This was a better that average debate but not that much better. All speakers fulfilled
their roles. But, the quality of argument and its developed was uneven. Rebuttal by
prop often missed what were the best arguments of the opp. There were very few
examples and specifics, especially by the prop. Instead of developing why I should
accept something, it was often just asserted that it was true and that we all knew
that. Your job is to make an argument, not try to read my mind. With the best
arguments that were not effectively refuted, it was an opp sweep.
I wish opp had talked about criminal conspiracies and RICO (USA) laws.
Please do not refer to people by name. I do not know your name. You may think you
are famous but you are not that famous.
The PM set up an acceptable case, but the team had some weaknesses.
1. They did not discuss how courts and prosecutors would determine gang
membership.
2. The third point in PM speech was weak, as it said domestic law enforcement was
bad but they don't solve that,
Neither of these was exploited, but I found myself unpersuaded because of these
weaknesses.
3. The PM was out of order during OW speech.
But, the real problems were....
4. DPM does not refute any of the principle arguments.
5. DPM's refutation was so fragmentary that it was not very coherent.
6. The extension by DPM is disorganized, and focuses so much on solving the
problem that it is almost a hung case.
7. the claim that they will stop 100% where now it is 0% is absurd and hurts
credibility.
PM had OK style, DPM did not (sentence fragments, disfluencies, strange pauses,
etc.)
LO did a very nice job of engaging and pointing out major problems in the prop case.
1. They set the stage for the argument (that had legs) that they would continue to
commit crimes, thus not deterred, since they are already criminals. .
2. Two important tenets of the legal system (freedom of association and innocent
until proven guilty) that were infringed.
3. Some problems with time allocation, so promised 3rd point was not explained
enough. Also, second point on focusing on bottom not the top should have been
better developed.
DLO was not as good, but still fairly good:
1. Refutation was logical and well organized. The hits were on important prop
points.
2. First substantive on how this increased social alienation which was the cause of
gang membership (all seemed to agree) made a good point, but argument about why
"they will talk when protected by the government" made little sense.
3. Very important second substantive, on better information now, was barely
developed.
LO & DLO had OK style, but DLO less so, too many disfluencies.
This team had some problems.
MG:
1. First substantive merely covered over again things said by PM. Answer to POI on
Yakuza was very weak, "Japan law enforcement is unique."
2. First rebuttal point on hurting ability to assemble, organize etc. was the strongest
of the crew, but not developed.
3. Refutation points were not developed in a fashion that rally reached me, more
fragmentary in focus.
4. Dilemma: if in, will leave; if no one to lead, OK. This sounded nice, but was not
developed.
5. Second substantive point had almost no time to be developed. Promise without
fulfillment leaves me cold.
GW:
1. Too often arguments are phrased as questions, and then I am not sure what the
answers are.
2. Jokes about Masons and community groups were not funny and trivialized true
nature of gang membership in underclass situation. He seemed more interested in
entertaining himself than informing me.
3. BIGGEST PROBLEM...When you promise three points of summary, I expect three
points of summary, not 1.25 points of summary. It was so bad he almost failed to
fulfill his speaker role, but at least he attempted to summarize the debate even if he
did not succeed.
Style OK MG speech, weak GW speech.
Failure of GW speech puts them 4th.
Not perfect by any means and many areas in need of improvement, but a fairly good
job.
MO speech was pretty good:
1. Refutation hit on two important points that prop never fully dealt with, that gangs
are many things besides crime, and that if they are already criminals (as pop says)
then they will not be stopped by govt model.
2. First substantive is excellent point, that gangs will become more secretive and
hard to identify, that this makes information harder to come by, that infiltration
becomes more difficult, that public cannot identify them as different from other
criminals. Thus, net negative effect on law enforcement efforts against gangs.
3. Second substantive point was sort of an offshoot of the first, cannot identify secret
gangs as well, but reinforces that if they are already criminal they will not be
deterred,
4. Third substantive was also a sort of repeat about deterrence. Well, at least the
first substantive was very good.
OW: Best speech in the debate.
1. Two points of summary were central to the debate.
2. Intro clearly showed a net negative impact on law enforcement, and both
summary points drove this home.
3. Used actual real life examples to prove points.
4. Focused on partners extension first, but also took best argument from 1st opp on
principle and worked it into his second point.
5. There was a contradiction on the "fear reprisals" point within the speech, so not
as good as it could have been.
Fairly strong arguments, good focus on how law enforcement is the net loser.
MO speech was good, OW speech was quite good.
While this was not an extremely clear debate I decided it fairly easily.
Opp sweep.
First prop started the debate but did not continue it. THIRD
Second prop did not have a new or well developed extension (but they had some
extension), and GW had meltdown. Time allocation problems made it hard for them
in both speeches. FOURTH. (plus bad sense of humor by GW)
First opp had a good first speech even if last two substantives were underdeveloped,
had good refutation, and had SOME very good arguments in substantive, like
principles. Second speech had good refutation but substantives could have been
better developed (especially second in DLO). SECOND.
Second opp had mostly strong substantive (especially first one), good and
economical rebuttal, and a very strong whip speech that highlighted the MO first
substantive but also used first opp's better points. Very nice OW speech makes them
FIRST. Fewer mistakes, more shining points.
THIRD.
1. Set up acceptable case, but had few examples to support except brief name
mention.
2. Almost a hung case (first speaker problem, second speaker solution).
3. Refutation missed better arguments.
4. Unclear focus of DPM extension.
Thus, they started the debate but did not continue it well, and fell to beter 1st opp.
However, did not have summary meltdown of GW, pulling them ahead.
I did hate when PM was out of order in GW speech. It cost a point.
SECOND.
1. Effective refutation in both speeches.
2. At least one strong and developed substantive in each speech.
3. Some time allocation problems, but at least it did not ruin their best arguments.
4. Should have had two substantive instead of three in LO.
5. Issues had legs and lived until last speech in the debate.
A little too much rebuttal in DLO speech, perhaps, but at least it was cogent and well
organized.
FOURTH.
1. MG extension was not really that new.
2. Bad time allocation in both speeches hurt argument development. This was really
true of GW as he did not even get to his third point of summary.
3. Overstated claims without backing (will leave, no one to lead example).
4. Some bad answers to POIs, especially Yakuza answer.
5. Too much time at beginning of GW restating things from PM ("gangs are just bad,
not like Masons") but NEVER addressed best argument of MO (secrecy).
6. When you do not do your job adequately and you do not clash with the best issues
of the other team, you end up last.
FIRST.
1. MO refutation was spot in and wasted no time in pointing out big errors on
composition of gangs and that if all are criminals no deterrent.
2. MO established that acting against gangs would be MORE difficult because of
invisibility, secrecy and underground nature.
3. MO established that there would be LESS information for law enfocement.
4. OW was in command of the debate, on the arguments and in terms of style, as one
serves the other.
4. OW took the best issues and made them the focus of the speech.
5. Team line of "a new loss for law enforcement" was clear and supported by issues.
OW was best speaker in the debate, MO was among the best.
I WAS NOT GIVEN ANY SCORING GUIDE.
OG 77 76 3rd
OO 79 77 2nd
CG 76 74 4th
CO 77 81 1st