Debate Evaluation Essay 10-JOULE

Name: Elaine Belle R. See Date: 14/4/21 Debate Evaluation Essay I’m going to assess Lia Nebres’s debate performance. The debate topic is about the legalization of euthanasia and her side opposes it. Euthanasia is defined as the hastening of death of a patient to prevent further sufferings. Active euthanasia refers to the physician deliberate act, usually the administration of lethal drugs, to end an incurably or terminally ill patient's life (Annadurai, K., Danasekaran, R., & Mani, G., 2014) Lia started her speech by bringing up consent and every kind of euthanasia. Which are child animal, non-voluntary, and voluntary euthanasia. She said that animal and child euthanasia doesn’t ask for consent. A kid’s mind is not yet developed and experienced, they only think of not inconveniencing someone. Asking for a child’s consent is useless since they aren't capable enough to decide for themselves. The same goes for an animal, they cannot decide for themselves. Lia believes that euthanasia doesn't oblige the consent of the person. She also brought up the other side's quote, where a person has the right to their own body. Lia mentioned there’s a study that states the common reason people go through euthanasia. And that is because of the fear of being a burden. She believes that this understanding is infirm for them to decide to finish their life. And it doesn’t count as an agreement (consent). “Who are we to end a person’s life?” She added. She said that the thought of money as one of the rational motives to end someone’s existence is flimsy. Instead, we should focus on how to keep on saving lives. Her speech was wonderful and sensible. Although some need further explanation, it was still meaningful. Her tone was confident andthere is passion in her delivery of a speech. She stands on her beliefs, doesn’t waver, and she was relentless in stating her principles. In the part where she stated one of the most common causes aboutwhy decide to practice euthanasia. When a person makes a choice that is for someone else’s good it is not them but their emotional reasoning. It proves that the person conceives that someone else is in control of their life. One of the root cause is being a burden to someone that supports them. Which prevents them from handling their life. Some of her addresses were buffering still apprehensible since her rebuttals weren't scripted. I also think some of her words like “hypocritical” were sort of offensive to whoever it was mean to. One of her strengths as she was able to think fast, was able to respond well and her enthusiasm towards the topic. One of her weaknesses is when she wasn’t able to speak straight, yet it was a minor thing and is understandable. Finally, I thought that it would be better if she didn’t focus too much on the emotional side of the topic. Source: Annadurai, K., Danasekaran, R., & Mani, G. (2014). 'Euthanasia: right to die with dignity'. Journal of family medicine and primary care, 3(4), 477–478. https:// doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.148161

Name: Joseph Danica Ella Date: 14/4/21 Online Distance learning should continue even after the pandemic I will choose Janine Tamunday to be evaluated which is the second speaker of affirmative side. The information of the second speaker gives, made me side with their team, the information and articles that the second speaker is saying is more detailed and has more resources and especially the rebuttal part, the second speaker divide and answer the question properly and site the evidence to her questions. I really like how she deliver her rebuttal properly and how she claims their side, she calmy answer and express her answer to the audience. I really like her aura and confident expression towards the debaters and the audience. And she really tried to connect her articles and some resources to answer the question and rebut the opposing side.

Name: Emmanuel John Diwa Date: 14/4/21 The first speech I am going to evaluate is Rashard Raymond P. Magsino Speech about E- Cigarettes Should Not Be Banned. Mon started out very nice by saying a rebuttal that the vape juices contain vitamin e acetate, yes it is safe if it is for eating and for applying it to the skin. but it is not safe if we inhaled it. because when vitamin e acetate is heated it will produce toxic and poisonous gas or what we called ketene. and this may lead to lung problems. also there are vape juices that don’t have vitamin acetate but vape juices has a main ingredient that are propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin. when propylene glycol is heated it becomes propylene oxide. propylene oxide is genotoxic that destroy dna and carcinogenic that causes cancer. while if you heat vegetable glycerin it becomes arcolein. arcolein is a lung irritant that cause lungs to be swollen or accumulate water. Both e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes contain nicotine, which research suggests may be as addictive as heroin and cocaine. What’s worse, says Blaha, many e-cigarette users get even more nicotine than they would from a tobacco product — you can buy extra-strength cartridges, which have a higher concentration of nicotine, or you can increase the e- cigarette’s voltage to get a greater hit of the substance. If you think that vaping can relieve depression, then you have forgotten that while you were being relieved by your depression your body health worsens. and why waste your money for a product that can kill you.

Name: Mikaela Santos Date: 14/4/21 Peer Evaluation Essay on Legalization of Euthanasia “Right to live with honoring or Right to die with dignity?”. Euthanasia refers to an act where active steps are taken to end a person’s life to relieve from suffering and the fatal act is carried by someone else, specifically a physician. As I conducted a small research to gather information, there are countries such as Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, France, Colombia, Canada, Luxembourg, and several states in US where Euthanasia is legal as of year 2019. Countries that are not mentioned probably not favor doing the act. This mercy killing is still a debate because some would say it is a must, so that the person will not suffer any longer or their certain health problems are not curable anymore, and some would say ‘no’ because of the religion excuse or questioning who are we to put an end to someone’s life. On this day, I will evaluate Ms. Sandico of the affirmative side regarding to her perspective on the legalization of Euthanasia. Ms. Sandico started her claim with proper opening remarks. She explained the definition of Euthanasia first before going to the actual claim. I think it is great start because not everyone is aware about the definition of this word unless if you have watched a movie, a medical movie or drama perhaps because sometimes they show some act of euthanasia there or you just read it in a book. She delivered her statements very well and I like it! She has conviction on every word she said. It was entertaining to hear her testimony owing to the fact that her intonation, diction and pronunciation are good. Ms. Sandico and her team claims that Euthanasia shall be legalized to reduce the suffering of severe patients and burden financially and psychology. This firm claim is supported by an evidence provided by Ms. Sandico and her team. Aside from that, having a straightforward answer is a must and I believe Ms. Sandico done that. In every presentation, report, argument there is always an open statement therefore there will also be a closing statement. I like the way how she ended her claim with a quote which also her mates did. I like that because sometimes we must say something that will mark to our audiences’ mind. In terms of negative or bad review on Ms. Sandico’s speech, I would say there is none although there is a part where she buffered for a second, but I believe it is just brought by nervousness because it was the rebuttal part nevertheless, she did a great job, she conveyed her statements and claim decently. To end this reflective evaluation essay, both teams (affirmative and opposing) did an excellent performance. Honestly, among all the three topics for this day’s debate, I am more interested on this. Side short story, I was watching a Korean medical drama where the protagonist was imprisoned because he performed euthanasia. That day, I searched what is it then asked myself if “am I approved on this or not?”. And this day helped me (sort of) to decide, and I would say I am on go on this as long as the practitioner or physician followed the criteria as the debaters of the affirmative team have said that there are specifications need to follow in order to perform this act. Reference: Ashford (2019). Countries where euthanasia is legal. Retrieve from: https://www.theweek.co.uk/102978/countries-where-euthanasia-is-legal

Name: Simon Dery Date: 14/4/21 This is an evaluation on Rona Tatad’s speech on why online distance learning should continue even after the pandemic. She provided an effective introduction on their topic. When she is delivering her argument, I noticed that she researched thoroughly about her topic and she is straight to the point. Having unnecessary information or examples might confuse the audience and lose track of her point. When she is speaking, she talks in a clear, audible and understandable voice. But I noticed that she did not have any eye contact with the audience. Even if she is reading a script, making eye contact with the audience could make the debate more lively. She should pause for a while and look at the camera to have a connection with the audience. I also noticed that she is doing hand gestures while delivering her speech. This shows that even though she is reading a script, she is speaking from her heart. When she commented about the virus, she gave a background, its origin, transmission and how it mutates. After commenting about the virus, she then proceeded to the vaccine which she referenced some background studies for her claims. Although she delivered her argument to the debate, the tone of her voice sounded like she is upset even though she is not. All in all, the delivery of her argument is accurate, convincing and understandable. She ended her argument by delivering a question to the opposing side.

Name: Lauryn Ysabelle Arciaga Date: 14/4/21 Peer Evaluation I will be evaluating Arjay Pangilinan from Grade 10 Tesla. Their debate topic was “E- Cigarettes should not be banned”. First I will talk about his first statement which talks about the usage of E-cigarettes and the study that shows how many people use E-cigarettes and the effects of nicotine to our body. He also mentioned the side effects of quitting smoking E- cigarettes, which is a great start because in this way he can convince his audience to side with him. I really like how Arjay defend their side with confidence, you can really see that he is well prepared and he knows their topic so well. His ideas were organized and straight to the point, he’s really stating facts and information about the possible effects of E-cigarettes to our body and how it can affect our health. The way he explains their side really attracts their audience to listen because his voice shows confidence and diction. The tone of his voice really affects his audience and the way he delivered his message is very clear. He really persuade his audience that E-cigarettes should be banned, or at least he convinced me because of the information that he mentioned about the effects of E-cigarettes. For his rebuttal part, he answered the questions clearly and did not failed to still defend their side. I like how he answered because you can really see that he listens to the other team and he is aware of what they are saying. He really did well in this debate and I know he can improve his way of speaking and vocabulary. The debate was so good, the way both teams delivered their point was good.

Name: Kirsten Anne Enriquez Date: 14/4/21 Peer Evaluation I will be evaluating a student from Grade 10 Ampere, Eliz Villareal’s speech about why Online Distance Learning should not continue even after the pandemic. First, I would like to claim that some of my words will be either valid or invalid because my memory can only remember few of the key points and claims by Ms. Villareal. She was the first member to speak from the opposing team that is followed by the second member from the affirmative team. She first started with the keywords or key points by telling the audience the meaning word by word of their designated topic. She then stated the importance on why we should not continue Online Distance Learning and also specified an amount of data showing that it’s more efficient on having the traditional learning, saying that we shouldn’t lay the money for having an unguaranteed decision instead of revitalizing the Online Distance Learning. I can say that Ms. Villareal supported her claims thoroughly and accurately than others. For the part where she rebutted the opposite side, I can see that she managed to answer the questions that are formed or the statements that the opposite team have thrown to them nicely and precisely. Ms. Villareal’s technique on how she answers the affirmative side by throwing facts, data and telling information straightforwardly, I can see that she didn’t beat around the bushes. Her technique on how she delivers her speeches was very smooth and she didn’t shutter that much, so I can see through it that Ms. Villareal really knows what she is saying, and she obviously researched about it perfectly, every details were said, every inch of their creative juices were also visible. She even gave a huge helping hand on emphasizing the scope of their topic. For her facial expressions and figures of speeches, I can say that Ms. Villareal aced it as well, as what I’ve said before, she didn’t shutter that much, problem with her on facing the camera? Not seen, she simultaneously talked and act like she is really in an actual face to face debate, rebutting or not, she remained calm as a proper debater should do and she seems very professional for that. However, despite from these good qualities traits and actions that I’ve said, I need to mention something that are completely opposite from it, but unfortunately, I couldn’t grasp or hold to any of her actions in any situations that she lacked on it. As I focused on her speeches, I can’t find anything that will be applicable in the ‘improvement category’ as I can’t see anything to be improved of. Overall, Ms. Villareal did a great job with fighting her side, claims and she defended it very well. She managed to tell the audience her information well, and she rebutted well. As she showed people on how to remain calm before, after or during a debate or argument remains pleasing to me, and I know that someday she’ll improve better than today. It was a nice debate and it definitely tickles my curious mind during their debate.

Name: Raiden Chris Tongol Date: 14/4/21 PEER EVALUATION The debater I am going to evaluate is Rona Tatad, her debate on being in favor of Online Distance Learning Should continue even after the pandemic is favorable and catches the audiences attention. She starts off by giving a quote to introduce what their argument is going to be about, which is a good introduction to support their topic. What really helps catches the attention of an audience is an entertaining and confident speaker, and that is what she is and does a good job at it. The way she speaks her argument is with a confident and loud tone, avoiding a monotone and uninterested voice. Speaking this way avoids making it sound like the speaker is uninterested in the topic, so speaking in a vibrant tone can not only make your argument sound pleasurable, but also catches your audience’s attention. While she speaks she also looks at the screen or the audience, and makes hand movements so that the audience keeps their eye on her. She kept her points and examples simple and just goes straight to the point. She also participated a lot in the rebuttal stage of the debate, where in she gives valid points to make defend their argument. She kept her head up as she gave her arguments and also kept speaking in a confident manner. She did not lose composure and just focused on what good arguments to make against their opponents Although her voice sometimes staggered a bit, she kept on going with her argument and improved later on and avoided staggering her voice. She kept her confidence and passion on the topic they are having a debate on and avoided making any more mistakes that she could make while speaking. Overall, she was good at keeping her audience attention, kept her head up while keeping eye contact on the screen, was confident while speaking, and passionate. These are all good traits at being a good speaker. Even if you make small mistakes, keep going on your speech and just make sure not to make the same mistake again and keep improving. Keep your focus toward your main argument and do not lose your composure while speaking in front of an audience.