The judge was right that it was a tight fight. I like how the affirmative side was consistent, firm, and unwavering. The DLSU sure knew how to put a fight and gave substantial alternatives that was delivered exceptionally by the whole group and later emphasized and elaborated further by the best speaker :)
I'm against with political dynasty because it shows that our country does not have other candidates that is worthy than them. It is about time to elect and vote people who are not from the family of TRAPO or in a political Dynasty. Filipino people deserve a better leader that can lead the country in a positive and progressive momentum!
For the 3rd speaker from DLSU, yes political dynasty is not inherently evil, but a lot of political family abuse that power. Families like the Estradas, Marcoses, Binays, Aquinos and so on. We are a democratic country. Therefore, equal rights should be given to the Filipino people. Political dynasty might not be inherently evil, but it can be a tool for abuse of power.
The third speaker of the affirmative let the 3rd speaker insert additional arguments in the cross-examination which should have been used for her team's advantage but she was too stunned by the 3rd speaker to even interrupt him in her own court.
I too believe the Affirmative did argue the case better as regards the data presented and the manner and content of their discourses. Personally the 3rd and last speaker from the UST rather deserved the best speaker award. She brought out the contentions for her team especially during the cross-examination in which the DLSU's 3rd poorly played.
In my perspective, the speakers only focused on the definition of pol. Dynasty as referred to in the constitution thus lacking the means to justify the need or reason as to why it was considered unethical and unjust in the first place. Their foundation was quite weak, they assumed that the defense of the opposing side would be contradicting the articles which would be easy for them. However, they ignored to see the bigger picture and only focused on the articles. The 3rd speaker definitely saw this and grabbed the opportunity to apply complex question fallacy, "yes" or "no" applying ethics and additional facts that's when they lost points given how organized his arguments were.
Malaking sampal na katotohanan na kahit na nasa Article 2, Sec. 26 na 'yung sagot, still, political dynasties exist. I really hate the third debater of the negative side, but I totally agree that what all he said was very true. 😭
Laging lumalabag ung first speaker ng ust sa rules. Categorical questions lang dpt pero puro how......tas hindi dpt hinahayaan ng tinatanong na nageexplain ung nagtatanong sa kanya
I maybe late but i would love to spill my opinion in here. The topic rn is complicated for me because I am not really into news and stuffs, but since I am interested for being a lawyer that is why i watch these kind if videos. Anyways, I’m always with the affirmative side.. but today’s square off was kinda off(idk what is the right term-) because the 3rd DLSU speaker enlighten up my mind and i was impressed. Frankly speaking here, i am no lawyer yet and not that good at criticizing but the affirmative side kinda messed it up... or maybe it’s just the DLSU’s charisma made me go with his flow instead. (Sorry for the messed up opinion of mine- correct me and criticizs me-)
if in the first place you are oblivious to the things around you, how can you be able to give your factual acts and citation if you dont have any concrete basis?
criminallawconsti tama lang. Malinaw point nya then he was able to corner his opponent during interpellation. It just so happened na medyo d bagets ng katapat nya tanong kaya nanghula
the best speaker actually commited a "plurium interrogationum " or complex question fallacy. A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. However, some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception (the best speaker did this in interpellation).
It is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
35:00 si ate sa likod tango ng tango kala mo talaga naiintindihan e kahit hindi commendable sinasabi ng speaker tunatango parin, napaghahalataan si anteh hshahahaha
..galing nila mag English Peru,, wala yan sa kalingkingan ko,, sayang lang at di ako nag aaral sa sikat na skul tulad nila at kung nagkataon,, nandyan din ako,, kahit di ako law student, but I am proud as TNP graduate,
political dynasty that it could give a negative effect to our country it could lost our dignity as a countrymen some other people constituents they are willing to run for the respective position of the goverment but they were hesitate to run because they were afraid to run so many reasons first some relatives willing to run because of personal interest there is no political well to govern to they specific conuntry they were were belong anti dynasty law should be a law approved by the congress and the senate
@@osbornwais5257 they read data, i think it s fine... because it is not a speech context. but i dont know... British parliamentary style can read as well.
@@learning-indonesian yes they can read ofcourse but this one is not rebuttal..thats is why the opponent refuses to listen to what the other side is saying because they don't like to response to it.. this is just presenting and insisting of what you have research..it would have been better if they just let their opponent speak first and then give their response after... but not listening or refusing to listen by shouting out loud to your opponent every time he or she try 5o speak is not at all a debate..haha
political dynasty that it could give a negative effect to our country it could lost our dignity as a countrymen some other people constituents they are willing to run for the respective position of the goverment but they were hesitate to run because they were afraid to run so many reasons first some relatives willing to run because of personal interest there is no political well to govern to they specific conuntry they were were belong anti dynasty law should be a law approved by the congress and the senate
![[ANC SQUARE OFF] Season 6 Elimination Round 2: SU vs SLU](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9-ol_x38i4c/mqdefault.jpg)
![[ANC SQUARE OFF] Season 6 Elimination Round 2: SU vs SLU](/img/tr.png)
![Chino Pacas - Modo Capone (with Drake & Fuerza Regida) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zjv8TQ0gBkg/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm with the affermative side but I admit that the third defender of the negative side was the best and the most persuasive amongst them
confused since 2004 same same 🙌🏻
Qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
The judge was right that it was a tight fight. I like how the affirmative side was consistent, firm, and unwavering. The DLSU sure knew how to put a fight and gave substantial alternatives that was delivered exceptionally by the whole group and later emphasized and elaborated further by the best speaker :)
I'm against with political dynasty because it shows that our country does not have other candidates that is worthy than them. It is about time to elect and vote people who are not from the family of TRAPO or in a political Dynasty. Filipino people deserve a better leader that can lead the country in a positive and progressive momentum!
duterte is the best pres
For the 3rd speaker from DLSU, yes political dynasty is not inherently evil, but a lot of political family abuse that power. Families like the Estradas, Marcoses, Binays, Aquinos and so on. We are a democratic country. Therefore, equal rights should be given to the Filipino people. Political dynasty might not be inherently evil, but it can be a tool for abuse of power.
The third speaker of the affirmative let the 3rd speaker insert additional arguments in the cross-examination which should have been used for her team's advantage but she was too stunned by the 3rd speaker to even interrupt him in her own court.
I too believe the Affirmative did argue the case better as regards the data presented and the manner and content of their discourses. Personally the 3rd and last speaker from the UST rather deserved the best speaker award. She brought out the contentions for her team especially during the cross-examination in which the DLSU's 3rd poorly played.
Tama💪☝️🙏
Magaling ung third speaker ng DLSU... malinaw ung arguments at persuasive mg salita... may mga haters d2 wala naman alam.. haha kayo na mg judge
+Bryan Uy I couldn't agree more.
+Bryan Uy bitchmode ka pre hahaha
He deserves to be the best speaker. I like how he cross examine the other speaker.
tama ka haha.. ingit lang sila
hey ANC put the debate topics on your titles!
Pls ANC!
@@maridetteestrada6221 gusto mo lng respito masyado ok nmn yang hey
The last speaker looks so attractive for speaking with so much eloquence!
In my perspective, the speakers only focused on the definition of pol. Dynasty as referred to in the constitution thus lacking the means to justify the need or reason as to why it was considered unethical and unjust in the first place. Their foundation was quite weak, they assumed that the defense of the opposing side would be contradicting the articles which would be easy for them. However, they ignored to see the bigger picture and only focused on the articles. The 3rd speaker definitely saw this and grabbed the opportunity to apply complex question fallacy, "yes" or "no" applying ethics and additional facts that's when they lost points given how organized his arguments were.
Malaking sampal na katotohanan na kahit na nasa Article 2, Sec. 26 na 'yung sagot, still, political dynasties exist. I really hate the third debater of the negative side, but I totally agree that what all he said was very true. 😭
Fluency + charisma beats facts and common sense. Good job dlsu
Political dynasty must be well defined in our constitution. Just saying.
Laging lumalabag ung first speaker ng ust sa rules. Categorical questions lang dpt pero puro how......tas hindi dpt hinahayaan ng tinatanong na nageexplain ung nagtatanong sa kanya
Yung mga audience sigurado ako wala naiintidihan ahahaha mga parang kinuha lang sa gilid gilid para masabing may audience ahaha
Oo nga 😂😂
HAHAHA
nyahahahaaaaaaaa
I maybe late but i would love to spill my opinion in here.
The topic rn is complicated for me because I am not really into news and stuffs, but since I am interested for being a lawyer that is why i watch these kind if videos. Anyways, I’m always with the affirmative side.. but today’s square off was kinda off(idk what is the right term-) because the 3rd DLSU speaker enlighten up my mind and i was impressed. Frankly speaking here, i am no lawyer yet and not that good at criticizing but the affirmative side kinda messed it up... or maybe it’s just the DLSU’s charisma made me go with his flow instead.
(Sorry for the messed up opinion of mine- correct me and criticizs me-)
if in the first place you are oblivious to the things around you, how can you be able to give your factual acts and citation if you dont have any concrete basis?
Can anyone tell me that why the 3rd speaker from DLSU the worst speaker? Anyone from below?
Wala ka alam sa debate... malinaw ung arguments... hater kalang
Because of Quarantine I had the chance to watch this! Raise flag 😊
Kulang sa art of speaking yung 1st speaker ng affirmative.
Kulang sa body language
pog
indeed, kaasar nauutal utal pati
syet! naka beer pong ko lang kagabi yung isa sa DLSU! haha
Fliptop Ng matatalino
Btw Amazing for the both teams good job
im sorry... does anyone know what style of this debate? Asian (AP) or Australian?
Oxford Oregon
How can Atty Rances be an attorney and Beautiful at the same time? Na saan ang hustisya?
Natuwa lang ako sa babae sa likod,ganon din kase ako pag diko naiintindihan yung sinasabe
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
the 3rd speaker on the negative side killed it. Brilliant speaker
I HOPE PINAGIISPAN NG ANC NA IBALIK ITO🙏🏻🥹
hey ANC, do this again for 2022 elections?
Did Imelda say "Especially to kill Thanos" in 1:45? Lol
*Cayetanos
The host speaks so clearly..
8:40 the guy at the back😭
I'm greatly disappointed... hahaha the guy whom i thought did worst during the cross examination actually won best speaker!?
criminallawconsti tama lang. Malinaw point nya then he was able to corner his opponent during interpellation. It just so happened na medyo d bagets ng katapat nya tanong kaya nanghula
the best speaker actually commited a "plurium interrogationum " or complex question fallacy. A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. However, some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception (the best speaker did this in interpellation).
Could some one enlighten me on what “ma-la-in-se” means?
It is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct.
I'll just put this on a layman's term. Luto yung laban.
lesgo maksci senior citizens!
nice comment! thanks for sharing!
35:00 si ate sa likod tango ng tango kala mo talaga naiintindihan e kahit hindi commendable sinasabi ng speaker tunatango parin, napaghahalataan si anteh hshahahaha
jhahahhahahahahhahaha
I'm here to watch until 2:50 said by my professor, to make a trailer like it :D
Nanghuhula ung last speaker ng ust ng isasagot
Ewan ko parang medyo hawig ni Atty Diane Azores ung first speaker ng UST. 🤣
hi sa mga mag debate dya! happy valentines 🙂
Deputy prime minister in the affirmative side weakened the game
Yung first speaker kinakabahan yata at binabasa lang yung buong nakasulat sa papel
hahhahahahah di ko rin maintindihan e, walang pause2 sa kanya. tuloy2 hahahah
Buti sila nabibigyan ng script at pwede basahin, samin wala talaga
42:20 ginagawa mo sa likod milay
Yung nasa likod ng pangatlong speaker ng affirmative tungo ng tungo halata namang walang naiintidihan.
😂😂😁😂😂😂
DLSU MARTIN UY!!!🎉
hihi cute ng reaction sa 48:13
malayse?
mala in se
Mala in se- inherently evil 😊
@@katnisseverdeen3649 going to a debate sure is interesting. What a way to learn new terms, thanks for that!
actually, nagulat aq sa nanalong best speaker. i thought he is the worst. well, experts.
lol.. malinaw naman.. wala ka kasing alam
@@fcbcalamba8599 just use the word "idiot"
It's a better insult
@@bryanuy8713 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Animo La Salle!
UST has a world championship title (ESL) while DLSU waley.
hahaha Are you comparing a very young LAw school versus the oldest Law School in the country?😂
debate mode citizens
patalo na kami
burgis onanay
Sino diyan? Hahaha
mas maganda yung naging labanan ng admu vs up
May link ka?
37:17
38:55
Nicely presented
Nosebleed na me☺️
😃😃😃😃😃ikaw lng ba?
..galing nila mag English Peru,, wala yan sa kalingkingan ko,, sayang lang at di ako nag aaral sa sikat na skul tulad nila at kung nagkataon,, nandyan din ako,, kahit di ako law student, but I am proud as TNP graduate,
😂😂😂😂di nga
political dynasty that it could give a negative effect to our country it could lost our dignity as a countrymen some other people constituents they are willing to run for the respective position of the goverment but they were hesitate to run because they were afraid to run so many reasons first some relatives willing to run because of personal interest there is no political well to govern to they specific conuntry they were were belong anti dynasty law should be a law approved by the congress and the senate
affirmitive dominate
12:01
Aha botohan na naman pala midterm election kaya nan pala God will be done
close fight
Bakit hindi niyo ginawang example ng Political Dynasty yung mga Aquino??
O kaya ng mga Duterte.
Political dynasty it is a system in the Philippines also century problem.
Duterte clan:
President: PDuts
Congressman: Polong
Mayor: Sara
Vice-Mayor: Baste
Yeah, hindi nga sila political dynasty.
P.S.: Sarcasm intended
di naman sila political dynasty. haha
Uy, Kodus!
This is reading not debate.. hahahah😆😅😆😅
they need to prepare and make a note before they start the debate
@@learning-indonesian they are prepared for thr debate, then they should not be reading their notes hahaha
@@osbornwais5257 they read data, i think it s fine... because it is not a speech context. but i dont know... British parliamentary style can read as well.
@@learning-indonesian yes they can read ofcourse but this one is not rebuttal..thats is why the opponent refuses to listen to what the other side is saying because they don't like to response to it.. this is just presenting and insisting of what you have research..it would have been better if they just let their opponent speak first and then give their response after... but not listening or refusing to listen by shouting out loud to your opponent every time he or she try 5o speak is not at all a debate..haha
wala ka alam. ingit ka lang
okay naman ah haha
Haha
yung announcer maganda yummy
I hate the fist speaker, she sttuters and the way she deliver her speech made me furious
Low
political dynasty that it could give a negative effect to our country it could lost our dignity as a countrymen some other people constituents they are willing to run for the respective position of the goverment but they were hesitate to run because they were afraid to run so many reasons first some relatives willing to run because of personal interest there is no political well to govern to they specific conuntry they were were belong anti dynasty law should be a law approved by the congress and the senate