SAASC Debate

Dear Dead Bloggers

Saturday was debate day, and on a sultry afternoon, we turned on the heat with some extremely intense debating. In fact, such passion(mostly unneeded) was a first that I've seen in a long time. Those who missed it out of compulsion have sufficient reason to feel morose. The ones who missed it out of choice, have sufficient reason to feel stupid.
We tried a different debate format this time, with four member teams actually trying to work as well co-ordinated units. Each time had a person to introduce, a person to conclude and two people to form the content of the debate. The total Speak Time was 9 minutes followed by 6 minutes of rebuttle. I'll give my reviews topic wise

Debate 1

Indian Education System : 60 years of stifling real thought ?

For : Vinay, Gagan, Avantika and Vaibhav
Against : Amrinder, Varun, Gagandeep Bali, Vinayak

Winners : Against the motion

Surprisingly, other than Vinayak's vociferous Conclusion and Gagan's rhetoric, the debate generated the least amount of passion play and chair hurling amongst the three. The plus point was the good structure of both debates, especially Against the motion. Both conclusions were terse. Vinayak's group actually ended up with the highest overall score amongst all debates. For the motion were just a few points away.
Kudos to Bali for good content. And well done Amrinder, Varun and Vinay who i was seeing speaking live for the first time. Avantika was jittery with the speech but made up for it well in the Rebuttle.

Debate 2

Economic Recession is good for the Environment

For : Abhishek, Kapileshwar, Dipinka, Kshitij
Against : Himanshu, Ritesh, Ripudaman, Mukul

Winner : No one really
for the record
for the motion

I have had bizzare debate experiences before but this one was a little over my limited comprehension. A few enthused characters made sure that debate number 2 had a sadistic element of surprise. Kapileshwar, quite obviously, had had a little too much to drink, as was apparent through his before, during and after debate antics. Ritesh took cross questioning to a completely different level of illegal, and the rest were desperately trying to loop around an exremely indirect topic. But the most interesting occurance was Mukul Kaura's raw rhetoric that lasted 3 full minutes. Unfortunately, it did not resemble any speech that can be termed conventional, and most content was an inverse reaction to what had been said by the opposition. But for the fact that he was able to sustain humour for that duration of time is proof of an obvious talent that we have amongst us.

Debate 3

Slumdog Debate : Poverty Porn or Honest Art

Povery Porn : Prateek, Tanya, Shreniraj, Anuj
Honest Art : Rohit, Neha, Divyajot

Winners : Honest Art

The debate was an example of the importance of Content. The winning team was the most well prepared in terms of research done on the topic. All three speakers had content that had relevance and creativity, which in a way made up for the rather lacklustre presentation. The team that did not win had some strong speeches, but they more or less revolved around the same points. A bigger turn off perhaps was the use of copied rhetoric. While they scored high on diction on presentation, the let down(very slightly), was the content and the lack of team flow. A small margin win again, and the supposed underdogs took the trophy home