Global Debate: August 2008

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Qatar Team Upbeat for World Schools Championship

Alex Just (left) with the team members speaking to mediapersons at the Qatar Debate Centre on Thursday

From http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=238790&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

Qatari team upbeat
Publish Date: Sunday,31 August, 2008, at 01:43 AM Doha Time

By Ourouba Hussein

Members of the first Qatari team to take part in the World School Debating Championship have expressed hope of doing well in the event scheduled to be held in Washington DC next month.
Prior to their departure on Friday, the five-member team and their coach spoke about their training, their debating team to represent Qatar on the world stage.
The programme director Alex Just said that the national team would be the second Arab team after Kuwait to participate in the 20-year history of the competition. The team was trained in London and its members were selected following a debating competition among Qatar schools.
Just said the team would attend a pre-competition training in New York, and workshops with American students. Later, they will take off to Washington DC where the contests will be held from September 5-15.
He said that the team had a month to practise for the first round of the competition. Each of the members is required to carry out researches about a certain topic.
“If they get through the first round to the second, they will be given two hours of practice for the topic which could be political, social or economical.
“They will have to be prepared to argue about anything,” he added.
The five members of the Qatar national debating team said they were looking forward to visiting the ‘Dream Land’, and meeting people from 40 different countries participating in the competition. They also expressed how proud they were to be the first to represent Qatar in the competition.
Talal Burshaid, a 17-year-old Qatari , explained that the training was helpful since he has got political aspirations and interests in international relations.
Vartan Shadarevian said debating encourages the expression of point of views, teaches leadership skills and the ability to argue both sides before taking a side, and increases one’s understanding of the other side.
Tina Niaki, a 17-year-old Iranian, said debating teaches objective thinking and the desire to know more about the world.
Aysha Batley, a 17-year-old Pakistani, stressed debating opens up the mind and structures the way one thinks, speaks and discusses.
‘Participating in the debating competition is like going on a world tour,” she said.

Lincoln-Douglas Debates Re-Enacted

From http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/local_story_243023141.html

Reenacting a classic debate

By DAVID A. MANN
David.Mann@newsandtribune.com
August 30, 2008 02:31 am

— Their debates lasted hours and often took place outdoors and in the hot sun.
Hundreds — sometimes thousands — from across Illinois would gather to hear them speak.
Instead of answering media questions, a candidate would orate for 20 to 30 minutes and then be subject to rebuttal by his opponent. Many times, the opponent would be the one posing the questions.
After they’d finished, they’d climb onto a train and go to the next stop and prepare to repeat.
They were Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. And though the debates took place ahead of an Illinois senate race, the arguments became the stuff of legend, ultimately leading to the national prominence that put Lincoln in the White House.
“They were entertainment as well as informational,” said Carl Kramer, director of the Institute for Local and Oral History and American history professor at Indiana University Southeast.
The crux of the debates was the expansion of slavery — each occupying different positions relative to slavery’s use in the western states, Kramer said.
“What these debates did was raised Lincoln’s public profile,” he said. “He lost that senatorial election, but he made himself a national figure.”
But while debates about the future are about to grab headlines, these debates about the past will soon be re-enacted for the public’s benefit.
The debates are being revisited by two Illinois educators — who have taken on the personas of the two historic figures — at 6 p.m. Friday at the Warder Park gazebo, according to a press release from the Clark-Floyd Counties Convention & Tourism Bureau.
In the past, their efforts have brought them national acclaim.
The debate will be abbreviated, lasting about 90 minutes, and will include time for discussion with the audience.
George Buss, president of the Stephen Douglas Association and vice president of the Lincoln-Douglas Society, portrays Lincoln.
He’s been portraying Lincoln for more than 15 years and has performed at venues that include Ford’s Theater in Washington, D.C., and Gettysburg, Pa., He also portrayed Lincoln in two of the seven broadcasts of the C-SPAN Lincoln-Douglas Debates.
Tim Connors, director of theater and head coach of the speech team at Freeport High School in Freeport, Ill., plays Douglas.
He is active in theatrical and educational activities throughout his community, also playing Franklin Roosevelt in several programs of great speeches.
The events start with a community picnic at noon that day.
After lunch, students from area school corporations and home-schooled students are being encouraged to meet with the two to discuss the roles each played in U.S. history.
The period in history lends itself to classroom studies for students in the fourth and fifth grades.
The Moonlight Big Band will perform in Warder Park following the debate and will play a number of songs popular at the time. The band’s performance is part of the Warder Park Concert in the Park series.
“This is a great opportunity for the entire community,” said Jim Keith, visitor’s bureau executive director, which is sponsoring the event.
“We are excited to have two such qualified re-enactors come to our community and share their knowledge of these two great men in history to give the Sunny Side of Louisville a part in the celebration of the bicentennial of the debates.”

North Carolina Community Groups Unite to Support Youth Debates

From http://www.wilmingtonjournal.com/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=90866&sID=84

FIRST ANNUAL FRIENDS OF THE WILMINGTON JOURNAL DEBATE, WEEK OF AUGUST 21-27, 2008
The Wilmington Journal
Originally posted 8/29/2008

Editor’s Note: Coming up soon will be a full page of photos from event.

BY JAMES HANKINS
CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The Friends of The Wilmington Journal and The Wilmington Journal extend a special thanks to all who shared their time, talent and treasures to help us teach our children the art of debate.

They entered the debate training program as students willing to learn.

Our teachers, counselors and attorneys taught them the fundamentals and beyond. This training took place every Tuesday and Thursday from 4 to 6 p.m.
Our banker, Certified Public Accountant and investment advisor taught them how to navigate the financial mazes.

Two prestigious churches that have a reputation for serving the entire community acted as sponsors. Macedonia Missionary Baptist under the leadership of Rev. Terry Henry and St. Mary Catholic under the leadership of Fr. Bob Kus.

Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church on Princess Place Drive provided the space for our debate program. We were also allowed to use their “state of the art” computer lab. This enabled our students to do in-depth research on site.

Our other came from the generous financial gifts of support from twenty individuals/couples (many retired educators), two parents, one community outreach organization and one church.

Mr. William Dudley, Retired Princi-pal/Commu-nity Activist, our coordinator did a masterful job planning and scheduling our students and volunteer staff members. We regret he was unable to attend the debate because of a death in his family.

The young caterpillar, with no effort on its part, goes through a metamorphosis to become a beautiful butterfly. Our students gave up a part of their summer vacation to participate in this program. They did research, wrote and rewrote their arguments, bonded with strangers, accepted constructive criticism and practiced their arguments over and over until they got it right. They also went through a “change” that elevated them to a higher level.

Sometime between the program inception in late June and the finale on August 15, our debate trainees changed from students to become “scholars”.

On Friday night, August 15th, our “scholars” conducted an informative, lively and brilliant debate.

Ms. Bertha Todd did an outstanding job conducting the ceremonies as a stand in for Mr. William Dudley. Rev. Terry Henry, Pastor of Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church did the welcome and opening prayer. Ms. Marguerite Brown stated the purpose. Ms. Lethia Hankins talked about the student training process. Ms. Todd introduced the debate team members and explained the criteria for judging the debaters.

James Edward Oliver Hankins II, senior education major at NCSU, gave an articulate recitation of the poem “If” by Reginald Kipling.
Team A&B debated the question “Should Uniforms Be Mandatory In High School”. Dorothy DeShields, member of the New Hanover County Board of Education, congratulated the debaters and told them she would share their views with the Board. Mrs. Marian Crumdy, speaking for The Wilmington Journal, thanked the debaters and encouraged them to continue to make education a high prIority in their lives.
The debaters then answered a few questions from the audience.

James Hankins, retired vocational teacher and co-chair of Friends Of The Wilmington Journal, congratulated the students, teachers, support staff members and financial supporters for making it happen. He also gave a special thanks to Rev. Terry Henry, pastor, Ms. Kenya Bethea, youth director, and the members of Macedonia Missionary Church for cheerfully housing the debate training program.
The three judges were Mr. Ronnie Jenkins, retired principal; Mr. Billy Gibbs, president, African Ancestry Ministry and Evangelization and James Edward Oliver Hankins II, senior education major at NCSU.

The votes were tabulated by staff accountant, Mr. Charles Davis II and internist Ms. Keshia Wynn from the Certified Public Accounting Firm, F. B. Hankins.
The benediction was given by Rev. Leroy Dukes, pastor, Galilee United Church of Christ.

Ms. Bertha Todd announced the decision of the judges. The winning team was team A. The members were--–Danielle Hands, Shanell Lawrence and Brett Wade.

The debaters all received the same gifts, because the staff views them all as “winners”. Each will receive a dictionary/thesaurus, one year subscription to The Wilmington Journal and one share each of Progress Energy and PPD stock.

WSDC 2008 Draw

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP 2008
WASHINGTON DC

Preliminary Round Draw

Round 0 – Impromptu Debate (Bye Round)

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

Botswana Japan Hotel
Slovakia India Hotel
Mongolia Sri Lanka Hotel
Qatar Bangladesh Hotel

Round 1 – Prepared Debate

This house supports military intervention to deliver emergency aid in humanitarian crises.

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

Israel South Africa GMU
Philippines Singapore GMU
Romania Hong Kong GMU
Slovenia England GMU
Greece New Zealand GMU
Bermuda Slovakia GMU
Scotland South Korea GMU
Czech Republic Argentina GMU
Mongolia Peru GMU
Pakistan Wales GMU
Sri Lanka Lithuania GMU
Canada USA GMU
Japan Montenegro GMU
Qatar Botswana GMU
Netherlands Mexico GMU
Bangladesh Zimbabwe GMU
Indonesia Ireland GMU
Estonia Australia GMU
Germany Kuwait GMU

Bye: India

Round 2 – Impromptu Debate

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

South Africa USA GMU
Singapore Slovenia GMU
Canada Greece GMU
England Hong Kong GMU
New Zealand Estonia GMU
Montenegro Netherlands GMU
South Korea Romania GMU
Argentina Pakistan GMU
Peru Sri Lanka GMU
India Bermuda GMU
Israel Scotland GMU
Wales Germany GMU
Lithuania Bangladesh GMU
Kuwait Czech Republic GMU
Zimbabwe Botswana GMU
Mexico Mongolia GMU
Japan Qatar GMU
Australia Indonesia GMU
Ireland Philippines GMU

Bye: Slovakia

Round 3 – Prepared Debate

This house would ban the use of unethically obtained data in scientific research.

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

South Africa Japan GMU
Singapore Montenegro GMU
Canada Mongolia GMU
England Qatar GMU
New Zealand Bangladesh GMU
Slovakia Ireland GMU
South Korea Estonia GMU
Argentina Indonesia GMU
Peru Kuwait GMU
Bermuda Greece GMU
Israel Romania GMU
Mexico Scotland A
Zimbabwe Hong Kong A
India Pakistan B
Botswana Australia B
Czech Republic Slovenia C
USA Germany C
Wales Netherlands D
Lithuania Philippines D

Bye: Sri Lanka

Round 4 – Impromptu Debate

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

Japan New Zealand GMU
Montenegro England GMU
Indonesia Peru GMU
Sri Lanka Canada GMU
Kuwait Slovakia GMU
Bangladesh South Africa GMU
Estonia Israel GMU
Qatar Singapore GMU
Greece South Korea GMU
Romania Argentina GMU
Ireland Bermuda GMU
Hong Kong Mexico A
Scotland Zimbabwe A
Australia India B
Pakistan Botswana B
Slovenia USA C
Germany Czech Republic C
Netherlands Lithuania D
Philippines Wales D

Bye: Mongolia

Round 5 – Prepared Debate

This house would make the directors of multinational companies personally liable for environmental abuses committed by their companies in the developing world.

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

Zimbabwe Qatar GMU
Montenegro Mongolia GMU
England USA GMU
Wales Slovenia GMU
South Korea Israel GMU
Kuwait Canada GMU
Argentina Greece GMU
Peru Philippines GMU
Romania Indonesia GMU
Estonia Bermuda GMU
Sri Lanka Bangladesh GMU
New Zealand Scotland A
Hong Kong Singapore A
Australia South Africa B
Ireland Pakistan B
Mexico India C
Botswana Slovakia C
Netherlands Czech Republic D
Lithuania Germany D

Bye: Japan

Round 6 – Impromptu Debate

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

Greece Kuwait GMU
USA Peru GMU
India Japan GMU
Mongolia Zimbabwe GMU
Slovenia Argentina GMU
Israel Wales GMU
Philippines South Korea GMU
Indonesia Estonia GMU
Bermuda Sri Lanka GMU
Bangladesh Romania GMU
Canada England GMU
Scotland Hong Kong A
Singapore New Zealand A
Pakistan Australia B
South Africa Ireland B
Qatar Montenegro C
Slovakia Mexico C
Czech Republic Lithuania D
Germany Netherlands D

Bye: Botswana

Round 7 – Prepared Debate

This house believes that governments have a duty to bail out failing financial institutions.

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

Slovakia New Zealand GMU
Greece Peru GMU
Indonesia Wales GMU
Montenegro Kuwait GMU
Bangladesh England GMU
Mongolia Argentina GMU
India South Korea GMU
USA Botswana GMU
Philippines Israel GMU
Japan Zimbabwe GMU
Slovenia Mexico GMU
Hong Kong Lithuania A
Germany Canada A
Singapore Estonia B
Scotland Romania B
Ireland Sri Lanka C
South Africa Czech Republic C
Pakistan Netherlands D
Australia Bermuda D

Bye: Qatar

Round 8 – Impromptu Debate

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

New Zealand Indonesia GMU
Peru Slovenia GMU
England Philippines GMU
Wales Qatar GMU
Argentina Montenegro GMU
South Korea Mongolia GMU
USA India GMU
Botswana Israel GMU
Zimbabwe Slovakia GMU
Kuwait Japan GMU
Mexico Greece GMU
Hong Kong Germany A
Lithuania Canada A
Estonia Scotland B
Romania Singapore B
Sri Lanka South Africa C
Czech Republic Ireland C
Bermuda Pakistan D
Netherlands Australia D

Bye: Bangladesh

Saturday, August 30, 2008

WSDC Draw at Midnight Eastern Time

From Claire Ryan:

Greetings everyone.

With delays in confirming the exact number of teams, the draw has also been delayed. However, it is now understood that there are 39 teams in the competition - waiting to find out who will debate whom and when.

Chief Adjudicator Aaron Maniam will release the draw on 30 August 2008 at midnight USA Eastern Time, and it will be posted both on the http://wsdc2008.blogspot.com/ and http://www.schoolsdebate.com/blog/ sites. I'll also try to post it here.

The odd number of teams means there will be a bye for a team in each round and therefore a bye round (the famous Round 0).

We're all looking forward to the draw when it emerges in a few hours and good luck to everyone as they prepare.

Claire Ryan

Secretary,

Executive Committee,

WSDC Ltd

Payment Details for Cork WUDC

From Mark Collins:

Dear All,

In this email I will detail in depth the process for stage 2 of registration for those registered for Cork Worlds 2009.

Stage 2, i.e. payment, will open this coming Monday (September 1st) at 2pm BST/GMT+1 and will close on October 9th 6pm BST/GMT+1 by which time payment
*must have been received in our accounts* either by EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) or by online credit card payment.

I would ask all delegates to log in to their account by going to registration.
corkworlds2009.com.
There you will be able to view the invoice for your institution which will detail the amount due. In addition, information regarding payment as detailed here will also be available. Once you have reviewed the total sum due for your institution and have confirmed that it is correct, you can opt to pay online by credit card or by EFT.

*Credit Card:

*Should you opt to pay by credit card after viewing the invoice for your institution you should then click on the "Pay Online" button at the bottom of your invoice which will take you to our online credit card payment system. Where you will be asked to enter your credit card details and, as announced previously, there will be a *2.4% transaction charge* on all payments made by credit card.

Once your transaction then has been cleared by our clearing agent and has been processed by us (this process could take up to 72 hours) we will *confirm via emai*l that your payment has been received and this will be logged in our registration system. Once you have received this confirmation you will be able to log into the registration system (registration.corkworlds2009.com) and view an updated invoice stating that your registration has been paid.

The payment will be marked on your credit card statement as"TOURNAMENT REGISTRATION FEES FOR THE WUDC 2009".

*EFT:

*For those who opt to pay by EFT, I would ask that *all transactions are clearly marked with the name of your institution and invoice number* so that we can easily track all payments. All the details necessary for an EFT are details in the payment details section of our registration system (registration.corkworlds2009.com) and also in the registration section of our website. I would advise that a *minimum of ten working days* be allowed for your EFT to be processed and received in our account. As a result I would recommend that EFT's are initiated *no later than September 26th. **
*
I must stress that the full amount due must be received in out account, therefore you must instruct your bank that you are to *assume all costs* for the transaction both at the senders and beneficiaries sides. I am aware that some banks do not offer this facility and if that is the case I would ask that you consider making your payment by credit card. If that is impossible then I would ask that you include an *additional 5% of the total amount due* to cover transaction costs. In the event that there is a shortfall the balance of the transaction costs will be due upon arrival at
Cork Worlds 2009, and in the event of a surplus, that will be refunded to you upon arrival at Cork Worlds 2009.

After initiating the transaction you are then required to log in to the registration system (registration.corkworlds2009.com) and *upload a scan of the transfer document *from your bank by clicking on the link that is beneath your invoice.

Once your transfer has been received in our account and has been processed we will inform you and update your status accordingly. Once you have received this confirmation you will be able to log into the registration system (registration.corkworlds2009.com) and view an updated invoice stating that your registration has been paid.

*Cancellation Policy:*
*
*Our cancellation policy for Cork Worlds 2009 is designed to be as straight forward and fair as possible. As a result, if following payment you wish to cancel your registration or wish to reduce the number of teams that you are sending to Cork Worlds 2009 b*efore December 1st your registration fee will be refunded in full* once that place can be filled by an alternate institution. All refunds will be made as promptly as possible and the sum paid will be returned in full minus the transaction costs of the refund.

If however you wish to cancel your registration or wish to reduce the number of teams that you are sending to Cork Worlds 2009 *after December 1st then your registration fee will not be refunded*.

*Single Rooms:*
*
*We have a very limited number of single rooms still available for Cork Worlds 2009. These rooms come at a additional cost of E400 on top to your registration fee. Should you wish to avail of one of these rooms I would ask that you contact me before this coming S*aturday August 30th 10pm BST/GMT+1 *and I will make the required change to your registration.

If anyone has any questions at all please do not hesitate to contact me and I will give you every assistance possible.

Best wishes,

Mark Collins

North South University Focuses on Novice Debaters

From Sinha Humayun:

North South University (NSU), Dhaka, Bangladesh has launched "NSU Novice 08" for the novice debaters of NSU. This is the first time any Bangladeshi university has introduced an internal novice league in debating. NSU for many years have worked for the enrichment and development of young students through debate and constructive arguementations. With the same perpose in hand, NSU has introduced this first ever platform for the novice debaters to improve their quality of critical thinking, rhetoric and presentation. This tournament exclusively designed for the novice debaters will emphasize on the issues of geo-politics, environment, poverty and national security. We want to fascilitate the youths of Bangladesh with opportunities to engage in arguementation and logical analysis.

This tournament will be conducted by North South University Debate Club who for many years have been the flagbearer of the debating fraternity of Bangladesh on International level.

Pakistan Prime Minister Salutes Debaters on Way to WSDC

From http://thepost.com.pk/CityNewsT.aspx?dtlid=180336&catid=3

Associated Press of Pakistan

LAHORE: Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that the government is taking concrete measures for the youth's development and 'Youth Policy' will be introduced soon.

He was talking to a delegation of students, who are to visit Washington DC US for an international debate contest.

"Youth are our valued asset and their abilities and talent must be fully utilised for the progress and development of the country," he said.

The prime minister acknowledged that Pakistan's talented youth have always earned a good name in the world.

He hoped that the students designated to contest the international debate competition would be successful in their mission.

The prime minister was also given a briefing on the occasion. He was told that the international debate contests were annually participated by highly intelligent students from 30 to 40 countries in the world. Pakistan has also been attending this event annually. All the participants have been trained by the Pakistan Debating Society, he was informed. The prime minister left for Islamabad, after an overnight stay in the provincial metropolis.

Friday, August 29, 2008

IDEA to Sponsor US Universities 2009

The International Debate Education Association will be a partner with the University of Vermont in the sponsorship of the United States Universities Debating Championship to be held at the University of Vermont April 3-5 2009.

Robert Trapp, representing IDEA, said, "The International Debate Education Association (IDEA) and the Lawrence Debate Union at the University of Vermont are in the final stages of negotiation that will allow IDEA to be a major sponsor of the U.S. Universities Championship Tournament. IDEA is interested in sponsoring this and other tournaments using the worlds format because this format, already the most popular in the world, is becoming increasingly popular in the United States. IDEA is excited about the worlds format because we see it as one of the formats that best promotes substantive debate about important national and international issues."

Alfred Snider, director of the Lawrence Debate Union at the University of Vermont, said, "I appreciate IDEA's support. The worlds format is becoming more and more popular in the USA and the world, and the University of Vermont is proud to be at the forefront of that trend. We invite all citizens to come to see and hear the debates we will hold, and we believe that they will gain confidence in the process of public discourse and the role that regular citizens can have in the process of deciding our common future."

Snider added that the plans for the tournament are quite expansive. "We are inviting many foreign teams to attend. They cannot be USA national champions, as that will be the top rated USA team, but they can win the tournament. We hope for a vigorous international tussle with over 100 teams attending. What a prize for a British, European or Canadian team to claim!"

The website for the tournament is at:
http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu/Welcome.html

WSDC Washington's News Blog is Up

At http://wsdc2008.blogspot.com/

Follow all the developments as they unfold and a new world champion for schools debating is crowned. From the prep to the draw to the rounds to the elims to the championship.

Welcome to the World Schools Debating Championships – Washington, D.C. 2008 website This site has been created to enable you to keep abreast of what is happening as we prepare for your arrival.

Our headquarters will be
Hyatt Regency Crystal City at Reagan National Airport
2799 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Arlington, VA 22202
+1 703 418 1234

You can also find the schedule of events here. We will be filling in the details as we confirm them. We have some exciting plans to entertain you during non competition hours. We all look forward to being your host for the 2008 Championships in Washington. I promise you we will do everything possible to make it a wonderful memory of your debating experience.

Sincerely,

Phyllis Hirth
Convenor, WSDC 2008

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Houston Kicks Off New Debate League

From http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/5970937.html

The smart sport
High school debate makes a welcome return to 15 Houston Independent School District campuses.
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Aug. 27, 2008, 10:33PM

Once upon a time, only a generation ago, debate teams were a fixture at almost every Houston high school. From these teams came figures such as the late U.S. Rep. Barbara Jordan and many other civic and business leaders.

Over the years, however, the number of teams dwindled until debate — which has been called "the smart sport" — resided at only a few elite campuses such as Bellaire and Lamar.
This semester, the pendulum swings back. The Houston Independent School District and the nonprofit Houston Urban Debate League are launching new debate teams at 15 district schools.

To mark the occasion, Houston Mayor Bill White recently addressed a group of debaters and "recovering" debaters — including state Rep. Sylvester Turner, HISD board President Harvin C. Moore III, HISD board member and former debate coach Dianne Johnson, and lawyer and former U.S. Senate candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky. White, a debater when he was in high school in San Antonio, said the experience was transformative and changed his life. He and his teammates, White said, learned how to teach themselves, and all went on to successful careers in business or the professions.

The data confirm White's experience. Debating improves students' grades and test scores. Unlike many HISD students, virtually all debaters graduate from high school, and almost all go to college.

Debaters learn how to research and analyze public policy. They learn diction, logic and public speaking. In the process, their writing skills and academic confidence rise.

Dr. Philip Zelikow, a former debater from Houston who was executive director of the 911 Commission, states that debate led him to discover that there were many approaches to solving public problems. Perhaps the most valuable lesson from having to be prepared to take either side of the argument, he says, was learning how the other side views the issue.

The success of the 15-school debate expansion will require devoted teachers, talented coaches and enthusiastic students. It will also need widespread support from the public to provide judges, mentors and financial support. Parents and volunteers can learn how they can contribute by visiting the Web site www.houstonurbandebateleague.org.

An atypically impassioned Mayor White pledged $25,000 to the cause in honor of his mother, a retired teacher and former debate coach.

This year's debate topic is biofuels and alternative energy sources. By the end of the year, Houston's new debaters probably will understand the issues better than most members of Congress. As they improve their academic skills and career paths, Houston debaters can also inform and help to shape public opinion.

Kansas City Editorial Supports Fort Hays Debate Program

From http://www.kansascity.com/340/story/766137.html

Posted on Mon, Aug. 25, 2008
Fort Hays State debate program should continue with a different coach

One videotaped fracas shouldn’t mean the end of a university’s debate program.
And one mooning coach shouldn’t define the image of one of Kansas’s most dynamic and resourceful universities.

Those are caveats to keep in mind as the controversy surrounding the Fort Hays State University debate program plays out.

Recapping the action so far:

Professor and debate coach Bill Shanahan got into a shouting match with a rival coach during a debate last spring.

When insults didn’t resolve the issue, Shanahan treated the other coach to a showing of his underwear-clad backside.

A video of the incident came to the attention of the Fort Hays administration. University President Edward H. Hammond fired Shanahan and suspended the debate program.

Hammond has a right to fire a non-tenured professor whose behavior he deems “not acceptable for someone who is representing our university.”

But suspending the debate program harms students, some of whom enrolled at Fort Hays primarily to compete in that program.

Hammond has a point that college debate shouldn’t promote uncivil behavior. But his university could better encourage decorum by participating in debate — with a different coach — than by dropping out.

The notoriety brought by Shanahan is a disservice to Fort Hays State, which has been quietly distinguishing itself as a high-quality, affordable university in western Kansas.

Since 2001 enrollment has nearly doubled to close to 10,000 students. The university has a thriving “virtual college,” which offers classes online, and a partnership with four colleges in China.

While other universities pass soaring costs on to students, Fort Hays has kept tuition and fees beneath $4,000 a year for in-state students by controlling administrative costs, keeping non-faculty employees to a minimum and being innovative.

At the same time, all classes are taught by full-time faculty.

Nearly all graduates find jobs in their fields of study within six months.

The success of the feisty university is beyond debate.

But good colleges offer debate programs, and Hammond shouldn’t let an overly feisty coach ruin that for his students.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Joseph Hoffman, Treasured Debate Coach, Passes Away Suddenly

From http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-62/121983639883570.xml&coll=1

Joseph Hoffman, 71, teaching was his life
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
BY GREG SAITZ
Star-Ledger Staff

Joseph and Carol Hoffman never had children of their own.

But Mr. Hoffman, who spent nearly four decades teaching at Seton Hall Preparatory School in West Orange, still had "his boys." They were members of the debate team, ones he'd shuttle around the country in a beat-up station wagon going to various events.

Frank Ferruggia, a partner with the law firm McCarter & English, who was on the school's debate team from 1970-1974, said the team usually won trophies.

"Joe was there every Saturday morning. We would get in his car and drive off to a debate tournament, and usually come back with the hardware," he said. "He was just the most dedicated, committed individual to his boys."

Mr. Hoffman died Friday after a fall. The longtime Livingston resident was 71.

A native of Roselle, Mr. Hoffman initially studied in the seminary to become a priest. But he instead turned to teaching and started at Seton Hall Prep in 1960.

Two years later, he married his wife, Carol. At the school, Mr. Hoffman taught Latin I through IV, English, speech, theater arts and comparative civilization.

He also was moderator of the forensic society from 1960-1975 and from 1990-95, and hosted a radio show, "Public Speaking and Youth" on WSOU-FM, Seton Hall University's station.

In 1999, the year Mr. Hoffman retired, the school named an award for excellence in speech after him, the Joseph Hoffman Speech Medal.

Carol Hoffman remembered taking trips with her husband and the debate team to Florida, New Mexico and elsewhere. All the way there, Mr. Hoffman was coaching his students, she said.

"We did not have children, but Seton Hall was our family," Carol Hoffman said. "So many of them would come back and say thank you so much, you've done so much for me."

Ferruggia recalled that during one trip to a debate tournament in Pittsburgh, "The Coach" took him to his first major league baseball game, the Pirates versus the Cubs. For about a decade after graduation each summer, a group of debate team alums would take Mr. Hoffman to at least one game at Yankees Stadium for him to see his beloved team.

Carol Hoffman said another former student, Donald Chervenak, who became an obstetrician, made a point of watching over Mr. Hoffman when he was in the hospital a while back being treated for cancer.

Chervenak said Mr. Hoffman dedicated his life to teaching.

"He was 100 percent giving of his time, was always available for his students even beyond giving what he did in the classroom," Chervenak said. "He could have been sitting home watching a ball game."

He remembered calling Mr. Hoffman about five years ago to ask for help finding a Latin phrase appropriate for an award he wanted to give to another physician. Reflecting on the suggestion yesterday, Chervenak said it also seemed appropriate for his teacher.

Ad astra per aspera -- to the stars through adversity.

In addition to his wife, Mr. Hoffman is survived by his sister, Judy Hoffman LaBombard of Bayville.

Visitation is today from 2 to 4 p.m. and 7 to 9 p.m. at the Quinn-Hopping Funeral Home in Livingston. Mass will be held tomorrow at 10 a.m. at the Blessed Sacrament Church in Roseland.

Cambridge IV Announced

From cambridgeivconvenors@yahoo.com

Dear all,

We are pleased to announce details of this year's Cambridge IV, sponsored by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This year's competition will take place on Friday 14th November and Saturday 15th November.

Our chief adjudicator is Mr James Dray, who is the current EUDC 2008 champion and was a finalist of Worlds 2007 and our deputy chief adjudicator is Mr Bob Nimmo, who was EUDC champion 2005 and Worlds finalist 2007. The Cambridge IV has always had one of the best judging panels of any competition and this year will be no different with adjudicators including Mr Nick Long (Worlds 2008 semi-final judge), Ms Mhairi Murdoch (Worlds 2008 finalist), Mr Ranald Clouston (Worlds 2007 finalist) and Mr Adam Bott (two-time Oxford IV winner).

We will have five preliminary rounds breaking to quarter-finals and there will be an ESL break for the first time. The team cap this year will be one hundred teams with an institution cap of three teams.

We are very proud to be the largest open motion, British Parliamentary competition in the IONA circuit. The competition allows teams to react to unusual definitions and to practise difficult positions in the British Parliamentary format – skills which are becoming increasingly important in order to do well at international competitions. You will also gain experience through competing against other international institutions and receiving feedback from some of the best judges on the circuit. All in all, it's a great way to prepare for this year's Worlds.

The registration fee will be £75 per team. Included in this registration fee will be food and alcohol on both Friday and Saturday nights, breakfast on the Saturday morning, accommodation for both nights and our famous black-tie social on the Saturday night, held after the Grand Final. There will be no registration fee for judges and n-1 will be enforced for IONA institutions.

We will also be providing a free international package for non-IONA institutions, which includes training on Thursday 13th November from our excellent debating coaches, entry to the famous Cambridge Union debate that night (subject to availability) and accommodation for the Thursday night. There will also be time for sightseeing around Cambridge.

We recognise that the registration fee may too high for some institutions and we believe that this should not prevent access for small debating societies and those who truly cannot afford it. Consequently, there is a possibility of a few registration fee discounts to institutions which did not attend last year's Cambridge IV and can prove that they have substantial financial difficulties. To apply for such a discount, please e-mail us at iv[AT]cus[DOT]org and we will deal with each individual case sensitively.

Registration for teams and judges will open on Friday, August 29 at 1200 BST. A representative from your institution should complete our registration form which will be available on the `IV Tournament' section of the Cambridge Union website: www.cus.org and after you register, a reply will be sent back within a day asking you to confirm your details. If you have any problems with the application process, please e-mail us at iv[AT]cus[DOT]org. This year, places at the Cambridge IV will only be guaranteed after payment. You can choose to pay by Paypal (with standard debit or credit cards) or by cheque in British pound sterling. Instructions for payment will be sent to the institution representative after they have registered.

In the meantime, if you have any questions about the competition, please contact us through our e-mail address: iv[AT]cus[DOT]org. Please join our Facebook group 'The Cleary Gottlieb Cambridge IV 2008' to be kept informed of announcements.

We looking forward to seeing you all at the Cambridge IV,

Richard Lau & Sam Block
Convenors of the Cambridge IV 2008

IDEA Debatepedia Wins Grant from Journalism Foundation

From http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/38829/

Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation grants the International Debate Education Association $30,000 for the further development of Debatepedia in 2009.

The grant marks a major stride for Debatepedia and its mission.

The Foundation and Debatepedia share a common mission to address a challenge in the journalism industry: “Public debates” around the world are typically scattered across hundreds of newspapers, magazines, journals, and other web resources. This makes it very difficult for citizens, leaders, and journalists to effectively weigh pro and con arguments in public debates and draw full, rational conclusions. Debatepedia uses open-source technology to centralize these public debates from around the world into a comprehensive encyclopedia of pro and con arguments and expert opinions with the goal of aiding in informed citizen discussion and decision-making.

Ethics and Excellence in Journalism President Bob Ross says, “The Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation is proud to support Debatepedia. The site is innovative, informative and provides a great resource for journalists and citizens alike.”

Debatepedia founder Brooks Lindsay says, "Debatepedia adopts a model that maximizes the ability of citizens and leaders to deliberate on complicated debates. Modern media and the journalism industry are doing a very poor job of fostering such citizen-deliberations at present. It is a disconnect that is tragic in modern democracies and that Debatepedia intends to solve."

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Saddleback USA President Forum Avoids Debate

From http://progymna.blogspot.com/2008/08/saddleback-church-forum-debate-or-not.html

The Saddleback Church Forum - Debate or not?

I know this post is a bit untimely, but after thinking about the Saddleback church civil forum, I wonder why Rick Warren decided to distance it from a debate. In his opening comments, he was very clear that this was nothing like a debate, should not be confused with one, and clearly should not be evaluated as one. I probably should have posted it earlier, but I wanted to think about it. The forum cuts to the heart of one of the most important questions I find myself thinking about all the time: What are the benefits of having a debate over having a discussion, a forum, or another form of discourse? The Civil Forum at the Saddleback Church last week made me think about that question, and also made me consider a new, related question - Why would one want to prefer debate as a discourse format versus other forms of discourse?

I don't think this forum was obviously a debate by any means, but if it had been structured like a debate, I think it would have been a much better event. What we got from the Saddleback forum was all of the competitive "sportification" of a debate with none of the payoff. We had a competitive interview format where implicitly the audience was asked to judge a winner by the format itself. The format reminded me of a game show - Warren even alluded to it before Obama came out on stage by indicating that he had placed Sen. McCain in a "cone of silence backstage" so he could not hear any of the questions. I immediately thought of the final round game of Family Feud where, if you give the same answer as the person before you, a buzzer sounds and you have to answer again. There wasn't an explicit buzzer in this forum, but the rules were obviously the same. If someone gave the same answer, they would probably lose. The trick was whoever went first. Those answers would be the touchstone for the answers of the second person on the stage.

Having a competitive Q&A where obviously the function of the audience is to pass judgment on the quality of the answers without an opportunity for the candidates to react to each other's answers is a poor forum at best because it forecloses any ability for clarification or alteration of warrants and backing for claims made in the answers to the questions. This is what a debate provides. The "negative" parts of a debate that most people dislike were rather apparent, but because the candidates had no chance of interaction, the chance of the perception of "negative" aspects was low. The appearance of a civil form provided something that was not.

For example, when John McCain makes ridiculous claims such as "Ronald Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot," in the civil forum format there is no follow up, questioning of that statement, or even a basic call for clarification. Warren just sat there grinning. Perhaps he agrees, I don't know. The point is the lack of engagement or challenge from anyone pushes the evaluation process into the mind, where nobody can hear it, and therefore nobody can benefit.

Likewise, there's no advantage for Obama to point out the glaring contradiction in priorities between Warren's question about when a baby gets human rights and the global problem of orphans. There's a lot of tension between these two concerns, how they both deal with the problem of unwanted people, and how they could be brought into fruitful combination. Maybe Obama's not smart enough to make the connections, I don't know. But in a debate format, one would be strategic to attempt to return to past issues in order to clarify the support, or the warrant, what have you. In this format, we are done with the question as soon as it is answered. There is no engagement or development of the ideas or statements in the light of a response or a different (perhaps not competitive) answer from someone else.

I'm not saying that the events labeled "debates" are any better. They are problematic as well. What I'm trying to point out is that the removal of the most obviously "debate" flavored parts of a political debate in order to make them more "civil" only ends up providing space for those worst elements, then highlighting them as desirable.

Qatar 2010 Bid Book Released

From http://www.qatardebate.org/

Qatar 2010 WSDC Bid Booklet released
Thursday, August 21, 2008
In preparation for QatarDebate's bid at WSDC Washington DC in September to host the World Schools' Debating Championships in Doha in 2010, we have released a promotional bid booklet which we hope will answer your questions about Qatar, QatarDebate and our bid to host World Schools. This bid booklet and supplementary technical information about the bid will be presented to the WSDC Council in Washington DC

We will also be releasing a promotional video in the run-up to WSDC Washington to give you more information about Qatar and debating in Qatar.

Get the booklet at http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/qatar/QDWSDC2010BidDoc.pdf

Monday, August 25, 2008

Huge Prize in National History Debate

Lindale High School student Phillip Hayes, left, won the History Whiz Kids Debate Tuesday night at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and was presented with a $150,000 scholarship check live on the Fox & Friends news program this morning. At right is runner-up Malik Neal of Philadelphia.

From http://www.tylerpaper.com/article/20080820/NEWS01/207356

Article published Aug 20, 2008
Lindale Student Wins National Debate Competition

Lindale High School student Phillip Hayes won the History Whiz Kids Debate last night at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and was presented with a $150,000 scholarship check live on the Fox & Friends news program this morning.

“It was an honor from the start to have been selected as one of the > sixteen finalists, and to have won the grand prize is incredible,” Hayes said. “I want to congratulate Malik and would like to thank him, the producers, and the other contestants, all of who made this experience possible. I would like to specifically thank the Templetons, whose support of young people and love of history is truly inspiring. I am especially grateful to my home community, whose encouragement in this endeavor has been humbling. I have always loved history, and this opportunity has been the experience of a lifetime.”

The debate was the final round of an online reality show competition called “Now Debate This.” Finalists Hayes and Malik Neal of Philadelphia debated whether George Washington or Abraham Lincoln was the better president. Hayes debated on the side of George Washington. He was accompanied by his Lindale ISD speech and debate coach Janice Caldwell.

The winner of the contest was chosen by the National Constitution Center audience and by votes cast from online viewers of the debate, which was seen at www.nowdebatethis.com.Hayes was among 16 semi-finalists chosen from more than 200 contestants this spring after submitting videos on YouTube. They spent two weeks prior to the debates traveling the United States to explore the principals of America’s founders.

Debate and Issue 101 Website is One Year Old

From http://parliamentarydebate.blogspot.com/2008/08/1st-year-anniversary-of-debate-and.html

Saturday, August 23, 2008
1st Year Anniversary of Debate and Issue 101
Debate and Issue 101 is celebrating its 1st Year Anniversary on August 26, 2008!

For the past one whole year, Debate and Issue 101 has lived up to its promise of sharing the rudiments of argumentation and debate by presenting outlines and materials in debating; by sharing critical analysis of different issues; and by sharing the experience of what competitive debating is all about. It has served as a resource and reference to students, teachers and coaches from all over world in everyway possible. And most especially, it has touched lives of ordinary people who in their own rights want to have a grasp of the issues that affect their social and political lives.

Join me as I celebrate this achievement! This site would never made this far without your support and constant visit.

Share to me your views on how this site has helped you by sending me an email at arnel5mateo@yahoo.com and your articles will be posted here on the day of the anniversary! Share to me your thoughts, pictures or even your videos!

Lets continue the tradition of debating!

Lets celebrate Debate and Issue 101's 1st Year Anniversary on August 26, 2008!

Saturday, August 23, 2008

308 Teams at Cork WUDC

The numbers on these lists were added by GLOBAL DEBATE.

From Mark Collins:

Dear All,

I am now delighted to announce that following the offers that were made that we now have 308 teams registered for Cork Worlds 2009. As such a list of registered institutions is now available on the registration section of our website (www.corkworlds2009.com) and in addition we are now in a position to publicise the waiting list for the Championships which is also available in the registration section of our website.

In addition I would also like to remind everyone that Stage 2 of Registration i.e. payment will open on September 1st 2pm (BST/GMT+1) and close on October 9th 6pm (BST/GMT+1) by which time the full amount due by each institution must have been received in our account. All details regarding EFT (wire transfers) can be found on the registration section of our website, and I would recommend that all transfers are made at least 10 working days in advance of October 9th at the latest. Furthermore I would like to note that when the transfer is initiated you must opt to accept all charges. For those who wish to pay by credit card, I would like to highlight that as is standard, there will be a 2.4% processing fee levied on the total amount of the transaction.

If anyone has any questions or queries please do not hesitate to get on to me and I will give every assistance possible.

Best wishes,

Mark
--
Mark Collins

Director of Registration & Communications,
29th World University Debating Championships.
Cork 2009.

T: +353 86 3738177
E: mark.collins@corkworlds2009.com
W: www.corkworlds2009.com

From http://www.corkworlds2009.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=58&Itemid=60

Registered Institutions
Please find below the list of registered institutions for Cork Worlds 2009:

Name: Teams: Adjudicators: Observers:
Aberystwyth University 2 1
Assumption University 3 2
Ateneo de Manila University 3 2
Australian National University 3 2
Babes - Bolyai University 3 2
Bar Ilan University 3 2
Beijing Foreign Studies University 1 0
Bilkent University 2 1
Bonaparte 3 2
Boston University 3 1
Brandeis University 3 2
Brigham Young University 2 1
Bristol Debating Union 3 2
Brown University 2 1
Cambridge Union Society 3 2
Cardiff University 3 2
Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar 2 1
Central European University 1 0
Chulalongkorn University 3 2
Claremont Colleges 2 1
Colgate University 3 2
Columbia University 2 1
Cornell University 3 2
Dawson College 1 1
De La Salle University 3 2
Debate Association of Ewha (Ewha Univ.) 1 0
DebatingClub St. Gallen 1 0
Deree College 3 2
Dublin City University Debate Society 2 1
Duke University 3 2
Ege 1 1
Engilsh Debating Society 1 0
Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universitaet Greifswald 1 0
Galatasaray Üniversitesi 1 0
Glasgow University Union 3 2
GW University 3 1
Haifa University 1 0
Hart House, University of Toronto 3 2
Harvard University 3 2
Hawai'i Pacific University 2 1
Hebrew University of Jerusalem 3 2
Hertie School of Governance 2 0
Higher School of Economics 3 1
Hobart and William Smith 1 0
Hong Kong Baptist University 3 2
IDC Herzliya 1 1
Imperial College London 1 1
Independent University Bangladesh 1 0
King's College London 2 1
Kings Inns 3 2
Kneu 1 0
KNTSU 1 0
Koc University 2 1
Lahore University of Management Sciences 3 1
Leiden University 2 1
Lincoln’s Inn 1 0
Loyola Marymount University 1 0
Ludwig-Maximilians-University 1 0
Macquarie University 3 2
Mahidol University Inernatitonal College 2 0
Marianopolis College 1 0
McGill University 1 0
MDU 3 2
METU 3 2
MGIMO 1 1
MMU 2 1
Monash University 3 2
Moscow State Academy of Law 3 2
Moscow State University 1 1
Muenster University 1 0
Nanyang Technological University 3 2
National Law School of India University 3 2
Newcastle University 2 1
Nottingham 3 2
NTUA 1 0
NUI Galway Literary and Debating Society 3 2
Oxford Union 3 2
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú 1 0
Portland State University 2 1
Princeton University 3 2
Qatar University 3 2
Queen Mary, University of London 2 1
Queen's University 3 2
Rhodes University 3 2
Royal Holloway University of London 3 2
RRIS 1 0
School of Oriental and African Studies 3 2
Southern Illinois University 2 0 1
St John's University 2 1
Stockholm School of Economics in Riga 2 1
Swarthmore College 1 0
Tallinn University of Technology 1 1
The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple 3 2
The Johns Hopkins University 1 0
The Literary and Historical Society UCD 3 2
The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus 1 0
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies 1 0
Trinity College Dublin Historical Society 3 2
UCD Law Society 1 0
Univeristy of New South Wales (UNSW) 3 2
Universitas Indonesia 3 2
Universiti Teknologi MARA (Shah Alam) 1 0
University College London 3 2
University of Alaska 3 2
University of Alberta 3 2
University of Auckland 2 0
University of Belgrade 3 2
University of Birmingham 3 2
University of Bucharest 2 0
University of Canterbury 2 0
University of Central Missouri 2 1
University of Helsinki 3 2
University of Hong Kong 3 1
University of La Verne 3 2
University of Limerick Debating Union 2 1
University of Ljubljana 3 2
University of London Union 1 0
University of Macau 1 0
University of Melbourne 1 0
University of Oklahoma 1 1
University of Queensland 3 2
University of Rijeka 3 2
University of Rochester 3 2
University of Split 3 2
University of St Andrews 3 2
University of Sydney Union 3 2
University of the Pacific 3 2
University of the West Indies Cave Hill Campus 3 2
University of the Witwatersrand 1 0
University of Zagreb 3 2
University Philosophical Society, Trinity College Dublin 3 2
Vermont 3 2
Victoria University of Wellington 3 2
Vilnius University 1 0
Weill Cornell Medical College Qatar 2 1
Yale University 3 2
Yeditepe University 3 2
York Univerity 1 0
Zagreb Law 3 2

From http://www.corkworlds2009.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=61

Waiting List
Please find below the waiting list for Cork Worlds 2009. Places will be allocated to those on the waiting list on a one per institution basis as they become available:

Name:
University of Warwick
NSDV Trivium
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Middle Temple
Binus International
Tel Aviv University
Singapore Management University
Dalhousie
University of Durham
University of KwaZulu Natal
University of Waterloo
Yokohama National University
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
University of Namibia
University of Western Ontario
Islamic University of Indonesia
Tokai University
University of Athens
Bogazici University
University of Technology, Sydney
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Thammasat University
University of Cape Town
North South University
Universitas Islam Indonesia
University of Tokyo
UNIMAS
Pacific Lutheran University
Carleton University
Guelph University
Amherst College
College of the North Atlantic - Qatar
California State University
Radboud Universiteit
Fordham University
University of British Columbia
BRAC University
National University of Singapore
Debattierclub Stuttgart
Jacobs University
Technion
Bates College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Wilfrid Laurier University
Gavuilan Community College
Vassar College
Islamic University of Sultan Agung
New York University
University of the Philippines - Los Banos
Stanford University
Mannheim University
York University
Central University of Finance and Economics
Griffith University
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
Korea University
University of Pretoria
Radboud University
University of Western Australia
Erasmus Debating Society
University of Edinburgh Debates Union
International Christian University
Sciences Po Paris
Franklin and Marshall College
Yokohama City University
University of Saskatchewan
Texas A&M University at Qatar
Bina Nusantara University
London School of Economics and Political Science
University of Manitoba
The Open University of Japan
Temasek Polytechnic
Keio University
Dundee University
Tsuda
Universiti Sains Malaysia
University of the Philippines - Diliman
Tartu University
CUFE
Universiti Malaysia Pahang
University of Calgary
University of Colombo
Uludag Universty
Tennessee Tech University
Gujarat National Law University
International Islamic University Malaysia
Ageing With Hope- International
East West University
Ahsanullah University of Sci & Tech
UTM
Tilburg University
University of Chittagong
Universiti Malaysia Sabah
Kansai Gaidai University
Underwood Int'l College
University of Technology, Jamaica
The College of William and Mary
Islamic University of Technology
Regis University
Monash South Africa
Mumbai Tech University
Waiyanshe Institute
Smith College
Wellesley College
Chittagong University
University of Dhaka
City University of Hong Kong
Aoyama Gakuin University
Tilbury House Debating Society Cologne
Royal Institute of Technology
Seattle University
IBA, University of Dhaka
Hanyang University
Texas State University
Basse Youth Council Gambia
National University of Sciences & Technology Pakistan

USA Policy Debate Listserv Reacts to Firing

There is a lot more at the policy listserv eDebate at http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2008-August/date.html#75642

Jason Regnier, Fort Hays 2003

Bill coached me for 5 years. I would not be the person that I am today without his presence in my life. We had our battles, in large part because we had very different styles of interpersonal communication. I tend to be quiet and conflict-averse, which we all know is not Bill's style. However, one thing that I figured out over those years (and I think that anybody else who considers Bill a dear friend would agree) is that he's a package deal. The good comes with the bad, the productive with the destructive. He
doesn't just violate the norms of politesse and decorum merely to get attention or to be a dick. The impulse that leads him to moon and shout at somebody is the exact same impulse that compels him more than anybody who I have ever met to be constantly concerned with the ethics of his actions. I don't know who Art Kyriazis is (other than a classist bigot), but the suggestion that Bill was having a "tantrum" could not be further than the truth. I guarantee that if anybody had suggested a "peremptory challenge" to Bill, he would have brought the same fury and passion to bear against it as you saw him display against Shanara. If its true that Bill's
communication style risks violence, it is no less true that politeness and decorum risk allowing the unacceptable to continue unchallenged. Bill doesn't allow things to go unchallenged. That's what makes some people so uncomfortable around him. They know very well that they engage in unacceptable behavior, but nobody calls them out on it so it continues. When you live around Bill you have to be prepared to defend those behaviors or you'll hear about it. This is also the impulse that has enabled every contribution that Bill has made to the debate community and its
argumentation theories. The debate community has a short institutional memory, so it bears remembering that *all* critical debaters owe an unpayable debt to Bill, without whom the face of debate would be radically different. Bill cares, not just about his own team, but about the entire community, and that is why he is who he is. It is why he constantly puts himself out there while many of the rest of us feel all too comfortable expressing silent indignation.

Joe Ramsey, Fort Hays 2001

My thoughts go out to the best teacher and coach I have ever had. I owe more to him that that just about anyone else that has come into my life.
Thanks bill.

Gabe Murillo:

Today, in between thoughts and meetings I’ve been thinking of two things, what would George Z say to me about our current situation, and what should we do from here. Here’s what I’ve come up with:
It seems that it would now be impossible to argue that our decorum on this list serve does not affect the personal lives of members of this community, not to mention the livelihood of the community as a whole. While I understand the urge to react instantaneously and incredibly specifically to the person(s) that we blame for this occurrence, I would urge that as a community we understand the need to be productive – and not destructive - to our ability to engage and support each other. Maybe it’s just the K debater in me – but I am reminded of Butler’s argument about the consequences of short -circuiting mourning and grief with aggressive actions. It appears to me that as a community we need to pursue a productive and long-term task of mourning our losses, instead of pursuing a continuing path of anger and hurtful words as a means of remedying that feeling of rage at the pits of our stomachs after Fort Hayes released their decision this morning. Maybe our discussion should center on the ethics of our means of communication, and what we are willing to say and not say, do and not do, in an age where communication on the internet will no longer stay insular to our community. We need a discussion of what to do when each of our administrations hears about the Fort Hayes decisions, and more specifically their meta-criticism of our community. Lets not allow our remorse to translate into continuation of the general lack of care or concern that has been shown on this list serve. We should work together so that we can answer the questions of our administrations with specific examples, specific people,
specific contacts that can defend the decency and relevance of this community. This community is the only one where I could find a home, because it allows for so many people with so many differences to get together and be productive, and I’m not ready to let that fact be forgotten, and I’m willing to fight for every person to continue to have the opportunities I was fortunate to have. Can we generally agree that our current aggressive postures have only led to disastrous consequences for us all?
I cannot overstate how much my thoughts are with bill, his family and the entire Fort Hays squad, I hope people will let me know what I can do to help them

Anonymous (BFrank):

To CEDA- gutless. I watch the video of the quarterfinals and see numerous CEDA officials (past and present) including the current CEDA president. Unless I am mistaken, there was no organizational action after the round, there was no organizational position developed at the CEDA business meeting, the topic meeting or until the beginning of August. But let the video hit youtube and the AP newswire and it's a unified front to condemn and distance the organization from someone who has been a mainstay of the activity. Since then, the organization has pretty much contributed to throwing bill and the fort hays program under the bus. I do think that the lack of effort to explain bill's actions in terms of alternative performance methods was disappointing but that is for another post. Condemn bill, alright not my play but I can see why. However, not making a single public organizational effort to help or save the fort hays program = cowardice. Not showing the President of Fort Hays that his conception of debate from watching the quarters is inaccurate and his statements border on slander, are the acts of people who have no business leading this community. Yes I saw that the CEDA statement only supports the actions of FHSU in terminating bill, not it's suspension of the entire program. That is not good enough and frankly is a form of semantic corkscrewing that makes me sick. Important lesson: When your head or your program gets put on the chopping block CEDA will not help you.
CEDA Pres- You want us to be unified and stop the internal criticism. You are out of your mind. Hammond's comments are unsubstantiated and wholly inaccurate. I will not be his lackey in resurrecting some ideal civility of yester-year that he wants college debate to be. And I will not stand with any organization that won't protect it's own.

Vik Keenan:

Just because not everything is in the public domain, just because it is not posted on the contentious forum of Edebate, just because it does not have it's own YouTube video, does not mean a thing did not happen. You are factually incorrect on the first two parts of your timeline; and I'm not particularly sure why you see this as part of the Topic Meeting agenda, but I'm sure it adds nicely to the rhetoric. You are entitled to your opinion about the quality of the CEDA response, or the actions of Fort Hays, or the responses of the community. It IS a contentious issue. It IS a sensitive issue given that it is now public that someone's employment was jeopardized - a reality the "organization" tried to handle appropriately by using discretion. But it is also incorrect to say the "organization" was not looking at it.
I just think it's important for folks to know that this is not a johnny-come-lately response from "the organization" - YOUR organization. It's important to know because Darren's email and the public statement talk about how we move forward, and how we need input from each other to move forward. If you want to throw your hands in the air and fiddle while Rome burns so that, "this congregation of arrogant, impotent and self-righteous fools can disband", it's your prerogative. If you still believe that this activity has something to offer, participate in the dialogues at the opening tournaments in the next few weeks.
Rather than assign blame today, I'd rather think about how we can get Fort Hays back on the circuit, and how we can improve as educators, coaches, and advocates of intellectual discovery. I think in the policy paradigm, they call that a plan . . .

Adam Lee:

I've been reading the recent fall out and as a long time debater, coach, judge, good friend and student of bill, and member of this community, I must respectfully express a bit of consternation with the statement of CEDA as an organization regarding Fort Hays' wrongheaded and potentially constitutionally dubious dismissal of the community's good friend. Further, it seems odd that we scapegoat the individual(s) who circulated the video on youtube. Axiomatic to this activity is that it promote free speech and is, in perhaps its purest form, the marketplace of ideas. Please do not perceive this to be an indictment of calls for decorum or civility, however in my opinion CEDA and individuals that comprise the debate community should be dedicated to protecting our academic freedom from being usurped by academic institutions, rather than solely asking ourselves to consider what we can do differently to comply with what academic institutions consider to be proper. Perhaps that dialogue is necessary, it is not however sufficient. The joy and productivity of this strange activity that connects us all depends on an open space of free expression. While we must be vigilant to prevent the destruction of that space coming from inside our activity, so to we must stand up to attempts to shrink that space by limiting the speech occurring therein by those outside the activity. It is this latter threat that the CEDA statement seems not to confront.

Matt Stannard:

I am the Rocky Mountain Regional Representative of CEDA. I just want to say, for the record, that the first time I heard or saw anything about CEDA's statement in response to Professor Shanahan's and the Fort Hays program's termination was when Darren Elliot posted onto edebate that the statement had been drafted and released. There was no email communication to the rest of the CEDA leadership either announcing or calling for feedback on the construction and release of this statement. I am not saying that the President, VP and 2VP didn't have the constitutional right to draft and release the statement without the approval or deliberation of the rest of the CEDA government (I don't know if they did or not, and I apologize for my ignorance concerning that) but I just want to say that the statement does not necessarily reflect the views of every member of the CEDA government--nor were we consulted or invited to deliberate on the statement.

Andrew Casey:

I was in Hays for the press conference. Aside being disturbed by the seemingly thrilled and happy reactions of the people at the event, The content of the President's speech was odd. He made it sound as if lack of decorum, civility, respect were not the only reasons he suspended the school debate team. He made it very clear that he had no idea what educational value debate has. He did not understand what was said in the hour and a half round (which in all accuracy...is understandable
given the nature of the round and the negative's presentation of their strategy...it is after all supposed to be 'the unrecognizable other'). However, he made statements about how this was rampant in collegiate debate and that all collegiate debate followed this model. Needless to say, the fort v. towson debate is nowhere near what most debates look like. He made it sound as if he had watched multiple videos of multiple debates and all were just as unrecognizable. this is error.

CEDA Reacts to Professor's Dismissal

There were two developments from the Cross Examination Debate Association after the firing of Bill Shanahan by Fort Hays State University. From Darren Elliot, the President:

Dear Community Members,

As President of CEDA, I hope that as an organization we can begin moving forward in a direction that is both productive and self reflexive. It is clear we have a lot of work to do. I am confident we have the people to do the work. Today I am deeply concerned about the future of Fort Hays Debate. I am concerned about the debaters currently at Fort Hays State. And I am equally concerned for Bill and his family. In the larger scope, I am concerned with how we conduct ourselves, both at tournaments and in this forum and others like it. I appreciate and echo the comment of Gabe Cook from this afternoon.

I would ask the community to begin 2 courses of action:

1. We increase the level of respect in these forums, model civility, and begin practicing a moment of calm. I know this is tough, especially as emotions are running high right now. But now more than ever, we need that civility. Everytime someone is attacked on this list serv or in similar forums, it only provides evidence for statements by those in authority who have chosent to "blame" college debate for what happened. Blaming any debater for what happened and indicting them publicly makes you part of the problem. It allows President Hammond to make comments that debate has sunk to a new low of civility. Blaming any of the participants in the video, makes you culpable for the comments being made and the media sensationalizing this event. Attacking anyone means we are destroying ourselves internally. What we need now is an organized, congenial, united front as we move forward in our attempt to secure the safety of our member programs, and all the programs who might c!
onsider joining us in the future. Please do not undo the work of so many people working so hard to, as ML stated so eloquently, "build bridges".

2. We will be asking opening tournaments of the year (Gonzaga, Baltimore, UNI, GSU) and Regional openers (such as Kings and Wichita State) to provide a forum for members to have a civil dialogue with Executive Officers of the organization. We are willing to split these tournaments up among us, to host the sessions to begin an organizational dialogue of how to proceed, how to avoid anything like this in the future, and how to build bridges with Adminstrations. We want to field your questions and begin work on moving the organization forward. In that spirit, within the last few days, I have authorized the creation of an ad hoc committee, to be chaired by Gordon Stables and vice-chaired by Will Repko to begin work on how to improve our curriculum of competitive debate, both in and out of round. Gordon will be calling on people to take part in this committee. Please offer assistance if you have the time and ability to contribute positively. Gordon will have more informati!
on on how this committee will proceed.

I appreciate all of the work being done by people to positively reflect the mission and goals of CEDA. I know that as we work together, and not against one another, we will be able to overcome any misgivings in the media, among Administrators, and within those who do not fully understand what it is we practice. It is up to us to educate them, and to do so through positive and calm interactions. Anything else would be counter productive to us all, and may, for other programs, lead down the road that Fort Hays has chosen today. Please be a part of the solution and not the problem.

Sincerely,
Darren Elliott
"Chief"
CEDA President
Director of Debate and Forensics--Kansas City Kansas Community College

Statement by the organization from their website http://cedadebate.org/?q=node/174

Statement by the Cross Examination Debate Association Regarding Fort Hays University Press Conference
Submitted by stables on Fri, 2008-08-22 13:03. Organization
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 22, 2008
The Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) acknowledges that each of its member institutions must hire and staff their programs with faculty that best represent the educational mission of their university. As an organization, we must rely upon member institutions to hire individuals that conduct themselves appropriately and within the standards stated in the CEDA by-laws. As such, we respect the decision made by Fort Hays State University and their President Dr. Edward H. Hammond to dismiss Dr. Bill Shanahan. The organization has expressed its deep and profound disappointment by the incident immediately after the quarterfinal debate between Fort Hays State University and Towson University at the 2008 CEDA national tournament.

Debate provides a unique space where college students can explore a range of political thought. College debate teaches research, organization, critical thinking, strategic planning, foresight, and analysis. The behavior seen on the video clips of the incident does not accurately reflect the overwhelming majority of our community. More than 3,500 teams, representing more than 100 colleges and universities, entered college debate tournaments over the last year. The quality of college debate should not be evaluated on the basis of one debate, but on the totality of the thousands of rounds of competition by all students. The 2008 national tournament alone included approximately one thousand debates and it is unfortunate that the high standards of civil discourse followed by our community were not adhered to in this instance.

As a professional organization, CEDA is always striving to improve its practices. We will be opening a dialogue among our membership about how to improve curriculum and professional conduct at future competitions. Specifically, before the video controversy the organization began a review of its by-laws to determine the best ways to further promote educationally and professionally appropriate behavior among its members. The organization has also recently launched a new curriculum review to ensure that best practices can be taught in schools across the country. We also welcome the opportunity to work with Fort Hays, and all of our member institutions, to provide opportunities for students to debate.

Background on CEDA

Founded in 1971, the Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) is the primary national association sanctioning and promoting intercollegiate academic policy debate. Throughout the school year, CEDA sanctions over 60 tournaments throughout the nation, including an annual National Championship Tournament that brings together over 175 individual debate teams from across the nation to compete for a national team championship.

For further information, contact Darren Elliott, CEDA President (delliott@kckcc.edu), Gordon Stables, CEDA 1st Vice President (stables@usc.edu) or Kathryn Rubino, Chair of the CEDA Public Relations committee (kathrynrubino@gmail.com).

Cross Examination Debate Association - Executive Officers

President

Darren Elliott

Kansas City Kansas Community College

1st Vice President

Gordon Stables

University of Southern California

2nd Vice President

Sue Peterson

California State University, Chico

Treasurer

ML Sandoz

Vanderbilt University

Executive Secretary

Jeffrey Jarman

Wichita State University

Friday, August 22, 2008

Fort Hays University Dismisses Coach and Suspends Program

Here is the result. Notice how the commentary from the president of the school indicts college debate in general.

From http://www.wibw.com/localnews/headlines/27274434.html

Mooning Debate Coach Fired
Posted: 10:14 AM Aug 22, 2008
Last Updated: 10:14 AM Aug 22, 2008

HAYS, Kan. - Dr. Edward H. Hammond, president of Fort Hays State University, announced Friday that the university had dismissed Dr. Bill Shanahan, assistant professor of communication studies and coach of the school's debate program, for violating the university's faculty code of ethics.

Shanahan became notorious over the past two weeks after a video was posted on the popular YouTube Internet site that showed him in a wild confrontation with the debate coach from the University of Pittsburgh during a Cross Examination Debate Association event that was held during the spring 2008 semester at Wichita State University.

FHSU just learned of Shanahan's actions when the video was posted the first week of August. "No one from the tournament staff notified us about the incident last spring, which is a surprise given the scope of what happened," President Hammond said. "Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, but these actions are not acceptable for someone who is representing our university."

The president continued: "Professor Shanahan's conduct falls below the standard established to protect our university, its faculty, students and alumni. As a representative of FHSU, he had a duty of care that was seriously breached by his behavior."

"If the coach of one of our athletic teams became angry and 'mooned' officials, student athletes and fans during a sports event, he or she would no longer be a coach at Fort Hays State University," President Hammond said. "Standards for our debate program are certainly just as high."

The YouTube video showed Shanahan in an angry, prolonged, obscenity-laced shouting match with University of Pittsburgh debate coach Shanara Reid-Brinkley following a debate between FHSU and Towson State of Maryland. The FHSU team had exercised its prerogative under the debate rules to dismiss Reid-Brinkley as a judge of the FHSU-Towson State debate. Both the Towson State debate team and Reid-Brinkley said the decision to remove a black female judge was an act of white hegemony, which is to say an exercise of the power whites enjoy over people of color. At one point early in the post-debate argument, Shanahan turned his back to Reid-Brinkley, pulled down his shorts and bent over to expose his underwear-clad backside.

The president also stated that the FHSU debate program was suspended, effective immediately, until problems were addressed at the national level. He said steps were being taken so as not to disadvantage the FHSU debate students in the coming year.

The president said it was equally important for FHSU to take a stand against the declining standards of college debate. "We are an institute of higher learning, and this incident provides a valuable 'teaching moment,' " he said. "Our society has become increasingly confrontational and uncivil. Our investigation revealed that those ills have also infected college debate. We have a responsibility not only to deal with the specific incident but to stand up against this decline in the standards of college debate."

"I was a college debater," Dr. Hammond said. "I place high value on college debate as an exceptional learning opportunity. However, I had no idea that college debate had degenerated into the kind of displays that we witnessed when we watched CEDA events on the Internet. College debate has changed greatly. The lack of decorum and the lack of civility are not compatible with the educational standards at FHSU, and I doubt they are compatible with the educational standards at most universities."

He added, "If anyone doubts my conclusion, that person should view the entire debate, which was laced with four-letter words, a lack of personal respect and a lack of civil discourse."

President Hammond said he knew college debate was an intense and grueling activity, but all participants must remain in control and should pursue their points through civil and respectful discourse. "Debaters and coaches often speak with great passion," he said, "but the kind of debate being used today in much of college debate falls short of our educational standards."

The president said it also was important to commend Shanahan for the good things he accomplished at FHSU. "He led our debate team of Joe Ramsey and Jason Regnier to the Cross Examination Debate Association National Championship in April 2002 in California. He also has been a provocative teacher who allowed, even encouraged, dissenting opinions from students in his classroom," Dr. Hammond said. "He was highly esteemed by his students and his debaters. Furthermore, while he and I do not share the same opinion about the standards that should guide college debate, there is no one who is more dedicated to college debate than Bill Shanahan. Also, while he clearly reacted in an inappropriate manner, I understand why Mr. Shanahan was outraged by the not-so-veiled accusations of racism. During his 10 years at FHSU, I have known Bill to be a fervent champion of the underdog and racial equality."

Finally, the president spoke to criticism that the university was not acting quickly enough. "Our provost, Dr. Larry Gould, launched an investigation of the incident just as soon as we heard about the video on the Internet. No matter how compelling the video was, we believed Bill Shanahan had a right to tell his side of the story. The public outcry was understandable and we took seriously those who spoke both for and against Dr. Shanahan, but ultimately we made our decision based on the full set of facts that we gathered in our investigation. I would also point out that some of the media reports contained glaring inaccuracies about facts such as where the debate had taken place and details about Professor Shanahan's employment at FHSU. We were not about to let a rush to judgment cause us to make decisions based on faulty information. I make no apology for the careful, deliberate manner in which we considered what should be done."

"I greatly appreciate the strong support I have received from FHSU over the last 10 years in the fullest tradition of academic freedom and the outpouring of support and concern expressed by countless colleagues, students and former students," Shanahan said. "I am terribly sorry that my actions reflected poorly on the University," he explained. "However, they must be judged in the unique context of college debate, marked by its passion and rigorous intellectual engagement." Shanahan concluded: "I hope this incident does not detract from the incredible work done by Fort Hays State debate over the last decade or my other contributions to FHSU, which are far greater than a 9-minute YouTube clip."

Three USA Presidential Debates Scheduled

From http://chronicle.com/news/article/5042/mccain-and-obama-will-debate-on-3-university-campuses

August 21, 2008

McCain and Obama Will Debate on 3 University Campuses

The presumed Republican and Democratic nominees for president, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama, will debate one another three times this fall on university campuses, their campaigns announced today in a joint statement.

The debates, to be sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, will be held as follows:

September 26, at the University of Mississippi, on foreign policy and national security, moderated by Jim Lehrer of PBS.
October 7, at Belmont University, in Tennessee, on topics drawn from a town-hall audience and moderated by Tom Brokaw of NBC News.
October 15, at Hofstra University, in New York, on domestic and economic policy, moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS News.
The campaigns also agreed to hold a debate between the yet-to-be-named vice-presidential candidates, on October 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS.

All four debates will last 90 minutes each and will begin at 9 p.m., Eastern time. —Andrew Mytelka

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Filipinos Rise to Top of World Debating Ranks

From http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=128486

Despite handicaps, Filipinos are top-ranked debaters

By KRIS DANIELLE SUAREZ
abs-cbnNEWS.com

Even with its widening appeal, debating still faces numerous hurdles.

When the debater’s community was getting started back in the early 1990s, Raymond Aguas, assistant professor at the Ateneo de Manila University (AdMU) Department of Theology and among the first Filipinos to enter the world debate stage said, the general lack of familiarity with the format was a disadvantage. "When I first competed (in Worlds), I did not know what the [British] Parliamentary format was like... I have never encountered such a phenomenon before," he said, referring to the fact that the format allows other speakers to butt in during one's speech.

Another one was the general lack of debate culture in the country, particularly in colleges and universities, supposedly bastions of academic discourse.

"It’s not discussed in our editorials, not written about in our student papers. There really wasn’t anyone or much of anyone to debate with," he said.

"It’s a shame because in many prominent universities abroad, debate is the ultimate academic activity," Davit Jalotjot, a member of the Ateneo de Davao University's Ateneo Debate Community (ADC). said.

The concept of formal debate is still not sold out among many people, especially students who are intimidated by the thought of being pitted against other people to see who can give better arguments about a certain topic.

"You have to prove yourself all the time, and more often than not, you'll lose... It's a high pressure, highly competitive environment," said Claire Jiao of the University of the Philippines-Diliman's UP Debate Society (UPDS). And this turns a lot of people off from participating – or even trying out – in debates.

"Students are apprehensive to debate because they don’t have the linguistic abilities to be able to convey ideas," Jalotjot said.

Stereotypes
Meanwhile, people’s interest in the activity is also hampered by the image of the "typical debater." "People don’t like watching debates, in general, because they think it’s just for smart alecks and ‘pilosopos’ who are good at using big words without even believing what they say," Jalotjot said.

"A lot of people think we are serious, that we’re bookish. In reality, we do tend to talk about things that are more serious than a lot of more mainstream topics, but I’d like to think that we are still a very healthy, well-rounded group of people who also have fun and are exposed to various things," said Miko Biscocho, president of the AdMU’s Ateneo Debate Society (ADS).

Another factor would be the content of debates themselves, Biscocho opined. "A lot of the debate topics revolve around politics, economics, social issues. So even if there are topics, like pop culture, or even sports and local events, the perception [of non-debaters] is that everything [in debate] is abstract," he said.

People don’t do it as much as they do other things like sports, Biscocho added. He said the lack of exposure of what actually happens in debates also helps in reinforcing the stereotype.

But slowly, Jiao said, the stereotype of a debater is fading. "One can learn the skills involved in debate. So the important thing is that you're really interested in discussing the issues," she said.

Money, money, money
And because most debate enthusiasts are still students, funding is always a problem, especially for out-of-town tournaments.

Jalotjot decried that the progress of most province-based debate teams are hampered by funding problems, especially since numerous debates are held in Manila.

Jiao, meanwhile, said that for more established groups, funding becomes a problem when they host tournaments, as school administrations can only contribute a certain amount. Add to that the fact that they have to share with other student organizations the funds allocated for student activities makes it hard for them to ask for larger funding from their schools.

She also laments the lack of funding hampers their chances of participating in more international tournaments, especially when held in distant countries such as those in Europe.

A few teams, especially in large private institutions such as the Ateneo, are lucky to have constant sponsorships. The ADS is assisted by PLDT and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, among others. But Biscocho said competing abroad still poses financial problems for the participants, as sponsors would only shoulder a certain amount per person.

Not being able to attend tournaments because of money woes, Jiao said, affects a team's standings in international rankings. "You have to work doubly hard to make an impact [in one Worlds tournament], then you'll be gone for three years, and all your efforts would go to waste," she added.

The world debate stage
Even with these problems at home, Filipinos do not lag behind in terms of world debating. In fact, Philippine debate is recognized internationally, and the local debate scene’s level of competition can rival college sports leagues.

"Debate in the country is developed already," Jiao said. "It’s difficult to compare because each university and country has a distinct style. But Philippine debating can definitely match up with everyone else’s," she said.

Currently, several Filipino universities are top-ranked in the world debate scene, with the ADS leading the pack. It is currently ranked eighth in the World Debate Website (www.debate.ie) rankings – higher than Harvard (26), Princeton (31), and Stanford (40), and the highest among Asian universities (the next highest, the International Islamic University of Malaysia, is number 12).

World Debate also ranked the Filipino university the 5th best institution of all time, higher than Yale (6th for 2008, 7th all-time). Other Filipino universities at the top 150 for 2008 are UP Diliman (41, 46 all-time), UP Manila (70, 75 all-time), and De La Salle University (80, 38 all-time), San Beda (118, 130 all-time), University of Santo Tomas (138, 42 all-time) and DLSU-College of Saint Benilde (144, 145 all-time).

The country also enjoys continued presence in international tournaments – particularly the Asian Universities, All-Asian Intervarsity, Australasian Intervarsity, and World Universities tournaments. The Philippines also enjoys an image in world debate unparalleled by any other Asian country.

Filipino debate groups are constant fixtures in international tournaments, and the top-ranked ADS has an unparalleled record for an Asian team – six out of seven Asian championships, Australasian grand finalist, and the highest-ranked Asian team in the Worlds.

The Philippines has also hosted the Worlds, Asians, and Australasians several times, with the 2008 Australs being the latest one.

These days, said Aguas, "anyone who knows anything" about debate would expect, for example, an Ateneo team to win over a team from Harvard.

"We’ve hosted the Worlds, we’ve consistently done well at Worlds, so someone who goes to Worlds" would expect high-caliber debate from Filipino teams, he said. "I expect Ateneo to win over a Yale or a Princeton or a Harvard," he proudly said.

Differing styles, dynamics, mindset
Although Filipino debaters and teams are top-ranked, they still face a lot of disadvantages in the international debate arena.

Since Filipinos aren’t native English speakers, Filipino debaters who compete with teams from countries who count English as their lingua franca are at a disadvantage at the grasp of language.

"They speak really well, fluently. They don’t have problems grasping for words," Biscocho said. "But in terms of content, we can be at par with them. It’s really a matter of delivery and engagement."

There’s also the problem of differing world views. This means that debaters from developed countries usually focus on socio-legal issues. On the other hand, debaters from the developing world – the Philippines included – focus more on topics that are developmental, such as social justice and economic progress.

"The issues we discuss, and the ways we tackle them, tend to differ from the way they do," said Aguas.

And even if Philippine universities constantly rank among the top teams internationally, sadly, Filipino debaters sometimes still fall victim to biases.

"The biases don’t even need to be explicit, like the things that judges from Europe would look for, would be different from judges from Asia would look for. Sadly, some judges do have explicit racial biases. You can complain, but you can’t lobby to overturn the decision (in your favor)," Biscocho said.

Jiao, meanwhile, shared that during the 2008 WUDC, some foreigners were even shocked that Filipinos knew how to speak the language well. "You can feel it while you’re inside the room because it’s as if they’re whispering, ‘what are they doing here?’" she quipped.

"We don’t change the way we think, but we try to adapt by, for example, trying to give examples familiar to the adjudicators. In other words, by being able to fit their description of a ‘good debater’," Biscocho added.

"The majority (of the adjudicators) are fair, but sometimes, (if you face biased adjudicators), it’s simply bad luck," he added.

Going forward
Despite the challenges, the local debate scene, the debaters all agreed, has nowhere to go but forward.

"I really think that [the community] would grow, and that smaller institutions would become more established," Jiao said, adding that each region hopefully would have an environment where while waiting for national tourneys they themselves engage each other in competitions more often.

Biscocho also thinks that the growing number of institutions becoming part of the local debate scene would eventually help more people, particularly students, become exposed to the activity.

The growing community also challenges the current set of universities, because the new people coming means that people constantly learn from each other, he said.

Jalotjot, meanwhile, said that in the future, hopefully there won’t be such a thing as debating in the provinces anymore. "The differences in skill [between Manila and non-Manila based teams] is getting smaller and smaller, and [Manila institutions] would have to contend… with many more [provincial teams]," he said.

Aguas, meanwhile, thinks national-level competition will remain strong, where a ‘pass-on effect’ between more established institutions effectively passing on experience and knowledge to smaller institutions will grow and develop.

He also hopes debating won’t become tied to specific individuals or teams in the future, and debate will eventually become part of the Filipino academic culture rather than a mere activity.

Biscocho, meanwhile, is hoping that the Philippines would go on hosting more international debate events, which would also help bolster Filipino institutions’ image in the international scene.

"Even if we don’t win the World Championships overnight, hopefully we position ourselves well, because that's almost half of the battle - being able to position yourself as one of the top tier schools," he added.

And as long as people argue, debate will never fade away.

"People have always wanted to talk about issues. People have always wanted to express their opinion, especially on things that affect them personally. Debate makes a person do all these things," said Jalotjot.

The Joy of Middle School Debate

This is a charming story that mirrors events at many middle schools around the world.

From http://www.bgdailynews.com/articles/2008/08/06/the_amplifier/stage_and_screen/9857speech_geeks.txt

Two Local Speech Geeks Win First Place Awards in National Tournament
By Teresa Christmas

A national speech and debate tournament (even at a junior level) seems to celebrate its own unique culture. The rules (both written and unwritten), the unspoken expectations, the dress code, which is not a code at all, and the insiders terminology can be quite bewildering to the first time visitor. Antonio Brown, a junior high student from Bronx Prep in New York City who was competing in the National Junior Forensic League Speech and Debate Tournament hosted by the WKU forensic team this past week-end at the Garrett Conference Center at WKU underlined this point when he said, “Yeah, I like being called a speech geek, because I’m going crazy about speech! I’m really focused on speech!” When asked if he is having fun or is this stiff competition really stressful, Antonio replied, “It’s not stressful for me, because when I meet new people, even when I don’t win, I can encourage others.” While Antonio, a jovial youngster who seems to make himself known to everyone is obviously very good at meeting people (there were over 200 contestants for him to meet), he did not have to worry about not winning. By late Sunday afternoon, after three grueling days of competition, Antonio was awarded the National Championship in Poetry Interpretation.

All told, eleven National Championships were handed out on Sunday evening, only one of which, as it turned out, was won by the Bronx Prep School, who sent a contingent of 10 competitors. Remarkably, two local schools who had only one entry each both won National Championships as well. Taylor Boswell from Bowling Green Christian Academy, won first place in Prose Interpretation and Amelia Gramling, an eighth grade home-schooled student, won the National Championship in original oratory.(The largest team, Sydney Lanier Middle School, from Houston Texas, sent 34 competitors and also won two National Championships.)

Winning first place in any of the many divisions was no small feat as more than 200 young people from all over the nation were provided opportunities to compete in nine different categories of public speaking and debate. 24 different junior high and middle schools attended from places such as Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, Houston, Colorado Springs, Saipan (a U. S. territory in the Pacific) and of course, Kentucky and other states not quite so far away.

On the evening of Thursday, June 26, these visitors began arriving to register and to attend a pre-tournament orientation. While most of the junior high and middle school students arrived in shorts and flip flops, relaxing after their travels, the team of young men and women from Los Angeles, California had other ideas, arriving in black suits and taking up an entire row of seats. When told that the black suit look was somewhat intimidating, they only smiled. Intimidation, evidently was the intent.

Intimidating dress at registration is one thing, but when the main event began on Friday morning, almost all of the students were dressed to kill, even though judges (parents and coaches from each team) had been admonished not to judge students by their attire. Casual attire, however was readily available and on sale in the Garret lobby by SpeechGeek.Com, a local Bowling Green business specializing in speech and debate accessories, including, for one, a t-shirt that stated, “Don’t Hate, Forensicate,” Corey Alderdice, SpeechGeek.Com founder and former member of WKU’s nationally acclaimed forensic team and graduate assistant said that t-shirt sales went quite well. The tournament, though, he observed, offered more than just a chance to sell t-shirts. It provided middle schools the opportunity to learn more about forensics and be recognized for having such wonderfully talented students from all across the nation.

While Alderdice credited WKU’s Forensic League for doing a good job hosting the event, two individuals who were most responsible for organizing it were Christopher Joffrion, Tournament Coordinator from WKU and Alex Dukalskis Program Coordinator of IDEA (International Debate Education Association) from Soule, South Korea. The logistics were complex and at times overwhelming. The event took up classrooms in seven different buildings on WKU’s campus. During the preliminary rounds held all day Friday and on Saturday morning, there were over fifty competitions occurring simultaneously all over the hill.

A computerized system assigned numbers randomly to schools and students, so judges were not even aware of which school any particular student was from. Volunteers from WKU’s Forensic program worked almost around the clock to tally judges’ ballots in order to see which students would make it to the finals. In speech geek terms, this is known as “breaking finals,” which explains another of SpeechGeek.Com’s t-shirt slogans: “I break hearts and finals.”

Suspense and adventure are built into the tournament format, since, after the preliminary rounds, students wait and wait for ballots to be counted and scores to be posted to see who advances to the next round. Both suspense and adventure went over the top late Saturday afternoon, however, when a quarter final round became necessary to sort out the contestants in Poetry Interpretation. After competing all day long, weary poets studied the postings on the Garret Conference Center wall to determine where they would have to go to make one last effort to make it into Sunday’s semi-final and (hopefully) final rounds of competition. One contingent headed off to the third floor of Cherry Hall, only to spend half an hour trapped in the elevator. Meanwhile, in the basement of the Environmental Science and Technology building, students from Massachusetts, Texas, Missouri, Saipan, Kentucky and Tennessee gathered anxiously outside their assigned classroom in the deserted, spooky hallway waiting for the judges to arrive.

Whether camped out in the hallway or stuck in the elevator, waiting turned out to be futile. By cell phone and by messenger, the word spread across the Hill. RECOUNT! (Hey, this is Kentucky, not Florida). Everybody back to Headquarters. Anxiety went through the roof. Did I not make it after all? Am I finished?

Finally quarter finals resumed. The Cherry Hall contingent wisely decided on the stairway this time around, and back safely in the basement of EST, Louisa Dallett, (a student from Pike School in Andover, Massachusetts) performed When the Towers Fell, a poem by Galway Kinnell about the 9/11 tragedy. Pike School, a private prep school north of Boston, had brought 14 students competing in almost every category, many of whom had gone to Nationals in Colorado the previous year. Their coach (a great one, according to Louisa), also teaches history.

Ray Jordan, a ninth grader and one of eleven students from Moreland Ridge, Missouri did his interpretation of I am A Poet, by Charles R. Smith. Jake Forczek from Tennessee performed a lighthearted poem called, “Love That Dog” by Sharon Creech and Angelica Elenzano from Saipan performed “The Ballad of Barnaby, by W.H. Auden in a very dynamic voice. (She said that even though her team mates suffered from jet lag they had visited the Greenwood Mall during the evening, as there was no mall in Saipan.) Chrizney Roth from San Antonio used many voices in her excerpts from the Great Depression saga Out of the Dust, by Karen Hesse.

Last but not least, local home-schooled student, Amelia Gramling’s face seemed to take on a range of emotions as she did excerpts from Taylor Mali’s Like Lily, Like Wilson, and What Teachers Make, poems that quite appropriately celebrate the joys and frustrations of teaching eighth graders.

It was a hard call for any judge to make, not just in this room, but in every room on the top of the hill that Saturday evening. Every child had prepared for months. Every child had poured her heart out. Every child dreamed of winning the National Championship. Finally, after the contestants left to find a bite to eat, at 9PM that evening the results were posted. Out of 200 contestants, only six in each category would make it to the final round.

The last day of competition was a day for cheers and tears. Jasmine Jones, for example, a talented and beautiful poet from East Hardin Middle School in Elizabethtown who had spent a large portion of her Saturday evening stuck in the Cherry Hall elevator before making the semifinal round, performed a Maya Angelou poem entitled I’m Not Giving My Black Back a piece that had been warmly received only weeks previously at Cumberland Trace Elementary School where she had been invited to perform as a visiting artist. Jasmine did not break finals.

Fortunately there are many opportunities for Jasmine and the other talented competitors to display their skills. Alex Dukalskis of International Debate Education Association (IDEA) noted that IDEA has sponsored the National Junior Forensic League for the past two years and that they also partner with the NJFL for other events as well, and that through the IDEA web site kids can get more involved. “We announce events all the time and also have debate related materials and articles at http://www.idebate.org/”

Six finalists in Original Oratory met in a warm room with raised windows on Sunday afternoon upstairs in the Garrett Conference Center. What did six of the nation’s best young original voices have to say? Topics included, The Power of Stories (and why the media does not tell the whole story,) The Anguish of Autism, The Importance of Religion, The Flag, Poverty and Banning Books. (Julie Moon from Pike School in Massachusetts, an avid reader herself, gave an eloquent and impassioned speech on why books like Harry Potter should never be banned.) Five judges scored the speeches. The highest and lowest scores were dropped and all of the ballots for the tournament were tallied. Finally the awards were announced at a ceremony at the Garrett Conference Center at 5 PM on Sunday. Julie Moon, a champion in her own state and one who had already made her mark in national competition, was among the runners up. Incredibly, two home grown contestants, Amelia Gramling, who edged out Julia Moon in Original Oratory, and Taylor Boswell who competed in Prose Interpretation, were awarded National Championships.

Forensics workshops take place for teens every Wednesday from 7 to 9 at the WKU Alive Center and interested participants can contact courtneywright@greenhousepoetry.com, or visit their website at www.greenhousepoetry.com.

The complete list of winners includes:

Prose Interpretation: Taylor Boswell, Bowling Green Christian Academy

Humorous Interpretation: Bryce Prior, Brentwood Academy, Tennessee

Poetry Interpretation: Antonio Brown, Bronx Prep, New York City

Original Oratory: Amelia Gramling, Gramling Home-School, Bowling Green

Dramatic Interpretation: Luke Thaxton, Rowan County, Morehead, KY

Extemporaneous Speaking: Reid Geissen, Sydney Lanier, Houston, Texas

Impromptu Speaking: John French, Pike School, Andover, Massachusetts

Duo Interpretation: Christina Iwu and Nathan Stevens, Rowan County, Morehead, Kentucky

Debate: Robin Go and Jake Wheeler, Sydney Lanier Middle School, Houston, Texas

(Sydney Lanier Middle School had the most points in speech and debate with 34 students attending the tournament.)

Story by Teresa Christmas, an elementary school teacher, who thinks more kids should check out speech and debate and express themselves. For more information on how to get involved locally go to the Kentucky High School Speech League web site. (There is a junior division.) http://www.wku.edu/khssl

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

WUPID Update - Teams and Tours

From http://mlysn.wordpress.com/cimb-wupid-2008/teams/

Teams
Invited Teams:

Confirmed List:

Monash University (AUS) - 2 teams + 2 judges
Multimedia University (MAS) - 2 teams + 1 judge
Nanyang Technological University (SIN) - 2 teams + 1 judge
Ateneo De Manila (PHI) - 2 teams + 1 judge
Sydney University (AUS) - 2 teams + 1 judge
Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK) - 2 teams + 1 judge
National University of Singapore (SIN) - 2 teams + 1 judge
Universiti Teknologi MARA (MAS) - 2 teams + 1 judge
International Islamic University (MAS)
University of Queensland (AUS) - 1 team
University of Cambridge (ENG)
Waiting List:

The list is in no particular order. Being in the list simply means that you are interested to compete at CIMB WUPID 2008.

To be in the waiting list please contact me (yunus@hngsc.com) or simply leave your name, institution name and email address at the comment space on this page below starting from the 28th of July 2008 . Thank you for your interest.

* Uninvited teams that supported WUPID last year (2007) are automatically listed - loyalty is our policy!

Universiti Sains Malaysia (MAS)
Temasek Polytechnic (SIN)
Multimedia University Malacca (MAS)
Chulalongkorn University (THA)
University of Vermont (USA)
Mahidol University (THA)
Universiti Malaya (MAS)
Assumption University (THA)
Cornell University (USA)
Western Washington University (USA)
College of St. Benilde (PHI)
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn (MAS)
Universitas Indonesia (IND)
Binus International (IND)

From Muhammad Yunus:

Below are the updates (spread the word):

1. Thanks to Omar’s wife, we’ve managed to secure trips (during the free-day) to the double-decked sky bridge of the Petronas Twin Towers. I wrote a piece here: http://mlysn.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/cimb-wupid-08-central-another-bed-ridden-free-day-please-give-me-a-break/

2. We’ll be securing an insurance sponsor = all participants will be insured (this does not mean that you could abuse your health throughout the event!)

3. We’re in the midst of looking for more sponsors to subsidize preferred adjudicators (the accommodation and meals are taken care of) – so … HELP and contacts needed!!!

4. Efforts are being made to look for a broadcast sponsor to televise the grand final via ASTRO. But if we can’t find any, we’ll dig the money from the company anyway.

5. List of the confirmed participants so far can be viewed at http://mlysn.wordpress.com/cimb-wupid-2008/teams/

6. Flights arrangements will be done very soon. I will liaise closely with each and every one of you – flight plans, point of departure and arrival, etc.

7. Last year, we attempted to produce a souvenir magazine. Due to certain problems with the printing company we had to cancel the effort at the very last minute. We’re sorry. Learned from the mistake and the outline is already set. We’ve also hired a dedicated magazine designer / managing editor to solve last years problem. Hopefully, we can pull this through this year.

8. To avoid complications that we faced last year, I need an adjudication questionnaire for you guys to assess the judges that will be coming. The entire registration process will be done online. I only one table on the registration day for verification of details purposes. And then they can straight get they’re keys because rooms will already be dedicated.

If any of you guys have additional ideas and ways to help – especially regarding sponsorship (I don’t mind working with non-Malaysian companies as well), please do not hesitate to contact me via email, call (+60163521643), or facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=641373947

Thank you for all your support.

Warm regards,
Yunus

Wales Schools Debate Competition

From http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2008/08/12/welsh-schools-debating-competition-under-way-55578-21513999/

Welsh schools’ debating competition under way
Aug 12 2008 by Kelly Fenna, Daily Post
STUDENTS are being urged to make their voices heard at the 2008 Wales School Debating Championships.
Registration has opened for the prestigious event run by CEWC-Cymru (Council for Education in World Citizenship).
It gives students the opportunity to debate important national and global issues in a competitive setting.
All secondary schools and further education colleges are welcome to take part and for a little extra practice, a debate training day has been organised at Rhyl Town Hall on September 26.
The competition, established in 1990, goes through eight regional rounds in October with the final in November.
The winners could also be in line for a trip to Athens to represent their country and take part in the organisation’s World Schools Debating championships in February.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Debategraph Explores New Ways of Looking at Arguments

New "debate it here" website is using a newly developed tool to display such discussions.

From http://www.debategraph.org/

Debategraph and Thoughtgraph?

Debategraph.org is the first public implementation of the underlying Debatemapper software developed by the Anglo-Australian social enterprise Thoughtgraph Ltd, and a signatory to the Cape Town Open Education Declaration.

The debate processing software has been developed in public beta over the last year, via pilot projects in the UK for the Prime Minister's Office and the Royal Society of Arts, with a view to fulfilling the vision now embodied in Debategraph.

To help support Debategraph as a free, creative commons social venture, Thoughtgraph is also developing commercial applications of the Debatemapper software as a tool for internal collaborative knowledge sharing, argument mapping, and decision making within interested organisations. The Thoughtgraph team also works with senior management teams to map and communicate complex issues, decisions and strategic challenges to internal and external stakeholders.

Why Debategraph?

A controversial issue such as the debate about the future of Iraq will typically result in a vast quantity of debate material in the media, legislative bodies and academia. Much of this is highly partisan, with selective and often fallacious use of arguments and a tendency to ignore or deprecate anything that might favor contrary viewpoints. The multitude of debate contributions also exhibits a high degree of repetition and redundancy; making it harder to separate the signal from the noise.

What is lacking is a method for people to easily view and comprehend the debate as a totality, with different positions and arguments clearly juxtaposed in a consistent structure that reflects sound argumentation principles. Debategraph is designed to address this deficiency by allowing protagonists for different viewpoints to collaborate in developing comprehensive statements of debates.

In this way Debategraph promotes greater clarity in public debate by allowing people to properly appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of all the relevant viewpoints.

However, the name Debategraph reflects our aspiration to do more than provide a repository of debates about various topics on this site. We want to map not just individual debates, but the relationships between them—something that is crucial to gaining a full understanding of complex, interrelated real-world issues, and something that only truly becomes possible with the emergence of the latest generation of web technology.

As Debategraph grows and evolves, the knowledge that it embodies and codifies has the potential to contribute to the wider evolution of the web into a fully enabled semantic graph that not only connects computers and documents, as in the traditional web, but also utilises ideas, concepts and meaning as well.

Key features of the Debategraph?

Debategraph reflects our desire to get to grips with some key difficulties in modeling and understanding highly complex real-world debates. These include:

Multiple alternatives: Software applications used for debate/argument mapping often compel users to adopt a two-dimensional pro/con structure in which supportive and opposing cases relevant to some claim are marshaled. Debategraph recognizes that real-world policy debates are rarely that simple. As exemplified by the current debate over Iraq policy, a number of competing policies may need to be considered. Debategraph allows for the enumeration and ranking of such rival policies, with parts of argumentation structures relevant to more than one able to be ‘cloned’ in multiple locations.

Complex policies: Policy proposals deserving of serious consideration can rarely be reduced to a single proposition or measure. With respect to the Iraq debate for example, the proposal of the Iraq Study Group co-chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton contained 79 separate measures organized into groups concerned with military/security measures, regional initiatives, and so on. Typically, some of these specific measures will also be found in rival policies, perhaps in a variant form or with a different degree of emphasis in the overall package. For example, all of the comprehensive policy proposals, including that of the Bush administration, include some sort of effort to engage regional powers in a solution. Debategraph allows policy positions to be decomposed into their component parts, with some elements, or variations thereof, appearing in more than one of the rival policies.

Agent-specificity: Debategraph recognizes that consideration of policy alternatives needs to be agent-specific – that is, it must recognize that different actors have different ‘repertoires’ of possible measures, and also have different circumstances and interests. To take the Iraq example again, the government of the United States has a wider range of available measures than that of the UK – let alone that of smaller war participants such as Australia. On the other hand, some marginal or non-participants may have other options not available to the US – to act as ‘honest broker’ for example. Even within the US, different arms of government have different repertoires – the executive and the Congress have different available options to affect the course of events (in the case of the Congress, mainly a blocking or constraining role through control of budgetary allocations). Debategraph supports an approach wherein an issue can be framed separately for different actors, with different repertoires of possible policy options for each.

Structural features: Argumentation theorists have identified a number of basic constructs that may appear in a debate map (see for example James B. Freeman Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments Foris 1991). These include linked structure (two or more co-premises working jointly to support a conclusion), convergent structure (two or more arguments independently adding weight to a conclusion), divergent structure (the case where a premise supports more than one conclusion) and serial structure (where the conclusion of one piece of argument is a premise for another, and so on so that an ultimate conclusion may be underpinned by an argument ‘tree’). Debategraph supports all these structures.

Map grammars: The basic building blocks of debate maps are items representing different argumentative constructs. Every map must conform to a ‘map grammar’ which specifies a vocabulary (or ontology) of item types, and a set of rules stipulating how they may be combined. Debategraph programmatically enforces these rules as users build and edit maps, automatically disallowing semantically nonsensical actions (such as adding a supportive premise to an issue or question, rather than a conclusion). The Debategraph ontology consists of a core of basic constructs common to debates irrespective of the subject matter. To this can be added additional modules relevant to particular domains – such as the module for public policy debates. The grammars also constrain how cross-links can be created within and between maps (see below for a description of cross-links).

Multiple expressions: Each item on a debate map can be expressed at three levels of detail: a heading text (a short heading to be displayed on a map outline); a concise expression (up to 250 characters in length) that is displayed in a contextual view (see below) and an expanded text which can include charts, images, videos and other media items and can be an essay of up to 50,000 characters in length (about 10,000 words). The latter provides a means, for example, whereby an editor can provide a detailed background article supporting some tersely expressed point displayed on the map itself. This is a particularly desirable facility for some of the features that may be represented on a map – for instance there is a construct for comparing scenarios that people claim will flow from a particular policy (e.g. the debate about what will happen if Coalition forces are withdrawn from Iraq.

Contextual views: In a large debate map, it is important for users to be able to focus on particular parts of the map. Debategraph addresses this need by providing several different contextual views of a map item, each showing the item in a differently defined context (for example, the immediate context may show the conclusion a premise supports directly, the premise itself, and any premises that show it). Other views show different parts of the surrounding argument ‘tree’. There is also a ‘details’ view which shows the heading, concise text, the expanded text (if any), relevant item metadata and any free-form user comments on the item displayed in a blog-style format.

Debate protagonists: In any major public debate there will be a multiplicity of people with a viewpoint and preparedness to express it. In addition a range of political parties, factions within parties, ideological tendencies, newspapers and other media outlets, or followers of one or other theory (e.g. the ‘realists’ in the international relations community) may be said to have a position or viewpoint. However a person involved in building a debate map may enter/edit positions or arguments with which he/she personally does not agree – hence the need to clearly distinguish the position of a map editor from that of an actual protagonist in the debate. Debategraph has a method of explicitly incorporating protagonists into the debate model with a nested structure so that a party or group can be broken into sub-groups down to the level of individuals. Users can render a view of a debate map with all items supported by a particular protagonist exploded and highlighted.

Articulations: In constructing a debate map, the ideal is to represent each item in the structure concisely, accurately and fairly (though with the option to add an extended article as the map item’s ‘expanded text’). Such expressions should be free of rhetorical devices designed to influence the reader over and above the inherent force of the argument. However to see how a particular argumentative point represented in a map has been articulated by a variety of advocates, editors may associate 'articulations' with the point in question. In entering an articulations, an editor may include a link to a URL, a set of metadata, and can copy and paste an excerpt of up to 10,000 words length to be stored in the database. All articulations can be viewed by in conjunction with a details view of the item in question. Articulations can also be evaluated by the user community, with the top-ranking ones pushed to the top in the exemplar display.

Semantic cross-links within and between maps: In most argument mapping applications, the map takes the form of an ‘argument tree’ in which a conclusion is supported by a tree-hierarchic serial arrangement of premises and conclusions. Debategraph also takes this approach, though with some important enhancements such as the support of argument cloning and divergent structure (see above). The latter means that a Debategraph map may take the form that specialists in the branch of mathematics called graph theory term a ‘multitree’

However Debategraph supports the addition to this of a range of semantic cross-links, subject to constraints imposed by the relevant map grammar (see above). Importantly, semantic cross-links can connect items in separate maps so that, for example, a principle deriving from moral philosophy or an international relations theory appearing in a general debate about how war might be justified may ‘ground’ an argument in a debate about a specific war (such as Iraq). Freed from the internal tree structure, this feature allows many-to-many relations in which a general principal enunciated in one map may ground many claims in other maps, and a claim may receive support from more than one principal. Grounding (which may represent a Toulmin warrant type relationship) is one of several kinds of semantic cross-link currently supported.

Evolving debate clusters: In our view, it is impossible to do justice to a debate like the current one about Iraq within the confines of a single debate map. This is because so many of the arguments and considerations invoked in the debate derive their force (or lack thereof) for different audiences from a complex background of beliefs, values and theories about how the world works held by audience members. One argumentation theorist has termed this background the audience member’s “epistemic state” (Mark Vorobej A Theory of Argument Cambridge 2006).

In some cases, such views may take the form of simple prejudices. In other cases, they may derive from heavily debated theories about how the world works, or should work. A constant background to the Iraq debate has been a more general argument between the ‘realists’ in the international relations community, with their skepticism about the prospects for externally-imposed regime change, and the neo-conservatives and supporters of the ‘democratic peace’ theory who argue maintain that a state’s external behavior is heavily determined by the nature of its internal regime. Such background debates shaped the specific argument about whether to intervene in Iraq – and unfolding events and the accumulation of experience in Iraq are, in turn, feeding back into the more general debates (see for example the treatment of the Iraq experience in the new book Ethical Realism by Anatol Levien and John Hulsman).

Debategraph aims to capture these facets by providing for different debates to be semantically interconnected, with users able to use such linkages to navigate around the entire repository of debate. We anticipate the emergence of clusters of related debates in which there is an ongoing interplay between arguments about general principles and ones about specific issues.

How is Debategraph implemented?

Debategraph is a multi-tiered web application that employs Microsoft ASP.NET 2.0 server technology, an SQL Server 2005 relational database and client-side scripting to provide the relevant functionality. Once the user has initially downloaded the relevant application page, all interactions with the web and database servers take place by AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML) callbacks. This provides a user experience not far removed from that of a desktop application. The application is designed to support very large debate maps and the creation of semantic linkages across individual map boundaries thereby creating a unified repository of debate in which relationships between as well as within debates can be expressed.

Cork WUDC Tops Out at 308

From Mark Collins:

Dear All,

I would just like to announce that all places at Cork Worlds 2009 up to our extended team cap of 308 have now been offered! All offers have been sent to the email account of the institution rep for each institution and each institution has 72 hours to accept the offer of a place(s).

As a result it is highly unlikely that many places will become available from now on, rather they will just become available as teams pull out, of which I must note we do not expect many! Also given the length of the waiting list I wish to make clear that we will be adopting a zero tolerance policy with regard to payment in stage 2. Payment will need to be received in our account by the close of stage 2 on October 9th 6pm (BST/GMT+1), and as such we would recommend that all transactions are initiated at least 10 business days in advance of stage 2 closing.

We would also like to encourage anyone that missed out on a place at Cork Worlds 2009 who would like to be an adjudicator at the Championships to apply to be an independent adjudicator. Applications can be sent to our Adjudication Team by emailing adjudication@corkworlds2009.com

We would like to thank everyone for their interest in Cork Worlds 2009, and look forward to working with you all over the coming months in the run up to the Championships. As always if anyone has any questions or queries please do not hesitate to contact me and I will give you every assistance possible.

Best wishes,

Mark
--
Mark Collins BCL (International) 4

Director of Registration & Communications,
29th World University Debating Championships.
Cork 2009.

T: +353 86 3738177
E: mark.collins@corkworlds2009.com
W: www.corkworlds2009.com

Monday, August 18, 2008

Petition of Support for Embattled Debate Coach

From http://www.PetitionOnline.com/billshan/petition.html

To: Students, Faculty and NDT/CEDA Debate Community
The purpose of this petition is to show support for Bill Shanahan who has been the target of a smear campaign in the media by a debater and former coach in the community. This petition is to demonstrate that Bill has had a positive impact on your education, life or debate career. If you're like me and believe Bill's absence from FHSU would be devastating, please sign.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

106 signatures as of now.

Cork WUDC Moves Teams Off Waitlist, Rises to 308 Teams

From Mark Collins:

Dear All,

I would like to thank everyone for the overwhelming interest in Cork Worlds 2009! The Championships are set to be one of the most international yet, and the Cork Worlds 2009 team looks forward to welcoming everyone to Cork.

I would like to take this opportunity to announce that we will be moving 34 teams from the waiting list tomorrow night (Irish time) to being registered so as to reach our team cap of 300 teams, following the completion of country-quota requirements as set down by Worlds Council. These places will be allocated as normal to the institutions concerned, with an institutional cap of three.

I am also delighted to announce that we will be increasing the team cap for Cork Worlds 2009 from 300 teams to 308. All team places over the 300 mark though will be allocated on a one team per institution basis in light of the overwhelming demand for places at Cork Worlds 2009 and our wish to allow as many institutions as possible to take part in the Championships. In addition all team places that may be allocated in the future, on the basis of teams pulling out for example, will be on a one per institution basis.

In addition applications for n-1 waivers are still be taken and applications will be accepted until August 20th by emailing adjudication@corkworlds2009.com. Furthermore if you would like to apply to be an independent/additional adjudicator at Cork Worlds 2009, again applications must be emailed to adjudication@corkworlds2009.com.

If anyone has any queries or questions please do not hesitate to contact me and I will give you every assistance possible.

Best wishes,

Mark
--
Mark Collins BCL (International) 4

Director of Registration & Communications,
29th World University Debating Championships.
Cork 2009.

T: +353 86 3738177
E: mark.collins@corkworlds2009.com
W: www.corkworlds2009.com

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Slovenia Hosts International High School Tournament

Ljutomer from above

Notice that at least one of the rounds will be in native languages or in commonly shared second languages. I like this innovation.

From Bojana Skrt:

INTERNATIONAL DEBATE WEEKEND
Ljutomer, Slovenia, 6th – 9th November 2008

ZIP, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga, Slovenia and Gimnazija Franca Miklo_i_a Ljutomer kindly invite you to our traditional annual INTERNATIONAL DEBATE WEEKEND and International High School Debate Tournament in Ljutomer.

The debate format is Worlds School Debate Format. Majority of debate rounds in English.

However, to celebrate a year of intercultural dialogue one of the debate rounds will be multi – lingual. Pairings will be done on the basis of common language - should not be English - two teams are sharing. Hopefully, there will be possible that lots of teams will be able to debate in their native language. That is why it is essential everybody when applying, including judges, lists all the languages they can communicate in. We will invite Slovenian members of European Parliament and the Ambassadors of all participating countries to come and listen to these debates.

The topic areas: inter culture dialogue; inter religious dialogue; safe school. Motions for prepared debates and for the multi – language debate will be announced the first week in September.

We expect at least 50 teams to participate at the tournament. Please, have in mind that one team means 3 debaters. Everybody who comes needs to debate all the debate rounds. In case you have an extra debater, they will be put in the mixed debate teams – the vital issue is that everybody debates all the time. Teams (3 debaters) need to be accompanied by a judge, the rule is one or two teams one judge, three teams two judges.

As we would like to host debaters from as many countries as possible, we are limiting the number of teams per country to 3. However in case there is bigger interest in your country, please, contact us and we will see what can we do about it. Because ZIP can not make a selection when more teams apply from one country, we will accept only the applications sent by national debate organisations in cases where such organisation exists. We are going to close the registration when we reach the team cup, so please do not wait and register as soon as possible.

For all guests from other European countries the arrival day is Wednesday or Thursday the 5th or the 6th, the departure day is Sunday, the 9th of November. The tournament will be held on Friday and Saturday, the 7th and the 8th of November. The participants from oversees are invited to come earlier being guests of Slovenian debaters. It is expected that the teams coming on Wednesday participate in the classrooms on Thursday morning. There will be also some sight seeing organised and the optional practice debates and introductions to Worlds School Debate Format for the ones who are not so familiar with it.

Debaters will be offered home stays by Ljutomer debaters, judges will be placed in nearby hotel. The participation fee for person (debater and judge) is 30 EUR. The payments should be made in cash on the arrivals.

All the inquiries about the tournament and registration, please, address to me at bojana.skrt@siol.net, all the questions about Ljutomer, school, home stays, travel to Liana Miholi_, the coach of the Ljutomer English Debate Club at the liana.miholic@guest.arnes.si

At the end of this message please, find enclosed the tentative schedule. The application form is in the other attachment. Please, fill the application form and send it to bojana.skrt@siol.net as soon as possible but no later than 15th of October.

Looking forward seeing you in Slovenia.

The Great Planet Debate

Sykes (left) and Tyson (right) debate the planet definition question as moderator Ira Flatow looks on (Image: David Shiga)

From http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14540-great-planet-debate-ends-in-stalemate.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn14540

Great Planet Debate ends in stalemate
11:52 15 August 2008
NewScientist.com news service
David Shiga

A lively debate over how to define planets failed to forge a common set of criteria on Thursday. Astronomers Neil deGrasse Tyson and Mark Sykes did however agree that the issue is much broader than deciding Pluto's status, with our basic perspective on the solar system in flux.

Pluto was kicked out of the planet club in August 2006, when the International Astronomical Union (IAU) redefined the term planet. Although Pluto met two requirements – it orbits the sun and is massive enough for its gravity to pull it into a round shape – it failed to meet a third stipulation that to be a planet, an object has to have cleared its neighbourhood of other objects.

Pluto's neighbourhood is swarming with other icy objects. In fact, it was the discovery that one of them, the dwarf planet Eris, previously nicknamed Xena, is bigger than Pluto that set astronomers re-examining the planet definition to begin with.

The new IAU definition set off a storm of controversy. An especially prominent critic of the decision was Alan Stern, head of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, who vowed to gather scientists to reconsider the planet question outside the auspices of the IAU.

Clash of the Titans

It has taken two years to bring to fruition, but the meeting began on Thursday at the Johns Hopkins University in Laurel, Maryland, US. Called The Great Planet Debate, the meeting began with presentations by various scientists on the properties of planets and the relative merits of different definitions.

But the most anticipated event of the meeting occurred on Thursday evening, when two scientists squared off for a debate on the planet definition question.

On one side was Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, US, who sparked controversy in 2001 by not including Pluto in a new display about the planets at the planetarium.

On the other was Sykes, a member of the Dawn mission, which is en route to the proto-planets Vesta and Ceres. He is also former head of the American Astronomical Society's Division for Planetary Sciences and a researcher at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, US.

Sykes attacked the IAU definition, complaining that it creates an absurd situation in which the same object can be a planet or not depending on where it is located. For example, though Earth is considered a planet in its current location, it would not be if placed in the Kuiper belt, which it would be unable to clear of other objects.

Under the surface

It makes more sense to use roundness alone as the distinguishing feature of a planet, Sykes said, because it groups together objects with similar properties. These objects are distinct from small asteroids and Kuiper Belt objects in that they sort their interiors into layers, with dense stuff sinking to the centre and lighter stuff floating to the top, and they are geologically active, at least early on after formation, he says.

Tyson did not advocate a specific definition, but pointed out that Pluto is just one of many objects in the Kuiper belt, and argued that the situation was much like what happened to Ceres and other asteroids discovered in the 1800s. These were initially called planets until it was discovered they were part of a huge belt of objects between Mars and Jupiter and were renamed asteroids, he says. "So what was born was a new understanding of the solar system - they didn't keep saying, let's keep adding up the planet numbers...I look at the discovery of Pluto just like the discovery of Ceres."

But Sykes contested the idea of lumping Ceres in with the asteroids, arguing that it has more in common with the official planets. "It's a round object...it's got a rocky core and an icy mantle, and is covered in clay," he said. "It may have a subsurface ocean", and if so, could host life.

Tyson did not dispute this, but argued that the whole idea of trying to group diverse objects under the single term "planet" is wrongheaded, a position he took from the beginning of the debate. "The word has no utility anymore," he said. "We've been to these places now. We know so much about them. We're in a desperate need of a new lexicon to accommodate this new knowledge."

He added that Americans are much more attached to Pluto than people elsewhere. "If you go to Europe and talk about Pluto they look at you like, 'Yeah, it's that little thing out there'. You come to America, it's 'Pluto – that's my favourite planet!'"

A new perspective

Sykes did not abandon his call for a new definition based solely on roundness, but agreed that the important issue is not Pluto's status or how many planets there are, but broadening our perspective on the solar system. "It's not a battle over which list you want to have or what numbers you want to have, but what's the basis for looking at things [from different perspectives]."

Tyson, for his part, agreed that the IAU decision left something to be desired, although for a different reason than Sykes. Tyson suggested that the IAU decision was premature. "Maybe things are still in a high level of flux," he said. "Maybe it's not time yet to declare a consensus."

But Sykes doubts the IAU is going to reconsider the decision. "Having made its bed, I think that it would feel embarrassed to say 'we messed up, we take it all back, we're going to go in a different direction'," he said.

Tyson pointed out that no one is forced to use the new definition. "We can just ignore it - there's no police that come after us."

Saturday, August 16, 2008

New "World Schools Ltd." To Have Meeting

From Claie Ryan:

Hello everyone,

As you will all (hopefully) be aware, WSDC is now incorporated as WSDC Ltd! (Yay!) So our AGMs from now on will need to be conducted in accordance with the Rules of WSDC Ltd.

It also means that nations will need to formally apply to be members of WSDC Ltd as membership of the WSDC Council is not automatically carried forward to the newly incorporated charity.

Nations which have attended at least 2 of the last 3 Championships may apply as full members, able to vote on all matters at the AGM. Nations which have not attended at least 2 of the last 3 meetings may apply as ordinary members, able to vote on everything esxcept changes to the rules and the appointment of Directors of WSDC Ltd.

Ditto for individuals - they can become full or ordinary members as well.

Our Charities maestro, James Probert, will be able to answer all and any questions about incorporation and WSDC Ltd ( I can safely say this as James is far away on the other side of the world as I write this, unable to prevent all the promises I an making on his behalf !). He'll be sending out a written document explaining it all before the AGM and will be running a briefing session about incorporation during the Championships (time to be advised) and before the AGM to answer any questions.

So, I enclose:

1. Notice of Annual Meeting of WSDC Ltd

2. Application form for full or ordinary membership (corporate).

3. Application for full or ordinary membership (individual).

If you are unsure about the application forms and want to wait until after the briefing session at Washington to complete them, that's fine, as long as we can get the applications completed, submitted and approved by the WSDC Ltd Directors prior to the AGM.

If you do have any questions, don't hesitate to ask!

And as I type.....New Zealand's FINALLY won a gold medal in the Olympics.

Kind regards

Claire Ryan

Secretary,

Executive Committee,

WSDC Ltd

Filipinos Immersed in Lively World Debate

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=128379

The Filipino debater: Engaging the world in a lively debate

By Kris Danielle Suarez
abs-cbnNEWS.com

First of two parts

It is day seven of the Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships, more popularly known as the Australs, and inside the Ateneo de Manila University's Leong Auditorium on the morning of July 9, a team from Australia's Monash University was facing off with a team from the host institution.

Miko Biscocho, a member of the local team, was speaking at the podium, defending the affirmative side in the debate about the legalization of hymen reconstruction surgery. And although the topic was given to them 30 minutes prior to the start of the debate, he spoke confidently and convincingly, as did the rest of the speakers.

His two teammates, seated at the right side of the stage, expressed their approval of his points, while the Australian team expressed their disagreement while taking notes.

The adjudicators watched intently at every gesture and listened to every word, as was the crowd – a mix of debaters from all over the Asia-Pacific region and dozens of Filipino students – watched.

The scene was replicated in several other venues within the university, which, for more than a week, played host to the world's second-largest debate tournament.

Debate is a more formal way of arguing, which basically involves two sides trying to present a “better” context or framework of a single issue. It is governed by rules that would facilitate such exchange of ideas. The outcome of a debate could be decided by audience vote, judges, or a combination of both, and is considered one of democracy's hallmarks.

In the academe, competitive debate is usually encouraged among students, and is an organized activity with teams competing at local, national, and international levels, with varying styles and rules.

Debating has brought international recognition to many Filipino students for years. As a result, it is now enjoying widespread popularity among high schools, colleges and universities across the country.

Long road

But the road towards world-class Filipino debaters was a long and hard one.

Debating has been present in Philippine universities in varying formats for years, but it was only as recently as 1990 that debates began using the current formats, derived from the British Parliamentary and Australian-Asian styles commonly used in international debate tournaments.

Raymond Aguas, Assistant Professor at the Ateneo de Manila University (AdMU) Department of Theology and among the first Filipinos to enter the world debate stage, said that many of the old debate societies and groups "pretty much disbanded" when Martial Law was declared in 1972, but the reasons for their disappearance are not clear.

As such, Aguas said, after the Marcos dictatorship was overthrown in 1986. there were no debate organizations in schools to speak of, save perhaps for a few debate groups in law schools.

Then in 1990, Aguas participated in the World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC) in Glasgow, Scotland, where he was exposed to the relatively new styles and trends.

Back in the Philippines, Aguas was approached by Ateneo students Ian Lising and Niño Achacoso, who proposed the establishment of a formal debate organization. In 1991, the Ateneo Debate Society (ADS), the first local debate group using the new Worlds-based style, was established. And soon, other schools had their own debate societies.

Initially, there was some resistance on the new style, particularly advocates of older debate styles, but eventually, advocates of the new format were able to convince other groups to adopt the style.

"I told them, 'look, we're now debating for the World Championships. We're facing Harvard, we're facing Oxford, and we're beating them,'" recounted Aguas. "The opportunity to travel, opportunity to meet international debaters, the ability to engage in constructive dialogue with people from these so-called hallowed universities like Cambridge and Oxford, that's appealing," he added.

Now widespread

Within a decade from Aguas's Worlds participation, the local debate community has grown exponentially, spreading first among big-name universities in major cities, and eventually, to almost everywhere - from Baguio in the north all the way to Davao in the south.

Claire Jiao of the University of the Philippines-Diliman's UP Debate Society (UPDS) said that the community is "much wider" unlike before, when only big Manila-based universities and colleges were active in tourneys.

"Now, people as far as Mindanao are now interested in it," Jiao said. Aside from this, she said that the level of competition is getting higher, because debaters from provincial institutions "can just as easily beat you."

Davit Jalotjot, member of the Ateneo de Davao University's Ateneo Debate Community (ADC), agreed that these days, debates aren't anymore "Manila-centric." "Manila-based schools used to dominate tourneys, but that was because they had more training, more support, more funding, and more exposure to excellent debaters from abroad. But that doesn't mean that if given the chance, non-Manila schools won't perform just as well," he said.

"It really helps that there are strong provincial teams in national tournaments, so it debunks the mindset of Manila-based adjudicators (judges) that the provincial teams are weaker," Biscocho said. He also said there is no basis for thinking that provincial teams are “weaker” because there are a lot of "strong contenders" from everywhere.

Non-Manila schools have also widened the perspective of debaters, because each debater brings a different perspective into the competition. “It's really refreshing," Jiao said.

"The ability of a team is not contingent on where they come from," Biscocho said. Rather, it depends on how a team trains and how their debate society invests time and resources in them.

The only difference between Manila-based and provincial teams, Jalotjot noted, is the "intensity" of team rivalries, as opposed to the level of competition among teams. "The rivalry [among Manila teams] is too intense," he said.

Reaching out

Some of the factors that have contributed to this growth, according to Biscocho, are the efforts of established teams from the larger universities in helping smaller, upstart teams train and practice, as well as the presence of national tournaments where everyone can send teams to participate.

Established teams such as the ADS, of which Biscocho is president, regularly conduct seminars around the country, especially in schools that are starting out and need help. Many debate teams also conduct cross-training sessions with each other.

Another factor that helped in the growth of debating, which Jiao and Biscocho both attributed to, is the exposure of formal debate in media, specifically on television. Both pointed out the ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC) show Square Off, where teams from different colleges and universities argue in front of millions of viewers. (ANC and abs-cbnNEWS.com are both part of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp.)

This development, meanwhile, also helped in changing the image of debating in the eyes of the public.

When debating was relatively far from the public eye, Jiao said they usually used "big" and highly technical words in their discussions, but when debate eventually became exposed to more people, this style initially turned a lot of people off.

"You realized that you are not debating with your colleagues anymore. You are debating for the public... you're not just arguing for yourself or for your opponent. You're arguing for the public," she said.

"A debater's first responsibility now is to engage the audience," she added.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Publicity Nightmare for USA Policy Debate

They say that no publicity is bad publicity, but I am not sure that is true. An event from last March is now rising to the surface of the global media, and I am not sure it is a good thing.

Two policy debate coaches had a row after the quarterfinal round at the CEDA National Debate Tournament. There was shouting, profanity and finally one coach dropped his pants to the room (although the underwear stayed up). The event was videotaped and then recently posted on YouTube in a move by those who posted it to do damage to those involved, or so I am told by trusted sources.

Here are some points to remember about this story:

Many of the reports are highly inaccurate and downright wrong, so be careful reading
The video leaves out the context of the situation and how it developed
Many of the stories are using the event to promote their own agenda, whatever it is: racial, anti-intellectual, voyeour, anti-debate, anti-youth, anti-university, etc.
The two people most involved, I am told, have made up and moved on

It has gone viral. When I woke up this morning there were 282 stories. An hour later there were 288 stories. Ten minutes later 290 stories. Many of the stories are by the AP's Maria Sudekum Fisher. And so it goes.

Both universities are now investigating the situation. I will report on that when it comes down.

I am not going to try and fill in details or take sides or make judgments. There is too much of that already. What I want to report on is the emerging media storm and how it influences debate, especially in the United States.

If you want to see all the sources, go to
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1236737470&hl=en&scoring=d

Now the count is 291 stories.

Bermuda World Schools Team Ready to Represent

Team Bermuda: Catherine Campbell, Nikki-Lynn Marshall and Michelle Kelly, with Blake Sonnenfeld in the middle at the front. The three girls are hoping to make the Island proud when they compete alongside Jacari Brimmer Landy and Nicholas Rinehimer in the Debating Championships in Washington D.C. next month.

As the September 2008 WSDC in Washington nears, we will feature stories like this as teams prepare to depart.

From http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?articleId=7d886af3003000b&sectionId=60

Article published August 13. 2008 11:43AM
No debate, here is Bermuda's school team for world championships

By Nadia Arandjelovic
Five local students will head to the United States capital next month to compete in an international debating competition.

Students Nikki Lynn Marshall, Michelle Kelly, Jacari Brimmer Landy, Catherine Campbell and Nicholas Rinehimer make up this year's Bermuda Debate Team and will be going to Washington D.C. for the World Schools Debating Championships.

The group will be up against 45 different countries from Argentina to Zimbabwe and will debate a handful of social, moral and political issues, explained team coach Christianna Hiles.

The team has been training regularly for the past few months, sometimes two to three times a week, in order to prepare arguments for the known debate topics.

The most challenging part of the competition, however, will come later on when the debaters are given impromptu topics.

The teams will be left in a room with a dictionary and an almanac and have only an hour to prepare their case.

"This is part of the real challenge and the best way for students to really test themselves," explained Ms Hiles, who is joined by veteran debate coach Gladstone Thompson.

Apart from the obvious challenges involved, debater Nikki-Lynn Marshall, 16, is looking forward to the experience.

"I am looking forward to meeting everybody from the other countries and learning something new," she said, "because basically we all get the same topics but it's interesting to see how each team interprets them differently."

Miss Marshall said the Bermuda team was known for being nice, however, shouldn't be underestimated in the competition.

"Team Bermuda is really known for being a really nice team, but we really go because we want to put Bermuda on the map," she said.

"Most of these people at these competitions have never heard about Bermuda and it's nice to tell them a little bit about us and let them know that we are good debaters."

Miss Marshall has been competing with the Bermuda Debate Team for a year and a half, but admits she has competed with Bermuda High School and Consumer Affairs since she was eight years old.

"I first started debating when my school picked me for a competition and ever since then I've still always debated," she said.

"It broadens my knowledge, helps me learn new things, helps me with public speaking and it's going to help get me into a good college," she said.

Miss Marshall, an aspiring lawyer, believes debating will also help her in a future career and told The Royal Gazette: "I really enjoy arguing and public speaking and persuading people to see my point of view and I really see myself in this profession."

The debaters, sponsored by the National Debate Society, will be in Washington D.C. from September 5-15. Supporters can track their progress on the Debate Society's website.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Former Debater Involved in Republican "Bounty Hunt"

Judd Legum was a very successful debater at Claremont and was a faculty member at the World Debate Institute. This story mentions that he was Hillary Clinton's research director and has now taken on a new task.

From Forbes.com:

Judd Legum is the research director at the Center for American Progress and the editor of ThinkProgress.org, a progressive political blog. He frequently writes for other media, including The Nation and Salon, or appears as a guest on programs ranging from CNN to the BBC.

Debate can create interesting career paths.

From http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Accountable_America_takes_aim_at_conservative_0808.html

August 8, 2008, 9:09 AM
Group Touts Reward Against G.O.P. Donors to Independent Efforts
By MICHAEL LUO
A new Democratic-leaning group that is looking to intimidate potential donors to conservative 527 groups and other independent efforts is offering a $100,000 reward for information that leads to the legal takedown of one of the groups.

The newly formed group, Accountable America, is planning to send “warning” letters to nearly 10,000 major Republican donors next week listing the potential legal and publicity headaches they might face if they decide to finance one of these groups.

The mailings will also include an announcement of a $100,000 reward for anyone who provides information that leads to the criminal conviction or fines of at least $10,000 for the violation of campaign finance laws or other statutes by a conservative outside group.

The reward is emblematic of the strong-arm tactics envisioned by Tom Matzzie, a veteran liberal political operative who is running the new group.

Accountable America is planning to disseminate through its Web site, media outlets and potentially on television information about major conservative donors, with the goal of intimidating others considering giving to such groups to stay on the sidelines.

Mr. Matzzie is being aided in his efforts by Judd Legum, who was the research director for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.

It remains to be seen whether the unusual new group, focusing on donors, will be able to get off the ground, considering the struggles many groups on the left have been having raising money, in part because of disapproving signals being given from Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign for outside efforts.

"Verbattle" Waged in India

From http://www.verbattle.com/verbattle.html

Verbattle is the first-ever State Level English School Debate Tournament.

Verbattle is organized in three zones namely

North Zone – Hubli
West Zone – Mangalore
Central Zone – Bangalore
respectively.
Hundreds of teams are expected to participate. A team consists of two students.

An entry fee of Rs. 500/- is charged per team. The amount shall be paid vide DD drawn in favor of Verbattle, payable at Bangalore .

Entry of teams only through the schools.

The participants will meet two conditions. They should be studying in a class from 7th to 10th and should be in the age group of 12 to 16 years.

State level preliminary with a total of 81 teams selected from the 3 zones, and all the other final stages will be held in Bangalore .

Cash Prize of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus a lot of other useful prizes for the winning team.

Two finalists cash prize of Rs. 10,000/- each and other prizes.

The event will be telecast on Udaya News Channel. The show will be capsuled in a highly viewer friendly manner and will be shown on Sunday mornings at 9 am for half to one hour over the period of conduct of the tournament.

The main organizer is T V House, experienced in producing TV shows and entertainment events.

Deepak Thimaya, eminent TV host, is the chief consultant and chief resource person.

The tournament will involve many eminent personalities in different capacities as advisors, patrons, and friends of the event.

Finals will be held in Bangalore either in Kanteerava Indoor Stadium or the Palace Grounds.

The grand final will see the best three teams competing against one another for the grand prize.

Verbattle aims to popularize debating among students, promote free speech and become a platform for excellence in debating. Verbattle believes that debate is not ‘shouting match'.

Participants may win more points if they:
speak relevantly with either acceptable or refutable substantiated points
are not be vicious and vile
present arguments in coordination and in synchrony between the teammates in the team by demonstration of extreme fairness, justice, decency and the highest standard of human evolution
have a sense of time and understand the timing of the argument. (Those who speak in between would be disqualified.)

The speakers should express themselves:
in a coherent manner
without elaborate or dramatic gestures
without grammatical mistakes
without slurring or tripping on words

Desired qualities in a debater - The debaters should be:
confident
self assured
well read
open minded
sensitive
sensible
affable
accommodative
intelligent
quick thinking

The official web site contains most of the details pertaining to the event.

The aims of Verbattle:

Verbattle encourages young minds to think freely, process thoughts aptly, convert them into simple language and present arguments logically; with clarity in speech, a highly acceptable accent, audible voice and corresponding gestures.

Verbattle has the patronage of writers, philosophers, politicians and experts in governance and public issues.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

National Public Policy Forum Contest Goes International!

2008 winners with first place prize

See the brochure at http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/CARTER6659_NPPF.PDF

From Kit Sawers:

Calling all international debate coaches!

For the first time ever, the Bickel & Brewer/New York University National Public Policy Forum (NPPF) is inviting schools from around the world to join its competition. Founded in 2001 by the Bickel & Brewer law firm, the NPPF is the only contest in the United States that gives high school students the opportunity to participate in written and oral debates on issues of public policy.

Jointly administered by the Bickel & Brewer Foundation and New York University, the NPPF has grown exponentially since its inception. Thousands of high school students participate each year, competing for more than $30,000 in awards and scholarships, an all-expense-paid trip to New York City and the “Bickel & Brewer Cup.” The grand prize is $10,000.

Please see the attached flier for details. If you’d like more information, visit the NPPF online at www.nppf.net.

Jerry Falwell's Debate Investment

From http://www.forbes.com/books/2008/08/06/falwell-liberty-mccool-oped-books-cz_ds_0807falwell.html

Book Excerpt
Immaculate Inflection
Dirk Smillie 08.07.08, 10:00 AM ET

The fourth of five excerpts from Falwell Inc. Inside a Religious, Political, Educational and Business Empire by Dirk Smillie ($26, St. Martin's Press, 2008).

On a Saturday afternoon in a classroom at West Point, the elite military academy overlooking New York's Hudson River, Chase McCool, a 22-year-old senior at Liberty, is on a verbal rampage. His opponents are two young men with crew-cuts and garbed in black dress uniforms, the lapels of which are festooned with gold ships' anchors. They are students at the U.S. Naval Academy.

McCool, wearing a blue striped shirt and peach tie, is bobbing his head and stomping his foot on the floor as he sputters forth like a verbal Gatling gun. He is not having a seizure. McCool is firing a counterattack in a round of policy debate. At the precise moment he ends, electronic beepers go off around the classroom. Now it's time for the other team's "cross-x," an equally unintelligible blast of verbiage attempting to take down McCool's arguments.

Policy debate is not remotely similar to the give-and-takes of Presidential debates. It is evidence driven, formulaic and technical. The more arguments you can squeeze into your allotted time the more points your opponent is forced to address. But the exchanges resemble what speed reading would sound like if it were audible--underwater. It is reminiscent of Pentacostals' speaking in tongues. On his last cross-x, McCool averages 9 words per second, or 540 words per minute.

McCool and his partner, Garrett Halydier, are members of Liberty's elite varsity squad. They are making the "affirmative" argument for military intervention in Iran. The debate consists of four constructive speeches, each followed by a cross-examination, then four rebuttals. The two teams will spend 72 minutes speaking and 10 minutes preparing to speak. Prior to the tournament they will have spent days working on "evidence assignments" issued by their debate advisors, digging up bullet proof arguments to defend their fusillades of logic.

The tournament is in Thayer Hall, its gray stone walls conjuring the look of a medieval fortress. Most universities in the debate circuit offer plaques and trophies as prizes--West Point is the only school to award its winner a weapon. It sits in a display case in the building's rotunda. The prize is a gold and silver cadet sword; it's surrounded by the military academy's parade hats. Novice and junior varsity winners are awarded the "tar buckets," as the hats are known. The winner of the varsity level debate takes the saber home.

When the Naval Academy team arrives they barricade themselves on one side of their classroom behind a column of 10-gallon plastic tubs packed with files of research. Then they place a laptop on top of their plastic podium. Halydier chooses a less defensive position, setting up a metal reading stand, the kind you see in an orchestra pit, in the middle of the room and facing his audience. There are exactly three people in attendance: a middle-aged couple from Iowa--McCool's parents--and the tournament's judge, Heather Barnes.

Petite and amber-haired, Barnes is the former debate coach for a team Liberty has long feared: the University of Mary Washington. Its string of championship seasons rival Liberty's. It doesn't help that Barnes is an atheist who does not believe in Christian education. "You couldn't pay me to attend a Christian college," she says. As she watches the debate unfold, Barnes is impossible to read. She takes indecipherable notes on the right hand columns of her scoring sheets, ranking the effectiveness of combatants' verbal thrusts and parries.

The number-two man on the Navy team seems to falter on the second round. His face is flushed as he leans awkwardly into his laptop screen, draping his right leg behind his left as if in a frozen curtsey. Twice he is prompted by his partner to cut his counterpoints short. At the end of the round, he realizes he failed to defend himself against one of McCool's final attacks. "Dammit," he says under his breath.

Barnes stares at the Naval team, as if to say, "Boy, that was stupid." Halydier begins his counterpoint at muzzle velocity, hitting 460 words per minute. His delivery seems flawless; Halydier finishes by running down a list of biohazards renegade nations like Iran can obtain if they are not thwarted.

The debate over, Barnes prepares to render judgment. "Alright." She turns to the Navy team, launching a verbal fusillade of her own. "You totally sucked on the steel DA. You had some of the worst externals I've ever heard," she says. The "steel DA" was the Navy's argument that Liberty's plan to stop weapons proliferation would disadvantage the U.S. steel industry. The "externals" were the chain of events they predicted would happen as a result of the Liberty plan. The Navy team contended that oil prices keep Middle East economies thriving, allowing them to buy steel. A military strike, which McCool suggested, would be bad for U.S. hegemony because an economic hit to Middle East economies would diminish sales of U.S. military wares, thereby hurting the U.S. economy.

Barnes criticized the Navy team's "cards," the term for research documents, and said they had left some of Liberty's points entirely unaddressed. "You can't let 'em get away with that. That was ridiculous." She continued to dress down the Navy team, slamming them on point after point. When she is done, it's Liberty's turn.

Glaring at McCool and Halydier, she draws a long sigh. "You guys were seriously shallow on the line by line. You should have done a better job taking apart their impact terms. Your counter on steel sucked," she said, drumming her unpolished nails on the table. "You're arguments on steel were not strategic. Plus, you made the claim without the warrant. I was like, WTF?" McCool's eyes bugged out as he stared into space. Barnes seemed disgusted by both teams. Even so, she would have to choose. "I'm going to give it to the aff," she says. The "aff" was Liberty's affirmative position. Liberty had won.

The Falwells spend $14 million annually on Liberty's football squad and its 18 NCAA-level sports teams. The debate team--its unofficial, 19th athletic program--costs a mere $500,000 a year. It's probably the best return on capital Falwell ever invested. The team has ranked first in the nation for two years in a row, 2006-07, beating out Harvard, Princeton and Yale and bringing it heaps of praise from its peers.

Debate team members are the Jedi of Liberty; elite warriors who are seldom seen but constantly talked about. They are semi-celebrities, allowed to miss (but must make up) tests if they happen to be on the road, which is often. Team members are required to maintain a 3.0 GPA. They embark on 1,000-mile bus trips, double up in Holiday Inns, work until the late hours of the night and come back to face finals in other classes.

Falwell was never shy in describing the purpose of his debaters. It is to open another front in the war on secular culture with ground troops who are articulate and verbally superior. Its graduates, he believed, would win arguments and deliver the Christian worldview in city, state and federal courthouses--and some day sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Presidential Debates Fail to Meet Definition

From http://presidentialdebateblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/first-things-first.html

Sunday, August 10, 2008
First Things First -- A Guest Post by Professor Brian McGee
The following guest post is by Brian McGee, an associate professor and chair of the Department of Communication at the College of Charleston in South Carolina. He is the immediate past editor of Contemporary Argumentation and Debate.

Before becoming too deeply engaged in the number, format, length, and moderator selections for the coming McCain-Obama debates, I propose we begin by asking a question posed regularly ever since the first televised presidential debates in 1960: Will the 2008 presidential debates be debates at all?

This is, as scholars know, a serious question. For years, the televised presidential debates have been described as "counterfeit debates" or mere "joint appearances" by the presidential candidates. For such critics, joint appearances might provide useful information to prospective voters and other interested observers, but they are not debates in the usual and ideal sense of the term.

For over a century, those of us involved in interscholastic and intercollegiate debate generally have agreed that useful school debates involving two persons require a clear statement of the question being debated, a clear format providing equal time for both debaters to address the topic, and the commitment of both debaters to answer arguments posed by the other side, as those arguments are relevant to the topic. This last requirement, that debaters answer arguments, is described as a "clash of ideas."

Political debates, from Lincoln and Douglas to the present, have rarely involved a stated topic or question, though some have addressed a general topic area. As a result, political debates frequently meander from one topic to another. So, we have one strike against presidential debates as debates.

More positively, the televised presidential debates have used carefully negotiated formats with an express commitment to equal time for those candidates. However, those formats frequently have placed moderators in charge of topic selection and have prevented the candidates from provided detailed or lengthy explanations for the arguments they advance. So, while the call is harder to make on this point, we have strike two.

Answering the arguments posed by the opposing debater-the requirement for clash-is the area in which presidential debates might be most deficient. The presidential candidates increasingly have preferred in recent years to spend most of their time in advancing their own positions, with relatively little recognition of opposing points of view. So, with a few exceptions, there has been a general decline in argument rebuttal from the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960 to the Bush-Kerry debates in 2004. With journalists, commentators, and lay publics more often commenting on candidate affect, attire, and pre-planned one-liners than the responses to opposing arguments, little wonder that clash has declined noticeably over time in presidential debates.

Hence, strike three, to continue the baseball metaphor. The most inept high school sophomores in their first debate tournament are more likely to produce something resembling a debate than will Senators Obama and McCain. With no single debate topic or question, a format apt to produce superficial argumentation, and an inconsistent or nonexistent clash of ideas, the 2008 presidential debates will at best be very, very bad debates and, in my opinion, are not "debates" at all. We should call them debates only as a convenience.

Benjamin Mays - Civil Rights Leader & Debate Coach

From http://tycla.blogspot.com/2008/08/black-history-spotlight-dr-benjamin-e.html

Dr. Benjamin E. Mays (1894-1984) was a teacher, preacher and one of the most outspoken critics of segregation prior to the modern CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

Born in Epworth, South Carolina, on August 1, 1894, Mays was the youngest of eight to former slaves. His childhood played an important role in shaping who he would become, and one of his earliest memories included a white mob approaching his family’s home on horseback forcing his father to remove his hat and bow repeatedly. The atmosphere of hate and segregation that plagued the country at that time became the defining period of his life. It was then that he realized he wanted something better for his life and for others around him.

He left Epworth to attend high school at South Carolina State College, the only state funded, historically black land-grant institution in South Carolina. In 1916, he graduated as valedictorian and continued his education at Bates College, a highly selective, private liberal arts college in Lewiston, Maine, that was founded by abolitionists. Mays graduated PHI BETA KAPPA in 1920, and continued his education with a master’s degree in 1925 and a Ph.D. in 1935 from the University of Chicago.

In 1922, Mays was ordained a Baptist minister and served as pastor of the Shiloh Baptist Church of Atlanta from 1921–1923. Recruited by Morehouse President JOHN HOPE, Mays joined the faculty as a mathematics teacher and debate coach. He later taught at his alma mater, South Carolina State, where he met his future wife, Sadie Gray, a teacher and social worker. They were married for forty-three years, from 1926 until her death in 1969.

Mays was appointed dean of the School of Religion at Howard University in 1934 and served until he was named president of Morehouse in 1940. During his presidency, Morehouse gained international prominence: Mays upgraded the faculty, established a Phi Beta Kappa chapter and sustained enrollment during wartime America. His most noted forum was Tuesday morning Chapel in historic Sale Hall, where he challenged and inspired the students to excellence in scholarship and in life itself. One of Morehouse’s most distinguished graduates, DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. ‘48, considered Dr. Mays his “spiritual mentor” and “intellectual father”. Mays gave the eulogy at King’s funeral.

Throughout his life, Mays emphasized two themes: the dignity of all human beings and the gap between American democratic ideals and American social practices. These became key elements of the Civil Rights Movement and Mays explored them at length in his book, Seeking to Be a Christian in Race Relations, published in 1957.

Following his retirement ten years later, Mays was elected the first black president of the Atlanta Public Schools Board of Education, where he supervised the peaceful desegregation of Atlanta’s public schools. One of Atlanta’s public high schools was named in his honor: BENJAMIN E. MAYS HIGH SCHOOL boasts a rich, rigorous curriculum that exposes students to current technology and trends. Mays also served as an adviser to Presidents Johnson and Carter and was active in the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), the Advisory Council of the Peace Corps, and the National Commission for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.

Throughout his educational career, Mays received 56 honorary degrees and more than 65 honors and awards from state, national and international organizations. He published nearly 2000 articles and nine books, including two autobiographies, Born to Rebel (1971) and Lord, the People Have Driven Me On (1981).

In 1981, his childhood home in Epworth was honored and a nearby intersection was renamed Mays Crossroads. Mays had been honored the year before becoming the second African American to have his portrait hung in the South Carolina State House.

Called the “Schoolmaster of the [Civil Rights] Movement” by historian LERONE BENNETT JR., Mays shaped many proud, black men, some of whom played key roles in the movement. JULIAN BOND remarked that “He was the embodiment of everything we wanted to be, and even though we knew we could never achieve his greatness, we strove to be like him. I revered him.”

On March 28, 1984, Dr. Mays died and was entombed on the campus of Morehouse College.

More Kudos for Fran Berger

From http://www.miamiherald.com/456/story/634421.html

Last week, South Florida lost a largely unknown, but unforgettable, hero. Her name was Francine Berger, but to the students whose lives she touched, she was simply ''Coach.'' For three decades, Berger was speech and debate coach at Miami Palmetto Senior High School.

Her students won numerous team and individual national debating championships. She was colorful and controversial, mercurial and madcap -- but, above all, Berger was dedicated to her students more than perhaps any teacher we have ever known. She constantly traveled across the country to attend her students' debate competitions; she insisted that the whole squad fund-raise to support those members who otherwise could not afford travel costs; and she spent early mornings and late nights dispensing advice and stories aboard countless Greyhound buses and airplanes.

Her legacy, apart from from her beloved family, is the legion of successful minds that she helped shape. That fraternity includes Ivy League professors, business executives, Supreme Court clerks, physicians, government officials, teachers, attorneys, dedicated parents and many others. For us, her former students, there are few associations in our lives that evoke greater fondness and pride than the label of ''Palmetto Debater.'' Much of the credit belongs to Berger -- and she will never be forgotten.

RICHARD ROSENTHAL, STEPHEN ROSENTHAL and 12 others, Miami

Monday, August 11, 2008

Meet the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association

Information from http://www.ncfca.org/

The National Christian Forensics and Communications Association (NCFCA) believes that formal speech and debate can provide a means for home schooled students to learn and exercise analytical and oratorical skills, addressing life issues from a Biblical world view in a manner that glorifies God. To provide these opportunities to home schooled students, NCFCA shall facilitate qualifying tournaments throughout the country and the annual national tournament.

2008-09 Debate Resolutions
Official Wording Released!

Team Policy Debate
Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly change its policy toward India.

Lincoln Douglas Debate
Resolved: When in conflict, idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism.

NCFCA Vision of Forensics revised October 2006

NCFCA seeks to carefully maintain the unique vision of home school forensics first advocated by the Home School Legal Defense Association when it launched home school debate in 1997. As stated in the NCFCA mission, the ultimate purpose of NCFCA forensics is to provide a means for home schooled students to learn and exercise analytical and oratorical skills, addressing life issues from a Biblical worldview in a manner that glorifies God. Rather than pursuing competitive forensics as an end unto itself, NCFCA encourages students to pursue forensics as a means to learn the skills necessary to effectively communicate truth to the world.

In order to accomplish and protect this vital mission, NCFCA has intentionally adopted a philosophy of forensics designed to encourage students to learn the skills necessary to be effective witnesses for Christ. While others may pursue speech and debate for the sport, NCFCA aims to use forensics to teach life skills. For this reason, NCFCA supports a real-world, conversational style of speech and debate and advocates the use of content and strategy that ultimately upholds a biblical worldview.

For a more detailed explanation of NCFCA's approach to the forensic activity, see the NCFCA
Philosophy of Forensics [coming soon].

Careful attention must be given to the judging of academic forensics in order to preserve the style upon which the league was founded. A number of leagues have started with good intentions, only to find that a short time later, the forensic activity has become a strategy-centered activity focused on persuading experts rather than on training real-world communicators. In order to avoid this familiar path, NCFCA intentionally seeks to broaden its judging pool to include not only forensics experts, but also those with no previous experience or training in forensics.

The diverse NCFCA judging pool includes experienced judges (both those with NCFCA experience and those from other leagues), lay judges, affiliated judges (e.g., parents and coaches), community judges, and judges with worldviews which are both similar to and different from those of NCFCA competitors. Each type of judge adds something unique and important to the judging pool. Experienced judges give the benefit of their knowledge to competitors. Lay judges give competitors the chance to persuade the type of audiences they are most likely to meet outside the competition round—those with no formal training in forensics.

The benefits of a broad judging pool are further explained in the NCFCA Judge Philosophy.

There are three purposes of NCFCA judge orientations, and each purpose corresponds to the judge's forensics experience. In an orientation, judges with NCFCA experience should receive updated information and clarification. Judges with other experience should be shown the unique aspects of the league. Judges with no previous experience need to be empowered to feel comfortable judging.

Because forensics itself is based upon basic theories of human nature and common-sense logic, NCFCA views the average adult as already possessing the skills necessary to judge a round of NCFCA competition. NCFCA discourages efforts to use the orientation time to train lay judges into experts and instead encourages a method of judge orientation that helps lay judges to feel comfortable relying on their intuitive decision-making abilities to adjudicate rounds according to NCFCA rules.

For a further explanation of NCFCA's model for Judge Orientations, see the NCFCA Judge
Orientation Philosophy [coming soon]. For helpful tools that can be used in your next Judge
Orientation, see NCFCA Judge Orientation Tools [coming soon].

Olympics of Oratory Coming Soon

From http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2008/08/c2737.html

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, Calif., Aug. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- It is
the World Cup of public speaking, the Olympics of oratory. On Saturday
morning, August 16, 10 articulate Toastmasters will vie for the title of World
Champion of Public Speaking at the TELUS Convention Centre in Calgary, Alberta
Canada. The speech contest is one of the highlights of Toastmasters' annual
International Convention (Aug. 13-16), which is expected to draw nearly 1,500
Toastmasters from all over the world.

Each year more than 10,000 members of Toastmasters International compete
in this speech contest. The competition begins at the club level with winners
advancing to area and regional contests, and it culminates each August during
the International Convention where 10 finalists contend for the top honor.

The contest speeches are five to seven minutes long, with no restrictions
on topic selection. Contestants will be judged on content, speech
organization, voice quality, gestures and delivery. Martin Presse, a systems
analyst from Wetaskiwin, Manitoba, will be one of the contestants.

Last year's World Champion of Public Speaking title went to Vikas
Jhingran, an MIT doctoral student from India. Jhingran will be one of the
presenters at the educational sessions following the contest.

Through its worldwide network of clubs, Toastmasters International has
helped more than four million people develop their public speaking skills
since the organization's humble beginning in Santa Ana, Calif., in 1924. This
year, Toastmasters International celebrates its 84th anniversary with more
than 230,000 members and 11,700 clubs in 92 countries, including 68 clubs in
Calgary alone.

For more information about Toastmasters International and the World
Championship of Public Speaking, visit www.toastmasters.org or email
sfrey@toastmasters.org.

For further information: Suzanne Frey of Toastmasters International,
+1-949-246-4237, +1-403-717-1237, sfrey@toastmasters.org

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Qatar Debate Looks to Staff Upcoming Workshops

From Alex Just:

QATARDEBATE – COACHING OPPORTUNITIES IN QATAR

BACKGROUND

QatarDebate is the National Debating Organisation for Qatar and a
member of the Qatar Foundation. QatarDebate was established in
September 2007 with the aim of developing, supporting and raising the
standard of open discussion and debate among students in Qatar and
across the Middle East, shaping the Global Citizens of today and the
intellectual leaders of tomorrow. The programme is overseen by an
Executive Director, Dr. Hayat Maarafi, and run by a Program Manager,
Mr. Alex Just.

In its first year, QatarDebate has run workshops on debate for over
1500 students and faculty at over 30 different educational
institutions across Qatar, within Education City and beyond.
QatarDebate administered the first ever Qatar-wide debate league
between schools and universities from February 2008, and ran National
Schools and National Universities debating competitions attended by
over 400 students in March 2008.

For more details about QatarDebate please refer to our website at
www.qatardebate.org

UPCOMING OPPORTUNITIES

Over the course of the next academic year QatarDebate is seeking to
employ on a contract basis world-class debate trainers to help coach
debate in schools and universities across Qatar. Although the
QatarDebate format is a modified version of the World Schools/Australs
format anyone with debate coaching experience may apply.

We are now recruiting trainers for the following sessions:

* Workshop 1: 20th – 29th September 2008 6 Coaches Deadline: 1st
September 2008

* Workshop 2: 6th – 14th December 2008 6 Coaches Deadline: 1st
November 2008

* Workshop 3: 7th – 17th January 2009 6 Coaches Deadline: 1st
November 2008

*** Please note that except in exceptional circumstances you must be
available for the full duration of the workshop period ***

We promise to provide a unique experience for all our trainers who
will receive the following for assisting with our coaching programme:

* Economy Flights from your home country to Doha

* Accommodation in a 5-Star Hotel in Doha, with all food and internal
travel expenses covered

* USD$200 per coaching day (engagements will be between 7 and 10 days)

* A free trip to the spectacular Qatari desert and a chance to go
camel riding!

HOW TO APPLY

If you are interested in applying to become a QatarDebate trainer
please send your competitive debate/coaching CV and the workshops you
are available to coach at to hr [at] qatardebate.org by the deadlines
outlined above.

We will only be contacting successful applicants within 10 days of the
application deadline, though our HR Department will hold your CV on
file and we may invite you to work at QatarDebate workshops in the future.

If you have any further queries about QatarDebate please contact Alex
Just at alex [at] qatardebate.org

Huge Debate Mobilization in Philippines

You see the news all over the web about tournaments, clubs and lots of young people excited about debating activities in the Philippines. Here is an example of one longer blog piece, documenting just one debating workshop.

From http://ofservicetotheyouth.blogspot.com/2008/08/bannuar-of-service-to-youth.html

14th Annual Bannuar Debate Seminar

This year’s debate seminar was held at the Pyramid of Asia Resort, Manaoag , Pangasinan on July 26-27,2008 with the theme “Redefining Passion, Challenging Solutions”.

The event was participated in by 271 high schools students and advisers coming from the nine different high schools in Regions 1 and CAR, both private and public. The following are the schools which attended the seminar: Mariano Marcos State University Laboratory High School Laoag City Campus, Mariano Marcos State University Laboratory High School Batac Campus, Philippine Science High School- Ilocos Region Campus, Regional Science High School for Region 1, University of Baguio Science High School, Pangasinan National High School, Calasiao Comprehensive National High School, Lorma Colleges Special Science High School and Monticello International College.

Registration of participants started at 7 o’clock a.m. of July 26, with MMSU Laoag City Campus being the first delegation to arrive at the venue. The registration team was headed by Shiela May Sabalburo and Malorie Joy Mones of the Finance Committee. The opening program started at 10:30 a.m. which is obviously late as to what was stated in the programme. Bannuar members presented an ethnic dance and led the singing of the national anthem choreographed by Shayne Klarisse Eclarin. UP Bannuar Chairperson Anthony Luigi de Vera delivered his opening remarks while two representatives coming from the local government of Manaoag welcomed the participants. The event’s teasers, house rules as well as the introduction of the Bannuar members and the speakers were presented to the delegates using AVPs created by the technicals committee headed by Jose Benigno Aquino. The over-all flow of the opening program was supervised by the Programs Committee headed by Vienna Grace Santos with Elfermin Mallari Jr. and Malorie Joy Mones as the masters of the ceremony.

Right after the Opening Program, Vice Chairperson for Debate, Maria Lorraine Bugayong briefed the delegates as to how the parallel sessions will be conducted. Three venues were used for separate lectures on Asian Parliamentary format, British Parliamentary Format and Oregon-Oxford Format of Debate. Mr. Raymond Vittorio and Mr. Christian Villa from the UP Debate Society handled the lectures on BP and AsPar respectively while Mr. de Vera and Mr. Mallari of UP Bannuar handled the Oregon-Oxford. In a separate venue, Professor Ramona Flores , founding Chairperson of the UP Debate Society from the Speech Communications department conducted a training for the advisers on how to train student debaters in preparation for the debate tournament. The sessions lasted for an hour. At 12:45 pm, lunch was served and the participants were given an hour to relax.

The activity resumed at 2:00 pm with a plenary session on adjudication handled by Professor Flores, this time with the student participants. This was followed by the first module of the Leaders’ Forum on Youth Lifestyle handled by Ms. Emie lee Albano from the UNFPA. An open forum was initiated after the lecture and after which, a focused group discussion was conducted per group with Bannuar members as moderators. Students were tasked to present something creative out of this discussion and were asked to write a position paper for their group pertaining to any issue on youth lifestyle. Sessions were dismissed at 6:30 pm and dinner was served at the function hall.

The whole evening of July 26 starting at 8:30 pm was devoted to the social night and acquaintance party of the student participants. In this part of the training, the students presented their creative outputs from their focused group discussion. Their outputs served as entertainment to their fellow delegates while presenting their own stand on their chosen topic. The line-up of activities for the 1st day ended with a pool party which came after the presentations and intermission numbers from the students and Bannuar members.

The 2nd day of the seminar was opened at 7:30 am. Breakfast was served and after which team match-ups were posted at the bulletin boards in preparation for the mock debates. Students were teamed-up with students from other schools during this part of the seminar. The matches in the different formats were handled by the speakers from the UP debate society, Prof. Flores and Bannuar members.

Right after the Break at 10:30 am, plenary sessions for the leaders’ forum continued which started off with the lecture of Pastor VJ Bote on the Foundations of Leadership followed by Hon. Kris Ablan who discussed about the Youth Participation on Governance. The morning sessions ended at 1:00 pm with the lunch served at the function hall. Simultaneous with the lectures, the Technical Committee prepared the certificates of the speakers and the participating schools.

At 2:00 pm, Mr. Michael Lopez clearly expounded the seminar’s theme with his anecdote as a student leader and his experiences as the Commissioner of the NYC. After his talk, an open forum was initiated where students were able to ask questions regarding the theme and Mr. Lopez’ life as a youth leader. After the forum, the presentation of the position papers of the groups followed with Ms. Albano observing. The groups’ outputs were collected by Ms. Albano and according to her, will then be forwarded to the UNFPA for documentation.

Unfortunately, there was no closing program after the forum. This is mainly because schools decided to go home right after the forum, some even left while the sessions were still on-going due to the bad weather condition. As a result, schools did not get their certificates which are in the first place, delayed.

Bannuar members commenced the said event with bonding activities and short pre-evaluation of what transpired during the seminar. The whole staff left the venue at 6 a.m. on the following day and arrived in Manila at 9 a.m.

Last Day at Japan Debate Association Conference

Our correspondent Steve Llano reports:

From http://progymna.blogspot.com/2008/08/jda-final-day.html

Saturday, August 09, 2008

JDA Final Day

Yesterday was great - saw a very interesting lecture from David Hingstman on the history of forensics in the law in which he called the current confusion around forensic education (debate and speech) and forensic science a good thing, and something worth preserving a bit of uncertainty about. Especially within the context of a lay-jury system. It was well presented and thoughtful, and the resulting discussion was also interesting.

I attended a panel on pragma-dialectics which I found very enlightening and educational. Normally when I go to panels at conventions I am dissapointed. Not because anyone did a bad job or anything, but mainly because I feel like I didn't learn anything; that the papers were a rehearsal of comfortable norms in the field we all learned in graduate school, and I expected something more controversial I suppose.

Well in this panel I think it must have been a mix of the interesting subject matter - a paper on the rhetorical strategy of one-issue parties in parliamentary procedure, a paper on the reasonableness of Praeteritio statements, and one on the argumentative value of ridicule - and a mix of my rather amateur knowledge of pragmadialectical argumentation theory. I feel like I improved my understanding a great deal and I am interested in looking up some of the great sources provided on the handouts by the presenters.

My presentation is at 10AM and I hope it goes well. I have made some changes to my paper so I'll be delivering my talk from my laptop for the first time. I hope there are no technical issues! It isn't a powerpoint dependent talk (I never give those) but it is putting my life in the hands of Microsoft and for that I am usually quite sorry more often than not.

Tomorrow we leave Japan, and it's sort of sad but also sort of nice to head home. I've been travelling for about a month now, and some time to go nowhere, read and prepare for the upcoming academic year sounds perfect. I will miss Japan - this is a wonderful country with amazing things to do and awesome people - but this just ensures that I will return as soon as I can!

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Fran Berger - Dedicated Debate Legend Called "Unforgettable Hero"

From http://www.miamiherald.com/512/story/631911.html

Posted on Thu, Aug. 07, 2008
Dedicated debate legend was an `unforgettable hero'

BY ELINOR J. BRECHER
Amy Chafetz tells this story about her mother, local-legend debate coach and National Forensic League Hall of Famer Fran Berger:
She went to a funeral recently that many of her one-time students attended.

``They were so excited to see her, and they all gave her their business cards. They were all lawyers.''

Which is hardly a surprise.

Berger, who died suddenly at her Aventura home on Tuesday, taught a generation of Palmetto High School students the power of a persuasive argument. Her teams won national tournaments and produced individual champions year after year.

She was 61 and had retired about 10 years ago due to diabetes, high blood pressure and other ailments that husband Steven Berger -- a retired lawyer -- called ``annoying but nothing that was going to kill her.

``This was really a shock.''

The shock so quickly reverberated around the country that by Wednesday afternoon, 14 former students -- including an Ivy League professor, a former Supreme Court clerk, doctors, executives, government officials and of course, lawyers -- collectively sent a letter to The Miami Herald calling Berger an ``unforgettable hero.''

They described her as ``colorful and controversial, mercurial and madcap, but, above all . . . dedicated to her students more than perhaps any teacher we have ever known.''

When her best friend and former Palmetto teacher Iris Katz of Las Vegas heard the description, she laughed.

''In the fall, her hair was generally red. By winter it was snow-white blond. In the spring it was reddish-orange,'' and in summer, something like her natural brunette.

''Think bouffant,'' said Katz. And brassy.

``She could get an upgrade in the emergency room.''

Francine Blake Berger was born in New York and spent her first four years in New Jersey before moving to Miami Beach. Fran Blake and Steve Berger, both Miami Beach High School debaters, began dating as young teenagers. Through them, their parents became close friends, so that after Fran and Steve graduated from the University of Alabama one year apart and married on Aug. 20, 1966, the two families essentially melded.

Fran Berger fielded her first debate team at Palmetto in 1981, and having combined students from the high school, Palmetto and Southwood middle schools, created the largest chapter of the National Forensic League in the country, Steve said.

The group inducted her into its Hall of Fame in 2002.

Berger lived her job nearly 24/7. Her husband said she'd leave the house at 5 a.m. and fall asleep on the phone with students at 11 p.m.

But she still found time to teach prison GED courses.

Her debate teams were constantly on the road, which meant she was always raising money -- ''bagel baskets, Mother's Day presents, candy bars, roses -- anything that would sell at a good profit, Fran was selling it,'' Katz said. She was controversial because ''she fought for her team,'' Katz said. ``Other teachers were upset when they traveled and some administrators questioned how long the kids should be out of school.''

From her mother, Amy Chafetz learned ``that if you believed very strongly that you're right, it makes the argument a lot easier. People will believe you if you have a lot integrity and deal with the issue, not the person.''

Miami lawyer Richard Rosenthal, Palmetto class of 1990 and a signer of the group letter, said Berger ''was very adamant'' that all of her debaters helped raise money.

He said that she used ``to finance kids who otherwise couldn't afford to travel.''

She'd buy suits for boys who couldn't afford them, and sometimes bought plane tickets.

Berger didn't just assemble teams, said Rosenthal: ``She built a family . . . Everything was for her students.''

And, he said, she could talk anyone into anything.

``There was no length to which she would not go. If the hotel where we were supposed to stay was sold out, she'd schmooze her way in and hold her breath until we got our rooms.''

Ketanji Brown Jackson, class of 1988, once clerked for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. She's now in private practice with a Washington, D.C., firm.

In her senior year, Jackson won first place for original oratory in the National Catholic Forensic League grand nationals.

Berger ''was over the moon,'' she recalled. ``She was wonderfully supportive . . . I don't know that many teachers who would have given of themselves in that way. Her dedication was the reason so many of us did so well.''

In addition to her husband and daughter, Fran Berger is survived by a son, Charles, of Detroit.

Funeral services are at 10:30 a.m. Thursday, at Levitt Weinstein Memorial Chapel, 18840 W. Dixie Hwy., North Miami Beach.

Malaysia's Commitment to Debating

Statements by government officials in this short story were encouraging and showed the kind of support for debating that I wish all governments would have.

From http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=350340

August 03, 2008 22:11 PM
Debate A Good Platform To Disseminate Information

PENDANG, Aug 3 (Bernama) -- Debates are a good way to build self-confidence and are an ideal platform for delivering, disseminating, and educating society on the nation's policies, programmes, and visions.

Information Director-General, Datuk Abdullah Morad, said on the issue that debating events should be continuously organised by having competitions at the school-level or at institutions of higher learning so that current issues faced by the country would be understood.

For this reason, the government's hope to create a society that is united, informed, and able to communicate in a good and matured manner when speaking would be achieved through the development efforts being carried out now and in the future.

"In this way, solid and rational ideas can be analysed to bring advantages to the society, for example on issues such as the price increase of petrol and consumer goods," he said.

His speech was delivered by his representative, Abdullah Mohd Arif, at the 2008 Intelligent Community Merdeka Debate Competition Group One Level (semi-finals) which was organised by the Kedah Information Department at the Sekolah Menengah Model Khas, Bukit Jenun, here today.

In the competition, the Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory debate team consisting of Mohd Hidayat Mohd Saufi, Mahzuan Mohd and Hafizi Abdul Majid defeated the debaters from Kedah and qualified themselves to the finals which would be held at the Industrial Training Institute, ILP Jitra, tomorrow.

Friday, August 8, 2008

Japan Debate Association Conference in Tama Opens

Chuo University

From our correspondent Steve Llano at
http://progymna.blogspot.com/2008/08/conference-begins.html

Friday, August 08, 2008

The Conference Begins

Today marks the first day of panels and presentations at the JDA Conference here in Tama. Chuo University is hosting, and the hospitality has been superb. Last night kicked off with a talk from Takao Tanase on Rhetoric and Justice in Japan. After that there was a very nice reception at the hotel including wines, beer, sushi and other tasty things. It was the perfect environment for socializing, and the assembled argumentation scholars from all over the world took advantage of it to catch up with old friends and meet new colleagues. There was a brief presentation on the state of debate in Japan, where the JDA officers announced that they have increasing support for World School's competitions as well as University World's participation. There was also a short presentation about the unbelievable popularity of debate in Australia - over 500 teams wish to participate in most tournaments in Victoria, and now many have to be turned down due to a lack of venues. A good problem to have, but not if you are one of those turned away teams. I suppose that technologies, such as Skype and webcams can help with the venue problem, but there is an obvious problem with that as well - the cultural distaste for the lack of a physical presence when engaging in something as intimate as arguing. Perhaps with some more familiarity we will adjust to internet debates, but it will take a long time.

Today I plan on taking in the keynote from David Hingstman entitled "Argumentation and Law: Dialectical and Rhetorical Approaches." After that there's a panel on Pragma-Dialectics which should be interesting, as I've never seen up close any work from this school of thought. More thoughts on that later after I hear the papers.

Then this evening I think we may venture back into Tokyo for dinner and more shopping. So much good stuff to do here. We hope to find the building full of gachopon. I have some information as to where it is located, but I'm really flying blind here.

For now it's off to the monorail station and then to the campus for the keynote!

World Debate Institute College Policy Session Ends

Policy "hat" winners: Ashley Fortner of Richmond, Jennifer Cox of Oklahoma, Chris Latucca of Vermont, Alease Scott of Louisiana and Brian Rubaie of Texas-Dallas

The last of the five WDI programs this summer ended on Wednesday as the College Policy Workshop came to a close.

The day featured the last preliminary round of the tournament, an exhibition debate by the scholars, the final round of the tournament, and an awards ceremony where the inevitable "hats" were given out.

Our Scholars did an amazing job.
Thank you to Brian Rubaie of Texas-Dallas, Lauren Sabino of Wake Forest, Dylan Quigley of Kansas, and Nick Watts of Oklahoma for all of their hard work in making this year such a success.
See their demo debate at
http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/debate-policy-wdi-scholars-debate-on.html

In our camp tournament, the final round was won on a 3-0 decision:

[AFF] Zac Hartkopp (JCCC) & Derek Ziegler (Kansas State) defeat [NEG] Ben Dabiri
(Oklahoma) & Jen Cox (Oklahoma)

A video of the final will be posted soon.

Speaker awards (2 and 3 tied):

1. Ashley Fortner (Richmond)

2. Jen Cox (Oklahoma)

3. Derek Ziegler (Kansas State)

4. Ben Dabiri (Oklahoma)

See the indexes for the complete list of files produced:

http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wdi2008collegepolicyindexes1.pdf

http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wdi2008collegepolicyindexes2.pdf

I would have to say that it was a huge success. The atmosphere was excellent, the debaters improved tremendously, the evidence set produced was truly excellent and a good time seemed to have been had by all, and the evaluations showed that.

Plans for the future were boiling as the faculty had their dinner of some tasty Thai food. Watch this space for more about 2009 to come.

Debate Coach to Clerk for US Supreme Court

From http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/07/16/72167496

July 16, 2008

ALUMNI

University law grad selected for U.S. Supreme Court clerkship
Amy Bergquist will clerk with Justice Ginsburg in 2010.
By Betsy Graca

Teaching her debate students how to prepare and execute strong arguments, Amy Bergquist was always a little jealous that her students were the ones who got to go out and deliver their debates.

However, the former high school teacher and University law school graduate will get the chance to aid debate at a high level. Bergquist was selected for a clerkship with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , to begin in 2010 - the fourth University student since 1965 to complete a clerkship.

Bergquist underwent the standard application process, sending in a cover letter, resume and letters of references to all the justices before being contacted by Ginsburg, who was hiring earlier than the other justices.

Erik Larson , Bergquist's significant other, said that, as he waited for her post-interview phone call to tell him how it went, he knew things must have gone well when her call came later than he expected. She was offered the position with Ginsburg on the spot.

Bergquist said that simply hearing Ginsburg's stories and experiences in person was exciting enough, and being offered the position was all the more rewarding.

Supreme Court clerks are often in charge of research, preparation of oral arguments and selection of petitions from those who want to be heard by the court.

Each justice is allowed four clerks for a year-long clerkship. Each individual justice assigns their clerks varying tasks.

After spending some time instructing in Moscow and receiving her teaching license from Macalester College , Bergquist spent 11 years teaching at South High School in Minneapolis.

At South, Bergquist said she taught many refugee students who shared stories of their home countries and what they'd left behind, which developed her personal interest in human rights.

"I was still being challenged in terms of the creativity of developing lessons and working with the students," she said. "But I felt as though, if I jumped into law, I'd have more of an intellectual challenge than teaching could give me."

While law school can be notorious for long hours and tedious readings, Bergquist said that her dedicated time as a teacher and debate coach really prepared her for law courses.

Law professor Laura Cooper said Bergquist immediately stood out from her very able classmates.

"She does everything well," Cooper said.

Bergquist, who received the 2007 William B. Lockhart Award for Excellence in Scholarship, Leadership and Service, said she enjoyed every subject in law school.

Cooper said that, while Supreme Court clerkships have always been very competitive, more established lawyers from firms have been interviewing, making the competition more intense than ever.

Bergquist, who is currently clerking with a U.S. Court of Appeals judge, said she has not thought about plans after her clerkship with Ginsburg.

However, she does think she will return to Minneapolis.

Grateful for Roman Heritage of Using Language to Persuade

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7537766.stm

What the Romans did for us
A POINT OF VIEW

Roads, obviously. Sanitation. But no great buildings from their time in Britain. But the greatest legacy is how we use language to persuade, says Lisa Jardine.

In a rapidly changing world, I am intrigued to find that the ability to use Latin with confidence continues to provoke widespread wonder and admiration.

Last week, at the opening of the exhibition on the Roman Emperor Hadrian at the British Museum, the Mayor of London addressed the assembled company in Latin, to general acclaim.

Why, he asked the long-dead Emperor rhetorically, had he failed to build in Britain a monument to match the Pantheon in Rome (whose remarkable dome Hadrian is supposed to have designed)? Instead, the Mayor continued, Hadrian's architectural legacy to us is something as humdrum as a wall.

Perhaps those who admire the Latin language are right. Heroic buildings are, as Boris Johnson observed, one of the Roman Empire's great legacies. But more lasting and far-reaching even than these is the influence of the Roman rhetorical tradition - an array of instructions and strategies for using language to persuade.

Our legal system, public debating conventions, and even the way contentious issues are argued over daily in newspapers and on television, have all been shaped and defined by a method credited to the great Roman orator Cicero, and reduced to a set of practical rules in the Oratorical Institutes of the later pedagogic writer Quintilian.

At the heart of this system are techniques for arguing in utramque partem - being able to take either side on any contentious issue. The importance of "argument on both sides" derives from the assumption that there are few debatable matters that can be settled simply by mustering the facts for and against. More usually, opinions on one side or the other of any argument are formed, and audiences swayed, on the basis of astute manipulation of limited evidence, backed up by an array of persuasive tactics, designed to construct a convincing case.

Quintilian calls such arguments controversiae - from which we get the word controversial. In the Roman law courts this leads to a method of arguing forensically which is still known today as adversarial.

As these words suggest, arguing in utramque partem arouses strong feelings on both sides. Anticipating and controlling strong emotions is part of the training both Cicero and Quintilian advocate at an advanced stage in the preparation of anyone whose career requires a mastery of rhetoric in all its complexity.

As Cicero puts it, in his lastingly influential work On the perfect orator (De Oratore): "The man who can hold forth on every matter under debate in two contradictory ways of pleading, or can argue for and against every proposition that can be laid down - such a man is the true, the complete, and the only orator."

So the great persuaders are those who can not only marshal the evidence on behalf of any question, but can also organise that material rhetorically, to present their case in the best possible light. And if called upon to do so, they can also present the opposite side of the argument just as convincingly. Except in cases of absolute certainty - where truth and falsehood are clear and incontrovertible --, there is likely to be at least one accomplished advocate on either side of the question.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

NCA Convention in USA Has Huge Debate & Speech Offerings

From Larry Schnoor:

Hello everyone. What follows is a list of the forensic programs that are scheduled for the NCA Convention in San Diego. I thought it might be useful for many of you if you are attending so you can maybe work out a schedule for those you might like to attend. I do want to draw your attention to two items.

First, there is an AFA Forensic Reception on Thursday night at the Grand Hyatt. This reception is not limited to just AFA individuals. It is an open reception, sponsored by AFA, NIET, NFA, Interstate Oratory and other forensic organizations. If you are in San Diego by that time, come to the reception - a good place to meet and have a social evening with others.

Second, there is a forensics program on Saturday morning that may not be listed in the following, but it is co-sponsored by the AFA and the Emeriti/Retired Section. However, I am sure it might be of interest to many of you. Liesel Reinhart has put together a great panel dealing with FROM FORENSICS COMPETITION TO PUBLIC PERFORMANCE: BUILDING A BRIDGE. It deals with taking something that has been done in forensic competition and working with it to adapt it to reach a wider public audience. I am sure many of you would enjoy it as well as possibly see what you might be able to do with your students.

Looking forward to seeing all of you in San Diego.

Larry Schnoor

Forensic Organizations – Sessions at NCA 2008

American Forensic Association

NDT Board of Trustees

Thursday, Nov 20 - 10:00am - 12:00pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth B

AFA Educational Development and Practices Committee

Thursday, Nov 20 - 10:00am - 12:00pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt America's Cup A

AFA Finance Committee

Thursday, Nov20 - 10:00am - 12:00pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt Parlor Room 634

AFA Professional Development and Practices Committee

Thursday, Nov 20- 10:00am - 12:00pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt Parlor Room 617

AFA Publications Committee

Thursday, Nov 20 - 10:00am - 12:00pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt Gibbons

AFA Research Committee

Thursday, Nov 20- 10:00am - 12:00pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt Parlor Room 633

AFA National Council

Thursday, Nov 20 - 12:00pm - 3:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt Parlor Room 633

AFA-NDT Committee

Thursday, Nov 20 - 12:00pm - 3:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth B

AFA-NIET Committee

Thursday, Nov 20 - 12:00pm - 3:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt America's Cup A

AFA Business Meeting

Thursday, Nov 20 - 4:00pm - 5:30pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth B

AFA Reception

Thursday, Nov 20 - 7:00pm - 10:00pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth B

It All Goes in the Dryer Together: A Performance Exploring the Experiences of First-Year Forensics Coaches

Fri, Nov 21 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 633

National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) Business Meeting

Fri, Nov 21 - 8:00am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth A

The Translocal Properties of Performing Literature: An Intercultural Experiment

Fri, Nov 21 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 633

Unconventional Politics: Examining the 2008 Presidential Campaign

Fri, Nov 21 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 633

The Best of Times and the Worst of Times: Coaching Forensics During Graduate School

Fri, Nov 21 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 633

When Debate Goes International: Potential, Challenges and Lessons Learned

Fri, Nov 21 - 3:30pm - 4:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 633

Top Papers in Argumentation

Sat, Nov 22 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 733

Competitive Papers in Debate and Directing Forensics

Sat, Nov 22 - 3:30pm - 4:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 733

Analyzing Communication Analysis: Competitive Practices vs. Scholarly Expectations

Sun, Nov 23 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 734

The Rhetoric of Fear: Goading the Public into Compliance

Sun, Nov 23 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 734

Argumentation and Forensics Division Sessions at NC 2008

Intercollegiate Forensics and Debate in the Media: An UnConventional Pairing

Fri, Nov 21 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 624

Dangerous Convictions: The Ethics of Advocacy and the Limits of Public Deliberation

Fri, Nov 21 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Mohsen B

Fair and Imbalanced: Evaluating the Persuasive Voice of News Television in Covering the 2008 Presidential Race

Fri, Nov 21 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Mohsen B

More Than Just Rational Deliberation: Letting All Voices be Heard

Fri, Nov 21 - 3:30pm - 4:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 705

On War Views and Worldviews: Questioning Convention in Moral and Religious Argumentative Contexts

Fri, Nov 21 - 3:30pm - 4:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Mohsen B

Argumentation and Forensics Business Meeting

Sat, Nov 22 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Mohsen B

Council of Forensic Organizations Business Meeting

Sat, Nov 22 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Mohsen B

Top Student Papers in Argumentation and Forensics

Sat, Nov 22 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Molly B

Top Papers in Argumentation and Forensics

Sat, Nov 22 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Mohsen B

Argumentation and Human Relations: From Dyads to Disads

Sun, Nov 23 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Edward A

Perceptions of Past Competitors: Do We Have Their Support?

Sun, Nov 23 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Molly A

Historical Studies in Argumentation and Forensics: US, Canada, and Japan

Sun, Nov 23 - 3:30pm - 4:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Mohsen B

The Role of the Unconventional in Intercollegiate Forensics

Mon, Nov 24 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Ford B

Challenging Conventional Wisdom Regarding Punishment: Examining Arguments Over Pell Grants, Rehabilitation, Restorative Justice, and the Death Penalty

Mon, Nov 24 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Ford B

Cross Examination Debate Association

CEDA Executive Committee Meeting

Fri, Nov 21 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 734

CEDA Top Papers

Fri, Nov 21 - 3:30pm - 4:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 817

Unconventional Judge Preferences

Sat, Nov 22 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 733

CEDA Business Meeting

Sat, Nov 22 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 824

CEDA President's Roundtable

Sat, Nov 22 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 824

(un)Conventional Perspectives on Switch Side Debating

Sat, Nov 22 - 5:00pm - 6:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 733

unCONVENTIONal Directing: A Panel Discussion of Female Policy Debate Directors

Sat, Nov 22 - 6:30pm - 7:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 733

CEDA Topic Meeting

Sun, Nov 23 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 605

Unconventional Debate: Experiences and Models Presented

Sun, Nov 23 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 805

The State of Interscholastic Debate: A Debate About the Future of Debate (Part 1)

Sun, Nov 23 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 805

The Future of Regions as Local Debate Organizations

Mon, Nov 24 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Del Mar B

International Forensic Association

International Forensic Association Business Meeting

Fri, Nov 21 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 617

Unshock The Cultural: Does IFA reduce Culture Shock

Fri, Nov 21 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 617

National Forensic Association

Writing Down the Unwritten Rules of Forensics

Fri, Nov 21 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 705

Change is in the Air: An Examination and Critique of Individual Events in the 21^st Century

Fri, Nov 21 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 705

National Forensic Association General Business Meeting

Sat, Nov 22 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 805

An Unconventional Approach to Individual Event Evaluation: Lessons Learned From Accreditation and Assessment

Sat, Nov 22 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 805

Ethics and Forensics: Tournament Administration

Sat, Nov 22 - 3:30pm - 4:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Manchester A

Ethics and Forensics: Competition and Education in Platform Speaking and Limited Preparation Events

Sat, Nov 22 - 5:00pm - 6:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Manchester A

Ethics and Forensics: Competition and Education in Interpretation Events

Sat, Nov 22 - 6:30pm - 7:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Manchester A

NFHS Speech, Debate, and Theater Association

NFHS Speech Editorial Board Meeting

Sat, Nov 22 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 617

Verbal and Image Illusions: Innovation in Teaching and Assessing Perception

Sun, Nov 23 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 605

Iowa's Approach to Competitive Speech Competition: Unconventional, but Very Effective

Mon, Nov 24 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Elizabeth A

Phi Rho Pi

Phi Rho Pi Business Meeting

Fri, Nov 21 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 606

CRAFT (Coaching, Running, and Administering Forensic Tips)

Sat, Nov 22 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Randle D

Pi Kappa Delta

Pi Kappa Delta Business Meeting

Sun, Nov 23 - 8:00am - 9:15am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 617

The Great Debaters: Academic Debate and Racial Justice

Sun, Nov 23 - 9:30am - 10:45am

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 617

UNConventional Views of What is Ideally Conventional: Reviewing the Foundations and Evolution of Intercollegiate Forensics

Sun, Nov 23 - 12:30pm - 1:45pm

Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 617

Unconventional Uses of Forensics

Sun, Nov 23 - 2:00pm - 3:15pm
Manchester Grand Hyatt, Parlor Room 617

IDEA Video Sites

From Alex Dukalskis:

Hi All,

I just wanted to let you all know about 2 IDEA video resources that you may not be aware of:

1) You can see several debates and some lectures on IDEA's new video page at http://idebate.blip.tv

2) You can see debates in various formats, plus interviews, important historical speeches and citizen journalism resources at http://www.idebate.org/encyclomedia/

Thanks,
alex.

Alex Dukalskis
IDEA Program Coordinator
adukalskis@idebate.org
www.idebate.org
phone from Korea: 02.2648.7611
phone from outside Korea: (+82) 2.2648.7611

World Schools Incorporates

From James Probert:

Dear World Schools community,

I received today a certificate from Cardiff that reads as follows:

“Certificate of Incorporation of a Private Limited Company

Company No. 6666449

The Registrar of Companies for England and Wales hereby certifies that

THE WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIPS LIMITED

Is this day incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 as a private company and that the company is limited.

Given at Companies House on 6^th August 2008”

This means that one important phase of the journey towards making World Schools a charity is complete. There will be much more information regarding the consequences of this, and the next steps, to follow, but for now I would like to thank the members of the incorporation working group and in particular Nick Pacheco (Team Bermuda, 1995) for his support in a personal capacity and as a solicitor practising in England and Wales. Without his generously given advice and input we would not have been able to get this far.

James.

James Probert

Deputy Director of Education &

Head of the Centre for Speech and Debate

The English-Speaking Union

Dartmouth House

37 Charles Street

London W1J 5ED

Tel: +44 20 75291550

Fax: +44 20 7495 6108

W: www.esu.org
W: www.britishdebate.com

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

Students in History-Debate Road Show for Big Money

This is a story about the contest "Now Debate This" going on currently. Check their website at http://www.nowdebatethis.com/v2/

From http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_10085466?source=most_emailed

Traveling debate stops at Little Round Top to argue who's better: Washington or Lincoln

By KARA NEWCOMER
Evening Sun Reporter
Article Launched: 08/03/2008 07:01:20 AM EDT

Matt Tompkins, Atlanta, stood on Little Round Top at Gettysburg Battlefield, defending President Abraham Lincoln as a strong leader.

But Tompkins was not just another tourist discussing the 16th president and the Civil War. He was one of 16 students participating in an online reality competition for a $150,000 college scholarship.

"Now Debate This!" is allowing those 16 students to journey back in time by visiting eight of the most historical sites in the United States.

On Saturday, their journey led them to Gettysburg.

The two-week tour began July 25 in Washington, D.C., and will end Aug. 8 in a round-robin elimination debate at the Union League in Philadelphia. The tour bus has also made stops at Mt. Vernon; Springfield, Ill.; and Valley Forge.

The trip is to help the students learn about American history and, most importantly, presidents Washington and Lincoln. On Aug.19 in Philadelphia, the two finalists will debate the question, "Who was the better president, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln?" for the chance to win the scholarship.

The students eliminated in the Aug. 8 debate will have $50,000 in scholarships divided among them and the runner-up will win a $50,000 scholarship.

Meanwhile, as the students travel to the different national landmarks, they divide into teams and hold mini-debates and competitions to hone their skills.

The high school seniors come from all over the country - from California, Texas, Vermont

Advertisement

and two from Pennsylvania.
Fumanya Ekhator, of Yeadon, Pa., said she was shocked to learn she had been selected to participate in "Now Debate This!"

The 17-year-old said she had convinced herself she was not selected and had already lined up a summer internship when her mom read the letter delivered by Fed-Ex.

"I was expecting a phone call," Ekhator said "I couldn't believe it."

Ekhator, as with all of the students, grew up interested in politics and history. Although she has some debate experience, she said she is a little nervous about the final debate.

Malik Neal, of Philadelphia, is new to debate - aside from debating with his parents and friends, he said.

The contestants have a debate coach, the Rev. B.A. Gregg, who helps them "think fast on their feet."

"We dish out our best points and he rips them apart," Neal said laughing.

But the formal debates are not the only ones that occur on this trip. Ekhator and Neal said the bus is always full of interesting conversations about politics and history.

"He never agrees with me," Ekhator said about Neal as the two laughed.

But the two do agree on one of their favorite experiences from the tour thus far - giving a modern day House Divided speech from the exact spot Lincoln did in 1858.

"It was humbling to stand there," Ekhator said. "He is one of the best orators in history."

The contestants all work hard to do as much research as possible, even during their free time. They were each given a video camera and laptop to blog about their daily travel. Members of the public can take an active role in "Now Debate This!" by commenting and posing questions to the students.

Nyx Robey, of San Pedro, Calif., said her 6-year-old neighbor is watching the videos posted on her blog.

"Getting public opinion on our opinions and getting feedback from across the country is really cool," said Andy Glover, of Newfane, Vt.

Most seemed unfazed by the camera and microphone constantly in their faces as they toured the site.

"Reality is reality," Brandon Hummons, of Chicago, said.

He said it is easy to be comfortable around cameras because he is comfortable with his fellow contestants.

"They're almost like family," Hummons said.

He said his personal goal is for two people from his team to make it into the final debate.

"Even if it's not me," he added.

Mary Hagy, executive producer of "Now Debate This!," said the competition is "truly phenomenal," and the students have all bonded really well with one another.

"They show that collaboration can feed into competition in a very positive way," Hagy said.

Her goal was to create an outlet where it is "cool to be smart," and these kids do just that. She said it is a social network, but one where young people come together to talk about politics, the economy and the climate, among other things.

Patrick Spero, associate producer of "Now Debate This!", said selecting the 16 was tough. More than 200 hopefuls submitted entry videos on YouTube. He said their acceptance rate equaled that of Harvard's.

"We want to increase people's awareness of American history and we want the youth watching," Spero said.

The topic of whether Lincoln or Washington was a greater president also allows the students to explore presidential leadership and transfer what they learn to today's leaders.

The students are getting a firsthand look at history and learning more details than they do in school, Ekhator and Neal said.

"It's a chilling experience," Ekhator said.

Debate Passion Flows at Military Leadership Workshop

From http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080208/ner_312206163.shtml

It's his passion, there's no debating that issue

By SHAKAYA ANDRES, My Mandarin Sun

Debating for Mandarin home-school student Brandon McWaters is a passion.

"The more work you put into [debating], the greater the return," the 17-year-old said.

His skill has grown in the last six years, when he started debating in competitions, McWaters said he thought he was going to win every tournament, but that didn't happen. The senior, who has a 4.0 grade point average, soon realized debating takes a lot of practice, research, logical thinking and knowledge of diverse subjects.

"I love debating - getting up there and hearing arguments," McWaters said. "It's a thrill. It helps get me ready to be a lawyer."

McWaters and 47 other students nationally will each receive a $2,500 college scholarship and a trip to Oklahoma Christian University in Oklahoma City to participate Sunday through Friday in "iDebate: Developing Leaders with Gen. Tommy Franks." The leadership development camp trains students in strategic thinking, planning, communication, teamwork and persuasion.

They will also practice their skills through debate, said Christa Bieker, a debate central analyst for the National Center for Policy Analysis, one of the program's sponsors. The main event of the week will be a debate, to air at 5:30 p.m. Thursday on Fox News, in which students discuss the flat tax, Social Security and universal health care.

"We selected students who are good speakers, involved in their community and are interested in public policy issues," she said.

Franks is a four-star general and formerly the commander of the United States Central Command. He was awarded five Distinguished Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, four Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts, in addition to numerous foreign awards.

He is also the recipient of the nation's highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded by President George W. Bush in 2004.

Since he retired from the military in 2003, Franks has spoken worldwide on leadership, character and the value of democracy, Bieker said. His autobiography, American Soldier, debuted as No. 1 on the New York Times Best Seller list in August 2004.

McWaters said the opportunity to interact with the four-star general is "cool" and said the camp will be a great opportunity and learning experience for him to develop his public speaking, as well as his ability to think on his feet and to look at life situations from more than one angle.

"I'm a leader - vision-oriented; I like taking responsibility," he said. "That's why I'm looking forward to this conference to refine those skills."

McWaters last competed in the National Christian Forensics Communication Association, placing first in the Lincoln Douglas Debate, first in Expository Speech and first in Humorous for the Region VIII championship, which consists of Florida, Georgia and North and South Carolina.

Bieker said more than 100 students applied nationally after a community leader nominated them for the program. The students were then required to send in a resume and a three-minute video essay on a problem in their community.

During the program, students will receive practical training in the art of persuasion, gain in-depth knowledge of various public issues, gather valuable team experiences and develop relationships with other up-and-coming leaders. Students will receive training from policy analysts, debate coaches and university debate students.

"Our goal is to develop young leaders who are well informed about our communities' issues, who are able to communicate a vision for a better future and who can work with people from all walks of life to change the world," Bieker said.

Applications for next year's iDebate will be available at www.ncpa.org at a later date.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

A Party Without Candidates Focuses on Debate

From http://www.courant.com/news/local/fv/hc-simdebate0802.artaug03,0,5479940.story

Debates Planned In Simsbury

By REGINE LABOSSIERE

Courant Staff Writer

August 3, 2008

SIMSBURY

— The political party Simsbury Citizens First is hosting a series of debates for the local state Senate and House of Representatives races.

The party, which is not running a candidate or endorsing one in the state elections, plans to hold two debates for each race in September and October that will include plenty of resident participation, said Kirsten Griebel, party chairwoman.

The debates will include two sets of questions. The first set will be provided to the candidates prior to the debate and will address issues related to the economy, health care, taxes, education, regionalism, transportation and land use. The second set will come from residents who send the questions to Simsbury Citizens First by e-mail or submit them in writing to the moderator the evening of the debate.

"We just thought it would be a great opportunity to provide a forum for the voters in the district to hear the different candidates," Griebel said. "It fits with our philosophy of educating the public, keeping people informed and allowing access to government and access to the officials and the candidates so people can have the information when they go to vote."

She said candidates will be invited to the debates after the Aug. 12 primaries, but there is only one contested race in either district.

Simsbury's Moira Wertheimer, who is on the town board of selectmen, is challenging state Rep. Kevin Witkos of Canton for the nomination to the 8th Senate District seat.

"I love debating. It's a chance to really express your views and lay out your game plan for what you want to do for your district and for the state," said Witkos, who has been endorsed by the Republican Party.

However, he's not been as eager to debate during the battle to the primary.

Griebel said the idea for the debates arose when Simsbury Citizens First wanted to have one between the two Republican candidates. While Wertheimer had pushed for a debate, Witkos resisted. He said this week that his schedule before the primary has been too hectic to fit in a debate. She said this week his reluctance to debate her was "insulting."

The 8th Senate District debate will be between whoever wins the Republican nomination and the uncontested Democrat Art House, a Simsbury resident and senior vice president for public affairs at Webster Bank.

House, who worked for Ned Lamont's failed bid to represent Connecticut in the U.S. Senate, said he is familiar with debating.

"I was part of [Lamont's] debate preparation team and played an active role through that process. I've always done a lot of public speaking and I'm comfortable with it," House said.

The races for the 16th House District are uncontested and Griebel expects incumbent Democrat Linda Schofield and challengers Republican Rob Heagney and Robert Kalechman, who petitioned his way on the ballot, to be at the debate.

"It's a very good idea and I want to participate. ... People get to see what the candidates stand for," Kalechman said.

The dates for the debates will be announced as they are scheduled, Griebel said. The debates for the 8th Senate District race will be held in geographically central locations for the several Farmington Valley towns the district covers. The debates for the 16th House District race will be in Simsbury. Local cable access stations will air the debates prior to the November elections.

Kyiv Open 2008

From Kyra Shimanska:

Kyiv Open 2008

Dear all,
we’re glad to announce that on September 26–28, 2008 in the beautiful city of Kyiv (Ukraine) International Debate Tournament KYIV OPEN will take place. It is held by UYNGO “Debate Academy”

Just imagine: sun, blossom, greenery and… debates! =)

The tournament will be held in British Parliamentary style.

Language – English.

Team cap – 32 teams.

Participation fee €10 per debater, no charge for adjudicators. Participants are provided with accommodation, food and transfer round our beautiful city.

We do not insist on N-1 rule, for we don’t mind composite teams to enter the Tournament.

Chief Adjudicator – G. Rhydian Morgan (CA at numerous UK and European tournaments: Euros Warm-Up, Belgrade Open 2008 and Tilbury House 2008, DCA at Ankara Open, European Open winner, well known and highly appreciated lecturer on debates and rhetoric).

DCA's: Uve Poom (EUDC 2007 ESL winner), Sergei Naumoff (Member of IDEA Board) and... a new EUDC 2008 star ;)

During the three days of the Tournament participants will face 5 preliminary, semi-final and final rounds, training on rules, debate party with some r-r-real surprise; have an opportunity to communicate with extraordinary people; and feel the unique atmosphere of one of the oldest cities of Europe.

REGISTRATION is OPEN till September, 12!

Don’t miss your chance to debate in one of the greenest, most picturesque and ancient cities of Europe!

Details are available at http://debate.org.ua/category/KYIV-OPEN/

Our group in Facebook http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=17670692839 .

If you have any questions feel free to contact us on kyivopen@gmail.com.

Co-conveners
Kira Shymanska
Anton Dvorienkov

Qatar Debate Comes to New York

From Arminda Lathrop:

Dear WSDC Debate Teams,

Please join IDEA and the Qatar Debate Team for a coaching day, practice tournament, and team mingle in New York City Tuesday, September 2nd and Wednesday, September 3rd. IDEA will provide complimentary debate videos and refreshments for all participants.

The event will take place in mid-town Manhattan.
If you are interested in attending, please contact Rachel Aicher at raicher@sorosny.org by August 11th. Be sure to include your phone number, email address, and country of origin in the message.

We hope you can join us September 2nd and 3rd for great debate and conversation!

Thank you,

Arminda Lathrop

IDEA

__________________________
Arminda Lathrop
IDEA Communications Director
Project Coordinator
Willamette University
900 State St.
Salem, OR 97301
(503) 370-6620
alathrop@willamette.edu
alathrop@idebate.org
IDEA's Website: www.idebate.org

Monday, August 4, 2008

Lawyer is Also Part-time Pro Debater

From http://www.strausnews.com/articles/2008/08/02/warwick_advertiser/news/17.txt