- Yi Yu Yang he/him
- Cyrus he/him
- Tschumi he/him R. Cyrus
- Teng Siang he/him
- Ian he/him
- Anggun she/her R. Jeremy he/him
Why take on burden of Best? Not good strategy "The racism law" "Rosa parks" just disobeying once and all the civil rights movement sparking on from that "Most effective way" Why is no one POIng youuuu
Communist China existed until after the 1950s - Doesn't come into the debate because it's not a liberal democracy
Rosa Parks came to the front of the bus Awareness without political organizing is a weak Good spotting that their examples didn't apply Learn to spike the win ! They have no case! Call them out on it! Smart to call 1950s US not a liberal democracy - why not clarify which countries you are talking about.
Counter Mech should be presented first!!! Arg 1 "Doesn't work" is better phrased as refutation - you're gonna say that anyways!
Smart to split analysis into passive/active CD, but need to dig deeper. Be careful not to argue that the power is just because its the law - circular support for authoritarianism. Great counter example on the Trump radicalists and the Capitol HIll attack! => WHAT WAS THE ANALYSIS HERE? They almost had a coup d'etat! That's a huge win for your side! Claim it!
Any group can disrupt a law they don't like? Buddy I got news for you about billionaires... :/
Social Media polls and platforms as a countermech - WHOOPS, why can't prop do both?
Where was your roadmap? Where is your internal structure?
You keep making assertions like "it will be supported", "that is the general consensus"
2nd OK, I heard your external structure transition to rebuilding your case, but I'm still struggling.
WAIT - so you DO want the right to revolt, vs not being violent?
You're reading an essay, but not making a debate speech.
"By supporting CD, we are strengthening the people's right ... destroying exploitation" => these are just empty assertions.
Where did you engage with the Opp's counter mechanism?
Need to check out Mark's Webber Mechanism's module.
Also need to check out the flowing module.
ANTIVAXXERS is a great example! Be able to impact the analysis! Not a good idea to call other people stupid - lazy analysis. How are antivaxxers disobeying much more important than what they're saying?
Not breaking the law at all - don't need to side with this... maybe?
Not all CD - BLM? Shoot and kill people? Really? We shouldn't support them because of the backlash? Doesn't support idea of democracy.
Good point on no defs of "unjust law"!
Indian Farmer strikes! Famine? Harms other people! These can be great points, but you need to weigh these harms vs their right to revolt!
Voice pausing drills - show you can modulate intensity for emphasis to show mastery.
You're really lucky that nobody is POIng you -_-.
Hmmm - you were a bit short on time, maybe we can work on going slower and some good word efficiency drills?
Can't POI in protected time! :(
You gave no intro, and no roadmap. You need to address the Opp's Counter Mechanism and switch over to mutually exclusive harms and mutually exclusive benefits. I'm guessing this is one of your first 3rd speeches - that's fine!
Lacking a lot of structure - are you familiar with the clash structure 3rd speech?
Can you show me your flow? Mark has good modules/worksheets for working on your flow
Don't just offer a POI if it doesn't go with your flow - you're wasting tons of time.
Why double down that CD is the best way to go against unjust laws? You don't need to use it every time, but you sure as heck should keep the option on the table! The threat of revolution can be very effective!
POI: Breaking the law is going against society itself - Careful Teng Siang! Where is your timer?
LGBTQ protests can be a good example! How do they stack up vs antivaxxers?
SMART! Call them on their burden of being the Best way to bring about change. Communicate with your teammmates! Their examples don't apply to liberal democracies! Smart to bring that up again!
Strikes don't affect gov directly - they're elites. Have private HC, transport. Even If - smart! Hurting innocent people even more, clever tack.
CD mostly involves violence and peaceful protests can turn violent. => The consequence is that no one should ever defy authority, ever. => That's just long term authoritarianism.
Are you famliar with a clash structure for a 3rd speech? I think it could really help you take your debating to the next level.
Normalizing people breaking laws they don't like - taxes, gay marriages, antivaxxers. => What is the impact of all these acts of disobedience?
GOOD on calling them on dropped arguments!
- Great internal structure for fleshing out harms of violent outbreaks
"Right intention, wrong execution" => Great tagline! Why not have it come out sooner?
Awareness is a weak argument by itself.
The Arab Spring was very much civil disobedience, and violent.
POI Tschumi - WHOAH, need to calm down buddy 😅 . Get your POIs to make the other team commit to a choice, not just repeating what you said in a speech.
Normalizing breaking the law is super baddddd - is it? In some sense everyone is a criminal - what if we have waaaaay too much punishment and criminaliztion, and not the other way around?
Ask Mark Webber about the 2 worlds Reply speech structure?
Make sure to coordinate with your 3rd speaker to replay their greatest hits!
She had amazing points!
"We break society by following civil disobedience and it's definitely not right" => perhaps instead you could have amplified some of your teams taglines/best soundbites here instead of this assertion.
Good intentions, but wrong way of doing it - stronger strategic choice so far. Good on spotting it.
Why not structure your speech around that idea?
Great energy! You can probably do some voice drills to work at it more effectively - show that you can do dramatic pauses, whisper, speed up and slow down on command.
"Civil Disobedience" is inherently passive. Questioning the status quo can be violent itself is a good starting point! You need your first speaker to lay that groundwork so that you can push those arguments from the beginning of the debate :/
"Tell me how it would derail the economy if..." => Rhetorical questions of this style are weak finishers generally for replies. We need to workshop those to have stronger imagery instead.