• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

NSW Schools Debating 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.

aka_the_think

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Alright I've done some snooping and these are the results I've got:
Senior A - Scots
Senior B - Grammar
Year 10 - Pymble
Year 9 - MLC
Year 8 - Barker
Year 7 - Wenona
Primary A - Kincoppal
Primary B - St Thomas'
 

errybody_talks

Stan Wickham (3)
Alright I've done some snooping and these are the results I've got:
Senior A - Scots
Senior B - Grammar
Year 10 - Pymble
Year 9 - MLC
Year 8 - Barker
Year 7 - Wenona
Primary A - Kincoppal
Primary B - St Thomas'
Wow 8 different schools! That's great for the future of high school debating, knowing we have so much variety and competition :)
 

aka_the_think

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Jesuit schools debating carnival starts tomorrow at Aloysius. Involves Riverview, Aloys, John XXIII (Perth), Ignatius Adelaide, Xavier (Melbourne), Loyola (Mt Druitt), and Xavier (Hervey Bay). Any other debates/tournaments going on during the holidays?
 

Michael Serafim

Frank Row (1)
I'm thinking it's time for some good, old-fashioned GPS predictions.

My picks for top contenders (not in order) are
Scots
Grammar
High
Riverview
 

aka_the_think

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Over the past few days the annual Jesuit schools debating carnival, which sees schools from across the country descend on a particular host school (this year Aloys), took place. Riverview knocked off Aloys in a closely contested final, and in so doing won - for the time being (there may be another debate) - the Fr. Charles McDonald cup which is contested between the two every year.
 

aka_the_think

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Also, I put this together some time ago, forgot to upload it. Wasn't hard, just copied and pasted results from the website, did some formulas on excel, and made some slightly subjective decisions that might be questionable. Basically it's a summation of school's ISDA results, I guess. Most of it should be self-explanatory. There's very likely mistakes in here, feel free to point them. Might be controversy over the weighting given to various age divisions, happy to hear out any other methods of awarding weightings. Shouldn't be an issue though, unweighted ranks/results are in there too.

Any questions or ideas let me know or alter the raw data yourself using the document.
 

Attachments

  • ISDA 2015 Results, Rounds.xlsx
    51.5 KB · Views: 278

aka_the_think

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Sorry, just realised I uploaded the wrong document. This is the one I meant to upload. Much more detailed.
 

Attachments

  • ISDA Debating Results 2015.xlsx
    65 KB · Views: 301

Al92

Allen Oxlade (6)
Sorry, just realised I uploaded the wrong document. This is the one I meant to upload. Much more detailed.

At first glance it looks interesting but I cant say more until i spend some more time looking through it. Two obvious things to pick up on. 2 rogue cells in the St Thomas' row. Looks like ranks for some non primary teams. Secondly are you able to do it so that the primary schools are counted combined with their senior counterpart? The competition treats those as one for purposes of the tally as well as a range of other reasons why it should be treated that way.

Other debating news, a look at the archdale tally reveals Abbotsleigh having a much better time than ISDA being the only team in snrs currently undefeated as of round 4. every team in year 10 has taken a loss so far. Term 3 sees the remainder of archdale as well as CAS, GPS, SDN and finals for HICES & CSDA and the remainder of PDC for 5->10 Also state final of Plain English speaking is in 2 weeks. Dont know who went through though. Legacy regional finals start soon too.
 

Al92

Allen Oxlade (6)
Just saw some of the rule changes for GPS for this year. Prep times/speaking times appear to be the same as last year, much to my dismay given how badly almost every week the juniors overlapped into seniors as a result of 45 minute prep. Often debates had senior teams walking in while juniors were still going. Though part of that is also cracking down on teams in getting into and out of prep. One round one a debate was delayed by almost 15 minutes trying to work out where one of the teams went (worse still the home team).

Anyway, rule changes (the 2015 ones. The rest you might find are actually from 2014):
Topic Distribution for Years 7-9 in 2015

  • As a trial in 2015, Years 7 - 9 will have a list of three published topics per Topic Area. These topics will be released early in the week of the round. Debaters will be told on the night which topic is to be debated.
  • Year 10 and Senior topics will be released on the evening, as previously.
Notes and Phones in Preparation
  • No notes/fact sheets may be taken into preparation rooms, although a dictionary is allowed (Host co-ordinators may check this). No phones or internet connected devices are permitted in preparation rooms.
Affirmative/Negative

In 2015, we return to a coin toss to determine Aff/Neg. The side who wins the toss will affirm in the As/Cs & 1st/3rds and negate in the Bs & 2nds/4ths. There will be a first coin toss at 6:45pm for the junior debates and a second coin toss at 7:30pm for the senior debates,
I find the topic change a bit odd. Like I get why they've gone for that option but the solution is probably to have a better discussion with the CA/topics committee (if GPS has one) about accessibility of topics then to resort to a quasi prepared system, esp given the level of coaching available, its just going to be kids throwing out uni debater arguments they dont understand.

I think the reintroduction of the coin toss isnt a good idea either as it means teams can have a disproportionate number of aff/negs. less importantly, it makes it harder for us to track motion balance as was the case with ISDA finals.

Thoughts of other people?
Also any other thoughts about the upcoming comps?

Also Round 1 of CAS and SDN are this friday. GPS starts next week.
 

aka_the_think

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Does anyone have the results from last Friday's CAS and SDN?


SDN results are impossible to find unless you know people in each team. All I know is Riverview Senior A and B both won last week vs Wenona, and this week only the A team won vs Roseville (who are normally good in SDN).

CAS no idea.

GPS Riverview def. Scots unanimously, Kings def. Shore, New. def. Grammar, and High def. Joeys. Topic (something like): ""That in low SES areas it should be compulsory to do vocational subjects (e.g. TAFE courses, Metalwork)."
 

Ontheside

Allen Oxlade (6)
Interesting results in the GPS, especially in the defeat of Scots who were ISDA grand final winners. It, perhaps, shows the strength of all of the top teams and it's a matter of some luck as to who they meet on a particular night and what side of the topic they receive

Any ideas as to whether winning teams won from Aff or Neg?

Who chooses the topics for these GPS/CAs debates? Low SES areas should make it compulsory to do vocational subjects?
Surely at this stage the topics could be broader and of more national and international significance?
Hopefully we won't see the deregulation of universities topic again - it was done to death last year.
 

Al92

Allen Oxlade (6)
SDN results are impossible to find unless you know people in each team. All I know is Riverview Senior A and B both won last week vs Wenona, and this week only the A team won vs Roseville (who are normally good in SDN).
Maybe the coordinators have access to the tally? It might be possible to get a decent backtab going if you can find people from a handful of the schools and get their results and get them to suss out their oppositions performance? I know for Round 1 Abbotsleigh Snr A won and Snr B lost. Dont know any other results though but thats a step closer.

Who chooses the topics for these GPS/CAs debates? Low SES areas should make it compulsory to do vocational subjects?
Surely at this stage the topics could be broader and of more national and international significance?
Hopefully we won't see the deregulation of universities topic again - it was done to death last year.

According to the 2014 GPS Handbook:
6.1 Setting Topics

Topics for Year 7-10 and Seniors in Rounds 1-5 will be determined prior to the season by the Topic Committee. This Committee will be comprised of the GPS conveners and the Coordinating Adjudicator. If current events demand a change of topic, the Coordinating Adjudicator may revise topics during the season after consultation with the GPSDA executive. Topics for Rounds 6-7 will be set by the Topic Committee after the season has commenced.

6.2 Issues in Setting Topics

 Topic setters should endeavour to provide carefully worded topics that both teams are likely to interpret similarly and that are arguable from either side.
 Topics that are more precise lend themselves to fewer definition debates (such as “that Australian politicians lack political courage”).
 Topics of policy (ie whether X should do Y, or similar topics) often make for clearer and less semantics-based arguments that topics of equation (ie whether X is Y, or similar topics)
 The topic setter should be aware of the issues surrounding teams narrowing topics, as discussed in the headmasters’ memorandum in Appendix 1 and in the section on Definitions.

The question is who is getting their way in committee as to what gets through and what gets shot down. The other competitions have the same problem.
That being said, the topic is similar but watered down version of one I saw at Worlds last december: This House believes that in areas of socio-economic deprivation, schools should train students in vocational skills to the exclusion of the Liberal Arts.
 

Ontheside

Allen Oxlade (6)
The CAS topic was about sport. Something like : That the NRL should remove salary caps.
A limited and narrow topic that had little knowledge and negligible appeal from the debaters, audience and the adjudicators.
Hence my question as to who is choosing the topics? Topics with substance would be preferred.
 

Al92

Allen Oxlade (6)
The CAS topic was about sport. Something like : That the NRL should remove salary caps.
A limited and narrow topic that had little knowledge and negligible appeal from the debaters, audience and the adjudicators.
Hence my question as to who is choosing the topics? Topics with substance would be preferred.

Salary caps arent that narrow a debate. Ive done them before. I think more to the point is that beside a brief mention earlier in the year, salary caps havent really been news and when they have its actually been about 3rd party payments.

Id imagine CAS also has a topics committee consisting of the CA and some/all of the coordinators.

On a different comp, Archdale Round 5 results:
St Vincent's def Tangara
Normanhurst def Danebank
Pymble def St Catherine's
Kincoppal def Santa Sabina
Abbotsleigh def Kirribilli
Ravenswood def Roseville
Kambala def PLC Sydney

Postponed due to Australs:
SCEGGS/Wenona
Monte/MtStBenedict
MLC/Ascham
Tara/Meriden
Abbotsleigh remains undefeated.
I would also note that in seniors, Round 5 was an Aff Sweep. That is that every single debate was won from affirmative. Dont know the topic though. Anyone else able to find out? 4 debates were postponed with everyone being over in korea for australs causing a shortage of adjudicators (and coaches).
 

Ontheside

Allen Oxlade (6)
I wasn't suggesting that salary caps was narrow (but you are right its a bit dated) but that it was narrow to have a topic focused on the NRL about which the debaters , audience and adjudicators (as acknowledged in the adjudication) knew little ( or had any interest in)
 

Michael Serafim

Frank Row (1)
Well this forum's been a little quiet recently. What are the predictions on the eventually upcoming reps comp?
Who will be in the various teams (Archdale, CHS, GPS, CAS)? Which is looking the most likely to win?
Will GPS continue to dominate?
So many questions...
 

Al92

Allen Oxlade (6)
Archdale R6 Results:

Mt St Benedict def St Vincent's
Danebank def SCEGGS
Wenona def Normanhurst
Monte def Tangara
MLC def Santa Sabina
Kincoppal def Ascham
Tara def St Catherine's
Pymble def Ravenswood
Abbotsleigh def PLC Sydney
Kirribilli def Kambala
Meriden def Roseville
Topic was something about revoking citizenship of terrorists. Dont know exact wording.


aka_the_think, can you keep track of View SDN results please? (senior a and b) I found out I know some people doing the comp that should be enough to get a backtab going. That being said, if anyone knows people at Stella/Wenona, that might help me fill in the gaps. Im not absolutely certain about that forfeit but apparently that's what happened.

SDN Round 1 Results
Senior A:
Abbotsleigh def Monte
Redlands def Roseville
Riverview def Wenona
Stella Maris FF (Folau Fainga'a). to Pius

Senior B:
Monte def Abbotsleigh
Roseville def Redlands
Riverview def Wenona
Stella Maris FF (Folau Fainga'a). to Pius

As for reps, well really depends on how well some people trial. I saw some speakers from state squad during ISDA and a few were not as strong as I would expect compared to some other speakers I saw during the course of the comp. Havent seen enough of the senior teams and GPS only just underway so cant make any predictions yet.
 

Ontheside

Allen Oxlade (6)
We have the results for the two GPS rounds and Archdale. . Does anyone have the results for all the CAS comps so far?

As for reps imo agree with A192 that state speakers weren't as strong compared to others during the course of ISDA. Eg Grammar (2 state speakers) vs Cranbrook (stronger speakers on the night). Abbotsleigh state speaker not well flanked by others in the team. Haven't seen the SCEGGS (Archdale) or the Sydney girls or boys (CHS) state speakers, so can't comment on them. A number of the better speakers (outside of state squad) either do not trial or if they do they only have the one debate at state trials (often allocated to a position they are not as familiar with) and this one debate may be insufficient to choose the best candidates from. State selectors often seem to go for tried and true feeder schools from this one viewing. They also seem to opt for an equal mix of year 11s and year 12s in the final team as well as a gender balance which also may eliminated some of the better speakers even from the first trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top