Debate Feedback

MOTION: THB teens should be allowed to participate in demonstrations.
Date: 2011.3.16		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Name Jinkwan Hyun		Name Kwonsok Oh
Delivery	8/10	Nice and assertive. Could do with more eye contact. State the definition before dividing the arguments.	6.5/10	-Lose (as a particular senior would say) the “verbal trash;” drop lines like “I think” and “how I define it.” Have more conviction. It’s not about how you think something, it’s about how it is (or at least on the surface), and if you merely “think” so the judges aren’t going to believe it either.
Arguments	8/10	1. democratic citizens. allowed to be active. rights should be granted to students as well. the constitution. even if we do not need 2. educational effects. A) political systems. B) reconstruct their own views. -I see no flaws yet, but be careful: merely stating that a certain right is within the constitution might sound authoritative but isn’t really. Explain the connotations and the significance of certain values within the constitution. You may also have to explain why students can be treated the same as other citizens (they’re often not, and this issue was raised later in the debate).	7/10	-I wish the wording of the arguments had been somewhat different. “Not good for society” and “not good for themselves” just doesn’t cut it; when wording arguments you need to give their main idea within the few words. Alternatives like “encourages chaos within society” would have been better. -You assumed that teenagers lacked the capability of thinking deeply and logically, and tended to make flawed decisions and couldn’t be very responsible. (What are we, then?) It may have been better to emphasize the potential irresponsibility not through the lack of thinking capability, but through the lack of social experience. To assume that all teenagers are illogical is dangerous and often false. But saying that teenagers lack social experience because of their age is more objective and thus safer. -The second argument – “can participate in other moderate ways” – could have been elaborated more. And who says students’ responsibility is to study? It may be right, but it needs more elaboration and link to the status quo at hand.
Notes	Tot 16/20	Fair enough start to the debate. I still have some doubts about the definition, though; merely defining “allow” as “not to ban” is very vague, and might provide complications. (For instance, allowing demonstrations through the education board and allowing demonstrations through a student’s home are completely different matters.)	Tot 13.5/20	-I understand the arguments but some dangerous assumptions were made. Perhaps it’ll help to provide a better analysis of the status quo?
Rebuttal One	Pts	Name Jegug Ig	Pts	Name Sungchul Lee
Delivery	7.5/10	-Conviction good, but could be somewhat more persuasive. You tend to be a bit informal (I think) during debate – something that can be both positive and negative.	6/10	-I had a feeling that you went back and forth between the arguments and rebuttals. State them clearly. -Ending needs more conviction.
Arguments	7.5/10	-The definition of citizenship could have been better; “all people living here” doesn’t really cut it. Explaining about the certain responsibilities and returned rights – and why students can be counted as citizens – might have been better. Or you could have analyzed that freedom is allowed as long as others’ rights are not violated, and link this to demonstrations. “Adults can be extreme as well” is a bad response. Just because others show a similar characteristic doesn’t justify anything. -Have to explain why young people need to give conservative adults (-another generalization!) through demonstrations only. Can’t there be other methods?	6/10	-I heard a lot of assumptions, especially about the status of teens. How exactly do teens lose logical thinking and reasoning abilities? (-no link) Is this guaranteed through demonstrations? (-generalization) The basic foundations of this argument need to be explained.
Notes	Tot 15/20	-Some generalizations and assumptions…	Tot 12/20	I took a lot of points off for the assumptions ㅠㅠ
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Name Seungchan Kim	Pts	Name Daeun Jung
Delivery	8/10	Good body language and clarity, but I felt that as you progressed through your speech you became somewhat distracted.	8/10	I see some organization issues but for the most part, fine.
Arguments	8.5/10	- students' rights - harm and benefit analysis - nature of demonstrations -You might want to put the nature of demonstrations at the beginning of your speech, so that you can explain about demonstrations and build upon that point to explain other related points. (like you’ll have to explain why demonstrations cause no harms to others to ensure participation in demonstrations as a right) -As a whip you might want to analyze the debate more than you simply repeat what was said before you. - -Don’t accept a POI in the middle of your speaking (as you did with 성철’s). teenagers can do logical thinking. why emotionally swayed? (성철)	9/10	-I thought you had good points, like the fact that the government never proves why the benefits of demonstrations are exclusive only to demonstrations. (like the educational effects – aren’t they present in in-class discussions as well?) -The responsibility point (that students cannot be responsible for every single behavior) was a bit dangerous in diction. (It opens up the rebuttal that adults too can be irresponsible.) - .
Notes	Tot 16.5/20	Satisfactory rebutting, but you might want to 1) state the burdens of proof for the government and explain how your side has proven them, 2) why he benefits of student demonstrations are exclusive, and 3) why you can’t restrict the students’ rights (other than the fact that they are citizens and thus have rights).	Tot 17/20	Good points, but you might want to watch your diction from opening new rebuttals to the opposing side.
Conclusion	Pts	Name ChangWoo Lee	Pts	Name Su Min Park
Delivery	7/10	More confidence than last time, that’s good.	8/10	Clear and confident as always.
Arguments	7/10	-I didn’t hear a lot of things since the speech was short (due to a lack of time), but good summary. The reply speaker needs to emphasize the reasons why their house won, though.	8/10	-Good points, but “not mature enough” could have been addressed with more persuasive diction. -More emphasis on the government team’s errors could have made the speech much more influential and persuasive.
Notes	Tot 14/20	-Short but clear.	Tot 16/20	-Could do with clearer organization, although I did understand all of the points.

-    Win goes to the opposition