Debating News: CAS Round 4developer
8A Debating Report
The 8As went to St Aloysius’ College with high hopes for a third win in a row. We were given a topic along the lines of ‘That we should tie the giving of development aid to a country’s women’s rights record.’ We at first struggled in the Prep room to grasp the topic but after some unpacking and discussions we managed to. The first speaker from St. Aloysius’ came out saying that if we do this, third world countries will have an incentive to give women equal rights and otherwise we would be handing out free money to dictators. Our first speaker, A. Yee (8Ta), came out strongly saying that the opposition didn’t define what human rights were, so that there was no equal basis to judge. He also talked about how they are looking purely through a western lens and worldview meaning that they would ignore cultural differences. The opposition’s second speaker kept with the same line that the first speaker had but with the added rebuttal that culture has to evolve. Our second speaker, J. Arnold (8Ar), started his speech strongly by talking about the way we give aid now is good. He also said that without aid of development these countries won’t have the resources to be in a state to properly enforce rights. The St Aloysius’ third speaker came out rebutting our case saying that they will be able to develop as they will be given jobs, but with a lack of proof. As third, I went on talking about how millions of people will die without the construction of things like hospitals and other governmental systems/buildings. I supported our claims about hypocrisy as we have many problems ourselves and we are only looking through a western perspective. Our fourth speaker, E. Eswaran (8We), gave some polite closing remarks.
Overall, we managed to claim victory meaning that we were runners up in our competition.
7A Debating Report
We were eager to finish out our season at St Aloysius’ College well as we were handed out our topic. Our topic was “That Australian tourists should be banned from travelling to countries with a poor human right record”. As we prepared, we worked hard to try to win our final debate of the CAS debating season. Our first speaker, O. Ang (7WJ), started off by delivering our model, that would ban travel to countries with poor human rights records, and delivered our first set of points. His first point stated how it was morally wrong for tourists to visit countries with poor human rights records, as money spent on the trip would assist the oppressive government. His second point talked about the importance of human rights, as outlined in internationally recognised documents, and why we should be striving for good human rights. Our second speaker, B. De Lany (7Hi), then explained exactly how and why our model would improve the human rights of the countries from which we were banning tourism. His point came down to the fact that many countries with poor human rights records, such as Saudi Arabia, are reliant on money from tourism. He then explained how this would lead to them having a severe economic problem following the removal of tourism from these nations. Then he explained how this would achieve our objectives as governments would be forced to change. Our third speaker, R. Qin (7Yo), then summarised our case. He stated how we had a stronger principle point than the opposition’s as human rights are extremely important. He then also showed how under our model we would do a better job at improving the current situation by forcing countries with poor human rights records to improve. He then showed how this led to us being the better case, and therefore winning, the evening’s debate.
We sat nervously as the adjudicator delivered his adjudication. Unfortunately, we lost the debate and St Aloysius’ College won. It was a disappointing loss on which to end the season and we hope we can perform better in the next ISDA and CAS seasons.
8B Debating Report
The win was coming, we just didn’t know when. Over the last four debates the team has fought fearlessly, but we just couldn’t pull it through, until last Friday. The topic was, “That we should tie development aid to the women’s rights record of recipient countries” and we took the affirmative side. To win this debate we had to carefully think about how we could phrase a model in a way that didn’t affect the religious aspect of this debate. We framed our model on the basis that countries would only be offered development aid if they could prove that they treated women respectfully and equally. The opposition’s main argument was around the idea of how countries could misuse their money and how after they’ve received the money they would go back to treating women harshly. However, their whole argument lacked any evidence and was merely just an assumption. Fortunately, the opposition had one more mistake up their sleeve – contradicting their own arguments by stating first that countries would be willing to take the money, and then arguing that some would be reluctant to. Our side was also strengthened through A. Viswanathan’s points about women’s rights and their importance of it in the 21st century, as well as H. Turner’s points on the benefits of our model on each stakeholder. Harshal ended the debate by attacking their main arguments about our model vs status quo and on the religious aspect.
The 8Bs team consisted of First Speaker, A. Viswanathan (8Ta), Second Speaker, H. Turner (8Ta), Third Speaker, H. Chuchra (8He) and Fourth speaker, P. Doherty (8Mu). Looking back on our performance throughout the season, this may not have been our best debate so far, but a win is a win, and I am very glad that we worked together to salvage this win. I want to end by thanking our coach, Mr Razza, for his hard work and determination throughout the season. I also want to thank N. Lake (8WH), M. Knapstein (8Du) and J. Fudeh (8Yo) for their contributions this season and for stepping up to debate when the opportunity arose, as well as showing up to away debates to support the team.
9B Debating Report
Last Friday, the Year 9 CAS Bs team, consisting of H. McLean as first speaker, A. Zhou as second, J. Matthews as third, and R. Chowdhury as fourth, debated against St. Aloysius’ College on the topic “That we should tie development aid to the women’s rights record of recipient countries”. As the negative team, we agreed with the status quo.
Our main argument was that a lot of these countries are corrupt and that they wouldn’t use the money properly. Our first speaker, H. McLean (9Yo), stated our stance and brought up the idea that we can’t guarantee change and that it will strain the Australian economy. We also knew that it wouldn’t be fair if some countries got this aid while others didn’t. Our second speaker, A. Zhou (9WJ), brought this out in his speech along with the idea that Australia is already giving aid to some of these countries and that in the best world, there hasn’t been any change. Our third speaker, J. Matthews (9Ke), summed up our case and provided clashes suggesting why we had already won the debate. St Aloysius’ arguments focused on how giving these countries more money would allow them to treat women better and that there is also a social aspect to this problem.
Overall, each speaker performed extremely well, and it was a strong debate. We are glad to take home the victory and be the champions of the season. We are thankful to the coaching staff who have helped us throughout this season, and we look forward to all future debates.
Chowdhury (9 Fo), H. McLean (9Yo)