CEDA 08 Final - Towson vs. Kansas video

Web address is
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5390665162595544147

Controversial as Towson refuses to affirm the resolution.

Asian Debate Federation Proposal Formally Presented

Alfred Snider, Adiba Shareen and Jason Jarvis in Bangladesh

From Jason Jarvis:

Greetings Asian Debate Community:

At the upcoming Australs, the people who signed the Asian Unity Declaration agreed to discuss the newly formed Asian Debate Federation/A Unity tournament.

The All Asians Council, voted to adopt the ADF Constitution with the understanding that there would be a "Constitutional Convention" of sorts which discussed the concerns of the Council with respect to the constitution. It was agreed that 4 people should represent the All Asians and its concerns: Me! (the former All Asians Prez), Adiba Shareen (UT Mara), a representative from Assumption University (TBA), and a representative from NLSIU Bangalore (TBA).

Therefore, the purpose of this email is three fold:

(1) To remind everyone that the ADF Constitution calls for the creation of an annual BP tournament.
(2) To provide the MMU Organizers, and interested parties with a list of the concerns from the All Asians and to allow Council members to correct me if I have made an error regarding any of the concerns listed (or omissions).
(3) To call for interested parties to identify a time and location for a meeting about the ADF.

************

**

I would preface the remainder of this email by saying that I am not writing this message to attack anyone, to tick people off or to trash members of the AUDC. Please save your hate mail and continue trash talking me in private. It is my sincere desire to extricate myself from debate politics (I'd rather have a day off than go to Council) and to focus on things that I care about: my girlfriend (I love you Sophie!), my future PHD, and building debate for non-competitive purposes (like the Asian Debate Institute and my awesome students at the KDI School).

I'd also like to dispel the myth that there were no bidders for the Asians at this year's council. Northeast University (China) and North South University (Bangladesh) offered to provide bids if the Council chose to reject the Unity Constitution. There were reservations expressed by many delegates, but in the end the Council concluded to endorse the ADF and MMU as the host for a unity tournament next year.

************

Part 1: BP Tournament

The main reason I personally liked the Constitution is because it creates an annual BP Asian Championship. It may be impossible for some people on either side of the Asians/AUDC divide to ever support the AUDC or the Unity Tournament (or something they believe to be tainted by the Asians). Fair enough. However, I think people on both sides could agree that Asia as a whole would benefit from a BP Championship.

I think it would be appropriate to at least begin discussions about a potential host for that tournament during the Australs, or even to take bids. While I don't have the power to make a call for hosts, this is a call for folks to start thinking about whether they would like to be a host, even if they feel that they are not interested in attending a "Unified" tournament that is in the Asians format.

It would be nice if everyone could at least find common ground on something other than Australs :)

************

Part 2: Constitutional Concerns

(This part is technical and boring,though important. Each of these changes were voted on independently by Council. They do not necessarily reflect my opinions. They are the official voted on and sanctioned opinions of the Council as a whole.)

Part 1/Section:

5.2 change to: "must select one delegate. Additionally, each institution is required to pay a $50 deposit to ensure attendance of the selected delegate at Council. The deposit will be returned upon the completion of Council as long as the delegate attends the meeting."

9.2 Change to: "A delegate is one representative from an institution participating in an ADF Championship"

9.8 refers to Article 20, which does not exist.

9.10 Change to: "Each delegate is limited to hold one proxy vote subject to the discretion of the chair"

9.11 Change to: "Votes should be allowed under the categories 'yes,' 'no,' 'pass,' and 'abstain.' If a representative uses the provision of 'pass,' then in the next round this representative must enter a 'yes' or 'no' vote when their turn to vote comes up.

10.8 Delete and replace with: "A Vice-President for Central Asia shall be created if there is a need for such a position in the future." (At this point there has never been a Central Asian participant and it is a position which isn't necessary)
11.7.3 Delete "Tibet" (I would add that all Chinese universities were deeply offended by this and that they indicated that they would NEVER attend a tournament which acknowledged Tibet as a sovereign nation. In fact, the entire Council indicated that they would withdraw support for the Unity Tournament if this change was not made. It was agreed that as the UN doesn't recognize Tibet, it is inappropriate for a debate Constitution to make political statements of that nature.)

13.1.1 should say ADF Council

Part 2/Section:

2.2 add "subject to the discretion of the organizers"

4.1.2 The EFL tournament should be mandated to use the World's EFL criteria
(this might be added here, or as an appendix to the Constitution, perhaps with an attached appendix that is referenced in this section)

7.3.1 add "conduct an oral adjudication test of all adjudicators"
(this was done very successfully at Asians this year and was unanimously believed to have been very helpful in evaluating adjudicators. I can vouch for the fact that it was substantially more helpful than a written evaluation of a debate)

7.6 Change to: "though the DCA core must have regional representation."

Appendix Additions:
- Add Worlds EFL Criteria as the ADF criteria
- Adopt an Appendix of Recognized Institutions made up of institutions that are currently treated as legitimate institutions. The Asians Constitution currently has this list in order to prevent institutions from having to prove their independence on a yearly basis. There may (or may not?) be similar institutions who participate yearly in AUDC who ought to be recognized.

Jason Jarvis
Korea Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management

Asian Debate Institute 2008
http://asiandebateinstitute.com

Hispanic Leadership Debates in Midwest USA

From http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/cicero/homepage/x379976408/Team-prepares-for-Great-Debate

The Land of Lincoln has produced some of the nation’s greatest debaters in history, and some Cicero youths will endeavor to join their ranks when they compete in the Midwest Great Debate next month.

Spanning four days — from July 10 to 13 — the event features teams of high school freshmen from all over the Midwest competing in a rapid-fire debate tournament.

The National Hispanic Institute has spent nearly three decades creating innovative leadership programs for Latino high school and college students. One such program is the Young Leaders Conference, which gives high school freshmen the opportunity to test and improve their communication skills through organized debates.

Leading this year’s program, which will be at Augustana College in Rock Island, is John Cherone, a Cicero resident and junior at Dominican University in River Forest. Cherone and other local students have been selected as the program’s coaches. So far in their quest for recruits for the Cicero team, John and his coaches have added 24 freshmen to compete in the Great Debate.

Having a team representing his hometown in the competition was “surreal” to Cherone, who has been a part of the Institute and YLC for the past six years.

“It’s awesome. I usually go (to the Great Debate) every year, but to bring a team with me to represent Cicero, I was sort of ecstatic,” Cherone said.

This year’s first-place team will receive the Silver Cup, a 3-foot-tall trophy. Individuals who score particularly well will be invited to the National Great Debate in Austin, Texas, in October.

Cherone said teams he’s led in the past have fared well, and he expects no less from this year’s group.

“We’ve done pretty well so far,” Cherone said. “We’ve taken at least second place every year we’ve been there, and we’re trying to take first this year, as well as represent Cicero as a community.”

Amell Marty, Cicero resident and a freshman at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is the Cicero team’s head coach. She said she hopes the team’s participation will shatter negative stereotypes attached to Cicero.

She believes students are apprehensive in trying out for the team because they think it would hurt their image.

“I think there’s a lot of kids that have the potential to do much better, but they don’t,” Marty said. “There’s so much potential in this community.”

No matter how the team does in the debate, Marty said she is happy to be able to support her fellow students.

“I saw this as an opportunity to give back to my community,” she said. “I just feel like I’m doing my role. I’m doing something that will help someone else.”

Debate is Bright Light in Film on Inner City School

Andy Ellis of Baltimore put it this way:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-June/075242.html

Hard Times at Douglass High....it is a documentary that focuses on
Baltimore's Frederick Douglass High School, the debate team is involved, but
its not about them, its about the school. Itwont have as many of your
friends in it as Resolved: but if you liked Resolved this week, you should
watch Hard Times at Douglass High Next week.

Here is the web page and the description..
http://www.hbo.com/docs/docuseries/hardtimes/index.html

Alan and Susan Raymond spent one year filming in Frederick Douglass High
School, which has a rich history of successful alumni, including Supreme
Court justice Thurgood Marshall. Shot in classic cinema verité style, the
film captures the complex realities of life at Douglass, and provides a
context for the national debate over the controversial No Child Left Behind
Act, focusing on the brutal inequalities of American minority education,
considered an American tragedy by many.

Douglass principal Isabelle Grant oversees a staff of teachers that is
two-thirds non-certified, while many are substitutes unqualified to teach
their subject areas. Threatened with sanctions, or even closing, unless
student scores improve in annual standardized tests, the faculty tries to
find workable solutions to chronic problems of attendance, lateness and
apathy among students, many of whom come from poor backgrounds and broken
homes, and lack the most basic reading and math skills.

Due to an achievement gap of four to five years below grade level, ninth
grade students present the greatest challenge, requiring intensive
intervention by the already overwhelmed teaching staff. By the end of the
school year, 50% will drop out. Grant and her staff struggle to raise state
assessment scores as a Maryland State monitor continually watches over
Douglass with the threat of a state takeover.

At the same time, there are reasons for hope. The high school boasts an
award-winning music program, named after Douglass graduate and jazz great
Cab Calloway, that includes a choir, a drumline marching band, a jazz combo
and an orchestra. The basketball team was Maryland State champion two of the
last three years. And the outstanding debate team consistently wins trophies
at the Baltimore Urban Debate League. Students Sharnae, Jordan and Matt tell
stories of struggling to overcome the enormous challenges of splintered
families and peer pressure as they navigate their high school days, offering
a reminder that education is inevitably an achievement of people, not
policy. With the support of Douglass, these students have demonstrated
resilience in the face of formidable odds.

Eventually, Douglass fails to make the adequate yearly progress required by
the No Child Left Behind Act and the city and state wrestle for control of
the school. This is typical of inner-city schools that cannot meet the
demands of the federal law. By 2007 one in four of the nation's public
schools failed to show improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act and
was threatened with sanctions.

Alan and Susan Raymond's other HBO and CINEMAX credits include "How Do You
Spell Murder?," "Children in War" (Emmy(R) for Non-Fiction Prime-Time
Programming), "I Am a Promise: The Children of Stanton Elementary School"
(Best Documentary Feature Oscar(R) as well as Emmy(R), DuPont and Peabody
Awards), the Oscar(R)-nominated "Doing Time: Life Inside the Big House," "Into
Madness" and "Elvis '56." The Raymonds are also the filmmakers of the 1973
PBS documentary "An American Family" and its follow-ups: 1983's "An American
Family Revisited" and 2003's "Lance Loud! A Death in An American Family."

HARD TIMES AT DOUGLASS HIGH: A NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND REPORT CARD is a Video
Vérité production; produced and directed by Alan Raymond and Susan Raymond;
written and narrated by Susan Raymond; cinematographer and editor, Alan
Raymond. For HBO: senior producer, John Hoffman; executive producer, Sheila
Nevins.

From http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/education/blog/2008/06/a_realistic_portrait_of_freder.html

A realistic portrait of Frederick Douglass High

To those of you who work in, attend or send your child to one of Baltimore's tougher schools, last night's "Hard Times at Douglass High: A No Child Left Behind Report Card" on HBO probably didn't bring many surprises. To the large portion of middle-class America that has no direct interaction with inner-city schools -- and that includes many of the members of Congress who will be charged with reauthorizing NCLB -- it's a real eye-opener. I hope the politicians were watching.

In two hours, the documentary covers virtually every challenge facing an urban school. The boy repeating ninth grade who refused to go to his remedial reading class. The statistics on how many ninth-graders need remedial reading -- all but three or four of more than 300 tested, and most come in at a third-, fourth- or fifth-grade level. The virtually empty classrooms on back-to-school night. The tardiness, the hall wandering and truancy (200-300 absent daily in a school of 1,100). The girl who just had a baby and was feeling overwhelmed to be back at school. The frustrated, overwhelmed teacher who quit in the middle of the year. The fights. The fact that only half of the school's 500 freshmen would return for sophomore year. The fact that 66 percent of the school's teachers were not certified. The boy who told his teacher to pass him for doing "nothin'." The dismal SAT scores (one student scored a 440 out of 1,600, and you get 200 points for writing your name; only one student in the school scored above 1,000). The students who sat for the High School Assessments but didn't write anything (this was before the tests counted for graduation, but they still counted for a school's AYP). The pressure at the end of the year for teachers to pass failing seniors: Within a few days, the school went from having 138 eligible graduates to 200. The triumph of graduation for students from unspeakably awful home lives: One boy didn't need any graduation tickets because he didn't have anyone to come.

The film also touches on the triumphs of the school, though there are fewer. It takes you inside the classroom of an excellent teacher. It features the school's award-winning music program. It follows a student on the debate team who's determined to make something of his life.

Of all the schools in America to feature in a film like this, Frederick Douglass was a symbolic choice. It is the alma mater of Thurgood Marshall, and more than a half-century after Marshall won the Brown vs. Board of Ed case, Douglass is still a school that's separate and unequal. No Child Left Behind provides the backdrop for "Hard Times," but the film could just as easily stand as a profile of the school without that context. Coincidentally (or not), after filming was completed -- the documentary was shot during the 2004-2005 school year -- Douglass became one of 11 Baltimore schools that the state tried to take over as a result of repeated years of failure on standardized tests. It was the first time a state attempted such drastic action under NCLB. The move was blocked by the General Assembly, and the school system restructured Douglass on its own, replacing the administration and implementing the Talent Development school model. I was surprised, though, that the film made it sound as though Isabelle Grant, the principal during the year the documentary was shot, was the one who was replaced. Grant was forced to resign during the 2005-2006 school year in connection with an academically ineligible student being allowed to play football and the school football team having to forfeit its first winning season since 1998. Students who looked to her like a mother were heartbroken when she left. The principal who replaced her was the one to be removed when the school was restructured.

Oscar-winning filmmakers Alan and Susan Raymond clearly spent a lot of time at the school to get students comfortable being around them and the camera. None of the scenes seemed like it would have played out any differently if the subjects weren't being videotaped. In an article in The Sun on Sunday, the Raymonds said the students were initially afraid the film would make them look dumb, and they had to spend time focusing on their successes as a result. But the overall picture is pretty bleak. I'd be interested to know (if anyone associated with Douglass is reading) the school's reaction to "Hard Times."

"Resolved" Debate Documentary on HBO

It played during and at registration day at NFL Nationals, and then played during the next week on HBO. I caught about 60% of it and found it interesting and explanatory. It raised many issues about policy debate in a sensible way as it followed two debate teams through their careers.

Of course, if you are a regular reader of GLOBAL DEBATE you would have seen a story last July, at http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/resolved-debate-movie-wins-audience.html

Kudos to HBO for picking this item up and giving it wide exposure. I will buy it on DVD when it is available.

From http://www.hbo.com/docs/docuseries/resolved/

** 2007 LOS ANGELES FILM FESTIVAL - AUDIENCE AWARD WINNER **

Through the stories of two debate teams, the fascinating intricacies of high school debate give way to a portrait of the equally complex racial and class divide in American education in Resolved. As Matt and Sam, gifted debaters from an affluent Texas suburb, rise to the semifinals in their bid to win the national Tournament of Champions, Richard and Louis, talented inner-city debaters from Long Beach, CA, mount a successful challenge to modern debate by refocusing on personal experience and dialogue in their own quest for the championship. This 90-minute film offers a verité, behind-the-scenes look at the stresses and pressures of this highly competitive pursuit, while serving as a primer on the idiosyncratic techniques that have evolved over the years in high-school policy debate. Inspiring and enlightening, Resolved reveals a constantly shifting sport that is as much philosophy as it is a competition.
The primary players in the film are four debaters who are equally talented, yet from very different backgrounds. From well-to-do Highland Park, Texas we meet Matt, who rises to the top of the team despite his sophomore status, and Sam, who is one of the best high-school debaters in the country, but otherwise shirks his academic responsibilities. From the racially diverse Long Beach High School, we meet Richard, who decided to take up debate to stay out of trouble and "keep his head straight," and Louis, who one of his coaches says is the smartest high school kid he's ever met. We are also introduced to coaches, judges, and debaters on other teams who populate the high-school debate circuit.
In addition, Resolved features appearances by several well-known former debaters including: broadcaster Jane Pauley, actor Josh Lucas, former White House aid Karl Rove, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, and journalist Juan Williams, who each offer their insights on how their participation in debate has shaped their lives, and how debate has proved to be an invaluable foundation in their careers.
Resolved utilizes clever animated segments to illustrate the mechanics of debate. Before "the spread," or speed speaking, was introduced in the 1960s, debate was primarily characterized by eloquence and persuasion. Since, debate has emphasized information and academic research, with persuasiveness taking a back seat. Debaters began using a densely-worded jargon that few people could understand, and crowds dwindled. Where once high school debates filled auditoriums, they now take place in small rooms, sparsely populated by the few people who can understand what is being said and the even fewer people who have the ability to participate.
CREDITS: Produced and Directed by Greg Whiteley; Executive Produced by Lisa Vick Kraus, Peter Kraus, Mark Clark, Sarah J. Clark, Mark and Wendy Stanley, Andy and Liz Waters; Edited by Greg Whiteley, Tom Runquist and Brad Barber; Director of Photography: Tristan Whitman and Liam Dalzell. For HBO: Senior Producer: Nancy Abraham; Executive Producer: Sheila Nevins.

Argumentation and Rhetoric Blog

Steve Llano teaches and coaches WUDC debate at St. John's University in NYC. Hde has a ne blog at http://progymna.blogspot.com/

A cynical yet open-minded chronicle of teaching the Way of rhetoric, debate and argumentation in New York City. I've been doing this for a while; I'll always be new at this. If someone points at the moon, do your eyes rest on the finger? If the whole universe is visible in a drop of dew, what can you see in the LCD of your laptop? If you say something, I'll hit you 30 times. If you say nothing, I'll hit you 30 times. What do you do? For you have to say something. Approach every day as if your hair were ablaze.

I looked up this term in Wikipedia and found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progymnasmata

Progymnasmata (Greek "fore-exercises", Latin praeexercitamina) are rhetorical exercises gradually leading the student to familiarity with the elements of rhetoric, in preparation for their own practice speeches (gymnasmata, "exercises") and ultimately their own orations.
Both Hermogenes of Tarsus and Aelius Festus Aphthonius wrote treatises containing progymnasmata (in the second and third century CE, respectively).
The traditional course of rhetoric gave the progymnasmata in this order:
Fable
Narrative
Chreia
Proverb
Refutation
Confirmation
Commonplace
Encomium
Vituperation
Comparison
Impersonation
Description
Thesis
Defend or attack a law

Cal Berkeley Debate Reunion Speech

Dan Shalmon, left, with Tejinder Singh with 2003 Wake Forest first place award

By Dan Shalmon, from http://breathingroom.tumblr.com/post/39363536/2008-university-of-california-berkeley-debate-reunion

JUNE 22, 2008
2008 University of California, Berkeley Debate Reunion - Keynote Address

This month I was invited to give the keynote at the first-ever Cal-Berkeley Debate Reunion. This is the speech, with some minor modifications.

I confess that I am both honored and humbled to be here. This room is filled with exceptional and successful individuals of diverse backgrounds, spanning over half a century of joyful disagreement. Over the decades, our beloved activity has dramatically changed. The hundreds of debates today’s Cal students win every year are very different, for example, from the Joffre debates between Cal and Stanford, which annually discussed an issue of French national policy.

To find common ground, I undertook a search for the quintessence of debate – that which ties us together and transcends superficial differences of form and content. I stumbled across Prof. Alexander Meiklejohn, a university president, and philosopher who wrote that:

“when I try to single out… some one group which shall stand forth as intellectually the best - best in college work and best in promise of future intellectual achievement… it seems to me that stronger than any other group, tougher in intellectual fiber, keener in intellectual interests, better equipped to battle the coming problems are the college debaters - the students who apart from their regular studies, band together for intellectual controversy with each other and with their friends…”

This is a room full of successful, brilliant people, and the sooner I finish speaking the sooner you can get around to the business of conversing and proving me right. It makes no sense to belabor the point that team-based, labor-intensive, competitive persuasive argument strengthens the moral character and intellectual fiber of participants. So tonight I will dwell on the relationship between debate and matters of life and death. I speak from a heart filled with love and reverence for debate, and hope you will indulge my verbose nostalgia.

Recently I began graduate school at Georgetown and became friends a GU graduate voted the Best Debater of the 1970’s. He took a three-decade hiatus from debate, and after thirty years that utterly transformed America and its debaters, he attended a tournament and immediately felt the love of the game surge, adrenaline-like through his veins and super-charge his brain. He said that witnessing the brilliance, wit and determination of the students reminded him of something Vince Lombardi, the legendary football coach once said about the relationship between competition and greatness.

Being a compulsive researcher, I went searching for this Lombardi-ism. I have a rather personal attachment to Lombardi. At 57, at the peak of his profession, he died ten weeks after being diagnosed with intestinal cancer, in a room at Georgetown University Hospital. Today the Georgetown Cancer Center is named after him. I visit his building every other week to get treated for the Hodgkin’s Lymphoma that is trying to kill me.

Ironically, the Lombardi-ism I found is the opening quote of Any Given Sunday, the movie that Cal debaters of my generation traditionally watched before departing for tournaments. It reads:

“any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious.”

Vincent Lombardi would have been a hell of a debate coach, and told his athletes so. He said:

“The quality of a person’s life is in direct proportion to his commitment to excellence, regardless of his chosen field of endeavor.”

I would like to make three points using three of Vincent’s maxims. First, debate is life. In both games, “if you’ll not settle for anything less than your best, you will be amazed at what you can accomplish.”

Since a small group of dedicated Cal Debate alumni decided to dedicate their time and resources to rebuilding the team ten years ago, UC Berkeley has experienced the most dramatic rise to greatness in the 61-year history of the NDT. Excellence starts at the top, with Dave Arnett and Greg Achten. Just one year after arriving at Cal, Greg guided debaters to our first-ever national championship. But since I, like Greg and Dave, have a vested interest in proving that Cal Debate has achieved something momentous, I consulted a source of unimpeachable credibility – the coach whose team ended my debating career with crushing defeat.

He said that “Cal “breaking the mold” of the monster private school… will be one of the most important developments of the decade…. Now, [all other public schools must abandon the oft-repeated] argument that public schools are “screwed [by the system]. If that sentiment festered, the activity [of college debate] would have been in real trouble.” It is no exaggeration to say that we have changed the landscape of competitive debate in America: we catalyzed the rebirth of West Coast debate. We challenged the conventional wisdom that only elite private schools could sustain success in 21st century policy debate. The coach of the reigning national champion team, agrees with this: “The return of Cal debate to the national scene has been a blessing and a curse… “Hearing” and “knowing” the Cal debaters is a blessing, he said, and our team is “a blessed exemplar for all who would aspire to debate well and successfully. Every program, extant, or dormant, can say, ‘See, this is what is possible.’ No excuses. But Cal’s rise has been a curse for all of those who thought they were ready to [place in the top 16, win the Copeland award for the top-ranked team], or win any one of a number of tournaments.”

Our debaters are leaders; they exert a multiplier effect by enabling the achievements of others – typically, each Cal debater coaches a high school team of between 4 and 20 students. As a result, even though I am a half-decade removed from college, I know over two-thirds of the current Berkeley debaters – they were my students as teenagers. Just as UC Berkeley’s flagship status raises standards and exerts centrifugal force on the entire UC system, weaker teams in our region have ridden the coattails of Cal Debate to revival.

Like a strong family, a market-leading company, or a great nation, Cal Debate is built of sweat and love. I know this because I have worked for 8 years to help strengthen it. When we began the Cal Debate renaissance, the debate community stereotyped all Cal debaters as friendly, easy-going hippie slackers with more intelligence than work ethic. Today, they know Berkeley’s friendly, easy-going hippies will, more often than not, charmingly and overwhelmingly demolish their best and brightest students with the flair for originality and sophisticated research that makes UC Berkeley a global force to be reckoned with in every academic field.

I recently read the debater orientation handbook that Dave and Greg give to new students, and I realized that it distilled the results of all our late nights and early mornings, our shared heartbreaks, petty fights, and reconciliations, our near-death experiences with car thieves and house fires, academic and UC-bureaucratic calamities of varying but inevitable proportions, our joint backbreaking labor, our life-altering successes, and heartbreaking defeats – our shared existence as teammates and our unbreakable fellowship, reduced to a pamphlet size for our debate descendants to relearn. Everything I quote here is from the handbook – which, for the record, was written before this reunion was a glimmer in Greg’s eye:

“Research is the foundation of the Cal tradition… Our team has a long history of producing some of the highest quality [arguments] in the nation.” I should point out that words like “tradition” and “long history” should fill every heart in this room with joy: we wrote that history. We are the tradition, and it almost died out – on several occasions. Socrates, the world’s first Debate Coach of the Decade, said that “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence is a habit.”

It is, perhaps, difficult to appreciate how dramatic our habit formation process has been. When I arrived at Cal, I was aware of only three traditions: getting lost on the way to tournaments, the resolution of disputes through games known as “not it,” “shotgun,” and “face in the copier,” and accidentally skipping events like celebratory banquets and preliminary rounds of tournaments.

The Cal Debate handbook contains 8 Guidelines for Success in Debate.

1. “Work is Desire. Hard work makes [the] good… great and great… transcendent…. Work almost every day. Cramming… is not a substitute to hard work… and will cost you dearly when it most matters.

2. [Have] Patience. Nothing about this is easy. If it was, [it] wouldn’t be half the game it is… it can and should be frustrating at times. The process… entails fits and starts, trial and error, and ultimately a lot of reflection. No one is born… great… It is a long process that never ends.

3. Never lose [to] the same [thing] twice.

4. Using your teammates, coaches, professors, and friends as a resource is essential.

5. We work for each other… If you take nothing else away from… college…. I hope it is this ideal.

6. It is understandable to get upset at times, [but] rudeness is unacceptable and unwise.

7. Think about your competit[ors].

8. Healthy Body, Healthy Mind.

These are rules for great debaters, but with only minimal modification, are generalizable guidelines for a life well-lived. Perhaps this is why, when other debate institutions produce champions who graduate into spectacular unemployment or worse, Dave and Greg’s students without exception go on to successful careers. Debate is life. We win at both.

My second overarching point about debate and matters of life and death is that we all need to do what we can to support debate, because our national life hangs in the balance. Lombardi said “Individual commitment to a group effort… is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work… The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual.” I ask you to consider this in light of the following two salient facts: 1) We live in a nation that chooses to fight and kill for its interests, beliefs and in defense of its homeland and 2) only 1% of society serves in the military, and only one out of seven people in uniform is a combat arms professional. In other words, less than half a million Americans daily pay the life and death costs of foreign policy mistakes.

I passionately believe that debate has a significant role to play in a society at war, but will not treat you to a harangue about the value of vigorous wartime dissent and the perils of totalitarianism – this is, after all, a meeting of Berkeley alumni. Greg and Dave did not invite a professional agitator to speak here – they invited a “strategic communication” planner, a man who works with the military to persuade foreigners not to kill Americans, help kill Americans, or kill each other in ways that threaten American interests.

One of my good friends holds a senior position in the US military. Like me, and most students of international relations, he believes that anonymous, structural forces and dynamics drove the US to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and made both wars so intractable. We agree, however, that such explanations are somehow incomplete and unsatisfying. I asked my friend after a particularly frustrating day in Iraq how the most powerful nation in human history could have made so many catastrophic errors in judgment, at such staggering cost in blood and treasure.

He said without hesitation that “we made bad judgments because the professionals did not know how to debate.” In our system of government, when civilian politicians are convinced that war is necessary, they must rely on professional knowledge producers and action planners. Ultimate responsibility for justifying and implementing political decisions lies with these people. When dealing with al-Qaeda and Iraq, they systematically failed to correct retrospectively obvious analytical judgments and poor operational decisions.

Although my friend never debated, he understands what debate is: strategic analytical argument. Competitors are assigned to mutually-exclusive positions, and objectively evaluate all of the available evidence. Each participant is required to think through the arguments on both sides. They then identify strongest arguments and assemble them into logical cases which they deliver persuasively, and an unbiased evaluator dispassionately renders a judgment. Subsequently, arguments may be reevaluated in light of changed evidence or circumstances, and the participants may switch sides, but continue to argue with equal passion and competence.

My friend identified five failures in the professional conduct of the war on terrorism, all of which plague unskilled debaters: 1) Failure to consider plausible but unconventional interpretations of the available evidence 2) Failure to thoroughly consider alternative means of achieving an agreed-upon goal 3) Failure to re-evaluate strongly-held beliefs in light of new, discrepant evidence 4) Failure to respect and understand the adversary 5) Failure to react to intellectual intimidation and vitriolic disagreement from authority figures with moral courage and strong, evidence-based counter-argument.

When Goldman-Sachs considers an investment, analysts and economists are assigned to Blue and Red teams to debate the question out in front of the decision-makers. No comparable institutionalized process exists in the US intelligence and military communities. Fortunately, we may win these first battles in the 21st Century’s Long War without fixing these problems. But if we do not resurrect a national culture of robust debate on issues of life and death, we will eventually pay a butcher’s bill so grotesquely massive that our losses thus far will seem a bloody pittance. And unfortunately, in war, as in life, as in debate, it is the last blows in the struggle that dictate the outcome – not the first.

For my third and final point, there is no Lombardi-ism, because it deals with the opponent that he couldn’t bring himself to face, that undid all his maxims about strength and courage and made him a coward. The first thing I did when I found out I had cancer was hug my mom and cry. The second thing I did was debate.

According to my doctors and other cancer patients, even patients with treatable disease may face crippling mental obstacles to successful healing. Because of debate, I have been blessedly free of such problems as I struggle to defend my life. By way of explanation, here is a debate I had in my head in the surgical recovery area of Georgetown University Hospital.

Resolved: I should be angry at the world because the injustice of what has happened to me

Affirmative:

1. Anger at the world over the injustice of my cancer will help provide a coherent explanation for, and emotional response to, being sick

2. Coherent explanations for unpleasant events help make them manageable

3. Attitude will not determine if I survive, but it is one of a very small number of factors under my control. I need a coherent mental response that strengthens my determination to fight

4. Anger is part of what I am feeling right now, and denying that would be counterproductive: feelings that are buried get buried alive. Sometimes they come back as zombies.

Negative:

1 a) Not everything is the result of purposive or coherent causes – some things, including bad things, are the result of random unpleasant occurrences like spontaneous genetic mutations or freak storms – a man struck by lightning cannot reasonably complain about the unfairness of the event

1b) Attempting to provide a coherent explanation for random events is not always a good thing: superstitions and stereotypes are examples of this.

2) A coherent cause for my cancer would not necessarily improve things. If a doctor comes here to say smoking cigarettes in college caused this , I will feel worse about having made myself sick, not better.

3a) Attitude matters, but a will to fight is not as important a positive and sustainable approach that is consistent with my beliefs and personality.

3b) I am not the kind of person to prefer comfortable illusions over uncomfortable facts

4a) If anger is the difference between me wanting to live and accepting death, I don’t want to live enough to survive this

4b) Anger is just another strategy of denial – I’m actually scared and frustrated at being powerless. Accepting anger buries alive the reality of that fear and my powerlessness in the face of mortality

Just as I did hundreds if not thousands of times at Cal, I planned the debate out in my head, from beginning to end. Then I judged the outcome and decided that the benefits of anger were outweighed by its costs. No more impotent frustration at the unfair world for me - much to the frustration of the hospital social workers and psychiatrists. I had several debates with myself that night. Topics included “Resolved: I should act as if I know I am going to beat this disease,” and “Resolved: I have wasted most of my life until now.”

Vince Lombardi was so scared of cancer that even as it rotted away his gut, he refused to get tested for it. He buried his head in the sand, just as American officials did as internecine strife ripped out the heart of the Iraqi nation, and just as I am daily tempted to do. I have heard and seen a lot of responses to cancer that appear, like most bad ideas, simple and seductive. People get entrapped in these well-intentioned emotional traps, and sometimes they deprive themselves of the tools they need to survive. There but for the grace of God go I: I know that without Cal Debate, I would probably not be capable of fighting off the disease without losing my mind.

It takes hard work to stay healthy and active, engaged with the outside world, employed and sociable while sick. It takes character to face seemingly-endless bombardment with toxic chemical and radiation, nausea, baldness, sores, acne, and pain that cuts right to the bones without collapsing into self-pity and fear. Keeping a family together and sustaining a multi-state, international support system requires teamwork. And keeping up the strength required to survive with dignity requires commitment. Hard work, teamwork, character and commitment are the four pillars of greatness that the Berkeley debate team and its coaches struggle to uphold every day. These values are intrinsically laudable, but they are also effective – I am happy and increasingly healthy: after 2 rounds of radiation and 12 chemotherapy treatments, as of this week, scanners can no longer detect active cancer cells in my body.

Debate is life, debate saves lives, and debate is keeping me alive. Long live UC Berkeley Debate.

National Public Policy Forum Finals Video

Now available in a number of forms.

The Google Video version is above.
Also at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1101809263141196716

A larger podcast version is now available at
http://www.uvm.edu/~debate/watch/nppffinal2008.m4v

The event was webcast by GLOBAL DEBATE as well as DEBATE CENTRAL.

Thanks to NYU, Bickell & Brewer and everyone who worked on this project, especially NYU President John Sexton, Bickell & Brewer Foundation head Kit Sawers, as well as Travis Carter for working on PR.

Check out details about th con test at http://nppf.net

European Debate Calendar

From Jens Fischer:

http://yourgermancorrespondent.blogspot.com/2008/06/european-debate-calendar.html

European debate calendar
Just a short advertisement: I'll continue amongst others to maintain and update the European debating calender which can be accessed and subscribed to at http://europeandebating.blogspot.com.

The calendars was designed to inform about all debate events in Europe, on any level, in any format. Please let me know if you want to add something - further information on the necessary input can be found at the above address.

Oxford A Wins Euros 2008

From Jens Fischer:

EUDC 2008: By the power of Will...
and James: Oxford A are European Champions 2008. They finally did it.

The new ESL champions are Bobes Bolyai A (Nico and Dan) [Romania]. Also for them: They finally did it.

And as (almost) usual was the public opinion wrong...

Congratulations to the new European Champions!
POSTED BY JENS AT 7:54 PM 0 COMMENTS
Skypecast of Grand Final?
There seems to be a skypecast of the Grand Final. However, from my hotel room it doesn't seem to work. Advice anyone?
POSTED BY JENS AT 6:20 PM 16 COMMENTS
Grand Final EUDC 2008
The draw for the Grand Final:

1G Oxford A
1O Oxford D
2G Oxford B
2O KCL A

on the motion "This House would ban the display of Nazi and Soviet symbols."

ESL Final EUDC 2008
The draw for the ESL final:

1G Tel Aviv A
1O HSoG A
2G Leiden A
2O BBU A

on the motion (quoting from memory, I'll get the exact wording later): "This House would allow soldiers to opt out of military missions on grounds of concience."

The finals are held in Kaarli Church, an ancient church in the centre of Tallinn.

After the final, there was a SMS-text-lottery in which participants could send a textmessage to a specific number and indicate their favoured team of the debate. The numbers were around 55 % in favour of HSoG A, 25% voted for Leiden A, 12% for BBU A and 8% for Tel Aviv A.

From Derek Lande via Colm Flynn:

Honorary Panel's Best Speaker: Simon Quinn

Top 10 Speakers
10. Ross Maguire (UCD Law A)
9. Jonathan Leader-Maynard (KCL A)
7. Fred Cowell (ULU B)
7. Dan Bradley (Manchester A)
6. Ross Frennet (UCC Phil A)
5. Stephen Boyle (UCD L&H A)
4. Alex Worsnip (Oxford B)
3. William Jones (Oxford A)
1. James Dray (Oxford A)
1. Simon Quinn (Oxford B)

Honorary Panel's Best Speaker : Adam Hildebrandt (HSG)

Top 10 ESL Speakers
10. Assen Kochev (Tilbury A)
9. Julien (Bonaparte A)
8. Ali (Bonaparte A)
6. ? (Bonaparte C)
6. Nico Lupea (BBU A)
5. Uri (Tel Aviv A)
4. Ina Sublica (Helsinki A)
3. Simone Van Elk (Leiden A)
2. Anne Valkering (Bonaparte C)
1. Leela Koenig (Leiden A)

Euros 2008 Final Rounds as Skypecasts

Using home-grown technical tools from Skype (skype.com and is my favorite Internet telephony system) the Tallinn Euros provided audio webcasts of the two final rounds with somewhat differing results.

I would have to say that I enjoyed them both, except for some observations below. I salute the Tallinn hosting team for their work.

The ESL final did have some problems. It got off to a fine start with clear audio signal (no video) but then some of the people listening on Skype left their microphones on and started having a discussion, blotting out the debate. Then other listeners got upset and turned their microphones on and began yelling at those talking to turn their microphones off. This degenerated into a fairly ugly scene but then tailed off late in the debate.

There was an opportunity for the audience to vote for their favorite team via sms text message.

The Main final did not have these problems. There were a couple of voices that came over during the first part of the final but it seemed to be about 98% no problem. Then during Jonathan Maynard's whip speech the whole feed was lost and replaced by white noise and then silence. The debate, from what I heard, was an excellent one all all four teams did a fine job. Three Oxford and Kings College London teams were in the final. Then it was gone.

A huge congratulations to the EUDC Tallinn 2008 team for all of their web work during the tournament. They set a new standard for international hosting.

Ben Franklin Institute at Wake Forest 2008

From http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2008.06.25.p.php

Wake Forest University program connects European and American teens

June 25, 2008

Teenagers from Iceland, Tajikistan and Serbia will join high school students from 34 other countries for a U.S. Department of State-sponsored program at Wake Forest University June 28 through July 30.

Designed to build connections between European and American youth and encourage civic activism, the program will draw 90 participants from former Soviet bloc nations, western European countries and the United States. Many of the countries represented, including Kosovo, Bosnia, Slovenia and Croatia, have been involved in armed conflict in recent years.

Named in honor of America’s first diplomat, the “Benjamin Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative: Summer Institute for Youth” (BFTFI) is the only youth-oriented program funded by the U.S. Department of State to focus exclusively on U.S.-European relations and to involve youth from all regions of Europe and Eurasia. This is the third year Wake Forest has hosted the program.

"The program is an investment in future understanding,” said Allan Louden, associate professor of communication at Wake Forest and director of BFTFI. “It aims to empower the younger generation of Americans, Europeans and Eurasians to face global challenges with an understanding of perspectives beyond their own region. We hope it will serve as an incubator for ideas that might change the world.”

Seventy high school students, representing such countries as Montenegro, Spain and Denmark, and 20 U.S. high school students from across the nation, will live together in residence halls, participate in workshops addressing diplomacy-related topics, complete a community service project and visit Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.

For the first time, students from Turkey will participate in the program. Foreign participants are chosen by their home countries’ embassies. Americans are chosen from International Baccalaureate students and other students groups.

The program will include two groups of students. The Founders, 15 to 17 years old, will arrive on campus June 28. The Diplomats, 17 to 19 years old, will arrive July 5. Members of each group will stay with local area host families for one week while they are in Winston-Salem.

According to the state department’s welcome letter to participants, the Benjamin Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative aims to “foster relationships among the younger generation of Europeans and Americans in order to advance the global freedom agenda, to build strong links and awareness of shared values, and to enable youth to face together the challenges of global circumstances in the 21st century.”

Classes will be led primarily by Wake Forest faculty. John Dinan, associate professor of political science, will teach “Comparative Constitutionalism.” Students will examine the ways in which constitutions and political systems are designed in the United States and in European and Eurasian countries. Nate French, assistant professor of communication at Christopher Newport University, will teach "Social Movements,” a course that will explore non-majority voices in a variety of countries and the tactics these groups employ to gain support for issues ranging from the rights of religious minorities to environmentalism.

Ross K. Smith, debate coach and instructor at Wake Forest, will teach the class "Twenty-First Century Pamphleteers: The Internet’s Promise and Perils for Political Participation.” His course will focus on how the Internet is creating new opportunities for citizen expression and extending the horizon of civic dialogue across national borders. Another class, “Invisible Borders: Citizens and Conflict in Regions and Nations,” will be taught by Alessandra Beasley, assistant professor of communication at Wake Forest.

The students will also participate in a series of workshops geared toward encouraging civic activism. The students will hone their argument and presentation skills and prepare for a series of parliamentary debates. While in Washington, D.C., the students will create programming for their native countries at the Voice of America headquarters.

For more information on the BFTFI, including a schedule and list of countries represented, go to www.bftf.org.

Press Contacts:

Cheryl Walker
(336) 758-5237
walkercv@wfu.edu

Kevin Cox
(336) 758-5237
coxkp@wfu.edu

News from Euros Council

Spela rules!

From Jens Fischer:

Spela and Spela rule Euros: New EUDC council president elected

In a run-off between Manos Polychronides (Deree, Greece) and Spela Kunej (Ljubljana, Slovenia), EUDC Council elected Spela as the new Council president by 9 to 5 votes and 1 abstention. Spela Kranjc was confirmed as registrar.

Newcastle Euros bid approved
After questions to the organisers and prospective CA Sam Block, EUDC Council unanimously ratified Newcastle's bid to host Euros next year. The presentation sounded great - we are looking forward to Newcastle EUDC 09!
If you are interested in the bid, take a look at http://www.eudcnewcastle09.com/ - according to organisers, there will be frequent updates.

From Colm Flynn:

Audiocast of Euros Finals

The eudc.eu site has a link to a skypecast of the finals.

https://skypecasts.skype.com/skypecasts/skypecast/detailed.html?id_talk=4846279

It is due to start at 12:30 GMT which is 13:30 in the UK/Ireland for those who forgot about daylight savings and logged on (like me).

Finals at Euros 2008

From Jens Fischer:

Breaking from ESL SF 1:
BBU A & Leiden A

Breaking from ESL SF 2:
Tel Aviv A & HSoG A

Judges: Diarmuid Early (Chair), Sam Block, Andrew Marshall, Jens Fischer, Derek Lande, Derek Doyle, Greg O'Neil, Alaistair Cormack, Daniel Schut

Breaking from Main Break SF 1:
Oxford D & Oxford B

Breaking from Main Break SF 2:
Oxford A & KCL A

Judges: Neill Harvey-Smith (Chair), Isabelle Loewe, Coletta Smith, Andy Hume, Erin O'Brien, Danny McCarthy, Bob Nimmo, Tony Murphy, Connie Grieve

Euros Semifinals Announced

From Jens Fischer:

Main Break:

Going through from QF 1:
Oxford A, UCD L&H A
No all-Oxford final!

Going through from QF 4:
KCL A, UCC Phil A

The pairing for SF 1:
1G Oxford A
1O UCD L&H A
2G UCC Phil A
2O KCL A

Judges: Andy Hume (Chair), Daniel Warents, Erin O'Brien, Daniel Schut, Alistair Cormack

Going through from QF 2:
UCC Law A, Oxford B

Going through from QF 3:
UCD Law A, Oxford D
Still room for a 3-Oxford-teams final, but also an all-Irish one. Exciting!

The pairing for SF 2:
1G Oxford D
1O UCD Law A
2G Oxford B
2O UCC Law A

Judges: Connie Grieve (Chair), Jens Fischer, Colletta Smith, Jenny Harrison, Neill Harvey-Smith

Motion: "This House would abolish income tax."

ESL:

QF 1 going through:
BDU B, Leiden A

QF 4 going through:
BBU A, Bonaparte B

So SF 1 will be:
1G BDU B (9)
1O Bonaparte B (12)
2G Leiden A (1)
2O BBU A (5)

Judges: Andrew Marshall (Chair), Danny P McCarthy, Derek Lande, Gregg O'Neil, Sam Block


QF 2 going through:
Tel Aviv A, Warwick A

QF 3 going through:
Tilbury A, HSoG A

So SF 2 will be:
1G Tel Aviv A (7)
1O HSoG A (11)
2G Tilbury A (3)
2O Warwick A (10)

Judges: Tony Murphy (Chair), Derek Doyle, Samir Deger-Sen, Adriaan Andringa, Isabelle Loewe

Motion: "This House believes the European Union should declare that energy security is a legitimate reason for military action."

Maori Speech Contest in New Zealand

From http://www.stratfordpress.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3776660&thesection=localnews&thesubsection=&thesecondsubsection=

Manu Korero and Pae Rangatahi celebrated


25.06.2008
STRATFORD High School was proud to host the 2008 Nga Manu Korero and Pae Rangatahi Regional Competitions for Taranaki and Wanganui secondary schools recently.
The Manu Korero (speech competitions) were held on Friday, June 20 and the Pae Rangatahi (kapa haka competition) was held on Saturday.

Although no local schools took out top honours, Stratford High School gained two placings in the English speech contests.

Mackenzie Marriner placed third in the senior English speech contest and Paora Haenga came second in the junior English speech contest.

This is the first time in seven years that Stratford High School has gained a placing.



The contest began in 1965 and was originally sponsored and administered by the Maori Education Foundation (now the Maori Education Trust) and the PPTA. The primary purpose of the contest is to encourage fluency and public speaking of Maori secondary students in the English language.
Over the years, the oratory contest has evolved, and now has four main sections  Korimako (senior English) for Maori students Year 11-13, Pei Te Huinui Jones (senior Maori) for all students Year 11-13, Sir Turi Carroll (junior English) for Maori students Year 9-10 and Rawhiti Ihaka (junior Maori) for all students Year 9-10.

Students in the senior sections compete in both prepared and impromptu speeches, while junior speakers only deliver a prepared speech.

Only one competitor can be entered in each section from each school.

Pae Rangatahi kapa haka competitions have been operating for over 10 years, and the regionals decide who will represent at the national secondary schools kapa haka festival.

This year the Pae Rangatahi was won by Huia Ki Tai (Kokohuia School) and Te Ngakau O Te Awa (Cullinane College).

Second place went to Wanganui High School  Kia Whaiora. This year approximately 25 secondary schools from Taranaki and Whanganui participated, with over 40 speakers and 10 kapa haka groups performing.

Stratford High School Head Of Department Maori teacher Tina OCarroll was the regional coordinator and said the entire festival was a great success.

Not only did Stratford High School have great success in the Manu Korero contests, but the students represented and promoted the school as a whole brilliantly.

They can all be proud of their efforts. Kia kaha.

Karachi Speech Contest Features Bin Laden's Former Teacher

From http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C05%5Cstory_5-6-2008_pg12_6

Karachi madrassa speech competition 2008 : Osama’s elderly teacher to judge madrassa student debates today

By Fareed Farooqui

KARACHI: Eighty-year old Shaikhul Hadith Maulana Dr Sher Ali Shah, who once taught Osama bin Laden and Tehreek-e-Taliban Mulla Umar, is scheduled to act as the chief guest of the third annual ‘All Karachi Madrassas Speech Competition’ at Jamia Islamia Clifton on Thursday (today).

Maulana Dr Shah is the head of Jamia Haqqania, Akora Khattak, NWFP.

The chairman of the organizing committee and the nazim of Jamia Islamia Clifton, Mufti Abuzar Muhiuddin, told Daily Times that the panel of five judges has distributed the topics for the final round among 15 contestants. The winner takes away Rs 125,000 in cash, the runner up Rs 80,000 and the third one Rs 60,000.

The competition was held among 100 students of 41 madrassas from Malir, Karachi South, Karachi North, Karachi East and Karachi West, said the organizing committee’s Maulana Riaz Ahmed.

The toppers who made it to the final round are: Abdul Sami, Rasheed Ahmed and Attaullah (Karachi East), Attiqur Rehman, Shahid ul Islam and Abdul Kabir (Karachi West), Umar Farooque, Muhammad Tahir and Muhammad Siddique (Karachi Central), Abdul Samad, Bakht Nawaz and Muhammad Aalam (Karachi South) and Atta ur Rehman, Tousif Ahmed and Al Beruni from Malir.

“Four contestants in the final are winners from 2006 and 2007 and the remaining 11 are new ones,” said Muhiuddin. The topics up for debate are ‘Dawat wa Tableegh Ki Ehmiyat’ (The importance of proselytizing), Jadeed Zerai Iblagh ka Istemal’ (How to use the latest forms of mass communication), ‘Ikhtlaf-e-Rai aur us ka Ehtram’ (Difference of opinion and how to honour it), ‘Qatal-e-Nahq, Asbab, Asraat aur Wabbal’ (Intentional murder, causes, effects and its curse’.

The judging panel was formed under the supervision of Maulana Abdul Qayoom Haqqani, the principal of Jamia Abu Hurera Naushera, NWFP. It comprises Professor Maulana Dr Muhammad Saad Siddiqui from Punjab University, Lahore, Shaikhul Hadith Maulana Zahid al Rashidi from Jamia Nusratul Uloom Gujranwalla, the principal of Jamia Rashidia Turbat, Balochistan, Maulana Mufti Ehtsham ul Haq Asiabadi and the principal of Jamia Anwarul Uloom Kandiaro Sindh Mufti Muhammad Idrees.

Euros 2008 Quarterfinal Draws

From Jens Fischer:

Main Break QF draw and motion
QF 1
1G Oxford C (8)
1O UCD L & H A (9)
2G Oxford A (1)
2O TCD Phil B (16)

Judges: Daniel McCarthy (Chair), Derek Doyle, Isabelle Loewe, Stuart Anderson, David Middlemiss

QF 2
1G Cambridge B (7)
1O ULU B (10)
2G UCC Law A (15)
2O Oxford B (2)

Judges: Ali Cormack (Chair), Adriaan Andringa, Andy Hume, Kirsty Russell, David Wheelan

QF 3
1G UCD Law A (6)
1O UCD Law B (14)
2G Oxford D (11)
2O Manchester A (3)

Judges: Daniel Schut (Chair), Sam Block, Ewan MacDonald, Tony Murphy, Olga Polunina

QF 4
1G Leiden A (4)
1O KCL A (12)
2G Helsinki A (13)
2O UCC Phil A (5)

Judges: Greg O'Neill (Chair), Felicity Cook, Neil Dewar, Andrew Marshall, Bob Nimmo

Motion: "This House would ban the broadcast of recordings produced by terrorists."

QF ESL: Draw and motion

QF ESL 1
1G Koc A (8)
1O IDC A (16)
2G BDU B (9)
2O Leiden A (1)

Judges: Jenni Harrison (Chair), Samir Deger-Sen, Diarmuid Early, Mikhail Jevdokimov, Ashleigh Lamming

QF ESL 2
1G Tel Aviv A (7)
1O Tilbury D (15)
2G Warwick A (10)
2O Bonaparte A (2)

Judges: Connie Grieve (Chair), Dan Cotley, Ozgun Dundar, Eoin Kilkenny, Erin O'Brien

QF ESL 3
1G Tilbury C (14)
1O Tilbury A (3)
2G HSoG A (11)
2O Haifa B (6)

Judges: Colletta Smith (Chair), Rob Honig, Derek Lande, Giles Robertson, Alex Ward

QF ESL 4
1G BBU A (5)
1O Bonaparte A (4)
2G Bonaparte B (12)
2O METU A (13)

Judges: Daniel Warents (Chair), Sam Block, Jens Fischer, Anat Gelber, Marite Klavina

Motion: "This House would require all schools to teach safe sex to children from age 10 regardless of parental consent."

Euros Breaks

Colm Flynn is so often the first wih the most.

From http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/2008/06/eudc-2009-break.html

ESL Break
1. Leiden A
2. Bonaparte A
3. Tilbury A
4. Bonaparte C
5. ?
6. Haifa B
7. Tel Aviv A
8. Koc A
9. Berlin B
10. Warwick A
11. Hertie A
12. Bonaparte B
13. Metu A
14. Tilbury C
15. Tilbury B
16. IDC A

Main Break
1. Oxford A
2. Oxford B
3. Manchester A
4. Leiden A
5. UCC Phil A
6. UCD Law A
7. Cambridge B
8. Oxford C
9. UCD LnH A
10. ULU B
11. Oxford D
12. Kings A
13. Helsinki A
14. UCD Law B
15. UCC Law A
16. TCD Phil B

Judges Break
Adrian Andringa
Alex Ward
Alistair Cormac
Anat Gelber
Andrew Marshall
Andrew Hume
Anthony Murphy
Ashleigh Lamming
Bob Nimmo
Coletta Smith
Connie Grieve
Dan Colley
Daniel P McCarthy
Daniel Shut
Daniel Warrants
David Middlemass
David Whelan
Derek Doyle
Derek Lande
Diarmuid Early
Eoin Kilkenny
Erin O'Brien
Ewan McDonald
Felicity Cooke
Giles Robertson
Greg O'Neill
Isabel Loewe
Jenni Harrison
Jens Fischer
Kirsty Russel
Neil Dewar
Neil Harvey Smith
Olga Polumina
Ozgun Dundar
Sam Block
Samir Deger Sen
Stewart Anderson

Reserve Judges
Ed Mason (Durham)
Ali Black?
Elizabeth O'Brien
James Soleym
Joe McCaffrey
Rita Bulusu
Stephen Whelan

Euros 2008 Rounds 6 & 7 Motions

From Jens Fischer:

Motion R6 EUDC 2008
"This House believes developed countries should not accept skilled migrants from developing countries."

Motion R7 EUDC 2008
"This House would pay morbidly obese people to lose weight."

Case For and Against Policy Debate vs. LD Debate

Interesting exchange from http://bemusedrantingsfromanopenmind.blogspot.com/2008/06/if-challenging-tradition-means-doing.html

SUNDAY, JUNE 22, 2008
If Challenging Tradition Means Doing Policy Debate, I'll Stick With Tradition: The Corruption of Policy Debate
It's generally a good thing to be an innovator. There are those who challenge the mediums of music, literature, politics, etc, with bold new styles and methods of getting things done. However, some innovators get so caught up in trying to be different they end up looking like idiots. What's worse, is that a good deal of the time these innovators get so wrapped up in the garbage they create, causing them to not realize how really stupid what they are doing is. Even worse than that, people actually begin to buy into this nonsense. Enter: Policy debate.

Policy debate is the original form of debate in the National Forensics League. It is a style of debate centered around current issues; evidence is the most crucial form to debate. Policy debate was then joined by Lincoln-Douglas debate, the oldest form of debate as far as the world goes. While LD was inspired by the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, the themes and specific styles of LD root all of the way back to philosiphers such as Aristotle and Plato. LD is centered around morals and values, and while evidence is incorporated it is not crucial to the debate.

These two are the two biggest debate events in the NFL. Long have debates centered around which is the superior type. I'm here to put my input in....and I say as far as real debate goes, LD knocks the sad state of affairs that is modern Policy debate.

First, let me begin with this: normal Policy debate isn't that bad. The way Policy used to be done was fine. While I would still prefer LD over good Policy, that's simply my taste. There are certain things about Policy that while I don't prefer them, aren't bad, such as stock issues (Although Significance and Inherency are completely gratuitous and a waste of time, in my opinion. If you can't prove that one, your plan isn't happening already, and two, that your plan isn't/can't be solved, then you should seriously consider not setting foot in a debate round.) Policy debate has the potential to be good, but it has been ruined for many reasons.

NOTE: I know not ALL Policy debaters don't do the following things; however the MAJORITY of Policy debaters do. So before any Policy debaters get pissy at me, I am not accusing every one of you of doing the following idiotic things. I know there are good Policy debaters that actually stay away from stupid stuff; I have met and know some. And keep in mind there is this thing called the first amendment...there's no card around that!

1. Do you think I care how many tubs of evidence you carry around?

I'm not sure if certain Policy teams (Note: I might use the abbreviation CX, meaning cross-ex, another name for Policy, every now and then) really think they scare other teams with the amount of tubs they carry around, or if they just enjoy manual labor. Any time I see a team with six to eight tubs of evidence, I instantly get an image of narcissitic jerks who think that they are the best because they managed to buy enough handbooks to fill up that much space. (I'm not generalizing Policy researchers; more on this later.) Chances are, if you are economical with the space you have, you really only need four tubs tops. I can guarantee you that half, if not more, of the evidence in these massive amount of tubs that CX teams carry around will never be pulled out in the round. In college debate, if you are a frequent competitor, I might see you needing that much space for evidence. College debates are intense and far more wordy than high school CX debate. But if you are a high school debater, chances are you really don't need all of that space. I've heard CX debaters coming out of rounds and saying, "Gah, I can't believe we don't have that evidence in the tubs!" Well guess what, morons? You ever hear the term "quality over quantity?" Maybe instead of filling up your tubs with as many worthless handbooks as possible maybe you can do your own research! Not only that, since Policy cases are pretty much known to everyone at the tournament, you should know what important pieces of evidence to have. Any time I go to an invitational and see some smug, grinning idiot dragging ridiculous amounts of tubs on a dolley, I hope he goes down an incline and all that evidence falls out of the tub and scatters. If you knew how to research, maybe you wouldn't have to look like a peasant from medieval times dragging gratuitous amounts of paper around.

2. Policy argumentation is INHERENTLY stupid.

Have you read a Policy case? While I have read some plan texts that are good (Tanya, if you're reading this, that case from your freshman year that I thought you wrote, but it turns out Nader did, is dynamite), the "arguments" within even a good plan text just suck. In debate, arguments are necessary. This is a given. Otherwise, where would the conflict be? In an LD case, an argument is generally clearly stated. For example, take one from my amazing LD case for the death penalty topic:

Since no society is perfect, not even a just one, no absolutely final punishment should be used.

That is an argument, clearly made. And most good LDers I have gone up against support that argument with their OWN words, and maybe a piece of evidence to support it. Policy argumentation, however, works another way. Policy is just a tagline from an article (Although sometimes tags are the original words of the CX team) and an article following it. Some Policy debaters elaborate on what the card (piece of evidence) says, but the bulk of an argument is something someone else has already said. Wow.....Policy debate must be the best, right? It's so great, people can't even come up with their own words to get a point across! Now, I completely understand that Policy must be evidence-based, seeing as it involves creating a plan and it also involves current issues; you aren't dealing with abstract concepts such as justice, like in LD. But most arguments in Policy are just a tag and someone else's words. Any idiot can find someone else to agree with a point they made. Policy arguments all sound forced to me. In a round, when the opposing team makes a point, your FIRST thought should be, "What would I say against that?" Not in Policy! The first thing Policy debaters do is jump to a card that would take that specific argument out. Really, a lot of times it boils down to who has the best evidence.

If Policy debaters are so smart, how come the first thing they do when an argument is brought up against them is look for SOMEONE ELSE'S WORDS? Now, I know they will have to use evidence to take out the opponent's arguments, but evidence shouldn't be the sole thing they search for! This is how it should work:

"My opponent just made an argument that I think I can beat. My response to it would be..........Ok, now that I have my argument down, where's the evidence to support it?"

And this is how it does work:

"My opponent just made an argument. Quick, where's my file on that?"

The first example is how a true debater should work. The second is how an ape would debate. Congratulations, CX debaters......your general debating skills are that of a primate.

3. Policy "research" mostly consists of forking over ninety bucks for someone else's research, and "case specific research" just proves that you are a slacker.

I hate handbooks. While I have bought some on general things, such as values, which are universally applied to many topics, handbooks referring to a specific topic usually suck. I did get a handbook for the state topic this year, and guess how many times I used it? Once! And it wasn't even at state! I used one card from the handbook overall, and it didn't even hold much weight in the round.

Do Policy debaters have brains? Yes, you will need some of the handbook stuff to know what cases you will go up against and for general evidence, but has the thought ever occurred to you that THOUSANDS OF DEBATERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE THOSE EXACT SAME HANDBOOKS? Are you aware of how worthless that makes the handbooks? Yes, the new Policy peons could use them in JV divisions of tournaments, but those rounds end up being a competition of idiots anyways!

I hate the term "case specific research/evidence." "Yeah, I ran up against a tough case this tournament, so I need to go get some more case specific evidence and research for the next tournament." Congratulations, you are officially LAZY. When you say that you need "case specific evidence," you are telling me three things: one, you don't know your existing research very well, which concurrently means that you are probably just using handbook crap like all the rest of the peons in Policy debate, two, that you don't do your own research, like a debater should, and three, you are incompetent. Every time I hear "case specific research," I want to rush over to a Policy team that is either from my school or a team from a different school that I support, and say, "See that guy over there? He's incompetent. If you hit him in a round, drop him like third period French." I have met some Policy debaters who do their own research; it's refreshing to see in a type of debate primarily occupied by mindless drones reading lame cards from mass-produced handbooks. If a general Policy debater that I don't know tells me, "I did a lot of research," all I hear is, "I blew a couple of hundred bucks on handbooks. I'm going to get slaughtered at this tournament."

4. Spreading is stupid, and you do idiotic things while you do it.

If I ever judge a round when I get older, and by some act of cruelty I'm forced to judge a Policy round, any spreader better expect to get zero speaker points from me. (Not that speaker points really matter in Policy, but still....) "Spreading" is the art of speaking at rapid speeds to fit in a lot of evidence. If you've ever heard "Rosetta Stoned" by Tool, imagine those vocals except a little bit faster and much less discernible. You might be able to be slightly sympathetic toward Policy debaters when it comes to previous points I've mentioned, however unlikely, but this is one issue that I will always regard as idiotic when it comes to debate.

First off, I don't care who you are, you are instantly a bad speaker when you spread. There are those arrogant, tea-drinking Policy elite who say, "Well, so and so can spread perfectly clear and give full analysis!" My BS detector shoots up to unholy levels when I hear stuff like like that. You sound like a moron. One thing that is important when it comes to REAL speaking is when you put emphasis on your points. In spreading, you just sound like a complete babbling idiot. I'm not sure if the act of spreading involves indulging in hallucinogenics before the round, but I'm assuming it does because no person in their right mind could consider that good debate and speaking.

Second, it doesn't take spreading to be a good CX debater. In fact, it should be just the opposite. At "circuit" tournaments and Nationals it is apparently a prerequisite that you have to spread to even get far in the tournament. Absolutely ridiculous! Spreading just furthers the elitist garbage that Policy is. Policy debaters think they are so amazing because of the uniqueness that the certain intracicies of their style debate give them. As I stated in the beginning of this article, some innovators get caught up in their own idiocy. Spreaders try to justify their idiotic rambling by saying, "My case needs a lot of research! And I only have eight minutes to do it!" First: do you know what the second affirmative speech is called? The Second Affirmative CONSTRUCTIVE. Do you know what that means? It means if you are so incompetent that you can't craft a solid case within eight minutes, you have ANOTHER SPEECH to maybe throw in a few extra points. You don't have a ton of answering to do.....you have one negative speech to respond to. You should have plenty of time to throw in some extra arguments (Since it is a CONSTRUCTIVE speech, meaning that this gives you time to CONSTRUCT your case) along with your responses. Second, you are given an EIGHT MINUTE TIME LIMIT. This means you are, according to the rules, supposed to construct an eight minute speech. Spreading is another way of saying, "Screw the rules. I want to write a twenty minute speech. So I'll talk at warp nine speeds to fit in in." (Clearly, these people are not aware of the fact that they have two speeches to construct arguments.) If you Policy debaters are as good as you claim to be, then it shouldn't be that hard to write a solid case in eight minutes.

Third, spreaders do idiotic things while they spread. The event that sparked me to write this article was the watching of a round at the National Debate Tournament in Las Vegas. A coach, my best friend, and I all went into a Policy round just to spectate. It was absolutely awful. Not only was the argumentation terrible, but the spreading was atrocious. Not only that, but one of the spreaders in the round was rubbing his upper thigh and reigons close to that while he was spreading. He, was of course too busy focusing on making sure he got over 400 WPMS to realize just how much of an idiot he was looking like. Other spreaders will rock their heads back and forth while they read their evidence, like some ridiculous chicken. These are two things I would do in a Policy round if the opposing team started spreading:

1. Since spreading requires so much oxygen, spreaders take rapid, deep breaths in the middle of their flurry of words. When the opponent would go in for that deep breath, I would sock him in the stomach, knocking the wind out of him. See how fast he could speak after that!

2. As for the people who rock their heads back and forth, I would just simply ram their head facefirst into their table/tub they were using to read their evidence off of.

5. Disclosing before rounds just makes you look more incompetent.

I hate the arrogant jerks I've heard about, who, if the opposing team didn't disclose their case before the round, got pissy at them. Even worse, people who actually use the fact that the opposing team didn't disclose before the round as an argument in the round. If I was judging and you tried to pull that garbage on me, I would drop you instantly. No debater should stoop to such an idiotic argument. The only attempt at an excuse to justify this was, "It improves the educational value of the round." BULL! One way or another, the same cards you would have pulled the three minutes or less before the round started would have been pulled if you had just debated like a normal person and waited until the speech actually began. What, are you that terrible of a debater that you can't wait the three minutes or less before the 1AC begins to know what's going on? At best you'll just be able to pull out your file of lame handbook evidence and find some lousy general arguments that will hold about zero weight in the round. Disclosing before around is like one army going up to another and saying, "Hey, can we know your maneuvering tactics and strategy before the war starts? I think my men would learn much more that way." If I were a general and someone tried to pull that garbage on me, I would just have my army blow them away without hesitation. Then I would go invade his country and create a new socialist government to toture the people just for his stupidity. In good debate, there's no room for incompetence. If it's too hard for you to listen to the 1AC and craft arguments/pull evidence during that speech, then you don't belong in Policy.

6. Policy's elitism is just annoying and makes you look snobbish and arrogant.

This isn't an attack on the debate of Policy, but instead an attack on how some of the of the "upper elite" of Policy can be. Everyone has their favorite type of debate, whether it be Policy or Public Forum. (If the latter is your favorite type of debate, seek help.) But one thing that distinguishes Policy debaters over all others is their snobbish elitism. If you asked me what my favorite type of debate was, I'd simply say, "Parli (Parliamentary Debate) and LD." If you asked a Policy debater what the best type of debate was, they'd say something along the lines of, "Policy debate is far superior than any type of debate, and anyone doing anything less isn't a real debater elitist garbage blahblablbahblah I'm incompetent." I'm proud to be an LDer, but Policy debaters act like they're this superior social movement and we're all just underlings compared to them. What's worse is the people who feel like they are supposed to like the garbage like spreading because they are "hardcore" Policy debaters. Wow, you are such an underling that you can't even formulate your own opinion? That's like a Republican who feels like he HAS to vote for the Republican candidate, even though he feels that the Democrat would be a better president.

Take for instance the Pepperdine Invitational this year. We had one Policy team go there, Mandee Dees and Kirsten Albers, who were a great team this year. There were a couple of schools there like James Logan and other similar schools that do Policy the crappy way: all spreading, and they craft one case and hand it out to all of their teams. Mandee and Kirsten, however, actually debate Policy. They were put down and looked down upon because they didn't disclose before rounds and spread. I wanted to punch those pretentious jerks in the face. It's not the responsibilty of those girls to conform to your twisted notion of what Policy is before they come to a tournament. There's no universal standard for Policy that says you MUST spread to be a good Policy debater and you MUST disclose before rounds to be a good Policy debater. If you were a good debater, you would just conform to how they debate. But no, since they don't debate the crappy way that makes you look like an imbecile, they must be losers. Well I have news for you; maybe if you took a step off of your pedestal and realized that there is more than one way to debate things, you wouldn't look like an arrogant idiot. But you aren't going to...you're going to continue being pretentious. Congratulations...I'm sure you'll score big at the Mediocrity Awards.

If you were to ask me what the best types of debate were, I would tell you what I preferred; not what is actually so. You know why? Because there isn't "The superior form of debate." While I would say Parliamentary debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate are the most true forms of debate (Going off of the very definition of the word "debate"), I'm not going to say "LD and Parli are the best." LD and Parli both have flaws that I don't like. LD's speech times are way too short and the negative side has next to no time in the round. LD isn't perfect; but that's what I like to do best. While I do say stuff like, "LD is the best type of debate ever!" I'm stating my opinion, not a true fact. Most "hardcore" Policy debaters act like Policy is the best, no contention, and anyone who debates any other form of debate is inferior to them. Well guess what? There's a leigon of debaters in other forms of debate that could probably slay most of these pretentious imbeciles in a round of normal debate. So yes, if you like the form of debate you do, be proud of it. But you aren't the best and it sure doesn't give you any right to be pretentious. All it shows is that you are overcompensating for something....maybe a lack of real debating skill, perhaps?

7. Performance debate is offensive to the true nature of debate, no matter how hard you try to defend it.

While most Policy people I know are anti-performance debate, the "circuit" debaters and upper Policy debaters utilize performance debate. Performance debate can range from reading poetry as your 1AC to playing rap music as evidence. This garbage is even worse than spreading. Get rid of the word "debate" in "performance debate" and that's what it really is. A performance. It's not debating. You aren't making any points. Once again, these quote-unquote innovators get so caught up in their own idiocy that they don't even realize how dumb they are.

While a lot of Policy debaters would disagree with performance, there are still a lot who would utilize it. While you might say, "Oh, performance isn't my thing," the institution of Policy debate utilizes it frequently. There's always a group of people in a corrupted institution who are against the corruption of the institution, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the corruption is a major part of the institution. This is the same for Policy.

Congratulations, Policy debate! You have taken the definition and nature of the word "debate" and completely mutilated it! Your "innovation," as moronic as it is, has officially corrupted a once perfectly good institution!

This is my offense when it comes to the debate over LD vs. Policy. I will soon post my defense of LD debate. Even I know, as a debater, that if you want to truly get your point across you have to hit both sides........
POSTED BY REGINALD CARTIER, ESQ. AT 6:32 PM
LABELS: DEBATE, LD, POLICY
10 COMMENTS:

mark said...
I challenge you to an LD debat over this issue on the condition that our valuse both be real debate and my criterion be policy and yours be LD. Accept this challenge or you are admiting to the world that policy is better than LD (and by the way, i will spread in the round, deal with it)

Mark Heisler

JUNE 23, 2008 12:36 AM
mark said...
I would like to point out that I believe that policy is the oldest form of debate. Did cave man Oganga ask himself, “self should I go hunting or should I sleep” or did he ask himself “self is it morally acceptable to go hunting or to sleep” Policy defines what we are going to do, this clearly was thought about first because of something called SURVIVAL INSTINCT.
1. You know who cares, I DO!
I will be carrying around 4-8 tubs of evidence next year, I will be part of a team that cuts the first 3000 pages of it (SNFI) and then I will be cutting the rest either by myself or with any members of the debate team that want to help. I will probably be using some bought evidence too but I will have gone through every piece of that and cut it so I actually know what it says and I will be able to read it faster (more on spreading later.) And yes, half of that evidence won’t ever be used but I cannot predict which half will be used so I need it all. I plan on going to Kentucky (that is where the TOC (tournament of champions) is held, but more on that later) this year and NOBODY is going to stop me. As for quality over quantity, if you want to make it to the TOC, you need a large quantity of quality work it isn’t a one or the other situation, in policy terms: PERM DO BOTH!!! You seem to be criticizing wana-be circuit debaters. I agree they ought to be mocked, but you haven’t seen real circuit debate. You seem to praise this idea of doing your own work; anyone at the TOC, no, anyone with a single TOC bid has done A LOT of their own research. You say that stock issues are good (I disagree, I think they are crap, but that is for a different argument) and then you say that you are ok with College debates; real circuit policy is just about as intense as college and league debates are stock issues, so what is left are those non-circuit tournaments that crappy debaters go to, considering that this is a lot of what Adams (our debate coach) likes to go to, it is no wonder that you have a skewed view of policy debate.
2. Policy Argument is INHERENTLY AMAZING!!! It takes a dumb ass to screw it up
Here is a policy argument: If we don’t look for oil in Africa, we will all die. This is extended through argumentation so it follows this pattern: if we don’t look for oil in Africa, we will run out of oil, if we run out of oil, the economy will collapse, if that happens, a china will get mad at us for not paying them the money that we owe them, if that happens and continues for a long period of time, they will launch nuclear missiles at us, we live in an era of mutually assured destruction and that would lead to everyone dying. It takes just as much of a trail for your argument: Since no society is perfect, it can make mistakes, if a society can make a mistake, at some point, it probably will, if the society makes a mistake, it needs to correct that mistake, if a punishment is final, it cannot be corrected, no final punishment, should therefore be used. And Policy debaters don’t claim to be smarter; we claim to be more real world. We are not experts in a field, and we cannot pull random statistics out of our asses like parlie people do (parlie is a form of debate where you can make claims based on “common knowledge”, the sad thing is, is that it is not common for any American to have any form of knowledge (that is an original mark Heisler quote, you can use it if you want.)) we actually like having people to back us up.
3. Policy research consists of all of the policy debaters that will ever go anywhere researching for hours on end and then trying to make a buck by selling that research to under skilled policy debaters that don’t know how to use it, and quite frankly, I am amazed that they can even file it.
Yes I will agree that handbooks suck. That is because the only good evidence comes from people who actually do debate. That is why camp files are so good (our teem will have Stanford’s for next year.) I will also say that handbooks are quite different for policy and for LD, policy kids NEED some evidence because it is a standard of the style of debate. Now I agree that anyone who sticks with just handbooks ought to be burnt at the stake. But once again, you are attacking the most idiotic debaters on behalf of all policy. It is not the majority of Policy debaters that are as you so eloquently put “mindless drones reading lame cards from mass-produced handbooks,” only those incompetent idiots that show up at UOP or Pepperdine which mean nothing, go look up the out rounds of the TOC on youtube, you will realize very quickly how much you have come to hate policy because Adams only takes us to 1 or 2 good tournaments per year, you really have just not seen many good policy teams because while we are at the “fun” tournaments, the good policy teams are either at or are prepping for the real tournaments. In fact, the only reason that tournaments that we go to exist is so that the crappy debaters that you have come to know and hate need to have a place to go while the good ones are off getting bids to the TOC.
4. Don’t hate spreading because you can’t follow it.
I can follow the most retarded speakers on the face of the earth reading as fast and as sloppy as they can because I sit for hours on end watching people do it on youtube. It isn’t fun to learn to follow or to learn to do, but it makes you better. Now when you make your wonderful argument on the 2AC being allowed to bring up new stuff, you miss two big points: 1) is that there are these two magical little words of Latin called PRIMA FACIA, that means, “on the first face” and it means that in the first argument, you must present a plan that shows a definite need and how it meets that. This means that the 2AC can really only extend on inherency, harms, and solvency; all it can really bring up are some new advantages, and most good 2ACs do this. 2) the 2AC has a good 8 minutes of Negative speech that it has to respond to and that speech was probably spread. The 2AC must hit every point, otherwise they drop an argument which is just about the same as an automatic loose in policy. And once again, you seem to force the issue between quantity and quality. What if we CAN write a solid case in eight minutes, we can just write a better one in 16 and read twice as fast?

5. Disclosing before rounds makes for better debates with less time looking through boxes.
I get pissy at teams who don’t disclose. It makes me spend more in-round time looking for cards when I should be writing speeches or doing other crap. It is a cheap way of sucking up your opponents’ prep time. And yes, it isn’t that bad if you are in a slow policy round and your not trying to flow and write a speech and look up cards at the same time, but the sad truth is, that if you are any good, you will need to have some kick ass cards already out before the round if you want to have a hope of keeping up with the speed of the round.
6. You can have this one; Policy Debaters are snobs.
I am sorry that most policy debaters are jackasses. It isn’t my fault, but this is an Ad Homonym Abusive argument (that means that it is attacking those who do policy debate, not the debate form itself) either way it isn’t cool how gay most policy kids are, but maybe if you would stop posting jack ass articles like this one, they would be nicer to you too.
7. Not many teams do performance and those who do should burn in hell.
I don’t think that needs any explaining
This is also only my defense for policy, but I am not trying to prove that one is better. I’m just trying to prove that policy is not worse. This takes no attacking any of LD’s points. I would however like to point out that while Brice may not be arrogant about his favorite type of debate as he so clearly points out in his 6th point, he obviously does not feel so humble about his least favorite type, if you want empirical proof of this, you can read all of his original posting.

JUNE 23, 2008 2:34 AM
Reginald Cartier, Esq. said...
I don't hate spreading because I can't follow it. In the round that made me inspire this article (To be honest, none of the Policy folk I know from our school fall under any of these critera), I followed most of what was said. I just stopped listening right around....the 1NR because the neg was so ridiculously stupid (They ran this BS European Union CP) and listening to it would be a waste of my brain space.

Guess what? The first point on the 1AC almost always tells you what the plan text is going to involve, and if you know your tubs it shouldn't be that hard to do. People have been going on for years without disclosing....it doesn't "improve" anything. All it does is give the neg an advantage, which just makes no sense at all.

I accept your offer. Spread all the hell you want..it sure as hell doesn't change anything for me.

JUNE 23, 2008 10:06 AM
Reginald Cartier, Esq. said...
And I would also like to note that the debaters on our team and most of them in our league are good, normal Policy debaters. Carl, from my understanding, did all of his own research. I respect that a lot about him. This isn't an attack on the true and original form of Policy debate, its what it's become. I don't have a problem with the way any one of our Policy teams have debated thus far....it's these idiots at out of towners that piss me off.

Some more clear-ups:

1. I don't really approve of college debate...I said that it's simply the most intense type of debate. In fact, college is where some of the most absurd performance crap happens.

2. While LD can be real-world, since values and ethics are real world, of course Policy debate is more real world...the topic is always an issue currently happening.

3. Your point on Parli argumentation is correct. "Common knowledge" in some of the rounds I've been in involve specific statsics that just don't make sense.

4. I said in the article that obviously you need the general evidence, even though the more upper-tiered policy folk can do without the handbook crap. And even the "circuit" debaters need some form of general evidence...I was referring to (Yes, I've met these people) who basically only use handbook evidence and try to pass themselves off as awesome.

5. I should make this point more clear....my point about Policy elitism isn't a knack on Policy, it's a knack on Policy debaters.

6. As I mentioned earlier, no one I know does performance. (Except for Quinn) I sat outside my round at La Costa and listened to a thirty minute conversation between "upper" policy debaters about how performance debate is just fantastic.

7. This isn't a "Jackass" article. I've presented a completely clear and concise case against why I don't like what Policy has become. I don't go around tournaments saying this stuff; I'm typing this article on a website that only few know about. Most of the Policy debaters I know and care about have nothing to do with this article. I've been to so many tournaments where I've heard Policy debaters spread their elitist crap, knocking down anyone who doesn't do Policy, and what's worse is that they don't have any merit or warrant for such claims. I have clearly put my point across as to why I think these guys are jerks. I don't think Policy debaters are "inferior" to LDers; there are probably leigions of (Real!) Policy debaters who could slaughter me in a round of debate. And plus, LD and Policy are so radically different you can't even really compare them when you think about it.

I'm changing the title of this article to make sure this point rings...I'm not attacking Policy DEBATE, I'm arguing against the annoying elitism and how Policy has become corrupted.

JUNE 23, 2008 10:29 AM
BethanyLauren said...
Well boys you have truly made me sick. I didn't know that so much hate and arrogance could be on one debate team. Oh, wow thats right. You guys are on the same team. Imagine that. Well hey are team is already fucked up enough thanks to mainly the split between policy debaters and LD debaters. All the big drama this year even not concerning debate has been the LD vs. Policy people. Now, I'm really rather sad when I think about how this year ended with everyone hating each other for different reasons. It gets even more depressing when I think about all of us at Disneyland in the fall and how in spring secrets, hurt feelings, and lost of untalked of resentment towards each other. We all separated into different little groups and things like trips to the movies on weekends with a large group of friends is now unheard of, when we use to do it all the time.
I'm not blaming any specific person for this but I have to say it was definitely a group effort. Well, I do no one thing, I am not going to do debate next year seeing as team can't even stop fighting about anything even over the summer. I really wish things were different, but debate isn't fun anymore. And I know that Mark you now want to go to TOC and be a circuit debater and what not and you were probably already planning on doing it without me but I still just wish we could have fun at tournaments again and just be a teenager. The one thing that gets me about Policy debate or any stickuptheirass debater is that they don't seem to have a freakin soul. They don't have fun and they don't have friends they like to make enemies more then actual debate. I personally don't want to be that way and that is the direction our team is going. Now, I'm sure Mark will probably right some bing long argument in response "defeating" all of my "points" in some mixed logic, but I just want to say I don't care and I miss everyone.

-Bethany

JUNE 23, 2008 11:32 AM
mark said...
Bethany, Are you really planning on not doing debate next year? cuzz that would through some wrenches in my plans. If you don't want to, I completely see where you are coming from and I will respect your decision. And even if you don't want to do Policy next year, would you be quitting all together, or would you still be willing to be parli partners? Either way, I still want your babies (not really, just your metaphorical babies.) And I completely agree with you. It sux the way the year ended. Why the hell don't we all go as a big group of people to do stuff any more? well I'm up for doing anything with everyone. Its been too long since we did stuff like that. And I don't mean to be arrogant and argumentative, but this is Brice's Emporium of Thoughts, Rants, and Reviews, so I figured that a rant of my thoughts would be acceptable :)

P.S. Isabella is still the better one...

Now, Brice, I still think that you are caught up making fun of those people who are retarded and wouldn't know policy if it bit them in the butt. But hey, Ill leave that for what is going to be the most amazing debate ever...

JUNE 23, 2008 1:37 PM
Reginald Cartier, Esq. said...
You know, I think we all have something to learn from what Bethany just typed, and I agree with her and Mark in saying that we should all jam together as a big group. Her comment shows great maturity and intellect.

As for the challenge, I pass now. Not because I'm afraid to lose, although Mark is a formidable opponent, but because it's completely worthless. If Mark won the round, he wouldn't change my opinion. And if I won, I wouldn't change Mark's. We both do radically different types of debate and you know what, that's okay. While I may not like certain aspects of Policy, that doesn't mean Mark still can't enjoy himself doing it. And as I said earlier, Policy and LD are two different types of debate that you can't really compare. The only reason they're lumped together so frequently is because they are the two biggest styles of debate.

So if you think that by not debating I'm calling Policy better, go ahead. My opinion remains unchanged. I wasn't planning on changing anyone's opinion with this article....this is my blog and they are my thoughts exclusively. After that ridiculous round in Vegas, I knew I had to say something.

And if you have any rants against my rants, then by all means....rant.

JUNE 23, 2008 2:44 PM
BethanyLauren said...
well, for the most part debate is not going to be a big part of my life. Personally seeing people like my sister who do absolutely no research and does everything last minute make it to the nationals gives me a sick feeling. I know I'm not a good debater and I'm not sure why I joined in the first place. But when I first joined it was fun. There wasn't as much pressure to win rounds or go to state/nationals because we were in JV. I will still do some debate but it is not going to be my life especially with how hard junior year is going to be, and plus I think I could be better at speech then debate. But my thoughts still stand on how are team is so messed up and how it makes me sad we don't hang out anymore.

-Bethany

JUNE 23, 2008 5:54 PM
Carl said...
I’ll make my response in true debate style; full of profanity, line-by-line, and random adhoms.

The order is….

Global Overview
2 off
case overview
case proper


First, credentials. I'm Carl. I have a first place trophy in every debate discipline, did LD for 3 years and policy this year, and have had 3 full-ride scholarship offers from 3 different colleges… so I feel I’m a lot more credentialed to talk about the comparison between events that you.

Second, you’re whole thing is generalizing and stupid. You double-turn yourself like, 7 times, which contradicts your own theories of critical analysis and, there is massive dehum going on, I’ll get to the link story later, but you perpetuate dehum so much… bearing in mind that dehumanization is a theoretical, value based impact so yeah, impact turn the LD shit.

Third, your title doesn’t make sense.. Policy debate is tradition… doing policy debate doesn’t go against policy debate… seriously dude… btw. I’m using your title as a kind of topic for the discussion, so yeah. Here it goes.


First off is T,

A) Interpretation

Debate is defined by dictionary.com as a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

B) Violation

All the offense garnered on policy debate is based around a concept of debate practices, but to say that policy debate is destroying debate itself is flawed because even performance meets the interp.

C) Standards

1. Extra Topicality - All of your offense is based around ideas that are practices that are done in the realm of debate, not debate itself.

2. Ground - What the hell am I supposed to argue against? All I have to say is that, no matter what the style is, there’s still an opposing and an affirming team so it’s still debate.

3. Vagueness - Besides the fact that your entire blog is vague, what your talking about is extremely vague and it seems like you don’t even know what you’re talking about some of the time.

D) Voting Issue

For fairness, jurisdiction and equity…. And because of the standards.


Next off

(Analytic)
First, your entire spew of dumb shit is an attempt to prove that Lincoln-Douglas is better than Policy. This elitist mentality otherizes thousands of kids and adults who do policy debate. You say yourself in your number 6 that policy’s elitism is bad… ok… by saying LD is better than policy you are being an elitist in the opposite direction. This otherization inherently dehumanizes the other (in this case, policy debaters, who you admit to bash on).

AND

DEHUMANIZATION IS THE WORST OF ALL IMPACTS. IT JUSTIFIES THINGS LIKE NUCLEAR WAR AND GENOCIDE. DEHUMANIZATION IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL OTHER IMPACTS AND ITS PROPOSER SHOULD BE REJECTED ALONG WITH THE MENTALITY.

Berube ’97 (David, Ph.D. in Communications, “Nanotechnological Prolongevity: The Down Side”, NanoTechnology Magazine, June/July 1997, p. 1-6, URL: http://www.cla.sc.edu/ENGL/faculty/berube/prolong.htm)

This means-ends dispute is at the core of Montagu and Matsou’s treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn “its destructive toll is already greater than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record – and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse… Behind the genocide of the Holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menecide of deviants and dissidents… in the cuckoo’s next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man… (Montagu & Matsou, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be possible to quantify the impacts dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it.
Dehumanization is nuclear war, environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil’s most powerful weapon.


CASE OVERVIEW

I have no problem at all with LD, I was an extremely successful LD debater for 3 years of my career doing well in league and at invitational’s. I have a problem with people who have a problem with policy, especially when their for dumb reasons. Just some general points before the line-by-line, the second fastest round I’ve ever competed in was an LD round, that Adams watched… the person who won Harker, who also won the TOC last year, had 3 boxes full of evidence, most of them were handbooks and I saw them and looked through them, and everyone has ticks when they spread… just some thoughts.


LINE-BY-LINE


Intro

1. I agree with mark in that most all debates are about policy decisions not morality issues.
2. The Lincoln-Douglas debates happened in 1858... The British Parliament was established, for the purpose of debating the issues using empirical analysis (evidence) to find the best solutions for the betterment of the people, in 1707.… the statement that LD is the oldest in the world is ignorant.
3. “Sad state of affairs that is policy debate”… elitist much?
4. The inherency argument, is stupid. We’re not sending $1.1 billion dollars to Sub-Saharan Africa DOTS programs right now… that’s 100% true and that’s inherency.
5. The significance argument is worse, 1.6 million people die every year of Tuberculosis. That’s a significant number of people… done.










Your #1

1. You’re gay for even saying this… seriously.

2. Let’s do some simple math. There are 48 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, the affirmative can advocate sending medical assistance to any of them/all of them. Therefore the affirmative has the option of affirming 48! Possible cases… which is 1.24139156 × 1061 possible cases. But wait!!!! That’s just countries factor in the amount of disease and that’s… crap I don’t care about doing that much more math. And the negative can PIC (plan-inclusive counterplan), out of any of those countries… hmm…. I can fit 1 analytical argument per case into one tub… right…. And 1 analytical argument would be stupid as hell and not good for debate in the least…. So make that say… 14 (a typical answer block for me and Daniel)… damn I really can’t fit that into one tub now!!!

3. I had 6 handbooks this year. Handbooks are great for the beginning of the year because the provide a springboard for research in the future. Me and Daniel cut nearly all of our evidence, and we have 5 tubs at the end of the year. The Rogan’s (Greenhill RR) who won the TOC, wrote an article about how much work they put into their case stuff. It was pretty sweet because they did a shitload more than me. To be a competitive policy debater, you have to do 4 or 5 tubs worth of research. But wait, we’re not generalizing here….

4. Whoever said quantity and quality were mutually exclusive? $100 bills are the highest in quality in the US, so if I have $15 million of them in a stable economy does that mean they go down. Of course it does… bravo Brice.

5. Policy cases are not known to everyone on the circuit. Colleyville Heritage, who got 2nd a the TOC and 1st and NFL, broke a new case every out-round at the TOC and read a new case in 2 of the out-rounds at NFL… they disclosed before each round sure… but all policy cases are not known… have you heard of RFIDs? Neither had I… and I did my 4 or 5 tubs worth of research….

6. Turn, x-apply 1-5, policy research allows for more in depth topic analysis and education.

7. Turn, LD topics change every 2 months regardless of the tournament schedule, any research done is forgoed by the next topic. Policy allows for long term research.

8. I’m pretty damn good at researching, x-apply my #2 for an analysis of why there needs to be so much.


Your #2

1. My plan text was that the USFG should give $1.1 billion to DOTS for increased manpower in the treatment and prevention of Tuberculosis… if you think that’s stupid then you think that an argument attempting to save 1.6 million people is stupid…

2. Ok… no society is perfect… so when I go to your house tonight and kill your entire family, disembowl you and leave you to die…. But still live… I’ll kick it in a comfy prison with cable. Lol. Seriously man. I did LD for years… that was one of the worst arguments I’ve ever heard.

3. People would always read spending disadvantages against our case… you know how many answer we had pre-written in our block (that we wrote)? 22. You know how many of those had evidence… 4... That means we wrote 18 of our own arguments in our own words… uh… yeah. How many arguments do you make back against and argument? You think of 18 different things to say and say them all? Hah hah good luck with that. And don’t say that it’s just me… Every good team in the country does that… not one team reads 22 evidenced answers on spending.

4. We deal with abstract concepts all the time. Have you ever heard of Jean Baurdillard’s philosophy of the Simulacra in relation to nuclear proliferation? That’s pretty damn abstract… just a tad more than justice I’d say.

5. When daniel and I hear and argument against our case… we say “My opponent just made an argument that we think we can beat. Quick, now where’s the file with the evidence and analytics that we researched on this.” Most people write their own blocks dude, I’ve done lectures on file-compilation, I make my own files and so do most teams. You obviously have no experience in this area. BTW, Seb made files for LD at Berkeley, just saying.

6. How an ape would debate? Hah hah more DEHUM links!!!!


Your #3

1. Ok cross-apply all of my analysis about research before. You are just being stupid and redundant.

2. The league buys those files to get started for new kids. There are kids on our team that could never in a million years afford to fork out money for evidence. There are also kids on my team that work full-time jobs after school so they can help their parents pay for their rent but want to debate so they can have an opportunity like me and go to college for free… thanks for bastardizing what they do… I personally take offense to this and I think that you should post another blog publicly apologizing to these people. Those files help a lot of people.


Your #4

1. The 2nd fastest round I’ve ever been in was an LD round

2. The fastest kid on record’s name is Patrick Diehl and he’s an Lder

3. It’s not to fit in a lot of evidence, its to fit in a lot of arguments. If I have 18 really really good things to say why not say them all?

4. I disagree with mark on this one, I don’t think you don’t like spreading because you can’t follow it… I think you don’t like spreading because you can’t do it. Fast debate takes a lot more intelligence than slow debate. You have to think of arguments more quickly and better arguments against your opponents more arguments.

5. I like coffee but tea is good sometimes. BTW, calling someone elitist in a derogatory manner is being elitist… yah know.

6. You’re gay, you have a BS detector.

7. Listen to me go fast and listen to my arguments, and try to cover them all… that’d be funny. You know whats more funny… I’m not very good. Robin Gray, absolutely amazing. Rohan Kozi, absolutely amazing. Chase Burton, absolutely amazing. Brice Ezell, absolutely incompetent.

8. I don’t think a person is very good at spreading if you can’t put an emphasis on your points while going fast. If you can’t do that… you should probably slow down. Again listen to me or any of the aforementioned people… it’s amazing.

9. I agree that you can be a great CX debater without speed, Jordan Blumenthal is butt slow and got to semi’s of the TOC. Great debater, great guy, not very fast.

10. If spreading furthers the elitist garbage that policy is, then it perpetuates the same thing in LD. Ask Adams about the round he saw with me in it… it was LD.. And it was faster than you mom ran back into the room when I was done with her last night.

11. Daniel and I always start our 2AC with a new sheet of paper (new argument), most good teams do this… again… ignorance.

12. Reading fast isn’t screwing the rules. But just in case it is, can you please send me the email for the International Committee on Acceptable Reading Rates in Debate. I’d like to have a word with the ICARRD about that.

13. Hah hah I love the ticks that people have while spreading. Nader’s is my favorite. And just so you know, Lders do way way way worse things… like, not joke, pelvic thrust. Only seen that from a spreading Lder man.

14. Line-by-line on your spreading line by line

1. Double-clutching is gay and a lot of debaters do that just to do what other people do… I personally don’t do that and neither do most of the best people. (except Lders)

2. Wow… violent Dehum links. Thanks!


Your #5

1. You bitch about people looking through their tubs… and yet you don’t like disclosure, that’s a double bind. Disclosure makes for way more educational rounds because they spend more time thinking of arguments and less time digging. Lol. You make me laugh.

2. There are LD tournaments with MANDATORY value/contention tag disclosure. Very few policy tournament mandate plan text disclosure and none require advantage tags. Disclosure is a friendly thing to do… until jackasses like me and daniel kritik people who don’t disclose.

3. If you walked into the round, I’d automatically drop you.

4. It’s called judge adaptation, me and Daniel did it cause we knew Melissa would buy that garbage, and for shits and giggles.

5. Actual arguementation on specific plans is important. That’s a problem I have with Joe and your buddy Brian, they run 5 generic disads (never once did they link specifically to TB against me or against Jose and James) and there’s no case debate. We like to wait until we hear the plan text before we do any neg strategies… it makes better debates, that’s why disclosure is so cool.

6. X-apply the amount of evidence argument from above, lots of stuff, it just makes it easier before hand. Besides, the affirmative has forever to know what their case is, and presumption goes to the aff.


Your #6

1. STRAIGHT TURN YOUR NUMBER 6. IT’S FUCKIN STUPID. This whole schpeel is a bash on policy and you say that LD is better… that’s elitist. Never once have I, in all seriousness, said that Policy was better than LD, or that Lders were stupid, or anything of that nature. YOU DID. You’re the fuckin elitist one here. This argument really made me frustrated and made me lose a lot of respect for you (and yes I had some). You made somewhat legit points (not really, but better than this one) up until now, and now you look like a dumbass. Now to express my inner elitism, I have already beaten you in Public Forum, so if you want to debate in ANY OTHER TYPE it’s on… then call me elitist because then you’ll have a right to, because I will be elite.

7. Mandee and Kirsten are great policy debaters… but even in slow stock issues rounds in league how did they fair? Lol. They’re cool kids, and yeah they debate policy, but if you’re going to blame the entire community for not adapting to one team, you’re again the elitist one.

8. “There's no universal standard for Policy that says you MUST spread to be a good Policy debater and you MUST disclose before rounds to be a good Policy debater” Amen. Finally my point proven. Lol. Just so you know man, there’s also no universal standard for policy that says that you have to be slow and persuasive and not disclose before rounds. Lol. It works both ways. The point is that there is not universal standard for anything, so don’t make one. Again, JB is one of the slowest debaters ever and he got to Semi’s of the TOC… I don’t get what you’re complaining about. They’re just not as good of debaters as other people. And you’re mad at the community for wanting mandee and kirsten to conform to them? Then why shouldn’t the community be mad at you for wanting us to conform to you or to LD or to them? Seriously man stop being such a hypocrite.

9. Overcompensating for real debate skill? Dude that’s the most fuckin elitist thing you’ve said this entire time. The Rogans will beat you in a slow round, JB will beat you in a slow round, I will beat you in a slow round… there is not lack of debate skill. We just have more.


Your #7

This’ll be short.

1. I agree I dislike performance

2. I do have to say though that, as long as there’s an advocacy there, it’s still debate. Even if you’re crying for reparations for the black community with thug gangsta rap in the background, it’s still debate. X-apply the def of debate from the T flow above.


Your conclusion

Lol. You don’t know what the nature of the word debate is… even in LD there are definitons (moreso than policy actually). Hah hah. You make me laugh man. Especially since you took your time to write a dumb article. Anytime you want to debate, or even better, anytime you want to learn how to debate give me a call.

PS… I love LD. But most of the arguments you made against cx also apply to contemporary LD. Seb heard a damn counterplan in LD for Christ’s sake. There will always be an assimilation of debate and long as more than one exists. Live with it. I like them both, it’s cool. And dude I have nothing against you. A couple of the things you said made me really really frustrated and made you look like way more of an idiot that you actually. You put a lot of thought into something that was so easily taken apart. And what was the purpose? I hope you think a little more about your defense of LD. I’d love to help you with that blog when you start writing it. I love LD it’s so sweet, so don’t screw it up like you screwed up this one.

JUNE 23, 2008 7:21 PM
Reginald Cartier, Esq. said...
Well, this shall be my final post.

1. Any of my statements such as "an ape would debate that way" or anthing of that nature is just adding humor into the article. Policy debaters aren't "sub-human." And the jokes I made about things I would do to spreaders when they spread are just that...jokes. My joke about overcompensating was a joke as well. If you notice on the side of my blog, I claim Maddox's "Best Page in the Universe," where he commonly uses offensive humor, but he doesn't always mean it. I'm not attempting to "dehumanize" Policy debaters; and I am actually somewhat peeved that you link that to genocide. Yes, that is dehumanization, but my article is miles from that.

2. My point on significance wasn't that it's completely 100 percent worthless, it's that you shouldn't spend a ton of time on it. I read a plan text once where significance was three pages long. It shouldn't be that hard to prove that what you're trying to fix is important.

3. I'm well aware that you're good at research. You're one of the few Policy debaters I've met who has done so. You don't just buy handbooks and go to tournaments like some have.

4. I did 80 hours of research for only three topics this year. And the topics don't always change "regardless of tournament schedule...." I debated the death penalty topic all the way through December. While the topic does change semi-frequently, and Policy does involve longer research time, research can be done for LD as well.

5. How is my article an attempt to prove LD is better? Never once in my article do I say, "LD is better because....." or stuff like "Policy does this, and LD doesn't." I'm very well aware in circuit LD and very much so in college LD that people spread. Why I won't do debate in college, plain and simple. Spreading, disclosing, and other things I brought up aren't every nature of Policy debate...Policy went on for a long time without those things. I'm attacking things that have corrupted Policy, not the whole form of debate itself. I would consider you a good Policy debater from what I've seen. I'm sure next year in college you will spread, and while I find that disappointing it doesn't take away from your skill that you displayed this year.

6. I am extremely well aware I can't spread, and I don't want to. I don't want to yell at top speed in a round; I like good speaking.

7. My point on gratuitous amounts of people was an attack on the following people: One, the type of people who only buy handbooks, memorize the tabs in their tubs and soely run off of that, and two, the idiots who buy countless dollars of handbooks and every tournament they always seem to be missing some. I am more than aware that JV Policy teams need handbooks; hell, even Varsity teams need that general evidence. And I don't "bitch about people looking through tubs."

8. I appreciate that you argue Policy that way and not just pull out a folder of someone else's words; but then again you also do basically all of your research and that's to be expected. I also like that you run kritiks, which are seeming to become archaic and nonexistent in our league.

9. I find it funny that you people think I was actually trying to start a debate over this. I was simply pissed by an atrocious round I saw in Vegas and I decided to write about my problems with certain things that happen in Policy debate. I didn't even think for a second I would change anyone's mind. Does it say anywhere on this blog, "I want to debate this with someone?" This is sheer self-indulgence.

10. I've been in quite a few spread rounds, some that were actually good. Most of the spreading in there was more cards, not arguments.

11. LD is anything but flawless. Let' begin, shall we?

1. I have gone up against this in many rounds......people won't use a criterion because "It's not in the rules," and yet it's essential to the round.

2. The speaking times are terrible. The neg gets basically one speech to sum up the whole round, and gets very little input overall.

3. Spreading in LD is dumb. Spreading is not a generally appealing type of speaking, and speaker points are crucial in LD rounds. You shouldn't have that many arguments to make in an LD round. In Policy, yeah, because of the stock issues and such. Other than that, stop spreading in LD. And now adding this "pelvic thrust" that you've mentioned to an LD repitoire, I'm actually semi-offended that an LDer would do that.

4. In LD, people bring up new arguments in rebuttals in every round. When do I want to punch someone?

5. LD topics should change once per semester, not twice.

6. Some LDers are just as elitist as Policy debaters are. I'm not one of them. I don't think you, Tanya, or anyone else is "less of a debater" because you do Policy; that's what you do. While I disagree with a lot of things about it, that doesn't take away from your proficiency in that reigon.

I like LD a lot; but there are a lot of flaws in it that piss me off just as much as Policy does. To be honest, the main reason I joined LD was so I didn't have to work with a partner.

Go to www.maddox.xmission.com. That's my inspiration for this article. Like you running ridiculous arguments in a round for quote-unquote shits and giggles, that's all I'm doing. I might as well have said all of this to myself, but you know what I like writing so I decided to put it out somewhere. I didn't force anyone to read this; and I sure as hell wasn't trying to start any debate over it. I certainly didn't "Put a lot of thought into it," if I did it would read a hell of a lot better than this. I typed this in fifteen minutes. If any mind was actually changed by what I typed here, then that person clearly needs to do some thinking about who they truly are; I expected, honest to God, nothing to come out of this article. If anyone I knew was to read this article, all I expected was for the Policy people I know to roll their eyes and for the LDers to laugh at the sterotypical Policy jokes we always make.

And I have respect for you. Your penchant for running the quote-unquote "Nazi hooker disads" is a bit unruly, but you debate Policy in a way that I like it. You'll run the weird crap and you'll debate it well. You're leagues above the idiots in Policy debate.

As for me, while I managed to fare well this year, and I worked hard to get where I got, I still maintain that luck was an intregal factor. Emily Barber killed me in an LD round and yet I managed to walk away with the win. In league, I was ranked above people like Sebastain, Emily, and Bret, who all have much more skill and experience than I do. And even in the Valley I was ranked above Emily, who I maintain is the best LDer I've faced (Although her speaking is like nails on a chalkboard to me.)

I know what debate really is. This article was a humor article at the most, although some of the points I still maintain. If I was really going to make a real, true case against Policy I would work a lot harder than this fifteen minute stream of consciousness.

JUNE 24, 2008 4:13 PM

Updates from Euros 2008

Video from day 1

The tab for day 1 is now available:
http://www.eudc2008.eu/index.php?content=42&menuid=15

Round 4
This House would make fines relative to wealth.

Round 5
This House would ban the physical punishment of children by parents.

Jens Fischer reports:

Top room seems to be
1G Cambridge A
1O Manchester A
2G Oxford B
2O Oxford A

Rupert Myers reports on the food:

Estonian Food
In a word, Estonian food is dire. Every morning we hit the hotel dining room for a big breakfast of all the usual fried food, beans, muesli, fruit, yoghurt, cold meats, and so forth, because we know that everything else they give us during the day will be poison.
Day one lunch consisted of a greasy risotto dish without any accompanying fruit, veg, or anything with another flavour. Dinner was another paper plate, this time of bad chinese noodles.
Day two lunch was an improvement - a sort of irish stew thing with an unknown meat - but dinner more than made up for the lunch. We were taken several miles on foot to an irish pub, where we were given over-boiled potatoes and pork steak, with a pint of lukewarm concentrated orange juice.
This has to be set against the background of a great level of friendliness, enthusiam, and cheer of our hosts, and their beautiful city. Estonia's great, really, but the food and the nightlife are in need of transformation.

Peter Mesarec on ESL/EFL issues:

The other problem are the interviews for the ESL status. Some teams, that are competing as ESL for a long time are now being called in for interviews and are, as we unofficially heard, being changed into EFL teams. The same thing happens for one of our teams, so it will be interesting for the pre-council.

Euros 2008 is Underway

Hotel in Tallinn

Check their home page for videos and more.
http://www.eudc2008.eu/

There are a number of blogs giving moment by moment analysis.

Jens Fischer at
http://yourgermancorrespondent.blogspot.com/

Rupert Myers at
http://rupertmyers.blogspot.com/

Peter Mesarec at
http://www.debate-motions.info/

Motions includes:

Round 1
This House would require people to work in return for welfare payments.

Round 2
This house believes that sporting bodies should penalise teams when their players commit crime outside the field.

Round 3
This house would use military force where necessary to deliver emergency aid.

"Speech & Debate" Play Coming to the Big Screen

Just like we did with Rocket Science and the Great Debaters, GLOBAL DEBATE has it first. Stephen Karam's play Speech & Debate has been a hit on the stage, and is now on its way to movie status.

To read previous GLOBAL DEBATE stories about the play, go to
http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/search?q=stephen+karam

From http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Speech-And-Debate-Talks-Its-Way-From-Stage-To-Screen-9210.html

Speech And Debate Talks Its Way From Stage To Screen
By Haven McCord: 2008-06-18 14:09:59

The Hollywood Reporter announced today Stephen Karam’s off-Broadway play “Speech & Debate” will be adapted into a feature film. Overture (Mad Money, Henry Poole Is Here) and Blumhouse (The Accidental Husband) are producing, while Karam will write the screenplay. It is Karam’s first screenwriting gig.

Described as being in the vein of quirky teen dramedies Juno and Election, the material has “free speech and coming-of-age themes”. Free speech themes?! Maybe 2 Live Crew will do the soundtrack!! The play focuses on a high school drama queen who recruits a set of misfits to join the speech and debate club. Honest to blog it sounds just like Bad News Bears meets Rocket Science. Hopefully there is a new and different twist. And by new and different twist, I mean a character with a speech impediment other than a stutter (crossing my fingers for a lateral lisp!! Those are always fun).

Debate seems to be popular plot theme these days. The Great Debaters and Rocket Science had success amongst critics though they were not successful at the box office due to a limited theater release.

On a side note, I can’t believe I just typed “honest to blog” but I have a feeling that I'll be doing a lot more of that, as everyone snatches up Juno-like scripts. Thanks Diablo.

Turkish Nationals Results

From Gökhan Murat Pembeci

Turkish 10th Nationals were held in Uludağ University between 1-5 May 2008. It was a fantastic tournament where a high level of competetion took place. Among the distinguished teams Finalists were:

Op Prop:Bilkent A
Op Opp:METU A
Clo Prop:Koç A
Clo Opp:METU B

Champions were METU A (Dilay Kurtulus and Nisan Su Aras)
Best Speaker on the tab was Dilay Kurtulus from METU A as well.

Adjudication Team consisted of
Gokhan Murat Pembeci (CA),
Ozgen Dundar(DCA),
Isıl Yelkenci (DCA),
Semih Torkay (DCA) and
Arda Ozansoy (DCA).

Here are the motions of 10th Turkish Nationals;

Round 1: Thbt Income of gambling addicts should be directly given to their spouses

Round 2: Thbt University graduates should not be sent to places of war for fulfilling their military service.

Round 3: Thbt all football clubs should have salary cap

Round 4: Thbt people in drunk drivers’ car should be also punished

Round 5: Thbt local governments should not forcibly move residents for ‘Urban Renewal Projects’

Round 6: Thbt Central Bank should stop being guarantor to bankrupt banks

Round 7: Thbt Political party leaders should have a time limit of duty

Quarter: Th would force media agencies not to use any word other than 'terrorist groups' for whom state declares to be 'terrorist group'.

Semi: Thbt UN Food Office should have all the responsibility of distribution, pricing or sale of wheat across the world

Final: Th would abolish inheritence

regards,
Gökhan Murat Pembeci
GMP

Top Law Schools "Square Off" on Philippines TV

From http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=122352

"Square Off," ANC's top-rating TV debate show, raises the bar for intelligent entertainment programming with an exciting new tournament as its latest season offering.

"Square Off: The CVC Law Debates" features teams from the country's top law schools - including classic archrivals Ateneo De Manila University and UP Diliman - battling it out for prestigious prizes and the honor of being recognized as the best in the land.

As in previous seasons, the teams will debate the day's hottest social and political issues. But this tournament format is designed to showcase not only the debaters' advocacy skills and their powers of persuasion, but also the art of cross-examination.

"The enhanced opportunity for direct challenges or head-to-head confrontations - not only by the opposing teams but the judges, too - guarantees a more dynamic and stimulating experience for participants and spectators alike," said host Twink Macaraig.

And, boosting the "fear factor" element of the competition: famous legal luminaries and actual trial court judges are slated to serve as adjudicators throughout the tournament, "Square Off: The CVC Law Debates" airs Wednesdays at 8pm.

Matt Grindy Memorial Party (On)

From http://wilde-childe.livejournal.com/101188.html

Matt's Memorial Party
After Matt Grindy passed away in February, many of his debaters were yearning for closure -- closure that was not to come until this past Saturday. In lieu of a funeral, Matt had wanted a "Matt's Memorial Party (On)," a great gathering of friends, his favorite foods, photographs, and shared memories. Kimmy and I spent the week previous working on two tri-folds worth of debate pictures and written commentaries about Matt which were displayed at the event.
Amber was all smiles as we honored her lovely husband though few faces were ever without tears. There were stories shared, a secular memorial service hosted by one of their W. Washington U professors, (bad) live music performed, and videos/slide shows of Matt's life (which made me bawl like a baby). The end of the party took the congregants to the edge of Lake Ella, where we released colored daisies and painted rocks into the water, alongside 1/3 of Matt's ashes. We then had an hour long toast, where anybody gathered in the circle could pipe up with a story or anecdote, followed by a swig of choice beverage. People were getting noisy and drunk by the end of the hour, so the party began to break up.
Chris came with me and I'm so glad that he did. Having someone to lean on was essential to my emotional survival during the party -- he was also a hit with my out of town friends, per usual. My freshman year debate coach was bowled over by him and proceeded to interrogate him with rapid-fire questions while we helped to clean up the tables and chairs. I'm quite proud of the little guy.

For more on the story of Matt's passing, go to
http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/search?q=grindy

Three National Debate Champions Crowned in Las Vegas

Policy Finalists receive awards - Colleyville Heritage on the left and New Trier on the right

Over 600 teams entered three divisions of high school debate at the NFL National Tournament held in Las Vegas. If you need help determining what the three formats are, please consult http://debate.uvm.edu/learndebate.html

Complete results can be found at http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/nfl2008results.pdf

In Lincoln Douglas Debate Todd Lipfert of Houston Jesuit defeated Joan Gass of the Hockaday School on a tight 6-5 decision.

In Public Forum Debate Caleb Frye and Meredith Potter of Pinecrest High School defeated Evan Lee and William Breshears of Kelly Catholic High School on a 9-6 decision.

In Policy Debate James Hamraie and Evan Defillippis of Colleyville Heritage High School defeated Vanessa Bernick and Ross Gordon of New Trier High School 11-4.

Congratulations to all the winners.

Idaho State Coach Receives Ziegelmueller Award

From http://www2.isu.edu/headlines/?p=1231

ISU debate coach wins award for coaching excellence

Sarah Partlow-Lefevre, Idaho State University’s director of forensic debate, was recently awarded the George Ziegelmueller Award for coaching excellence.

The award, presented by the executive board of the National Debate Tournament, is given annually to a member who distinguish herself or himself in the communication profession, while coaching teams to competitive success.


Sarah Partlow-Lefevre
During the seven years that Partlow-Lefevre has been the director of the Idaho State University James M. and Sharon E. Rupp Debate Society, the team has risen to national prominence. It has won more than 200 awards and honors in intercollegiate debate. Of those awards, 137 were for top-five finishes, including 45 first-place awards.

The team has been first in their regional conference six of seven years. They won first round at large bids to the National Debate Tournament in 2006 and 2007. This award recognizes that an ISU debate team was placed in the top 16 individual debate teams in the nation. The team placed third at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Nationals championship in 2006.

The award is named for George Ziegelmueller, who taught and coached argument and debate at Wayne State University in Detroit for more than 30 years. Previous award winners include Allan Louden, long-time coach of Wake Forest University, Scott Deatherage at Northwestern University and Herb James at Dartmouth College.

In addition to her coaching duties, Partlow-Lefevre is an instructor in the Communication and Rhetorical Studies Department at ISU, where she teaches courses in intercollegiate debate and principles of speech.

“Sarah is widely acknowledged as one of the top five coaches in the country and this award is yet more proof of that assessment,” said James DiSanza, chair of the ISU Communications and Rhetorical Studies Department. “The NDT would be hard-pressed to find someone more deserving, who has built a better team, or contributed more to this activity than Sarah.”

Partlow-Lefevre recently won a bid to have ISU host the CEDA National Debate Tournament next March. This event will bring over 600 debaters and coaches to ISU from across the nation. ISU has already agreed to host a medium-size tournament for the Rocky Mountain and Northwest regions this fall, which will bring several hundred visitors to the community and “cement ISU reputation as an important center for intercollegiate debate in our region,” said Partlow-Lefevre.

National Forensic League to Video Webcast Finals Day

The National Forensic League in the USA (http://www.nflonline.org/AboutNFL.AboutNFL), Debate Central (http://debate.uvm.edu), Global Debate and the World Debate Institute at the University of Vermont have announced that on Friday March 20 2008 the entire day's events will be available as web video on the Internet.

"This is an exciting way for parents, supporters at home and the entire world to see the excellence of our students," said Scott Wunn, NFL Executive Director. "We want to thank Dr. Snider for his support on this project."

"We are proud to have this opportunity," said Alfred Snider, "and it is a pleasure to bring our technical expertise to this event. NFL partnerships like this have been going on now for almost ten years and we are very proud of the trust they put in us in these matters."

WATCH NFL FRIDAY LIVE ON THE INTERNET

GO TO

http://www.uvm.edu/debate_theater/

YOU MUST HAVE QUICKTIME INSTALLED ON YOUR COMPUTER
FREE DOWNLOAD AT http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/

LIVE FROM THE COX PAVILION AT UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA AT LAS VEGAS
FRIDAY JUNE 20 2008

8:30 AM
US EXTEMP FINALS

10 AM
INTERNATIONAL EXTEMP FINALS

11:30 AM
POLICY DEBATE FINALS

1:30 PM
PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE FINALS

2:30 PM
LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE FINALS

3:30 PM
ORIGINAL ORATORY FINALS

5:30 PM
AWARDS PROGRAM

Standard time zone: UTC/GMT -8 hours
Daylight saving time: +1 hour
Current time zone offset: UTC/GMT -7 hours
Time zone abbreviation: PDT - Pacific Daylight Time

FROM http://www.nflonline.org/AboutNFL.AboutNFL

About the NFL

The National Forensic League is the nation's oldest and largest debate and speech honor society. Since our founding in 1925, we have enrolled over 1 million members in all 50 states.

The National Forensic League believes that all students should be empowered to become effective communicators, ethical individuals, critical thinkers, and leaders in a democratic society. We exist to promote secondary school speech and debate activities and interscholastic competition as a means to develop a student's lifelong skills and values and to increase the public's awareness of the value of speech, debate, and communication education.

The NFL Mission

The National Forensic League Honor Society promotes secondary school speech and debate activities and interscholastic competition as a means to develop a student’s lifelong skills and values, as well as the public’s awareness of the value of speech, debate, and communication education.

As an organization, the National Forensic League embraces diversity, interconnection, and visionary leadership. We empower students to become effective communicators, ethical individuals, critical thinkers, and leaders in a democratic society.

The NFL Vision

The organization serves as the central agent for coordination and facilitation of

• heightened public awareness of the value of speech communication skills,
• development of educational initiatives for student and teacher training,
• excellence in interscholastic competition, and
• the promotion of honor society ideals.

Nurses in the Bahamas Show Off Debating Skills

Lakerah Rolle, Staff Nurse from the Sandilands Rehabilitative Centre and overall best speaker, led her team arguing against the topic “Be it Resolved that Nurses do Not Eat Their Young” to win the first ever Nurses Association of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas National Nursing Debate, Thursday, May 29. (BIS photo/Patrick Hanna)

From http://www.bahamaislandsinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=962:nurses-association-holds-first-national-nursing-debate&catid=61:nassau-and-paradise-island-news&Itemid=164

Nurses Association holds first National Nursing Debate
Monday, 02 June 2008 16:16
Lakerah Rolle, Staff Nurse from the Sandilands Rehabilitative Centre led her debate team arguing against the topic: “Be it Resolved that Nurses Do Not Eat Their Young” to win the first ever Nurses Association of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas National Nursing Debate Thursday.

Nursing Officer II in the Princess Margaret Hospital, Ella Jane Anderson, led the team of proponents to the topic “Be it Resolved that Nurses do Not Eat Their Young” at the first ever Nurses Association of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas National Nursing Debate, Thursday, May 29. (BIS photo/Patrick Hanna)

Nurse Rolle, who also won best speaker, was supported by team mates, Department of Public Health Registered Nurse Eldora Beneby and Department of Public Health Registered Nurse Glendina Minus. They won the debate by scoring 452 out of a possible 500 points.

The team won the debate by utilising strong openings and powerful arguments. For example, in beginning her argument Nurse Rolle said: “While it must never be forgotten that inherent in nursing duties is the care of the patient, it is ironic, that nurses suffer from the Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde syndrome.

“While in one instance we are caring, supportive and concerned for our patients, in contrast, we neglect, bully and devour our young nursing colleagues.

“The question must be asked who is caring for the caregiver. It appears that the physical, psycho-social and professional needs of the nurse have been leeched upon and neglected sadly by nurses.”

Ella Jane Anderson, Nursing Officer II in the Princess Margaret Hospital led the proposition and was supported by Department of Public Health Trained Clinical Nurse Camille Bowleg and Sandilands Rehabilitation Centre Trained Clinical Nurse Shantell Bryan.

They received a score of 379 and the team also strongly supported their arguments.

Beginning her argument Nurse Anderson said: “Nurses eating their young, this despicable expression implies that experienced nurses do not treat novice nurses kindly.

“Senior or experienced nurses can be compared to mothers. Which mother cares and nourishes or places another person’s child above her own, unless you are a cruel mother.

“Nursing is all about caring; the majority of us enter the profession because we had a desire to care for others. How can one possibly care for others without caring for self?”

Nurse Rolle went on to explain that it is a common for bad news to travel fast and often be accepted as gospel. She said many new nurses hear the negative phrase and if they encounter a nurse who is less friendly and caring, it is accepted as the norm.

Chairperson of the Education and Research Committee and organiser of the event Persephone Munnings said nursing “eating their young” has been a subject of private debates among nurses for a number of years.

“This nursing debate, the first of its kind in The Bahamas, gives nurses the opportunity to express their views on the topic,” Mrs. Munnings said. “The give and take of debating is essential to the process of democracy.”

She also applauded the participants for their boldness and willingness to speak on a topic that has been avoided for so long.

“I am certain that the experience has been rewarding as it allowed you to experience team work and friendly discourse and has sharpened critical thinking skills,” Mrs. Munnings said. “The debate provides an avenue to strengthen camaraderie, as nurses from throughout the country were invited to participate.”

President of the Nurses Association Prescola Rolle said nurses attending the debate should listen to the arguments for and against and evaluate themselves from the information presented.

“These points will be a guide for us to review our actions and decisions concerning our colleagues,” Mrs. Rolle explained.

“We must think of the golden rule do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Nurses, we must support and respect each other and aim to always model and promote supportive and respectful behaviour.

“You have come here to hear, to judge, to support, but most importantly, to learn from this discussion so we can be that nurse, who nurtures and grooms the young, making this profession, the caring profession nursing must be,” she urged.

WUPID 2008 Updates

Source: MLYSN (http://mlysn.wordpress.com)

The UN officials who condemned footages of Amy Winehouse in her sandals with injection marks between her toes, has probably not seen the university debating culture glamorising the “debate high” that debaters got from continuous quality debating and adjudication at the inaugural WUPID last year (2007).

If these teetotal bureaucrats think that this singer’s fan will follow her on crack, they are far more naive than Hollywood. Most of my generation (in debating) thinks of the debate drug as much as our parents think of getting their children a bloody degree. Amy Winehouse, if the rumours are true, was just joining in the mainstream. Whereas people like Praba Ganesan has clearly gone beyond - as being awarded the only Asian to be the best speaker in Asia Pacific will testify.

The most powerful role models are debaters, not celebrities. Teachers and parents talk about how hard is it to convince their kids to get an education when they can have a career with a debate certificate and aspire to make MYR250-00 an hour.

The only way to make our streets safe from crack or cocaine is to get our generation feel the high from continuous quality debating. And where best to get it from, if not at the prestigious CIMB WUPID 2008.

To have a go, visit our mini-site at http://mlysn.wordpress,com/cimb-wupid-2008/ as our official website would only be available in August - apparently wupid.com is a domain that belongs to an alien that expires this August [sigh]. But not to worry, the links are all there (accommodation, registration, etc) but if you can’t find them, the links are also available in the second column under “departments”.

And just in cases, feel free to email me at yunus@hngsc.com or mlysn@hngsc.com.

ZIP Debaters Dazzle First Wives at Debate in Slovenia

Debaters representing Za in Proti, the national debate program of Slovenia, were invited by the USA Embassy to stage an exhibition debate in front of visiting USA first lady Laura Bush and Barbara Miklič Türk, wife of the Slovenian president.

The event was widely publicized in the Slovenia media. To see a story, click on http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/bushslodebate08.pdf .

The debate was warmly received by the two first wives. Laura Bush was particularly impressed by the English language skills of the students. Barbara Türk mentioned that she was very impressed by the passion of the students. Peter Mesarec of ZIP moderated the event. Laufra Bush invited the ZIP team to viit the White House when they attend the World Schools Debating Championship to be held in Washington, DC in September 2008. The debaters were Maja Cimerman, Filip Dobranic, Zan Zveplan and Jernje Jenko. The topic was making community service work mandatory for high school graduation.

Here is the story from the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080610-7.html

Mrs. Bush's Remarks at a Student Event in Za in Proti (ZiP)
National Museum of Slovenia at Metelkova
Ljubljana, Slovenia

Photos
2:35 P.M. (Local)

MRS. BUSH: I think I'll come to the microphone so I don't have to talk too loud.

Thank you all. Congratulations to each of you on your debate. This was very interesting and a lot of fun to listen to, and you do -- your English is terrific; it's perfect, as a matter of fact. And congratulations on that as well.

I think this is a very interesting topic. I noticed that a lot of you mentioned Washington, D.C., the District of Columbia, as your example of a school district that requires community service. And I think that's interesting; obviously that's our hometown right now.

Our whole government, the United States government, does not require community service as a requirement. It's really left up to the local school districts, and some school districts require it and other school districts don't. But this is a topic that our Congress debates every once in a while, and that is whether or not to require community service as a condition on graduating from high school for every single student across the United States.

And the debate goes very much the way your debate did. Some people think you can't -- that the whole purpose of volunteering is to actually volunteer and not be forced to do something. And then the others think that it's such a great experience when you volunteer that it opens you up to the world, you meet people who aren't like you, you find out how good it makes you feel. And a lot of people in the United States think that one of the secrets to a good life is volunteering, because you're taking yourself out of you own problems and serving, like you said, as a sounding board for someone else to be able to talk about what's bothering them, whatever -- however you volunteer.

But this was very fun to get to hear. I think it's a debate that will go on, this actual idea, for a long time, whether volunteering should be required or just something that people do. But I hope that one of the things you debaters got from it is this whole idea of critical thinking as you examine issues from every side, like debaters do. And then I also hope that it opened you all up to the idea of volunteering yourselves, to choose to help other people, because I do think that one of the things that can make you happy -- and especially if you are sort of unhappy -- a good way to change your whole attitude is to reach out to other people and do things for them, and then you'll find out you feel a lot better about yourself.

So thank you all. We've had a wonderful trip. Thank you very much, Mrs. Turk. Thank you for hosting me for the luncheon before, where we -- it was a very distinguished group of women for the luncheon, and we had the same sort of conversations that you all just had in this debate -- ways we can help each other, ways we can get to know each other in a better way so that we realize how much we all are alike no matter what part of the world we're from.

So thank you all so much. It was really fun to get to hear you. (Applause.)

World Debate Institute to Host Future Leaders from South Asia

Pakistan students on television during 2007 WDI program

The World Debate Institute at the University of Vermont will be the host to key future leaders from South Asia during a June-July program in Burlington, Vermont sponsored by the USA Department of State.

The program has selected future leaders from Bangladesh, India and Pakistan for a one month course in the USA to develop key skills and deepen understanding of international relations. One week of their stay will involve intensive training in the 2008 World Debate Institute that will be handled by WDI director Alfred Snider along with instructor Rhydian Morgan of the UK. The sessions will involve public speaking skills, argumentation and framing of public policy issues for presentation and discussion in public forums. The week-long program will culminate in the taping of three television programs that will be broadcast in New England and beyond.

The 2008 program follows a successful 2007 program for students from Pakistan.

For further information contact alfred.snider@uvm.edu or janet.nunziata@uvm.edu.

Watch for more news to come.

Bangladesh to Bid for WUDC 2012

From Rashedul Hasan Stalin:

This is to inform you all, about Bangladesh Intention for World Universities Debating Championship WUDC 2012 bid. We are gating a very good response from our sponsors three and half years ahead for this bid. We will justify our case in this year WUDC 2009 with primary research and bid proposal and later on, we will present our bid at WUDC 2010. The Bangladesh WUDC 2012 Bid Orgcom will upload its bid website after hosting Bangladesh EWU Asian Universities Debating Championship-AUDC 2009 in May 2009.

We have already started our work on this WUDC 2012 bid. We will be promoting South Asia and its debating culture being the first bid for World Universities Debating Championship from this region.

As many of you already know that, East West University of Bangladesh has won the Bid for 5^th Asian Universities Debating Championship-AUDC 2009 and we are working with our AUDC sponsors on this WUDC 2012 project from now on to ensure our First Class hospitality and Top quality adjudication. We will also ensure our strength by a Top Class Asian Debating tournament which probably will be the biggest and most exiting AUDC ever.

Adjudication Core:

The open application for DCA will be opened from January 2009. We will announce the half of the Core by May 2009 and rest during the Worlds 2010.

Updates on Bangladesh WUDC 2012 bid will be followed…….

Regards,

Rashedul Hasan Stalin

Chief Adjudicator,

EWU 5^th Asian Universities Debating Championship 2009

Chair, Bangladesh Debating Council-BDC

Email: stalinhasan[at]gmail[dot]com

Cell: +88-01715495119

Global Debate to Report Live from Las Vegas

Elvis welcomes NFL National Office Staff to Las Vegas

Las Vegas, Nevada will be the host for the National Forensic League's national high school speech and debate tournament. It is the largest such event in the world, with about 5500 people involved. I will be there live with an inside view, as I am the Director of Operations for the event.

We will have daily updates for you. As well, our regular news coverage will resume as on Tuesday I depart from my Mexico vacation and emerge back into the regular online world. Thanks for your patience, but we all need a vacation sometime.

CEDA End of Year Awards Announced

From Darren Elliott:

USA CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION

Recipient School
  
Speaker of the Year Donna Shalala Miami, FL
  
Johnston Martin Osborn Missouri State
  
Public Debate 1st Miami, FL University of Miami
 2nd KCKCC KCKCC
 3rd James Madison James Madison
  
Brownlee Kelly McDonald Arizona State
  
Galentine Sue Peterson CSU Chico
  
Outstanding Novice Max Adler New School University
  
Outstanding Alum Chris Carey Portland State University
  
Outstanding Grad Coach Marissa Silber Florida
  
  
  
Scholastic All-American Andrew Jennings Kansas
Honorable Mention Team Ronnie Press Kansas
12 Brian Chung US Mil. Academy
 James McKinney US Mil. Academy
 Nate Cohn Whitman
 Aaron Price Louisville
 Sohrab Najafabaddi James Madison
 Troy Federwisch James Madison
 NIkki Marcotte Kansas State
 Heather Woods Kansas State
 Drew Cummings Kansas State
 Chelsea Good Kansas State
  
Scholastic All-American  
2nd Team All-American Carrie Hanson University of Miami, FL
23 Erum Shah Kansas
 Patrick Rinker Wichita State
 Zach Brown Wichita State
 Samantha Godbey West Virginia University
 Michael Stark West Virginia University
 Kayden Skinner West Virginia University
 Robert Atchison US Military Academy
 Laura Boyle Texas
 Stephanie Scott USC
 Clare Velasquez USC
 Blake Tanase Florida
 Andy Montee KCKCC
 Christopher Rohan KCKCC
 Alex Berger Illinois State
 Patrick Milott Illinois State
 Robert Kosic Illinois State
 Judith Rowland Missouri State
 Martin Osborn Missouri State
 Sean Lowry James Madison
 Mary Mosley James Madison
 Shruti Chaganti James Madison
 Tristan Tafolla Kansas State
  
  
  
  
Scholastic All-American Kyle Shernuk Kansas
1st Team All-American Brett Bricker Kansas
35 Nate Johnson Kansas
 Kuntal Cholera Univ. North Texas
 Caitlin Gray CSU Fullerton
 Luis Magallon CSU Fullerton
 Matt Coleman Wichita State
 Eric Robinson Wichita State
 Anthony Rowles US Military Academy
 Steven Warner US Military Academy
 Mitchell Suliman US Military Academy
 Desiree Hooper Texas
 Nick Whitaker Texas
 Jenny Davis Texas
 Teddy Cross Texas
 Nick Bormann Gonzaga
 Chipp Schwab Emory
 Julie Anne Hoehn Emory
 Chris Sun Emory
 Logan Martin 
 Mike Meredith Whitman
 Eric Chalfant Whitman
 Vinay Prabhu Cornell
 Ting Ting Tam Binghamton
 Kelly Thompson Emporia State
 Danielle Jennings Idaho State
 Paul Montreuil Idaho State
 Kirk Gibson Georgia State
 Travis Cram Wyoming
 Scott Ketchum Central Oklahoma
 Meggie Mapes Missouri State
 Jessica Johnson Missouri State
 Clay Webb Missouri State
 Brian Rubaie UT Dallas
 Beth Mendenhall Kansas State
  
  

Idaho State to Host 2009 CEDA Nationals in USA

From Darren Elliott:

It is my pleasure to announce that CEDA Nationals 2009 will occur on the campus of Idaho State University in the beautiful city of Pocatello, ID.  Sarah Partlow-Lefevre submitted a model bid and has coordinated tremendous support for the tournament from University Administrators, Vice-Presidents, the University President, the Mayors, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau.

As this year's Tournament Director I am looking forward to working with this year's Host, Sarah, and her staff.  The CEDA Executive Council was very impressed with the bid brought forward by Idaho State and is excited to be going to ISU next March.

Let me highlight some details briefly:
1.  The potential tournament hotel(s) in Pocatello appear to be prepared to give us excellent rates.  Perhaps some of the lowest rates in recent memory for a top-tier CEDA Nats hotel.
2.  I have committed to spend a significant amount of time working with members of the Council and Sarah to ensure that travel costs are kept to a minimum for anyone who has that concern.  In fact as of yesterday, myself, Kelly McDonald, ML Sandoz, and Sarah have already begun soliciting bids from shuttle companies for those who might be interested in transportation to and from Salt Lake City airport and/or in and around Pocatello.  Additionally, Sarah is working to find low cost housing for those interested.
3.  CEDA will continue to work to make this one of the best National Tournaments.  We hope you and your teams plan on joining us in Idaho in March.

The dates for the tournament are as follows:

Thursday March 19th--Arrival of Tournament Officials
Friday March 20th--Arrival of teams, registration, opening night assembly
Saturday March 21st--First full day of debates
Sunday March 22nd--Second full day of debates
Monday March 23rd--First day of Elims, Awards Assembly
Tuesday March 24th--Second day of Elims, Final Round
Wednesday March 25th--Remaining teams depart

I want to thank Jackie Massey for also bringing an excellent bid from OU.  I hope to be able to return to OU in the future.  The Council feels it important to rotate the tournament throughout the country.  We feel that the Rocky Mountain Region has not hosted CEDA in recent memory, and never at Idaho State, and we feel this is an important event for them in a Region where we can hopefully have debate continue to grow.  I encourage you to join us in Idaho and support the Rocky Mountain Region!

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

chief

Darren Elliott
Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
CEDA President
___________________
____________________________
CEDA-L mailing list
CEDA-L@www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l