Judge Comments

The graph doesn't go up for some reason ㅠㅠ


Seungmin Oh PM
ARGUMENTATION 8.5
STYLE 8.0
OVERALL 8.5
DEFINE
Osama Bin Laden - terrorist
-- It would be better not to define a person, as a "~terrorist~" but rather give some
background - preferably with emotion so the judges think, "Oh, that's a bad guy" or
something like that.
ARGUMENTATION
1. Assassination protects human rights
- every human: right to live
- OBL interfered on these rights by killing ppl
- killing OBL protecting from further terrorism and protecting human rights
-- include more statistics to make it more convincing. + also details, like how did he kill
people and whom? for what exact purpose?
-- Why would killing OBL stop the killing of people? OBL has other men under him. Give
proof that OBL is the leading force behind these killings and to assassinate him would
stop (or at least decrease) them.
2. Strong message to the public
- public afraid of OBL
- ppl only aware that there was terror
- more aware of how US is going to stop terror, harms of terror
- US gov can give a message that if terror, going to retaliate
-- not very convinced. ppl only aware that there was terror? 9/11 was a hard hit on most if
not all of Americans
-- also the backside that this "message" might hint how brutal US could be....
Changwoo Lee LO
ARGUMENTATION8.7
STYLE 8.0
OVERALL 8.6
- social contract: every person is guranteed of a natural right, same on intl basis
--- dangerous opening; this could be used against you (when you actually BREAK the
social contract by harming others' rights, then your rights could be breached in turn)
REBUTTALS
- (first argument) : every  criminal has a right to get judged by the law
- (second argument) : might bring about revenge
-- words like "the government insisted" are good; makes the opposition sound v. stubborn
and illogical
1. disobeying the international law
Geneva Convention - cannot kill citizen of other country w/o permission
-- why do we need to follow the Geneva Convention? it's not written in stone. why do we?
- serious disobeying of int law
- Bin Laden cannot be an exception even when he is a criminal
 ex. Nazis also were judged by court before sentenced to death
-- good example. you might also want to mention that a law was disobeyed for no
significant purpose, and explain how killing Bin Laden would not only not stop the mass
murders of people, but actually result in more deaths and violence.
2. alternative was possible
- although US had the power to capture him, killed him
- OBL no resistance.
- killing can never be justified

Jegug Ih DPM
ARGUMENTATION 8.9
STYLE 8.2
OVERALL 8.8
REBUTTALS
- terrorists have rights : no when that much destruction and mayhem
- message : message to the public. 9/11~.
- third world war... war against terrorism.
- in war can kill others.
- cannot trust the Pakistan gov (too much trouble)
- OBL need to be judged? - no. already confessed to crimes, so already proved of
guiltiness.
- OBL might have been disarmed but guards.
--- the war thing is a bit too radical for my tastes, but I think it could work with some
people. but we're still not at war legally or explicitly.
3. need fast and speedy action
- scenario: escape? terrors?
- when he's dead the dangers are much less.
-- what about the possibility of vengeful terrors?
-  wrongfully trialed and found innocent... like Nazi...
- for the message to be strong, need to be quick and brief.

Wonhyuk Lee  DLO
ARGUMENTATION 8.6
STYLE 8.7
OVERALL 8.7
REBUTTALS
- terrorists have harrassed human rights... no right to be respected? : human right not a
concept of good and bad. although in jail cannot deprive them of human rights

--- unsteady, goes against LO's intro about social contract. also following this logic - then
can't we punish murderers and mass killers? I guess this goes over to capital
punishment...
- message: effect goes down when terrorists become angry
(GW rebut: arrest --> anger too. ) -- arrest then think about it..?
3.
- US trying to justify by saying decreasing symbol of terror. but did nothing but bring up
revenge. (actually said)
- no reason for OBL to be hit at the spot
- assassination cannot happen even in the aspect of blocking terrorism
-- if you had stats about the potential risings of revenge terror, then this would be very
persuasive.
---- a few halts but I liked your style: calm and steady. A bit more emotion might be good
- unclear situation, unsteady situation. revenge terrorism!!

Seungchan Kim GW
ARGUMENTATION 8.7
STYLE 8.7
OVERALL 8.8
1) human rights vs gov actions
- v. important, valuable.
- but in the case of a war....
-- I wish you had taken LO's social contract theory and turned that against them; that
would have been less radical than claims of war. But preferences differ.
- 9/11 - killed+feared
- so different from simple crimes of murder... this is terror -- murder - traditional process,
but in the case of terror, need to take speedy action
-- explain WHY we need speedy action - because we have it on a bigger scale? why?
- OBL given chance to prove innocence? - but already in war, already claimed guilty.
- people are unarmed, cannot kill people? - but a lot of destruction already made
-- I had a feeling that this clash was unorganized, try to put it into points rather than merely
saying "the opp said this and that"
2) speedy action
- alternative of jurisdiction
- but other scenarios... also planned other terrorism, can be still an icon
- support could also grow for OBL
-- change title of clash, it's misleading (OPP didn't respond to speedy action claim)
3) social message 
- strong message
- anger rises even in jurisdiction, so better to give strong message

Sumin Park  OW
ARGUMENTATION 8.7
STYLE 8.8
OVERALL 8.8
- intro: child w/ fever. to let him cool down, give coke and ice. cool down but won't cure the
cold. short-term remedy, like what gov has tried to argue
--- uuhhhh... so the assassination is the coke?
1) efficiency interventing terrorism
- both agree that OBL symbol of 9/11 and related to terrorism in US
- assassination - short-term stop to terrorism; Al-Kaeda left w/o leader
-- don't spend too much time repeating opposition
- but in long-term, chaos.
 1. counter-attacks, counter-terrorism
 - destroyed facilities in Pakistan , b/c  of chance that P. gov collaborated with US
 - bully example.. but not as simple as that
 -- too many real-life small-scale examples.... cut it down
 - violent nature will result in counter-terrorism
 - PROP argues bring sympathy to terrorist groups? - but already numerous
supporters, possible leaders.
 2. did not follow proper proceedings of judicial system
 - innocent until proven guilty; must be put on a trial

 -- so why must we take this procedure? explain the significance
 -  infringed individual's rights and prevented truth to be discussed in a courtly
environment.

2) based on a righteous cause
- US proven to change their stances, hide their facts of the crime scene... so the US claim
cannot be trusted