and the next one will be much better my first debate was awful, then my next one was really really nice (i still didn't get any good ranking 😭@@whoevenareyou9895
Ouch. A 7-0 unanimous decision. I won't spoil who won, but I did think, as a licensed debate adjudicator, that both teams did decently well, although one side obviously raised more salient points which the other side was unable to fully counter.
I wasn't taking notes but watching casually, I felt like Pakistan got robbed. I didn't buy SG's framing at all and I thought their material on the right to privacy was adequately responded to when they talked about how the alternative is havingone-sided information on the character of the people who rule over you for four years. If you could do me the favour of helping me understand how the judges might have weighed the arguments such that SG won, I would be grateful. I've been watching and reading everything I can find on adjudication but a lot of the stuff judges say to my students just baffles me. (Usually certain arguments get discarded or weighed much lower than I expected despite me thinking we impacted and weighed better etc.)
@@spacebiggles ig the right to privacy is something that proposition is not able to justify well, but they are still able to tell that there are harms insofar as media has incentives to attain that information in the first place. Although this debate can be weighed in this way: on opp, there is less apathy but more cults of personality due to media attention, so even if more people are interested in politics they vote on basis of these cults but on prop even if there is more apathy (which is still mitigated to some extent insofar as there exists other information that politicians willingly release) people still make a more informed decision.
thats a filler word when u speak fast and ur brain is processing rather slow....but i think that we should rather not nit pick stuff...because when ur talking logical stuff in front of people and cameras you can have a little ladies and gentlemen. :)
All Pakistan had to do in order to win was to challenge the definition properly in the beginning Doing it in the third speech was far too late, as the adjudicator themselves said.
I think, ladies and gentlemen, that it was a good debate, ladies and gentlemen. The team Pakistan, ladies and gentlemen, were good, ladies and gentlemen.
According to the international debating, ladies and gentleman is a term to use to gain the audience's attention back and start over with a new topic to speak upon
I thought, I couldn't like the viewpoints of other country team (as every person is always more or little biased to their country) but i really realized that Singapore team was amazing, All contestants Pakistani and Singapore team were really good in this competition, As judges said, I also felt Pakistan lost in strategy , Bcz Singapore team all points were replied and nullified totally but too late, Taha(3rd speaker) of Pakistan & Bryan Yan (2nd speaker) both gave stupefying points & replies , so the competition was interesting and fun to watch
Ladies and gentle men, i am here because ladies and gentlemen, i came from my family ladies and gentlemen, and i will talk about ladies and gentlemen, the democracy and ladies and gentlemen, and even about the politicians ladies and gentlemen, and the politicians relations with his family ladies and gentlemen, their lives ladies and gentlemen, and their sons ladies and gentlemen, with their wives ladies and gentlemen, and with their politicians parents ladies and gentlemen, and even politicians friends ladies and gentlemen, politics and policy ladies and gentlemen.
I think you didn't understand accents Bcz both teams have to talk really fast to speak their all points in given time, I also didn't understand clearly their at first time hearing but perfectly on 2nd time hearing , Bryan Yan Singapore 2nd speaker and Taha 3rd speaker of Pakistan their accent I really liked Bcz they talked smoothly & slowly
