May 18 flawsheet

MOTION : THBT US assassination of Bin Laden is justified.
Date:	5.18	GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Seungmin Oh		Changwoo Lee
Delivery	6 /10	Good try. Need to be more fluent and organized.	8 /10	Good work. Good speed, good organization. Maybe a little more impact or energy.
Arguments	7 /10	1.     Assassinating Bin Laden protected human rights terrorism killed people Bin Laden was harming human rights. 2.     Strong message to public. : Terrorism is inacceptable. 9.11. scared people. By assassinating Bin Laden US prevented further terrorism. Need more logical explanations.	7 /10	1.     Killing Bin Laden disobeys international law. US government needed international permission. Right to be innocent until proven guilty. Nazi and Hussein was judged. 2.     Lose of morality. The mission was to kill him. Although they could capture Bin Laden who did no resistance, US assassinated him, and they don’t have right reason. Therefore, it cannot be justified. Morality cannot be firm reason; it is disputable.
Notes	Tot 13 /20	Definition : Bin Laden – terrorist who killed many people Assassination : killing without procedure. 1.     Laden was protecting human rights 2.     Wide social message to other terrorists 3.     Speedy action was required to prevent further terrorism	Tot 15 /20	Every people have natural rights. Rebuttal 1.     Every people have right to be judged by the law. 2.     Even when a strong attacks a weak, the weak will revenge. Arguments 1.     Killing of Bin Laden disobeys international law. 2.     Disobey morality. 3.     ???
Rebuttal One	Pts	Jegug Lee	Pts	Wonhyuk Lee
Delivery	7 /10	Fairly good. Little bit emotional.	8 /10	Good voice and organization.
Arguments	5 /10	Full of assumptions. Not logical, but emotional	8 /10	Nice rebuttal and fair organization of arguments.
Notes	Tot 12 /20	Rebuttal 1.     Terrorists are dangering other civilians human rights, so terrorists should not be respected. 2.     Killing terrorists also give message to public, preventing terrorists 3.     War against terrorism. So we have right to kill terrorism (Unlogical!) 4.     Video : Confession by Bin Laden of his hijacking. 5.     He had guards and he was offensive against US(???) Argument Senario : escape So much power! Dangerous! (???) Trigger another terrorism (Self-rebutting Anyway he will be killed even through judge of the law?	Tot 16 /20	Rebuttal 1.     Human right is not the concept of good or bad. Criminals also have human rights. 2.     The mission was nothing like a war. Argument. Purposeless mission unless revenge. Killing the symbol of terrorism ineffective : angering terrorism “planning to reveng” Capturing could provide hostage or information. So, it was ineffective in preventing terrorism. It was emotional decision of US Tripling the security actually means terrorism fear increased.
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Seongchan Kim	Pts	Sumin Park
Delivery	8.5 /10	Very good.	7 /10	Good tone, but too long
Arguments	7.5 /10	Still lacks some logical explanation. Organized clashes well	7 /10	Good arguments but need to be more compact
Notes	Tot 16 /20	1.     Human Right vs. Government action This is the War! (?) No further barrier to kill It was hard to tell Bin Laden was disarmed. 2.     Speedy Action needed? Court or Judicial have possibility of escape. Or further terrorism.	Tot 14 /20	Cold – Cola : short term way of US government. 1.     Efficiency in preventing terrorism Assassination will bring short stop, but in long term, it will bring chaos. Counter terrorism and attack did not follow the proper procedure.
Conclusion	Pts	Name	Pts	Name
Delivery	/10		/10
Arguments	/10		/10
Notes	Tot /20		Tot /20

United States of America, the new empire of the world.

   The idea of one powerful country being the arbiter of the world might not be that bad. Looking back in history, whenever there wasn't one big country ruling a continent, many small fought harshly to dominate others. For example, in ancient China, there was an era when several countries fought to rule the entire continent. We have not made a powerful enough world organization that is unbiased to every nation. We have UN, but still it is controlled by powerful nations in Europe and USA.

Vid. The USA has the strongest military power on this planet.

   However, there is a crucial problem to that kind of system. What if the powerful country do what it wants to do? Basically there would be no solution to stop the country. Now, all countries naturally, and should, work as hard as they can for their own benefits. A nation is not some kind of volunteering service. Still, under social and moral regulations, some countries try to appear nicer than others. Some try to keep tradition, mannerism, and so on. Such countries being the arbiter of the entire world might not be that dangerous.



Pic. What happened in the past can happen in the future.

   The United States of American as the dominant ruler? Well, I'm not an expert in such problem, but I want to say that would be little bit dangerous. I believe that the USA is too commercial to do so. American is the most commercial country in the world. Most of international companies are of America: McDonald's, Nike, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, HP, GM, and so on. What I'm worrying is that these companies might take over the country, just as they did in the Gilded Age. A French novelist, Bernard Werber once wrote a short story about a future where there are no countries but only companies, fighting war against each other to make more profits.


THB : US army should leave from Korea.
THB : All countries must have same power in the UN.
THB : A government of a country must be able to control its own destiny