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.