A Good Debate

Below is an example of a "good debate" provided courtesy of Rachel. 

WSDC Finals - New Zealand vs. England
Motion: This House Would Expand the UN Security Council.

These debaters have good effective style, and clearly know about the issues they argue.
Not much BSing at any point in the debate.  Enjoy! 

Flow Sheet for: THB The Lights Out Policy Should be enforced.

Motion: THB: The Lights Out Policy should be enforced. (WINNER - OPP)
Date:	March.6	GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Hweegu		Rachel
Delivery	7.4 /10	Pretty good standard intro, but in the future try a preamble. Good defining motion etc. But getting repetive towards end of arguments.  Need more listing – first second third argument before you dive in.  You do this after but do it during and before your speech.  Need more signposting. Focus on getting angry.	9.3 /10	Nice intro and organization. Good development and clear direction.  Good hook.Energy and volume and flow all excellent. But maybe slowing down at times would help for emphasis.   Arguments good except for this melatonin thing.
Arguments	8.9 /10	Definition of policy – KMLA Kim Daeki wants lights out after midnight.  We support i1 because: 1. Happy and healthy state.  We are young and need more than 6 hours of sleep.  Stats say 7-8 are better. IN Korea, 75% of students have less than 6.  Therefore, students will go to bed earlier.  2.  Students can’t sleep if a light is on.  REM is prevented. Studies show this. 3. Saves electricity.  The environment will profit.  2 hours of lights off in 100 rooms will save a lot.  The math – we can save 288,000 per month.  It’s like a movement.  It makes the world better. In case of emergency, lights can stay on.  But as it stands this voluntary movement saves the environment, energy.  Also this rural area can suffer from blackouts.  We have seen this before and our students are too blame.	9.0 /10	Good intro.  Kim just comes in and tells us “this is how it is” without consulting or discussion.  Good layout of plan of speech. 1. Process of decision. 2. Effective use of time. 3. ? Too fast for me to keep up. Rebutts – plentiful sleep?  We would love to have 6 hours of sleep. It’s not because of the lights. We have work to do.  Turning lights out won’t change that.  Lights are on? Turn them off when you actually sleep. Working the dark is pointless.  Save energy? Voluntary policies don’t work that way.  Contradictory.  Prevent blackouts?  Prove that.  (I agree, but I’d say that late at night blackouts don’t occur because most people are sleeping.  The school has blackouts during the day). Arg 1 – Kim just forced the policy without consulting.  Our opinions weren’t considered.  It sends the message that dorm parents can do whatever they want. Arg 2 – Hinders effective use of time.  Life here is hard.  SAT. AP. Common App.  Can we do this during self study time? No. IR interrupts that.  It all adds up to to little time. The time for us to complete work is beyond 12. BUT this policy messes with that.  The rule is impractical and unrealistic.  A hormone called melatonin responds to light.  Turning lights off will hinder our effective use of time and put us to sleep.
Notes	Tot 16.3 /20	5:34	Tot 18.3 /20	6:10
Rebuttal One		Joowan		Celine
Delivery	8.9 /10	Need to organize and sign post more.  I got lost on some points and wasn’t sure where things were coming from or where they were going.	9.1 /10	Solid work. Good start, and nice attitude and zip. Only issue was rebuttals and arguments lost some structure towards the end. Unclear path and sign posting.
Arguments	8.9 /10	The policy – Mr. Kim’s rule only?  No. We are students and this is beneficial, and it’s not his idea only. The current trend in this world is to save energy. You say students don’t sleep if lights are off – but there are students WHO DON’T work late at night. They facebook and play games.  Turning off the light will encourage them to go to bed. Involuntary – you misunderstand this – we say it should be maintained.  (I’m lost here) Our school has a small generator.  Limit too what we can use. We can prevent overuse. Melatonin arguments does not stand – lights from monitor can prevent it.  (I’m lost). Alternatives are worse – getting penalty points. If promoting does not work, and voluntary fails, penalty points result.  Dorm parents might create penalty points for this.  Mr. Kim will make a timer to turn it off regardless.  So, we should try our best to adhere.  What happens if someone gets hurt and lights can’t go on?	9.0 /10	1st rebuttal – you say we are still students and it’s not just the dorm parents idea. World wide trend etc.  However, you just accept this from the adult world.  Is this right? (nice work on this one).  Our school is following this environmental trend?  I don’t think so.  The cost of this idea is too high. Rebutt 2 – You say students are wasting time with FB and games etc., but we also need free time.  It gets rid of stress. Rebutt 3 – Penalty points – Doesn’t work. (I’m not following this one) Rebutt 4 – Blackouts and save energy – it isn’t going to effect it.  Weak argument. (True) 1st Argument (?) – Students need to use time after 12.  Seniors have more time, but Freshman have less opportunity. (good) Argument – We don’t want the lights off, and we won’t listen if it is voluntary or not.  2 am is the best compromise.
Notes	Tot 17.8 /20	5:34	Tot 18.1 /20	5:57
Rebuttal Two		Ryan		Young Uk
Delivery	9.2 /10	Very good. Nice emotion and organization.	9.1 /10	Very good. Clear path. Calm approach.
Arguments	9.2 /10	Why we win: Reason 1 – they keep asking us how this policy is effective and not need to be forced. This is how.  The dorm parent came and threatened us because the lights were on.  So we feel this is a good way.  A bit of give and take and flexibility – a rule that is made to be broken sometimes.  It can be effective in improving sleep and the cost efficiency. Reason 2 – The other team was inconsistent.  They say they will by drowsy etc. They also say other things. So which is it?  (I agree a bit). Reason 3 – Not sure about this one.  Inconsistent about inconsistent. Our third argument – they totally misread.  The government wants us to reduce and the school is falling in line. We should compromise to make our lives better. We should listen to the schools logic so we don’t need to be forced.	9.1 /10	Two reasons why we win: 1st clash – the policy was created illegitimately. The dorm parent just came and said it.  On one hand he says it is recommended, on the other he comes and threatens things.  The kind of policy has a big impact and should be handled by the student council.  We have to implement  it carefully.  The 2 am policy works and follows the minimum amount of sleep.  12 am is impractical.  It’s the dorm parents act solely. 2nd Clash – Impractical – We have a lot of work.  (Getting a bit lost on this one with POI distraction). 3 – Blackout – doesn’t make sense.  2 am policy never had a problem with blackouts.  We have to get a bigger generator if that’s the case, but it isn’t.
Notes	Tot 18.4 /20	5:55	Tot 18.2 /20	5:47

Flow Sheets

Please visit this link to download the Flowsheet.  Hopefully you are able to load it into Microsoft word.  Alternatively (though with less consistency with format) you can copy and paste the content below.

After the debates, please post the flow sheet on your blog.

Date:		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Name		Name
Delivery	/10		/10
Arguments	/10		/10
Notes	Tot /20		Tot /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Name	Pts	Name
Delivery	/10		/10
Arguments	/10		/10
Notes	Tot /20		Tot /20
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Name	Pts	Name
Delivery	/10		/10
Arguments	/10		/10
Notes	Tot /20		Tot /20
Conclusion	Pts	Name	Pts	Name
Delivery	/10		/10
Arguments	/10		/10
Notes	Tot /20		Tot /20

Flow Sheet for: THB "The Students Rights" Ordincance should be upheld.

This was a good debate, and an interesting issue.  I was hoping at least one speaker would begin with a creative intro - a hook that would contrast the atmosphere of a particular classroom if/if not the ordinance is/is not upheld.  I'd generally like to see more organization in the arguments - basically verbal "bullet points" that tell me what I'm going to hear before I hear it, with further expansion later in the speeches.  Some speakers do this very well and it's much easier to follow their rhetoric.  Arguments and rebuttals need to be clearly separated with proper weight given to them within the time frame.  

As for the content of the arguments, I like the Gov's more because they have some balance and decent use of stats etc.  I'm commenting on this debate a week after the fact, so I'm actually a bit rusty on the reasons why.  All in all, a good debate.

THB: “The Students Rights Ordinance” should be upheld. WINNER GOV
Date:		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Youngwook		Inseong
Delivery	8.8 /10	Very good. First time I’ve heard you speak at length and you have some skill and potential as a good debater. Nice organization.  Good volume and clarity.  This will improve with more practice.	6.7 /10	Better than last week. Arguments much better delivered than rebuttals. I think you should start with your arguments – where you have the most confidence. And then move on to rebuttals – which are less important and more the responsibility of other speakers – and better to run out of time on.  Opening needs to peak interest and hook, but starting with rebuttals is a risk. Time management and flow an issue with rebuttals.  Elements of speech could be more organized and clearly separated.
Arguments	9.0 /10	Define key terms – set by Seoul Metro. Already passed. Enforce or not? We believe yes because: 1. Basic Human Rights – Constitution 2. Positive Influence. 3. Dress codes. Freedom. 1. Basic human rights state – corporal punishment etc. should not be infrindged. Freedom of speech. In school these are restricted and teachers don’t abide them all the time. We need to protect these. Denying these is to deny human rights. 2. Positive act – limits coporal punishment. Verbal/physical violence. 1991 – Rights of Child act – Korea joined this. Arcticle 6 of UN convention stipulates it should be upheld by law.  Korea was so behind. Hot potato.  Gives more schools a variety of curriculum etc. to go beyond KSAT.  Students now have the right to get more out of education, get more rest, and Suicide will decrease.  Personal info can be protected. SRO can also prevent schools from forcing religion.	7.0 /10	SRO should not be upheld. Starts with rebutts. RB 1 – Basic human rights stated by GOV – yes students are humans and they need to be enforeced, but does the SRO really protect that? For example, freedom from discrimination. Among students this will not be protected. Too ideal. (Yes, but what’s the alternative?) RB 2 – Corp Punishment – not good, but in some ways we need it or teachers can’t control students.  RB 3 – Right to choose curriculum. Even if school does provide more variety, students will still miss out on KSAT study time and it will have to be made up. RB 4 – Excessive burden – if we let students rest, they won’t focus. Teachers won’t be effective. 3 Args: 1 – Inneffective of Ordincance. It will be abused to some extent.  It serves the minority. Students are immature.  They are still learning. Need more guidance not more freedom to make mistakes.  Students should be educated about their rights before they use them. Teachers rights – what about those? Teachers weakened. Survey of students says 44% are concerned teachers won’t cope with the new law.  70% of teachers opposed. 2 – Practicality of ordinance  - Item 13 is very vague.  Emergency?
Notes	Tot 17.8 /20	6:51	Tot 13.7 /20	7:24
Rebuttal One	Pts	Celine	Pts	Hweegu
Delivery	8.7 /10	Good, and got much better towards the end.  Some aspects need to be clearer within rebuttals and arguments, but you did respond well with organized rebuttals. Arguments could be more clearly situated.	8.6 /10	Getting better and good content.  Need just a little more oomph, but generally good.
Arguments	9.0 /10	Rebuttal – Consitutional law rebuttal – students are humans but the law won’t protect them.  We remind you that teachers need to be reminded of these rights despite difficulties.  This is better than the current situation. Students can’t be controlled? Some, but we need to increase steps to a more peaceful classroom. Teachers need to adapt other methods. Re. the KSAT and time needed to study, we don’t say that they shouldn’t focus. We just think more diversity is needed.  We don’t think this will be risked like you say. Free dresscode – we haven’t mentioned that yet. Now for rebuttals to your arguments: 1.  Re. the ineffectiveness of the SRO – we should focus on the problems of the minority(?) (Unclear from both sides) Gays/religions/etc. – students should not be felt they need to be silenced about the truth of their situation.  (good point). Will these laws hurt teachers – who knows?  Arguments – Freedom of Hairstyle etc. Will have positive effect.  Students are too confined and can’t enjoy their lives.  The longterm adjustment will be good.  Studnents told how to dress etc. will make students more rebellious in other ways.  Uniforms are uncomfortable.  Especially for girls.  Creative spirit and mind will raise students to be more open minded.	8.9 /10	Rebuttals – Basic human rights – you say these need to be maintained. However, the SRO is not formed for this properly. Korea is not ready.  For example, the UN Rights of Child – corporal punishment is a tradition in Korea and we are not ready. (If not now when? Kind of weak.)  Protection of minority – we can’t regulate people’s views on homosexuality and pregnancy. A matter of perception – not law (you assume most of these need to be changed?)  Freedom of style leads to gloating and money. Is this creative?  No. This plan of SRO is an illconcieved plan made by those who don’t understand. It leads to MORE punishment. If teachers can’t inflict pain they will find other ways which are more violent.  Students need to protect? School records are important. Celebrity example.   Light corporal punishment will avoid manipulation of school records. Teachers will get revenge in other ways (really?).  A teacher can’t inspect a students belongings unless in an emergency.  This means students can smoke and drink and do drugs after school.  This is more harmful at a young age. The SRO will lead to more of these problems. Students can’t properly educate in this atmosphere. Yonhap news – teachers ignore teachers directions.  Students hit teachers.  Punishments weak. More harms than benfits created. Adults who made this law aren’t familiar with school reality.
Notes	Tot 17.7 /20	7:24	Tot 17.5 /20	6:40
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Youngil	Pts	Changwoo
Delivery	9.0 /10	Good and confident. Clear and well structured.	9.1 /10	Excellent pacing and pose. Good lead and development.
Arguments	9.1 /10	Our PM mentioned the Rights of Child – so we need to see these children as beings and not part of a system. For decades Korea has neglected this despite membership.  SRO is a step forward.  We are not saying we need to give excessive freedom.  Rights need to match the rest of the developed world.  Teachers authority – teachers think students can’t regulate themselves. Rules etc. are excessive.  In our school, you can either follow the rules or go against them.  SRO is a positive step as it encourages independence and active involvement.  Students will want to do the right thing for the right reasons. Clashes of this debate: 1 – Is the SRO effective? We agree this won’t have immediate effect, but it will lead to positive effect soon.  Students will have more interest to design their study time.  Self study is useless if students aren’t into it.  Hakwons abuse this ineffectiveness to make money.  Students will learn to make use of their time freely.  The SRO also protects private info.	9.0 /10	Side effects – we should not uphold this right now.  Three clashes: 1st Clash – Students Right – Gov team says this SRO protects. BUT we can’t say this related to Korea.  Students can abuse these rights and eachother. Freedom of assembly – students will assume radical power just to avoid study.  Students are not properly prepared to use their freedom. 2nd Clash – Corporal Punishment – Respect between people says the GOV, but Corp. Pun is part of Korea’s culture. In the western nations it is banned, but it is something they have practiced.  Chaos will ensue. Students beating teachers – this has already resulted.  3rd Clash – Is it helpful to students? Fashion and hairstyle? It doesn’t help students.  It results in disctraction.  It would be great if students became more creative, but instead they use it to show power and hierarchy – such as brand name clothing. So why do need this? We don’t.
Notes	Tot 18.1 /20	5:00	Tot 18.1 /20	5:00