Finally done with the debate...
Even though how tough it is to prepare for this tournament...
How stressful it is to go through so much devastating debates...
and not forgetting how iniquitous situations we've been through...
Like what one of the adjudicator told us..."You are here to learn essentially, winning stays second in your priority."
And like what he said...we learnt...we experienced...and we grew stronger and brawnier after each debates...

Even though we shouldn't have lost 2 of the matches...(4 matches altogether)...We still learnt alot of valuable lessons...For instance: NEVER EVER trust all adjudicator!!! They might not have debate backgrounds and only judge you by the feeling of being convinced no matter how sturdy your point is, but if your speech is not attractive...you lose...Those are noob adjudicators...
And we lost because of the same reason that we haven't have a good speech...
If we had adjudicators which have debate backgrounds (There's 3 ads...but only the chief is a debater), we could have won 3 matches...1 clear win and 2 trash win...
The first match we lost because of some strategy problem...we walked right into the trap they've set up...T.T...and so we all agree on that lost...
But the second match, we used the same strategy that our last opponent used on us...all through the debate we grabbed on to their weakness and clear it out loud...The Chief Adjudicator was sure that we won at the last speech of ours...but he was "out-voted" because the other 2 adjudicator says that the opposition have a better speech and smoother presentation...

WE WERE SO PISSED OFF!

2nd match's real margin (Given by the Chief Adjudicator): 3-0, a clear win...what a waste...
NVM...everyone told us to look forward and take this as an experience...The adjudicator told us we did good and keep it up...just be careful with presenting our speech to dumb dumb judges...He can't do anything to help us also because the other two ads won't change their mind...

But at the 3rd match...we lost for the same reason...SAME STUPID REASON...but this time the Chief adjudicator somehow "forced" the other 2 adjudicator to say out loud their reason for giving the other team a win..."They did well on their speech, smooth and clear language..." Bla bla bla...ALL on their way of talking...but not because of their POINTS...
The Chief then came up and said why he gave US the win...He said: "Debate...is all about THINKING...MIND GAMES...CONVINCING POINTS...and STRATEGIES to make your opposition look bad...Hin Hua gave fervent points and made it clear that the opposition didn't manage to answer questions that they gave...and their 2nd speaker, Ta Yong (He liked Ta Yong's style... XD) made alot of constructive POI's (Point of Information)... the 3rd speaker (Me...) pointed out the main clash all through the debate and made their stand (He liked my content but not my speech...LOL)...lastly the 1st speaker's reply speech (Bryan...a joker more than a debater...lmao) made it clear that they were the winning team..."
Well...basically the other 2 adjudicator have nothing else to say...such dim-witted guys...

3rd match's real margin (Also given by the Chief Adjudicator): 6-0...A very surprising score...We finally TRASHED someone...XD...But we were once again "out-voted" by 2 obtuse judges...It was this Chief Adjudicator who told us to learn for these matches but not to be just chasing the winning dream...and he also told us to imagine what we will be like if we continue to debate in such a way...and what we will be like when we are debating in Universities...Loved that guy...

Our one and only win...which was the last match...We won...because they were 2 adjudicator with debate backgrounds...Of course we will be a really lame team to lose against another scanty team...But we still asked the one and only adjudicator who gave us the lost...He said: "Your counter proposal ain't really clashing with the topic today... You only proposed it out but I don't really see it engaged with the topic..."

What the heck????

Topic: This House would allow prisoners to donate their organs in exchanged for shortening sentences...

And our counter proposal is...Give them shortened sentences based on their conducts...and if they served the government for public service...How can it be a COUNTER proposal if it didn't clash with the topic...We were talking about this thing because we don't want the other thing, doesn't that seems clashing to you?

But...never mind...We still won in the end didn't we... =)

4th match's margin (Given by the Chief I suppose): An incredible margin of 11-0, which is unusual...but she said the opposition's mechanism was too...inadequate, inferior, deficient, mediocre.......Maybe I'm a bit too exaggerating...well basically it's too poor...another adjudicator gave 0.5-0...close win...don't really know why...

Well...to sum it all up...
We had a "great" time being pissed off by "professional" adjudicators...
and most of all...
We have learnt ALOT of things...and grew by feets...