This year has been one of the best seasons for our team as I believe we have all progressed not only individually, but also as a team as we have become much more cohesive and collaborative during prep and on the table – this has certainly been reflected through our results as it has been our most successful season as a team.
As an individual debater, I’m really happy with how I have progressed this year as I definitely feel much more confident now than I was at the beginning of the year. However, it wasn’t smooth sailing the whole season as towards the beginning of the year, I was still struggling a bit with confidence in my own skills and I was always concerned about letting the team down (this was not at all due to pressure from my team – it was all self-inflicted pressure!). However, the debate we had with Grammar during the rounds was a huge turning point for me – I think I almost tried to overcompensate for my nerves by being (probably overly) assertive. From the Grammar debate, I was able to recognise small changes that I could make through my manner to seem more confident when speaking – even if I was internally very nervous.
Additionally, I believe I improved significantly in my structure – something that Subeta (our coach) really assisted me with. I was able to develop an almost formulaic method to structuring my principled and practical points which really helped – it was really satisfying when I received a comment from an adjudicator who noted that my speech had a clear structure.
An area that was a little more difficult to improve though was the sophistication of my analysis as I found that this often depended on how well I understood a topic. Some topics such as the Taylor Swift debate and the terrorism debate against Grammar were debates that I felt far more confident with and was thus able to provide more nuanced analysis during my speech. However, as a team we often struggled with economic topics as none of us had particularly strong knowledge. However, Subeta ensured that she targeted these issues and gave us several intense training sessions on economic issues and I think that as a team we improved in our handling of tricky topics. Additionally, debates which we perceived to be difficult or debates which we thought we had the “bad” side (such as the ISDA Grand Final) often actually became our best debates as we would really deconstruct the topic during prep and develop a far more sophisticated response than the more obvious opposing side.
One of the frustrations during debating is certainly handling adjudications that don’t seem fair with grace – one of the prime examples was our ISDA grand final which our team felt we had won. This was probably a particularly difficult loss to swallow as it was a grand final, however as a team we learned to recognise our own efforts and ultimately, regardless of the result, we were extremely proud of ourselves as a team. Additionally, an interesting point in our season was our ISDA semi-final which we didn’t believe we deserved to win and it was a moment in which we could empathise with our opposition as we had been in that position many times.
Furthermore, debating has certainly allowed me to reflect on and engage with global issues as we often debate very topical, current affairs such as our debate regarding whether governments should pay ransoms to terrorist organisations. This was a particularly interesting debate in the midst of the current global issue with terrorism, however one of the struggles with debating such huge issues is that it can often feel quite tokenistic and superficial. Often, I found myself reflecting on how bizarre it was that I was a part of a group of high school students in a private school classroom discussing the intricacies of a huge terrorist organisation or the power structures of the UN. However, I think that this is ultimately what debating is about – questioning authority and engaging with issues to stimulate further discussion and research because any engagement is better than complete ignorance or indifference! I think that part of the experience of debating has been to learn to separate the assertions we have to make during a debate for arguments sake and developing a more holistic understanding outside of debating.
Finally, debating is very much a team effort and is one of my favourite activities to take part in as a group. Working collaboratively with your team is extremely vital and this is evident as this was the third year which our team had debated together and thus our dynamic was probably stronger than ever. In the prep room, respect for each others opinions and listening to other arguments is absolutely vital for creating a detailed, nuanced case as we often bounce off each other and were able to refine each other’s ideas. Additionally, having a strong team spirit made training and those late Friday night debates so much more fun and we were all able to support each other when we were particularly nervous or stressed.
It’s been a great debating season and the communication and time management skills I have developed will be vital for my commitment to future CAS activities.
As an individual debater, I’m really happy with how I have progressed this year as I definitely feel much more confident now than I was at the beginning of the year. However, it wasn’t smooth sailing the whole season as towards the beginning of the year, I was still struggling a bit with confidence in my own skills and I was always concerned about letting the team down (this was not at all due to pressure from my team – it was all self-inflicted pressure!). However, the debate we had with Grammar during the rounds was a huge turning point for me – I think I almost tried to overcompensate for my nerves by being (probably overly) assertive. From the Grammar debate, I was able to recognise small changes that I could make through my manner to seem more confident when speaking – even if I was internally very nervous.
Additionally, I believe I improved significantly in my structure – something that Subeta (our coach) really assisted me with. I was able to develop an almost formulaic method to structuring my principled and practical points which really helped – it was really satisfying when I received a comment from an adjudicator who noted that my speech had a clear structure.
An area that was a little more difficult to improve though was the sophistication of my analysis as I found that this often depended on how well I understood a topic. Some topics such as the Taylor Swift debate and the terrorism debate against Grammar were debates that I felt far more confident with and was thus able to provide more nuanced analysis during my speech. However, as a team we often struggled with economic topics as none of us had particularly strong knowledge. However, Subeta ensured that she targeted these issues and gave us several intense training sessions on economic issues and I think that as a team we improved in our handling of tricky topics. Additionally, debates which we perceived to be difficult or debates which we thought we had the “bad” side (such as the ISDA Grand Final) often actually became our best debates as we would really deconstruct the topic during prep and develop a far more sophisticated response than the more obvious opposing side.
One of the frustrations during debating is certainly handling adjudications that don’t seem fair with grace – one of the prime examples was our ISDA grand final which our team felt we had won. This was probably a particularly difficult loss to swallow as it was a grand final, however as a team we learned to recognise our own efforts and ultimately, regardless of the result, we were extremely proud of ourselves as a team. Additionally, an interesting point in our season was our ISDA semi-final which we didn’t believe we deserved to win and it was a moment in which we could empathise with our opposition as we had been in that position many times.
Furthermore, debating has certainly allowed me to reflect on and engage with global issues as we often debate very topical, current affairs such as our debate regarding whether governments should pay ransoms to terrorist organisations. This was a particularly interesting debate in the midst of the current global issue with terrorism, however one of the struggles with debating such huge issues is that it can often feel quite tokenistic and superficial. Often, I found myself reflecting on how bizarre it was that I was a part of a group of high school students in a private school classroom discussing the intricacies of a huge terrorist organisation or the power structures of the UN. However, I think that this is ultimately what debating is about – questioning authority and engaging with issues to stimulate further discussion and research because any engagement is better than complete ignorance or indifference! I think that part of the experience of debating has been to learn to separate the assertions we have to make during a debate for arguments sake and developing a more holistic understanding outside of debating.
Finally, debating is very much a team effort and is one of my favourite activities to take part in as a group. Working collaboratively with your team is extremely vital and this is evident as this was the third year which our team had debated together and thus our dynamic was probably stronger than ever. In the prep room, respect for each others opinions and listening to other arguments is absolutely vital for creating a detailed, nuanced case as we often bounce off each other and were able to refine each other’s ideas. Additionally, having a strong team spirit made training and those late Friday night debates so much more fun and we were all able to support each other when we were particularly nervous or stressed.
It’s been a great debating season and the communication and time management skills I have developed will be vital for my commitment to future CAS activities.