randomization
just done with ust iv's. only two notable things:
1) went up against the composite team of philippine universities team a (aptly named, put a). this was a team composed of veterans (or what we like to call "dinosaurs") carl ng, franco larcina and bobby benedicto. one needn't bother with listing their achievements, there's only so much one can write down. anyway, these people have reached the level of success that elevates them to legendary status.
[they might eventually read this and give me higher speaker scores next tournament]
anyway, it was, in a word, fun. going up against these legends was a great learning experience. these are people whose names are treated with reverence (both to their achievements and age), and going up against them already made the exorbitant php600 reg fee worth it. it humanized them, in a sense, because they became just any other opponent. they kicked our butts, though.
anyway, i always get a kick out of going up against people i look up to. :)
2) went up against admu b, and lost. i really am disgusted at the way debate strategizing has bastardized the essence of the competition. it does work, but after the round, do you really find any fulfillment in winning that way? it becomes a hollow victory because you've won not because you were particularly brilliant, but because you were shameless in being sneaky. is this really what debate is all about?
the sad part is that this kind of debating is even rewarded by adjudicators. people think THIS is the "new" debating style, the progressive kind that gets rewarded with breaks and high speaker scores. i'm not so sure of anything anymore, having been trained in the "old school" way of principled debating by my mentors in the circle. aloy even takes it to the extreme, saying that all stances have to be hardline. i find myself agreeing with him, it is only the collision of the extremes that the best arguments and analysis come out.
wuh. i feel left behind, like i'm part of an old and forgotten era. it was actually refreshing to go up against put a because even if they did thoroughly demolish our team, they did so in a principled and very "old school" manner. i remember my finals stint, and how i tried to be "new school" and found myself utterly disgusted at how i sounded.
owel. audc will most likely be my last tournament anyway, and would also be the swan song of yves, kae, aids, aloy. hopefully when we leave, debating won't degenerate into a contest of sneakiness and underhandedness.
one last curtain call for principled debating. one last hurrah for the old school that everyone seems hell-bent on abandoning. one final goodbye to the passion that has consumed our lives for what we will always look back on as the best time of our lives.
ps
i am not drunk, nor high. if it sounded cheesy, it's because i'm OLD, dammit. i'm allowed to be cheesy. TL was cheesy in her last public speaking stint. i never got that chance. hehe.
1) went up against the composite team of philippine universities team a (aptly named, put a). this was a team composed of veterans (or what we like to call "dinosaurs") carl ng, franco larcina and bobby benedicto. one needn't bother with listing their achievements, there's only so much one can write down. anyway, these people have reached the level of success that elevates them to legendary status.
[they might eventually read this and give me higher speaker scores next tournament]
anyway, it was, in a word, fun. going up against these legends was a great learning experience. these are people whose names are treated with reverence (both to their achievements and age), and going up against them already made the exorbitant php600 reg fee worth it. it humanized them, in a sense, because they became just any other opponent. they kicked our butts, though.
anyway, i always get a kick out of going up against people i look up to. :)
2) went up against admu b, and lost. i really am disgusted at the way debate strategizing has bastardized the essence of the competition. it does work, but after the round, do you really find any fulfillment in winning that way? it becomes a hollow victory because you've won not because you were particularly brilliant, but because you were shameless in being sneaky. is this really what debate is all about?
the sad part is that this kind of debating is even rewarded by adjudicators. people think THIS is the "new" debating style, the progressive kind that gets rewarded with breaks and high speaker scores. i'm not so sure of anything anymore, having been trained in the "old school" way of principled debating by my mentors in the circle. aloy even takes it to the extreme, saying that all stances have to be hardline. i find myself agreeing with him, it is only the collision of the extremes that the best arguments and analysis come out.
wuh. i feel left behind, like i'm part of an old and forgotten era. it was actually refreshing to go up against put a because even if they did thoroughly demolish our team, they did so in a principled and very "old school" manner. i remember my finals stint, and how i tried to be "new school" and found myself utterly disgusted at how i sounded.
owel. audc will most likely be my last tournament anyway, and would also be the swan song of yves, kae, aids, aloy. hopefully when we leave, debating won't degenerate into a contest of sneakiness and underhandedness.
one last curtain call for principled debating. one last hurrah for the old school that everyone seems hell-bent on abandoning. one final goodbye to the passion that has consumed our lives for what we will always look back on as the best time of our lives.
ps
i am not drunk, nor high. if it sounded cheesy, it's because i'm OLD, dammit. i'm allowed to be cheesy. TL was cheesy in her last public speaking stint. i never got that chance. hehe.