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