Ateneo Fiesta Debates 2006

Whooh. The debates are finally over. This is the second time I’ve organized a debate tournament (for reals!). Unlike my last experience, this one has been beset with incredulity. While I would rather not dwindle on life’s negatives, still I’d like to clear out certain things.

First of all, no part of the tourney was compromised for any reason. True, one of the participating debaters (Ikee) was the Chief Adjudicator’s (Gim) brother. True, Gim is my boyfriend (oh how true :-). And true, the Tournament Director (me) was also the trainor of one college (CSIT). What a mix for compromise, huh? But there was none.

For the sake of transparency, here are the tab results. This list is ordered by wins. Educ2 (Henry, Raisa and Espi) breezed through the eliminations with a record of 6-0. There was no seventh round so the entire column is marked 0. The next four teams (CLA2, Acc2, CLA1 and CSIT2) tied with a record of 4-2. The last of the breaking teams (Educ1, HS1, Acc1) tied with a record of 3-3.

Team R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Wins
EDUC 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6
CLA 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 4
ACC 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 4
CLA 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 4
CSIT 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 4
EDUC 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3
HS 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3
ACC 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 3
BSN 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
BM 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
BSN 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
CSIT 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2
HS 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2
EDUC 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

To determine the rankings of the tied teams, we have to look at their team scores, which follow below. Thus the top 8 breaking teams are, in order: Educ2, CLA2, CSIT2, Acc2, CLA1, Educ1, HS1 and Acc1.

Team R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 Team Scores
CLA 2 259.5 265.5 265 265 266 267.5 1588.5
CSIT 2 262 264.18 260.67 261.5 262 266.5 1576.85
ACC 2 261 259 262 261 265 263 1571
CLA 1 255 258 258 257 258 260 1546
EDUC 1 260 263 264.67 268 265 266 1586.67
HS 1 255 256 260 254.5 261 259 1545.5
ACC 1 257 258 255 259 251 257 1537

To determine match-ups for the quarterfinals, we followed the Swiss-Draw Matching System (strong teams versus weak teams to protect strong teams and ensure the high quality of the final round). Thus, Educ2 met Acc1. CLA2 met HS1. CSIT2 met Educ1. And Acc2 met CLA1.

Who won? Predictably, the stronger teams. Educ2, CLA2 (Ems, Christian, Diana Rose), CSIT2 (Mark, Ikee, Philip) and Acc2 (Alain, Jae, Kittey). So how did we determine match-ups for the semi-final rounds? Here it gets a bit messy. We weren’t all that sure. First, we decided to pit CSIT2 versus Acc2 and CLA2 versus Educ2. This was a decision based on the team scores of the quarterfinals round (where CLA2 garnered the highest marks and Educ2 garnered the lowest marks). We announced this.

Henry and Ems came up and questioned our decision. We waved them away, saying, well, that was the result based on quarterfinals team scores. But afterwards, we questioned ourselves. Was it the fairest way to make the match? I had my misgivings. Adjudicators have different ways of giving scores, though we try our best to standardize them. At the time, I felt that Henry and Em’s teams were the best in the tournament. Was it in the tourney’s best interest to pit them together? Wouldn’t it mean a lower quality debate if one of them was killed in the semis?

So Gim and I convened again. This time we looked at the elimination rounds’ tab results. Educ2 and CLA2 were the top two teams, based on the elimination rounds. So we made new match-ups. Strongest versus weakest. And so, we pitted Educ2 versus Acc2, and CLA2 versus CSIT2.

Who won? In a really surprising turn of events, NOT the stronger teams.

Henry and Alain’s round was judged by Gim, Randy of Educ, Noriel of CSIT, Adriel of HS and Michelle of BSN. Alain later on complained that while Henry was represented by Randy, the Accountancy team was not represented. Furthermore, a certain adjudicator was biased against him (not Educ’s rep). That worried me. I told him, it’s OK. Gim is there. He’ll make sure the round will be judged rightly. The panel deliberated for 45 minutes. What was the result? Four adjudicators gave the round to Accountancy, and one gave it to Education. Which was okay. Loyalty is valuable, so long as it does not compromise the decision. And the biased adjudicator? He let go of his bias.

Ems and Ikee’s round was judged by Al-Zhoheir of Accountancy, Mashod of CSIT, Jamel of CLA, Michelle of CLA and Raisa of Education. Again, due to a lack of adjudicators and the shortsight of myself and Gim, CSIT lacked one representative as CLA had two. But fortunately, that did not pose a problem. What was the result? Four adjudicators gave the round to CSIT, and one gave it to CLA. Again, loyalty is valuable as long as it does not compromise the decision.

And that was how we got the teams for the final round. Accountancy versus CSIT. Alain’s team versus Ikee’s team. The adjudicators were Gim of Nursing/Medicine, Al-Zhoheir of Accountancy, Flisha (me!) of CSIT, Jamel of CLA and Randy of Education. In a unanimous decision, we all gave the round to Accountacy.

No compromises. Just pure passion and cold logic.

P.S. Congratulations, Accountancy! You won it fair and square. :D