Square Off Update: UP Manila Bows To Ateneo De Zamboanga
It’s probably the most contentious round since the very first octofinal, but the adjudicators have spoken and they have decided to award it to the underdogs - Ateneo de Zamboanga. I personally feel that the discussions of UP Manila were more nuanced and based in principle, but oh well, people have their reasons. By being a debater, you surrender your fate by allowing your debates to be judged by your peers.
This sets up Ateneo de Zamboanga’s quarterfinal date with the Polytechnic University of the Philippines.
Bookmark at:
StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb
Viewed 2541 times by 1191 viewers
on 
I watched that episode and I was expecting the Government side to win, because 1. the Opposition’s counter proposal was already inherent in the status quo (pointed out by Gov’t but not totally destroyed - did not go much into how those status quo mechanisms do not work, just mentioned in passing rebuttal) and 2. the DPM was very, very convincing in his manner of argumentation and the his contribution in speaker roles were very hefty (he gave at least three totally different lines of argumentation).
I actually expected the DPM to be best speaker. The PM was arguably quite weak but the DPM more than made up in rebuilding PM’s case and constructing new ones. The LO was very weak in my opinion. The DLO was good.
I disagree wid you. I think UPmanila underestimated the provincial team so much that’s why they lost. A lot of issues raised by Op were just dismissed as nonsense by Govt. The lesson? Manila schools should be careful next time; the debate showed us anything can happen in Square Off.
^^ i agree with the decision, but i think aids is the best speaker. hey benj, diba 1 v 8 yung square off quarters? original sched pa rin ba? hindi ba sched dependent yung quarters?
i failed to watch this episode… are there any downloadable copies of this episode… i really wanna watch it…
i would say, up manila’s second speaker was indeed good, but he was simply too rebuttal-ish and focused too much on asserting that the counter-prop is parallel to the social weather. sadly, there was a hinged nuance in the side of the opposition that was somewhat disregarded by both PM and DPM. albeit the UP arguements were sound, it’s too theoretical and definitely impractical in the real sense of the debate. although adzu’s net nuance is shorter than that of the manila team, they were the ones who brought the debater (the modeled scale of it) to a more realistic and feasible level.