ISDA Debating Report Round 1 vs Kambala
M. D. Kwak
LAST FRIDAY SHORE HOSTED KAMBALA on topics surrounding education, with Shore winning five out of eight debates – an impressive record against a historically strong Kambala side.
The Primary As and Bs affirmed ‘That Schools Should Not Group Students Based on Ability (i.e. streamed or selective classes)‘, with the As going down valiantly and the Bs securing a well-deserved win. These boys, many of whom are only just beginning their debating journey, should be congratulated for their efforts.
Our Year 7s smashed their way into the high school debate scene with an impressive victory, affirming ‘That all High School Aged Students Should Complete a Minimum Number of Community Service Hours Each Year.’ The boys were excellent in establishing the imperative and integrity of their case, accompanied by consistent analysis and high-quality responses. Although Kambala spoke well, the realistic characterisation of Shore ultimately led to a close but clear win. My intuition tells me this Year 7 team is one to look out for (maybe even bringing home the coveted Year 7 ISDA trophy).
Rounding out a fantastic performance from our Junior debaters, Year 8 also clutched up with a dub, affirming the same topic. The boys presented a strong model as well as nuanced and persuasive arguments in favour of high school students doing community service.
Unfortunately, Year 9 went down, affirming ‘That Schools Should Introduce Flexible Learning Options for Students (similar to flexible work arrangements).’ Although the team implemented a clear structure and debated with determination, they will need to work on constructing a more specific model and avoid using examples that are extreme or unlikely. Having personally received this feedback for many, many years (and still working on it), all I can say is that adjudicators never stop going on about it – so do your best to keep your heads cool in a debate and strive to be the most realistic team.
Year 10 unfortunately went down affirming ‘That Schools Should Focus On Teaching Students Soft Skills (e.g. interpersonal and communication skills and leadership) Over Hard Skills (computer skills, language, maths)’. The team was a formidable opponent against Kambala, demonstrating strong rebuttal. Despite the sentiments of a certain team member expressed in a shockingly salty Instagram Note – this team is undoubtedly a strong one, having reached the finals of this competition last year. Moving forward, I expect to see some wins chalked up on the board.
Now for the top dogs of Shore debating: the Senior As and Bs. In dominant fashion, both teams secured victories affirming the topic ‘That, as a Parent, We Would Foster Intelligence Over Charisma in Our Child’. Considering the majority of our Senior debaters (excluding ‘Rizz-bear’ Ramon and the everso charismatic Leslie-Vujanovic duo) had evidently prioritised the former over the latter, teams were well-versed in defending the ‘benefits’ of intelligence and dismissing charisma as being ‘overrated’ (really, we were just coping with the fact that we still struggle to talk to girls without bringing up debating or Maths Extension 2).
Despite no members of the Senior Bs being parents, the 5-man squad consisting of Ramon Zhang, Callum Vujanovic, Eric Qiao, Angus Leslie and Michael Xu channelled their inner daddy for this debate and spoke in a compelling manner down the bench. Undoubtedly influenced by Ms Wolsely’s passionate rants about Australia’s tax brackets, the team provided thoughtful characterisation of the status quo as being inherently capitalist (an all-time adjudicator favourite), thus framing intelligence as being essential to success. A shoutout to Eric ‘E-giant’ Qiao for doing an admirable job at 1st in setting up the team’s case.
In an excellent and close debate, the Senior As, made up of Daniel Kang, Max Kim, Daniel Liu and Michael Kwak, clutched a dub for Shore. The night was punctuated with excitement – but more importantly, a thirst for revenge. Kambala had beaten this team in last year’s ISDA group stages and did so again, in their semi-finals matchup (it was rumoured that after this particularly traumatic event, Deek broke character by going home and crying himself to sleep). Such historical trauma made the boys’ victory even sweeter. A particular highlight was the team’s careful analysis of how fostering a love for learning and curiosity would both prepare children for their future careers and help them discover their own passions and interests. Drawing upon their infinite repositories of intelligence, the team illustrated how helping children develop their critical thinking and learning skills would foster better relationships with parents. However, this team still needs to work on their preptime skills and maximising charitability to truly transcend into the ISDA champions they are.
Despite winning both debates through perhaps a greater display of intelligence, the Senior As and Bs are unfortunately still searching for ways to improve their ‘rizz’ and would be open to any suggestions from the crowd.
Next week, Shore faces St Andrews in debates concerning politics. All teams have something to work on, but R1 was a fantastic start to the season for all teams and no doubt a sign of more to come.
Introducing: your indifferent Senior As defending the bridge.
From L to R: Max ‘looks-maxxing’ Kim, based Kangers, young gun Dan Liu and veteran speaker Kwakers