Debate Winner

Team Sumo:

Strengths:

1. Good points about the necessity of conservation
2. Strong opening statement
2. A multitude of these points were made.

Weaknesses:

1. A specific case was not built up:
The opening constructive argument requires that a specific CASE is built up to demonstrate the validity, solvency, and inherent validity of your argument.

2. Rebuttal did not question, or specifically attack the opposite side's position (is National Geographic Literature or conservation study?)

Middle ground:

1. Questions asked were good for obtaining information, but did not allow you to attack the other team directly.

2. No real questions were ASKED to the team, so no points will be deducted

Opening statement 25/30
Supporting points (cases) 30/40
Questions Asked: 10/15
Questions Responded: 15/15
Bonus points for having TWO team members turn in paper on time +5

Total: 85/100

Team Boys:

Strengths and weaknesses: Young Geun did a good amount of research for your team. However, your team did NOT address the topic "literature study AGAINST conservation study".

There is a big difference between "studying conservation", as your topic did, and arguing that conservation is better than something else.

If the topic had been "the necessity for conservation, you'd have won the debate easily.

Alas, it was not.

Also, when questioned as to your topic relating to the subject, Team Boy was unable to effectively defend this point. It did not relate, so this would have been a very hard point to win.

Opening statement: 20/30 (no real thesis, but strong research)
Supporting points: 35/40 (again, a lot of information, but not addressing the topic
Asking Questions: 12/15
Responding to questions: 5/15

Total:
72/100 (If Sang-Ki and Jae-Young had done research, or presented a thesis you COULD have won.)

Team Eun-Soo-Su-Bin:

Strengths: The opening statement was nearly perfect as you addressed the other side's arguments before going into your argument.

Additionally, you pointed out the internal qualities of literary study (emotional), before launching into examples (Farenheit 451) warning against ignorance.

Asking questions: You were able to pin down the very quick witted Young Geun about his lack of a thesis

Responding to questions: Questioned about the validity of including The Great Gatsby in your argument, you were able to specifically state that it was related only to your argument concerning emotional states.

Weaknesses: Your rebuttal did not elaborate, or provide any strong information that built upon your position. Luckily, you had already constructed a quite strong argument, and defended against all questions.

Also, you classified "National Geographic" as literature, not conservation. If you remember the debate topic concerned "conservation STUDY", not the actual act of conservation. Victoria was GOING to question you about this, but did not. So you escaped without having to rebut this point. You were very lucky on that topic.

Opening statement: 29/30 ( I hate to give perfect scores)
Supporting points: 37/40 (If you'd specifically cited an instance in Fahrenheit 451, or The Great Gatsby, you could've been 40/40, maybe...)
Asking Questions: 13/15 (You failed to question Team Sumo)
Responding to Questions: 15/15 (Nearly perfect responses).

Total score 93/100

Winner: Team Eun-Soo-Su-Bin