BLITZah.

Blitz was an English Debating Competition held by SMAK 1 Penabur.
it's quite crowd and I guess well done.
I teamed with Deni and Vincent. they're great mates, really.
actually this' not my first time joining such competition but the third.
my first one was CEC (Canisius English Competition - I got nothing but shame ) and the second one was S3W Beverlys (SMAK 3 Week - I got the Runner up place + 8th rank speaker).

I played around there, lots of fun and battle of wits .
there must be logical thinking and elaboration. debate is all about think and speak.
Vincent and I, sometimes, made Deni got a little angry with us, because we played too much. err
there were 5 rounds of pre-eliminary, a quarterfinal, a semifinal and a grandfinal round.
we won 3 rounds out of 5 pre-eliminaries. (the 2 loss were stupid ah)



1st pre-eliminary (vs SMAK 1 C)
motion: THBT abortion for underage girls shouldn't require parental consent
Single adju winning decision with margin +2

2nd pre-eliminary (vs Swing Team)
motion: THW expell bullies from school
Single adju losing decision with margin -1

3rd pre-eliminary (vs SMAK 1 B)
motion: THW privatized failing state-owned enterprises
Single adju winning decision with margin +8,5

4th pre-eliminary (vs SMAN 1 Tangerang A)
motion: THBT citizen journalism brings more harm than good
Split losing decision 2 to 1 (3 adjus) with margin -1

5th pre-eliminary (vs SMAK 1 C)
motion: THBT feminists should not condemn pornography
unknown split or unanimous decision of 3 adjus with margin +4

quarter final (vs Ipeka Pluit)
motion: THW give tax break for companies that use environmentally friendly equipment
Split winning decision 2 to 1 (3 adjus) with margin +1

semi final (vs Santa Ursula A)
motion: THW ban the abortion fetuses on the grounds of their permanent disability
Unanimous winning decision 3 to 0 (3 adjus) with margin unknown

grand final (vs SMAN 1 Tangerang A)
motion: THW allow extraordinary rendition in the war against terrorism
Split losing decision 3 to 4 (7 adjus) with margin -0,5



that's how we got the runner up position. anyway my team and I have to be grateful to God and say lots of thanks to all of our friends who supported us from the very first beginning.
even though we're stressed because we lost caused by ourselves fault
but yeah anyway we're having an amazing adventure there with our l.o. (liaison officer) Kelly. She's been so good to us and guided us for these 3 days!

see u in my next journal! enjoy my gallery!

Galaxy St@rQ 2 English Debating Competition

SMA Tarakanita 2 Jakarta is going to held it’s 7th English Debating
Competition, called Galaxy St@rQ2 English Debating Competition (GSEDC
2009).

• GSEDC will be held at 26th-29th October 2009.
• We’ll use the Asian Parliamentary format, and there will be no subs.
• All High School Students in Jabodetabek and around Jakarta are very welcomed to join us in this competition with 3 persons each team.
• The registration is already opened from now til 17 October 2009, which is The Technical Meeting Day.
• The registration fee is IDR 200.000/team (right now what're u waiting for? :))
• The prize for the winners are:

1. Champion : IDR 1.000.000 + Trophy
2. 1st runner up : IDR 600.000 + Trophy
3. 2nd runner up : IDR 500.000 + Trophy
4. Best speaker : Trophy

For further information, please feel free to contact the committees:
1. Deni
08979047263
denhurd007_cloud@yahoo.com
2. Patty
0818782408
luvv.nicky@gmail.com

We’ve gone through years and years seeing you guys sharing lots of thoughts, lots of experience, and gained victory through our past Scientific Fairs. Now we would like you to join our 10th Scientific Fair in Galaxy St@rQ2. Please join us in English Debate and the others! There'll also be Indonesian Debate and Speech! Release the TRUE you!

Not only debate and speech, but there’ll also be sports and arts competition! We invite YOU to join it!

TARQ 2 CUP X “Galaxy st@rQ 2″ 26 Okt – 2 Nov 2009.
VOLLEY, BASKET, FUTSAL, BAND and MODERN DANCE

Registration’s starting from 1 Sept 2009.
CP: 08170068675 (Ken).

You can get Zenbu 10 % disc vouchers for free! call 08176574702 (Jervis) :)

my team and I stories about s3w debate

I was arriving home from SMAK 3 yesterday. as the end of the competition and bringing a runner up place. it was an unforgetable final. why? because we debated so bad :( , but we had a lot of fun in rehearsals.

well I'm going to tell u from the first day of competition.

1st day. Pre-eliminary round 1 and 2.
Prelim 1. GOV TarQ 2 VS OPP SMAK 3 B
with motion THBT Homework Should be Compulsory
it was an impromptu motion, and we shocked why did they give this in the very first match??
the verbal adjudication was talking about the plus and minus point in this debate.
- explanation and solution with different way plus time management is our plus point.
- I just expanded the case too far away until the future of the country and not really concentrate only on the point of student itself. the adju said it was okay but it's just multiply my burden to be proven (minus point)
Stefanny forced me to deliver the reply speech. her reason was because she's too nervous in the first match, well I, in emergency become a reply speaker substitution! whereas I really don't know what I should deliver but just let it be! xD
margin: +4

Prelim 2. GOV TarQ 2 VS OPP SMAN2 TangSel B
with motion THBT Cultural Treasures Should be Returned to Their Areas of Origin (what a long motion)
it's been prepared. and we more or less understand about the case well, so that we can bring the background and so on okay. verbal:
- we suddenly influenced by the example of the opposition team about Borobudur temple and just responded lots about it. the adju said that we shouldn't point on that a lot because the things we mean is smaller such krees and pots.
- our team line is not really eligible.
margin: +1

2nd day. Pre-eliminary round 3 and 4.
Prelim 3. GOV SMAN14 A VS OPP TarQ 2
with motion THW Obligate Safe Sex Education since Junior High School
it's prepared and the government side of the house brought a false case (the mechanism is so similar with ordinary sex education which is it's ours the difference is just that they want to implement it frquently every week). verbal:
- we didn't attack well their weakest point and explain the minus point explicitly.
- we questioned but don't explain about it well.
margin: +2

Prelim 4. GOV TarQ 2 VS OPP Gandhi National B
with motion THW Allow The Use of Torture to Fight Terrorism
lucky us because we've thought and built the case about it in our rehearsal so far.. in the other hand I, myself thought in a neutral way about this so it's not really hard to place myself in the role who's supporting torture. I thank God a lot. verbal:
- the adju said that the case is very well delivered and the debate's been such an above the average debate.
- we've touched the urgency with good point but unfortunately the explanation on justification from the 1st speaker is lacking and came out kinda too late.
- the shame-shame thing is just usual in debate (I told them in my reply that: "it's not wise to use shame-shame, but I respect ur effort to destruct our concentration). because the opp team usually used shame2. :(
margin: +1

3rd day. Quarterfinals and Semifinals rounds.
Quarterfinal GOV Gandhi National B VS OPP TarQ 2 (again)
with motion THW Put a Quota for Woman in Politics
impromptu classic motion again D:. verbal:
- out greatest point is not elaborated well
- we haven't clarify their fault in bringing parliamentary level, this debate should talk about legislative not executive governs.
- our counter proposal is not clashing so well, and we brought too many examples.
unanimous decision 3 to 0

Semifinal GOV TarQ 2 VS OPP Labschool Rawamangun A
with motion TH should reject skilled migrants from developing countries
prepared motion and seems like it's kinda matter based. my team and I did some miscommunication and we didn't coordinate with each other well. because of that what we wanted to be the parameter of developed countries can;t be delivered and also the mechanism, what's been delivered is just about the European Union who gave blue card. it's such terrible thing. verbal:
- our argument is not really different at all (1st and 2nd speaker) so there's only 1 point of clash because our case is too simple and worse we didn't explain it very well.
split decision 3 to 2

4th and also the last day. final round.
GOV SMAN81 A VS OPP TarQ 2
with motion THBT The Right of Each State to Unilaterally Undertake Armed Humanitarian Intervention Should be Recognized
don't know what to say.. quite speechless. and I just guess that it was worst final I've ever seen (maybe also the adjus've seen). we disappointed lot of people especially the watchers I guess. I never knew it could be like this bad. verbal:
- we're lacking the level of justification
- we didn't make it cleat why sovereignity is that absolute
- how big is the significancy is not clear until the end of the debate
- we didn't make clear the GOV's blurry case (I bet it's because we're all too panic and again we didn't communicate well with each other)
we lost with split decision 4 to 3.

---

I've learnt a lot of new things. and I regret our shameful final debate. we should make something better, I know. but it's too late to be regretted :(
now all we can do is promise that we will practice harder and just point on the progress rather than the winning itself. WE BELIEVE IN THE POWER OF CHANGE !
anyway, sorry for my english. know it sucks :S

kebetulan waktu itu lg hari batik! jd gw pake batik deh!! si stenov tuh yg salah kostum krn dia lupa pake batik hahaha.