MOE Invitational Debates(MIDC) 2007
On 1030 last Saturday(21/7), my team and I went to Anderson JC for this national debate competition. First time seeing so many people from different schools wearing their blazers. A truly rare event.
The team was formed by veteran debater Benjamin Foo (0705) with 3 years of experience and two first-timers Jack Chan Chun Yink (0710) and myself(0713). Representing third, second and first speaker respectively.
Prior to the debate last Saturday, the motion for the first “prepared” round was released on Friday 13/7. The motion was “This House would prosecute teenagers as adults for criminal offences”. We were opposition to Serangoon Junior College for the first round. We spent the full whole week researching and preparing our speeches. Many sleepless nights lost, trainings up to 10pm for 3 alternate days. Tutorials and PW commitments neglected. All for the sake of predicting any flaws and Points of Information(POIs) we might receive.
Originally, with just one first-timer, the odds of winning are already barely 50-50 as other teams usually have experienced debaters in the first place. But now with 2 first-timers, our odds were narrowed even further. Jack was caught offguard and had to start familiarising himself with her speech. But Benjamin dropped a bombshell, he suggested Jack be the second speaker and I the first. his reasons were that I knew the case better and could not afford for Jack to "cock up". Jack and I blindly followed his suggestion never realising that that would cost us dearly.
This inevitably caused our downfall as Jack and I were reading too blindly from our script to make much eye-contact. However, we cheered in delight when Foo got the best debater award for this spar.
From left, me, Jack and Benjamin against SRJC
Benjamin giving his POI
The ever assertive Benjamin making his charismatic speech.
After our lunch, a new motion was released to us and we had an hour to prepare. The motion was “This House would legalise prostitution.” What a shocker this was! I mean, the whole lecture theatre literally erupted when this motion was released. The buzz continue for a few minutes before the lecturer had to “force” everybody to shut their mouths. It was something that was unexpected, even among the veteran debaters. But nevertheless, the teams went their separate ways to discuss on the topic in the short span of an hour allotted.
35 minutes went by before everybody was forcefully assembled back at the LT again. Turns out that some teams had brought in other unauthorised materials to help them in their preparation. The only materials allowed are an almanac and dictionary. No past cases allowed.
To everybody's dismay and joy at the same time, the motion was changed to a more familiar “This House would abolish the death penalty.” After a simple coin toss, the NY team had to oppose the motion with Anglo-Chinese(Independent) (ACI).
Upon hearing about the ACI team, I was initially scared, turns out later that they were not as good as made out to be. But I have to admit their standard of vocabulary were far higher than mine and even Benjamin's. The strange thing was, I felt calmer here than the one with SRJC even considering that this is an impromptu debate. But it could be due to the possibility that I had gained some courage and experience in the first round.
During the preparation, I could feel the limits of having only a 3-man team. Others had 5 brains to crack for ideas, we only had 3. And thats not factoring in that we had to write our own notes at the same time, while for the other teams, they had 2 extra free heads to be fully dedicated towards brainstorming.
I setting the foundation for the NY opposition team
A flurry of words later, the debate came to an end. Tired from the 2 debates, we listened half-heartedly to the adjudicator's last words before getting the results. Turns out we lost again.
Despite being defeated for both rounds, we all had something to take back with us. Greater experience, more confidence etc just to name a few. Our preparatory efforts did not all go to waste. It reinforced the bonds within our “extremely small” (down to 3 since Emelyn is quiting) club even more. Its not the end of the club though, we still have many invitationals to look forward to although the MIDC is the biggest of them all.
Finally, I would like to thank our debate coach Aquila, Mr Seah our teacher-in-charge and Emelyn for your support and guidance throughout our trainings. Without you all, we, especially Jack and I would not have had the courage to take on the more seasoned debaters of other schools. Thank you!
Labels: CCA, milestones
