Tiger Woods, John Terry, Jesse James, Bill Clinton, Meg Ryan and even our local Jack Neo – all of them cheated on their spouses. The selfish actions of these individuals caused emotional harm and suffering to their partners and their families. Most members of society (even the more socially liberal ones) condemn the act of infidelity and adultery as an “immoral act”. Singapore has laws that prevent people from harming each other, and also prevent people from participating in “immoral” activities even if they want to – forms of unlicensed gambling, homosexuality, incest, possession of pornography, and other activities are banned by the state even if the acts are conducted between consenting adults. So Singapore is willing to criminalise immoral acts – yet adultery is not illegal in Singapore today. Hmm.
On the other hand, there are many who believe that the state should not dictate how a married couple should lead their lives – even in the event of infidelity, it should be up to the couple to determine whether they want to forgive and move on, or divorce. If adultery was made a criminal offense, the state could intervene and prosecute the cheating partner, thus disallowing the couple from resolving the situation on their own sometimes. Criminal laws should not be introduced lightly. As one website put it, “Yes, infidelity is awful. But it’s none of the government’s business.” South Korea, New Hampshire, and many other places that currently criminalise adultery are now considering revoking the “archaic” law.
This is clearly a controversial and timely issue for us to debate – experts are divided, and the implications for both sides of the case are quite severe. What should Singapore do? Fellow debaters, let’s hear your thoughts!
[Best comment stands to win an exclusive DA(S) 5 VCD set with accompanying guide booklets]
The following teams have qualified for the Quarter-Finals of this year’s Singapore Secondary Schools Debating Championships (teams are listed in the order in which they finished in the preliminary rounds league tables, with the number of debates the team won in brackets):
Division I
1. Anglo-Chinese School (Independent) (3)
2. Hwa Chong Institution (3)
3. Methodist Girls’ School (2)
4. Raffles Institution (2)
5. Catholic High School (2)
6. St. Joseph’s Institution (2)
7. Nanyang Girls’ High School (2)
8. Singapore Chinese Girls’ School (Secondary) (2)
Division II
1. Victoria School (3)
2. Bowen Secondary School (3)
3. St. Anthony’s Canossian Secondary School (3)
4. Chung Cheng High School (Yishun) (2)
5. C.H.I.J. St. Theresa’s Convent (2)
6. Anglican High School (2)
7. Anglo-Chinese School (Barker Road) (2)
8. Global Indian International School – Queenstown Campus (2)
Division III
1. C.H.I.J. St. Joseph’s Convent (3)
2. Kent Ridge Secondary School (3)
3. Bukit View Secondary School (3)
4. Anglo-Chinese School (International) (3)
5. Orchid Park Secondary School (3)
6. Bedok South Secondary School (2)
7. Ngee Ann Secondary School (2)
8. Tanjong Katong Secondary School (2)
Full league tables for each division will be released after the championships concludes.
The top eight teams from each division will now move on in the quarter-finals on Friday 9 April.
I would like to congratulate all the teams involved in the championships for their performances in three hard-fought preliminary rounds.
The Grand Finals of the championships will be held on 23 April (Divisions II & III) and 30 April (Division I). All debaters and teachers involved in the championships will be invited to attend the Grand Final for their division. The top 20 speakers in each division (based on preliminary rounds speaker scores) will also be announced at these occasions.
Random photos from Prelim Round 3:
An invitation from the SMU Debating Society:
I would like to invite you all to SMU Hammers 2010, our annual Asian Parliamentary debating tournament from April 3-4 2010. The tournament will be held at our city campus which is conveniently situated in the heart of Singapore’s business and heritage district.
Tournament details are as follows:
Registration fee:
Debaters and Adjudicators: S$15 / pax
Observers: S$20 / pax
Tournament Cap: 44 teams
The N rule for adjudicators applies
Registration fees can be paid on the spot.
(more…)
Dear Debaters,
Is content more important than style? Should you listen to the tips that adjudicators give you after a debate, or should you only listen to your coach? What is barracking? How do you handle biased motions? What about definitional challenges – how do you win a debate even when the other team refuses to accept your definitions?
If you have ever wondered about these questions, or had something else that you really wanted to clarify, this is the page to do it. Ask our experts and senior debaters for their thoughts on difficult issues! There is no such thing as a dumb question (we were all once young and clueless debaters too!) so please use this post to chatter away!
Senior debaters, please feel free to share your opinions and answers here – the only way young debaters will improve is if they can learn from the experienced ones like yourselves!
Motions from Round 2:
6pm – This House believes that the United States should not withdraw troops from Iraq
7:15pm – This House regrets that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize
8:30pm - This House would impose a tax on large bonuses paid to bankers
Results of Round 2:
(more…)
DA(S) conducted an adjudication workshop for over 60 Hwa-Chong Institution students on 6 Mar 2010, as part of our effort to develop a strong pool of adjudicators for Wits & Words 2010. We have attached the materials used during this workshop for your reference.
W&W Scoresheet
W&W Filling Out the Scoresheet
2010 W&W Adj Camp Slides
Loading ...
