Lau Lee's grandson is world best debater

[FuckSamLeong]

I look gay to you?:o​

 

[jw5]

Well, whether there's any competition between them remains to be seen and is probably none of our business.
I must say though that this is one of the rare occasions where I would applaud a member of their family. If this is an award given in a foreign land to him whereby his competition are people from all over the world, then congratulations and well done are in order.

 

[heartlander]

Sometimes it is good to be lacking in mental ability because you will not be conned because a conned man is also doing his job - exercising his skill. Displaying his flexibility and capacity to wrap their heads quickly and effectively around different points of view and see issues from all sides - even if he knew that it is wrong and evil.

However, an upright man will not exercise such skill even if he possesses it.

Tell me something - how does an academic debate hurt anyone like a con man would? How does fulfilling a client's right to due legal representation hurt anyone?

 

[jimmyfallon]

Lee Suet Fern is actually LKY's cousin's daughter. This is what Lau Lee meant by EUGENICS.

 

[ruffles]

Shengwu has the 'debator' genes from his paternal grandfather, and the 'economics' genes from his maternal grandfather..

Shengwu's materal grandfather is Prof Lim Chong Yah. Incidentally, Prof Lim obtained his PhD from Oxford University under the supervision of the late Nobel Laureate Sir John Hicks.

btw Tan Wu Meng, who represented Cambridge in 2003, is the current Organising Secretary of the Young PAP!

 

[cocobobo]

why didn't he go to nus?

 

[travelbug]

Li Shengwu looks & acts like a GAY man. Saw his video on TOC, his voice & mannerism is very gayish. Can someone confirm he is gay?

 

[heartlander]

Li Shengwu looks & acts like a GAY man. Saw his video on TOC, his voice & mannerism is very gayish. Can someone confirm he is gay?

Can tell he has always been a nerd. Some nerdy geeks have those very gayish mannerisms. LHL also tends to act gayishly sometimes as well, no doubt about that. But he's not gay. If you want confirmation that he's straight then go find him on facebook and see his facebook profile

 

[xebay11]

Vivian Balakrishnan was a star debater wasn't he? A lot of good he is doing for Singaporeans!

He is there to debate FOR the PAP not the people.

 

[makapaaa]

HAHAHA. of ALL people who could have said that, you are shameless enough to be the one. Let's put you up there and see how you sweat and tremble without anything coherent coming out of your mouth. You can't even write a bloody blog properly without making grammatical errors and you want to LAUGH AT OTHER PEOPLE'S DEBATING SKILLS? Give me a break. And no wonder nobody reads your joke of a blog. People go there only to laugh at it. You're just a keyboard warrior wasting his life away on forums and blogs thinking that he's a politician. I've seen more political acumen from a block of butter. Let's see you get into Cambridge. Let's see you win Best Speaker at an international debate competition. Heck, let's see you even SPEAK.

Or let's see if the BEST RESOURCES in the land is dedicated to grooming any ordinary Sporn and see if they cannot be better that the Leech spawn!

 

[Seee3]

Tell me something - how does an academic debate hurt anyone like a con man would? How does fulfilling a client's right to due legal representation hurt anyone?

Debater, lawyer and con man survive by capitalising on others weakness to survive / win.

"Flexibility" to them mean shifting stand as and when needed without qualms, to their personal advantage.
"capacity to wrap their heads quickly and effectively around different points of view" to them mean packaging their deliveries to hoodwink the fact.

Example of such skills to twist fact (though pretty poorly done) are :
"we need to increase GST to help the poor"
"you went into an investment with your eyes open"

If a debater manage to convince others with their "crooked" logic, some wise soul out there, especially those with "no lacking in mental ability", will be made to believe in something that is morally wrong.

If a lawyer managed to convince the judge by capitalising on the weakness of the opponent's preparation, a guilty person will be set free.

Another "profession" that thrive on such warp skill and causing the greatest damage are the politicians. They are able to blind the people of the truth. When their nonsenses can withstand the test of time no more, the end result is "self-destruction" of a nation.

 

[heartlander]

Debater, lawyer and con man survive by capitalising on others weakness to survive / win.

"Flexibility" to them mean shifting stand as and when needed without qualms, to their personal advantage.
"capacity to wrap their heads quickly and effectively around different points of view" to them mean packaging their deliveries to hoodwink the fact.

Example of such skills to twist fact (though pretty poorly done) are :
"we need to increase GST to help the poor"
"you went into an investment with your eyes open"

If a debater manage to convince others with their "crooked" logic, some wise soul out there, especially those with "no lacking in mental ability", will be made to believe in something that is morally wrong.

If a lawyer managed to convince the judge by capitalising on the weakness of the opponent's preparation, a guilty person will be set free.

Another "profession" that thrive on such warp skill and causing the greatest damage are the politicians. They are able to blind the people of the truth. When their nonsenses can withstand the test of time no more, the end result is "self-destruction" of a nation.

And are you getting to a point soon? You can only ramble on and on about how they capitalise on people's weaknesses while being utterly blind to the obvious fact that EVERYBODY DOES IT and it's NOT A WRONG IN ITSELF. Send me a postcard when you finally make a stand or come to some relevant conclusion. You're completely unable to distinguish between how people do things and what they actually do.

Let me turn it around and ask: what if a lawyer sets an INNOCENT person free by "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent"? LOL. Let's see you complain. But no, you're probably fumbling around for an answer because a gaping hole in your slow and disorganised line of thought has just been exposed. The only "poorly done" thing here is the structure of your brain.

 

[Liquigas]

Shengwu has the 'debator' genes from his paternal grandfather, and the 'economics' genes from his maternal grandfather..

Shengwu's materal grandfather is Prof Lim Chong Yah. Incidentally, Prof Lim obtained his PhD from Oxford University under the supervision of the late Nobel Laureate Sir John Hicks.

btw Tan Wu Meng, who represented Cambridge in 2003, is the current Organising Secretary of the Young PAP!

Did not know Prof Lim was a student of John Hicks. Hicks did much to elevate our understanding of macroeconomic theory with his IS-LM model. In the 1937 article 'Mr Keynes and the Classics' he successfully made use of diagrams, curves and equations to recast Keynes's wordy analysis found in the book 'General Theory' published a year earlier.

 

[Seee3]

And are you getting to a point soon? You can only ramble on and on about how they capitalise on people's weaknesses while being utterly blind to the obvious fact that EVERYBODY DOES IT and it's NOT A WRONG IN ITSELF. Send me a postcard when you finally make a stand or come to some relevant conclusion. You're completely unable to distinguish between how people do things and what they actually do.

Let me turn it around and ask: what if a lawyer sets an INNOCENT person free by "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent"? LOL. Let's see you complain. But no, you're probably fumbling around for an answer because a gaping hole in your slow and disorganised line of thought has just been exposed. The only "poorly done" thing here is the structure of your brain.

The case of a good lawyer "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent" to set free an innocent party is not in the same category as a good debater. The reason is obvious - the good lawyer follows his conscience, guided by what he believes is morally RIGHT. He would not take up the case if he think his client is guilty. Even if he takes up the case, he would advise his client to plead for leniency then fight it out.

A top debater argues purely for the sake of winning. Even if the motion is totally against his belief. They are not guided by their own belief nor value. Of course he would rationalise and claim that it is just an academic exercise. However, it is unlikely for an upright person to turn a blind eyes to his conscience and speak in public on something that he is totally against and with such conviction. We would not expect a staunch Catholic student to speak in a debate for a motion that "abortion is a necessary good for society".

To a good debater, there is nothing wrong in going against his own conscious - it is just a debate. A good debater think it is ok to bluff others. A good man only says what he believes in. The reward of winning is not worth going against his principle..

The question of "to distinguish between how people do things and what they actually do" is indeed interesting. Taking it in a positive sense, it could mean "although I don't help the poor (how I do things), however, what I am actually doing is helping them to develop independent." Taking it in a negative sense, I could take it to mean "when I keep reminding a gambler not to gamble again, my actual evil intention is to haunt him with the word, gamble, so that he will be enticed to do it again". So I would have to conclude that the outcome depends on whether is the person a good debater or a good lawyer.

My stand is "A poorly structured brain might be better than one that is inter wined with complex links of deception, camouflage and ..."

 

[kaipoh]

A talker is not equal to a good worker, Dr hybrid Vivan also best speaker in Singapore debate team, see what cockthing he has done.

After the disappointing, almost non-existent oratory skills of LHL, the Lee bloodline has finally recompensated and produced a winner. This Shengwu guy potentially combines the legendary oratory skills of his grandfather and the formidable quantitative skills of his uncle. Throw in a heart for public service and a common touch and we would have a winner, I wouldn't even mind a Lee dynasty in this case. But unfortunately (and strangely) he's not a PSC scholar when he very clearly could have been one if he had applied!

 

[heartlander]

The case of a good lawyer "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent" to set free an innocent party is not in the same category as a good debater. The reason is obvious - the good lawyer follows his conscience, guided by what he believes is morally RIGHT. He would not take up the case if he think his client is guilty. Even if he takes up the case, he would advise his client to plead for leniency then fight it out.

What a baseless assumption. It's a logical leap that a lawyer's motivation can be deduced from the clients he takes. You obviously have no idea how it works in the legal industry, and you don't know a single lawyer. For a lawyer, any lawyer, whether to fight or to plead guilty is a cost vs benefit + chances of success analysis. Ask any lawyer. And if a client is actually innocent, all the more likely the lawyer is to win - and the more the lawyer wants to take on the case. Unless they run their own firms or are senior partners, lawyers are ultimately motivated by how much they can contribute to their firms' bottom line, because their performance and worth to the firm is measured by how much cash they can bring in to the firm. So they want to win more often to increase their reputation and attract even more clients who will pay legal fees. THAT's the way it works. You are living in a dreamworld.

The most you can say about lawyers is that they are mercenary. But to try and gauge moral character by looking at a lawyer's clients is a bloody big joke. LOL

A top debater argues purely for the sake of winning. Even if the motion is totally against his belief. They are not guided by their own belief nor value. Of course he would rationalise and claim that it is just an academic exercise. However, it is unlikely for an upright person to turn a blind eyes to his conscience and speak in public on something that he is totally against and with such conviction. We would not expect a staunch Catholic student to speak in a debate for a motion that "abortion is a necessary good for society".

LOL! The whole point of the PRACTICE of debate and debate competitions is A TEST OF MENTAL FLEXIBILITY. Most intelligent people understand that you cannot be held accountable for what you say in a debate BECAUSE IT IS AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE and DOES NOT REFLECT PERSONAL BELIEFS. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF A DEBATE COMPETITION. If you take it so seriously, it's probably because you only have the ability to take things at face value.

To a good debater, there is nothing wrong in going against his own conscious - it is just a debate. A good debater think it is ok to bluff others. A good man only says what he believes in. The reward of winning is not worth going against his principle..

This takes the cake. You think debaters BLUFF PEOPLE. The only person who's bluffing anybody is the guy who shows his friend a video of a debate competition but tells his friend that what these people are saying are cold hard and incontrovertible facts. People who watch debate competitions KNOWING THEY ARE WATCHING AN ACADEMIC DEBATE know that it's all hypothetical and they are not being bluffed because THEY KNOW NOT TO BELIEVE. It's all understood. You, on the other hand, miss the point entirely because you think like a child and take things at face value.

The question of "to distinguish between how people do things and what they actually do" is indeed interesting. Taking it in a positive sense, it could mean "although I don't help the poor (how I do things), however, what I am actually doing is helping them to develop independent." Taking it in a negative sense, I could take it to mean "when I keep reminding a gambler not to gamble again, my actual evil intention is to haunt him with the word, gamble, so that he will be enticed to do it again". So I would have to conclude that the outcome depends on whether is the person a good debater or a good lawyer.

My stand is "A poorly structured brain might be better than one that is inter wined with complex links of deception, camouflage and ..."

You're not even coherent here. Have you ever passed GP?

 

[heartlander]

A talker is not equal to a good worker, Dr hybrid Vivan also best speaker in Singapore debate team, see what cockthing he has done.

So just because one good debater didn't perform up to expectations, we should not want good debating skills in our politicians. Right. I don't know whether to laugh or call SPCA and tell them that a dumb stray dog found out how to post in forums and they should come take it away.

 

[jw5]

Another great debater in his younger days was Tan Cheng Yew.

 

[streetsmart73]

HAHAHA. of ALL people who could have said that, you are shameless enough to be the one. Let's put you up there and see how you sweat and tremble without anything coherent coming out of your mouth. You can't even write a bloody blog properly without making grammatical errors and you want to LAUGH AT OTHER PEOPLE'S DEBATING SKILLS? Give me a break. And no wonder nobody reads your joke of a blog. People go there only to laugh at it. You're just a keyboard warrior wasting his life away on forums and blogs thinking that he's a politician. I've seen more political acumen from a block of butter. Let's see you get into Cambridge. Let's see you win Best Speaker at an international debate competition. Heck, let's see you even SPEAK.

hi there

1. bro, no offence, if you are this good, kindly get out of sam's coffee and find somewhere that is comfortable to your calibre.
2. why here man?
3. come on! everyone here has his or her choice and school of thoughts.
4. wrong, correct or what, we should respect that or we may choose to respond or ignore.
5. pls grow up!
6. honest, talking is no big deal, doing some concrete is another, get it!

 

[angry_one]

It will be interesting to find out the conditions for awarding 'world's best debator'. I suspect the winner must come from a team from the finals. So he is better than the 5 others in the final.... but not in the whole competition. There may be better people in some of the losing teams.

It's like how the MVP of soccer tournaments is awarded. When the prize is given out after the finals, winner is from one of the teams there.