THW: Double the price of soju.
This was a decent debate, and I was more impressed with the quality of the GOV's arguments up until the "soju company profits" came into the fold. I don't think we need to comment on this, as it's assumed that the Government of Korea would be the ones getting all the extra dough. How would the soju companies react to doubling the price? Not too favorably one would assume. I give the GOV credit for taking on this argument, but ultimately, in my opinion, it sunk an otherwise buoyant ship. Equally outside the mark were the "health benefits of soju." Are there any? According to 75 year old men in Namdaemun market perhaps. And even if there are, is doubling the price going to rob the population of access to....medicine? This almost negates the "soju companies" argument, but lucky for the OPP it didn't get as much attention. In any case, debate isn't always about who is more right, it's more about how one team deals with another teams statements, and I think the OPP took more advantage of this, even though I didn't like their arguments as much. It's almost impossible to have a real deal debate when one team has only two members, so credit is due to Joohyung for stepping up.
I will update this post with CR scores later on. I'm juggling things I have to get done right now. Next week, I think we will have an impromptu debate.
MOTION: THW: Double the price of soju. | ||||
Date: 3/29/11 | GOVERNMENT | OPPOSITION | ||
Introduction | Pts | Joohyung | Youngil | |
Delivery | 9.3 /10 | Very swift exacted speech. Good flow. Nice arguments. Really improving. Nice hand gestures. | 9.0 /10 | Getting better, but begin with more oomph. Try to speed up delivery. |
Arguments | 9.3 /10 | Let’s talk about soju – 71.1 bottles per year! (nice statistical intro) Survey – dependent on social environment. Contributes to unemployment and other social problems. Too cheap. Danger to the public. If we double the price, consumption will go down. 1. Lower demand – lower drunk driving. 40% accidents caused by alcohol. “regulate death rate”(is this possible?) Protect society. Why soju? OPP will say “Substitute with other alcohol?” Not the right comparison. Soju is the cheapest and most potent. 2. Even if we don’t lower consumption, we will gather more taxes for welfare and help the poor. Conclusion – lower problems, assist problems with the extra funds. TIME: 6:10 | 9.1 /10 | Rebuttals to reasons of GOV – “decreasing consumption and problems and earn taxes.” These problems won’t change. Alcoholics won’t care – a dollar won’t make a difference. Taking money away from the average masses that don’t cause problems is not fair. Reason 1: The Gov has no justification. “For the people” – if it is harmful, regulate it. Drugs, for instance, are lethal. Yes – we should ban this. “Marriage of teens” (Analogies with drugs and marriage – does they work? Am I hearing them properly? Clarity/choice of material an issue). Soju gives most people joy, and is not harmful. Policy is not relevant to the problem which can’t be solved. 2. Policy is ineffective – alcoholics are the concern, but this policy will not affect them. These people need medical assistance – NOT financial burden. Utilitarian – for the greater good – keep the price the way it is. POI - TIME: 7:30 |
Notes | Tot 18.6 /20 | Very strong start. Drunk driver argument a bit wonky, but generally good strategy. | Tot 18.1 /20 | Focus on alcoholics a bit heavy. Lack of clear intent with analogies. Arguments have potential to develop. |
Rebuttal One | Pts | Gyutae | Pts | Chaerim |
Delivery | 9.2 /10 | Good volume and conversational tone, but a bit random and disorganized. Need to structure clearly. | 9.3 /10 | Fast and effective. Good emotional tone. Decent flow, but loses steam towards finish line. Less is more. Stronger finish needed. |
Arguments | 9.0 /10 | The history of soju…interesting. Price has always been low, and it still is. Now is the time to raise it. RB 1 – re. drunk drivers. INCOMPLETE? Saving money due to gas prices – people walk to work instead. NICE. STRUCTURE SPEECH TO BE MORE ORGANIZED. IM A BIT LOST. Cigarettes – good example. Social revenue used to help alcoholics. Soju companies stand to benefit – they try to increase each year – but can’t due to public outcry. Underground activity and crime results. (I DON’T LIKE THIS ARGUMENT – SHOOTING YOURSELVES IN THE FOOT. SEEMS ASSUMING AND IGNORES THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL COLLECT THE REVENUE) HARM TO SOJU COMPANIES??? Jinro is in deficit – RELEVANT? THAT COULD BE FROM EMBEZZLEMENT FOR ALL WE KNOW. A little price raise goes a long way. (NO POI on this one – why not?) TIME: 7:00 | 9.1 /10 | Unfair and effective – a direct threat to society (A LOT OF HYPBERBOLE IN OPENING STATEMENTS). Rebuttal 1 -100% increase is too much. Too much for the poor (POI from GOV would be expected here – is a dollar more really that much? Gov missing out a bit here). Rebuttal 2 – Teen drinking. (GOV wasn’t clear on this so this might be misplaced rebuttal to a weak argument. Off track here? GOV wasn’t clear enough, rebuttal isn’t either). Death rate and drunks – unrelated to price. Drunks will still drive. Liver cancer – will it decline? Has price of cigarettes cured things? (Actually – yes, in Canada for certain it has made a difference. In Korea the price is still too cheap, so you might have a point). 100% is way too much. Major Points – Threat to society culturally, economically, and medically (BIG CLAIMS here. GOV should POI). Soju industry is important – jobs will be lost. Trigger too much harmful change. JINRO would crumble. (Good rebuttal here – twist the argument to fit their own needs which are actually more valid.) Soju is only harmful if overly consumed, and is actually beneficial for certain conditions (REALLY??) Hwaeshik culture would be harmed – we need this for our system. TIME: 7:00 |
Notes | Tot 18.2 /20 | Some ridiculous arguments. Some good ones. Soju companies argument an unnecessary detour. | Tot 18.4 /20 | Some ridiculous arguments. Some good ones. Soju is good for certain health conditions??? Good work with “soju companies.” |
Rebuttal Two | Pts | Joo Hyung | Pts | Hyungseok |
Delivery | 9.3 /10 | Really coming a long and showing talent for debate. | 9.5 /10 | As usual, potent speech. Could tone things down and try new styles. |
Arguments | 9.2 /10 | “Ineffective. Improper. Unjustified.” Nice lead. Stats: 100% is too big. OPP is exaggerating. 1000 won isn’t a big deal. Revenue is very beneficial TO the common people. How can it harm them? Medical assistance to the drunks – they are few, and this policy will help them. 1-Social problems reduced. Death rates down. Injuries and insurance related costs lowered. We will fund the medical system. 2-Funds earned are helpful to everyone. 3-Soju firms experiencing losses. Crime results. Higher prices will help them. TIME: 6:50 | 9.5 /10 | Point out critical problem of your policy – GOV will have to impose a tax. Revenues go to the government – how would companies benefit from that? (GOOD point – I agree. Iced the cake with soju companies argument. Nice rebuttal). 1st Clash – Is there a need for this policy? No. Only if the significant harm is very obvious (NO POI – I’d say the problem IS very obvious. Gangnam on a weekend proves it). Soju is no more harmful than beer or cigarettes. Soju is consumed the most? So what. This won’t help. Beer will get consumed instead. (HOWEVER, beer is already expensive and a quarter the alcholol percentage – why doesn’t the GOV drive this home?). Raise the price a bit – NOT 100%. This nation is not a nation of boozers – the stats are not that bad (Actually – they are). 2. Alcoholics – small percentage. Not enough for govermnet to intervene. 3. Drunk driving – individual irresponsibility. Food analogy – (Decent but does it really apply?). 4-Impractical – this policy is not feasible. Alcoholics will still drink. (BUT this is not really the debate – it’s about doubling the price – not stopping alcoholism necessarily). |
Notes | Tot 18.5 /20 | Was in control of the motion up until “soju companies increase profit” argument. Wording of motion might need to address this if used again. Should it be assumed we are talking about taxes? | Tot 19 /20 | Took the bull by the horns with soju companies argument. Said alcoholism is not a big problem – but isn’t it? Gov should have done more with this. |
| Class 11C-Tuesday | C.R.#4 | | Soju Debate |
| Scorsese | 9.4/10 | 9.5/10 | |
| Spielberg | 9.5/10 | 9.3/10 | |
| Hitchcock | 9.5/10 | 9.1/10 | |
| Kubrick | 9.3/10 | 9.1/10 | |
| Tarantino | 9.3/10 | 9.2/10 |
No comments:
Post a Comment