Debating News | ISDA Grand Final Winners
YEAR 7 ISDA report – PLC Sydney v Trinity
We knew this was going to be one of the most important nights of our debating lives. So, our hearts were in our chest as we selected our topic for this debate; at this point we knew we were the affirmative team. Then, our topic was announced, ‘That we should continue to give students the option to learn from home’. As we walked to our preparation the experience felt surreal. With this in mind, we worked hard to make sure that we were adequately prepared for the night’s debate. We did this knowing we would have to work hard to beat the negative PLC Sydney.
The debate began with our first speaker, O. Ang (7 WJ), delivering the basic case for our side and introducing an important part of the debate, our model. Our model was that we would give parents the option to allow their children to continue learning at home. Our model would build off technology used during lockdown to seamlessly integrate both online and in-person learning. We also stated that this would solve two key problems. The first problem it would solve is that rural communities do not currently possess the same educational opportunity as city communities, thus leading to rural job issues. Additionally, we stated that this would allow members of the Indigenous community who wished to remain on their land to do so without comprising their educational prospects. Then our second speaker, B. De Lany (7 Hi), continued our case by elaborating on how this would solve two additional issues. He first stated how our model would allow students to reduce their travel time. He stated how this is a serious issue among students who live far away from their school as they spend multiple hours a day in transportation. He then stated that this would allow students who temporarily needed to take time off school, such as for illness, to continue learning, to allow their education to continue progressing. Finally, our third speaker, R. Qin (7 Yo), finished the debate strongly. He restated all our benefits and talked about how any issues would be negated as our model was always optional and allowed parents to pull out if they needed. He analysed the debate and showed that our side had won. This was because we had won the two clashes. The first clash was practicality, which he showed we won due to our flexibility. Then he showed that the second clash, the principled argument, had also been won by our side as we had increased equality.
Our hearts were beating in our chest as the adjudicators made their decision. Our hearts were in our throats throughout, and we were constantly nervous. We sat there for what seemed like hours, thinking about the season. Then the adjudicator began her speech. We were all extremely nervous as she went through her results. The first clash went to … Trinity. The second clash went to … PLC Sydney. As the result was announced we were all extremely nervous. The third clash went to … Trinity. We had WON! We all rejoiced as we heard that we had won the entire Year 7 ISDA season.
However, this win would not have been possible without Mr Taplin, the MIC of Debating, who was present at the debate. Only through his hard work and effort were we able to successfully triumph. This win was also a result of the hard work of our coach. We would like to thank these people, and many others, for helping us to victory. We hope to continue this good debating into the CAS debating season in Term 3.
O. Ang (7WJ)
