Round+1

='That alcohol should be banned'=

1 - Hannah 2 - Yong-Choo 3 - Nirvana

Lost to St Orans

Adjudicators notes: First Affirmative (Hannah Peart) || # 1 - health problems, effects, dd. Need more on " banning" - how is this going to take place etc Need to avoid definitions that dont add substance to the debate. Provided a useful onus for the negative team to meet. Spoke to 4:34, could have gone further Could afford to move away from the written speech, be more conversational. || Second Affirmative (YC) || # Began with rebuttal - sticking to their definition (need to enumerate why has rejected negative's definition) >> (r) just restated the other teams case in sarcastic tones - needed to really hit the points being made on the negative Third Affirmative (Nirvana) || # More stats about the health effects Leaders (1-2) || Health effects, other effects, economic effects Spending a lot of time on a few individual arguments, reminded the judge of some of the core Needs to be a more holistic expression of team's arguments in order to swing advantage towards your team || Suitable for Senior certificate leader's reply || Teamwork || Better Team work, but less to the case than was provided by the opposition. Need to ensure development of the case, and re-rebuttal where the opposition has criticised your team's case. ||  ||
 * Speaker (4-6)** ||
 * Content** ||
 * Style** ||
 * Style** ||
 * Split (2) - social and economic effects
 * Split (3) - health problems
 * 1) Define - alcohol (unnecessary, only need definitions on terms and phrases that are not well-known or could be contentious in the debate)
 * 2) Define - Banning - "prohibiting consumption in new Zealand." Could be wider to fully attack the issue. Could cause problems
 * 3) Intro - statistics, the number of deaths (50 times more than methamphetamines)
 * Health problems - brain cells, other organs etc
 * Causes rapid irregular heart beat, blood clots
 * Imagine - ulcer, oral and lung cancer story
 * Chance of getting cancer increased by 3.9 percent
 * In males triggers estrogen growth (good use of rhetoric)
 * Still born / disabled babies
 * Foetal alcohol syndrome ... Withdrawal symptoms when born, causes deformed kids
 * 1) Large number of drink driving deaths, including kids and pedestrians
 * 2) What are the good effects??? (could have been stronger on this) (pre rebuttal etc) . || # Good clear intro
 * 1) A drug - would be classified as a class B drug (causal link) (relevance to case?)
 * 2) Aren't any measures against kids getting drunk (not correct - minimum age restriction (not picked up on by opposition))
 * 3) Third party effects - costs to the health system and the wider effects
 * Large costs money could be better sent
 * Lost productivity (adds to 1.17 billion dollars)
 * 1) Domestic Violence costs - not to say that everyone does it, but still
 * Half of serious assault crimes
 * Partner/spouse and abuse of children
 * (r) argument that could still develop an industry even without alcohol industry (good) || # Needed to really hit the rebuttal from the first speaker
 * 1) Some useful restatements of the first speakers speech
 * 2) Nice enthusiastic speaker
 * 3) Could move away from pre-written speech more.
 * 4) Otherwise good speech and reinforced the case of the aff team. ||
 * 1) (r) Took the stats about earning and contrasted them to the costs
 * 2) (r) large amounts of abuse are caused by alcohol consumption
 * 3) (r) prohibition might work because we are not in the 1920s - society was more orderly (Need to develop this case and develop the cl)
 * 4) (r) Can produce other products
 * 5) (r) greater life loss
 * 6) (r) 1% of people who make mistakes have large consequential outcome that effects everyone else.
 * 7) WHERE IS THE REST OF THE SPEECH?! || # Very good strong intro, nice style
 * 8) 3 minutes and two seconds
 * 9) Strong approach - but used sheet of paper
 * 10) Spoke off the paper
 * 11) Speech had potential
 * 12) Signposting and structure are important ||
 * Total** ||
 * Good overall, but the team needed to be more consistent along the line, and rebut more. More could have been said towards the end of the team's case.** ||  ||
 * Good overall, but the team needed to be more consistent along the line, and rebut more. More could have been said towards the end of the team's case.** ||  ||