GPS Debating Round 3 vs Grammar Report
J. G. Nicholas
LAST FRIDAY, SHORE HOSTED SYDNEY GRAMMAR on topics related to ‘Science and Society’ and the Shore boys were victorious in three debates in a challenging, yet hopefully constructive, evening of debating.
Hoping to end their losing streak in their clash with the leaders of the Year 7 points tally, the affirming 7A’s were likely taken aback by the not particularly ‘Science and Society’ like the topic- ‘That Australia should have a meat tax.’ Despite strong speeches down the bench, the boys went down to a strong Grammar side who more effectively synthesised their substantive. Also affirming, the B’s were hampered by a more rudimentary understanding of taxation than their opposition, and despite the loss, C’s import Archie Watson spoke admirably in his B’s debut. In a contest to regain the legacy of our Year 7 debaters, the 7C’s comprehensively dismantled their Grammar counterparts, their substantive centring on obesity, animal welfare and environmental grounds, with Will Pellow’s standout performance at 2nd affirmative.
Keen to extend their undefeated streak to three, the 8As were slapped with the interesting topic- ‘That this house prefers a world where everyone was religious.’ Despite taking a close loss, the boys spoke admirably for their first debate with a topic of this nature and engaged well with their opposition. Affirming the same topic, the 8Bs went down in a similar fashion despite some admirable speaking down the bench. Again, looking to regain some dignity for their year group, the 8Cs snatched an incredible victory from Grammar, Oscar Brown’s perspicacious 3rd affirmative speech securing the win for the boys.
Affirming the same topic as the Year 8’s, the 9As debated well against a strong Grammar side, with 2nd speaker Jayden Pan and 3rd Yukai Yan being particularly responsive. However, they were ultimately defeated and joined the group of victims of such a simple yet complex topic. Similarly, the 9B’s made significant improvements in their time management and engagement but also lost to a well-drilled opposing side. Despite the loss, Henry Black’s signposting and rebuttal was commendable.
The 9A’s looking indifferent
Facing another loosely ‘Science and Society’ type topic, the 10As negated- ‘That hospitals should be able to remove a child from parents after medical neglect.’ The boys went down in a close debate despite Daniel Liu’s strong 2nd negative speech. Described by their coach as “falling victim to Grammar’s straw manning and deceptive tactics,” the Bs also went down regardless of Ethan Nam’s explosive introduction and good manner at 1st.
The 1sts get it done at home
The Opens teams were handed yet another loosely ‘Science and Society’ related topic, negating ‘That this house regrets the decline of multigenerational households.’ Lawson Banks shone for the 3rds at 1st negative, perceptively synthesising his rebuttal and substantive. Unfortunately, (allegedly) the adjudicator found a way to fabricate some points for their opposition whilst unfairly discounting some of their own substantive and took a loss in a close debate.
In a similar fashion, the 2nds took a loss on home soil as they struggled to construct a strong enough case to counter their opposition’s substantive. The entire team, consisting of Daniel Kang, Ramon Zhang, Callum Vujanovic and Max Kim, performed admirably but need to reignite the success of their ISDA campaign if they want to finish the season near the top of the table.
RRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!! Thirsty for revenge after being sent packing by Grammar in the Quarterfinals of the ISDA competition last term, the 1st IV were ravenous for a victory that would cement their spot at the top of the GPS table. Initially sceptical of their side of the topic, the boys, led by the calm and collected Lachlan Hunt, moved to focus their case on the dangers of multigenerational living for family dynamics and the potential for abuse and neglect to develop within these households. Blake Fite was impassioned in his response to the opposition’s rather flimsy ‘family values’ analysis, and Michael Kwak’s beautiful weighing and reframing of the debate through the lens of the different familial relationships that existed, all but won the debate before the 3rd speakers joined the fray. Despite a somewhat convoluted and ill-structured speech, Jimmy Nicholas did enough at 3rd to secure the win, and the boys scraped away with a narrow victory and some security at the top of the GPS table.
This Friday, we debate King’s at their campus in what is sure to be a slightly easier matchup than last week.