Top law schools debate in Square Off: The ANC CVC Law Debates

From http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=122352









"Square Off," ANC's top-rating TV debate show, raises the bar for intelligent entertainment programming with an exciting new tournament as its latest season offering.

"Square Off: The CVC Law Debates" features teams from the country's top law schools - including classic archrivals Ateneo De Manila University and UP Diliman - battling it out for prestigious prizes and the honor of being recognized as the best in the land.

As in previous seasons, the teams will debate the day's hottest social and political issues. But this tournament format is designed to showcase not only the debaters' advocacy skills and their powers of persuasion, but also the art of cross-examination.

"The enhanced opportunity for direct challenges or head-to-head confrontations - not only by the opposing teams but the judges, too - guarantees a more dynamic and stimulating experience for participants and spectators alike," said host Twink Macaraig.

And, boosting the "fear factor" element of the competition: famous legal luminaries and actual trial court judges are slated to serve as adjudicators throughout the tournament, "Square Off: The CVC Law Debates" airs Wednesdays at 8pm.

any update on who won the debate?

barrister wrote:any update on who won the debate?

oo nga. cnu kaya ang nanalo. hindi ako nakakapanood. pakipost naman dito. thanks

Ateneo de Davao beats St. Louis at ‘Square Off’ semis

abs-cbnNEWS.com | 10/04/2008 3:02 PM

The Ateneo de Davao University on Wednesday advanced in its quest to become the country’s best debate team as it overwhelmed St. Louis University in the semi-finals of ABS-CBN News Channel’s debate program “Square Off: the CVC Law Debates”.

Hosted by Twink Macaraig, “Square Off: The CVC Law Debates” features law school teams, with legal luminaries and incumbent trial court judges as adjudicators.

The episode’s topic covered the classic life and death issue of the legalization of euthanasia in the Philippines with St. Louis University arguing for legalization and Ateneo de Davao University taking the opposite side.

St. Louis University’s first speaker Analyn Avila defined euthanasia as “the intentional act of causing the death of a severely ill and dependent human person for his or her alleged benefit.”

“To provide the proposal for euthanasia is probably the most challenging task for law students. Nonetheless we will take the challenge in the hope that the matter will be squarely given consideration,” Avila said.

Kris Dyan Cayabyab of St. Louis argued that legalizing euthanasia would remove the potential financial burden taken on by families whose relatives are clinically dead but remain hooked up to machines.

“Our reverence for life should not be dependent on this sort of martyrdom that we continually make it difficult for everyone to prolong everything. We lift financial constraints because even the patient would not want to further compromise other family concerns just so a life can be prolonged by science far beyond meaning or sensibility and when it is really impossible to maintain a
Square Off: The CVC Law Debates
rather costly concern such as this,” Cayabyab said.

The winning team from Ateneo de Davao, however, used arguments such as the right to life, possibility of abuse and premature death.

“It [euthanasia] would undermine the physician-patient relationship as it will create fear and distrust as doctors will no longer be seen as healers but also as killers,” said Hanniyah Sevilla of Ateneo de Davao University.

“Do you agree that suicide is not punished in the status quo? Of course I also assume that you know that giving assistance to suicide is punishable because you’re performing an overt act leading to the death of an individual. Isn’t it that pulling the plug is an overt act? Because you are actually using your own hands,” added Christine Ferrer of Ateneo de Davao University.

Adjudicator Atty. Rodel Cruz, Senior Partner of CVC Law, recognized the brilliant exchange between the two universities.

“I think all the debaters tonight deserve our warmest congratulations. They all deserve to be in the final four,” he said.

Adjudicator and former Senate President Frank Drilon was deeply impressed by the debate, saying that the semi-finalists have great potential as the country’s legislators in the future.

“The debates were very substantial. I was in government for 21 years and if you were congressmen, senators, or cabinet members, maybe we would have better legislation and better policies coming out of this administration,” he said.

Ateneo de Davao’s Hanniyah Sevilla, first of the three speakers on the negative side, was hailed as best speaker by the adjudicators. Christine Ferrer, also from Ateneo, got the texter’s choice award.

The Ateneo de Davao University is now set to compete in the finals against Arellano University next Wednesday.

Watch “Square Off: The CVC Law Debates’’ at ANC every Wednesday from 8-9 p.m.

http://news.abs-cbn.com/anc/10/04/08/ateneo-de-davao-beats-st-louis-%E2%80%98square-off%E2%80%99-semis

Arellano wins 'Square Off' CVC Law Debates

abs-cbnNEWS.com | 10/10/2008 11:42 AM

Arellano University swept aside Ateneo de Davao University to take the crown in the finals of the CVC Law Debates on ANC's Square Off.

Opposing the proposition that term limits of elective officials should be lifted, Arellano countered the two main arguments of ADDU - that term limits curtail the citizen's freedom of choice and that they encourage family dynasties - with an unothodox premise and plenty of chutzpah.

Some analysts failed to grasp how Arellano could claim - complete with medical descriptions of stress-related ailments - that the framers of the Constitution had meant term limits to serve as state-imposed "sabbaticals" for potiticans to get needed rest and rejuvenation before running again. But maybe because ADDU - unable to move beyond its memorized speeches - didn't effectively refute Arellano. Maybe it was because Arellano appeared so much more poised and confident than ADDU. Or maybe the judges felt refreshed by the sheer audacity of Arellano's position. At any rate, the judge gave the win to Arellano, unanimously.

And while many scratched their heads for awhile, all eventually conceded to the unassailability of the decision, coming no less from the biggest of CVC Law's bigwigs, Raoul R. Angangco, Simeon V. Marcelo, and Avelino J. Cruz, Jr.

Head Judge, former defense secretary Avelino "Nonong" Cruz, Jr. prefaced his announcement with congratulations to both teams.

"There is ample evidence here that there will be enough defenders of the rule of law in the future and that bodes very well for the future of this country where we need a lot of defenders of the rule of law because of the many transgressions that are going on."

Then he announced that Arellano's Luis Warren, who was already the Texters' Choice for Best Speaker, was also the Judges' Choice for that honor, winning an LG Viewty cameraphone, a trophy and a 3-day trip for 2 to Boracay.

And then Arellano was declared the Winner and Champion, taking home Acer laptops and the CD-ROM Lex Libris Law Library Series.

As the raucous Arellano contingent formed a victory parade towards the alma mater - their good luck Mama Mary statue hoisted high - and while Square Off producers' phones buzzed non-stop with text complaints in Cebuano, Marcelo, Angangco and Cruz repaired, unperturbed, to the steakhouse next door.

Cruz is prodded about why, given that the scores for Best Speaker were tied between Warren and ADDU's Therese Gemelo, he didn't choose to make the charitable gesture when he knew that Arellano had won the Grand Prize anyway. "I suppose that would have been the Solomonic decision. But I made what I believed was the right decision".

Marcelo reveals that even though the judging in the Finals seemed to favor Arellano so decidedly, it is an ADDU debater that has caught CVC's recruiting eye. Angangco muses that the earlier eliminations of top-ranked Ateneo de Manila and U.P sent the heartening meassage that every (under)dog has his day.

Cruz waxed prophetic; " The response to the CVC Law Debates has been so strong that I'm sure students everywhere are inspired. The quality of public discourse will get better and better. This is good for the country, I tell you."

Pancho Villaraza, the law firm's senior partner who wasn't on the show, sent a telepathic note: Thse debates are worth doing again. We will do this again.


as of 10/10/2008 11:42 AM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/anc/10/10/08/arellano-wins-square-cvc-law-debates

Here is the thing: the judges in those debates ARE NOT DEBATERS they are attorneys or judges or some one with an llb or jd attached to the end of their names.

DEBATES have rules!

the ANC law debate is just a SHOW, no real debating taking place except for the mere appearance of one.

I do not watch ANC square off CVC law debate but I found this one on youtube. FEU vs UE

b_9904 wrote:Here is the thing: the judges in those debates ARE NOT DEBATERS they are attorneys or judges or some one with an llb or jd attached to the end of their names.

DEBATES have rules!

the ANC law debate is just a SHOW, no real debating taking place except for the mere appearance of one.

I had an opportunity to watch the show once (SLU vs PUP). The CVC law debate is an oregon-oxford type debate. Napansin ko lang bakit sa part na yung parang cross-exam... answerable by yes or no lang dapat yun. Wala dapat reasoning. bakit pinapayagan nila... I forgot what it is called. Interpellation I think (correct me with this please).

B_9904 I think the judges of the show have capability/capacity to be a judge of the CVC law debate. Peace tayo b_9904! Congratz Arellano

SLU vs PUP yan ba yung tungkol sa MOA-AD?

anyway, pwede naman talaga silang maging JUDGE eh kasi mga abugado mga yun, yung iba judge talaga.

then again iba ang trial sa debate talaga. i mean, hindi naman sinabing CVC law TRIAL diba, it says DEBATE. tapos ginamit pa nila yung DEBATE RULES ng modified oregon-oxford. so why aren't the schools being given points per admissions by the other side?

so ANC should have prepared a mix of DEBATE judges and lawyers.

yan po ang rason kung bakit sinabi kong SHOW ang CVC law debate kasi hindi naman talaga debate yung nangyari. kasi nga debates have rules. pero parang debateng kalye yung nangyari dun.

I have nothing against the participants. my problem is with ANC itself.

PS: ok lang yun, sus forum naman ito eh. ganyan naman talaga sa forums diba. hehehe

@b_9904

I guess your right. Oregon-oxford debate have rules. Gaya ng british-parliamentary debate, may ibang rules yun. Sana british-parliamentary na lang para pwedeng mag butt in kahit may speaker at medyo informal ang dating. Ang oregon-oxford kasi formal type debate yun. Dapat hindi nga pinayagan ng ANC yun.

Hay i remember my Political Science days....

I don't like debates.......I'd rather have a position and let the other guy believe what he wants.....court is different than debates....in court your basis is truth and the other guy tries to twist it.....but if you do your job....truth will always prevail because it has its basis in law....sometimes it doesnt happen not because the other lawyer is better.......it is because you didn't do your job or.....the judge didn't do his....this is what I believe...no one can out debate the truth......