11l-1 Friday: Debate Feedback and CR#4 Scores

NOTE: This post is massive - so scroll down for your scores etc.

I also came across this article at TIME Magazine this morning.  Very sad story fresh in the news about a famous polar bear who died in a zoo. 

THB: Zoos do more harm than good.

This was a fun debate, and seemed to flow better than some of the others we've had.  Maybe three speakers without a reply is the way to go.  I also like having another judge to take the pressure off.  

This motion has its challenges, and I liked all of the arguments except the one about pets and intimacy.  I don't really see a strong connection between pets and zoos, and the OPP did a good job of giving and replying to POI's on this subject.   For a POI to be effective it has to have immediacy and clarity (short and sweet), and the GOV fell short of this.  The OPP effectively turned the tables on the pet/intimacy point of contention, and it largely swayed the debate towards there favor.   I do think that the OPP has the advantage in this debate, especially if the GOV can't move beyond "we can learn about animals in books."  Yes, we certainly can learn from books, but you've never truly experienced an elephant or a tiger until you've smelled it's poo.  That's what I always remember about zoos - the weird smells and visiting them with my family.  The OPP did well to develop this emotional appeal, while the GOV didn't quite as effectively deliver the same with "zoos are prisons" argument.  How to deal with this?

One way we could argue that zoos do more harm than good is to make an allowance for some zoos - the good ones.  Where are these "good" zoos?  They are in places like Chicago, Singapore, and Paris - a.k.a. the developed world.  Where are the bad ones?  Google image search "Chinese Zoo" and you will see.  If China's population is in the billions while the population of France isn't even as big as some Chinese provinces, we can infer that most zoos in the world are not in fully developed cities.   In the links Rachel provided, there are some pretty grim statistics - and this debate needed more of those.  The lowered life expectancy  was good and the migration of dolphins was good.  We need more of this and less "kids can read books and be intimate with puppies instead of going to zoos." 

It might also be helpful for the GOV to emphasize that the motion isn't suggesting that we shut down zoos and stop going to them - but is simply trying to prove that zoos do more harm than good.  Harm to what?  Harm to children's impressions of animals - you guys did have some good stuff here.   Harm to the animals themselves - could use more here.  Harm to the workers?  Zoo workers do often get killed, as do spectators.  Harm to the environment?  There might be something here.  In any case - the debate went to the OPP because more good was revealed than harm.  


If you are interested, check out this award winning documentary titled "Earthlings."  It is very one sided, and fully explores how humans wrongly exploit animals under the auspices of "species-ism."  It's almost two hours long, and broken down into sections.  There is a section called "Entertainment" where they explore the dark side of zoos.  This documentary is considered one of the most eye-opening documentaries you will ever see, but it is also criticized as one of the most one-sided.  It's narrated by the  famous actor Jaquin Phoenix.  Once you start watching, it's hard to stop.

GARRIOCH'S FLOW SHEET

MOTION: THB: Zoos do more harm than good.  (WINNER: OPP)
Date: April Fools Day			GOVERNMENT			OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts		Chanjung			Celine
Delivery	9.2 /10		Good stuff and always improving.  Flow issues the main thing to improve.  Good POI and acceptance of it.  Good time management.  Nice development.	9.1 /10		Nice flow mostly, just really need more emotion/volume.  The tone and style is there, so build from that and get more angry.
Arguments	9.1 /10		Define zoo. Live animals kept in enclosure for public exhibition.  Zoos ARE NOT as educational as we think.  Do they achieve intimacy with animals?  It makes kids think they are superior to animals.  (RACHEL POI – you really think kids will think they are better than a tiger?) Yes! We will throw snacks at them.  The same thing applies to humans.  Locked up implies lesser being, creates suffering, and lessens life expectancy dramatically – studies show.  How often do you really visit a zoo?  Most people once in a blue moon.  This does not create intimacy or education.  PETS are more beneficial – such as fish (??? Funny argument –seemed like a new argument – so map could be clearer.) 2nd Arg - Protection does not result – just exploitation. Research centers exist for this.  Zoos don’t perform the same function.  They just make money.      TIME: 6:20	9.3 /10		1st Rebuttal – superiority – of course we will feel superior.  We are! We eat them.  So this argument is invalid.  (I like this rebuttal).  2nd Rebuttal – intimacy – if there was no zoo – how would you form ANY relationship?  Pets?  Pets like tigers? Monkeys? ACCEPTS POI – Chanjung – intimate with a Tiger? Celine – That’s the whole point! (She’s right).  Rebuttal 3 – about being caged up and poor conditions – they have to be locked up anyway (POI Youngsoo – not that potent/work on clarity).  1st Arg – Zoos are educational.  Wikipedia doesn’t suffice if parents want to expose kids to exotic animals. 2nd Arg – Zoos create jobs and money. Infrastructure, advertising, tourism etc. help economy.  Zoos aren’t for the purpose of forming intimacy – but for entertainment, protection, and education.  This outweighs the harm.  TIME: 6:30
Notes	Tot 18.3 /20		Some arguments a bit weak – raising pets – POI against Celine was counterproductive.	Tot 18.4 /20		Good arguments and rebuttals.  Excellent answer to POI.
Rebuttal One	Pts	Youngsoo		Pts	Diane
Delivery	9.3 /10	Good tone as usual.  Not many flow issues. Not as much emotion as in other debates. Tired?		9.3 /10	Nice tone and steady pace.  Some flow issues in the middle. But I like the calm yet emphatic delivery.
Arguments	9.2 /10	The OPP has to prove that good things outweigh harm, but they aren’t doing it.  Why are zoos necessary?  They aren’t doing that (I think they are).  Rebuttal against meat eating – yes we eat them.  But it’s not the same issue.  We lock them up – this is NOT natural.  Lions don’t lock up zebras (This is a good rebuttal).  Rebuttal against OPP’s intimacy – frequency of visits to zoos (I don’t like this argument for either the OPP or the GOV – “intimacy” is not the proper word. Why is this being dwelled upon at all???). OPP says animals have to be locked up – and zoos are effective environments. But what about stress?  Dolphins for example can’t migrate.  Imagine the stress.  (Good Emotional Appeal).  And even preservation of wildlife is NOT effective when animals are released – they often die! (True) Rebuttals to Arguments: We can learn about animals without zoos – documentaries for example (kind of weak – is there a way to add power to this?) Rebuttal to Economic benefits – when was the last time you went to a zoo?  (POI Rachel – so what? That doesn’t mean they don’t make money! TRUE.  I like this rebuttal) Yes but – there are other tourist spots that can achieve the same result without moral issues (Pretty good reply).  TIME: A lot.		9.4 /10	Rebuttals – Creative – this is getting heavy! Close your eyes (Cute and attention getting – but ended prematurely without clear result) Zoos are good for animals AND families.  We learn, we have good memories (Good but needs more to have emotional impact). Rebuttals to rebuttals – the quality of life is constantly raised up.  Zoos are not just for endangered animals, and they often lead to breeding them and increasing their numbers.  Gov says if released they will die – however – what’s the definition of endangered? Without zoos they will be extinct (Give us an example specifically – Pandas? This argument needs a clear example).  GOV mentions we can be intimate with pets – zoos are not for dogs and cats (True – but I still don’t like this argument and wish someone would dismiss it as irrelevant).  Gov says academic knowledge is gained outside of zoos – BUT it’s not the same (Very true.  For this argument to work for the GOV they need to talk about safaris or something.)  You guys aren’t proving your position! POI Youngsoo – Too long and unclear?  Reply:  We are keeping a few animals for MANY people to enjoy.  The good outweighs. TIME: 6:58
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20	Nice reply to POI, but own POI’s need to be shorter and clearer.		Tot 18.7 /20	Creative intro could have been more effective, but good arguments.
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Hyunuk		Pts	Rachel
Delivery	9.4 /10	Really good tone and presence. Coming along nicely.		9.4 /10	Good as usual.  Nice structured arguments and language.
Arguments	9.3 /10	What are we doing with zoos?  We kidnap animals and stick them in cages, and then we earn money from their misfortune.  We fail to rescue species. We corrupt our own nature.  Do we have a desperate need for zoos? No.  We are superior to animals – so we need to be responsible and set a good example for our children.  (This rescues the GOVS position a little).  INTIMACY – still unclear and irrelevant. POI – Rachel doesn’t get it.  Nobody does! Endangered species – OPP says we provide for them as best as possible. What about other animals that aren’t endangered? Are they provided for? They are just slaves for money.  In the zoo tigers are tamed and this has no connection with going back to nature. EDUCATION – We don’t zoos –just encyclopedia.  POI CELINE – that’s no fun! Reply – unclear.  We can still learn! (Not really. It is boring.)  TOURISM – what about amusement parks? No real new info here.  Zoos are fun?  But not for the animals.  Time: 7:10		9.5 /10	Music and sports analogy good. GOV didn’t live up to this burden of proof.  Three clashes – individuals, animals, society.  Animals – who is really for their rights?  GOV says they die earlier.  Many of these animals HAVE no environment left to live in.  Zoos are essential.  (GOOD and NEW).  GOV says people just hang out at zoos and manage them – NO –they are trained specialists who research and forward better futures.  Next – PETS – pets are just as much slaves and are not an alternative. POI – Chanjung – animals are bred to live in houses are never wild.  REPLY – they are not meant to be tame! (GOOD – but I still don’t like this argument).  SUPERIORITY – we aren’t trying to say we eat them and are superior – we are saying zoos don’t create this or are a result from it (??)  People can’t go to nature regularly to visit nature and see animals – zoos allow this. FIRSTHAND experience is better than a book (TRUE).  THIRD CLASH – economic development – in the US – over 50-60 million from zoos.  This is enough to show that they are positive.  (GOOD STAT – about time we heard some) Good discussion as to why OPP wins. TIME: 6:50
Notes	Tot 18.7 /20	Need to add new info to some of these arguments.  Restating Youngsoo.		Tot 18.9 /20	Nice to hear some stats in a debate that calls for them.  Good logical analysis and rebuttal to “pets.”

CHANGHOON'S FLOW SHEET/FEEDBACK
 

THB: Zoos do more harm than goods

I too thought that the opposition side had won this debate. The debate topic was "THB zoos do more harm than good", not "THB animal rights should be protected". I do agree with the points made by the government side how zoos are caging animals and perhaps make them suffer. But seen from human's point of view, the suffering of animals in a cage seems less important than the economical or entertainment benefits that humans get. It might sound selfish, but that's who we are. We exploit nature and animals for our benefits. And if harmful effects of zoos are limited to animals, zoos do more good than harm to human beings. I guess the debate was harder on government side with their burden of proof to say that zoos do more harm than good.

MOTION: THB Zoos do more harm than good.
Date: 4/1/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Chanjung		Jeonghyeon
Delivery	9.5 /10	Good emotion. Nice flow.	9.5 /10	Good delivery, calm and organized
Arguments	9.3 /10	Argument 1. Zoos are not educational. Children might think they are superior to animals by seeing caged animals. Zoos are not effective in creating intimacy with animals since people rarely visit to zoo. 2. Pets are better alternatives for children to form intimacy with animals. 3. Protection of endangered species through zoo is inappropriate. Caged animals get stressed and die early. They can’t adjust in wild life after being caged in zoo. Professional help from animal care center are better alternatives.	9.5/10	Rebuttal1- Children feeling superiority is not an issue since human beings are superior to animals. 2. Animals such as lions or tigers are inadequate to take care as pets. 3. Caging is inevitable in human intervention to endangered species. Along with protecting endangered species, zoos can also earn money since the true purpose of zoo is entertainment. Argument 1. Zoos are educational. Descriptions mentioned in front of cages and pamphlets help visitors to learn about zoo animals. 2. Zoos are economically beneficial. It develop its located region such as new roads and other entertainment sources
Notes	Tot 18.8 /20	Intimacy issue might not strong enough to prove harms, but generally a good start.	Tot 19 /20	Nice rebuttals. Good roadmap.
Rebuttal One	Pts	Youngsoo	Pts	Da Yeon
Delivery	9.5 /10	Good delivery. Strong and organized speech.	9.5 /10	Good flow. Effective delivery.
Arguments	9.8 /10	Argument 1. Superiority over food chain is different issue. Human beings don’t have the right to deprive animal’s freedom and cage them. Children might think they can exploit animals like toys. 2. Frequency influences the relationship greatly so it does not make sense that frequency is not a big matter. And what important is the intimacy itself, not about what object you are forming intimacy. 3. Zoos are not good alternative solution for endangered species concerning that they cannot get adjusted in wild life after forgetting their wild habits in zoos. Rebuttal1. There are tons of sources for education other than zoo pamphlets. And academic knowledge of animal isn’t really important. It is just a descent excuse of zoo. 2. There are better alternatives such as amusement parks to appeal to tourists rather than zoo that cages wild animals and make fun of them.	9.5 /10	Rebuttal 1. Zoos are trying their best for better quality of zoo and animals are getting less stress. And endangered species will eventually die anyway in nature without human intervention. Some help including caging is better than letting them die. 2. Zoos are not meant for keeping dogs and cats. Idea that zoos can’t grow enough intimacy is invalid. 3. Although there are tons of sources for academic knowledge, going to zoo and seeing animals with eyes is totally different. POI(영수)-What about suffering of animals that are not endangered? : Not all animals are caged.
Notes	Tot 19.3 /20	Nice rebuttals. Strong arguments.  Need more time management	Tot 19 /20	Good rebuttals. Better reply on POI perhaps.
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Hyun Uk	Pts	Seohyun
Delivery	9.5 /10	Good tone and flow.	9.5 /10	Effective delivery. Good emotion and flow.
Arguments	9.4 /10	What is zoo? Caging animals and not letting them adjust into nature. Human should be responsible for invading nature. Zoos are not necessities and we don’t have desperate need for it. Clash 1. Superiority issue-we might be superior in some ways but letting children to think that they can exploit animals is wrong. Food chain is different issue since it is for sustaining our life. 2. Intimacy issue-Core of intimacy doesn’t lie in the object, but intimacy itself. We need to learn how to respect animals. 3. Environment issue-Zoo is not good enough for endangered species to adjust in wild life later they are freed. 4. Educational issue-there is only slight difference from zoo pamphlets and textbooks or encyclopedia. 5. Economical issue-other alternatives such as amusement park could bring the same effect. 6. Entertainment issue- can’t be the reason for not being respectful to animals.	9.8 /10	If remove zoos because they are not necessities, why listen to music or play sports? Clash 1. Animals-Opposition side is really for animal’s right. They can’t live in nature which is running out because of global warming and environmental pollution. Consider the conservation biology. People in zoos are professionals, which is the reason why zoo is much more effective than other alternatives. 2. Individuals-Pets are unethical too considering that they are caged, and that they need to adjust in human environment. All animals are born wild including cats and dogs. And animals such as lions or tigers are impossible to have as pets. Zoos provide form of interrelationship with these animals. And we need to consider how first-hand experience is much more effective than looking up in encyclopedia. 3. Society-earn a lot of money. US earn 50 to 60 million dollars from zoo. Burden of proof lies on government and they have not provided any harm to overweigh the benefits.
Notes	Tot 18.9 /20	Good organizing in clashes. Intimacy issue might be the weak point.	Tot 19.3 /20	Strong arguments. Good organization.

Here are your scores from the 30 Days Critical Response and the Debate Scores. The 30 Days ideas were great, and showed a lot of creativity.  I'd still like you guys to provide 3 debate motions related even if it doesn't seem like the assignment calls for it.  There's actually a lot of interesting motions that could evolve from subjects like being lazy, not washing, boycotting Chinese products, and of course morning exercise.  I actually wanted to talk about these during class but we didn't have time.  Next week perhaps.  I'll post Changhoon's material in a new post for your next CR. 

Class 11L1	CR#4	Debate#4
Hendrix	9.3/10	9.4/10
Lennon	9.0/10	9.2/10
Page	9.1/10	9.2/10
Presley	9.7/10	9.4/10
Dylan	9.2/10	9.4/10
Clapton	9.6/10	9.5/10
McCartney	9.2/10	N/A
Young	9.4/10	*9.4/10