Today I'm feeding my vocabulary through this script of "Debate Survival," a Korean TV show on EBS. The words that I think important are in bold letters:
Host: I’m the host of the show, Sun Kim.
Aerodynamics Team
Kayeon: Hi, my name is Ka-yeon Park, and I’m a junior at Hanguk Academy of Foreign Studies. I’ve always loved debating and participating with others, so I believe today will be a great opportunity, and good luck to the Aerodynamics Team.
Dongjin: Hi my name in Dongjin Han, and I’m in third grade of Hanguk Academy of Foreign Studies. I started debate only to improve my English speaking, skills, but right now, I have a great passion to debate with others and communicate with others. Thank you.
Yo Mama
Albert: Hi, my name is Albert Hong. I go to Seoul International School. I’m in grade 11. I love arguing with my mom, and hence, I love debating. I’d like to take this moment to shout out to Walter, a newborn baby who was born like two hours ago. Thanks.
Yo Mama 2: Yes, congratulations, Walter. I’m also a junior at Seoul International School. I’m sure we’re all here today because we all enjoy similar interests, and I hope this leads to a wonderful debate today. Thank you.
Corporal Punishment
Host: If you are ready, let’s go.
Kayeon: I object to violence, because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, yet the evil it does is permanent. The government today is wholeheartedly with Mahatma Gandhi in pursuing this ideal, and our case supports the true spirit of education which corporal punishment fails to achieve. Now if today’s motion stands, this house would ban corporal punishment in schools. By ban, we mean make illegal, and by corporal punishment, we mean inflicting any kind of physical harm for education, usually by teachers on students. And by schools, we mean all public schools, including all public elementary, middle, and high schools around the country under the jurisdiction of the national government. And now, today the role of the government is to prove to you, first of all, why corporal punishment should be banned, and secondly, why our alternative, the point reduction system, will achieve benefits to pursue the true spirit of education. And our second speaker will elaborate in detail. Now going into our first argument of the abusive nature of corporal punishment. First of all, why is corporal punishment problematic? Ladies and gentlemen, corporal punishment is problematic because the teacher cannot dispassionately administrate disciplinary measures. In the situation of corporal punishment, the teacher is in a fit of rage. He is angered, he is in fury, he is unable to control himself or his power, and he is unable to think objectively. Therefore, the victim is the student who gets hit by the teacher twelve dozen times. Although the opposition may say that there are specific criteria that the education minister of Korea and the Supreme Court has developed for us, ladies and gentlemen, not only are there significant differences between the measures, but also in the status quo, how many times is it that we’ve seen on the internet and in video clips teachers smacking students in a way they should not be. They are clearly not abiding by these rules. Now, furthermore, the nature of corporal punishment is result-oriented. Under the authoritarian nature between the teacher and the student, the student cannot question, ladies and gentlemen, they cannot self-reason. And they cannot differentiate between what is wrong and what is right. But they are having this violence put upon them, which all destroys the education spirit. Ladies and gentlemen, furthermore, it is behavior! modification only in the short term, and because of this result-oriented nature, we are opposed to corporal punishment.
Now our second argument is the susceptibility of the students. Violence, ladies and gentlemen, can never be justified for any particular reason. Now, the ramifications of corporal punishment stand. If we have a student who was a victim of corporal punishment, he later on will have harm in the ability to communicate verbally. Even in situations that can be wrapped up by communicating verbally, this student will be apt to choose violence instead of communication. Furthermore, it reestablishes authority through violent means. Corporal punishment is the act...
Kayeon: No thank you....where the teacher reestablishes his or her authority through violent means. Now, if it was this teacher going out on the street, hitting a child or his wife, this teacher would be in jail, ladies and gentlemen. Crime and violence leads to hail.
Kayeon: Yes, sir.
Albert: So, since you’re so worried about the future effects on children, wouldn’t you agree that any other forms, such as verbal abuse, constant yelling, won’t these factors also cause detrimental effects in the future as well?
Kayeon: Yes, they may cause detrimental effects in the future, but our debate here today is on corporal punishment in schools...
Host: Okay, you’ve got thirty seconds to wrap it up.
Kayeon: and corporal punishment is what we want to focus on, and therefore verbal abuse is completely unnecessary and irrelevant. Now, what has the government told you today? The government has told you that not only does corporal punishment leave physical scars on the bodies of students, but it psychologically victimizes these children. It will follow them around for ages. It will follow them for their entire lives. Now, the opposition’s role today is to prove to us how it is that the teacher and the student...
Host: Time’s up.
Kayeon: ...gives liability for the teacher to punish their students. Thank you.
Host: Thank you very much.
If you guys are ready, let’s go.
Albert: Do you feel that the military is important?
Kayeon: Yes, we do.
Albert: Do you feel that discipline in the military is import!ant?
Kayeon: Yes, we do believe that disciplinary measures in the military are import!ant, but the military, ladies and gentlemen, is completely different from schools.
Albert: Don’t you agree that there are US military academies like the Naval Academy and West Point? Aren’t these examples of public schools?
Kayeon: Ladies and gentlemen, the military situation is different from corporal punishment in schools, because, ladies and gentlemen, the teachers are partly responsible for these students, but in the military, the generals are not completely responsible for the soldiers, and they actually have the responsibility of physical training, which is different from the situation in schools.
Albert: How is the military not responsible for its students at West Point, Annapolis, or the Naval Academy? How are they not responsible?
Kayeon: Yes, but we believe that this is totally irrelevant because we are talking about public schools in Korea.
Albert: Yes, military schools are public schools. Now could you please answer the question?
Kayeon: Military schools may be public schools, but the situation is completely different from public schools, because the nature of the training is different.
Albert: Military schools are public schools. Military schools are where teachers are responsible for students. Now, in that light, could you please answer the question instead of evading it?
Kayeon: We believe that the nature of the army and the military is completely different from the educational spirit of the schools.
Albert: But military schools are schools in essence.
Kayeon: We believe we have already covered that point. Will you please move on to the next question, thank you.
Albert: I’m sorry that you couldn’t answer a simple question regarding military schools. Let’s move on to the next one. You agree with experts in psychology that corporal punishment is not always necessary, right?
Kayeon: Yes, we do. We believe corporal punishment should not be necessary by any means.
Albert: Okay, so are you aware of Colberg’s stages of moral development?
Kayeon: No.
Albert: See, the experts you agreed with also agreed on Colberg’s stages where the first stage is where the individual in question only judges the morality of an action...
Kayeon: We completely understand your point...
Albert: Can I please finish the question?
Kayeon: We completely understand your point, but we believe that...
Albert: You don’t understand anything if I didn’t finish the question. So the first stage, ladies and gentlemen, is where the child does not know what’s right and wrong.
Host: You guys have thirty seconds to wrap it up.
Albert: Only by physical force, by physical cues. Now in that light, how can you say that corporal punishment regarding pre-schools and elementary schools isn’t relevant?
Kayeon: Yes sir, thank you, but we have an alternative, we’ve clearly mentioned that we are going to regulate these children by the point reduction system which has more benefits that corporal punishment.
Albert: But you’re not understanding the point. These...
Kayeon: Because it does not leave physical marks on these children.
Albert: These preschoolers don’t know this point system. ‘Oh, if I get a point, it’s good!’ They only respond to things that are physical.
Host: Okay, time’s up. Let’s go back to your original positions, guys.
Mr. Fleming: Overall, I thought this was an excellent start to the debate. It was a confident and engaging speech. I thought it was rhetorically sound. It engaged the audience, and engaged me as a judge. Overall, she’s clearly a confident and dynamic speaker, and that will stand her is good stead in her debate in Korea. In terms of what she said, I thought her point about the dispassionate decision-making nature of teachers was excellent, a very good point, well analyzed. The one mistake that she did make, and the one mistake that all opening speakers have to avoid, is that if your team has some sort of a plan, a policy, or a mechanism, it is very important that you get that out in our first speech. You can’t leave that to your partner. However, overall, very good job.
Host: Are you ready?
Albert: Yeah.
Host: Then let’s go.
Albert: Ladies and gentlemen, they come up here and say things about abusive levels, about how violence is never justified, and we’ll deal with that, but first we’d like to present our points. Now today, we’re affirming the simple truth that corporal punishment in schools should not be banned at all. First, we’d like to question their reason for actually limiting military schools out of the picture. We believe military institutions are just as public and just as institutionalized as any other school, and we’d like to bring that into the debate. Now, before we begin, we’d like to point out, today, it is the proposition that is bringing about change from the present. The proposition needs to prove one thing in this debate to secure their win, that corporal punishment is unnecessary in all schools, and we’d just like to do the opposite of that. We’re going to prove to you today that actually there are many cases where corporal punishment is necessary, where it’s the only means of doing do, and it’s actually very effective, despite what they may claim. Now we’d like to first go into our points. The first point is that many school environments utilize corporal punishment as a means of disciplinary action, and we’d like to once again bring your attention to military institutions. Now, they say it’s not the same thing as a school, that teachers are different, they don’t have the responsibility to take care of their students, but it’s the same thing.
Kayeon: Before you go on, sir.
Albert: No thank you. In Brazil, the Academia Militar, the Agulas Negas, in The Philippines, the Philippine Military Academy, in Canada, the Robert Land Academy, in America, the United States Military Academy, West Point, Annapolis. All of these are examples of schools that currently use corporal punishment, and I’d like to quote some of them. “The administrators dole out hours of detail or manual labor,
Kayeon: Before you go on, sir.
Albert: No, thank you. Bases on the seriousness of the crime. A third transgression for littering warrants twelve hours of work.” All of these are examples of where corporal punishment is established and is working, and as I brought up in the cross examination, there’s obviously a need for discipline in these institutions.
Dongjin: For information, sir.
Albert: In that regard, corporal punishment is a necessary thing in these institutions. Yes?
Dongjin: Then do you agree that other than military schools, corporal punishment should be completely outlawed?
Albert: No. I’d like to get into that in my second point, which will go to show you that there are other ways and other areas where different kinds of schools need corporal punishment. Now, that brings me to a good point about the second point. From an early age, children are psychologically incapable of understanding right and wrong. We see that in our babies, we see that in our baby cousins. The concept of moral differentiation is based on physical and concrete responses and relies on corporal punishment to distinguish between right and wrong. They simply don’t have the capacity to understand and just morally, intrinsically understand these things. Lawrence Colberg, a world-renowned psychologist who pioneered psychological development theories at the University of Chicago, actually affirmed this in his ‘Stages of Moral Development,’ in which in Stage One, individuals focus on the direct consequences of their actions that will happen to themselves. So it’s basically saying in short that students at this stage in development in preschool and kindergarten and elementary school simply don’t know...
Kayeon: Before you go on, sir..
Albert: No thank you. ...What is bad and what is wrong. They rely on physical clues, they rely on physical and concrete consequences that afflict them such as a slapping of the hand when they steal a lollipop or a slapping of the buttocks to register that something is wrong.
Dongjin: ???
Albert: These are all signs, clues, and cues that tell them that it’s wrong, and they simply don’t have the capacity at this point, according to Colberg’s extensive studies in over sixteen areas that show that simply yelling, simply telling them sternly, “Don’t do it!” is not going to work. And in these regards, these students at early ages, they need it, they simply don’t have the capacity to understand things verbally and in other ways. I’d like to take the point information (???) now if you still have it.
Dongjin: Okay, sure. According to the United Nations Security General’s study against child abuse, professor Fanero argued that there are no situations that warrant corporal punishment as the only disciplinary measure. How do you refute that?
Albert: Well, just because one man said, “I don’t believe that corporal punishment should be anywhere” doesn’t mean that it’s suddenly fact, that it’s suddenly true and affirms your case. That’s simply not the case. In that regard, I’d like to give you another example where one scientist, Diane Bomrein, PhD of the UC Berkely department of psychology, also said, “I believe that aversive discipline and coercion should be used as little but as effectively as possible to assure a child’s behavioral compliance with parents’ legitimate and rationally defended directives at a young age.” So this is just one more man’s opinion. Now, we have countless other examples that go to show that corporal punishment isn’t actually harmful, and actually has a...
Host: Thirty seconds to wrap it up...
Albert: ...long term effect and will go to show that corporal punishment in many cases when the child does not have the capacity to understand verbally, through intrinsic motions and feelings, that something is morally wrong, it simply doesn’t work, and corporal punishment is necessary, and my second speaker will go on to affirm this. Thank you.
Host: Okay, time’s up....Then let’s go.
Dongjin: So what you are advocating is that society should allow corporal punishment because it can fix children’s wrongdoings. Then how do you think about the idea that this society allows police officers to beat up children or people as a disciplinary measure?
Albert: I’m not sure how that’s relevant to this debate. I mean, we can talk about police if we want, but...
Dongjin: Does this society allow your father to beat up your mother as a disciplinary measure?
Albert: Yeah, sure, parents beat me up all the time, they always slap me around...
Dongjin: No, your father beating up your mother.
Albert: Yeah, when my mom does something wrong, my dad sometimes yells at her, hits...or, I get hit, too, I mean it hurts, but I learn my lesson, that’s the point that I’m trying to get across today.
Dongjin: Then do you believe that kind of abusive nature in corporal punishment, in violence itself, actually stands for students’ and children’s rights?
Albert: Well, I don’t feel my rights are being infringed on when I get hit. I mean, I learn my lesson...
Dongjin: I’m not talking about you as an individual, but children as a whole group.
Albert: Yes, we’re saying exactly that children, even though they do have the right to not get hit, the thing is that punishment occurs when you do something wrong, so you have up that right. Now what punishment does is it hopes to correct these things, it hopes to correct the wrongs, and when things like continued verbal...
Dongjin: Every punishment has to suit the wrongdoing of the children, so let me...
Albert: Did you have to answer your own question?
Dongjin: ...talk about the effects of abuse. Didn’t you know that corporal punishment inflicts both physical and psychological damages on the students?
Albert: Psychological damage?
Dongjin: Yes.
Albert: We believe that in every case, in every disciplinary measure, even yelling, there’s always a case, an exception, where there’s psychological problems, a child may experience trauma
Dongjin: Did you know especially, that in extreme forms of corporal punishment,
Albert: I’d like to finish my answer.
Dongjin: I understood that.
Albert: But the thing is, ladies and gentlemen, in the vast majority of the cases, we’ve seen that corporal punishment has worked in certain sectors. Now we’re not saying that in every sector corporal punishment should be enforced, should be used, and it should always be used as the first measure. All we have to do today, ladies and gentlemen, is prove to you that corporal punishment shouldn’t be banned but limited in certain areas. It can be excessive in other areas, and we should work to limit it. But the fact is, corporal punishment is working, and is sometimes the only measure, such as in preschool and in the military, where it’s working and is effective. So in that regard, we believe that we’ve proved our point today.
Dongjin: Do you agree that in principle and in reality it’s sometimes different?
Albert: Yes, sometimes.
Dongjin: And do you agree that...
Host: Okay, guys, thirty seconds.
Dongjin: ...in the issue of corporal punishment, disciplinary measures in principle and in reality, as corporal punishment and its abusive nature, is also different?
Albert: No.
Host: Okay, time’s up. Go back to your original positions, guys.
Mr. Sharp: I’d like to make a few comments about the speech that we’ve just seen. I think the speech had a couple of good things, and a couple of things to improve on. I think the organization of the speech is a place that needs improvement. Specifically, in the introduction, we need to hear a clear thesis, and a preview of the arguments. And each argument should have a clear topic sentence, or a claim as to what you will be arguing. I thought the speech was good in its presentation of information and theories. I think using a sociologist who talks about moral development is strong, and having expert sources and quotations are great. Overall, good speech.
Host: Ready? Then let’s go.
Dongjin: Ladies and gentlemen, today, the World Health Organization estimates that worldwide twenty-one million students under the age of eighteen suffer from corporal punishment in school. In other words, twenty-one million children are suffering from psychological and physical damage which is actually lawfully inflicted by teachers’ violent persecutions. The notion the government team trying for today is very simple: Hitting people is wrong in any cases, and children are people, too. However, ladies and gentlemen, today, the opposition team failed to attack our point of view or succeed in establishing their own information or their own stance. So let me start my own speech by rebutting the opposition’s case from point to point. Ladies and gentlemen, today, the opposition team tried to reduce the scope of the debate only to military service, only to some portion of the whole educational system. However, ladies and gentlemen, we are the government team who would like to solve the problem of corporal punishment in a much more holistic way. And the point that the opposition team is too narrowly focused on military service is totally neglecting the reality itself. Ladies and gentlemen, military law, martial law and common law itself is different. Likewise, we should also have to think about the common law in this case, and corporal punishment in common schools.
Albert: For information...
Dongjin: No thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, their argument number one was basically that disciplinary action has to at least remain in some factors. As I already successfully rebutted that, we have to take a much more holistic view on today’s debate, and their second argument was basically that some children cannot morally differentiate. Then let me restate our own point of view, and our own stance. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to prove that our policy is not violent, but also it is effective. However, what the opposition team will try to do is by accepting and agreeing that corporal punishment itself is a violent measure by not rebutting our own arguments, they will try to say that in some way corporal punishment may be more effective in a small portion of society. We believe this is only a minimization, and that they themselves are binding their own neck.
Yo Mama 2: For information..
Dongjin: Yes.
Yo Mama 2: Are you recognizing that there are many faults within your own policy, and that because the statement here we are debating today is that this house would ban corporal punishment in schools, are you accepting the fact that your policy has flaws, and you’re trying to ignore these and move on in the debate?
Dongjin: Ladies and gentlemen, we are trying to give you a policy that is not violent first of all, and then have effective measures as well as corporal punishment. They are only talking about the military circles, which are not clearly today’s motion and today’s topic, and the spirit of the motion itself.
Albert: For information...
Dongjin: No thank you. Then what I want to propose to you is about the point system, ladies and gentlemen. The point system is not punishment by emotion, rage, terror, or violence, but it is a punishment by penalty points and duties. So in the point system, if students commit wrongdoings, a proportionate amount of strikes, called penalty points, will be given to the students, and the accumulated amount of the penalty points will decide which social duties, for example, community services, these students follow. And the extreme penalty of the points system will be expulsion from the school which is basically the ultimate fear of all international students, because it will remain as a social stigma of the student forever. So we believe, and we prove to you, that corporal punishment is punishment by emotion, and the opposition team completely agreed on this by not attacking and by not rebutting our own case.
Host: Okay, thirty seconds. Wrap it up, please.
Dongjin: However, ladies and gentlemen, the point system is a punishment with logic, and this nature of the point system solves the status quo. What is the solvency here? Ladies and gentlemen, in the point system, teachers think before they give penalties, because it’s a penalty of logic. And all penalties can be regulated on one condition. Also, furthermore, abuses can be controlled afterwards, because it is a process of logic. This solves the abusive nature of the status quo that corporal punishment is implementing on the students. And second is about the fact that students become free from extreme terror...
Host: Okay, time’s up.
Dongjin: ...and this enables them to think of themselves, and this enables the true nature and virtue of education. Ladies and gentlemen, what I’ve talked about here is that the point system should be the leading policy that leads the children of tomorrow. Thank you and this is why we proudly propose the motion of the point system.
Host: Thank you very much for your thoughtful points, and opposition, come on to the podium and wrap up your points, please.
Host: Ready? Let’s go.
Yo Mama 2: Thank you. I would like to first organize my speech by first pointing out a critical flaw of the proposition team, and then state why their three main points – first on the abusive nature, second on the susceptibility of students, third on the point system, their alternative – state why these are flawed in essence, and state why our two main points on how there are many situations in which corporal punishment is valid and maybe the only method of punishment, and second on the moral differentiation in psychology, and point out why these points are in fact more valid here today. Their first main problem is that I would like to read out the proposal here today: “This house would ban corporal punishment in schools.” And the key word here is on the issue of ban, how ban means that corporal punishment is in fact negated and is a bad policy in all cases, and that in all schools we must get rid of this policy. And therefore it is their burden, as the people who are trying to change the current policy, to provide every single scenario, to make sure that they rebut every single scenario in which corporal punishment has shown success, and that we are here merely to show you that corporal punishment has sometimes worked, and that if we strive towards regulating corporal punishment instead of banning it as a process completely, then we can more effectively provide a better educational environment. Moving on to their first point...
Dongjin: For information, sir...
Yo Mama 2: No thank you. Their first point was on the abusive nature. Hence, they have provided you initially with hypothetical situations, and later with a general statistic from the WHO. However, the judges here must recognize that they are skewing the data. They have provided examples where they have stated that students are suffering from corporal punishment. However, this is not the scenario. These teachers, and their parents who agree with the schools, have the best interests of the students in mind, and they are only performing these punishments in order to make sure that these students realize the difference between right and wrong. We do not want a society where crime is rampant, because these kids have not been taught the difference between asking someone for a lollipop, and actually stealing it from them. And that through corporal punishment, we can strive toward a betterment of society.
Dongjin: For information, sir... (??)
Yo Mama 2: Yes?
Dongjin: Can’t you use a counseling, a point system, and other alternatives as well?
Yo Mama 2: I would like to counter why the point system is in fact invalid in any areas besides younger forms of education, and I would like to tell you when I’m going to answer your question. The second point is on the susceptibility of students. However, they have stated that verbally we can provide an assurance of the work. However,
Kayeon: Before you go on, sir...
Yo Mama 2: No thank you. They have provided another hypothetical situation in which the verbal issues might work. They have provided us with the fact that there is physical pain and physical scars left on the students’ bodies. However, what about mental scars? Screaming at students, and...
Dongjin: Sir?
Yo Mama 2: No thank you ...other forms of punishment besides corporal punishment is clearly a method of mentally scarring these students, and we cannot forget the psychological impact.
Dongjin: For information...
Yo Mama 2: No thank you. On their third point, the point system, the reason why this doesn’t work is because besides the younger forms of education, students in middle school and high school often do not care about the point system or this little pig lists (??).
Kayeon: Before you go on, sir...
Yo Mama 2: That, in fact, in novels such as Ender’s Game, which is in reference to many students being held in a battle room facility in space, we can clearly see that these students actually laugh at the point system and do not regard it as anything serious.
Kayeon: Before you go on, sir...
Yo Mama 2: No thank you. And therefore, because we can see that this point system is limited to younger students, and is not as effective in middle and high school, where students actually recognize that there is no severe punishment for the point system, we can clearly see that they are actually trying to narrow the scope of this debate. On to our first point,
Kayeon: Before you go on, sir...
Yo Mama 2: Yes?
Kayeon: Have you not realized that there is actually a case where a woman who was thirty years old had been suffering from mental derision and she actually committed suicide because of corporal punishment?
Yo Mama 2: Oh yes, there are many situations, and we recognize that there are faults in corporal punishment. However, there are faults with every sort of system. Even democracy, which we project, we clearly see that there are problems with this.
Host: Thirty seconds, wrap it up, please.
Yo Mama 2: But that’s why we pointed to in our first point, that there are cases in the military and preschool in which it is necessary. And the second point, how it is psychologically necessary for us to teach these students to psychologically protect them from the moral differentiation between right and wrong. And because we can clearly see that we have shown you that they have the burden to prove every single scenario, and that we have shown you a counter-scenario, we can clearly see that the opposition side in fact should be the one that should be considered here today. Thank you.
Host: Okay, time’s up.
Mr. Park: We saw two teams that were very good stylistically. Confident, perhaps the only thing that I would have mentioned for both sides actually was maybe slow down a little bit. That would have helped bring your delivery a little bit more power.
Kayeon: We are very happy to be here and I believe it was beneficial for both teams. We exchanged a lot of really good opinions, and I was really pleased to be here. Thank you.
Dongjin: I know that all four of us are great debaters, probably except for me, but anyway, I wish that all four of us can keep our great passion for debate and keep on communicating with each other and debating with each other. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)