This is so exciting now! My region is Ivanhoe. . are you the adjudicator? Omg can you make us win. . . only joking. I think I'm ready to smash it and i reckon my team is pretty okay so we will be fine. It's just that no one has that 'I want to win' spirit that most selective/private school students have and I actually do want to win.
Unfortunately not, Ivanhoe clashed with another region which is marginally closer to where I live. I have been to Ivanhoe a few times though, by elite private schools in that region I'm thinking IGS (the Ivanhoe campus tends to be fairly good but the Plenty campus is average) and IGGS. To be honest, a few teams from those schools may be quite good but the majority are fairly similar to the other schools ( most of the debates I've adj in that region are pretty close, the public schools that I've seen have been quite good). Apart from Melbourne High, St Kevins, Melbourne Grammar and Scotch (Mac.rob used to be really good but nowadays only have the occasional good team), the standard of the private/selective schools in debating aren't much different from the other schools. Just be mindful of a few things:
-The topic is supposed to discuss the power struggle between the doctors and parents, instead of the children and parents (as suggested by a few teams). This is the interpretation proposed by the DAV ( you should always aim to provide models/definitions that the adjudicator than expect). If this topic was intended to be about a power struggle between the parents and the kids, it wouldn't be a great topic to begin because 1. It will be full of assertions about the decision making capacities about parents and kids, 2. Realistically most kids are unable to fully rationalize the harms and benefits of medical treatments.
-If a team sell themselves short, by providing a 'soft' model and refuses to deal with a range of cases/scenarios (eg. A negative team gave a model that they'll allow parents to deny minor medical treatments like immunizations but have to negotiate other kinds), use it to your advantage. A team often provides a soft model because they don't really believe or agree with their team's side. As a result, there's a strong tendency for them to contradict themselves (the neg team I was referring to earlier, main arguments were about the financial burdens of major surgery, which was weird considering they only seemed interested in discussing minor treatments for the most part). It's also rather difficult to provide a principally consistent case when you have a whishy- washy stance.
- Try to get to the nuance of why parents deny medical treatments for their kids. Assume that parents care about their kids. Some parents have a preference for unproven, alternative medicine. Some parents have religious reasons for doing so (which is valid in some cases, because religion at times guides parenting and in many cases the state allows parents to raise their kid in such a way). There are also some cases where the kid is terminally ill, and deciding to go ahead with a medical treatment is difficult for a parent because they are so emotionally connected to the child ( they worry about the pain that they'll go through during surgery, their chances of surviving and the quality of life after the surgery). Parents often make the trade - off between extending life and quality of life unlike doctors. In other cases perhaps, the parents are in a state of emotional trauma as the kid's sickness such that it is difficult for them to rationalize the potential risks of medical treatment. If you are aff, deal with these nuances.
-Structure: If you have a major argument, consider internal sign-posting like 'there are 2 harms to this....1.........2..........', ' this argument is particularly important because. .......' or when you make a claim ' this is true for 2 reasons......1......2. Just make sure you clearly state why the claims you make within an argument are true ( if it's a practical rather than principled) and why it is important (principled and practical). For principled arg, explain how your principles apply to the topic.
-Rebuttal: Focus on broad argumentation rather than glib statements. Like how the other team explained their arguments (were the assumptions/premise they made valid, did they explain why their claims were true and important, did they clearly state harms and benefits and why they would accrue). If a premise isn't true, the benefits are irrelevant. Like if a parents no longer wants to send the kid to a doctor the benefits on receiving medical treatment do not accrue. So with a false premise, explain why the premise is false then say that the benefits won't accrue as a result, and then explain potential harms. If a team didn't explain why certain claims or benefits were true, say that they didn't provide an explanation of why they were true then provide an explanation of why they aren't.
Hope that this somewhat helps