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

Hello 11C Wednesday,

Very sorry for the delay in getting back to you re. your scores and debate feedback.  I've been a bit backed up with things but do have the goal in mind to get things done before your class.  

Regarding tomorrow's class, I'll give you the first hour to prepare for The Story of Stuff debate, and your teams will be as follows:

Da Eun, Sam, Jiyeon, Jegugh - CON

New Guy, Seung Min, Wonhyuk, Sumin - PRO

MOTION: THB: The Story of Stuff is suitable curriculum for elementary school students.

The remaining three will be judges.

You all have a strong basis and understanding of the debate, but one thing I will say - try to make your arguments clearly different from one another, and reference the video and Leonard.  The last class to debate this was a bit disappointing, and they got a bit off track losing touch with the motion.  

Below are your scores.  You of course don't know your code name, so facebook me, email me, or ask me in class tomorrow.

11C – Wednesday	CR#1	Debate
Zerus	9.0/10	8.9/10
Paralta	9.1/10	9.0/10
Tarsonis	9.1/10	9.0/10
Shakuras	9.0/10
Albion	9.0/10	9.0/10
Terran	9.3/10	9.3/10
Halcyon	9.0/10	9.0/10
Aridas	9.5/10	9.4/10
Maltair	9.1/10	9.1/10
Cerebus	9.1/10
Roxara	8.8/10

In terms of Critical Responses, I was a bit soft on you guys for this first one, as you didn't quite know what to produce, but in the future I'd like you to aim a bit higher and follow in the footsteps of some of the stronger examples.

Debate Feedback:

THB: Facebook should be blocked from the KMLA server.

This was a fun debate, and it's also relevant.  My personal opinion is that it's fairly pointless to try blocking much of anything these days.  China is proof.  "The Great Firewall of China" has only been able to dissuade the average internet user from journeying to Facebook, and those who are a bit more keen simply access proxy servers - which hardly requires a geek to accomplish.  I was hoping this argument/anecdote may have popped up in the debate, and think it was a missed opportunity for the OPP.  

My general criticism of this debate, as a whole, was that the arguments lacked distinction from one another.  "Facebook distracts students" and "Facebook wastes energy" are essentially the same thing, and for the OPP "Facebook encourages socialization" and "Facebook helps communication within a dorm"  are also a bit similar.  This is debatable, of course, but with so many other distinct arguments out there, I think it's best to put on different color suits for every argument - some logos, pathos, and ethos for good measure.

No one mentioned "cyber bullying," which seems like an obvious go to.  No one mentioned "transparency" as explicitly as I'd hoped - either for better or worse.  Facebook can help new students see what they are getting into, yes.  However, is your mom on Facebook, and what will she think of your status updates if they contain swear words, or what if you get tagged in a picture that shows you breaking some rules (such as eating chicken, playing games, or climbing on the founder's statue)?   KMLA online is not something I know about, but it is probably profoundly different in these repects.  The debate did touch on some of these details, but could have do so more potently and expansively.  

Let's start with Changwoo.  I liked his calm confidence, but indeed some table smashing, less reading, and more emotion would help.  I really liked his statistic - 110/158 15th wavers are on Facebook.  Wow.  Good digging there.  That says something.  But what does it say?  I remember the OPP spent a lot of time rebutting this, but they'd misinterpreted the stats.  Anyways, Chungwoo did a good job of mapping things out.  The content is there, now we just need the emotion.

Seungmin provided a decent roadmap, not as clear as the Pro's, but good.  There were moments he looked unsure and lacked flow, but I was happy to see him grow comfortable and gain his feet towards the end of the speech.  Good comparison of KMLA Online, and nice rebuttle pointing out Facebook is used to gain advice from other students.  Not just lame updates.

All in all, both opening speakers were decent, but a stronger clearer roadmap is encouraged.  Reading the judges sheets, we all seemed to have some issues getting things right.

Wonhyuk began right away with a good rebuttle to the KMLA online comparison, and needing "more communication" in a dorm where you eat, sleep, and study together does seem excessive at first glance.  I like how he anticipated the other sides arguments - even if he didn't.  The fact is these kinds of statements such as "I know you're going to say this about this" are a cunning tactic that makes people listen.  More emotion would be nice next time.

Jegug had some nice rebuttles right away, comparing the "too convenient" statement of the other side and analogizing it to banning phones.  Good arguments emphasizing student responsibility to manage their time, counter arguing that facebook is not addictive and hasn't negatively affected campus life - but moreso assisted it.   One criticism - arguments and rebuttals seemed blended and I had some trouble differentiating.  Other judges pointed out repetition.  Good emotion but more defined roadmap is needed.

Jiyeon stepped up to the plate and brought her EDS/Baumgardner influence to the table.  Excellent emotion and volume and roadmap - stating "three clashes."  Good language.  I like how she basically dismissed Facebook as trivial and a appealed to emotion more than her predecessors.  Time management ran a bit long but otherwise very nice speech.  Some jugdes felt she spoke too fast and this effected the content.

Seung Chan had decent tone and got off to a good clear start.  By this point in the debate, it seemed judges were tired of hearing about KMLA online. Seung Chang had a rapid-fire style which is good, but some judges felt he should slow down and focus on delivery/content - and he could have drilled the "9 out of 110" mixup from the opposing team more. 

Jinkwan was confident and had the right emotion etc, but dog-paddled a bit through some blended/undifferentiated arguments - getting the other side's arguments a bit wrong detail wise.  All in all, good energy and enthusiasm to close the debate from both sides.  However, neither side really ended that strongly or took advantage of the other sides weaknesses.

All in all, for future debates, we need arguments that stand out from one another, and we shouldn't spend too long on things that aren't specifically related to the debate - such as KMLA online.  Again, I don't know what it is, but Facebook should be more the concern.  This kind of debate also provides a lot of opportunity for real personal anecdotes and horror stories from the news.  We didn't hear anything too emotionally persuasive.  We didn't hear about any moral issues.  So - a bit more flare and color next time.  I posted a video of Ivy league university students debating this same issue and maybe no one watched it?

As I stated in class, the decision went to the Pro.  Sorry - no more Facebook at KMLA!