Early Admission Debate

Another good debate with more personal connection to student life.  Very happy with the development of each debater.  Good to see more creativity and immediacy in opening statements.  Nice structured responses and presented arguments.  Good use of creative arguments from OPP PM with Maslow, and good rebuttals towards it from GOV.  Generally, this debate is blurry and hard to judge, but the GOV was a bit more consistent and had a bit of advantage with time and rebuttals.  How much influence a counselor actually would have in this unclear scenario is hard to determine, and both sides aren't really clear on what "limit" means.  It would seem we almost have this policy already, but for a the debate to be better it would have to be "decide."  What other schools do should have been part of the debate.  As far as I know, Youngin in fact does reserve the IVY earlies for the students whose numbers really speak.   How much influence does an essay or good interview really have?  No body really knows.  But for Ivy schools it seems you need the entire package.  These are all points that could have found a way into the debate.  

All in all, very good. 

THB: KMLA should limit early admission decisions.
Date: May 29nd		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Inseong		Celine
Delivery	9.1 /10	Pretty creative intro and nice breakdown.  Improving steadily and gaining confidence.  More inflection in voice would be the next step (meaningful pauses and aimed comments etc) .	9.2 /10	Good immediate rebuttal to "yes I want to go."  Nice use of outside data and pschology to show the potential for bias.  Good flow and nice delivery but more emotion would help.  Great use of time.
Arguments	9.2 /10	"You really want to go to Harvard...." NICE prelude.  Second person narrative. Define Limit - good.  Weighing pros and cons and longterm reality.  14th wave results - a "disaster" ? Stats vs. reality.  Some students didn't listen and the results show.  Regular was dominated by a few.  We have three arguments: (1) Practical choices/ efficiency: Strategy for the school.  School needs results and utilitarian agenda. School knows best and can weigh the odds.  Limiting this can avoid clusters of applicants. Why compete against each other AND the whole world? (2) Practicality is best for students. Students may not know what is best for them.  Limit risky choices.  It is true that some students surprise either by being accepted or not being accepted, we have to focus beyond "miracles." They are rare.  Safer to play the odds and listen to school.  TIME: 6:00	9.3 /10	First question - yes I do want to go to Harvard! (Interesting).  - Students should not focus or be mindful of the school's agenda.(NICE rebuttal right away).  Start with rebuttals/mention forst two arguments (1) Limiting choices will decrease ambition and enthusiasm.  (2) Should not place limits on students future.  SUMMARY of Govs position (Good) - absurd pracitcality will bury ambition and will.  Students are aware of risks and the choice has to be theirs.  Our arguements are about being practical in a risky way -and (POI Rachel - Aren't our advisors and counsellors MORE informed?) - REPLY - Yes, but they don't know the true character of the student and may underestimate.  Our first argument (1) - Enacting the policy will hurt the students and remove will.  Maslow's Heirarchy - self esteem. (interesting).  If the school tries to limit the goals it's only going to send the wrong message.  Another - "expectancy value theory" - experiment by Atkinson - IQ test and fake results given to a teacher and showed the bias and expectatoions don't match accurately.  We can't decrease motivation.  A college counselor can damage this. Argument 2 - (2) The real role of the counselor is to suggest a school.  Not to force.  Counselor's have limited knowledge and can't have a full view of the student.  6-7 sessions don't amount to real relationship. TIME: 8:50
Notes	Tot 18.3 /20		Tot 18.5 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Joowon	Pts	Youngil
Delivery	9.2 /10	Good rebuttals and emphasis on the stats.  Third argument seems a bit muddled and too related to the rest of the stuff.  More creativity needed.  A bit more flavor needed in tone and flow.	9.1 /10	Good.  Just need more emotion. Nice points and elaborations, but some points a bit repetitive.
Arguments	9.2 /10	"Being a senior myself" - good.  Policy will benefit both sides.  Rebuttals and errors of Opp - practical vs. respecting the student.  - BUT why should a student take such a risk? Early admission is important - and has higher possibility.  This is where practicality goes a long way when it is realistic.  About counselors not knowing the student - I would like to point out IF the counselor doesn't know HOW will the college know?  The application will show who is best suited to each school.  Next point - motivation.  This is not the most important thing.  It might help, but students have to be practical.  Seniors have more to consider beyond motivation and are more wise by the time they apply.  LOP has said that Maslow's Hierarchy is important and has self esteem involved.  BUT the counselor's are actually protecting it by avoiding the crushing blow of rejection.  Next point - limiting future - We are not limiting this.   Our Next argument - School will allow student to focus more effectively and use time more wisely IF they are limited.  IF they are prepared and focused they will have better results.  IF students waste time on an impossible dream, they are not using time wisely.  The counselor is NOT evil, and just wants you to use your time wisely.   Time: 6:23	9.2 /10	Two sides have one thing in common - representing students best interests.  However, gov's idea is not beneficial.  Gives too much power to a counselor who doesn't really know what's best.  (NICE preamble and overview).  (1) Policy is aimed at early decision.  So does that mean more freedom for regular?  If student is excited about their potential school, it will show.  If they are not, it will also show.  (2) How can we trust a counselor's opinion so much?  Some students value this, some do not.  The process limits opportunity.  Some students will end up with higher limits, some will end up with lower limits.  This seems unbalanced.  Strategy must me balanced.  Practical choices don't match illogical amount of power.  POI - Rachel - Isn't that what our PM said? Definitions.  (Not sure what was said?)  This policy will make more limits.  Motivation is not important says the Gov, But we see that the students who are really focused are the ones who succeed.  Effort does count.  Third Point by DPM - Wasting time - We think early and regular are related and the essays will be used again.  It's not a waste of time.  Argument 3 - (3) - Not beneficial as a whole - the policy hurts moral.  It will result in poorer essays and less enthusiasm.  Failure in early is a lesson that can only be learned by the individual.  It's not a bad thing.  TIME: 8:10
Notes	Tot 18.4 /20		Tot 18.3 /20
Conclusion	Pts	Rachel	Pts	Changwoo
Delivery	9.3 /10	Very good content and delivery. Nice rebuttal to Maslow.  Good new info.	9.3 /10
Arguments	9.3 /10	College admission is not a game.  It's not rolling a dice.  It's a process where you don't do it alone.  Counselors are important, and should be valued highly.  How many of you have been to a college?  Lived in the US?  At most maybe 3 years and a vision trip.  So, we don't know what's what.  It is all new, and the counselor knows so much.  It's an advantage to have them and we can't ignore their wisdom.  I'll divide the clashes - 1 - Longterm and short term and "sake of the school."  We don't want to be absolute,  We don't want to say NO.  We just want to encorage more value placed on the counselors opinion.  What we suggest is that students go to early action and not be bound, and then see what happens in regular.  Students can take wiser risks.  Our question - DO students REALLY know the risks?  The admissions officers do know the risks.  Rebuttal to "counselors don't know students."  Not true.  If they counselor doesn't know about you it's YOUR FAULT.  (Good).  Colleges want to know if they are YOUR FIRST CHOICE.  Yale and Harvard don't care.  Smaller ones do care.  We have to consider this.  Ten or more schools later it results in lower admission.  Our policy is pratical and effective.  "Maslows Hierarchy" - it was done on children, not teens.  It doesn't work.  Seniors must be practical.  "Full of dreams" requires feet on the ground.  TIME: 8:38	9.2 /10	As the whip, I will show the clashes. How many of you actually know me and my dreams?  None really.  To be afraid of failure doens't help the student.  Fear of failure.  The school is afraid of this more than the students.  Counselor will "only suggest" but we believe this is not just this.  It's more than that, We challenge her if we go outside of this, and the counselor limits us.  Let's talk about 14th wavers.  A girl fought with the counselor and didnt get a good letter.  The counselor ends up limiting.  POI - Rachel - how can you say that it is a limit?  Reply - Because the application is more than just that.  A moment of choice and inspiration can't be limited.  The gov is being irrational and uninspired.  Scores and essays.  There is more to it than that.  Name value etc.  indeed BUT the school seems to distrust the students.  Ranking etc. don't always determine.  Early decisions and high results aren't the only matter.   Time: Good. Time: 5:40
Notes	Tot 18.6 /20		Tot 18.5 /20

Debate: THB: Student council members should be dismissed if their penalty points exceed 25.

THB: Student council members should be dismissed if their penalty points exceed 25.
Date: May 22nd		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Inseong		Hweegu
Delivery	9.2 /10	Pretty excellent for the most part. Smooth and organized.  Some more emotion would be your next improvement.  But all in all, great steps forward to being a very good debater. Try to be more creative with the intro.	9.0 /10	Decent listing and sign posting.  But more confidence and intonation needed, and more time needed. Tell a story or set the table more to make your speech more creative.  Add some fluctuation to your speech so it doesn't sound like reading.
Arguments	9.2 /10	Preamble: Factual case of April 17th - Hongsoon.  Petition etc., "we feel sorry" BUT we stand for the motion for three reasons.  Define "dismissed" as losing all duty and obligation. 1 - Excessive points shows student can't manage school life.  The average of the student body was 10 points last year.  So, it isn't hard to keep this number.  More than 25 shows irresponsibility.  Leadership needs regulation.  A leader needs to represent the school essence.   2 - All students have duties to be responsible.  This is why students are punished.  Rules are stricter for student council members.  This is what they are responsible for and what they agree to. Food violations and computer violations are what make a large penalty points - curfew etc.  This means that the student was not a good example for students to follow.  Therefore it is right to dismiss. TIME: 5:02	9.0 /10	Studnets should NOT be dismissed.  Good map.   1-Pentalty points are not a measure.  Student council members dedicate themselves to working hard, and penalty points don't show this.   Students can lead a good school life and the penalty points don't show this.  As long as the student is working hard, there is no reason to dismiss him even with the penalty points. 2- The amount of 25 is too low.  5 points for these violations is easy to accumulate. We all make mistakes.  Curfew violation is a fact of life in the boys dorm.  Sometimes we get these points from the acts of others, not ourselves.  We believe 40 to 50 is more reasonable.   Good summary.   Time: 4:01
Notes	Tot 18.4 /20		Tot 18.0 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Joowon	Pts	Youngwook
Delivery	9.1 /10	Good rebuttals and emphasis on the stats.  Third argument seems a bit muddled and too related to the rest of the stuff.  More creativity needed.  A bit more flavor needed in tone and flow.	9.1 /10	Good as usual, Some good personal appeal.  But you kind of undermine Hweegu's arguments about points being too low.  Kind of defeatist and a "no no."  Good last argument but need more summary.
Arguments	9.1 /10	Rebuttal 1 - What is student council? LOP says penalty points do not show ability to manage school affairs.  BUT we point out that the position requires obedience to school rules - student should be a MODEL student.  Grades etc. should stand as an example.   LOP emphasizes just the one point, so it isn't a complete argument. Rebuttal 2 - 25 is NOT low.  Average for a student is less than half of that.  (GOOD stat).   Logical fallacy - eating chicken and computer etc. - big points and quickly accumulated.  BUT these are BIG crimes at KMLA.  Not what student council members should do. Argument 3 - Many rules school students must obey, and student council SHOULD be in harmony with the rules.  We assume student council members are model students.  Firing them hurts student council.  The school has the responsibility to make sure these members follow the rules and get along with the school.   TIME: 5:10	9.0 /10	Rebuttals - The claim 25 points is not low.  Student council memebers should be models.  I agree (?) but these points don't measure student life accurately. (Didn't you just compromise Hweegu's argument?) Boys dorm parent is more sensitive and less fair.  Story of roommate excused for computer violation.  Inconsistent.  Luck or unluck.  Boys lose in this way. POI - Joowon - Does that mean students get points for no reason?  REPLY - sometimes. Depends on his mood.  (Better - then ALL students share this luck or unluck.  Other male members on student council don't have this problem.) Personal experience - penalty points and school work are unrelated.  Studnet council work is not related. Argument 3 - Penalty point system can't BE the only measurement or consideration.   We need other considerations - Not the soul standard.  Students are allowed to run, and teachers wanted to give Hongsoon another chance.  BUT the rule was automatic.  So this shows the weakness of the standard. TIME: 5:42
Notes	Tot 18.2 /20		Tot 18.1 /20
Conclusion	Pts	Celine	Pts	Ryan
Delivery	9.1 /10	Very good content but a bit short. Have more fun.  You were on the right track and I like the logic and points raised.	9.0 /10
Arguments	9.2 /10	Two major clashes: It is reasonable to dismiss because: Is the amount appropriate? We believe so.  The average points show the math.  Even lower they are this semester - down to three.  Hongsoon is out of control.  :)   Model students should represent the school ethos.   Second clash - Rules are rules.  OPP says a meeting should be held.  Judgements are unfair.  Once a student crosses a line we think the line should be regarded.  It only took two months for HS to get these points, and it shows he needs time to manage his school life without being a member of student council.  ARE these students joining the council for the right reasons?  Maybe not.  Maybe it is for popularity.  Maybe for other things.  For the students own good, they should be dismissed.   The Gov believes this for this reason. TIME: 4:22	8.9 /10	Two issues - not clashes.  Our team didn't go good (???). Penalty points - are they an indicator Members - assuming responsibilty - suitable punishment or not. Main issue - are the points a good measure of ability to manage affairs.  OUR team actually has a first hand witness who WAS  a member of student council.  He says it isn't accurate.   Hongsoon was a hard working member, and many people stuck up for him.  You can do the work and do your own work with or without the points. They are unrelated.   Average points - ten points.  Students have a lot to do.  We forget stuff.  It's not a measure of being lazy etc., it just shows their passion and hard work that results in this stuff.   issue 2 - Members should be responsible.  Extra points are punishment enough.  Eating chicken and computer games ARE not serious crimes.  Council members eating chicken - so what.  (BUT this is KMLA). Students stuck up for HS, But the school made the decision, not the students.  This should not stand.  Student council is for students.  There should have been a vote. Time: 5:40
Notes	Tot 18.3 /20		Tot 17.9 /20