On the road for almost 4 weeks. Tough but good money. Am goin back to write the intepretation of my analysis so that i can submit my four chapters to my Phd Guru.
The thing to be lookin at is the fun i am expecting to have in my first copetetive debate in 12 years at GSD. I am sure FUN will be it.
I've been teachin outside for at least 4 days a month for a good 3 years now. Just wandering how i will fare teaching kids an Uni's in under 4 weeks.
Well, let us have fun debating first.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Tough Debate
It was tough, really tough when I had to decide the first time on whether to represent the Uni for debate or rugby.
Rugby was fun and so was debate to a big extent bug all the tackling in rugby is done through words and at time the physical side of rugby I surely did miss.
Nonetheless, the first call i had to make was in 91' and debate was it. The decision fell flat on many people's faces as the debate part was cancelled on the 11th hour for that Inter-U competition.
Well, see...
Rugby was fun and so was debate to a big extent bug all the tackling in rugby is done through words and at time the physical side of rugby I surely did miss.
Nonetheless, the first call i had to make was in 91' and debate was it. The decision fell flat on many people's faces as the debate part was cancelled on the 11th hour for that Inter-U competition.
Well, see...
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Satisfaction
In debate terms, satisfaction can be divided into 3.
1. Satisfastion of you as the speaker (you feel like you've done a fantastic job and given a spectacular speech)
2. Satisfaction of the general audience (they feel that that the speech is great)
3. Satisfaction of the adjudicators (they feel that the speech and you are fantabulous)
Guess which one matters the most. Yup the third one... the 3rd one ... the number three.
Thus we need to understand this simple concept. Satisfaction is result minus expectation. Thus you need to know their expecttation to be able to plan for it and deliver something beyond the expectation than the result for you is generally sound but if the result is lower than the expectation than, well.... not so good.
1. Satisfastion of you as the speaker (you feel like you've done a fantastic job and given a spectacular speech)
2. Satisfaction of the general audience (they feel that that the speech is great)
3. Satisfaction of the adjudicators (they feel that the speech and you are fantabulous)
Guess which one matters the most. Yup the third one... the 3rd one ... the number three.
Thus we need to understand this simple concept. Satisfaction is result minus expectation. Thus you need to know their expecttation to be able to plan for it and deliver something beyond the expectation than the result for you is generally sound but if the result is lower than the expectation than, well.... not so good.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
My Beginning as a debater
I never debated during my school days except in one inter-class tournament where I suprisingly upstaged the supposed best speaker in the school. I was really fired up that day simply because he said something negative about my pink striped tee shirt. Still, I was considered not good enough to represent the school. Thus I quit debating and concentrated on 'silat' and cricket. (Wasn't that good at both also but some girls said I looked kinda cute in my 'Silat' attire@ good enough for me)
In 1989 I was accepted into UPM in their matriculation program. I took part in two Public Speaking tourneys as I did not really want to be fully involve in the then famous orientation program, and finished 2nd in the BM category and 3rd in the English respectively. In 1991 I was selected as the team manager for my college team(I was really wondering why not as a speaker but the girls chosen were much better in terms of poise and looks, I didn't really complain). The all girl team made it to the finals and they were, all in their special cute ways, said how indebted they were to me for getting them to the finals.( I really thought that I did not do much other than vetting their points as we generally get our topics at least one week in advance those days).
Somehow or rather the organizer turned evil on us. They earlier informed us that the finals was slotted to be on the coming Saturday night but sent an ex-bouncer officer with a loud-speaker lecturer to cordially inform us that it is tomorrow night, kindly forgetting that the other team was informed of this change 3 days earlier. In good sportmanship albeit with a lot of crying, we went, took part and lost. But I was angry, I was so angry at being Shanghaied that I walked up to the organizer and told them with as much venom as I could muster, that next year I will be back as a speaker and I will trash every single team up against my beloved Sixth College. True to my word, I dished rugby for a full month preparing my team next year and won the 1991 UPM Inter College Title together with the best speaker title.
I was happy and also in a boastful mood. I told the organizers that I will come back next year and do the same again which I duly did in 1992. I was satisfied and went back to the real love of my life, the mud and blood of the rugby field. Somewhere in between those months, I went with a strange team to the IIU Australs where my speakers did not really want to debate. After the second round which we won, one of my speakers got ill and luckily I had a nice Singaporean speaker replacing her. Needless to say we did not do well in that tourney.
My rugby team team got third in 1993 Inter-college and I was a permanent fixture in the UPM Angels' B team when I got a message from the UPM Student Affairs Department that they want to send a team to Australia for the Australs and there will be a selection. I thought.. well never been to Australia before... 3 stitches on my forehead... left knee not doin so well... Sure.
In 1989 I was accepted into UPM in their matriculation program. I took part in two Public Speaking tourneys as I did not really want to be fully involve in the then famous orientation program, and finished 2nd in the BM category and 3rd in the English respectively. In 1991 I was selected as the team manager for my college team(I was really wondering why not as a speaker but the girls chosen were much better in terms of poise and looks, I didn't really complain). The all girl team made it to the finals and they were, all in their special cute ways, said how indebted they were to me for getting them to the finals.( I really thought that I did not do much other than vetting their points as we generally get our topics at least one week in advance those days).
Somehow or rather the organizer turned evil on us. They earlier informed us that the finals was slotted to be on the coming Saturday night but sent an ex-bouncer officer with a loud-speaker lecturer to cordially inform us that it is tomorrow night, kindly forgetting that the other team was informed of this change 3 days earlier. In good sportmanship albeit with a lot of crying, we went, took part and lost. But I was angry, I was so angry at being Shanghaied that I walked up to the organizer and told them with as much venom as I could muster, that next year I will be back as a speaker and I will trash every single team up against my beloved Sixth College. True to my word, I dished rugby for a full month preparing my team next year and won the 1991 UPM Inter College Title together with the best speaker title.
I was happy and also in a boastful mood. I told the organizers that I will come back next year and do the same again which I duly did in 1992. I was satisfied and went back to the real love of my life, the mud and blood of the rugby field. Somewhere in between those months, I went with a strange team to the IIU Australs where my speakers did not really want to debate. After the second round which we won, one of my speakers got ill and luckily I had a nice Singaporean speaker replacing her. Needless to say we did not do well in that tourney.
My rugby team team got third in 1993 Inter-college and I was a permanent fixture in the UPM Angels' B team when I got a message from the UPM Student Affairs Department that they want to send a team to Australia for the Australs and there will be a selection. I thought.. well never been to Australia before... 3 stitches on my forehead... left knee not doin so well... Sure.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Th Greatest Political Saga
As pointed out by Harun Yahya in one of his famous books, scientists have proven that the universe is expanding at a very very precise systemic speed. Thus the scientist, baffled by this, unrealazingly commented that there must be an overseeing bigger rule that is controlling the events in the universe. They were and rather still are and also in the future will be rigtht as this overseeing is done by GOD himself.
In relation to the political saga in Perak and other equally minute things, the saga is expanding but there is no underlying control to it. No rules, no ethics, just expansion in any which way direction possible which would usually lead to a nice but unwanted creation of a black hole.
Even in a debate with good teams with good contents, if they are not govern by shared laws, rules and ethics, by the middle of the debate, people would be trading blows by the middle of proceedings.
There must be agreed terms, agreed rules and agreed ethics for logic and sanity to prevail. The universe is expanding fine due to the attachement to the rule of GOD as proven by the many great scientist. Though miniscule in the scheme of things, it still relevant to the politicians to realize this simple universal notion. They must agree to a common ground then talk, chat, argue than do something worthwhile. Else... find a lawless land and have a nice fist fight, ensure knock outs to both sides as we do not really want you back.
In relation to the political saga in Perak and other equally minute things, the saga is expanding but there is no underlying control to it. No rules, no ethics, just expansion in any which way direction possible which would usually lead to a nice but unwanted creation of a black hole.
Even in a debate with good teams with good contents, if they are not govern by shared laws, rules and ethics, by the middle of the debate, people would be trading blows by the middle of proceedings.
There must be agreed terms, agreed rules and agreed ethics for logic and sanity to prevail. The universe is expanding fine due to the attachement to the rule of GOD as proven by the many great scientist. Though miniscule in the scheme of things, it still relevant to the politicians to realize this simple universal notion. They must agree to a common ground then talk, chat, argue than do something worthwhile. Else... find a lawless land and have a nice fist fight, ensure knock outs to both sides as we do not really want you back.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Ethics and curtness
It is good to be ethical and curt but it is certainly not easy to most people. This is due to the fact that ethics and curtness are mostly culture related and hence differ oftentimes from place to place and situation to situation.
Nonetheless, there are general guides to ethics and curtness that you may follow that may lead people into viewing you as curt and ethical. This section is made for university parliamentary debaters that may also be generalized to other people.
1. Listen and look like listening to people by jotting down something.
2. Smile a bit more so that people especially judges will have a more favorable view on you.
3. Clearly understand that you do not have to be cocky to be smart.
4. Talk nicely to judges even if in your opinion they are crappy as you may meet them again in the next round.
5. Learn as much as possbible what are the tules to debate ethics and curtness according to the judges in the room or tournament not from a freind watching TV at home.
6. Remember the key importance to having the right ethics and curtness will be high marks on manner which will definitely have some bearings on your matter.
7. Do not judge abook by its cover. Bo Hoo! We do this all the time and so will the judges no matter how experienced or inexperienced they are.
Nonetheless, there are general guides to ethics and curtness that you may follow that may lead people into viewing you as curt and ethical. This section is made for university parliamentary debaters that may also be generalized to other people.
1. Listen and look like listening to people by jotting down something.
2. Smile a bit more so that people especially judges will have a more favorable view on you.
3. Clearly understand that you do not have to be cocky to be smart.
4. Talk nicely to judges even if in your opinion they are crappy as you may meet them again in the next round.
5. Learn as much as possbible what are the tules to debate ethics and curtness according to the judges in the room or tournament not from a freind watching TV at home.
6. Remember the key importance to having the right ethics and curtness will be high marks on manner which will definitely have some bearings on your matter.
7. Do not judge abook by its cover. Bo Hoo! We do this all the time and so will the judges no matter how experienced or inexperienced they are.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Teaching the uninterested
Teaching is a tough job especially if you are not that prepared and the students do not really want to learn.
My proposal to you;
1. Keep it simple
2.Have a planned fun session every ten minutes (more or less)
3. Ask the students what they want (preferably before session starts)
4. Remember, check your activities: If they are fun to you, confirm this with a trusted comrade because if they are not fun to you, well the students will not like them either.
Try: DO and do some more.
My proposal to you;
1. Keep it simple
2.Have a planned fun session every ten minutes (more or less)
3. Ask the students what they want (preferably before session starts)
4. Remember, check your activities: If they are fun to you, confirm this with a trusted comrade because if they are not fun to you, well the students will not like them either.
Try: DO and do some more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)