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.
No comments:
Post a Comment