GPS Debating Round 1
St Joseph’s College
Last Friday, the GPS Debating Competition kicked off in exciting fashion. Locking horns with St Joseph’s College, on topics about Science and Society, the Shore debaters affirmed well in all debates, taking home eight wins across twelve matchups. The 7A, 7B and 7C teams swept their Joeys counterparts on the topic, “Students from Kindergarten to Year 10 should never use personal laptops or tablets in the classroom” with the 7Ds unlucky to go down in the ISDDC. Wins for the 8A and 8B teams on banning artificial intelligence were backed up by an 8C win in their ISDDC debate on contact sport to deliver a clean sweep in the age group and complete a promising start to the season in the Junior years.
The Year 9 and Year 10 debates, on artificial intelligence and the merits of using patient satisfaction surveys to determine doctors’ salaries respectively, saw both A teams win and both B teams lose. The 10As had a strong prep, despite being down a man, which set them up with a strong case and several counterarguments, pre-emptively formulated to rebut St Joseph’s arguments. At first, Max Kim set up the case, systematically proving impactful and likely benefits to the quality of doctors and the progression of the medical industry. Daniel Kang also provided excellent rebuttal to counter Joeys’ first speaker and whipped Max’s key points before Michael Kwak brought the team home in 3rd, strategically weighing the debate proving why Shore should win. The adjudicator agreed and Shore’s strong performance was rewarded with a well-deserved victory.
Despite being unable to meet our St Joseph’s opponents in person, the Opens debates were held on Zoom, a handy remnant of the COVID era. Teams clashed on the topic, “Pharmaceutical companies should be held liable for widespread misuse of their drugs”. The debates centred around which stakeholders should be held responsible for drug misuses and whether it was right for pharmaceutical companies to be held liable. The Thirds were left feeling robbed after the adjudicator awarded their debate to St Joseph’s despite their valiant effort. Their pain was avenged by the Seconds who, with a myriad of examples from Blake Fite, successfully defended their model from the opposition’s attacks to emerge victorious.
In the Firsts, after a rollercoaster ISDA season with four consecutive losses and three consecutive wins, we were hoping to get our season off to a strong start. Will Defina opened strongly, executing the plan of attack formulated in the prep room by laying out an effective punishment mechanism and the reasons why pharmaceutical companies should be held liable. At Second, I held the team line against the onslaught of St Joseph’s rebuttal, taking on claims about doctors being more responsible for misuse, before a rampaging Tim Barrett stressed that tackling pharmaceutical companies would have the most significant impact to ending the suffering of prescription drug addicts. We stuck to our guns and effectively executed the plan; but they were the wrong guns and it was the wrong plan. Without a moral linchpin, the adjudicator believed the oppositions practical harms would outweigh any benefit.
Next week, the debaters are back at Shore, tackling topics on sport against Riverview and they will attempt to emulate the First XV, who also tackled Riverview in sport, to secure another strong set of results.
Mesake Taulawakeiaho
Captain of Debating
Top Image Credit: Year 9A team after their win