The verbal combat that invested IBDP geckos with skills

Debate is rather a sport as it demands team spirit and teamwork of debaters. Out of the numerous benefits, debaters obtain preparing and participating in debate, the key ones are skills of presentation, researching, organization and critical thinking. Debate also provides debaters with a sense of pride while defining and putting forward their arguments logically with evidence, persuasively. All these benefits the IBDP geckos of the Gaudium gained in the debate contest that was held as a part of the TOK curriculum, on the 14th of August.

The debate was based on a real-life situation: the suicide of V G Siddhartha, the CEO of the Café Coffee Day chain and the topic was “To what extent ethical considerations play a role in the success of business”. The geckos were given a day to research on the topic. On the day of the contest, the class was divided into two teams at the helm of two capable team captains. One team, the affirmative team that spoke for – the necessity of ethical considerations, and the other  against it – the constraints of ethical considerations in business. The debaters of both teams presented the topic through a pre-decided, time-bound structure i.e.,  introduction, the main argument, the alternative viewpoint, conclusion and rebuttal.

The objective of the debate was to help the geckos share their perspectives on the global happenings on a debate forum, giving focus on the presentation, speaking, listening and research skills. The students came up with commendable research which they reflected in their citations and examples.

The judges and the guests were thoroughly engaged throughout the verbal war and they showered praise on the geckos’ effective presentation skills,  professional attitude and formal demeanour. Their arguments were well evaluated and could maintain the focus and the connection to the given real-life scenario.

In the end, the rebuttal round was followed with three questions from each team which were extremely well-formed and equally well defended by both the teams. It was the logically fought and articulated verbal combat that the team that spoke against the topic won, though by a close margin.

Some highlights: