Week 3 was the first round of the IPSHA debating competition. The topic debated was That books are better than TV against Montgrove. Team A debated as the affirmative with Nathan, Orlando, Aaron, and Oliver and Team B debated as the negative with Marcus, Samedh, Jeremiah and Ryder.
Nathan started the affirmative debate with strength delivering our model brilliantly. He then backed the model up with two strong arguments. His model was that we would do a variety of things in order to get reading up by 25% one of which was implementing mandatory reading in primary schools. He spoke for over 2:30 seconds with a great delivery that started the team off strong. Following that Orlando gave two strong points about. The first point was about the content in books and the second point was about how reading impacted the brain. He spoke for close to 3:30 with good delivery and rebuttal. Last but not least Aaron delivered his speech. In his speech he rebutted many of their key arguments and attacked their whole point. He also had an excellent summary which weighted the arguments from both sides. He was helped extremely by our third speaker Oliver who is a master of rebuttal and helped the whole team.
For Team B, Marcus (first speaker) commenced the negative debate by stating four strong points. His four points were that pictures are a lot easier and faster to process than text, books do not favour people with dyslexia, visually impaired people can’t read books but could listen to the television, and that news on the TV is more reliable than on text. He spoke for 3 minutes. The following speaker, Samedh, talked about how TV can help kids learn about current affairs quicker than text, TV educates young children better than text, and how TV’s have lots of social benefits. He also spoke for about 3 minutesThe next speaker, Jeremiah (3rd Speaker), rebutted the opposition with eight rebuttals! He also summarized our team’s case. To conclude Team B’s case, Ryder, who was the lifesaver behind the scenes, thanked the opposition for hosting us and debating against us. This was an amazing debate!
It was a great debate about a very interesting topic. In the end we won both debates against Montgrove.
Written by Orlando Ang, Aaron Patel and Marcus Chiam
Week 5 was the second round of the IPSHA Debating Competition. The topic was That Technology is Harmful to Our Friendships. It was Trinity against Danebank. Team B debated first as the affirmative team. Their debaters were Jeremiah, James, Ryder, and Samedh. Team A debated next as the negative team. Their debaters were Lennard, Nathan, Oliver, and William.
To introduce the first debate, Jeremiah came out with strong points about health issues, such as depression and loneliness. He also stated that Technology can misrepresent relationships and had great signposting. He spoke for 3:34 seconds, just over the time limit, but delivered his speech valiantly. Next, James had some outstanding facts about how technology affects our health and relationships. He talked about how you’re not really seeing people face-to-face and cyber bullying. He had some amazing rebuttals and spoke for 3:15 seconds. Finally, Ryder discussed how the opposition was wrong in their statements. He pointed out many key flaws. He then summarised Team B’s case, talking about what Jeremiah and James had said and spoke for 3:08 seconds. In the end, the Adjudicator gave the debate to us. We thanked Danebank for a great debate and wished them luck in their future ones.
To continue the second debate, Lennard had strong rebuttals and pointed out many flaws in the opposition’s case. He then moved onto his points about how online connections can continue current relationships and can help form new ones. He also stated that different apps have different abilities to help connect to others. He spoke for 2:26 seconds and led the negative team well. Next, Nathan pointed out many flaws in Danebank’s case. In his rebuttals, he pointed out how the negative team could solve the problems that Danebank was stating. He then mentioned cyber bullying and screen time and how it affects relationships. Although that seemed like a point for the affirmative team, he carried across his message proudly and spoke for 2:33 seconds. To conclude the debate, Oliver spoke about an extremely large amount of flaws in the opposition’s case. His rebuttals had high levels of detail. He then summarised what Lennard and Nathan had said and spoke for 3:32 seconds, skimming the time limit, but sharing his points with passion. In the end, the Adjudicator gave the debate to Danebank. We thanked them for a great debate and wished them luck in their future ones.
Both debates were at a high standard and were very entertaining and knowledgeable. After the debate, we then shared a moment with Danebank to have food and have fun. That concludes the second round of the IPSHA Debating Competition.
Written by Aiden Coehlo
ADLAND, NICHOLAS (10KE) LINE AFL 1ST XVIII 2021 AGNEW, HAMISH (12TA) LINE CADETS- ATA 2021 AGOSTI,…
As this term draws to a close, I want to take the opportunity to express my…