國能橫掃大馬辯壇。。。出國辯如何 (无内容)

Timothy

poi098 好像跟馬大有深仇大恨噢﹗﹗

我的看法是若要全辯作為國辯的選拔賽應事先通知各大專隊伍﹐ 若馬大知道全辯將是國辯的選拔賽﹐ 可能在9辯就會派出錦添亮哥等名牌辯手出賽﹐ 到時賽果是如何大家也難預料吧﹗﹗

kungfu

dear weiloh2,
请问你是不是提出烟可以装在瓶子的那位高手，如果你赞同并坚持那个立论，恭喜你。如果你认为这样的立论在国辩不会愚笑八方的话，恭喜你。代表国辩有关国誉，马来西亚的辩论靠你争光了，本道自认没有那么天才可以像你看到那么通透。

weiloh2

下面引用由poi098在 2004/12/28 02:25pm 发表的内容：
msia,国能在决赛是以21比0全面胜出，你现不是说一位评判是brainless而是说七位评判也一齐brainless！！
就算国能真的不好但　...

I think all of you have forgotten that UTN is not won by one match. They have won at least 7 or 8 (sorry, cannot be accurate) matches and got two champions over the last 12 months. They have beaten all the teams you all mentioned in different occasions.

If their weaknesses is so glaring as you all mentioned but yet no team can beat them, the conclusion is that other teams weaknesses is even more glaring.

Actually, to be fair, is there any team has no weaknesses. When the only this team won, you all started to put the blame on the panel of judges, is it fair?

This is the place for rational exchange of idea, not a place for finger pointing.

Do you know by saying all this irresponsible message, it hurt those people who has the passion of debate.

Please grow up.

weiloh2

下面引用由MSIA在 2004/12/28 02:03pm 发表的内容：
回木火四：
绝对认同您的看法！所以我才说从个人利益角度，认同国能“反垄断”；但从辩论水平角度，还是认为马大在这届比较适合！
回weiloh2：
我不否认“Conclusion, UTN can win because they have a lot of w ...

MSIA,

Do you know the voting system in all debate tournaments including ASPAC Debate tournament? Point system is only one of the evaluation elements NOT the only evaluation elements.

weiloh2

下面引用由kungfu在 2004/12/28 04:45pm 发表的内容：
dear weiloh2,
请问你是不是提出烟可以装在瓶子的那位高手，如果你赞同并坚持那个立论，恭喜你。如果你认为这样的立论在国辩不会愚笑八方的话，恭喜你。代表国辩有关国誉，马来西亚的辩论靠你争光了，本道自认　...

First, I am not involved in any team's preparation.

Second, I am looking at the big picture. Yes, UTN's specific example is a bit out but it is only a minor point. The way you magnifying it as if this is the whole thing and thi is what I think is not right.

Third, I think we should discuss it rationally and not a just putting poison words.

Lastly, I never said nor claim I can lead Malaysia team for glory. Please respect your words. Thanks  

MSIA

weiloh2兄/姐：

本人说的只是个人意见，并没有乱发毒针之意。难道您认为本人所说的任何一项有不妥的地方吗？
即便是评判，本人认为也应该有所改善、有所进步！您热爱辩论，本人又何尝不是呢？爱之深，则之切呀！如果身为评判的就以为自己高高在上，就以为自己不能够接受他人批评的话，那就当观众好了！要成为辩论赛的一部分，就必须准备别人的批评！
也许本人才疏学浅，不懂weiloh2兄/姐能否指教，如果评分制度都只是不那么重要的“参考”，那么评判到底用什么来作为平觉得标准呢？感觉？个人喜好？
说着说着，可能评判也应该受一定程度的训练，对辩论员才算公平！不懂老兄/老姐，您赞不赞成呢？

weiloh2

下面引用由MSIA在 2004/12/28 08:12pm 发表的内容：
weiloh2兄/姐：
本人说的只是个人意见，并没有乱发毒针之意。难道您认为本人所说的任何一项有不妥的地方吗？
即便是评判，本人认为也应该有所改善、有所进步！您热爱辩论，本人又何尝不是呢？爱之深，则之切呀！ ...

Since you have started a good discussion, let goes back to the basic. What are the contributing factors for a debate team to win/loss (may not be exhaustive):

1. Good and balance team members
2. Well prepared
3. Debate topic (is it fair or biased)
4. Debate stlye (is it suitable for this type of debate topic)
5. Peak at the right moment
6. Theory structure
7. Panel of judges (is your style/theory/arguement well received by judges)
8. Luck (anything ie exams, rain, sickness etc....)

If we look at the above factors, a good team not necessary will win a debate everytime because it involved a lot of factors.

Now, turn back and look at UTN. If UTN has only won one match and you contributed it as luck. I think this is acceptable. When they won the second time, you say is good luck, third time, super good luck, fourth time, fifth time, sixth time and more, how are you going to explain that?

Conclusion is either UTN has done something right, or all teams have committed something wrong when they faced UTN, or UTN is a super good luck team. Please use your commom sense and conclude rationally.

To me, it is a straight forward case. UTN has perform well and peak at the right moment. They have their weaknesses but they are human being, not GOD. You can criticize their style but please do not make irresponsible statements or sweeping statements.

Criticize people is so easy. But have you tried to win any of this major championship? Have you trained a team to win any of these strong teams? If you have not, perhaps you should try it before accusing others?

weiloh2

下面引用由MSIA在 2004/12/28 08:12pm 发表的内容：
weiloh2兄/姐：
本人说的只是个人意见，并没有乱发毒针之意。难道您认为本人所说的任何一项有不妥的地方吗？
即便是评判，本人认为也应该有所改善、有所进步！您热爱辩论，本人又何尝不是呢？爱之深，则之切呀！ ...

Part II

Now let turn to look at the judges system. Our judges system has come a long way. Once upon a time, the judging system is based on point system. Whoever gets the highest points will win the debate. However, this system has a major drawback, sometimes, one judge may award a huge margin to one team and the rest of the judges will only award the opposite teams slim margin. The outcome is decided by one judge. It has happened many times before and MU was one of the victims in last year Guo Bian.

Now the current system is an improvement. I do not say is perfect (no system is perfect):

The panel of judges has to vote before they start any discussion, they call it a instict vote.

After voting, every judge has to present their case why they voted for this team. Their view will be challeneged by others if there is disagreement arises.

At the same time, the organizer will calculate the point and convert it to vote of the judges. By doing such move, it has eliminated the huge margin factors that point system has. (But in this Zong Ma Bian Lun, point system really work as a reference, the panal of judges will vote again base on the points).

Finally, the panel of judges will vote again as the final round. In other words, there will be three round of voting.

This system is not perfect but is an improvement. It has been used in Quan Bian, Fu Liang Qing Bian Lun and ASPAC Intervasity Bian Lun.

When come to the quality of the judges, yes, some may not know debate but some of them are very good at it such as Loh Zi Zhang, Rao Yi Ren, Liang Zi Zong etc..... But overall, I think the quality of the panel judges are acceptable. At least, they tried to be very fair and true view.This is very crucial.

kungfu

dear weiloh2 okie lets talk rationally.

firstly, you mention uniten make some mistake, minor disadvantages and I make fun of it, I admit, but the main thing is this are not unavoidable mistake, this are very stupid mistake, not many would use this kind of logic in guo bian do you agree ? Maybe you might say that is an occasional issue, okie how do you explain the mistake they made in quanbian final. can the sun tell you how hot it is ? can petroleum tell you where to find it? this I think is not a mistake by example, it is a mistake by principal, you should be well aware that debators although human should have better understanding of logic than most ppl if not how can they convince others moreover to say they won the match with the wrong logic.

second thing you mention in the last two post that debate have many factors, they won because they did something right, I agree, I know even uniten have mistake they are better than many teams, but what we should look into right now because we talk about who should represent malaysia to guo bian is, who has the right to represent. I think no has has the right on their own hands, the right is exclusive to the organizer, to their preference, maybe they like lousy team but the right is theirs. If you organized a guo bian with your own money then you want to invite who is your issue.Representing malaysia or not is just a name, doesn't mean UM if one day represent malaysia again means they are the best. Therefore if it apply to uniten doesn't mean that they think they are the best they must represent if not is very unfair or what.if uniten really wants to represent for guo bian go write some letter thats more efficient that shouting at UM that they been trying to stop others from representing which is untrue.

野兽修行

请尽量用华语。如果非得用英文也请尽量用正确的语法，以方便外国的朋友。谢谢

weiloh2

下面引用由kungfu在 2004/12/29 11:00am 发表的内容：
dear weiloh2 okie lets talk rationally.
firstly, you mention uniten make some mistake, minor disadvantages and I make fun of it, I admit, but the main thing is this are not unavoidable mistake, th ...

Firstly, I deeply appologize for not able to type in Chinese because this is not my computer. Deeply appologize.

Second, I never said nor hinted that UTN should represent Malaysia. In fact, this is entirely different topic. Nevertheless, as Xu Liang has mentioned there are no prove that UM is blocking any team from representing Malaysia.

Same principles applies, I do not think UTN is barking on UM for the right of representing. In fact, I think we should keep quiet and let them sort it out rather than accusing each other.

Lastly, regarding about UTN performance, you can pin point whatever glaring mistake they have made, but the fact is they won all matches. I am stating facts not opinion.

Finally, I need to clarify that I have no emotional nor legal relationship with any of the higher learning institutions in Malaysia. All my qualifications are not made in Malaysia.

Thanks

MSIA

weiloh2兄/姐：

看来您还是不明白我的意思，你也还没有“grow up”，总爱争个不停，也不去思考一下我说得对不对。那也不要紧，你要审核，我就奉陪到底吧！
先看你给予“好”的辩论队的标准来所指标：
1。好的队员以及平均的队伍。
全辩和中马赛，除了龙纹敏之外，其他三位好吗？扪心自问！他们的配搭叫平均吗？算一算他们自由辩的配合就懂了吗！明眼人一看就懂，龙纹敏一个在撑局。
2。充分的准备。
从全辩半决赛唯一那个“马来社团论调”到决赛那个“石油、太阳理论”在到中马决赛的“烟与瓶子说词”，您这么有经验的人，难道不明白他们准备了多少吗？（可能对于这些，作评判的喜欢说是一种“贯彻始终”、“坚持到底”的精神吧！但对观众来说，这叫“单调”、“乏味”）
3。辩论题目。（中立与否）
这个本人没有意见，可是，如果评判在下判断是以“中立与否”作其中一个考量的话，本人想就大错特错了。因为这是在把评判的主观因素全放进评审过程了！
4。辩论风格。（适合于相关辩题与否）
这就更好笑了！难道您认为在每一场不同的比赛，国能都用不一样的辩论风格吗？如果您又注意的话，其实国能的风格不外乎是我只欠提及的：
“除了“蛮横、大声”之外，并没什么可取之处！他们的辩论风格始终处于外在的一种“强硬”而已，根本没有任何的内涵。如果认真去分析的话，国能的架构常常都会有一个大漏洞，可是他的辩论员就一直不断得以“攻击”来掩饰自己的漏洞，把“辩”变成“变”。他们往往会将自己的立场“变”成一个对自己绝对有利的说法，然后以这说法供给对手。可是，这个被他们“变”出来的说法跟辩题的立场根本就是没有关系的。他们会将对手拉进他们的战场，然后就开始胡说八道；以其在混乱中，凭着他们几位叫有经验的辩手在舞台上的“镇定”与“强词夺理”赢去评判手中的一票。
5。在正确的时候达巅峰状态。
哈哈......像上面这样的方式辩论，哪有什么正确不正确的时候！就只有评判觉得他们正确的时候。因为他们每一个时候都是那么的“巅峰”呀！
6。理论架构。
谈到着，本人就更不能了解了。如果大家仔细去分析的话，一些没有经验的队伍都会很用心的去准备，准备一套理论出来说道理；可是，国能每次就拿着一个例子，从头说到尾，而例子也是错的！叫对方去说一个不对的例子，难道就是你说的公平吗？我想即便是对方不理睬这样的例子，也没有什么不对，因为它根本就不在辩题的讨论范围。只是当国能很熟练的不停再重复的时候，我们的一些“不太有经验”的评判，才会误以为那是很重要的，对方没有指正就是对方的错。可是，如果再看录像，对方有指正呀！指示，国能执迷不悟；难道你要对方放弃自己的来谈一个跟辩题无关痛痒的东西吗？届时，您又说对方被国能拖着走了！难......
但可能就是您欣赏国能的地方吧！但出到国辩，恐怕评判会想不通，到底为什么“马来西亚的代表”会不断重复一些与辩题无关的话呀！
7。评判团。（您的一切被评判接受吗？）
那已不在辩论队的控制范围了！可是，综合以上所说的，难道您认为，他们会被拒绝吗？哈哈......还是回到评判的水准问题！还是别说水准吧！不然您又说我下毒针了。是评判的喜好问题！可是，这个所谓的“喜好”应该是主观的，还是依据你在这里给予的一切标准作指标的客观定义呢？本人也给您搞乱了！
8。运气。
能够在这里写那么多，争辩那么久；本人唯一接受的是这一点！国能运气肯定很好......除了在亚太赛，因为评判换了人！对手也换了不明白国能讲什么的队伍；所以，结果也换咯!

对于您接下去所说的，本人没有太多的意见。只是要声明，本人并没有发表不负责任的言论。如果您认为我说错了什么请直接指出；但别概括性的说一大堆，却没有办法指明本人对国能的意见错在哪里！
另外，不是说赢了比赛或带队赢了比赛的人才有资格说话，身为一个观众、身为一个热爱辩论的人；我想每一个人都有说话的权力！当然，胡言乱语绝对不应该；但请您指明我错在哪里！因为才疏学浅得本人，真得很有诚意的说出自己的看法，绝没有刻意虚构任何一点。

MSIA

weiloh2兄/姐：

对于评判的评分标准，没有太多意见，只有一些几点！
1。在算分制，有多少位评判真的在听完辩论后，就已经有了分数？还是很多的打分表其实是“印象分”，因为他们的分数是在比赛完后，有的甚至在进入商讨室后才开始填写的。所以严格来说，2票是“印象分”。在这样的情况下，3轮投票是白费的！
2。并不是要刻意刁难，可是，评判的素质与水平会不会真的是一个问题呢？对呀！你有题记罗志昌、饶仁义、梁泽宗等人；可是，难道您认为他们在场就能够影响其他评判的决定吗？如果不是，那评判水准问题一样存在！如果是的话就更糟了，那就不用五个、七个评判了，一个就好！对吗？
3。所谓的三轮投票是绝对性的吗？有没有可能超过三轮，如果超过原因在哪里？这样不以“游戏规则”的评审过程，有说服力吗？哈哈......本人也不懂！
4。不懂本人有么有收错资料，但中马赛中好像有评判选择“弃权”，这又是什么逻辑呢？如果要弃权的话，干嘛做评判？

weiloh2

下面引用由MSIA在 2004/12/29 01:32pm 发表的内容：
weiloh2兄/姐：
对于评判的评分标准，没有太多意见，只有一些几点！
1。在算分制，有多少位评判真的在听完辩论后，就已经有了分数？还是很多的打分表其实是“印象分”，因为他们的分数是在比赛完后，有的甚至在　...

I really like your arguement. It is very very interesting!

If this is the case, I seriously propose why don't you identify yourself and organized a team to win all the major tournaments and lead a team to Guo Bian.

Second, please also propose a list of judges that you think they are good and accredidated them before they can be invited.

Third, please come out a good judging system since you have serious opinion about the current system.

Remember, saying is very easy. Doing it is a different case.

Please show us that you are able.

Lastly, all the best, MSIA.

P/S For having said this, I conclude UTN is a super duper lucky team in Malaysia. I suggest they should dissolve the team and go to buy lotery. I think the returns is higher.

MSIA

weiloh2兄/姐：
您的逻辑基本上有点奇怪，似乎是在告诉本人，没有这样的本事就不要去批评别人。但我搞不明白的是，如果您的逻辑是对的话，你我又不是首相、又不是部长，我们到底能不能够批评他们的不妥之处呢？
当然，习惯了大马权威领导的人们，可能在这时候就会套用官方的那一句咯：“说很容易，做很难呀！若真得那么容易，你做给我看咯！”哈哈......不懂这类比用得对不对，但看了您的留言，真有点这样的感觉！

weiloh2兄/姐：
当然，本人没有那样的才华，更没有改变格局的能耐！
所以就只能够在这论坛中表达意见，希望有才华、有能耐的人能够做到！
可是，恕本人直言，我想很多人可能就像您的思维一样，所以才会冒出那么多问题。
不懂您是不是评判之一。如果是的话，本人只能够恳求“高高在上”的评判们，听一听台下观众的意见。
当辩论主宰在评判的喜好上时，这个游戏就不好玩了!

至于国能嘛！该说得说完了，但始终相信观众的眼睛是雪亮的。对辩论原来说，赢得比赛固然重要，但赢得观众才是更重要的一环。（也纯属个人意见）
怎么说都好，国能确实是赢了比赛。“胜者为王，败者为寇”的比赛定律本人也绝对接受。但在辩论的路上要走得更远，善意批评是绝对应该被接受的！逼近辩论这个活动是一辈子的事！
别赢了比赛却输了辩论呀！

weiloh2

下面引用由MSIA在 2004/12/29 04:24pm 发表的内容：
weiloh2兄/姐：
您的逻辑基本上有点奇怪，似乎是在告诉本人，没有这样的本事就不要去批评别人。但我搞不明白的是，如果您的逻辑是对的话，你我又不是首相、又不是部长，我们到底能不能够批评他们的不妥之处呢？
...

I like your arguement because you really can turn black into white. Therefore, you have the talented to perform very well. Please do not waste your talent. I am serious and not joking.

陈桂生

伟雄前辈,对于你的建议我有不同的看法. 我始终觉得辩手不应该把可以把白的说成是黑的技巧用在辩论.辩论之所以有正反两方是因为要让辩手在针对同一个辩题从不同的角度出发进行建设性的意见交流.如果辩手使用诡辩将对方所说的或自己的论点诡谬以论证立场的话,我觉得这样的辩论是没有意义的.

野兽修行

我有些微不同的看法。

诡辩在终极价值上或许不应被提倡，但是在促进和发展辩论上是值得被拿来使用的。诡辩到反诡辩这个过程正是将辩论推向另一个更精彩的高峰的推动力。如果说辩论是一种探求或接近真理的方法，诡辩则是挑战，测试，和完善这个方法的方法。

当然，诡辩和蛮横不讲理是有一点点分别的。现今许多被大家批评和厌恶的辩论技巧，很多时候只是蛮横不讲理，和高竿的诡辩还有一段距离

慧敏

呼~~决赛后忙了几天，承洁和franson叫我上网看看，才知道这里那么热闹。看来看去，最“瞩目’的就是我在决赛所讲的例子：用瓶子使烟变形状。看到很多人对这个例子咬牙切齿，哈哈~~ 我感到十分愉快也十分不好意思。

愉快的是：现场听到对方讲烟的变化的例子，突然想起不久前拍节目时的一种游戏，转头去问纹敏好不好玩一玩，反正是决赛了。纹敏说，来啦！一起玩！怎知这玩笑一出，就被很多人责为辩论的奇技淫巧，甚至写到我们在场上就只有这个例子，其他的从我国历史，世界历史所延伸的论点和论据，都变成了“往事如烟”。呵呵。。。无论你喜欢或讨厌，都请记得这个例子的“来源”。
在节目上演时，一定要捧我场！谢谢，谢谢 ：)

不好意思的是：自己一时的喜好累得大家争论不休，请容许我再三道歉。

再提醒，记得看我的节目噢！

slchin

阿mian，呵呵，你好象有点离题！别人讨论得如火如荼，你竟然叫别人看你的节目？？ 哈哈。

我在马来西亚的时候，经常会想英国的国会式辩论会是怎么样。最近参加了英文的国会式辩论（去玩玩嘛），还遇到一位来自help institute在manchester U 念书的重理同学（不知你们是否记得他）。此比赛中，剑桥和牛津各派了4-5支队伍。评判团是由各自大学派一位代表而组成的。比赛是在lecture hall进行的。实际上，这些leceture hall非常不适合辩论的目的，因为他们的椅子桌子都是固定的，而且是并列排着，不是“V” 字形。辩论员有什么，说什么。有些人提出的理论可以与太阳论相媲美。尽管如此，整个气氛非常融洽

我在这里想说的是：尽管大家对大马的辩坛有重重的不满，但英国的辩论比赛在许多方面也许连大马也不如。单单说评判团就好了。但在这里（英国） ，大家是享受辩论的过程。当然，提出大马辩坛的弱点是希望大马辩坛能茁壮成长。但享受辩论，那是更重要。

我真的相信有许多提出负面的意见的人其实并不是辩论员，而是观众。他们提出的意见，有时是很难实行的。但多一点意见总是好的。