Messafe from Admin

Blog would be updated in a time duration of like 1 week, we would be providing you with all the pictures and stuff as soon as possible. Just the blog admin is busy with lots of work.

Anyways if any of you individual want speicific picture of yours email me on ubaid11@hotmail.com or you can contact me on my facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/ubeee

Thank you for your co-operation, Do add it in your reading list.
Regards,
Ubaid Ullah Ahmed

GCU (A) vs PCBA - final results

Government college university has won the Lahore School Debate 2010 by the virtue of a 3-2 split decision in the grand final against Punjab College of Business Administration. The judges in favor of Government College University were Ahmad Iqbal, Ayesha Mirza and Tughrul Turab. The judges in favor of Punjab College of Business Administration were Shahryar Qureshi and Haider Azhar.

CONGRATULATIONS GCU FOR WINNING

LAHORE SCHOOL DEBATE '10 

GCU (A) vs PCBA - Final Match

"This house belives that Pakistan parliament should be supreme"

GCU (A) - vs PCBA

Proposition vs Opposition

Yes the final topic has been given to the participants and the debate has started

TEAM MEMBERS

GCU (A)

Abbas nazir

Hamza ijaz (R)

Umer Khan

PCBA

Nosherwan khan

Hassan Habbib Khan (R)

Awais Akhtar

Top 10 Teams

		TEAM	WINS	SPEAKER POINTS	MARGIN
1		Lums (B)	3	766.5	17
2		Lums (A)	3	776.5	14.5
3		GCU - A	3	798.5	11.5
4		PCB - A	3	783.5	8
5		BLL	3	795	3.5
6		GIKI	2	786.5	21.5
7		Lums (C)	2	771.5	20
8		AKU	2	787.5	13.5
9		UCL (B)	2	786	9.5
10		BDC (A)	2	786.5	8.5

Top 30 Speakers

Speaker Hamza Ijaz	Score 233.5
Aaisha Nisha Sikander Shah	230.5
Mustafa Khan	230.5
Asad Javed	230
Uzair Ghuman	228
Asad Khan	228
Salman Khan	228
Meher Mehtab	227.5
Arsalan Burni	227.5
Umair Zafar Malik	227.5
Dawood Khan	227
Hamza	226.5
Abbas Haider	226.5
Mehreen Arjunend	226.5
Hassan Habib Khan	226
Ahmad Mustafa	225.5
Usmani Afzal	225.5
Maryam Sheikh	225.5
Fatima Bukhari	225.5
Saram Ahmad	225
Usman Majid	225
Ghias Sheikh	225
Awais	225
Armina Lailah Sharif	224.5
Anam Shoaib	224
Aneeqa Idris	224
Tamara Saleem	223.5
Zinnia Mansoor	223.5
Taha	223.5
Haider Ali Khan	223

Some Pictures from round 2 and 3

The Debating Gazette - 6th Feb 10

THE DEBATING GAZETTE

LAHORE SCHOOL BILINGUAL DECLAMATION
Walking toward the garden café, we heard a great deal of commotion in the distance. Thinking that a fight had broken out, fearing the worst, and looking out for people throwing kicks and punches, we ran to the scene, only to stop and stare in utter amazement. There was no crowd, no fighting and no bloodshed. All we saw there was a bunch of students, pacing up and down, practicing their declamations with great passion and vigor. So much for the catfight we were all looking forward to. Oh well, better luck next time.


GOSSIPOLOGY
This column contains anything and everything that happens on this campus, and has nothing to do with debating whatsoever. Sensitive readers must proceed with caution, and those of you can’t stomach the scandal should read no further.

Psssstt!!!!........tidbits from a conversation
Boy fistpumps girl
Boy: I like your ring
Girl: hainaaaa!! Achi hai na?
Boy: Haan buhat aalaa hai. Matching bhi hai. Nailpolish bhi achi hai but match nahin karti.
Girl: Don’t underestimate me, Meray pass her color ki matching nail polish hai *playfully hits boy*
Boy: Haan purple honi chahiye thi
Girl: Nahin yeh mauve hai.
Boy assumes the role of proposition for the motion that the nail polish is purple
Girl assumes the role of the oppoisiotn and the debate begins.

We get to see so many good things at these inter-university contests. Like look at the shirt that has fallen out from a cheap Marathi movie. Sweetheart, Govinda called he wants his floral pattern and psychedelic color shirt back.
And some people were complaining that LUMS management was better than the LSE one. Frankly, we agree with you people. We need better looking volunteers. No offence to anyone.
And who gave the delegates the chance to diss our laptops and projectors. That’s our job man. We took them out from the LSE museum to impress you all.

ADJUDICATION
An adjudicator should take the standpoint of the ‘disinterested average reasonable person’ in assessing the arguments and presentation in a debate. Thus, the adjudicator’s own opinions, specialist knowledge or tastes should not influence how they view the debate. There will usually be more than one feature distinguishing the two teams. Common distinguishing features generally correspond to the components used for marking: matter, manner and method. For example, one team may win because:
 on critical issues that team presents a superior case (matter); or
 whilst the two cases are of comparable strength, that team had stronger rebuttal and points of information (matter); or
 the presentation of that team was more engaging and convincing (manner); or
 the structure and consistency of that team, either within each speech or throughout the speeches, was superior (method).
By contrast, ‘technical’ faults are unlikely to be decisive in themselves although they may contribute to decisive considerations. For example, poor timing is a technical fault but it is usually associated with poor structure and prioritisation, which will have an impact on method. Similarly, the absence of a case statement is a technical fault but it is usually associated with looseness in the focus and clarity of arguments, which may affect matter and method.
In making a decision, adjudicators attempt to weigh up the major substantive features distinguishing the teams throughout the course of the debate. In particular, they will attempt to avoid the ‘crescendo effect’ – the effect a good third speaker can have in making a team’s argument seem much stronger than it previously appeared. Debating is a team effort and can rarely be won or lost by one team member alone.

REBUTTAL
Rebuttal is one of the most important parts of debating. It refers to the response that debaters make to the arguments of the opposing team. Different speakers should handle rebuttal slightly differently (for example, the rebuttal by a first negative should be brief enough to allow the negative to develop their own case fully, see section three – Speaker Roles – for more details). However there are some key aspects within effective rebuttal that can be identified regardless of where a person speaks within a debate.
Firstly, ‘thematic rebuttal’ is always more effective than ‘point-by-point rebuttal’. Point-by-point rebuttal refers to simply responding one by one to the arguments presented by the other side. There are a number of problems associated with this type of rebuttal. Firstly, it is very easy to miss an argument that may become important later on in the debate. Secondly, it can take a very long time to get through all of the arguments presented by the opposition, and this takes away valuable time from the team’s substantive matter.
A much more effective, fast and comprehensive approach to rebuttal is thematic rebuttal. That is, identify the major themes within the opposition’s case and attack those. In using thematic rebuttal, a speaker can also much more readily identify and address the key issues in the debate. A good analogy for rebuttal is that of a tree. The case statement and relevant themes of a case are the trunk, the arguments are the branches and the examples used are the twigs. If you wanted to knock the tree down, it makes a lot more sense to go straight for the trunk, rather than breaking off the twigs and branches. Indeed, sometimes it is appropriate to ignore the twigs and smaller branches (the examples) to give enough time for attacking the trunk and main branches (the main arguments).
For example, suppose that an affirmative team presented the following arguments for the topic ‘That physical education should be an elective’.
1. Students have a right to choose other subjects so why not physical education?
2. Students are exposed to unnecessary risk of physical injury.
3. Students can get sporting involvement outside the school in extra curricular activities.
4. There is poor funding within schools even for maths and science, let alone physical education. These other subject should have priority.
5. There is a shortage of qualified physical education teachers
Rather than responding to these arguments one by one, it is better to group them into two themes: for example the interests of the students (arguments 1, 2 and 3); and the concerns of the schools (arguments 4 and 5).

Qutoes

“When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate.”

Addison Whithecomb quotes

“Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.”

Hubert H. Humphrey quotes (American 38th US Vice President under Lyndon B. Johnson (1965-69) and US Senator from Minnesota (1949-64, 1971-78).1911-1978)


“Deliberation and debate is the way you stir the soul of our democracy.”

Jesse Jackson quotes (American Civil-Rights Leader, Baptist Minister and Politician, b.1941)


“Even the standard example of ancient nonsense - the debate about angels on pinheads - makes sense once you realize that theologians were not discussing whether five or eighteen would fit, but whether a pin could house a finite or an infinite number”

Stephen Jay Gould quotes


JOKES
Questions on a examination:
Art: Given one eight-count box of crayons and three sheets of notebook paper, recreate the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Skin tones should be true to life.

Biology: Create life. Estimate the differences in subsequent human culture if this form of life had developed 500 million years earlier, with special attention to its probable effect on the English Parliamentary System circa 1750. Prove your thesis.

Chemistry: You must identify a poison sample which you will find at your lab table. All necessary equipment has been provided. There are two beakers at your desk, one of which holds the antidote. If the wrong substance is used, it causes instant death. You may begin as soon as the professor injects you with a sample of the poison. (We feel this will give you an incentive to find the correct answer.)

Computer Science: Write a fifth-generation computer language. Using this language, write a computer program to finish the rest of this exam for you.

Economics: Develop a realistic plan for refinancing the national debt. Trace the possible effects of your plan in the following areas: Cubism, the Donatist Controversy and the Wave Theory of Light. Outline a method for preventing these effects. Criticize this method from all possible points of view. Point out the deficiencies in your point of view, as demonstrated in your answer to the last question.

Electrical Engineering: You will be placed in a nuclear reactor and given a partial copy of the electrical layout. The electrical system has been tampered with. You have seventeen minutes to find the problem and correct it before the reactor melts down.

Engineering: The disassembled parts of a high-powered rifle have been placed on your desk. You will also find an instruction manual, printed in Swahili. In 10 minutes, a hungry bengal tiger will be admitted to the room. Take whatever action you feel necessary. Be prepared to justify your decision.

Epistemology: Take a position for or against truth. Prove the validity of your stand.

General Knowledge: Describe in detail. Be objective and specific.

History: Describe the history of the Papacy from its origins to the present day, concentrating especially, but not exclusively, on its Europe, Asia, America and Africa. Be brief, concise and specific.

Mathematics: Derive the Euler-Cauchy equations using only a straightedge and compass. Discuss in detail the role these equations had on mathematical analysis in Europe during the 1800s.

Medicine: You have been provided with a razor blade, a piece of gauze, and a bottle of scotch. Remove your appendix. Do not suture until you work has been inspected. You have fifteen minutes.

Metaphysics: Describe in detail the probably nature of life after death. Test your hypothesis.

Music: Write a piano concerto. Orchestrate and perform it with flute and drum. You will find a piano under your seat.

Philosophy: Sketch the development of human thought. Estimate its significance. Compare with the development of any other kind of thought.

Physchology: Based on your knowledge of their works, evaluate the emotional stability, degree of adjustment, and repressed frustrations of each of the following: Alexander of Aphrodisis, Rameses II, Hammuarabi. Support your evaluation with quotations from each man's work, making appropriate references. It is not necessary to translate.

Physics: Explain the nature of matter. Include in your answer an evaluation of the impact of the development of mathematics on science.

Political Science: There is a red telephone on the desk beside you. Start World War III. Report at length on its socio-political effects if any.

Public Speaking: 2500 riot-crazed aborigines are storming the classroom. Calm them. You may use any ancient language except Latin or Greek.

Religion: Perform a miracle. Creativity will be judged.

Sociology: Estimate the sociological problems which might accompany the end of the world. Construct an experiment to test your theory.

Extra Credit: Define the universe, and give three examples.

Day 1 - Pictures

Some pictures from day 1

Round 1 - standings

I WOULD NOW LIKE THE GOVERNMENT TO WHIP THE FLOOR

“Papers and pens out” and as Ayesha Mirza, said that the Lahore School Debates of 2010 were kicked off. The excitement and enthusiasm could be felt in the SBS Library as students of 33 teams from over 20 Pakistani institutions were packed in the room. The proceedings started with the registration of the teams at 10:00 am and orientation packages were handed out to the participants. This was followed by a draft where the match ups were set and announced. The lack of a microphone made this task difficult so turns were taken to scream out the instructions to the delegates. The 1st round started at 12:50 pm and was concluded by 2:20 pm.

The positions for the 1st round were:

This house believes that Pakistan and China should create a joint nuclear task force to keep Indian ambitions in check.

This house believes that Israel should step out of nuclear ambiguity.

This house believes in an Islamic nuclear umbrella

Many of the speakers stood out in the opening sessions. For example speaking from a propositional position on the issue of Israel’s nuclear ambiguity, the delegate from AKU stated the case of going to war. So start amassing your weapons people. A war is coming to an area near you. Plus he accepted a point of information in the last minute which is basically a cardinal sin of debating. So why not wage a war against him? By the way if you don’t know the guy, he is the one with the hair. To this the delegate from Bahria University reprimanded the delegate and asked him to “warm his seat”. Little miss goody two shoes. Or should I say heart shaped socks. The delegate from Lahore Alma…um….was not…um…um…make her point quite clearly and mostly confused the topic for US Israel relations. Ummmm…….For people who think I m stepping over the line….umm…I am just stating the facts.

The match up between SISA and Beaconhouse Liberty was of contrasts. The way they articulated their ideas and made their points. The way the delegate from SISA talked slowly to consolidate his position while Miss Brooche, ahem ahem, the whip from Beaconhouse started the bang. Using a wide range of sound frequencies during her speech, she “pitchslapped” her opposition. And now that we are discussing exaggeration, why don’t we mention the delegate from LGS Defence? From the disgusted face to her victory dance, she kept us thoroughly entertained. “Maaaaadddaammmmm!!!!” Expression Overload much? Can you please let the other delegates talk? And where did you come up with those airy fairy concepts of debating?

Next, lets talk about the debate between KC and FAST. All I’m going to say here is that KC lost their 3rd speaker to the usher, even before the debate started. wonder how they handled the rest of the debate. The PCBA vs. UCL debate was a little more interesting. This match-up was very amusing indeed. On one side, we had a sharp, haughty speaker, being all smug and hurling sarcastic comments at his competitors, and on the other side, a quiet and shy speaker, talking at the speed of around 8 words per minute, and leaving awkward silences during his speech. To make things worse, the opposition ended up insulting his 6th grade history teacher too! Wonder how he felt about that??

Some Pictures from Round 1: