Debating News | Round 2
YEAR 7 ISDA DEBATING REPORT
Last Friday’s round of ISDA Debating was particularly hard for Trinity. Trinity Grammar School hosted the debate, with the opposition being PLC, who are known to be quite good at debating. At the start of preparation, the topic was given: “That we should introduce a sugar tax”, which is under the topic area of health. The moments in the preparation room were particularly stressful for Trinity, as far as I saw, with a lot of unnecessary talk. Perhaps, this is an area where we all need to focus our efforts to use the allocated time wisely.
After the forty-five-minute preparation, both teams were ready to start. O. Ang (7 WJ) was able to introduce the topic, create an effective model and introduce many points which relate to why the model is the best and only solution to the problems identified. In his illustration of the topic, he painted sugar as comparable to tobacco and cigarettes, which I found smart as we all know the negative health impacts of sugar. However, when he didn’t produce a definition for sugar it allowed the opposition to do so. The first negative speaker started the debate by denying the problem, which they would contradict with a counter-model of encouragement of exercise later. Their rebuttals were strong however were sometimes untrue, by stating “obesity isn’t an issue”. Her points were also solid yet could be countered by reinstating that this is a tax, not a ban, which Trinity didn’t stress on enough. E. Urbano (7We), continuing with the theme of strong characterizations, opened with a compelling comparison which he led into a rebuttal which had some strong ideas that needed further elaboration. He also delivered clear points which surrounded health and cut his speech short. The second negative speaker also opened with a summary of the economic impacts this tax would have on businesses. She also was able to rebut many points from Trinity as she linked back to the counter-definition the first speaker provided. Her overall points were also exaggerated, relating to the idea that this tax is a ban of sugar.
The third speaker of the affirmative, R Qin (7Yo), opened with a strong expression in the voice to deliver many well-thought-out rebuttals. He also elaborated that health is more important than the economy. The third negative speaker ended the debate by elaborating on the counter-definition to rebut many of Trinity’s arguments with well-presented rebuttals. However, they still exaggerated this model as tax isn’t a ban. They also held an emphasis on that the status quo doesn’t house a problem, which contradicted their brief counter-model and maintained an economy-focused view.
In conclusion the adjudicator awarded PLC with the victory as he thought they won the clashes of health and economy whilst Trinity won the issue on the principle of liberty. It was a close debate, yet Trinity couldn’t match PLC’s effort. I’d like to congratulate everyone who participated and look forward to continually striving to improve the team’s performance over the entire season.
R. Coneliano (7Fo)
YEAR 9 FED DEBATING
The Year 9 FED team comprising of H. McLean (9 Yo), K. Rathore (9He), J. Matthews (9Ke) and K. Siva (9Ke) suffered a close loss to Sydney Girls High school last Friday. Unfortunately, Sydney Girls could not attend the debate in person, so the debate was still in an online setting. The topic for the debate was “That science should be compulsory in the HSC”. Our first speaker, H. McLean came out with a good model to start the case, the second speaker then followed up with solid rebuttal and added to our case. Our third speaker, then rebutted all of the opposition’s points in great detail. Unfortunately, Sydney Girls’ reasoning and methodology was too good for us, and we took a close loss. We will be working hard to attain our first win of the season next week.
H. McLean (9 Yo)
YEAR 9 ISDA DEBATING
On Friday the 25th, Year 9 ISDA comprising of 1st speaker: M. Padmore (9Mu), 2nd: E. Ciarroni (9WJ), 3rd: D. Lok (9Ke) and 4th speaker, A. Zhou (9WJ) had a close loss to PLC. The topic for this debate was “That doctors, not parents should be responsible for the medical decisions of children” with Trinity arguing the affirmative case. Our model was that “Any child above the age of 14 will make the medical decisions with the doctor”. The opposition came out stating this would remove the freedom of choice from the parents and that the parent knows what is best for their child due to the emotional connection. The main issues in the debate were: how it would affect the freedoms of the parents and children, and how will it affect the medical outcome of the situation. The opposition said the connection between the parent and the child results in the parent knowing what is best for the child. While our team argued that doctors have sufficient training and knowledge to make the decisions and that it would not infringe on the freedom of choice of the parents. The adjudicator gave the main issue to PLC and split the second issue between Trinity and PLC resulting in a close loss.
D. Lok (9Ke)
