We would like to thank the following sponsor:

Executive Chairmen Mr Chua Beng Kuang

The way for this inaugural competition was paved by the Dunman High

Debating Team. It seeks to serve as a platform to stimulate secondary

students to debate on affairs concerning History, Current Affairs and

Literature. The theme for this year centres on ‘Superheroes’, an essen-

tial fragment of popular culture that youths of today will find familiar.

The traditional paradigm defines them as models of society to circum-

vent the limitations of the average legal force. It conjures up images of

costumed-men climbing walls and performing other death-defying acro-

batics, all in the name of fighting crime. Beyond this facade of crime-

fighting lie many ideals such as ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘responsibility’ and

‘accountability’. Drawing from these, motions have been crafted to re-

volve around these key themes, and we trust that all participants had a

fun and intellectually stimulating time in this tournament.

An Introduction

Www.beyondmart.com

Editorial

Editorial

Message from Dr. Foo Suan Fong

Principal of Dunman High School

It is with great pleasure that I welcome all

of you to the Inaugural Dunman High

School Debate Invitational.

As a former school debater, I am aware of

the time, effort and commitment demand-

ed of you as you work to excel as a speak-

er. I encourage you to make the most of

your time during this competition, teaching

each other and learning from each other.

Debating is a useful skill that will give you

an edge when you enter into the various

arenas of business, law, education and pol-

itics, to name but a few. It will give you con-

fidence in voicing your opinions, an aware-

ness of the geo-political situation, con-

sciousness of how you present yourselves

and an analytical skill that will help you

become exceptional and the problem-

solvers that the world sorely needs.

I thank my young Organising Committee

who have worked very hard to make this

event a reality and a resounding success,

the teachers and coaches for their time

and dedication and you, for devoting your

energies to building yourselves and work-

ing for the future.

I wish all of you a fruitful and enriching de-

bating experience with us.

Message from Mr. Adrian Tan Wei Tao

Chief Adjudicator of Tournament

It is a great privilege to serve as the Chief Adjudica-

tor for this tournament. When I entered the debate

scene about a decade ago, debating was a sport

restricted largely to the realm of the elites of the

elite. To see such a large number of schools turn

up for the Inaugural Dunman High School Debate

Invitational is immensely heartening.

Every educational institution seeks to imbue

knowledge and the ability to question that

knowledge in every one of her students. Every stu-

dent is also expected to be convicted and brave

enough to stand up for those convictions. A good

debater is essentially the epitome of the desired

balance of these qualities. He could examine the

knowledge presented, synthesizes that with other

bodies of knowledge, and evaluates critically the

value of the knowledge presented. He could stand

in front of a room full of strangers and argue his

convictions cogently and charismatically as though

he did that on a daily basis.

Based on what I have observed during the course

of my duties as the Chief Adjudicator, I have no

doubt that every single debater in this competition

has the potential to be just that. It has been an en-

riching experience for me to watch young and able

minds like you tackle the moral issues which have

befuddled so many others. I hope the experience

was as enriching for you as it was for me and that

this tournament would be one of the many high-

lights as you eventually look back on your journey

as a debater.

We hope you could join us again next year.

Message from Sarah Loh Yan Pin

Tournament Director

Hi Everyone! It is of great honor to be the tourna-

ment director of this Inaugural Dunman High De-

bate Invitational 2012. The team has come quite

far, from the thought of holding this tournament, to

developing it, holding it, marking the end of it and

finally thinking of how to improve it when it’d be

held again next year! It is the first time most of us

have undertaken the task of organizing such a large

-scale event, and given our inexperience, we’ve had

so much to learn along the way. I am immensely

grateful to the very capable, motivated and support-

ive organizing committee consisting of the Senior

High and Junior High Debate Executive Committee,

our beloved coach and chief adjudicator Mr. Adrian

Tan as well as our deputy chief-adjudicator Mr. Nich-

olas Huang. I am also very thankful to the other ad-

judicators who volunteered, the press team, photog-

raphers, as well as the ushers, every single one of

them played a part and without them, this event

would not have been possible. Last but not least,

the team and I express our gratitude to all our par-

ticipants, their teachers-in-charge and coaches for

believing in us and committing your time and effort

for the tournament. I hope that all of you have en-

joyed the tournament; we hope to see you again

next year!

Message from Natasha Sim

Deputy Tournament Director

I must say that it’s indeed an honour and privi-

lege to be part of the organizing committee for

the first ever Dunman High Debate Invitational.

Thank you for your support of this tournament,

and with your continued support we believe that

this tournament will grow from strength to

strength in the coming years.

Message from Nicholas Huang

Deputy Chief Adjudicator

Organising this event involves coordination between differ-

ent parties, including adjudicators, debaters from other

schools and the debate EXCO of Dunman High. I also man-

aged the tabulation team which power matched the teams

based on ability and while maintaining parity. It means a

lot to me personally to contribute to the grassroots level of

debating within Dunman High school and also towards

creating, establishing and maintaining the debate ecology

in Singapore. I hope that this event will become an annual

affair where the best and brightest to hone their skills on a

platform which promotes intellectual discourse. I will

count on the school’s symbolic, fiscal and logistical sup-

port to sustain this tournament for the years to come

(from left) Natasha Sim, Sarah Loh

Message from Sarah Loh Yan Pin

Tournament Director

Events of the Day

Events of the Day

The Inaugural Dunman High

Debate Invitational was orga-

nized as a platform for teams

around Singapore to come

together to pit their oratorical

skills against each other in a

competitive tournament re-

volving around history, litera-

ture, and current affairs. The

preliminary rounds were held

on the 21st January, with the

participation of 18 schools

and 100 participants around

Singapore debating motions

pertaining to the theme of

“Superheroes”. With one pre-

pared motion, and another

two short-prep rounds, the

DHS Debate Invitational

proved to be a challenging,

yet enriching experience for

both the participants and the

organizers who coordinated

the entire event.

A short speech and briefing

by the Deputy Chief Adjudica-

tor, Nicholas Huang,

launched the entire competi-

tion. Teams were then ush-

ered to classrooms to begin

their first preliminary round

regarding a motion on estab-

lishing a Jury system in Sin-

gapore. Teams brought up

many insightful points, such

as the need for more dis-

course among members of

the jury in order for a fair ver-

dict to be reached, as well as

the fact the a Judge with a

degree in law will be more

qualified to conduct a just

trial. The competition was

intense, with most teams

winning by extremely small

margins.

The next round was a short

prep motion on imposing

term limits on all heads of

states. The proposition tend-

ed to favour arguing that

term limits are necessary in

order to check a leader’s

power and prevent the estab-

lishment of dictatorial re-

gimes. The opposition then

retorted with how term limits

hinders the functioning of

true democracies by limiting

voter options, as citizens can

no longer vote for a particular

leader once their term has

expired.

The last motion was on the

disclosure of identity on so-

cial networking websites.

Teams arguing for the motion

pointed out how disclosure of

identity is crucial for social

interactions to occur, while

those arguing against the

motion mentioned how dis-

closure violates one’s privacy

and allows social networking

sites to misuse this infor-

mation for commercial profit.

All in all, teams put up a good

fight and debated with much

conviction. However, only

four teams emerged victori-

ous, namely Methodist Girls

School team A and B, Catho-

lic High school, as well as

Raffles Institution team A,

which will then proceed on to

debate in the final round.

The DHS Debate Invitational

proved to be an immensely

enriching one for all. Teams

reflected on how this tourna-

ment, by not completely sep-

arating schools according to

their respective divisions, al-

lowed sparring with a wide

variety of teams. As such, it

enables one to improve in

terms of content, style as

well as strategy. Also, teams

were generally satisfied with

the organisation of the com-

petition, commenting on how

the event was carried out

smoothly on the whole. Addi-

tionally, the adjudicators

thought that the competition

was a beneficial one that will

raise awareness of Debates

of Dunman High School. Last-

ly, not forgetting the organiz-

ers of the event, most of

which found the event a suc-

cessful one on the whole,

with the months of prepara-

tion being very much worth-

while. Hopefully, the 2nd day

of the Debate Invitations will

be an equally fruitful one for

all.

By Kristin Ng Wei Ting

Day 1—a review of events

Day 1—team progress

(1st) SANJANA AYAGAN (MGS B)

220 POINTS

(2nd)

CLARENCE CHEONG

(HCI) 219.5 POINTS

(3rd)

ANDREA CHONG

(MGS A) 219 POINTS

(4th)

LIM TZE ETSUKO

(NYGH) 218 POINTS

(5th)

VIJAY RAMANUJAN

(RI B) 217.5 POINTS

Team Names

Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Catholic High School W W W

Methodist Girls' School A W W W

Methodist Girls' School B W W W

Raffles Institution A W L W

Hwa Chong Institution L W W

Cedat Girls' Secondary School L W W

CHIJ St. Nicholas Girls' School W L W

Nan Hua High School W L W

NUS High School W L W

Nanyang Girls' High School W W L United World College of South

East Asia W W L

Bedok South Secondary School L W L

Raffles Institution B L W L

Temasek Academy L L W

Victoria Junior College W L L

Victoria School L W L

Admiralty Secondary School L L L

CHIJ St. Joseph's Convent L L L

Global Indian International School L L L

Zhenghua Secondary School L L L

CHAMPIONS

METHODIST GIRLS’ SCHOOL (TEAM A)

1st RUNNER UP

RAFFLES INSTITUTION (TEAM A)

SEMI-FINALIST

METHODIST GIRLS’ SCHOOL (TEAM B)

CATHOLIC HIGH

Held one week after the pre-

liminary rounds, the semifi-

nals of the Dunman High De-

bate Invitational was fraught

with tension, as teams fought

to make it into the final

round. Consisting of the 4

best teams from the previous

round, namely RI Team A,

MGS Team A and B, as well

as Catholic High, the compe-

tition was intense.

The semifinals motion had a

short-prep motion regarding

allowing private firms to take

over weapons manufacturing.

All the teams debated with

much conviction, putting

forth various points regarding

how the government, pos-

sessing the mandate of the

people, would be in a better

position to look after weap-

ons manufacturing. This is

due to the fact that military

defense is a key component

of the government. Other

teams argued on how private

firms can effectively protect

national security as they

comprise of citizens who care

about national defense in the

country that they live in. Also,

teams debated on how profit

maximsing firms would want

to produce the best weapons

so as to gain the trust of the

government, to which they

eventually sell the weapons

to. All in all, the semifinals

showcased various schools

pitting varying speaker styles

and rapid fire arguments

against each other in an ex-

tremely engaging debate that

ended with two main teams

emerging victorious, namely

MGS Team A and RI Team A.

The grand finals of the De-

bate Invitational took place

shortly after the semifinals.

The motion was on providing

citizens the right to impeach

their heads of state via refer-

endum. Both teams put up a

good fight, though they ran

significantly different lines of

argument. The proposition

argued that citizens need to

be given the right to take

down their heads of state at

any point of time, when the

head of state does not act

within the states’ best inter-

est. They said that citizens

need to be given direct ac-

cess, and the means to ex-

press a vote of no confidence

should there be a need to.

The opposition on the other

hand, expressed concerns

over the nature of the media,

and how that could promote

partisan politics and prompt

citizens to call for referen-

dums even when the situa-

tion does not warrant such a

measure. Consequently, the

adjudicators decided to rule

in favour of the opposition,

for they better understood

the motion.

All in all, the Invitational has

been a rather hectic, but

fruitful experience for all. The

winning teams expressed sat-

isfaction at their favourable

result, while the other teams

were glad to take the compe-

tition as a form of experience

in their debating career, spur-

ring them on towards attain-

ing their next goal. As observ-

ers of the competition, we

realised how all the teams at

the semifinal and final

rounds of the competition

exhibited a genuine passion

for debating, and demon-

strated how excellent team

dynamics could enable suc-

cess. On the whole, the Dun-

man High Debate Invitational

ended on a good note, and

there was a common consen-

sus that for an inaugural

competition, the organizing

committee put forth an ex-

tremely well planned pro-

gramme.

By Kristin Ng Wei Ting

Day 2—a review of events

CHAMPIONS

METHODIST GIRLS’ SCHOOL (TEAM A)

1st RUNNER UP

RAFFLES INSTITUTION (TEAM A)

SEMI-FINALIST

METHODIST GIRLS’ SCHOOL (TEAM B)

CATHOLIC HIGH

Preliminary Round 1

Preliminary Round 1

In Marvel Comics, The Jury can be summed up best as an organization of

armoured vigilantes dedicated to hunting down villains and putting them on

"trial". Mr. Orwell Taylor was the father of this group with the impetus being

the killing of his son Hugh by Venom.

THW grant every Singaporean the

right to be tried by a jury of his peers

By Sung Yu Xin

During Opposition 2nd Speaker Speech,

Opp 2 Bharat S Punjabi said: Jury trials are extremely lengthy,

lasting up to months as compared to the few weeks of a normal

trial with a single judge. When that happens, boths sides are

made to pay more for court proceedings, and as such, the inno-

cent pay a higher price for justice.

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech,

Prop 3 Dafina said: Precisely because the trials are longer, more

time is spent thinking through the decision, allowing for more

thorough decision making.

Opp 3 (Best Speaker) Fabian Siau POI-ed: The judge submits a

report of fifty to hundred pages along with his verdict, whereas

the jury only passes a simple decision of guilty or not guilty

without any reasoning.

During Opposition 3rd Speaker Speech,

Opp 3 (Best Speaker) Fabian Siau said: Facts are facts, there is

no “Indian way” or “Malay way” of looking at things.

Winning Team:

Opposition

Victoria Junior College (IP)

Best Speaker:

Fabian Siau

(Opposition 3rd Speaker)

Adjudicator:

Yi Jin

Speaker Prop: Admiralty Secondary Opp: Victoria Junior College (IP)

First Peren Victoria Seow

Second Jamey Bharat S Punjabi

Third Dafina Fabian Siau

Reply Jamey Victoria Seow

Prop: POLICY Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) Have a panel of jury to pass verdict on whether or

not defendant is guilty, and then have a judge to de-

cide on his punishment

(2) Jury consists of all walks of life - difference races

(1) Stick to status quo – one judge to de-

cide whether or not the defendant is

guilty, and then have the same judge

to determine his punishment

Here’s a pretty accurate repre-

sentation of the jury – people

from all walks of life, being of

various genders, skin colour,

religion, and social background.

However, while a jury may be

able to provide a wider range of

perspectives on a case, are the-

se perspectives necessarily as

good, or even better than that

of a judge?

(1) SUBJECTIVITY IN COURT

In the debate, the proposition

brought up a controversial point

on how the increase in each

individual’s knowledge in the

current world, as compared to

that of the time when Singa-

pore abolished the jury, means

that each individual is now

more capable of passing fair

judgment. This was the only ar-

gument from the proposition

that actually pulled through

more than one speaker, but

was, however, poorly brought

across. Despite the opposition

pointing out that higher levels

of education does not neces-

sarily mean that the jurors

would be able to apply the

knowledge and that it would be

near impossible for the jurors to

be as professional as the judge,

the debate continued to clash

on this area to a large extent,

preventing the debate from pro-

gressing much.

(2) OBJECTIVITY IN COURT

On the second area of clash,

both sides of the house agreed

that the main aim of the court

was to give a fair and reasona-

ble judgment, and whichever

side managed to prove that

their policy better achieved this

would win the debate. However,

the proposition believed that

having a jury from all walks of

life would allow for greater ob-

jectivity because any bias will

be neutralized by the other

eleven members of the jury. On

the other hand, the opposition

believed that the judge, who is

professionally trained, would be

better able to pass a fair judg-

ment with his experience and

relevant knowledge. In addition,

the opposition also pointed out

that the members of the jury,

unlike the judge, are not profes-

sionally trained to be immune

to the persuasive words of the

lawyers on both sides, hence

tending to be more easily

swayed. As the third opposition

speaker said, “there is a reason

why some of us work as judges

and some of us work in fast

food chains, how is one who

works in a fast food chain ex-

pected to do the same job as a

judge?” In this debate, the

proposition questioned the pro-

fessionalism of the judge while

the opposition showed the inca-

pability of the laymen, hence

winning the opposition the de-

bate eventually.

IN CONCLUSION

Overall, the two teams seemed

prepared, with many interesting

points brought up as the de-

bate progressed. However, both

sides of the house were unable

to engage well. There was nev-

er an onus set from either the

proposition or the opposition.

As such, the debate did not pro-

gress much, with much clash

on the minor details rather than

the important points. In addi-

tion, many rebuttals seemed to

be rather one-dimensional,

brought up repeatedly without

engaging what the other side of

the house had mentioned. Had

the aforementioned points

been improved on, the debate

would have been a much better

one.

Preliminary Round 2

Preliminary Round 2

THW impose term limits on all

Heads of State

With great power

comes great responsibility (Spiderman)

By Zeng Jin

During Opposition 1st speaker speech

Opp1 (Best Speaker) Goh Han Yang said:

If people want a person, that person should be elect-ed. This is democracy. We said the older politicians are good for the state since they are more experi-enced. But proposition thinks that new politicians are equally good too. Why do you even want to take the risk?

During Proposition 2nd speaker speech

Prop 2 Victoria Seow said:

Experienced people should remain in the parliament as mentors, and should not be directly involved in the decision making process.

During Opposition 3rd speaker speech

Opp3 Sean Lee said:

Elections and veto eliminate incompetent leaders, while the ones who are elected are those that the soci-ety wants.

Winning Team:

Opposition

Catholic High

Best Speaker:

Goh Han Yang

(1st Opposition speaker)

Adjudicator:

Wong Zheng Kai

Term limits originated in ancient

Greece, where in the beginning of

the 6th century B.C. , many Atheni-

an officials were elected solely by

random lottery but permitted to

serve only a year. Benjamin Frank-

lin, John Adams and Thomas Jef-

ferson were among those who

considered term limits an im-

portant way to check individual

power. All the trends have shown

us that imposing term limits is the

right thing to do. However, is that

really so? Should the house im-

pose term limits on all Heads of

State?

(1) ELECTION & NEW TALENTS

The proposition started off the de-

bate by explaining the repercus-

sions of a leader who stays in pow-

er for an indefinite number of

years. They also pointed out how

term limits hinder the formation of

a new talent pool within the parlia-

ment. However, opposition proved

how the proposition’s argument

cannot stand because elections

make the formation of new talent

pool possible as confident politi-

cians will still enter the sphere.

This point, however, was not chal-

lenged by the proposition, which

failed to provide sufficient logic

links to make their previous argu-

ment stand. The weak logic links

demonstrated by the proposition

between election and the rallying

of new talent that it brings about

also contributed to their eventual

loss to the opposition.

(2) AFFECTING DEMOCRACY

The opposition also successfully

put across the point that term lim-

its undermine democracy, since

leaders who have the potential to

be elected could no longer serve

the populace. The proposition at-

tempted to counter this argument

by stating an irrelevant point: term

limits is in fact helpful during elec-

tions as it narrows down citizens’

choices, hence allowing for better

considerations when electing a

leader. This attempt was apparent-

ly futile as the proposition failed to

attack on the principle level of de-

mocracy. Such a failure ultimately

allowed the opposition to win the

debate.

(3) DISINCENTIVE TO POLITICIANS

Another clash raised by the house

includes whether term limits

would become a disincentive to

the Heads of State and whether

the quality of leaders will decline

as a result. The opposition argued

that term limit is a disincentive to

the politicians. This is because if

term limits are imposed, the politi-

cians could no longer stay in the

political scene regardless of how

hard they work. As a result, in-

stead of working hard, the politi-

cians might just choose to “slack

off”, as mentioned by the second

opposition speaker Pan. There-

fore, according to the opposition, if

no term limits are imposed, politi-

cians will continue to be motivated

to work harder, hence benefit the

society. The proposition, on the

other hand, argued that if politi-

cians were allowed to stay for an

infinite number of years, they

might become complacent, hence

not able to focus fully on the peo-

ple of the country. The aforemen-

tioned points raised by the houses

are all valid. However, instead of

challenging each other on the

principle level, both houses fell

into the cycle of rehashing their

previous arguments, lowering the

argumentative quality of this de-

bate.

IN CONCLUSION

All in all, the opposition won the

debate due to the failure of propo-

sition to effectively challenge their

points. The adjudicator was disap-

pointed by the ‘touch-and-go’ sub-

stantives and rebuttals, and

thought that the development of

arguments could be improved up-

on. In my opinion, this debate

would have been more engaging if

the proposition had explained how

the absence of a term limit would

undermine the principle of democ-

racy. This is because the tremen-

dous electoral advantages enjoyed

by incumbents make it difficult to

argue that the elections they win

are truly democratic, and term lim-

its would be more likely to expand

the field of candidates than to re-

strict it.

Speaker

Position

Prop: Victoria Junior College (IP) Opp: Catholic High

First Lim Kai Zhi Goh Han Yang

Second Fabian Siau Osel Pan

Third Victoria Seow Sean Lee

Reply Lim Kai Zhi Goh Han Yang

Prop: POLICY Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) The number of terms a head of state is to be deter-

mined by the respective countries (2) Minister mentors or any other similar posts are not

heads of state (3) Instead of assuming power for indefinite number of

terms, the head of state can retire as minister men-

tors to continue shaping politics within the nation

(1) Elections are sufficient to serve as a check

and balance for the heads of state.

Preliminary Round 3

Preliminary Round 3

© Sam68 (DeviantArt)

THW mandate the full disclosure of

identity on social networking sites

THW mandate the full disclosure of

identity on social networking sites

Batman is a superhero who leads a double life. He is known as Bruce

Wayne by day, millionaire (later billionaire), playboy, and philanthropist and

Batman by night. Despite not possessing any superpowers, he is able to

achieve justice through intellect, wealth, physical prowess and martial arts

skills. However, his war on crime comes at a cost – he cannot reveal his

true identity as Bruce Wayne. Hence he does not disclose who he is, except

to his closest aides and friends. This motion questions the intentional act

of not revealing who you are, in social networking sites.

By Teo Ning Zhi Angelyn

During Proposition 1st Speaker Speech,

Prop 1 Rachel Ang said: The social networking site will then

check whether the information provided is accurate.

Opp 2 Vijay Ramenujan POI: How is a company based in

California going to check whether your details are true or

false?

During Opposition 2nd Speaker Speech, Opp 2 Vijay Ramenujan said: On the full disclosure of

identity, what this motion actually means is that all of the-

se details are actually given to everyone, everywhere. This

directly tackles their side’s case on only giving these details

to social networking sites in the first place.

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Prop 3 (Best Speaker) Sanjana Ayagan said: Addresses are

not integral to an individual’s identity. An individual is

who he is and not where he lives. It is about how old he is

and which group of society he is from – teenagers, work-

ing adults or senior citizens.

Winning Team:

Proposition

Methodist Girls’ School (Team B)

Best Speaker:

Sanjana Ayagan (Proposition 3rd Speaker)

Adjudicator:

Jeremiah Tan

Speaker

Position

Prop: Methodist Girls’ School

(Team B)

Opp: Raffles Institution (Team B)

First Rachel Ang Noh Sze Perng

Second Michelle Lim Vijay Ramenujan

Third Sanjana Ayagan Abdul Lateef

Reply Rachel Ang Vijay Ramenujan

Prop: POLICY Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) When you create an account, you have to provide

your name, age, gender and NRIC

(2) Social networking sites will check whether the infor-

mation provided is accurate

(3) If it is not, individual will not be allowed to create an

account

(4) Stick to existing age restrictions

(1) People allowed to reveal any infor-

mation to whomever they choose

(2) All forms of expression are allowed

Identity— it’s something so in-

nate and personal that we of-

ten take it for granted. But what

happens when identity is no

longer what it seems to be? In

today’s context, one can no

longer expect to be blessed

with the privilege of attaining

full disclosure of identity —

needless to say on social net-

working sites. Hence this begs

the question—to choose the op-

tion of going public or to retain

privacy?

(1) BENEFITS TO SOCIETY

On the first area of clash, prop-

osition felt that by taking away

anonymity, they are the ones

who encourage true discourse

as you can only establish a real

relationship with an individual

when you know who they are.

Side opposition argued that

their side promoted an active

and reasoned debate by allow-

ing views to come out in the

open as anonymity gives people

a sense of confidence. Side op-

position also argued against

proposition’s policy, saying that

the only way they protected

people’s welfare is by relying on

social networking sites (profit-

making companies) to verify

details. This indicates that their

policy will fail and the vulnera-

ble will not be protected since

people are already making fake

accounts.

(2) RIGHT TO PRIVACY

On the second area of clash,

opposition said that their side

better protected people’s rights

to privacy by allowing them to

choose what they want to with-

hold and what they want to dis-

close, something which the

state cannot infringe on. On the

other side, proposition said that

basic information like name,

age and gender is not consid-

ered private information and

hence there is no such concept

as the right to privacy in this

debate. In the end, the point

went to proposition as they had

set the scope of the debate

such that identity is defined as

information such as name, age

and gender.

IN CONCLUSION

It was a well-fought debate,

with the proposition winning the

debate by a narrow margin. The

opposition managed to weaken

side proposition’s policy by

mentioning that “full disclo-

sure” refers to everyone and

not just social networking sites

only. However, the point came

out too late and it is not fair for

it to come out only in the se-

cond opposition speaker as on-

ly the third proposition speaker

can defend their case.

Overall, it was a quality debate

as there was engagement be-

tween both sides and both

teams put up a commendable

fight defending their stances.

However, this debate could be

improved if the depth of issues

explored could have gone fur-

ther and the scope of the de-

bate expanded to beyond Face-

book as the only social network-

ing site as well as other prob-

lems that stem from anonymity,

for example, cyber bullying.

Semi-Final

Semi-Final

THBT weapons manufacturing and

development should not be out-

sourced to private contractors Iron Man possesses powered armour that gives him superhuman strength

and durability, flight, and an array of weapons. The armour is invented and

worn by Tony Stark. At his parents’ untimely death he inherited the compa-

ny Stark Industries and turned it into a billion-dollar industry building weap-

ons for the US government.

By Tyne Lam & Teo Ning Zhi Angelyn

During Opposition 2nd Speaker Speech,

Opp 2 Michelle Lim said: Companies have a contract to so-

ciety and we believe that they would uphold this at all

costs.

Prop 1 Hari Kope POI: Why should companies care for soci-

ety when they do not have any duty towards it at all?

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech, Prop 3 (Best Speaker) Chong Ee Hsiun said: Opposition 2nd

speaker said that somehow, companies have a duty to

country and that they will not sell weapons to North Korea

simply because they oppose their ideology. This is an in-

herent contradiction. If companies are profit-driven, who

cares about ideology?

During Opposition 3rd Speaker Speech,

Opp 3 Sanjana Ayagan said: Their ultimate goal may be

profits, but there is a limit to that. Companies will not be so

obsessed with money such that they will turn criminal.

Winning Team:

Proposition

Raffles Institution (Team A)

Best Speaker:

Chong Ee Hsiun

(Proposition 3rd Speaker)

Adjudicators:

Adrian Tan, Nicholas Huang and

Wong Zheng Kai

Currently, weapons manufactur-

ing and development are out-

sourced to private contractors. .

Questions arose regarding the

main drive of private contractors

– profits or the loyalty of clients?

Who then best has the country’s

benefits in mind and who best

ensures economic benefits?

(1) WHO BEST PROTECTS NA-

TIONAL SECURITY

Proposition first stated that pri-

vate contractors are profit driven

and will do anything that is re-

quired to achieve this. With this

as the fundamental basis for the

debate, both sides went on to

prove their point. Side Proposi-

tion argued that based on this,

they will have no qualms about

selling to rouge nations like Iran

or North Korea. This then com-

promises on national security

and hence, weapons manufactur-

ing and development should not

be outsourced to them. They pro-

posed that the government be in

charge of this operation instead

of private companies as the gov-

ernment does not operate with

the goal of monetary profits. Side

opposition on the other hand, felt

that such extreme measures to

go around measures in place just

for profit was highly unlikely on

the part of private contractors.

They felt that the status quo,

whereby stringent checks are put

in place to serve as a disincen-

tive for companies, is sufficient

in protecting national security

and sovereignty. Ultimately, side

proposition dissected the whole

manufacturing concept of wea-

ponry clearly – that they have the

need to widen their client base

and will do what is needed for

profits.

(2) WHO BEST BENEFITS THE

ECONOMY

This point was first brought up by

side opposition. They stated that

by allowing multiple private con-

tractors to exist with the busi-

ness provided by the govern-

ment, they are benefiting the re-

covering economy as they pro-

vide job opportunities for the

people instead of condensing the

whole weaponry enterprise to be

under one sole government wing,

which would damage the econo-

my as they are removing an en-

tire industry. Their policy, on the

other hand, would create more

jobs for a recovering economy.

Proposition attacked opposition’s

claim by saying that weapons

manufacturing spans across na-

tions – by outsourcing weapons

manufacturing to private contrac-

tors, jobs are not necessarily cre-

ated in that particular country.

Therefore, due to the fact that it

is a transnational industry, it

might not necessarily benefit the

country’s economy. Instead, hav-

ing one sole industry in the coun-

try itself provides not only jobs,

but also job security as it is un-

der a government entity. On the

other hand, by manufacturing the

weapons themselves, the govern-

ment could offer job security and

more jobs to citizens.

IN CONCLUSION

In the end, the debate went to

side proposition. All in all, both

teams put up an impressive fight

defending their stances. Side

proposition won this debate with

a proper dissection of the pro-

cess of motivation for companies

as well as strong levels of analy-

sis throughout the debate.

Speaker

Position

Prop: Raffles Institution (Team A) Opp: Methodist Girls’ School (Team B)

First Hari Kope Rachel Ang

Second Joel Nee Michelle Lim

Third Chong Ee Hsiun Sanjana Ayagan

Reply Hari Kope Rachel Ang

Prop: POLICY Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) Ministry of Defence open new wing under department

of defence, focus on manufacturing and development

of weapons

(2) This new wing will be regularly checked on by the head

of state, judiciary and department of defence

(3) Government can still sell arms but this decision will be

made by the government.

(1) Maintain status quo with stringent

measures in tackling the problem of the

leakage of the company as well as to up-

hold the quality of products

By Sim Yi Jie & Regina Ng

During Opposition 1st Speaker Speech,

Opp 1 Jerrold Lam said: I would firstly like to point out

what the Proposition has missed. The motion reads ‘THBT

Weapons Manufacturing & Development Should Not Be

Outsourced to Private Contractors.’. They apparently

missed out the word ‘development’.

During Opposition 2nd Speaker Speech,

Opp 2 Goh Han Yang said: We told you ‘What secrets?’, we

said that even if these were secrets, these are non-sensitive

secrets. If I reveal that the country is facing climate

change, how is that going to impact the country? I chal-

lenge the next speaker to come up and tell us.

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech,

Prop 3 (Best Speaker) Anmol Kaur Gill said: We see a prin-

ciple concession from Side Opposition when they tell you

that they want governmental control but they just want to

sub-contract to other companies at the same time. We see

that they agree principally that they want the government

to have full control over it.

Winning Team:

Proposition

Methodist Girls’ School

(Team A)

Best Speaker:

Anmol Kaur Gill

(3rd Proposition Speaker)

Adjudicators:

Jeremiah Tan, He Shu Jun,

and See Kurt Wei

S p e a k e r

Position

Prop: Methodist Girls’ School

(Team A)

Opp: Catholic High School (Team A)

First Annette Yeo Jerrold Lam Second Andrea Chong Goh Han Yang

Third Anmol Kaur Gill Sean Lee

Reply Andrea Chong Goh Han Yang

Prop: POLICY Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) Weapons manufacturing done by companies fully

controlled by government.

(2) Government will be involved in the entire process

and have a say in every step of the way.

(1) Status quo: outsourcing to private con-

tractors.

(2) Private contractors can be sued by the

government if they were to divulge

state secrets regarding weapons tech-

nology

The interesting reality of out-

sourcing the responsibility of

weapon technology has been

played out in movies before,

such as in the recent ‘Sherlock

Holmes: A Game Of Shadows’.

Set in the late 1890s, the vil-

lain Professor Moriarty controls

a large portion of the weapon

manufacturing industry and

schemes to ignite the tensions

already present amongst the

European countries such that

while a war rages amongst

them, he will reap vast profits

from the sale of these weapon-

ry.

This begs the following ques-

tions: better weapons or nation-

al security? Would there neces-

sarily be better weapons with

private companies or a leakage

of secrets with private contrac-

tors?

With these questions in mind,

the debate boiled down to three

main areas of clash:

(1) WEAPON TECHNOLOGY

AS SECRETS

Side Proposition stated that

weapon technology were im-

portant military secrets. If this

responsibility was given to pri-

vate companies who were profit

-driven, these secrets will be at

stake should they decide to sell

these to the next highest bid-

der. However, Opposition

begged to differ, arguing that

these were non-sensitive se-

crets and would not harm the

country even if they were dis-

closed. As side proposition pri-

oritised the safety of the nation,

this point went to them.

(2) RELIABILITY OF PRIVATE

CONTRACTORS

Opposition claimed that laws

are present to bind these con-

tractors from information leak-

age, and that contractors would

have a greater incentive to

keep state secrets in order to

earn more money from govern-

ments in the long run. They also

argued that government-

controlled companies could

leak state secrets too. To this

end, Proposition suggested that

even if the government sues

these contractors, the damage

would have already been done

and it would be too late. Oppo-

sition’s reply to this was that in

order to safeguard this, man-

power would have been set in

place to protect these secrets.

As the proposition managed to

prove that prevention is better

than damage control, this point

went to them as well.

(3) ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT

Opposition also argued that the

existence of private companies

highlights that governments are

inefficient in handling weapon

manufacturing and develop-

ment as they need to focus on

more important aspects of the

country. Proposition’s rebuttal

to this was that they saw na-

tional security and the benefit

of people as of utmost im-

portance compared to building

bigger and better weapons. As

side opposition did not manage

to prove that the government

lacked the ability to handle

weapons manufacturing and

development, this point went to

the proposition.

IN CONCLUSION

To conclude, this exciting de-

bate went to Side Proposition

by a narrow margin. The judges

had felt that though both sides

did not clearly define WHO the

enemy was in this debate, Prop-

osition’s overarching principle

of national security worked bet-

ter in line with the motion while

Opposition lacked some in justi-

fication of some ideas intro-

duced. Overall, it was an excit-

ing debate.

Finals

Finals

THW let citizens impeach their

Heads of State via referendum In DC Comics, The Watchmen were a group of (flawed) ‘superhero’ crime

fighters working as allies to the US government. It is set in an alternate re-

ality where President Richard Nixon was never impeached as his deeds

were never discovered, and he continued to be the Head of State during

the period in which the Watchmen’s events happened.

By Sung Yu Xin & Ong Zi Shan

During Opposition 1st Speaker Speech,

Opp 1 Annette Yeo said: The media today is essentially tox-

ic and only spills conservative ideas. People live in echo

chambers where they believe what they want to believe

and not what makes more logical sense.

During Proposition 2nd Speaker Speech,

Prop 2 Joel Nee said: There are many sources of media

these days, they serve to offer a wide range of viewpoints

rather than a toxic view.

Opp 3 Anmol Kaur Gill POI: Then why is it that there are

people who still think that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim

Prince?

During Proposition 3rd Speaker Speech,

Opp 3 (Best Speaker) Chong Ee Hsiun said: It is simply im-

possible for any president to get the full support of the peo-

ple. This is an inherent facet of democracy, so why is the

opposition rebelling against this point? Are they going to

set up a personality cult for the President, like Kim Jong Il?

Evidently not, and even if they do, we tell them that they

are crazy.

Winning Team:

Opposition

Methodist Girls’ School (Team A)

Best Speaker:

Chong Ee Hsiun

(Proposition 3rd Speaker)

Adjudicators:

Adrian Tan Wei Tao, Nicholas

Huang, See Kurt Wei, Jeremiah

Tan, Natasha Sim, He Shu Jun,

Wong Zheng Kai

In 2007, Romania’s President Tra-

ian Basecu was not impeached

due to referendum by the public.

Still, political insiders stated that

Basescu had "won a victory without

glory," because turnout had been

relatively low. Is referendum really

fair and practical? Can this kind of

rights be given to the people? That

is for the proposition to prove and

for us to find out.

(1) IS IMPEACHMENT REALLY

NECESSARY, i.e. IS THE CUR-

RENT PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

INADEQUATE?

On this area of clash, the proposi-

tion gave a detailed analysis on

why the current status quo, i.e. the

parliamentary representation was

inadequate and insufficient to up-

hold the justice of the people. They

explained that legislation often

fails to be a good check-and-

balance to the head-of-state due

to partisan politics and party

domination and how the affilia-

tion between the Judiciary, Legis-

lation and the Executive (the

head-of-state) would impede jus-

tice during parliament voting. In

response to this point made, the

opposition claimed that the mem-

bers of parliament will be able to

stay impartial as they are con-

cerned with the welfare of their

party and the people. As compared

to the in-depth analysis of the prop-

osition, the response of opposition

lacks depth and further justifica-

tion and thus can only be accepted

as an assumption on the side of

the opposition. Therefore, this

point of clash went to side proposi-

tion.

(2) WHETHER CITIZENS HAVE

THE CAPABILITY TO MAKE IN-

FORMED DECISIONS

On this point, the proposition be-

lieved that normal citizens would

have the intellectual capacity to

make informed and rational deci-

sions on whether the head-of-state

should be impeached. However,

the opposition stood firm on their

stand that as the media today is

partisan and toxic, normal citizens

are susceptible to the influence of

biased and inaccurate information,

especially due the Echo Chamber

Effect and thus they should not be

accorded the right of impeach the

head-of-state. The opposition firm-

ly claimed that the current status

quo of the parliamentary system is

not flawed. In response to the op-

position’s argument, the proposi-

tion rebutted that if the opposition

asserts that people are unable to

make rational decisions, then elec-

tions would not even be possible.

The opposition then responded

that the proposition was confused

between elections and impeach-

ment, which was two fundamental-

ly different concepts. The opposi-

tion clearly explained that the elec-

tions is for the people to vote for

candidates whom they feel can

best serve their needs, while an

impeachment is an outright deter-

mination of guilt in the head-of-

state. The opposition demonstrat-

ed a more consistent and clear un-

derstanding of the concept of im-

peachment as discussed in this

debate and thus won the point in

this clash.

IN CONCLUSION

Overall, the two teams put up a

commendable fight defending their

stances and it was a close fight be-

tween both teams. However, this

debate eventually went to the op-

position, who demonstrated con-

sistency and clarity in their under-

standing of the concepts of im-

peachment and election, as com-

pared to proposition who failed to

give a clear definition of impeach-

ment right at the beginning and

consequentially blurred the distinc-

tion between election and im-

peachment at certain junctures of

the debate. On a side note, an area

of improvement for side opposition

would be giving more in-depth justi-

fications and explanation of links

for their rebuttals. To conclude, it

was a highly engaging debate that

brought the Inaugural Dunman

High Debate Invitational to a satis-

fying end.

Speaker

Position

Prop: Raffles Institution (Team A) Opp: Methodist Girls’ School (Team A)

First Hari Kope Annette Yeo Second Joel Nee Andrea Chong

Third Chong Ee Hsiun Anmol Kaur Gill Reply Hari Kope Andrea Chong

Prop: POLICY Opp: (COUNTER) POLICY

(1) An individual will be responsible to submit documents stat-

ing the crimes that the Head of State had committed

(2) The country will vote on whether or not to impeach the

Head of State

(3) Minimum 1% of the country to vote for impeachment in

order for it to happen

(4) Abstinence will be a choice in voting

1) Status Quo — Guilt of Head of State to be

decided by legislature.

Voices

Voices

During the debate invitational, I got to meet Jeremi-

ah Tan. He was an adjudicator for the event. How-

ever, his achievements extend further beyond that.

Jeremiah’s experience as a coach spans 11 years,

at both the secondary and tertiary level – namely at

Saint Patrick’s Secondary School, River Valley High

School, Nan Hua High School and National Junior

College.

Among these schools, River Valley clinched 1st and

2nd runner up for Julia Gabriel’s Debate Competi-

tion (B Division) in 2002 and 2003 respectively.

Also, Saint Patrick’s Secondary School earned the

title of 2nd runner up for Singapore Secondary

School’s Debating Competition for both the years of

2005 and 2006. Collectively, Jeremiah has

coached 18 debaters ranked within Top 20 Individ-

ual Speaker Ranking in JGDC and SSSDC over 9

years.

Having met him, I personally feel that he is an ex-

tremely experienced debater and coach. He has an

uncanny ability to analyze any miniscule move that

either team made – something that I would have

otherwise never picked up on. For the duration of

the day, I felt like there was this voice of wisdom

that was constantly feeding me information of each

debate, breaking down each team’s flaws and

strengths.

Also, it was a very interesting experience to watch

Jeremiah adjudicate. From the way he takes down

notes, to the way he scores and analyzes their

moves – it was all very intriguing. The way he gave

his debrief, both general and for individual teams,

were extremely helpful as well and it was the way

he phrased his words in such a succinct manner

that caught my attention. His experienced allowed

him to point out the major flaws in the debate and

pinpoint the team’s area of improvement. The fact

that he laid the hard truth down for the teams for

the fake of their improvement was very commenda-

ble. It truly is the only way to learn.

Through him and the interview, I have learnt to ap-

preciate the importance of engagement in each

debate and that it is more than just the delivery of

a speech. Currently, I have much to improve in my

content and rebuttals. However, after watching the

debates that were going on during the Invitational, I

have a better idea of how to engage the other team

and how to elaborate on rebuttals. For the debates

that I was lucky enough to sit in for, some of the

teams were extremely strong with very eloquent

debaters.

In all, this debate invitational allowed me a chance

to learn not only from the debaters themselves, but

from my seniors and adjudicators as well. I have

learnt what a debate guidebook can never offer to

me and I can safely and surely say that after the

event, I am a better debater. It was definitely not

an experience that I would have been able to gain

through a normal day at debate training – it was

definitely a day well spent.

By Tyne Lam Yan Ting

Through The

Eyes Of An

ADJUDICATOR

“My life would be very

different without debate”

During the debate invitational, I got to meet Jeremi-

ah Tan. He was an adjudicator for the event. How-

ever, his achievements extend further beyond that.

Jeremiah’s experience as a coach spans 11 years,

at both the secondary and tertiary level – namely at

Saint Patrick’s Secondary School, River Valley High

School, Nan Hua High School and National Junior

College.

Among these schools, River Valley clinched 1st and

2nd runner up for Julia Gabriel’s Debate Competi-

tion (B Division) in 2002 and 2003 respectively.

Also, Saint Patrick’s Secondary School earned the

title of 2nd runner up for Singapore Secondary

School’s Debating Competition for both the years of

2005 and 2006. Collectively, Jeremiah has

coached 18 debaters ranked within Top 20 Individ-

ual Speaker Ranking in JGDC and SSSDC over 9

years.

Having met him, I personally feel that he is an ex-

tremely experienced debater and coach. He has an

uncanny ability to analyze any miniscule move that

either team made – something that I would have

otherwise never picked up on. For the duration of

the day, I felt like there was this voice of wisdom

that was constantly feeding me information of each

debate, breaking down each team’s flaws and

strengths.

Also, it was a very interesting experience to watch

Jeremiah adjudicate. From the way he takes down

notes, to the way he scores and analyzes their

moves – it was all very intriguing. The way he gave

his debrief, both general and for individual teams,

were extremely helpful as well and it was the way

he phrased his words in such a succinct manner

that caught my attention. His experienced allowed

him to point out the major flaws in the debate and

pinpoint the team’s area of improvement. The fact

that he laid the hard truth down for the teams for

the fake of their improvement was very commenda-

ble. It truly is the only way to learn.

Through him and the interview, I have learnt to ap-

preciate the importance of engagement in each

debate and that it is more than just the delivery of

a speech. Currently, I have much to improve in my

content and rebuttals. However, after watching the

debates that were going on during the Invitational, I

have a better idea of how to engage the other team

and how to elaborate on rebuttals. For the debates

that I was lucky enough to sit in for, some of the

teams were extremely strong with very eloquent

debaters.

In all, this debate invitational allowed me a chance

to learn not only from the debaters themselves, but

from my seniors and adjudicators as well. I have

learnt what a debate guidebook can never offer to

me and I can safely and surely say that after the

event, I am a better debater. It was definitely not

an experience that I would have been able to gain

through a normal day at debate training – it was

definitely a day well spent.

“Debating I think is the most important skill

that anyone could actually pick up”

1. In what ways do you think that de-

bating and coaching in the past has

affected your view as an adjudicator?

I don’t think it’s possible to be an adjudi-

cator without ever experiencing debating

at least and even if one has a coaching

background, it gives you more perspective

in how cases are set up and it gives you a

higher level of appreciation of what the

debaters themselves are doing. As an ad-

judicator you would be seeing them as not

just reading out speeches, especially if

you have been a coach before -- you

would know what they are doing for them-

selves, what they’re capable of doing and

how much of it is just based on what their

coach gave them.

2. How different do you think your life

would be without debate?

I think my life would be very different with-

out debates. I’m in law school now and

that was definitely a decision that was af-

fected by being in debate in the past. As

such, what I would be pursuing now would

be different.

3. Do you think it is more enjoyable to

be the one delivering the debate, or

to be the one judging it?

To be fair, once you have passed a certain

age you don’t like to be the one delivering

the debate – not that I’m saying I cant de-

liver anymore. It’s fun to watch the tradi-

tion being carried on and to give advice to

those who are younger and are picking it

up. So right now I’m enjoying being the

one to judge it though I won’t hesitate to

go on the floor again.

4. What do you hope to see in every

debate that you adjudicate?

I believe that the growth of a debater is

extremely important. It’s not just about

performing a speech and hoping for the

win – though that is actually a large part

of debating. I feel that what I really want

to see in every debate is debaters truly

wishing to engage the concept of debating

– which is to respect the tradition of de-

bating. I want to see them fighting with

passion but at the same time enjoying it,

rather than only focusing on the win and

looking as if they are really upset and an-

gry, even in the middle of the debate –

though of course it is natural to be upset

if they have lost. Ideally I would hope that

in every debate that I adjudicate I hope to

see the debaters learning in the middle of

their speeches and that they are improv-

ing their skills.

5. As an adjudicator, what do you

think is the most important thing

whilst judging a debate?

While judging a debate, I think that it is

very important to look at how far both

teams are willing to engage. I think that is

one of the key criteria of debating though

with the system that is in place in Singa-

pore, in the lower divisions it is not easy to

see this engagement and often it is more

like speech making in competitions. As an

adjudicator, I think that the most im-

portant thing is for a team to be willing to

step away from their baseline and a very

basic argument to engage the other side.

Engagement is what I think to be the most

important part of debating.

6. Do you think that the skills you

have obtained from debating and

coaching over the years has helped

you in certain aspects of your life?

Yes definitely. I worked as a schoolteach-

er for a year, so my experience as a coach

definitely helped me. Debating I think is

the most important skill that anyone could

actually pick up. It helps you a lot with the

way you organize your thoughts – and this

applies in essay writing, writing reports

and many things that life would require of

you. I believe that as a debater you would

definitely be more well read, and know

much more about the world and current

affairs. In terms of skill sets, being out-

spoken, it helps a lot in interviews as well.

7. Do you think that being a debater

has allowed you to be empathetic to

the team that has lost the debate?

I think there is always a part of anyone to

be empathetic toward the loser. Being a

debater though, especially since I’ve been

a coach as well, I think empathy is one

thing, but most of the time I tend to ana-

lyze why they’ve lost. I want the team to

look towards improvement, rather than

anything else. And if this empathy is just

feeling sorry for them, then no, I don’t

think that that should be the point. I feel

sorry for them if I know that they have put

in their best effort – maybe for things like

the finals, you see teams that really put in

their best and they still can’t win, then

definitely I could empathize with them.

However, if its just a normal debate, then I

feel that the losing team has to learn from

it and it shouldn’t be about feeling empa-

thetic or anything else.

An Interview with

JEREMIAH TAN

1. In what ways do you think that de-

bating and coaching in the past has

affected your view as an adjudicator?

I don’t think it’s possible to be an adjudi-

cator without ever experiencing debating

at least and even if one has a coaching

background, it gives you more perspective

in how cases are set up and it gives you a

higher level of appreciation of what the

debaters themselves are doing. As an ad-

judicator you would be seeing them as not

just reading out speeches, especially if

you have been a coach before -- you

would know what they are doing for them-

selves, what they’re capable of doing and

how much of it is just based on what their

coach gave them.

2. How different do you think your life

would be without debate?

I think my life would be very different with-

out debates. I’m in law school now and

that was definitely a decision that was af-

fected by being in debate in the past. As

such, what I would be pursuing now would

be different.

3. Do you think it is more enjoyable to

be the one delivering the debate, or

to be the one judging it?

To be fair, once you have passed a certain

age you don’t like to be the one delivering

the debate – not that I’m saying I cant de-

liver anymore. It’s fun to watch the tradi-

tion being carried on and to give advice to

those who are younger and are picking it

up. So right now I’m enjoying being the

one to judge it though I won’t hesitate to

go on the floor again.

4. What do you hope to see in every

debate that you adjudicate?

I believe that the growth of a debater is

extremely important. It’s not just about

performing a speech and hoping for the

win – though that is actually a large part

of debating. I feel that what I really want

to see in every debate is debaters truly

wishing to engage the concept of debating

– which is to respect the tradition of de-

bating. I want to see them fighting with

passion but at the same time enjoying it,

rather than only focusing on the win and

looking as if they are really upset and an-

gry, even in the middle of the debate –

though of course it is natural to be upset

if they have lost. Ideally I would hope that

in every debate that I adjudicate I hope to

see the debaters learning in the middle of

their speeches and that they are improv-

ing their skills.

5. As an adjudicator, what do you

think is the most important thing

whilst judging a debate?

While judging a debate, I think that it is

very important to look at how far both

teams are willing to engage. I think that is

one of the key criteria of debating though

with the system that is in place in Singa-

pore, in the lower divisions it is not easy to

see this engagement and often it is more

like speech making in competitions. As an

adjudicator, I think that the most im-

portant thing is for a team to be willing to

step away from their baseline and a very

basic argument to engage the other side.

Engagement is what I think to be the most

important part of debating.

6. Do you think that the skills you

have obtained from debating and

coaching over the years has helped

you in certain aspects of your life?

Yes definitely. I worked as a schoolteach-

er for a year, so my experience as a coach

definitely helped me. Debating I think is

the most important skill that anyone could

actually pick up. It helps you a lot with the

way you organize your thoughts – and this

applies in essay writing, writing reports

and many things that life would require of

you. I believe that as a debater you would

definitely be more well read, and know

much more about the world and current

affairs. In terms of skill sets, being out-

spoken, it helps a lot in interviews as well.

7. Do you think that being a debater

has allowed you to be empathetic to

the team that has lost the debate?

I think there is always a part of anyone to

be empathetic toward the loser. Being a

debater though, especially since I’ve been

a coach as well, I think empathy is one

thing, but most of the time I tend to ana-

lyze why they’ve lost. I want the team to

look towards improvement, rather than

anything else. And if this empathy is just

feeling sorry for them, then no, I don’t

think that that should be the point. I feel

sorry for them if I know that they have put

in their best effort – maybe for things like

the finals, you see teams that really put in

their best and they still can’t win, then

definitely I could empathize with them.

However, if its just a normal debate, then I

feel that the losing team has to learn from

it and it shouldn’t be about feeling empa-

thetic or anything else.

An Interview with

JEREMIAH TAN

8. Do you still remember the first de-

bate you have adjudicated for?

Yes, vaguely remember it. It has been quite

a few years back. It’s very hard. It still is –

to decide on points. This is largely due to

the nature of debates as well. Style and

content can be really greatly intertwined.

Sometimes it is really difficult to give

points to both sides. Though it is quite

hard when speakers speak too fast, to try

to write down everything they say. It’s one

thing when you are a debater and you just

have to write a rebuttal to one speaker –

it’s another thing when you have to write

judgment for the entire debate and you

have you give the debrief. I think for the

first debate I gave I was really nervous, but

I think I’ve gotten over it by now.

9. As an adjudicator, are you more

likely to be impressed by style or con-

tent?

I think it’s not exactly something you can

separate entirely. Especially the way that

debate has changed for the past few

years, some schools have become much

more impressive style-wise and unfortu-

nately, some schools have really good con-

tent that was written by the coach and de-

livery sometimes gets lost by the debaters

themselves. They may not understand

what exactly they are saying and this really

shows when they receive Point of Infor-

mation (POIs) or they are unable to reply.

So I would say that content is more im-

portant than style alone. Of course, every

coach knows that after your team has style

you should focus on content. But maybe

some of the weaker teams right now be-

lieve that style is more important.

10. Do you think that quotes make a

speech more memorable? Is there any

one speech that has left a strong im-

pression on you because of a quote?

Yeah, I think that’s definite. But whether

the quote is one that is funny or not would

have a stronger impression. In the middle

of the debate where it is getting a little

stuffy or a little heated, having one side

that comes up with a quote that’s quirky

would probably lighten the entire mood

and leave a very strong impression on the

adjudicator. Yes, there was one particular

debate about homegrown athletes and one

debater actually said “would you rather get

an Olympic medal and when you turn it

around, at the back of it – stamped on it

“made in China””. That was quite a funny

joke to me.

11. As an adjudicator, what is one the

most fundamental thing that you think

any team should take note in a de-

bate?

They should take note to enjoy themselves

and try to learn from the process and not

just focus on getting heated up and trying

to win because most of the time, that

might actually backfire. Also they should

take note of etiquette. I think it is very im-

portant to maintain proper etiquette in a

debate and never lose your temper or be

rude in a debate.

12. What is one vital flaw in a debate

that you will not tolerate?

I will not tolerate my debaters showing

themselves to be unsportsmanlike. At the

end of day, the other team is just doing

their best as well and there is no point in

hating them for any other reason or to

treat them rudely. I always tell my team is

any team is doing it to you; the best thing

to do is to ignore what they are doing and

be extremely polite to them in return.

13. What is the difference you have

found in coaching both the secondary

(River Valley, Saint Patrick’s, Nan Hua)

and tertiary level (NJC) ?

I would say that there are many differ-

ences in coaching different schools. In Riv-

er Valley, it is a school that I constantly

taught at for many years and considering

how long I’ve had with my debaters, some

of them I’ve had from secondary 1 to sec-

ondary 4. Some of my debaters, by the

time they hit secondary 4, their skills are

really good. I still remember a couple of

them that I am still in touch with. I remem-

ber this girl, by the time she was in second-

ary 3; she got the top speaker in the B divi-

sion. The length of time you have to mold a

debater really makes a lot of difference so

in secondary schools that was something

that did help. At the tertiary level, it really

depends on the school. In National Junior

College, not many debaters were actually

formed. In the first place, around half of

the team did not have much debating

background, so it was challenging to pre-

pare them for not only a higher level of de-

bate, but also that I would be teaching

them from scratch. I would definitely say

that the tertiary level is much more chal-

lenging. It may be frightening for some who

have only coached at the secondary level

to move to the tertiary level but to be very

honest, you realize that the skills set in de-

bating do apply for both levels.

14. Do you think that one’s age is the

determining factor in a quality de-

bate? Or do you think that experi-

ence/skill is not dependent on age?

I don’t think that age is such a determining

factor in a quality debate. Especially for the

fact that in the past, debate was some-

thing that was done seasonally -- by the

end of three months, there was not many

competitions to go for after that. It de-

pends on how much training you’ve had in

the interim. Age isn’t really determining

factor, definitely not. You would see certain

schools where the students are well

trained and perhaps, are exposed to mock

debates, and go against other schools,

with friendly debates and invitational all

the time. By the time they are at secondary

2 – the under youth 14, some debaters

that you see might actually be better than

debaters even at the tertiary level. Though

of course that would be a tertiary level stu-

dent that did not have much training at all.

And precisely because debate is some-

thing that is so useful -- it trains you to im-

prove your mind and this applies even

when you are really young.

8. Do you still remember the first de-

bate you have adjudicated for?

Yes, vaguely remember it. It has been quite

a few years back. It’s very hard. It still is –

to decide on points. This is largely due to

the nature of debates as well. Style and

content can be really greatly intertwined.

Sometimes it is really difficult to give

points to both sides. Though it is quite

hard when speakers speak too fast, to try

to write down everything they say. It’s one

thing when you are a debater and you just

have to write a rebuttal to one speaker –

it’s another thing when you have to write

judgment for the entire debate and you

have you give the debrief. I think for the

first debate I gave I was really nervous, but

I think I’ve gotten over it by now.

9. As an adjudicator, are you more

likely to be impressed by style or con-

tent?

I think it’s not exactly something you can

separate entirely. Especially the way that

debate has changed for the past few

years, some schools have become much

more impressive style-wise and unfortu-

nately, some schools have really good con-

tent that was written by the coach and de-

livery sometimes gets lost by the debaters

themselves. They may not understand

what exactly they are saying and this really

shows when they receive Point of Infor-

mation (POIs) or they are unable to reply.

So I would say that content is more im-

portant than style alone. Of course, every

coach knows that after your team has style

you should focus on content. But maybe

some of the weaker teams right now be-

lieve that style is more important.

10. Do you think that quotes make a

speech more memorable? Is there any

one speech that has left a strong im-

pression on you because of a quote?

Yeah, I think that’s definite. But whether

the quote is one that is funny or not would

have a stronger impression. In the middle

of the debate where it is getting a little

stuffy or a little heated, having one side

that comes up with a quote that’s quirky

would probably lighten the entire mood

and leave a very strong impression on the

adjudicator. Yes, there was one particular

debate about homegrown athletes and one

debater actually said “would you rather get

an Olympic medal and when you turn it

around, at the back of it – stamped on it

“made in China””. That was quite a funny

joke to me.

11. As an adjudicator, what is one the

most fundamental thing that you think

any team should take note in a de-

bate?

They should take note to enjoy themselves

and try to learn from the process and not

just focus on getting heated up and trying

to win because most of the time, that

might actually backfire. Also they should

take note of etiquette. I think it is very im-

portant to maintain proper etiquette in a

debate and never lose your temper or be

rude in a debate.

12. What is one vital flaw in a debate

that you will not tolerate?

I will not tolerate my debaters showing

themselves to be unsportsmanlike. At the

end of day, the other team is just doing

their best as well and there is no point in

hating them for any other reason or to

treat them rudely. I always tell my team is

any team is doing it to you; the best thing

to do is to ignore what they are doing and

be extremely polite to them in return.

13. What is the difference you have

found in coaching both the secondary

(River Valley, Saint Patrick’s, Nan Hua)

and tertiary level (NJC) ?

I would say that there are many differ-

ences in coaching different schools. In Riv-

er Valley, it is a school that I constantly

taught at for many years and considering

how long I’ve had with my debaters, some

of them I’ve had from secondary 1 to sec-

ondary 4. Some of my debaters, by the

time they hit secondary 4, their skills are

really good. I still remember a couple of

them that I am still in touch with. I remem-

ber this girl, by the time she was in second-

ary 3; she got the top speaker in the B divi-

sion. The length of time you have to mold a

debater really makes a lot of difference so

in secondary schools that was something

that did help. At the tertiary level, it really

depends on the school. In National Junior

College, not many debaters were actually

formed. In the first place, around half of

the team did not have much debating

background, so it was challenging to pre-

pare them for not only a higher level of de-

bate, but also that I would be teaching

them from scratch. I would definitely say

that the tertiary level is much more chal-

lenging. It may be frightening for some who

have only coached at the secondary level

to move to the tertiary level but to be very

honest, you realize that the skills set in de-

bating do apply for both levels.

14. Do you think that one’s age is the

determining factor in a quality de-

bate? Or do you think that experi-

ence/skill is not dependent on age?

I don’t think that age is such a determining

factor in a quality debate. Especially for the

fact that in the past, debate was some-

thing that was done seasonally -- by the

end of three months, there was not many

competitions to go for after that. It de-

pends on how much training you’ve had in

the interim. Age isn’t really determining

factor, definitely not. You would see certain

schools where the students are well

trained and perhaps, are exposed to mock

debates, and go against other schools,

with friendly debates and invitational all

the time. By the time they are at secondary

2 – the under youth 14, some debaters

that you see might actually be better than

debaters even at the tertiary level. Though

of course that would be a tertiary level stu-

dent that did not have much training at all.

And precisely because debate is some-

thing that is so useful -- it trains you to im-

prove your mind and this applies even

when you are really young.

By Tan Wye Inn

Opinions & Perspectives

Extracts of general insights from various schools

Zhenghua Secondary School

Even though we were one of the

few division 3 teams and lost by

quite a big margin, it was never-

theless an enriching and learning

experience. When you are compet-

ing against stronger teams, only

then do you realise what you are

truly lacking.

United World College (SEA)

We debated with other schools in

the two rounds, and they raised

many good points which we can

learn. There was good organiza-

tion and structure in today’s tour-

nament. Many people (ushers)

provided us with a lot of help. As

we’ve only prepared on one side

(prop/opp), we get to hear argu-

ments from the opponent which

we know can be used next time.

Raffles Institution

(Team B) As the four of us are in

Secondary Two, this is one of our

first few competitions represent-

ing the school and it was a great

exposure for us. The whole tourna-

ment has been a very good learn-

ing experience for us, especially

for the younger members of the

team.

Bedok South Secondary

As we belong to division 3, debat-

ing with other schools in this tour-

nament gives us a real idea of

how the division 1 schools are

like. It really opens our eyes to

higher standards of debating.

Victoria Junior College

Today’s debate was insightful for

us. And it’s quite unique and inter-

esting to tie in with the theme of

superheroes for the motions. This

is actually the first time that we

see a school doing this. While de-

bating with other schools, we saw

a spectrum of personalities and

styles which we can apply in our

debating, pretty educational.

Catholic High School

We learn a lot in terms of content

(new terms) and structure. We

quarrel a lot but we cast out our

problems and reason them out.

We have come a long way, but we

still have a long way.

CHIJ St. Nicholas

Today’s debate was rather enrich-

ing, where we learnt about politi-

cal issues etc.. When we first saw

the theme of the competition, it

was quite unexpected as we do

not really see this in other compe-

titions. We weren’t sure what kind

of motions would come out. We

enjoyed the organization of to-

day’s debate. This school has put

in the most money into a debate

competition that we’ve ever seen.

We learn to be more resilient in

face of different circumstances

along the way, we just have to

adapt. Even though we had disa-

greements, we learnt how to work

together and contribute to better

the case. At the end of the day,

we’ll have to accept the result re-

gardless of whether we have won

or not.

Methodist Girls’ School

It was quite fun, because we get

to meet schools from different di-

visions. It was generally a good

competition and learning experi-

ence. You get to know how other

teams are faring and learn how to

improve your weak points. It was

slightly challenging to deal with

the motions that we were not very

familiarised with.

Nanyang Girls’ School

It was quite enriching because I

can identify the areas of improve-

ment. Sparring with teams from

other schools has enabled me to

learn in terms of content, style as

well as strategies. And of course,

in face of strong teams such as RI,

we learnt not to be intimidated by

opponents and continue to be

confident.

Global Indian International

College

This debate tournament has been

a good learning experience for us.

It has been a platform for us to

see, identify and rectify our mis-

takes. Usually, we are restricted to

our own styles and ways of debat-

ing. In this competition, we see

debaters from all over the country

with their own styles and points. It

was worthwhile preparing for this

debate for one reason that we got

to collect and read about a lot of

information that we never knew

and analyse some perspectives

and principles on which the world

works. Apart from the fact that we

lost, I say that it has rather been

our win to widen our thought pro-

cess. To us, it is a major valuable

experience.

Zhenghua Secondary School

Even though we were one of the

few division 3 teams and lost by

quite a big margin, it was never-

theless an enriching and learning

experience. When you are compet-

ing against stronger teams, only

then do you realise what you are

truly lacking.

United World College (SEA)

We debated with other schools in

the two rounds, and they raised

many good points which we can

learn. There was good organiza-

tion and structure in today’s tour-

nament. Many people (ushers)

provided us with a lot of help. As

we’ve only prepared on one side

(prop/opp), we get to hear argu-

ments from the opponent which

we know can be used next time.

Raffles Institution

(Team B) As the four of us are in

Secondary Two, this is one of our

first few competitions represent-

ing the school and it was a great

exposure for us. The whole tourna-

ment has been a very good learn-

ing experience for us, especially

for the younger members of the

team.

Bedok South Secondary

As we belong to division 3, debat-

ing with other schools in this tour-

nament gives us a real idea of

how the division 1 schools are

like. It really opens our eyes to

higher standards of debating.

Victoria Junior College

Today’s debate was insightful for

us. And it’s quite unique and inter-

esting to tie in with the theme of

superheroes for the motions. This

is actually the first time that we

see a school doing this. While de-

bating with other schools, we saw

a spectrum of personalities and

styles which we can apply in our

debating, pretty educational.

Catholic High School

We learn a lot in terms of content

(new terms) and structure. We

quarrel a lot but we cast out our

problems and reason them out.

We have come a long way, but we

still have a long way.

CHIJ St. Nicholas

Today’s debate was rather enrich-

ing, where we learnt about politi-

cal issues etc.. When we first saw

the theme of the competition, it

was quite unexpected as we do

not really see this in other compe-

titions. We weren’t sure what kind

of motions would come out. We

enjoyed the organization of to-

day’s debate. This school has put

in the most money into a debate

competition that we’ve ever seen.

We learn to be more resilient in

face of different circumstances

along the way, we just have to

adapt. Even though we had disa-

greements, we learnt how to work

together and contribute to better

the case. At the end of the day,

we’ll have to accept the result re-

gardless of whether we have won

or not.

Methodist Girls’ School

It was quite fun, because we get

to meet schools from different di-

visions. It was generally a good

competition and learning experi-

ence. You get to know how other

teams are faring and learn how to

improve your weak points. It was

slightly challenging to deal with

the motions that we were not very

familiarised with.

Nanyang Girls’ School

It was quite enriching because I

can identify the areas of improve-

ment. Sparring with teams from

other schools has enabled me to

learn in terms of content, style as

well as strategies. And of course,

in face of strong teams such as RI,

we learnt not to be intimidated by

opponents and continue to be

confident.

Global Indian International

College

This debate tournament has been

a good learning experience for us.

It has been a platform for us to

see, identify and rectify our mis-

takes. Usually, we are restricted to

our own styles and ways of debat-

ing. In this competition, we see

debaters from all over the country

with their own styles and points. It

was worthwhile preparing for this

debate for one reason that we got

to collect and read about a lot of

information that we never knew

and analyse some perspectives

and principles on which the world

works. Apart from the fact that we

lost, I say that it has rather been

our win to widen our thought pro-

cess. To us, it is a major valuable

experience.

Organising Committee

The people who worked together to bring you this event.

TOURNAMENT ADVISORS

Adrian Tan: Chief Adjudicator

Nicholas Huang: Deputy Chief Adjudicator

SENIOR HIGH DEBATE EXCO

Sarah Loh: Tournament Director

Natasha Sim: Deputy Tournament Director

Clara Lim: Director of Communications and Liaisons

Daniel Tay: Head of Event Management and Logistics

Tan Yen Lin: Head of Publicity and Special Programmes

JUNIOR HIGH DEBATE EXCO

Sharon Li Xin Rui

Tan Ying Ying Sonia

Ong Wei Shan Ebelle

Ho Ding Heng

TEACHERS IN CHARGE

Mr. Martin Chew, Ms. Cecilia Vaz

VIDEOGRAPHER & INTERVIEWER

Tan Wye Inn

Ng Wei Ting Kristin

PHOTOGRAPHY CLUB

Liew Guan Ke

Liao Ming Hui

Liu Hao Yi

VIDEO EDITOR

Samantha Siau Jing Wen

AUDIO & VISUAL ASSISTANTS

Choo Hin Wing

Yong Jun An

MAGAZINE EDITORS

Tan Yen Lin (Chief Editor/Design IC)

Ng Wei Ting Kristin (Deputy Editor)

PUBLICATIONS DESIGN COMITTEE

Cher Pei Sze (Deputy Design IC)

Fena Lee Ming Qin (Coverpage Artist)

Website: http://pheeena.co.cc

Isabella Lee Yu Hua

Liao Qing Yang

Li Fan Xiang

Wan Shu Hui

Chan Kwan Hao

MOTION TRACKERS & JOURNALISTS

Sim Yi Jie

Lam Yan Ting Tyne

Ng Si En Regina

Ong Zi Shan

Teo Nig Zhi Angelyn

Sung Yu Xin

Zeng Jin

We would also like to thank all ushers who helped out in the tournament.

Special thanks to Principal Dr. Foo, Vice Principal Mr Gan and the school for their support

We would like to thank the Special Programmes and Press Team for their contribution to the event.

VIDEOGRAPHER & INTERVIEWER

Tan Wye Inn

Ng Wei Ting Kristin

PHOTOGRAPHY CLUB

Liew Guan Ke

Liao Ming Hui

Liu Hao Yi

VIDEO EDITOR

Samantha Siau Jing Wen

AUDIO & VISUAL ASSISTANTS

Choo Hin Wing

Yong Jun An

MAGAZINE EDITORS

Tan Yen Lin (Chief Editor/Design IC)

Ng Wei Ting Kristin (Deputy Editor)

PUBLICATIONS DESIGN COMITTEE

Cher Pei Sze (Deputy Design IC)

Fena Lee Ming Qin (Coverpage Artist)

Website: http://pheeena.co.cc

Isabella Lee Yu Hua

Liao Qing Yang

Li Fan Xiang

Wan Shu Hui

Chan Kwan Hao

MOTION TRACKERS & JOURNALISTS

Sim Yi Jie

Lam Yan Ting Tyne

Ng Si En Regina

Ong Zi Shan

Teo Nig Zhi Angelyn

Sung Yu Xin

Zeng Jin

We would also like to thank all ushers who helped out in the tournament.

Special thanks to Principal Dr. Foo, Vice Principal Mr Gan and the school for their support

We would like to thank the Special Programmes and Press Team for their contribution to the event.