There are times in your life when you believe that logic trumps everything. Ideally, yes, this would be the case, but apparently, ironically, logic was the only thing missing from the quarter-finals debate last Friday.
Then, there are times in an argument when the outcome seems obvious, that the balance of power tips to one side more than the other, and a clear victory can be seen ahead. Even more so in a debate when all the other side can offer are asinine points and inane rebuttals, too much for a person, let alone three people, to deal with, and you would think that experienced debaters would be able to see that.
But life does not work that way; life is unfair.
And so, miraculously, shockingly, we lost the debate to the other team.
The motion? This House Would Allow All States To use Nuclear Technology.
What happened last Friday really broke my faith in the adjudicating system of Julia Gabriels'. It was already such a touchy topic amongst us, which was the exact same reason we lost last year, by the way. You would expect a fair and justified verdict when it came to debating, no? Unfortunately, even we do not enjoy that luxury.
It is not the fact that we lost that enraged me, it was the fact that we lost on the grounds that we did not 'fulfil our purpose as the opposition.'
Good grief. For the past two years, we have been unable to win the quarter-finals with excellent cases, so maybe next year we should give a tip to the team if they should make the quarter-finals: Come up with a crap case without examples or proper elaborations, and the shit judging system will see you through.
So, in this post, I would like to express deepest gratitude to people who have been involved with the debate team these past two months, even amidst all the crappy rulings that take place, our efforts will be rewarded one day. There is still the debate workshop and promises of more competitions to look forward to, so all is not lost.