₦airaland Forum

Swissheart:
naturalwaves see this

It has been solved for him. Thanks

Hello Gazzuz. Do you do BMW cars? My friend's BMW is faulty and he needs professional advice. Can I have your contacts?? Very urgent!

mike4real2:
Please do you have any idea if the new wwbm has started and which tv station is showing it ? I miss the show like crazy.

I don't even have an idea. Will be on the look out.

Swissheart:
naturalwaves

Awwww. Thanks dear

dabossman:
Exactly. Even I don't believe the write up. It doesn't sound like a Pakistani at all. It's just one of these posts where you are solicited to type "Amen"

You are right. The blogosphere needs to be cleared of vanity blogging. Useless bloggers!

nysot:
@naturalwaves,no issues bro..Enjoy your weekend #cheers#

You too and happy sales

kinguwem:
I'm disappointed in the doctor that posted the story. The decision on the delivery of the woman was poor.
The woman should have had an elective caesarean section at term. Long history of subfertility with a co-existing uterine fibroids is an indication for caesarean section.
Finally, what killed the woman? Probably hemorrhage. How many units of blood was available for the surgery, who operated the woman, where was she operated, what method of anaesthesia was used?
This kind of story is not a good one. I doubt if the healthcare provider is a doctor. The case needs an audit by the Medical & Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) & the Nigerian Medical Association (NMA).

The story is a concorted hogwash from the stables of useless Nigerian blogs.

GloryGloryRufus:
The doctors just did unprofessional jobs, considering the medical history you narrated while still allowed the woman to enter into labour pains , before you started that CS, the woman has already lost all her energy, no more strength, I understand the devil might be at work but most times we can defeat the devil with common sense. Thank God you cried , you felt the pains of loosing her. may her soul rest in peace.

Crying is not enough but the story is not true anyway. I cannot believe you all fell for this concorted hogwash from a yeye Nigerian blog.

The story is touching but looks like it was concorted. The write up has a tone of a Nigerian writer. This is not how most people from Pakistan talk. Moreover, why not mention the doctor's name and the avenue through which he shared it? Or he sat down the OP to tell him or a website? If the news is factual, the name of the doctor will be there.

nysot:
I saw your post initially and ignored because I hate to argue with people. The owner is here on nairaland and when she approached me she told me #36m initially before she beat it down to #34m and later said #33m..If you check other threads where others are advertising as well,you would see they advertise for #34million. And besides this is not Vilac estate and those pictures up there are true pictures of Glamour Gardens estate at Abijo.
I am not desperate but I do not need to start any argument with anybody on social media.
Get your facts right next time before you type anything about people.

Don't be upset dear. I may not know the name is Glamour Gardens estate but trust me, I know this place and I've been there. It is very close to Vilac International school and that was why I thought it is in Vilac estate or something. In fact, it is opposite Corona school, Abijo . You will have to follow the road where Vilac international school signpost was put and I have toured the house because they left 1 or 2 of the duplexes for inspection then. In fact, the last duplex on the left row with a blue DSTV dish was bought by someone I know and when I asked, the asking price was 30 million. Maybe the owner just wanted to try a higher bargain online. I'm sorry if you are upset but honestly I was really angered by the quality of the house and maybe that was why I transferred it to you. The house is not even worth 30 million on critical assessment. The house does not have a BQ because the so called BQ that is close to the mini water treatment plant cannot even take just a regular sized bed. It has to be that slim one and when you put it there, there wont be space anymore. As for the bathroom/toilet in it, you can't even close the door properly till you enter and tuck yourself in a corner. Living rooms and bedrooms, so tiny. Only the master bedroom looks like a regular/normal room. It is like building a 14 units duplex in the same space that was meant for 7/8/9 duplexes. I was astonished by the greed of the owner of the properties and that was why for long, the estate was unoccupied despite the small number of units due to the dissatisfaction by most potential buyers .

laudate:
Are you serious?? Please what is the "true price of the house?" Kindly tell us.

I personally went there to check and the first asking price without even beating it down was 30 million then o. I am sure it would have fallen so flat now. OP thinks someone that wanna buy a house will approach her and give her the money. SMH. Why not link buyers to sellers. Everyone knows that agent fee is 10%. 5 % from seller and 5% from buyer. So, why the desperation?

OBALORLA:
true.
Things are gradually changing though,as places like Ikeja, Egbeda, Maryland et al are slowly but steadily catching up with tides.

I see

Jakumo:
Ayokele Jaiye ha ha ha. This one na new language for me o. I thought that Ayokele was the traditional Yoruba word for a car.

It is a common one o. "Ayokele jaiye" represents anyone who takes great care in having fun even when having fun to the maximum level. An "Ayokele jaiye" would rather stock his refrigerators with the best drinks and order "asun" and the best barbecues rather than going out to hang out in a bar lest a fight or other unforeseen danger ensues .

Jakumo:
Good for the "fun lovers", and thank God I will NEVER join their ranks to take that fateful ride into the Bermuda Triangle at night.

. The characteristics you are exhuming is typical of the rich, cool guy that wouldn't want to take any minute risk at all as cargo dey sea, money for business is underway etc etc. I prefer to stay till dawn wherever I am too. Life Na jeje jare. I share in your fears. Better to be safe than sorry. I hereby Christian you "AYOKELE JAIYE"

The island part of Lagos is generally safer than mainland. You can move around midnight and even 1,2 am without any fear and even cabs to take you to wherever you are going. Most fun lovers on the island are very responsible and police and other authorities respect people more here. I don't even panic if I'm still out of the house at late hours because there is no cause to unlike mainland where you will have to sleep wherever you are and wait for dawn in order to be safer.

masperano:
Oh no face palm not again.... I have to break my promise which is "not to respond to this again" (for the sake of posterity). benji93 please go back to my responses and read them very well. It is not about the solution to the problem (Mathematica can provide me with solution to inequations in 3 seconds). naturalwaves (by the way I like the bloke for his immense contribution to this forum) gave a handwritten solution to the inequation... derived a quadratic inequality from it and solved it but made a slight mistake which i pointed out to.... but in retrospect it seems he apparently misconstrued my solution to his quadratic inequality for the solution of the original inequation which I thought he was purposely intellectually trolling me because I made it clear it was for his derived quadratic (that is why i kept trying his solution to his quadratic inequality to see if it satisfies it rather than the inequation and also he was trying to extend the solution of his quadratic to the original inequation).

I really hope this will be my last response to this. Cheers!

Thanks for the compliment. Yeah, most of your points were on the quadratic till you mentioned at a time that the values will fail for both the quadratics and the parent equation. Moreover, the quadratic was derived from the equation but you kept on hiding behind the "if the qaudratic is correct tag". What you should have done is to check if the derived quadratic is wrong and correct the derived quadratic if it is wrong or even provide another solution to the problem from the beginning so that we can all follow through. I believe that would cost you nothing except if you do not have a pen all the while or you were not just in the mood to solve anything. It is a good thing to have someone scrutinize things so that everyone can get the best. It was never a game of right or wrong or ego play like you thought.

benji93:
CC: masperano,naturalwaves
I only need a contradiction to prove that a solution is wrong.
Let us test ur solution naturalwaves.
You insist that , the solution to the inequality 1/(3x)+1/4<(3x)/8 is x>-2/3,x>4/3, so we generalize this to the open interval(-2/3,∞)
1 satisfies the above interval, substituting it into the original equation, we have 7/12<3/8, which is false, this is where you had a problem, in your original solution(in pen), you wrote x>-2/3 or x>4/3, now this logic is inconsistent with the inequality (3x+2)(3x-4)>0, it should have been x>-2/3 and x>4/3, which implies x>4/3, the individual solutions x>-2/3,x>4/3 satisfy the equations on the left respectively and independently, but remember we only require the product of the 2 equations to be less than 0(you lost otuch of that while solving the problem), our individual solutions must be combined.
Masperano, apparently, you have a different solution, x<-2/3 or x>4/3, unfortunately your solution is wrong too,let's assume you are right, natural waves tried to test your solution, and he rightly tested it, though -2/3 is not -0.7, it is -0.66666666666666666...., but -0.9<-2/3, so naturalwaves' test number was correct.What appeals to me is a solution that work's not the mathematical formality.You were both wrong because your analysis was wrong, 1 half of your solution was right:x>4/3,but the other:x<-2/3 is wrong, you forget something, in your initial problem, the highest degree of x is 1, hence there is likely only 1 solution,but your intermediate solution, 36x^2-24x-32>0 has two distinct solutions,it isp ossible that only, one of the solutions of the intermediate step satisfies the main problem.To show this you will realize that the test number -0.9 satisfies the intermediate solution, but does not satisfy the main problem, which natural waves used in testing your solution. This might not have been the problem the poster intended, but nonetheless it is an interesting questions.Our solutions to problems usually depends on our inclination, some lay emphasis on mathematical formality others lay emphasis on solving the problem at hand.Whichever intermediate step you apply, your solution must satisfy your problem without condition.

Thank you so much for your response and analysis, it showed that you took out time to follow through. I appreciate your intellectual input and so sorry for the break on this thread. I have been getting home so late due to work and all. You got the exact thing that happened and put it succinctly. I really appreciate this.

When I tried solving the derived quadratic inequation and it was pointed to me that a part of it is wrong and the sign was converse, first thing I said was that I didn't violate the inequality rule and the sign should not be that . If my friend wanted to correct that, he was supposed to show another way of solving it which he did not. Rather, he asked me to test 0 in the quadratic inequation and and see that it does not satisfy my answer. I told him I just did and I truly saw that it does not satisfy. While thinking about it, I actually discovered that 0 cannot be used as a test because it will render the parent inequation undefined when slotted and so cannot even be used for the qaudratics as well. So, he brought other values.

For every of his suggested values, I tested them and told him it did not work. I suspected something was truly wrong with the my solution because my answers were disjointed and looked like a repetition since X greater than -2/3 and also greater than 4/3, I was like why not just say X greater than 4/3 is the unique answer(in my mind) . When I went online, all the solutions I saw says X greater than -2/3 but less than 0 and X greater than 4/3 are the solutions( the less than 0 part was the only difference in my solutions). So, I thought when there are disjointed values, the smaller one before 0 needs to be bounded by 0( As that seems to be the only explanation I could place). Meanwhile, he was emphasizing all the time that the values are wrong for both the quadratics and the parent equation even when I posted a solution through the programs. I tested all values within the given answers and they all worked. If he had said it is wrong for the quadratics but correct for the parent equation, it would have been a different thing entirely

After he tested the question on mathematica, the answers he brought out were same as the other programs I posted which he disagreed with previously. So, he shifted concentration on the quadratics again and started emphasizing that.

The only thing he did that got me slightly annoyed was the fact that he painted a picture of me arguing blindly which is not true because any time he says something, I usually consider it and test it. When I tested the values from his supposed answer, they were so wrong for the parent equation but he did not address the conflict when I told him, he turned away from it and concentrated on the qaudratic part. How can you get an answer that works for the quadratics but failing for the parent equation?? I believe if someone provides a solution and it is wrong, why not solve yours and ask me to check it out and we will all see and learn. There is no crime in that.

One part of the question has been answered. We all now know and agree that the solution is -2/3 < X <0, X> 4/3.
The other part has not been answered which is HOW? HOW WAS THIS ANSWER GOTTEN?? In my solution, I got -2/3<X, X> 4/3 with the missing 0 and up till now, I am yet to see a thorough solution apart from those where they will just open a wide interval between -2/3 and 4/3 and do several tests to see what values fit in before they came up with the " 0" boundary.

Aybalance:
.Okay.Thanks 4 the help.But i wanna ask if physics questions are welcomed @naturalwaves

I will try the ones I can lay my hands on .

masperano:
It is is either my response clearly went over your head or you are just purposely being intellectually dishonest. This will be my last response on this.... Let me make it very clear now.

1) My solution was to your quadratic inequality (9x^2-6x-8>0); your solution to that was x>-2/3, x>4/3 which is wrong, the correct solution is x<-2/3 and x>4/3. (Check the solution provided my Mathematica i attached ).

2) You used an online inequality software to get the actual solution to the original inequality but it is very obvious to me or to any one with a brain on his or her shoulders that you have no clue how they arrived at the solution, but instead to admit you do not know, you now tried to deceptively seek an equivalence of the original inequality solution to your erroneous solution by saying x>-2/3, x>4/3 is the same as -2/3<x<0 and x>4/3, claiming you have to split it by zero or whatever that means... this is at best laughable and further exposes your ignorance (when you are in a hole stop digging!).
I attached the true quadratic inequality of the original inequality when simplified which is (x(8+6x-9x^2)<0) which is clearly different from the quadratic you got. Now solving this quadratic Inequality you get -2/3<x<0,x>4/3 (The solution you claimed that is equal to yours). Very very dishonest.

Two things you got wrong: The very first simplification you got wrong... I even overlooked that ... and you still got the solution of your wrong simplification wrong( ) (which i provided the correct solution to). But because of your huge ego... you want to con people to believe that solution to the original inequality and yours are equal (This is what I find unacceptable). Take a look at your handwritten solution to that problem and tell me you still believe in what you did .

The solution to the original problem is -2/3<x<0, x>4/3

The solution to your quadratic inequality (9x^2-6x-8>0) (which you got by erroneously simplifying the original problem) is x< - 2/3 , x>4/3

The real simplification to the original inequality is (x(8+6x-9x^2)<0) in which the solution is -2/3<x<0, x>4/3.

Your solution x>-2/3 and x>4/3 is NOT equivalent to -2/3<x<0, x>4/3 as you deceptively claim.

Now i hope i am clear...

Cheers!

You are honestly very funny. I was not dishonest in anyway and stop using that term. I solved a quadratic equation and got disjointed values. I checked with your query and saw that it does not satisfy(check my previous posts) and I decided to check up online and even see the correct solution.When they placed the intervals, I thought it was done that way because of the disjointed values. It is you who was trying to be clever by half because you claimed the solution to the quadratic is wrong and even wrong for the question. This was what you wrote.

masperano:
This is not a matter of right and wrong. I still do not know if you are just playing the game of right and wrong or you honestly do not understand what is involved in solving quadratic inequality (you tend to solve it as though you are solving quadratic equation ). I will pretend it is latter: this is the only way i can motivate myself to respond to you and also so that other persons in the forum can get one or two from it as i have from other responses in this forum. So let me dive right into it. I repeat your solution is wrong for the quadratic inequality (which was what caught my eye in your previous handwritten solution) and even for the question

At least, one thing is clear and we can agree on the following
1. The correct answer to the original problem is -2/3 < X <0, X> 4/3
2. Yes, I may not have solved the derived quadratic expression well as there was no total agreement with the first problem and the derived quadratic.

Your mistake: You gave the impression that the final solution was wrong for even the first problem only for you to say otherwise with the mathematica. What you could have easily said is that the answer was correct but the derived quadratic is wrong and then go on to find out the reason for the disjoint. Why don't you try and work out the whole problem from the beginning and let me see your approach. We all learn everyday. So, this is not a matter of ego play. Do you get me?

masperano:
Dear Naturalwaves please find my response interspersed in yours.

Bro, you are still wrong, X > -2/3, x >4/3 is the correct set.

This is not a matter of right and wrong. I still do not know if you are just playing the game of right and wrong or you honestly do not understand what is involved in solving quadratic inequality (you tend to solve it as though you are solving quadratic equation ). I will pretend it is latter: this is the only way i can motivate myself to respond to you and also so that other persons in the forum can get one or two from it as i have from other responses in this forum. So let me dive right into it. I repeat your solution is wrong for the quadratic inequality (which was what caught my eye in your previous handwritten solution) and even for the question.

First you solved a quadratic inequality 9x^2-6x-8>0 and you rightly factorized it as (3x+2)(3x-4)>0 now this is where you went wrong: writing 3x+2>0 or 3x-4>0 solving for x and saying that is the solution of the aforementioned quadratic inequality. This IS INCORRECT. One has to be careful and be intuitive about it rather than solving it methodically.

There is nothing wrong with that. Inequalities can be solved as though they are real equestions and the intervals tested.

masperano:
only way that quadratic can be greater than zero is if (3x+2)>0 AND (3x-4)>0 OR (3x+2)<0 AND (3x-4)<0((-) x (-) =+). If you solve with the first condition you get what you obtained which is (x>-2/3 and x>4/3) now this you can collapse to mean (x>4/3).

Now we apply the second condition which is ((3x+2)<0 AND (3x-4)<0) and we get (x<-2/3 and x<4/3) which simply means (x<-2/3). This implies that your solution set is (x<-2/3 and x>4/3)

. You have lost touch with the concept.

masperano:
Now lets go to the real question.

If you look at this, it looks disjoint because we could then just say that X > 4/3 since it is greater than -2/3 as well. In such cases, rather than write X> -2/3 or X > 4/3 which is the same as -2/3 < X > 4/3, the proper way of writing it when such situation occurs is -2/3 < X < 0, X> 4/3.The only mistake I made was not to split it with the "0" interval. Therefore correct answer is [b]-2/3 < X <0, X> 4/3[/b]

This is factually inaccurate I suspect you know this but again let me pretend you do not know... x>4/3 x>-2/3, can never be written as -2/3 < X < 0, X> 4/3, please do not mislead people all in the quest to prove you are correct (respectable scientist do not). If you know me i have huge respect for scientist who admit that they are wrong when they realise they are(even Einstein admitted on occasions (on quantum mechanics and adding his cosmological constant to his fields equations in general relativity) ). Never put your ego ahead of objective truth. I am very willing to admit when i am wrong. The reason the solution of the question differ from the solution of your quadratic is because your quadratic inequality is not correct.

This is not a matter of proving right and wrong. Every thing can be subjected to critisims and amendments made where necessary but in this case you have failed to make a valid objection.

masperano:
Attached is the real quadratic inequality of your first inequality.

The question was not to solve the quadratics but to solve the given inequation and find values that can satisfy that. Whatever answer you get should be cross checked with the main question.

masperano:
for the scathing remarks.... I hold you to a very high standard, below which is unacceptable.

Cheers!

Honestly, nothing is scathering about your remarks, it is an intellectual debate and all forms of disagreements are welcomed provided they can be proved. Now, Mr. masperano, let us carry out a simple test of your solution.

Your solution states that, X < -2/3 which implies X < -0.7. Let us pick a value that is less than -0.7 say -0.9 and substitute it into 1/(3x) + 1/4 < (3x)/8. By this, we will obtain -0.12 < -0.33 which is wrong because -0.12 is actually > -0.33.

Let us try -0.8 as well into the question. We will obtain,
-0.16 < - 0.3 which again is not true because -0.16 is > -0.3.
As you can see, these two simple checks alone shows that your solution is wrong and the answer can never be X< -2/3 and so I do not agree with you.

Betterstill , explain why your solution does not fit when checked with the question Thanks

I repeat, the correct solution to the inequation is -2/3<X <0, X> 4/3

Continued. CC: masperano

@masperano. See another solution from cymath

Aybalance:
100% clear.Ar u a student,aspirant or ??.Sorry 4 the questions

No bro. I grad 7 years ago o.

masperano:
Nah I don't think so (although I picked the wrong example), I am pretty sure it is incorrect. Try any number greater than -2/3 but less than 4/3 (for example 1 which is greater than -2/3)... Your solution crumbles ( it fails to satisfy the quadratic).
Or indeed try out other values outside your solution set, say -5 (infact any number less than -2/3) you see that it satisfies the quadratic solution which again invalidates your solution.

The true solution to that your quadratic equation is x<-2/3 and x>4/3. Cheers!

Bro, you are still wrong, X > -2/3, x >4/3 is the correct set. This means that -2/3 < X > 4/3. If you look at this, it looks disjoint because we could then just say that X > 4/3 since it is greater than -2/3 as well. In such cases, rather than write X> -2/3 or X > 4/3 which is the same as -2/3 < X > 4/3, the proper way of writing it when such situation occurs is -2/3 < X < 0, X> 4/3.The only mistake I made was not to split it with the "0" interval. Therefore correct answer is -2/3 < X <0, X> 4/3



Quick check.: -2/3 is approximately -0.667 which is approximately -0.7. The set of values that will satisfy my answers for part 1 are all numbers that are greater than this(-0.7) but less than 0. Examples of such are; -0.5,-0.4,-0.3,-0.2,-0.1 etc. You can try as much as you want.
Note: All trials must be checked with the initially given inequation and not the quadratics you are trying it out with.

I even used online tools and inequality solvers online to crossycheck and this was what they showed.

Icon79:
Thank you so much, bro!

If I get a dollar for every fake news I read on this forum, I would be richer than Dangote by now. Our moderators definitely need to do better, especially on the threads they move to the FP. At minimum try to verify the information ... that can be easily done via google, or try crosschecking the info with other legitimate news outlets.


O pari

Exactly bro. Nairaland is losing credibility so fast. Moderators just move any trash without verifications to the front page. To make it worse, an idiat is even still arguing after providing him with more than enough evidences. Such a shame!

LasGidiOwner:
You are a dumb illiterate. Stop embarrassing your idiotic self. In this game everyone is a winner. Stop being foolish

[s][/s]


BALI, INDONESIA: Today, was a good day for Team Nigeria participating in the World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) currently going on in Bali, Indonesia as they beat their opponent, Team Barbados to 3 – 0 in a preliminary round of debate.

In a motion titled “This House would deny tax-exempt status to religious institutions that refuse to appoint female leaders”, the Team Nigeria showed the stuff they were made of when in clear, logical and analytical manner they opposed the motion, clearing defeating their Barbados counterparts with all three judges unanimously giving them victory.

The 2017 World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) is taking place from August 1 to August 11 in Bali, an island in Indonesia with the reputation as an international tourism destination known for its natural beauty and unique culture heritage.

The tournament is hosted by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture in collaboration with The Jakarta Post Foundation.

Participants from all across the globe are taking part in WSDC Bali 2017. As the WSDC attracts more nations to participate each year, the local organizing committee in Indonesia made preparations to accommodate up to 700 people consisting of debaters, adjudicators, coaches, and observers.

In line with the WSDC rule, each nation may send one delegation that will be the official representative of their nation to compete in WSDC Bali 2017.

The championship applies the 3-on-3 debate format, in which each debater has 8 minutes for their speeches while reply speech lasts for 4 minutes. Each team can consist of 3 to 5 debaters. Before the grand final round, there will be 8 preliminary rounds, the partial doubleoctofinals, the octofinals, the quarterfinals, and the semifinals.

Serving as Co-Chief Adjudicator of WSDC Bali 2017 is Kip Oebanda from the Philippines. In addition to his extensive experience in debate adjudication, Kip has also served as member of the panel during WSDC. Cape Town 2012 and WSDC Antalya 2013. At the moment, the local organizing committee of WSDC Bali 2017 is still looking for someone else to be Kip’s Co-Chief Adjudicator.

Stop spamming the thread. I am done with you.

Nigeria faced Singapore in one of the rounds. See our representatives here. They tried and kudos to them but we did not win the competition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z79UlWVtWnI

LasGidiOwner:
You are dumb. Everyone is a winner. Stop showcasing your hopelessness. Winning is winning, afterwards you have not won anything in your life before.

[s][/s]

Honestly, you are the greatest idiat I have ever come across on this platform. I said Nigeria did not win it, you said we did and I should provide evidence. I provided link evidence, you said you dont trust it, I provided pictures, you still did not trust it. I provided videos where you saw clearly, that Singapore won the competition and rather than accept your mistakes and apologise, you resorted into abuse and self defence. Since everyone is a winner by your logic, why did they bother to travel for the competition? . They should have stayed back then.

theophorus:
I agree that Anambra team won the debate but Please, what was the reward and can we have pix of them holding the trophy?

. He is currently photoshoping them. He is coming soon.

LasGidiOwner:
Imagine this clown. Here another report that claimed otherwise.





Today, was a good day for Nigeria as the Team Nigeria participating in the World Schools Debating Championship (WSDC) currently going on in Indonesia beat their opponent, the Team Barbados to 3 – 0 in a preliminary round of debate.

In a motion titled “This House would deny tax-exempt status to religious institutions that refuse to appoint female leaders”, the Team Nigeria showed the stuff they were made of when in clear, logical and analytical manner they opposed the motion, clearing defeating their Barbados counterparts with all three judges unanimously giving them victory.

Anambra and Ebonyi States students make up the Team Nigeria and are doing Nigeria proud in Indonesia.

The Team Nigeria is made up of the following students - Chiagozie Nnamdi Udorji, (Anambra) Precious Nneka Chigozie (Anambra), Chidimma Frances Akwue (Anambra), Josephine Chinonyelum Paschaline Enogu (Ebonyi), and Obianuju Blessing Eze (Ebonyi)

A highly elated Team Manager and the Coordinator of the President’s Schools Debate Nigeria (PSDN), Elder Dare Oritu, in reacting to the victory said: “I am very proud of Anambra and Ebonyi States from where we drew our Team Nigeria. It is a clear that they are not pushovers.”

Meanwhile, Nigeria at this event will be bidding to host the World Schools Debating Championship in 2019. We excitedly await the outcome of the bid.

Source; https://www.nationalhelm.co/2017/08/anambra-students-shine-world-schools-debating-championship-indonesia.html

Where and when does winning a preliminary round of a debate equate to winning a competition? Your education was a waste. Every year, at least 50 countries always participate in the competition and there are usually rounds before the finals. Nigeria did not even smell the semis talk less of finals. Keep on basking in stewpidity. Rather than you apologizing and learning, you are making a mockery of yourself. My boy, you are fighting a losing battle. Look for your mates.

A clearer and more detailed video of how team Singapore defeated England in the finals of the WSDC 2017. I guess the bodies of the representatives from Singapore were superimposed on the body of our Nigeria representatives. I wonder what LasgidiOwner has to say about this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HUFM3JZaLQ

This is a video of the grand finale of the competition where Singapore beat England to emerge winners

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZDyPvqICM
I guess this video was edited too abi?@LagosLasgidiOwner; the educated fooooooooool that cannot make simple use of the internet.