11-C Wednesday: Debate Feedback and CR#6

This was an okay debate, and it seems most of you had a pretty good base knowledge of the issue.  Here are the scores for this debate and for CR#6.  You can see Seungchol's and Daeun's flowsheets on their blogs.   If you were a judge and haven't done anything with those yet, please get those flowsheets emailed or posted much sooner than later please.

Above is a poster for another documentary made by Morgan Spurlock.  Kind of ironic.  I've never seen it, but would like to.  I thought some of you might be interested to know that this film does in face exist.

11C – Wednesday	Debate 6	CR#6
Zerus	8.9	9.0
Paralta	9.1	9.2
Tarsonis	9.3	9.7
Shakuras	*9.0	9.3
Albion
Terran	9.4	9.7
Halcyon	9.3	9.6
Aridas	*9.3	9.3
Cerebus		9.7
Maltair	9.3	9.4
Roxara	*9.2

 

MOTION: THB: The assassination of Osama Bin Laden was justified.
Date:6/19/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Seungmin		Changwoo
Delivery	8.9 /10	Posture and overall delivery needs to improve.  Need to prepare more.   Good clear speech.	9.0 /10	Pretty decent and very clear approach.
Arguments	8.9 /10	Some people believe Osama’s assassination can be justified for several reasons.  Osama = terrorist, who committed 9/11.  Assassination = killing without procedure. Arg 1 – Killing Osama protects human rights. Arg 2 – Sends message to other terrorists. Arg 3 – Prevents further terrorism under Bin Laden. Protection of human rights – Bin Laden destroys this notion.  Because of him, many have died. Saving lives by killing him. Secondly – sends strong message to the public.  9/11 created terror.  By assassinating him, we created awareness and prevention. Without this act, terrorism is reduced.  (Public in not aware about terror. (??? I’d say they are.))  TIME: 4:33	9.1 /10	Humans are social animals…. (??? Odd intro). So we believe the assassination is not justified.  Rebuttal 1 – protecting human rights?  But even killers have the right to be heard by the law.  Rebuttal 2 – Strong message to the people? Tread on a worm and it will turn.  Even when a strong thing attacks a weaker one, the wheel of revenge is set in motion.  (Rebuttals undernourished – need more.  But really the Leader of the Opp should not be rebutting – but instead clarifying or objecting to certain claims made towards the motion by the PM.  Let the deputy handle initial rebuttal.) Arg 1 – Disobeys international laws. Arg 2- Against morality. Arg 3 – Creates more terrorism. Arg 1 – US government did not alert Pakistan.  Obvious abuse of law.  Innocent until proven guilty – even for Bin Laden.  Nazis and Hussein were heard – why not Bin Laden?  Arg 2 – Loss of morality.  Mission was to kill him, not capture him.  This is not justified.  Bin Laden was not armed.  Almost no resistance according the US government.  So it was not essential to kill him.  The US government is committing a crime. TIME: 4:59
Notes	Tot 16.9 /20		Tot 18.1 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Jegug	Pts	Wonhyuk
Delivery	9.3 /10	Good work and effective calm delivery.  Just one weak area in the arguments.	9.3 /10	Excellent.  Good delivery.  Good arguments.
Arguments	9.2 /10	First rebuttal – Terrorists have rights?  Yes they do, but civilians do as well – and we have to respect these above those of terrorists.  Second rebuttal – This assassination will create more terrorists?  But we are being strong against them.  That sends a message.  NYT Article – security has been tripled at airports.  This makes things more safe.  Argument – This is WAR against terrorists.  In times of war we kill our opponents.  We can’t stop and think too much.  We can’t trust Pakistan’s government, so why alert them?  You say Bin Laden has a right to trial – but look at the videos where Bin Laden admits to his actions?  We are beyond a need for a trial. (Good arguments here).  HE was not unnamred.  He had guards etc., and this was an offensive against US troops.  So this does mean he was unnarmed in essence. Argument – We need speedy action to do what we need to do.  Scenario – what if Bin Laden escapes?  He was able to create 9/11, so we can’t underestimate him.  He’s dangerous.  We don’t know what could have happened.  Scenario 2 – he creates more terror EVEN while under custody.  IF he is dead, the possibilities are reduced for further actions.  These trials take time – maybe 4 years?  Advocates of Bin Laden might have gathered to a cause, him becoming a symbol.  What if he was set free??? (I don’t think that’s a fathomable scenario or risk – not effective for this debate).  Prompt action was necessary and justified. TIME: 6:00	9.3 /10	We on the opp. disagree.  Mistakes that GOV just made.  Human rights – murders and criminals still have rights.  We make these promises, so we should keep them.  Rebuttal – Sending a message to terrorists.  Like capital punishment – we say this sends a message.  But is it effective?  We believe murdering terrorists is not effective to reducing them as a risk.  If anything, it creates anger among them and cause for revenge.  SEUNGCHAN – POI – We didn’t have to kill him Arg – Assassination was without purpose.  Taking down a symbol of terrorism to send a message.  Murdering Bin Laden has only created revenge mission.  We could have used him for information, so killing him makes no sense.  Unlawful, and also ineffective. Why did they kill him?  If we see the emotional outcry of favor and celebration, we see the real reasons they did it.  To become popular.  Even our vision trips are at risk.  What the US has done is foolish.  TIME: 5:20
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20		Tot 18.6 /20
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Seungchan	Pts	Sumin
Delivery	9.3 /10	Nice work, but a bit repetitive to what was already stated by Jegug.	9.4 /10	Good as always.  Preamble a good idea but analogy not so strong.  Time management issues – way too long.
Arguments	9.2 /10	Today the OPP stood up for terrorism and human rights of them.  (Interesting emotional appeal).  First clash – human rights of these criminals.  WE are in a WAR – in this case we have the right to kill the enemy.  Human rights must not be protected as they have already abused those of others.  The US has no obligation to care about these terrorists. Not the same as a simple murder or incident that lacks clear details.  The US did not get permission?  Because we can’t trust the Pakistan government.  Do we really have to let Bin Laden have his say?  That’s is not helpful.  Even if he is disarmed, we can’t consider this.  When the US troops moved in, they were confronted with gunfire.  We can’t actually capture these individuals. Need for speedy action – court process does not help.  Escape is possible.  What if terrorists help him escape?  Clearly Bin Laden has continued to plan terror – so we can’t risk this process of judicial decision. You say we instigate more terrorism – but if we allow a court date we would even create MORE anger.  Assassination is justified. TIME: 5:30	9.3 /10	Let’s say that a kid is sick in bed with a cold.  So you give him ice and cool him down.  But you won’t cure his cold.  This is a short term remedy, and like this the GOV is arguing a short term remedy to terrorism.  TWO main clashes – efficiency and righteous cause. Efficiency – GOV has agreed that Osama is a symbol.  Perhaps killing him will create a short term dilemma for terrorists – BUT in the long term chaos will result.  Laws not followed, and revenge incurred.  Terrorists will retaliate.  In Pakistan, things have already started – destruction.  If you make friends with a bully, you should hit him back, right? Not in this case.  The international community should agree to these things.  Prop has also argued this.  Osama will only be replaced.  Killing him won’t really hurt the terrorists.  It will only fan the flames.  Proper proceedings – NOT followed.  Yes, he confessed to 9/11.  Regardless, we assume he is innocent until proven guilty.  We still have to obey this.  The law says all must be put on a trial.  Justice can’t be achieved like this in an eye for an eye sense. Disorder has only been created from this.  Second Clash – US just does what I wants selectively.
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20		Tot 18.7 /20