Wed. Oct 20th, 2021

Carolinian Debate Society (CDS), held an intervarsity competition from June 6 to 8, 2014. It was held at the School of Law and Governance building, the seminar preceding the event done at the Gansewinkle hall. The debate tournament was participated by representatives or alumni from schools such as Saint Therese College (STC), University of the Philippines (UP), Springdale, Silliman University (SU), Sanbeda College (SC), Ateneo de Manila and Far Eastern University (FEU).

The competition was entitled “Return of the Dinos.” Here, the term dinos is referred to debaters whose skills and mastery of wit and knowledge are legendary. It was founded by Ralph Gonzalez, a 3rd year BSBA-Marketing major and a former Springdale debater. He was supported by Gea Ecoy, a recently graduated BS-Pharmacy student and a two-time SSC Councilor, with the procedures. Their senior members included Danica Bellaflor, 3rd year BS ActT; Francoise Fua, 3rd year BS ActT; Rodel James Diana, 4th year BSA; Meg Tubop, 4th year BS ActT; Nicole Ponce, 4th year Polsci; Justin Gular 3rd year Psych; Ivan Dulce, 3rd year Psych; and Christine Bontuyan, 3rd year BS ActT.

They convened for three days to debate over Politics, Value, Principles or Morals.

“We both entered USC and thought ‘why don’t we start a debate community here in USC?’” says Ralph Gonzalez and Gea Ecoy.

The competition started as a one man’s vision and evolved into national tournaments and congregations of dinos and new debaters. In a span of two years, Carolinian Debate Society successfully promoted and showcased the art and significance of debate through interscholastic tournaments.

”I think it’s a privilege because it’s something everyone should know about. It’s something that could be useful for everyone too. It’ll be useful for everyone who love to talk but who do not love to express their thoughts in public or for the people who love to write about them (issues) but can’t. It could be an outlet too for those people,” states Cheska Therese Bacalso, a 3rd year Psychology student.

“We call these ‘Motions’ the topics we talk about in debate. They’re usually crafted in the problem in the world. As a speaker, as a debater, we indirectly are speaking for someone who is facing this problem somewhere in the world. We are talking about children who are not being loved or being branded as ones that are not wanted. This is how debates work. Mostly in my perspective. We stand in the gap for someone who can’t talk or speak or who doesn’t have the opportunity to have the kind of lifestyle I have,”the opinion of AJ Go, a 4th year Springdale student.

The event started with an introductory seminar on the rules and regulations. It was a standard British Parliamentary wherein two people or a team were chosen to represent opening and closing government, teams representing or defending the motion; and opening and closing opposition, the teams against the motion. Motions were the topics they debated over. The term “House” represents the team defending the government’s point of view. The teams were given 15 minutes to think of their arguments and Point of Informations (POI). As it goes, debates which were the most persuasive, carefully structured, and analytically sound wins. Aside from that, a group of judges or adjudicators were assigned with the task to judge and agree which teams’ speeches were accurate, true or important, which arguments had a better structure, and if it was logical or relevant.

The motions they debated over the first few rounds were: “This House regrets the privilege of couples or individuals to choose the children they adopt” and “This House mandates all states to contribute to a global disaster response fund.”

In the Quarter-Finals the motion “This House believes that Thai people should overthrow the monarchy” was argued. During the semi-finals, the motion “This House will pay reparations to the victims of slave trade” was discussed and the final motion “As a Nation-State This House will not allow the creation of autonomous regions” marked the finale of the three-day debate.

The contenders for Best Adjudicators Awards were Miguel Monticillo, Sunshine Mendoza, Rico Alazas from Ateneo, Caro Regallato and Jonah Cortes. For the Best Speakers Awards, the contenders were Roland Andrew, Melchizedek Babilonia, Anna Espino, Clyde Gregorio, Jayson Maulit, Jamie Vallero, Vincent Joseph Cesista. The four teams who met in Championship were Chiliman, Dino Food, Ding Qua Qua and Team Chiu. Ding Qua Qua, Vince Joseph Cesista and Giano Libot became the victors of this event. The Best Judge award was given to Jake Bustos.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *