NSW Schools Debating 2015

[Debanter]

"Do you by any chance have a list? That'd be really handy."

Unfortunately not, the teams I know that have been invited have mostly been named. I do know both PLC's have been invited.

"On that note, would it be possible to find out who each school has as their firsts/senior a coach? It's always interesting to look at the correlation between good debaters and strong schools. "

Seconded, very keen to know this. I think often schools will change coaches after an unsuccessful year or coaches will move on as many of them are Uni students. I think even the students themselves won't know until they return to school in roughly a week.

 

[$100_Panadol]

in their last competition as a cohort - Kings lost 6 debates and won 1, a record that does not augur well for the future. This is especially true when you consider the lacklustre results of their firsts in 2014, which had two Year 11s in it. That said, I rate the 1st speaker that was in their 2nds, and was genuinely puzzled as to why he wasn't in the firsts. They are definitely a strong team, no doubt, but like most teams this year they are not unbeatable and their results are hardly "consistent".

King's boy here (yeh what a surprise, who'd have guessed considering my 2014 posts hahaha) anyway.

If by 'last competition as a cohort' youre referring to GPS, then it was 5 to 2, which was still hopelessly tragic considering their ISDA season in which they made Semi 3 and I think, were undefeated before this stage.

The results of the firsts were definitely 'lacklustre' making only Semi 1 in 2014 ISDA. (Tragic friday night, turning up to watch that) and to be honest, they were completely outdone by much of their competition in GPS, with both High and Grammar having very strong teams.

The first speaker in their seconds could have been a few of the boys, but the only Year 11 in the team was Pranay Jha, who I believe you are referring to who is the new skip so if you can track him down, I'm sure you can find out more about the competition you were talking about. All I know is it's in the school diary, so not much.

 

[aka_the_think]

Thanks for the info. about the tournament debanter and panadol, should be interesting to see how people go - please report the results here!

"If by 'last competition as a cohort' you're referring to GPS, then it was 5 to 2, which was still hopelessly tragic considering their ISDA season in which they made Semi 3 and I think, were undefeated before this stage."

I'm referring to their results in 2013 (Year 10). When I say that it was their "last competition as a cohort" I'm referring to the fact that - in the Opens - year groups tend to be split up as different speakers are graded in different teams, so Opens results are not necessarily the best indicators of a particular year group's success.

For reference, here's the 2013 results - http://www.gpsdebating.org/node/48 . You will see that Kings won 2, lost 5, and this was their last outing as a solid year group. In saying that though, Kings are unique in that two-thirds of their firsts were year 11, so you can read a bit more into the performance of their firsts than you can any other school.

"The results of the firsts were definitely 'lacklustre' making only Semi 1 in 2014 ISDA. (Tragic friday night, turning up to watch that) and to be honest, they were completely outdone by much of their competition in GPS, with both High and Grammar having very strong teams. "

I think you'll find that Kings firsts beat High but lost to Riverview and Newington (in addition to Grammar), who were both also quite strong. I said it before and I'll say it again - Kings aren't unique in making lots of ISDA finals, nor are they unique in consistently making them. It's a testament to the 2015 year's competitiveness that lots of schools have done this.

Also, finals for ISDA can be pretty weird, often because good teams miss out. Every now and then you'll see that certain pools, by sheer luck alone, have lots of good teams, while others are pretty weak. I've seen lots of instances where decent teams miss out while comparatively weak schools get in.
That said, the average pool will normally have 2 or 3 strong teams, and - since you can't really afford to lose 3 (sometimes 2) debates in ISDA - narrow losses to the 3 strong teams can cost you a place even if your team is pretty decent.
Additionally, I've seen a few situations where decent teams get "robbed" or controversially beaten by relatively weak teams, which then costs them a finals spot. They lose to the strongest two teams, or possibly to only one strong team, then lose one they really shouldn't and get knocked out.

The good news is that the ISDA has restructured its finals this year. There are now two rounds of "Octo finals", a "Quarter final", a "Semi" and a "Grand final". I think this means that more teams will make finals now, which is a good thing.

 

[$100_Panadol]

This is the first I've hear of change to the finals. Can you elaborate how two rounds of 'Octo finals' will work?

Edit: to change to two, round changed to rounds

 

[aka_the_think]

This is the first I've hear of change to the finals. Can you elaborate how two rounds of 'Octo finals' will work?

I'm not exactly sure, but there's a few ways it could work:
1. As a safety net to capture teams that might, for instance, have a record of 4 wins, 3 losses. These teams battle it out in the Octos in order to get a chance to compete in the quarters/keep their title hopes alive, while teams with better figures skip them. This would be similar to the partial double octos or whatever they're called at worlds. Within this there are two further options:
A. The team in question would have to proceed through both rounds of Octos (1 and 2) just like you would with any final.
B. The team in question would debate in one of the two rounds, with all the Octo debates split over two weeks.
2. As part of the finals series. The 3 semis model is pretty weird and confusing, especially when some sides can lose in the first semi then get a second shot the week after (e.g. Knox Senior A this year), some can skip semis, etc. Perhaps ISDA will take a larger number of teams into the finals (e.g. every team with a 4-3 record and above) and each layer will be sudden death. This means that teams will have to win 5 debates in a row to win the premiership after the main season. Alternately, the same model could exist but, like the status quo, some teams might skip stages in recognition of a good win-loss ratio. They may also split the Octo debates in two and run them over two rounds like I suggested above.

There are 2 teams in the final; 4 in the semi; 8 in the quarters; so there could be 16 in Octo 2 (if it's elimination) and 32 in Octo 1... There are 32 teams in ISDA so it'll probably work out that 16 teams make the "Octos" and those 8 debates are split over the two rounds (so there are 4 debates per age group each round). The 8 that win that proceed to the quarters.

There's lots of different ways I can see this playing out, but I can't be bothered writing them up.

 

[$100_Panadol]

"Do you by any chance have a list? That'd be really handy."

Schools List for the King's Comp :

Kings
PLC Sydney

Pymble

​

Roseville

​

SCEGGS

​

Barker

​

Shore

​

Merriden

​

Knox

​

MLC

​

Loreto

​

James Ruse

​

Monte

 

[aka_the_think]

Thanks Panadol.

That's a very strong competition, will be good to see results.

Interesting to see that a few big GPS, Archdale, CAS and CHS schools aren't there, notably Grammar, Riverview, High, Aloysius et al. I assume that Kings extended an invite to most, if not all of these schools, so it was probably their own decision to turn it down.

I'm not sure why they would though.

 

[tahs2k15]

Whilst we're talking about GPS, I know it's a bit taboo, but Joeys weren't too bad last year. In ISDA their 1sts made semi final 3 and their seconds made semi final 2. Their 1sts beat MLC, Aloysius, Monte and Abbotsleigh (who made up a large part of the 1sts and 2nds squads for Archdale) along the way, but both teams were comprehensively beaten by Grammar and seemed to perform quite poorly against some very good opposition. They failed to deliver in GPS and we're quite poor (2 wins, 5 losses) again showing their gap in quality against High, Grammar and Riverview. They performed well in losses to Newington and Scots, and beat a strong Kings team and a poor Shore side. Their 2nds were a part of that ridiculous tie for 1st in GPS, which I believe was a year 11 side. They seem to be able to hold their own against their cohort, but I have my doubts as to whether they can elevate themselves above their competitors. Considering how open the competition is with Grammar not to their usual standards and Newington weaker than usual, I wouldn't rule them out as surprise packets. Having said that its a surprise if they go 4 wins and 3 losses. It will also be interesting to see how they cope with the loss of Dom Kocx. I thought it was a good and underrated speaker. I believe their 1sts was all year 12, or maybe 1 year 11, and I didn't see their 2nds more than maybe twice, so most of what I'm saying is hearsay, but if they were able to perform like that in the ISDA comp, then they have a chance to perform well this year.

Long time lurker, first time poster. Always been a keen follower of debating, I debated at high school and have taught at some GPS schools. Nice to meet you all. Stumbled across this last season, thought I might finally contribute. Looking forward to the new season!

 

[aka_the_think]

It's certainly not taboo to suggest that Joeys might win a debating premiership tahs - welcome to the forum by the way. This forum has lacked a cerise voice for quite sometime now (with the exception of Lee, though he is far too measured to make his allegiances known), and - by the sounds of it - we've been missing out!

Joeys have a decent team in the 2015 year, but - as you pointed out - they are quite inconsistent. Let's be honest, the Joeys Senior A team making the third semi-final was a huge fluke, and made easier by the healthy win-loss ratio they had because of their relatively easy pool (only Riverview and Aloys offered much of a challenge). That said, there is no such thing as an easy debate in ISDA, especially in the finals, so they are obviously quite capable.

I do not think that there were any Year 11s in Joey's firsts this year (Senior A or B).

Joeys are capable of an upset or two, and - looking at the GPS archives page- it looks like they have a good record against Riverview (by way of example), having caused a few upsets over the year. I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider them challengers this year, particularly in light of this year's even playing field.

 

[tahs2k15]

Thanks for the warm welcome think, I appreciate your words. I think their ISDA season last year was a bit odd. Their group included MLC as well but I'm under the impression the 2014 MLC team wasn't that strong. Their inconsistencies were on full display losing to St Catherine's then beating Aloysius. They were exceptional against Abbottsleigh in semi final two, but woeful against Grammar. I've been made aware their second speaker from the 2014 team was a year 11 speaker and will return to 1sts again. Saw someone tout him for GPS 2nds on here but that seemed to be wide of the mark as he didn't even make GPS 3rds. I don't know much about who will make up the rest of their team, but their 2nds of last year which included two year 11s (now year 12) were very strong, going 6 and 1 in ISDA (albeit an easy group) then losing to Grammar in semi final 2 and, as I mentioned previously, were a part of that tie for the 1st in GPS. I certainly agree that they are inconsistent, but when they are good, they are really good, then when they're bad, it all goes wrong. You never know what you'll get. We'll see if that changes. In disappointing news I'm hearing that they're coach is leaving and his replacement is a guy in his first year in the job. I have my doubts, but I'm not too familiar with his qualifications. I'd certainly put them in the rough diamond category. Strongest team for a couple years this lot. I'll keep a keen eye of them in ISDA, quite a tough group.

 

[tahs2k15]

Also the current year 12 group made semi final 3 in year 7 according to the head of debating there but I'm sure we can all agree that's not particularly relevant anymore.

 

[aka_the_think]

Their group included MLC as well but I'm under the impression the 2014 MLC team wasn't that strong.

This is true - they weren't amazing. The win over Aloys is significant though - the Blue and Gold were a great team in 2014.

I've been made aware their second speaker from the 2014 team was a year 11 speaker and will return to 1sts again.

That's interesting. Was he in ISDA Senior A or Senior B? I know that some schools shift teams and debaters around in the time in between to reflect performance, and Joeys might do this too.

Do Joeys recruit external coaches for the firsts?

Who's in their group?

 

[tahs2k15]

Yes the win against Aloysius was a solid victory. And the fact that Aloys were the other team to make semi-final 3, validates that achievement.
Joeys don't play too many tricks with their selection. ISDA senior A's and B's usually end up as 1sts and 2nds for GPS. James Pope spoke 2nd speaker for Senior A's and 1sts and two members of the Senior B's were year 11s, however only one survived to make the 2nds.
The standard of coaching is quite poor at Joeys. It's all done internally through teachers and old boys. I can't commit to coaching due to footy reasons, but some other members of the teaching staff that do are absolutely clueless. It's probably the main reason Joeys have flattered to deceive in recent years. However their new coach is apparently the most successful speaker that's graduated there in the past 10 years, so he'll probably be good, but certainly not Elle Jones tier (I thinks that's her name, the Grammar coach from last year).
The group is a toughie with Brigidine, Tangara, MLC (who I believe to be very strong in 2015), Grammar, Trinity, Wenona and PLC. Grammar will be a good way to judge the credentials of the Joeys team of 2015. They are truly believed to the best year group of recent years. The 2nd speaker of the 2nds of last year (who was a year 11) was particularly good when I was helping out with a trial debate at the end of last year. There seems to be a strong base for success. But it's all talk for now, the MLC, Grammar and Trinity debates should give a clear indication as to whether their name should be included in the potential winner category for GPS.

 

[Max_Power128]

So a bit of a write-up of the King's knockout comp (from a King's debater's perspective) that was mentioned earlier in the forum, and took place tonight. Some schools pulled our from the competition last minute, including, in a bizarre turn of events, our own team, due to some unforeseen logistical issues.

The first round saw SCEGGS eliminate PLC (Sydney) A team, Barker eliminate Roseville, Monte A team eliminate PLC (Sydney) B team, Shore eliminate James Ruse, whilst a few other teams had byes. I sat in on the Barker v Roseville debate, where Barker's victory was clear before the adjudication had been delivered. Roseville started strong with a persuasive first speaker, but speaking quality deteriorated towards the end of the debate. Barker did the opposite, with a slow start at first, but concluding the debate with an excellent speech at third.

The second round saw Shore defeat PLC (Pymble), Monte A team defeat Monte B team, while SCEGGS and Barker both had byes. I sat in on the Shore v PLC (Pymble) debate, which saw a top order collapse of PLC as a result of a mis-definition of the topic "That the leaders of political parties should be chosen by their party's members". Tragically, PLC accidentally argued what should have been the Negative team's case, misinterpreting "party members" as only the members of the elected caucus, a mistake that would prove fatal. Particular credit must go to Shore, who instead of going down the traditional (and dreadfully boring) route of a definitional challenge, politely pointed out the opposition's mistake, before successfully arguing for the side of the topic they had been expecting to refute. Their first speaker was notably impressive in the seamless revamping of his team's case.

The semi-finals saw SCEGGS defeat Shore, and Barker defeat Monte. I wasn't present for either of these debates, but I'm told that the SCEGGS v. Shore debate was of good quality, but clearly won be SCEGGS, while the Barker v. Monte debate looked to be a Barker victory from the beginning.

This brought us to the grand final, which was contested between SCEGGS and Barker, with the topic "That the Australian Government should not be prepared to negotiate ransoms for the release of Islamic State hostages". Both teams were strong down their benches, and I noted a significant improvement in the quality of the early Barker speakers. However Barker's line of argument was poor, and ultimately refuted, resulting in a victory for SCEGGS.

So a summation of results:
First Round
SCEGGS defeated PLC (Sydney) A
Barker defeated Roseville
Monte A defeated PLC (Sydney) B
Shore defeated James Ruse

Second Round
Shore defeated PLC (Pymble)
Monte A defeated Monte B

Semi-Finals
SCEGGS defeated Shore
Barker defeated Monte A

Final
SCEGGS defeated Barker

 

[aka_the_think]

Thanks for the contributions guys - it's great to see a bit of chat before the main season has even begun!

Big congratulations to SCEGGS for their victory, though it isn't too surprising. The other schools involved should also be proud. Particular kudos must go to Kings though for the awesome initiative. By all accounts it was a superb tournament, and there appeared to be a great mix of teams.

Interesting that Ruse lost in the first round. They are the reigning CHS champions in this age group - I'd expect a little bit more from them.

The next competitions on the agenda for Senior Debaters are the Macquarie Uni Senior Schools day on the 17th (I think) and the USyd Senior Schools day on the 20th (I think). ISDA rd 1 is also on the 20th.

If anyone's attending these tournaments please let us know about developments - these preseason fixtures make for interesting analysis.

Also, on a slightly less high-school themed topic, the legendary Victor Finkel will be competing in the Macquarie Uni Commonwealth Cup tomorrow. Sure to be interesting...

 

[Al92]

So a bit of a write-up of the King's knockout comp (from a King's debater's perspective) that was mentioned earlier in the forum, and took place tonight...

. . .

...So a summation of results:
First Round
SCEGGS defeated PLC (Sydney) A
Barker defeated Roseville
Monte A defeated PLC (Sydney) B
Shore defeated James Ruse

Second Round
Shore defeated PLC (Pymble)
Monte A defeated Monte B

Semi-Finals
SCEGGS defeated Shore
Barker defeated Monte A

Final
SCEGGS defeated Barker

4 things on the kings thing:
Knowing how much organisation goes into uni schools days, Im impressed hearing about what the Kings debaters managed to put together and pull off (especially 4 rounds in the space of an afternoon/evening). Well done.

Apparently some of the teams had practice debates during their byes. Do you know which teams versed who and how they went?

I heard the political aka 'social issues' topic was a shocker in a few rooms.
Surely these teams are matter prepped on AusPol by this point. Especially when many auspol topics come up even at junior levels like abolish the senate and so on.

Finally, I dont see why the Barker/Monte debate would be a easy Barker victory from the outset when Barker Snr B got knocked out by Monte in ISDA Semi 2 last year. I presume that the teams would be similar again.

On a different note, has anyone confirmed for certain the way Octos will work? Is aka_the_think correct on this? The AGM for ISDA has happened so surely someone has heard something from a school they are associated with?

 

[DRH]

A quick word from a Grammar debater who still holds out hope, despite the pessimism that seems to surround our prospects from the rest of the board...

Trial debates tonight against Trinity were successful, with both Senior A and Senior B trial teams comfortably winning. Whilst this is to be expected against the comparatively mediocre Trinity, who had a relatively poor ISDA and CAS season last year, it's good to know that it's not all doom and gloom after Stratton's departure. Even better news was that Wolfe, the only man remaining from last year's undefeated team, was rested from the Senior A debate, so it was a comparatively junior team that took away the win. Elle Jones has been replaced, it seems, by Steph D'Souza, who I'm told formerly coached the Victorian Schools team; while it may be difficult to replace Jones, Grammar certainly seems to have kept their standards high.

Interestingly, I'm told that the Grammar 1sts/Senior A's have now won 49 consecutive debates, stretching back, I assume, to mid-2012 and an ISDA final of that year.

Glad to be back on the board, and looking forward to a great season of debating. And also curious to hear more about Octos if anyone has further information. Oh, and does anyone have any idea what happened to the ISDA website?

 

[aka_the_think]

Al92:

Thanks for the input, much valued.

It is interesting that there was some confusion over the Round 2 topic - it doesn't seem too complex, but who knows. What were the prep. times? Maybe shorter times prompted PLC to rush through their processes and skip over basic details.

My input on the Octos situation was purely speculative, just to make that entirely clear. Perhaps someone that knows Justin Chan (ISDA CA) can convince him to make an account and get involved on the forum... (though ISDA probably has an issue with that).

DRH:

I apologise if my, or anyone else's, speculations have suggested that Grammar won't be up to task. There is no doubt that they will be strong this year, and your revelation that Steph D'Souza will be taking their (your) firsts enhances their chances - she's a great coach, though you guys were probably always going to have an amazing coach anyway (like you said, you guys keep your standards high).

Good to hear Grammar have started trial debates and are preparing. Any idea what the team(s) will be for ISDA? How did Trinity look?

On that note, have any other schools sorted their teams out? If so, what are your lineups?

Grammar's undefeated run is very impressive - it would be interesting to see how it compares to some of Riverview's stats from back in the day. I am pretty sure that if Grammar win this year they either break or tie Riverview's record for consecutive GPS premierships, but I could be wrong. They're still 18 victories off breaking their record for most GPS premierships overall, but at their current rate they should tick that goal off in exactly 18 years.

No idea what's happened to the ISDA website. It normally gets pulled down around this time every year, probably to do the necessary updates and stuff. It is a terrible website, and poorly updated - I like to think that they're using the downtime to create a new/better site, but each year I'm proven wrong.

 

[Al92]

Al92:

Thanks for the input, much valued.

It is interesting that there was some confusion over the Round 2 topic - it doesn't seem too complex, but who knows. What were the prep. times? Maybe shorter times prompted PLC to rush through their processes and skip over basic details.

My input on the Octos situation was purely speculative, just to make that entirely clear. Perhaps someone that knows Justin Chan (ISDA CA) can convince him to make an account and get involved on the forum. (though ISDA probably has an issue with that).

General knowledge is generally quite poor even at seniors. On AusPol, with some exceptions, like the debating people who do Youth Parliament and/or are politically active, many dont understand internal party structures or even the distinction between parliamentary party members and rank and file. Same goes for broader political structures. PDC had abolish the senate in the topic pool for 9/10 last year and that debate often goes badly as well. (Actually from memory it was at a maq schools day a few years ago. That was also a shocker to watch, even though imo its a great topic.

On the octos thing, Im sure someone will hear something from someone soon enough.

 

[Al92]

Ok, Ive had a look at the information which apparently comes from the letter sent to coordinators which provides more details about Octos:

How it works
For each division, the top four teams from each group go into playoffs that are organised as octos, quarters, semis and a final.
Why?
This adds clarity to the system and gives more teams a chance at finals experience and, at least, one additional debate. It also keeps more teams ‘alive’ for longer into the season and gives a clear sense of where each team ended up by the end of their season.

Decision Tree to establish final 16 for Octos
1) The finals shall be contested between the top four teams from each group in each division.
2) The finals draw for each division shall have a round of 16 teams (‘octos’), with the winners progressing to a round of 8 teams (‘quarters’), with the winners progressing to a round of 4 teams (‘semis’), with the winners of the two semis playing off in the Grand Final to determine the Champion of their division.

3) The tally-keeper shall rank the teams in each division by
a. The number of wins a team has had in that year. (‘Win Points’)
Then by
b. ‘Head-to-head’ points determined by whether the team has
defeated any other team on the same number of wins in the season
under consideration.

i. Having defeated a team on the same number of wins shall​

count for one head-to-head point.​

ii. Having lost to a team on the same number of wins shall detract​

one head-to-head point.​

Then by
c. The number of wins a team has had in the season over teams that
have finished with more total wins than the team in the season, less
the number of losses a team has had in the season to teams that have
finished with fewer total wins than that team. (‘Upset points’)
Then by
d. The number of wins that the school’s team had in the division below
the division being considered in the preceding year or in the case of
Division 8, the number of wins that the school’s team had in Division 8
in the preceding year. (‘Previous Year Wins’)
Then by
e. ‘Previous-year head-to-head’ points determined by whether the
school’s team in the division below in the previous year’s competition
(or in the case of Division 8, the number of wins that the school’s
team had in Division 8 in the preceding year), defeated any of the
teams of schools’ that are still in consideration.

i. Defeating a team on the same number of wins shall count for​

one previous-year head-to-head point.​

i. Losing to a team on the same number of wins shall detract one​

previous-year head-to-head point.​

ii. The application of this sub-section shall not be affected by the​

composition of the teams of any school.​

Then by
f. A coin toss or random number generation.

4) Once ranked the teams should be assembled into a draw according to the
following table (A1=Highest ranked team from group A, etc)

I have the octo draw but i cant post it in the format it is. Apologies for the long from but octos work as follows:

A1 v D4, B4 v C1, A4 v D1, B1 v C4, A3 v D2, B2 v C3, A2 v D3, B3 v C2

Here is what Octos last year would have looked like: (nb: I only have point tally for Snr A so I assumed rankings based on nothing more than which was listed first where equal win points)
Octo 1: A1: Grammar v D4: Kincoppal
Octo 2: B4: Loreto K v C1: Aloys
Octo 3: A4: Wenona v D1: Knox
Octo 4: B1: Abbotsleigh v C4: Shore
Octo 5: A3: Scots v D2: Pymble
Octo 6: B2: Barker v C3: Joeys
Octo 7: A2: Kings v D3: Ravenswood
Octo 8: B3: Monte vC2: Riverview.

And Quarters is winners of octos 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, 7v8.
Based on last year, Loreto K, Scots, Wenona, Shore, Ravenswood and Kincoppal would have made it to finals that didnt under the old system.


Also topic areas:
Round 2: Education

Round 4: Sport

Round 6: International Relations