Debating News | Year 9 ISDA Report

This week the Year 9 ISDA debating team has managed to pull off a close win against a tough opponent, Riverview College. The Trinity team managed to pull through with the topic “That we should mandate that a percentage of foreign aid should be spent on environmental projects”, with Trinity arguing the affirmative case. In the prep room, the Trinity team managed to pull together a concise case which aimed to stop any potential arguments from Riverview, with N. Ayoub (9Fo) thinking of great points and helping to find the issue of the debate at hand. 

Trinity opened the debate strongly with first speaker A. Stone (9Ho) who brought up some crucial key points on the benefits this would bring to outside and inside of urban environments. He also presented our model that ultimately allowed us to win – that we would have a 7% mandate on environmental projects that would be taken from military funding, it was hoped that this would be implemented in the next 3-5 years. This was followed by little opposition from Riverview bringing out the point of how humans are more important than nature. Second speaker K. Suri (9Yo) continued strongly with strong rebuttal towards opposing points stating clearly in his points that the benefits of such a plan would benefit both humans and the environment in the long run. He also brought out key points on the issues of third world countries and a brief solution on first world countries. Third speaker J. Fung (9Ke) brought out mistakes and weighed up the costs of the debate judging that, with the current model we have proposed our side would be the better side for the win. The debate was finally closed by Riverview’s third speaker. 

Despite the win, the team has much to learn; we hope we can achieve this through further training and debates. The team should take the advice given (such as addressing points earlier with more clear and thorough rebuttals, along with improvements in the model to cater towards a wider range of stakeholders) to heart and should humble ourselves with the win. We must prepare ourselves for future challenges in the ISDA competition as we continue to face challenging schools and opponents.

J. Fung (9Ke)

Year 8 ISDA Report

On Friday the 5th of March, the ISDA Year 8 Team, consisting of M. Padmore (8Mu) as 1st speaker, E. Ciarroni (8WJ) as 2nd speaker, C. Ciarroni (8WJ) as 3rd speaker, and D. Lok (8Ke) as 4th speaker was up against Riverview’s strong ISDA team. We debated on the topic “That regardless of the current COVID-19 pandemic, Australian families should choose to holiday domestically, rather than overseas.” Starting off the debate we, as the affirmative team, proposed an International Travel Tax, and a strong advertising campaign to holiday in our own very own backyard, boosting the economy and helping raise awareness and protect our pristine environment. The opposition brought up the point of cultural awareness that can only be attained through international travel, which was swiftly rebutted by our expert 2nd and 3rd speakers. All in all, we ended in a strong victory, winning two out of the three main issues the adjudicator brought forward, and narrowly missing the third. One area we could improve on is explaining our arguments in greater depth, something we will continue to develop throughout the season.

M. Padmore (8Mu)

Senior B FED Debating Report 

Last week, on Friday, March 5, Trinity competed in an intense debating round against St. Aloysius’ College. In the F.E.D. (Friday Evening Debating) Competition, I was in a team with J. Yang (12Ke), V. Iyer (11WJ) and A. Berg (11Fo) as we argued a challenging but detailed topic regarding whether ‘Parents, instead of Doctors, should be responsible for their child’s healthcare’. Our side raised many strong and valid points, ranging from religious and moral to secular standpoints, including ‘Ryan’s Rule’ and how this once-off instance set a precedent that would be reflected in government legislation. Despite all of this, the opposition came ahead by presenting a good model and also a variety of well-organised rebuttals to undermine our case. Some of the things to work on for next week would include preparing a more robust model and also more substantial arguments that would be harder to rebut. These key steps will undoubtedly assist us in winning any upcoming debates.

J. Bettar (11St)


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)…