# data[].attributes.headline
Verdict for 19 July Debate (THBT counsellors should not break confidentiality with their clients)

# data[].attributes.subject
Verdict for 19 July Debate (THBT counsellors should not break confidentiality with their clients)

# data[].attributes.body
Win : Proposition (Mei Han, Kenzie & Shawn)
Best Speaker : Mei Han

General comments throughout the Debate:

Quite an interesting debate throughout, especially throughout the 1st half of the debate. However I believe if there was something for both sides to improve on, it would be in terms of engagement - rebuttals-wise. For example, 1st Opp (Ilhan) had only managed to point out 1 rebuttal for 1st Prop (Mei Han), which should not be the case because it is important to address every single one of the substantives and policy of the 1st Prop, hence there should have been about 2-3 rebuttals. First on POLICY engagement, as well as SUBSTANTIVE engagement. The premise of the debate is also to prove why your POLICY is BETTER and also to prove why proposition's substantive is nullified. If there is a gap in terms of engagement here, it may seem as if Opp is not addressing / avoiding Prop's substantives (YOU COULD BE DEDUCTED ON THIS ;-;). Both teams managed to state their burden of proofs and provide a decent explanation as to how their policy would be imposed. However, one side has a comparatively better case in terms of their task fulfillment on proving their burden of proof. Opposition was supposed to prove why their ALTERNATIVE policy was BETTER. Therefore it should have been more emphasised in the 1st Opp and mentioned in the 2nd Opp. What is NOT advisable for Opp is to continue preaching on "If confidentiality wasn't broken .. bla bla" Yes, this could be a valid point, but it is NOT THE PRIORITY. It should be more fitting in terms of rebuttals and nullifying Prop's substantives. However it does not aid the validation of your policy and hence you will fail to convince the judges as to why they should pick your side. This is similar to "So you're saying this and that is bad, so how are you better?" This is what the judges will think. I think an area of improvement could be on prioritizing substantives and engagement on rebuttals wise. Also need to spend more time as to drawing comparisons into both sides policies and telling the audience why you are BETTER as COMPARED to the other side. 1st Opp should have also clearly stated and defined what your side means by “severe”. How far and extreme is “severe” to you? And, 1st Opp, take note that POIs should be directly to the point and should not be a long statement with elaborations, but we appreciate your extremely detailed case divide because it really shows that you know your entire team’s case well enough to even give precise headings for the subs. Just a simple question will do. 1st Opp’s subs should not have revolved around counsellors so much because after all, the prime subject is the client. There was one minor point, I think, on how the burdens of counsellors can be eased. Remember that is the jobs of the counsellors to improve upon their clients’ mental state. As for proposition, generally quite organised substantiation, but a lacking factor was your rebuttals. There was engagement here and there, and while POIs were quite strategically asked, you guys could emphasise more on what would happen IF your policy didn't happen. There wasn't enough emphasis as to why the harms are so detrimental and Prop lacked in drawing RELEVANCE to the significance of harms induced if confidentiality was broken. For example, Prop said there was harms if the government/court could have mishandled the information of the client. BUT Prop lacked in showing EVIDENCES as to whether that truly happened or not, and if you guys failed to prove that, Opposition could have pointed you out on that and you guys will suffer a substantiation loss. There was also efforts in proving how protecting confidentiality rights were effective, but I believe it could be expanded much more (2nd Prop (Kenzie), and I did see the efforts on trying to layer your argument preemptively which was admirable. But try to make your statistics less conspicuous in terms of its legitimacy (even though you faked your statistics HAHA) but remember if Opposition succeeds in realizing you are using fake statistics, they can call you out on that, and you will suffer a huge loss on your persuasiveness. Otherwise, if your statistics is too flat, Opposition can use the 'Even if' argument to rule out that your statistics does not matter, and there are other underlying problems that should be addressed. Kenzie, never again concede to your opponents, even if it is a POI, by saying “I agree”, but it’s alright, you didn’t know that was not supposed to be the case. Also, very importantly, 2nd Opp (Snigdha), should not have 3 subs. Max is 2 because as a 2nd speaker, rebuttals are key as well and you should have instead picked out 1 or 2 subs and elaborate more on detail. I might have misheard, but you also basically stated the benefits of doctor-patient confidentiality at the start of your speech which makes it seem like you conceded to Prop. Now lastly onto both sides of 3rd speakers (Shawn P, Akshayaa O), you guys could have reiterated your pointers with more emphasis and consistently draw comparisons to both worlds so as to point out each sides flaws and prove why it's so detrimental. Merely restating your 1st and 2nd speakers’ points are not enough for a 3rd speaker. Proper signpostings should have been practiced as well because it was pretty unclear as to when exactly you both moved on to tackle yet another of the opponent’s arguments. This causes the adjudicators to be “baffled” for a few seconds and we might miss out on YOUR points that were important. 3rd Opp (Akshayaa), you keep saying that Prop have contradicted themselves. You can say this BUT you need to prove it by bringing up what Prop originally said and compare it with what Prop just said. Overall, job well done to everyone for the effort and relatively productive prep session. Can definitely see the attempt in structuring your arguments properly, following the AREL format.

# data[].attributes.body
Date: 19 July 2017, Monday

Duration: 4.00 pm - 6.00 pm

In-charge: Eunice Chong

Theme: Confidentiality

Objectives:

1. To do a debate based on confidentiality

Timeplan

Time | Activity  | I/C
4.00 pm - 5.00 pm | Preparation for Impromptu Debate: THBT counselors should not break confidentiality with their clients | -
5.00 pm - 5.45 pm | Debate | Adjudicators: N, ETimekeeper: E
5.45 pm - 6.00 pm | Adjudicator feedback | N, E

Activity Details

Activity  | Details | I/C
Preparation for Impromptu Debate: THBT counselors should not break confidentiality with their clients | 1. Debaters to prepare for debate | -
Debate | - | Adjudicators: N, ETimekeeper: E
Adjudicator feedback | 1. Adjustors to give feedback to debaters | N, E

Logistics

Activity  | Details
Preparation for Impromptu Debate: THBT counselors should not break confidentiality with their clients | -
Debate | -
Adjudicator feedback | -