NSW Schools Debating 2015

[DRH]

No worries Think, no offence at all taken.

Re: octos - interesting change of format, probably better for most teams with the chance of getting more debates, but I do worry that some of the incentive to top a group/go undefeated will be lost, as the 'second-chance' system will be gone. While there's some advantage to debating a lower-ranked team, its not nearly the same as an effective 'extra life', esp. considering the possibility of close adjudications and if panels continue to only be used for the later finals.

Re: Grammar teams, they've just been finalised and the 1sts read as follows:
Wolfe (VI)
Panditharatne (VI)
Rice (VI)
Orsmond (V)
Wolfe is from last year's undefeated 1sts, as well as GPS firsts, and doubtless will be the lynchpin. Panditharatne is from the 2nds, Rice from the 3rds and Orsmond from the 16A's. Interesting to see that the somewhat suspect Year of 2015 has 3 members included.

I'm told Trinity looked fairly mediocre, except for an exceptional 3rd speaker in the 1sts - but at 3rd neg, he was far too late to rescue the debate.

What are everyone else's teams looking like? And is there a draw up for Friday yet?

 

[Max_Power128]

The King's firsts were finalised last week, and the team is:
Jha
Bojanic
Loxton
Everett

Bojanic and Loxton were in the firsts last year, with Bojanic also in GPS thirds, Jha was in the seconds and Everett was in the thirds. The team is entirely made up of the year of 2015, which is was pretty much expected given the poor results of the year below.

 

[Al92]

R1 Draw:
Group A:
Brigidine v Grammar
MLC v Wenona
Tangara v St Josephs
PLC Sydney v Trinity

Group B:
Stella Maris v Pymble
Barker v Queenwood
Redlands v Kincoppal
Loreto Kirribilli v Knox

Group C:
Abbotsleigh v St Andrews
St Aloysius v Kambala
Monte v Roseville
Shore v Ascham

Group D:
Ravenswood v Scots
Riverview v Cranbrook
St Catherine's v Kings
St Lukes v St Augustines

 

[aka_the_think]

Results from ISDA Round 1 last night (what I know at this stage):

Grammar def. Brigidine from neg in Senior A and B.
Joeys def. Tangara + Bridigine (they did Round 7 early for some reason) in Senior A, idk about the other teams, from neg. I think.

Barker def. Queenwood in Senior A, idk about the other teams, from aff.
Kirribilli def. Knox from aff. idk about Senior B.

Abbotsleigh def. St Andrews from aff.
Aloys beat Kambala in Senior A and B from aff.
Shore def. Ascham from aff.

Scots def. Ravo from neg. in both Senior A and B I think.
Riverview def. Cranbrook from aff. in both Opens teams.
Caths beat Kings in a bit of a shock result (I'll let the Kings boys put their 2 cents in on this if they want) from aff.
Auggies def. Lukes from neg.

Will post more if I hear.

Btw Aloys 1st III 2015 = Liam Thorne, Xavier Gould and James El Hindi - may change. Riverview Senior A = Ben O'Dea, Mark Rothery, Liam Donohoe, Xavier Eales, also could change.

 

[DRH]

Thanks very much Think for posting results in lieu of the ISDA, whom (if you will collectively allow me a short rant) I have been thoroughly unimpressed with in recent weeks, given the apparent failure to renew the website, and the complete lack of information regarding the draw and/or octos coming through official channels, leaving it to be filtered through this forum or coaches. In any case, it's great that we have even this to see/discuss results.

Topic was somewhat... left field, in my opinion, others' thoughts? I saw a Grammar team win comfortably from neg, surprised to see that affs have mostly won, it would seem. Also quite shocked that Kings lost to the unfancied Caths, and that Knox went down to Loreto, given their impressive form last year. Very much to hear Panadol's input on the first result. Speaking of which, banter on this page is definitely down from last year (I suspect some of the former posters have moved on to uni) so I encourage all of you to a) post and b) tell other debaters about this.

Given that A192 has v. kindly provided the groups (and by the by, how on earth did you find all that), thought I'd do a little analysis on the relative strength of groups, especially relevant now that it seems the ranking of teams within groups will have a significant impact on finals matchups.

Group A:
Generally fairly even, an obvious contender in Grammar, and I'd be surprised if Joeys, Trinity and MLC missed out on finals. Would be interested to see tahs2k15's view on Joeys and MLC, given they've already exhibited some familiarity with those schools. So far this season, Grammar's looked their usual form, though obviously we all know about the perceived lacking in the 2015 squad. Trinity looked to be beatable against Grammar in preseason. Joeys seem to have a strong year group, as others have noted, and have done well to ensure they didn't fall over to either Brigidine or Tangara. PLC Sydney would not seem to be much of a threat, given their historic weakness and poor showing in the preseason Kings comp. Would expect MLC to be good based on general history, but last year they didn't seem to be that strong. I'm assured that Brigidine did not appear a threat for a second against Grammar, and I don't expect them to make finals. Absolutely no idea on Wenona and Tangara, but based on general history, doubt they'd make finals, though Wenona could have a dark horse chance.
Prediction for finals:
Grammar
Joeys
Trinity
MLC

Group B:
A few teams who could challenge, but a group I generally don't know much about, I'm afraid. The big players, clearly, are Barker and Knox, who judging by last year's form would expect to mount a title challenge. Barker's relatively strong form in preseason would confirm this, with the loss to a brilliant year group at SCEGGS not a huge consideration at this point (and may I just express my regret that SCEGGS continues to not be in the ISDA, when by all rights they should be and they would be immediate contenders, rather than sending a team to the less prestigious Eastside). Knox will be shocked to have lost to Loreto, and though Loreto are an outside shot for the finals in my thinking, I reckon there must have been some kind of major balls-up somewhere for that to happen. Pymble look to be decent, and likely to make finals in the absence of other major contenders, Kincoppal and Queenwood might be outside chances, but I seriously doubt Redlands and Stella (who failed to win a debate last year).
Prediction for finals:
Barker
Kings (whoops, this should be Knox, thanks AI92)
Pymble
Loreto

Group C:
A group that will probably result in a dark horse making it into finals, quite possibly the weakest of the four groups. Abbotsleigh will be nigh unstoppable, and St Aloysius should similarly romp home into the finals. I have some doubts about Shore, but given their good preseason form, they should make it into finals. The final spot is pretty much up for grabs in my estimation - I guess Monte would be most likely but based on watching their Year 10s last year, I have serious doubts. No idea whatsoever on the other few teams in the group.
Prediction for finals:
Abbotsleigh
St Aloysius
Shore
Monte

Group D:
A really really interesting group, with a few teams wondering whether they can mount a title challenge. Riverview, of course, once the powerhouse of the debating scene, has been building a reasonably strong team to recapture past glories. The other GPS schools, Scots and Kings, have similar ambitions, especially Scots, who have poured a truly obscene amount of money into their debating programme in recent years. Nevertheless, it's Kings who I'd say could be title contenders, which is why I'm so shocked that they lost to St Caths, who are unpredictable bordering on mediocre - only time will tell. Ravenswood might be in with a shout to make finals, while Cranbook is poor, and I have little idea on Luke's and Augustine's except a general doubt that they could come near finals.
Prediction for finals:
Riverview
Kings
Scots
Ravenswood

Hope this is interesting to some of you, and please feel free to weigh in with your own thoughts/analysis - there are a LOT of holes in my knowledge here, and any information is appreciated. And if I've made an obvious error in your opinion, feel free to point it out, this was kind of rushed.

 

[tahs2k15]

Thank you very much think and DRH for your excellent and very informative posts. I did manage to catch Joeys first two debates against Brigidine and Tangara. On both occasions they were negating the topic and managed to dispatch of the opposition with relative comfort. Brigidine were quite poor overall, whereas Tangara had two good speakers but were let down by one speaker who wasn’t of the same standard. In both debates Joeys displayed a tactical nous that they didn’t seem to possess last year and were able to strategically react to an opposition and dictate where to take the debate so that it was adjudicated on their terms. It is quite impressive that they have done this coachless, as their coach still will not return until after the MLC debate next week. They seem a better team than last year, particularly at 3rd where they were let down a few times in their ISDA run of 2014. Whilst they have performed well, it’s important to remember they’ve only beaten Tangara and Brigidine, two traditionally poor debating schools who I wouldn’t imagine capable of qualifying for octos (however the Tangara 1st speaker was excellent, could see her in and around the Archdale squads in the future). MLC and Grammar are the real tests. Having said that, it’s good to see that Joeys have seemed to cut out silly little losses to teams that they are better than, but their traditionally poor mentality and attitude has lead them to losing. For example last year in the 1st debate of ISDA against St Catherine’s they lost what was a very winnable debate. Which leads me nicely to Kings. I am not overly surprised that Kings lost. A silly topic, the fact its about women’s representations and they were debating a girls team, and the first round of the season (probably undercooked having pulled out of their own pre-season tournament) are the perfect storm for a potentially dodgy adjudication. I think Kings are quite a good side and they have shown that in this grade throughout GPS and they will prove that in this competition. However I do not believe they are infallible, they are prone to off nights just like every school maybe bar Grammar. They are particularly strong at 2nd and 3rd, but are a team that perhaps doesn’t have an individual speaker capable of pulling them through a dodgy topic or when one speaker has an off night. Joeys lost to St Catherine’s round 1 last year and made it to the final 4. This setback should not concern Kings much. What is more surprising is Knox’s defeat, however I do believe their class of 2014 was better than the current batch. On MLC, I do believe this is a strong year group but they seemed to have gone a bit cold in recent years and perhaps peaked too early. It should be a great debate next week between the MLC girls and the Joeys boys. I think Riverview and Aloysius will most likely do something this year in ISDA, I know Liam Thorne is an exceptional speaker, and I believe Xavier Gould spoke in 1sts last year as well. I would also put down Scots as dark horses for the competition. They were a bit of a mess last year, but they have always been strong in the class of 2015. I am strong in my conviction that Abbotsleigh are far and away the best girls school in ISDA this year and would expect to see them in the last 8 or 4 in the comp. Shaping up as a cracking competition.

 

[Al92]

To answer DRH's question, most of the info I have is what the debating coordinators have which eventually filters down to coaches and students and adjudicators or I get from someone who does have it. I have a hardcopy of the ISDA draw and a softcopy of the new rules. Should I post up next weeks matchups on the forum during the week?

My calls would be probably about the same as DRH (I presume Kings in Group B is actually Knox). Though some variations for Senior B, Id reckon wenona (unless they split that team into A&B) and possibly St Catherine's in and Kings out. Id have to think through it more for a complete call for that division.

Also Id disagree about Group C being the weakest. Abbotsleigh and Monte had 5 archdale rep speakers between them last year and had made finals at A and B level. Then Shore (also made finals from Senior B) and Aloys are shaping up to be strong contenders and I heard that Roseville has at least two strong speakers in their Snr A and have improved their speaking orders over past years. Though not enough to help them as Im told both their teams lost. Id rate the top half of group C higher than that of Group B looking at current performance and Snr B last year as a guide. (which given Group B meets Group C in Octos should prove interesting)
B has Barker which is a good team on par with most other top teams but I saw them last year when they scraped through their Snr B playoff against Kings in what was a decent but very messy debate that never should have been so messy and then they lost their 2nd playoff to Monte. Strong but they will have to fight to make it through the finals.
Pymble didnt have that strong a showing at the Kings preseason and while their Snr A made finals they were defeated by Aloys and Snr B didnt do that well.
Knox did really well last year in what was a (imo) less competitive pool at Snr B then got knocked out by Abbotsleigh.
Loreto I saw their Snr b team last year and they were quite solid but lost 2 of their debates against what would have been probably Barker, Abbotsleigh or Monte (I dont have that information so Id have to guess) and lost their first playoff against Trinity.

As for the topic, someone pointed out that it was the Grand Final topic from a tournament at Griffith which was CA'ed by Justin last month. Alas its a big difference between the grand final between two hack uni teams and two high school teams. The debate I saw was setup ok, references to gamersgate and culture and such being part of the imperative but the aff struggled to explain the link between playable characters and addressing the sexism and the neg ran a badly done hard neg where they wanted to merely attack that lack of link trying to point to issues of portrayal of women. Which didnt help that the Aff had modelled in some vague criteria of equivalent portrayal that the neg didnt pick up on until after 8 mins in 3rd Neg and that the aff pointed out that changing portrayal isnt mutually exclusive. I kind of expected these problems. Aff struggles to understand and explain the link between on screen presence and problems and neg struggling to run a case that is mutually exclusive and make their links between that AA and the harms.

Oh, and for those who arent involved in ISDA, the topics were (mostly paraphrased):
Primary: The book is better than the movie (or the otherway around, I dont remember)
7/8: Ban military themed toys/games
9/10: That we should abolish compulsory voting
Snr: That we should ban video games without a female playable character.

 

[$100_Panadol]

So, here is my input on the debate between St Catherine’s and King’s last Friday night. A couple of disclaimers first though. By no means do I expect you to take what I say without a grain of salt. Also, I will divide my response, the first section being my own opinion and perspective of the debate and adjudication. The second I will attempt to provide unadulterated facts from which you can draw your own conclusions.

So, first, the run down of the debate as I saw it. Essentially, to gather the team’s thoughts into a single sentence, we were all agreed by the end of our first responses’ speech, that we were going to be, to use the colloquialism, ‘robbed’. A number of factors, some of which are detailed below, had led us to the same conclusion very early in the debate – that we were going to, in our opinion, win the debate by a considerable margin but that the adjudicator would award it to St Cats. The debate’s result, as many of you understand, can often be identified merely by the scope and line of which the teams take, and this is what we based our perceptions on. Furthermore, as happens to most teams, there are inevitably seemingly unfair adjudications throughout high school debating, and after a few, many of you, I’m sure, would agree there are some tell tale sign, (see below), upon which we picked up. Also, and I’m sure this is a little contentious, the St Cat’s girls, in my opinions, played on the gender roles of the debate, and were obiously aided by their side of the debate. I feel it is incredibly difficult to win, as boys, the negative side of the debate when the affirmative are a team comprised entirely of women. It was this opinion formed early in this debate to which we still hold.

And here are some facts about the night from which you can form your own opinions;

· As has been pointed out, there has been a (subjectively quite large) disparity between the results of St Cat’s and King’s in previous years, with King’s objectively attaining (subjectively far) better results in previous years. This can be viewed most clearly through the disparity between the two schools results, particularly the Yr 12 2015 age group, in the ISDA competition over the last decade. Even discarding ISDA, the Yr 12 2015 St Cat’s girls have never won their age group in Archdale, whilst the King’s Yr 12 2015 have won GPS twice (Year 7, Year 9).
· The adjudicator was seen vigorously nodding his head throughout the speeches of the St Cat’s girls. The adjudicator then clearly mouthed phrases such as “what are you saying” at the King’s speakers. (He also appeared to glare, ‘death stare’ at the King’s boys throughout the debate, but this, of course, is somewhat subjective)
· The adjudicator referred to one of the King’s speakers as “a dick” in his writing of comments on the speakers. This was clearly seen by a team member as well as an audience member.
· The adjudicator left the school alongside the St Cat’s coach, talking animatedly. (Their behaviour would indicate they were friends, but again, this is subjective)
· Continually, the St Cat’s girls used first person when referring to victims of sexual objectification. E.g. “WE are portrayed as…in video games” rather than “Women are portrayed as…in video games”
· One of the St Cat’s speakers said, to quote fairly accurately, “The opposition think that because we are girls, we don’t know video games well”, after one of our speakers remarked on a couple of the content flaws the opposition made, such as incorrectly using terms such as ‘NPC’ and identifying the PC in one of their examples, Metroid, as “Metroid” as opposed to Samus Aran.


However, as many of us know, ‘unfair adjudications’ in debating come in ‘swings and roundabouts’, so by no means do we feel outraged by the result and adjudication and would like to again, congratulate the St Cat’s girls on their win.

 

[Ontheside]

The 2014 CAS representative teams included a few speakers from year 11 teams who are now in the 2015 year. The Aloys team as reigning CAS champs included all of their speakers across 1sts, 2nds and 3rds: but ones in year 11 , 2014 worth watching :
Liam Thorne (Aloys, CAS 1sts)
Alex Connolly (Trinity, CAS 2nds 4th speaker)
Hal Crichton-Standish (Cranbrook, CAS 2nds/ 3rds)
Viran Weeresekera (Barker, CAS 3rds)
Xavier Gould ( Aloys CAS 3rds, 4th speaker)

 

[tahs2k15]

Hi all, great to see such an active forum. Does anyone have the ISDA fixtures for this week?

 

[TheBrutalist]

Hello all. I have enjoyed following the twists and turns of this forum, not to mention being glad that the 2016 year group is finally being considered. Interested to hear that the NSW trials are on so early this year. Does anyone know the reason for this? And additionally the likely contenders for the state team next year? I imagine that many would be eager to hear which speaker positions look open for the state squad.

One think I will add to previous discussion; be careful not to overblow Kings this year. Similar claims about a resurgence seem to come up every year from Kings boys, usually to disappointment as they lack the coaches and raw talent to make it to the tops. Don't mean any offence but I wouldn't believe it until I see it!

Best.

 

[Al92]

Round 2
Group A
Grammar v PLC Sydney
MLC V St Josephs
Wenona v Tangara
Trinity v Brigidine

Group B
Pymble v Queenwood
Barker v Stella Maris
Kincoppal v Knox
Redlands v Loreto Kirribilli

Group C
Kambala v Abbotsleigh
St Aloysius v St Andrews
Monte v Ascham
Roseville v Shore

Group D
St Luke's v Ravenswood
Scots v St Augustine's
Riverview v St Catherine's
Cranbrook v Kings

Teams listed first are home and thus affirmative.
Topic Area for Round 2 is Education.

Any thoughts on topics? Id hope they dont dredge up uni dereg again after last year...

edit: also speaking of topics, has anyone got a compilation of topics from the last few years from the various competitions? ISDA seems to be the only comp that had a remotely up to date archive and that isnt around for now. Not to mention GPS, the last few years of Archdale, CAS, FED and Eastside for starters.

 

[DRH]

Honestly I'm afraid I can't see them not doing uni deregulation, since education topics in general seem to be perpetual rehashes, and this is the closest thing to new possible, and still very politically relevant. Sigh. Of course, we could get something not in current affairs like this week - no idea what though, figure performance-based pay is due for another run, probably in intermediates/maybe juniors.

Also, some parts of the ISDA former website is accessible through web.archive.org/web/isdadebating.info Quite annoyed that it's not back up.

 

[Al92]

Im trying to remember what the GPS education topics were outside the Senior's dereg topic. Its the other division topics that might be a good indicator of what was topical. I can only remember the opens topic from it. Other things are to look at spring semester uni comps for education topics but even that has been difficult when people are haphazard in taking photos/making posts.

 

[DRH]

Hopefully this forum will mean that forgotten topics will be less of an issue in future. Given that AI92 has kindly posted the draw, I was hoping we could maybe talk about some of the most interesting matchups this week, and our predictions. I'll very briefly look at one from each group.

A: Joeys vs MLC
Best debate of the round. This will be a big test for both teams, esp. Joeys who will be harbouring premiership hopes and facing their first challenging opposition. I reckon they should sneak past MLC.
B: Kincoppal vs Knox
I'm curious to see the true strength of this Knox team - finalists last year but now weakened somewhat and reeling after a loss to Loreto, and Kincoppal, who were reasonably strong last year, should pose a good test and themselves will be looking to make finals. I think Knox should get this, but an upset could be on the cards if their 2015 team is as weak as some suggest.
C: Roseville vs Shore
AI92 is bullish on these teams' chances, and while I think Shore should make finals, I am ignorant altogether on Roseville. Very curious to see how it turns out, as form of both these teams is pretty unclear at the moment. Shore should pull through by what I know.
D: Riverview vs St Catherine's
I have to admit that I was torn between this and the Kings/Cranbrook debate, but from what we've heard from Panadol and Cranbrook's expected form, should be an easy win for Kings. Riverview, meanwhile, will be looking to justify the predictions for the Year of 2015, while Caths could always pull off an upset. Nevertheless, Riverview should take this easily.

Would very much wish to go through with more specifics, but will not for a couple reasons. Firstly, we are still lacking speaker lists for most teams (please add more if you know!) and secondly, last year there was some controversy over criticism of specific debaters, and I remember a couple of bannings related to this. Please let us know, whoever is in charge, of what exactly the policy is on specifics - I don't wish to criticise individuals so much as focus on good ones, but am unclear on what the policy is.

Who's going to the workshop on Sunday?

 

[Al92]

Grammar, Joeys, Wenona, Trinity
Pymble, Barker, Knox, and possibly Loreto
Abbotsleigh, Aloys, Monte, Shore.
Ravenswood, Scots, View, Kings

Most of that is assuming a weighted topic and based off earlier discussion about who people thought were good and who would make finals and what Ive heard about round 1 performances from various people. Though not everyone is on form in round 1 so some of it could be off. Also I wouldnt say bullish about Roseville and Shore. It was more that past experience suggests Group C arent the weakest. I understand Shore Snr A is supposed to be good. I know that Roseville has some good individuals in it but I dont think they'll make finals. I heard both the Roseville teams didnt do that impressive a job last friday. Defs a shore victory.
Though topic may skew things.

Im hesitant to talk specifics, namely because its schools level not uni and because many people would hate to stumble across an in depth critique of their debating or even one where others are more favourably compared. Like if I said X and Y in A team were what made it good, it would hurt to be Z member of that team and see that comparison. That and at this point most names wont mean anything to most people outside a handful of schools.

 

[aka_the_think]

Sorry about the lack of reply recently, been busy. I have a bit to get through so I'll probably make multiple posts. First, just a disclaimer - as a few of you would know, I'm in this age group (I don't attempt to hide this) and I've debated most of these teams a few times. This is both good and bad. It's good because it means I have a fair bit of experience with these teams, but bad because I might not be completely objective, especially since I only get to see about a quarter of these teams a year.

To start, thought I'd do a bit of analysis pool-by-pool like DRH did up top. While I tend to agree with his findings, I thought I'd add a bit.

Group A

The only thing I'm pretty confident of in this pool is that Grammar will go through undefeated. Joeys like to blow their trumpet a fair bit, which is sort of fair enough, but no one outside of the Joeys community seems to regard them very highly (myself including). They should make the finals. MLC are a real mixbag - they seem to perform much better in Archdale in Senior years than ISDA. They are still one of the strongest schools across the board, and their coaching is second to none, but since their win in Year 7 this age group hasn't been sensational - maybe their year 11s will bolster their quality? I think there's a good chance they'll make the finals though. I am not sure why everyone is dismissing PLC Sydney. In this age group they're quite strong, and have done well in the past, regularly making finals. I think they'll be a good chance to make finals. I have never been too big on Trinity, but my experience with them is limited. It looks as if they'll make the finalists, but it will have to be at the expense of one of the other teams I mentioned - probably Joeys or MLC. Brigidine and Tangara aren't too strong traditionally, and Brigidine can't afford another loss seeing as they're already down 2. Not sure why everyone is so keen on Wenona. They have never been very strong in ISDA, don't think they've ever made the finals, and in SDN - which they compete in in term 3 - they're quite average.
Predictions:
Grammar
Joeys
PLC Sydney
Trinity or MLC

Group B
I am pretty confident that Barker will top this pool. In my experience Barker aren't as good as people seem to be saying, but I think they're the best bet in this case. Pymble aren't bad, but again not sensational. Should make the finals. Kincoppal I am definitely not sure about - I know that they have good coaching and have done decently in some preseason stuff (did they win that USyd Senior School day?) but I am really not sure. I don't really rate Kirribilli at all, they're not a particularly good team, but possibly finals level. I was surprised when they beat Knox, but apparently it was fairly convincing. Though Knox have made two consecutive ISDA grand-finals, in this particular year they don't seem to be particularly strong. Again I am not sure about their finals chances. Stella Maris, Redlands and Queenwood aren't great, but could surprise some people.
Predictions:
Barker
Pymble
Kincoppal or Loreto Kirribilli or Knox

Group C
Not sure why people are saying this pool is weak, in my eyes it's the strongest by far. Roseville won ISDA in year 10, they were undefeated. I think they're more of a threat than people seem to be giving them credit for. Definite finals contenders. Abbotsleigh are also strong, but they're not as good as previous age groups, will make finals, and challenge towards the business end. Aloysius are also strong and justifiably rated as contenders for the title - will make finals. There have been big wraps on Shore, and they've definitely been good over the years, but in my experience they're not superb. Ascham are a bit of a dark horse - they did well in Archdale last year but didn't do amazingly in ISDA. Monte are another strong side people seem to be underrating - they're definitely finals level. Andrews and Kambala seem to be the only weak-ish schools in this pool, and, even then, both are capable of an upset.
Predictions are hard in this pool, but I'm going to go with:
Abbotsleigh
Aloysius
Roseville
Monte or Shore

Group D
It's weird that 3 of the strongest GPS schools are in the same pool. Barring Friday night's robbery (if Pandol's post is to believed) Kings are a strong side. At this point in time they are missing Matt Bojanic, their 2nd speaker who was in the GPS 2nds rep team last year (I think) so they can only get stronger. Scots are also very strong - they won ISDA in year 9 and have done well in GPS over the years. Both Kings and Scots will challenge for the title, and should be definite finals contenders. This year's Riverview team is strong - they have a lot of depth across the age group (I think there's something like 40 kids doing debating in their Opens age group) - and their are a few solid speakers. If they can get their teams right I think they'll be decent contenders. Should make finals. I am not sure who will take the fourth spot - Cranbrook or Ravenswood maybe? Cranbrook made the final in year 9 but didn't seem to go too well against Riverview on Friday, while Ravenswood - who dominated in younger years - have lost most of their good debaters/old team so they're not quite as strong now. Augustine's, Luke's and Catherine's aren't traditionally that strong, but if Cath's performance on Friday night is to be taken seriously then they could be serious challengers.
Predictions:
Kings
Scots
Riverview
Cranbrook or Ravenswood

Im hesitant to talk specifics, namely because its schools level not uni and because many people would hate to stumble across an in depth critique of their debating or even one where others are more favourably compared. Like if I said X and Y in A team were what made it good, it would hurt to be Z member of that team and see that comparison. That and at this point most names wont mean anything to most people outside a handful of schools.

I guess you can if you want, up to you. It will probably help with analysis/provide evidence for predictions if we know a bit more about the individuals, but, like you said, there's a fine line. Last year there was a bit of discussion around individuals and it seemed to do most analysis justice. There has been a bit of talk around individuals so far, but not a huge amount.

 

[aka_the_think]

Hopefully this forum will mean that forgotten topics will be less of an issue in future. Given that AI92 has kindly posted the draw, I was hoping we could maybe talk about some of the most interesting matchups this week, and our predictions. I'll very briefly look at one from each group.

A: Joeys vs MLC
Best debate of the round. This will be a big test for both teams, esp. Joeys who will be harbouring premiership hopes and facing their first challenging opposition. I reckon they should sneak past MLC.
B: Kincoppal vs Knox
I'm curious to see the true strength of this Knox team - finalists last year but now weakened somewhat and reeling after a loss to Loreto, and Kincoppal, who were reasonably strong last year, should pose a good test and themselves will be looking to make finals. I think Knox should get this, but an upset could be on the cards if their 2015 team is as weak as some suggest.
C: Roseville vs Shore
AI92 is bullish on these teams' chances, and while I think Shore should make finals, I am ignorant altogether on Roseville. Very curious to see how it turns out, as form of both these teams is pretty unclear at the moment. Shore should pull through by what I know.
D: Riverview vs St Catherine's
I have to admit that I was torn between this and the Kings/Cranbrook debate, but from what we've heard from Panadol and Cranbrook's expected form, should be an easy win for Kings. Riverview, meanwhile, will be looking to justify the predictions for the Year of 2015, while Caths could always pull off an upset. Nevertheless, Riverview should take this easily.

Would very much wish to go through with more specifics, but will not for a couple reasons. Firstly, we are still lacking speaker lists for most teams (please add more if you know!) and secondly, last year there was some controversy over criticism of specific debaters, and I remember a couple of bannings related to this. Please let us know, whoever is in charge, of what exactly the policy is on specifics - I don't wish to criticise individuals so much as focus on good ones, but am unclear on what the policy is.

Who's going to the workshop on Sunday?

I am hesitant to reveal whether I will be there Sunday - might compromise the pseudonym a bit (not that it would matter, most people seem to know who I am).

In terms of criticising individuals, the moderators of this website (I am not one) don't want excessive criticism of students, which is completely fair enough. This is something carried over from the sporting forums. I don't think anyone was banned last year for mentioning individuals, it had more to do with the way they were mentioned (generally it was part of school banter and the mods aren't too keen on that). Like I said above, you tread a fine line when you mention individuals, but if you feel you can be respectful then I'm sure it's fine.

In regards to team lists, there's not a lot I can do for you.
Joeys =
1. James Pope
2. Dom McDonald
3. (Something) Renshaw

I know that Robert Rutledge and Vince Carse are in the Scots team, not sure about others.

Also, despite this forum genuinely exceeding my expectations in terms of interest, there seems to be a distinct lack of female perspectives on this forum. As others have alluded to, it'd be nice to see the forum grow in scope/scale - there are more competitions than ISDA and more schools to discuss than Kings, Riverview, Grammar et al.

Your predictions for this round also look to be good - keep up the good work!

 

[Al92]

I mention Wenona as maybe a chance in Snr B at least because their year 10 team was v. strong last year making as far as playoff 3 if not all the way to GF. It would be interesting to see if aka_the_think is correct re: Roseville when they go up against Shore this week.

Though speaking of the Archdale school, I noticed quite a few have massive rotation of speakers between the comps. I feel that part of this is that Archdale is tuesday but apparently quite a few schools in the comp also try and maximise the number of students doing debating. Ive noticed that bar one or two speakers from grade to grade often many are different come Archdale season, either the school enters their stronger team or enters a weaker team making it difficult to get a fair assessment of performance.

 

[Ontheside]

Does anyone have the results from last nights debates?