The Break
A Big thank you to Derek Lande who e-mailed me the whole break.
EFL break
Keiio A
Tsuda B
Shanghai Fudan A
DAE B
ESL break.
Indonesia A 16
IIUM B 16
Botswana A 15
IIUM D 15
Indonesia E 15
Tilbury A 14
Amsterdam B 14
Zagreb B 14
IIUM C 14
IIUM E 14
IDC A 14
EDIS A 13
Koc A 13
Tel Aviv A 13
Hong Kong B 13
LUMS C 13
Main break judges:
Ciaran Lawlor
Jo Nairn
Ivan Ah Sam
Diarmuid Early
Claire Lindsey
Nick Long
Teddy Harrison
Alex Hill
Stephen Creeger
Stephen Johnson
Steven Nolan
Stephen Worscter
Stephanie Patton
Logan
Neil Harvey Smith
Deirdre O'Donoghue
Rajesh Krishnan
Kylie Lane
Caleb Ward
Roland Dillon
Will Jones
Julia Bowes
Giles Robertson
James Dray
Tom Chapman
Tom Robertson
Ian Lising
Can Okar
Anna Garsia
Derek Lande
Carima Porter
Jess Lopez
Jess Harvey Smith
Elizabeth O'Connor
Tate
Anthony Murphy
Art Ward
Gavin Illsley
Liz Sheargold
Sam Greenland
Giselle Kenny
Main break
1.Oxford A 25
2.Cambridge A 22
3.Queensland E 22
4.Yale A 21
5.Sydney B 21
6.Sydney D 21
7.Auckland A 21
8.Sydney C 20
9.Monash A 20
10.Sydney A 20
11.Cambridge B 20
12.HH C 20
13.UCD LandH A 20
14.Oxford B 20
15. HH B 19
16. Oxford D 19
17. Middle A 19
18. St. Andrews A 19
19. Queensland A 19
20. Victoria A 19
21. Yale E 19
22. Sydney E 19
23. Macquarie A 19
24. Monash B 19
25. Yale C 19
26. Victoria E 19
27. Duke A 19
28. Brandies B 19
29. Queensland B 18
30. Oxford E 18
31. Melbourne C 18
32. LandH B 18
Enjoying a snack, a drink, nice weather and fellowship waiting for Round Nine
Scene in judge room 20 minutes before the round is due to be posted.
Here are the results I can find on the various websites and boards. As before many are missing but I'll keep poking around the various sites tonight as I'm nursing sore muscles after ice skating (no serious injury just stiff and a few briuses in unmentionable places) and sitting in front of the TV with the laptop is all I'm fit for.
As before if you can add any details please post a comment. Also remember tomorrow is closed adjudication so the next time we will have results will be after the break in about 22 hours.
After 6 Rounds (Max points 18)
Cambridge A - 17
Monash A - 16
Oxford A - 16
Sydney C - 16
Monash A - 16
Auckland A - 15
ULU - 15
St Andrews A - 14
Monash B - 14
Victoria A - 14
Sydney A - 14
Victoria B - 13
Victoria D - 13
Victoria E - 13
UCC Phil A - 13
UCC Phil B - 13
Hart House A - 13
Hart House B - 13
Hart House C - 13
McGill A - 13
Monash D - 13
Monash E - 12
McGill C - 12
Carleton - 12
Queensland B - 12
Queens C - 12
Cambridge B - 12
Cambridge C - 12
UCC Law A - 11
UCC Law B - 11
Monash C - 11
Queensland A - 11
McGill B - 10
Victoria C - 10
Cambridge D - 10
Dalhousie - 9
After 5 Rounds (Max Points 15)
Queensland E - 13
Queens B - 9 or 10
Queensland C - 9 or 10
Queensland D - 9 or 10
DCU - 9
Limerick - 8
Queens A - 7
After 4 Rounds (Max Points 12)
Ateneo B - 11
Ateneo A - 10
Ateneo C - 9
Ateneo D - 6
Ateneo E - 8
Here is a photo of Masako Suzuki at the Developing Nations Forum.
Here is a photo from the All Asians Forum.
Rashedul Hasan Stalin and Prof. Kamal Hassan from Bangladesh
The Tabbie screen projection
The campus is truly amazing. Huge blocks of marble, lots of gold statues and highlights, all new buildings, elegant landscaping and a sort of cyclopean architecture that reminds one of a Christian version of Mordor. Lots of money and effort devoted to statues, landscaping and little touches. The classrooms are excellent for the debates. Lots of audiences and school kids coming to watch the debates in the larger rooms.
Adjudication team
University of Vermont team -- Mandy & Maddy
The debater and adjudicator briefing
The world is debating the political fallout from Benazir Bhutto's assassination -- from fear of chaos in Pakistan to the impact of her death in Iowa. There is already no shortage of analysis about the national security implications of her death, but I want to write about the young woman I met in England before she became a player on the world stage.
She was at Oxford. I was at Cambridge. And by a strange coincidence I became president of the Cambridge Union and she became president of the Oxford Union. The anomaly of two foreign women heading the two unions meant that we ended up debating each other around England on topics ranging from British politics to broad generalities about the impact of technological advance on mankind.
When I checked my blackberry this morning at 5:28 am LA time there was an e-mail from our news editor Katherine Zaleski: "Benazir Bhutto killed by bombing." As we found out afterwards she was killed by an assassin's bullet. But just as the news was filled with the details of her death, my mind was filled with how full of life she had been every time I had seen her, including the last time in 1998 when she came to my home in Los Angeles for a dinner (which Harry Shearer, also there, wrote about). She was in exile, her husband in jail, and she was separated from her children. But still, there was an incredible life force about her, a sense that no matter what life brought her way, whether a tough debating argument, or exile, or her father's death by hanging, or the deaths of her two brothers -- she could deal with it, and she would prevail. Until the rally in Rawalpindi.
Three years earlier, I had seen her at the height of her power and fullness of life when she was staying at Blair House in Washington, DC as the visiting prime minister of Pakistan -- the first woman prime minister in the Muslim world. She had her third child with her and took me to her bedroom to meet her. Then she sat on the bed with her baby in her arms while we laughed about our lives on the debating circuit, and talked about her life now. (Including how much she loved her husband. She was trying to convince me that even though it was a marriage arranged by her mother, she had fallen in love with him, as if she had spotted him herself across a crowded room.) She had arrived at Oxford from Harvard, where she had gone at 16 after her convent school in Karachi. But wherever she was, she was at home because she was always at home in her own skin.
I wrote a book about fearlessness last year, long before the rally in Rawalpindi, where she went against everyone's advice and despite the fact that there had already been a failed attempt at her life. She was fearlessness epitomized. Many will debate her political successes and failures, her personal probity in public office, the charges of corruption against her and of course the national security implications of her death, but for now I'm just filled with a profound sadness about the end of a woman that was always brimming with life. I asked her to blog before she returned to Pakistan and blog she did. Here's a portion of what she wrote this fall:
I long ago realized that my personal life was to be subjugated to my political responsibilities. When my democratically elected father, Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was arrested in 1977 and subsequently murdered, the mantle of leadership of the Pakistan Peoples Party, our nation's largest, nationwide grassroots political structure, was suddenly thrust upon me. It was not the life I planned, but it is the life I have. My husband and children accept and understand that my political responsibilities to the people of Pakistan come first, as painful as that personally is to all of us. I would like to be planning my son's move to his first year at college later this month, but instead I am planning my return to Pakistan and my party's parliamentary election campaign. I didn't choose this life. It chose me.
The social begins on the mall
<== Logan Belavigendran, Bojana Skrt, Loke Wing Fatt
<== Bojana Skrt, Sam Greenland, Branka MarusicLBJ's early years
The Outlook piece written by Barbara Ann Radnofsky and Ronald G. Bankston expressed their usual careful thoughts in support of local debating teams. (Please see "Restore Houston tradition as a city of great debaters / Give HISD the tools to teach this oratorical skill," Dec. 23.)
Many recognize at least one of our local oratorical teams that have achieved national success, such as Lanier Junior High School, Bellaire High School and South Texas College of Law.
Perhaps fewer people know that future President Lyndon Baines Johnson, during his brief sojourn as a Houston teacher and debate coach, led the San Jacinto High School debate team in successful competition throughout the state.
This 75-year-long tradition of distinguished debating deserves our strong support.
JAMES B. TENNANT
Houston
Create league
As a former HISD debate coach at Sidney Lanier Middle School, I am excited about the possibility of a revival of Houston's tradition of great debaters in our inner-city schools. The movie The Great Debaters, about the small black college in Marshall, Texas, in the 1930s, may just be the inspiration we need to provide the opportunity of debate to every middle- and high school student in Houston's inner city. Houston's suburban and private schools acknowledge the academic value of debate by supporting competitive programs. I have seen the transforming effect on virtually every student who participates in the intellectual competition of debate.
Barbara Ann Radnofsky and Ronald G. Bankston remind us in their Outlook essay of Houston's great tradition of debaters and call for the formation of an Urban Debate League. If our community, both private and public, will join in creating this opportunity, we will soon observe a new sense of pride, confidence and empowerment in the lives of students and schools that are presently confronted with failure.
JIM HENLEY
Houston
Elite advantages
While its intentions are well-placed the Outlook article by Barbara Ann Radnofsky and Ronald G. Bankston fails to understand the state of high school debate today. The authors are right that inner-city schools no longer participate in debate, but they misidentify the cause of such exclusion.
It is not that a lack of opportunity has excluded less-advantaged students from competing in debate; it is that debate itself now structurally advantages elite teams and excludes underprivileged voices.
In the past, a competitor won through diligent research, persuasive argumentation and eloquent delivery. It is little exaggeration to say that era is over. In fact, the highest echelons of competitive debate — on both the collegiate and secondary level — are largely ruled by the better-connected and better-funded programs. There, debate has become a hyper-specialized game wherein success signals connectedness with the game, rather than superior argumentation. Winning is less a matter of thinking critically and more a matter of paying expensive, specialized tutors and/or forging advantageous political connections with those who run the game.
Though disadvantaged students occasionally slip through the competitive cracks, one need only cursorily examine the results from high school's Texas Forensic Association's State Championship: Established private and suburban debate programs have won Policy Debate, LD Debate and Sweepstakes every year for the past four years. Put simply, 12 out of 12 times, Texas' insular community of debate elites has given itself the prize and kept the disadvantaged out.
Debate has become "pay to play." The underprivileged — no matter how intelligent or hardworking — must do battle unarmed, without the five-figure budgets and the political clout of the foregone winners. The Great Debaters has become Great Expectations.
PATRICK MAHONEY
Katy
Restore Houston tradition as a city of great debaters
Give HISD the tools to teach this oratorical skill
By BARBARA ANN RADNOFSKY and RONALD G. BANKSTON
The HISD bond controversy and Denzel Washington's movie The Great Debaters focus this city's and the nation's attention on an aspect of Houston's history we must reclaim.
For decades, debate thrived in the Houston Independent School District, producing recognized champions. HISD schools boasted debate teams, hosted debate tournaments and produced highly successful debaters.
Barbara Jordan was a championship debater at Houston's Phyllis Wheatley High School and Texas Southern University. Old-timers still talk of her top speaker honors at Baylor's famous tournament in the 1950s, and of the Barbara Jordan-Otis King team and its tie in the much-heralded debate with Harvard held in Houston.
Otis King went on to become Houston's first African-American city attorney. According to Barbara Jordan's biographer, Mary Beth Rogers, debate filled a major portion of Barbara Jordan's life at TSU, where she developed her speaking, research and organizational abilities. Without debate would Barbara Jordan have received the awakening, broadening, early national travel, exposure, experience and invaluable contacts that she used in her rise to the top?
You can't throw a stick at the Harris County courthouse without hitting a debater. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur was a legendary UH debater.
Dr. Phillip Zelikow, high ranking State Department and Bush administration official, and executive director of the 911 Commission, was a nationally ranked high school and college debater from Houston. "I learned, for the first time, how to research and analyze problems. Having to think harder about how government works, I discovered there were many interesting and different approaches to solving public problems. Working with other students who were smarter than me, I had to get my act together in all my high school classes (with the tragic exception of Algebra 2). And academic debate — preparing to take either side of a proposition — pushed me into the best and toughest mental workout of all: Understanding the views of the guy — or gal — on the other side."
Houston's state Rep. Sylvester Turner debated for Klein High School and the University of Houston. "From high school, to college and later as a lawyer/legislator, I have utilized what I learned as a debater to research, organize and communicate my thoughts," Turner says. "What a plus it can be to your self-esteem. It certainly was mine coming from Acres Homes."
Now, in many urban high schools and particularly in Houston, policy debate is gone. Private and suburban public high schools are still actively involved in debate, but predominantly low-income minority students lack the opportunity.
Houston needs an Urban Debate League to bring competitive debate back to the inner city, and to involve minority and low income students. By public-private participation, we can also aid both sides in the HISD bond controversy and litigation.
Urban Debate League (UDL) structures partnerships between the urban public school district and a private partner, a local not-for-profit organization (the UDL Advisory Board) composed of civic-minded leaders in business, law, academia, government and the nonprofit community.
Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Kansas City and Baltimore all have successful Urban Debate Leagues. Now, Dallas has stepped forward.
The programs succeed. Here's the evidence from the National Association of Urban Debate Leagues: UDLs increase literacy scores by 25 percent, improve grade-point averages by 8 percent to 10 percent, achieve high school graduation rates of nearly 100 percent and produce college matriculation rates of 71 percent to 91 percent.
We are University of Houston debater alumni seeking resurrection of urban policy debate programs in Houston.
We've pledged our service in Houston's UDL Advisory Board if the NAUDL will sanction a League. We call on Houstonians to contact NAUDL (312-427-0175, info@UrbanDebate.org and www.naudl.org) to join us.
Make Houston's legacy of The Great Debaters a reality. Houston and the world beyond will benefit.
Radnofsky and Bankston are Houston lawyers and mediators, UH alumni and debate partners of Rep. Sylvester Turner, Dr. Phillip Zelikow and bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur.
Nigerian Universities Debating Council is a non Governmental organization , which organizes and coordinates activities to promote and increase debate in and among schools and Universities in Nigeria.
NUDC is the first University Debating Society across the Nigerian Universities
This association was founded in June, 2007, by Matthew Bright David Okorie(Mabrig) A Public Speaking Tutor/Coach who based at University of Nigeria,Nsukka
Starting in JULY 2007 , the Association began having debates in school hostels and public building at University of Nigeria
NUDC hosted the first University of Nigeria,Debating Championship in 2007
Currently,NUDC is working on hosting the first Nigerian Universities debating Championship in 2008 .
Purpose
To spread debating competition among Nigerian universities
To foster the interest on intellectual activity among students.
To Organize local, national, and international competitions
To Select the members of the national team who will represent Nigeria in the World universities Debating Championship
To help its members improve their communication and leadership skills.
To prepare Nigerian University Students for National and International Debating Tournaments.
To strengthen the Skills of Reasoning, Argumentation and Persuasion
To Promote and Advance Public Speaking, Critical thinking, and Social Interaction in the University Environments
To develop speakers who use the English language effectively and who, speak and listen critically.
To improve students vocal skills and enhance their personal impact.
To develop leaders who meet up with global challenges of the 21ST CENTURY
To revive the interest in public speaking and debating among students.
To give students the opportunity of practicing public speaking in the school environment
To help students acquire basic skills of public speaking.
The Nigerian Universities Debating Council will host the first University of Nigeria Debating Championship, in September 2007 and host the first Nigerian Universities Debating Championship in November 2008(during the NUGA games) and become the third African Team( after South Africa and Zimbabwe) to feature in the World Universities Debating Championship, University College Cork (Ireland) December 2008/ January 2009
Benefits for the Students
Debating allows students to increase and develop their skills in a number of different areas such as: public speaking, logical organization, general knowledge, research, proving a point of view, increase in confidence and inter-personal interaction, and teamwork.
Prospects
The Nigerian universities debating tournaments is designed to help students acquire and develop transferable skills and attributes. These skills, which enhances academic performance, are of lasting personal and professional value, and are sought after by employers.By becoming a member
Students will gain an understanding of why learning public speaking is important.
Students will also learn the causes of stage fright and how to deal with it appropriately
Students will master the skills required in the current Global landscape.
It will foster the development of oral skills - both the articulation of argument and the abilities to listen carefully and to respond constructively –
It will to foster a positive, learning-oriented environment for students regarding public speaking.
Membership
Membership in the Nigerian Universities Debate Council is open to all Nigerian University Students regardless of race, religion, political views, nationality, gender, disability, etc.
Functions of the Council
The functions of the Council shall be as follows:
To appoint a host for each round of the Nigerian Universities Debating Championship;
To promote debating championship among Nigerian schools and universities
To decide on appropriate sanctions against a host organization in the event that it fails significantly to comply with the terms of the bid;
To perform the other functions conferred upon it by this constitution.
Thus the role of the Nigerian Universities Debating Championships Council is concerned with the running of the Championships. Appointing hosts, setting the rules/format/criteria, deciding eligibility, etc.
Thus we help to establish the common neutral ground on which all the various members together to determine the best team in the country that year.
I am delighted to announce that Cork Worlds has appointed the
remaining members of its adjudication team. Erin O'Brien, Ivan Ah Sam
and Rory Gillis have agreed to join the team as Deputy Chief
Adjudicators. We have also decided to appoint Daniel Patrick McCarthy
as an Assistant Chief Adjudicator for the team. Brief excerpts from
the CV's of the new members of the team follow which I hope make it
clear why these individuals will make an excellent contribution to the
running of the competition.
I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank all of those
who applied, it was a very tough decision to have to take.
Looking forward to seeing many of you in Thailand.
Regards,
Derek Lande
____________
_________ _____
Chief Adjudicator
Cork Worlds 2009
Erin O'Brien (DCA)
Finalist: UBC Worlds 2007
Winner: Cork Europeans 2005
Winner: St. Andrews, BPP, Lancaster IV's
DCA: Tallinn Euros 2008
DCA: Macquarie Easters 2008
GF Adjudicator: Berlin Euros 2006
Ivan Ah Sam (DCA)
Semi-Finalist & 6th Speaker: Dublin Worlds 2006
Winner & Best Speaker: Australasians 2005
Winner: Sydney Mini, Cork IV, UKM Pre-Worlds
Best Speaker: Sydney Mini, Melbourne Mini, UKM Pre-Worlds
CA: Sydney Easters 2007
DCA: Easters 2006
Rory Gillis (DCA)
Best Speaker & Semi-finalist: Dublin Worlds 2006
Finalist: Oxford, Cambridge & CUSID BP Nats
GF Adjudicator: Yale IV, Hart House IV
Best Speaker: Northams
Winner: Harvard, Princeton, Johns Hopkins
Tournament Director: Yale APDA Tournament
Daniel Patrick McCarthy (ACA)
Finalist: Koc Europeans 2007
Winner: Nottinham IV, Cork Invitational, Galway Invitational
Semi-Finalist: Cork IV, St. Andrews, UL, Irish Mace
Treasurer: UCC Philosophical Society
So many apologies for the delay but enclosed are the updated University Debating Rankings after Birmingham. The ESU English Mace and Bath are still not included in the rankings, as no one has yet contacted me with the tabs - as soon as I get them they will be incorporated.The new rankings also show the nationality of each institutions and the number of IV wins they have claimed so far this season. However, as I am not, contrary to popular belief, a sophisticated (or not) artificial intelligence, it is possible there may be errors in the wins or nationality columns, in which case my apologies - these are entered manually, not automatically. If people do notice any errors please let me know.Also, as there has been various interest from institutions, I am following this e-mail with the University Speaker Rankings as they currently stand. Again, Bath and ESU are not incorporated. The speaker rankings are not in any sense official and I may revise the method of calculation, but enough people have seemed to like the idea of them, so I thought with the delay and all I may as well send them out so people get a sense of what they look like.I have also had some people mention to me that they are interested in how the rankings work and would like more details than are on the ESU website. I'm happy to show anyone the full formulae if they wish, in which case they should contact me on either kcl_debating@yahoo.co.uk or jleadermaynard@freeuk.com.Finally, congratulations to UCD, Durham, Oxford and Galway, all of whom claimed a tournament win since the last rankings update. UCD leap to 3rd place, Oxford nab 2nd, and York are the only institution new to the rankings, entering at 44th.See you all in Thailand,Jonathan LMUniversity Debating Rankings 20/12/07 - After 12 Events
University Points Nat. Wins 1 1 Cambridge 374.5 Eng 3 2 3 Oxford 275.9 Eng 1 3 5 UCD 185.4 Ire 1 4 2 Wellington 171.8 Aus 1 5 4 St. Andrews 158.9 Sco 1 6 7 Middle Temple 158.4 Eng 7 9 LSE 143.5 Eng 8 8 ULU 126.5 Eng 1 9 6 Inner Temple 119.6 Eng 10 11 Manchester 100.0 Eng 11 14 TCD 86.7 Ire 1 12 16 Bristol 82.2 Eng 1 13 10 Harvard 79.8 NA 14 22 Kings Inn 78.3 Ire 15 19 Nottingham 74.0 Eng 16 21 UCL 63.7 Eng 17 12 Loyola Marymount 63.6 NA 18 13 Yale 62.4 NA 19 23 Durham 57.8 Eng 1 20 28 NUIG 56.7 Ire 1 21 15 UCC 52.2 Ire 22 17 KCL 48.6 Eng 23 18 Seattle 47.4 NA 24 29 BPP 41.0 Eng 25 24 QMUL 36.1 Eng 26 20 IIUM 34.4 Asn 27 26 SOAS 29.6 Eng 28 25 Warwick 27.4 Eng 29 40 Newcastle 25.2 Eng 30 38 Claremont 20.8 NA 31 27 Chicago 18.0 NA 32 30 Leiden 13.4 Eur 33 31 Princeton 13.2 NA 34 41 Glasgow 12.2 Sco 35 45 Tilbury House 10.8 Eur 35 32 Stanford 10.8 NA 37 42 DCU 9.9 Ire 38 33 NLS India 9.6 Asn 39 34 Berlin 8.0 Eur 40 35 La Verne 7.8 NA 41 36 Zagreb 6.0 Eur 42 37 Sussex 5.6 Eng 43 39 Helsinki 4.2 Eur 44 York 2.8 Eng 45 43 Imperial 2.0 Eng 46 46 Birmingham 1.6 Eng 47 44 Bates 1.2 NA
Greetings to everyone,
I would like to inform debaters in Asia that the All
Asians will hold a public council meeting to review
the preparations of NSU for the tournament.
I would like to hold the meeting on Saturday night
(29th) during the Public Speaking prelims/after
dinner. We will confirm the time and location of the
meeting during the WUDC Pre-Council meeting. Please
make sure your national rep is at Pre Council.
I have informed the Banglash Org Comm about the
meeting and they were quite happy about it and appear
eager to answer questions.
If you would like to ask about the CA or any other
issues please come or contact your national rep with
your concerns. Sniping on the listserv is easy and
also slightly insulting to people who did take the
time to come in Korea.
Concerns about the CA were raised at Council in Seoul
and it was agreed that those concerns could be solved
through more experienced DCA's. It is unclear to me
what complaint others would have with that decision,
particularly when it is part and parcel of the process
of expanding debate into new parts of the world. A
less experienced CA is inevitable as growth happens.
I would also point out that Singapore Worlds had a
relatively unknown CA a few years back, and most folks
agreed it was a good tournament. Hard work and
commitment to details are often critical and
experience does not guarantee those qualities in
anyone.
FYI:
A new copy of the Constitution has been uploaded to
the group page.
Jason Jarvis
Assistant Dean and Lecturer
Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and Management
http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/
Office: 82-2-3299-1031
Email: debatekorea@kdischool. ac.kr
President, All Asian Debate Championship Executive Council
Dec. 18, 2007, 3:32PM
Washington donates $1 million to restablish Wiley debate tea,m
MARSHALL, Texas — Oscar winner Denzel Washington is donating $1 million to Wiley College to reestablish its famed debate team.
School officials Tuesday announced the gift by Washington, who last week was in Marshall to screen "The Great Debaters."
His film about the school's 1930s debate team has been nominated for a Golden Globe as best drama.
Washington stars as educator and poet Melvin Tolson, who led the all-black college's elite debate team. He also directed the movie.
Washington, during last Thursday's appearance, vowed to help the college and get the debate team going again.
Washington won Academy Awards for "Glory" and "Training Day."
Marshall is a city of about 24,000, located 140 miles east of Dallas.
___
On the Net:
http://www.wileyc.edu
http://www.thegreatdebatersmovie.com
Garces High teacher arrested
Man faces allegation of sexual encounter with student
BY GRETCHEN WENNER AND CHRIS GEORGE, Californian staff writers
e-mail: gwenner@bakersfield.com; cgeorge@bakersfield.com | Sunday, Dec 16 2007 9:45 PM
Last Updated: Monday, Dec 17 2007 2:09 PM
A teacher at Garces Memorial High School was arrested Saturday for an alleged sexual encounter with a Garces student.
Neal was arrested Saturday morning on suspicion of oral copulation with someone under 18. The victim was a Garces student, according to police.
Police arrested Marshall David Neal, 33, on suspicion of felony oral copulation with someone under 18, according to a statement released Sunday by the Bakersfield Police Department. The student's age and gender were not specified in the release.
As of late Sunday afternoon, Neal was being held in the downtown jail on $100,000 bail, online booking information showed. He posted bond at 6 p.m. and was expected to be released Sunday evening, according to jail staff. He declined a request for an interview, according to jail staff.
Police made the arrest after investigating allegations reported to them by the victim, the news release said.
Neal has taught at Garces for 10 years, his profile on the school's Web page said. He teaches world history, computer classes and coaches the debate team.
John Fanucchi, president of the private Catholic school, said school officials had been advised not to comment.
In a statement e-mailed to media outlets, Fanucchi said Neal would be placed on administrative leave and school officials would cooperate with the police investigation.
"Obviously, our number one concern is for the safety and well being of our students and families, and all involved," the e-mailed statement said.
Neal also serves as president and chair of the Fort Tejon Historical Association board. The organization re-enacts Civil War and other historical events.
Bob Zaricor, vice president of operations for the historical association, said the news came as a shock.
"I personally don't believe it," said Zaricor, a Los Angeles-area resident who has worked with Neal the past two or three years.
Zaricor said the allegations were "completely out of character" for Neal.
Sean Malis, an interpreter at Fort Tejon State Historic Park and historical association member, said he has known Neal for seven or eight years.
"He has only brought great credit upon himself to the organization," Malis said. "He has shown himself to be above reproach."
Letters written by Neal as board president regarding proposed changes to historic weapons handling at state parks stress the good character of historical re-enactors.
Teachers, doctors, lawyers, law officers, military personnel and others in Neal's group "tend to be the rule setters and most law-abiding citizens of society," Neal's Nov. 14 letter to a state parks official says.
"There is zero tolerance for illegal" behavior, his letter continues. "...Convicted felons are barred or expelled from membership."
Neal also teaches social studies and U.S. history at Bakersfield Adult School, an online class schedule shows. School Principal Susan Handy could not immediately be reached for comment.
Neal is the fourth local teacher arrested this month.
Dear Participants,
My name is Fern, I am the director of Excursion of Assumption Worlds. I
am writing to you with regards to the program on the free days.
Currently we have arranged a few tour packages on the 1st January,
which is the free day. In order to secure enough slots for all, I would like
to ask you to respond to the tentative arrangement we have on each
program.
Followings are the packages we would like to provide for you:
Bangkok
Wat Pra Keaw (Emerald Buddha Temple/Grand Palace) Trip
Website:
http://www.bangkoksite.com/temples/ WatPrakaeo. htm
2,040 Baht = approximately $60
0800-0900 Transport to Wat Pra Keaw
0900-1100 Wat Pra Keaw
1100-1200 Transport to Siam Paragon area (Shopping)
1200-1800 Shopping
1800-1930 Transport to dinner
1930-2130 Dinner Cruise on the Grand Pearl II
2130-2230 Back to Suvarnnabhumi campus
*no lunch provided*
Ayudthaya Cruise Trip
Website:
http://www.grandpearlcruise. com/
2,890 Baht = app. $85
0700-0800 Transport to Sri Phraya Pier
0830-1630 On trip (breakfast provided on the cruise) 4-5 different
temple tours
Elephant rides are available but not covered in trip.
1700-1900 Dinner at Bai Yok II, 75th floor (one of the top ten building
in the world)
1900-2000 Back to Suvarnnabhumi campus
*Snack Box available included in the trip*
Ancient City Trip
Website:
http://www.ancientcity.com/? q=/en/index
1,870 Baht = app. $55
0900-1000 Transport to Ancient City
1000-1200 On Trip
1200-1330 Lunch
1330-1630 Continue Trip
1630-1700 Transport to dinner
1730-1900 Buffet Dinner at Phet Seefa Restaurant
1900-2000 Back to Suvarnnabhumi campus
*Lunch not included in this trip.*
Pattaya
Sanctuary of Truth Trip
Website:
http://www.sanctuaryoftruth. com/
2,040 Baht = app. $60
1400-1930 Sanctuary of Truth
1930-2000 Transport to Royal Garden (Host Night)
*dinner included*
Please let me know if would be interested in these packages. I
thank you in-advance for your co-operation. I would also be delighted to
receive any comment or suggestion by Dec. 20th 00:00 (GMT). Your
feedback is important to us to perfect your free-day here in Thailand.
Yours sincerely,
Nantawadee P. (Fern)
Director of Excursion
28th WUDC
(Assumption Worlds)
Petronas Towers as seen from Saloma
Before the meal there was some excellent entertainment as a renowned jazz singer serenaded the attendees. As the meal started a colorful troupe of traditional Malaysian singers and dancers began putting on a show to the delight of the crowd.
My favorite dishes were the lamb and the tofu with shredded meat. The desert was a strange sort of green tapioca that everyone raved about. The jazz singer cam back for some lively numbers, and then the traditional dancers began pulling some audience members (including me) onto the stage to teach them traditional dances. I did not fall over.
Dear friends,
We will be pleased to see you for the 8th time in Istanbul for the Galatasaray Euroforum 2008 organized by Galatasaray University International Law and Diplomacy Club.Galatasaray Euroforum which is a model European Union conference is unique in its kind. Each year Galatasaray Euroforum gives an opportunity to students from all over the world to come together, simulate the legislative and executive bodies of the EU and discuss the topics which are on the agenda of the EU.
This year the academic theme of the conference is “The Future of The Union”; our topics will be formed according to this theme and hopefully will satisfy you with diplomacy.
Surely, on the other hand our social activities that we prepared for you with the theme of “East2West” in one of the capitals of culture, Istanbul, will be worth remembering.
It seems like; right now you are the only missing part in our conference, for which we keep on doing non-stop preparations. We believe that with your participation it will be a unique experience for us too .
Hope to see you all in Istanbul in April 2008
H. Cagatay PEKYORUR
President of Galatasaray Euroforum 2008
Congrats to everyone for participating in a demanding, challenging, and
incredibly rewarding activity.
full results at:
http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/
Top 10 Overall Rankings
1. Binghamton 510
2. Emory 472
3. Kansas (Univ. of) 431
4. Liberty University 403
5. Oklahoma 385
6. Kansas State 358
7. Missouri State 324
8. California 323
9. Dartmouth 322
10. Northwestern 315
Top 10 Varsity Rankings
1. Emory 468
2. Kansas (Univ. of) 431
3. Binghamton 423
4. Dartmouth 322
5. Northwestern 315
6. California 313
7. Missouri State 312
8. Harvard 309
9. Texas (Austin) 304
10. Wayne State 295
Top CC Rankings
1. Kansas City Kansas CC 167
2. Johnson County 140
3. Southwestern 102
4. Diablo Valley College 73
5. Bakersfield College 24
jim :)
ndt ranking director
whitman college
hansonjb@whitman.edu
full results at:
http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/
I thought our readers outside of the USA might be interested in this commercial effort to give parliamentary debaters a chance to buy arguments for use during prep right before the debate.From: "Jim Hanson"
Subject: [eDebate] also west coast publishing work ...
West Coast Publishing is looking to hire several individuals to join our Parlifiles writing staff. Parlifies are West Coast Publishing's online Parliamentary and Student Congress issue briefs. Every month we release four briefs on some of the most important domestic and international events of the day. We take a public policy issue such as: What is the best solution to the housing market slowdown, and we write a brief that could be used in prep-time at debate tournaments. The brief is designed to propose a clear government and opposition strategy including specific plan/counterplan action. The brief will include a one-page narrative discussing the arguments in the debate. The essay is followed by roughly four pages of outline (by speech-Prime Minister, Leader of Opp, MG, MO, etc.) of the arguments you need to make in the debate. We are looking to hire writers who will commit to covering 2 topics every month. The contract will run Dec-April. If you like to write and enjoy com!
menting on current events please email Matt Taylor at wcdebate@aol.com.
IDEA’s involvement in China continued successfully last weekend with the 2nd IDEA-BFSU British Parliamentary Debate Tournament in Beijing. Hosted by Beijing Foreign Studies University (BFSU) and jointly sponsored by IDEA and the Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (FLTRP), the event drew over 200 debaters not only from Beijing, but also from as far away as Nanjing (10-hour train ride), Xi’an (10-hour train ride), Dalien (overnight train), and Ulaanbataar, Mongolia (the grand prize for the longest trip – a 2-day train/bus/jeep journey!). Many of the participants from the IDEA training at BFSU from November 2-4 of this year were at the tournament eager to put that session to use. Materials from that training can be found at http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Beijing_BP_Training.
This tournament featured impromptu debate topics which fell into one of 8 pre-released categories: Iran’s nuclear program, US troops in Iraq, UN Peacekeeping, private automobile ownership, technology in the classroom, Isreal/Palestine and the 2-state solution, the World Bank, and flaws in Western development models. Thus debaters knew the themes of the tournament but not specific motions. Even though debaters expected to have debates about UN Peacekeeping, for example, they perhaps did not expect the semi-final motion “The UN should have a standing Peacekeeping force.” This format encourages research but maintains the excitement of impromptu debating.
The final debate featured strong performances from all eight debaters on the topic “Reject the Western development model.” Even though all four teams put forth a strong effort, the second opposition team, comprised of Ellen Pang and Ji Zha from Peking University, were ranked 1st on the ballots of all 7 judges. After extolling the virtues of the free-market system and Western legal norms governing contracts and business rights, the Peking students argued that the Western model is not simply wasteful and exploitative, but improves the lives of people in countries where such models are implemented well. The final results from that round, and the top 4 teams in the tournament (out of more than 100 – quite an accomplishment!) were:
First place: Peking University - Ellen Pang and Ji Zha
Second place: Central University of Finance and Economics - Ji Ruonan and He Jingkai
Third place: Beijing Foreign Studies University - Chen Hao and Wu Mian
Fourth place: Beijing Foreign Studies University - Zhou Sheng Ru and Rui Yuan
Even though these four teams got the thrill of debating in front of a large crowd, all teams got at least 6 preliminary rounds and 32 got the chance to debate in octafinals. Simply to break into that top 32, teams needed an average of 2nd place in each preliminary round with high speaker points to advance.
As evidenced by this tough competition, debate seems to be becoming ever more popular in China. This May’s FLTRP Cup promises to be a large event and tournaments around Beijing will be held throughout the Spring. We hope to see you at IDEA-related events in China again in the future!
Dear debating friends,
I know I haven't quite been present in the debating scene in Europe for a while, and I apologise for this: I have missed you, and missed hearing from you, and hanging out with you during trainings, tournaments... I promise this will change in 2008!This mail is a call for help. I selected few of you I know and consider to be the foremost debating geniouses of Europe, and beyond :-), and as I know your passion for this 'sport', I am certain you will not leave my call for help unanswered.I spent the entire month of November in Kosovo, doing interviews for my PhD research. As fate would have it :-), a little voice was telling me Kosovo did not seem to have university debating (network) and in one of my interviews I had the luck of running into Seb Bytyci, the man who is now my primary contact and organizer behind the newly founded Kosovar Academic Debate Network (KADN).During my time in Kosovo, we organized one preliminary debate training for students of several universities in Prishtina. (Next to University of Prishtina there are several private universities operating in the city, such as American University of Kosovo, etc.) There seemed to be interest among students, and a group of enthusiasts decided to give this initiative some effort.The KADN idea is as follows: KADN itself is a rather informal umbrella organization at the moment (all its members' addresses are listed in Cc field), whose main purpose will be to:a) start up/found debate societies/clubs at all universities in Prishtina / Kosovo;b) provide trainings, information about international tournaments, materials;c) give help to individual debating societies with fundraising advice, etc.At the moment, KADN is made up of various professors teaching at universities in Prishtina, and it is led by Seb Bytyci. He will be the guy most of you will be in contact with, should you choose to get involved in this project.What project exactly am I talking about...? :-) The project I would like all of you to be a part of is rather straightforward - assisting KADN in its goals of starting up a university debating network in Kosovo. As a country (that has yet to get its status resolved, unfortunately) with a very young population, I can assure you that youth there is ambitious, passionate and motivated. I believe they would embrace debate wholeheartedly, if only given a chance and trained properly in it. Furthermore,students from Kosovo have little close to no opportunities to take part in activities in the international student scene, due to the fact of Kosovo not being a country. I believe that in the debating world, this would not be an obstacle, since they do have official universities they are affiliated with...and I would like to help them out with becoming a part of the European student circle.What kind of help am I asking you all for...?This is just my brainstorming, and feel free to expand on the list, but these are some of the things that come to my mind (in random order):
- Send to KADN mail address academicdebate@gmail.com any training materials you may have, including powerpoints, handouts, links to video debates, etc. (I left them some of my handouts, training materials, powerpoint on intro to Brit. Parli.);
- Please include them in any relevant mailing lists about debating events in Europe;
- Are you aware of any funding program under which YOU (experienced debating trainers from Europe, Western world, etc.) could ask funding to go and visit Kosovo, and offer trainings there to student debate clubs affiliated with KADN...? (They desperately need some of you guys to get down there, and give them trainings... I will be returning to Kosovo, for sure; but it would be very nice to get more people on board here...esp. if there are programs that support, e.g. democratization in the Western Balkans / international university cooperation / educational exchanges of some sort...?);
- Please forward this mail to any of your friends who are affiliated with debate, who you think might be interested in helping out!
Seb and I had the idea to organize a national tournament in Albanian around February or March, to give the new debate clubs something to work with. Hopefully, there would be a group of debaters fluent in English who would be interested in attending EUDC 2008 in Tallinn, as well.I am doing this because - true to my usual nature of starting up debating clubs in places where there are none :-) - I want Kosovo to join the international debating community. The "international community" may have been rather slow and inefficient in helping this area and its people out in the past years, but I am confident that YOU - in my eyes prominent members of the international debating community - will not fail KADN and this call for help.Thank you all for getting involved, in advance.Looking forward to hearing from you, and seing you (soon)!Love,Maja
--
Contact info:
Skype username: majanenadovic
MSN/Facebook: majanenadovic@gmail.com
NL mobile: 00 31 618 915 030
BiH mobile: 00 387 62 183 031
HRV mobile: 00 385 994 025 013Kosovo mobile: 00 377 44 807 540
Address for snail mail: Spuistraat 134, P.C. Hoofthuis # 651, 1012 VB Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Hello everyone!
With only 15 days left until Worlds, we guess everyone must be really busy!
Well we've been busy too! Botswana Worlds 2010 has developed along nicely, and we've included some of the updates here.
Please check out our bid at http://www.botswanaworlds.com and help realize only the 3rd Worlds in Africa in 30 years.
Partners
- We are proud to announce Debswana Diamond Mining Ltd, Cresta Hospitality and Botswana Books as proud sponsors of Botswana Worlds 2010. We've enjoyed a long relationship with some of these sponsors from our last bid and other debate events, and we thank them for their continued support!
- Support Letters : We have uploaded 7 letters of support to our website. These letters tell you why Botswana is ready to host Worlds and we thank their authors for their trust and support. Among them are letters from the Vice Chancellor of the University of Botswana, Mr. Brian Monteith, Vice Chairman of ESU Scotland and former Member of the Scottish Parliament and South African Express Airlines. All letters are available at www.botswanaworlds.com for your perusal (follow the Support Us! link).
Socials Updates
- Official Pub : O'Hagans! To ensure we get enough singing (and Guinness) at Worlds, we got the best Irish Pub in Gaborone to be our official pub! This means discounted rates and special events at O'Hagans!
- Welcome Party and Break Night - Phakalene Golf Estate Resort Hotel! This amazing collaboration of nature's beauty and modern comforts is only 15km away from the University of Botswana, and where we will be having some of the best food, drinks and drinks at Worlds!
- Championship Dinner : Gaborone International Convention Centre! Classy and elegant, situated at the Grand Palm Hotel Casino Resort, this picturesque setting will celebrate all the participants of the 30th WUDC with lavish dinner and entertainment.
Further updates in the logistics/accommodation, committee and socials sections available on the website!
For pictures, details and more updates, please visit our website or Facebook group.
See you in 15 days!
Sincerely,
The Bid Committee
Botswana Worlds 2010
www.BotswanaWorlds.com
--
Botswana Worlds 2010 : Visit http://www.botswanaworlds.com
Update for the Koç Bid for the World Universities Debating
Championships 2010
Here is the latest info on our bid for WUDC 2010. If you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to contact us. Otherwise, see you in
Thailand and have a safe trip!
The Koç University Debate Club has decided to bid for Worlds in 2010
for a number of reasons, not least because after five years of
hosting increasingly larger numbers of debaters from across our
region and beyond, we believe that we are ready to be the first host
of Worlds in Eastern Europe/Western Asia since 1998. We want to
outline a few of those reasons here, along with updates on our work
so far and plans.
Regional rotation and developing debating in new areas
We believe that Turkey is positioned in a highly important strategic
area for global debating, in a region that Worlds has bypassed for
over a decade. Indeed, we are based in the only Worlds region that
didn't host the tournament in the 2000s. Clearly, the two tournaments
in Ireland have opened and will open more doors but still will
attract nowhere near the numbers of debaters that are able to attend
tournaments in Eastern Europe. This is a particular issue for Turkish
debaters, where funding outside of the top universities' debating
clubs is limited to say the least.
But far more important in terms of global debating is the opportunity
it gives three hitherto ignored debating regions their first chance
to attend Worlds. One region, ex-Soviet states around the Urals, is
flourishing at the national level, with debating societies already
created in Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Turkmenistan
and smaller outreach projects in Uzbekistan and Belarus. At Koç, we
have hosted debaters from many of these countries at our summer
tournaments and have kept in touch with them. Our conversations with
them over the last months have indicated how passionate they would be
at the opportunity to debate against the rest of the World.
Another two regions where debating is either burgeoning or could be
supported with more zeal are the Middle East and North Africa. Whilst
debating organisations such as IDEA, Israeli university debating
projects and the ESU have taught debating in places like the Lebanon,
Palestine and Morocco, there has been no concerted effort to engage
two highly populous and youthful regions with debating.
In this context, we believe that a Turkish Worlds offers the
potential to serve not only existing debating communities that are
currently isolated or fall outside the WUDC framework but also could
ignite interest where debating should matter but for a variety of
reasons doesn't. At the moment, we're missing a lot of our
colleagues out...
Our experience and logistical plans
We've been hosting debaters from Europe and Western Asia (and
increasingly beyond) since 2003 and have amassed a large deal of
organisational capacity and expertise. The problem we have is that
this team is maturing (read: losing our hair) and 2010 is when we
peak. After that point, the extremely successful team that prepared
Euros last summer will inevitably have to move on and we lose
momentum. At Euros we had over 100 volunteers – when they came on
stage after the final to be recognised they could barely fit. We had
an army of runners for the tab and a data entry team of six, a major
factor in there not being a single delay in a 170 team tournament.
And our parties were a lot of fun
(http://bristol.facebook. ). But we cancom/group. php?gid=49400664 20
only keep that kind of passion going for so long... We believe it
would be a shame to lose that much organisational experience and know-
how without putting it to the ultimate test.
As for our planning for 2010, we have two particularly important
points we want universities to bear in mind.
1) We would host in Antalya which is a tourism-city. As such, transport links are excellent and there are plenty of local attractions and historical sites such as Aspendos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ) , which we plan to use for our final. The weather is clement in December with snow in the mountains one hour away, should any of you miss the cold back home (this I think may be a better attraction for people coming from roasting summers).Aspendos
2) We have agreed to work with Maritim Pine Beach (www.pinebeachcity.com). Aside from the fact that it is 5* and has the facilities to boot, there are three extremely important factors we want you to consider. First, we have agreed a deal with the hotel that makes everything (food, alcohol, facilities) inclusive within registration. Second, we will all be in the same hotel, on a site that is 57,000m2, meaning there ample space to play or relax. Third, and most importantly, we have agreed to use their conferencing facilities which means we are setting up a "debating complex" where for the preliminary rounds we can eat, sleep and debate without having to travel around in a fleet of buses. Having experienced a lot of tournaments where that hasn't been the case, we believe this could really help both us and you on an otherwise tiring three days of competition.
Evenly spread adjudication
We will have DCAs from EMEA, Asia, North America and Oceania. DCA selection will be on the basis of an open application process, open to all debaters. Can Okar, our prospective CA, will also ask the previous three CAs of Worlds to advise him, in order to make the decision-making process as transparent as possible.
Sponsors and institutional support
At every tournament we've hosted, we've had the institutional support of Koç University and the Vehbi Koç Foundation, as well as a bevy of sponsors. As a result, we have always been able to put on amazing events with free food and drink throughout. A Koç University Worlds will be no different. We have agreed with our institutional patrons on a significant sum of financial support as well as completing preliminary negotiations with our main suppliers (including the Maritim). We can also announce the support of a number of private companies who we have either worked with before or who have been enticed by the prospect of hosting over 1,000 of the brightest minds in the world. Among these are Vodafone, UniCredit and Turkish Airlines.
Contact us!
For now that's all of our additional information. Should any of you have questions, please contact Fatih Inal, Suleyman Onay or Can Okar. All of their contact details can be found at www.kuworlds2010.com or on Facebook.
The Koç University Debate Club WUDC 2010 Bid Committee
From Tara L. Tate
Director of Debate, Glenbrook South (IL)
President, National Debate Coaches AssociationA few quick updates on some NDCA events/activities:
(1) Welcome to our new members! Currently, our membership is at 114 members - 7 institutional members, 47 lifetime members, and 60 annual members. We are thrilled that our membership continues to increase, but we would love those numbers to be even higher. If you have assistant coaches or colleagues that you believe benefit from the NDCA, please encourage them to join!
(2) Topic balloting - if you have not submitted your vote to me for the 2008-2009 topic, please do so. Hitting reply to this email and telling me alternative energy or health care is formal enough. I will be sending out one more official reminder with the official ballot a week before they are due.
Thanks to everyone who participated in our NFL Online Chat last night about the two potential topics for 2008-2009.
(3) The 2008 NDCA Championships - we are working on getting our Joy of Tournaments website open. We will also have the spreadsheet on our website (http://ndca.debateteams.net) very soon.
(4) The 2009 NDCA Championships - we are looking for a host for our 2009 NDCA Championships tournament. If you have the desire to bring the tournament to your area, please email me or Tim Mahoney (pacedebate@aol.com) and we will provide you with the initial information on what is necessary to be a tournament host.
(5) Lesson Plans - we would love to continue to build our Lesson Plans database on our website. If you have lesson plans, please send them electronically to me and we will post them.
Tara
Best,
Tara L. Tate
Director of Debate, Glenbrook South (IL)
President, National Debate Coaches Association
Co-director, The 2007 Glenbrooks
4000 West Lake Avenue
Glenview, IL 60026
(847) 486-4746
(PRLog.Org) – Dec 07, 2007 – The People Speak was a contest that was run October 12-22, 2007. Del Valle High School conducted over thirty debates during that period of time with schools from all over the world. With the movie The Great Debaters scheduled to open on December 25,2007. Del Valle High School would like to share with the world exactly what a great debater does- it brings the world to their school and in turn it allows the world to become a real place for all of their students.
Michael Cunningham, Del Valle Debate Coach, explained that The People Speaks program this year was his favorite topic because it allowed his school to participate in a global debate. "Hillary Clinton once said that it took a village to raise a child and now he said it takes the world to stop carbon emissions. It is only through having students come together and debate like we were able to do in the People Speak Contest this past October that we change the world. As The Great Debaters opens later this month, I would like to Oparah Winfrey and the people at Harpo Productions that there are many Great Debaters out there. Most of them are discussing the problems of the world. Thank you for the opportunity for The People Speak and when the People Speak we should all listen."
Peace Hopes As History Awaits CIMB WUPID
December 11, 2007 at 8:04 am · Filed under Arts & Entertainment, Asia, Business, CIMB WUPID, Debate, Education, Global, Life & Style, Malaysia, News, Politics
“…then stop sitting around all day finding new ways to bully …”
We’re told that a debate tournament is coming. Apparently, it’s got something to do with peace, which has, in a rather complex way, always affected the cognizant mind of world leaders.
Good. Because this will give these people (frontbenchers) something significant to do. And maybe they will then stop sitting around all day finding new ways to bully their people around.
Already, in the period of Great Boredom, they’ve stopped us smoking, rallying, and taking toothpaste on an airplane. And I want to make this absolutely clear; their ideas on governance and authority are very far removed from anyone who’s got an IQ in double figures.
This event promises you this. It is a cast-iron guarantee, that this event will be a platform for the nurture and foster of future leaders and peace messiahs. And when it does, the profitability of your business, the wealth of the nation and the education of your children will depend entirely on the whims of debaters.
List of confirmed institutions coming for CIMB WUPID:
1. Sydney
2. Oxford
3. Cambridge
4. Hart House
5. Assumption Uni
6. International Islamic Uni
7. Queensland
8. Uni College Cork
9. Uni College Dublin
10. Queens
11. Chinese Uni of Hong Kong
12. Uni Malaya
13. National Uni of Singapore
14. Nanyang Technological Uni
15. Singapore Management Uni
16. Monash
17. Universiti Teknologi MARA
18. Uni Sains Malaysia
19. Melbourne
20. Vermont
21. Uni of Peshawar
22. Uni Tun Hussein Onn
23. Multimedia Uni
24. Chulalongkorn Uni
25. Mahidol Uni
26. International Medical Uni
27. Ateneo De Manila
28. Temasek Polytechnic
29. Sana’a Uni
30. Uni Malaysia Terengganu
31. Australian National Uni
Important notices and reminders to ALL participants:
Please make your way to the official hotel (Novotel Hydro Majestic), Kuala Lumpur. Registration starts at 8:00 a.m. to midnight on the 15 of December 2007.
Visit http://www.wupid.hngsc.com/li_travel.shtml to find out on the many options that you could take to reach the hotel from the Kuala Lumpur International Airport.
Feel free to call Sharmini (Logistics Director) at 012 311 0943 or myself at 016 352 1643 if you require assistance or in emergency.
Debate Like You Give A Damn!
Muhammad Yunus
yunus@hngsc.com
After burning your eyes with researching and straining your minds with debating, you may be wondering why we are going to so much trouble to do this project. You may even be wondering, "What does debate have to do with humanities?"
Humanities are about our stories -- and doing debate is way to get better at telling them. Here are, in my opinion, the top 4 reasons why we should debate.
5) It improves critical thinking - or being able to look at ideas for both their strengths and their weaknesses. If ever someone offers you an idea, you need to be able to test it and see if it's a good or bad idea. Some of the things we do are harmful to our lives! But we do not think critically about ideas, or actions. Debate helps you do this.
4) It helps you know how to research -- if ever you have a question about anything, you could either ask someone who knows the answer, or you can find out for yourself. Debate gives you the tools you need to understand how to find out information on your own, so that you can rely on yourself to find answers to your questions. This is knowledge, and knowledge is power.
3) It improves your ability to listen - in life, with whoever you are around (family, friends or classmates), you need to be able to listen when other people talk to you! How many arguments happen simply because we do not understand one another? If you learn to listen well, you will understand people more, and save yourself a lot of trouble!
2) It helps you communicate confidently and effectively -- debate helps you organize your ideas, and in debate, you also practice delivering your ideas to your audience. We work on finding ways to really say what we need to say. Communication opens so many doors! And your words can change the world.
1) Debate is fun! (Right?!)
Do you have other ideas about why people debate? How has this project gone for you? I know it has been a frustrating experience, but I think Team Alpha is going to rock the house next Friday at our tournament! You guys are great!
This note from Shilyn Wang shiyinw@gmail.comI hope this finds you well. Earlier this year, you had a post on your blog, Global Debate, about The Great Debaters movie, along with a very generous comment on my own blog about that same film. I'm writing to possibly engage your further on that film and the related social mission of promoting debate in failing public schools.
Along with the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues, I've been working to help promote the film and its relevance to contemporary America and the social cause of urban debate. We feel that the film's social message of young people finding their voices and overcoming injustice is directly in line with the social mission of urban debate: to help disadvantaged kids succeed in school and become leaders. To that end, we've created a website, TheGreatDebaters.org, where users can join a debate social network, learn about ways to get involved, and win free advance screening passes. I'm hoping that you'll pass the word along about this site to some of your contacts and e-mail lists, or possibly mention the site in your blog.
To make it easy, here's a sample message you could send along. I hope that you'll join us in this cause. Thank you very much in advance.
Sincerely,
Shiyin Wang
Brown University '08
*****
If you've been watching TV, if you read the New York Times on December 5, or if you caught an episode of Oprah on November 26, you may have heard about a Denzel Washington and Forrest Whitaker movie coming out called The Great Debaters. Inspired by true events, The Great Debaters tells the story of the 1934 debate team at the historically black Wiley College in East Texas. Denzel plays Melvin Tolson, the coach who leads this underdog squad to combat racism in the deep south and challenge Harvard's championship team.
As debaters, this is a story that we all know. Debate helped us find our voices and stand up as leaders, just as it did for the debaters at Wiley. We've seen a lot of bad debate movies come out over the years, but this one has an inspiring story worth spotlighting.
Debate is a trajectory changing activity for urban students, and The Great Debaters really speaks to the value of the activity in that regard. A website designed to drive a number of social campaigns in support of debate (and urban debate in particular) – TheGreatDebaters.org – is worth sharing. TheGreatDebaters.org has many ways you can get involved, both online and offline, to help bring promote debate. Now is the time to show the country why debate is valuable.
It's also a great place to network with other debaters: It has its own social network, and on the site you can join a host of groups on Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc…. Check them out at www.greatdebaters.org/community.
Most importantly, you can enter to win FREE passes to an advance screening in cities around the country.
TheGreatDebaters.org. Check it out now. And forward this email to your friends!
Thanks!
Photo: William Jewell College, Bowman's beloved schoolGina Lane, William Jewell College's Director of Forensics, provided the
following obituary for Georgia Bowman. Dr. Bowman is a former president of
Pi Kappa Delta--its first woman president--and member of its Hall of Fame.
She was a giant in our activity for decades.
***************************************************************Georgia Bessie Bowman
PH.D. Georgia Bessie Bowman, of Liberty, Mo., passed away Sunday, December
2, 2007, at Newmark Care Center. Funeral services will be 2 p.m. Friday,
December 7, 2007, at Second Baptist Church, 309 E. Franklin St., Liberty,
Mo. Burial will follow in Fairview Cemetery, Liberty.
Friends may call from 12:30 p.m. until service time on Friday in the
Assembly Room of the church. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions are
suggested to William Jewell College or Second Baptist Church, Liberty. Dr.
Bowman was born May 20, 1914, in Bonne Terre, Mo., the daughter of John J.
and Betty Hill Bowman. She attended the Bonne Terre public schools and
extensive college and university education, earning four academic degrees.
Dr. Bowman graduated from William Jewell College with a B.A. degree in Latin
and English, then earned a B.J. degree from the University of Missouri
School of Journalism. Also, she attended the University of Iowa, where she
received a master's (M.A.) in radio and later a doctorate (Ph.D.) in public
address and history. She also studied at Northwestern University and Denver
University. Dr. Bowman had a long and respected career in education where
she touched the lives of many young people. She was a high school instructor
in Liberty, and Hannibal, Mo., and later served as instructor at the
university level at the University of Iowa, the University of Missouri at
Columbia and Brooklyn College. She was professor and Department Chair for
Communications at William Jewell College and upon retirement was Adjunct
Professor of Latin. In addition, she taught abroad serving as visiting
lecturer at Harlaxton College, England, and the Nigerian Baptist Theological
Seminary in Ogbomosho, Nigeria. Beyond the field of education, her
communications ability extended to Radio Chief, Midwestern Area American Red
Cross. Georgia used her ability as a writer to serve as the former Editor of
the URN, a publication of Beta Sigma Omicron, and for the FORENSIC,
published by Pi Kappa Delta, a communications fraternity. She wrote a
monograph of women at William Jewell College and completed a manuscript for
a book on persuasive techniques. She was involved in serving in many ways.
She was the national president of Pi Kappa Delta forensic fraternity, the
first women to hold that office. She was a member and former state
parliamentarian of Delta Kappa Gamma, an honorary teachers organization.
Also, she was a past member of the American Association of University Women
as well as Zeta Tau Delta social sorority. She was a member of Soroptimist
International of Liberty, serving as past local president and regional
scholarship committee member. She was a docent for the Harry S. Truman
Library and Museum in Independence, Mo. Georgia was a member of the Second
Baptist Church of Liberty. She is survived by cousins Pat Shaler, State
College, Pa., Cindy Shaler, Boalsburg, Pa., James L. Shaler, Bellerica
Mass., and Louise Shaler, Tucson, Ariz.
(Arrangements are by the Fry-Bross and Spidle Funeral Home and Cremation
Service, Kearney, Mo., 816-628-4411)
Published in the Kansas City Star on 12/5/2007.
NOVEMBER 30, 2007, 6:49 AM
A New Debate on Female Circumcision
By JOHN TIERNEY
Should African women be allowed to engage in the practice sometimes called female circumcision? Are critics of this practice, who call it female genital mutilation, justified in trying to outlaw it, or are they guilty of ignorance and cultural imperialism?
Those questions will be debated Saturday morning in Washington at the American Anthropological Association’s annual meeting. Representatives of international groups opposed to this procedure will be debating anthropologists with somewhat different views, including African anthropologists who have undergone the procedure themselves. As the organizers of the AAA panel note:
The panel includes for the first time, the critical “third wave” or multicultural feminist perspectives of circumcised African women scholars Wairimu Njambi, a Kenyan, and Fuambai Ahmadu, a Sierra Leonean. Both women hail from cultures where female and male initiation rituals are the norm and have written about their largely positive and contextualized experiences, creating an emergent discursive space for a hitherto “muted group” in global debates about FGC [female genital cutting].
Dr. Ahmadu, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Chicago, was raised in America and then went back to Sierra Leone as an adult to undergo the procedure along with fellow members of the Kono ethnic group. She has argued that the critics of the procedure exaggerate the medical dangers, misunderstand the effect on sexual pleasure, and mistakenly view the removal of parts of the clitoris as a practice that oppresses women. She has lamented that her Westernized “feminist sisters insist on denying us this critical aspect of becoming a woman in accordance with our unique and powerful cultural heritage.” In another essay, she writes:
It is difficult for me — considering the number of ceremonies I have observed, including my own — to accept that what appears to be expressions of joy and ecstatic celebrations of womanhood in actuality disguise hidden experiences of coercion and subjugation. Indeed, I offer that the bulk of Kono women who uphold these rituals do so because they want to — they relish the supernatural powers of their ritual leaders over against men in society, and they embrace the legitimacy of female authority and particularly the authority of their mothers and grandmothers.
You can read more about this in Dr. Ahmadu’s essays or in this critique of the global campaign against female genital mutilation, written by another participant in Saturday’s discussion, Richard Shweder of the University of Chicago.
Dr. Shweder says that many Westerners trying to impose a “zero tolerance” policy don’t realize that these initiation rites are generally controlled not by men but by women who believe it is a cosmetic procedure with aesthetic benefits. He criticizes Americans and Europeans for outlawing it at the same they endorse their own forms of genital modification, like the circumcision of boys or the cosmetic surgery for women called “vaginal rejuvenation.” After surveying studies of female circumcision and comparing the data with the rhetoric about its harmfulness, Dr. Shweder concludes that “‘First World’ feminist issues and political correctness and activism have triumphed over the critical assessment of evidence.”
If I were asked to make a decision about my own daughter, I wouldn’t choose circumcision for her. But what about the question raised by these anthropologists: Should outsiders be telling African women what initiation practices are acceptable?
October 26, 2007
On behalf of the James Madison Center and JMU Debate we are pleased and excited to invite you to compete for the Madison Cup at the sixth annual "James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum" on Thursday March 13, 2008.
The James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum is a unique inter-collegiate debate competition, which combines the excitement and challenge of tournament competition with the relevance and empowerment of a public audience and audience participation. It is also one of the showcase events of our university's James Madison Day Celebration.
2008 Topic: Resolved: "that the United States should chart a new path towards peace in the Middle East."
Other cool and unique features:
*$15,000.00 in prize money
*Debating and competing in front of public audiences
*No entry fees
*Continental breakfast, snacks and lunch provided
*Video web-cast
*Great PR for your debate program
More cool stuff: This year's "Madison Cup Debates" are part of a year long, campus wide project designed to encourage discussions of factions and unity in an ever changing world. These events were kicked off with Desmond Tutu's address at the Ghandi Center and will conclude with the 30th Annual Communication Studies Conference entitled, "30 years of Communication Criticism: Culture, Continuity and Change."
The tournament details are enclosed with this letter. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
We look forward to hosting you in March!
Mike Davis, Ph. D. Pete Bsumek, Ph.D.
Director of Debate Director, Madison Cup Debates
School of Comm. Studies School of Comm. Studies
James Madison University James Madison University
(O) 540-568-7308 (O) 540-568-3386
(E-mail) davismk@jmu.edu (E-mail) bsumekpk@jmu.eduBackground: Timed to coincide with the centennial of James Madison University in mid-March, "The James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizen Forum" centers on an important question facing American democracy. Last year debaters argued both sides of the topic; Resolved "That this nation needs affirmative action now more than ever."
The James Madison Center at James Madison University sponsors the event in the spirit of James Madison's ideal that a republican democracy is healthy only when informed and civil debate thrives. The final round will be broadcast live on the World Wide Web. Last year's debate featured teams from Brown University, College of William and Mary, Cornell University, George Mason University, James Madison University, Johns Hopkins University, Liberty University, Kansas City Kansas Community College, Towson University, University of Mary Washington, University of Richmond, University of Virginia, Wake Forest University, and Yale University.
Eligible Participants: Each school may enter one two-person team. The debate is open to undergraduate students who are in good standing at their respective institutions. Second teams will be considered on a case-by-case basis, if space permits.
Competition Format: The debate uses a "long table" format. This is a public debate. Last year there was an audience of around 500 people for the final round, preliminary rounds were smaller (audiences of 20-30 people). The "long table" format features three (two person) teams on each side of the question. Speeches start with the affirmative and alternate between the affirmative and negative throughout the debate. Teams are randomly assigned to sides and speaker positions. In other words, if a team is selected to be the first affirmative, they will give the first two affirmative speeches in the debate. The first and last speeches on each side of the question are uninterruptible. Any member of the opposing team may interrupt the speeches in the middle of the debate in order to ask the speaker to yield to a question. Speakers are not required to answer these questions (although not answering questions may cause the audience to think that the speaker is "dodgy"). Please see the example format below for more information. You can view last year's final round at: http://www.jmu.edu/orgs/debate/madisonCup/index.html
Jury Adjudication Procedure: A three to seven member panel, or jury, will adjudicate the debate. Juries will be comprised of local residents, students, professors, distinguished JMU alumni, and special invited guests. At the completion of the debate, the panel will adjourn to discuss, deliberate and decide upon the winners as a group. The jury votes for (2-person) teams, not sides of the question. In other words, first place could go to an affirmative team, while second place could be awarded to a negative team. This year we will institutionalize jury feedback for the participants.
Tournament Procedures
*Number of rounds: This year we will offer three preliminary rounds of debate and one final round.
*Switch side debate: Each team will debate at least once on the affirmative and once on the negative.
*Side & position: Sides (affirmative or negative), and positions (first affirmative team, first negative team, second affirmative team, etc) for the preliminary debates will be determined by random drawing.
*Judging: Judges will rank teams 1-6 in each preliminary debate, and assign each team quality points based on a thirty-point scale (1-30).*Advancing to the final round: The six teams with the lowest total ranks will advance to the final round. Quality points will be used to break ties.
*Sides and Speaking Positions in the final round: Sides and speaking positions in the final round will be based on seeding after the preliminary rounds. For example, the first seeded team will choose their "side and position," then the second seed will choose "side and position," and so on.
Public Participation: While the jury deliberates, the floor will be opened for audience comments and speeches. An award for the best floor speech will be presented. Local newspapers, politicians, and the general public are invited.Awards: The first place team will leave with the Madison Cup—a very nice traveling trophy. Once again this year there is a $15,000.00 purse of prize money. All participants in the final round will be recognized with awards.
Prize money will be awarded as follows:
1st place: $5000.00 donation to your debate program
2nd place: $3000.00 donation to your debate program
3rd place: $2000.00 donation to your debate program
4th—6th place: $1000.00 donation to your debate program
7th-10th place: $500.00 donation to your debate program
Entry: There are no entry fees. We can accommodate a field of 36 teams. Entry is on a first come, first serve basis. The first 24 teams to enter are guaranteed a spot in the field, after that we will accept teams, if we can generate a field divisible by 4 or 6. Deadline for entry is February 21st. This is necessary so we can determine how many debates there will be in each round. Send school info, team info (first and last names of debaters) and requests for additional teams to: Dr. Mike Davis, <davismk@jmu.edu>
Lodging: We have reserved a block of hotel rooms at the newly renovated Best Western Inn of Harrisonburg (formerly the Guest House Inn). The Best Western Inn is located at exit 247A off of I-81. Go east on Highway 33—the hotel is on the right side of the road. The phone number for the Best Western is 540-433-6089. The rate for 1-4 people per room is $51.00 + tax. This special tournament rate will be available until March 3. When calling the Best Western Inn please ask for Gini Boyers, and mention that you are attending the Madison Cup debates at JMU.
Travel: James Madison University is located in Harrisonburg, VA, which is two hours southwest of Washington, D.C. on I-81. If you plan to fly consider Dullas and Washington National/Reagan Airports in Washington DC (2 hours away), Richmond airport (2 hours away), Charlottesville airport (one hour away) and the Shenandoah Regional Airport (15 minutes away). We will arrange transport from Shenandoah and Charlottesville, we'll do our best to work with you from the others.
Schedule:
Thursday, March 13, 2008: James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum8:00 AM registration and Announcements
8:30 AM: Preliminary debate round 1
11:00 AM Preliminary debate round 2
1:00 PM Lunch
2:00PM: Preliminary debate round 3
5:00 PM: Final round (followed by the presentation of the Madison Cup.
Example Debate Format: The 2004 final round proceeded as follows.
1st Affirmative Speech (Wake Forest #1): (4 minutes) uninterrupted
1st Negative Speech (George Mason #1): (4 minutes) uninterrupted
2nd Affirmative Speech (Wake Forest #2): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question.
2nd Negative Speech (George Mason #2): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question.
3rd Affirmative Speech (Georgetown # 1): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question.
3rd Negative Speech (James Madison #1): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question.
4th Affirmative Speech (Georgetown #2): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question.
4th Negative Speech (James Madison #2): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question.
5th Affirmative Speech (Mary Washington #1): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question.
5th Negative Speech (Towson #1): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question.
6th Affirmative Speech (Mary Washington #2): (4 minutes) Uninterrupted
6th Negative Speech (Towson University #2): (4 minutes) Uninterrupted
The 2008 Edition Global Youth Debate Conclave focuses on opening up an interactive and international platform for discussions to stimulate awareness and action towards ‘Climate Change and its Worldwide Impact’. The debate will happen across three rounds (One preliminary and two final rounds), and the topics will all relate to Global Warming and climate change.
This debate conclave would be on the 22nd and 23rd February 2008 and is open to participation from undergraduate and Post Graduate Students of both International and National Universities. The first round would be a preliminary round where in participants would be shown live examples related to economic issues in our nation. (eg: a pothole on the road, a beggar on the street etc). The participants would be tested on their oratory skills and eliminated accordingly. The second round would be on a two team debating format and topics would be given in advance. The final round would be a decider of individual best debaters.
There would be special prizes that would be given out to the best orator on day one, best team in round two and the best debater in the final round overall.
LIST OF TOPICS
PRELIMNARY ROUND: WALK THE TALK
The preliminary round would be an on the spot extempore on the environmental issues in India, where participants will be handed the topics during a 'Walk The Talk' debate, where they will be shown live situations (like an open drain, a drying lake, a slum etc.) and asked to opinionate on a related point. It will be totally extempore and no prior preparation time will be provided to the participants.
SECOND ROUND: TEAM FACE OFF
All the participants will be paired into groups of two and they are to participate in a face off against the other teams (two teams will be pitted against each other). The teams will have one topic (with one team for and the other against) and speakers will alternate from each team. The best 12 individual scorers will move to the final showdown. Each speaker will have 3 minutes (+1 minute grace) to make his points. A minute rebuttal with one question each allowed from the opposition team will be after all 4 speakers have made finished their debates. No cross questions will be entertained. Each team face off will have a winner who will receive separate recognition and accolades. However, only the best individual scorers will make it to the next round.
TOPIC ONE: E-waste is a global challenge and it requires global solutions
TOPIC TWO: Bio fuel is the best answer to a greener planet
TOPIC THREE: Ocean Desalination can solve the world’s fresh water shortage
TOPIC FOUR: Economic growth at the expense of environmental damage, is justified by the need to feed the rising world population
Extra Topic: Tax incentives should be given for green living
FINAL ROUND: BEST DEBATER
The selected finalists will debate individually on a given topic that will again be handed in advance to all participants. Only the stands will be allotted by a draw an hour before the round. The speakers again will have 3 minutes (+1 minute grace) to make his points. There would be no rebuttal. The best scorer will be the winner of the 'IIPM Global Youth Debate Conclave 2008'!
TOPIC FIVE: Market mechanisms are preferable to regulatory approaches in reducing carbon emissions
Viewers keep McCain on his toes with questions submitted over IM and e-mail during the MySpace-MTV town hall forum.MySpace-MTV Town Hall Wins Presidential Debate Format Wars
By Sarah Lai Stirland 12.04.07 | 7:00 PM
Republican presidential candidate John McCain performed well in an internet-enabled national town-hall event Monday. But the real winner was MTV's and MySpace's vibrant web-savvy format, which managed to hotlink the candidate to a national audience of voting youth, while making CNN's YouTube collaboration look about as wired as the rabbit ears on your grandfather's old Magnavox.
"MTV and MySpace keep upping the ante with these candidate forums, and in terms of creating a more transparent, participatory interaction between the candidates and a mass audience, they continue to blow CNN and YouTube out of the water," wrote Mike Connery, the 29-year-old author of Future Majority, a blog about the youth vote.
Television producers and others have spent this election cycle experimenting with modernizing the decades-old televised town hall and presidential debate formats, which have gone largely unchanged since the first televised debate between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy in 1960. Most of the effort has gone into enabling and fine-tuning interaction between the candidates and a web-savvy electorate.
But event organizers and political thinkers have struggled with the question of how far to go in ceding control to the audience. Now, pundits say, the verdict is in: The less direct control, the better.
As with earlier events in the MTV-MySpace series, the town hall focused on only one presidential candidate, rather than a panel of several. Voters were invited to submit questions to McCain in real-time through instant messenging and e-mail. The questions were selected on the spot by Washington Post political blogger and columnist Chris Cillizza, and voters could rate the answers online; results were tallied and displayed instantly on the web and in the MTV broadcast.
As a result of this human and technological alchemy, the questioning Monday roamed over a broader set of subjects than those that bobbed through the CNN-YouTube debate. Voters asked McCain how he would combat the falling value of the dollar, and what he would do to stop the genocide in Darfur. They peppered him with IMs and e-mails about his stance on the war in Iraq, his approach to the environment and the state of public schools.
MTV journalists also took questions from students in the audience at the forum, which was held at Southern New Hampshire University.
In contrast, the interaction between voters and candidates on CNN's and YouTube's Republican debate last week consisted of recorded video questions pre-selected by CNN. The news network chose not to let the online community vote on which questions would be posed. And at the candidates' request, CNN attempted -- unsuccessfully, it turns out -- to screen out videos made by Democratic voters.
"CNN is a target of self-inflicted wounds," says Mitchell McKinney, a University of Kansas associate professor whose focus of study is the history of presidential debates. McKinney says CNN producers opened themselves up for criticism by asking the general public to submit their questions, and then selectively screening those questions without any announced standards. "It opened them up to have to justify why these 30-odd questions were chosen versus the other 5,000."
Presidential campaigns have historically been paranoid about the questions that their candidates are likely to be asked during debates and forums, McKinney says. But a recent study performed by McKinney shows that wide-open question-and-answer sessions produce questions that better reflect the concerns of the general populace.
McKinney compared a 1992 general election presidential town hall series where the participants were allowed to ask anything they wanted, to a tightly scripted 2004 series of town halls. Then he compared the questions that were asked to polling data about the top issues of importance to voters at the time. He discovered that the free-form 1992 format touched the top concerns of the general populace significantly more that the controlled 2004 format, in which a journalist picked which questions to pose to the candidates.
"I think we may have a superior campaign discourse when citizens are left to their own devices to ask the questions they see fit," McKinney says.
MySpace's online polling tool showed that McCain was receiving favorable responses on most of his answers, and by the end of the forum he joked that he wanted to have another hour.
NPDA Tournament Rankings
2007-2008 Season
The results listed below are tentative, since it's still early in the season. If you see a tournament that doesn't have results listed, please send those results to Joe Gantt (Joe.Gantt@ttu.edu) so that they may be included in the next update. We recommend that schools not use the results below in any kind of external publicity due to the large number of tournaments that have not yet submitted results.
The official rankings are at the end of the year; the web postings are designed for double-check purposes only. The results will be final at the end of the championship tournament.
Rank School Total #1 #2 #3 #4
1 Washburn Univ 120.17 30.67 30.67 29.83 29
2 Western Kentucky Univ 119.17 36 31.5 27.83 23.83
3 Rice Univ 92 27 23.83 21 20.17
4 Carroll Col (MT) 87.52 32.67 25 15 14.86
5 Pt. Loma Nazarene Univ 87.17 29 22.17 21 15
6 El Camino Col 85.67 22.25 22.25 22.17 19
7 Univ of the Pacific (CA) 83.71 27.5 19 18.71 18.5
8 Cedarville Univ 76.5 24.17 20.17 19.33 12.83
9 Boise State Univ 70.08 25 18 13.75 13.33
10 Northern Arizona Univ 69.21 22.75 18.5 14.83 13.13
11 Univ of Oregon 69.17 25.83 18.17 15.67 9.5
12 Lewis & Clark Col 66.33 20.17 19.33 14.83 12
13 Northwest Col (WY) 66 22.17 18.5 15.33 10
14 CA State Univ - Long Beach 65.25 19.75 17 14.5 14
15 Biola Univ 64.17 23 21.75 10.25 9.17
16 Western Washington Univ 63.96 18.63 17.33 14.5 13.5
17 Texas Tech Univ 63.64 16.5 16.5 16.14 14.5
18 Col of Idaho 62.33 21 17.33 14 10
19 Grove City Col 61 23 22 16 0
20 Univ of Wyoming 59.81 19.83 16.14 12.33 11.5
From http://npte.debateaddict.com/unleashed/rank.php?npteyear=2008
Rank Team Name NPTE Points Prelim Wins Prelim Losses Win Pct
1
Washburn CS (Annaleigh Curtis / Marcus Schultz-Bergin)
48.90
31
6
83.780%
2
Biola MV (Stephen Mar / Peter Van Elswyk)
46.20
21
5
80.770%
3
Washburn DO (Tyler Dooley / Jessica Otto)
45.40
30
7
81.080%
4
Texas Tech PO (Putnicki / Owen)
44.00
23
2
92.000%
5
Western Kentucky BlH (Brian Bloss / Kelcy Hathaway)
41.80
31
10
75.610%
6
Western Kentucky MS (Chad Meadows / Tom Schally)
41.30
24
5
82.760%
7
Western Kentucky MP (Mullins / Parke)
39.80
34
7
82.930%
8
Western Washington KE (Krell / Elle)
38.00
25
7
78.130%
9
Oregon PD (Katherine Preston / Ben Dodds)
36.50
22
3
88.000%
10
UCSD HS (Zachary Schultz / Hoomah Hefzi)
35.10
22
10
68.750%
11
Wyoming RR (Tony Roberts / Jess Ryan)
35.00
23
4
85.190%
12
Colorado College KP (Kretz / Plaza)
34.00
21
10
67.740%
13
Washburn AJ (Joe Allen / Jeff Jones)
33.90
19
5
79.170%
14
Creighton KS (Kohlscheen / Storey)
33.50
20
3
86.960%
15
Western Kentucky FM (Jessica Furgerson / Rachel Mosley)
32.80
21
9
70.000%
16
Pacific FS (Steve Farias / Emily Sheldon)
31.80
31
16
65.960%
17
CSU - Long Beach JP (Aj Jenkins / Jacqueline Paterno)
31.65
28
13
68.290%
18
UNR AP (Max Alderman / David Pena)
31.20
26
8
76.470%
19
Air Force FS (Fleharty / Seefried)
30.50
18
6
75.000%
20
Washburn CM (Nathan Miller / Shanna Carlson)
30.40
25
12
67.570%
Hi guys,
Two announcements:1. The website is ready. All the information should be there. If the website does not contain adequate info, please contact us and we will try to furnish such information. Website is http://www.iiuaudc.com 2. The invitation package for the 4th International Islamic University Malaysia's Asian Universities Debating Championship 2008 (IIU AUDC'08) is ready. For institutions that wish to receive the invite-pack, please inform us by Dec 8th 2007 so we can snail mail it to you.What's inside the package? Invitation letter, schedule, hotel info, letters for your VC's/Student affairs head, CD's of debates, etc.Please email us the corresponding address, name of the person in charge (PIC), phone number (with IDD codes), and email of the PIC.Our contact info:
- Inquiries: ask@iiuaudc.
com - Registration issues: rego@iiuaudc.
com - General questions: iiu.audc@gmail.
com - Website: www.iiuaudc.
com - Convener: yem@iiuaudc.
com - Chief Adjudicator: latif@iiu.edu.
my Please categorize your queries and send them to the respective emails. That way, we can better monitor your response.
--
Truly,
Miss Asmaa' AlJuned & Miss Michelle Usman
Liaison Officers
IIU AUDC '08
See you then!
I am very happy to announce that the participating schools for the 2nd Annual Hobart and William Smith Round Robin Debate are now set. On April 4-5, the following schools will compete for top honors.
1) Amherst College
2) The Claremont Colleges
3) Colgate University
4) Cornell University
5) Harvard University
6) McGill University
7) Oxford University
8) Portland State University
9) Queens University
10) Swarthmore College
11) University of Alaska
12) University of LaVerne
13) University of Toronto
14) University of Vermont
15) Vassar College
16) Yale University
Given the extremely high quality of all these debate programs, this promises to be a weekend of exceptional debating. I can’t wait.
Here is some additional information about the tournament.
This will be a sixteen team, invitation only, round robin competition in the British Parliamentary style. Each team will debate against every other team in the tournament once in the five preliminary rounds. After that, the four top teams will compete for a grand prize of $1000. The second place team will take home $500 and the third place team $100. There will also be excellent trophies for top teams and top speakers.
Invitations are being extended to the top teams in America, Canada and the United Kingdom. Each school is invited to send one team to this competition and is encouraged, travel costs permitting, to bring one experienced British Parliamentary judge (who will be registered without charge).
All competitors and judges will receive lakefront hotel accommodations. Additionally, the tournament will conclude with a black tie banquet at a fine restaurant after the final round in St. John’s Chapel. Friday night will feature dinner at the President’s house and an after-rounds party. Since all preliminary rounds will be pre-paired, no tabbing is necessary between rounds and the tournament is guaranteed to run on time.
The tournament will commence on Friday, April 4th and will conclude on the evening of Saturday, April 5th. Registration for the tournament will close promptly at 4:00pm Friday. Transportation to and from the airport and hotel will be provided free of charge. The two closest airports are the Greater Rochester International Airport and the Syracuse Hancock International Airport. Food and housing will be provided for those arriving Thursday or leaving Sunday.
Champions declared at Int´l Varsity Debate
Source: CCTV.com
12-01-2007 12:00
The art of debate demands eloquence and quick-wit. Pressure mounts when one debates in a foreign tongue. That describes the arena for foreign students competing at the 8th International Varsity Debate. Students from all over the world joined their counterparts from China to cross verbal swords, vying to score telling blows in putonghua, or standard Chinese.
After a week of cut and thrust, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, and Yale University proved themselves masters of the craft of oratory. The final was on Thursday.
The final round of the competition began with 12 teams divided into two groups: Chinese native speakers and non native speakers. Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, and Yale University proved the best in their respective categories. The University of Macao and Oxford University came in second in their groups. Liu Jingjing from Macao and South Korea's Liu Jindan were judged the best individual debaters, showing superior command of the language.
The Varsity International Debate has been held every two years since 1993. The event is organized by China Central Television and Singapore's Media Corp. Their two countries alternate in hosting the event, now recognized as the premiere debate competition in the Chinese Language. Many credit the competition for the broad popularity of debate in China today. This year, there were a record number of non-native competitors. They came from countries like the U.S., the U.K., Russia, Australia, Egypt and South Korea.
In China, Yale team wins CCTV debate competition
Favored to prevail, Yale’s team beats Oxford in final round contest for non-native Chinese speakers
Caitlin Roman
Staff Reporter
Published Monday, December 3, 2007Yale’s Chinese debate team defeated delegations from universities around the world to claim victory in last week’s International Varsity Debate series, jointly hosted by New Media Singapore and China Central Television.
The team — composed of Adam Scharfman ’08, Nick Sedlet ’08, Austin Woerner ’08 and J.T. Kennedy ’09 — beat students from Oxford University in the final round of the debate competition in Beijing to win the championship last Tuesday.
“I think what it says about our program of Chinese language instruction is extraordinary,” University President Richard Levin said.
From the beginning of the tournament — which took place from Nov. 19 to Nov. 30 — Yale’s team was favored to win, East Asian studies professor and team coach Wei Su said. Despite the pressure this expectation placed on the students for the rest of the competition, he said, Yale was deemed by many observers to be the most skilled team.
The University’s team members returned to New Haven on Nov. 30.
Yale’s team was in a bracket with five other universities at which Chinese is not the native language. Six native Chinese-speaking universities competed in a separate bracket.
The team faced off against Oxford in the first round, debating the question of whether smoking should be completely or partially banned in public places, a jet-lagged Scharfman said early Sunday morning in the Branford College common room. Despite having to argue the more difficult stance — that smoking should only be partially banned — Scharfman said, the judges appreciated Yale’s arguments, which focused on individual rights.
Ewha Womans University in South Korea was the Yale team’s next competitor. The two teams debated whether bullfighting in Spain should be banned, with Yale taking the affirmative.
The South Koreans’ language skills were impressive, Scharfman said, but they weakened their argument by not dealing with the issue of bullfighting’s cruelty.
“We kept asking them if they thought it was cruel,” he said. “But they kept on dancing around it, saying bullfighting was beautiful.”
After Oxford defeated Russia’s Moscow State Institute of International Relations in the semifinals, the Yale team faced the Oxford students again in the final round.
This time, the question related directly to university life, Scharfman said: Should institutions of higher education be easy to get into and difficult to graduate from, or hard to get into and easy to graduate from?
Yale’s team defended the position that universities should be difficult to get into and easy to graduate from by arguing that such a policy would increase the quality of students at universities while also allowing them to explore a range of opportunities with an open mind, Scharfman said.
The team argued that Yale falls into this category of school, Scharfman said, given that it has a very low acceptance rate but a high graduation rate.
The debates were evaluated by four judges, each of whom had one vote, and a 12-person “jury” with one vote between them, Scharfman said. The judges were drawn from a pool of international Chinese professors, members of the Chinese media and political figures familiar with China.
At the end of each debate, team members were asked to recite a poem, play a musical instrument or talk about the experience of studying Chinese, Scharfman said.
These events showcased the diverse talents of the Yale team, Kennedy said.
“A lot of the other teams didn’t really have much to offer,” he said. “But all of our team members have very well-developed interests within the areas of Chinese language and culture.”
Kennedy participated in the three-person debate in October, when students from Tsinghua University in Beijing came to New Haven for the first round of the tournament. Yale was deemed the winner among Columbia, Princeton and Harvard universities, an initial victory that allowed Yale to represent the United States in the finals in Beijing.
But the team decided to rotate in alternate Sedlet for the Beijing rounds, Scharfman said. Kennedy, who became the alternate for the finals, helped the team prepare for debates by researching arguments and organizing fan support in Beijing, Scharfman said.
The tournament’s sponsors paid for the team’s airfare, lodging and food.
Sedlet said although the experience was a valuable one, it was fairly stressful.
“They kept us pretty overscheduled and on a tight leash,” he said.
Light Fellowship Director Kelly McLaughlin said the team’s success is a reflection of the strength of Yale’s Chinese program, as well as of the availability of Light Fellowships to send students to study in China.
“This victory sends a message that Yale University might well have one of the best Chinese language programs available anywhere in the world,” McLaughlin said in an e-mail Sunday. “[It] gives one concrete measure of how Yale’s liberal arts education leads not only to technical skill but also to the ability to synthesize diverse knowledge in impressive, non-scripted ways, even when under tremendous pressure to perform.”
CCTV will continue to broadcast the debates for the next few weeks, Scharfman said, and the debates can also be viewed on CCTV’s Web site.
The network has no editorial independence from the Chinese government.
Jewish students must choose between Seder, state debate
By Dana Bartholomew, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 11/30/2007 01:21:19 AM PST
When it comes to Jews arguing during Passover, there's no debate.
Jewish students enrolled in high school debate teams say they won't be able to compete in a statewide tournament scheduled during the first day of Passover, one of the holiest of Jewish holidays.
For six months, Jewish leaders have lobbied the California High School Speech Association to alter its April 19 tournament date, to no avail. Los Angeles school and city officials also have appealed for the change.
"I'm very much outraged," said Doug Lasken, a Jewish coach of the Taft High School debate team in Woodland Hills. "I can't go to the tournament. At least half my class can't go.
"I would compare it to scheduling the tournament on Easter."
He said an alternative proposal broached by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, to host a Seder at the site of the tournament would also conflict with the debate competition.
Debate organizers discovered in May that the second night of the tournament inadvertently fell on the night of the Passover Seder, a family feast commemorating the Jews' escape from slavery in Egypt.
The nonprofit CHSSA, which has some Jewish board members, said changing the date of its 50th annual tournament would void university and hotel contracts worth $17,000.
More than 1,000 students, parents and coaches are expected to attend the April 18-20 competition at Santa Clara University in San Jose. About 800 students
will compete, many of whom are believed to be Jewish. Winners would qualify for a national debate tournament.
Debate officials declined to speak with the Daily News but did issue a lengthy written statement.
Some events are simply too large and complicated to move even when it appears "it is not too late," Sharon Prefontaine, president of the CHSSA, wrote in an e-mail to the Daily News.
Scheduling any three-day event during the last two weeks of April, as required by the association's bylaws, would have conflicted with some group's religious calender, she said.
Students, she said, must learn to choose between personal beliefs and other activities.
"Renowned pitcher Sandy Koufax never played on Rosh Hashanah and chose not to pitch during the World Series because it conflicted with Yom Kippur - the World Series was not moved," Prefontaine said. "Hank Greenberg, on the other hand, played on Rosh Hashanah but not on Yom Kippur.
"As much as we might want to protect them from it, we understand that our students will have to make some difficult choices, at times, relative to their personal beliefs."
She said that the association - including its Jewish members - had not been aware of the conflict between its tournament and Passover.
"Non-Jews may not know the dates of Passover - apparently, some practicing Jews do not either, as those on the council did not mention the dates as a problem," Prefontaine said.
Others, however, say the CHSSA has been especially reluctant to accommodate its Jewish debaters, or even discuss the issue, 10 months before the tournament.
For months leading up to its September council board meeting, letters from many Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, garnered no response from the association, officials said.
A motion at the meeting by Lasken and others to conduct a feasibility study to change the tournament date - at no cost to debate organizers - was turned down.
And the council voted not to apologize to the Jewish community lest it "open us up for litigation," said CHSSA council member Sal Tinajero, according to meeting minutes.
"As far as we know, they weren't even willing to explore alternative possibilities," said Alison Mayersohn, associate director of the Anti-Defamation League, Pacific Southwest Region.
"The Jewish community essentially gave them a lifeline to explore other alternatives and they turned it down."
Last month, the Los Angeles Unified School District wrote a letter of concern to the association, stating the district may host an alternative state speech tournament this spring. District officials said they received no response.
The city also passed a resolution presented by Jewish City Council members Jan Perry, Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel, calling for a tournament date change.
"The dates of Passover are known years in advance. Event officials should have at least checked a calendar before organizing the tournament," Greuel said in a prepared statement. "The CHSSA cannot, in good conscience, deprive these students (of) the opportunity to attend a tournament that they have worked hard all year to reach."
"It's a shame," added Caron Spector, government relations director for the local Jewish Federation. "The kids worked really hard for this all year long (and) they're forced to choose between a religious observance and an academic activity.
"It's ironic that an organization that fosters debate and discussion is not open to debate and discussion."
Meanwhile, some debaters at Taft who verbally joust at 7 a.m. each day are disappointed.
"I'm losing my motivation," said Avi Siani, 16, who is Jewish and will spend the Passover Seder with his family. "Because you work all year long and there's no prize at the end.
"We're working for nothing."
Pupils debate good and evil
AN inter-school debate was held by Al Mahd Day Boarding School, Saar, yesterday.
As many as 42 participants from 12 private schools in Bahrain took part in the event.
The junior group debated Man is Free to Choose Good or Evil, while the senior group debated on Modernisation Suffocates Old Values.
The schools, which took part in the event are Ibn Al Haytham Islamic School, Indian School, Al Hekma International School, Al Mahd Day Boarding School, Arabian Pearl Gulf School, Pakistan Urdu School, New Millennium School, Sacred Heart School, Asian School, Ibn Khuldoon National School, New Indian School, and Bahrain Bayan School.
School's chairman Habib Kassim welcomed the gathering, while principal H G Sharma proposed a vote of thanks and distributed prizes to the winners.
In the junior group, the first prize went to Varsha P Kumar while Johana Elizabeth John stood second and Ashwin Prashanth third.
In the senior group, Rhea Mariel Vaz won the first prize, while Sara Ali Ahmed and Junita Mariam John won the second and the third prizes respectively. The Asian School won Al Mahd Inter-School Rolling Trophy.
Take It from Someone “Who Wore the Pads”, Attacks On CNN You-Tube Questions Are Silly and Off Base
By Matt Towery
Southern Political Report
Copyright © 2007 Creators Syndicate
November 30, 2007 —
Whenever I speak to a news organization, the first thing they ask me is, “Can you be non-partisan, given your years in the Republican Party?” The answer is always ‘yes.’ But they never believe me.
Here’s why: Most of the so-called GOP activists who blog and critique and analyze never even met Ronald Reagan. They have no clue what it was like to work in the Senate after the Republicans took control in the 1980 elections. They never spent endless hours in cars with giants like Newt Gingrich or Jack Kemp. They don’t really even know how the modern Republican Party came to exist. Their vitriol and dogma scare the media establishment. And rightfully so. It’s guilt by association.
Add to that the fact that these ideologues know nothing about political debate. I started my career after having won the National Bicentennial Debate Championship, along with just about every other debate tournament held in the nation. It was my debating skills that led a young Newt Gingrich to basically force me into the fledgling US Senate race of Republican Mack Mattingly, while also dragooning me into helping Gingrich prepare for three televised debates during his first congressional re-election bid.
Fast-forward years past my time training senatorial, gubernatorial and congressional candidates on the art of speech and debate, and look now at my own candidacy. By age 30, I found myself in the middle of the first major GOP effort in history to try to win the governorship and lieutenant governorship in Georgia. It was Newt’s idea for me to run for lieutenant governor before my 30th birthday. The effort was designed to bring young voters to the Republican side. And it worked in recruiting a slew of future successful GOP candidates for numerous offices.
But it left Johnny Isakson – then the party’s nominee for Georgia governor, and now a US senator – and me as double asterisks for the year 1990 in the state’s political history books, for having tried valiantly to end the interminable reign of the Democrats.
I have been in, helped prepare for, or negotiated the terms for more Republican debates than anyone could count. In other words, to use a football analogy, I have worn the pads.
So now I read articles and hear stories about how CNN and YouTube should be summarily shot and tossed off the pier in St. Petersburg, Fla., for the “crime” of having allowed some suspicious “Democrat infiltrators” into the YouTube debate proceedings this past Wednesday.
Please give me a break. Are all the pundits and commentators that now exist simply young China dolls, with no memory of the past and with thin and easily breakable skin?
In my days on the political firing line, it was not uncommon for me to be hit from left field with a stacked question, concocted by a direct relative of my opponent. There was no screening or identification of true “party loyalty.” In fact, in those early days, you often prayed as a Republican candidate that some of the old-time Republicans in Georgia would stay away. They frightened little children – and candidates, including their own.
I hate to sound old – I turn 48 next week – but all this belly-aching over an allegedly gay general asking questions at a Republican CNN/YouTube debate, and over his having some loose affiliation to the Clinton campaign, shows more the inexperience on the part of both pundits and media producers than it shows bias by CNN.
Let’s get to the bottom of this. The debate was interesting. The candidates had to answer some tough and occasionally strange questions. So what? I did it as a candidate, an elected official, and in training candidates to engage in debates of their own. I prepared them to handle potential plants from either the Democrats or our own party.
If we allow the national media to tear the YouTube format to pieces just because it becomes the “in” thing to do, then we will not only be abandoning the best way to get viewers to watch debates, but we may also doom the next generation of voters to political boredom, and to a political world so out of touch with their technology-driven lives that the mere thought of voting will repel them well into their 40s. That’s scary.
Certainly, knowing the GOP as I do, I would likely have chosen for the CNN debate more questions about our slowly melting economy. That’s perhaps my only “critical” observation.
But any Republican who gets their rear end on their shoulders over the fact that real questions were asked, and perhaps a few were, as we said in my day, “hot” – meaning “gotcha” questions from the opposition – is doing so from a lack of firing-line experience. I both wore the pads debating on statewide broadcasts myself, and also coached statewide and other candidates in my own and many other states.
Any real professional who has worn those pads would shrug off a few hostile questions and surely recognize that embracing new technology, imperfections and all, will be the only way to revive participation in out democratic republic.
CNN did America a service. Only amateurs and demagogues don’t recognize that fact.
'Let them speak out'
Scotiabank president wants more students involved in HIV/AIDS debating competition
INGRID BROWN, Observer staff reporter browni@jamaiaobserver.com
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Students of Jessie Ripoll Primary School perform a piece on HIV/AIDS at Tuesday's press conference to announce the Scotiabank 'Speak Up Speak Out' partnership with the Jamaica Cultural Development Commission at the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel in Kingston.(Photo: Joseph Wellington)
PRESIDENT of the Bank of Nova Scotia, William "Bill" Clarke, is urging schools to reconsider their position not to participate in the organisation's HIV/AIDS primary schools debating competition, saying the students should be encouraged to speak up about the issue.
According to Clarke, many school officials have taken the decision to have their students stay away from the 'Speak Up Speak Out' competition on the belief that it is too great an intrusion on the minds of the young.
But Clarke said these schools need to have the children learn about the issues surrounding HIV/AIDS at school or be faced with them learning it elsewhere to their detriment.
"It is very short-sighted for any school population, regardless of its belief in life, if you don't think seriously that we have a real scourge in the society which we need to do something about," Clarke said.
Clarke was speaking at Tuesday's press conference to announce the partnership between Scotiabank Jamaica and the Jamaica Cultural Development Commission (JCDC), for the introduction of a healthy lifestyle theme in the drama, music and speech categories of the national competition.
"I would, therefore, encourage the parents of the students in the schools not wanting to participate to encourage them that it is in the self-interest of all Jamaica that this is spread across and noised about in every corner of this country," he added.
He warned that if both the teachers and parents chose not to participate this time around, then it will be a serious indictment on them.
"The reality is silence will not reduce HIV/AIDS...and I am not for one moment suggesting that you start having sex education taught to three-year-olds. But there comes a point in time when the same way a child is taught the need to comb their hair and brush teeth, they need that type of social intervention necessary to learn lifestyle skills," he said.
In the meantime, Joylene Griffiths-Irving, director of public and corporate affairs at Scotiabank, said some of the schools had difficulty when they saw some of the moots they were asked to debate. She said there were also challenges in communication problems as many did not have telephones, e-mail or fax machines, forcing them to send messages to the supermarkets nearby in some instances.
Dr Deloris Brissett, the national debate co-ordinator, said the debates have assisted the students
greatly in learning about HIV issues, but said there was still some misinformation to be corrected.
"The process has, however, allowed them to find information and to change some attitudes on how they view people living with the disease," she said.
Clarke, in the meanwhile, said Scotiabank spent nearly $20 million on the execution of the 'Speak Up Speak Out' competition and that he was very pleased with the results.
He added that they were impressed with the level of involvement of some teachers, parents and community members.
"This year we are attempting to involve a greater number of students in the programme and we need to find an interesting and rewarding way of doing so," he said.
He explained that this led to discussions with the JCDC on how to use their annual competition to achieve the objective of building awareness of HIV/AIDS involving the hundreds of talented students in primary schools.
Posts
All Comments
