NSW Schools Debating 2015

[aka_the_think]

aka_the_think, can you keep track of View SDN results please? (senior a and b)

Rd 2 Snr A lost and Snr B won I'm pretty sure.
Rd 3 Snr A won via forfeit and Snr B won.

Could be wrong.

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.

Lol mate, can't take a single word of that seriously, all pretty much rubbish. You've clearly got a lot of axes to grind, and your repeated references to Cranbrook's victory over Grammar (you've done it multiple times on the forum now) have next to no relevance, especially given the controversy surrounding that decision. Your examples don't really serve to illustrate your point: you said that, at best, Cranbrook were "stronger speakers on the night", not stronger speakers; you said that Abbotsleigh's state speaker is not "well flanked by others in the team." Neither of those statements demonstrate that A. The state speakers were bad nor B. That there are others better than them. While clearly this post was borne out of a sense that you were personally hard done by, it would be slightly tolerable if your evidence wasn't so anecdotal and you actually bothered to name speakers that got overlooked despite being decent. No one will take that opinion seriously, especially given the sexist jibe at the end.

 

[errybody_talks]

Rd 2 Snr A lost and Snr B won I'm pretty sure.
Rd 3 Snr A won via forfeit and Snr B won.

Could be wrong.



Lol mate, can't take a single word of that seriously, all pretty much rubbish. You've clearly got a lot of axes to grind, and your repeated references to Cranbrook's victory over Grammar (you've done it multiple times on the forum now) have next to no relevance, especially given the controversy surrounding that decision. Your examples don't really serve to illustrate your point: you said that, at best, Cranbrook were "stronger speakers on the night", not stronger speakers; you said that Abbotsleigh's state speaker is not "well flanked by others in the team." Neither of those statements demonstrate that A. The state speakers were bad nor B. That there are others better than them. While clearly this post was borne out of a sense that you were personally hard done by, it would be slightly tolerable if your evidence wasn't so anecdotal and you actually bothered to name speakers that got overlooked despite being decent. No one will take that opinion seriously, especially given the sexist jibe at the end.

That was the best debating burn this year - and I completely agree. Someone has a vendetta...

 

[Al92]

Haha, that escalated quickly. I only meant to suggest that some good speakers may not trial well (which I never thought was the result of an agenda on the selector end but rather that the very different dynamic of trial teams and trial debates and nerves may see some speakers not debate as well as they tend to do during season)
Also, I don't think abbotsleigh is as bad as ontheside made out. I saw them in ISDA and they were strong and their archdale results fairly reflect that.

Thanks aka_the_think for those r3 sdn results. I already had r2 from you (it was the other way around). One more school Im trying to get and then I should have r2/3 done.

 

[aka_the_think]

No worries Al, it was directed towards Ontheside, I think your comments have some merit, if a little non-specific.

 

[Al92]

given, more that I was surprised that it became a bit of a rant.
Though in terms of being specific, there are some strong speakers at Manly that Ive seen debate as well as some of the state speakers I've seen. I can think of one or two students from ISDA as well who I was impressed by who weren't state speakers. Don't know names, but Im not one for specifics anyway. As for the team dynamic thing, just look at some really strong performing schools in ISDA that didn't really have any representation in state squad like Barker and Monte which steamrolled their way through the main rounds including against one or two other strong schools which is partly a team thing but partly that the strong speakers in those teams probably are able to be quite effective in that team compared with the trial team dynamic. Though thats a bit of a guess as Im not personally familiar with state trials.

 

[errybody_talks]

Does anyone how that new weird rule change is going in the GPS? The one about juniors preparing topics a week in advance?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were serious complaints already surfacing lol

 

[Ontheside]

Lol mate, can't take a single word of that seriously, all pretty much rubbish.................. No one will take that opinion seriously, especially given the sexist jibe at the end.

You have clearly read into this what you wanted to read into it, aka-the-think.
No axes to grind, nor "vendetta" (how absurd) just calling it as I see it "on the side"
Had to laugh at the so -called "sexist" comment... mate.

Moving on.

 

[$100_Panadol]

Hmm, I took it seriously, and I think errybody_bodytalks did too, considering his comment.

"That was the best debating burn this year - and I completely agree. Someone has a vendetta."

But you know, thats only the opinion of aka, myself and 'errybody' else (couldn't resist the pun), quite a minority against all of the people who 'completely agree' with you. Look at them all...so many on the thread...oh wait (my bad).

Furthermore your claim that your comment was not sexist is just a blatant denial of the truth.

"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"

That contains within it, very clearly, a sexist implication (and maybe even an ageist one?) that you believe that one sex is stronger at debating than the other (which one I'm not sure, though considering Imogen Harper is very likely the strongest debater in the year group, I would suggest that perhaps you believe that there should have been more girls?)

Furthermore, though you may not have a 'vendetta', as that is perhaps an exaggeration, it is clear that you do have an axe to grind. That is why you posted your belief that the state schools debating trial process is flawed to a thread of strangers on the internet in desperate search of affirmation of your belief - just own up to it, people will judge you far less for it. I, personally, am happy to admit I have an axe to grind in regard to your utterly flawed original post and subsequent denial of clear implications in it. That's because I agree with aka that you use poor evidence, particularly the Cranbrook reference which I can personally attest to that this was, for want of a better term, a fluke, having seen both teams debate and in fact, debated against both of them this year and in previous years. You tend to spot pick examples outside of context rather than use general trends as your evidence, and your points would be far better had you viewed the evidence holistically, as you would have realised that the general results of Grammar are far better than Cranbrook, and that one decent ISDA result does not a strong team make.

Thus, because you clearly picked outliers as your examples to support points that had a clear agenda behind them, please don't pretend like you don't have 'an axe to grind'. Just be open and honest. It makes for far better discussion.

 

[Ontheside]

I don't need to pretend "like you don't have an axe to grind" because I don't have an axe to grind. Period. My observations and opinion are not as a failed speaker merely an observer. But I do have an opinion based on observations over time and expressed my opinion based on those observations. It may not be an opinion you (or others) agree with - and that's fine too. Your experiences may be different. You might be one of those on the teams mentioned as not having as strong a speaker as one might have thought; or be one of the state speakers mentioned. It does appear to be a fact (a legitimate strategy perhaps allowing succession ) to pick state speakers generally across the two final years and with a gender mix.

One issue with "state" trials as I indicated is that the pool is limited by a number of factors eg self selection to trial and/or lack of knowledge about the trial process and is then compounded by a one debate only elimination round. ( A set of mini debates in different positions may arguably be a better method of selection). Many good debaters from outside Sydney may also elect not to trial ('State' trials may be a bit of a misnomer), or even those within Sydney may decide not to trial in a given year eg HSC year or due to other commitments. The point then is that under the current system there are a host of issues at play so that the final squad chosen as "state" speakers may be the best of that selection process but only as good as the initial pool which may or may not have included speakers equally as good as those selected in the trial process. So it is perhaps not surprising that in competitions such as the recent ISDA or the current GPS, CAS, Archdale and CHS rounds that we can see other non "state" speakers equally as strong if not stronger than the chosen "state" speakers.

You are entitled to hold a different opinion of course. But for the sake of better discourse less emotive language would serve this forum better.

 

[errybody_talks]

I don't need to pretend "like you don't have an axe to grind" because I don't have an axe to grind. Period. My observations and opinion are not as a failed speaker merely an observer. But I do have an opinion based on observations over time and expressed my opinion based on those observations. It may not be an opinion you (or others) agree with - and that's fine too. Your experiences may be different. You might be one of those on the teams mentioned as not having as strong a speaker as one might have thought; or be one of the state speakers mentioned. It does appear to be a fact (a legitimate strategy perhaps allowing succession ) to pick state speakers generally across the two final years and with a gender mix.

One issue with "state" trials as I indicated is that the pool is limited by a number of factors eg self selection to trial and/or lack of knowledge about the trial process and is then compounded by a one debate only elimination round. ( A set of mini debates in different positions may arguably be a better method of selection). Many good debaters from outside Sydney may also elect not to trial ('State' trials may be a bit of a misnomer), or even those within Sydney may decide not to trial in a given year eg HSC year or due to other commitments. The point then is that under the current system there are a host of issues at play so that the final squad chosen as "state" speakers may be the best of that selection process but only as good as the initial pool which may or may not have included speakers equally as good as those selected in the trial process. So it is perhaps not surprising that in competitions such as the recent ISDA or the current GPS, CAS, Archdale and CHS rounds that we can see other non "state" speakers equally as strong if not stronger than the chosen "state" speakers.

You are entitled to hold a different opinion of course. But for the sake of better discourse less emotive language would serve this forum better.

Ontheside you remind me of Christopher Pyne: always feeling the need to prove a stupid point, failing to prove that point, and looking like a mincing poodle while you're at it.

The state trial process may be imperfect, but it doesn't mean the selectors are biased.

 

[Ontheside]

Of course it was being suggested that the 'state' ( note inverted commas) trail process was imperfect but It was never suggested that the selectors were biased. Its difficult to see how that conclusion could be drawn unless the post was read with preconceived prejudice.
Again I will reiterate that less emotive language will serve the forums purpose better. Personal attacks only reflect poorly on the writer. Time to move on.

 

[$100_Panadol]

So moving on...

Seeing as we are a couple of weeks into GPS, anyone got predictions as to winners and GPS teams.

At the moment it seems like it might be;

1. Sydney Boys
2. Riverview
3. Kings

Keen to hear the predictions from others.

 

[nickoz]

Anyone know the CAS results.
These are the only ones I know.
Aloys beat trinity
Trinity beat Waverley
Barker beat trinity (in a controversial decision)
Aloys beat Cranbrook.
Big debate tonight with aloys vs barker, possibly deciding the competition and CAS. My bet would be on aloys in a unanimous, leaving for Knox and aloys to play it out for first and then trinity for third.

From my brief experience against GPS Schools' would be kings for first over Riverview who lack the consistency within three speakers to achieve any premiership, despite being a talented team.

 

[Al92]

Does anyone how that new weird rule change is going in the GPS? The one about juniors preparing topics a week in advance?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were serious complaints already surfacing lol

so far junior debates I've seen don't seem to have any noticeable improvement in quality over last year. I feel like teams aren't really taking advantage of the extra prep time moreso than running arguments they don't understand. Also timing is still being a problem. Can people get in and out of prep on time.

 

[Pranay Jay]

I think there are some valid point raised by Ontheside, that said, not at all convinced the Status Quo is particularly bad. The selectors are excellent, (Daniel Swain was adjing mine back in Year 10, and he has been an Australs Finals Best Speaker) and no doubt know exactly what they're looking for.

I have not been selected for a State team in the past, but I agree a lot of the comments were just odd. No doubt Grammar is a stronger team than Cranbrook, having debated Cranbrook 8 or 9 times over the past 6 years. In terms of the gender and age biases, they're not strictly true (Imogen Harper is an excellent example), but they're also important. Debating has been traditionally dominated by men, it's imperative that we support the growth of women within it. Furthermore, having Year 11s in the team is ideal to allow for a smooth progression between years and consistently strong teams.

That said, having adjs score ISDA (or similar competitions) speakers with regards to State selections is prima facie a reasonable idea to me, just to provide an extra indicator.

Anyone know the CAS results.

Big debate tonight with aloys vs barker, possibly deciding the competition and CAS. My bet would be on aloys in a unanimous, leaving for Knox and aloys to play it out for first and then trinity for third.

From my brief experience against GPS Schools' would be kings for first over Riverview who lack the consistency within three speakers to achieve any premiership, despite being a talented team.

Can confirm Barker beat Aloys 2-1 from the Negative in 'It would be better for the world if the US adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy.'

Thought Aloys were excellent, Third Speaker (Liam Thorne) in particular. Barker therefore needs to beat Waverly next week in order to secure the CAS championship.

Finally, what are our takes for CHS/CAS/GPS/Archdale teams?
Speaking from a CAS perspective the CAS firsts will most likely include Viran Weeresakera (B) and Liam Thorne (A). Viran captained the Thirds (Year 11 team) and Liam was in the CAS Firsts.
The third speakers of Trinity and Barker have also been strong, and I was a fan of Aloys 1st speaker, and to a lesser extent, Cranbrook Third. I am curious if they will place the most talented speakers in the firsts or separate based on position.

Should be an interesting few weeks ahead.

 

[Michael Serafim]

Surprised Akathethink hasn't updated the round 3 results but they are:

scots def newington
riverview def shore
grammar def joeys
high def kings

Running tally:
Scots 1/3
Newington 1/3
Riverview 3/3
Shore 0/3
Grammar 2/3
Joeys 1/3
High 3/3
Kings 1/3

 

[ca1cu1us]

With reps selections around the corner here is some info that may help or alter views on selection speculation...

Archdale Finalists teams:

1st Monte (6 wins, 19 points, 35 margin points)
2nd MLC (6 wins, 19 points, 33 margin points)
3rd Meriden (6 wins, 19 points, 29 margin points)
4th Abbotsleigh ( 6 wins, 19 points, 22 margin points)

5th SCEGGS (5 wins, 17 points, 15 margin points)
6th Danebank (5 wins, 17 points, 11 margin points)

Tiebreakers:
7th Pymble (4 wins, 15 points, 33 margin points)
8th Tangara (4 wins, 15 points, 17 margin points)
9th Ascham (4 wins, 15 points, 12 margin points)
10th PLC Sydney (4 wins, 15 points, 10 margin points)

That should make for some interesting reps speculation. Also of interest in the way in which people here have overrated Abbotsleigh and SCEGGS based on rep and these outcomes have failed to actualise. Possibly gives some validity to ontheside that people in debating buy too much into institution rep.

Also surprised by some of the GPS reps speculation given the current results. But did agree with most of the CAS reps thoughts made by Pranay_Jay. I would think that Barker has a strong showing in the reps squad.

 

[aka_the_think]

GPS Rd. 4 results.

View def. Joeys unanimously.
High def. Shore.
Kings def. Newington
Grammar def. Scots.

To give a very lopsided update to SDN, both Seniors teams from View are 4-1, having both won against Monte tonight. Year 9 are also undefeated, no clue about other years.

Al, what's Monte's approach to SDN? Do they enter top teams? I know they're new comers, but interested in knowing. Further, what's their record? I'm trying to keep a tab but proving very hard.

 

[Al92]

No idea and i haven't had much time for debating stuff recently so haven't been keeping track of anything. I noticed that someone else has already beaten me to the Archdale results. If you look at the tally, you can also work out round 8 results.

 

[ca1cu1us]

aka, I think I know someone how might have a near completed tab for both Senior A/B. From memory the problem was some of the Stella results were hard to get. I'll look into it

Last round of CAS was last night. With any luck we will be able to see the final results soon enough.

On results, the australian schools team made Semi Finals at World Schools in Singapore, which would be really good practice for those nsw speakers going into reps season.

Just GPS and Archdale finals between here and the end of term, and reps. Speaking of which, does anyone know the CHS reps team? I heard they get selected quite early on by comparison.