11C - Wednesday - Feedback and Scores (Updated)

THB: Teens should be allowed to participate in demonstrations.

This motion does have its challenges, but generally it's quite debatable. This was a good debate, and I particularly thought the POI's improved in both delivery and response.  As for my personal opinion getting in the way - I'm on the fence.  I believe sometimes teens should definitely protest, and sometimes they shouldn't.  It's a case by case scenario, and even  individual by individual.  There will always be people generally concerned and motivated to change something that does need to be changed, and then there will always be yahoos who are looking for an excuse to break a window or paint a sign.  The above pictures and video show three scenarios that contribute to this debate: Vietnam draftees (many of them teens) protesting for their basic freedom; elementary school children holding hateful signs they obviously didn't make or understand; Winsconsin highschool students being put into a police van.  For this debate to work, we need to reference these kinds of examples solidly.  This debate had a bit of this - but was a bit light on direct facts and references. 

I felt the OPP, generally, was stronger and more diversified in this debate.  Good development of "group mentality" and reasons why teens should not protest.  However, could have mentioned dangers to personal safety and produced examples to support the view.  There are lots - the one or two you may have mentioned didn't leave much of an impression.  Likewise with the GOV - clear examples where demonstrations caused positive change.  Good debate over "citizen," however.  

For the above reasons, I think the OPP takes this debate.  I haven't received the other flowsheets from the other judges yet.  I will update your Critical Reading Scores today.  

11C – Wednesday	CR#3	Debate
Zerus	9.2/10	FS-9.2
Paralta	8.9/10	9.0/10
Tarsonis	9.3/10	9.3/10
Shakuras	9.1/10	9.0/10
Albion	9.1/10	9.1/10
Terran	9.3/10	9.2/10
Halcyon	9.3/10
Aridas	9.6/10	FS-9.4
Cerebus	9.2/10	9.1/10
Maltair	8.8/10	9.1/10
Roxara	8.8/10	9.3/10

ANONYMOUS JUDGE #1

MOTION: THW: Allow teens to participate in demonstrations.
Date:3/17/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	JinKwan Hyun		KwonSeok Oh
Delivery	8.5/10	Clear voice with preparation however he stumbled a little bit	8/10	He did very good job except he stumbled a lot. However, he tried to deliver his team’s argument
Arguments	8.5 /10	Terms: Teens: 13~19 in Korean age To allowed: not to ban Demonstration: assembly on society issue Arg. Basic Right: Democratic society Granted to speak one's own political voice Teens--> also citizens 21 amendment: freedom for demonstration and freedom for presss --> teens are also allowed to demonstrate Gov should protect right to demonstrate Educational Effects - Students can learn political systems - Construct own views naturally learn about current political issues / systems and so on Scholary goal --> approach the reality education --> not important 386 generations	8/10	Students in demonstration is not good for society Also not beneficial for students themselves Rebuttle Participate 13~19 --> are not citizens? citizens --> responsibilities Juveniles do not have fully adjusted thinking systems Educational Effect Other moderate ways ex)newspaper Cannot concentrate on work Arg. Not good for society produces chaos tend to go more extreme mad cow disease --> chain reaction(tend to be inside a group) Damage: blocked, no studying
Notes	Tot 17 /20	Strong argument	Tot 16 /20	It could be better if you strengthen voice’s flow
Rebuttal One	Pts	Jeguh Ih	Pts	SungChul Lee
Delivery	8.5/10	Very good at delivering his argument with examples	7.5/10	Maybe needs more emotion or fluctuation in tone
Arguments	9/10	Rebuttle Teens are not citizens Constitution: all people regardless of age Law have been changed people over 13 --> can do what they want(free speech) educational effect Goal of education: to prepare for society and democracy demonstrations are good way to show that people can change the world Extreme students Model is not to let students to whatever want to do lead students in 'right way'(?) adults can be extreme as well Good for society as whole fresh air --> old generation 김지야 people grow conservative --> influence old generation by new idea and liberal atmosphere Externalities --> issues are issued by demonstrations California --> teens protested against waste making factory --> changed society that increased welfare	8/10	1. teens can have political social scientific opinions However, participating in demonstration destorts idea one is surrounded by group of students with 'only single idea' teens lose logical thinking 2. Black and White logic teens in Korea --> anti-government oppose everything that gov does JGL --> only teens are anti-gov.? Rebuttle Demonstrations are not beneficial for society lead teens --> actually bad way
Notes	Tot 17.5/20	He has strong argument with examples	Tot 15.5/20	He is improving a lot
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Seungchan Kim	Pts	Daeun Jung
Delivery	9/10	Very good delivery with natural and strong tone	9/10	She has clear voice with her argument that enforces opp side
Arguments	9.5/10	Demonstration brought social revolution Clash Rights: every single individuals has right LO: not a citizen Teens are also citizens Teens immaturity does not mean that teens protest should be 'ultimately banned' students would spend so much time why do we do all the leisure stuff students cannot always study establish their own analysis Teens are critical and logical age does not mean everything DPM: sound criticize and ida exchanges Demonstration can be used for changing ideas LO: not opened for vast majority for people	8.5/10	Clash whether teenagers are mature enough Why demonstrations? --> not appropriate for teens not responsible for what they have done? Teens are not critical ehough to protest effected too much by crowds with strong views --> not main thinker but only a follower --> no educational benefit Demonstration: only one sided Violence and one sided no beneficial but only harms Opp. Believe in changes and citizen's right active political participation x However, demonstrations harm teens
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20	We can easily notice that he is in EDS!	Tot 27.5/20
Conclusion	Pts	Changwoo Lee	Pts	Sumin Lee
Delivery	8/10	Clear and well-organized government reply with confidence.	9.5/10	Very good usage of analysis in the beginning of her speech.
Arguments	8/10	Emphasized argument 1~3 Rebuttle could not see what opp is talking about society needs them Change the society could not see any rebuttles	9/10	Teens should be exposed to real environment Teens are not matured enough to serve as citizens No voting for teens --> proves that teens are not matured enough to serve in demonstrations Demonstrations: capable of being distorted Teens are easily driven by others No solid view on such issues Opp. --> should have change to enjoy, and have political thinkings not to participate in only demonstrations nature of demonstrations is to danger
Notes	Tot 16/20		Tot 17.5/20	Nice analysis

GARRIOCH'S FLOWSHEET

MOTION: THB: Teens should be allowed to participate in demonstrations.
Date:3/16/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Name: Jinkwan		Name: Kwonsok
Delivery	9.1 /10	Good flow. Good concise tone. Good Map.	8.9 /10	Need more intonation, volume, energy. Got better during speech.
Arguments	9.1 /10	Defines arguments. 1. Basic right to demonstrate. 2. Positive Educational Effect.  3.  Older Generation gains young insight. (Good map) Define teens and Demonstrations.  Basic right – we don’t live in North Korea. Teens are “citizens” and constitution grants this privilege.  Positive Effects – teens can learn political system (I expect OPP to produce good rebuttals here – “Keep it in the classroom!”) Teens develop views – to actively think.  “Scholarly goal” is to understand true society.  Current system is limited to lectures.  Active participation gauges truth.  Historical example of parents in 70’s against Korean military government. A good example but could use more detail here. Time: 6:20	9.3 /10	Begins with Rebuttal 1: “Citizens have a basic right” => teens are NOT citizens by definition – aged 13-19.  Citizens have to be able to vote. Example: Punishment for murder is different according to age – based on psychological responsibility.  (Good Rebuttal! OPP already ahead in “citizen” argument?) Rebattal 2: “Learning the political system” – Other ways are more effective – such as participating in school newspapers. Students can’t concentrate on studying.  (Are we into arguments yet?  Running late? Map needs more clarification structure?) Argument 1: Not good for society – produces chaos.  Teens tend to go to extremes.  Mad cow example – group mentality.  Good terms.  Result of protests was “not good.”  Caused traffic jams, missed school.  (Should add “personal risk” to reasons.  I hope OPP does more to show teens creating “chaos” and GOV doing more to show teens creating “change.”) Time 6:01
Notes	Tot 18.2 /20	In terms of speaking – clear winner.  In terms of arguments – OPP stronger.	Tot 18.2 /20	Good basis – impressive rebuttals.  Must increase dramatic presence.
Rebuttal One	Pts	Name: Jegug	Pts	Name: Sungchul
Delivery	9.0 /10	Decent flow and tone – but could show more emotion.	8.9 /10	Much improved and getting there with tone.  But still need more energy/intonation.
Arguments	9.2 /10	Rebuttals:  “Too young” - Citizens ARE defined as ALL people regardless of age (Perhaps – but is it constant and considered this in all situations?).  Laws have changed. Over 13 – treated the same (Not sure about that – need to clarify fact. )  Rebuttal 2:  We have to prepare for society.  Demonstration teaches us “we DO have power to change.  Rebuttal RE. Arg 1: “Chaos.” We will control the situation – not encourage riots (need to build on this and present tangible examples – they do exist but where is the evidence?)   POI – “good way?” We will explore the facts and encourage critical thinking.  Adults can be extreme as well – not just teens (true – but we are talking about teens).  Third Argument: It’s good for society as a whole – not just youth.  Old generation needs balance to counteract conservatism.  We are what creates the curve.  We can’t leave it to politicians (True – so present an example – specifically with a demonstation.  Why not mention Wisconsin?).  Diaper analogy – good.  Example of Green policy change in a factory caused by youth – bringing “fresh air” – good but underdeveloped. Time: 6:39	9.0 /10	Start with Second Argument: Teens can have opinions on anything – and they can be logical etc. (Allowance – good.) HOWEVER – demonstrating is not always constructive/contained – causes group to lose objectivity.  Example: many teens are against the government, and oppose EVERYTHING automatically – black/white reasoning (True in a sense – example?).  POI Jegug – “Only teens exhibit this?”   => Adults were those teens.  (Decent response. I can dig it.)  Demonstration is harmful (Lack of clarity after this point - almost sound like arguments aren’t matching/supporting -  going off track here? I’m confused.)  Demonstration gives “fresh air” – but is this the best method? No. Time: 4:35
Notes	Tot 18.2 /20	Speech ran too long and could have given more attention to clear anecdotal examples.	Tot 17.9 /20	Generally, good rebuttals, but lack of new info in arguments.  Blended/not defined clearly.  Focus on structure and content next time.
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Name: Seungchan	Pts	Name: Daeun
Delivery	9.2 /10	Nice intro. Good body language. Lost some consistency clarity towards end so could focus on reigning in audience.	9.3 /10	Good voice and intonation.   Holds attention.  Some flow issues but for the most part well prepared.
Arguments	9.3 /10	Social change NEEDS demonstation. Three clashes: Students rights – it’s a basic freedom.  Rebuattal – “teens can’t be responsible” => democracy doesn’t follow this logic.  Teens are not machines that should only study – they need to learn through participating.  Secondly – form their own views . Harms/benefit analysis (Excellent language!) – teens didn’t start developing opinions early enough – so demos are good.  “Our model still stands.”  Alternative of OPP such as newspaper – not sufficient.  Need a REAL chance. Time: 6:35	9.3 /10	Define clashses – hard to find because GOV obsessed with “rights” ignoring harms of benefits.  Teens mature enough? Why “demos” – haven’t answered that.  Teens can’t vote BECAUSE government has decided they aren’t mature/in tune enough with realities (Good point.  OPP gaining edge).  Teens too emotional – can we be sure they know why they demo? 2nd Clash – will it be helpful?  No – demos are ONE sided – against government usually.  We don’t want to breed haters who are stubbornly anti-gov.  Adults are problem enough without teens joining one sided views.  Chaos could result.  (Getting a bit stuck near the end – repetitive, lack of flow.)  Time: 7:53
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20	Good speech and nice form. However, a bit monotonous towards end so need to diversify tone/style to hold audience interest.	Tot 18.6 /20	Started very well and basically good public speaking ability.  However, way too long – swimming upstream in repetition for last two minutes. Quality watered down with Quantity.
Conclusion	Pts	Name: Changwoo	Pts	Name: Sumin
Delivery	9.0 /10	Better emotion/body language than before.  Clear and maintained.	9.2 /10	Flow could improve.  Body language good.  Emotion good.
Arguments	8.9 /10	Summarized debate as “boring game” - Our three opinions are stronger: 1: Teens have the right.  2.  Educationally helpful.  3. Need voice from youth. (Goes on to review OPPS views – good.)  “The reality is that society needs change – we can’t postpone it.”  Good emotional appeal.  Too short.  But nice summary. Time: 3:30.	9.2 /10	Math test preamble. (Could be clearer – not sure the aim - but nice intent).  Rebuttal – “real environment” – demos the real environment? No (I’m interested – but need more).  Teens not mature enough.  2nd Point – nature of demos.  They are distorted extreme mostly.  Mob psychology is dangerous.  Last point – Opp has conceded teens need to enjoy life – yes.  But these rights. Time: 5:33
Notes	Tot 17.9 /20	Class ended – so short speech is forgivable.  Not much new info but summary was good.	Tot 18.4 /20	Some improvements with structure/clarity – time allotted per idea could improve. Generally impressive.  Lack of new info/example.