Class 11C-Tuesday - Debate Feedback and Critical Response #1 Scores

THW: Abolish the KMLA court system.


To be honest, I don't know much about the KMLA court system, and I have no real opinion about its effectiveness, simply because I don't know enough about it.  As a new teacher, I didn't even know it existed until I watched an MBC documentary about the school.  So, while I am ill-informed, I do, however, believe that every school needs some sort of judicial system, and definitely a set of rules. 

The more I learn about the court system here, the more it intrigues me.  How many students in regular schools get to experience the wheels of justice first hand?  Not many.  This sort of decorum seems like it might have it's educational benefits, even if they aren't visible at first glance.  Perhaps this system of "tough love" contributes to the general zeitgeist of the school - a place of tradition, discipline, and leadership. By nature, a boarding school has to be strict.

Michael, for the pro, got this debate off to a great start.  His experience was obvious in his emotion, tone, and flow - and beginning the debate with a descriptive anecdote was an effective hook - an emotional appeal to the trials and tribulations of enduring a nit-picky court system.  For someone like me who doesn't know a lot about the issue, this was helpful; however, these gimmicks should be used with moderation.  It went on a bit too long before the arguments were actually presented - stating ineffectiveness and inconsistency, which the anecdotal story had clearly illustrated.  Good roadmap.  The only things to improve were time management and choice of words.  You had some great moments here - citing "zero productivity" and "hilarious" examples of penalty points being given for lateness picking up parcels late etc.; but  in the future do avoid colloquial terms (욕).  I docked points, and in a formal tournament it's not a good idea.  

Joohyung did well to begin his rebuttals quickly, and made some allowances for what Michael had criticized.  Sometimes this is a good idea - to make some concessions.  Is the court system inefficient? Yes. But what's the alternative?  Demanding that the pro answer this wasn't something that the opposition continued, but it seemed like a good tactic.  If you are going to abolish something, what are you going to replace it with?  Is the burden of proof resting with the Pro to prove the system doesn't work, or with the Con to prove it does?  Joohyung started off strong, but ran into some flow issues, and could have provided a clearer roadmap, which Gyutae pointed out.  


Gyutae had some nice rebuttals - penalty points are enough, and don't need a court system to be handed down.  Humiliation goes too far, and the court system often devolves into cruelty.  Nice use of the term "critical fallacy."  Decent tone and emotion.  More is always welcome.  All in all, nice development of the arguments Michael established.


Chaerim, who had been fairly quiet in class up until this debate, was a nice surprise.  Excellent emotion, volume, and tone.  I encourage you to participate like this in class and not just in the debates.  You argued the court system motivates good behavior, and that the nagging is beneficial.  You made some allowances, as did Joohyung, and I felt this, again, was effective.  I like the argument of "amending the system" rather than abolishing it.

Yougil spoke with confidence and calm, and this is good, but emotion and volume could be kicked up a notch.  Get angry! Momentum improved towards the end of the speech.  Decent arguments from you guys, but they did become a bit repetitive.  Remember - advancing the argument is key - adding new facts and anecdotes.  

Michael, debating again due to our limited class size, did well to return to the podium with the same energy and intensity as before.  I think the Gov advanced their arguments better than the Opp, and therefore take the debate.  The argument against the court's inconsistency was good, and the fact that the fine print is evidently adhered to with "extra punishments."   Excellent appeals to emotion.  


All in all, this was a very good first debate, and I was impressed with the ability I saw.  Here are the scores below:

Class 11C-Tuesday	Debate
Scorsese	9.3/10
Spielberg	8.9/10
Hitchcock	9.0/10
Kubrick	8.910
Tarantino	9.1/10

RE: Weekly Critical Responses

I think I was clear about the expectations for each week, so I'd be happier if you didn't save these weekly responses until the last minute.   These aren't as demanding as formal essays, and you can respond freely and critically.  What I want to see are consistent responses that draw from the material you are given, and organized opinions and arguments.  I can tell when students have waited until an hour before class to do something, and I can tell when they attempt to "just add water" to what they are writing to meet a quota.    

Decently written responses, but I was soft on everyone as this is the first.  Email me (garrioch@minjok.hs.kr) or simply come and ask which alias below you are.  You will be this alias for the rest of the year.

11C Tuesday	CR#1
Scorsese	9.3/10
Spielberg	9.1/10
Hitchcock	8.910
Kubrick	8.910
Tarantino	9.3/10

Critical Response #2: Michael Moore: "Join My High School Newspaper"

Michael Moore is the master of persuasive argument.  He's revolutionized the word "documentary" into something we now associate with entertainment, and he's shone light deep into the darkest corners of the American ethos.  He's an icon of American culture, and he's branded himself as a voice of dissent that matters.  And indeed he does matter.

Moore has also been criticized for earning a lot of money while kicking up his constant storm.  He's burned bridges with interns (who apparently had a little more to do with writing some of his books than he did), and he's fudged the odd statistic to make his arguments more effective.  He's also been accused of walking the walk less than talking the talk, and some see his films as mere manipulations of American pathos - choosing the right interviewee to provide the the right emotional response to his carefully selected questions.  For all these things (real or imagined), I think we can easily forgive him.  He's done more for America than certain presidents.

Read the following article, "Join My Highschool Newspaper", from his website, MichaelMoore.com, and pick out some things you'd like to respond to.  Is he playing things up? Does his idea to provide a "high school newspaper" that doesn't censor a good one, and is it necessary? Is it a school's responsibility to allow freedom of speech in a school newspaper? Is school supposed to be a stage for political dissent, or in this day and age is it something that can and should be left for after school?  To encourage the best possible learning environment for all, is it okay to water things down and omit certain things from being written in a school newspaper?          

Obviously, this is written primarily for America's youth who are under different circumstances.  As Koreans, I'm interested to hear what you have to say.  I think KMLA grants you quite a bit of freedom to develop and discuss your opinions, so I'm interested in your views both within and outside the school environment.  How politically aware or motivated is the average Korean teenager?

Here are some interesting excerpts from Moore's diatribe:

"We are, right now, living in an amazing moment of history. And this moment has happened because the youth around the world have decided they've had enough. Young people are in revolt -- and it's about time."

Yes, Egypt has revolted.  But was it pretty?  Are we living in an "amazing moment of history"?

"And for some beautiful, unknown reason, you've refused to listen. Maybe it's because you've figured out that we adults are about to hand you a very empty and increasingly miserable world, with its melting polar ice caps, its low-paying jobs, its incessant war machine, and its plan to put you in permanent debt at age 18 with the racket known as college loans." 

I agree with some of this, but I take the pessimistic view that these aren't things implemented by a particular generation or age of being.  These are simply natural occurrences that are dictated by our system.  Every generation, every community, and every random sampling of humankind will include a cunning minority who seize the reins and profit off the backs of those who are born into the "normalcy" of the "miserable world."  It's always been "miserable" and always will be, if, in fact, we can even use this word.  In my opinion it isn't miserable. It's just normal.  It's the status quo that the Big Bang created.  The polar ice caps are supposed to melt.  We can rise up all we want, but there will always be new "adults" to replace the old "adults" and many of them will hand out loans to keep us all in a natural state of debt.  Maybe I'm wrong.           

So, please respond to Moore's article and evaluate your interest/need in his vision of a "high school newspaper."   What's your opinion and personal experience as a teenager expressing your views?  Maybe you'll even want to submit writing to his site - and I encourage it.

As usual, please identify three debate motions (they can be remotely related).  There's lots in here, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

Note:  Moore uses the metaphor "brick in the wall," to describe what schools train youth to be.  Here's where that popular phrase comes from - one of the most viewed videos of all time:

Class 11L1- Debate Feedback and Critical Response #1 Scores

THB: Dating should be allowed on campus.

My own personal belief is: "No, dating should not be allowed on campus."  So I had to put away my bias and give the decision to the boys despite my belief.  I liked most of the arguments and speech quality from both sides, and it was by a slim margin that the guys won.  Time management was a deciding factor.

Changjung got the debate off to a great start, and did well to specify that this debate was only about KMLA, and the unique situation we have here.  I really liked your tone, emotion, and confidence.  Your first argument about getting rid of stress and gaining a positive learning experience started out well, but did get a bit lost when you misused "sexual education," which Rachel cleverly did a POI against.  This term was never clearly treated, and effective arguments missed the mark a bit here.  The girls should have badgered a bit more here.  I encourage you all to jump on any term or word you think the other team is treating too loosely or failing to define.  Changjung did a good job of paving the way and creating a road map, and did provide some good examples of improper conduct caused by having to hide the relationships.  I thought he would also discuss how this affects "platonic friendships," but the debate didn't really touch on this, which was a missed opportunity.


Daeyun really challenged the PM and her demand for a "burden of proof" was excellent and aggressive.  Good stuff.  Did the boys prove anything?  Maybe, maybe not.  It's subject to personal opinion for both sides, but what a great way to challenge.  She also did well to point out the unique (and also flawed) situation our dormitory find itself in.  Both genders in one building, and often the atmosphere is disturbed by "couples."  Not enough security etc. is a valid point, but the boys responded to this strongly as well.  As for "dating is not what we are here for," that's a good point - but also easy to attack (the boys actually didn't do so as strongly as I'd have hoped - but at the end Youngsoo was nicely ranting about it until we got cut off by the bell).  Dating is a huge part of teenage life, and trying to cut it out of highschool culture is like taking the Pyramids away from the Egyptians.  All in all, both opening speakers really did an excellent job of setting the table.

HyunUk kept the ball rolling and had good pacing and flow.  More emotion/inflection is something you could work on and increase.  He did well to say that "meeting in the woods" was BECAUSE of school policy, and I'm not sure how the OPP attempted to use this in their favor, but the boys took this rebuttal.  What Chanjung had started with "control the problem instead of repressing it" - HyunUk batted that out of the park by using Amsterdam and drug control as an example.  Yes, it is a different situation, but it's also valid.  Despite controversy, Amsterdam has some undeniable success by being proactive instead of reactive.  The girls could have admitted this and said that the school was already using some soft policies in this regard by allowing school festivals, non-uniform Saturdays, and co-ed classes etc. where guys and girls DO get to connect.  Is the school Stalinesque when it comes to dating on campus?  At times maybe, but mostly I don't think so.  The girls could have done more to point out the good aspects of campus life and the current no dating policy (a utilitarian approach), and the boys also could have done better to point out the negative aspects (damages platonic friendships).  Other debates on this same issue have referenced instances where a guy and a girl have lost points just for studying together, walking together, or preparing a project.  The line is blurry and the school often assumes the worst when it is not the case.  This was one aspect of the issue that I think this debate could have/should have focused on. Anyways, back to HyunUk.  Argument three about stress relief was too long, and the girls stumped you on a POI, but all in all good work.


Jeong Hyeon responded to the Pro well, and like HyunUk I think you could turn up the volume and emotion a notch and try to match the intensity of the opening speakers. You had some great POI's - and I think it was you who stumped HyunUk? On that note, Young Soo's POI against you was very unclear, and you spent a bit too long trying to sort out his meaning.  It was his mistake for not wording his POI more clearly, but he did succeed in distracting you and messing up your timing and time management.  The debate lost some rhythm here. If and when the other team's POI is less than clear or redundant - feel free to make them pay: )  Young Soo redeemed himself in his final speech, but you could have dismissed him right away.  The argument about breaking up was really good, and I was hoping you guys would build more emotional appeal into this with examples etc. following Jeong Hyeon's speech, as she introduced it well.  The argument about "when our parents were young" was unclear to me, and I wasn't sure how dating on campus would lead to divorce etc.  It almost sounds like the Pro could use this more effectively and say that by allowing dating students could learn from mistakes sooner, and gain more realistic experiences.   All in all, other than time management - very good and you'll improve.

Changhoon did well considering his inexperience and newness to the class.  He could have  accepted at least one POI, and it seemed you ended your speech a bit prematurely.  But I do think it's better than going overtime and not completing what you'd set out to discuss.  You did well to re-butt the weaknesses in the "divorce" argument effectively.  Good voice and volume, and like everyone a bit more emotion is always a bonus.   Other rebuttles got a bit lost, but all in all good.  Next time you'll be more in the groove with more advance warning.

Jiyoung was clear and brought new clarity to some arguments that were getting a bit watered down.  Like everyone, more emotion and inflection will help.  I liked your arguments about distracting other students with displays of affection, and the added concepts of peer pressure.  The boys swore it didn't effect them personally, but it is natural to follow trends, so I give this argument to the girls.  As for the breaking up argument and the mental stress that results from it, again - no real solid hard hitting emotional appeal here, and the girls kind of missed a chance.  Good time management. 

Seohyun, with her experience, obviously set a good example of emotion and volume and flow.  Time managment was her only real problem, and again "burden of proof" and "define clashes" are all excellent terms, and she reestablished a road map.  I could have done a better job indicating time, but was distracted taking notes.  If we had more students we could have better time keeping etc.

Youngsoo matched Seohyun's intensity, and when he was strong he was strong.  However, he got a bit lost (perhaps due to the bell ringing) and lost some flow in his rebuttals.  You spent a bit too much time making the same point on one particular argument - about not being affected by other students being couples, I believe.  Nice emotion and volume, just have to work on content.
 
I'm really impressed with this group, and for your first debate this worked out well.  Great work!
In the future, we should start sooner and finish earlier.

Here are your holistic scores for this debate:

Class 11L1	DEBATE
Hendrix	9.2/10
Lennon	8.9/10
Page	9.3/10
Presley	9.1/10
Dylan	9.0/10
Clapton	9.4/10
McCartney	9.0/10
Young	8.9/10

Here are your grades for the first Critical Responses on The Story of Stuff:

Class 11L1	CR#1
Hendrix	9.1/10
Lennon	9.1/10
Page	9.0/10
Presley	9.2/10
Dylan	9.1/10
Clapton	9.6/10
McCartney	9.1/10
Young	8.8/10

Don't know who you are?  Email me (garrioch@minjok.hs.kr), facebook me, or come and ask.

Tardiness, Scores, and Code Names

THB: Students who haven't started a blog and/or completed their first Critical Response before their next class should be getting 0/10.  

My first argument is - you've had plenty of time.
My second argument is - it's not that hard.  It's not an essay.  It's just an opinion.
My third argument is - if you signed up for debate, you should have opinions and actively seek a forum for them.

Any rebuttals?  No?

In conclusion, Garrioch takes home this debate.  Just because.

I'm just having a bit of fun here, but yes indeed we are missing some people and some assignments.  If you are reading this, and you know someone who could use a friendly reminder, please do some friendly reminding.  Thank you!

As well, I am actually grading your responses, and not just commenting.  However, I know it isn't respecting your privacy if I post your score within the comments.  Therefore, I will assign you an anonymous Code Name that only you will know (at least in theory), and I will post the scores in my blog.

Example:

Agent Orange	7.9/10
Disco Inferno	9.2/10
Socrates	8.3/10
Sleepaholic	0/10

This system will also be in place for the debates.  I will give feedback within this blog. If you want to know your alias, you can email me at garrioch@minjok.hs.kr or ask me in person.

Next Week's Debate: THB: The Story of Stuff is appropriate classroom material for elementary school students.

UPDATED UPDATE: 

Raising the bar - Rachel has gone to town in her post, both in terms of quality and quantity.  She's also, I think, the only student to go to bat for Leonard thus far, so if you are the the PRO on this debate, you might want to read her arguments for some ideas.  What is propaganda, and does The Story of Stuff fit into that definition? That's not in the debate motions, but could easily come up within the debate itself from the CON.  Rachel's post is informative, uses outside research, has a video, and is easy to read (separated into sections). I encourage you all to strive for this quality.

Youngsoo used the word "dubious" and I like it almost as much as "status quo."  He questions Leonard's vision of "circular production," which never really did get explained.  That might come up in a good debate.

Jiyeon's Critical Response really impressed me.  She describes The Story of Stuff as "the ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing."  Save that one for the debate - as it truly does illustrate how the video is a bit of a trojan horse for extreme rhetoric.  Her concise discussion detailing several fallacies is excellent and full of the language needed for a good debate.  Her research also turned up a nice online debate discussing the video.  If you want to score extra points in this class - please do the same.  Some of you haven't finished creating your blogs, or written your Critical Response:  if you want an A, get on it.  There won't be any easy A in this class.
 
The Aggressive Squeaker (a.k.a Sumin Park) has posted some powerful arguments against The Story of Stuff, and what I like about them is that they are very ready for a formal debate.  As I've discussed in class, a "road map" is one of the most important things to implement within your arguments, and she's clearly done this in her impressions of the video. 

If you are arguing against The Story of Stuff, check out Sumin's notes, as she's provided a good template to build from.  The language she uses and references to the material is all commendable.

I'm very happy with this years crop of debaters! Keep up the good work. 

Hello Debaters,

I'm happy to see most of you (60%) have started your blogs, and a handful of you have completed your first Critical Response. Remember these make up a large portion of your grades, so try and stay on top of them and participate in these online forums.

The Story of Stuff is a good debate, because it touches on many issues in many ways, and raises questions of validity and presentation. Having read your responses, most of you agree that Leonard's message is too strong and one sided. Compared to her other videos (Story of Cosmetics, Bottled Water etc.) it seems she toned things down a bit and isn't as "anti-establishment," but clearly her message is very left wing, and we have to question the kind of politics we allow in the classroom.  Hers probably does go too far.

So I've quoted a few of you below to continue the discussion:

Diane Ryoo said:

"While watching the video, I was constantly thinking-if everything is so harmful, the development, the manufacturing process, the ways people live, how are we going to live? If she is against manufacturing, what is she going to wear, what is she going to eat, and where is she going to live? How are we going to live without all these manufactured things? Is she suggesting that we could all go back to the primitive state and live in the Amazon? Her points SEEM reasonable, but when you come to think of it, it is just so idealistic."

I completely agree with Diane, and that's our knee-jerk reaction towards preachy environmentalists.  Do they walk the walk and talk the talk?  Are they realistic? Some are, some are not.  Guys like John Travolta, the actor, tell us to be "green," and then go out and buy a private jet which has a massive carbon footprint.  But then there are people like Julia Butterfly Hill, who really are living green.  Definitely, they are idealistic - and the fact is we need these people to usher in change.   Recycling used to be a bit of a joke in the early 90's, but today it's a reality that does make a difference.  I think Leonard is, for the most part, asking us to question some of our behaviors, and to definitely "shop less."  Do we need everything we buy?  Are we a materialistic culture that is wasteful?  I think we are, and we are encouraged to be.  But are we living on a hamster wheel of consumption, where we are forced to live a life of work/tv/shopping mall to make the rich richer?  Good question.  We may not need facts to discuss this at all.

Here are Diane's Motion suggestions.

#1. THS: the education of children based on User Created Contents(UCC).
#2. THB: the manufacturing process must be put to an end.
#3. THB: User Created Contents(UCC) are effect tools for confirming one's ideas. 

I really like the first one - or any debate related to UCC.  We might save that one for later.  The second one is good, but we might change "put to an end" to become "reevaluated." 

Daniel Kim had some good observations:

"I know that this video can provide us some creative ideas and new perspectives on the issue of current economy, but the video being used for education should be reconsidered seriously, for the video might cause many disadvantages. If an educator wants to use this video, I really want to recommend him or her to find another class material which shows the perspective of the other side  - so that students can think of what is right or wrong in an unbiased situation." 

I agree completely.  But what I'd like to pose is this question:  if Leonard is North, who is South, and what does THAT video say?  Is it Dobb's?  Who would you rather have over for dinner, and what would you serve them?  What car would they show up in? 


Jack Hyun raises a good question of validity - and how we can dress up an issue with "facts."

"However, I got a little dissatisfied with the statistics used for the material. Even though the video excelled at explaining the core of the problem of this system, the statistics from which the explanation became persuasive were usually manipulated and, sometimes, even faked. What Lee Doren's rebuttal video has done, although it was not persuasive enough and a bit old-fashioned, is to attack the details and statistics of the video clip, which was quite effective in degrading the significance of the clip."

Very very true, and it shows us how "facts" and "stats" often have this magical ability to seem real and true simply by being presented as "facts" and "stats."  Whose are they and how did they make them?  Who did the math?  All things we should consider.  Notice how Leonard says we only have a small percentage left of our "original" forests.  Is she lying?  No.  It's very true.  But what does "original" mean?  Are we counting the "forests" that the dinosaurs might have eaten shortly after the Big Bang?  Here we see how one word can really play with meaning and accuracy.  I encourage you as debate students to find these instances and attack them.

Here are Jack's motions:

1. THB ecosystems can coexist with material economy.


2. THW allow elementary school teachers to show materials that contain specific opinions.


3. THB the current level of financial aid is enough for less developed nations. 

Excellent suggestions, and all of them could definitely form a debate - and the last one rings a bell and might have been used at a GLPS camp.  We'd have to narrow it down to specific nations perhaps. The second one is also good.  When are children old enough to form their own views despite what a heavy handed teacher might be teaching?  Parents should and often do question what teacher's teach, and sometimes it isn't always black or white, and often very gray.  If, as a parent, I owned a computer store, and my child came home and said he didn't want a new computer because he wanted to save the environment, what might I say? The third one is also good, and very wide open.  We'd have to come up with examples.  An obvious one is the fastfood industry and the destruction of the Amazon.  If Macdonald's required all customers "eating in" to use plastic plates and reusable cups, how many soccer fields a minute would that save?


Wonhyuk continues this line of reasoning:

"What kept me listening to her was her statistics. That made her persuasive, that backed up her opinion. After watching Dobb's critique, however, I saw that the statistics were wrong. Okay, and here's my three motions."


1. THB schools should only teach evolution, not creation in biology class.


2. THB the government should include communism and socialism in education, with great detail.


3. THB teachers do not have the freedom of speech when they are teaching to young students who are prone to influence. 

Big issues that are being fought over constantly, and I like the first one - as the Catholics are always dealing with this.  I think the second one is a bit weak, but that's from my Canadian perspective.  I had plenty of education about other forms of government, and it became repetitive and boring.  But was I taught communism and socialism were good or bad?  How Korean education treats these I'd like to know. 


Thanks to all of you for participating, and please contribute to the online discussions by commenting on each others thoughts - and of course debating!

Facebook Debate

Here is a recent debate video featuring the motion: THB: You should reject Facebook.

For class 11C, this might be worth a viewing.  Some interesting arguments and these are good debaters from Ivy universities in the states - Harvard, Yale etc.


Reject Facebook from Steven Taylor on Vimeo.

Education or Propaghanda?

For our second debate, I'd like us to examine the educational value of a particular website, called The Story of Stuff.  Captained by Annie Leonard, a passionate environmentalist with an impressive international profile, the site illustrates information creatively through clever digital design.  This effective simplicity has led many teachers, ranging from elementary to high school, to use The Story of Stuff as a teaching tool.  Leonard often targets "consumer culture" as the primary culprit responsible for environmental devastation, and while her arguments are primarily environmental, they become economic, cultural, political, and philosophical in nature.  Most of her detractors are from the right-wing, and they accuse Leanord of attempting to "brainwash" America's youth with leftist Anti-American extremism.

So please review the website, and view the following videos. While Leonard does raise real issues we cannot deny, we can question some of her facts and language.



Simple, persuasive, engaging, and ultimately effective, no one can deny the message is clear.  But is it accurate, and is it balanced?  Does it have a place in the classroom?  Here is a video made by a critic, that says NO:



Since the Story of Stuff has become so popular, so to has the debate become an issue for educators.  Both Fox and CNN have posed the question.



Here is part one of Dobbs' rebuttal.  Is he objective?




What is your opinion? On your blog, respond argumentatively to this video. At the end of your post, please within a list suggest three different possible Motions we could generate from this material. How should they be worded? At least one of them should address education, but you can pick out others that are environmental or political etc.

Remember that "THB" is our abbreviation for "This House Believes" and we can also use THS for "This House Supports."

Example:  THB: vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream.
             THS:  the death penalty.

***Note: Please repost relevant videos and article links (hotlinks) in your blog for reference purposes. To do this: Right click on the video, select "embed code" and paste it into the "Edit HTML" section where you write your posts. Since the video will be larger than your blog window, you will have to make it smaller. In the code you will see height and width, so reduce the width by 100 pixels - usually 640 px to 540 px. You have to do this twice within the code.

Blog URL Please

Blog URL Please

Hello Debate Students,

Once you've completed your blog setup, please leave me your name and address in the comments below this post.  Please check back often to see the weekly assignment.

Thanks