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

Debate

Your first debate last week was actually very good considering that you haven't had much guidance. But, to be honest, the only way to learn debate is to try it and make mistakes. All in all, it's just a structured argument that intends to give fair opportunity to all speakers. If you think about it that way, and as a team effort, figuring out who says what becomes easier. Let's continue seeing what these Ivy leaguers do in this debate.

THW: Reject Facebook.

  

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., as that can be adjusted to fit our situation, and some contests are different.   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