Critical Response #5 - Student's Choice

One things I'd like to do for the next while for each class is allow students to guide the Critical Response criteria.  Hopefully you will all get a turn before the end of the year.  I'll expect you to find a video, article, picture, or anything you think can get us thinking  - and then discuss it a bit to set the table.  Keep in mind that there are no rules for your blogs, and you can write about whatever you want whenever you want, so if someone from 11C is inspired by something they see at 11l - you can respond to it.  Class participation and blog interaction/maintenance is a BIG part of your final scores and I'm constantly keeping record of good things I see going on.  For my other two 11C classes, we will decide who will come up with the next CR, but you are welcome to comment on this one as well if you truly enjoy the writing process. 

Changhoon was this week's lucky winner (at least I think he won), and I think he's come up with a gooder.  So, I now give you over to Mr. Oh:

Critical Response: Don't insist on English!

I found an interesting video clip at www.ted.com. Longtime English teacher, Patrick Ryan, asks a provocative question: Is the world's focus on English preventing the spread of great ideas in other languages? Ryan claims that the usage of English as a global language has something to do with the increasing rate of languages that have disappeared. Although she admits the need of English as a global language, she insists that English should not be a barrier. I think it is interesting concerning the situation of KMLA students. We need to take TOEFLs, SATs and many other tests - and for that we need to constantly improve our English skills. But it might be a good chance to look back at why we are spending so much time/money learning English, which isn't even our native language.

- from Changhoon Oh (11I-1 English Debate Class)

Thanks Changhoon. It's interesting. It reminds me of this other very short TED video also about English. China has the most English speakers of any country on Earth? Wow.

11l-1 Friday: Debate Feedback and CR#4 Scores

NOTE: This post is massive - so scroll down for your scores etc.

I also came across this article at TIME Magazine this morning.  Very sad story fresh in the news about a famous polar bear who died in a zoo. 

THB: Zoos do more harm than good.

This was a fun debate, and seemed to flow better than some of the others we've had.  Maybe three speakers without a reply is the way to go.  I also like having another judge to take the pressure off.  

This motion has its challenges, and I liked all of the arguments except the one about pets and intimacy.  I don't really see a strong connection between pets and zoos, and the OPP did a good job of giving and replying to POI's on this subject.   For a POI to be effective it has to have immediacy and clarity (short and sweet), and the GOV fell short of this.  The OPP effectively turned the tables on the pet/intimacy point of contention, and it largely swayed the debate towards there favor.   I do think that the OPP has the advantage in this debate, especially if the GOV can't move beyond "we can learn about animals in books."  Yes, we certainly can learn from books, but you've never truly experienced an elephant or a tiger until you've smelled it's poo.  That's what I always remember about zoos - the weird smells and visiting them with my family.  The OPP did well to develop this emotional appeal, while the GOV didn't quite as effectively deliver the same with "zoos are prisons" argument.  How to deal with this?

One way we could argue that zoos do more harm than good is to make an allowance for some zoos - the good ones.  Where are these "good" zoos?  They are in places like Chicago, Singapore, and Paris - a.k.a. the developed world.  Where are the bad ones?  Google image search "Chinese Zoo" and you will see.  If China's population is in the billions while the population of France isn't even as big as some Chinese provinces, we can infer that most zoos in the world are not in fully developed cities.   In the links Rachel provided, there are some pretty grim statistics - and this debate needed more of those.  The lowered life expectancy  was good and the migration of dolphins was good.  We need more of this and less "kids can read books and be intimate with puppies instead of going to zoos." 

It might also be helpful for the GOV to emphasize that the motion isn't suggesting that we shut down zoos and stop going to them - but is simply trying to prove that zoos do more harm than good.  Harm to what?  Harm to children's impressions of animals - you guys did have some good stuff here.   Harm to the animals themselves - could use more here.  Harm to the workers?  Zoo workers do often get killed, as do spectators.  Harm to the environment?  There might be something here.  In any case - the debate went to the OPP because more good was revealed than harm.  


If you are interested, check out this award winning documentary titled "Earthlings."  It is very one sided, and fully explores how humans wrongly exploit animals under the auspices of "species-ism."  It's almost two hours long, and broken down into sections.  There is a section called "Entertainment" where they explore the dark side of zoos.  This documentary is considered one of the most eye-opening documentaries you will ever see, but it is also criticized as one of the most one-sided.  It's narrated by the  famous actor Jaquin Phoenix.  Once you start watching, it's hard to stop.

GARRIOCH'S FLOW SHEET

MOTION: THB: Zoos do more harm than good.  (WINNER: OPP)
Date: April Fools Day			GOVERNMENT			OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts		Chanjung			Celine
Delivery	9.2 /10		Good stuff and always improving.  Flow issues the main thing to improve.  Good POI and acceptance of it.  Good time management.  Nice development.	9.1 /10		Nice flow mostly, just really need more emotion/volume.  The tone and style is there, so build from that and get more angry.
Arguments	9.1 /10		Define zoo. Live animals kept in enclosure for public exhibition.  Zoos ARE NOT as educational as we think.  Do they achieve intimacy with animals?  It makes kids think they are superior to animals.  (RACHEL POI – you really think kids will think they are better than a tiger?) Yes! We will throw snacks at them.  The same thing applies to humans.  Locked up implies lesser being, creates suffering, and lessens life expectancy dramatically – studies show.  How often do you really visit a zoo?  Most people once in a blue moon.  This does not create intimacy or education.  PETS are more beneficial – such as fish (??? Funny argument –seemed like a new argument – so map could be clearer.) 2nd Arg - Protection does not result – just exploitation. Research centers exist for this.  Zoos don’t perform the same function.  They just make money.      TIME: 6:20	9.3 /10		1st Rebuttal – superiority – of course we will feel superior.  We are! We eat them.  So this argument is invalid.  (I like this rebuttal).  2nd Rebuttal – intimacy – if there was no zoo – how would you form ANY relationship?  Pets?  Pets like tigers? Monkeys? ACCEPTS POI – Chanjung – intimate with a Tiger? Celine – That’s the whole point! (She’s right).  Rebuttal 3 – about being caged up and poor conditions – they have to be locked up anyway (POI Youngsoo – not that potent/work on clarity).  1st Arg – Zoos are educational.  Wikipedia doesn’t suffice if parents want to expose kids to exotic animals. 2nd Arg – Zoos create jobs and money. Infrastructure, advertising, tourism etc. help economy.  Zoos aren’t for the purpose of forming intimacy – but for entertainment, protection, and education.  This outweighs the harm.  TIME: 6:30
Notes	Tot 18.3 /20		Some arguments a bit weak – raising pets – POI against Celine was counterproductive.	Tot 18.4 /20		Good arguments and rebuttals.  Excellent answer to POI.
Rebuttal One	Pts	Youngsoo		Pts	Diane
Delivery	9.3 /10	Good tone as usual.  Not many flow issues. Not as much emotion as in other debates. Tired?		9.3 /10	Nice tone and steady pace.  Some flow issues in the middle. But I like the calm yet emphatic delivery.
Arguments	9.2 /10	The OPP has to prove that good things outweigh harm, but they aren’t doing it.  Why are zoos necessary?  They aren’t doing that (I think they are).  Rebuttal against meat eating – yes we eat them.  But it’s not the same issue.  We lock them up – this is NOT natural.  Lions don’t lock up zebras (This is a good rebuttal).  Rebuttal against OPP’s intimacy – frequency of visits to zoos (I don’t like this argument for either the OPP or the GOV – “intimacy” is not the proper word. Why is this being dwelled upon at all???). OPP says animals have to be locked up – and zoos are effective environments. But what about stress?  Dolphins for example can’t migrate.  Imagine the stress.  (Good Emotional Appeal).  And even preservation of wildlife is NOT effective when animals are released – they often die! (True) Rebuttals to Arguments: We can learn about animals without zoos – documentaries for example (kind of weak – is there a way to add power to this?) Rebuttal to Economic benefits – when was the last time you went to a zoo?  (POI Rachel – so what? That doesn’t mean they don’t make money! TRUE.  I like this rebuttal) Yes but – there are other tourist spots that can achieve the same result without moral issues (Pretty good reply).  TIME: A lot.		9.4 /10	Rebuttals – Creative – this is getting heavy! Close your eyes (Cute and attention getting – but ended prematurely without clear result) Zoos are good for animals AND families.  We learn, we have good memories (Good but needs more to have emotional impact). Rebuttals to rebuttals – the quality of life is constantly raised up.  Zoos are not just for endangered animals, and they often lead to breeding them and increasing their numbers.  Gov says if released they will die – however – what’s the definition of endangered? Without zoos they will be extinct (Give us an example specifically – Pandas? This argument needs a clear example).  GOV mentions we can be intimate with pets – zoos are not for dogs and cats (True – but I still don’t like this argument and wish someone would dismiss it as irrelevant).  Gov says academic knowledge is gained outside of zoos – BUT it’s not the same (Very true.  For this argument to work for the GOV they need to talk about safaris or something.)  You guys aren’t proving your position! POI Youngsoo – Too long and unclear?  Reply:  We are keeping a few animals for MANY people to enjoy.  The good outweighs. TIME: 6:58
Notes	Tot 18.5 /20	Nice reply to POI, but own POI’s need to be shorter and clearer.		Tot 18.7 /20	Creative intro could have been more effective, but good arguments.
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Hyunuk		Pts	Rachel
Delivery	9.4 /10	Really good tone and presence. Coming along nicely.		9.4 /10	Good as usual.  Nice structured arguments and language.
Arguments	9.3 /10	What are we doing with zoos?  We kidnap animals and stick them in cages, and then we earn money from their misfortune.  We fail to rescue species. We corrupt our own nature.  Do we have a desperate need for zoos? No.  We are superior to animals – so we need to be responsible and set a good example for our children.  (This rescues the GOVS position a little).  INTIMACY – still unclear and irrelevant. POI – Rachel doesn’t get it.  Nobody does! Endangered species – OPP says we provide for them as best as possible. What about other animals that aren’t endangered? Are they provided for? They are just slaves for money.  In the zoo tigers are tamed and this has no connection with going back to nature. EDUCATION – We don’t zoos –just encyclopedia.  POI CELINE – that’s no fun! Reply – unclear.  We can still learn! (Not really. It is boring.)  TOURISM – what about amusement parks? No real new info here.  Zoos are fun?  But not for the animals.  Time: 7:10		9.5 /10	Music and sports analogy good. GOV didn’t live up to this burden of proof.  Three clashes – individuals, animals, society.  Animals – who is really for their rights?  GOV says they die earlier.  Many of these animals HAVE no environment left to live in.  Zoos are essential.  (GOOD and NEW).  GOV says people just hang out at zoos and manage them – NO –they are trained specialists who research and forward better futures.  Next – PETS – pets are just as much slaves and are not an alternative. POI – Chanjung – animals are bred to live in houses are never wild.  REPLY – they are not meant to be tame! (GOOD – but I still don’t like this argument).  SUPERIORITY – we aren’t trying to say we eat them and are superior – we are saying zoos don’t create this or are a result from it (??)  People can’t go to nature regularly to visit nature and see animals – zoos allow this. FIRSTHAND experience is better than a book (TRUE).  THIRD CLASH – economic development – in the US – over 50-60 million from zoos.  This is enough to show that they are positive.  (GOOD STAT – about time we heard some) Good discussion as to why OPP wins. TIME: 6:50
Notes	Tot 18.7 /20	Need to add new info to some of these arguments.  Restating Youngsoo.		Tot 18.9 /20	Nice to hear some stats in a debate that calls for them.  Good logical analysis and rebuttal to “pets.”

CHANGHOON'S FLOW SHEET/FEEDBACK
 

THB: Zoos do more harm than goods

I too thought that the opposition side had won this debate. The debate topic was "THB zoos do more harm than good", not "THB animal rights should be protected". I do agree with the points made by the government side how zoos are caging animals and perhaps make them suffer. But seen from human's point of view, the suffering of animals in a cage seems less important than the economical or entertainment benefits that humans get. It might sound selfish, but that's who we are. We exploit nature and animals for our benefits. And if harmful effects of zoos are limited to animals, zoos do more good than harm to human beings. I guess the debate was harder on government side with their burden of proof to say that zoos do more harm than good.

MOTION: THB Zoos do more harm than good.
Date: 4/1/11		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Chanjung		Jeonghyeon
Delivery	9.5 /10	Good emotion. Nice flow.	9.5 /10	Good delivery, calm and organized
Arguments	9.3 /10	Argument 1. Zoos are not educational. Children might think they are superior to animals by seeing caged animals. Zoos are not effective in creating intimacy with animals since people rarely visit to zoo. 2. Pets are better alternatives for children to form intimacy with animals. 3. Protection of endangered species through zoo is inappropriate. Caged animals get stressed and die early. They can’t adjust in wild life after being caged in zoo. Professional help from animal care center are better alternatives.	9.5/10	Rebuttal1- Children feeling superiority is not an issue since human beings are superior to animals. 2. Animals such as lions or tigers are inadequate to take care as pets. 3. Caging is inevitable in human intervention to endangered species. Along with protecting endangered species, zoos can also earn money since the true purpose of zoo is entertainment. Argument 1. Zoos are educational. Descriptions mentioned in front of cages and pamphlets help visitors to learn about zoo animals. 2. Zoos are economically beneficial. It develop its located region such as new roads and other entertainment sources
Notes	Tot 18.8 /20	Intimacy issue might not strong enough to prove harms, but generally a good start.	Tot 19 /20	Nice rebuttals. Good roadmap.
Rebuttal One	Pts	Youngsoo	Pts	Da Yeon
Delivery	9.5 /10	Good delivery. Strong and organized speech.	9.5 /10	Good flow. Effective delivery.
Arguments	9.8 /10	Argument 1. Superiority over food chain is different issue. Human beings don’t have the right to deprive animal’s freedom and cage them. Children might think they can exploit animals like toys. 2. Frequency influences the relationship greatly so it does not make sense that frequency is not a big matter. And what important is the intimacy itself, not about what object you are forming intimacy. 3. Zoos are not good alternative solution for endangered species concerning that they cannot get adjusted in wild life after forgetting their wild habits in zoos. Rebuttal1. There are tons of sources for education other than zoo pamphlets. And academic knowledge of animal isn’t really important. It is just a descent excuse of zoo. 2. There are better alternatives such as amusement parks to appeal to tourists rather than zoo that cages wild animals and make fun of them.	9.5 /10	Rebuttal 1. Zoos are trying their best for better quality of zoo and animals are getting less stress. And endangered species will eventually die anyway in nature without human intervention. Some help including caging is better than letting them die. 2. Zoos are not meant for keeping dogs and cats. Idea that zoos can’t grow enough intimacy is invalid. 3. Although there are tons of sources for academic knowledge, going to zoo and seeing animals with eyes is totally different. POI(영수)-What about suffering of animals that are not endangered? : Not all animals are caged.
Notes	Tot 19.3 /20	Nice rebuttals. Strong arguments.  Need more time management	Tot 19 /20	Good rebuttals. Better reply on POI perhaps.
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Hyun Uk	Pts	Seohyun
Delivery	9.5 /10	Good tone and flow.	9.5 /10	Effective delivery. Good emotion and flow.
Arguments	9.4 /10	What is zoo? Caging animals and not letting them adjust into nature. Human should be responsible for invading nature. Zoos are not necessities and we don’t have desperate need for it. Clash 1. Superiority issue-we might be superior in some ways but letting children to think that they can exploit animals is wrong. Food chain is different issue since it is for sustaining our life. 2. Intimacy issue-Core of intimacy doesn’t lie in the object, but intimacy itself. We need to learn how to respect animals. 3. Environment issue-Zoo is not good enough for endangered species to adjust in wild life later they are freed. 4. Educational issue-there is only slight difference from zoo pamphlets and textbooks or encyclopedia. 5. Economical issue-other alternatives such as amusement park could bring the same effect. 6. Entertainment issue- can’t be the reason for not being respectful to animals.	9.8 /10	If remove zoos because they are not necessities, why listen to music or play sports? Clash 1. Animals-Opposition side is really for animal’s right. They can’t live in nature which is running out because of global warming and environmental pollution. Consider the conservation biology. People in zoos are professionals, which is the reason why zoo is much more effective than other alternatives. 2. Individuals-Pets are unethical too considering that they are caged, and that they need to adjust in human environment. All animals are born wild including cats and dogs. And animals such as lions or tigers are impossible to have as pets. Zoos provide form of interrelationship with these animals. And we need to consider how first-hand experience is much more effective than looking up in encyclopedia. 3. Society-earn a lot of money. US earn 50 to 60 million dollars from zoo. Burden of proof lies on government and they have not provided any harm to overweigh the benefits.
Notes	Tot 18.9 /20	Good organizing in clashes. Intimacy issue might be the weak point.	Tot 19.3 /20	Strong arguments. Good organization.

Here are your scores from the 30 Days Critical Response and the Debate Scores. The 30 Days ideas were great, and showed a lot of creativity.  I'd still like you guys to provide 3 debate motions related even if it doesn't seem like the assignment calls for it.  There's actually a lot of interesting motions that could evolve from subjects like being lazy, not washing, boycotting Chinese products, and of course morning exercise.  I actually wanted to talk about these during class but we didn't have time.  Next week perhaps.  I'll post Changhoon's material in a new post for your next CR. 

Class 11L1	CR#4	Debate#4
Hendrix	9.3/10	9.4/10
Lennon	9.0/10	9.2/10
Page	9.1/10	9.2/10
Presley	9.7/10	9.4/10
Dylan	9.2/10	9.4/10
Clapton	9.6/10	9.5/10
McCartney	9.2/10	N/A
Young	9.4/10	*9.4/10

 

The Basics of Debate - Roles and Rules

Some of you have expressed that you're still a bit in the dark about the basic rules of a debate, and my apologies for not covering them more diligently.  Thanks to Wayne for forwarding this information, which is used in GLPS.  Keep in mind that our in-class debates are much more informal, and we aren't as strict with time or mandatory POI's at this point in the course.  Though, as we become more comfortable, we should try to get more formal and structured, and perhaps try to debate some of the other classes if time can be found for it (evening? IR?).   

Those of you who want extra debate practice in a more competitive environment against other students other than those in your class, I propose a sign up sheet for a specified time.  We will discuss this and try to work something out after midterms.

So here are the rules and roles explained for formal tournaments (in this case GLPS).  They are different from tournament to tournament, so don't pay too much attention to scoring or time limits etc.    I've also deleted stuff that isn't relevant.

 

Parliamentary Debate Rules

DEBATE FORMAT

·         Each debate will consist of two teams with four students on each team (or three if numbers restrict)

·         One team will represent the government/proposition side and support the motion being debated

·         The other team will represent the opposition side and oppose the motion being debated

·         Speaking order

·         Proposition-Prime Minister: 6 minutes

·         Opposition-Opposition Leader: 6 minutes

·         Proposition-Deputy Prime Minister: 6 minutes

·         Opposition-Deputy Opposition Leader: 6 minutes

·         Proposition-Whip: 6 minutes

·         Opposition-Whip: 6 minutes

·         Opposition-Reply:  4 minutes

·         Government-Reply: 4 minutes

·         Speakers holding the floor will be expected to speak for 6 minutes, with an additional grace period of up to 30 additional seconds

·         Speakers will  be penalized points for speeches lasting less than 6 minutes or that go beyond the 6:30 grace period

·         Per the above bullet, two points will be deduced from a speakers strategy points for speeches that do not fall between 6 minutes to the 6:30 grace period

·         Per the above bullet, an additional point will be deduced from a speakers strategy points for every 15 seconds that his/her speech falls short or exceeds the 6 minute to 6:30 grace period

·         POI’s by the opposing team may be offered to the speaker holding the floor after the first minute of speech and up to the start of the fifth minute-the first and sixth minute are known as “Protected Times” for which no POI’s can be offered

·         It is the duty of each team to decide which team member will perform in each speaker role.

·         All speeches must be delivered from the podium

·         Speakers holding the floor are allowed to use a stopwatch as a means of timing their total speaking time.

ADJUDICATORS

·         Adjudicators will be in charge of what happens in the debate room, including calling the house to order and directing speakers to the podium.

·         All debate rounds will be judged by an odd number of adjudicators

·         Preliminary rounds will be judged by a single adjudicator

·         In debates with 3 or more adjudicators, 1 adjudicator will be designated as the chair for the debate

·         At least one adjudicator should offer constructive feedback to teams or speakers at the end of the round, preferably the chair when 3 or more adjudicators are present

·         Adjudicators should offer an explanation for why a team won/lost a round

·         Adjudicators should offer some constructive feedback to debaters, something which to improve upon in future rounds

·         In cases where there are 3 or more adjudicators present, adjudicators must not discuss the debate or the outcome/winner of the debate until all adjudicators present for the debate have completed their individual ballot

·         In the event that a silent round is announced, no adjudicator will provide any form of feedback

·         Should a dispute arise between teams, adjudicators will use their best judgment to reach a resolution

TIMEKEEPERS

·         All debate rounds should have a timekeeper present

·         Timekeepers will rap one time at 1 minute and one time at 5 minutes, to signify the start and end times for POI’s, respectively

·         In the event a POI is offered before or after the time allowed, the timekeeper will state “out of order”

·         At 6 minutes, the timekeeper will rap two times to signify the time limit

·         At 6’30’’, the timekeeper will continue to rap until the speaker ends his/her presentation

·         Following each speech, timekeepers will announce actual speech times for adjudicators

·         In the event that timekeepers are not available, adjudicators will take on the responsibilities of timekeepers

·         Timekeepers will be responsible for delivering completed adjudicator ballots to the tabbing room

·         Timekeepers are responsible for setting up the debate room for each round

·         Timekeepers should write the exact wording of the motion being debated on the board

·         Timekeepers should write the names of each speaker on the board as well as each speakers position

·         Timekeepers should arrange the desks so that, when facing the board, the proposition side is on the left and the opposition on the right

·         Timekeepers should place a  podium/desk between the proposition and opposition teams

·         Timekeepers should arrange 2 desks that face the teams debating

·         One desk is for the adjudicator and the other for the timekeeper

·         When there are 3 adjudicators, timekeepers should arrange 4 desks

BALLOT MARKING

·         Adjudicators must complete their ballots on an individual basis before any discussion with debaters or other adjudicators present

·         Each completed ballot must have a winning team-no draws are allowed

·         Adjudicators are responsible for totaling their ballots and verifying the winning team by writing the winning team’s name in the designated area on the ballot

·         The team with the highest combined points for its three speakers is the winning team for an individual adjudicator

·         The team with a lower combined total of points cannot win the debate

·         When 3 or more adjudicators are present, the wining team is the team that the majority of judges picked  as the winning team (i.e., 2-1, 3-0,) and is not determined by the total combined speaker points of all adjudicators

·         Half points are allowed but no quarter points

·         Each debater will be judged in three categories

·         Style (40%)

·         Style refers to the presentation and delivery of a speaker including, among others: mature language, conviction, pace and clarity of delivery, humor, the degree of reliance upon notes or other materials, eye contact, body language

·         The scoring criteria for style:

·         Approximately 40 points for the performance of a lifetime

·         Approximately 35 points for excellence

·         Approximately 30 points for average to above average

·         Approximately 25 points for below average

·         Content (40%)

·         Content refers to information being presented by the speaker, including appropriate, logical and well developed arguments, rebuttals and/or clashes, organization, effectiveness in addressing accepted POI’s

·         Adjudicators will weigh the merit of the debate on the content of the debate itself and not any personal opinion(s) on the motion being debated

·         The scoring criteria for content:

·         Approximately 40 points for a performance of a lifetime

·         Approximately 35 points for excellence

·         Approximately 30 points for average to above average

·         Approximately 25 points for below average

·         Strategy (20%)

·         Strategy refers to a debaters appreciation of the main issues surrounding the motion being debated and includes: how well a speaker completed his/her speaker duties, time management (inclusive of time invested on rebuttals and arguments, overall speaking time, opening remarks), offering relevant POI’s during the debate, effective organization with a road map offered and adhered to

·         The scoring criteria for strategy:

·         Approximately 20 points for a performance of a lifetime

·         Approximately 17-18  points for excellence

·         Approximately 15-16 points for average to above average

·         Approximately 12-14 points for below average

SPEAKER ROLES

·         Proposition-Prime Minister: 6 minutes

·         The role of the first speaker for the proposition, the Prime Minister, is to define the motion, establish the issues for debate, outline the proposition case and explain how the case will be divided between the proposition speakers, which would include presenting a part of the case

·         The Prime Minister should define the motion in a way that a reasonable person would expect by offering a common sense explanation

·         Definitions should not be time or place set, nor is squirreling allowed

·         Squirreling is a deliberate attempt to define a motion in such a way that the opposition would not be able to anticipate it or distorting a definition so that it goes against spirit of the motion actually being debated

·         A good definition will allow both teams to actively debate and clash over the issues most relevant to the motion being debated

·         When a motion may not have a clear or obvious meaning, it remains the duty of the proposition to choose a reasonable definition which will leave room for the opposition to debate

·         Opposition-Opposition Leader: 6 minutes

·         The role of the first speaker of the opposition, the Leader of the Opposition, is to either accept or challenge the definition, respond to the proposition case, outline the opposition case, then explain how the case will be divided between the speakers, which would include presenting part of the case

·         If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to challenge the definition, he/she must do it in the opening minute of his/her presentation, explain why the definition is being challenged, then offer a definition which he/she feels meets the spirit of the motion being debated

·         If the Leader of the Opposition does not challenge the definition, it will be assumed that the definition has been accepted

·         The opposition may either simply attack the case presented by the proposition side or they may offer a substantive case of their own

·         Providing a substantive case is generally considered more advantageous than merely attacking the opposition side

·         Proposition-Deputy Prime Minister: 6 minutes

·         The role of the Deputy Prime Minister is to deal with the definition if it has been challenged

·         In the event the opposition has challenged the original definition provided by the Prime Minister and offered an explanation for the challenge a new definition, and the Deputy Prime Minister does not challenge that new definition, it is assumed the proposition side has accepted the definition and no further definition challenges can be made

·         The Deputy Prime Minister would then respond the case presented by the opposition, then to continue with the case outlined by the Prime Minister

·         Opposition-Deputy Opposition Leader: 6 minutes

·         The role of the Deputy Opposition Leader is to deal with the definition if it has been challenged, respond the case presented by the proposition side, then continue with the case outlined by the Leader of the Opposition

·         Proposition-Whip: 6 minutes

·         The role of the proposition Whip is to deal with the definition if it continues to be an issue, then respond to the oppositions case

·         The primary role of the proposition Whip is to respond to what has gone on in the debate, such as focusing on what the team feels are the major clashes of the debate and how his/her team effectively won those clashes

·         The proposition Whip may not introduce any new constructive content in his/her speech

·         If the proposition Whip is to present part of propositions case, then this must have been outlined by the Prime Minister’s speech

·         Opposition-whip: 6 minutes

·         The role of the opposition Whip is to deal with the definition if it continues to be an issue, then respond to the proposition teams case

·         The primary role of the opposition Whip is to respond to what has gone on in the debate, such as by focusing on what the team feels are the major clashes of the debate and how their team effectively won those clashes

·         The opposition Whip may not introduce any new constructive content in his/her speech

·         If the opposition Whip is to present part of oppositions case, then this must have been outlined by the Opposition Leader’s  speech

PROPOSITON/OPPOSITION DUTIES

·         The proposition side is not obliged to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, only that its case would hold true in the majority of cases

·         The opposition side must prove more than a reasonable doubt about the propositions case

·         If the topic is expressed as an absolute, the proposition side must prove the topic is true in a majority of cases but not necessarily in each and every situation

·         If the topic is expressed as an absolute, the opposition side must present more than a single instance where the topic is not true and prove that it is not true for a significant minority of cases

POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI’s)

• POI’s may be offered to the speaker holding the floor by  the opposing team after the first minute of speaking up until the start of the fifth minute of speaking
• Approximately 2 to 4 POI’s must be offered when a speaker of the  opposing team is holding the floor
• All members on a team should make the effort to offer POI’s to the opposing teams speaker holding the floor
• Speakers holding the floor must accept a minimum of one or two POI’s
• When offering a POI, a debater should stand and gesture to the opposing teams speaker holding the floor and say something along the lines of “on that point,” or” before you go on”
• The debater offering the POI must wait for the speaker holding the floor to accept the POI before delivering that POI
• The debater offering the POI must sit down if the speaker holding the floor declines or waves off the attempted POI
• If two or three speakers all rise at the same time and offer a POI to the speaker, the speaker may decline all three POI’s or accept whomever’s he/she wishes to address
• If a POI is accepted by the speaker holding the floor, the debater offering the POI should phrase it as a question, clarification or comment which takes no more than 15 seconds of time
• POI’s which last longer than 15 seconds will be “called to order” by the adjudicator
• The speaker holding the floor may accept a POI by informing the debater fielding the POI to wait a moment
• The speaker holding the floor does not need to wait for the debater fielding the POI to state it fully-once the speaker holding the floor understands the point, he/she can immediately begin to address it
• Barracking, or continuously offering POI’s in an attempt to excessively interrupt the debater holding the floor, is not allowed
• A POI cannot be offered within seconds of the speaker holding the floor declining a previous POI
• POI’s cannot be offered when the speaker holding the floor is responding to a POI
• Adjudicators will make the final decision as to whether POI’s begin to infringe upon the ability of the speaker holding the floor to present
• When a speaker holding the floor accepts a POI, he/she must respond within the context of his/her speech
• Debaters may never offer POI’s to members on their own team