World Debating Website

WUDC: Day 1 Schedule

2009-12-27T11:13:00.000Z

Day 1 December 27th at Koc 2010 World Universities Debating Championships:

Registration
Hotel Transfers
Chill out Night

Worlds Agenda 2010‏

2009-12-26T23:30:00.000Z

Dear Members of the World Debating Community,

There have been some questions pertaining Worlds Council this year. Mr Neill Harvey-Smith, and the rest of the Council Executive Committee will not be attending Worlds at Koc this year due to certain unavoidable reasons.

I will however be attending Worlds as Chair and Council will run as scheduled.

There was some miscommunication with the organizers on my attendance at Worlds; however this has been cleared up. I would like to commend the organizers for their commitment, efficiency and dedication in ensuring the smooth running of Koc Worlds.

I would like to thank Mr. Ian Lising and Mr. Colm Flynn as World Council Member Emeritus for stepping in and coming up with a solution at what seemed like the most viable option at that time, given the circumstances.

There will be no need for an interim election, as through pro-tem leadership and subsequent appointments, pre-council will be conducted on 28.12.2009 and Council will be held on the 1.1.2010.

Attached below is the agenda for World Council 2010:

Preliminary Council Meeting 28.12.2010
Distribution of Meeting Minutes from Council meeting of Worlds 2009

Roll Call
- Delegate Names
- Voting status

Elections for Council Executive Committee 2010

Institution review
-N-1 Review

Speaker Review
-4 year rule
-ESL participants
-EFL participants

Distribution of 2012 Bid Materials

Council Meeting 01.01.2010
Roll Call
-Delegate Names
-Voting status

Worlds 2009 Minutes
-Vote to accept minutes

Cork Report & Accounts
- Cork Rep to report on Tournament
- Cork Rep to present final accounts

Koc Report & Accounts
- Koc Rep to report on Tournament
- Koc Rep to present initial accounts

Worlds 2011 Bid Defense
- Bid Defense Presentation
- Questions from council members
- Vote to Confirm Botswana as 2011 hosts

Bids for Worlds 2012
- De La Salle & Toronto present bids (order to be determined by random draw)
- Questions from Council Members
- Vote on hosts for Worlds 2012Lunch BreakConstitution Review

Future of World Suggestions

Committee Reports
- Chair
- Registrar
- Secretary
- Women’s Officer
- Equity Officer
- Regional Reports

Other Business

2011 World Executive Committee Elections

Thank you, have a safe flight and journey. See you at Koc Worlds 2010.

Warm regards,
Adiba Shareen

Adjudication Team for Botswana Worlds 2011

2009-12-24T19:33:00.001Z

Dear Global Debating Community,

On behalf of the organising committee of Botswana Worlds 2011, I would first and foremost like to thank all the candidates who applied to be Deputy Chief Adjudicators, for volunteering to devote their time and talents to work for this tournament. We had a incredibly competitive field of applicants, which is partly why we took longer than we intended to decide our final team. We would also like to thank all of you who wrote in to give feedback and engaged our queries, and helped us choose the best candidates.

The final and complete adjudication team for Botswana Worlds 2011 is

Chief Adjudicator : Logandran Balavijendran
Internal Chief Adjudicator : Pearl Mathumo
Deputy Chief Adjudicators :
James Dray
Anat Gelber
Richard Lizius
Tim Jeffrie

Congratulations to Anat, Richard and Tim - your work orders are in the mail. To everyone else, thank you for your support and we hope it keeps on coming.

See you in Turkey!

Cheers
Logan

Happy Christmas

2009-12-24T17:58:00.002Z

The presents are wrapped. The turkey, ham, veg and various sauces are ready. This year we have Santa calling for the first time and we look set to have the first white Christmas in my memory so tomorrow will be a busy day.

Therefore I would like to take this opportunity to wish all visitors to this site a happy Christmas. Of course if you celebrate a different festival at this time or even if this time of year is of no special significance for you I hope you will still accept my wish for happiness, peace and prosperity at this time and into 2010.

And in particular I would like to wish best of luck to all those travelling to worlds in Turkey. I'm sure it will be a great tournament and be sure to come back here for regular updates over the next 10 days.

Nollaig shona dhaoibh.
Colm

2nd Pan-African Universities Debating Championships

2009-12-23T12:39:00.005Z

The second Pan-African Universities Debating Championships was held at the university of Botswana from the 12th to 18th of December. This year we had 414 participants from 9 different countries.

New this PAUDC!

Ran concurrent University (80 teams, 6 rounds, octos break) and High School (40 teams, 4 rounds, quarters break) tournaments, both in the British Parliamentary format.
Passed a constitution and elected an executive committee
Granted hosting rights for PAUDC 2010 to the University of Namibia and reviewed bids for PAUDC 2011 from Nigeria and Zimbabwe.
Tournament tabbed on Tabbie

On behalf of the adjudication team of Logan, Pearl Mathumo and Thoriso M-Afrika, and Tournament Director Vivek Ramsaroop, here are the results and motions.

Results

School Champion : Zimbabwe B
Finalists : Livingstone Kolobeng B, Al-Anur B, St Joseph's A
Schools Best Speaker : Magowe Bonolo (Livingstone Kolobeng B)

Universities Champion : Rhodes University A
Finalists : University of Botswana A, University of Namibia A, University of Free State A
Universities Best Speaker : Clive Eley (Rhodes A)

Best Adjudicator : Kgosi Daniel Moremong, from Multimedia University
Best New Adjudicator : Lusanda Mtshotshisa from University of Fort Hare

Motions

University Finals
THW give dictators immunity in exchange for their resignation

High School Finals
THW force all faith based schools to teach evolution

Semifinals : Most famous non-running Kenyans
TH Supports the decision to award Barack Hussein Obama the Nobel Peace prize

Quarterfinals : The Environment
THBT MNCs operating in the developing world should be held liable to environmental regulation based on their country of origin

Octo-Finals : Sponsored by Capital Bank
THW ban banks from using pension funds as collateral for loans

Round 6 : Social Rights
THBT doctors who refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds should be fired

Round 5 : International Relations
THW support Iran’s right to develop nuclear weapons

Round 4 : Good Governance
THBT all African presidents should be subject to term limits

Round 3 : Globalization, Sponsored by the British Council
THW require immigrants to pass a language test as a prerequisite for citizenship

Round 2 : AIDS, Sponsored by the Health and Wellness Center
THW force all faith based NGOs to distribute condoms

Round 1 : Child Labour, Sponsored by UNICEF
THBT child labour is justified in developing countries

Link to Full Tab (teams, judges and break round pairings)

WUPID Break

2009-12-23T07:58:00.002Z

The break details from WUPID:

Semi Finalists

SYDNEY 1
NTU 2
ADMU 1
MONASH 1

SYDNEY 2
ADMU 2
IIUM 1
UPD 1

Breaking Teams
Ranking Team Name Total Score Speaker Points
1 SYDNEY 1 15 805
2 SYDNEY 2 12 784
(3 NUS 1 12 764)
4 UPD 1 11 784
5 MMU 2 11 769
6 MONASH 1 10 776
7 IIUM 1 10 766
8 ADMU 2 10 765
9 NTU 2 10 764
10 MELBOURNE 1 10 764
11 UPD 2 10 761
12 NTU 3 10 747
13 ADMU 1 9 774
14 MAHIDOL 1 9 772
15 COLGATE 1 9 770
16 UT MARA 1 9 766
(17 NUS 4 9 764)
18 NTU 1 9 758

NUS teams had to leave therefore the 18th team took the 16th slot in the break.

Round 1 motion : THBT There should be a limit on the number of terms that elected officials may serve
Round 2 motion : THW support al-jazeera’s right to air their propaganda.
Round 3 motion : THW abolish vernacular school in Malaysia.
Round 4 motion : THW suspend protest in new democracy
Round 5 motion : THBT western nation should withdraw all military support from Pakistan.

See http://wupidmania.wordpress.com/ for more details

Melbourne Mini Results

2009-12-22T10:36:00.000Z

Dear all,
Thanks to everyone who attended Melbourne Mini from the 4-6 December. We hope you had a blast!

Congratulations to Julia Bowes (University of Sydney Union) Amit Golder (Monash University) from the team 'Rapproshament' who were the winners of the tournament.

Break:
1. Rapproshament, 14, 1004
2. Prelude to the Afternoon of a Sexually Aroused Gas Mask, 14, 990
3. MooCowell, 13, 986
4. (I Grabbed) Tiger's Wood, 13, 974
5. Hit me Bebe one more Tim, 12, 979
6. Extra Chuckle, 12, 952
7. I saw Levi Johnston's penis and all got was this lousy team name, 12, 942
8. Debating Through The Ages, 11, 974

Grand Finalists:
OG: MooCowell
OO: Debating Through The Ages
CG: Prelude to the Afternoon of a Sexually Aroused Gas Mask
CO: Rapproshament

Top 10 Speakers:
1. Tim Jeffrie, 504
2. Julia Bowes, 503
3. Amit Golder, 501
4. Steve Hind, 499
5. Sam Greenland & Tim Mooney, 495
7. Seamus Coleman, 493
8. Bronwyn Cowell & Chris Croke, 491
10. Jacob Clifton, 486

Full results and score sheets for each round are available at: http://muds.whypsloven.net/mm09/

Topics:
Exhibition Debate: Health - This house believes that US healthcare reform should include a public insurance option.

Round 1: Economics - This house would introduce radical tax reform to improve social equality
Round 2: Terrorism - This house believes that the US should not try accused terrorists in civilian courts
Round 3: Religion - This house believes that governments should not use religious organisations to provide public services
Round 4: Environment - This house believes that developed nations should not be allowed to buy carbon offset credits generated from the reduction of emissions from avoided deforestation and degradation of forests (REDD) in developing countries
Round 5: Law & Order - This house believes that Western governments should
create a maximum limit on the size of their prison populations
Round 6: Women - That this house would ban the hostess industry in Japan
Semi-Final: IR- This house believes that the next leader of the Palestinians should focus on the development of Palestinian political institutions rather than the pursuit of a sovereign state
Grand Final: Social - This house believes that we should allow the use of nootropics ('smart drugs') without prescription

Thanks again to the wonderful organising committee!

Convenors: Duncan Campbell & Zac Gross
Tab Director: Michael Ciesielski
CA: Nicole Lynch
Assistant CA: Monique Hardinge
General Committee: Chris Bisset, Kelly Butler, Aaron Mazur, Meredith Prior (equity officer)

Good luck to everyone at Worlds! We'll see you next year at Melbourne Easters...

Cheers,
Duncan

Worlds 2010 Bids: More from Toronto

2009-12-21T10:29:00.001Z

With one week until Worlds, we have some more updates and news. Yay!

Firstly, we have compiled a few (tongue-in-cheek) powerpoints. We'll be uploading them tomorrow so you can check them out. Keep your eyes peeled for an email with the links.

We also wanted to add/update a few of the reasons to vote for our bid. Some of these reasons are in response to queries we've had from international delegates and we'd like to thank those who have been in touch to talk about our bid. No school can bid in a vacuum and it means a lot to us that people will approach us with questions or concerns. So, thanks! :)

This is a super-long post, so have a stretch now!

Without further ado, here are more reasons to vote for a Hart House Worlds:

1) An established core of excellent judges

The list of confirmed judges on our website includes:
- 4 World Champions
- 3 Worlds DCAs
- 1 Worlds Top Speaker
- 19 Worlds break debaters
- 24 INTERNAL judges who have adjudicated break rounds at Worlds

All of these confirmed judges are completely capable of chairing rounds at Hart House Worlds.

Beyond that list there are also dozens of capable and talented Canadian and American debaters who are an easy drive away.

In addition to the incredible depth we have internally (and those within a short drive) we also have been blessed with the financial support to FULLY fund (AT MINIMUM) 30 to 40 qualified adjudicators from around the world. We expect that that figure will end up being higher once we have finished our corporate fundraising.

We know that subsidizing reg is simply not enough to encourage most people to shell out for transcontinental flights, so we are committed to funding the travel of highly qualified judges to attend Hart House 2012.

2) Our A-Team = Awesomesauce

We've talked a lot about our amazing CA Jason Rogers, so let's talk a little bit more about the A-team.

Our bid includes DCAs for the following regions:
- Europe/Middle East/Africa
- Oceania
- Asia

And one DCA from a traditionally underrepresented group/region.

Applications will be called for late next year, and then feedback from the international community will be solicited on all candidates. Jason will then pick the team he'd like to work with.

We guarantee the following 5 things about the DCAs we pick::

I. They will ALL care about issues facing ESL/EFL participants at Worlds. We think we should reinforce the idea that EVERYONE needs to care about ESL/EFL speakers, not just people who are ESL/EFL.
II. They will ALL care about issues facing women at Worlds.
III. They will have experiences with a variety of debating formats and style.
IV. They will have extensive motion-setting experience.
V. They will be very nice, approachable people. No jerks.

We can promise you that our a-team will be diverse, caring, and experienced.

3) Toronto = Diverse and Friendly

One of the reasons we can offer such a warm welcome is because we are located in Toronto. Half of Toronto's population was born outside of Canada, so it has a marvelously diverse array of people and neighbourhoods. This diversity permits us several benefits not often available to hosts of Worlds.

Some of these benefits include:
- Readily available kosher, halal, vegetarian and vegan food. And you won't have to worry about feeding yourself outside of the tournament meals. There are thousands of restaurants all over Toronto that cater to all needs.
- Dozens of interesting neighbourhoods like the Distillery District, Koreatown, the Village, Little Italy, Little Portugal, Liberty Village, Little India, Little Pakistan, Chinatown, Yorkville, the Annex, Little Ethiopia, Kensington and many, many more.
- A welcoming and safe environment for gay and lesbian attendees. Toronto is very proud of its pride!
- Access to all venues for physically disabled participants.

4) Toronto = Safe, Convenient and Cheap
Toronto and the surrounding communities are unbelievably safe and welcoming. Crime against tourists is virtually nil, and as a tourism hub in North America there is a TON of infrastructure available for visitors.

Beyond that, Hart House has obtained FREE 24-hour public transportation for participants on all subways, buses and streetcars for the duration of the tournament. This means you'll never have to shell out for a cab or wait for those inconvenient buses.

Furthermore, the idea that Toronto is necessarily expensive is not true. All your food and transport during the tournament are provided and Toronto is a city that can be enjoyed on ANY budget. Just ask a U of T student. :)

5) Toronto = Lots of Things to See & Lots of Places Nearby

Sights in/near Toronto include:
- CN Tower (tallest free-standing structure in the world)
- Royal Ontario Museum (one of the most beautiful/ugliest buildings in the world)
- Hockey Hall of Fame (SO much fun! Seriously!)
- Niagara Falls (BEYOND beautiful in winter!)

Activities:
- Winter sports like skiing, and outdoor skating in Nathan Phillips Square
- Tobogganing (sledding)

There's also cheap travel to places like:
- New York City
- Boston
- Montreal
- Chicago

and many, many other places.

6) Amazing Socials
Our socials chair will be... ME! I'm fun, so come to party with me! (If you can keep up). Here are a few things we're planning:

Women's Night
- Top comedians from MuchMusic's Video On Trial will be performing
- Women's show debate
- Fundraising for Toronto women's shelters

Dancing at North America's largest nightclub.

Skating at Nathan Phillips Square.

Comedy night featuring a performance from Toronto's famed Second City improv troupe.

Sponsorship from a world-class brewery.

Sipping at a nineteenth-century distillery.

Our socials committee will be made up of a chair and committee members who plan the socials with the aid of professional party planners. So it'll be all professional and junk. ;)

7) University Support and Institutional Memory
Hart House has been blessed with a financial and administrative team that has successfully run three WUDCs. We have already obtained financial support from the university's administration as well as the Warden of Hart House, who has been unbelievably positive and enthusiastic.

Hart House has an incredibly strong tradition of hosting large tournaments. In addition to hosting three WUDCs, we also have hosted two BP National Championships and the North American Championships. Every year we host the largest BP tournament in Canada. We'd love for you to experience the hospitality of our university once again.

Probably the most important thing is that we have people on our bid committee who were involved in the last Toronto worlds and have been instrumental in helping us organize this bid. Thanks, guys! :)

8) A Stable Financial Base
We've been able to set a reasonably low reg fee because of the significant financial support we're receiving from the University of Toronto as well as our corporate sponsors and understanding hotels. Canada was virtually unscathed by the recent economic turndown so our coffers are full. Yay strict banking regulations!

Our fundraising director, Erin Fitzgerald, has been in charge of Hart House fundraising for two years. Both years we've exceeded our goals. She has also been in charge of fundraising for the Toronto G8 research group, who also managed to exceed their fundraising goals.

The University of Toronto has also guaranteed to help us fundraise, so we have no concerns whatsoever about being able to provide financially for such a large event.
9) Regional Rotation to North America

North America has not hosted a Worlds since 2007. By 2012, Europe (’09,’10), Africa (’11), and Asia (‘08) will have each hosted at least one WUDC since then. I think when we're taking the fairness of regional rotation into consideration we should also mention the following things:

The majority of CUSID and APDA debaters get NO funding from their schools to attend Worlds. Students have to pay for everything themselves. We don't think it's a coincidence that we see way more North American debaters at North American WUDCs. We think a Hart House Worlds allows access to Worlds to those people who are traditionally excluded.

Since UBC Worlds, there has been an explosion of interest in BP debating in Canada, but especially the United States. We'd love to showcase the incredible debating talent that has been developing here but that has been prohibited from debating much internationally.

Our team here at Hart House are some of the most enthusiastic, generous and accomplished people I have ever known. It would mean a great deal to us to be able to showcase our wonderful city and school to the debating community. We care deeply about providing a Worlds that is accessible, competitive and memorable. If there are more questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact one of our team.

See you in a week!

Monica Ferris
External Communications
Hart House 2012 Bid Committee

Belgrade Open 2010

2009-12-20T17:25:00.003Z

The Belgrade Open is coming back in 2010 on February 26 to March 1. We've put together great debates and excellent socials for you in the city that was recently proclaimed the World's Party Capital and voted the #1 destination in the world by Lonely Planet readers.

Our adjudication team is led by our Chief Adjudicator, Leela Koenig, best ESL Speaker in both WUDC and EUDC (twice) and CA of EUDC 2010. We are also pleased to have Mila Turajlic, best speaker in EUDC 2001 and DCA of EUDC 2004, as our DCA. They will be joined by the enthusiastic regional judging pool, coordinated by Milan Vignjevic.

The tournament's Grand Final will be held in the National Parliament of Serbia, one of the most exciting and historic speaking venues on the debating circuit (makes up for great Facebook profile pictures). All the venues are within walking distance from your accomodation, Hotel Kasina, which has the distinction of being Belgrade's oldest hotel.

We invite you to register for the tournament and experience all that is Belgrade. The registration fee is 40 euros per participant and the deadline is February 15, 2010. We encourage you to register early in order to guarantee a spot in the tournament.

For more information regarding the tournament, the city and travel details, click through to our website at www.belgradeopen.rs or join our Facebook group.

Looking forward to welcoming you in Belgrade,

Manos Moschopoulos
Co-Convenor, Belgrade Open 2010

Updates from WUPID

2009-12-20T16:03:00.000Z

The World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (WUPID) is currently ongoing in Kuala Lumpur.

Would love to be there but the next best thing is to follow their updates on http://wupidmania.wordpress.com/

University of Kurdistan win Mesopotamia Debating Tournament

2009-12-20T15:45:00.000Z

The University of Kurdistan (Sara Mustafa, Mohammed Ali, Sayran Ibrahim & Read Ahmed) have won the Mesopotamia Debating Tournament held recently in Iraq. In the final they defeated American University International (Bayad Jamal Ali, Safa Fudhl, Arevan Kamaran & Enji Issa).

The top eight speakers were
1. Sara Mustafa (UKH) (154)
2. Sayran Ibrahim (UKH) 150.5
3. Arevan Kamaran (AUI-S) 150
4. Hala Mamdoh (Duhok Ahang) 149
5. Hamzen Yousif (Duhok) 10 148
6. Arreba Zomaya (Dohok) 10 147
7. Zeen Saeed Taha (Duhok Ahang) 146/504.5
8. Nazdar Ali (Human rights) 146/497
For more details please visit Globaldebate

Koc WUDC Debating Guide: General Issues

2009-12-20T15:27:00.002Z

How should I offer a point of information?
Stand up and say something nondescript like “On that point”, or “Point of information”. Do not advertise your point before you’ve been accepted. For example: “On the effectiveness of bringing democracy to Iraq” is not good. This is cheating and will be punished. This is not to say there will be an automatic deduction of a point every time you do it, or anything so formulaic, but it will be taken into account, along with everything else, in adjudication. If your point is accepted, you ask a question or comment which should probably last no longer then 15 seconds.

Are points of order and points of personal privilege allowed?
No.

What are points of order and points of personal privilege?
You don’t care. You’re not going to use them.

Can I make a point of information to my partner, or on the other team on my side of the House?
No.

Can I speak for more than7 minutes?
Going over a bit (i.e. fifteen seconds) is fine. You could speak for longer, but it would be rather pointless; your judges will put down their pens and stop writing. It could even be damaging, if the consequence of your speaking over meant that you were unable to present all of your case.

Can I speak for less than7 minutes?
You can – but it suggests you haven’t got much to say, which is generally a bad sign

What if I do not understand the motion?
You are permitted (even encouraged) to ask one of the adjudication team if you want explanation of the meaning of words. If your problem is simply that you do not know what a debate is about, we cannot help you, although it is worth remembering that even if you do not possess any of the relevant facts, it is usually possible to construct a passable case from principles alone.

In World Schools’ Debating, the rules state that words such as ‘never’ or ‘always’ mean ‘in the vast majority of cases’ – is it like that at WUDC?
No. Words have meanings. You are allowed a dictionary to find them out. These meanings are not going to be messed around with by your adjudication team. There is no secret code.
‘Never’ means in not a single instance.
‘Always’ means in every single instance.
The English language is a tool of marvellous complexity and finesse, and your adjudication team is sufficiently good at using it that the words in the motion will mean exactly the debate we intend you to run. If we want a debate about the vast majority of cases, we’ll set a motion which asks for one.

Do you get an automatic fourth for squirreling/counterpropping/challenging the definition/ barracking/ knifing/etc?
No. There is no such thing as an automatic fourth. For any given stupid thing you could do, there could be another team somewhere doing something worse.
Attempting to specify the worst thing you could possibly do would be to tempt fate. The only two ways to guarantee receiving no points are: [a] not turning up, thereby forfeiting the round, or [b] being the subject of a successful equity complaint of sufficient severity that your points from that round are docked after the end of that round.

What is an equity violation?
There will be a Code of Conduct and ultimately equity will be in the hands of the Equity Officers (Simone Van Elk, Ewan McDonald and Cansu Korsay). Having said that, you won’t commit an equity violation if you don’t act like an idiot.

This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.

Koc WUDC Debating Guide: Rebuttal

2009-12-20T15:27:00.001Z

Do I need to rebut every single thing the other side says?

No. British Parliamentary debating requires only that you engage with the important issues. You are absolutely allowed to pick your battles, and are allowed to make tactical concessions
(i.e. ‘We agree that the proposition's mechanism will work, but we say it remains unjust'). The point of rebuttal is to give sufficient grounds for rejecting the case of the other side, not hit every single tiny point.

Do I have to ‘flag up’ my rebuttal (i.e. indicate that what I am saying is a specific response to something said earlier)?
No, but you probably should. Your judges are, of course, incredibly intelligent, and if they spot the rebuttal they will credit you for it even if not explicitly flagged up, but even the best of us occasionally miss things.

Does rebuttal have to be at the beginning/end of my speech?
No. Put it wherever you like. If you do decide to ‘weave’ rebuttal, however, ‘flagging’ it becomes more important.

Final important thought about this stuff:
The distinction between rebuttal and substantive matter is false. It is a useful fiction for when you start debating, but can get in the way if an overly formalistic approach to it is taken. New substantive arguments can and often do clash with and defeat prior arguments, and what is labeled rebuttal often involves the making of distinctive new arguments and the bringing to the table of new information. All the rules require is that you adequately respond to, and defeat, the case of the opposite bench.

This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.

Koc WUDC Debating Guide: First Proposition

2009-12-20T15:27:00.000Z

Can we squirrel?
No.

What is a squirrel?
It’s when first proposition defines the motion in such a way as to depart entirely from what the adjudication team intended in setting the motion. So: “THBT NATO should be disbanded” should be about the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation, not about that 80’s electro-punk band, which also happens to be named ‘NATO’. Motions have been set with a particular debate in mind, and you should have that debate, even if you think it is silly, boring, or undebatable. The test for whether or not something is a squirrel is this: is your definition something that could reasonably be anticipated by an intelligent first opposition?

Do we have to have a model?
The short answer: Yes.
The long answer: There are two things you can do as proposition: give a model (i.e. a short, clear account of what it is the House is going to do), or in some cases you may just say clearly that you intend this debate to be about of matter of principle. For example, the motion “THBT we should invade Zimbabwe” is a motion which requires a model. See below for a description of a model. The Motion “THBT torture is justified” can be run with a policy (i.e. a change in law), but can also be run just as a principled debate, in which you argue for the truth of the moral claim that torture is justified. The reason why you don’t need a policy in the latter case is that the wording of the motion only mentions the principle at issue. In those cases, you can, but do not have to propose a practical change in the world.

Can we place-set?
There are two issues here: [1] What is ‘this House’? [2] Where is the policy being enacted?

In some motions, both are fixed. When this happens, the House is usually, but not always, one or more governments (i.e. ‘THBT the United States should abandon its embargo of Cuba’), but it can also be any other body which enacts policy (i.e. ‘THBT the Vatican should allow the use of contraception to fight HIV in the developing World).

In other cases, first proposition have considerable freedom in deciding the scope of the debate. For example, in the debate ‘THW invade Zimbabwe’, the house could quite legitimately be the United Nations, the USA, South Africa, the African Union, etc. The debate ‘THW use abstinence to fight HIV’ could quite legitimately be place set to everywhere, the developing world, developed liberal democracies, etc. However, neither the place nor the House can be fictional (i.e ‘Middle Earth’, ‘The Star Wars Universe’ or other such things). Place-setting is illegitimate if it gives first proposition an unfair advantage. This includes behaviour like place-setting to your home country or place-setting it to some obscure location which you have in your case-file. Once again, the test for whether or not place-setting is legitimate is this: is it something that could reasonably be anticipated by an intelligent first opposition?

Can we time-set?
No. The House is always in the present, and cannot move forward or backwards in time. It is legitimate to specify that your policy will occur at a specific point in time (i.e. excluding China from the Olympics, in 2012), but that would have to be some point in the future.

What needs to be in a model?
Not much. A clear, short specification of what is to be done. There is no need to give any more than what is sufficiently detailed in order for adebate to take place (i.e. if proposition is advocating the invasion of Zimbabwe, it probably should specify who is invading, it probably does not need to tell us what sort of tanks are being used).

How long should a definition be?
The rules do not give a formal limit. However, as a matter of prudence, not long. Definitions do not win debates. Arguments do. The length of an appropriate definition will depend upon the motion. Banning things tends to be quite simple. Invading places is not.

Where should the definition be?
In the beginning of the first proposition speech.

Can I add stuff to the definition later?
No. However, if you are challenged on a non-obvious aspect of the mechanism by the opposition, you can explicate, as long as you are making reasonable inferences from common practice, rather than radically changing the scope of the policy (i.e. in the debate about invading Zimbabwe, a quite legitimate definition might not include a specification of precise details of strategy. If challenged on such matters by opposition, it would not be breaking the rules to fill in such gaps).

This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.

Koc WUDC Debating Guide: First Opposition

2009-12-20T15:26:00.002Z

What do we do when First Proposition squirrels?

Cheer, because they’ve done a stupid thing. Then add insult to injury by debating what they’ve squirreled onto better then they do. So: if they squirrel, point it out, and then debate the way that first prop has set it up, as best you can. Probably the only circumstance under which you should reject a squirrel and make a speech about the debate you were expecting is when the definition is verging on truism (i.e. ‘Genocide is bad’). If what has been proposed is at all debatable, you will be appropriately credited for saving the debate from an abyss of despair and horror, and be rewarded accordingly.

What’s the difference between counterpropping and challenging the definition?
The default position is that the opposition defends the status quo against what has been advocated by proposition. If you believe that it is strategically sensible you could also:

Counterprop: Counterpropping is presenting the House with an alternate (allegedly superior) model to the proposition. The proposition's model and the counterprop should be mutually exclusive. It is not enough to point out some other thing you could do at the same time, it must be something you could do instead. Otherwise you look like you are agreeing with the proposition, and fail to fulfil your function.

Challenge the definition: This is contending that the proposition interpreted the motion not as it should have been interpreted, giving a new definition (and maybe even a model), and going on to talk about what you think the debate should have been about. On a strategic level, as we have said already and as we will continue to say, this is a last resort – try to avoid it.

Note: as WUDC is an international competition, the idea of a status quo is sometimes misleading. A status quo is simply the world as it is. For debates about international relations, there is clearly a state of affairs in the world as it is, but for almost every other sort of motion (i.e. questions of domestic social policy, law, medical ethics, or whatever) there is no status quo, as different states may well have wildly different policies on a certain matter. That means opposition have considerable freedom to defend what they want to.

When should I challenge the definition?
As a general rule: DO NOT EVER challenge the definition. If are wrong, you are not coming out of that room with good marks. Even if you are right, you have forgone an opportunity to rescue the debate. Such debates (i.e. ‘meta-debates’about the legitimacy of the motion) are unlikely to offer much opportunity for style, brilliant analysis, or insight. As such, everyone in such rooms tends to leave with dreadful marks, even the team that won. Furthermore, these debates are quite astonishingly boring. You do not want to be in this debate. If it is in your power to avoid it, do so.

When should I counterprop?
Not as often as people do.
There are several types of counter-prop. Some are legitimate and make for a better debate; they widen clash, help the debate focus on interesting issues and make for a more interesting discussion. Many are appalling: Narrowing the debate such that all that is being argued about are one or two extraordinarily minor considerations, whilst not explicitly banned in the rules, is not usually clever (i.e. ‘we agree with everything prop said, the people of Scotland should indeed be granted independence, but not with the electoral system that the proposition have advocated). You look like a coward, the debate becomes boring, devoid of intellectual content and you will – rightfully – be held responsible for this.
A counterprop which assimilates all of proposition’s principled positions and opts for a more extreme policy (i.e. ‘we agree with everything prop said, the people of Scotland should indeed be granted independence, and so should Wales, Cornwall, Rutland…’) is similarly vacuous as a debating approach. Pointing out that the principles of a proposition may well have further implications is fine, but – ultimately – a motion has been set, and we intend you to debate that motion.
A counterprop which simply goes off into cloud cuckoo land (i.e. we agree with everything prop said, the people of Scotland should indeed be granted independence, and therefore we must abolish the state’) will destroy the debate. You may think during your preparation time that it will be ‘hilarious’. You are wrong. General tests for whether or not a counterprop is advisable might include these: does the debate remain substantively about the issues intended by the Adjudication team in setting the motion? Am I wrecking this debate, or making it better?

Why should it matter whether or not a counterprop makes the debate more 'interesting'?
[1] Style is in the judging criteria. That can, but does not have to, mean making lots of jokes or using beautiful language. It can mean being persuasive and engaging (i.e. 'interesting' to listen to). Saying relevant and interesting things about stuff we care about is more stylish than not.
[2] Content which is relevant and important is more interesting than material that is not. Setting up a debate which is interesting probably means you have set up a debate which is important, and gives room for high quality analysis. That is a room in which you get better marks.
[3] Consciously or not, judges will reward you for not making the next hour of their life hell.

Isn't this all a bit subjective?
Yes. Debating is less objective than we all like to pretend.

This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.

Koc WUDC Debating Guide: Second Proposition

2009-12-20T15:26:00.001Z

Should we have an extension?
Yes.

What is an extension?
An extension is new constructive argument, OR deeper (read 'better') analysis of an argument that has already been made. Calling it ‘an’ extension is slightly misleading, because it implies you need one new thing. This is false. Extension does not mean any new argument: an extension must be a substantial contribution to the debate, which clearly distinguishes you from the team that preceded you. It could deliver several small, but vital arguments. Rebuttal can count as new material, and may indeed be sufficiently important to be credited as extension.

Should I ‘signpost’ my extension (i.e. indicate that I regard a specific part of my speech as ‘extension’)?
Probably. Your judges will be trying to assess you on the content and quality of what you said, and should not penalise you for failing to label what is actually substantial new argument as such. Nonetheless, there is no harm in making their life easier by highlighting the importance and novelty of your contribution. Conversely, if you signpost as extension that is in reality just rehashing an argument which has already been made, without substantively improving the quality of the argument, it doesn’t count as an extension.

Can I change the model that first proposition gave?
No. The proposition bench is analogous (unlike the opposition) to two parties in coalition. You must follow where they lead.

Even if first proposition was really stupid?
Even then. Bad luck is a fact of life. Do remember, however, that you will get credit for rescuing a bad case. Also bear in mind that if certain aspects of the definition are particularly uninspired, it may be possible to retreat slightly from those aspects (into, for example, a more extended treatment of underlying principles) without knifing (i.e. contradicting the first team on your side).

What should I do in the summary?
Summarise the debate. This is (probably) not a chronicle of everything that happened in the debate –such an approach is unlikely to shed new light on what has happened. Rather, it is supposed to be an identification of the significant points of contention around which the debate has occurred, and an explanation of why your side has triumphed in these areas. It is unlikely that there are seven such points of clash, andyou do not have to have at leastthree (for example, many excellent summaries divide material into two areas: questions of principle and practicalities). It may be important to respond, briefly, to whatever mutilation Second Opposition has wreaked upon your partner’s extension. Do NOT bring any new arguments, even if the rules of British Parliamentary allow this. New examples, deepening arguments, drawing out the logic of a particular point in already given arguments are allowed, but new arguments indicate that you have not planned your team’s approach to the debate.

This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.

Koc WUDC Debating Guide: Second Opposition

2009-12-20T15:26:00.000Z

If First Opposition accepts the definition, can I then still challenge it?
No.

Can we counterprop?
No.

Should we stick to the counterprop that first opposition made?
Yes, but you aren’t in quite the same position as the team opposite you. The second opposition team is not hostage to the tactical choices of the first opposition team in the manner in which second proposition must follow the definition of first proposition, and at least gesture at defending all of it. The proposition teams are like different parties in one governing coalition. The opposition bench is simply two opposition parties, who may oppose the motion for entirely different reasons. As such, you can decide to leave afirst op’s counterprop undefended, if you have new arguments and analysis ready, which demonstrate that the motion must fall, irrespective of what we might think of the counterprop. That is not the same as presenting an entirely new counterprop, which would indeed be knifing.

Do we have to bring an extension, too?
Yes.

But isn’t it my job to kill the extension given by second proposition?
That too.

What if I only have time to do one? Which is more important?
These tasks are not mutually exclusive. Your selection of material in third opposition should be guided by considering what it is that is hurting you at that moment. In some debates, the proposition extension will add nothing to a brilliant first prop. In such a debate, it would probably be sensible to focus your energies on destroying the case of first prop. That, if done in sufficient depth, would count as an extension. In some debates the proposition will be of such paucity that you will probably have to focus on distinguishing yourself from first opposition, in which case bringing big new arguments will be more important. This will inevitably be a judgment call based on what is significant at that point in any given debate.

What should I do in the summary?
Summarise the debate. See the description of the proposition summary above. Bear in mind that the prohibition on new material is even more stringent here, because there is no possibility of proposition responding to it.

This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.

Koc WUDC Debating Guide: Appendix for Judges

2009-12-20T15:24:00.001Z

What am I doing here?

Go to the debate. Write down the things the debaters say. Evaluate those things as honestly as you can, based on how persuasive they were to an unbiased intelligent observer. You then allocate speaker marks and positions accordingly. For the first six of the nine preliminary rounds, you give teams their positions (not speaker marks) and feedback. For the latter three rounds, you tell the teams you saw nothing at all until after the break has been announced.

I've heard a lot about something called 'holistic judging'. What is that?
The short answer: judging any particular thing in the context of all the other things (i.e. as opposed to judging being an exercise in ticking boxes).

The long answer: judging persuasiveness holistically means that strategy, content and style are interdependent. Deploying arguments persuasively is impossible if they are not explained clearly, if their importance is not emphasised, and if the interest of the audience is not maintained to listen to them. Without decent argumentation, style is empty rhetoric, a façade which the intelligent observer would easily see through. As for strategy, brilliantly analysed arguments are unpersuasive if they are irrelevant to the position that is meant to be advocated or if they ignore the central claims made by the other side.

Therefore, judges should not seek to ‘value’ one of these elements above or below the others; they should judge the three holistically. A speech cannot be truly persuasive without decent strategy, content and style. We believe that holistic judging is what the intelligent observer of a debate would and should be expected to do. Judges should also not forget that debating is fundamentally about persuasiveness, not the technical fulfilment of various debating guidelines such as ‘have three points’ or ‘headline all your arguments’. A speech can be extremely persuasive without ticking such boxes.

How do I assess content?
The content of arguments should help you to assess whether teams have effectively shown their claims to be true and important. Effective analysis should not be confused with ‘complication’. Both complex and simple arguments can be effective; what matters is whether the claims are adequately substantiated. A team’s arguments should be interpreted charitably, but you should not reconstruct them as having said things which they clearly didn’t, or attach much greater weight to arguments because you think they were ‘trying to express’ a brilliant idea of your own.

There is an unending dispute every year at WUDC about the relative importance of ‘principled’ and ‘practical’ arguments. This is not a productive way to think about content. In proposition, a team needs to show both a) that the place they want to be is worth getting to, and b) that their policy gets them there. Opposition teams need to dispute at least one of these things. It may be better to dispute both, but if they can conclusively refute one of them, the proposition falls. The relative importance of so-called ‘principles’ and ‘practicalities’ depends on the actual pattern of clash in the debate. Knowledge is good, but only insofar as it creates a persuasive case for one side of the motion.

How do I assess style?
Style will often be very important, but you mustn’t ‘double count’ it: style matters to persuasiveness, but not over and above the extent to which you are persuaded. Please also remember that there are lots of ways to be stylish; there is no one correct way to do it. For example, teams should not be penalized for not telling jokes; if the style of a speech was Churchill-ian oratory, a joke might have undermined the style. Equally, if someone is ‘stylish’ in a way irrelevant to their persuasiveness on the issue (for example, by telling a joke unrelated to the motion at the start), this should not be rewarded. Generallywe believe that style is everything you do in conveying your content to maximize its persuasiveness.

Speaking with a pronounced and unusual accent is not bad style and you should allow reasonable leeway for English as a second and foreign language teams. Examples of things which are unequivocally bad style include (but are not limited to) speaking too fast to be followed, shrouding your claims in evasive and unclear language, constant hesitation, and sounding bored with your own speech. You will note these sins are not particular to ESL or EFL teams.
How do I allocate marks?
The four teams must be ranked first, second, third and fourth. The speakers must be accorded speaker marks consistent with those positions (i.e. the team which won must take more speaker points combined than any other team’s combined speaker points, the team which came last must take less, etc). The speaker scale is appended to the end of this document.

Can more than one team take the same position (for example, come fourth)?
No.

What if a team doesn’t turn up?
A swing team will be sent to replace them. Mark them as if they were a real team (otherwise the other three teams in that room would have an unfair advantage: it would be impossible for them to come fourth). Those marks will then drop out of the tab and not be allocated to the team that should have been there.

What if the teams say something I think is a clear equity violation?
Do nothing during the round unless someone in the room is clearly extremely upset. In that case, you may want to intervene but even then continue with the debate. In the vast majority of cases, however, an immediate response is not needed, and we would prefer if you didn't give one. Mark them as usual afterwards, not taking the alleged equity violation into account. It is sometimes said that if the argument is really offensive it is probably not a good argument. We are not that optimistic. Our priority here is to separate evaluation of the analysis (your job) from evaluation of the offence (not your job). Find the equity officer after the round and describe the alleged violation. It is then their decision as to what sanctions would be appropriate. This is vital if the equity policy is to be consistent, and fair: debaters must be able to reasonably anticipate what would constitute an equity violation. In order for this to happen, equity must be administered by a single source, rather than hostage to the extreme varied standards of taste and decorum across different debating regions, and within them.

During the discussion, what do I do?
This depends on if you are a chair or a wing.

If you are a chair: your job is to manage a discussion, the end goal of which is a consensus on the way the debate went. Try not to give your view of the result right at the start of the discussion because that may bias what other people say. You want to (politely) interrogate your wings as to their opinions, and their reasons for them. If there are any disputes about the rules, or about what was said in the debate, it is usually easiest to resolve these first. You can then concentrate on the meat of the discussion: the evaluation of the teams. Please note: your wings are not deadweight to be bullied, dismissed or duped. If we thought they were that bad judges, we would not put them in the judging pool. Koç Worlds has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to judges. We anticipate your wings will be intelligent and helpful people.

If you are a wing: your job is to assist your chair in coming to a consensus position. This is not a fight, or (God forbid) a debate, but a reasoned discussion. You can be most useful to us if you can be clear about your initial call, and your reasons for that from the start. Nobody will reproach you for changing your mind – the point of gathering initial opinions is to structure a conversation

Can wings ‘roll’ (i.e. outvote) the Chair?
If consensus proves impossible and your runner tells you that you have to call a vote, then yes. Remember that your Chair is a chair for a reason (i.e. we have reasons to believe they are very good at this sort of thing, and – crucially – better than you), but also remember that you are there for a reason too. That is not to say that your chair is infallible, merely that if you are going to outvote your chair, you should probably be sure, really sure, that they have simply got it wrong.

Will I be binned (i.e. send to rooms with teams on lower points) if I roll the chair?
Firstly,there are no bins at Koç Worlds. Every single team here has paid registration, and part of what they are paying for (apart from your drinks, accommodation, etc) is your time and your respect. Every single team at this tournament merits considered judging and feedback. In fact, less experienced teams (who may well be in rooms with less points) particularly merit your time.

Secondly, being sent to a room with lower points is not a punishment. Please do remember that this is a tournament with three breaks (Open, ESL, EFL). That means a huge number of rooms remain live until very late at the tournament. A room with lower points is likely to be on the edge of a break, making it extremely important. Even in rooms where it is not possible for a single team to break, all four of those teams deserve feedback. If we want to punish you, there are plenty of other things we could do.

Thirdly, no. We will not seek to punish in any way judges for rolling their chair. We want wings to take rolling very seriously, but we do not want it to never happen (otherwise, we would simply not bother with wings, or not give them the power to roll). However, if we have good evidence that you have not thought through sufficiently rolling of a Chair, we are likely to rank you lower within the judging pool.

This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.

Koc WUDC Debating Guide: Speaker Scale

2009-12-20T15:24:00.000Z

The mark bands below are rough and general descriptions; speeches needn’t have every feature described to fit in a particular band: our job as judges is to find the best fit. Throughout this scale, ‘arguments’ refers both to constructive material and responses.

Please use the full range of the scale, and do not revel in being a ‘harsh’ marker. There is no metaphysical truth about what an ‘82’ consists of, the best practice is to mark in line with these guidelines and the rest of the judging pool or it is unfair on the teams you judge. Speaker marks determine many of the breaking teams, and tab finishes can be big achievements for lots of people, so please give them the moment’s thought they require. If we receive repeated reports of suspiciously low (or high) marks it may impact upon your judging ranking.

100-95 Plausibly one of the best debating speeches ever given, flawless and astonishingly compelling in every regard. It is incredibly difficult to think up satisfactory responses to any of the arguments made.

94-90 Brilliant arguments successfully engage with the main issues in the round. Arguments are very well-explained, always central to the case being advocated, and demand extremely sophisticated responses. The speech is very clear and incredibly compelling. Structure and role fulfillment are executed flawlessly.

89-85 Very good, central arguments engage well with the most important issues on the table and are highly compelling; sophisticated responses would be required to refute them. Delivery is clear and very persuasive. Role fulfillment and structure probably flawless.

84-80 Relevant and pertinent arguments address key issues in the round with sufficient explanation. The speech is clear in almost its entirety, and holds one’s attention persuasively. Role is well-fulfilled and structure is unlikely to be problematic.

79-75 Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive. Occasionally, but not often, the speaker may slip into: i) deficits in explanation, ii) simplistic argumentation vulnerable to competent responses or iii) peripheral or irrelevant arguments. The speaker holds one’s attention, provides clear structure, and successfully fulfills their basic role on the table.

74-70 Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but there may be obvious gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or irrelevant material and simplistic argumentation. The speaker mostly holds the audience’s attention and is usually clear, but rarely compelling, and may sometimes be difficult to follow. There is a decent but incomplete attempt to fulfill one’s role on the table, and structure may be imperfectly delivered.

69-65 Relevant arguments are frequently made, but with very rudimentary explanation. The speaker is clear enough to be understood the vast majority of the time, but this may be difficult and/or unrewarding. Structure poor; poor attempt to fulfill role.

64-60 The speaker is often relevant, but rarely makes full arguments. Frequently unclear and confusing; really problematic structure/lack thereof; some awareness of role.

59-55 The speech rarely makes relevant claims, only occasionally formulated as arguments. Hard to follow, little/no structure; no evident awareness of role..

54-50 Content is almost never relevant, and is both confusing and confused. No structure or fulfillment of role is, in any meaningful sense, provided.
This guide is from the briefing published by the adjudication team of Koc Worlds 2010. The adjudication team is Can Okar (CA) Josh Bone (DCA), Julia Bowes (DCA), Suthen Tate Thomas (DCA), Will Jones (DCA), Handan Orel (ACA), Ozan Mert Ondes (ACA). This document is based on one drafted by Anat Gelber, Daniel Schut and Will Jones in 2007 for the Amsterdam Open.

Worlds Council

2009-12-18T21:33:00.000Z

Dear all,

Earlier today, I rather lost the gift of diplomacy and, in anger, made hurtful comments on this blog about Can Okar, the Chief Adjudicator and his role in the misunderstanding. We have since spoken and I apologise to Can. In particular, I accept that no decision was made specifically to exclude Adiba Shareen from the tournament, as I believed and suggested. I think the tone of my remarks and Can’s decision not to prolong the issue reflect equally on both Can and me. It was, I hope, out of character and I regret not being in full possession of the facts when I posted.

I will leave further announcements to Ian, Adiba and the Org Com.

Neill

New Tournament coming

2009-12-18T18:04:00.001Z

A new debating (OPEN) tournament is coming to London. If you want to get involved in trying out a different debating format then keep an eye out for details!

1st East Asia Inter-Varsity Invitational English Debate Competition 2009

2009-12-18T17:52:00.000Z

The 1st East Asia Inter-Varsity Invitational English Debate Competition 2009 was held from 10th to 13th Dec 2009 in Macau at the Institute of Tourism Studies. Organised by the Tertiary Education Services Centre (Gabinete de Apoio ao Ensino Superior) of the Macau Government, 16 invited teams from Malaysia, Japan, Korea, Thailand, The Philippines, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau competed in 5 preliminary rounds of debates conducted in the Worlds' style.

The Semi-Finalists were:
1) Team Multi-Media University
2) Team Ewha Women's University
3) Team Chulalongkorn University
4) Team Tokyo University
5) Team Ateneo De Manila University
6) Team Hong Kong University
7) Team University of Macau 1
8) Team University of Macau 2

The Champions, on a unanimous decision, were Mr Vincenzo Giorgio Tagle and Ms Shiveena Parmanand from the Ateneo De Manila University. The Runners-Up were Team Multi-Media University, Team Toyko University and Team Hong Kong University. The Best Speaker in the Grand Final was Mr Sandeep Chulani from the Hong Kong University.

The Top 5 Speakers were:
1. Mr Vincenzo Giorgio Tagle -- Ateneo De Manila University 392 points
2. Mr Tumo Raymond Moremedi -- Multi-Media University 391 points
2. Ms Shiveena Parmanand -- Ateneo De Manila University 391 points
4. Ms Pan Ziyang, Flora -- University of Macau 387 points
4. Mr Sandeep Chulani -- Hong Kong University 387 points

Breaking Judges in the Grand Final: Mr Rueben Clarke (Malaysia) , Ms Guai Singchi (Hong Kong), Mr Andrew Nishizaki (Japan), Mr TJ (Thailand), Mr Zhengbo (China), Ms Ah Young Kim (Korea), and Mr Loke Wing Fatt (Singapore).

Adjudication Core: Chief Adjudicator: Loke Wing Fatt (Singapore)
Deputy Chief Adjudicators: Ms Sharmila Parmanand (The Philippines), Ms Ah Young Kim (Korea) and Mr TJ (Thailand)
Tabulation Director: Mr Zheng Bo (China)

Motions for the Competition:
Demonstration Debate: This house believes that rape trials should be presided exclusively by female judges.
Round 1: This house believes that state-sponsored insurance policies should cover by-choice abortion.
Round 2: This house believes that terrorist suspects should have the right to a trial in civilian courts.
Round 3: This house would not allow undocumented immigrants to be eligible for financial aid for higher education.
Round 4: This house believes that armies should overthrow corrupt, dictatorial governments.
Round 5: This house would pay a wage to poor, full-time, stay-at-home parents.
Semi Final: This house believes that state media should provide airtime to extremist political parties.
Grand Final: THBT reduced American military presence in Asia is good for Asia.

Submitted by:

Loke Wing Fatt
Chief Adjudicator & Debate Consultant
1st East Asia Inter-Varsity Invitational English Debate Competition 2009

Worlds Council

2009-12-18T15:23:00.003Z

Dear all

I have just read with surprise a post announcing an interim team for Worlds Council. I was not consulted before it was posted.

In my note on this blog on November 21st, I announced my intention to stand down from Chair at Council in Turkey. I further announced that the Registrar, Adiba Shareen, would take over my duties as Chair in Turkey according to established practice.

I informed the Worlds Council Emeritus members directly by email on the 20th and I informed Can Okar of this directly by telephone on the 22nd.

Updated at 17.05: I will restrict myself to these statements of fact. I have written to Can Okar asking him for clarification on what has happened. I have written to Ian Lising, Adiba Shareen and others. Hopefully a way forward can be found quickly.

Neill Harvey-Smith
Chair, Worlds Council

Special EUDC Council session at Koc Worlds‏

2009-12-18T10:16:00.000Z

From EUDC mailing list:

Dear EUDC Country representatives, dear debate community,

hereby, I call a meeting of the EUDC Council to take place in Antalya at Koc Worlds on December 28th, over lunch. The exact time and place are still to be determined and will be posted on site in Antalya.

After a lot of discussion, I feel there is a need for discussing some rather urgent issues.

Please make sure that your country is represented at the meeting. I would like to apologize to all countries that for any reason will not be able to send representatives, but remind everyone of their right to send proxies acting for them. Please inform me beforehand if you plan to send a proxy on your behalf, preferably via e-mail or through facebook.

I expect this meeting to last considerably less than an hour. The urgency mainly stems from the proposed reg system for Amsterdam EUDC, and the elections of a new Worlds executive. Also, we would briefly like to update everyone on the work that has been done on decisions taken in Newcastle, so we will be able to follow through on these questions in Amsterdam.

This is the provisional agenda:
1. Report and vote: Registration System for Amsterdam EUDC 2010 (0:20 h)
A seperate e-mail containing detailed information will be posted immediately after this message.

Please find more information on this discussion at
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/topic.php?uid=53323524697&topic=11488,

2. Report on the finalized ESL/EFL proposal (0:05 h)
3. Report and discussion on the elections of the new WUDC executive (0:10 h)
4. Provisional report and discussion on eligibility (0:10 h)
5. Provisional report on the reform of regions (0:10 h)

Duration of the meeting: 0:55 h, shorter if possible

This Agenda is available at
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AV03U5W2nMq6ZGY5am10N18yNnY1a2N4bmNu&hl=en_GB

This Agenda will be updated where necessary on Google Docs.

This message will be sent to the following groups:

EUDC@yahoogroups.com

British Debate britishdebate@topica.com

The Facebook Group EUDC Council

Please forward this message to anyone who might be concerned with the issues.

I hope to see you in Turkey!

Kind regards,

Jens Fischer
President EUDC Council
jhbfischer [AT] gmail [DOT] com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EUDC/attachments/folder/1952545116/item/list

Koc WUDC 2010 Adjudication Briefing: Test

2009-12-18T07:55:00.000Z

Dear all,

We are now nine days away from Worlds. The Adjudication Team has prepared an online briefing that we would like you all to read before you arrive in Turkey. There are important issues about debating that we hope to clarify before we come together for our actual briefing on the 28th December 2009. The document has been attached to this mail but for those that are scared of attachments, we have pasted it below this mail. It will go on our website shortly.

As an adjudication team, we also have one other thing to add for judges only:

Judges, the Adjudication Test is now online. You can find it at: http://www.kocworlds2010.com/adj.php . Please read the file attached or written out below before you take the test as we have asked questions about some of the information we provide in our online briefing. With clashes, try not to go overboard - you should include the institution at which you study/studied and the name of individuals who you cannot judge. We will not ask you why you have clashed them and what you write will be confidential. Having said that, do try to limit the number of people you cannot judge.

We are sorry about the delay with the test. This is entirely my (Can's) fault. I had trouble getting the file from Mini DV onto DVD and then to AVI and then to DixX. Because it is my fault, I have extended the deadline to the 22nd December 2009. If you can fill in your tests earlier, I would be ecstatic as we will be reading them as they arrive. I'd rather have a couple of days to concentrate on practicing the tab closer to the tournament.

We're looking forward to seeing you soon,

Can
Chief Adjudicator of Worlds 2010

(Colm's note: There is a very good guide to accompany this. I plan to post it but want to confirm with the adjudication team that they are happy for me to do so as it is their work).