Gong Jiao OEI! Gong Jiao OEI! Gong Jiao EH BAH!!!

Tze Kai aka Kristiano Ang delivering Opp Reply

The concept of providence is perhaps the cruellest thing mankind has ever come up with. It tempts us with the belief that there is a destiny awaiting us to fulfil, and crushes us when we are within a whisker of achieving it.

And so it happened. For the third time in 9 years, Cat High reached the grand final of JGs. And also for the third time, we are denied from getting our hands on that elusive shield. It’s a hat-trick that earns no envy from anyone - we are sadly perhaps one of only 3 teams ever to make at least 3 JG finals and the only one with nothing to show for.

It was a rather exciting final and it is probably the first grand final in quite a few years not to feature an incumbent champion on either side. It is precisely this competitive nature of secondary school debating that makes it so exciting to follow as compared perhaps the JCDCs which is essentially a race amongst the top 4 debating colleges.

Congratulations to SCGS for winning their first championship and even though several seniors and I are still firmly unconvinced by the decision, I’m sure nothing I say can take away the value of their win. After all regardless of how objective I can try to sound, I am still a partisan. A championship win is a championship win no matter what people say. So kudos to the champions.

For the record, the motion of the grand final was THBT the war on terrorism has been counter-productive, proposed by SC and opposed by CH. With all due respect to their 3^rd speaker, I was personally, very convinced that we nicked it at 3rd Opp.

I wasn’t tracking the debate but [I must confess fatigue and alcohol aren’t the best of concoctions] from memory, the key contention on the prop side was that

1) The war on terror (WOT) has unnecessarily stigmatised Muslims [racial profiling and Guantanamo Bay]

2) The WOT fed further radicalisation of the Islamic world with its militaristic stance which in turn feeds recruits for the next generation of terrorists

3) People are still dying as a result of WOT (essentially that)

4) The word ‘has been’ connotes that we can only value judge the success and failures of the WOT on the basis of what has happened up till the present. Future benefits accrued are not in the scope.

To which CH responded with

1) How the WOT has shifted its focus from militarism to engagement on the part of the Western world

2) How ever society has its share of radicals/moderates and why there is now an incentive for the moderates to condemn the actions of radicals who give Islam a bad press. And this is together with 1) = mutual engagement.

3) Reduction of the operational capability of terrorists:

i) The destruction of training facilities in terror havens like Afghanistan has reduced the operational capability of terrorist organisations

ii) Concerted global corporation in intelligence sharing and financial monitoring has reduced the capacity and the funding of splinter cells for mayhem.

4) Lives may have been lost, but the institutions in place in the WOT will achieve a more sustainable peace in the long run. ‘Maybe not now, but in the future’.

It appeared to me that the first 2 points of contention were essentially moot and neither team really won it. But the 3^rd and 4^th issues are in my opinion the ones that swung the debate although I didn’t actually heard from the adjudicators what their take on the debate was.

The extent of prop’s analysis to issue #3 could essentially be summed by this fragment from the 2^nd prop’s speech which I quote:

‘I can easily find out how to make a bomb from the internet, buy some detergent and blow myself up in the London MRT (sic). So tell me how likely is this reduction of operational capability going to be successful’

For the record, the 2^nd prop went on not only to the championship, the best speaker of the final, as well as best speaker of series. She’s certainly a stylish speaker and it is a marvellous achievement no less, although personally I was rather surprised that she actually pipped the MGS 3^rd 2^{nd [thanks for spotting the mistake, anonymous]} – a much stronger content debater to the top speaker of the series position. It is no certainly mean feat to train someone in debating from scratch. Sometimes in our youth indiscretions, we dismiss what our coaches tell us as being overly critical. But really, at the end of the day, it is the coaches who have our best intentions in mind.

I feel that the issue #3 would have been won by the Opp side. This leaves us with issue #4. CH pointed out how the SC’s stance is placing an unfair burden on the Opp although they didn’t explain clearly why collateral damage is an unavoidable cost in any war. Ben was very right in pointing that it was perhaps an unnecessary burden of proof on our part when we could have done a simpler analysis of what would happen had the WOT reduced the magnitude of terrorist activity.

I could tell you that the SC 3^rd’s analysis to that never extended beyond a statistic bombardment on the number of deaths in the WOT and a huge string of ‘what about this, what about that’ red-herring rebuttals but you would say that I’m biased. So for those who actually watched the grand final, you decide for yourself.

At the end of the day, apparently according to the juniors who spoke to the adjudicators, the decision boiled down to ‘clarity’, whatever that meant, I really have no idea. Unless the decision was made on a strategic evaluation on the inability of Opp to clash with the prop’s substantive, I really cannot see how the proposition could have won the debate on the strength of the analysis of their arguments.


Nevertheless, at a 4-1 split, I guess we can have no complaints although I am still unconvinced by that decision, much less the panel vote. The most attractive and harshest thing about debating is the subjectivity of it all. Who should win a debate? That is a question that often warrants a debate itself.

**************************************************

inside the tunnel

Nine years, Nine motherfucking years. If you stuck around that long only to see the team you support getting thwarted time and again, you would probably understand why I’m sounding like the grouch that I am. I can’t say that I am not disappointed or perhaps embittered. But having said that, it was a phenomenal experience just being able to support gong jiao in a grand final again. It’s been an unbelievable journey for Team 2007. To be able witness your intellectual growth not only as debaters but as young individuals culminating your glorious achievement by reaching the grand final that in itself, is worth every single bit of my trip home, even if I should fail my exam on Monday.

The strength of Cat High debates lies in the strong support of our alumni. I simply cannot name any other debating school that has a support contingent with ex-debaters spanning across 9 generations like ours. We are more than just a debate society. We are a fraternity. It is not just the commonality of vindicated unfulfilled aspirations that binds us, but also the friendship and brotherhood that we’ve developed over the years. That truly, as I was telling Xander, is the best thing that has ever happened to me in joining debating. I hope Team 2007 can truly appreciate that above all trophies, it is the life-long friendships that you make along the way, that is the true prize at the end of this journey.

the 9 generation army

gong jiao supporters

It was heartening to see a very enthusiastic Principal supporting the boys together with the other teachers. Like they all say, if you stick around long enough, you’re eventually gonna catch something. With continued support from the school and the seniors, someday, against another team and with another panel, we will certainly capture that final missing piece of silverware. We may have lost, but we are never defeated. And we will be back.

Dear dictators, you’ll probably have no idea how inspired I am from supporting you guys. The rediscovery of this sense of zeal and passion, the convictions you have towards your aspirations. As we get older, sometimes the cynicism of adulthood really numbs you down, but it was you guys who taught me how to dream again.

Team 2007, VJC invitationals champions. 1st final clash with SCGS. circa Nov 2006

Team 2007, Julia Gabriel Debating Championships A Div 1st Runners-up. Gong Jiao's dominating streak has been ended by Big Blue. [+150 gold]

Thank you so much, Kang An, Arianto, Tze kai , Junhui, Manfred and most of all Kevin for training such a brilliant team. You have made my trip home an exceptionally memorable one. You guys are champions to me in every sense.

公教！(OEI!)

公教！(OEI!)

公教！(EH BAH!)