So today was the debates against the Jew's Free School (name recently changed from Jewish Free School, for obvious reasons.) The title is the results. Yay!

The year eights lost, but by barely anything. The motion was "This house would enforce the use of DNA as proof of identification". We had some good points, but so did they, sadly. What was really really odd in this debate was when they linked a DNA database with the discrimination and scapegoating of Jews during and before WW2. Ignoring that this is nonsense because one's religion is not in one's DNA at all, I was, and still am, amazed by the extent to which they sort of played up to the stereotype. It was odd, that's all, really.

My team- I was first speaker, Eli second, and Alice summarised- won our debate, on "This house would abolish anti-social behaviour orders".

The last debate was undoubtedly the best, and was won, by Giggy on first speaker, Pritesh on second, and Sarah summarising, by eighteen points. Let me say that again- eighteen points. Those guys rock, right?

Here's A Fact:
Every single one of the JFSers started their arguments with the same two sentences: "Good afternoon, Ladies, Gentlemen, Timekeeper, Madam Chairman, and learned opponents." This may be the Proper Way, but Christ.

Another thing:

Why all the emphasis on structure? The JFSers got tons of points for it, but all it is is "I am going to talk about A, B, and C. AAAA, BBBB, CCCC. I have now spoken about A, B, and C." And then the summarisers say "Today we have heard about A, B, and of course C." Why? I don't like it, personally. Neither does Eli or Alex. I mean, if it's done well, great. But it often really isn't, and then it really doesn't flow. It just doesn't sound good! It wastes time! Whatever happened to moving speeches? Why is it all structure, structure, structure? Is it really effective, or do people only get extra marks for it because all the pieces of paper have it written down? What do you people think?