GPS Debating Round 6 vs SBHS Report

J. G. Nicholas

LAST FRIDAY, SHORE HOSTED SYDNEY BOYS ON TOPICS loosely related to ‘Media, Culture and Entertainment’ and the boys edged out their opponents in 8 of 13 debates in a close night of debating.

The 7As negated the certainly interesting topic that ‘That Disney should stop making remakes of classics and just make new material.’ Improving every week, the boys established a case centred on the importance of maintaining balance between classics and new material, with Eddie Godfrey starring at 3rd once more. Unfortunately, the 7Bs went down despite solid speeches from all speakers, needing to work on their point allocation and prep room skills. Rounding out a constructive night for the Year 7s, the C’s snatched a win coloured by James Allen’s wonderful speech. 

Also negating a movie-related topic, the Year 8s won a trifecta of debates on ‘That the rise of Marvel has been bad for the movie industry.’ A debate with good engagement from both sides, Lucas Zhou was the standout speaker for the A’s. The B’s did a good job at redirecting the debate away from their opponent’s desired stakeholder as Thomas Hilmer starred at 3rd negative. The C’s narrowly defeated their opposition in a debate that could’ve done with some more comparative analysis and examples to navigate their assertions, but a win is a win, and 3 against SBHS for the Year 8s is certainly an achievement to be proud of. 

Negating the same topic, the Year 9s were equally successful, with both the A’s and B’s securing decisive victories in spite of their opposition’s eloquence. A clear victory for the better-prepared team, the A’s gave tangible benefits to the film industry, with first and second mechanising well on substantive about more money being pumped in and diversity in film respectively. These benefits held for the entire debate as the lads completely shut down some questionable substantive concerning viewers instead of the industry. Notably, Tom Gray ended his 3rd speech with ‘with great power comes great responsibility,’ a stroke of genius in the scope of the debate. Jaeyun Koh led the way for the B’s as his integrated substantive and rebuttal at 3rd was decisive, an example of the value in listening to Jimmy’s Playfair speeches and integrating his advice. 

Converse to the success of the Year 8s and 9s, the 10A and B’s went down negating ‘This house opposes the rise of the true crime genre.’ Most definitely the harder side of the topic, the A’s struggled to establish effective substantive and lost in a competitive debate. The B’s debate was marred by clashing characterisations of the true crime genre. Ethan Nam effectively set up the debate at first, but it wasn’t enough to overcome the strength of their opposition. 

Sorely missing the 4ths after a cowardly late afternoon exit from their SBHS counterparts, the Opens negated the topic ‘This house, as Mr Brown would not allow your family to bring the bear home,’ with the attached information slide:

‘You are Mr. Brown, a cautious insurance broker living in the centre of London with your wife and two children (16 and 13). You love your family and want them to be happy but are constantly afraid of any harm coming to them or your home, meaning you limit some of the things they can do.
You are walking through London Paddington train station one night where you discover a Bear looking for a home. The Bear can speak fluent English and is able to converse well with you and your wife. The entire family (including yourself) have taken a liking to this Bear and your wife suggests that you offer him a home. As no one else is around, security would most likely take possession of the Bear, and call the appropriate authorities to take him away. To where would the Bear go? You do not know.’ 

Navigating yet another chapter in the GPS’ topical experimentation, the 3rds undoubtedly had the harder side to argue but still gave an outstanding performance across the bench and were unlucky to lose in a close contest. Liam Chavdarov and Patrick Zhang spoke well at 2nd and 3rd, but they couldn’t overcome the strength of their opposition’s case. 

Daniel Kang was a particularly strong 3rd speaker for the 2nds whose rebuttals were direct and helpfully weighed the debate, but the lads needed to consider the long-term impacts that Mr Brown would be navigating and consequently lost the debate. 

Despite attempts at ‘rizzing’ the adjudicator with some questionable humour made by the opposition, the 1sts regained their winning ways with a good win that makes the Premiership a near certainty. Assisted by the extremes of the bear’s characterisation implicit with their attempts at humour, the lads effectively removed themselves from such polarising arguments and weighed out basically all of SBHS’ long-term substantive. The boys were intelligent in their use of certain details in the info slide like Mr Brown’s emotional disposition for the bear, and the unity of our speeches made it a decisive victory.  This week, Newington await the men in white and grey for the last debate of the season, as a win for the firsts would secure a long-awaited debating premiership.

Unmatched perspicacity, coupled with sheer indefatigability…