Forensics and Debate CC Prepare for IASAS

Debate

Anxiousness envelops both debate teams. The atmosphere smells of tension. Pens in hand, they scribble down any last minute notes as they rehearse their speeches. This “prelude to IASAS”, as Ms. Weber puts it, welcomes the new IASAS debate team. On a Tuesday afternoon, Team PROP and OPP clashed in the MPB 1 after school arguing the motion: “This house believes that dating apps kill romance.”  

The proposition, consisting of Sajid Farook (11), Sasha Wertime (10), Jingmin Wang (10) and Sarah Khan (10) argued that “dating apps facilitate long term connections and that dating apps assist those in niche groups looking for love in the 21st century,” according to Mrs. Weber, one of the debate coaches. On the opposition side, Anna Timchenko (9), Aidan Wiktorowicz (11), Raaid Tanveer (11), and Matthew Helmkamp (11) countered their claims with gripping speeches of their own, “pleading the case that resorting to algorithms could prevent a person from forming long term connections with partners,” as stated in a blurb Mrs. Weber wrote for the school marketing department.

“Veteran” debaters, according to Ms. Weber, such as Sajid Farook (11) and Sasha Wertime (10) knew that that being nervous was only going to hold them back. All debaters up there exemplified what confidence looked like, and it was illuminated in their cogent speeches. Albeit Anna, a freshman IASIS debater, was nervous, she performed very well.

Sajid, for example, debunked the other team’s arguments by elucidating the fact that in all forms of dating, not just on dating apps, one is attracted to someone due to their “superficial details”, then as time progresses they get to know each other more and more. On the other hand, the opposing team argued that “dating apps force us to make first impressions based on looks only.” Sajid also cleverly pointed out that dating apps cannot “kill romance” even though the other team argued that it can because of the “downsides in terms of safety.” How can a dating app “kill” romance? Impossible.

As the first speaker, Sasha argued that “when you’re dating in the real world, your only selection choices are the people that are in your neighborhood or at your college, etc. Whereas dating apps allow for more a diverse selection pool for a possible partner.” Although her argument was quality, she admitted: “debate is naturally nerve-racking.” But she has “luckily” overcome that fear and it’s evident in her speech.

In the end, Jingmin, Sarah, Sasha, and Sajid, members of the proposition team, won by the majority of votes – and I mean the majority; almost everyone in the MPB that afternoon had voted for them! Nonetheless, both teams gave it their all and I think I speak on behalf of the audience: the debate had elements of humor and persuasion that all around intrigued the audience. We wish the 2019 IASAS Debate Team only a fruitful conference in Jakarta!

Forensics

ISB’s Forensics Team has been working since November in preparation to partake in the IASAS Cultural Convention on Jakarta from Feb 28-March 2nd.  After bringing home 4 medals last year, the team will look to “move some souls” as they attempt to equal or improve upon last year’s effort.

The Oral Interpretation team, where students present a dramatic reading of a piece of literature, consists of veterans Taylor Chisholm (12) and Eylul Kara (11), as well as newcomer Will Condra (12).  “The readings the team has chosen are more on the creepy, morbid side!” admits Coach Conor Duffy. “You know, death, stalking, guilt… no matter what happens, I know the audience is going to have a strong reaction to what we have to share!”

The Impromptu team consists of Jaden Cilliers (10), Zwe Latt (10) and Craig Dawe (11).  Arguably the most challenging Forensics discipline, speakers are given ONE minute to create a speech based on a short prompt.  The one returning member, Cilliers, claims that “to be good at impromptu, you need to have a whole archive of experiences to draw on, you need to be eloquent and calm, and… you also need to be thinking ahead of what you will say next because none of it is written down!”  The team will look to emulate the success of last year’s champion, Colin Vanelli, who leaves an inspiring legacy behind.

Extemporaneous speakers answer a question that deals with the current political situation in the world… from S.E Asia to the USA, to South America.  The team consists of last year’s finalist Zwe Latt (11), Will Condra (12) and Luke Helmkamp (11). Coach Martin O’Donnell and his team have been preparing by archiving hundreds of articles and reading newspapers every day as they aim to become the “political leaders of the future!”

Finally, the Original Oratory team consists of Todd Amatyakul (10), Taylor Chisholm (12) and Ava Alam (11).  They have written their own persuasive speeches which range from “looking beyond the simple black and white perception of the world” to “finding the beauty in yourself”.  Coach Mrs. Hagen says, “the selection process for the team this year was very tough. There were six or eight students who easily could have made the team. In the end, though, the three we have worked very hard and I think they will represent us well!.”

Good luck to all the whole ISB Forensics and Debate team!