Some competition.

Everything went right except the judging.

What's the point of calling it a "debate" when the judge comes in with her own agenda to "educate" the speakers as to what "really goes on", as opposed to simply judging the arguments of each side in a fair and unbiased manner? When there is no (apparent) penalty for flouting all the rules? An illustration:

2.4 Where the Definition violates Clause 2.3, the Member next in line to speak may challenge the Definition offered. He or she should clearly state that he or she is challenging the Definition.

Nope. A definational challenge was offered by the second Opposition speaker, and the judge only grudgingly conceeded that when I pointed it out. Not like it seemed to matter to her; she seemed to prefer that defination anyway, and commented on the flaws in our defination. Hello! That's the point of being Proposition, so that we can define it the way we want!

2.5 When a Member challenges the Definition, he or she should prove that the Definition as provided by the opposing Member is unreasonable, and he or she should proffer an alternative Definition.

Nope, there was no proof. Which wouldn't be an issue; except that the judge seemed to agree with that defination anyway. See above.

3.3 All Members should present substantive material and rebuttal, except the Opening Proposition Member, who will only present substantive material.

Nope, there was no substantive at all from the Opening Opposition speaker. Of course, it wasn't an important issue to the judge.

Don't get me wrong; I have no issue with the Opposition team. I just don't feel it's right that you call it a "debate" competition, then get people who aren't even qualified to judge "C" Division debates to adjudicate. Where debaters are penalised because of unfair pre-conceived notions on the part of the judges, because the judges aren't even aquainted with the rules they're supposed to go by. Where, somehow, the fact that it's a 1-hr prep means that the judge is willing to "give chance" to the less-prepared team. Where there is no penalty for the violation of fundamental rules, even when that's pointed out by the other team.

And it's not just the adjudication. It's the organisation too. It's not right that the top 4 teams that get to the semi-finals are determined by the scores each team get, despite the fact that each team gets a single different judge. One judge's concept of what deserves a 70 will probably be very different from another judge's concept of what deserves the same mark. At the end of they day, the key determinant of who gets through is the judges' subjective standards, not the teams' abilities. Since there're only 16 teams anyway, and they need 4 teams to get to the semi-finals, would it have been so difficult to just hold one more round of debates? That'd lead to 2 teams emerging from each group, for a total of 4 - the exact figure they need anyway!

Messed up.

On the other hand, Tris and I did good. For guys who hadn't debated in years, it went fairly well, and we're proud of our performance. And I suppose that's all that matters; to be concerned only with how well we did, as opposed to how far we'll get.

Just sitting back now and awaiting the results.

P.S. I maintain that I merely play Munchkin the way it's meant to be!