now the joke is on me....david gabriels, YOU SUCK!
for 6 years, the fairytale has always ended the same way everytime. and for the 3rd time in history, it has happened on this very same night. despite riding on 2 unanimous wins and a split loss, the catholic high debate team failed to make the break for the julia gabriels national debate championships. fuck.
after playing 3 april fool's pranks over the phone to missy jurisfiction, and a combined prank fooling my uncle and my mom into believing that i got a minor pregnant, i really wished that the results i got over a long distance phone call was just another prank on me. i would have willingly played that fool. but it wasn't to be. the real fool was out there, in yusof ishak secondary adjudicating. damn you david gabriels!
i'm not sure if it is even mathematically possible for 4 teams on 2 outta 3 wins to miss out on an 8 team semi-final break in a division with less than 20 teams. much less, a (objectively speaking) prolific team with 2 unanimous wins and a split loss. but somehow catholic high 1 just had to be one of those 4 teams. in the final reckoning, it was the dubious adjudication decision in the very first preliminary round that caused it all.
i still remain very convinced having watched that entire debate that the panel's decision was ill-informed. strategically, and even in terms of analysis, there couldn't have been a justifiable reason based on the standardised style/content/strategy breakdown on why catholic high 1 could have lost to United World College 2 that night. and even after delivering the result, all the chief panelist (our most esteemed debating extraordinaire mr david gabriel, father of tournament covenor and husband of the sponsor of the tournament) could manage to say in his adjudication brief was a: (and i quote)
'well it was a good debate, i was sitting down there, i didn't really know what exactly were the issues that were brought up in the debate......and i felt that the winners of this debate, is without a doubt...XXX'
professionally, the least a qualified adjudicator could do was to at least justify the analysis of the verdict, in a coherent way in terms of the areas of clash that occured in the debate or at the very least, the strategic aspects of the debate and not purely on instincts. in the very first place, from what i understand, i dun believe our esteemed mr gabriels was either a former debater or a qualified adjudicator. kinship to primary sponsors and convenors is by no means proof of one's adjudication abilities. the very fact that he was unable to even coherently justify his decision in an adjudication debrief really pissed me off.
but of course, on the otherhand, the other pannelist who awared it to UWC is arguably one of the best debaters singapore has ever produced (he was in fact the only singaporean speaker ever to be awarded the best overall debater at a World Schools' Debating Championship). while similary i remain unconvinced by his decision, at least he bothered to justify his decision with some sort of analysis and jusfifying in on his perspective that the opposition failed to engage the prop case on what he thought was a crucial area of clash, and for that, i respected his decision.
this was perhaps the only cat high team that i've spent the most time interacting with. yes, they may not be the most stylish team around, nor do they always have the capacity to analyse all arguments in an insightful and structure manner. but having walked almost the entire journey with my dictators, and seeing them improve tremendously since the time when they were still debating minnows, and from a perspective as objective as i can be, i would dare claim that catholic high team 1 is at the very least among the top 4 secondary four debate teams in singapore, apart from nygh 1, mgs 1 and acs 1. the fact that they cannot make the break with the maximum votes from a 2 win teams, to myself at least, is an affront to the entire tournament.
maybe i'm just being a sore loser, or maybe i'm just being a malcountented has-been-old-hack-debater that i am, or maybe it's just this bottle of Carlton Crown Lager beside me that's doing the talking. whatever causality that can attributed to this pointless tirade, the fact remains, that i'm been immensely proud of kenneth, bryan, foofy, nick, andre. the saddest thing that i heard from the other seniors, is the fact about how self-centred shaun has become, and how estranged he has distanced himself from the other team-mates after being substituted from team 1. true winners treasure the times and friends they shared, losers just wane and wallow in self-pity. it's an awful shame if shaun decides to forsake this camaraderie with the other fellow dictators. it has been almost like the american idol, seeing clueless, wide-eyed secondary school kids undergoing intense debate training, only to emerge more informed, more assertive, more confident, and with a group of life-long friends to share the rest of your life with at the end of it all. that, is the implicit, but true prize in secondary school debating.
'蕉雨淅淅, 椰风飕飕
振我邦国, 万祀千秋'
--- excerpt from the Catholic High School Song
after playing 3 april fool's pranks over the phone to missy jurisfiction, and a combined prank fooling my uncle and my mom into believing that i got a minor pregnant, i really wished that the results i got over a long distance phone call was just another prank on me. i would have willingly played that fool. but it wasn't to be. the real fool was out there, in yusof ishak secondary adjudicating. damn you david gabriels!
i'm not sure if it is even mathematically possible for 4 teams on 2 outta 3 wins to miss out on an 8 team semi-final break in a division with less than 20 teams. much less, a (objectively speaking) prolific team with 2 unanimous wins and a split loss. but somehow catholic high 1 just had to be one of those 4 teams. in the final reckoning, it was the dubious adjudication decision in the very first preliminary round that caused it all.
i still remain very convinced having watched that entire debate that the panel's decision was ill-informed. strategically, and even in terms of analysis, there couldn't have been a justifiable reason based on the standardised style/content/strategy breakdown on why catholic high 1 could have lost to United World College 2 that night. and even after delivering the result, all the chief panelist (our most esteemed debating extraordinaire mr david gabriel, father of tournament covenor and husband of the sponsor of the tournament) could manage to say in his adjudication brief was a: (and i quote)
'well it was a good debate, i was sitting down there, i didn't really know what exactly were the issues that were brought up in the debate......and i felt that the winners of this debate, is without a doubt...XXX'
professionally, the least a qualified adjudicator could do was to at least justify the analysis of the verdict, in a coherent way in terms of the areas of clash that occured in the debate or at the very least, the strategic aspects of the debate and not purely on instincts. in the very first place, from what i understand, i dun believe our esteemed mr gabriels was either a former debater or a qualified adjudicator. kinship to primary sponsors and convenors is by no means proof of one's adjudication abilities. the very fact that he was unable to even coherently justify his decision in an adjudication debrief really pissed me off.
but of course, on the otherhand, the other pannelist who awared it to UWC is arguably one of the best debaters singapore has ever produced (he was in fact the only singaporean speaker ever to be awarded the best overall debater at a World Schools' Debating Championship). while similary i remain unconvinced by his decision, at least he bothered to justify his decision with some sort of analysis and jusfifying in on his perspective that the opposition failed to engage the prop case on what he thought was a crucial area of clash, and for that, i respected his decision.
this was perhaps the only cat high team that i've spent the most time interacting with. yes, they may not be the most stylish team around, nor do they always have the capacity to analyse all arguments in an insightful and structure manner. but having walked almost the entire journey with my dictators, and seeing them improve tremendously since the time when they were still debating minnows, and from a perspective as objective as i can be, i would dare claim that catholic high team 1 is at the very least among the top 4 secondary four debate teams in singapore, apart from nygh 1, mgs 1 and acs 1. the fact that they cannot make the break with the maximum votes from a 2 win teams, to myself at least, is an affront to the entire tournament.
maybe i'm just being a sore loser, or maybe i'm just being a malcountented has-been-old-hack-debater that i am, or maybe it's just this bottle of Carlton Crown Lager beside me that's doing the talking. whatever causality that can attributed to this pointless tirade, the fact remains, that i'm been immensely proud of kenneth, bryan, foofy, nick, andre. the saddest thing that i heard from the other seniors, is the fact about how self-centred shaun has become, and how estranged he has distanced himself from the other team-mates after being substituted from team 1. true winners treasure the times and friends they shared, losers just wane and wallow in self-pity. it's an awful shame if shaun decides to forsake this camaraderie with the other fellow dictators. it has been almost like the american idol, seeing clueless, wide-eyed secondary school kids undergoing intense debate training, only to emerge more informed, more assertive, more confident, and with a group of life-long friends to share the rest of your life with at the end of it all. that, is the implicit, but true prize in secondary school debating.
'蕉雨淅淅, 椰风飕飕
振我邦国, 万祀千秋'
--- excerpt from the Catholic High School Song
2 Comments:
Pity about the Cat High boys. I judged them on Friday, in a unanimous win over IJ Toa Payoh. They're a good team with lots of potential. I hope that came across to them while I was doing my usual debrief-by-the-skin-of-my-teeth before the next round started. :)
missy jurisfiction: yeah that guy's hot, in fact most gong jiao boys are, i'm just the anomaly haha
michelle: oh u did? glad u gave it to them. it was a pity that even a win wasn't good enuf. apparantly they got pretty low scores of around 68-70 for the last round. yeah with 3 debates crammed up each nite, it's really hard for adjudicators to give a comprehensive debrief at times. i personally feel that with an expansion of the number of teams, it is only appropriate to set up an octo-finals round as well eventually.
Post a Comment
<< Home