10-Tesla_Evaluation Essays

COMPILATION OF EVALUATION ESSAYS By Grade 10-Tesla

Submitted by: Reina Mathelda Asis

Name: Reina Mathelda R. Asis Topic: Peer Evaluation For the peer evaluation that I will be creating, I’ve chosen Ronafel Tatad to evaluate and critique her part in the debate “Online Distance Learning should continue even after the pandemic.” I will firstly start off with how I chose her and was attracted to her as how he opened the debate topic as the opposing side, which set all of the audience’s attention towards her. Which sometimes failed by many of the opening speakers to quickly capture the audience, but with how she strategized of doing it, I was truly amazed. With her opening remarks, as stating a quote, I was quickly captivated by how she speaks and her aggressive tone towards the topic. With introducing the topic she already introduced one of the common and certainly problems that the affirmative side might rebut to them. For what I noticed in her tone in the whole speech, I just felt like it lack on emotions and she settled for a more argumentative tone. Speaking as an audience, I wanted to be persuaded as with an argumentative tone but at the same time with a calm manner. She is speaking very fast which is also sometimes hard to point out what she’s talking about. The way she delivers the speech is fantastic except for the things I point out which I think she can still improve. For the rebuttal part, I saw her persistent angle towards the topic, argumenting in the right manner and not just street-like arguments. I really like how passive she is letting the opponent finish what they wanted to rebut and prepare a bigger argument for the opponent to challenge. The only thing that she kind of slipped is pointing out some topics that are beyond from what the debate topic is about. She went farther, presenting useless arguments that are not needed and are off topic. She quickly regained herself and her team in the end and her unstoppable force to not lose against her opponents is a good trait I noticed.

Submitted by: Christian Rod Basco

As I am watching the debate, I noticed things from different speakers from affirmative and against side. If I were to be one of the debaters, I would disagree on the topic “e-cigarettes should not be banned” because cigarettes have a bad impact on humans. The speaker I am focusing on is peer evaluation is John Pahamtang is his thoughts on the debates clear, but things were not that clear due to stuttering and few thoughts were said by the said speaker. The rule of being formal when being on a debate was put aside but the debate was fun to watch, and I learned many things from the debate. The way the debate was performed was really good and have been thought out. The host was good and speaking clearly as well as the debaters. All things were done smoothly as how a debate should be. The topic was well prepared so the debaters would not have any difficulties when the debate is ongoing. John Pahamtang did a great job on telling his ideas and thoughts about the debate.

Submitted by: Jandrex Clark Bitun

PEER EVALUATION NAME: JANDREX CLARK B. BITUN SECTION: GRADE 10 – TESLA I am in favor of the opposing party of the debate team that argument about the topic \"Online Distance Learning should continue even after the pandemic”. My chosen debater will be Jan Eliz Villareal, from grade 10-Ampere. Jan Eliz being the first speaker of the opposing team. She then introduced and explained their topic, then explained why Online Distance Learning should not continue even after the pandemic. And she makes sure that she maintain proper eye contact with the audience. I also liked the way she speaks loud and clear that captured my attention. And The key here is to look for logical fallacies in your opponent's statements and then bring them out to the public. In most forms of debate, you get an opportunity to question the statements of your opponent. And that what Eliz’s group did. To look for faults In the rebuttal part of the debate, I admired her way of speaking. She tries to tell stories and facts that will make people connect to their debate at a personal level. She listens to every question that we’re given by the affirmative side. And last and perhaps the most important they researched their topic very well, and well versed. And i In the end, she executed very well and that shows me that she’s is a good debater.

Submitted by: Christopher Kurt Cirujales

This is my evaluation on Janine Cielo Tamunday’s speech during the debate if online learning should continue after the pandemic. Janine started and stayed confident while reciting her speech and she barely stuttered, which got my attention as a spectator. While stating her points she did not leave out any important details since it was straight to the point and helped the audience understand the concept of the statement. During the statement she gave a rhetorical question which not only caught the attention of the spectators but also got us convinced heavily that their argument was correct, she also followed up the rhetorical question by continuing her statement by stating facts from legible sources which heavily gave credibility to her argument. Throughout her speech she was looking at a piece of paper which was a good way of making sure she didn’t miss anything of importance in her argument which is good, I also noticed that she wasn’t always looking down on the paper but she was looking at the audience . Her performance during her speech is almost like a professional.

Submitted by: Jose Mari Antonio Deus

Peer Evalutation The first speaker Rona Tatad, of the first topic in the debate, caught my attention. She started off with good speech with good points pointing out that online distance learning should still continue after the pandemic ends. She speaks smoothly and clearly without stuttering and made the opposing team think more to what are they gonna say about the first speaker's rebuttal. In the rebuttal part, she made good metaphors that represents the current situation in our country. She clearly explains and had delivered it properly with clear pronunciation and clear voice, that made her standout from my perspective. In the last part of their speech, even though that they got speechless, I still admire their good performance because they caught everyone's attention that made the debate more engaging and exciting.

Submitted by: Joshua Rafael Dizon

Dizon, Joshua Rafael M. Dizon 10 - Tesla Rashard Magsino is the debater I'll be evaluating. He discusses why e-cigarettes should not be prohibited. Rashard began very nicely with a counter argument that the vape juices contain vitamin e acetate, which is safe if eaten or applied to the skin, but it is not safe if inhaled. Because when vitamin E acetate is heated, it emits a toxic and poisonous gas known as ketene. This may result in lung problems. There are also vape juices that do not contain vitamin acetate, but do contain propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin as main ingredients. Propylene oxide is formed when propylene glycol is heated. Propylene oxide is genotoxic, meaning it destroys DNA, and carcinogenic, meaning it causes lung cancer. When vegetable glycerin is heated, it transforms into acrolein. Acrolein is a lung irritant that causes swollen or water-filled lungs. Nicotine is present in both e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes, and research suggests that it is as dangerous as heroin and cocaine. If you believe that vaping can relieve anxiety, you have forgotten that while your depression was relieving you, your body's health deteriorated. And why would you waste your money on a product that could kill you? The difference between e-cigarettes and cigarettes is that an e-cigarette is a type of electronic cigarette that produces vapor by heating a liquid, which the user then inhales. The liquid has a lower temperature of combustion than a cigarette. While e-cigarettes do not contain tar, they do emit other toxic chemicals.

Submitted by: Aaron Joshua Lopez

PEER EVALUTAION ENGLISH NAME: AARON JOSHUA B. LOPEZ 10 - TESLA DATE: APRIL 13, 2021 During the debate about \"Online Distance Learning should continue even after the pandemic\" i am in favor of the opposing team and my chosen debater to be the focal subject of my evaluation is Jan Eliz Villareal, from the grade 10 - Ampere. Eliz was the first speaker of the opposing team and suprisingly did the right way very well defining the terms of the topic and make me more understand their topic. Now when she introduced and explained their topic, and then held reasons why the Online Distance Learning should not be continued even after the pandemic. Eliz was organized which is great and for this and helped me and the other audience. I also liked the way she deliver the message and also the way she speak and that's how my attention was catched. She speaks loud and clear she didn't stutter and she's really confident in the terms she's saying. She avoids facial expressions as non-formal words she stays well- mannered and also neat and formal. Now while the rebuttal of the debate, the way she speaks really admired me and also makes me more understand on what their explaining because she is really fluent and clear. And She does not let her emotion take over her. Like Jan Eliz pointed out along the lines of \"We are not talking about the pandemic today, But what happends after. The debate topic is what happens AFTER the pandemic.\" And she listens carefully to the affirmative side to know what to answer back. These particular are vital to being a great debater.

Submitted by: Jennina Sofia Francine Kersty Rufino

Name: Jennina Rufino Date: 04-14-21 Section: 10-Tesla Debate Evaluation The debater that I have chosen for my evaluation is Jan Eliz Villareal from grade 10 Ampere, she is from the opposing side of their debate topic which is “Online Distance Learning should continue even after the pandemic”. Here, I will be talking about how Eliz has caught my attention and why I have chosen her for my evaluation on this debate topic from the recording our teacher has sent from their live debate. Their debate topic is about how Online Distance Learning, or ODL, should or should not continue after the pandemic that we have occurring worldwide. Eliz is the first speaker from the opposing team, she speaks loudly and clearly which was very helpful for the listeners to understand what she is saying. Her way of speaking and explaining is very fluent and straight forward. She delivers their side without any problems or any stuttering. Another thing I have noticed is how she is very polite in answering the affirmative side because I have noticed that the affirmative side was talking about the outcomes like there is still a pandemic. Eliz corrected them and it was almost like a professional way of bringing the debate back onto the right track, she noticed the topic was getting off a bit and continued to tell the affirmative side that the topic is after and when the pandemic ended. Her tone of speaking was very assuring and polite but with power and a lot of confidence. Debating in this topic looked natural to their side as well because they were prepared for what they were going to answer with. She was also quick with finding holes through the affirmative which helped them answer in the rebuttals quickly. I could say from my observation that she held a lot of characteristics a good debater has.

Submitted by: Mariane Kaye Solero

Name: Mariane Kaye L. Solero Date: April 13, 2021 Section: Grade 10 – Tesla Teacher: Ms. Anjeanette Felipe PEER EVALUATION For the debate on “E-cigarettes should not be ban”, I would like to evaluate Ms. Liz Destacamento from the affirmative team. I am impressed on how Ms. Destacamento handle the entire debate. She is confident with her part; all of her words are clear enough to understand and has a powerful argument on the said topic. She was able to summarize and get their points across on why e-cigarettes should not be ban. To be honest, I do not approve the use of e-cigarettes but with their teamwork, clear diction and power I find their argument more appealing than the opposing side. The only setback for me is during the actual rebuttal, she mentioned that she and her teammates did not compare the tobacco and the usual cigarettes from e-cigarettes which are vape. But clearly, they ‘did’ compare those since their point is that e-cigarettes will be a good alternative for the tobacco and the typical cigarettes thus making this statement one of the sole reasons why it should not ban. And also, she keeps on asking the opposing side to give a good alternative for e-cigarettes if it were to be ban but the opposing team clearly mentioned that they do not condone the usage of these similar devices. That question kept on going and as a viewer, it made the debate somewhat annoying and boring since each side keeps on dragging this part of the debate. But regardless, the affirmative side won this argument for me.

DEBATE SCORING SHEET Debate Topic: “E-cigarettes should not be ban” Date: April 13, 2021 Pro or Con (Circle One) Team Member: Crisostomo Villa Destacamento

DEBATE SCORING SHEET Debate Topic: “E-cigarettes should not be ban” Date: April 13, 2021 Pro or Con (Circle One) Team Member: Magsino Pangilinan Pahamtang



Submitted by: Miguel Allen Teodoro

Miguel Allen R. Teodoro 10- Tesla -The debater who I am evaluating is Rashard Magsino’s performance from the opposing team about the topic; “Vaping should be banned”. As Rashard was the 3rd speaker of the opposing team, he started out by greeting everyone and explaining his prepared speech. Since I was one of the audiences, I noticed the way he spoke was without hesitation. He explained the topic organized and clearly for me to understand. I also noticed he makes eye contact with camera. -During the third rebuttal, Rashard defended with confidence. He explained the reasons why vaping should be banned as it was not good for our health and minors could easily access to vaping. Again, as an audience, Rashard slightly had a hard time to defend but in the end he was able to defend. -Rashard’s performance throughout the debate, It was very educational and easy to understand the major points on why vaping should be banned. He was able to defend with confidence and was able to give out his point about the topic. He managed to get everyone’s attention and represented good aspects on how to properly debate by being organized on what you are going to say and stick to the side that you are assigned to.

Submitted by: Jasmine Tria

APRIL 14, 2021 ENGLISH PEER EVALUATION Jasmine B. Tria 10 - TESLA As to what I noticed during the debate yesterday, I am in favor of the opposing party of the debate team that argumented about the topic \"Online Distance Learning should continue even after the pandemic”. My chosen debater to be the focal subject of my evaluation is Jan Eliz Villareal, from grade 10-Ampere. Jan Eliz being the first speaker of the opposing team did the right way very well by first defining the terms of the topic that made me understand the topic better. She then introduced and explained the topic, then stated reasons why Online Distance Learning should not continue even after the pandemic. She is organized which is great for this strategy helped keep me and the other audience in focus. I also liked the way she speaks captured my attention. She speaks loud, quick but clear showing that she is confident in the terms she is saying. When I look at her frame in the Google meet, you can feel her confidence, she is not camera- shy. She avoids facial expressions as well as non-formal words. She stays formal and well-mannered. In the rebuttal part of the debate, I really admired her way of speaking, she is still fluent and clear. She does not let her emotion take over her. She listens carefully to the affirmative side to know what to answer back. Her attentiveness results in finding a weak spot on the affirmative team. She also spoke with conviction, proving that they should believe in their side. These characteristics are vital to being a good debater.