|
|
Post by Smiddy on Jul 10, 2007 14:51:06 GMT 10
I think debating seems to have gotten a lot harder since I left... I would have no idea how to argue either side of that topic!
Congrats to the Monash kids making the top 10 - a fantastic result. I guess in the case of Fiona and Amit I might claim some part in teaching them something in the state team but that would really be stretching it.
No doubt Amit will use his ranking against me as he is still bitter about missing the 2004 VST....
|
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Jul 11, 2007 13:47:05 GMT 10
As one of the first ones back and having got some decent sleep, I figure I should update people on how things went.
First off, everyone was stoked about Monash 1 and 2. M1 thought they'd lost at least one, if not two of their last 2 rounds, but ended up being undefeated. M2 was just amazing - we all went nuts when we heard about it. All the finals involving Monash were great debates - the M1 v UQ1 quarter was excellent, and the M1 v Vic1 semi was an absolute cracker, one of the best I've seen. M1 and M2 did us really proud in those finals.
The delays in the tab you obviously heard about; this had another unintended affect of making the socials start pretty late, making it harder to get drunk (also there were a couple of dry nights, which didn't help). Still, the debates were good fun.
The grand final was, as Kylie often remarks about debates, "interesting". UQ2 essentially seemed to be proposing the status quo (speech therapy and support for autistic kids, funded on a means-tested sliding scale), though applied to both the developed and developing worlds. Vic1 didn't really seem pick up on this till later in the debate, and it was only in the 3rd speeches/replies it became clearer that they were also arguing about the definition itself and whether the aff had set themselves a really low burden.
Also, the other notable thing about the grand final was that although there were some solid ideas on both sides, some of their arguments were phrased and presented in exactly the worst possible way (UQ2 said "they can't look their parents in the eye, they can't communicate with family, with parents, with their friends - if they have any", and Vic1 told us that autism was possibly the next stage in evolution - both of which could have been explained a bit better). The effect was made a bit worse during the prize giving ceremony, when we realised there were a group of children with learning disabilities in the audience.
Overall, however, it was a good tournament for Monash. I should note also that TS, Jake and Julian also broke as adjudicators, something that often gets overlooked. I haven't seen the full speaker/team tab (ironically, we're still waiting on it), but I'm told at council that all Monash teams ranked inside the top 50, and inside their sydney counterparts. Should note M6 in particular - those guys took down some decent teams, including Ateneo 2, who broke pretty high.
I think that covers the most salient points, and I'm sure more details will be filled in over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by MS on Jul 11, 2007 17:49:32 GMT 10
Is speech therapy, etc 'normalizing' autism, or is it working to eradicate it? I am not sure how that argument fits on that side of the debate.
So Vic proposed that autistic kids are kinda like X Men. Love it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bookeditor on Jul 11, 2007 20:01:32 GMT 10
Such insensitivity towards autistic people is pretty deplorable.
While I am nowhere near as good a debater as many on these boards, I guarantee that I would not have lapsed into such puerile crassness.
When I start adjudicating debates next year you better not present that degree of insensitivity to me. IIf you do your hopes in the debate will go kerplunk.
Perhaps having lived about 10 years longer than most people here has its advantages over such immaturity.
|
|
|
|
Post by panda666 on Jul 11, 2007 21:08:17 GMT 10
Firstly, congratulations on a fantastic effort by Monash as one! What a stellar performance all around by every debater and adjudicator in representation of MAD. Once again, you guys have shown who's da person in Australasian debating  . On the subject of the Grand Final, it sounds like it was very very messy. It reminds me of a debate that I saw between USyd and Vic at an Australs a few years back where Vic got caught in a similar situation and they didn't engage properly until it was far too late. Weird. The topic was one that, having worked with autistic kids, is unusual in a lot of ways, and I'm with Tom on this one. Unless you understand the broad gamut of what autism is all about, debaters are going to get rather confused as with what angle to debate. You could talk about how to approach integration of autistic kids through a combination of drug therapy and normal schooling, but it's a cruddy debate about whether or not sufferers of autism should be integrated through readjustment therapy and a slippery slope for other impaired people. Probably not a good idea to have this topic with them around, just from a standpoint. I don't take away from the topic itself, but this is a prickly issue in a lot of countries and it's not one that lends itself to any sort of grammatical gaffs . (and here I am, trumpeting PC-ness when I have no PC...) Tom, when you said that the topic would be better the other way around, you did mean making the topic "That governments should not fund programs that seek to normalise autism" right? Sounds like it was an absolute ball and I'm glad that people are starting to filter back into Australia . |
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jul 11, 2007 21:37:02 GMT 10
Such insensitivity towards autistic people is pretty deplorable. While I am nowhere near as good a debater as many on these boards, I guarantee that I would not have lapsed into such puerile crassness. When I start adjudicating debates next year you better not present that degree of insensitivity to me. IIf you do your hopes in the debate will go kerplunk. Perhaps having lived about 10 years longer than most people here has its advantages over such immaturity. Gold |
|
|
|
Post by bookeditor on Jul 11, 2007 21:42:12 GMT 10
Soon the power to decide your debate will be...
MINE! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by guesto on Jul 11, 2007 22:07:34 GMT 10
Soon the power to decide your debate will be... MINE! ;D You really are a funny guy, you don't know anything about debaters at all do you? They accredit any old moron, but duds only go on the bin debates, so you won't be seeing anyone on this forum. Say hello to ADFA 3 and Japan Uni 1. |
|
|
|
Post by bookeditor on Jul 11, 2007 23:32:18 GMT 10
[1] You are correct. I will probably be adjudicating debates other than any you are in. Judging by your rude response, I am happy to be using my abilities for someone else's benefit.
[2] I am happy to adjudicate any debate. What makes Adfa 3 so bad at it? I am sure that they do not rock up to waste their very valuable leisure time.
[3] Whatever I adjudicate, I will not be a Dud. I will give the absolute best that I can to each debate, whether it's DAV D grade, Adfa 8 or whoever. I am going to Toastmasters which involves a lot of assessing. Someone being a "Dud" adjudicator and being "inexperienced" are not necessarily coincident.
[4] Do you normally have such childish attitudes that some people are "dud" adjudicators? You sound so plain immature that I shudder to think of your standard of debating. Maybe I should show you some quite good D grade DAV debaters who can help you sort out your matter techniques for debates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Jul 11, 2007 23:39:48 GMT 10
Anyone who knows a bit about debating knows that there's no Japan Uni, that the Japanese debaters work their butts off and don't tend to be in the absolute bottom rooms any more, and that ADFA haven't been to Australs for years. Enough of that shit.
The Grand Final was an unfitting end to what was otherwise an extremely high standard debating tournament - for our guys to rank 1 and 2 was just amazing. Speaking to the UQ1 guys after their loss to us, and our M1 after we lost to Vic 1, both teams thought they debated at the peak of their ability and were happy to have been involved in such high quality debates, so the grand final was a terribly unfortunate finish.
Meanwhile, Clifton's finally given up his resistance and joined Facebook.
|
|
.