Abortion Debate Live on the Internet Tuesday

From David Steinberg:

We The Students invites you to log on to our website www.wethestudents.tv to view our live interactive debate between the Liberty University and the University of Vermont this Tuesday April 1^st at 9:00PM EST debating “Abortion”.

The series is made possible by a grant to our university television program -- "We the Students" -- from UM Ethics Programs with a gift from philanthropist Adrienne Arsht to support work on "ethics and community." Any student can be a part of the 25 minute show which features top college debaters from across the country by signing on to our website using their name and academic institution. Audience members can participate in this national chat room with other university students by discussing the issues presented live on the show. The online audience will also be able to ask their own questions for the debaters and the moderator to discuss live.

Please contact wethestudentsdebate@gmail.com if you have any questions.

For more information about UM Ethics Programs, please visit http://www.miami.edu/ethics

USA NPDA Motions

NPDA Nationals Resolutions: 2008

Propositions and Results
Round
Resolution
Gov Wins
Opp Wins

1
TH should legalize prostitution 54 63

2
This House should increase regulation of home school education. 58 59

3
Ground the fleet 55 62

4
Mute the red phone 56 61

5
The United States should value constructive engagement over isolation. 56 61

6
When in conflict, United States politicians should value their personal conscience over the will of the people. 44 73

7
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s responsibility for European defense should be transferred to the European Union. 55 62

8
The North American Free Trade Agreement should be dissolved. 54 63

Quad Octas
The USFG should eliminate subsidies for the production of ethanol. 11 5

Triple Octas
The United States Supreme Court should rule to substantially restrict gun ownership in the United States. 16 16

Double Octas
The U.S. should substantially check growing Chinese influence in Africa. 5 11

Octas
The United States Federal Government should expand the scope of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. 5 3

Quarters
Access to potable water should be a human right. 1 3

Semis
Russia should reinstate the cold war with the United States. 1 1

Finals
America needs a Presidential unity ticket. 1 0

Whole Tournament Totals 472 (46.4%) 543 (53.6%)

Texas Tech wins USA NPDA Nationals, Western Kentucky Wins Season Sweepstakes

From http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/nats2008.html

2008 NPDA Nationals hosted by the U.S. Air Force Academy

Teams advancing straight to triple octas:

Arkansas State FloGil
Biola MarWin
CSU-Long Beach JenPat
Colorado College KrePla
Creighton KohSto
Creighton HepSko
Lewis & Clark AtcChe
Lewis & Clark RamTie
Northern Arizona FluWal
Rice DatHar
Rice BhaYan
Southern Illinois CalDen
Southern Illinois TesTho
Texas Tech OwePut
Truman BucRot
US Air Force FleSee
UC-Berkeley LawSmi
UC-Berkeley EzrMan

Partial Quadruple Octas: * denotes opposition

(44) Texas Tech HenMit* (2-1) over (85) Carthage ConWat (Dana Watt & John Connor)
(45) McKendree FreLeo* (3-0) over (84) Texas Tech BroHor (Brian Horton & Nicole Brown)
(83) Washburn UseWar (2-1) over (46) Rice FloJoh* (Richard Flores & Gary Johnson)
(47) Western Kentucky CarRam* (3-0) over (82) Wheaton JohSus (Maggie Johnson & Nathan Susanj)
(48) LSU-Baton Rouge ChaCum (2-1) over (81) Univ. of Pacific FarShe* (Steve Farias & Emily Sheldon)
(49) Rice DowKre (2-1) over (80) Washburn FowLak* (Kelsey Fowler & Andrew Lake)
(79) Wheaton BarKub* (3-0) over (50) Moorpark HarMac (Justin Harris & Chris Maciel)
(51) Truman ArcGir (3-0) over (78) Vanguard BonVan* (Emily VanderBush & Kerry Bonas)
(77) UC-Boulder HedVan (2-1) over (52) Willamette AlmDah* (MaryAnn Almeida & Brett Dahlberg)
(53) Pt. Loma BurLuc* (3-0) over (76) Carroll DicSam (Emily Samhammer & Brian Dickson)
(54) Western Washington PatWhi (2-1) over (75) CSU-Long Beach BetSwa* (Adam Swaller & Josh Betancur)
(55) Western Washington HinMon* (2-1) over (73) Biola HowMcC (Danielle Howe & Dustin McCurry)
(74) Western Washington BakEsb (2-1) over (56) Arkansas State FarHoy* (Adam Boyd & Amanda Wilkins)
(57) Pacific Lutheran BoyWil (3-0) over (72) Wheaton JohMas* (Ben Johnson & Amy Mashburn)
(58) University of Pacific EasMap* (2-1) over (71) Williamette BenErs (Zac Bentley & Danica Ersland)
(70) Northern Arizona FreRis* (3-0) over (59) Moorpark EveStr (Matthew Strawbridge & Eric Evelhoch)
(69) Oregon BulShe* (3-0) over (60) Montana ClaNew (Ted Torous & Holly Naylor)
(61) Rice NayTor (3-0) over (68) University of Washington HieSan* (Charlotte Sanders & Liz Hiester)
(62) UC-Boulder HarJef* (2-1) over (67) UMKC/WJC LandLuce (Rachel Landes & James Luce)
(66) Carroll/Whitman MalOlp* (3-0) over (63) Carroll BroPee (Kirby Brooke & Dick Peel)
(65) University of Washington OleSan* (2-1) over (64) William Jewell ArmMye (Cameron Armour & Eric Myers)

Triple Octa-Finals:

(1) Southern Illinois CalDen* (3-0) over (65) Univ. of Washington OleSan (Emily Santee & Kristina Olson)
(2) Washburn CurShu (3-0) over (66) Carroll/Whitman MatOlp* (Kevin Olp & Dave Matthews)
(62) Colorado-Boulder HarJef* (2-1) over (3) Western Kentucky MeaSch (Chad Meadows & Tom Schally)
(4) Texas Tech OwePut (2-1) over (61) Rice NayTor* (Ted Torous & Holly Naylor)
(5) Western Kentucky FurMol* (2-1) over (69) Univ. of Oregon BulShe (Amy Bullock & Hailey Sheldon)
(6) University of Oregon DodMcC* (2-1) over (70) Northern Arizona FreRis (Travis Risner & Zach Freels)
(7) Creighton KohSho* (3-0) over (58) Univ. of Pacific EasMap (Anne Eastlick & Broc Maples)
(8) Western Washington EllKre* (3-0) over (57) Pacific Lutheran BoyWil (Adam Boyd & Amanda Wilkins)
(74) Western Washington BakEsb (3-0) over (9) Oregon ODeRos* (Alex O'Dell & Matt Rose)
(10) UC-Berkeley LawSmi* (3-0) over (55) Western Washington HinMon (Stephen Moncrief & Mike Hinman)
(54) Western Washington PatWhi* (3-0) over (11) Western Kentucky MulPar (Liz Mullins & Logan Parke)
(12) Washburn DooOtt (3-0) over (53) Pt. Loma BurLuc* (Caitlyn Burford & Katie Lucas)
(13) Rice DatHar* (3-0) over (77) UC-Boulder HedVan (Will Van Treuren & Than Hedman)
(14) Washburn AbbNei* (2-1) over (51) Truman ArcGir (Sara Archer & Chris Girouard)
(15) Wyoming DeVFif (3-0) over (79) Wheaton BarKub* (Camille Barnett & Bob Kubinec)
(16) CSU-Long Beach JenPat* (3-0) over (49) Rice DowKre (Everette Kreider & Hilary Dowdy)
(17) Western Kentucky BloHat (3-0) over (48) LSU-Baton Rouge ChaCum* (Stephen Chandler & Chris Cummings)
(47) Western Kentucky CarRam* (3-0) over (18) Creighton HepSko (David Skoglund & Travis Hepburn)
(19) Oregon FieGan* (2-1) over (83) Washburn UseWar (Dan Usera & Barbi Warhurst)
(45) McKendree FreLeo (2-1) over (20) Western Kentucky HeuNel* (Adam Heugel & Lauren Nelson)
(21) US Air Force Academy FleSee (2-1) over (44) Texas Tech HenMit* (Jeremy Henderson & Mike Mitchell)
(22) Truman BucRot (2-1) over (43) University of Pacific AraCha* (Richard Aragon & Will Chamberlain)
(23) Washburn MitMue* (2-1) over (42) Willamette McCMcG (Pat McCue & Acacia McGuire)
(24) Wyoming RobRya (3-0) over (41) Colorado College KrePla* (Adam Kretz & Julian Plaza)
(25) Lewis & Clark AtcChe (2-1) over (40) UC-San Diego HefSch* (Zachary Schultz & Hooman Hefzi)
(26) Western Kentucky HarMer (2-1) over (39) Rice BhaYan* (Apama Bhaduri & Cathy Yang)
(38) Lewis & Clark RamTie (2-1) over (27) UC-Berkeley EzrMan* (Ankur Mandhania & Evan Ezray)
(37) Puget Sound BroEdw* (2-1) over (28) Willamette CriLow (Pete Crisalli & Eric Lowe)
(29) Western Washington BlaFur* (2-1) over (36) Arkansas State FloGil (Chris Flowers & Colton Gilbert)
(30) Washburn CarMil (2-1) over (35) Biola MarWin* (Stephen Mar & Caleb Winn)
(31) Southern Illinois TesTho (2-1) over (34) Western Kentucky JesRai* (Kaleb Jessee & Todd Rainey)
(33) Wyoming LarSta (2-1) over (32) Northern Arizona FluWal* (Adam Fluke & Nicola Walters)

Double Octas:

(1) Southern Illinois CalDen (4-1) over (33) Wyoming LarSta* (Kathryn Starkey & Nick Larmer)
(31) Southern Illinois TesTho* (3-2) over (2) Washburn CurShu (Annaleigh Curtis & Marcus Shultz Bergin)
(30) Washburn CarMil (4-1) over (62) Colorado-Boulder HarJef* (Rachelle Harris & Nathan Jeffries)
(4) Texas Tech OwePut (5-0) over (29) Western Washington BlaFur* (Sarah Blackadar & Zach Furste)
(5) Western Kentucky FurMol (4-1) over (37) Puget Sound BroEdw* (Ali Edwards & Nikki Brokmeyer)
(6) Univ. of Oregon DodMcC (5-0) over (25) Lewis & Clark RamTie* (Hannah Tierney & Ramya Ramesh)
(7) Creighton KohSto (5-0) over (26) Western Kentucky HarMer* (Josh Harzman & Brandon Merrell)
(8) Western Washington EllKre (3-2) over (25) Lewis & Clark AtcChe* (Eric Atcheson & Scott Cheesewright)
(24) Wyoming RobRya (5-0) over (74) Western Washington BakEsb* (Alec Baker & Brittany Esbenshade)
(10) UC-Berkeley LawSmi* (5-0) over (23) Washburn MitMue (Patrick Muenks & Stephen Mitchell)
(54) Western Washington PatWhi (3-2) over (22) Truman BucRot* (Mark Buchheit & Dylan Rothermel)
(21) US Air Force FleeSee* (5-0) over (12) Washburn DooOtt (Jessica Otto & Tyler Dooley)
(13) Rice DatHar (5-0) over (45) McKendree FreLeo* (Cory Freivogel & Sami Leonard)
(14) Washburn AbbNei (3-2) over (19) Oregon FieGan*(Matt Gander & Hank Fields)
(47) Western Kentucky CarRam* (4-1) over (15) Wyoming DeVFif (Jeffrey Fife & Lindsey DeVries)
(17) Western Kentucky BloHat* (5-0) over (16) CSU-Long Beach JenPat (AJ Jenkins & Jacqueline Paterno)

Octafinals:

(1) Southern Illinois CalDen (4-1) over (17) Western Kentucky BloHat* (Brian Bloss & Kelcy Hathaway)
(31) Southern Illinois TesTho (4-1) over (47) Western Kentucky CarRam* (Jason Carey & Josh Ramsey)
(13) Rice DatHar* (5-0) over (30) Washburn CarMil (Nate Miller & Shanna Carlson)
(4) Texas Tech OwePut (3-2) over (14) Washburn AbbNei* (Scottie Abbott & Chris Neill)
(5) Western Kentucky FurMol (3-2) over (21) US Air Force FleSee* (Josh Seefried & Matt Fleharty)
(6) Oregon DodMcC* (5-0) over (54) Western Washington PatWhi (Alysia Whitcomb & Colin Patrick)
(7) Creighton KohSto* (4-1) over (10) UC-Berkeley LawSmi (Alex Smith & Ryan Lawrence)
(24) Wyoming RobRya (3-2) over (8) Western Washington EllKre* (Adam Krell & Susan Elle)
Quarterfinals:

(1) Southern Illinois CalDen* (6-1) over (24) Wyoming RobRya (Jess Ryan & Tony Roberts)
(7) Creighton KohSto (6-1) over (31) Southern Illinois TesTho* (Adam Testerman & Katie Thomas)
(6) Oregon DodMcC* (6-1) over (13) Rice DatHar (Hrishikesh Hari & Kirti Datla)
(4) Texas Tech OwePut* (4-3) over (5) Western Kentucky FurMol (Jessica Furgerson & Rachel Molsey)
Semifinals:

(6) University of Oregon DodMcC (4-3) over (7) Creighton KohSto* (Jon Kohlscheen & Mike Storey)
(4) Texas Tech OwePut* (4-3) over (1) Southern Illinois CalDen (Kevin Calderwood & Kyle Dennis)

Finals:

(4) Texas Tech OwePut (Kristen Owen & Anthony Putnicki) (6-3) over (6) University of Oregon DodMcC* (Ben Dodds & Jon McCabe)

Top Novice Teams:

1st - Joe Stromberg and Josh Malina, Washington University
2nd - Logan Newell and Ana Diaz, St. Mary's College (CA)
3rd - Leanna Baumer and Stephanie Devine, Cedarville University

Speaker Awards:

Novice Speakers: 1st place is the Dan Henning Memorial Speaker Award

Place: Name: School: Adjusted Speaker Points
1st Tyler Walworth Concordia University (NE) 167
2nd Joel Minor University of the Pacific 166
3rd Bryce Danz Pacific Lutheran 163
4th Joe Stromberg Washington University 161 (214 total)
5th Josh Malina Washington University 161 (213 total)

Open Speakers: 1st place is the Al Johnson Speaker Award

Place: Name: School: Adjusted Speaker Points Tiebreaker:
1 Kevin Calderwood Southern Illinois 176
2 Tom Schally Western Kentucky 175
3 Kyle Dennis Southern Illinois 174.5
4 Annaleigh Curtis Washburn 174 232 total
5 Marcus Shultz Bergin Washburn 174 231 total, 245.51 Z-score
6 Jessica Otto Washburn 174 238.68 Z-score
7 Liz Mullins Western Kentucky 174 228 total
8 Ryan Lawrence UC-Berkeley 173.5 232 total
9 Chad Meadows Western Kentucky 173.5 231.5 total
10 Rachel Molsey Western Kentucky 173.5 231 total
11 Kristen Owen Texas Tech 173 229.5 total
12 Logan Parke Western Kentucky 173 228 total, 237.1 Z-score
13 Susan Elle Western Washington 173 235.89 Z-score
14 Alex Smith UC-Berkeley 172.5 230.5 total
15 Jon Kohlscheen Creighton 172.5 229 total
16 Zachary Schultz UC-San Diego 172.43
17 Jess Ryan Wyoming 172 229 total, 248.32 Z-score
18 Ben Dodds Oregon 172 227.14 Z-score
19 Anthony Putnicki Texas Tech 172 228.5 total
20 Hrishikesh Hari Rice 172 228 total

Tournament Team Sweepstakes:

Place: School:
1 Western Kentucky University (84 pts.)
2 Washburn University (80 pts.)
3 University of Oregon (78/80 pts.)
4 Western Washington University (74 pts.)
5 University of Wyoming (66 pts.)
6 Rice University (64 pts.)
7 Texas Tech University (62 pts.)
8 Willamette University (54 pts.)
9 Southern Illinois University (50 pts.)
10 Creighton University (50 pts.)
11 Wheaton College (46 pts.)
12 California State University-Long Beach (42 pts.)
13 University of the Pacific (40 pts.)
14 Biola University (40 pts.)
15 McKendree College (40 pts.)
16 Carroll College (39 pts.)
17 Truman State University (38 pts.)
18 University of Colorado-Boulder (38 pts.)
19 University of Washington (38 pts.)
20 University of California-Berkeley (36 pts.)

2-Year Tournament Team Sweepstakes

Place: School:
1 Moorpark College
2 City College of San Francisco
3 Palomar College
4 Northwest College (WY)
5 San Joaquin Delta College

Season Sweepstakes (Top 20):

Place: School: Points:
1 Western Kentucky University 123.50
2 Washburn University 120.17
3 Carroll College (MT) 96.17
4 Pt. Loma Nazarene University 93.17
5 Rice University 92.00
6 El Camino College 91.33
7 University of the Pacific (CA) 90.83
8 Cedarville University 88.67
9 Northwest College (WY) 84.17
10 Whitman College 81.67
11 Grove City College 81.00
12 Northern Arizona University 80.75
13 Santiago Canyon College 78.58
14 San Diego Mesa College 78.33
15 Wheaton College 77.92
16 University of Oregon 75.67
17 Solano College 75.00
18 Santa Rosa College 74.83
19 Lewis & Clark College 74.00
20 California State University - Long Beach 73.92

NPDA All-American Awards:

Dylan Rothermel, Truman
Hrishikesh Hari, Rice
Kirti Datla, Rice
Marcus Shultz Bergin, Washburn University

"Speech and Debate" Play Spreads to Midwest

From http://broadwayworld.com/viewcolumn.cfm?colid=26493

Stephen Karam's 'Speech and Debate' April 17 @ ATC
Back to the Article
by Chicago News Desk
American Theater Company (ATC) announces a change to the final production of the 2007-2008 Season. Garson Kanin's Born Yesterday will be replaced by the Midwest Premiere of Speech and Debate by Stephen Karam. The production, directed by Artistic Director PJ Paparelli, will run April 17 – May 11, 2008 at American Theater Company, 1909 W Byron St, Chicago, IL.

Currently in its second extension at NY's Roundabout Theatre, this quick-witted and timely comedy tells the story of three misfits who team up to expose their teacher's online secrets while forming their high school's first Speech and Debate club. With a script by columbinus co-writer Stephen Karam, Artistic Director PJ Paparelli makes his Chicago and ATC directorial debut with this hysterical yet touching tale of three teens' quest for fame and free speech.

"ATC is honored to be the first theatre in America to produce Stephen Karam’s Speech and Debate outside of New York. Stephen and I spent four years together creating columbinus and we're thrilled to be working together again,“ says Artistic Director PJ Paparelli. “In contrast to columbinus, Speech and Debate is a comic exploration of the adolescent world. It is witty, well-considered, uniquely human, and provides a rare opportunity for adults to be swept up into the complex world of today’s teens.”

Speech and Debate features Stephen Grush (Solomon), Patrick Andrews (Howie), Sadieh Rifai (Diwata) and Cheryl Graeff (Teacher/Reporter).

The designers are Keith Pitts (Set Designer), Myron Elliott (Costumes), Charles Cooper (Lighting Designer), Lindsay Jones and Scotty Iseri (Sound Designers), Chelsea Meyers (Props). Dana Nestrick is Stage Manager. Video installations by Marty Higginbotham and Bobby Richards.

Stephen Karam (playwright) Original plays include: columbinus (2006 Helen Hayes nomination), Speech & Debate, which premiered in Summer 2006 at Brown/Trinity Playwrights Rep, Readings/Workshops of new plays at The Kennedy Center, Stark Raving Theatre, Arena Stage, Blank Theatre Company, Round House Theatre, Perseverance Theatre, and NY Music Theatre Festival. Awards include: NYMF Director's Choice Award, Kennedy Center's ACTF Award for Musical Theatre, and Young Playwrights Inc. National Playwriting Competition. Karam is a graduate of Brown University.

First Break Round at USA NDT

Here it is, from host John Bruschke of Cal State Fullerton:

Advance without a debate:
Emory HW, Harv AM, Mich FK, WGa LS

Double Octfinals
491 Dar KO MSU AW
Stables, Ramachandrappa, Blank, Arnette, Lacy

408
Cal BP v. GSt GL
ANtonunccio, Koehle, Harrigan, Klinger, Green

457
Harv RW v. USC LS
Holbrook, Hall, Smith, Reed, Morales

468
KS BJ V. Ok F
McBride, mUrillo, foy, Greenstein, Hester

442
Mo St MM v. Whit CS
Powers, kall, dehrke, hoe, Gonzales

465
A: Mo st OW v. Towson CL
Gordon, Jordan, Buntin, Russell, Varda

438
NW FW v. KY GT
Frappier, Stahl, Strauss, Smith, Yates

406
Tx TW v. MSU EL
Achison, Richendorfer, Crowe, Lee, Jarman

464
USC JJ v. Emory MS
Matheson, Repko, C Burke, Achten, Harris

463
Gonz BS v. Wake CC
Stevenson, Feldman, Clark, CHesnut, V Guevara

487
Wake GL v. UCO CE
Morris, Hill, Heidt, Lain, Pointer

404
Wyo CJ v. KS JS
Phillips, Galloway, Strange, Maurer, Taylor

All spellings approximate

USA NDT Results after Six Rounds

From director John Fritch:

National Debate Tournament
California State University at Fullerton
March 28-31, 2008

Results After Round 6

Record Ballots Team
1 - 5 6 Bard HL
4 - 2 10 Baylor LT
1 - 5 3 Baylor MR
1 - 5 3 Binghamton GM
3 - 3 11 California BJ
4 - 2 13 California BP
4 - 2 12 California BR
3 - 3 6 Central Oklahoma CE
0 - 6 5 Concordia ST
1 - 5 6 Dartmouth AH
5 - 1 12 Dartmouth KO
1 - 5 5 Denver MW
6 - 0 15 Emory HW
4 - 2 11 Emory MS
3 - 3 8 Emory NS
2 - 4 6 Emporia State FT
3 - 3 10 Fort Hays HS
3 - 3 9 Fullerton GM
1 - 5 4 George Mason HO
2 - 4 7 Georgetown FM
2 - 4 6 Georgetown HK
3 - 3 7 Georgia CS
2 - 4 9 Georgia DM
3 - 3 11 Georgia State GL
3 - 3 9 Gonzaga BS
2 - 4 7 Gonzaga CJ
5 - 1 15 Harvard AM
4 - 2 10 Harvard BP
5 - 1 13 Harvard RW
3 - 3 10 Idaho State JM
2 - 4 4 Iowa DS
2 - 4 8 Iowa SV
5 - 1 15 Kansas BJ
4 - 2 9 Kansas JS
3 - 3 7 Kansas State MZ
2 - 4 5 Kentucky GG
3 - 3 8 Kentucky GT
0 - 6 1 Los Rios LN
2 - 4 6 Macalester CP
3 - 3 7 Mary Washington JR
3 - 3 9 Mary Washington KS
3 - 3 7 Miami VW
5 - 1 12 Michigan FK
4 - 2 12 Michigan State AW
4 - 2 11 Michigan State EL
3 - 3 9 Michigan State LM
5 - 1 16 Missouri State MM
4 - 2 13 Missouri State OW
4 - 2 12 North Texas CE
3 - 3 8 Northwestern BM
2 - 4 4 Northwestern FF
4 - 2 13 Northwestern FW
3 - 3 9 Oklahoma GW
2 - 4 8 Pittsburgh KR
3 - 3 8 Richmond CS
1 - 5 3 Rochester KM
2 - 4 6 Samford GR
2 - 4 8 San Francisco State AM
3 - 3 8 Texas BH
4 - 2 13 Texas TW
2 - 4 9 Texas-Dallas AB
3 - 3 9 Texas-Dallas RS
4 - 2 9 Towson CL
4 - 2 13 USC JJ
3 - 3 10 USC LS
5 - 1 15 Wake Forest CC
5 - 1 15 Wake Forest GL
4 - 2 10 Wake Forest MS
3 - 3 7 Wayne State GP
2 - 4 7 Wayne State NP
2 - 4 9 Weber State CD
6 - 0 18 West Georgia LS
1 - 5 4 West Georgia MS
2 - 4 8 Whitman CM
4 - 2 11 Whitman CS
3 - 3 9 Wichita State CR
3 - 3 8 Wyoming BJ
4 - 2 13 Wyoming CJ

USA NDT Records after Three Rounds

From Director John Fritch:

Attached are records and ballot counts after Round 3. They also are pasted below.
National Debate Tournament
California State University at Fullerton
March 28-31, 2008
Results After Round 3
0 - 3 1 Bard HL
1 - 2 3 Baylor LT
0 - 3 0 Baylor MR
1 - 2 2 Binghamton GM
3 - 0 9 California BJ
3 - 0 9 California BP
2 - 1 6 California BR
1 - 2 2 Central Oklahoma CE
0 - 3 2 Concordia ST
1 - 2 4 Dartmouth AH
3 - 0 8 Dartmouth KO
1 - 2 3 Denver MW
3 - 0 8 Emory HW
2 - 1 4 Emory MS
2 - 1 5 Emory NS
0 - 3 1 Emporia State FT
2 - 1 6 Fort Hays HS
2 - 1 5 Fullerton GM
0 - 3 0 George Mason HO
0 - 3 2 Georgetown FM
1 - 2 3 Georgetown HK
1 - 2 2 Georgia CS
1 - 2 4 Georgia DM
2 - 1 6 Georgia State GL
2 - 1 5 Gonzaga BS
1 - 2 2 Gonzaga CJ
3 - 0 9 Harvard AM
2 - 1 5 Harvard BP
3 - 0 9 Harvard RW
1 - 2 5 Idaho State JM
1 - 2 2 Iowa DS
1 - 2 4 Iowa SV
3 - 0 9 Kansas BJ
2 - 1 5 Kansas JS
1 - 2 3 Kansas State MZ
1 - 2 2 Kentucky GG
2 - 1 6 Kentucky GT
0 - 3 0 Los Rios LN
1 - 2 3 Macalester CP
2 - 1 5 Mary Washington JR
2 - 1 6 Mary Washington KS
0 - 3 0 Miami VW
3 - 0 8 Michigan FK
2 - 1 6 Michigan State AW
2 - 1 7 Michigan State EL
1 - 2 2 Michigan State LM
2 - 1 7 Missouri State MM
2 - 1 6 Missouri State OW
2 - 1 6 North Texas CE
2 - 1 5 Northwestern BM
0 - 3 0 Northwestern FF
3 - 0 8 Northwestern FW
1 - 2 4 Oklahoma GW
1 - 2 4 Pittsburgh KR
1 - 2 4 Richmond CS
0 - 3 0 Rochester KM
1 - 2 3 Samford GR
1 - 2 3 San Francisco State AM
1 - 2 3 Texas BH
2 - 1 6 Texas TW
2 - 1 7 Texas-Dallas AB
1 - 2 4 Texas-Dallas RS
2 - 1 4 Towson CL
2 - 1 7 USC JJ
2 - 1 7 USC LS
2 - 1 7 Wake Forest CC
3 - 0 8 Wake Forest GL
2 - 1 5 Wake Forest MS
1 - 2 2 Wayne State GP
1 - 2 3 Wayne State NP
2 - 1 6 Weber State CD
3 - 0 9 West Georgia LS
0 - 3 1 West Georgia MS
2 - 1 6 Whitman CM
1 - 2 4 Whitman CS
1 - 2 4 Wichita State CR
1 - 2 3 Wyoming BJ
2 - 1 7 Wyoming CJ

USA CEDA to Hold Summer Meeting

From Darren Elliott delliott@kckcc.edu

Hello everyone!

This email is to let you know that you may begin making reservations for the CEDA Summer Mtg./Topic Committee Mtg. in Dallas for this summer.  We are pleased to be the guests of the University of Texas at Dallas for these important meetings.
Chris Burk, Scott Herndon and all of the UTD crew have been busy making arrangements to host us this summer.

The hotel will be the Westin that has been used by the Texas Swing Tournament, the 2006 CEDA Nationals, and the 2007 NDT.  It is a great facility and we look forward to spending our week in Dallas.  Below you will find information so you can make your reservations.

All meetings will occur on the campus of UT-Dallas, just a short drive from the Westin.  By meeting on campus we will have internet-streaming capabilities so all meetings can be webcast.  The CEDA Summer/Business Meetings will occur May 31st-June 2nd.  The Topic Committee will meet from the afternoon of the 2nd to the 4th.  Soon I will be putting out an agenda for the CEDA Meetings.  Gordon Stables, as Topic Committee Chair, will make posts in regards to that agenda.

Please begin making reervations now, and if you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.  I look forward to seeing you in Dallas this summer!

chief

Darren Elliott
Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
CEDA President

A personalized Web site for CEDA SUMMER MEETING occurring
(May 30, 2008 - June 04, 2008) has been created for you.

Guests can access the site to learn more about the event and to book,
modify, or cancel a reservation from March 20, 2008 to June 06, 2008.

Below you will find the appropriate link(s) for your participants to
access the site:

Attendee

CEDA SUMMER MEETING (copy and paste the following link into a web browser) http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/cedasummer

Euros 2008 Second Stage Registration

From maarja@eudc2008.eu:

As you all probably know and many of you anticipate, registration to EUDC 2008 Tallinn is about to move to Phase 2. The new wave of registrations begins on Monday, 31 March, at 12:00 GMT. Below you will find a description of how Phase 2 works. Please note that due to the massive interest in registration we have been compelled to make a few modifications to the registration procedure. Therefore we found it necessary to give you a rather detailed overview of the registration procedure, to make everything very clear and registration as easy as possible.

So:

Phase 2 opens on Monday, 31 March, at 12:00 (lunchtime) GMT. There are 61 team places available for debaters and 42 places available for adjudicators. These numbers include the 40 team places that we initially saved for Phase 2, as well as the places of those teams and judges who registered during Phase 1, but have dropped out for various reasons (sadly, most cancellations were made due to failure to pay the registration fee on time).

Registration of teams: In Phase 2 each institution, regardless of whether they have any teams already registered or not, is allowed to register only 1 additional team. It might be that for some institutions this is their 1st team and for some it is the 3rd team. Even if your institution has not registered before, you still get only one place.

Also a waiting list of institutions (!) will be created. After the team cap of 160 is filled, registrations continue, but teams will be assigned places below the line according to the time of registration. The waiting list is open for institutions who have not been able to register their team in Phase 2. This means that an institution who already has 3 teams registered, can not put their 4th team on the waiting list. Also institutions who did not register in Phase 1, but registered their one and only team in Phase 2, are not able to put their 2nd team on the waiting list.

Registration of adjudicators: In Phase 2 it is possible to register only n-1 adjudicators. This means that if an institution already has 2 teams and 2 (or more) judges registered and they will register another, 3rd, team, they will not be able to register any more adjudicators because according to the n-1 rule an institution is required to provide exactly and only 2 judges. If you have for example 2 teams and 1 adjudicator listed, then you are able to register another team as well as one additional adjudicator – in fact, you are even obliged to register the second adjudicator because of the n-1 rule. In addition, the strict application of the n-1 rule means that those institutions, who are now about to register their first (and only) team, are not able to register any adjudicators. Please do your maths to find out if your institution is allowed to register another judge or not. Please note that the registration system will also be counting, so you will be barred from registering additional judges if their participation is not required by the n-1 rule.

This limitation is absolutely necessary because of the massive amount of adjudicators that registered during Phase 1. As we did not expect so many judges to register already in Phase 1, we are compelled to disallow registration of independent adjudicators in Phase 2. We accept n-1 adjudicators, because their registration is a necessary prerequisite for registering the teams. A waiting list is created also for adjudicators.

Registration procedure: Other than that the procedure is the same as in Phase 1. Again, you are asked to register using the registration form found on our homepage http://www.eudc2008.eu. After filling out and submitting the form, an automatic invoice will be generated. If you choose to pay by credit card, you NEED TO enter your credit card details immediately. If something happens during the registration and you are for some reason unable to do this, you should contact our Payments Coordinator Piret Poopuu at piretpo@estravel.ee, who will instruct you further. If you wish to pay by bank transfer, please save or print the invoice and then proceed to pay in your chosen bank. All the payment details for the transfer can be found on the invoice, in case of additional questions please, again, contact Piret. The login passwords you have been given are not meant for paying and can not be used for this, so please do not try to login at our homepage with the given password to make the payment.

Registrants will then have until 13 April 2008 to pay the participation fee of 210EUR per participant. Subject to an eligibility check on institutions, we will confirm their places after payment is made and received. Please make sure you forward the invoice and the payment request to the payers in due time and also check that they make the payment in due time. Otherwise you may be in trouble once the payment deadline approaches (as we experienced during Phase 2). If you are not sure the payment reaches us by April 13th, please send us a document confirming that the bank transfer has been made (copy of the payment order, confirmation letter from the bank etc.). If you pay by credit card, please make sure that your credit card limit is sufficient for us to debit the money from your card.

After the general team cap of 160 is filled we will close the registration and a waiting list is created. If any of the registered teams, whose participation has not yet been confirmed, should drop out, teams will be pulled up from the institutional waiting list according to their registration time. The same applies for judges after adjudicator cap of 120 is reached. You are on our final list of participants only when your status has been changed from Registered to Confirmed.

If any team places remain available and there are no more institutions on the waiting list, we may make an open call once more, so that any remaining team places will be assigned to institutions on a first-come-first-served basis (even institutions that have 3 teams already).

In case of any questions regarding the registration procedure, please contact our Communications Director Maarja Teder at info@eudc2008.eu. But before sending your question, please check our homepage - the FAQs section and the Q&A and other posts under Info for participants. We have already answered a lot of questions during the past weeks and earlier, many of which are of use also during Phase 2, so we would greatly appreciate if you tried not to ask questions that have already been publicly answered.

We have also received a few important questions, which are answered below for everyone to read and take into consideration.

Questions & Answers

Q: What does it mean that only n-1 judges can register during Phase 2?

„I registered as an extra adjudicator for my university during phase 1. During phase 2 my university hopefully plans on sending another team along with another adjudicator who is on the waiting list. Does the fact that I have registered myself as an adjudicator (because with my name on the list the university already has two judges) will prevent my university from registering another judge during phase 2? Is there any way to guarantee that my status as an extra judge will remain even during phase 2 or is there a possibility to shift my status from an institutional adjudicator to an independent adjudicator?"

As we have announced, in Phase 2 we are unfortunately not able to allow registration of independent adjudicators and extra adjudicators above the n-1 rule. However, the independent and extra adjudicators, who have registered in Phase 1 and paid the participation fee, will remain enlisted. The limitation concerning adjudicators that was described above affects only new registrants.

We are not able nor willing to change the status of any participants registered so far. The situation described in the question above will lead to the consequence where your institution is not able to register any more judges. We suggest that you remain on the list and after consulting with representatives of your institution decide whether you wish to remain on the list yourself or simply concede your place to the other judge (since the names of participants can be changed during Phase 3). In this case you can simply substitute your name with his/hers and you will have to settle your accounts (participation fee) between yourselves. Another option is that you delete your registration in general, but we do not suggest this, as there are very few adjudicator places available, so you may lose your place altogether. In case you don't inform us of a different choice, the 2 judges registered so far are the only ones who can participate.

We hope that you understand our decision to limit the registration of judges. We were very surprised to see such great interest in our event on the part of judges, that is why we did not deem it necessary to impose any limitations in Phase 1 (and initially neither in Phase 2). However, as 100 judges registered in Phase 1 – whereas the general adjudicator cap is 120 – we see no other option. This is the only way to guarantee that institutions that will be registering their team in Phase 2 will not be prevented from doing so because of the impossibility to register the required n-1 adjudicator.

Q: How do I get the password for login later?

During registration, please enter your correct personal e-mail address at the appropriate place on the form, because the password sent to you is personal. Make sure to enter a correct (!) address in the correct blank, otherwise you will not get the password. If you still encounter problems, please send an e-mail to info@eudc2008.eu.

Good luck to everyone with registration! As the 120 places in Phase 1 were filled in only ca 50 minutes, there is probably no time to waste after registration opens this time either.

With best regards,

EUDC 2008 Tallinn team
info@eudc2008.eu
http://www.eudc2008.eu

News from IDEA March 27

From Arminda Lathrop:

Drum roll, please: The Spring Global Debates numbers are in! That is, the numbers of schools who participated. As to the number of TPS points schools have, we’ll have to announce that in May. In the meantime, schools will be sending their items for points to the U.N. Foundation and their ballots to IDEA. We have some interesting statistics to report about the spring campaign! New schools from a variety of countries joined TPS for spring. The number of schools that participated from each country are listed below. Thank you to participants for debating water at your school! ~Arminda

MARCH INTERNATIONAL GLOBAL DEBATE PARTICIPANTS (172 Schools)

India (18) Nigeria (17) Moldova (15) England (7) Macedonia (7) Pakistan (7) Ukraine (6) Russia (5)

Bangladesh (4) China (4) Malaysia (4) Philippines (4) Albania (3) Chile (3) Egypt (3) Kenya (3) Mongolia (3) Uganda (3) Armenia (2) Cameroon (2) Central African Republic (2) Congo, D.R. (2) France (2) Kazakhstan (2) Lithuania (2) Nepal (2) Romania (2) South Korea (2) Uganda (2) Afghanistan (1) Arab Emirates (1) Argentina (1) Armenia (1) Azerbaijan (1) Bahrain (1) Belarus (1) Botswana (1) Brazil (1) Bulgaria (1) Burundi (1) Canada (1) Colombia (1) Croatia (1) Ghana (1) Hong Kong (1) Indonesia (1) Iran (1) Jordan (1) Liberia (1) Mauritius (1) Myanmar (1) Namibia (1) Peru (1) Poland (1) Portugal (1) Rwanda (1) Sierra Leone (1) Slovakia (1) South Africa (1) Sri Lanka (1) Tanzania (1) Togo (1) Turkey (1) Uzbekistan (1)

IDEA NFL Qualifier Tournament in Singapore

Singapore, the newest country in the IDEA-NFL Guest Country Qualifier system, has just completed its tournament and is ready to send competitors to Las Vegas! Held at the Anglo-Chinese Junior College and featuring roughly 40 competitors from 6 schools, the tournament featured original oratory, dramatic interpretation, humorous interpretation, international extemporaneous speaking and duo interpretation. For full results of the IDEA NFL Singapore Qualifier Tournament, please visit IDEA’s blog at idebate.blogspot.com.

This Week’s Hot Debatepedia Topic:

Is the Dalai Lama's pacifist "middle way" the best approach in Tibet's struggle with China?

IDEA NFL Korea Qualifier Tournament to Be Held April 11^th-13^th in Seoul, South Korea

IDEA member schools and students can compete for spots in the US NFL National Tournament to be held in Las Vegas this June by qualifying at the Korea Qualifier tournament this April 11^th-13^th at Indianhead International School in Seoul. Events will be Original Oratory, Humorous Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Duo Interpretation, International Extemporaneous Speaking, and Public Forum Debate.

IDEA Discusses Intercultural Dialogue

2008 has been declared the year of European Intercultural Dialogue by the European Commission. Do you think Intercultural Dialogue is important for global progress? Join the debate on IDEA’s Discussion Boards.

Portland State University and IDEA Present the 2008 US Universities Championship

IDEA announces partnership with Portland State University to present the US Universities Championship in Portland, Oregon April 11^th-13^th. The US Universities National Championship Tournament will feature 6 rounds of preliminary debate competition, with the appropriate number of elimination rounds, based on entries. The tournament will also offer 2 preliminary rounds of public speaking, with a break to finals. The tournament will include a common briefing for all judges and competitors, as well as break-out sessions to provide training to debaters and judges new to the British Parliamentary Debate format. This tournament is open to any school that would like to participate. International teams are particularly encouraged to join us! The registration deadline for this tournament is 5:00pm on Wednesday April 2, 2008. Please contact Christopher Richter, Director of Forensics at Portland State University to register: richter.christopher@gmail.com.

Need Youth Forum Info?

Get the most up-to-date information on the IDEA Youth Forum in Bulgaria by visiting www.idebate.org/ideaforum. Registration for the Forum is open!

ESU Holding Debate Academy for Schools Debaters

I cannot help but notice that the New York Times called the World Debate Institute "Boot camp for the brain" some years ago, and it has been our slogan. No hard feelings, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and we support the ESU in their great work.

From http://www.britishdebate.com/schools/academy/

Debate Academy VII:
Boot Camp for the Brain

Friday 25 – Monday 28 July 2008
Registration now open

To reserve a place on Debate Academy VII fill in the electronic application form. However, signed Terms and Conditions with a cheque attached must follow your electronic application before a place can be confirmed.

Online application 2008 »

General information

Are you a beginner who wants to learn how to debate?
Do you have some experience of debate and want to get better?
Fancy yourself a bit of a pro already and want to get some advanced coaching to help you win more competitions?
Whichever you are, if you are between 14 and 18, Debate Academy has a course for you.

What do you get?

• A faculty of debate experts including national debate coaches, World Champions, successful schools coaches and university debaters
• 3 nights accommodation and full board at Oakham School in Rutland
• Debate materials to take away with you
• At least 5 debates with in-depth feedback
• Workshops on topics from “how to structure an argument” to “delivery” and “rebuttal”
• Lectures on how to use subjects such as law, economics and science in debates
• Display debates by experts
• Social activities where you can meet other young debaters from across the country
• A course that is tailored to your level – beginner, intermediate or advanced

A Debate Academy course costs £200. There are full and partial bursaries available in cases of financial difficulty.

Regular updates about course content and preparation will be added to this website between now and July. Capacity is approximately 120 students and every year we are oversubscribed: you should register your interest early to be guaranteed of a place.

If you have any questions, please contact Beth James, Competitions Officer, at beth_james@esu.org.

Asian Debate Institute 2008

Iqbal Hafiedz, Omar Salahuddin and Loke Wing Fatt at a previous ADI

From Jason Jarvis:

Greetings!

This is a preliminary announcement about the Asian Debate Institute 2008.
The host for the ADI is the Korea Development Institute of Public Policy and Management, Seoul, Korea.

We have confirmed the dates for this year's event:

August 14 to August 23

We are making substantial changes to the program which will include:

- a longer session (10 days rather than 1 week)
- high school and college sessions will run simultaneously
- a better hostel than last year! (location to be announced soon)
- round trip transportation to and from the hostel

Currently confirmed faculty members:

-Logan (2 time Asian Champion, no real last name, Chung Ang Univ, Korea)
-Matt Stannard (Director of Debate, Univ. of Wyoming, USA)
-Loke Wing Fatt (Asian Debate Super Trainer!, Worlds Quarterfinal Adjudicator, SAID, Singapore)
-David Peterson (US Nationals NDT Quarterfinalist, Obama supporter, Korea)

Invited, but as yet unconfirmed faculty:
- Dr. Alfred "Tuna" Snider (Director of Debate, Univ. of Vermont, USA)
- Hafiedz Iqbal (Asians Top Speaker 2006, UT Mara, Malaysia)
- Lucia Pietrapaoli (Australian debate legend, future KDI School Professor)

We are talking with other potential faculty members as well. Hopefully the website will be up and running by the end of next week,

kind regards,

Jason Jarvis
Director, Asian Debate Institute

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

USA National Debate Tournament Begins in California

78 two-person debate teams square off in Fullerton, California for this year's National Debate Tournament. For more information about the NDT go to http://groups.wfu.edu/NDT/

From http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/ViewEntries.aspx?ID=149

School Names Division

Bard College Julian Letton & Zachary Heller Open
Baylor Obie Lansford & Halli Tripe Open
Baylor Alex McVey & Chris Rooney Open
Binghamton Matt Malia & Jake Gartman Open
California James Brockaway & Rahul Jaswa Open
California Mike Burshteyn & Jacob Polin Open
California Daniel Richards & Kathy Bowen Open
Central Oklahoma (Un Jack Ewing & Andy Casey Open
Concordia Tyler Simmons & Tony Tracy Open
CSU Fullerton Caitlin Gray & Luis Magallon Open
Dartmouth Shane Avidan & Caroline Harkins Open
Dartmouth Josh Kernoff & Kade Olsen Open
Denver Logan Martin & Tyler Warner Open
Emory Chipp Schwab & Nicholas Miller Open
Emory Chris Sun & Ana Nikolic Open
Emory Julie Hoehn & Stephen Weil Open
Emporia State U. Kurt Fifelski & Kelly Thompson Open
Fort Hays avery henry & chris spurlock Open
George Mason Univers Adam Herbert & Mark Offenbach Open
Georgetown Max Hantel & Bon Koo Open
Georgetown Cody Forrester & Paul Milani Open
Georgia Spencer Diamond & Todd Mitchell Open
Georgia Brittany Cambre & Adam Schmidt Open
Georgia State Kirk Gibson & Joel Lemuel Open
Gonzaga Abe Corrigan & James Joseph Open
Gonzaga Nick Bormann & Grace Saez Open
Harvard Tripp Rebrovick & Jonathan Warsh Open
Harvard Seth Bour & Ralph Paone Open
Harvard Eli Anders & Jason Murray Open
Idaho State Danielle Jennings & Paul Montreuil Open
Iowa Kiran Dhillon & Eric Sigmund Open
Iowa Corey Stone & Kyle Vint Open
Kansas (Univ. of) Brett Bricker & Andrew Jennings Open
Kansas (Univ. of) Nate Johnson & Chris Stone Open
Kansas State Kyle Zarazan & Beth Mendenhall Open
Kentucky Mike Gentile & Angelo Theodosopoulos Open
Kentucky Suneet Gautam & Bryan Gort Open
Los Rios Colleges Tina Law & Matt Nguyen Open
Macalester Cory Copeland & Talon-John Powers Open
Mary Washington Sean Jansen & Nick Ryan Open
Mary Washington Kevin Kallmyer & Matt Struth Open
Miami Aaron Vinson & Drew Wallenstein Open
Michigan State Univ. Debbie Lai & Athena Murray Open
Michigan State Univ. Gustavo Eyzaguirre & Eric Lanning Open
Michigan State Univ. Garrett Abelkop & Carly Wunderlich Open
Michigan University Dylan Keenan & Adam Farra Open
Missouri State Meggie Mapes & Michael Mapes Open
Missouri State Martin Osborn & Clay Webb Open
North Texas (Univ.) Kuntal Cholera & John Elson Open
Northwestern Greg Friend & Tom Ferenc Open
Northwestern Caitlin Bruce & Rob Mulholand Open
Northwestern John Warden & Matt Fisher Open
Oklahoma R.J. Giglio & Nick Watts Open
Pittsburgh Guy Risko & John Karlovic Open
Richmond (Univ. of) Joe Chicvak & Ryan Smith Open
Rochester Buddy Khan & David Merkle Open
Samford Erin Ramsey & Logan Gramzinski Open
San Francisco State Vince Alvarez & Jeff Martin Open
Southern California Chris Jones & Mike Jones Open
Southern California Mima Lazarevic & Mike Smith Open
Texas Laura Boyle & Desiree Hooper Open
Texas Chris Thiele & Nick Whitaker Open
Texas-Dallas Brian Rubaie & Sara Stephens Open
Texas-Dallas Danny Abbas & Andrew Baker Open
Towson Deven Cooper & Dayvon Love Open
Wake Forest Seth Gannon & Alex Lamballe Open
Wake Forest Lauren Sabino & Carlos Maza Open
Wake Forest Seungwon Chung & Doowon Chung Open
Wayne State Universi Dustin Greenwalt & Jason Pearsall Open
Wayne State Universi Bruce Najor & Sydney Pasquinelli Open
Weber State Univ. Ryan Cheek & Stacy Dawson Open
West Georgia Zak Schaller & Jadon Marianetti Open
West Georgia Geoff Lundeen & Jim Schultz Open
Whitman College Nate Cohn & Daniel Straus Open
Whitman College Eric Chalfant & Mike Meredith Open
Wichita State Matt Coleman & Eric Robinson Open
Wyoming Travis Cram & Will Jensen Open
Wyoming Mike Bausch & Tony Johnson Open

Debate Central Redesigned for More Formats

Above: a joke graphic from Halloween 2000

Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu was founded in 1994 to provide debate instructional materials and information for free. It is a non-profit service of the University of Vermont. Unlike the avalanche of other sites that followed, Debate Central still exists, and it has remained a free service (unless you want to buy DVD copies of videos, etc.). It is so good that two other debate websites have copied its name without providing the same level of hard content. Good luck to them.

The website has recently experienced a makeover of all of its most popular pages.

The "Learn to Debate" page now lists many different debating formats, such as WUDC, American Policy debate, American Parliamentary debate, Lincoln-Douglas debate, Public Forum Debate, Asian format debate, the World Schools Debate format and other formats as well. Each format is described and then there are links to basic instructional materials, training videos and sample debates.

The "Debate Instruction Videos" page now has links to all sorts of videos for all debate formats, including speeches and television discussions.

The old page was designed mostly for USA debaters, but now it is for all debaters in all formats. Watch for debates coming in languages other than English soon.

Boston Debate League Moving Forward

From Scott Deatherage of National Association for Urban Debate Leagues:

Boston Debate League Moving Forward

The NAUDL has been working closely with John Isaacson, Chair of the Boston Debate League Advisory Board, and Andrew Brokos, League Director of the Boston Debate League (www.bostondebate.org) to strengthen Beantown's UDL. Andrew reports on the high level of activity for the Boston UDL.

“The past few months have been some of the best for debate in Boston. The Boston Debate League has hosted several of its largest tournaments ever, and we've had some milestones on the regional circuit as well. On February 2nd, we took two teams to a suburban tournament at Manchester High School. This was the third suburban tournament the BDL has attended, but the first were our debaters won awards. Li Hui Xie and Faisa Sharif of Charlestown High School were the fifth place team, and Tyrell Carter, debating with Julio Lanzo, won fourth place speaker for the Academy of Public Service. Then the next weekend, we had our first League-wide trip to out of state. Fifteen students and five coaches took a charter bus to Hope High School to compete with the Rhode Island Debate League, our sister UDL based in Providence. Everyone was excited by the prospect of traveling, meeting new debaters, and competing at a larger tournament.”

The BDL has also made much progress on the ground in developing support from and visibility with local educational and political leaders. Boston Public Schools superintendent Dr. Carol Johnson honored the League with a visit to a BDL tournament hosted by Charlestown High School. She stayed for about two hours, observed several debates, spoke with students, teachers, and administrators, and commented on the academic rigor of the program.

Kathleen Mullin, Special Assistant for High School Renewal for the Boston Public Schools, is considering support for the NAUDL template of public-private coordination of support: the city public school system finances the core debate programs in the schools, with additional funds matching the system's support coming from the local Advisory Board.

The Boston Debate League has recently been named as one of only several Boston-area non-profit organizations to be funded by the Harbus Foundation. Run by the Harvard University Business School, the Harbus Foundation does a rigorous analysis of potential grantees’ mission-effectiveness and the soundness of their business model.

The BDL has also been successful at earning local media coveage. In a Boston Herald article entitled “Great Debaters Hone Their Skills at Boston Schools” Alexander Chan, captain of the Josiah Quincy High School team noted: "Debate is about taking a risk. It is about finding a voice. Debate used to be very upper class. With urban debate you have all different backgrounds. It gives us a taste of what we can accomplish."

Students from the Boston Debate League were also featured in local news coverage of a public debate they hosted in January to honor Martin Luther King’s vision. Nearly 200 audience members participated in the debate. Andrew Brokos, Boston’s League Director reported that, “Yesterday's Find Your Voice public debate event was a great success. Ten of the BDL's best debaters honored MLK Day with discussions of race, human rights, and non-violence at the Boston Public Library in Copley Square. We were honored to have the Reverend Gregory Groover, Vice Chair of the Boston School Committee, which governs the Boston Public Schools, as the Master of Ceremonies. Reverend Groover, in turn, told the students that he was honored to be involved and that they were the "great thinkers and debaters" of our time.

The Boston UDL Advisory Board has met twice recently and has established working committees on networking and institutionalizing. Sonja Starr, Harvard Law Fellow, is chairing the Networking Committee, reaching out to local former debaters in the area. John Isaacson, Chair of the Boston Advisory Board, is leading the Institutionalization Committee, developing local supporters.

English Speaking Union Holds Great Shakespeare Debate

From http://www.esu.org/news/item.asp?n=1356

A fresh cohort of A-level English students from around the country descended on Stratford-upon-Avon on 6 and 7 February to participate in the third Great Shakespeare Debate, a two day competition run in partnership with the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.

The final was judged by Professor Kate McLuskie, Director of the Shakespeare Institute and two ESU mentors and experience debate veterans. In a closely fought debate, on This House believes that to appreciate Shakespeare you must understand the context in which it was written, both North London Collegiate School and King Edward VI Fiveways School displayed the skills that had been acquired over the course of the tournament. Professor McLuskie finally declared Emily Slater, Rachael Tucker and Kevin Sexton from King Edward VI Fiveways to be the winners.

Qatar World Schools Team Chosen

The five debaters who will represent Qatar in World championships

From http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=208373&version=1&template_id=57&parent_id=56

Five pupils to represent Qatar at world debating championships
Published: Thursday, 20 March, 2008, 02:41 AM Doha Time
Staff Reporter


FIVE high school students have been selected for the first-ever National Debating Team to represent Qatar at the World Schools Debating Championships in Washington DC in September.
They were chosen from 17 high school students who attended trials over the weekend at Education City.
The trials were organised by QatarDebate, the national debating organisation for the country, which is a member of Qatar Foundation.
The members of the National Schools Debating Team for Qatar include Meeran Naji from Qatar Academy, Talal Burshaid from Qatar Leadership Academy, Vartan Shadarevian and Tina Niaki from Doha College and Fatima Hijran from Al Bayan Independent School.
“The team will travel to the UK for intensive training over the summer before pitting themselves against the world’s best high school debaters in the US in September,” a QatarDebate official said.
Fatima Hijran, one of three female students selected for the team, said: “I did not expect to be chosen, especially since all of the 17 participants were very strong. I look forward to representing Qatar and telling people about this wonderful country. I have never travelled to the USA and am sure that it will be an unforgettable experience.”
The 17 students were selected to attend the trials after strong performances at the recent Qatar National Schools Debating Championships, also run by QatarDebate, in which more than 20 teams took part.
“Many of the students have only recently become involved in debating as a result of workshops run by QatarDebate since September 2007,” said the official.
QatarDebate programme Director Alex Just paid tribute to the students.
“We’re very excited about working with this group of talented young people. They have all achieved a phenomenal amount in a short space of time and we expect them to be fantastic ambassadors for Qatar in Washington,” he said.
The World Schools Debating Championships have been running for 20 years. National teams of three to five students under 19 come together each year from all six continents to debate social, moral and political issues. Until now, only two countries from the Middle East have ever sent teams to the championships – Kuwait and Israel.

Baltimore Students Live "Great Debaters" Dream

NOTE: This is a reprint of the March 3 2008 story posted on Global Debate. Congratulations to Deven Cooper and Dayvon Love for winning the CEDA National Championship 7-4 over Kansas last night. But remember, Global Debate had it weeks ago.

From http://media.www.thetowerlight.com/media/storage/paper957/news/2008/03/03/News/Towsons.Great.Debaters-3246541.shtml

Senior Deven Cooper and junior Dayvon Love make history on Towson University Speech and Debate Team

Nick DiMarco

News | 3/2/08

For the first time in 11 years, the Towson University Speech and Debate Team is sending two of its members to the National Debate Tournament. And for the first time in the history of the program, the competitors that have qualified for the NDT are black.

Deven Cooper and Dayvon Love will speak on behalf of Towson, one of the 78 schools that qualified for the NDT.

"This is something I've wanted since I was a senior in high school," Cooper said. "I don't even know how to put it into words really, because it hasn't really hit me yet. For me, it's not over because we still have to debate and our goal basically is to win it…this is just a starting point."

The pair qualified for the NDT after finishing with a record of 4-4 in national competition and placing seventh in the District-7 Tournament that took place over Feb. 23-24. In the district competition, some of the schools Towson competed against included University of Mary Washington, Georgetown University, University of Richmond and James Madison University.

Cooper and Love, who are Baltimore Urban Debate League alumni, have grown-up in Baltimore City and fostered similar ideologies through debate.

"The Baltimore Urban Debate League was a way to offer students an alternative way to [spend time] after school and on the weekends to debate and be using our intellectual skills to do something that was positive, instead of being on the street doing something illegal," Cooper, who attended Lake Clifton High School, said.

Love, a 2005 graduate of Forest Park High School who has been competing since he was 15 years old, said he wants to use debate to bring light on the issues facing Baltimore City.

"One of the things I've learned through debate is that you can talk about those conditions in a way that is acceptable to people and it's always a way to improve who you are," Love said.

On Christmas day 2007, the film "The Great Debaters" starring Denzel Washington, was released.

Cooper and Love said they see many parallels between themselves and the content of the film, which is based on a true story about a professor at Wiley College in Texas who inspired black students to compete at the school's first debate.

We can draw ourselves analogous to a lot of the black debaters in the movie because we use passion and personal stories to talk about our arguments," Cooper said.

The film pits the all black team against white upper-class schools and discusses the sensitive topics of race and equality, something Cooper and Love frequently argue about during debates.

"Unfortunately, Dayvon and I can't see it as a game all the time because you're talking about peoples' lives probably close to us, or have the same historical background as us," Cooper said.

Love, a junior philosophy major, said he agrees with Cooper. When the pair is given a topic to debate, Love said they always argue from the perspective of challenging all forms of domination against oppressed people.

"The most important parallel for us to put what we're doing in context is, what the movie showed was that black folks can compete intellectually with white people in the highest level," Love said. "I think what it is that we're doing is that we're taking it a step further, in that not only should we compete on the same level but we have a moral responsibility about the things that we talk about."

Towson Wins CEDA Nationals

From Joe Patrice:

In the final round between Towson Deven Cooper and Dayvon Love on the
Affirmative and Kansas Chris Stone and Nate Johnson on the Negative,
the decision was a 7-4 for the Affirmative from Towson.

From Gary Larson:

CEDA Nats 2008  Start: 4:00 PM Div: 1   Round: 1/2
 
ROOM   JUDGE
Salon D
Kansas JS wins 2-1 Dartmouth KO (A)
Holbrook, Sarah - West Georgia
Stables, Gordon - Southern California
Walters, Heather - Missouri State

Salon E
Towson CL wins 3-0 Missouri State OW (A)
Gordon, Malcolm - Missouri-Kansas City
Davis, James - Central Oklahoma
Russell, Jason - Oklahoma
 
 
CEDA Nats 2008  Start: 8:00 PM Div: 1   Round: 1/1
 
ROOM   JUDGE
Salon D Kansas JS Towson CL (A) wins 7-4
  Hester, Mike - West Georgia
  Buntin, Jeff - Gonzaga
  Davis, James - Central Oklahoma
  Gordon, Malcolm - Missouri-Kansas City
  Hines, John - Cal Poly SLO
  Reichle, Matt - Texas San Antonio
  Richter, Nicole - Miami (FL)
  Russell, Jason - Oklahoma
  Schrader, Brian  - Denver
  Thompson, Jacob  - Nevada Las Vegas
  Webster, Christy - U.S. Military Academy

CEDA Quarterfinal Results, Semifinal Pairings

Surely you know that this graphic is just a joke.

From Gary Larson in the tab room:

CEDA Nats 2008 Start: 12:00 Div: 1 Round: 1/4

ROOM JUDGE

Salon D Kansas JS wins 2-1 West Georgia LS (A) Feldman, Jonah - Dartmouth
Pointer, Steve - Gonzaga
Walters, Heather - Missouri State

Salon E Towson CL (A) wins 2-1 Fort Hays hs Hester, Mike - West Georgia
Guevara, Omar G. - Weber State
Nielson, Toni - CSU Fullerton

Salon F-H Missouri State OW (A) wins 2-1 North Texas CE Herndon, Scott - Texas-Dallas
Heidt, David - Emory
Jordan, Todd - Texas-Dallas

Salon A-C Dartmouth KO wins 3-0 Whitman AS (A) Lee, Ed - Emory
Harris, Scott - Kansas
Topp, Sarah - Kansas


CEDA Nats 2008 Start: 4:00 PM Div: 1 Round: 1/2

ROOM JUDGE

Salon D
Kansas JS Dartmouth KO
Holbrook, Sarah - West Georgia
Stables, Gordon - Southern California
Walters, Heather - Missouri State

Salon E
Towson CL Missouri State OW
Gordon, Malcolm - Missouri-Kansas City
Davis, James - Central Oklahoma
Russell, Jason - Oklahoma

Octafinal Results from CEDA Nationals

From Gary Larson in Tab:

CEDA Nats 2008 Start: 8:00 AM Div: 1 Round: 1/8

ROOM JUDGE

Salon D Kansas JS wins 3-0 (A) Michigan State LM Burk, Chris - Texas-Dallas
Iftimie, Alex - Southern California
Petit, Louie - Missouri State

Salon E Kansas BJ (A) Towson CL wins 2-1 Holbrook, Sarah - West Georgia
Hester, Mike - West Georgia
Roland, James - Emory

Salon F-H Missouri State OW wins 3-0 Texas-Dallas RS (A) Lee, Ed - Emory
Heidt, David - Emory
Richendrfer, Ross - Whitman

Salon A-C Dartmouth KO (A) wins 3-0 Emory CP Buntin, Jeff - Gonzaga
Hardy, Aaron - Whitman
Harris, Scott - Kansas

Salon 2 Georgia State GL Whitman AS (A) wins 2-1 Repko, Will - Michigan State
Feldman, Jonah - Dartmouth
Stables, Gordon - Southern California

Salon 1 North Texas CE wins 3-0 Wyoming CJ (A) Morris, Eric - Missouri State
Herndon, Scott - Texas-Dallas
Olney, Charles - Dartmouth

Atrium Whitman CS (A) Fort Hays hs wins 2-1 Willis, Kris - Appalachian State
Albiniak, Teddy - Southern California
Samuels, Phil - Kansas

Sedgewick West Georgia LS (A) wins 3-0 Dartmouth AH Johnson, Blake - Oklahoma
Jordan, Todd - Texas-Dallas
Walters, Heather - Missouri State

Slovenia President, Ljubljana Mayor Support Ljubljana Conference

Danilo Turk, President of Slovenia

From Alfred Snider and Bojana Skrt:

We are pleased to announce that the President of Slovenia, Dr. Danilo Turk, has agreed to be the patron of the conference. This is another indication of his support for open discussion and debate and especially his support for debating activities in Slovenia. To see a report about his recent meeting with the Slovenian World Schools debaters, see http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/slovenian-worlds-debaters-meet-their.html

<== Zoran Jankovic

We are also pleased to announce that Zoran Jankovic, the mayor of Ljubljana, has also agreed to support the conference. He will host a reception on Friday evening in the historic City Hall for all conference attendees. Mr. Jankovic has previously supported debate events, such as the International Debate Academy held in Slovenia.

Congratulations to conference organizer Bojana Skrt for gaining this amazing support from important officials in Slovenia. Argumentation and debate are surely becoming part of the public scene in Slovenia.

Thinking and Speaking a Better World Conference Schedule Released

2nd International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment

YOU CAN STILL ATTEND! A FEW SLOTS FOR PRESENTATIONS ARE STILL AVAILABLE. CONTACT BOJANA SKRT AT bojana.skrt@siol.net.

11-12-13 April 2008, Ljubljana, Slovenia

THE HONORABLE PATRON OF THE CONFERENCE, THE PRESIDENT OF SLOVENIA, DANILO TURK

SCHEDULE (tentative)

(Please excuse the lack of national alphabet translations, we are working on that. It will be correct in the booklet distributed at the conference.)

Chairs are tentative.

FRIDAY, 11th April 2008

12.00 – 14.00 Registration

14.00 – 14. 30 Main Hall: Opening and welcome speeches

14.30 – 16.00 Presentations

Room 1 Argumentation

Chair: Lillian Bermejo Luque

Bilal Amjarso (Netherlands): What is persuasive about dealing with anticipated counterarguments? A pragma-dialectical study of a form of strategic manoeuvring

C. Andone (Netherlands): Manouevring strategically by retracting a standpoint in what can be reconstructed as the confrontation stage of a critical discussion

Paul van den Hoven (Netherlands): Playing with the Protagonist: Strategic manipulations with discourse voices

Room 2 Debate

Chair: Maja Nenadovi_

Anna Mojca England Kerr, Debate club of Faculty of social science, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia: A comparison between World Schools Debate Format and British Parliamentary Debate Format

Alex Just, Wadham College, Oxford University, UK: William Gladstone: A Model British Parliamentary Debater?

Kyle Rouse, undergraduate, Cornell University, USA: The international debating workshop as the ideal vehicle for the learning of World's Format Debating: Personal reflections on the 2007 International Debate Academy - Slovenia

Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA
GLOBAL DEBATE: THE STORY OF A DEBATE BLOG

Room 3 Debate

Chair: Rozalia Bako

Manolis Polychronides, PhD Candidate, University of Athens, Greece: Does debating, as an extracurricular activity, promote democratic values and skills? An empirical study in 14 Greek High schools.

Kate Shuster, Claremont College, USA: Not Making the Case: A Critical Examination of Research Supporting Urban Debate Leagues.

Bojan Marjanovi_, Chairman of the Executive board, Croatian debating society.Final year student of Sociology, department of Sociology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb Croatia and Dea Ajdukovi_, HDD – Hrvatsko debatno dru_tvo (Croatian Debate Association), Croatia: Evaluation of Croatian debating society debate program

Room 4 – Pedagogy

Chair: Sam Greenland

Lara Godec Sozak, Slovenia: Analysis of students' oral presentations in the second year of primary education at the Faculty of Education in Ljubljana

Vida Von_ina, Slovenia: Critical literacy and motivation for responsible engagement in a community

G. Rhydian Morgan, UK: Critical Thinking Skills in the Classroom

Candace Williams, USA: Debate and Plagiarism: Do Current Debate Practices Violate School Honor Codes?

Main Hall
14.30 »Svetovci« showing the TV documentary about Slovenian highschool debate team participating at the Worlds School Debate Championship in Seoul 2007, followed by the discussion with the authors of the film and debaters.

16.00 – 16.30 Break

16.30 – 18.00 Main Hall
KEYNOTE Frans van Eemeren

18.15 Buses leave for the reception given by mayor of Ljubljana Zoran Jankovi_

19.00 Reception in the Ljubljana city hall

Saturday, 12th of April 2008

9.30 – 11. 30 Presentations

Room 1 Argumentation

Chair: Satoru Aonuma

Michael Hoppmann (Germany): On Three Kinds of Argumentative Responses

Ivan Mikirtumov (Russia): The Arguments driving to the Responsible Knowledge: Logical Representation

Lyudmila Kourchak (Belarus): Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation as a Background for Analyzing and Criticizing of a Cross-Cultural Business Communication.

Room 2 Debate

Chair: Sam Greenland

Alex Just, Program Director, QatarDebate, Qatar: QatarDebate and the future of debate education in the Arab World

Dr Ann Kirson Swersky, Founder and Chairperson, Sia’h vaSig – The Israel Debating Society, Israel: Establishing Parliamentary Debate in Modern Israel

Teodora Dubrovi_, prof. president of Croatian debate society and
Nada Kegalj, prof., member of the governing board of CDS, Croatia: Debate program in Croatia

Room 3 Debate

Chair: Steve Woods

Sam Nelson, Director of Debate, Cornell University: Teaching debate in non-traditional places to non-traditional audiences.

John Adams, Director of Colgate University Speaking Union, USA: Statis

Rhydian Morgan, UK: Zen & the Art of Debating

Donald Reape, undergraduate, Cornell University, USA: The case against American style policy debate: A personal narrative

Room 4 Pedagogy

Chair: Maja Nenadovi_

Panagiota Kotarinou, Anastasia Chrisanthaki-Apostolopoulou, Despina Koutli, Greece« Using “debate” in the teaching of Science

Ivana Mijatovi_ Serbia: Empowering active participation in teaching quality management courses

George Yeoman, UK: Creating or re-kindling a 'thirst for knowledge’ about global issues in the classroom

Daniela Kozlovi_, Slovenia: Debate and skill development in the philosophy class

Main Hall

9.30 Round table discussion: Is debate the best method for teaching rhetoric in the middle school?
Chair: Bojana Skrt, speakers Kristina Stopar, Irena Lapanje and others

Room 7 Special Event

10.30 Workshop: Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA: Tabulating a debate tournament using TRPC

11.30 – 12.00 Break

12.00 – 13.30 Main Hall
Keynote Kate Shuster

13.30 – 14.30 Lunch in the Faculty of Social Science cafeteria

14.30 – 16.30 Presentations

Room 1 Argumentation

Chair: Henrik Bohlin

Marcin Lewi_ski (Netherlands): The straw man fallacy in the Internet discussion forums

Peter Mesarec (Slovenia): Argumentation and logical fallacies in the Slovenian presidential election debate

Bart Garssen (Netherlands): Ad hominem attacks as derailments of critical testing

Constanza Ihnen (Netherlands): Exploiting topical potential with practical argumentation: what do arguers choose when they choose between arguments from consequences and arguments from principles or norms?

Room 2 Debate

Chair: Michael Hoppmann

Rhydian Morgan, UK: The changing nature of rhetoric - looking at the way rhetorical styles develop and alter over time

Conor Tucker, Student, Colgate University, USA: Rhetoric, Debate, and Deliberation: The Colgate Policy Institute

Ameila Kermis, undergraduate, Cornell University, USA: Ethos, Pathos, Logos in competitive debate: Can they be balanced?

Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA: NPPF: Combining writing with oral debate

Room 3 Debate

Chair: David Williams

Ivanka Mavrodieva, PhD, Rhetoric Department, Kliment Ohridski University of Sofia
Debates during the Presidential election campaigns in Bulgaria (from 1991 till 2005)

Boris Vezjak, Faculty of Arts, Maribor, Arguments, fallacies and media

Steven Woods, Ph.D., Department of Communication, Western Washington University: Arguments of Mass Destruction: The Nexus between Intercollegiate Debaters Catastrophic Impact Claims and Bush Administration Invasion Appeals

Rozália Klára Bakó, Sapientia University of Transylvania, Miercurea Ciuc, Romania and Gizela Horváth, Partium Christian University, Oradea, Romania: The Religious Icons‘ Scandal: Radiography of a Public Debate in Romania

Room 4 Pedagogy

Chair: Maria Wolrath Sodeberg

Andreas Felten, Germany: New Debate Formats and “Pre-Debate-Forms“ for classroom use

Sam Greenland, Australia: Teaching English through debate in Hong Kong

Albert Mrgole, Slovenia: Multi-systemic perspectives of school discourse

Mateja Glu_i_ Lenar_i_, Slovenia: Together in diversity – promoting intercultural dialogue in language classes through debate

Room 5 Pedagogy

Chair: Alex Just

Maja Bregar, Slovenia: Examples of debates with six and seven year-olds in the first grade of nine years' primary school in Slovenia

Nives Videc, Slovenia
Debate with six and seven year-olds in the first grade of nine years' primary school in Slovenia

Hedvika Dermol Hvala, Slovenia
Development of rhetorical skills in primary school pupils

Veronika Hovnik, Slovenia
Philosophy for children through debate

Main Hall
Live debate on the motion »Media are responsible for anorexia and bulemia among youth.« debaters from Debate club Middle school Rodica Dom_ale, coach Irena Lapanje.

Round table discussion: MIDDLE SCHOOL DEBATE PROGRAMME, speakers Kate Shuster, USA Teodora Dubrovi_, Croatia, chair: Bojana Skrt, Slovenia

16.30 – 17.00 Break

17:00 – 19.00 Presentations

Room 1 Argumentation

CHAIR: Michael Hoppmann

Lillian Bermejo Luque (Spain): Rhetorical argumentation vs. the rhetorical dimension of argumentation

Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez (Chile): Metaphorical design from an argumentative point of view

Roosmaryn Pilgram (Netherlands): Characterising character: Analysing appeals to ethos in a dialectical framework

Satoru Aonuma and Naoto Usui (Japan): In Defense of Argument Culture: A Rhetorical Criticism of Asiacentric Bias in Intercultural Communication

Room 2 Debate

Chair: Anja _erc

Miha Gartner, Gimnazija Celje – Center, Celje, Slovenia: Mentorship of debate club.

Helena Felc, Faculty of administration, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, under – graduate student: Promotion of a debate club - story of success or failure?

Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA: Middle Age Debate Transition - How One Coach Changed Horses in Mid Career

Bojana Skrt, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga, Slovenia: Debate as a subject.

Room 3 Debate

Chair: Rhydian Morgan

Javier Rodríguez Alcázar, University of Granada, Spain: Risk Assessment: the Limits of Expertise and the Role of Public Debate

Korry Harvey, Lecturer and Assistant Director of Forensic, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA USA: Beyond Competitive Decision Making: A Primer on Civil Discourse and Deliberative Dialogue Methodology

Donal Carbaugh, professor at Department of communication, University of Massachusetts, USA: Debate, Dialogue and Rhetoric as Cultural Discourse: Di-ciphering Codes for Communication Conduct

Sam Nelson, Director of Debate, Cornell University, USA: Debate - What its past and present can tell us about its future

Main Hall

17.00 Live debate: Worlds School Debate Format on the topic: »We should apologise for colonialism.«

19.15 Buses leave for the banquet

19.45 – 22.00 Banquet in Grad Kodeljevo

Sunday, 13th of April 2008

9.30 – 11.30 Presentations

Room 1 Argumentation

Chair: Bart Garssen

Henrik Bohlin (Sweden): Perspectives in critical thinking

Danilo _uster (Slovenia): Some dilemmas of informal logic

David Cratis Williams (USA): Rhetorical Approach to Problems of Education

Room 2 Debate

Chair: Rozalia Bako

Bo_ena Perko, Kri_e Primary School, Slovenia: Solving conflicts in school by means of coeval mediation

Maja Nenadovi_, Fellow of the George Bell Institute, University of Amsterdam, PhD Candidate: Giving Back the Voice

Dea Ajdukovi_, HDD – Hrvatsko debatno dru_tvo (Croatian Debate Association), Croatia: Attitude change and need for cognition in debaters and non-debaters

Karlina Ko_elj, Master of Politology American Studies, Professor of English and Slovene at Secondary School for Catering and Tourism Celje, Slovenia: I am proud to say: these are my students.

Room 3 Debate

Chair: Anja _erc

Jerneja Domajnko. Post – gradute student at ISH, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Debating and equal opportunities for everyone.

Christopher Langone, graduate student Department of Communication, Cornell University, USA: Debate and the media

Veronika Hovnik, Gimnazija Slovenj Gradec, Slovenia: Tekma

Room 4 Pedagogy

Chair: Zora Rutar

Maria Wolrath Soderberg, Sweden: Pedagogical consequences of viewing topoi as habits

Uve Poom, Estonia: Factors influencing student reflection in the experiential education context: case study of debate education

Darinka Vrabi_ and Alenka Gortan, Slovenia: Does matura exam restrict critical thinking and how debate can contribute to the quality of lessons

Alfred Snider & Bojana Skrt, USA & Slovenia: Teaching teachers to use debate in the classroom

Main Hall
9.30 Live debate: Worlds University Debate Format, the motion and the speakers TBA

10. 30 Round table discussion: challenges of running the university debate club

11.30 – 12.00 Break

12.00 – 13.30
Keynote Omar Salahuddin bin Abdullah, Malaysia

13.30 Main Hall
Closing ceremony

Slovenian Worlds debaters meet their president, Danilo Türk

President Danilo Turk with Slovenia World Schools Debate Championship team, coaches and those responsible for the popular television documentary about their experience in Korea

Report from Maja Cimerman:

Slovenian Worlds debaters meet their president, Danilo Türk

It was about three years ago when I as a debate newbie stood up for first time at the podium to give a speech to an audience of one – the adjudicator. From then to now it was a rocky path of practice and enormous amount of work that had to be done. With my debate partners I won (and lost) many national and international tournaments, attended debate camps and fundraised money for all debate necessities. But three years later it is me who is given a speech by my country’s president.

This is as my story as it is a story of all other four debaters that represented Slovenia on World Schools Debating Championship 2008– Anna, Filip, Bla_ka and Teo. Together we not only broke as eighth best team, won the first award among the countries that have English as a second language but also snatched the award for the best speaker in the same category. We started to receive a great deal of attention in the middle of January this year, when the documentary about Slovenian high school students at Worlds in S. Korea was aired on Slovenian national TV. It seems the documentary was one of the best possible promotions Slovenian debate could imagine. Since it was shown we got loads of admiration and more importantly recognition from non-debaters. One of the unexpected results of showing debate to wide audience was an invitation for all 5 of us, our mentor Bojana Skrt and the TV crew to an official reception with the Slovenian president Danilo Türk.

The reception was held on the 3rd of March at the President’s house in Ljubljana. I have to admit we got everything you could wish for when meeting a high official. After the necessary 5 minutes of waiting for the president in a straight line in a fancy room, he entered, shook everyone’s hand and, as required by protocol, took few pictures with us. While we also loved the cake and the drinks we were offered, what we truly appreciated are the 40 minutes following the official reception Mr. Türk devoted to the conversation with us.

What I as a debater welcomed the most in our talk is that the president did not just flatter our knowledge on issues of international importance or rhetorical skills, as many non-debaters do, but also tried to understand the essence of debate. He challenged us how could have we defended not to ban the use of models who are below a healthy weight, when we clearly see the industry is abusing loose regulations and deliberately harms their employees for profit. Dr. Türk did not want to out-trick us in debate, but rather engage in weighing pros and cons so he could see our perspective on how to deal with the moral implications that defending a certain position might bring. This is an open question in debate but an even more pressing issue in politics and international relations, where he built his career.

The second issue we covered was how good education is essential for raising internationally successful debaters. In 17 years since gaining independence Slovenia has developed a strong educational system. We have students that speak fluent English, but also have wider knowledge and confidence to stand up and speak about in front of a crowd in a foreign language. But what might not be clear is that internationally successful debaters are a conformation Slovenia is doing things right. Successful debaters contribute to good reputation of our country. What is twisted here is that regardless of our success we have to individually fund ourselves for big international competition. Even Mr. Türk was surprised to hear the Ministry of education (which is not under his governance) does not financially support debate and promised to appeal to the government in this direction.

Overall I am one of those who really do not care about the whole official protocol to which many public figures are reduced to. I believe we can be thankful to have a president that takes time to engage in conversation with us alongside the whole “playing nice” thing. One might argue being accepted by your president can happen only in small countries, where the president does not have better things to do. I am fine with that. I am happy my president does not throw bombs, or stop riots or corruption all the time and therefore can give some attention to debate. I am happy my president does sometimes put debate first. Because everyone who has ever been involved in debate knows it is the better thing.

Top Speakers at CEDA Nationals in Wichita

From Gary Larson in tab:

CEDA Nats 2008 Speaker Awards
Speaker Team ~H/L Points ~2H/L ~3H/L Z-Score Opp
1 Martin Osborn Missouri State OW 174 232 116 58 246.0636989 42
2 Nate Johnson Kansas JS 173.5 232 115.5 58 237.9945774 39
3 Luis Magallon CSU Fullerton MG 173.5 231.5 116 58 241.2364083 40
4 Chris Stone Kansas JS 173.5 231.5 115.5 57.5 234.6432951 39
5 Andrew Jennings Kansas BJ 173 231 115 57.5 237.3514642 46
6 Geoff Lundeen West Georgia LS 173 231 115 57.5 237.0295291 43
7 Kuntal Cholera North Texas CE 173 230 115.5 58 236.8558993 41
8 Brett Bricker Kansas BJ 172 229.5 114.5 57 234.4011227 46
9 Grace Saez Gonzaga BS 172 229.5 114.5 57 233.9169692 44
10 Jim Schultz West Georgia LS 172 229.5 114.5 57 233.5438266 43
11 Joel Lemuel Georgia State GL 172 229 115 57.5 239.1297823 41
12 Chris Thiele Texas TW 172 229 114.5 57 236.763735 36
13 Josh Kernoff Dartmouth KO 171.5 229 114 57 233.2433939 43
14 Will Jensen Wyoming CJ 171.5 228.5 114.5 57 233.9707998 36
15 Nick Bormann Gonzaga BS 171.5 228.5 114 57 232.1978846 44
16 Matt Coleman Wichita State CR 171.5 228 114.5 57 237.302336 39
17 Pradeep Pramanick Emory CP 171.0714286 228.5714286 114 57 234.3633845 30
18 R.J. Giglio Oklahoma WG 171 228.5 114 57 232.755515 35
19 Kade Olsen Dartmouth KO 171 228 114 57 234.5148499 43
20 Buddy Khan Rochester KM 171 227.5 114 57 233.4810955 32
21 Nick Watts Oklahoma WG 171 227.5 114 57 230.2814018 35
22 Matt Malia Binghamton GM 171 227 114 57 235.4336553 34
23 Ben Crossan Binghamton CO 170.5 227.5 114 57 234.7636518 36
24 Travis Cram Wyoming CJ 170.5 227.5 113.5 57 232.8023422 36
25 Debbie Lai Michigan State LM 170.5 227.5 113.5 57 232.7643383 43
26 Deverick Murray Towson JM 170.5 227.5 113.5 57 230.7166094 39
27 Eric Chalfant Whitman CM 170.5 227.5 113.5 56.5 229.2379868 43
28 Andrew Baker Texas-Dallas AB 170.5 227 114 57 233.1658219 40
29 Dayvon Love Towson CL 170.5 227 113.5 56.5 232.9421003 24
30 Mike Meredith Whitman CM 170.5 227 113.5 56.5 227.7038252 43
31 Desiree Hooper Texas BH 170.4285714 227.4285714 113.4285714 56.92857143 230.4242484 33
32 Sam Caproal Emory CP 170.3571429 226.8571429 113.8571429 57 231.5757419 30 Mike Meredith Whitman CM 170.5 227 113.5 56.5 227.7038252 43
33 Brian Rubaie Texas-Dallas RS 170 227 113.5 57 233.5942881 40
34 Clay Webb Missouri State OW 170 227 113.5 57 231.1422455 42
35 Jessica Whittle San Francisco State EW 170 227 112.5 56 226.2895516 25
36 Rene Naud Texas San Antonio LN 170 226.5 114 57 225.2653035 32
37 Athena Murray Michigan State LM 170 226.5 113.5 57 230.849102 43
38 Sean Ridley Wake Forest RZ 170 226.5 113 56.5 231.0019229 39
39 Kurt Zemlicka Wake Forest RZ 170 226.5 113 56.5 231.0019229 39
40 Caroline Harkins Dartmouth AH 170 226 113 56.5 229.5500771 44
41 John Karlovic Pittsburgh KR 169.5 227 113 56.5 232.9467378 40
42 Paul Montreuil Idaho State MJ 169.5 226.5 113 56.5 230.6594334 41
43 Adam Jackson Towson JM 169.5 226 113.5 57 227.077657 39
44 Beth Mendenhall Kansas State MZ 169.5 226 113 56.5 237.0884833 34
45 Nate Cohn Whitman CS 169.5 226 113 56.5 232.2494494 44
46 avery henry Fort Hays hs 169.5 226 113 56.5 231.3727074 44
47 chris spurlock Fort Hays hs 169.5 226 113 56.5 231.204102 44
48 Deven Cooper Towson CL 169.5 226 113 56.5 231.0447905 24
49 Sara Stephens Texas-Dallas RS 169.5 226 113 56.5 230.9303802 40
50 Luke Sanford Whitman AS 169.5 226 112.5 56 230.9427411 36

Doubles at CEDA Nationals in Wichita

From Gary Larson in tab:

CEDA Nats 2008 Start: 3:00 PM Div: 1 Round: 1/16

ROOM JUDGE

Hubbard 208 Kansas JS Towson JM Holbrook, Sarah - West Georgia
Davis, James - Central Oklahoma
Gagnon, Julian - North Texas

Hubbard 209 Kansas BJ Texas BH Morris, Eric - Missouri State
Hester, Mike - West Georgia
Elliott, Darren - KCKCC

Hubbard 211 Missouri State OW Whitman GJ Lee, Ed - Emory
Stables, Gordon - Southern California
Prieur, John - Miami (FL)

Hubbard 218 Dartmouth KO Emory MT Reed, JV - Texas
Repko, Will - Michigan State
Richendrfer, Ross - Whitman

Hubbard 219 Georgia State GL Kansas TS Murillo, Gabe - Michigan State
Taylor, James "JT" - Emporia State
Schrader, Brian - Denver

Hubbard 220 North Texas CE Texas-Dallas AB Harris, Scott - Kansas
Cram Helwich, David - Minnesota
Samuels, Phil - Kansas

Hubbard 223 Whitman CS (A) Bard CD Foy, John - Weber State
Matheson, Calum - North Texas
Topp, Sarah - Kansas

Hubbard 226 West Georgia LS Idaho State MJ Baxter-Kauf, Mike - Macalester
Brooks, Hunter - Richmond
Jordan, Todd - Texas-Dallas

Hubbard 227 Gonzaga BS Dartmouth AH Farmer, Matt - Rochester
Lacy, J.P. - Wake Forest
Albiniak, Teddy - Southern California

Hubbard 228 CSU Fullerton MG Fort Hays hs Turner, John - Dartmouth
Johnson, Blake - Oklahoma
Guevara, Omar G. - Weber State

Hubbard 229 Wyoming CJ West Georgia MS Pointer, Steve - Gonzaga
Maurer, Sam - Emporia State
Walters, Heather - Missouri State

Hubbard 230 Oklahoma WG Whitman AS Heidt, David - Emory
Dietrich, Bryce - Missouri-Kansas City
Miller, Gordie - Rochester

Hubbard 231 Emory CP Texas TW Buntin, Jeff - Gonzaga
Cleary, Conor - Oklahoma
Olney, Charles - Dartmouth

Hubbard 325 Whitman CM Texas-Dallas RS Petit, Louie - Missouri State
Irizarry, Frank - Florida
Peterson, Jason - Redlands

Hubbard 327 Wichita State CR Towson CL Russell, Jason - Oklahoma
Bellon, Joe - Georgia State
Flinn, Skippy - Idaho State

Hubbard 328 Michigan State LM Wake Forest RZ Feldman, Jonah - Dartmouth
Clark, Kathryn - Dartmouth
Herndon, Scott - Texas-Dallas

Southern Illinois Wins USA Natl Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence

From http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2008/03/22/local/23847020.txt

The Great Debaters
By Scott Fitzgerald, The Southern
Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:09 PM CDT

CARBONDALE - They looked tired and a little withdrawn Thursday as they sat at a Kleinau Theater stage table in the Communications Building at Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

Kyle Dennis, a senior majoring in economics, looked to be rubbing sleep out of his eyes.

Dennis and his fellow SIUC students - Kevin Calderwood, a junior majoring in political science; Adam Testerman, a sophomore majoring in philosophy; and Katie Thomas, a junior majoring in political science - looked totally spent with no sign of hostility or resentfulness, a sight that would likely be welcomed by any SIUC professor.

Why?

Because each student gave a 110 percent a week earlier preparing for the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Wash.

As a result, they captured first place and are champions among all major universities with debate teams in the United States.

The win adds to a string of impressive accomplishments this season for Saluki debaters that includes first-place finishes in the prestigious Creighton Open Invitation Debate Tournament at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., last fall and the Point Loma Nazarene University tournament in San Diego, Calif., this winter.

Last week's first-place finish at the national tournament is a monumental achievement that debate team director Todd Graham said has not likely seeped in yet for his team members.

"It's taking a bit to set in," Graham said, smiling as he looked at his team.

It's sinking in, however, for the SIUC community and will persevere for years to come. All anyone has to do is take a look at the hardware inside the second floor communications building trophy case.

"After spending a number of years in elective office, I know about the hard work and the long hours of preparation that are necessary to develop persuasive arguments," said SIU President Glenn Poshard. "We are very proud of the accomplishments of the debate team and director Todd Graham. They have had an outstanding season, and all of those successes - capped by winning the national championship - prove that we don't take a back seat to anyone in the academic arena."

Likewise, Nathan Stucky, chairperson of the department of speech communications, also had kind words for the Saluki debaters.

"Winning the national championship on top of a stellar season this year is a fabulous accomplishment," Stucky said. "This is something all of us at SIUC can celebrate. I'm very proud of our team and the fine work of our assistant coaches and of Todd Graham. We're the underdog up against bigger and better financed teams, and our Salukis cleared the field."

Graham worked his debaters hard for the national tournament.

They arrived in Seattle four days before the tournament began March 14 and worked straight for three of those days on just five hours of sleep every 24 hours. SIUC debaters never left their downtown Seattle hotel until the tournament started.

Calderwood said he and his teammates realized the value of the intense effort and preparation.

"We wouldn't have won it if he (Graham) had not worked us as hard as he did," Calderwood said.

And the Saluki debate team is not done.

They will travel to the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., this week to compete in the National Parliamentary Debate Association National Tournament beginning Thursday through Monday.

"It's really important to us to win another one. We've got another week," Calderwood said.

Elimination Rounds Begin at CEDA Nationals in Wichita

From Gary Larson in tab:

Teams Advancing to Triple Octos   

Bard CD Cassie Cornell Mike Dickerson 6
Bard HL Zachary Heller Julian Letton 5
Binghamton CO Ben Crossan Alan Ostrovsky 5
Binghamton GM Jake Gartman Matt Malia 5
Binghamton RW Sebestian Rodriguez Tansy Woan 5
Central Oklahoma KS Scott Ketchum Stacy  Spomer 6
CSU Fullerton MG Luis Magallon Caitlin Gray 6
Dartmouth AH Shane  Avidan Caroline Harkins 6
Dartmouth KO Josh Kernoff Kade Olsen 7
Denver MW Logan  Martin Tyler Warner 5
Emory CP Sam Caproal Pradeep Pramanick 6
Emory MT Rob Mills JT Thomas 6
Emporia State FT Kurt  Fifelski Kelly Thompson 5
Fort Hays hs avery henry chris spurlock 6
Georgia HW Andrew Hart Maggy Warden 5
Georgia State BP Kevin Bottoms Chris Pozzi 5
Georgia State GL Kirk Gibson Joel Lemuel 7
Gonzaga BS Nick Bormann Grace Saez 6
Gonzaga MP Karina Momary Garry Padrta 5
Idaho State MJ Paul Montreuil Danielle Jennings 6
Kansas BJ Brett  Bricker Andrew Jennings 8
Kansas JP Andrew Jack Mathew Petersen 5
Kansas JS Nate Johnson Chris Stone 8
Kansas KK Joel Kasten Sean Kennedy 5
Kansas QP Dylan Quigley Ronnie Press 5
Kansas State MZ Beth Mendenhall Kyle Zarazan 5
Kansas TS Chris Thomas Kyle Shernuk 6
KCKCC MR Andy Montee Chris Rohan 5
Macalester CP Jon Chen Talon-John Powers 5
Michigan State LM Debbie Lai Athena Murray 6
Missouri State FJ Jordan Foley Jessica Johnson 5
Missouri State OW Martin Osborn Clay  Webb 7
New York AM Cedric Allen Christopher Meisel 5
New York CW Arnav Chakravarty Alec Wright 5
North Texas CE Kuntal Cholera John Elson 7
Oklahoma WG Nick Watts R.J. Giglio 6
Pittsburgh KR John Karlovic Guy  Risko 6
Rochester  KM Buddy Khan David Merkle 5
San Francisco State  EW Stephanie Eisenberg Jessica Whittle 5
Texas BH Laura Boyle Desiree Hooper 5
Texas CD Teddy Cross Jenny Davis 5
Texas CM Kenny Cauthen Drew McNeil 5
Texas TW Chris Thiele Nick Whitaker 6
Texas-Dallas AB Danny Abbas Andrew Baker 6
Texas-Dallas RS Brian Rubaie Sara Stephens 6
Towson CL Deven Cooper Dayvon Love 6
Towson JM Adam Jackson Deverick Murray 5
Wake Forest RZ Sean Ridley Kurt Zemlicka 6
Weber State CD Ryan Cheek Stacy  Dawson 5
West Georgia LS Geoff  Lundeen Jim  Schultz 6
West Georgia MS Jadon  Marianetti Zak  Schaller 5
Whitman AS Sam Allen Luke Sanford 6
Whitman CM Eric Chalfant Mike Meredith 6
Whitman CS Nate Cohn Daniel Straus 7
Whitman GJ Nick Griffin Spencer Janyk 6
Wichita State CR Matt Coleman Eric Robinson 6
Wyoming CJ Travis Cram Will Jensen 6
Wyoming NP Kelly Nickel Jamie Piechura 5
   
Teams Debating in Partials   
   
Concordia TS Tony Tracy Tyler Simmons 5
Cornell PP Zain Pasha Vinay Prabhu 5
Gonzaga SH Jim Sydnor Melissa Hanna 5
Kansas State HZ Jordan Hanson Derek Ziegler 5
Minnesota CS Logan Chin Aneesh Sohoni 5
Minnesota HP Arif Hasan Daryl Pinto 5
Missouri State SK Kristen Stout Aaron Kruse 5
Northern Iowa BP Ian Beier Michael Pham 5
Redlands BB Alyssa Bolin Jordan Bunger 5
San Francisco State  AM Vince Alvarez Jeff Martin 5
Southern California VY Clare Velasquez Candice Yip 
Whitman DW Jonathan Dentler Robby White 5

CEDA Nationals Day One

WSU's Matt Coleman, right, cross-examines UNLV students Timothy Jeffries, left, and Cory Anderlohr during a preliminary round at the National Championship Tournament of the Croos Examination Debate Association.

From http://www.kansas.com/news/local/story/349151.html

National debaters converge on Wichita State
Wichita State University hosts the National Championship Tournament of the Cross Examination Debate Association for the third time.

BY DANIEL MCCOY
Eagle correspondent

As he began to speak, Matt Coleman sounded more like an auctioneer than a college debater. With a rapid-fire delivery, Coleman -- a member of the Wichita State University debate team -- unleashed a nine-minute speech on U.S. relations with the Middle East.

Coleman and his teammates were among the more than 175 debate teams from 70 schools on the campus of WSU on Friday for the National Championship Tournament of the Cross Examination Debate Association.

For Jeffrey Jarman, WSU director of debate, the event is a hectic culmination to nearly a year of planning.

"It's a long four days," he said. "It's a brutal run of debating."

WSU hosts eight preliminary rounds Friday and today and elimination rounds on Sunday.

Elimination rounds and the final round will be held Monday at the Wichita Marriott.

Jarman said WSU, which also hosted the event in 1986 and 1997, began preparing for the contest in May.

In the competitions, teams present opposing arguments and are then cross examined by the other side.

A judge observes the arguments and cross-examinations and selects the winning team.

Teams with five or more wins continue after the opening rounds, Jarman said.

The topic for this year's contest is whether the U.S. government should improve its diplomatic relations with Middle Eastern countries, including offering security guarantees and greater financial support.

Jarman said the students can spend up to 30 hours a week researching and preparing their arguments.

"It's impressive that students are willing to put in that kind of time and effort," he said. "But it's rewarding. (Because) it's not just a competitive activity, it's also an educational activity."

Eric Robinson, a 21-year-old political science major and member of the WSU team, said it was the competition that drove him.

"People always say 'I like to learn things,' but honestly... everybody likes the fact that you get to beat other people," he said.

Stephanie Eisenberg, who traveled to the event with her teammates from San Francisco State University, said the competitive aspect helped create a sense of community among people with widely varying viewpoints.

"We still all come here with the same purpose," she said. "That's very unifying."

WSU has three teams of two students each in the event.

The team of Coleman and Robinson finished the day with two wins and two losses, as did Brian Box and Grant Brazill.

The team of Zach Brown and Patrick Rinker finished at three and one.

Houston to Get Urban Debate League

From scott@urbandebate.org

The NAUDL is thrilled to report that the city of Houston will join the Urban Debate Network with a UDL set to launch in the fall of 2008. Houston will join Dallas (launched in August, 2007) as cities in the Lone Star State with new, NAUDL-facilitated Leagues.

At its Thursday, March 13, meeting, the Board of Directors of the Houston Independent School District, led by President Harvin Moore, instructed the office of Superintendent Abelardo Saavedra to negotiate and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Houston UDL Advisory Board and the NAUDL to ensure Houston students are competing in a Houston UDL this coming fall.

While the details remain to be worked out, the Board authorized a Houston UDL with 15 high schools. Each school will commit two teachers on staff to coach the team and will provide those coaches with a $5,000 stipend. Training will begin this summer with workshops and competition to commence this fall. The Houston UDL Advisory Board, with support from the NAUDL, will contribute up to $203,000 to support this work. HISD will contribute approximately $151,000 for the participation of 15 high schools.

The Superintendent had asked for such authorization because “[a]cademic policy debate improves core academic skills: reading for comprehension, critical thinking, communication skills, research, and argument organization and support.”

Attending on behalf of the Houston UDL Advisory Board were co-chairs Ronald G. Bankston of Goodwin Pappas LLP and T. Griffin Vincent of Andrews Kurth LLP, together with Executive Committee member Barbara Radnofsky. A Houston Chronicle op-ed, written just before the new year by Mr. Bankston and Ms. Radnofsky, galvanized local support and led the NAUDL to concentrate its efforts in Houston a year earlier than it had planned.

Several HISD Board members, including both President Moore and veteran member Barbara Johnson (herself a former debate coach and whose husband is Houston Bellaire’s legendary coach David Johnson), expressed satisfaction and excitement at the prospect of bringing urban debate to Houston.

NAUDL Board Chair Lenny Gail echoed the board’s enthusiasm, and remarked that “the speed with which HISD learned about this opportunity and brought it to fruition for the benefit of Houston’s students is worthy of note. It is a testament to how seriously the Superintendent and the HISD Board take their commitment to HISD Primary Goal 1: To increase student achievement and narrow performance gaps between minority and non-minority students."

Cross Examination Debate Association Nationals Begins in Wichita

Rounds one and two are posted, the difficult job of rating the 159 judges for the mutual preference judging system has been completed, and 185 teams are in Wichita, Kansas ready for a big throw down.

Last night as blighted travellers from all over a storm fraught America tried to reach Wichita because of delays, an assembly was held where a number of awards were presented to start the tournament. There is no word on who received those awards, and we will list them when they get made public.

For now, you can look at the field at
http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/web/ViewEntries.aspx?ID=160

Emory Wins American Debate Association Policy Nationals

From http://www.emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=25267

Emory Students Win Top Prize at National Debate
By Anna Molberg
Posted: 03/21/2008
After winning eight consecutive rounds in one of three major national collegiate debate tournaments last Sunday, two College juniors waited patiently before hearing the judges’ results on their last round.

After an hour, the judges presented Chipp Schwab and Nick Miller with a trophy and congratulated them on their win at the American Debate Association (ADA) tournament.

“It feels good to win - there’s a lot of pride for Emory and our team,” said Schwab.

The ADA tournament began March 14 and consisted of five rounds, where Schwab and Miller faced talented teams such as the University of Georgia, last year’s national champions, and Wake Forest University and Harvard University.

“We thought a couple teams would be difficult but we knew we had a shot to win going into it,” Miller said.

The ADA tournament was the first of the three national collegiate debates in March. College debate teams, including Emory’s, are ranked for national debates according to their performance during smaller competitions throughout the school year. Schwab and Miller were ranked in the top 16 national teams, which also allows them to compete in the third national tournament in Los Angeles this weekend.

All collegiate debates begin in September at the start of the school year and have a common theme. This year’s theme was the U.S. policy towards the Middle East as it relates to Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan. Debaters are required to either support a policy change, positive stance, or to maintain the current policy, negative stance. They are then arbitrarily assigned to argue from a positive or negative stance with a partner from their team.

“I think we’ll be hearing more from these two in coming weeks. They’re on a hot streak right now,” said Emory’s Director of Debate, Ed Lee, who also coaches the pair.

Emory’s debate team, the Barkley Forum, consists of about 40 students and five coaches. It had eight regular season tournaments before moving on to nationals this year.

Lee said the team has a long tradition of success and is open to all students.

The forum also runs a program for inner-city youth in Atlanta schools to “use words to combat instead of fighting,” said Schwab.

Last year, College students Aimi Hamraie and Julie Hoehn won the National Debate Tournament and were the first all-female champions in the tournament’s 61-year history.

Schwab and Miller have been debating for seven years and were rival debaters in their hometown of Houston, Texas.

“He was kind of my arch-nemesis,” Schwab said. The two faced each other more than any other individual in high school debates and both performed successfully in nationwide competitions.

The duo, who never expected to be working together in college debate, now work closely together to develop their skills.

Schwab said the duo’s secret to winning is to “get a lot of sleep. It’s the ultimate prep time.”

— Contact Anna Molberg

Rhode Island Urban Debate League Spurs Upsurge of Debating

Michael Murphy, right, a senior at Blackstone Academy Charter School, prepares for a debate with help from Emma Tennant and Michael Ewart, both Brown students.
The Providence Journal / Steve Szydlowski

From http://www.projo.com/education/content/DEBATERS_03-20-08_SG9DS6B_v40.372e248.html

High school debating gains in popularity
01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, March 20, 2008
By RANDAL EDGAR

Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE — In the basement of an old colonial on the East Side, five high school students talk with a teacher and several tutors about the best way to provide afterschool programs.

Should they be run by schools? Or should they be run by social service agencies?

The students, from Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls and Lincoln, will not actually decide the issue, which seems to have an abundance of pros and cons on both sides.

What they are doing is preparing. They are members of the Rhode Island Urban Debate League.

Once popular, debating fell out of favor in urban schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s as support for afterschool programs dwindled and the cost of participating in regional and national events rose, said Will Tucker, the league’s director.

But since the league’s creation in 1999, debate is making a local comeback.

This year, more than 200 students from the state’s urban core — Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls and Woonsocket — have participated in the league’s practice events and about 100 have participated in tournaments, Tucker said.

Participating means researching, practicing and preparing to argue both sides of an issue, regardless of where students’ own views lie. This school year, the topic chosen by the National Forensics League, the country’s oldest and largest debate and speech honor society, is United States aid to sub-Saharan Africa — whether it should be increased and if so how. The topic raises questions and encourages debate about everything from food aid to generic drugs to providing condoms to women to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Arguing both sides can be hard for the students, who often begin with strong views on one side.

But sometimes, those views change.

Mariama Kurbally, 18, a senior at William M. Davies Jr. Career and Technical High School in Lincoln, said her view on whether generic drugs should be provided to needy people in sub-Saharan Africa was clear when she joined the league last fall. The obvious answer was yes.

Then she heard the arguments against generics — that some of the drugs are not identical replacements, that some are exacerbating health problems rather than helping.

She has since concluded that the generics should not be distributed.

“I think that’s a real-life skill that I got from debate,” said Kurbally, a native of Gambia who lives in Pawtucket. “Not only did I learn to communicate with people, but I learned to think from different perspectives.”

This week’s practice on the topic of afterschool programs was for a non-tournament debate that will be held on April 2. The debate will be followed by workshops and a general forum among educators and social service providers on the issue of afterschool programs, Tucker said.

Last night, the debaters had another special event, a year-end banquet at the Providence Westin Ballroom that was attended by actor Nate Parker, who stars in the movie The Great Debaters.

In the film, Parker is a member of an underdog debate team from a small black college that competes against the elite team from Harvard University. The film is based on the true story of the Wiley College team, which competed for the 1935 championship by debating the propriety of civil disobedience.

Tucker said Parker has been speaking before debate leagues across the country since making the movie and accepted an invitation from the Rhode Island league.

“It’s a Hollywood movie,” Tucker said of the film, “but it’s a Rhode Island story. It’s very relevant to the stuff that’s happening in schools all around the state.”

For debaters such as Michael Murphy, 17, a senior at Blackstone Academy Charter School in Pawtucket, the actor’s presence, while exciting, raised a question.

“I don’t really know if he was into debate but you know we’ll find out after,” he said.

The question was important to Murphy, who has found debating to be a path to self-expression, learning new ideas and communicating with others.

“I’ve always wanted to hear other ideas and I’ve always wanted to express my own,” he said. “Some people think it’s a sport, but for me, I get something out of it. That’s why I like it.”

Tucker said Parker, in fact, did not participate in debate as a student but has taken an interest since starring in the film.

“He’s really taken a liking to it, and he believes what we believe, that it really can be a powerful tool for these kids in their education,” he said.

With help from Brown University’s Swearer Center for Public Service, the league pursues that vision by encouraging high schools to recognize and compensate teachers who serve as debate coaches and providing Brown students who act as coaching assistants.

Debating can only help the students in school and in the life challenges to come, Tucker said, encouraging them to read, think and communicate.

“Given that they’re reading all the high-level stuff, their reading level goes up,” he said. “So does the ability to write papers, construct arguments and do lots of things that help in college.”

National Public Policy Forum Finals to be Webcast

The 2007 winners receive some coaching just before the finals

On April 26th the semifinals and finals of the National Public Policy Forum will be webcast live from New York University in New York City. It will begin around 9 AM on that day, both semifinals will be webcast, and then in the afternoon the final will be webcast. Precise times are coming up and will be posted here.

The website for the webcast is http://www.uvm.edu/debate_theater/

Here is some additional information about the event.
From http://www.bickelbrewer.com/index.php?id=debate

The National Public Policy Forum (NPPF) is the only national contest that gives high school students the opportunity to participate in written and oral debates on issues of public policy. Founded in 2001 by the Bickel & Brewer law firm, the NPPF is designed to supplement the research and oral advocacy skills developed in policy debate with another – that of written advocacy.

Jointly administered by the Bickel & Brewer Foundation and New York University, the NPPF has grown exponentially since its inception. Hundreds of high school students participate each year, competing for more than $25,000 in awards and scholarships, an all-expense-paid trip to New York City and the “Bickel & Brewer Cup.”

Who wants to debate Jim?

I received an email from the owner of this site lamenting that he had invited over 800 colleges and universities to debate him and that he had no responses. It could be because of the format or his stated positions, but he ought to be able to dig up a debate at his website. Check it out.

Jim, you may not be as open minded as you think you are, but I believe everybody deserves a debate if they want one. Good luck.

From http://debatejim.com/index.html

1. The objective of this forum is to provide the best information on each issue from people around the world.
2. Only the most informative, on point responses, will be posted.
3. Future responses may be based on prior responses, therefore each response needs to be right the first time. No editing or deleting.
4. Responses are limited to 150 words, once a week, for each issue.

- Evolution is false. Out of the over 1.5 million named life forms on earth (bugs, lizards, birds, fish, mammals, etc.) how many existing named life forms can you list that are obviously in the process of becoming a higher named life form?

- God exists. An intelligence other than you created your thought processes, such as your ability to understand and learn. God is that intelligence.

- We can receive, experience, and choose thoughts. We cannot create thoughts. If we could create thoughts we could keep ourselves in a thought paradise at all times. If you believe you can create thoughts, describe in detail what a thought is made of (the type and intensity of energy, etc.) and how you install and utilize the thought.

- The Law of God given Conscience (that which is conscionable) is the highest law, and the law in its truest sense. This law is administered by a jury of the most respected, knowledgeable people in the community who believe in God, because God supplies your true conscience.

- Populations and governments worldwide have abandoned the true law of what is conscionable, which is why governments enact unconscionable policies, such as taking your money that you need for your family's welfare, and giving it to others for votes.

- Giving to the welfare of others is properly done through churches, which promote the true law of what is conscionable (not color of law).

- All governments today act under color of law, meaning pretense of law, because some of their policies are unconscionable.

- Our thought mind works, in part, as follows: A thought is composed of low intensity energy. Similar to the way the energy in a lit fuse releases a greater intensity of energy in the form of an exploding firecracker, thoughts cause electrical impulses to be released from your gray matter (keep in mind that all matter is made of energy). These electrical impulses are then distributed to various muscles in our body causing contracting energy to be released from the atoms that make up our muscles (all of our muscles are contracting muscles). Other examples of contracting energy are static electricity and gravity.

- Examples of possession by evil are nightmares, destructive compulsions and depression, and various deviant compulsive behavior, such as homosexuality.

- The most nourishing and compatible food for our overall health, the food which is the most helpful in preventing various degenerative diseases, such as cancer, is raw vegetables, mainly raw greens (consider the physical makeup and abilities of wild animals which live on raw greens).

Newcastle Euros 09 Bid Gathers Steam

From rahaswell@btopenworld.com

Greetings!

EUDC Newcastle'09 is very pleased to *officially* announce our DCA appointment. Happily, Uve Poom has accepted our offer and is now the newest member of our adjudication team.

Uve is a very successful speaker notably he is a Euros ESL winner. He has held many senior adjudication positions in national and European debating. He is a passionate advocate for the development of debating in his home country of Estonia and the rest of Europe.

EUDC Newcastle'09 is delighted to welcome Uve. We think that he can really bring something special to the bid. EUDC Newcastle'09 has a vision of unity in European debating. Giving parity of esteem to both ESL and IONA is a central theme in our bid. That's why we're going to hold ESL and Main Finals in the same venue. Uve really adds to the depth and breadth of our team - with what we think are some of the best ESL and EFL talent.

Our Adjudication team is Headed by CA Sam Block and is assisted by DCAs Alex Ward, Leela Koenig, James Dray and, of course, Uve Poom.

We're still looking to add to our Named Judges list. If you think you want to support EUDC Newcastle'09 and be a part of our senior judging team, please do get in touch! convenor[at]

eudcnewcastle09.com

Our website continues to develop, please do keep checking back at www.eudcnewcastle09.com

Cheers!
EUDC Newcastle'09 Org Comm
@NewcastleGateshead

USA Urban Debate Leagues Hold National Tournament

From http://www.urbandebate.org/chasenational.shtml

Chase Urban Debate National Championship
The NAUDL is thrilled to host the first Chase Urban Debate National Championship featuring the best UDL teams from across the nation. The Urban Debate National Championship is very generously sponsored by J.P. Morgan Chase.

Dates
The dates for the tournament are April 3-6, 2008.

Participants
The Chase National Championship will bring together two teams from each of 19 Urban Debate Leagues from across the country. Approximately 72 outstanding debaters, accomplished coaches and dedicated urban debate and public school administrators will join us for a weekend of competition, conferencing and community.

Tournament Host
The Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management will host the event at their downtown Chicago campus. This central location will allow students and coaches to experience a few of the city’s unique cultural institutions.

National Museum of Mexican Art
Chase Urban Debate National Championship participants are scheduled to visit and dine at The National Museum of Mexican Art, the nation’s largest Latino arts institution and the only Latino museum accredited by the American Association of Museums. The Museum has become a national leader and mentor for culturally grounded institutions and community based arts organizations, as well as for its advocacy of cultural equity issues.

Freedom Museum
Chase Urban Debate National Championship participants will also visit Chicago’s interactive McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum. The new Museum highlights the struggle for freedom in the United States and is the nation’s first to be dedicated to the role the First Amendment plays in our lives.

Participant Conferences
In conjunction with the tournament, the NAUDL will host a series of conferences for students, coaches and administrators. Students will attend college and career information sessions. Coaches and administrators will participate in professional development meetings and engage in problem-solving dialogue on important issues facing UDLs.

NAUDL National Dinner
During the National Championship weekend, on Saturday April 5, the NAUDL will host its first annual National Dinner. Guests will gather at the University Club of Chicago, overlooking the city’s new Millennium Park. At the dinner we will celebrate the Urban Debate Network’s history, present and future. United States Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald will deliver the Keynote Address. Emory University’s Director of Debate, Melissa Wade, will be awarded the first NAUDL’s National Champion’s Award for her pioneering efforts to develop and spread urban debate throughout the country. The tournament National Champions and Top Speakers will be crowned at this dinner.

Sponsorship
The JP Morgan Chase Foundation has graciously agreed to underwrite the expenses of hosting the tournament through a generous grant. This includes paying the full costs of transportation, housing, meals, awards, and events for each of the participants. “We are extremely excited to sponsor the Urban Debate National Championship with the NAUDL. This program is consistent with our Foundation’s long history of promoting educational excellence and of helping students prepare for and gain access to college,” said Kimberly B. Davis, Senior Vice President, Global Philanthropy, and President of the JP Morgan Chase Foundation. The NAUDL is extremely grateful for the JP Morgan Chase Foundation’s visionary support for this unprecedented event.

IDEA Hosts Tournament At Chung-Ang University in Korea

From http://idebate.blogspot.com/2008/03/idea-cau-tournament-success.html

monday, march 10, 2008

IDEA-CAU Tournament a Success!
The IDEA-CAU Open held at Chung-Ang University last weekend was a great kick-off to the debate semester here in Korea. Seventeen 3-person teams competed in Asian Parliamentary Debate - including some universities new to the activity. Konkuk University and Korea Development Institute both fielded teams exploring a debate tournament for the first time. In addition to several new teams and adjudicators, Jason Jarvis was able to train Gina Kim and Dohhee Roh in how to run debate tab. Notice the picture of the tab and organizing team "working hard" watching YouTube on the projector and eating pizza....

Saturday featured 3 preliminary rounds with the themes Law and Crime, International Relations, and Sports and Entertainment. On Sunday, a 4th preliminary round with the theme Ethics was held followed by Quarters (Asian Affairs), Semis (Gender) and Finals (Democracy). After finals on Sunday evening, those still around celebrated with food and libations at a nearby restaurant.

The final round between an Ehwa-Kyunghee International swing team and Hanyang 1 was on the motion "This House Believes that the Best Cure for the Ills of Democracy is More Democracy." Debating as Government, the Hanyang team centered the debate on increasing e-government in order promote democratic participation and freedom of information. The swing team argued back by exposing the dangers of e-voting (hacking, proxy votes, ect.) along with proposing an alternative narrative to explain low levels of democratic participation: people are fed up with the behavior of politicians. The debate was a 3-0 decision for the swing team of Ah-young Kim (Ewha), Hanna Ko (Ewha) and Jya-hyun Lee (Kyunghee Intl.).

The top 5 speakers at the tournament were:

1) Ah-young Kim (Ewha - swing)
2) Roh Hye-won (Korea University Debate Club)
3) Hanna Ko (Ewha - swing)
4) Michal Vodrazka (Korea Development Institute)
5) An Hee-jin (EDiS)

Many thanks to Chung-Ang University for hosting this event. CAU has always shown a great commitment to promoting debate and last weekend's tournament saw this trend continue. Logan from CAU deserves much credit for organizing this tournament as well as tirelessly promoting debate throughout Asia. Damin Kim and Lee Chan Young did about 99% of the work for this tournament - next time you see one of them, buy them lunch and say thanks! Jason Jarvis' willingness to train people in running tab should not be forgotten - this sort of knowledge-sharing will help make debate even more sustainable and wide-spread in Korea. Finally, to all the adjudicators who spent yet another weekend on a college campus helping debaters refine their advocacy skills: you all help make this activity a reality, so my warmest thanks for your help.

Motions:

Round 1 (Law and Crime)
1) THBT naked walkers should be imprisoned
2) TH supports the use of juries for all criminal trials.
3) THW use electronic bracelets to monitor pedophiles after release from prison.

Round 2 (International Relations)
1) TH supports Kosovo's declaration of independence.
2) THBT multinational businesses have a responsibility to adhere to international human rights standards.
3) THBT Turkey should be a member of the European Union.

Round 3 (Sports and Enternatinment)
1) THBT states should not fund sports.
2) THW allow athletes who have undergone sex-change operations to compete as their current gender.
3) THW set a minimum age requirement to become a pop star.

Round 4 (Ethics)
1) TH supports the death penalty for human trafficking.
2) THBT monogamy does more harm than good.
3) THW ban pets.

Quarterfinals (Asian Affairs)
1) THW censure China for its support of the Myanmar government.
2) THBT ASEAN should abandon its non-intervention policy.
3) THW send more troops to Afghanistan.

Semifinals (Gender)
1) THW create quotas for women in parliament.
2) THW give fathers an equal amount of paternity leave as mothers.
3) THBT Britney Spears is a good role model for women.

Finals (Democracy)
1) THBT e-government promotes democratic participation.
2) THW tie foreign aid to democratic reforms.
3) THBT the cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.

First Qatar Debate Championship

From http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=207166&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

Doha College debaters pip French School
Published: Thursday, 13 March, 2008, 11:53 PM Doha Time
Staff Reporter

The Doha College team with their trophy
DOHA College has been crowned the champion at the inaugural Qatar National Schools Debating Championships, with the French School speaking themselves into the runner-up slot.
The event took place at Education City and was organised by QatarDebate – the national debating organisation of Qatar – which is a member of the Qatar Foundation.
Twenty teams from schools across the country took part in the competition, judged by QatarDebate coaches and by teachers who had taken part in QatarDebate faculty workshops.
Presenting the Doha College team with the winner’s trophy, QatarDebate programme director Alex Just said that the standard of the competition was world class.
“Debating in Qatar has come a long way in a short space of time and the commitment of the students and teachers has been incredible,” he stated.
Doha College team member Deepti Chadalavada, who thanked her debating teachers, observed that the level of debating was quite high.
Doha College debating coach Jay Henley praised his students for using the skills learned through debating to become shining ambassadors for the school.
He said members of the debating team had gone on to chair Model UN sessions, travel with the Doha Debates to the Cambridge Union and take on the mantle of role models for students in the years below.
The French School’s debating coaches Samia Zakaria and Eddie Lioret lauded the team’s performance. “Our debaters only began in September and for several of them English is their third language. To come so close to winning, in a foreign language, it is an incredible feat”.
Following the finals, 18 of the best debaters were chosen to compete for a place on Qatar’s first ever national high schools team to debate in international competitions.
The students will attend trials run by QatarDebate over the weekend. Five students will then be selected to become members of the Qatar National Schools Debating team.
The Qatari National team will travel to Washington DC in September to compete in the World Schools Debating Championships to become the first team to compete in such an international competition.

News from Associated Leaders of Urban Debate

Updates from the Associated Leaders of Urban Debate
Your Voice. Your Future. Debate.
March 11, 2008 - Vol 2, Issue 3

In This Issue

Return of BALI All-Girls Debate Tournament
Seattle Debate Leader Flies East for Hip Hop Conference
New Partners Join ALOUD Movement
BUDL Featured on the Wire
ALOUD WELCOMES WOMEN'S DEBATE INSTITUTE
ALOUD BRINGS DEBATE TO LANCASTER
Hip-Hop Summit Youth Council Partners With Black & Puerto Rican Legislators,
PARTNER ALERT: Free Training In Government Grant Appeals

Greetings

Change is the theme in politics and we're seeing a lot of that here as well. I can't believe all of the exciting developments with ALOUD partner programs. Read about all of the new partners that are joining the ALOUD fold offering new resources across the network. Find out how a major writer picked urban debate as a theme for his TV show. Read about the Seattle program's strides in connecting Hip-Hop to debate. In celebration of Women's History Month, check out the return of the BALI all-girls tournament and an amazing new program sponsored by our latest partner, the Women's Debate Institute. While you're at it, take a peek at our new website (www.debateleaders.org). The new links provide a powerful backdrop to the work to connect debate and youth expression to educational missions around the globe.

Return of BALI All-Girls Debate Tournament
BALI WILL HOST A CITYWIDE ALL-GIRLS DEBATE TOURNAMENT. OVER 100 STUDENTS EXPECTED TO COMPETE Fresh from their successful Freedom on Our Terms conference in the Fall, the Bella Abzug Leadership Institute (BALI) has announced the return of their all-women's debate tournament, tentatively scheduled for the first Saturday in June. In their first competition, the students debated Is hip-hop, on-balance detrimental to women. In the finals, the High School for Arts & Business defeated Stuyvesant in front of a blue-ribbon panel of nine accomplished female judges from the community.

Baker commented that, "We're excited to help host events for young women to become leaders. BALI is an impressive partner". The organizers are still seeking donations to triple the number of teams who can participate. To support this effort, visit http://www.impactcoalition.org/aboutus/abt_infstu_dona.html#ALOUD The excitement of the election, discussions of healthcare and an ever-changing political environment have led to an intense discussion about what topics should be featured this time around. The finalists under consideration include: Should birth control be distributed in schools? Is there a double-standard for women running for president as opposed to men? Should the US legalize gay marriage? Does the internet help close or further open the gap between men and women in society? Have an opinion on what the final choice should be? Send an email to debateleaders@gmail.com with your feedback.

Celebrate Women's Month by Seeing the Late Great Bella Abzug Speak in Her Own Words

Seattle Debate Leader Flies East for Hip Hop Conference
SDF LEADS MELDING OF HIP-HOP AND DEBATE NEW SYNERGIES EMERGING THAT CONNECT YOUNG PEOPLE NATIONWIDE 500 EXPECTED TO ATTEND MAJOR CONFERENCE IN NYC It's a long flight from Seattle but Jen Johnson, director of the Seattle Debate Foundation says it's well worth it to participate in HHEAL 08. The Hip Hop Association (H2A) has teamed up with the Social Services of Hip-Hop, Afro-Latin@Project, and We Got issues! to present HHEAL 08 (Hip-Hop Educates and Advances Lives) their annual Freshest Youth Program, H2Ed Summit and a town hall meeting. This 3-day event will take place at IS 217, the Raphael Hernandez School of the Performing Arts in the South Bronx and is dedicated to empowering Teachers, Organizers, Parents, Social Workers, and Youth [TOPSY].

Some of the presenters and speakers already signed on include Jineea Butler (Social Services of Hip-Hop), Chris "Kazi" Rolle (Hip-Hop Project), Jlove (We Got Issues! author of That White Girl), Franco Rosado (Deep Sea Entertainment), Martha Diaz (Hip-Hop Association), Peter the Rapmathician, Dr. David Kirkland (NYU-Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development), Cristina Jimenez (New York State Young Leadership Council), Dr. Daniel Banks (NYU- Hip-Hop Theater Lab), DJ Kool Herc and Cindy Campbell (HIP-HOP Preserve), Dr. George Priestley (Afro-Latino Project), and Sandy Shin (Breakthrough: Building Human Rights Culture).

See the Seattle Debate Foundation's exciting documentary

New Partners Join ALOUD Movement
ALOUD WELCOMES 3 NEW PARTNERS-GREAT OPPORTUNITIES FOR POWERFUL COLLABORATION WITHIN OUR NETWORK. ALOUD'S PARTNERS CONDUCT PROGRAMS IN-PERSON AND ONLINE FOR OVER 40,000 YOUNG PEOPLE GLOBALLY BALTIMORE COLLEGE DEBATE INITIATIVE BRINGS DEBATE TO THOSE WHO MIGHT NOT IN COLLEGE: Andy Ellis has emerged as a leader in the effort to expand debate opportunities up and down the Eastern seaboard through the emerging nonprofit, the Baltimore College Debate Initiative. His big idea is to engage former urban debaters in starting new programs at their colleges many of which are HBCUs. The effort has received significant support from the CEDA East region where Andy debated as a young man. "This program represents a unique strategy to promote debate and make it accessible to more college students," ALOUD ED Will Baker commented. "We look forward to working with them."

PICTURES WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS WITH THIS ALOUD PARTNER Critical Exposure's goal is to help students and organizations advocate more effectively for excellence and equity in public education. The organization was founded in 2004 by a former educator and an education policy analyst in response to the drastic disparities that exist among public schools. By empowering young people to develop skills as documentary photographers and advocates, we expose citizens and policymakers to the realities of our current two-tiered education system as seen through the eyes of the students who confront those realities each day. Through this approach Critical Exposure works to secure policy changes in order to ensure that all children have access to an excellent, equitable public education, fulfilling this nation's promise of providing all children with an opportunity to succeed.

THE NASHVILLE EFFORT Not to be outdone, Tennessee State University and Community Education Initiatives in Nashville both formalized their relationship to ALOUD in writing. TSU becomes the 12th college to join the fold while CEI becomes the 21st urban debate community to come on board. The program will expand debate opportunities in the area.

Learn About Other ALOUD Partners

BUDL Featured on the Wire
ALOUD PARTNER PROGRAM FEATURED ON HBO HIT SERIES, "THE WIRE". HBO WRITER RAVES ABOUT THE VALUE OF DEBATE CHANGING THE LIVES OF KIDS "My jaw about hit the floor when I saw a gigantic "Baltimore Urban Debate League" banner on the latest episode of The Wire" commented Andrew Brokos of the Boston Urban Debate League. "and was that Chris judging the debate?!" Brokos was not alone in his reaction to the sudden BUDL appearance on one of HBO's hottest shows. BUDL made its Hollywood debut on HBO's "The Wire," Sunday, March 2 (available OnDemand all month). Baltimore resident and writer of the hit show Bill Zorzi, explained that "I wanted to find something that showed Namond excelling in the school environment,and the Debate League fit the bill, hands down. It was the first thing that came to mind. I've seen what the program does for kids, how they can turn around by taking part, become interested in things that they could never imagine being interested in. I would say I'm a pretty cynical observer, too. There's something real there that caught my eye."

The prominence of debate in the mainstream media (bestselling book. major motion picture, award-winning documentary etc...) is a real boon to the debate community. The response has been so big that ALOUD has dedicated a space on its website to Film & Television appearances (visit this link; http://www.debateleaders.org/root/films.shtml) "It was thrilling to see the BUDL represented on the show, the banner, the trophies, the energy, it was unmistakable. I feel so fortunate to have BUDL associated with a program that has dared to illuminate the truth, the pain as well as the promise (though often overlooked or wasted) in our city. It felt fantastic to be held up as an example of what is right in Baltimore, as an offering of hope," remarked Pam Spiliadis, Executive Director of the Baltimore Urban Debate League.
Did you see the episode? Click here to let BUDL know what you thought

ALOUD WELCOMES WOMEN'S DEBATE INSTITUTE
ALOUD's NEWEST PARTNER, THE WOMEN'S DEBATE INSTITUTE WILL HOST ITS INAUGURAL CELEBRATING OUR COMMUNITY EVENT AT THE 2008 NATIONAL DEBATE COACHES ASSOCIATION CHAMPIONSHIPS. THE EVENT INCLUDES A FREE DINNER FOR THE YOUNG WOMEN IN ATTENDANCE WHO REPRESENT THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST THE NATION HAS TO OFFER I'm really excited about creating a strong relationship between the "Women's Debate Institute and urban debate programs," said Leah Castello. "Some partnerships are a no-brainer and this was one of those," said Will Baker ALOUD executive director about the recent addition of the Women's Debate Institute (WDI). "This exciting group is on the rise and highlighting their work to a larger audience is an honor."

The WDI is inviting all young women who qualify for the tournament to attend a hosted dinner on April 13. at this year's NDCA Tournament held in East Lansing, MI from April 12-14. Debaters will have an opportunity to meet each other outside rounds and their interactions will hopefully strengthen friendships that will carry over into the college arena. Ultimately, increasing the participation of women in debate will benefit our entire community. Please visit http://myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/schwarr5/debate_site/debate2.html for more information about the dinner.
Learn More About the Women's Debate Institute

ALOUD BRINGS DEBATE TO LANCASTER
NEW STAFF LEADS THE WAY AS LANCASTER JOINS THE DEBATE FOLD WITH NEW MIDDLE SCHOOL INITIATIVE ALOUD in conjunction with the School District of Lancaster and Neighborhood Services has launched a new middle school debate program. The initiative was an outgrowth of a series of consultations led by Pam Spiliadis, ALOUD's new Managing Director for National Partnerships. The program will feature several middle schools in the district and be connected with school system outreach objectives. "We're delighted to join ALOUD" writes Glibert Abney, one of the key stakeholders in this effort.

ALOUD's addition of Spiliadis is one of the many recent developments that has people excited about the organization's prospects. "Pam brings a track record in building literacy, revitalizing schools, improving classroom teaching strategies and debate innovation are unparalleled" says ALOUD Executive Director Will Baker. "Her high school graduation rates are spectacular and consistent with what debate can do to change the face of education. She provides an extra level of comfort and credibility for any new superintendent, nonprofit or government agency considering incorporating debate into their repertoire. They look and see the results and the concern that characterizes ALOUD's work elsewhere and the process of debate becomes much less intimidating." Spiliadis has focused on establishing national partnerships that will assist debate communities generally as well as specific partnership opportunities that widen the constituency ALOUD can reach. "As BUDL continues to grow and be embraced in Baltimore, the importance of our work and the need for the "word" to get out about what debate can do for kids becomes that much clearer to me", said Spiliadis. "It's great to be able to customize programming to meet the needs of school districts like Lancaster. I'm very excited to promote debate and youth expression through ALOUD as essential strategies to help young people discover their voices."
To donate to ALOUD's on-going work, click here

Hip-Hop Summit Youth Council Partners With Black & Puerto Rican Legislators,
HIP HOP SUMMIT YOUTH COUNCIL AND NYS ASSOCIATION OF BLACK AND PUERTO RICAN LEGISLATORS HOST YOUTH EMPOWERMENT DAY" Launch partnership to use the Power of Hip-Hop to service our children In an effort to educate our youths and young adults how to constructively use Hip-Hop as a vehicle for Social, Political and Economic Empowerment the Hip-Hop Summit Youth Council, Inc. (HSYC.org) and the NYS Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators, Inc. (NYSABPRL) launched "Youth Empowerment Day" at the 37th Annual Legislative Conference Weekend. The "Hip-Hop, Politics and Economics" Youth Summit was attended by notables such as Hip-Hop Icon Slick Rick, Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm A. Smith, Assemblyman Carl E. Heastie, Senator Antoine M. Thompson, Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries, Senator Shirley Huntley, Assemblyman William Scarborough, Dr. Divine Pryor, Tameka Malloy, Tyrone McCray, Donovan Richards, DJ Baby Bear and over 400 youths. Special thanks to Daymond John from FUBU, KJR Sales, Chavam Entertainment, The System Within, Ruff Ryder Films, Hue-man Bookstore, DJ Baby Bear, Peter Benjamin and Hatcher Enterprises for helping make the event a success.

How to get 'To the Top with Hip-Hop' was the theme of the Youth Summit. The majority of the discussion focused on the influence that Hip-Hop has on Education, Drugs, Gang Violence, Poverty, Unemployment and the Criminal Justice System with many solutions being offered. Participants were afforded an opportunity to register for our new Hip-Hop & Politics program created to show young citizens how to use the influence of the multi-billion dollar Hip-Hop Culture for Political Empowerment. Discussions touched on the role that Hip-Hop and the Youth Vote could play in the 2008 Elections. Voter Education, Registration and Participation was the message conveyed by all those in attendance. "No matter who your candidate is just make sure you go to the polls and represent your dreams and community" stated Rashad Drakeford, National Deputy Field Director, Students for Barack Obama. The young audience was told by Powerful Senate Democratic Leader Malcolm A. Smith that "You have the Political Power to make real changes in your life and community. By working with the HSYC and the NYSABPRL you will get a chance to make a difference during the State and Presidential elections."
Read about what happens when young people express themselves

PARTNER ALERT: Free Training In Government Grant Appeals
In 2008 the White House and the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, Labor, Health & Human Services, Housing & Urban Development, Education, Homeland Security, Commerce, Veterans' Affairs, the Small Business Administration, and the Agency for International Development will host several conferences across the country to help faith-based and community organizations learn more about President Bush's Faith-Based and Community Initiative. These conferences are free, but pre-registration is required. Registration is on a first-come, first-serve basis. Visit www.fbci.gov to register online. We strongly encourage you to register online. If you are unable to register online, please email fbci@dtihq.com for assistance or fax a request to 703-299-4589. If you must cancel your registration, please send an email to fbci@dtihq.com or a fax to the number listed above so we may accommodate as many people as possible. Rooms blocks are also reserved at each conference venue, available on a first-come, first serve basis. Please indicate your reservation is for the White House Conference. These events are part of a series of regional designed to connect effective social service organizations with resources that can strengthen and expand the services they offer to the people they serve. These conferences will provide an understanding of the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiative, information about the Federal grants process and funding opportunities, and the basic legal responsibilities that come with Federal funding. In addition, special emphasis will be placed on opportunities for partnership at the state and local level. They will also offer practical information on the grant-writing process, share successful practices from other organizations, and facilitate opportunities to network with government officials.

Visit the conference section of www.fbci.gov to learn more about the conference workshops. For more information, please send an email to fbci@dtihq.com, or visit www.fbci.gov. White House 2008 Conferences on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Thursday, May 29 and Friday, May 30 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM New Orleans, Louisiana The Sheraton New Orleans 500 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 525-2500 www.sheratonneworleans.com Online registration OPEN Tuesday, August 5 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Sacramento, California Sheraton Grand Sacramento 1230 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (917) 447-1700 www.starwoodhotels.com/sheraton Online registration to open soon Friday, August 29 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Dallas, Texas The Westin Park Central Highway 635 and Coit Road 12720 Merit Drive Dallas, Texas 75251 (972) 385-3000 www.westin.com/parkcentral Online registration to open soon
See the results that debate can produce

Normally, there's not a picture at the bottom of our e-newsletters. This message space is generally devoted to looking ahead. This time I need you to look back and help me honor one of our own. Some of you knew Max Adler as an amazing debater. Max participated on the debate team at New School University and was a member of the NY Coalition of Colleges intercollegiate debate team. Max had a disability that did not allow him to speak with his voice as others did. He had to type his words in everyday conversation. The fact that Max was courageous enough to join the debate team should impress you. However, Max was not happy just to participate. He excelled. Over a two-year period, Max was the New School's most highly-decorated debater winning awards from Burlington, VT to Baltimore, Md. His infectious exuberance and intellect were immediately on display when you met him. His presence encouraged countless students to attempt debate who might not have. Here are what some of the leading coaches in the East said about him: "I'D ONLY GOTTEN TO KNOW HIM RECENTLY BUT HE WAS A TREMENDOUS PERSON". "THE LOSS TO THE DEBATE COMMUNITY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPRESS IN WORDS." THE DIRECTOR OF THE WORLD DEBATE INSTITUTE STATED"HE WAS AN INSPIRATION TO ME AND MY ENTIRE SQUAD" Below is his picture. I have lost a dear friend. Our debate community has lost a hero.

YOURS IN PEACE,


Associated Leaders of Urban Debate

email: aloudhq@gmail.com
phone: 1-866-4DEBATE
web: http://www.debateleaders.org

IMPACT Coalition | 330 West 42nd Street | Suite 2420 | New York | NY | 10036

Northern Ireland Students Reach All-Ireland Final

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7291527.stm

Three pupils from Northern Ireland have qualified for the final of the all-Ireland debating championships.

For the first time, a Northern schools final was hosted by Queen's University as part of the competition.

Trpohies were awarded to Sarah O'Neill and Michael Sinclair from Dalriada in Ballymoney, and Harriet Ballantyne from the Royal School in Armagh.

The three students triumphed over about 600 others in what is now the largest non-sporting schools event in Ireland.

After a lively debate on the subject of boycotting the Beijing Olympics, judges praised the standard of debate.

Harriet Ballantyne said it was the first time she had been involved in any debating, but she said she loved taking part.

"I'm opinionated and I really need a chance to vent my thoughts," she said.

Other finalists were from St Patrick's College in Bearnageeha, The Friends School in Lisburn, and Abbey Christian Brothers in Newry.

Professor Colin Harvey, head of Queen's School of Law, said: "The students who enter this competition are all skilled public speakers.

"They have an excellent ability to analyse, understand and communicate complex ideas," he said.

The Denny All-Ireland Schools Final will be held on 15 April in Dublin.

Those taking part will also compete for the chance to represent Ireland in the World Schools Debating Championships in Washington.

Madison Cup in Full Swing

Here is a report on the Madison Cup Debates going on at James Madison University.

From http://lockhart2024.blogspot.com/2008/03/madison-cup.html

Today I attended the Madison Cup, a debate tournament held at JMU every year during Madison week. I didn't know what to expect, because I had never been to a debate tournament, but it was fascinating. Unfortunately, my one mandatory class today fell during the time period of the final debate. I did, however, attend the third round of debates at 2 pm. The topic was "Resolved: That the United States Should Chart a New Course Toward Peace in the Middle East." Walking into Taylor Hall to find a room to observe, I figured I'd hear a lot about the Israel/Palestine conflict, but that was not the case. The debate I witnessed was actually all about whether the U.S. should withdrawal from Iraq. I later learned that the first debater can choose whatever she or he wants to talk about and narrow the scope of the topic. After learning that, I have more of an appreciation for the comments that followed from the debaters - I can't imagine talking about a topic that I might not have prepared for in an extensive amount.

The schools participating in the debate I witnessed were Piedmont, Cornell, John Hopkins, Towson, Yale and JMU. Each school had two students and the first three schools argued in the affirmative and the other three in the negative. If you haven't witnessed this sort of debate, (I believe it is called Case Debate after a form started in Britain) the first speaker speaks in the affirmative, the next in the negative and so on. Perhaps the most interesting part is that debaters on the opposite side can stand up and put their hand out to gesture they want to ask a question. The debater at the podium can then either acknowledge them or say that they are not interested in entertaining their question at the particular time. At first I thought that not acknowledging questions was a weakness (that the debater didn't want to stop a thought or take the chance of an unanswerable question) but then I realized that most of the debaters would only acknowledge a couple questions and that answering too many would probably cost too much time.

As I said above, the specific topic they debated was a withdrawal from Iraq. I agreed with the affirmative side, as you would expect, but I felt as if the negative side did a better job articulating their position as a whole. I think the affirmative side lacked the breadth of reasons and the logic of the negative side, perhaps because they were not prepared for the topic or maybe they were just not as qualified debaters. Yet, with that being said, they were all very good.

I think I would have liked getting involved in debate, I'm kind of surprised I never participated in high school. I think it wasn't marketed towards students like me. If I remember correctly, a lot of the students were in IB. I've gotten my taste of debate as a political science junkie. I had forgotten until I saw a faculty member and when he asked if I debated I remembered the times that I've played Howard Dean (senior year of h.s. for government class), Governor Mark Warner (in political campaigning) and then debating Jarrett Ray about Virginia's Transportation Plan during the 2005 Gubernatorial campaign. Also, I think I might be doing some 2008 Presidential debate before the year's over - I need to talk to OrangeBand and the CD's and CR's about that.

Anyways, kudos to all those involved today! I was proud of JMU!

Q & A Attempts to Deal with Confusion Over Euros Entries

Hi everyone,

Below you will find some of the most frequent questions concerning registration etc answered. If you think you have not received an answer to your questions sent to me and you don't get answers from this e-mail either, please cointact me again at info@eudc2008.

eu. Considering that I have received approximately 250 e-mails in the past 4 days, you might forgive me if I've accidentally overlooked your e-mail.

Q: Why didn't I receive a registration confirmation by e-mail and what should I do to get one?

Every person who registered or was registered by someone else should have received a registration confirmation to the e-mail address that was indicated on the registration form. If you didn't receive a confirmation, the reason might be a faulty e-mail address – considering that the registration was probably quite hasty for all of you, it could be that you simply mistyped it etc.

If you let us know that you did not receive a confirmation, we will send you a new one.

The only essential information contained in the registration confirmation was your password for Phase 3. Other than that, you have not missed out on anything important! You won't be needing the password before end of April, when we are in Phase 3, so you can probably expect to receive the password at some point in April.

If you didn't receive the confirmation, but you are on the list at our website, then don't worry – you are registered!

Q: Our team received two passwords, which one should we use?

The password is not meant for the team, but for everyone's personal use. Every debater and judge should have a personal password. You can and have to use the password during Phase 3 for making any corrections in the registration information you have submitted and to give us additional information regarding your arrival details, dietary restrictions etc.

Q: Will there be a waiting list for teams/judges?

There are no waiting lists in Phase 1 of registration. Everyone who missed out on a place in Phase 1 will have to try their luck again in Phase 2.

We will be creating a waiting list for both teams and judges (including independent judges) in Phase 2 of registration, after the prescribed team and adjudicator places are filled. So if you can't register in Phase 2 because the team or adjudicator cap is full, you will have the possibility to be marked on the waiting list.

Q: How can I assure we will get places in phase 2?

Evidently we are not capable of assuring anyone that you will be able to register your team/judge. The only way to assure this is to be very quick once Phase 2 opens.

Q: What should I do if I mistyped my name when registering?

You will be able to correct your names and other data in Phase 3 of registration. Until then we will only be making the corrections that are essential for registration to run smoothly (for example if you registered two "A" teams from one institution etc). The x's and y's will also have to be replaced by names during Phase 3, we will not be doing this earlier.

Q: Has my payment come through?

Payments for registrations in Phase 1 are due on 23 March. We will start checking payments from 17 March onwards, then we will assign the "Confirmed" status to all participants who have paid. We will be answering your questions concerning arrival of payments after 17 March as well. If you find that your status is not confirmed by say 19-20 March, although you think it should be, please contact us at info@eudc2008.eu.

Q: Is there a possibility of late payment?

Unfortunately we do not accept late payments, regardless of what sort of impediment are you encountering. All registrants that have not paid by 23 March or at least sent us a copy of the payment order effected by that date, will be deleted from the list.

Last note on payments

We have pointed out several times, that if the payment deadline isn't followed, we are going to cancel the registration of these teams/adjudicators. If they can not pay under their university, they can for example pay from their ownfunds and ask reimbursement from the university later on. If they need a different/corrected invoice for that later, we can provide that. The important thing is that all the teams and judges pay by 23 March.


Places for Phase 2

The places that are made available after someone has not paid will end up being free spots in Phase 2. For the information regarding Phase 2, please read the description of registration system from our homepage.


With best regards,

Maarja Teder
Communications Director
EUDC 2008 Tallinn
info@eudc2008.eu
http:www.eudc2008.eu

IDEA-Netherlands Seeks Interim Executive Director

JOB ANNOUNCEMENT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Application Deadline: April 7, 2008

Established in 1999, the International Debate Education Association (IDEA) is an independent membership association of organizations and individuals that supports debate (a formal contest of argumentation between two teams in which one team supports, while the other team opposes a given proposition), human rights and civic education worldwide.

Focusing on young people and their communities, IDEA's mission is to promote mutual understanding and democracy globally by supporting discussion and active citizenship locally. IDEA believes that free and open discussion is essential to the establishment and preservation of open, democratic societies. Through debate - a powerful means of encouraging critical thinking, personal expression and tolerance for the opinions of others - IDEA provides students and teachers the opportunity to examine issues affecting their lives and their communities. To this end, IDEA creates broad and inclusive debate clubs that encourage participation by all segments of the population, including ethnic minorities, and establishes independent, national debate associations to promote, organize, and sustain debate activities in countries throughout the world. IDEA is registered in the Netherlands as a not-for profit membership organization.

IDEA is seeking a dynamic, motivated individual, committed to IDEA's mission, who will work as an Executive Director for the period of one year, with a possibility for extension to two years, starting no later than 1 July, 2008.

The Executive Director will have to work from IDEA's office in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

ESSENTIAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Executive Director is expected to:



· Help to develop and implement strategic plans and other decisions adopted by the IDEA board of directors and members;

· Initiate, develop and supervise or manage projects in which the Board decides that IDEA should lead, participate, or otherwise contribute, whether such projects are funded by IDEA or other parties;

· Be the primary contact person with donors, like the European Commission, for donor sponsored projects;

· Monitor and manage all financial expenditures relating to IDEA, oversee cash management and financial record keeping;

· Represent IDEA before potential and existing funders and/or partners of IDEA; including governmental and non-governmental institutions;

· Manage the scope of activities for creating and implementing fundraising strategies and raising funds from government, institutional, corporate and private donors. This includes but is not limited to: selecting a team and supervise the work of employees, correspond with potential donor, organize and attend meetings, be proactive in managing or implementing necessary activities to meet fundraising targets.

· Develop and use appropriate methods for communicating with and informing the members of IDEA about matters of interest to them;

· Hire and supervise staff and consultants needed to carry out IDEA's mission; See that all notices and reports are duly given or filed in accordance with these Internal Regulations or as required by law;

· Record and keep the minutes of all meetings of the General Assembly, Board, and Committees in separate books to be kept for that purpose;

· Be custodian, along with the Auditor and the Attorney, of all records, financial, legal and other, of IDEA;

· Handle the day-to-day financial issues with the assistance of IDEA's staff, accountant, and auditor.



QUALIFICATIONS

To perform this job successfully, the Executive Director must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the experience required:

· A university degree in a relevant field;

· Experience in NGO management;

· Experience and good knowledge of academic debate or participation in a debate program;

· Experience in financial management of NGO organizations;

· Experience supervising employees and in project management;

· Experience in managing grants and projects, including reporting;

· Practical experience or general knowledge in the process of proposal writing and fundraising;

· Desirable experience in representing an NGO to government and business leaders;

· Experience working with a volunteer board of directors is an advantage;

· Experience corresponding via letters; memorandums and reports with senior- level government and business officials;

· While knowledge of debate is not a requirement Experience in working in multicultural environment and/or with virtual organizations for this job, and experience in international education would is desirable.

LANGUAGE ABILITY

The Executive Director must be able to read, write, and speak English. Another major European language is desirable, fluent Dutch is an advantage.

TRAVEL

The Executive Director must be willing and able to travel, sometimes on short notice, to attend meetings, administer events, etc. Travel may be frequent.

SALARY

Salary is negotiable. Salary requirements will be discussed with short listed candidates, after the review of all applications.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE

All interested candidates must send applications by e-mail to Ms. Jurate Motiejunaite at jmotiejunaite@idebate.org . Applications should include:

· A curriculum vitae,

· A letter of intent,

· Contact information for a minimum of 2 references.

The application deadline is April 7, 2008.

All candidates will be informed about the status of their application. Short listed candidates will be invited to a phone, skype or face –to- face interview with representatives of the Governing Board of the organization. Most convenient type of interview will be organized with each of the short listed candidates.

Jurate Motiejunaite

IDEA-NL Executive Director

Tel.: +37061119740

Fax.: +370 37406866

Uzliedziu 3

Kaunas

LT-47262

Lithuania

Skype: jurate_motiejunaite

Huge College Public Speaking Tournament in Texas

It hapens every year and has been happening for a long time. The American Forensic Association's National Individual Events Tournament is a huge and exciting event. Wrapped up in debate, we may not always recognize the superb work that individual events coaches and programs are doing with young people, and how they are important for helping them find their voices in very important ways.

Check out the website they have at http://www.mnsu.edu/spcomm/niet/niet.html
It is all business and no nonsense, easily navigated and full of information. I tip my hat to everyone involved in this.

Here is a description of the exciting events that are being offered:

AFA-NIET 2006-2007 Description of Events


A EVENTS

Impromptu Speaking: An impromptu speech, substantive in nature, with topic selections varied by round and by section. Topics will be derived from quotations. Speakers will have a total of 7 minutes for both preparation and speaking. Timing commences with the acceptance of the topics sheet. Limited notes are permitted.

Informative Speaking: An original, factual speech by the student on a realist subject to fulfill the general aim to inform the audience. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time is 10 minutes.

Prose Interpretation: An original or selections of prose material of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. Focus of this event is on the development of the narrative/story. Play cuttings and poetry are prohibited. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time is 10 minutes including introduction.

B EVENTS

Dramatic Duo: A cutting from a play or plays of literary merit, humorous or serious, involving the portrayal of two or more characters presented by two individuals. The material may be drawn from stage, screen, or radio. This is not an acting event; thus, no costumes, props, lighting, etc., are to be used. Presentation is from the manuscript and the focus should be off-stage and not to each other. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

Extemporaneous Speaking: Contestants will be given three topics in the general area of current event, choose one, and have 30 minutes to prepare a speech that is the original work of the student. Maximum time limit for the speech is 7 minutes. Limited notes are permitted. Student will speak in listed order. Postings of topics will be staggered.

Persuasive Speaking: An original speech by the student designed to inspire, reinforce, or change the beliefs, attitudes, values or actions of the audience. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Multiple sources should be used and cited in the development of the speech. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.

Program Oral Interpretation: A program of thematically-linked selections of literary merit, chosen from two or three recognized genres of competitive interpretation (prose/poetry/drama). A primary focus of this event should be on the development of the theme through the use of narrative/story, language, and/or characterization. A substantial portion of the total time must be devoted to each of the genres used in the program. Different genre means the material must appear in separate pieces of literature ( e.g., A poem included in a short story that appears only in that short story does not constitute a poetry genre.) Only one selection may be original. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

C EVENTS

After Dinner Speaking: An original, humorous speech by the student, designed to exhibit sound speech composition, thematic, coherence, direct communicative public speaking skills, and good taste. The speech should not resemble a night club act, an impersonation, or comic dialogue. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforced the message. Minimal notes are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.

Communication Analysis: An original speech by the student designed to offer an explanation and/or evaluation of a communication event such as a speech, speaker, movement, poem, poster, film, campaign, etc., through the use of rhetorical principles. Audio-visual aids may or may not be used to supplement and reinforce the message. Manuscripts are permitted. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes.

Drama Interpretation: A cutting that represents one or more characters from a play or plays of literary merit. The focus of this event is on the development of characterization. This material may be drawn from stage, screen, or radio. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

Poetry Interpretation: A selection or selections of poetry of literary merit, which may be drawn from more than one source. A primary focus of this event should be on the development of language. Play cuttings and prose works are prohibited. Use of manuscript is required. Maximum time limit is 10 minutes including introduction.

Wild Rush for Remaining Euros Slots

Huge demand for the tournament. Here is the explanation that the tournament has sent out on how remaining slots will be awarded -- in a rush.

From: maarja@eudc2008.eu

Who wants to register to EUDC 2008... here's your chance!

On Thursday, 13 March at 13:00 GMT we will be deleting 4 teams and 1 adjudicator from
the list of registrants, which means that exactly at this hour these places will be made available for everybody to register. We are still in Phase 1 of registration, so the institutional cap of 2 teams and the n-1 rule for adjudicators still apply!

We're still holding places for 4 countries which means that the maximum number of teams that can register on Thursday is 116 (the system will automatically lock after that). Hopefully we will have some information about these countries before Phase 1 ends, but we will send a notice about it!

If you want to register a second team for your institution and the required n-1 judge, you have that chance as well, since there's 1 adjudicator slot free. But you have to be quick! If you cannot register a second team because you're missing or you can't register an n-1 adjudicator (because the adjudicator cap has been reached), we are extremely sorry, but there is nothing we can do. We simply did not expect such a rush of adjudicators wanting to come to EUDC 2008. We hope you understand.

So be ready at 13:00 GMT on 13 March to get one of the 4 team and 1 adjudicator places to your institution!

Best of luck!

EUDC 2008 Tallinn team

Morgan on Style

A contrast in "hair" style, Steve Llano (with) and Rhydian Morgan (without)

Nottingham is hold a "style only" IV, and in answering he questions about what judges will score the debate on, Rhydian Morgan has penned an essay in his own inimitable style.

From http://www.nottinghamdebate.com/iv-s/what-is-style.html

What is Style?
Rhydian Morgan, CA for the Nottingham IV 2008, describes what the style IV is all about.

A definition of ‘style’

When speaking in public, style is often mentioned, as something to which we all should have regard, as something important, and intrinsic to good public speaking. In formal competitive debating, the guidelines are that adjudicators should judge equally on matter and manner. Style should count for 50% of the marks, or so they say. But it would seem that at most tournaments, particularly in the UK and at WUDC and EUDC, what you say is becoming all-important, and how you say it no longer matters as much. The shift that has taken place has made debating more forensic, more scientific, as the case file comes to the fore, and teams who rattle through factual information is a less than entertaining manner (no names here) are perhaps now more successful than they would have been at other times.

The reason for such a shift in the way debate is viewed is understandable, if not desirable. It is far easier to quantify fact (as opposed to genuine argumentation), and to weigh such things in an adjudication. Even argument, in terms of analysis provided after the introduction of the fact, the reasons as to why the fact is relevant, can be determined in a relatively objective fashion. And when we are dealing with competitive debating, a level of objectivity is required, or else it ceases to be meaningful as an activity. It is normal that we have certain rules, regulations and restrictions: timed speeches, protected minutes, points of information. We have guidelines to help those taking part, whether it be speaking or judging: structure, rebuttal and substantive material, etc. And yet… when all is said and done, when we participate as speakers, adjudicators or even just as an audience, we are all aware of there being some undefined ‘other’, some spark that makes us say, ‘Now that was a good speech!”

We cannot say each time what it is, but are all aware of its being there: it’s that glint, that humour, that rhetorical flourish; sometimes, it’s just that we liked listening to that person more, and we can’t say more definitely why. It what separates good debaters from the great. Bad debaters can become better by learning more information that is relevant, and learning how to present that information in their speech. They can become good debaters, and be moderately successful, by learning how to ‘tick all the boxes’, but there will always be that gulf between them and those people who can fill an auditorium because, whatever the topic, they know how to hold a crowd, how to be persuasive and entertaining, because that is what it is all about. Or is meant to be about!

There is a school of thought that says style cannot be taught, and as such, is to be ignored in coaching. There are a lot of coaches, adjudicators and speakers, who, not confident about their own ability with and judgment of style, choose not to give feedback on it at all. Because of that, we have moved very quickly from ‘style is what makes the substance persuasive’ to ‘they spoke for seven minutes, with a modicum of structure, and I could understand most of it, so that’s the style box ticked’. And that is wrong. We should be giving feedback on style, because although preferred styles may be subjective, we can almost all tell when something does or doesn’t work for somebody.

We shouldn’t be teaching a style that we like, and trying to set up a production line of mini-me debaters, but we should be giving debaters the chance to experiment with, and develop their own styles, with which they are comfortable, that suits them, and that doesn’t look like they are trying too hard.

That is why I, and the good people of Nottingham University Debating Union, are running the Nottingham IV as the Style IV. We are assembling a pool of experienced, top-quality judges who will be looking for that elusive element – persuasion.

All debating is, or should be, about persuading people of your position. How you choose to do that is up to you – some people are naturally funny, some are passionate, some do ‘moral indignation’ better than anything else. Some people do the calm, rational, let’s take a step back’ approach, and find for them it is very effective. There is no one answer as to what style is, but there are things it is definitely not. It is not seven minutes of knob gags (ever), or anything similar. If you are not funny, trying to tell jokes will not work for you. And just telling jokes, even if you are very good at it, is generally not persuasive, in terms of an argument. Making your point in an amusing way often is, as it will stick in people’s minds; just don’t overdo it. Style is also not squirreling the motion to something about which you can be funny. If it looks like you are trying to have great style, then you haven’t even got good style. Clear?

Last year, there was some confusion, both among the debaters and the adjudicators as to what were the criteria for judgments. We tried to provide some clarification, but we failed in our objective. Some got it, some didn’t. That was not the failing of the debaters and judges who didn’t get it; it was the fault of us, who didn’t communicate properly what we wanted, would be looking for, and rewarding. So for those of you coming this year to speak, judge and have fun, here is what we want for the Nottingham Style IV 2008.

Motions will be closed – that means you debate the topic in front of you. Part of the problem last year was with teams having ‘non-debates’, as motions were open, but some thought it was legitimate (because we were unclear) to redefine, knife, squirrel (difficult with an open motion, I know). This made the judging even more subjective, and led to a number of complaints about adjudication criteria. We do not want a repeat of that. So, as at a standard IV, squirrels will be punished. Redefining should not be necessary. Knifing is generally unpersuasive. You get the idea.

Speeches should have structure, substance and argumentation. Style is not a stand-up routine. Especially if the topic is a serious one. The speakers should make speeches that are relevant to the debate that is happening; you should make arguments that attempt to convince judges that they are right. You should try to be informative, interesting to listen to, and if possible, entertaining. You should probably be likeable in your manner; after all, as per Perquillit, ‘the advocate who seeks to persuade must first seek to please.” You should try to be as persuasive as possible; that is after all the point of what we do. Consider pitch, pace, tone and inflection, volume, rhetoric, the judicious use of examples and analogies… you know the sort of thing. It all contributes to making someone want to listen to you, and wanting to be persuaded.

Judges should ask themselves one question: by whom was I persuaded, and why? Okay, two questions, then. And use those on which to base your decision. You might like to justify that decision, by saying things like, ‘”Well, team X (or speaker X) persuaded me because…” and then giving reasons for being persuaded by either team or speaker X. That is all judges need to do. You should discuss it (but not for too long). If you can reach unanimity, that’s great. If not, vote on it. All of you should give your feedback. Teams will want and need to know that different styles are valid, effective and persuasive. So give them something to go on. But do not spend hours poring over notes; your brain and your gut will tell who is persuasive, and why.

Persuasion is not conditional on role, or on a perfect four-point summary. In the interests of fairness, we think the last speaker probably shouldn’t introduce new material to which others cannot respond. Similarly, the opening speaker should probably set the debate in some context, so that everyone else knows where they stand. But if Opening Government chooses to defend the status quo, what’s the problem? Opposition makes a status quo defence all the time, and we accept that as legitimate. So if government does that, and opposition runs the ‘status quo bad’ line, that’s okay. We can still decide who persuades us more…

It comes down to this: speakers, create clash of some kind, and convince us that you are right, and the others are wrong. Judges, decide who is right, decide why, and then tell people. Remember two things: Camus said, ‘Human beings are not rational; they are rationalising.’ Bear that in mind, and rationalise your decision, but allow your gut reaction to tell you who persuaded you. Use your head to decide why. And lastly, consider the effect of your speech. Did it make people do what you want? There’s a key test, the ‘Philip of Macedonia test’: "When Cicero spoke, they said, 'What a good speaker he is.' When Demosthenes spoke, they said, 'We must march against Phillip.'" [Quintillian] Do you make people want to march against Philip when you speak? Judges, do you want to take up arms? If so, then that, ladies and gentlemen, is good style!

G. Rhydian Morgan, Chief Adjudicator

If you should have any further questions, please contact me at: grhydian@gmail.com, and I will be happy to address them.

Judge Procedures Merge "Grading" and "Preference" at 15th All Asians in Bangladesh

From Alfred Snider:

Hello. I am coordinating the tabulation of the upcoming 15th All Asians Inter Varsity Debating Championship that will be held in Bangladesh. I wanted to share with you some of our plans for judging at the tournament.

We will be having a judge training session, then a sample debate, then a test then and finally an evaluation of the oral adjudication skills of all judges at the tournament. They will be individually interviewed by one of our extremely experienced judges and their oral critique of the sample debate they watched will be evaluated. This information will be used by the Adjudication Core for use later in ranking that judge.

We will also be using mutual preference information in making our judge assignments. This is a computer assisted system and I will be arranging it and coordinating it. Judges will be asked to put on file a judge philosophy statement that will show each judge’s experience as well as their comments about preferences and particularities of their judging. All teams will be asked to look at this material by the start of the tournament. I will produce a form that has all of the judges on it. You cross out your own judges, and then you rate the other judges as (A) you really like them and want them, (B) you like them but they are not your real favorites, (C) you do not really prefer them but they could judge you, and (S) you do not want these judges under any condition and would therefore STRIKE them from hearing you.

This information will be put into the computer and used as part of Dr. Rich Edwards’ system TAB ROOM FOR THE PC that will be used during the tournament. I have the pleasure of making sure this program works. Dr. Edwards and I have worked together with another tab program he produced to do the National Forensic League’s national championship speech and debate tournament in the USA, which has 13 different events and over 5000 people involved. I trust his software and know that it works. I have personally used TRPC at many, many tournaments both in the USA and internationally.

This data will be evaluated along with the test results and the subsequent rankings. This way we can make sure that each debate has a judge that the Adjudication Core thinks is good and that the teams think is good. This system should enable us to produce judge assignments that feature high quality as well as preferred status. Let’s say that there is Judge A whom the Adjudication Core thinks is fine but your team things is terrible. Using this system we can avoid a judge placement that would be unpopular with one of the teams, and thus substitute a Judge B that the Adjudication Core thinks is excellent AND that both teams in the debate believes is excellent as well.

I think this is an exciting new development in judge assignment and I am looking forward to being part of it.

If you are curious about my experience, please feel free to download by prose vita at http://debate.uvm.edu/acsprosevita.doc .

See you in Bangladesh!

Tuna

--
Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna
Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics
University of Vermont
Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com
Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu
World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/
World Debate Institute Blog http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com
802-656-0097 office telephone
802-656-4275 office fax

LAST DAY: Pulitzer Center's Global Issues Contest

From Bethany Whitfield:

I

want to let you know about the Pulitzer Center's Global Issues/Citizens Voices Contest – a contest that gives individuals the opportunity to speak out on the most pressing news of the day.

With 13 different essay topics to choose from – covering everything from Big Oil in the Amazon to Hugo Chavez's new nationalism – citizens offer their thoughts on today's global issues, read what their peers are saying, and see whose essays make it to the top of Helium's peer ranking system. A final winner from each category will be chosen by the Pulitzer Center and will receive a Pulitzer Center Citizen Journalist Award.

We’d love it if you could spread the word about this contest – the deadline is March 12 and fast approaching!

DON'T WORRY, A NEW CONTEST STARTS MARCH 25!

Just copy and paste the short description below for your bloggers and readers to get engaged as citizen journalists:

Become a Pulitzer Center Citizen Journalist!

1) Pick a Pulitzer Center issue. http://www.helium.com/pulitzer-contest-overview.

2) Read the corresponding coverage at Pulitzer’s website. Your article should draw on information from the Pulitzer Center articles; you might also include original reporting of your own or firsthand experiences. The goal is to provide fresh insight in a compellingly written article.

3) Share your perspective on the issue and write your best article at Helium by March 12th.

Thanks and best wishes,

Bethany Whitfield

Website Brings Debaters and Experts Together

From http://loqdebate.com/about-loquitur/

What is Loquitur?

Loquitur is an Internet podcast which features interviews with academic and professional experts on current National Forensic League (NFL) debate topics for the free educational benefit of all high school students competing in Lincoln-Douglas (LD) and Public Forum (PF) Debate.

Loquitur is the joint creation of Mahesha Subbaraman (on behalf of Trinity Briefs) and Brandon Sheats (on behalf of Georgia Forensics Daily).

Loquitur is neither affiliated with nor sponsored by the National Forensic League.

Our Mission

We believe in the philosophical, educational, and oratorical value of high school debate.

We are thus concerned by many of the now prevailing trends in high school debate — trends that are encouraging high school students to win debate rounds through a reliance on speed-reading, highly technical jargon (e.g., “offense”), linguistic semantics, and/or line-by-line hairsplitting (i.e., versus big-picture thinking and philosophical analysis).

Ultimately, we believe these trends are turning competitive high school debate into a virtual echo chamber — one insulated from any appreciation for the real-world significance of the topics being debated or what it takes to be a good public speaker.

Thus, the purpose of this podcast is to reconnect high school students with the real world when it comes to arguing any debate topic, be it about eminent domain, free speech rights, government healthcare, or the morality of capital punishment.

And in the real world, the true experts on these topics are not debate coaches or briefs authors, but those academic scholars and professionals (doctors, lawyers, business leaders, etc.) who have spent the majority of their lives studying and dealing with them.

Thus, our mission is to ensure that all individuals involved in high school debate have the chance to hear what these experts have to say first-hand.

A Resource for High School Students

We recognize that researching, much less understanding, any high school debate topic is a highly complex and challenging task. However, we also believe that online debate forums and random Google searches are not the answer to this problem.

More often than not, the best way to research a debate topic is by listening to an expert talk about it. That’s where we come in: we give you, the student, the chance to put down that giant stack of books, and spend some quality time actually listening to what the minds behind those books really want to tell you about the topic-at-hand.

Thus, we hope that through this podcast, you will gain a greater appreciation for all of the hard work that academic and professional experts do in mastering their respective fields of study — and will therefore take special care when citing or quoting the scholarship of these experts (i.e., books, essays, journal articles, op-ed pieces, etc.) in your speeches and/or cases.

A Resource for High School Debate Coaches

As high school debate coaches ourselves, we recognize the challenges that such coaches face in helping their students to research and understand a new debate topic. We also recognize the financial pressure that many coaches face which can limit their ability to access extensive library resources or purchase the latest ”brief packet” on a debate topic.

Accordingly, we hope this podcast will help to level the playing field amongst schools in terms of debate research, affording all students the chance to learn as much as possible about the topics they are debating from the best experts in the fields involved.

Talk to Us

We created Loquitur to benefit the entire high school speech and debate community — but the success of this project ultimately depends on you, our listening audience.

So, please, don’t hesitate to tell us what you think about Loquitur.

E-mail your questions, comments, and suggestions to loqdebate-at-gmail.com.

M. Subbaraman
Founder & Owner, Trinity Briefs
Brandon Sheats
Editor & Director, Georgia Forensics Daily

Women's Debate Institute

I wanted this for International Women's Day, but a url fight was going on that is now resolved. Thanks to Rae Schwartz-Dupre of Western Washington University for her help.

From

http://www.womensdebateinstitute.org/

The Women's Debate Institute's mission is to close the gender gap in debate. We are a high school policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate workshop for young women. WDI teaches debate skills and techniques, shows students how to be advocates for each other in the debate community, and encourages students to pursue debate at the collegiate level. Through this, we seek to create a robust debate community of girls and women.

Why WDI?

WDI is a unique, four day workshop where you will meet new friends, learn about college and scholarship opportunities, and develop your debate skills. You will also be a part of a growing community of WDI alumni.

What You Get

• Tools to help you succeed in debate.
• Outstanding instructors.
• For high school juniors and seniors, a debate mentor who will help you make the transition to college debate.
• Exposure to female debaters from around the country.
• Reference materials to help you become a better debater.
• A fantastic four days, kicked-off by a beautiful and engaging eco-hike on Park grounds.

 What You'll Help Build

• A supportive community for women and girls in debate.
• A debate environment that's welcoming to women.

Congratulations to WDI's 2007 Scholars!


* Cecilia Bonaduce - a junior from Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, Ca (policy)

* Vanessa Bernick - a junior from New Trier Township High School in Winnetka, IL (policy)

* Lulu Danzig - a junior from Bainbridge High School in Bainbridge Island, WA (Lincoln-Douglas)                               

WDI Scholars are outstanding high school debaters who will attend the WDI as guest lecturers. They will also conduct a demonstration debate with the staff of the WDI. Each scholar will receive free tuition to the WDI and a $200.00 travel stipend to cover any transportation costs associated with getting to the WDI.

Eligible applicants for the WDI Scholars program are girls who have been debating for at least one year, and who will be either sophomores or juniors in high school during the 2006-2007 school year.  The WDI Board of Directors will select up to two LD and two CX debaters as the 2007 WDI Scholars.

If you know someone who you believe should be a WDI scholar, please let us know.


The Board of Directors will consider debate success, academic success, community involvement, and diversity in its selection of WDI Scholars.

Interview with Legendary JW Patterson from Kentucky

Interview by Jon Cruz.

From
http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/03/10/good-evening-mr-and-mrs-north-and-south-america-and-all-ships-at-sea-lets-go-to-press/

JW Patterson is the director of debate at the University of Kentucky, one of the most historically significant and successful debate programs in the United States. He joins me today for an exclusive VBD interview.
He can take great pride in many victories, both deeply personal and deeply universal. This includes directing a program where a team that began debating as sophomores with virtually no experience reached the semifinal round of the National Debate Tournament their senior year. Where six debaters went on to be the top speakers at the NDT. Where a team claimed the championship of the NDT. Where teams have won most of the major tournaments at one time or another over his many long years of involvement in debate.
His great pride extends beyond the scoreboard. “The greatest source of pride is that I may have made at least a minor contribution to many, many debaters who have become very successful and useful citizens,” he comments, “and to have so many of them say after graduation that debate was their most rewarding college experience, and how they have found so many uses for the skills they learned in debate and how that experience helped them in achieving their ambitions.”
Just as his pride extends beyond the scoreboard, Dr. Patterson’s commitment to debate extends far beyond the Kentucky team. As the founder of the Tournament of Champions and powerful voice in both matters of debate education and the debate experience on all levels and in all communities, JW Patterson has had a tremendous impact on high school debate.

JC: JW, thank you for joining me for this interview. I hope all is well in Kentucky.
Let’s begin with the basics. How did you personally get involved in debate?
JWP: I became involved in debate in Oklahoma on the college level. I coached for a few years at Muskogee Central High School in Oklahoma and then moved on to college teaching.
I took a job at the University of Kentucky as Assistant Professor of Speech Communication in 1960. This was the best offer I had that did not require me to do debate. From 1960 to 1971, I taught and did research in the Department of Speech Communication as well as serve as Director of the University of Kentucky Centennial celebration. In 1971, the Department of Speech Communication decided to downgrade debate, but the President of the University responded to an outcry from former debaters and moved debate from Speech Communications to the Vice President for Student Affairs. This move came in August of 1971 and the President suddenly realized that there was no one to direct it. I was on vacation when the President called me and asked if I would do it.
I turned him down three times before accepting. Finally I said I would do it for no more than three years. The rest is history.
JC: Debaters and more recent coaches frequently ask about the genesis of the TOC. When you founded it in 1972, what were your goals? Did you see it as the championship for the national circuit, or did such a circuit not yet exist?
JWP: When I became Director of Debate at the University of Kentucky in 1971, I raised the possibility of hosting a high school debate tournament. Thus, I spent several months exploring this possibility. I asked several questions. First, was there a need for another high school tournament and, if so, what kind? What time of year should it be held and how big should it be?
As I talked with students and teachers, especially at our institute and other institutes, I heard three major complaints.
First, debaters overwhelmingly were crying out for flow-sheet judges. Many of them were being trained at institutes to argue before flow judges but most of them said they received very few such judges, either at Catholic or NFL Nationals and almost never at invitational tournaments.
Second, both teachers and debaters complained overwhelmingly about the politics involved in high school tournaments. Many said that up to 75% of the time they were either judged by incompetent people or people with a strong political bias.
Third, I heard a major complaint from those going to Catholic and NFL Nationals that there was much too much lag time between their district tournaments and NFL.
Thus, I decided to host a tournament in early May that would be aimed at the sixty-four top debate teams in the country. At that time, there was no national circuit. I decided that there was a need for an invitational national circuit tournament that would be limited in size and one in which debaters would have to qualify to attend. In this way, I could attract sufficient number of flow sheet judges and minimize political entanglements. At the same time the tournament would serve as a warm up for those debaters going on to Catholic and NFL Nationals.
JC: Was the TOC received positively? Did most top teams attend at first?
JWP: The first TOC was received very well. We had teams from coast to coast. As far as I could tell, there were a few qualified teams who refused to come but most did attend. At that time, most people in the know seemed to think that the top two teams in the country were from Toledo, Ohio, and Milwaukee. These two teams met at the TOC as well as the NFL final the same year.
One big holdout the first year was Ted Belch, who had a very good team at High Point, North Carolina. He said at the time, and has said so since, “I didn’t attend because I didn’t think anything worthwhile in debate would come out of Kentucky.”
JC: But clearly good things debate-related were already coming out Kentucky. Isn’t Kentucky one of the older debate camps? When did you found it?
JWP: In 1961. Kentucky is one of the oldest camps in the country. I [founded] it for two reasons.
At that time, [the state of] Kentucky had a wealth of speech and debate programs, but most of the participants never got out of state. I thought by bringing people to Kentucky, we would broaden their horizons. For many years we had debate, extemp, oratory, interp, and drama. I switched to only debate about 1980.
My second reason for the camp was simply that I wanted to maintain some contact with forensics. I came to Kentucky because it was the best offer I had that did not require me to do debate, but I still wanted to maintain some in involvement so the camp seemed the best way to go.
JC: Turning back to the TOC, let’s talk about how you settled on the mechanics of the tournament itself.
Was the system of bids at different outround levels (octafinals, quarterfinals, etc.) exist from the start? If not, how did it work? And if so, how did you arrive at this qualifying system?
JWP: For the first eight years, all qualifying tournaments were at the semifinal level. This worked well, but after a few years we came to the realization that at some tournaments it was much easier to get to the semifinals than others.
Also, [in] about 1980, some tournaments were becoming national in scope and we decided that it was as difficult to reach the octafinals or quarterfinals at some tournaments as it was it was to reach the semifinals at others. Thus, we instituted the four qualification levels.
When the TOC began, there were few, if any, “national circuit” tournaments. But there were several strong regional tournaments. Among others, these included Emory, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Detroit Central Catholic, Bellaire in Texas, Tulane, Redlands, USC, Milwaukee, etc. At that time, several of these were on the verge of becoming national in scope.
JC: How did you first assemble your Advisory Committee? Were these coaches you knew from your days in high school coaching? From recruitment for college? Or just through the grapevine?
JWP: For the first eight years, I did not have formally designated Advisory Committees; I simply called on coaches in various parts of the country for advice.
For example, if I had an at-large application from a given area, I would send it to two coaches in the area and one outside the area. Initially, I leaned on coaches that I had known from my high school coaching days. After that, I leaned on coaches who attended the early TOCs. I did not formalize the Advisory Committees until about 1990. That is when we went to the committee rankings as a whole to decide the at-large recipients.
After the first few years, I began to realize the importance of seeking high school coaches’ advice on the TOC. Although it was, and still is, a Kentucky invitational tournament, I obviously recognized the importance coaches and debaters place on the TOC. I, therefore, leaned heavily on coaches advice in helping me keep the TOC as a major culminating event. In selecting people as my advisors, I always ask the question “is this coach capable of putting aside their personal agendas for the good of the TOC?”
JC: What kinds of qualities do you look for in a TOC-qualifying tournament?
JWP: We look for tournaments that have a substantial number of quality teams from several states as well as a tournament that is run according to widely accepted norms. We give some consideration to regional placement in hopes that we can give as many people as possible an opportunity to qualify for the TOC.
[So, then,] geography is a factor. It is particularly encouraging when a tournament springs up in an area where we don’t have many qualifiers.
Beyond that, it’s important how many teams are in attendance from how many schools and how many states. It is particularly encouraging when schools are attending outside that area and when some teams or LD debaters are in attendance that have been earning TOC bids at other tournaments.
JC: To borrow an expression from both Chris Matthew and Aaron Timmons, it’s time for a hardball. Do you feel the TOC promotes or favors a particular style of debate? If so, what is it?
JWP: I do not feel the TOC promotes a particular style of debate.
The style of debate employed in high schools and by many of the schools attending the TOC is highly influenced by the style of debate employed by college debaters and taught at summer debate institutes. Both the good and bad practices used in college debate ultimately trickle down to the high school level. This is particularly the case in policy debate, but it has had its impact on LD debate.
For example, in the early TOCs, the use of the “spread” was indeed a rare phenomenon. But as college debaters used it more and more, soon it became the dominant practice in high school debate.
JC: Which practices specifically would you personally consider good? Bad?
JWP: I think three of the worst practices in NDT have filtered down to high school debate.
First, inaudible speech started in college debate and soon spread to high school debate. This has tarnished the name of debate as a communication activity. When non-debate people, such as university professors, go into rounds and say they can’t understand a thing that’s being said, it tends to undermine one of the purposes of debate. In the 70s, college debaters began speaking or reading as fast as they thought the judges could take and before we knew it, many judges were reading almost everything that was uttered in the debate. It wasn’t long until this practice spread to high school debate.
Second, stretching topicality to the outer limits started in college debate in the early 70’s. Today, some NDT teams stretch it to the point where the designated topic for debate is no longer in the round. In my opinion, this has weakened the strength of the arguments and strained the argumentative fields.
Third, and this is minor, but the dress code of college debate had diminished to the point to where “the sloppier the better.” High school policy debaters picked up on this and acted accordingly and now I am seeing it in Lincoln-Douglas debate.
JC: As corny as it might make me sound, I really agree with the last point you just made.
JWP: Also, some twenty to twenty-five years ago college coaches and hired support staff began doing the work for the debaters, i.e. doing the research and writing the briefs. In my opinion, this is antithetical to the role that the teacher should play. I think it lessens the learning experience for the debater and it discourages those debaters whose limited resources prevents them from hiring a support staff if they choose to do so. This practice has spread to the TOC debaters to the point that some schools arrive with bigger support staffs than the squad they brought with them.
As far as good practices that have spread from college to high school, the biggest one is the development of more sophisticated arguments backed by more in-depth evidence.
JC: Some see the TOC as being necessarily in conflict with Nationals. Your comment?
JWP: I have never thought there was an inherent conflict between TOC and NFL Nationals. In fact, when I picked the date for the TOC in 1972, I regarded it as a warm up for NFL.
The fact is that the TOC and the NFL serve different purposes. With its district qualifying system, NFL represents ever area of the country whether there are competitive champions in that area or not. The TOC, on the other hand, attempts to bring together the best policy teams, LD debaters, Public Forum teams, and Student Congress competitors in the country regardless of where they are from. If by chance they all happen to be from the same area, that’s fine. The important thing is that we have a qualifying system that insures the very best will be there.
Granted our qualifying system is not perfect and we are constantly trying to make it better. But in large part, I think it gets the top debaters to the TOC.
JC: What specific complaints have you heard about the qualifying system?
JWP: I have [heard] three major complaints.
First, many say that the qualifying tournaments are not as geographically well-distributed as they should be. For example, some say that there are far too many tournaments in some areas, specifically the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic as compared with the Midwest and Northwest. This is perhaps true, but it should be noted that there is much greater participation in certain areas than others. Others say this is unfair because people in the Northeast, for example, don’t have to travel nearly as far to qualifying tournaments as do people west of the Mississippi.
Second, some say that the level of competition is not equal at various levels. For example they note that it’s much harder to get a bid at some quarter finals tournaments than at others. Admittedly this may be true, but I am at a loss as to how to correct it.
Third, some complain that we don’t give qualifying status to some tournaments even though the draw is as good or better than it is at some of the qualifying tournaments. Often this is because that area doesn’t need a qualifying tournament at a given level.
JC: Sometimes you’ve had to make calls about TOC bids based on unexpected contingencies: the freeze-over of Atlanta during Emory a few years ago, the cancellation of Westminster in ‘98 (and the subsequent relocation of the bid to Mars Hill), the switch of the LMU tournament to USC. Has there ever been a particularly tough call to make? Have any of these situations caused you to rethink standing TOC policy?
JWP: Perhaps one of our weakest policy links is that we do not have a clear-cut plan on how to deal with unexpected situations. As of this time, I deal with them on an ad hoc basis but have no clear-cut policy. The Emory situation was one of the toughest calls. Even though it would have been based on one round of debating, I did offer to count as qualifiers if indeed an octafinal had been held.
JC: Lincoln-Douglas debate debuted at the turn of the 1980s but didn’t appear at the TOC until 1986. Was there resistance to adding it?
JWP: We added Lincoln Douglas to the TOC in 1986. This move encountered a strong resistance from my Advisory Committee. I started making plans for this in 1983 but was warned repeatedly by many policy coaches that this would ruin the TOC. Finally, after three years of arguing, I put it in the TOC over objections of many, many policy coaches.
One of the people who had backed this move from day one was one Richard Sodikow of Bronx Science. He had been urging me to do this since 1981. At that time, Richard had a very high profile image in being a very successful coach in both policy and LD.
JC: What were the objections to adding LD to the TOC? Don’t worry. We won’t be offended. [laughs]
JWP: I was told by some of my advisors that LD was a form of shallow debating. That it didn’t require in depth research and in depth argument construction. The same people said that putting it in the TOC would give it a dignity that it did not merit and that it’s addition would detract from the “real debate.” I disagreed with my advisors.
I was fortunate in that I had heard some very good Lincoln-Douglas debates in its infancy and I came to the conclusion that if it is done well debating value topics demands more creativity that does policy topics.
JC: Public Forum debate seems to have been welcomed into the TOC more quickly. What led to its inclusion?
JWP: Three years ago, we added Public Forum. There was much less outcry against this move than I received with LD but it had and still has its detractors. Some say the verdict is still out.
JC: I have sometimes thought that perhaps a TOC in Public Forum is antithetical to an event that is supposed to feature “community” judges more than coaches and other “debate expert” critics. Your thoughts?
JWP: Granted, the manner in which Public Forum is currently judged does not live up to it’s stated mission, but I think in time this problem will be solved. Certainly at the TOC in 2008 we are making every effort to have UK community people as judges.
JC: The TOC is an old tournament with lots of traditions. I’d like to ask about some of them. First, and perhaps most importantly, tell us about the history of the tournament hotel. This past year marked quite a swanky upgrade.
JWP: When I started the TOC we used the Downtowner Motel on Main Street in Lexington. This proved to be grossly inadequate. At that time, we moved to the Hospitality Inn on the north side of Lexington. The hotel was soon bought by the Helmsey Corporation in New York City and was called the Harley. In the late 90s, Leona Helmsey sold the hotel to the Ramada Inn Corporation. We used the hotel from 1975 to 2006.
This year, we moved to downtown Lexington to the Radisson Hotel. The much-needed move was a long time coming. We outgrew the Ramada about ten years before we moved. We needed more bedrooms, more meeting rooms, a larger banquet facility, etc.
I was reluctant to move, I suppose, for sentimental reasons. For over thirty years, I had run both our high school and college tournaments out of the Ramada Inn and the Lexington Suite holds many fond memories. This is the one thing we miss the most about the Ramada. To my knowledge, no hotel in Lexington has a hospitality room as big as the Lexington Suite.
JC: How did the Breakfast of Champions start? Are there any now-defunct traditions you’ve wanted to bring back?
The Breakfast of Champions on the last day has been part of the TOC from it’s beginning. Its title came from an old syndicated radio program that originated in Chicago in the heyday of AM radio.
JC: When did you begin the tradition of having guest speakers at the TOC? Have any speakers and speeches particularly stuck out in your mind? Last year’s was quite excellent.
JWP: We have always had what used to be a luncheon speaker and a speaker at the Breakfast of Champions. Two that stand out in my mind as being particularly good was a debater from Northwestern name Mike Gottlieb and, of course, Bill Smelko’s last year. I can think of no speaker who captivated the audience like Bill did. I watched the students as Bill was speaking and they seemed to be hanging on to every word he was saying.
JC: Have the trophies had the Kentucky Derby-style horses from the start?
JWP: Yes the trophies have always featured the Derby horses.
JC: In recent years, the TOC has been expanded to include new events and has been moved to a new hotel. Are there any other short-term and long-term changes we should be expecting?
JWP: I think we have had enough change for the moment. Of course, we are constantly looking for ways to improve the qualifying system, and will make changes as new approaches emerge.
JC: I often ask human interest questions. So, now, the age old one — and the source of many a trivia question on VBD — what is the origin of “JW”?
JWP: As to the origin of JW, at the time of my birth my parents were trying to decide between Jason William and Jackson Wallace. The doctor suggested they just put down the initials and change the name later. Of course the change never came, and I have lived these many years with only initials for a name.
This has caused me some apprehension over the years. Many times people have insisted they want to know what the J and the W stand for. Several years ago, in dealing with an insurance company, they just kept insisting that I give them the real name. In desperation, I sent them “J.(only) and W.(only).” The policy arrived made out to “Jonly Wonly Patterson.”
JC: [laughs]
I can’t think a human interest question that’s going to produce a better response than the Jonly Wonly anecdote, and since that seems to be all the time we have, I’ll move on to an important final question.
JW, you’ve been involved in debate for a long time, and as such, have a great deal of experience working with fellow coaches and with debaters. What advice would you give both coaches *and* debaters regarding “national circuit” debate?
JWP: Don’t go overboard hopping across the country just to try to get bids to the TOC. I believe coaches should try to balance the attendance at local, regional, and national tournaments. All of a school’s debaters should have experiences at all levels if at all possible. I think it is a big mistake to pick a handful of students and travel them only to national tournaments. I think it is also a mistake not to attend local and regional tournaments just because they don’t have TOC bids. The TOC is only a part of the learning experience. To assume that it’s the one and only learning experience is a sad mistake.

Guide to Canadian University Format

Very interesting:
1. Speech times
2. Open cases
3. No repeat cases
4. High standards for government

I am not too excited about this format, but it seems to produce some excellent debaters, which is the proof in the pudding.

From http://www.cusid.ca/community/viewtopic.php?t=16069

2008 CUSID National Championship Style Guide

Purpose

This style guide outlines the adjudication criteria for this year’s National Championships. It should serve to highlight the expectations held by the adjudication team of both debaters and judges and aims to reflect current practices in Canadian Parliamentary debate.

Basic Style

This year’s Canadian Nationals will follow standard Canadian Parliamentary style with the following speaking times:

Prime Minister’s Constructive – 6 or 7 minutes*
Member Opposite (Leader of the Opposition**) – 7 minutes
Minister for the Crown – 7 minutes
Leader of the Opposition (Member Opposite/Leader of the Opposition**) –
10 minutes (7 minutes/3 minutes**)
Prime Minister’s Rebuttal – 3 or 4 minutes*

*The government team has the option of using PMRE, or Prime Minister’s Rebuttal Enhancement, but must inform the speaker or panel chair before the round begins.

**The opposition team has the option of using Split Opposition, but must inform the speaker or panel chair before the round begins.

Points of Information

Debaters should offer points of information to the opposing teams during the round. Upon standing, debaters are allowed to make a brief interjection such as “Sir/Madam,” “On that point,” or, “Point of Information.” Heckling or speaking before the floor is yielded to them is not allowed. Points of information should be short in duration and should serve to further the debate or attack the speaker’s current line of argumentation.

Speakers are restricted from standing on points of information during the first and last minutes of all constructive speeches, as well as the entireties of all rebuttal speeches. In the case of PMRE, only the first and last 30 seconds of the Prime Minister’s Constructive speech is protected.

Adjudicators are allowed to consider the quantity and quality of points of information while deliberating on the round. It would be reasonable for an adjudicator to expect a speaker to give two points of information and accept two during the round, although this general rule of thumb is subject to change on a case by case basis.

Points of Clarification are allowed at this tournament. These are not meant as attacks on the opposing team, but rather as a means to clarify the details of the round such that the opposing team can debate the case without misunderstanding and generally making the round unbearable for all involved. Debaters who stand on points of clarification are expected to ask clarifying questions and not to use the opportunity to attack the opposing team’s case.

Points of order and points of personal privilege are not allowed.

Cases

All motions at this tournament are squirrelable. As such, the government team may run any case they wish, provided it is in line with the following regulations. It should be noted, however, that not following these regulations does not automatically result in a loss, but it does make that possibility much more likely.

Tautologies/Truisms - Cases that are inherently true or are self-proving are not allowed at this tournament.

Tight Cases - Cases that are weighted heavily towards side government, and leave the opposition with no reasonable arguments, are not allowed at this tournament. Should a team run such a case, judges should consider the relative effort made on the part of the opposition to present a case, and judge the round accordingly.

Specific Knowledge - Cases that require in-depth knowledge of a particular field are not allowed at this tournament. A case is fair if the judge could reasonably expect a university-level debater who is exposed to some form of mainstream mass media to be aware of the issue, or if the government team can explain the case well enough during the PMC that an opposition team could come up with a reasonable opposition case.

Opp-Choice - Cases in which the government team asks the opposition to pick the side they wish to defend are not allowed at this tournament.

Time-Place Sets/Historical Cases -
Cases where the government sets the debate in a specific time or place, and gives the speaker a role in the debate, are allowed. However, arguments based on the personal motivations of the character assigned to the speaker are frowned upon because they are simply bad arguments. In addition, events occurring subsequent to the time in which the government places the case should not be cited as arguments for or against the motion. Time-place sets should not be confused with historical cases, in which the government argues from the present time about a past event. These cases are also allowed.

Repeated Cases - Cases that have been run in a prior round by the same team at this tournament are unacceptable. Period.

Government

The adjudication team expects that Government teams will run contentious cases, with a burden of proof that is fair to the opposition. Judges are encouraged to look favourably upon teams that run cases with relatively high (but not stupid) burdens of proof, and support these cases with strong argumentation. The adjudication team expects Government teams to bring forth significant constructive matter supporting their case. Typically, this will include 3 to 6 independent points, although judges should be aware that other ways of presenting argumentation exist, and they should therefore place more weight on the quality of argumentation rather than quantity. There is no requirement for constructive matter in the Minister for the Crown’s speech, provided the Government as a whole delivers sufficient constructive argumentation, and that the Minister for the Crown’s speech is still meaningful to the round.
Government teams should consider the quality of their cases before running them at the National Championships. Topics chosen should be contentious and timely, and should preferably propose a motion with wide-ranging implications. This does not mean that a case cannot be specific to a certain time, place or population, but it does mean that the implications should also be applicable on a wider scale. Arguments should be distinct from one another, and sufficient explanation should accompany them to make clear how the argument supports the case statement. Government-heavy cases, or cases introducing specific knowledge without an adequate amount of explanation are not encouraged and should be taken into account (along with all other aspects of the debate) when deciding the round.


Opposition

Opposition teams will be expected to offer independent lines of constructive argumentation, discrete from arguments made in rebuttal of government points. It is not enough to simply oppose the government case. The opposition must argue in favour of something, whether that is the status quo, or an alternative to the government’s plan. The opposition team must be consistent in argumentation and philosophy within each speech and between the two speeches, and should present the case line, as well as enough constructive material early in the round to make the member opposite’s speech meaningful to opposition’s case. Opposition cases in which the bulk of main argumentation is introduced during the leader of the opposition’s speech (LO dumps or knifing) are not encouraged. However, the leader of the opposition may, and is indeed encouraged to, introduce constructive matter in his or her speech; provided it does not change the direction of the opposition case set out in the member opposite’s speech.

Winning

There is no specific formula for winning a debate. The adjudication team expects that Judges will take into account the relative burdens of each team and the depth of analysis of arguments on each side, as well as how the structure and style contribute to the effectiveness of argumentation. Depending on the round, the relative importance of each criterion will differ. Judges should decide rounds holistically, based on the context of the particular round. Low point wins are not allowed at this tournament. The adjudication team expects Judges to evaluate the entire debate and not its individual parts, and thus may not separate argumentation from structure or style, as these latter factors contribute to effective presentation of arguments.

Registration for Euros 2008 Starts 10 March

Hi everyone,

This is a small reminder to those interested in coming to EUDC 2008 in
Tallinn. Please read the information below and then - get ready for
registration tomorrow. Registration to EUDC 2008 Tallinn starts on
MONDAY, 10 MARCH at 12:00 GMT, that is at noon London time. Phase 1 of
registration closes on 16 March at 00:00 (midnight) GMT.

You can register on our webpage at http://www.eudc2008.eu. To find the
registration form, click on the 'Register now' button above the
calendar and info for participants or go to the Tournament ->
Registration section on the left pane.

Before you start, I'd like to repeat a few important things:

1) In Phase 1 of registration every institution can register up to 2
teams and up to 4 judges. Additional judges (4+) can register as
single adjudicators. If your institution does not register 2 teams
during Phase 1, the remaining place(s) will not be kept waiting for
you! All places that are not used during Phase 1 will be made
available for registration to everyone in Phase 2. So if you have 2
teams interested in participating, make sure to register them both
during the week of Phase 1!

2) In Phase 2 of registration each institution is allowed to register
only one additional team (until there are places available). This
limitation applies even if your institution registered only 1 team or
none at all during Phase 1.

3) When filling out the registration form, we suggest to read the
information notes by the fields, behind question marks. These will
surely help you to understand better what needs to be written in each
field.

4) If you can't find your institution from the drop-down list, please
double check. It could be that you are searching for 'University of
XYZ', but we have listed your institution as 'XYZ University'. Or you
may be listed after the name of your debating club. So please try
every possible option you can think of before giving up. If your
institution is not on the list, you can register by writing the name
of your institution in the appropriate blank field.

5) When you have filled in the registration form and clicked the
button to submit the information and finally register, you will
probably have to wait for a while for something to happen. Please BE
PATIENT, let the browser finish at its own pace and don't hit 'stop' ,
'refresh' or 'back' right away. It may take anywhere from 15 secs to
several minutes for the system to accept your registration, depending
on the speed of your internet connection and also on how many teams
and judges you register at the same time. The system needs to check if
you have filled in all necessary fields etc - that means processing a
lot of information before it can give you the green light and lead you
to the next page for payment. If it should happen that your computer
fails (low battery, power cut etc) while processing, that is after you
have submitted the registration information and before your
registration is accepted, please contact me before starting to fill in
the form again. It could be that we have already received the
registration information and then you won't have to register twice.

6) It is crucial to keep to the DEADLINES! If you miss the deadline
for payment or any other important date, we will have no mercy and you
will be stroken off our list immediately. There will be no exceptions.
Therefore we urge you to be active and contact us if something seems
to be wrong, e.g. if your registered teams do not appear on the
registration list or if your status has not changed to 'Confirmed'
after having paid etc.

7) Payments for teams and judges registered in Phase 1 have to be made
and received by us by 23 March. We accept payments by bank transfer
and by credit card. Cheques are not accepted. Payment of the
participation fee should be made in Euros straight away (do not
transfer the equivalent amount of your local currency), in order to
avoid possible problems with currency converting rates etc. As we have
said before, please make sure that we receive the full participation
fee 210 EUR - thus the payer must take care of all the bank fees etc.

8) Please also pay attention to the fact that status 'Registered' does
not mean that you are on our final list of participants. This only
means that you would like to be on the list. You are on the final list
of participants only after your status is 'Confirmed'. We suggest you
to keep an eye on your status on our web page and inform us
immediately if you think something is not right.

If you should have any problems with registration, contact me at
info@eudc2008.eu and we will assist you in every way that we can.

We wish you good luck with registration and hopefully everything will
run smoothly during the next week.

With best regards,

EUDC 2008 Tallinn team
info@eudc2008.eu

Sixth International Debate Academy Announced for 2008

It is with great pleasure that ZIP-Slovenia and WDI-USA announce the Sixth International Debate Academy to be held in Slovenia in November 2008.

2008 DATES ARE NOVEMBER 23-30

SEE OUR BLOG AT http://internationaldebateacademy.blogspot.com/

THREE EVENTS:

WORKSHOP FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

WORKSHOP FOR TRAINERS, COACHES AND TEACHERS

AN INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT

For university students and trainers/teachers
23– 30th November 2008, Slovenia

Organized by:
ZIP – Za in proti (ZIP), Pro et Contra, Institute for the Culture of Dialogue, Slovenia
WDI – World Debate Institute, University of Vermont, USA

Webpage, registration form, scholarship form: http://debate.uvm.edu/idas2008.html

What is it?

It is the most international British Parliamentary Debate Training in the world with a distinguished training group. Attendees have come from over 26 different debating nations. The program involves a rigorous combination of lectures, skill exercise sessions and two practice debates per day. A major tournament will take place at the end. This year the tournament at the end of the Academy is open to all interested university debaters, so everybody who does not have time to come for the whole week can join us only for the tournament.

FACULTY FOR 2007 (MOST RETURNING FOR 2008)

Jens Fischer, Berlin Debating Union, Germany, Europeans CA
Neill Harvey-Smith, UK, Former WUDC Finalist
Steve Llano, St. Johns University, USA
Loke Wing Fatt, SAID, Singapore, WUDC breaking judge
Branka Marušic, EUDC President, Croatia
Rhydian Morgan, UK, Euros winner & multiple CA
Sam Nelson, Cornell University, USA
Uve Poom, Estonia, 2007 Euro ESL Champion
Bojana Skrt, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga, Slovenia
Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont, USA, Director, World Debate Institute

Who can apply?

Students: For the whole Academy, everybody interested in debating is welcome, and can be beginners or they can be very experienced. The training will be divided into different tracks, based on the participant’s needs and experience, but reflecting realistic pedagogical needs.

Students: For the tournament only. Come and join us for spirited competition and fellowship. For the tournament only you apply as a team. One judge per 1 or 2 teams, 2 judges per 3 or 4 teams.

Trainers and Teachers: We will also have a track for trainers, coaches, team organizers and club trainers that will be far more flexible. See how debate training is done by those experienced, attend seminars on materials and technique, learn adjudication and a lot more.

Participation fee

• The whole Academy (it covers 8 days full room and board – accommodation/food, training and materials) TO BE ANNOUNCED.
• Tournament only (it covers 2 days full room and board – accommodation/food, tournament expenses) TO BE ANNOUNCED.
• The payment should be made in cash on arrival.
• This is a non-profit project, and no organizers or trainers are paid for their effort. Fees are designed to cover some costs only.

Scholarships
There are limited scholarships available. The scholarship application procedure is as follows: submit a scholarship form, receive a scholarship, and formally accept the scholarship. Scholarships will not be available for travel. SCHOLARSHIP FORM WILL BE AVAILABLE LATER.

Organizing committee:
Director of the Academy: Bojana Skrt, ZIP, bojana.skrt@siol.net
Head of Training: Alfred C. Snider, World Debate Institute, University of Vermont, alfred.snider@uvm.edu

Debate Seen as Dynamic Training for Religious Life

From http://gracerant.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/debate-and-me/

Today began the state high school debate tournament in Coppell. Debate is, I believe, one of the single most important activities that I participated in as a high school student. I believe it prepared me for my vocation as a pastor. Here are some reasons why:

It forced me to evaluate both sides of a proposition. You don’t get to choose the topic, and when the topic is chosen, you don’t get to choose which side you debate. You debate the topic and you debate both sides. Because of this, even if I strongly believed one side over the other, it required me to evaluate the arguments regardless of my affinity for them emotionally. In ministry there are always different perspectives being presented. If I were to rush to judgment to one side or the other without considering as many perspectives as possible, then I might make a poor decision. When the gospel is at stake, we should do all we can to determine if a decision will help grow the kingdom and make us more like Jesus.

It helped me think on my feet. In debate, no matter how much I prepared, there was always an argument that I encountered that I didn’t know how to directly respond to it. Yet, I didn’t have a chance to go and research the argument and then come back into the round and debate it. At best, you got 5 minutes of preparation time. At most tournaments you had 3 minutes. There are moments in ministry that require quick responses to situations that you aren’t prepared for, and when those situations arise, I know that staying calm and collected will allow for better, quicker decision making then being paralyzed or made frantic by something new.

Debate is as much about arguments as it is about persuasion and speaking skills. There were many rounds that I won not because I had the better arguments, but that I articulated them more clearly in the round. If we had written out the arguments side by side, then the judge might have come to a different conclusion. Oratory skills are important in debate to get the message across effectively to whoever is judging the round. When the gospel is at stake, I believe the way the message is presented can ultimately determine whether or not someone will listen and potentially be transformed by it. As a pastor who preaches, I can give the most compelling argument ever, but if I say it in an uninterested way, or worse yet, in a way that is rhetorically offensive, then the message has much less of a chance of being heard. I believe so much in the message of the gospel, that I want to be able to communicate it in as many ways as possible so that as many people as possible might also be transformed by the message.

There are other reasons too, but I think that does it for now. I now volunteer (although not near as much as I wish I could) with a local high school’s debate team. The activity gave so much to me that it is only right that I give something back too.

Update on US Universities National Championship 2008

Photo from WUDC final in Thailand

From Christopher Richter

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

We are a little over a month away from this year's U.S. Universities National Championship Tournament, and I wanted to make everyone aware of some important updates, including: our partnership with IDEA, confirmed trainers, social information, and additional lodging options. We already have teams register from all corners of the United States, and are very excited at the interest in this year's tournament. We are committed to making it a great experience for competitors and coaches alike!

First, we have partnered with IDEA (The International Debate Education Association), and they will be offering administrative and financial support for the tournament. We are very excited about this because of IDEA's reputation and outreach in the debate world, as well as their interest in furthering the British Parliamentary debate format here in the United States. Dr. Robert Trapp of Willamette University will be serving as an IDEA representative at the tournament, assisting with tournament duties, and helping to oversee tabulation. IDEA will have other representatives there, as well as IDEA publications for sale. For more information about IDEA, please visit www.idebate.org.

Second, we have confirmed three trainers for the tournament who will assist with the briefings and workshops, as well as judging and topic selection. The first is Rory Gillis from Yale University. Rory was the top speaker and semifinalist at Worlds 2006 in Dublin, as well as a finalist in tournaments at Oxford, Cambridge, and CUSID BP Championships. He has also been chosen as a Deputy Chief Adjudicator at next year's World Championships in Cork, Ireland.

Our second trainer is Alistair Cormack, former President of the Durham Union Society in the United Kingdom. Alistair is fresh off of this year's British Tour of the United States, where he visited several universities, engaging in several debates and workshops. Additionally, Alistair has served as a DCA at the European Championships, and was a finalist at the English National Championships.

Our third trainer is Chris Kolerok, formerly of the University of Alaska – Anchorage. Chris has experience in both NPDA and BP formats of debate, and was a semifinalist at Worlds 2007 in Vancouver. Chris has also won many tournaments on the west coast, including the 2006 Hatfield Debates and the 2006 PSU Worlds Warmup. He was also a finalist at both the 2005 and 2006 U.S. Universities National Championships at the Claremont Colleges.

In keeping with a Worlds-style tradition, we will be having a tournament social on Saturday evening (April 12th) of the tournament. This social will take place in Hoffman Hall on the Portland State University campus, and will feature food, drinks, live music, and the break announcement. We have secured corporate sponsorship from the Widmer Brewing Company (which means free beer for participants over 21), as well as product donations from Red Bull. We have also confirmed that the PSU Jazz Band will be playing!

For those that want to see a bit more of Portland, not just our campus, we have struck several deals with local entertainment venues to provide free or discounted admission to events on Thursday and Friday night (April 10-11). We will be distributing a "zine" which will include information about all these venues, as well as maps and discount coupons. We want to make sure that people get to take advantage of the variety of events and locales in our great city.

Finally, we have an update on our hotel situation. Our original hotel choice (The University Place) has already booked all the double-bed rooms for the weekend of the tournament. Below is a list of alternative lodgings that are all within walking distance of campus. We do not have "blocks" of rooms at any of the following hotels, but have listed the rate that was quoted to us. Also, we still have a limited amount of "crash" available for students on a first come-first served basis. Please let me know as soon as possible if you will be requiring "crash" with one of the PSU debaters.

1) Downtown Value Inn

415 SW Montgomery Street
Portland, OR, 97201
Phone: (503) 226-4751

Room with double beds: $80.00 daily (including tax). For two people; rooms with more than two people are charged an additional $10 per night. Free parking for guests; within walking distance of PSU.

2) Econo Lodge Portland

1889 SW 4th Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 226-7646

Room with two double beds: $89.99 daily. Each additional guest will be charged $10 per night. Free parking is provided as available; within walking distance of PSU.

3) Portland/City Center Travelodge

2401 SW 4th Avenue
Portland, OR 97201
Phone: (503) 226-1121

A room with two double beds is $79. More than two guests per room will increase the price, as with the others. Free parking is provided, and it is slightly further than the other hotels, but still very close and within walking distance to the PSU campus.

4) Portland Marriott – Waterfront

1401 SW Naito Parkway
Portland, Oregon 97201 USA
Phone: 1-503-226-7600

Room with two double beds: $139.99. There is a fee for parking.

If you have any questions about the tournament, or any problems with registration, please contact me. I look forward to seeing everyone in April!

Sincerely,

Christopher Richter
Director of Forensics – Portland State University
richter.Christopher@gmail.com
503-725-8283 office
503-490-9619 cell

Remembering Robert Tindel

From http://en.netlog.com/Alimarie05/blog/blogid=1968042

Blog / In loving memory Of Robert J Tindel

9 hours ago

Bob Tindel was the best teacher I ever had. He was my forensics/debate coach, and I was also his student aide. When I had free time during other classes I would always be excused to go to his class and have him help me with my forensics skit. He was also the one I went to for help. He was always there for his students and I will never forget him. When I did landscaping he would always come out during the summer time and request me to design his landscape. He was never a boastful man, and he went above and beyond in everything he did. He will be greatly missed. Today we buried our loving teacher, and friend. I love you sooooo much Mr. Tindel you will forever be our hairless meircat!!!

Pittsburg High School English department chairman dies
By Nikki Patrick | THE MORNING SUN

Gary Price, USD 250 superintendent of schools, had a problem when asked to talk about Robert Tindel, Pittsburg High School English department chairman.

Tindel, 56, died at 6:30 p.m. Sunday at Mt. Carmel Regional Medical Center.

"Bob was such a great person that it's hard not to go on and on about him," Price said.

A Pittsburg native, Tindel earned a bachelor's degree in speech and theater from Pittsburg State University in 1973, and a master's in theater from PSU in 1978.

He was an educator for most of his life, and was also active in the local theater scene, including Pittsburg Community Theatre, for decades, both as a performer, director and in technical work backstage.

"Bob was a quick thinker and adjusted to whatever was going on onstage," said Linda Bush, Pittsburg, who was in several productions with him.

She described a production of a show called "Black Comedy" in the old Carney Hall auditorium at PSU. One of the actresses was ill, and several times left the stage in the middle of scenes. "Bob lead the other actors in a hilarious, unscripted madcap evening of ad-libbing to keep the show going," Bush said.

Tindel taught at St. Mary's-Colgan High School from 1973 to 1986, and directed numerous plays and musicals there, including "Hello Dolly" in 1974, "Mame" in 1975, "Funny Girl" in 1976, "Fiddler on the Roof" in 1977, "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat" in 1983, "My Fair Lady" in 1984 and "Camelot" in 1985.

"People said that Bob didn't just direct plays, he directed extravaganzas," said Maggie Ryan, former SMC teacher.

His plays were popular, not only with the public, but with the students. "A lot of the sports kids wanted to be in his plays," Ryan said. "He brought in great kids. Bob was just a tremendous person."

"As a director, he held such passion for what he did," Bush said. "If a play had his name on it, it was a high quality production where cast and crew gave more than their best. His intensity in making a good show into a great show will be part of his legacy."

Michelle Blancho was the leading lady in several of Tindel's Colgan productions. "He drove us to be our best, and we wanted nothing but the best for him," she wrote in an e-mail. "He was also a very good friend throughout the years."

Tindel taught several years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel High School in Wichita before choosing to return to his hometown. He was a forensic and debate coach at PHS for many years before becoming an English teacher.

He was a skilled communicator both on and off stage, in and out of the classroom, according to Price.

"Bob was one of those really intense people who told you exactly what he thought," the superintendent said. "He was not afraid to express an opinion on an issue, but he had a magical way of supporting an issue without making it a personal thing. He was a great teacher, he loved kids, he loved PHS and he always let it be known how much he liked the people he worked with."

Tindel earned many awards during his career as an educator. Among the most prestigious were the Five Diamond from the National Forensic League, held by only a small handful of forensic educators across the nation, and the Kansas Master Teacher Award in 2000. He was also named Outstanding Young Speech Teacher by the Central States Speech Association.

IONA University Rankings

IONA means islands of the north Atlantic

From http://www.britishdebate.com/universities/results/rankings/index.asp

The University Debating Rankings rank universities according to their success so far in the UK and Irish debating season. At every university-level debating competition held in the United Kingdom or the Republic Of Ireland, institutions earn points for their top two performing teams and top two performing speakers if they perform well enough. The World University Debating Championships and European University Debating Championships are also counted. The larger the debating competition, the more teams and speakers earn points in the first place, and the more points teams and speakers earn for doing well. More points are also earned at tournaments with a stronger field of speakers. Winning out-rounds and winning the competition naturally also earn points for your institutions. The points which a University has earned at every competition so far this season are added together to produce their current points total, the rankings of which are shown below. The number in italics shows the institution’s ranking before the last competition – no number in this box indicates that the institution has only just entered the rankings.

The rankings have been updated, although remain without the incorporation of the ESU English Mace, Bath, Trinity, Galway and the London IV, all of which will be added shortly. While Oxford substantially close the gap on Cambridge after their win at Worlds, the latter retain a narrow lead at the top of the rankings, making this the longest period since the rankings began that Oxford have not been top. Middle Temple, with wins at Warwick and Inner have propelled themselves into 3rd place.

If you have any questions or comments about the rankings, contact Jonathan Leader Maynard on jleadermaynard@freeuk.com.


Latest rankings

Updated 15/02/08 – After 18 Events

TOP TEN

Now
Last
University
Points

1
1
Cambridge
569.4

2
2
Oxford
507.9

3
6
Middle Temple
306.6

4
3
UCD
241.5

5
5
St. Andrews
239.0

6
4
Wellington
230.6

7
8
ULU
192.0

8
18
Yale
177.3

9
7
LSE
158.0

10
9
Inner Temple
152.5

Top 100 Speakers in IONA Debate

IONA means "islands of the north Atlantic" and is a term the residents of those islands are willing to accept. Good for them.

From http://lists.topica.com/lists/britishdebate/read/message.html?mid=914114690&sort=d&start=9243

The tab of all tabs. Given many requests for the rankings, I am releasing the individual speaker rankings out over BD. Hope it works! Listed below are the top 100 speakers - if you would like the full list email me and I'll send it to you. The system is the most accurate and fairest judgement of average performance over the year I can think of, though of course no system is perfect: speakers are awarded points at each IV they compete according to Speaker Tab finish, with bonus points for winning outrounds and winning the competition. They are then ranked by an average of their points - though speakers who have attended very few IVs incur a slight penalty to ensure the averages are representative and to prevent people sitting on one or two good performances near the top of the rankings. The more Worlds/Euros breaking speakers at a tournament, the more points you receive for doing well at it. Only IONA speakers are included in the rankings.

The rankings include tabs from 21 competitions - though I am still, both for these and for the institutional rankings, missing the tabs for Strathclyde, Cardiff and Reading - and I don't have an electronic copy of the London IV tab which would be helpful.

Anyone who has questions over how the rankings are tabulated, or who would like to see their score broken down by competition, can also e-mail me and I'm happy to release the full sheet. Oh and one last thing - as the rankings are merged manually, it is entirely possible people may appear twice in the rankings by error, if you notice this, let me know and I will correct it.

Hope they are of interest,

Jonathan

1Sam Block90.32
2Adam Bott88.99
3Connie Grieve85.44
4Jonathan Leader Maynard83.62
5Ali Dewji83.40
6Samir Deger-Sen83.04
7Lewis Iwu81.85
8Doug Cochran77.55
9Alex Worsnip72.38
10Alex Campbell71.45
11Susan Connolly70.87
12Fred Cowell69.40
13Marguerite Carter68.91
14Daniel Warents67.76
15Ross McGuire67.40
16Will Jones64.94
17Ross Frenett64.92
18Aneurin Brewer64.85
19Dennis Kavanagh64.67
20Bob Nimmo63.82
21Jason Vit62.72
22Brendan Bruen62.42
23Shengwu Li62.18
24Derek Doyle61.84
25Gavin Illsley61.48
26Stephen Boyle60.85
27Ross Kelly60.23
28George Payne59.68
29Ben Jasper59.42
30Luke Ryder58.86
31Mhairi Murdoch56.59
32Jessica Prince56.18
33Ranald Clouston54.26
34Ian Boyle Harper54.07
35Fiona Dewar52.49
36James Moir51.75
37Conor O'Brien51.66
38Lizzie Bauer51.20
39Mike Ripley50.93
Rob Rinder50.93
41Tiernan Fitzgibbon49.76
42Louis Palombo48.18
43Andrew Marshall47.81
44Neil Dewar47.43
45Alistair Cormack47.33
46Giles Robertson45.84
47Chris Barnes45.75
48Shane Farragher45.12
49Andrew Goodman45.06
50Alex Wright44.82
51Kitson Symes43.58
52Dani Quinn43.34
53Dan Bradley43.33
54Ronan Harrington43.09
55Jon Stewart41.61
56James Dray40.77
57Neill Harvey-Smith40.27
58James Prior39.86
59Usman Ahmed39.77
60Yi-xun Tan39.29
61John Child39.09
62Diarmuid Early39.03
63Elliot Gold38.74
64Max Kasriel38.53
65Shannon Eastwood38.33
66Rose Grogan38.32
67Rob Morris36.49
68John Gallagher36.43
69Alex Just36.24
70Art Ward35.44
71Lewis Turner34.16
72Josephine Curry33.83
73Christopher Kissane33.68
74Liz Ford33.64
75Andrea Mulligan32.18
76John Moriarty32.12
77Patrick Rooney31.82
78Hannah Klein30.79
79Ed McRandal29.27
80Thomas Ball28.99
81Willard Foxton28.74
82Anna Litner27.52
83Helena Service27.30
84Chau Sean Koh26.91
85Eoin Martin26.88
86Brian O'Beirne26.61
87Kallina Basli26.39
88Ina Subulica26.24
89Gabriel Mastico25.75
90Mark Galtrey25.73
91Luke Wells25.48
92Jonathan Wyse25.38
93Charlotte Thomas25.07
94Richard Lau25.04
95Frankie Hoar24.84
96Robin Moss24.57
97Dan James24.49
98Barry Devlin24.41
99Will Young24.36
100Clare Marsh23.45

Singapore Stages Debate on Female Leadership

Click on image to see a larger version

From Loke Wing Fatt:

IS SINGAPORE READY FOR A HILLARY CLINTON?

The possibility of Singapore having a female prime minister will be discussed and debated at the inaugural session of The ThinkBox, a public forum organised by AWARE, Singapore’s leading advocacy group dedicated to promoting women’s issues.

The forum series will kick off next week – on Wednesday 12 March – with a look at women in political and business leadership. Titled “Is Singapore ready for a Hillary Clinton?”, the inaugural session is expected to see lively debate amongst the panelists and from the floor.

The panelists for the first session include:
- Members of SAID, a society for inter-tertiary debaters
- Professor Koh Tai Ann, Professorial Fellow of NTU, former Dean at NTU and NIE, long-term university academic, and friend of AWARE
- Dana Lam, writer, artist, and former AWARE President
- Braema Mathi, journalist at Straits Times, former Nominated Member of Parliament, and former AWARE President
- P N Balji, Editorial Director of TODAY.

Every other month, The ThinkBox will bring together businesspeople, academics, women leaders and others to tackle dynamic issues of the day. The line-up of topics includes ‘The Singapore Supermum’; ‘Do I Look Fat?’; ‘Single and Capable’; and ‘Sex and the Lion City’.

The aim of The ThinkBox by AWARE is to encourage more women and men to become part of the dialogue on issues of gender equality and understanding.

Members of the public are invited to attend and participate in all sessions of The ThinkBox.

Details of the inaugural session are:

Topic: Is Singapore ready for a Hillary Clinton?
Date: Wednesday,12 March 2008,
Time: 7:00pm to 9:30pm
Venue: The Box at SMU (Li Ka Shing Library, 70 Stamford Road, Basement One)

For more information about The ThinkBox please visit www.aware.org.sg or email thinkbox@aware.org.sg.

# # # # #

About AWARE

AWARE has, for almost twenty-three years, been bringing women’s perspectives to national issues and educating the government and public on topics that affect women.

AWARE’s mission is to identify areas for improvement in gender equality, encourage positive change, and support Singaporeans in realising their highest potential. AWARE believes that gains made by women are not gains made at the expense of men. Rather, they are gains which benefit families and society as a whole.

Nigerian Student Wins Debate Competition in London

Photo from Nigerian debate competition in 2007

From http://allafrica.com/stories/200803040268.html

Daily Champion (Lagos)
4 March 2008
Posted to the web 4 March 2008
Lagos

Lagos State governor, Mr Babatunde Fashola (SAN) has called for the celebration and encouragement of Lagos public schools and its products, saying "no one would do it for us."

The governor made the call while receiving a gold medal won by Master Henry Akahara of Government Senior College, Surulere, Lagos, who contested in a debate competition among 200 students from 60 countries in London, United Kingdom (UK).


Fashola who also announced the award of a scholarship through to the university level to Master Akahara, added that if he had broken the law in far away UK where he won the competition, he would have made headline news.

Said he: "We do not appreciate our endowments as we should or place appropriate value on our abilities. For some strange reasons we prefer to advertise the negative things about ourselves."

Fashola said it was very surprising that despite the feat recorded by the young lad, he is not being celebrated by the foreign media, saying the onus is on the Nigerian people to celebrate their own achievers.

"We have not rolled out the drums to dance and make merry at this exemplary demonstration of the innate Nigerian genius," he said.

He added that Akahara had excelled and shown leadership and acknowledged and proved that past accomplishments by public secondary schools in Lagos is not a flash in the pan but a reflection of what public schools in the State were capable of doing.

Governor Fashola who also presented a laptop computer set to the student said Lagos had been excelling in several competitions both locally and internationally culminating in the winning of the International Junior Scientists Olympiad by students from the state.

He listed other laurels won by the State to include overall winner in the 2007 National Physics competition in Enugu , winning two gold medals and one silver at the International Junior Science Olympiad and overall winner of the 2007 Best Bourvita Teacher Award.

Fashola said that the best for Lagos, the Centre of Excellence, is coming at a time when the 2008 budget is dedicating a lot to the training and retraining of teachers at all levels of education.

In his words: "The future of our state and nation lies in bringing up an education that would support the nation and ensure that the nation fights poverty with a sound educational policy".

He restated that the commitment of the present administration to uplifting the standard of education is absolute and would ensure that all schools provide the best in terms of educational quality to its students.

Earlier in her remarks, the Principal of the College, Mrs. Betty Folawiyo Adepoju, Henry was invited to the U.K House of Commons after emerging the over all winner of the Dreams and Teams Programme, a British Council initiative aimed at inculcating leadership qualities in students through sports.

Adepoju said that, at the U.K. House of Commons, young Henry was presented with an impromptu essay topic on Modern Day Slavery in which he competed with 200 other students from 60 countries around the world and emerged the over all winner.

Aside from the Gold Medal he won, young Henry's College blazer is now adorning the British House of Commons as a memorial.

Also speaking, leader of the delegation of Government College Old Boys Association (GCLOBA), Dr. Anthony Anyameluwa said the Old Boys Association of the College had to intervene because of the great honour Henry had done the college.

In his remarks, Master Akahara pledged his readiness to use his new found knowledge to fight all forms of modern day slavery in Nigeria.

He expressed appreciation to Fashola for the warm reception accorded him and promised not to let the State and Nigeria down.

Mr Akahara, an SS3 student of Government Senior College Surulere qualified to represent Lagos State at an international debate competition held at the House of Commons in London where he spoke on the effects of Modern Day Slavery in Nigeria and won the First prize among 200 students contestants from 60 countries worldwide.

In an interview with newsmen Master Akahara and his father expressed appreciation to Fashola for the scholarship award, saying the governor has made their day and that they would forever be grateful.

He added that the award would motivate and spur him to greater heights in life.

Others in the delegation included Ms. Sam Harvey, Director of the British Council in Lagos, Mr. Christopher Akahara, Henry's father, the winner of the Bournvita Best Teacher Competition and a host of others.

Stockholm School of Economics in Riga Leads the Way in Baltic Debate

My training group at SSE Riga in 2006 - thanks again!

From http://sserdc.wordpress.com/about/

One of the oldest student organisations of the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, and the oldest debating society in the Baltics currently generously supported by Latvijas Mobilais Telefons, SSER LMT Debate Club was founded shortly after the foundation of the university in 1994. Over more than ten years of its existence, it has evolved from being an occasional get-together of students interested in current issues to an organised club of people with a professional attitude to debating. All members share the common vision of the Club, which is the Club being the well-established leader in the Baltic debating arena with a European-wide reputation for excellence.

Our activities fall into four major areas that reflect our mission:

Public Debates

- To encourage interest in global issues among members of the Club, other students of SSE Riga and the wider public.
We are pleased that the public debates we hold either on our own, or in close co-operation with SSE Riga and its Student Association, receive a great deal of attention both from the students and faculty, and from many people in politics, business, the diplomatic corps, and media. Topics of these debates range from education and social policy to global peace and security. The guests who have recently debated, presided over or addressed our events include:

Mrs. Margot Wallstrom, Vice-President of the European Commission
H.E. Mr. Ian Bond, the British Ambassador to Latvia
Mr. Valdis Dombrovskis, Member of the European Parliament
Mr. Erik Hallberg, SVP & Head of MA Baltic Countires for Telia Sonera

Competitive Debate

- To create opportunities for members of the Club to compete successfully at top debate tournaments globally.

Members of the Club actively take part in various debate competition across the world, including the European and the World Championships, the US National Parliamentary Debate Championships, and other prestigious competitions ranging from 80 participants up to around 700. Recent competitive activity of the Club includes 24 international debating competitions over the past two years; the Club won eight of them, and competed in the finals of six others.


Debate and Communication Training

- To deliver communication training of exceptional quality to members of the Club.

Besides providing a solid basis for public and competitive debate, debate and communication training is intended as a significant contribution to the personal development of the members and the wider public. The success of our training is illustrated by the fact that two thirds of all members speaking for SSE Riga in international competitions have started debating, and have been mostly trained within the Club. We are working on getting the best experts in communication to help students develop their abilities. Our guest lecturers have included:

Dr. Alfred C. Snider (Tuna), Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont (United States)
Dr. Robert Trapp, Professor of Rhetoric, Director of Forensics, Willamette University (United States)
Ms. Debbie Newman, Head of the Debate and Speech Centre, the English Speaking Union (United Kingdom)
Mr. Noel Selegzi, Executive Director, the International Debate Education Association (United States)
Mr. Nick Devlin, Director of Debating, the Cambridge Union (United Kingdom)

The SSE Riga Intervarsity Competition

- To offer fine debating and social experience to university students through the annual SSE Riga IV.

The Club is well known for hosting the oldest and arguably the most prestigious debating competition in Central and Eastern Europe. The tournament regularly attracts excellent debaters from across Europe and beyond, and enjoys substantial media attention. In 2006 the competition was called SSER & LMT IV 2006 and was held on 8th to 10th od December. Competition welcomed approximately 80 participants from 12 universities from 5 countries (including the Baltics, Germany and the United Kingdom) to enjoy the weekend of debating in Riga. We are now looking forward to host the SSE Riga & Latvijas Mobilais Telefons Intervarsity 2007, which we hope is going to be twice as impressive.

Korean Intercollegiate Debating Championship

From http://www.knc08.org/

Click to examine the organizing committee.

St. Kitts Wins Islands Debate Title

From http://www.sknvibes.com/News/NewsDetails.cfm/4694

St. Kitts debate team is the eight-time LIDC champs

By Ryan Haas
Reporter-SKNVibes.com

BASSETERRE, ST. KITTS- Two of St. Kitts’ best debaters walked away with top honors at the 36th Annual Leeward Islands Debate Competition (LIDC) held this past weekend at the Royal St. Kitts Hotel and Casino.

Melissa Bryant and Yarani Morton of Clarence Fitzroy Bryant College successfully argued the proposition side of the final’s topic, “Absentee fathers lead to the propagation of gang culture,” to defeat teams from Anguilla, Antigua/Barbuda, Montserrat, Nevis and St. Martin in a battle words and wits.

Bryant was adjudged Best Speaker for the final debate against St. Martin to lead St. Kitts to an impressive eighth LIDC title.

The competition was held from Thursday, February 28th to Sunday, March 2nd and each round saw two islands face each other in two-person teams. A designated leader for the team had to speak for ten minutes and the second spoke for seven minutes.

Representatives from the University of the Virgin Islands attended the competition, but merely as observers as they prepare for their inaugural entry into the competition next year.

Klieon John, an Executive Board Member for the LIDC, said the competition was very successful and he was quite impressed with the “outstanding quality of the debates.”

“Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the whole event had nothing to do with debating; it was the camaraderie that took place each night when the competition was over.”

John said that on Saturday night a culture show was held where each team would sing or dance or give a presentation that would represent their island’s unique culture. St. Kitts sang and performed a carnival type dance that was “really hot”.

“There was an after party every night and we really enjoyed singing songs together in a celebration of the Leeward Islands’ many distinct cultures,” John added.

A Closing Ceremony, Dinner and Dance was held on Sunday night at the Royal St. Kitts Open Air Restaurant where the Kittitian team was crowned overall champions and Bryant received the honor of Best Speaker of the 2008 LIDC.

“St. Kitts’ victory this year marks the eighth win for the team and also ties us with Antigua as the most winning team in the entire history of the LIDC,” said John.

Kazakhstan Tournament Has Petroleum Theme

From http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/2008/03/almaty-debate-tournament.html

Dear debaters,

We are happy to invite you to the International Debate Tournament taking place in the beautiful city of Almaty in Kazakhstan. The dates of the tournament are 18th to 20th April and it’ll be held in American Format. The tournament is a part of a prestigious annual Oil & Gas Youth Forum SPE.
We expect applicants from many different countries such as Russia, Ukraine, India, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, South Korea and Czech Republic and in return we offer full coverage of all living costs, free lectures and training and free tickets to Petroleum Party! We even have special prices for the winning team given by our sponsors; local and international oil & gas companies.

The program of Oil & Gas Youth Forum:
1. Presentations on Forum’s main issue by E&P companies representatives.
2. Students scientific and practical conference.
3. Debate tournament for KNTU SPF, SC awards.
4. Lecturers & Training for International and Kazakh students.
5. IQ games.
6. Round table.
7. Petroleum party.
8. A lots of fun for everybody!!!

For further information contact us on natawa.vip@gmail.com and zniyazova@gmail.com. (send a copy of your message to both emails)

We would be pleased to answer any of your questions and we are looking forward to see you in Almaty!

With regards,
Zarina Niyazova & students of Kazakh National Technical University

Liberty Sweeps USA Policy Debate JV & Novice Nationals

Here are the results as taken from the eDebate listserv:

SEMIS AND FINALS

Novice Final Round

Mary Washington SS vs Liberty BW
Landsman Roos, Diggs, Johnson
3-0 decision for Liberty over Mary Washington

JV Final Round

Liberty DG vs KSU HM
Sandoz, Berry, Broverro
2-1 decision for Liberty over Kansas State

JV Semi
KSU HM Def Oklahoma BT 2-1 Keenan, *Keeton, Schatz
Liberty DG(Aff) Defeated Oklahoma EW 2-1 *Register, Reichle, Patrice

Novice Semi
Liberty BW Def Cornell CK(Aff) 3-0 Broverro, Rapmund, Rubino
Mary Washington SS (aff) Def Vanderbilt HW 2-1 Liao, Burch, *Webster

FROM DOUBLES TO QUARTERS RESULTS

*Novice*
*Doubles*
Vanderbilt HW Advances without debating
Liberty BW Advances without debating
Binghamton QS Advances without debating
Mary Washington SS Advances without debating
Binghamton GT Advances without debating
Cornell University CK Advances without debating
Vermont LR Advances without debating
Louisiana-Lafayette CD Advances without debating
Binghamton BT Advances without debating
Liberty University FW Advances without debating
KSU BG (AFF) defeated Rochester AJ 2-1 Lyle, Jim Eicher,
Nathan *Colston, Nicole
Cornell University AR (NEG) defeated U.s. Military Academy HX 2-1
Keeton, Joe *Khan, Buddy Massey, Jackie
Clarion University SZ (AFF) defeated Liberty University KP 3-0
Ayers, Nick Berry, Scott Rappmund, Phil
U.s. Military Academy EM (NEG) defeated John Carroll University BB
3-0 Hall, Heather Baker, William Flores, Joshua
Liberty University AJ (NEG) defeated Mary Washington DT 3-0
Verney-O'Gorman Sullivan, Matthew Scott, Elliott
U.s. Military Academy MN (NEG) defeated Florida ST 2-1 *Liao,
Tony Willis, Kris Godbey, Samantha

*Octos*
Vanderbilt HW (AFF) defeated U.s. Military Academy MN 3-0 Hall,
Heather Willis, Kris Jarmin, Luke
Liberty University BW Advances over Liberty University AJ
Binghamton QS (NEG) defeated U.s. Military Academy EM 3-0 Diggs,
Shawntia Knops, Jen Vega, Ashlee
Mary Washington SS (AFF) defeated Clarion University SZ 2-1 Easley,
Terri Ayers, Nick *Scott, Elliot
Binghamton GT (AFF) defeated Cornell University AR 3-0 Khan,
Buddy Reichle, Matt Massey, Jackie
Cornell University CK (AFF) defeated KSU BG 3-0 Rubino, Kathryn
Kimerer, Stephan Grayson, Bryan
Vermond LR (NEG) defeated Liberty University FW 3-0 Farmer, Matt
Liao, Tony Johnson, Blake
Louisiana-Lafayette CD (Neg) defeated Binghamton BT 3-0 Johnson,
Ken Bonneau, Scott Varghese, Sherin

*Quarters*
Vanderbilt HW (Aff) defeated Louisiana-Lafayette CD 3-0 Patrice,
Joe Lyle, Jim Walters, Heather
Liberty University BW (Neg) defeated Vermont LR 3-0 Webster,
Christy Scott, Elliott Varghese, Sherin
Cornell University CK (Neg) defeated Binghamton QS 2-1 Rubino,
Kathryn Massey, Jackie *Davis, Mike
Mary Washington SS (Aff) defeated Binghamton GT 2-1 Hall,
Heather *Barnes, Andrew Thomas, James

*JV*
*Doubles*
Missouri State KS (Neg) defeated Oklahoma CN 3-0 Keenan, Vik
Thomas, James Gunther, Michael
Bard College CD (Neg) defeated U.s. Military Academy JL 3-0
Stanescu, James Johnson, Blake Harlow, Megan
Liberty University BH (Aff) defeated Towson JM 2-1 *Register,
David Gordon, Malcolm Mistretta, Melissa
Vanderbilt LN (Neg) defeated Rochester BD 2-1 Rubino, Kathryn
*Steinburg, David Boggs, Joshua
Liberty University DG (Aff) defeated Oklahoma KW 2-1 *Farmer,
Matt Davis, Mike Morrison, Cate
Binghamton CO (Aff) defeated Wayne State University GH 3-0 Patrice,
Joe Miller, Gordie Maritato, Jimbo
KSU HM (Neg) defeated Pittsburgh LW 3-0 Bonneau, Scott Noerr,
Rob Silber, Marissa
Binghamton RW (Aff) defeated Liberty/MWU SW 3-0 Webster, Christy
Varghese, Sherin Magariel, David
KSU GZ (Aff) defeated Vanderbilt BG 2-1 *Brovero, Adrienne
Petit, Louie Wyatt, Leslie
Binghamton PT (Aff) defeated KSU HW 3-0 Peters, Donny Baldis,
Nate Lawson, Peter
Texas San Antonio LN (Aff) defeated Missouri-kansas City BS 2-1
Richter, Nicole *Landsman-Roos, Nick Zisman, Ruth
KCKCC MR (Aff) defeated Mary Washington GT 2-1 Barnes, Andrew
*Walters, Heather Diggs, Shawntia
New York University AP (Neg) defeated Liberty University OT 3-0
Schatz, Joe Langone, Chris Grayson, Bryan
Oklahoma BT (Aff) defeated Johnson County HJ 3-0 Reichle, Matt
Dietrich, Bryce Saindon, Brent
U.s. Military Academy CR (Neg) defeated James Madison HL 3-0 Knops,
Jen Sandoz, ML Walters Sheena
Oklahoma EW (Aff) defeated Liberty University XX 3-0 Nelson, Sam
Easley, Terri Green, Rj

*Octos*
Oklahoma EW (Aff) defeated Missouri State KS 2-1 Gordon, Malcolm
*Nelson, Sam Lawson, Peter
U.s. Military Academy CR (Neg) defeated Bard College CD 2-1 Baker,
William Harlow, Megan *Stanescu, James
Oklahoma BT (Neg) defeated Liberty University BH 2-1 Landsman-Roos,
Nick Schatz, Joe *Green, Rj
New York University AP (Neg) defeated Vanderbilt LN 3-0 Webster,
Christy Thomas, James Noerr, Rob
Liberty University DG (Aff) defeated KCKCC MR 3-0 Brovero,
Adrienne Patrice, Joe Barnes, Andrew
Texas San Antonio LN (Neg) defeated Binghamton CO 2-1 *Baldis,
Nate Zisman, Ruth Maritato, Jimbo
KSU HM (Aff) defeated Binghamton PT 2-1 Morrison, Cate *Gunther,
Michael Davis, Mike
Binghamton RW (Aff) defeated KSU GZ 2-1 Miller, Gordie Keenan,
Vik *Silber, Marissa

*Quarters*
Oklahoma EW (Neg) defeated Binghamton RW 2-1 Baker, William
Reichle, Matt *Diggs, Shawntia
KSU HM (Neg) defeated U.s. Military Academy CR 2-1 Keeton, Joe
Brovero, Adrienne *Sandoz, ML
Oklahoma BT (Neg) defeated Texas San Antonio LN 2-1 Keenan, Vik
*Easley, Terri Landsman-Roos, Nick
Liberty University DG (Neg) defeated New York University AP 3-0
Schatz, Joe Nelson, Sam Liao, Tony

Portland State WIns Warm-up for US Universities Nationals

From http://media.www.dailyvanguard.com/media/storage/paper941/news/2008/03/04/News/In.Short-3250089.shtml

PSU debaters take honors in California

Two Portland State debaters took top honors among 35 other teams at a Southern California tournament this weekend.

Josh Gross and Dan Alder beat out teams from six other schools to take first place in the doubles portion of the debate. On his own, Gross, a senior, secured first place out of any individual debater, while Alder, a post-baccalaureate student, was close behind in third place.

"It's a pretty big honor to do what they did and win the tournament," said the PSU debate team's coach Chris Richter.

The teams at the tournament, which took place at University of California, San Bernardino, debated topics as varied as the Church of Scientology's status as a tax-exempt organization to whether declining to declare one's gender is a fundamental right.

Schools from as far away as St. John's University in New York traveled to compete in the tournament. Anyone interested in joining the debate team can stop by one of their bi-weekly meetings, which last from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. in room S-28 of Smith Memorial Student Union.

Portland State will host the National Debate Championships from April 11 to 13.

Newark Public Schools Seek Debate Coaches/Teachers

TEACHING / DEBATE COACH POSITIONS
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY


Is it a dream to work in a school system where the mayor, the superintendent, the school board, the city council, district administrative staff and 39 principals all actively support debate?  Even the custodians, security guards and bus drivers? How about where policy debate is part of the city’s cultural and historical legacy or where the assistant superintendent in charge of the high schools is a former nationally competitive policy debater?  It may sound like a dream but it is reality in Newark.  Check out this link: http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/GreatDebaters.htm

Mr. Roger Leon, Assistant Superintendent of Newark Public Schools and Mr. Brent Farrand, director of the Jersey Urban Debate League invite you to join the DEBATE DREAM TEAM in Newark.  Our school district is eagerly seeking teacher applications from individuals with debate experience.

COME TO THE
NEWARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS JOB FAIR

MARCH 18, 2008

TECHNOLOGY HIGH SCHOOL
223 BROADWAY
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

8:30am – 12:30

SPECIAL RECEPTION AND PRESENTATIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE DEBATE COMMUNITY !!!!

Positions available beginning September 2008 in all subject areas and at all grade levels.

Teacher Salary Range: $45,000 - $95,000
Plus
Debate Coach Salary Range: $5,000 - $7,500

If you would like to attend please email: bfarrand@nps.k12.nj.us.

If you are not able to attend but are interested in joining our team please email us anyway and receive application materials in the mail as well as future invites.

Thanks,

Anthony Jardina
Executive Assistant
National Association for Urban Debate Leagues
(o) 312-427-0175
(e) anthonyjardina@urbandebate.org
Check out the NAUDL's new website: http://www.urbandebate.org

Students Debate on TV on Election Day in Ohio

From Patrick Barton:

Hello forensics friends and colleagues,
I'm excited to be writing to you today to tell you about forensics
once again making the national scene!  On Tuesday morning, several
students from the Ohio University forensics team will be appearing on
Fox and Friends, the morning show from the Fox News Channel.

Fox and Friends will be in Athens, OH on Tuesday with election
coverage as Ohioans go to the polls in one of the most anticipated
primaries since Mega Super Tuesday.  Producers from Fox and Friends
asked for several students to debate on the air about why each of the
major candidates (Obama and Clinton for the Dems, McCain and Huckabee
for the Reps---and yes, Huckabee is STILL in the race:)  should get
the nomination for president.  Each candidate has a student advocate,
and those advocates are members of the Ohio University Forensics team!

We're very excited to see our students on the national radar, and of
course, to see forensics acknowledged as a valuable talent pool from
which to draw intelligent and well-spoken commentators.

Watch tomorrow (TUESDAY) morning from 6am to 9am on your local cable
carrier.  (We're not sure at what time our segment will appear, but
you can TIVO it, and fast forward through if you want!)  I hope that
the end of everybody's regular season was awesome, and I look forward
to seeing many of you at Nationals!

Take care,
Patrick "Paddy" Barton


--
Patrick Barton
Graduate Teaching Associate
School of Communication Studies
Ohio University
Assistant Director
Ohio University Forensics
Office Phone: 740-593-4836
Email: pb106707@ohio.edu

USA Women's Debate Institute Plans Celebration Dinner

Rae Lynn Schwartz-DuPre, Ph.D.
Director of Development
Women’s Debate Insitute
Western Washington University
MS 9162
516 High Street, CF 283
Bellingham, WA 98225-9162

rae.schwartzdupre@wwu.edu

7 February 2008

The Women's Debate Institute is proud to announce our inaugural Celebrating our Community event to be held at the 2008 National Debate Coaches Association championship (NDCA).

The mission of the Women's Debate Institute is to increase the number of young women who debate in high school and college. While issues of gender imbalance are frequently addressed through community forums at the collegiate level, few parallel events exist at the high school level. By creating a sense of community among female debaters, the WDI strives to increase the participation of women in debate.

This year's NDCA national high school tournament will be held in East Lansing, MI from April 12-14. The WDI is inviting all young women who qualify for the tournament to attend a hosted dinner on April 13. Melissa Wade, an inspiration to women in debate and Director of Debate at Emory University, will deliver a keynote address. Debaters will have an opportunity to meet each other outside rounds and their interactions will hopefully strengthen friendships that will carry over into the college arena. The NDCA has approved this event as a means of strengthening the community of female debaters and encouraging them to debate in college.

The Celebrating our Community dinner will be freely provided for all young women invited to attend. The WDI is a non-profit organization, and we need your help to make our event a success. Would you consider sponsoring a debater, or even a full table, for this dinner?

This event could be an important recruiting tool for your team. If you choose to sponsor a debater, we will ensure the recipient(s) of your generosity receives materials about your program. No amount is too little. If you are willing to give please feel free to send me the name of university and any promotional material you would like to see available at our “debating in college table.” If your school sponsors a whole table we will decorate the table with your school name to reflect your generosity.

Ultimately, increasing the participation of women in debate will benefit our entire community. If your team is unable to sponsor a debater, would you consider a sponsorship as an individual?

Thank you so much for your time and consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please visit www.womensdebateinstitute.org for information about the WDI, and http://myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/schwarr5/debate_site/debate2.html for more information about the dinner.

Sincerely,


Rae Lynn

Baltimore Students Live "Great Debaters" Dream

From http://media.www.thetowerlight.com/media/storage/paper957/news/2008/03/03/News/Towsons.Great.Debaters-3246541.shtml

Senior Deven Cooper and junior Dayvon Love make history on Towson University Speech and Debate Team

Nick DiMarco

News | 3/2/08

For the first time in 11 years, the Towson University Speech and Debate Team is sending two of its members to the National Debate Tournament. And for the first time in the history of the program, the competitors that have qualified for the NDT are black.

Deven Cooper and Dayvon Love will speak on behalf of Towson, one of the 78 schools that qualified for the NDT.

"This is something I've wanted since I was a senior in high school," Cooper said. "I don't even know how to put it into words really, because it hasn't really hit me yet. For me, it's not over because we still have to debate and our goal basically is to win it…this is just a starting point."

The pair qualified for the NDT after finishing with a record of 4-4 in national competition and placing seventh in the District-7 Tournament that took place over Feb. 23-24. In the district competition, some of the schools Towson competed against included University of Mary Washington, Georgetown University, University of Richmond and James Madison University.

Cooper and Love, who are Baltimore Urban Debate League alumni, have grown-up in Baltimore City and fostered similar ideologies through debate.

"The Baltimore Urban Debate League was a way to offer students an alternative way to [spend time] after school and on the weekends to debate and be using our intellectual skills to do something that was positive, instead of being on the street doing something illegal," Cooper, who attended Lake Clifton High School, said.

Love, a 2005 graduate of Forest Park High School who has been competing since he was 15 years old, said he wants to use debate to bring light on the issues facing Baltimore City.

"One of the things I've learned through debate is that you can talk about those conditions in a way that is acceptable to people and it's always a way to improve who you are," Love said.

On Christmas day 2007, the film "The Great Debaters" starring Denzel Washington, was released.

Cooper and Love said they see many parallels between themselves and the content of the film, which is based on a true story about a professor at Wiley College in Texas who inspired black students to compete at the school's first debate.

We can draw ourselves analogous to a lot of the black debaters in the movie because we use passion and personal stories to talk about our arguments," Cooper said.

The film pits the all black team against white upper-class schools and discusses the sensitive topics of race and equality, something Cooper and Love frequently argue about during debates.

"Unfortunately, Dayvon and I can't see it as a game all the time because you're talking about peoples' lives probably close to us, or have the same historical background as us," Cooper said.

Love, a junior philosophy major, said he agrees with Cooper. When the pair is given a topic to debate, Love said they always argue from the perspective of challenging all forms of domination against oppressed people.

"The most important parallel for us to put what we're doing in context is, what the movie showed was that black folks can compete intellectually with white people in the highest level," Love said. "I think what it is that we're doing is that we're taking it a step further, in that not only should we compete on the same level but we have a moral responsibility about the things that we talk about."

Remembering the First International Internet Debate in 2000

In the Spring of 2000 the University of Vermont and the English Speaking Union in London staged the first ever international internet debate. The event was also sponsored by Apple Computing and Peoplesforum.com. This short video about the event was shot and produced by Karen McGregor, and thanks to Karen for sharing this.

I wonder why we have not used this simple technology to create global debating networks.