Final Exam Scores

Hey guys,

We already talked about this in class, but again I remind you - I was as fair as possible while grading these. This is only 20% of your grade. I will have a full breakdown ready very soon.


Here are the results:

121086-92.6
121046-91.9
121058-91.5
121043-91.3
121132-90.8
121063-90.6
121002-90.1
121139-89.9
121044-89.8
121095-89.5
121116-89.2

Debate #3: Gay Adoption

This was a pretty good debate, and featured some good speeches from both sides that we can learn from.  Yoonhong and Hyungwoo delivered well time-wise and content wise, and Hyungwoo showed the best example of sign posting.  IF there is one thing every speaker can easily improve, it is this.  List your arguments and then summarize at the end.  Even if your arguments are not that good, they will be that much better if your audience knows what you said and in what order.  In some debates it is the team that is clearest that wins.

Another thing - don't repeat your teammates arguments.  Present NEW examples and add to what they say.  And if you guys summarize more - you will be closer to 5 minutes. 

AND - BIG AND - you guys need to have more fun BEFORE you start your arguments.  "Set the table" with a little story that peaks the audiences interest.  In the case of gay adoption, you can paint a picture of an ideal set of parents who have money, success, and good values - and then reveal that they are gay.  Meanwhile, you can paint a picture of two parents who are not ideal - with no money and no success and alcohol addiction - and then reveal that they are heterosexual parents.  Which home is better?  More of that kind of analogizing and preamble is necessary to make your speeches more interesting. 

For this debate, the Opposition won narrowly because of Hyungwoo.  There wasn't a single POI in this debate despite some pretty ridiculous things said that SHOULD prompt the other team to say WHAT???  Such as Gyushik saying that women also clean more than men.  And that last thing he said. 

Anyways, we will leave debate alone and move on to more creative things.  Hope you enjoyed it and hope you take debate next semester.

THB: Homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt.
Date: May 7th		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Yoonhong		Mingyu
Delivery	9.2 /10	Good delivery, but arguments need better signposting.  Unclear what main arguments are and what sub-arguments are.  Be clear and list them in a better conclusion.	9.0 /10	Really good listing and sign posting.  But more confidence and flow needed, and more time needed.  Third argument was too short and you didn't summarize.  First two arguments very good.
Arguments	9.2 /10	General perceptions of homosexuals - no longer viewed as harmful. Celebs etc. are changing the status quo.  Discrimination is "almost gone" (really?).  However, we are against adoption. 1. Not a good environment for education development.  Children won't learn gender roles.  They still exist and are still important.   2. Maternal - breast feeding.  Men can't do this.  Mental growth etc. depends on this.   3. Conflict between children and society combined with inner conflict.  Young kids are effected by prejudice etc.  Kids will suffer emotionally.  Inner conflict - kids will feel different from others.  At a young age, this is not good.  6:06	9.1 /10	Homosexuality has long history. Gay adoption is often secretly conducted.  We should consider their rights.  3 reasons: 1. We should consider their rights.  They have the right to be parents and have a family. It is a natural human desire.  Also, if they become old, they will be lonely.  Without kids, they will have a hard time. 2. No specific evidence that kids suffer from problems.  Foster care 1999 stats show that - children are no worse off than those in straight families.  It is prejudice and bias that we assume kids will have problems.  Problems are not restricted to gays. 3.  Other ways to adopt?  (not sure about this one.) 3:40
Notes	Tot 18.4 /20		Tot 18.1 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	Jungseong	Pts	Hyungwoo
Delivery	8.9 /10	Started well, but ran out of gas and sign posting.  Blended arguments.  Too short.  Rebuttals better than arguments. Didn't add to what PM stated really. Slow down and elaborate clearly.  Have some fun.	9.3 /10	Excellent.  Good all around. Clear and good arguments.  Nice signposting and time management.
Arguments	9.0 /10	Rebuttal 1 - "protect natural rights" - what about the rights of the children?  Children can inherit conflict and problems from their environment. Children should be considered more than the parents because they have limited choice. Rebuttal 2 - prejudice about problems.  You say no evidence, but how can we say that? Evidence is hard to judge. Rebuttal 3 - This argument doesn't stand because we are not arguing about black market.  We are debating about "adoption." Argument 1 - Education - kids won't know about normal family environment.  A lot of discrimination exists, and kids shouldn't have to deal with this. (????? too fast... coulnd't catch it.) 3:24	9.2 /10	Rebuttal 1 - first reason - not good for nurturing children without gender roles and maternal mom etc. - (WHY NO POI etc. assuming that these two parents are MEN???).  Grandparents etc. will make up for that.  Society enables this education, and we can't limit it to parents.   Breast feeding etc. - not strong enough of a reason to ban adoption.  A good parent is better than no parent.  (GOOD). Rebuttal 2 - Kids can be discriminated - Sure - BUT government can actively change this problem, and it will be solved eventually.  Again, not strong enough - single parents also have problems.  Most kids have something to be ashamed of - so why discriminate?   Rebuttal to rebuttals - Ideal conditions should be considered - and this does not need to focus on sexual orientation.  Kids need homes, and some gays are willing to adopt kids that other people won't - such as teens.  It's a win win and we should thank these gay parents who want to do so.  Will we tell them no?  And keep kids out of homes? 5:05
Notes	Tot 17.9 /20		Tot 18.5 /20
Conclusion	Pts	Gyushik	Pts	Hee Hyeon
Delivery	9.1 /10	Good considering the circumstance of limited time.  But... arguments not so organized or strong.	9.0 /10	Good considering the circumstances, but you need to spend more time within the arguments
Arguments	8.9 /10	Rebuttals - yes kids can learn from grandparents - but parents are the most important.   Breastfeeding - just an example and there are far more reasons gay parents are not ideal.  Cleaning etc. (Really??? No POI?? Come on guys.) Children have negative views of homosexuality.  Children won't want gay parents. That is their right. Gays love boys - ????? Not sure where you are going with this.  Homosexuality is wrong (?).   4:05	8.9 /10	Differences - yes - but true value of human rights needs to be kept. Childrens rights - identity problems - but what about regular families?  They will have that as well.  Everyone needs to figure this out. Gender roles - society teaches this. Breastfeeding - not strong enough reason.  What about handicapped parents?  We can't think they are bad parents, so we can't think this about gays. Discrimination - social problem. Not the problem of gays.  So this can not be considered.   Finally, you said that you can't believe our evidence.  But that's not correct.   So we think it should be allowed. 3:27
Notes	Tot 18.0 /20		Tot 17.9 /20

Gay Adoption - Debate #3

 Here are some helpers for the debate:

Have fun preparing!


http://idebate.org/debatabase/debates/moral-religious/house-believes-homosexuals-should-be-able-adopt

Debate #2

This was a very good debate.  Good volume and generally good POI's.  All speakers spoke confidently and interacted well. 

Things to improve:

Opening speakers should spend more time creatively before they dive into their arguments.  Set the table.  Tell a story. In this debate you could have painted a picture of this student who may or may not be a model.

POI's are good, but if they aren't making sense MOVE ON.  Don't try and figure out who means what.  If the team the proposes the POI doesn't make sense, you can state that and the judges may agree and deduct points.  If you make a POI, keep it simple and make sure it is clear.  KH's POI about extra points for council members added was good, and could have been carried further.  It was the only clear one.

A little bit more sign-posting.  And use your time wisely.  MK was excellent in his rebuttals, but had plenty of time to add more to an argument.  In most cases a speaker should not only rebutt, but also elaborate at least one argument.

Summarize.  YH did an excellent job of that before he sat down. He realized he still had time and made use of it. 

Some of the best arguments came in Luke's final speech.  I think the OPP would have one if all speakers had referenced his argument about the nature of the rules, and whether or not all of them are good rules.  The OPP didn't do a good enough job as a team to raise questions about the KMLA environment and how "some rules are made to be broken." 

Generally, it was a very very close debate, and both sides did good things and also missed some opportunities.  The Gov was a bit clearer and easier to follow, and they managed their time just a bit better.  The OPP got caught in POI's a little, and started getting circular in their arguments and rebuttals to rebuttals to rebuttals.  There was also too much Korean and Korean words used in the debate that I did not understand.  Some of this didn't seem to apply to the debate.

THB: Student council members should be dismissed if they receive 25 penalty points.
Date: May 1st		GOVERNMENT - Winner		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Hyungwoo		Keunhyung
Delivery	9.0 /10	Good volume and flow, but spend more time with a creative intro that sets the table. You dove in to your arguments a bit too quickly, speaking a bit too quickly.  Slow down and you will get closer to 5:00 for time.	9.1 /10	Great delivery. Some very good things at work.  But a bit short. That's the only weakness.  Why only two arguments?  If your team has more, set the table and define the roles of the other speakers. Very good signposting and emotion/volume.  Like the Gov PM, we need a more creative preamble.  Describe to us this student who you are defending.  Tell us a story. TOO MUCH KOREAN during recess.
Arguments	9.2 /10	1.Self control represented in penalty points.  25 points is a lot.  These students must do work that represents students. 2. Students are representatives of the school. If the outside world sees this, it looks bad for our image.  3.  A warning to all students. Students will be more conscious of the points if they see student council punished.   Nice conclusion,decent sign posting.  Maybe too fast with delivery, and could spend more time with creative preamble.  Time: 4:37	8.9 /10	Penalty points defined.  Good.  Designed to control students, and protect rights and benefits. Two arguments: 1.  Penalty points don't represent the student. They are designed to control the students.  "For example, I ate chicken" - good example! Nice personal twist.  No POI from Gov??? Missed chance. 2.  Students council is called students union in English.  Students for students.  Teachers don't have the right to interfere.  Students should be the ones dismissing.  Excellent emotion and expounding on details.  Good signposting.   Only two arguments?  Either this is inaccurate as a result of poor sign posting, or you guys need more. Time: 3:11
Notes	Tot 18.2 /20		Tot 18.0 /20
Rebuttal One	Pts	(OPP) Paul	Pts	(GOV) Minkyu
Delivery	9.0 /10	Good volume and some good beginnings, but distracted by POI.  Stay focused and make sure you sign post and remain clear. Spoke longer than GOV deputy BUT too much of that is unclear deliberation about POI.	9.2 /10	Good POI and good rebuttals. But need some arguments.  It seems you just rebutted.  You have plenty of time to do more, so stay up there and add more to what the PM said.
Arguments	9.0 /10	Rebuttals: Penalty points and chicken - reflective of personality - BUT if you think this way - consider the cafeteria line and using time efficiently.  Have you never eaten food in your room that is illegal?  You have.  We all do.  It is not related to self control.  POI - Hyungwoo - a bit unclear - self control related to time management.  Clarify the clarification? Unclear on the unclear.  (You guys should move on). Argument: 1. Personality is not reflected in penalty points.  Students are forced into desperate means because they have no time. 2.  Who can dismiss who?  (unclear, need more). Rebuttal to rebuttal: Listing of different kinds of penalties - do these penalties reflect personality?  Poor examples - many times for small incidents or a few times for big penalties?  (What is the logic here? Be more clear). 7:35	8.9 /10	Rebuttal of claims and definitions: Penalty points NOT only given by teachers. Also by other students.  POI - Keung hyung - is it really by students? Teachers supervise. Reply: Students have more control, so it is mostly students.  SO - penalty points were not described accurately.   Personality - self control is reflected in personality and penalty points. In the chicken example, we can can see that KH likes to break rules.  His law abiding spirit is weak.  We need this in Student council. Teachers have no right to change it?  But the council is made by students. 4:04 No arguments?  Just rebuttals?  Should elaborate on at least one argument.
Notes	Tot 18 /20		Tot 18.1 /20
Conclusion	Pts	(GOV) Yoonhong	Pts	(OPP) Luke
Delivery	9.2 /10	Very clear, and well managed.  Generally well structured.  Good time management.	9.3 /10	Good. When clear very clear, but some meanderings into confusion.  Stay focused and organized.  Manage time more effectively, don't linger on confusing POI.
Arguments	9.2 /10	Good intro and description of your duties.   Rebuttal to "penalty points result of time pressures etc., not personality."  True, but all students have these problems, but not all students have many penalties. (Should say "status quo" does not have that many points - it is not that common.)  It isn't easy to have that many points. POI - KH - is it right that student council gets an extra point?  (Good! But did you guys use this to its full potential?) Nice reply - student council agree to be models, so they should have extra penalty.  Rebuttal - alternate punishments - Paul - stand up! - POI - I never said that.  I said being a model is not decided by points - but also by grades and achievment. But what is the important trait of a leader?  To set an example and lead as a model student. Can we admire so many penalty points?  Yes, good grades etc. are impressive, but we need more. Summarize of argmuments -  We believe members should be dismissed because they will harm our image.   They will also set a warning for other students - symbols of penalty points. 6:11	9.2 /10	Rebuttals: Meanings of Korean names for these organizations - the real meanings.  (I'm unclear - how does this apply?) Personality and leadership - related - but I don't think so.  HW - POI - Stand up! - are you sure it is not related? What about a student who has this but not this? Luke - students have diverse personality.  We can't measure it or judge it with points. Self control - is not personality.  POI - MK - law abiding?  Dismissed. Dangerous logic - many laws are passed, but do they represent society accurately?  No. (Are you saying some rules are made to be broken?) Good argument, OPP could have done more here using this argument from the start.  A bit late/underdeveloped. It can't be a warning to other students because - (????? Not clear). Model Students are school's image - yes - but what is school image?  We should try to be happy and focus on that. Not following rules too strictly.   8:01
Notes	Tot 18.4 /20		Tot 18.5 /20

Flow Sheet

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