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

Flow Sheet for: THB Korean should allow presidential re-election.

This was a decent way to start the year, and I was impressed with the teamwork and execution, both before and after the debate.  I expect the same level next week, and MUCH MORE enthusiasm than was displayed in class this morning (Tuesday).  This is a small class, and there is ample opportunity to contribute at least some discussion towards a potential debate.  Asking your input should not be a chore, and if it continues to be I will simply decide what you will debate ahead of time, whether you like it or not (boring motions that require research outside of class, therefor interrupting your more important tasks that you should not be doing during this class) .  If "class discussion" fails, you'll have to debate every class.  Please do not use this class for sleep, self-study, or staring off into space. It is impolite in a large class. Rude in a smaller sized class.: )

MOTION: THB: Korea should allow presidential re-election.
Date:2/14/12		GOVERNMENT (WINNER)		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Young Il		Inseong
Delivery	8.5 /10	Good. More energy would be good but was articulate, flowing, easy to follow.  Arguments could be signposted a little more clearly, as I wasn’t always sure we were on the same argument.  A bit clearer with roadmap in the future, but good start to the debate.	6.5 /10	Maybe start with a preamble and creative intro, and cover your arguments before rebuttals? Once you got into your arguments you were on better ground.  Good effort and decent work given the circumstances of being rusty/first speaker.  Steady improvement anticipated.
Arguments	8.7 /10	Roh brought this up, it was rejected as it was a “political strategy” for power. However -  it should be discussed.  Define terms – reeclection – repeatedbly for 4 years.  Elections for assembly to match. Arg 1 – Regultes presidents – prevents them doing whatever they want.  Only one term means they are “lame ducks.” Opp might say that’s inevitable due to low popularity.  But that’s persay. Policies will be more effectively implemented. Congress won’t neglect the standing president. Beuocracy would be cut down. Arg 2 – Regulation.  Prevent them from doing whatever they want in first term. Myungbak for example – 4 River project, domination of media, FTAs.  All forced through without thought of reelection. POI – Rahcel – populism would result??  Response – Myungbak doesn’t care about the poor.  Populism is okay and needed. (GOOD from both sides).  Better interation with citizens.	7.0 /10	Ineffectiveness Rebuttal. Intros of three rebuttals.  First – effectively allow ideas of presidents? Why do need this efficiency? Also, in politics we need to think of other things.  Second point – presidents will be regulated, but it is not relevant to this reelection – it doesn’t mean they can’t do whatever they want.  First argument – this relection does not stand – Korea has only been a democracy for 20 years.  4 presidents in this era.  We are too young to adopt this policy, Negative consequences of the military styled leadership.  Parties etc. are not “lame ducks,” Second Argument – this relection would result in ‘populism” when presidents do irrational things and adopt policies just to secure support.  If we have this process of reelection it will resut more POI Ryan – 4 River plan – wouldn’t it allow public opinion?  Response: No.  For example, George Bush – said he wouldn’t raise taxes. BUT he did. Obama is doing this as well -
Notes	Tot 17.3 /20	7:47	Tot 13.5 /20	7:50
Rebuttal One	Pts	Joowon	Pts	Changwoo
Delivery	8.9 /10	Good. I’d like to see more preamble. But nice presentation of fact with a nice calm approach.  Firm but not flaming.	9.0 /10	Good stuff and great job of adding to the arguments, getting things organized.  Nice flow and steady development. All in all, impressive demeanor.
Arguments	9.1 /10	Rubutt – The opp leader questions effectiveness about reelection. We should not question efficiency.  Secondly, the OPP says no relationship between regulating president and reelection. BUT if a policy exists he can be re-elected, they will respond to public opinion more.  OPP team also mentions that our democracy is too young.  But American was the first true democracy, and Washington and Jefferson had long presidency democratically.  OPP failed to rebut our second argument.  No evidence.  They talked about Bush and Obama, but we are talking about Korea, and Lee is establishing poor policies that the public dislikes. Argument – Roh example.  Nationwide survey during that time showed that people supported this idea of relection AFTER Roh.  So it wasn’t a ploy to keep power. These were in major papers.  POI – Chagwoo – there was a wording problem in these surveys? Response: Never mind.  Surveys showed what they showed, and most Koreans don’t like this current system.  POI Rachel – are you implying that the public consensus should take precedent??  Response: No. But in this case we have to be “democratic.” Re-election has support.  We should listen to it.	8.9 /10	Rebuttal 1: Gov mentions that reelection can be efficient and improve government. Assembly and presidency at the same time.  Stay the same? Yes. But this prevents new ideas, For example – 4 Rivers, was implanted without any checking. Populism is better than doing nothing? No.  Can be defined as irrational and inefficient policy to gain support – defined as this.  POI’s denied.  (Is that the real definition? I should check).  These surveys they mention – they were worded poorly – to sway the support.  The surveys conducted in the “lame duck” era of Roh.  At the time it was a trend. Is it the trend now?  Harms – Dictatorship.  This is a real threat.  Coup de’tat by JDH – he said he’d stay for one term, but he didn’t. It wasn’t democratic. It has only been 20 years.  We will have this again. New Faces – they won’t be able to gain a foothold if we have to stay with one party and one identity.  We need change and adjustment.  Would Ahn Chul Soo be here if we had this? No.  POI – Young Il.
Notes	Tot 18 /20	6:40	Tot 17.9 /20	7:00
Conc/Rebutt	Pts	Ryan	Pts	Rachel
Delivery	9.1 /10	Nice delivery with some playful antagonism.  Good volume and flow with definition of clashes. All in all, very strong.	9.2 /10	Effective and well-structured as usual. Good energy and decent job of making the most out of arguments that could be stronger.  Excellent energy and flow.
Arguments	9.1 /10	Summarize – why our side wins: They criticize the status quo. There is no right answer, but there is a better one. Nice.  National Assembly etc. arguments and 4 River etc. is not applicable because they ignore evidence that this is what Korea wants.  Effectiveness and the lame duck – this is real.  US examples – the greatest presidents were there when the nation was young, and allowed to continue.  Regulations – Lee would not strong arm his policies if he had to face reelection.  Populism does not stand in this case.  It already exists.  Lee didn’t do what he said he would and did have populist policies.  With or without this policy.  Poll evidence shows that this is what people.  These polls were not a scam.  Evidence? What do people think now?	8.9 /10	At the start, the primeminester said he woulnd’t do what he did, so the burden of proof is failed. Define clashes.  Gov says we have been critics.  So what?  That’s our job.  They had to prove the benfits and practicality. They didn’t.  Is it going to work? Harms – Presidents will work harder.  God lame duck? No.  They said good lame ducks? (I’m not sure).  Easy and effective implemented – short cut to effective policies.  We say dictatorship will result.  Thirdly – other things we have to think about. We must regard populism.  Appealing to voters is populism and achieves nothing.  Efficiency and populism don’t mix.  PM is redundant in this argument.
Notes	Tot 18.2 /20	5:00	Tot 18.1 /20	5:00

First Class

Good to have you all back - some from writing, some from Junior Debate.  So basically we will do the same as last year, but with more focus on discussion. I won't push you as hard to do "Critical Responses," but I'd be happy to see you express your opinions in writing from time to time on your blogs.  What you take away from this class is up to you, now that you are sagacious Seniors.;)

Next class, our motion is as follows:

THB: Korea should allow presidential re-election.
 

I like this one. I hope you guys are able to come up with some historical examples for the sake of argument, and I think it's an interesting debate from both the Opp and Gov stand-point.  It never hurts to post some stuff on your blog to assist everyone in coming up with arguments. 

Opposition:  Rachel, Inseong, Changwoo
Government: Joowon, Youngil, Byungwoo

How we arrived at this motion:

Discussion about Ahn as a potential candidate in Korea, and Ron Paul as a potential candidate in America.  Since American politics has a huge impact on the world, we should definitely follow it a bit more closely.  Reading up on Ron Paul is a fun place to start, and we can put him in the same boat as Ahn Chulsoo for many reasons.  He's the most interesting candidate in this election, but probably won't get much support because he's simply a little bit "out there," positioned oddly as a Republican.  We watched the following videos:

Senior Debate

Please leave a reply below with your name and blog.

Thanks!