ALSA UI 2008 - Part 2
Wednesday, May 21st, 2008Well I really wanna make it a long and detailed post like the first part, but huhm boredom strikes back and I feel kinda lazy to write it actually…but in the first part I already put that ‘promise’ of making the 2nd part, so well yeah, I can just post this and wait. xP
KNOCK OUT ROUNDS
Monday, 21st April 2008
Octofinal - vs SMAK Tarakanita Jakarta A
Brown side (us) versus Green Side (them) (that’s what I said in my reply speech : “so the winning should be given to the brown side, and not the green side. Thank you”), girls versus girls and it was a relatively standard debate I think. They questioned our definition upon the motion THBT Gov Should Disclose The Names of Products with Compromised Quality. We defined “compromised quality” as products that have been proven that they contain dangerous substances, and they said it must had been “products that haven’t been proven that they are dangerous”. HEH??? And I read in one of a participant’s friendster profile that a member of TarKi said they lost because of SMA 3’s lame definition. Hmmmm. Let’s take it as a form of her freedom of speech, shall we? Haha. The most important thing is we launched to the quarterfinal with a pretty good margin (I actually forget the number, precisely).
Quarterfinal - vs SMAN 3 BANDUNG B!!!!!!!!
Bah. Again and again this ‘curse’ happened. I dunno, SMA 3 has a tendency to meet their own brothers and sisters in one of the knock-out rounds. Take a look at some of it : Aloy 2007 (Quarterfinal, my team lost); AECS UPI 2007 (Octofinal, my team lost again); Aloy 2008 (Quarterfinal, my team won); ALSA UI 2008 (my team……won or lost? haven’t been to the end of the story yet. heheh).
So it was an impromptu motion. I forget the motion…hmmm…THBT Journalist Can be Forced To Reveal Their Sources for Law Enforcement Purposes, am I wrong? Yah it was about journalist-something, and luckily me and my team watched Varsity Debate on Sunday. Although we just watched a half of the debate between ITB B and BINUS, we still remembered some of the arguments and it really helped in our casebuilding time. So there we were, as the affirmative team brought the definition of law enforcement purposes as investigation in corruption cases, and that the journalists are not forced to reveal their sources OPENLY in media, but just in front of interrogators, so that the interrogators can be sure that the news about corruption cases are actually true. Well I admit that it wasn’t a very good definition but we thought it was reasonable enough to be debated, and suddenly…….
Our dear little bunny Afifa Ayu came up nervously and said “so we as the negative team want to challenge their truistic definition”. WHOA? My first definitional challenge debate ever! Hahah, I thought “this is gonna be fun!”. But then again, something weird happened. They did challenge us, but Afifa didn’t state clearly what their new definition was (even if I didnt hear it, but the adjudicators also didn’t, they said in their adjudication). Their definition was clear enough in Gichie, but he was the third speaker negative. And personally I think they did clash with us…I mean it was like a normal debate with accepted definition, so I was actually a bit confused, was it a definitional challenge debate or not?
Huhm…the adjudicators took a VERY LONG TIME to decide the winner. Even when people had gone to debaters’ hall we hadn’t had our adjudication. After a long time waiting, they gave us a pretty clear assessment but then again it was hard to guess the winner because the adjs gave a “hidden-meaning” in their adjudication (oh, marini and ega were glad because that good looking adj in our first prelim was adjudicating).
So again and again, in Balai Sidang. and sim salabim abrakadabraaaaaaaaaa……….
SMAN 3 BANDUNG A EVENTUALLY WON THE DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!! HOORAY!
So now that curse turns good for us. It was a tie 2-2 now! ^_^ (Both competitions in 2007 were for Afifa’s team and both 2008 competitions for me and ega’s team. huehe).
Tuesday, 22nd April, 2008
Here we were…as a semifinalist getting near to our dream of being a champion…
The debate was held in a room named…I forget…a room beside S.J. Latifa or something…it was totally cold in that room. So the semifinalists were Bandung (us), Jakarta, Tangerang, and Balikpapan.
Bandung vs Tangerang, Jakarta vs Balikpapan. Canisius told us to beat Tangerang because of the loss of SMAK 1 BPK Jakarta (Bobbi said : Egaaa…Marshaaaa…Mariniii…kata Ignes “bob, balesin dendam gw ke tangerang”).
Nah, this was a flaw in the plan (heh?). The heading was about International Issues and huhm, the chosen motion was THBT Every Country Should Have The Same Rights To Build Nuclear Weapons. HA HA HA, funny thing how me and Ega did see it as “right to build nuclear facility” and we put that motion in our first consideration during the Motion Preference. Little fools (we over-synchronized ourselves that time, buddy. heheh).
So after we sat in our “usual-holy-position” (hheh you won’t understand this! ask me for further explanation) suddenly we realized that it was nuclear weapons actually. That explains why the tangerang team was a bit confused we put that motion as our first consideration (we were government again).
But nasi telah menjadi bubur, we tried to dig up our minds and I congratulate my team for making pretty fine arguments. Little did we know about Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that Pandu told us after the debate, otherwise the debate would change.
Well personally I did think we could win that time. Not to undermine tangerang of course, they played well too and it didn’t hurt us that much, yah…a lil disappointment but well, we had been trained to be strong, by those “mental-practice” we received in ITB…and we also had been trained (by ourselves and SEF pepol) not to blame adjudicators…blame ourselves, that’s the right thing to do. Heheh. Don’t debate me on saying “that’s the right thing to do” ya. For this case it was ourselves that should be blamed. Well I just regret that our balance-of-power concept were not elaborated well (thanks to Ega for popping this idea out in the middle of the debate), but it was a tight debate, split 3 to 2, the chair adj and the native-speaker adj gave the winning to us so it wasn’t a crap.
Yeah…that was the end of our looooonnnnggggg journey. It all began from a little dream of a little girl in a big big world…it’s funny how life works…
FINAL ROUND
CANISIUS A vs SMAN 1 TANGERANG A
Bobbi, Stef, William vs Fahmi, Yoyo, Ghea
Na na na na na. Huhu. ITB has lost the last day in Octofinal (for further mocking and additional curses upon this please directly contact one of SEF ITB people. heheheh) and now we sat in the spectators’ seat wondering how would it be if we were on the stage. halaaa.
*to be continued.
