ISDA Debating Report Round 3 vs Scots
M. D. Kwak
LAST FRIDAY, SHORE WAS AWAY AT SCOTS debating topics surrounding health, with Shore winning a solid four out of six debates in the highs chool rounds.
The Primary As and Bs negated ‘That schools should regulate what children can bring for lunch’ Unfortunately, both teams went down closely to a polished Scots side, but special mentions to Lucas and Joseph for being standout speakers this week!
Our Year 7 LND teams debated the topic ‘That we should televise all court hearings, losing one debate and winning the other. The Year 8 LND team continued their winning ways with the same topic, recovering well after the opposition presented an unexpectedly clever model and adapted their case successfully to prove large harms to perpetrators of crimes who were trying to rehabilitate themselves. Props to Lachlan Jansen, who spoke at 1st and 3rd (what a power move…)
One person down? Doesn’t matter. Your Year 7 ISDA team will haul back another breezy W. The talented team cemented their perfect record (three for three), negating the motion ‘That doctors should be able to override parents when making medical decisions regarding children.’ Adjudicated by the illustrious Will Defina, whose accolades include ‘The Wooden Spoon’ and being an all-round funny bloke, the debate was high-quality, especially considering such a difficult topic. Ultimately, it was Shore’s clearer case construction and harms that allowed for a close but clear victory. This Year 7 team is looking unstoppable. Watch out: they’re coming for that trophy.
A jubilant Year 7 ISDA team post-victory (I need some of their happiness😣)
Year 8 ISDA didn’t have as much luck in negating the same topic and walked away with a bitterly close loss. According to a salty email from ‘Larry’ Richard Zhang, the team seemed to struggle with their side of the topic and despite strong speeches from all members, it was ultimately not enough to win.
Year 9 also went down in a tight loss, despite speaking well and having noticeable improvements in their structure. However, important supporting arguments were missed, which limited the depth of their case. Shoutout to ‘STU8’ Rian Conners for having the best structure and points in his team.
Year 10 put up another strong outing on the Negative side of the motion ‘That healthcare workers should not have the right to strike during emergencies.’ Shoutout to Jayden who gave a cracking 1st Neg speech, setting up the tone for the remainder of the debate and emphasising the importance of long term impacts on key stakeholders.
Is that a hint of a smile I see from Jayden? What a rare sighting…(he only reserves them for sweaty MUNA outings and debating dubs). Yukai’s smile, on the other hand, is glowing.
As expected, the Senior boys did NOT disappoint with wins across both debates, placing them in good stead for knock-out rounds with 3/3 Ws. The lads negated the quite topical and enjoyable motion ‘That we support the use of AI to provide mental health services (e.g. talk therapy via chatbots).’
Sorely missing the expertise of Ramon, ‘I need to study for my Ext 2 Maths exam, so imma ditch debating’ Zhang, the Senior Bs were able to stumble over the line in a somewhat messy debate. Or, in Ms Wolsely’s blunt terms: “No one should have won the debate.” 🙁 Despite missing some big opportunities to attack the principle at the heart of the debate, the team was able to prove that quality of care, risk of data leaks and economic factors outweighed the potential benefits of AI mental health services. E-Giant Qiao was of great assistance as a real-life example of someone suffering from crippling Clash Royale addiction (evidenced by his concerning screen time stats that trail into the 14-15 hour daily range). Similarly, Callum’s intricate (but sussy) familiarity with ChatGpt’s features and outputs was of utmost importance.
Determined to bring back a more rousing victory after last week’s performance, the Senior A’s did not disappoint – storming their way to victory in convincing fashion. Despite being a career 3rd speaker (BOooo), Dan Liu gave a remarkable 1st speaker speech, overcoming a somewhat hectic and rushed prep. Daniel Kang, aka Deek, shined as the debater of the week for his excellent job characterising the harms of relying on AI. No doubt drawing upon his own harrowing experiences of being trapped in the Instagram spiral or video games all-nighter, Deek had this great one-liner about how AI was like a video-game; fundamentally, it was an escape from reality which wouldn’t ameliorate the patient’s underlying problems of loneliness, trauma or isolation. Deep.
And of course, Kax Mim was an outstanding team advisor, with his reassuring moral support and calming presence that makes him the glue of the team we all know and love. Thanks to him, the Snr As might not need AI chatbots to regulate our mental health just yet (NB: this may change after my Ext 2 maths exam on Monday, which I am drastically underprepared for. It is 11pm on Saturday and instead of cramming, it has been an hour since I have started this report. I fear for my sanity…)
A slightly happier Senior As on the bench
Next week, Shore faces Ascham at Shore. My sources tell me Ascham may be shaping up to be tough adversaries – but of course, nothing that our indefatigable debaters can’t handle.