I really didn't want the OPP to win this debate for many reasons, but they did a better job of POI and appeal to emotion. They also added more outside fact and supporting argument. That said, they also exposed themselves to A LOT of potential attacks, and the GOV didn't effectively pick up on those and pour salt on the wounds. I included when and where I thought these should happen. The OPP's POI's were quite hypocritical at times, and even asking for evidence for logically sound claims that were not even as outlandish as their own (being in a relationship increases your ability to study). I have a hard time buying that, simply because I was a high school student, and a university student, and I can honestly say dating didn't make me study more effectively.
This was a good fun debate, and is always a sure-fire winner since it hits close to home with you guys. Good job.
| Class 11C-Tuesday | C.R.#5 | PM Speeches | Debate#5 | |
| Scorsese | 9.5/10 | 9.5/10 | 9.5/10 | |
| Spielberg | 9.5/10 | 9.3/10 | 9.4/10 | |
| Hitchcock | 9.5/10 | 9.2/10 | 9.4/10 | |
| Kubrick | 9.5/10 | 9.2/10 | 9.2/10 | |
| Tarantino | 9.5/10 | 9.3/10 | 9.3/10 |
MOTION: THS: KMLA’s current policy regarding dating on campus. (WINNER – OPP) | ||||
Date:4/26/11 | GOVERNMENT | OPPOSITION | ||
Introduction | Pts | Chaerim | Hyungseok | |
Delivery | 9.3 /10 | Good and calm, great flow – but so much potential for more emotion and power. | 9.5 /10 | Excellent as always, but time management could be an issue. |
Arguments | 9.3 /10 | Define dating (needed?). Ban – define (accurate definition? HS picked up on this). Not completely ban – but restrict. To ban is impossible (Good allowance). So we merely want to regulate. The problem is when skinship etc. gets out of hand. Problem 1 – Dating hinders school environment and studying. Concentration interrupted. Couples waste time together (POI Hyunseok – doesn’t dating RELIEVE stress? Video games are more harmful.) No – still distracting (Decent reply). Other people not in relationships are also frustrated and feel jealous. We don’t need this distraction. This destroys academic atmosphere (nice wording). 2nd Problem – we are only highschoolers. Our emotions are not mature enough to cope with breaking up etc. As stated, this damages academics. (POI – Hyungseok – schools are NOT just for academics. Social experience is ALSO important). True – but we never said this wasn’t the case. We still believe that schools are MORE for academics. (Could have rebutted POI with “plenty of time outside of class for “social experience.”) TIME: 5:37 | 9.4 /10 | Supreme court of US – “Students rights are not shed after entering school gates.” (Nice appeal to ethos and emotion, but the logic is a stretch). Rights need to be protected – and right to love is one of them. So – we oppose the dating regulations. Exacerbates harms and prevents benefits of dating (Good point). GOV has failed to point out how it can be regulated. Current policy prohibits dating and the GOV has ignored the reality (true). They’ve manipulated the motion. We say dating should be allowed IN THE OPEN and not swept under the carpet. This is what creates the harms. (Excellent map). Rebuttal 1: PM gave ridiculous argument about protecting rights of those who do not date. What about video games etc? Fun activities should be regulated? Dating is the same (Nice qualifying comparison). These problems of dating and being single will ALWAYS cause people to be jealous (true, but that’s not the issue – issue is academic environment). Why avoid it? Rebuttal 2: Dating is not evil. It has benefits. Love and affection provides joy and happiness. This creates focus and balance. Gigantic prejudice. Schools train us to adapt to society – not just about academics and Korean’s have to get rid of this stereotype. The GOV is falling into the trappings of ignorance (So GOV should respond that they aren’t against dating – but against it on campus. School is school and students can “learn social development” OUTSIDE of school, even at KMLA). ARG 1: The South Korean Constitution guarantees our rights of self determination. Is dating harmful? No. This case applies. A system can’t regulate who you love. ARG 2: Benefits of dating. To educate and relive stress – prepare for real world. This is more desirable than drugs, video games, crime. School should embrace this more openly (Again, the harms outweigh the benefits and GOV should rebut this heavily). TIME: 8:35 |
Notes | Tot 18.6 /20 | Tot 18.9 /20 | ||
Rebuttal One | Pts | Joohyung | Pts | Gyutae |
Delivery | 9.4 /10 | Very good. Nice presence. | 9.4 /10 | Great – getting there. Very comfortable. |
Arguments | 9.3 /10 | Briefly rebut – Let’s think about dating laws at KMLA. It’s not really that suppressive (true). If we really punished couples our court system would be flooded (true). So – we know this is a lenient policy and more for show than real harsh maintenance. But we have to encourage study and enforce academic goals. OPP says dating reduces stress. Yes we agree there is a lot of stress, but we can’t agree that dating is the best cure. There are other opportunities. OPP has blown this up greatly. For example, sports and games etc. reduce stress without consequence. Disputes and breakups go hand in hand with dating (TRUE). Not with playing sports (Well, not really). Rebuttal: Understanding the other gender – do we need to date for this? We can achieve this through friendship (True). POI – Hyungseok – Not the same. Dating is more powerful (Kind of weak – too powerful?). Reply: we don’t need it. It isn’t a problem. IF we discard the dating policy it will lead to problems. The school would turn into a drama. How can students achieve their goals in a drama? (True) Impulsive problems – abortion and sexual advice might seem extreme, but we can’t ignore the potential. It is better to discard dating. Our policies effectively achieve this aim. TIME: 6:15 (Pretty good, but I anticipated a clearer more powerful attack on HS’s arguments, which were a bit flamboyant with exposed weaknesses.) | 9.4 /10 | Before rebutting – we want to express disappointment with the GOV’s lack of info (Nice!). They don’t even know what the real policy IS. What is it? It reads: students of opposite sex should not occupy the same place on campus (Very nice appeal to fact). The school wants to exterminate (Nice word) this from our lives. Rebuttals to rebuttals: The school is not suppressing us. What? They are exterminating couples. The school doesn’t take action because dating has gone completely underground (True). Why should we be forced into this situation and dark activity? Rebuttal to other methods of reliving stress – can you really LOVE a soccer ball? Does it REALLY comfort you? PLUS, you guys conceded on these points to some extent. (DENIAL of POI – should have taken this one I think with your big claims) Rebuttal re Dramas and problems of Love – (incomplete and unclear). PM admitted that dating policy was impractical. They conceded dating was a good way to understand the opposite sexes. Question: can we ban dating? No. IS the policy effective? They said no. SO – what are we left with (True – the GOV could be clearer and effectively use their allowances more). You can’t decide not to love who you love. It is natural. Regulations force us to be irresponsible and hide – which leads to even MORE intimate behavior and affection (Perhaps true – but I think the GOV could form a pretty solid rebuttal to this. Teens will be teens and will follow their hormones no matter what rules are in place). KMLA is a boarding school – which creates loneliness (Boarding school INDEED – with boys and girls in same dorm – GOV SHOULD attack this). Students NEED this kind of relationship. The school wants us to be leaders? How can we be leaders without social realism? (Save your “realism” for summer vacation!) We think students should be allowed to meet openly – AND hold hands. NY Times sites that holding hands is beneficial (Nice fact). Teachers would be able to guide and monitor. Couples don’t always want to go too far – don’t assume that. POI – Chaerim – what about the real instances in the school where students DO go too far?? (Finally an effective POI from the GOV) REPLY – skinship would take care of those urges. Punishments are too harsh. TIME:8:40 |
Notes | Tot 18.7 /20 | Tot 18.8 /20 | ||
Rebuttal Two | Pts | Youngil | Pts | Hyungseok |
Delivery | 9.1 /10 | Getting much better. Nice calm delivery but more emotion is a factor. | 9.5 /10 | Good. |
Arguments | 9.3 /10 | We said the policy was not efficient and it was impossible to ban dating. Yes. But we believe dating is harmful to the school and students – so we support KMLA’s stance. Dating can bring benefits. Yes. OPP stated this. BUT – this is a tiny school and we have to consider the larger body of students. What is this school really for? For fostering leaders. Relationships distract (Very nice encompassing rehash). You can’t deny this. POI – Hyungseok – Dating actually leads to more study – give us stats that say this isn’t true. (Likewise, where are your stats??? GOV missed a chance to attack here.) If there is a couple in this school, everyone knows. It becomes a hot issue of gossip. With this, comes distraction and spread of pressure to date. POI – Gyutae – (hard to understand). Sorry. Moving on – it is lovely when couples are happy, but ugly when things go wrong. Highschool students should not have to deal with this emotional turmoil if they can avoid it. Last point – we believe dating can lead to abortions and violence – so the policy is justifiable. TIME:5:46 | 9.3 /10 | Three points of contention: We believe the status quo is misunderstood – the policy is TOO extreme. GOV doesn’t acknowledge the real policy. Very sensitive. Forces us underground – where we do more. We want to date in the open and do so positively. Secondly – benefits of dating are good for stress and being apart from family. It is healthy for us. Social experience is beneficial – future leaders have to be sociable and not hermits. Burden of proof to prove that KMLA’s policy is good and realistic – you didn’t do that. Third point – practicality. Not as issue – you guys admitted the policy is flawed. So how can you support this motion? |
Notes | Tot 18.4 /20 | Tot 18.8 /20 | ||
