After its success last year, the SGEN Debate Cup returned from February to March 2023 to ensure that new students from SGEN schools have the opportunity to experience the thrill of competitive debating.
The theme of the competition is “A World Through A Lens,” meaning to provide an opportunity for different points of view to be heard and discussed, allowing SGEN students to gain a better understanding of complex issues worldwide.
The SISC Debate Club-oranized event encouraged students to develop their skills in public speaking, critical thinking, and argumentation while also fostering a spirit of healthy competition. Additionally, the SGEN Debate Cup sought to breed the next generation of debaters.
February 11, 2023
As with previous years, the SISC Debate Club organized another Debate’s Basic Orientation SGEN Seminar (D’BOSS) as a precursor activity for the actual debate matches.
In their respective breakout rooms, the facilitators welcomed the Junior High School (JHS) and Senior High School (SHS) students to the culture of debate. They learned the structure of a debate and how to find evidence to support their arguments. Another important thing is to learn proper decorum and order, especially guidance on how to conduct oneself with respect while debating.
During the mock debates, they also practiced the skills of active listening and constructive criticism.
February 18, 2023
"Where there is debate, there are solutions," said Ms. Carla Villanueva in her opening remarks. The elimination rounds were held on this day. The SGEN Debate Cup tournament formally began on this date.
Four SGEN schools — SISC, Southmansfield College (SMC), Stonyhurst Southville International School - Batangas (SSISB), and Stonyhurst Southville International School - Malarayat (SSISM) — compete in a series of three debate matches to advance to the championship. The debaters must adhere to the SGEN Debate Cup rules and regulations, which require teams to use the Asian Parliamentary debating format and adhere to the time limits set by the tournament organizers.
In their respective breakout rooms, each team was given thirty minutes to prepare. Every debater could speak for a maximum of five minutes, with one-minute intervals between speeches.
SISC and SSISB for the JHS Divsion, and SISC and SMC for the SHS Division, were the qualifiers who would advance to the championship.
March 18, 2023
Concluding the fruitful period of diligent training and the formal debate season of A.Y. 2022-2023, the SGEN Debate Cup Championship Round was conducted, which put the victors of the prior round through three Asian Parliamentary matches. Thus, two wins were required to claim the championship.
The teams were given 30 minutes of preparation time for each motion. Each speaker received five minutes to deliver their speech with one minute recesses in between speakers. The adjudicators, Jerick Maclang and Elieser Nicolas, followed the 3Ms in their evaluations: Matter - 40%, Manner - 30%, and Method - 30%.
K-12 and IB Principal Dr. Marie Vic F. Suarez spoke on the art of debate in her opening remarks, highlighting its significance as “a powerful tool to express one’s view and challenge other perspectives,” allowing individuals to engage in diverse ideas. As debaters would “speak their mind and heart, sharing the world through their own lens,” they would also “develop empathy and respect while fostering healthy competition and intellectual growth,” using debate as a platform to explore the many lenses through which one can view the world.
The following were the motions and results of the JHS division: this house regrets the development of AI, Chat GPT, with SISC as the winning team; and this house believes that police departments should be defunded, with SSISB taking the victory.
In the third and final debate of the JHS division, the teams debated on the motion: This house believes that modernization of jeepneys should be implemented, with SISC in affirmative and SSISB in opposition.
Considering the recent plans for the modernization of jeepneys in the Philippines, the debate that ensued held relevance to a current issue, of a somewhat controversial nature, that has even led to the transport strike that occurred last March 6 and 7. This served as an avenue to see through different lenses that were applicable in the debaters’ real world.
The affirmative decided to speak more generally on the issue, claiming that the discussion would not be in line with the Jeepney Phaseout Order by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB). They proposed that a gradual and transitional change take place, guided by the Philippine government, as the modernization of jeepneys would reduce carbon emissions; promote safety, accessibility, and comfort; and prove helpful and relevant to the people involved.
The opposition’s response highlighted the “burden for jeepney drivers” and the struggle involved in the issue to see the plan through, relating it to the nation’s ongoing case. They spoke on the country’s insufficient funds in labeling the proposal an “unrealistic plan,” and touched on the LTFRB’s impractical deadline.
The affirmative rebutted the response’s inflexibility to the parameters (as the debate was set unrelated to the ongoing order), though negative responded to the concern: “With every new beginning, there will always be initial pains.” The opposition stayed firm in the argument that the modernization of jeepneys would jeopardize the drivers’ careers and the option for commuters.
After the debate, the adjudicator commented on the importance of 3 aspects in such motions: necessity (of change), feasibility, and protection of key players. In the awarding ceremony, SSISB was declared the winning team of the third debate.
The following were the motions and results of the SHS division: this house believes that religions must be decentralised, with SISC declared winners; and this house would implement electronic voting over paper voting for national elections, to which SMC prevailed.
In the third and final debate of the SHS division, the teams debated on the motion: THW strengthen bureaucratic tariff laws for international trade., with SMC in affirmative and SISC in opposition.
The affirmative team's central argument is that strengthening these laws secures a country's economic future and promotes fair trade practices. They also touched upon the benefits of implementing tariffs in other fields, rather than merely the economic benefits: protectionist measures to save domestic industries.
The opposition took initiative to define key terms and establish parameters (scope and limitation) since the previous speaker was unable to. After defining strengthening tariffs as "[restriction of] imports", the opposition set the motion within the United States of America.
The opposition argued that the current system is already stable, citing Section 1 of the Trade Act of 1974 "a range of responsibilities and authorities to investigate and take action to enforce US rights under trade agreements…", and changing it means taking a risk that could lead to tension between countries.
The affirmitive then proceeded to shift the perspective to developing countries instead of the United States, arguing that as currencies go up, there is a need to strengthen tariff laws. "...We need to develop the way trade and import come into our country," they said, and reiterated their previous message.
Unfortunately, the affirmative side did not provide other rebuttals, especially to the potential rise of tension between the countries. The opposition side then reiterated the sufficiency found in the current tariff laws and how they needn't be changed. In the end, Adjudicator Elieser Nicolas gave the win to SISC.
These are the official winners of the SGEN Debate Cup: Adon Abrigo, Winona Anterola, and Micaya Coliyat of SSISB for the JHS Division; and River Ypon, Keanne Mendoza, and Don Enrique Padilla of SISC for the SHS Division.
It is observable that the debaters harnessed a competitive yet respectful spirit in their debate matches, as it was in their belief that part of being a true debater is having sportsmanship. They also showed respect to each other and their judges, no matter what the outcome was. By doing this, they demonstrated the core values of debate.
Win or lose, each side gained knowledge and experience. The event fulfilled its role as an opportunity to further cultivate the mind of SGEN students — movers of the 21st century — that would pursue sustainable societal advancements. The debaters displayed “thoughtfulness and insight and budding wisdom” throughout the program, as expressed by Mr. Daniel Steel, Director of Communications, in his closing remarks.
As they fostered invaluable skills such as argumentation, articulation, and advocacy rooted in the SDGs and 5Cs, the delegates "embodied the bright future of the world.” Bringing the event to its conclusion, Mr. Steel shared, “Positive change starts here, today, with each of you.”
Comentários