Survey+Results

media type="googlespreadsheet" key="0Akla68s2KrwbdFJMN2lvUzBvd0F4VkRVcWEzTHZldWc" width="784" height="475" **Team 1: Bangladesh**

Both sides did a good job debating this issue. However, I couldn’t determine a clear winner of the Bangladesh debate. Both the Affirmative and Negative Side had equally good points to consider as well as arguments that could have been developed further.

good points, affirmative side:
 * Environmental research prior to construction – Although this wasn’t a key point identified in their opening arguments, Kristi mentioned it while arguing her first time at the podium. I can’t remember if it was a rebuttal for the Negative Side, but this was a very good argument to make. It showed the Affirmative Side’s preparedness and understanding that their plan must be supported by sound research. While obviously no specific findings could be sited, the fact that they acknowledged the need for initial research displays good foresight into the needs of a project such as this.
 * specifcs of plan – The Affirmative Side did a great job citing estimated costs of their plan and explaining the methods that they chose (levies and dams). This was reinforced by their requirement for initial environmental research. They did a good job preparing the specifics of their plan.

good points, negative side:
 * Bangladeshi cultural identity – Keeping the local populations cultural identity is very important in any international development plan. If you overlook the culture of the people with whom you’re directly working and affecting, you increase the likelihood that your project will be unsuccessful, particularly when this project is conducted in their territory. Cultural identity is important to consider, as ultimately that population is who will maintain the projects long-term goals. It’s rarely a wise option to implement foreign guidelines without first gauging the needs of the population and understanding their way of life. This was a great point for Negative Side’s argument and I was impressed with their perceptiveness of it.
 * country involvement – The Negative Side did an excellent job citing the need for the country to be directly involved. This directly coincides with their acknowledgement of the country’s cultural identity. In order for any development project to be successful, direct involvement of the population is essential. Projects in which foreign standards and ideals are implemented without the help or input of the local populations are subject to failure. An important part of development projects is the capacity building of self-sustainability. Direct involvement of the local population, through training, education, and job practice, is an excellent way to build this capacity. Additionally, this side pointed out the problems with too much foreign aid dependency. Great job pointing this out! //(They did go a little far with this argument and I address some misconceptions in “points to consider, negative side”) //

points to consider, affirmative side: points to consider, negative side: **Team 2: Ethiopia**
 * convincing the local population – While I was impressed that both sides acknowledged the constraints emplaced by the cultural identity of the Bangladeshi’s, I would have liked to hear more about how they would convince the local population of the importance of their plan. Since this is a large part of the overall problem with which Bangladesh is faced (as was noted by //both// sides), I think how to overcome it should then be further developed.
 * comparisons – Always remember that any comparisons drawn between two examples are applicable to the topic. Adam and Seth often cited UN personnel issues in the DRC as a potential problem for their involvement in Bangladesh. While these are important problems the UN must address in their international posts, claiming similar issues as happening in Myanmar is a little far-fetched and convoluted. I understood the point he was trying to make, but I think the Negative Side could have cited a more applicable example.
 * labor intensity and funding – While the Negative Side made a good point with the necessity of country involvement, they went a little too far in saying that //all// labor will be provided by the local population with limited machinery. This issue is compounded by their argument that all funding can be provided by the Bangladeshi government. I think that with these two arguments combined weakens their overall plan, as it leaves it open to issues of human rights abuses (I’ve unfortunately witnessed this first hand when essential machinery is absent). This might be too much for them to understand, especially with only a few weeks to prepare, but I think it worth mentioning and topic of which they should be aware. It’s always important to find a “middle ground.”

Again, both sides did a good job debating this issue and was incredibly impressed with both side’s arguments. However, in this debate, I believe the Negative Side won their argument.

good points, affirmative side:
 * anecdotes and flow of argument­ – Courtney opened the Affirmative Side’s argument with excellent anecdotes about the affects of the draught in the country. The stories she cited were very compelling and she did a //great// job closing her first argument through the use of her initial anecdotes. This was very well prepared and practiced!
 * details of argument – The Affirmative Side did a nice job preparing facts and figures for their argument. Having concrete numbers and examples of similar costs in other successful countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia) solidified their argument.

good points, negative side: points to consider, affirmative side:
 * overall plan – I was incredibly impressed with their plan and how they could point-by-point argue their side against the opposing team. While both sides did a great job doing this, the Negative Side was very prepared with their arguments and seemed to have researched their plan very well, pointing out the flaws in the Affirmative Side’s plan and providing well-researched real life examples of another similar and successful plan. This ability showed great preparedness and impressive debating ability. Nicely done!
 * details of argument – Like the Affirmative Side, this Side did a nice job preparing facts and figures for their argument. Having concrete numbers for their plans cost to compare to the Affirmative Side’s plan made their argument very strong.
 * reason for winning their debate – While this was a difficult choice to make, I feel that the Negative Side won this debate. Their plan was more feasible in terms of logistics and I felt that their arguments were slightly stronger than the opposing Side. If judging on simply preparedness and ability to successfully debate, there would have been a serious tie. Good job to both Sides!
 * argument summary – I felt that this Side backtracked a little bit while summarizing why their plan is better when they stated, “Ethiopia deserves help because its problem is a natural disaster.” While this is a good point, it undermined their original argument. Both sides are acknowledging the importance of helping Ethiopia. Instead, they could have focused on the importance of their specific plan or why their plan is better than the opposing side’s, especially during a summary argument.

points to consider, negative side:
 * pronunciations – Always remember to cross-reference the pronunciations of important, key terms. In this case, the pronunciation of “Eritrea.” This is a small problem, but can be seriously distracting to an audience.

**Team 3: Philippines** This team did a nice job preparing their arguments and conducting themselves during the debate. I believe that the winner in this round of debates is the Affirmative Side.

good points, affirmative side: good points, negative side: points to consider, affirmative side: points to consider, negative side:
 * detail of argument – The Affirmative Side did a good job explaining how their plan could impact the issue at-hand, while also giving even //more// information about the positive impact it would have (i.e. amount of crops produced). They also preemptively defended their use of levies, using facts from Hurricane Katrina (poor construction) to prepare for future questions from the opposing side. Additionally, this Side did a nice job of pointing out the flaws in their opposing side’s argument. They had a great amount of detail to disprove the feasibility of the Negative Side’s plan, specifically in reference to their research on the current and past use of lighthouses. This displayed a good level of research and preparedness for their argument and is what made them stand out as the winners of their debate.
 * scope of plan – The Negative Side’s plan is constructed in a way that is meant to provide the local population with more advanced notification of severe weather. I thought their ambition should be noted and I appreciated the attempted scope of their plan.
 * costs – This Side had very little costs calculated for implementation of their plan. Having more concrete numbers (for both levies //and// trenches) would have enhanced their argument and would have provided a more tangible understanding of their plan for both the audience and opposing side. The more facts to support your side, the better.
 * timing – I was happy to be able to clearly hear this Side’s argument, but with the timing of a debate, I think they could have spoken a little faster so that their full argument and points could be made.
 * comparisons – Like the Negative Side in Team 1, the Affirmative Side in this debate used comparisons meant to enhance their argument that were not quite applicable to it (i.e. the World Trade Center in 9/11). I understood the point they were trying to make, but always make sure that your examples are clearly applicable to your argument.
 * details of plan – I was a little confused with the logistics of this plan. This Side focused on both precautions and reactions to impending storms, which is important, but I questioned the feasibility of the plan. I’m not sure how the population of the Philippines would logistically make it onto boats and how safe these boats are in a hurricane. They were well prepared for the opposing side’s questions and conducted themselves well in the debate, but topic-wise I thought they could have developed their argument a little more.
 * timing – Another note on the speed of speech. The Negative Side once ran out of time to make their argument. Again, the more information you can deliver to the other side and audience, the better.