CommandOfThe21st
Frank Row (1)
On the contrary I'd say that this Grammar Senior A team has been one of the most pressured and badgered ever.i would sincerely hope there arent grammar diehards at it again.
On the contrary I'd say that this Grammar Senior A team has been one of the most pressured and badgered ever.i would sincerely hope there arent grammar diehards at it again.
Thanks for this. Now it’s obv why Alos didn’t veto the indigenous topic. Second motion could be even more neg weighted than the first ! Assume grammar vetoed the third.
I won’t get into a green and gold debate over this, but topic two really isn’t as neg weighted as it may seem to you at first glance. The chief adjudicator isn’t an idiot and selects the topics in a legitimate fashion, with the resources she has available. I find it unbelievable that this forum constantly argues over everything from complaining about adjudicator quality, when the ISDA is a 32 school competition across 8 years, to complaining about whether high school teams should have reached the stage they are in.From what I heard, grammar did indeed veto the third, aloys vetoed the second. the neg won both debates in the senior a and b on the first nations and media topics respectively, aloys and kambala both look like they were given a rough night of it.
out of interest, who exactly was saying this? seems a pretty big claim to make given the results across seniors and what the topics actually were. i would sincerely hope there arent grammar diehards at it again.
I haven’t sought out the members of the joeys and Riverview teams so if someone who knows them could provide them below that would be great.
the winning Grammar team consists of Kasra Roushan, Remy Sloan, Will Ellis and Daniel Lloyd-Hurwitz.
Yes I expect GPS rep team to be 2x Grammar 1x Joeys 1x Riverview
All of this is very interesting, I think the list of state callbacks is further back in the forum somewhere if you are looking for names. Not sure just a name helps too much though.no chance. Scots and Shore state speakers are a lock. one other spot is up for grabs, 4th best speaker usually debates and captain‘s the seconds.
From the list from those schools:All of this is very interesting, I think the list of state callbacks is further back in the forum somewhere if you are looking for names. Not sure just a name helps too much though.
Just to clarify, do you consider your own comments about the Aloys team to be "negative commentary"?Interesting that they did not veto it. The other motions, from what I've heard, were quite aff weighted.
Proves that doing topic selection well is an integral part of debating; Aloys failure to do it well is not an excuse, for the many in this forum who seem to be Aloys diehards after their badgering of Grammar team over the course of the finals, even after they were proven wrong in their predictions by a unanimous decision.
I wish that the sportsmanship, commentary, and method of supporting teams in ISDA debating, especially for those who are not even in high school, would improve. They're just kids, and they most likely read this forum and don't deserve to go into their debates with the kind of negative commentary so prevalent on this forum. Some members of Senior A teams are as young as 16.
I will quote what I have said:Just to clarify, do you consider your own comments about the Aloys team to be "negative commentary"?
Could you provide a quote that you consider to be negative?Just to clarify, do you consider your own comments about the Aloys team to be "negative commentary"?
Thank you! Very happy that you acknowledge that "Aloys is an excellent team" and that you "have never suggested otherwise." Assume that you retract your comment on topic selection that "Aloys failure to do it well is not an excuse." Also assume you retract point 5 regarding the other motions being "quite aff weighted" given that it is widely acknowledged that the two topics debated by Seniors in the Grand Final were significantly neg weighted. Thanks again.I will quote what I have said:
1. "I’ve heard that one Aloys speaker has become quite strong in recent years"
2. "That said, I have heard similarly excellent things about the Aloys team, with that one speaker in particular becoming quite strong in the past two years."
3. "but given the form of Aloys this year, in a match up between the best teams in NSW debating, it will be a very high quality debate to watch."
4. "A huge congrats to both Aloys and Grammar teams for reaching the grand finals. It was well deserved by both teams which are both excellent. Well done to Grammar for their ultimate victory, and well done to Aloys for their runners up position.
for members of those teams reading this, please do not listen to members of this forum. Your excellence is proven through your achievements; your achievements are deeply commendable. You will no doubt all go on to achieve even greater and better things in the future."
5. "Interesting that they did not veto it. The other motions, from what I've heard, were quite aff weighted.
Proves that doing topic selection well is an integral part of debating; Aloys failure to do it well is not an excuse, for the many in this forum who seem to be Aloys diehards after their badgering of Grammar team over the course of the finals, even after they were proven wrong in their predictions by a unanimous decision.
I wish that the sportsmanship, commentary, and method of supporting teams in ISDA debating, especially for those who are not even in high school, would improve. They're just kids, and they most likely read this forum and don't deserve to go into their debates with the kind of negative commentary so prevalent on this forum. Some members of Senior A teams are as young as 16."
So, on that last one - as is abundantly clear given the nature of my previous comments, the statement about their topic selection comes in response to members (after badgering the team throughout the whole season) continuing to put down their opposition and invalidate the unanimous victory. It is abundantly clear that it comes with the context of refuting the badgering, and ill-natured support of high school ISDA teams. Aloys is an excellent team. I have never suggested otherwise. I am simply calling out the maliciousness of this forum to school teams (including many more than just Grammar) across the years.
Just like to note that the adjudicator you guys are talking about was actually on the aff on that topic, not on the neg. The uni version was a very good debate, 1N was fantastic.- Your first post was to insinuate the Adj chair who went for Barker only did so because she lost her Australs and argued the same neg side as Barker. Poor form.
Like to note here that this comment was based off the information available at the time, and that talking about the importance of topic selection hardly seems like lecturing school kids.- you then try to claim Alos vetoed the wrong topic - others were ‘quite aff weighted’ you said then you lecture a bunch of school kids on topic selection, only then to be found out that 2/3 topics were neg weighted. These are the same school kids who you say are impacted by reading the forum.
The rest was directed at those on the forum that were unreasonably unsupportive and negative towards the grammar team, note criticism of 'Aloys diehards' rather than the team.Interesting that they did not veto it. The other motions, from what I've heard, were quite aff weighted.
Proves that doing topic selection well is an integral part of debating; Aloys failure to do it well is not an excuse, for the many in this forum who seem to be Aloys diehards after their badgering of Grammar team over the course of the finals, even after they were proven wrong in their predictions by a unanimous decision.
I wish that the sportsmanship, commentary, and method of supporting teams in ISDA debating, especially for those who are not even in high school, would improve. They're just kids, and they most likely read this forum and don't deserve to go into their debates with the kind of negative commentary so prevalent on this forum. Some members of Senior A teams are as young as 16.
Nice try. You need some serious self- reflection time.
- Your first post was to insinuate the Adj chair who went for Barker only did so because she lost her Australs and argued the same neg side as Barker. Poor form.
- you then try to claim Alos vetoed the wrong topic - others were ‘quite aff weighted’ you said then you lecture a bunch of school kids on topic selection, only then to be found out that 2/3 topics were neg weighted. These are the same school kids who you say are impacted by reading the forum.
Most on this forum predicted Grammar making the grand final. Some tipped Alos to win, some tipped Grammar, are they not allowed their opinion ? Yes there are some references to the team not being strong as other years is. I agree this is poor but naming school kids and their respective chances for rep goes against your missive of school kids being impacted by comments on this forum.
finally, I have only seen comments congratulating Grammar on their win.
I'm a bit disappointed that diehards have made accounts today to make sarcastic remarks. Thank you Commandofthe21st to clarifying as well.Thank you! Very happy that you acknowledge that "Aloys is an excellent team" and that you "have never suggested otherwise." Assume that you retract your comment on topic selection that "Aloys failure to do it well is not an excuse." Also assume you retract point 5 regarding the other motions being "quite aff weighted" given that it is widely acknowledged that the two topics debated by Seniors in the Grand Final were significantly neg weighted. Thanks again.
Who specifically is undercutting the grammar victory ? The only comments about Grammar being on the right side of the topic came from Cranbrook and a self-confessed Grammar diehard - just read their posting history !I'm a bit disappointed that diehards have made accounts today to make sarcastic remarks. Thank you Commandofthe21st to clarifying as well.
The first post did not insinuate any truth to whether or not the adj's history had an effect on the debate. I reasonably thought it was an interesting piece of information that the outlier on the panel had debated this topic before. This could also imply that they would have a better understanding of the topic, and would have made the correct decision. Unfortunately, due to the sheer volume of snarky euphemisms and dogwhistles which go on in this forum, people are used to seeing simple facts from neutral members as insinuations to the contrary.
The suggestion about topic selection came after the undercutting of the unanimous victory - you can't pick and choose what you like to view as insinuations. It is important to highlight the importance of topic selection when members are using it as a scapegoat
It was not the tipping of Aloys and Grammar with which there is an issue. As Commandofthe21st suggests as well, there has been a lot of pressure and badgering which came with the tipping.
Listing names of debaters, without any commentary on how bad any of them are, is of course fine, as Debater has rightly done frequently. There was no comment on my part on "respective chances" only a suggestion that Grammar should be well positioned for GPS given they won the ISDA. Nothing negative or directly comparative, given Aloys is in CAS.
Finally, please do gloss over the positive comments I made about Aloys even after the finals. It was no clarification that they are an excellent team; that was something I said very early after the result came out. "A huge congrats to Aloys and Grammar for reaching the grand finals...well done to aloys for their runners up position"
Honestly, well done, and lets echo positive commentary on this forum.
If you are trying to deny that there is negative commentary, I don't think you have read what has been happening on green and gold for the past few years.
Yes you're right about the topic comment, after looking at it again. I was mistakenly conflating a few comments into the same idea which were actually made before the finals. But yes, final sentiment stands.Who specifically is undercutting the grammar victory ? The only comments about Grammar being on the right side of the topic came from Cranbrook and a self-confessed Grammar diehard - just read their posting history !
like you I was surprised alos didn’t veto the topic until I saw the full list of topics. This is not undercutting.
I’ve not seen or heard anything disputing the grammar victory so unsure why you’re so touchy about it. And not everyone who disagrees with you are diehards either nor are they anti-grammar.
in any case I agree with your call for a more encouraging forum environment so will leave it at that.
And just before the grand final I did liken the Grammar team to wobbling in which was poor on my part and I may have compared them to prior Grammar teams in previous postsYes you're right about the topic comment, after looking at it again. I was mistakenly conflating a few comments into the same idea which were actually made before the finals. But yes, final sentiment stands.
I've heard multiple accounts with a school down in Georges Hall, the school is Georges River Grammar, apparently, they are up there with their debating skills.St Aloysius the best debaters in the NSW schools system
Any different takes?
Having spoken to multiple attendees of the grand final of Aloys against Grammar, I’ve heard that the 3rd speaker of Aloys, Christian, I believe, was a very strong speaker.St Aloysius the best debaters in the NSW schools system
Any different takes?