# data[].attributes.body
Heavily reliant upon palm cards, mostly reading with little eye contact. Good volume; confidence demonstrated.
Clear communication of proposed parameters. Appeals to pathos re: immoral behaviour. Statistics cited. Lengthy in getting to second point and speaking quickly to try finish.

# data[].attributes.body
repetitive. Second point irrelevant (Australian laws DO apply to sports people)

# data[].attributes.body
"Counter model" is simply a more permissive version of the status quo (sporting clubs DO stand sportspeople down in the case of criminal activities).

Possible lack of research...

# data[].attributes.body
Offered alternative model. Also heavily reliant on palm cards and little eye contact.
'Good behaviour' stated as difficult to agree upon (faulty logic). Rejects the idea since one P.O.V. will inevitably become the standard without allowing for difference (this is how laws and legislation already work).
Suggest that this clause impinges upon privacy and freedom (seems quite a stretch).

# data[].attributes.body
Not engaging with the aff definitions / model – criminal activity etc.. have been defined by aff...

# data[].attributes.body
second point was more or less the same as the first

# data[].attributes.body
Very detailed, difficult to argue against- too long spent on this?

# data[].attributes.body
Weak arguments. I'm not sure that it is impractical to implement a good behaviour clause- I think aff clearly outlined what would be included and this was rebutted well by aff.

# data[].attributes.body
Good use of model for rebuttal. I like the point about protection for sponsors and employers.

# data[].attributes.body
Good volume, use of gestures. Rebuttal attempts to engage with audience more via eye contact.
Citing influence sportspeople hold over youth and wider community. Israel Folaou example given quite strong.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree, but hasn't the influence sportspeople have already been discussed at first?

# data[].attributes.body
Good volume. Purely reading.
Other celebs cited, yet public personas still face (if limited) consequence already, e.g. production companies dropping the talent or breaking contracts (such as Kanye and Adidas).
Flawed argument: 'who can be perfect?' Not needing to be perfect, just contractually obliged to avoid select behaviours.

# data[].attributes.body
Are neg saying that aff wants to punish twice, and that this is unfair?