THB: The Story of Stuff is suitable curriculum for teens.
Hello 11C Wednesday,
This was a decent debate, and I think it was interesting that the GOV requested that the motion be changed from "elementary school students" to "teens." Does that change things, or lessen the GOV's disadvantage? Does the GOV actually even have a "disadvantage" in this debate? All interesting questions. However, I do think the OPP has more obvious choices to argue, while the GOV has to figure out how to shield against credibility attacks re. Leonard's stats etc.
Seung Min started the debate, and he's improved in flow/volume from the last debate. Keep it up. "Defining" the ingredients of the motion - teens, suitable, curriculum etc. is a good strategy, and this built up some credibility for the GOV. I liked Seung Min's clear roadmap, though some more spice in these arguments would be nice. A bit vague with the "develops critical thinking" theory. My advice for all GOV teams in this debate - try to prove the world is in a "crisis," and focus on the environmental side of things.
Da Eun spoke very clearly and with decent emotion/tone. Good stuff. She began with direct rebuttles, and yes - the "critical thinking" argument was effectively shot down a little - as there really is no guarantee that a certain teacher will take that certain approach to using Story of Stuff certainly. Da Eun - you could improve your roadmap, and clearly distinguish rebuttals from arguments next time. I think it was a bit sudden/blended how you transitioned. But you finished strong.
Overall -both opening speakers were decent, but didn't leave big impressions (medium sized perhaps). Creative hooks, anecdotes, and even hyperbole are tactics I'd like to see more of from opening speakers. Why not state that 9 and a half monkeys out of 10 prefer bananas over blueberry pancakes? Have some fun and get memorable while attacking/defending this motion. Lot's to play with.
Sumin did play a little, and was strong, as usual, and had some nice appeals to emotion. She pointed out that this kind of video is precisely what is needed to help people form opinions they might not otherwise have at all. Is any opinion better than no opinion at all? With regards to the environment, maybe we can say this. This was the only sign (though slight) from the GOV that we were going to talk a bit about the environment. One thing that the OPP could have attacked more effectively here was the "teachers don't try to indoctrinate" stance. Not sure using the "judge" (a.k.a Mr. Garrioch) as an example is the best path, but as direct POI from the OPP I'd have referenced Nazi Germany and asked the question - "Oh really. Mein Kampf ring a bell?" Or even North Korea.
Jegug began with rebuttals in formidable calm style - but took an aggressive stance which was good. "Don't put words in our mouth that "teens are dumb" - we never said that" line of rebuttal. Madcow vigils a perfect example, and indeed teachers are biased. Do we need Story of Stuff to raise these issues? Good question. Stats are wrong, so why resort to it? Surely there has to be something as engaging without the codswallop. Very good speech; however, it ended a bit suddenly. Ease your way out a little more smoothly next time.
Wonhyuk brought in some good vocabulary - defining "two clashes," though without much emotion. Need to work on that. He did well to bring up the issue of "middle school" students being the age group in question, but also argued middle-school students weren't educated about Mad Cow disease in schools. Is this supported with evidence? Can we make this assumption? I don't think so. Basically, this argument placing faith in the abilities of teachers is a weak argument. Again, saying we are in a "crisis" and that the bogus stats are forgivable in light of tragedy is probably a better path. There was some attempt to redeem the stats but still need more. Time management was a factor here. Too short at 3:30.
Sam's reply was even shorter, lacking emotion, but he was clear and fairly organized. In his first argument he avoided repeating what had already been said. Good. Second argument, however, not as much so. Always try and spice it up with a new flavor. Mad Cow is a good example, but I'd rather hear about Story of Stuff.
Jiyeon began her speech with a nice preamble. We need more of these - especially if we come in at under 4 minutes. She pointed out the the GOV admitted Leonard's stats were bunk (to some extent) and the video basically undermines the integrity of information - so why use it? Good restatement with more oomph. While I like the EDS style of rapid fire rhetoric, I'd also like to see some slower paced clarity so I can better grasp the arguments from time to time. All in all very strong.
Kwonsok had great body language, and was very clear and mathematical/syllogistic (too much so at times, so more emotion is something to work on). He did some interesting things in his speech, and categorized students into two categories. Good approach? Some judges might feel this is a bit daring/assuming. There's a gray area for everything - especially in the cognitive process of forming any kind of view. He did raise some good points though - bias is a bias is a bias. Can we avoid it? No.
I liked the flow sheets I collected from our judges, and they all favored the OPP. So, maybe the OPP does have an advantage to some extent. All in all, not a bad debate, but not as juicy as I'd hoped for this motion.
11C – Wednesday | CR#1 | Debate |
Zerus | 9.3/10 | 8.9/10 |
Paralta | 8.8/10 | |
Tarsonis | 9.2/10 | |
Shakuras | 9.2/10 | 8.8/10 |
Albion | 8.9/10 | |
Terran | 9.0/10 | 9.3/10 |
Halcyon | 9.0/10 | 8.9/10 |
Aridas | 9.4/10 | 9.4/10 |
Cerebus | 9.3/10 | 9.1/10 |
Maltair | 9.1/10 | 9.3/10 |
Roxara | 8.8/10 | 9.1/10 |
No comments:
Post a Comment