Debate Diary


February was a rather eventful debating month, if only I say so because WSDC was held. You can read my full WSDC Review or check out all the related blog posts categorised in WSDC 2010.

I have also uploaded my WSDC photos to facebook which you can access, without logging in.
WSDC – Part 1 : http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=394090&id=710265216&l=0b54aed3a3
WSDC – Part 2 : http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=394105&id=710265216&l=74f5662dd2
WSDC – Part 3 : http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=394107&id=710265216&l=16700d01dd
WSDC – Part 4 : http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=394108&id=710265216&l=ae7eea11e2

In addition to WSDC, both the local competition held matches with the 3rd prelim of the Sing Tao and the Grand Final of the Bar Association Debating Competition.

The 16 debates of the 3rd preliminary round were held on the 27th Feb 2010. South Island School progressed with a well deserved victory over Island School, landing itself a Quarterfinal spot. DGS, DBS, La Salle and St. Paul’s College all won their respective matches, making it into the Quarterfinals. The Quarterfinals will coincidentally be held on the 27th March 2010.

In the Bar Association Debating Competition, the DGS vs. SIS Grand Final was also held on the 27th at Hong Kong University. The lively debate engaged on the relative benefits and problems of double jeopardy and whether a second trial should be permitted. Ultimately, despite the close debate, DGS won 3-0 with summarizes Jody Luk (DGS) awarded Best Speaker.

With regards to the other international competition the WIDPSC 2010, the Hong Kong trials took place a few days before WSDC at South Island School. The Hong Kong World Individuals Debating and Public Speaking Championship team that is bound for Lithuania is :

    Griffith Cheng
    Geoffrey Liew
    Sachin Sirvastava
WIDPSC Hong Kong Team

WIDPSC Representatives for Hong Kong 2010

Advertisements

One comment

  1. I cannot believe you didn’t link my name xD.

    As for the Bar Association final, I thought it was a classic case of the adjudicators not being able to put themselves in a team’s shoes. The prop case was bound to be more impressive with all the flashy headlines of ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’, but disinterested, impartial adjudicators should have thought very carefully about both sides of the debate beforehand and recognized what either side had in their favour rather than going with gut feeling. This is one of the major and most common flaws in adjudicating in local debate tournaments.

    Once again, well done on your great performances in WSDC! And of course THANKS for all the great reports throughout the tournament =)

Comments are closed.