Ms Goh's GP blog

Dear 06/10

I did not put down the names, but you can identify the comment relevant to your presentation by looking at the motion and the speaker.

Please use this constructive comments for future improvements!

OUR AIM: BE BRILLIANT.

Debate 3: This house believes that education turns students into robots.

Prop: Speaker 1

Definition; Makes them less creative and less outstanding. Robot = mechanical, unemotional. Definition overly elaborate in a way that is not linked to the question.
Point: Tell the students how to do but not why.
No eye contact. Natural reading pace and clear pronunciation. Loud and clear.

Opp: Speaker 1

Case division. 
Not targeted their definition.
Point: Prepare students for adulthood  linked to robots??? Students have a choice not to become robots? Not linked.
Not look prepared/ confident. Not loud.
Not able to think on feet and answer the question.

Prop: Speaker 2

Point: getting into university??? Competition  not linked to robots.
Same answers rather than their own. Memorized. Activities are controlled.
No eye contact. Reading. Pronunciation is ok but inflections not very natural/ expression?

Opp: Speaker 2

Point: Rebuttal  picks out the lack of link between working hard and becoming robots.
Education as a stimulation of their minds.
What is tested requires application. Need to think to answer the question, not just regurgitation.
Confident. Hand in pocket. Interact with audience.

Prop: Speaker 3

Point: Rebuttal  Develop their characters? Is this relevant? Activities for portfolio. Not linked.
Clear. Confident.

Opp: Speaker 3

Point: Rebuttal  the why of theories is not important. The application of the theories is what is relevant.
Confident. Interacts with audience.

Opp: Speaker 4

Point: Education  teaching style. Students decide their subject combination in school. Have freedom to engage in leisure activities in school, e.g. sports. Arts & Sports nurture talents  linked to robots??? GP & PW less robotic, so it’s not just memorization (link has to be consistently made). Independent learning, not robotic.
Confident. Clear. Loud. Interacts with audience. Answers the question adequately.

Prop: Speaker 4

Point: Tone. Must understand the WHY to APPLY??? 1 clarification. Less creativity?
Lacks confidence. Fidgeting. Restless.

DEBATE 1: Youth is never cherished.

Prop Speaker 1

CONTENT: Definition. Setting out the line of argument. Find purpose in life. Just preparing for the future. 6/10
STYLE: Ending with ‘Ah’, ‘lah’, ‘everything’. Eye contact. Need to be louder and clearer. Interacts with the audience. 6/10
Ans Qn: To Grow, to Learn. Trying to reinforce her definition of cherishing youth.

Opp Speaker 1

CONTENT: Case division. Definition from Wikipedia??? Fun in youthful years. Building friendships.
STYLE: Reading. A little eye contact. Clear though lacks energy and expression. 5/10

Prop Speaker 2

CONTENT: Spending time on the Internet. Short. Not very clear ideas. Advice? Compared to other times of their lives? How is this relevant? 2/10
STYLE: Inflections not natural. Accented. Soft. Not clear. Not prepared? Facial exp. 2/10
Ans Q: Not able to respond.

Opp Speaker 2

CONTENT: Need to clearly bring out point. 3/10
STYLE: Lacks confidence. Not very loud/ clear. Need eye contact. 4/10

Prop Speaker 3

CONTENT: Rebuttal—how does making friends  cherishing youth? Lacks rebuttals.
STYLE: Not very confident, Loud or Clear.

Opp Speaker 3

CONTENT: Rebuttal  bring out the lack of explanation of the other team. Add colour to our lives  cherish. Learn to make important decisions. 3/10
STYLE: Not loud or clear or confident.

Opp Speaker 4

CONTENT: Lacks rebuttals. Summary.
STYLE: Unconvincing.

Prop Speaker 4

CONTENT: Rebuttal. E.g. to rebut
STYLE: Weak pronunciation. Diff to understand.

Debate 2: Youth is wasted in preparation for adulthood.

Prop Speaker 1
STYLE: Pronunciation is entirely clear due to accent. Needs to be more energetic.
CONTENT: Case division. Definition is not clear  time vs person? Toughest education system in the world?? Cannot enjoy their lives. Cannot learn new skills that are more useful than what they are studying??? Don’t care about learning process. Just memorization. So wasted youth. Not prepared either.
Ans Qn: able to respond.

Opp Speaker 1

STYLE: Clear. But lacks interaction with audience.
CONTENT: Case Division. Lacks Responsibilities to take care of. So use this time to prepare for the future, for the future responsibilities/ skills needed of adulthood.
Youth have the energy and vigour to pursue interests.

Prop Speaker 2

CONTENT: Too much time = ¼ of life preparing for adulthood. Inflection is not very clear. Skills wasted as many of these skills as it’s fast changing world. Predicting opp’s arg. Not answering the question.
STYLE: Exp  Clear. Interaction. Confident. Loud.

Opp Speaker 2

CONTENT: Rebuttal = youth have time to pursue interests e.g. during CCA. Preparing for their future is important  how is this linked to question?
STYLE: Reading. Need more eye contact.

Prop Speaker 3

CONTENT: Not using time to do what they want and enjoying themselves. No rebuttal.
STYLE: No interaction. Soft. Without energy.

Opp Speaker 3

CONTENT: Using time productively for the future. Lacks rebuttal.
STYLE: Not clear/ loud/ confident.

Opp Speaker 4

CONTENT: skills that are impt. Robotic studying??? Time is used NOT wasted. Clear line of argument.
STYLE: Able to rebut. Able to think on feet.

Prop Speaker 4

CONTENT: Line of argument of team: Skills learned are unnecessary. Rebuttal is unclear.
STYLE: uh uh. Needs more energy and be louder. Needs confidence.

• 
• 
• 
• 
•