GPS Debaters Suddenly Social Justice Warriors When Paired Against Girls’ School

Following a dominant GPS season, where the irrelevancy of issues like human rights went uncontested, the Churchie 10.7s have made a philosophical about-turn after being drawn against a girls’ school in round one of QDU.

“We did some exercises in basic human empathy,” explained their coach, “now I just have to hope they don’t absolutely cook this short prep with the most cursed takes imaginable.”

Sometimes, it turns out, not trying is better than getting it wrong.

“If I were a single mother, who was also queer and a person of colour and suffered from a disability and was a refugee; I would support the affirmative team” first speaker and future school captain Alex Alexson waxed lyrically, in a totally unbelievable attempt to gain the sympathy of the room.

“You’d have to be a bigot to disagree,” third affirmative speaker and local bigot Sam Sommerton alleged, turning round to look at the girls on the opposing bench.

In the post-debate press conference, the girls on the negative team were more than a little confused.

“The topic was about whether sports teams should be held responsible for the behaviour of their fans,” second negative speaker Holly Smith, “I truly have no clue what they was yapping about.”

“Their third speaker tried to say they understood the burden of sexism because they had mothers and sister,” added the third negative speaker Lucy Speakgood, “did they not realise that we are literally women ourselves?”

The boys now eagerly awaits the adjudication, which pundits expect will result in a loss by about 50 thousand points.

More to come.

Former High School Debater Isn’t Cramming – They’re Just Practicing “Short Prep”

With a Foundations of Law assignment due at 3pm, most of the first-year law cohort was stressing out, refining their meticulously crafted essays and desperately editing their footnotes to be comma-perfect. But for former high school debating legend Albert Rimmington, this day couldn’t have been more chill.

“I’ve been preparing for this my whole life,” Albert claimed, “it’s basically just a short preparation debate, but a law essay instead of a topic about whether we should ban school uniforms.”

Albert’s classmates were intrigued at how he would manage to write a 2000-word assignment in only an hour, but Albert’s insistence that his faultless silent brainstorming technique would maximise efficiency assuaged their fears.

When asked what sources he would use to justify his position, Albert said “I’ll just BS it to be honest. That’s what worked when we won the 11.4 premiership. It’s not like examples and sources really matter much when the adjudicator doesn’t know if it’s real or not.”

“I’m not an ‘adjudicator’, I’m a career expert in constitutional law.” lamented seminar leader Stohn Muart-Jill.

Albert defended his take by suggesting “what if the negative team just asserts another fake statistic back?”

“That isn’t how this works,” responded Stohn, “hopefully Albert will learn when he gets his mark back”.

Four (if not even lower) to come.