UKM IV - Debate we did, adjudicate we shall.

In all honesty, I did not retain any high hopes for how this tournament would go for me. First major tournament I'd be adjudicating, first major tournament in West Malaysia I'd be adjudicating, first major tournament since 2008 (not counting our own WSDC).. Well, you get the idea.


However, I should be pleasantly surprised at how I was able to keep up with the level required to be a relative success at the tournament. In truth, I felt I was heavily penalised by the adjudicator core, simply because I was too generous with how I awarded marks.This resulted in me not breaking into the knockout rounds as an adjudicator. It irked me a lot, simply because I was pretty confident that I had provided better feedback than the Chair Adjus in my rooms, and that I had demonstrated far more empathy in giving oral adjudications.

Someone hinted to me that it was for political reasons that I was not allowed to break, although that would detract from what was, in truth, a good tournament, if one with no frills, pomp or circumstance. It's not easy analysing debates, and trying to get a feel for how everything has developed. I believe though, it is something I do bloody well, which I felt was borne out to me when I felt that I developed far better bonds with the debaters in my rooms than my chair adjus did. Although this is, of course, debatable. :) *boom boom and indeed, boom*

Apart from that particular adjudicating sorepoint, Swinburne did not do well. 4 teams, only 1 in the knockout rounds, one team suffering 4 losses and only one win. It was by far one of our worst performances as an Institution in any tournament, and hints at the fact that we have a lot of work to do to correct the weaknesses that have been identified as being the causes for our downfall.

Team compositions need to be re-evaluated, team dynamics need to be re-examined, training methods will require re-examination, and training sessions will need to be re-tinkered with. It is beyond any doubt that our teams have a good English-speaking base to build from, but somewhere between making the step from being good at arguing to being good at debating, errors have been made. It is immensely frustrating to see the potential that our teams possess, and not see it fulfilled.

Being on the sidelines, as it were, for this tournament, allowed me to see it played out in a manner far easier to dissect. I regularly fielded questions as to 'why aren't you debating', with the reality being that I was just being rotated as a senior to adjudicate, and the others get to debate. But at the very least I feel that I have grown as a debater in this tournament, because I know now, far better than before, what it takes to convince adjudicators that you should win.

So how was the social aspect of UKM IV? In one word, memorable :)  Staying up till 3 a.m in the common lounge with SMKDJ, CBN and the other Swinburners, was a highlight for me, as well as the various philosophical, personal and emotional discussions being held throughout the final day. Tragic first love stories aside, there was a good social mix to the tournament, although due to its shortness (only 3 days), there really wasn't enough time get to know everyone else a bit more.

My memories go out chiefly to the CBN-ners and the SMKDJ gang for enlivening up the days, and providing ample ammunition for excuses to make fun of other people. As someone dared to point out to me, your sarcasm is a self-defense mechanism, and you use your humour as a shield. It's a genuine, and pleasant surprise, for someone to get through to me for a change. Thank you :)

Kenyalang Debate Open next! It starts tonight! Let's get it on!