for a friend of mine who generously allowed me to watch the debate for a price.

What transpired was an intensely stimulating exchange of words, from the carefully laid out speeches of the Silliman University College of Law debaters, to the intellectually dynamic prose of the Ateneo de Manila University Law School debaters. It was one heck of an experience watching live the debate of the moment.
The Luce Auditorium was jam packed with debate fans and Sillimanians who wanted to see the spectacle. It was very difficult for me to get inside because the staggering number of people who wanted to watch the debate exceeded the amount of seats available inside the auditorium. Many of them were queuing outside the lobby hoping to get free tickets from people who had tickets but chose not to watch. However, i was able to get inside and found myself a seat near the topmost rows. I prepped myself for the show: i read the brochures and acquainted myself with the debate proceedings, and then the debate began. Silliman first. The motion of the debate was to resolve that the Reproductive Health Bill be approved. It was an okay speech compared to the standard speeches of experienced debaters, but i understood because the debaters from the Silliman bench weren't really seasoned debaters, unlike some of the debaters from the Ateneo bench. It was Ateneo's turn. Good interpolation, good speech, however, the only girl debater of Ateneo lacked a bit of integrity. The debate continued and ended with some memorable points. Overall, it was generally a good debate. However, my concern lies with the balance of both sides in terms of their ability to hold clashes. The Silliman debaters were good especially in terms of their research and standing, but they failed on dynamism. They ably did not accomplish the task of rebutting and refuting the Ateneo's points. With the Ateneo on the other hand, it was especially spectacular their ability to concretize their arguments and demolish Silliman's arguments. It was a great example of rebuttals and refutations. Their speeches were a different kind from that of the Silimanians because theirs were riddled with dynamism in terms of their approach. They listened to their opponents and tried to reason out why Silliman's model shouldn't be the way, and go on why Ateneo's model should be the way. Unlike the Sillimanian's were it was all " our proposal is this, and it should be that way." Instead, they should have been more dynamic, and i repeat this because this is essentially the basics of debating. Anyway, it was a good try for Silliman. They had a good and solid argumentation but eventually lost in terms of reciprocation, and Ateneo was good overall. however, being good overall clearly doesn't cut it, because three of the awards went to three of the Silliman debaters. Initially, i thought that it was a very biased decision, owing to the debate being held at Silliman grounds, but as time went on, i understood the reasons for the skewed win. So i say kudos to Silliman for the amazing show of guts and talent!