instructor’s part (remind the students that the purpose of debate to identify and take into account other perspectives rather than to win an argument).
 
3.    Students may not have real, valid points to back up their arguments within a story. In addition, students may attack one another while debating.
 
4.    Students may lose track of what the purpose of their argument may be if they are unprepared and/or become confused while debating. This may be because the text is overwhelming for particular students for whatever reason (perhaps they do not know the language very well or at all; they are slow learners, etc.)
 
5.    Partners do not necessarily agree with one another because of whatever reason, therefore cannot work effectively as a team.
 

6.    Other students may have something to add or say, but cannot necessarily chime in with this particular format (2 vs 2).