ABP 4 vs BSA 3: A Debate

This is a track back article.

Before (11 September 2006)

Hanzel informed me that Emy declined to participate as second speaker in the upcoming debate. I was baffled. I simply can’t comprehend the reason behind her decision.

After our class in Abnormal Psychology, I talked to her and made some points in order to persuade her. Still, I failed. She insisted that she don’t like to and that she don’t know how. I was enraged. I found it irrational and too self-serving. How can she assert that she don’t know how when she was able to come up with excellent arguments in our previous exercises and exams in Ethics? But my thoughts were useless for she walked out of the scene like a hot chili sauce.

The said incident caused a BIG gap between the two of us. As the days passed she also became hostile with the rest the class excluding Jen and ate Cel. I dunno why.


During (13 September 2006r,10-11:30 a.m.)

Proposition: Should there be a right to die for the chronically and terminally ill patient? Affirmative side: AB Psychology 4 (Ethics class)
Negative side: BS Accountancy 3 (Logic class)
Arbiter: Dino Marquez, BSA 3
Adjudicators:
Ms. Thelma Balba, Faculty Assistant
Mr. Gerard Sarmiento
The representatives of ABP 4 were: Yen (Second Constructive speech); Hanzel (Rebuttal speech); Liz, Karen, and ate cel (scribes); and I (First Constructive speech)

I was not that confident while delivering my speech not because my piece is rubbish, but because I fear that my low speaking voice will fail me and the group (I perceive that my voice is audible, but it’s not enough in terms of public speaking). But I was encouraged by the results of the interpellation. I was able (thanks to Hanzel, he’s the one who prepared my queries) to cause inconsistencies with the Negative side’s first speaker. I’m just not sure if the adjudicators clearly noticed this.

Yen’s speech was superb. She emphasized our stand markedly. She wasn’t able to finish her piece though. What I love most was the interpellation between the second speakers of both sides.

Here are the quotable quotes:

Yen: (addressing Dino) “May I answer the question…”
Dino: "Of course you should answer the question."
(Yen meant, if she can elaborate her answer)

Yen: (addressing Dino) “May…”
Mark: “You should answer my question.”
(Yen was trying to asked the arbiter, Dino, if she can elaborate her answer but Mark hindered her to do so with the statement mentioned earlier)

On the other hand, Hanzel delivered a very good speech. He was able to refute the points of the negative side. However, his speech was cut short due to time constraint (which is 6 minutes per speaker).

As the activity end, Mr. Gerard Sarmiento revealed the score 528 and 529 in favor of the BSA 3 debaters. But mind you, Yen, our second speaker emerged as the Best Debater.

All in all, we lost in the debate. Well that’s life; there are always a winner and a loser.


After (15 September 2006)

Hanzel told me the fishy side of the debate. (I won’t discuss it here.) But I would explicitly express my disappointment. It was very unlikely for such an authority to do that. Its not simply unfair; its also morale-breaking. I’m praying this won’t happen again.

Do I sound sour griping? Well, honesty yes. But I’m over that now; it’s just that it tend to be recurrent in my subconscious mind.

May all of us be treated and treat with justice!