|
金曜日, 6月 02, 2006 I would have to say, I don't really like the way Atenean debaters debate, though the people (for the most part) are all right. I have to make a few concessions first before I start. Yes. ADS do work their assess off to get where they are, which I could say might be less than half of what I do. Yes. ADS are persuasive and good speakers. Yes. ADS do have talent and skill and deserve to win some of the debates they have won. Yes. Ateneans are known to be tough teams to beat especially since most of their rebuttals are mostly direct and really attacking. Now that I'm done with my concessions, let me get on with my opinion of the post. The thing is, where do you sraw the line of being sneaky and being strategic? Well, so far as I've seen, most if not all debates that have Ateneo in it are like these: Asians Gov side/BP OG: They have very good set-ups and most of the time have ver self-serving standards. Debateable, yes, and on rare occasions, uncontestable and really nuanced, but what is most often the case anyway? The set-ups are based on very limited and very unencompassing standards within the confines of reality. I must say that they would even go as far as accusing a definitional challenged when an extension to the standards was the only thing given. In fact, debating against them a couple of times gave me an overview on how their kind of debating is actually very different from other institutions...that includes even their closest ally, UST. Asians Op side/BP OO: Scream murder for this one. Apparently, they often attempt to undermine the (1) set-up, (2) definition, and/or (3) standards of the opposing team. Sure, questioning it's validity could be a plus point on them, but saying that setting them up that way, even if they are valid, is unfair and refusing to argue on such grounds (which other teams do, by the way) could merit them the stigma of being unfair, sneaky and downright unprincipled. Because even if the standards do shift, as long as the principle is within the grounds of the debate, it stands and it isn't unfair. BP CO/CG: If the former was scream murder, proably this would escalade into genocide. Why? Basically, as my concessions state, they are very persuasuve and I even go as far as admiring their use of words and the language. This, however, translates to the abuse of such...power. What seems to be like a brilliant elevation, if disected, is often the same argument with a slightly different twist. This, I believe is what I find regrettable. They win because of the twist. Yes, I've met them and yes, in one round my argument was stolen. The principled effect was replaced by the tangible effect. Fine it was brilliant, but it was just my argument re-worded. Oh, and not only me. I think even UP people would attest to this. I even have the videos that prove it. Dissect it, and it's practically the same. Overall, I think Ateneo is a really good team all in all, especially that they do these stunts and get away with them in the end (heck! even Len admitted to being Sneaky...Yup! Elenor Uy). I may never reach that level, but now, I know what I really value and aim for in debate. It's being there, learning what others think and at the same time being more prepared for the world in more ways than just being able to talk better. ^^x Kishi Seta Written in blood 金曜日, 6月 02, 2006
Comments:
コメントを投稿
|
|
Gothical Me
Bloodbearer Links My advice:
Archives
2月 2004 Misc
|