Today is a great day for me and my friend Denny Aprillio as adjudicators, It was two weeks ago we tried becoming N1 adjudicator for the first time and last thursday we got our accreditation result as adjudicator, we are still so new in this adjudicator world but today we finally got our first job as professional adjudicator! Even more, it was not only one, but two!
The first one is a debating competition held by Bogor Science Club, it was a competition for post-graduate students of IPB under the theme “How to Survive in Extreme Climate Change”, today is the grand final of the competition between IPN (Food Technology Science) as the government and STK (Statistics) as the opposition, me and Denny were parts of the 5 adjudicators for this round, so exciting.
The motion for this debate is “THBT Government of Developing Countries Should Impose Green Taxes for Corporations”, there’s lack of analysis coming from both sides of the house, but all adjudicators agreed that government deserve the winning in this grand final round. Personally, I gave the winning because the government gave good response to the opposition’s counter proposal and their mechanism is upper hand due to lack of elaborations in the opposition’s mechanism. Opposition’s best response under the idea of economical impact couldn’t get their victory since the third speaker from the government side actually pointing out the time of adjustment they proposed from the beginning. If the opposition actually gave more strategic counter proposal other than csr which nature is voluntary, and concentrating on their proposal to enforce corporations using renewable energy, I think the debate will be more interesting.
I was a bit jealous with the IPN at that moment, I have never known what it feels like to be a champion of the tournament. Even to dream such a thing is foreign subject to me, since I realized there’re lots to work on for me as a debater and there’s still a big gap of skill between me and other strong debaters out there. Well, all that I need to do is just work even harder than now.
The second debate I adjudicated today is also the grand final, this time for the high school level in SMAN 1 Bogor, thanks to the offer from Mr. Nicko of EDS UI. Actually I got asked to adjudicate the preliminary rounds also on Friday but the sudden request and the fact that I got 3 classes that day made me reject that offer. Luckily many adjudicators from UI were unable to come so me and Denny got spots as panel adjudicators this time. Thinking back, I was really lucky to get this chance, if I don’t get to be breaking adjudicator and come to the octofinal round of ALSA UI, I wouldn’t get chaired by Nicko (really, I’m so thankful of him), he wouldn’t know me and I’d be unable to get this job. This was one hell of fortune I got indeed.
The motion for this grand final is pretty interesting, “Assuming the Technology Has Already Established, THW legalize the Procedure of Erase and Implant Memory”. Interesting imaginative scenario here, is this a trend to have imaginative motion like this in grand final? The motion for the grand final of ALSA UI 2014 was similar with this, haha.
This grand final was between SMA Madania (government) and SMA Bogor Raya (Opposition). The government set this case as a form of medication for trauma happened to military forces and victim of traumatic experience, I wonder if there’s more strategic case than this one. Just like my first one, there are big holes in the arguments coming from both team but in the end I got convinced by the opposition that current medication for mental problem is still better than memory implant/erase for medication and furthermore they also convinced me that this technology is too dangerous to exist in society. It was a close debate, proven with its split decision 2-1 with Denny as dissenting panel and SMA Bogor Raya got the winning for this round. The problem from the government side is that they don’t explain much about that erasing memory/implanting memory and its effect, better analysis in this one would make their case stronger and might be able to withstand the attack from opposition in the area of risks on the procedure. The opposition also will be better if they analyze more in the argument of mental instability caused by memory erase/implant, that’d make they win the clash of further impact with more relevant argument other than risk of terrorist stealing the technology. But overall it was an interesting debate, and I hope some of those debaters I saw would continue their study in IPB, they will be a great addition in IDC.
So at the end of the day, me and Denny went back to IPB happily with full stomach and payments in our pocket. Being an adjudicator is a good thing after all, I can’t wait for my next job!