Otago Boys’ High win Otago-Southland Regionals
Otago Boys’ High School defeated Columba College in Dunedin tonight to win the Otago-Southland Regional Schools’ Debating Competition, the final regional tournament of the year. Click here for a full report and photos.
16 comments16 Comments so far
Leave a reply
Is this the team with Boron what is there coaches name.
Hmmm i cant help but feel disapointed, i was always a big fan of Columba. Its always a shame to see them lose.
I bet you that Otago Boys team didnt deserve winning. I think that the Russel McVeagh Rules are quite sad really, takes all the argument out of the debate, and turns it into, orientation day at primary school. It is good to see people getting behind debaters, but i hate to see good debaters wasted just because of silly loops and rules. No interjections ? Whats up with that? they make the debate. And i dont get why it was extended over 2 days this year, it ment i couldnt stay and watch, so there are a few things to think about. Fun day, but could do better.
Well I did watch the final, and I can tell you that Otago Boy’s definitely DID deserve to win. Yes, Columba was good, but really there was only one really good speaker from Columba, while Otago Boys’ had 3 really good speakers. And also, I am fairly certain that in the finals and semi-finals interjections were allowed (except during the right of reply obviously) just not in the first few rounds. I really don’t see which ’sad’ rules you are referring to either – I can’t think of any rule that impinged on the debates, in fact I though it was some of the highest quality, most interesting debating I’ve seen at secondary level. And I believe it was held over 2 days this year because most people found 6 debates in one day was far too much (especially when 4 were impromptu) and in previous year they have found that the quality of the final wasn’t very good when it was held all on one day because everyone was a bit worn out after such a long day and couldn’t really be bothered doing another. I personally thought it was much better having it over two days because, although it might mean some people couldn’t stay to watch the whole thing, the debates were of higher quality and the debaters weren’t so tired – in fact, many thought 3 in a day was tough, so 6 would just be awful.
Oh by the way, yes Otago Boys’ is the team with Borom on it but I don’t know the coach’s name, sorry.
Thanks for the reply i would love to find out there coaches name.
Report and photos up at: http://www.debating.org.nz/regionals/otago-southland
Hmmmm. I must just be bias i supposed. just against Otago boys, probably because from what I heard they started spreading rumors about other teams. Now I really do think that is poor sportsmanship and not very honourable. But thats probably just me, other people might disagree that spreading rumors about other teams you lost to is wrong, but thats just what was circulating on the day.
OB’s coach was Mr Barry. The Otago Boys team weren’t spreading rumors but were concerned about one teams tactics and queried the judges about points of order in order to be prepared to deal with them should the teams meet in the competition. This was brought up by their coach and had nothing to do with the boys on the team.
As a former member of this Otago Boys’ team, I am rather disappointed by Robert’s comment that “I bet you that Otago Boys team didn’t deserve winning.” Judging by the fact that you state you weren’t even there during the final; this is an extremely rash statement to make against a team that put so much work and effort into reaching the final and winning. It was definitely a close debate, but Otago Boys’ deserved to win through a great all-round performance.
There is absolutely no truth in your words that the team was “spreading rumours” about other teams, and I suggest that you would choose your words more carefully before making such fleeting accusations. The reason for not allowing interjections was due to the actions of certain individuals whom seemed to mistake the definition of an interjection being “short, witty, and to the point” as “trying to shout down the opposing speaker in cross-floor debate.”
It was extended to two days due to the fact that holding it over one day was far too tiring for those teams participating in the final, and having been in the final in 2008 I can agree with this decision.
In the photos, the student labelled with the question mark’s name is “Hayden Robinson”.
Well matt i was at the debate and back up the statement that robert made about the team spreading rumors and making other teams out to be horrible. I did think otago boys did very well but the fact they WERE spreading rumors about other teams tactics from which as far as i could tell were not true at all certainley put a dampner on the day.
Thankyou
Whether or not they were rumours or concerns will remain a sticking point; there is such a fine line between them it is often difficult to differentiate them. The fact remains that what were perceived to be genuine concerns were raised at the time, and these may have been misinterpreted. However, concerns, where they exist, must be raised and considered, as without them, competitions such as Russell McVeagh would never develop into encouraging, competitive environments for developing New Zealand’s young debating talent.
The past is the past, and when a textual argument spans three months, you do begin to wonder whether people realise that what has been done has been done, and no U-turn can be made to change proceedings. The only thing we can do is take many lessons from this experience, and move on.
“You turn if you want to. The lady’s NOT for turning”-Margaret Thatcher, arguably one of the most persuasive and powerful debaters to have lived, though still powerless to turn back time.
I myself was not at the debate but the question does remain weather or not rumors were spread on the day perhaps they were perhaps they wernt, this however is irrelavent. The comment from Borom about margaret thather is rubbish. She wasw not a good debater she just always picked the easier side of an argument and came out on top although being ousted by her own party leaves the question of weather she could even do that properly. In thatchers time she started a war and ruined britsins industry to the point where it could never recover. and as for turning back time well thats even worse for then we would return to a time of britsh imperialism under the criminal that is queen victoria.
Perhaps for you, Borom, it is hard to differentiate between a “rumor” and a “concern”. For example, “Michael Jackson (how timely of me, oh ho ho) is actually an alien who recently flew back to Mars” is a rumor; whilst, say, “my rent is due in 5 days and I haven’t got enough money” is a genuine concern. I think the problem of the Otago Boys’ Debating Team is that they cannot deal with “actual debating”- ie. debating where there is interaction, often in the form of interjections. Perhaps that should be a concern of yours. No doubt the lady you quote- Thatcher- could deal with interjections.
otago boys high school rocks!!!!!!
i am joining it!
I dont really see what the problem is. Otago boys won the regional, but whether they should have won is ultimately moot point. It slides to a matter of opinion that really rests in the hands of the judge.( be that too much power for a single person it maybe, but that is the beautiful system we are stuck with). Really i dont find fault with the individual teams, but more the system, i find that when i was at school, the debate was a lively event, i cant help but feel that Russell McVeagh has almost killed the spirit of what debating is actually about. While the debates i saw were good, i think there needed to be interaction between teams. At first i wondered why there were not interjections, the reason being is that the teams cant control themselves. But i wound think that this is a skill that goes hand in hand with debating. Debating is all about fast thinking and sharp comments, NOT reading of a piece of paper! If that was the concern of Russell McVeagh then couldnt they have used points of information. I have seen several debates and while they do not rival the ultimate classic of interjections, they would certainly make said debate more enjoyable, the only part of the debate where the speakers actually interact with the other team is when delivering rebutal. My observations quickly warrented that speakers had to save any flaw in the opposing argument for their next speaker, this in turn caused the more awake debaters to get marked down because they ran out of time to deliver the main ideas of their speech. But it also gives the opposing team who may not be as good to get away with silly cheap tactics like “they didnt actually answer our question”. It keeps the debate in the infant stage where the weaker team can hold a potentially better team in one spot by not making any attempt to actually evolve the argument.( like they still havent answered our question)Sure they shouldnt admit they are wrong, but its like listening to a debate where one team isnt recognising the others arguments.
Therefore i conclude that the interaction between teams is essential to deliver a high standard of debating. Sure it may not be identical to what a lawyer might do, but they arent training the kids to be the next SS of Russell McVeagh law firm. So my provocative comment i leave is this. Anyone who doesnt recognise that debates with interjections(or points of information) is ignorant, a PC machine which is blinded. in closing
“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” ~William G. McAdoo