Debating News | ISDA Competition

Debating Report – Week 7

Round 4 of the ISDA competition has finally arrived. The topic this week was “Team Sport Should be Compulsory for all Primary Years”. Surprisingly, this topic happened to be the writing assessment we needed to do at school so we as the negative had a great understanding of what points we should say and some pre-rebuttals we could use. Our four speakers were listed as first speaker Oliver, the second speaker Aiden, the third speaker Orlando, and finally fourth speaker Ryder.

Oliver opened our case fluently. He talked about the problematic issue of fights and injuries. He discussed how if hostilities were to break out children would be mentally ailing, and injuries would occur even more. He spoke for four minutes and eighteen seconds. Our next speaker Aiden spoke verbosely and discussed around 5-6 rebuttals against the opposition. His insightful and interesting points were that afternoon sports can affect your concentration in class and how team sports don’t reflect your ability as a sportsman but the other teammates on your team. He spoke for three minutes and thirty-nine seconds. Finally, our third speaker Orlando, summed up our team’s case and had some awesome rebuttals which attacked the opposition strongly. He spoke for two minutes and thirty-seven seconds. Ryder as fourth speaker did an excellent job of preparing rebuttals and also his communication was great amongst his team members during the debate.

Subsequently, the adjudicator made his adjudication. Sadly, the win went to Ascham ending our chance in the finals. We, as a team, noticed that we had improved dramatically over the past few debates. I noticed myself that our rebuttals were way better than Aschams but we just had to improve on not nitpicking over tiny issues. Next week, we hope that we’ll debate with keen spirits.

Written by William, Year 6

Debating Report Week – 8

It is Round 5 of ISDA debating. This week’s topic was “A panel of Year 6 Leaders Should Decide on a Punishment for a Breach of School Rules”.  We were the negative team versing SCEGGS in a very challenging debate. Our speakers included Aiden, William, Samedh and Orlando.

Aiden was a great speaker, he spoke with courage, enthusiasm and expression. He stated that children do not have the maturity and principles to make the right decisions. Therefore, students could hand out the wrong punishment. William spoke about bias decisions shown by the panel because their friend has done something wrong.  William also spoke about how the students might be carrying burdens because they do not want to be the ones giving punishments in case they get in trouble by their friends. William gave very strong points and delivered them really well.

Our third speaker Samedh refuted our opponents’ points about how children would choose the right people, but the children will choose the people they know don’t give many punishments. He also stated wrong people may be selected that do nothing. Samedh also wrote rebuts for others and gave our team a great summary. Samedh did this by using great facts and words and many other devices.  The last speaker was Orlando who congratulated everyone for doing well and gave our team great rebuts.

SCEGGS debated to a high standard leading to the adjudicator’s decision going their way. Even though the decision didn’t go our way, we showed as a team that we have improved and are getting stronger every week. In my opinion, I think our points were stronger than SCEGGS and that we should have won the debate, but the adjudicator always has the final say and we respect his final decision. I believe we can work on improving our speaking times to become a team to be reckoned with. We are looking forward to great future debates and continuing to improve each week.

Written by Ryder, Year 6

Debating Report Week – 9

In Week 9 it was round 6 of the ISDA debating competition. The topic of the week was “People Should Only be Able to Adopt Pets from Animal Shelters”. We were affirmative against MLC in an interesting debate. Our speakers were William, Oliver, Samedh, and Ryder.

William started our debate with an elaborate model which stated that by 2025 people would only be able to adopt pets from animal shelters. In the model it was also stated that there would be a screening process for every party involved in the adoption process, including pets. He also stated the relevant stakeholders that would be involved in the decision. He then gave a point on how economic issues would be avoided to the fact the licensed pet businesses would be given a license. He also stated that they would get monetary compensation from the government. His delivery was excellent, and his model gave the right amount of information in order for it to be comprehensive.

Then our second speaker Oliver backed up William’s model with two strong points. His first point outlined the adoption process and how owners and pets would be screened. This point also refuted the opposition’s statement that pet owners would not know relevant information on their pets. His second strong point was that pets could go extinct without adoption. He talked about how animal shelters were the only way that animals that could go extinct were to survive. Overall, he gave a speech full of detail and explanation that went a long way to back up our argument that pets should only be able to be adopted from animal shelters.

Our third speaker Samedh then went a long way to legitimise our argument by refuting the oppositions through his outstanding rebuts. His first rebut stated that due to the screening process outlined in our model pet owners would know relevant information such as how to care for their pet. He also talked about how shelter employees would have sufficient knowledge to take care of the animals in shelters. He also delivered a substantial blow to the opposition’s argument when he talked about how companies would not go out of business as they could obtain a license. He then further explained how pet adopters would know the breed of their pet by the screening process. Samedh contributed a substantial amount to our argument by fabulously rebutting the opposition’s case. He was helped greatly by Ryder who contributed to the rebuts of members across the team.

Both sides debated to a high level which was what the adjudicator stated. However, in the end MLC had the slight edge which caused them to win the debate. Even though we were unfortunate in the results we debated to a really high standard.

Written by Orlando, Year 6

Related Articles

Head Master's Bulletin

Academic Focus

Academic Excellence Citations and Engagement Citations – Semester Two I am delighted to publish the names…

Head Master's Bulletin

Basketball News

It was great to see 27 teams hit the court against Waverley on Saturday. There were…

Head Master's Bulletin

Colours Awarded | Term 4, 2021

Askew, Oliver (10We) Line Track and Field NSW Nitro Schools Intermediate Champs 2021 Dedousis, John (11Mu)…