BP Format Gaining Popularity in North America

University of Vermont debaters at Rochester tournament, had nine teams in Worlds/BP

Last year the University of Rochester hosted its first ever division of debating in the Worlds/BP format and twenty teams showed up. This was an impressive number given that it was the first time most of these schools had participated in the format. Now, one year later, the tourn ament is up to 44 teams and at eleven rooms is a decently sized contest. Combine that with a 50+ team policy debate tournament, and you have a lot of teams for what has been a small tounament.

With major tounaments still to come, such as Yale, Hart House, and Canadian BP Nationals at Queens the fall season looks like a good one for BP tournaments. Plus, there will be combined Worlds-Policy tournaments at Western Connecticut and Binghamton. The US Universities Debating Championship will be held at Vermont 3-5 August 2009.

"There seem to be some unhappy people in most USA debate formats, such as policy debate, APDA parliamentary debate, NPDA parliamentary debate and even AFA-LD debate. More and more people are trying the Worlds format, and even if they don't do it exclusively they add it to their competitive mix. This is what we have done and what Cornell and Rochester have done as well," said Alfred Snider of the University of Vermont.

Last year was the first for the Northeast to have a full-year of BP tournaments, and there was a sweepstakes tally kept. It was

1. Vermont
2. Hobart & William Smith
3. St. John's
4. Cornell
5. Rochester

This year it will probably be a much more crowded and competitive field.

More news coming about the progress of this format in North America.

Strategy & Tactics in First USA Presidential Debate

Allan Louden is a highly experienced college debate coach in the USA as well as a scholarly analyst of political communication.

From http://www.debatescoop.org/story/2008/9/27/10954/9980

Strategy and Tactics - Mississippi Showdown
By Allan Louden 09/27/2008 10:09:54 AM EST

If I were to offer that one candidate in the Oxford Mississippi debate displayed the following characteristics, competent, capable, knowledgeable, adept, personable, comfortable, and unperturbed, which candidate would you think I was describing?

My guess is that hardcore Democrats would say Obama, hardcore Republicans McCain, and the small center, both. My take on the 1st presidential debate is all three opinions are accurate.

Certainly there were better and worse moments for each candidate but on the whole there was a standoff.

Some will be disappointed that there were no non-factual gaffes. Inventing blunders is left to the campaigns and bloggers because it did not happen in the debate.

I had the opportunity to watch the debate with an auditorium of students and community members. This audience had no audible sighs or burst of laughter; they remained as measured and serious as McCain and Obama. Not to disappoint, but a debate without a noticeable false move suggests both aspirants did their job, and with skill.

Many will find fault, and surely there were factual errors and lost opportunities, but each debater, in my opinion was solid, fulfilling their intended purpose.

I search my memory for another first-debate that was as competent for both candidates as Friday's debate and it may be as far back as 1976, when Jimmy Carter faced off with Gerald Ford on domestic policy.

Strategy and Tactics

At one dramatic point in the debate, discussing the Iraqi "Surge," McCain charged "I'm afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy. A little later, after saying "That's not true," Obama with a touch of disdain said "We had a legitimate difference, and I absolutely understand the difference between tactics and strategy."
Tags: Obama, McCain, Presidential debate, Univ of Mississippi, debate strategy, winners

Formally a strategy is a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal (winning) while a (military) tactic is the use of weapons or military units in for engaging and defeating an enemy in battle.
Apart from the deployment of US forces, the debate illustrated strategy and tactics that were the debate's essence. These narratives will continue to be debated for the next thirty-eight days.

McCain's strategy was to paint Obama as inexperienced and not ready to lead. Obama's strategy was to go toe-to-toe, not backing down, be presidential.

At a tactical level the rhetorical choices could not have been clearer. McCain thrice called Obama naive and fourteen times said in some form that Obama did not understand. Case in point: "What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand. . ." and "This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous."

Obama refused to take the role of youngster to McCain's father figure, and nine times said "not true"; when responding to nuclear reprocessing "That's just not true, John. John, I'm sorry, but that's not true." Eight additional times he suggested McCain intentionally misled. During the contentious exchange on sitting down with foreign leaders Obama retorted, "Nobody's been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position."

McCain strongly extended his general campaign theme of an ill-equipped Obama, yet is also the case that Obama was up to the challenge. McCain was aggressive, Obama reasoned, each within the bounds of credibility.

Both contestants enjoyed the upper hand in portions of the debate, Obama winning that economic security is more than ear-marks and McCain demonstrating depth via his bona fide travel itinerary. I found the debate, albeit often replays of the earlier campaign, surprisingly substantive.

Winners & Losers

Who won and lost the debate will not be known for a few days. Their competing strategies (narratives) will continue to play out. Neither lost in the debate proper and I suspect that polls will not show a "debate effect."

Absent unforeseen spin, a case can be made this leaves Obama the "victor." Why? McCain had no homerun to stop an economically driven Obama drift, Obama was "presidential enough", and ties go to the "challenger."

After sleeping on the debate I'll stick by what I told the Christian Science Monitor's Alexandra Marks last night:

It was one of the more competent debates we've seen in a long time. There were no major gaffes. It was data-driven, and both spoke clearly to their constituencies, as they should have," says Allan Louden, a debate expert at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C. "I would rate it as a draw, but if it's a draw, the draw goes to the challenger and that would be Obama.

Jennifer Pope Wins Young Coach Award

From http://www.normantranscript.com/localnews/local_story_263002848

Published: September 18, 2008 12:00 am

Norman North debate coach wins award

For the Transcript
The Oklahoma Speech Theatre and Communication Association honored Norman North debate coach Jennifer Pope at its annual conference Sept. 13. At the conference luncheon, held at Northeastern State University in Talequah, Pope was named the Outstanding Young High School Speech Coach for 2008.

Pope graduated from Edmond Santa Fe High School in 2001.?She earned her bachelor's degree and teacher certification from the University of Central Oklahoma in 2005 and her master's degree from UCO in 2008. She joined the faculty at Norman North in the fall of 2005.

During her three years at North, the Timberwolves have earned the OSSAA state championship in speech and debate twice, and finished second last year. She has coached several state champion speakers as well as a number of state finalists in each of her years as a teacher. At the National Forensic League national tournament in 2007 she coached a Lincoln-Douglas debater to a seventh place finish, and in 2008 two of her Lincoln-Douglas debaters went deep in the tournament, one of them finishing in the top 20.

Jim Ryan, theater arts teacher at Norman North said, "Ms. Pope is an outstanding teacher who has doubled the enrollment in our debate program in just a few short years. Most importantly, her commitment to expanding the program involves encouraging students of all ability levels to challenge themselves in debate -- not just her super-stars. Jennifer challenges herself as well as her students. She has earned her master's degree while leading one of the most competitive programs in the state, and she also participates fully in the drama program as well, preparing students in acting events, and even directing plays on occasion.

"No other young teacher in Oklahoma has had the success and wide-ranging accomplishment demonstrated by Jennifer Pope over the last three years. The OSTCA award shows that her colleagues know this, and that they respect her for her efforts.?As she begins her fourth year with us, I am hard-pressed to think of any high school teacher at any experience level who can match her."

Debating Matters Competition in India

From http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14763982

Debating Matters competition now in India
Monday, 22 September , 2008, 18:47
Chennai: Debating Matters competition for high school students will be held in India from September 22, 2008.

Pioneered by the Institute of Ideas, UK, and supported by Pfizer, Debating Matters is a very successful schools debate competition in the United Kingdom.

More India business stories

The objective of the Debating Matters competition is to encourage students to engage with the specifics and complexities of issues that arise in the real world today. A unique aspect of the competition has been to involve high-calibre professionals from all walks of life – academics, journalists, business people, scientists and artists – in the judging of the competition.

The judges interrogate and engage in a debate with the speakers to judge how well they grasp topic. The emphasis is therefore also on interaction. Although debate will be in English, judging will be on content and not pronunciation, diction and style.

The competition is only for Class XI students and the teams will be provided with extensively researched topic guides for the debate at each stage of the competition.

The competition will have the following stages:

1)

Online Elimination Test (OET)

(open to all schools)

Schools


Sept. 22 -Oct. 10, 2008

2)

Elimination rounds

(12 schools per region)

Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata

6 -7 Nov 2008

3)

Regional finals

(6 schools per region)

Chennai, Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata

9-10 Jan. 2009

4)

National finals

(winner and runner-up from each region – i.e. 2 schools per region)

New Delhi

15-17 Jan. 2009

5)

UK finals

(winners of the national final and the TV edition)

London

July 2009

Each school can register a six-member team right from the Online Elimination Test stage. However, they can register a minimum of four students.

USA Presidential Debate in Doubt

From http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080925/D93DH5A00.html

Obama rebuffs McCain's call to delay debate

Sep 25, 12:21 AM (ET)

By BETH FOUHY

NEW YORK (AP) - The economic crisis and raw politics threatened to derail the first presidential debate as John McCain challenged Barack Obama to delay Friday's event to work on the financial crisis. Obama rebuffed the plea, saying presidents need to "deal with more than one thing at once."

The White House rivals maneuvered Wednesday to claim the leadership role in resolving the economic turmoil that has overshadowed their campaign. Obama said he would continue preparing for the debate and consulting with bailout negotiators and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. McCain said he would stop all campaigning and return to Washington on Thursday to work toward a bipartisan solution.

"This is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days, will be responsible for dealing with this mess," Obama said in Clearwater, Fla. "It's going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once."

But McCain said they must focus on a bipartisan solution as the Bush administration's $700 billion bailout proposal seemed headed for defeat. If not, McCain said ominously that credit will dry up, jeopardizing home sales, individual savings and company payrolls.

"I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time," McCain said.

Both candidates accepted President Bush's invitation to attend a White House meeting Thursday afternoon with congressional leaders in hopes of agreeing on a rescue plan. McCain had spoken with Bush earlier Wednesday and requested such a meeting.

In a joint statement Wednesday night, the candidates said the country faces "a moment of economic crisis" and they called for political unity to solve it because "the jobs, savings and the prosperity of the American people are at stake." Both said Bush's plan was "flawed."
"We cannot risk an economic catastrophe," they said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., McCain's representative in debate negotiations, told The Associated Press that McCain will not attend the debate unless there is agreement on a solution that is publicly endorsed by Obama, McCain, the White House and congressional leaders.

Asked whether the debate could go on, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "My sense is there's going to be a stage, a moderator, an audience and at least one presidential candidate."
The jockeying between McCain and Obama began after the senators spoke privately Wednesday.

McCain beat Obama to the punch with the first public statement. The surprise announcement was an attempt to outmaneuver Obama on an issue McCain trails on and as the Democrat gains in the polls. McCain went before TV cameras minutes after they spoke and before the campaigns could hammer out the agreed-upon joint statement.

Obama, too, made a political calculation by rejecting McCain's challenge while still trying to appear on top of the problem. Obama repeatedly stressed that he called McCain first to propose a joint statement. He said McCain called back several hours later and agreed, but also said he wanted to postpone the debate and hold joint meetings in Washington. Obama said he suggested they first issue the statement.

"When I got back to the hotel, he had gone on television to announce what he was going to do," Obama said.

McCain said he would return to Washington on Thursday after an address to former President Clinton's Global Initiative session. He canceled a scheduled appearance on CBS'"The Late Show with David Letterman" and a meeting with India's prime minister.

McCain called Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to propose that joint meetings with Obama and congressional leaders be held quickly, according to leadership aides. Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Reid responded by reading McCain his public statement, in which Reid said it would not be helpful for the candidates to come back and inject presidential politics into the negotiations.

Reid later told reporters that McCain "is trying to divert attention from his failing campaign."
Debate planners said they were continuing to prepare for the event at the University of Mississippi.

McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was canceling her limited campaign events. She told the "CBS Evening News" that the country could be headed for another Great Depression if Congress doesn't reach a solution.

How long the suspension would last, McCain adviser Steve Schmidt would not say.
McCain has struggled with how to handle the situation, which he might escape with modest political damage if he and Obama can reach some type of accord on the matter.

Scores of congressional Republicans hinted this week that they may oppose the $700 billion proposal, and Reid pointedly suggested that Democrats could not be expected to back it if McCain did not publicly do so.

That leaves McCain with two unpalatable choices. He can oppose a major Republican initiative the administration says is needed to prevent a full-blown recession, and risk blame if the prediction comes true. Or he can vote for an extraordinarily costly bailout, which many Americans seem to resent, just when polls show him falling farther behind Obama.

Obama also risks voter wrath if he supports the bailout. But he could frame his stand as bipartisan statesmanship, whereas McCain's vote could be spun as another example of him siding with Bush, a major impediment to his campaign.

India Team Attends WSDC for First Time

From http://www.indiaedunews.net/International/India%5Fenters%5FWorld%5FSchools%5FDebating%5FChampionships%5F5932/

India enters World Schools Debating Championships
September 08, 2008
New Delhi: Five students from recognized schools in Chennai will represent India for the first time ever in the World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) to be held in Washington DC, USA from September 5 - 15, 2008.

Started as a unique training session by Ramco Systems, the selected students for the first time will make India proud and stand up on the debating stage.

39 countries will be participating in the internationally acclaimed 2008 WSDC.

S. Pranav Kumar (Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Sr. Sec. School, K.K. Nagar, Std. IX), Sithara Rasheed (Sri Sankara Sr. Sec. School, Adyar, Std. XI), Rajalakshmi Natarajan (Sri Sankara Sr. Sec. School, Adyar, Std. XI), Shreya Murali (Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Sr. Sec. School, Nungambakkam, Std. IX) and Amrithavarshini (Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Sr. Sec. School, Nungambakkam, Std. IX) will represent the Indian team.

India's first debate will be against Slovakia, followed by Bermuda, Pakistan, Australia, Mexico, Japan, USA and South Korea.

Coached by Andrew Fitch, a renowned debater from the English Speaking Union, UK and managed by Ms. Padmini, Principal - Arsha Vidya Mandir the five students have had series of training modules preparing them for the championship.

Ramco Systems will sponsor the entire visit of the students and coaches.

Speaking on the occasion Mr. P.R. Venketrama Raja Vice Chairman, Managing Director & CEO, Ramco Systems said, "Events like these provide students an excellent opportunity to go international and interact with the best coaches and students from other prestigious schools. Ramco Systems is proud to sponsor this historic event for the first time in India which is aimed to give a wonderful platform for students to debate. Structure Debating helps our children to think logically and put forward their point of view with grace and elegance. Our children are our future and we need to put in our efforts for our country's better tomorrow".

Coach Andrew Fitch, English Speaking Union added, "Its going to be a real challenge for the team but our team is all geared up and I think the sky is the limit for them."

39 teams have registered for the 2008 WSDC in Washington DC. Few of the participating countries are Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Czech Republic, England, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, United States, Zimbabwe etc.

The World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) is a global competition for high school debaters. The Championships take place each year in a different country, hosted by a national debating body.

Recent venues include Sydney, London, Johannesburg, Singapore, Lima and in 2006 Cardiff, Wales.

All Debates take place in English. Each country can submit a squad of 3-5 students under 19 in full time education in that country to debate social, moral and political issues. Post patrons of the championships include Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela.

The aims of the World Schools Debating Champions are to achieve excellence in debating, to encourage debating throughout the world, to promote international understanding and free speech.

Debating Creates Lifelong Skill Set

Georgina Baker and Hannah Mackaness

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4794284.ece

September 21, 2008
Debating provides lifelong skills
Nurturing the ability to effectively present an argument will give pupils confidence and a head start at work

When Georgina Baker and Hannah Mackaness rise to their feet, you can be sure that they will make a persuasive argument. Little wonder then, that the pair of S5 debaters from George Heriot’s school in Edinburgh are the Scottish schools debating champions. Indeed, when they went on to represent the country at the international debating championships, they brought home the silver medal and Georgina won the prize for the best individual speaker at the event.

They join a long line of successful Scottish debaters that includes the former Labour leaders John Smith and Donald Dewar, the former Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy and many members of the Scottish legal establishment.

The English-Speaking Union Scotland organises two schools debating competitions — the Juniors competition for pupils in years 1-3, and the Mace for older secondary school children. Despite a growing interest among state schools, it is the independent schools that have produced the overwhelming majority of successful debaters. Teams from George Heriot’s in Edinburgh, Robert Gordon’s college in Aberdeen and the High School of Dundee have been particularly hard to beat in recent years.

This is good to know if you aspire for your children to be advocates or parliamentarians, but is there any broader benefit to being able to argue the case for a motion in which you might not believe? There certainly is, says Rob Marrs, the union’s speeches and debates officer. “It almost goes without saying that the ability to stand up and present an argument effectively is one that is of enormous use in the modern workplace,” he says. “But the real benefits of debating go much deeper.”

Each competition requires four teams to make the case for and against a motion. Entrants in the most recent Scottish junior debating competition considered the case that “the house believes that the Government should act to encourage the production and use of biofuels”. Competitors cannot choose which side of the debate to take, however, and must respond to the case made by the opposing side immediately after they have heard its arguments.

“Debating is great for developing children’s analytical skills,” says Marrs. “Because debaters have to be on top of both sides of an argument, they must consider all the pros and cons, whatever their own feelings are. It also teaches the skills of listening very carefully to an argument being made by someone else, as well, of course, as giving a massive boost to their skills as a speaker and their overall confidence.”

The debates are judged by an expert panel. “Success does depend on individual talent,” says Marrs. “It would get nowhere, in our competitions, however, without the dedication of the teachers who put so much time and energy into developing pupils’ abilities.”

Obama Goes To Debate Camp, McCain Not

From http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080923/D93CMTM00.html

Obama begins three days of debate preparations

Sep 23, 6:30 PM (ET)

By NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama studied and practiced privately with aides in a Florida hotel Tuesday in the first of three days of intense preparations for his upcoming foreign policy debate with GOP rival John McCain.

Debates are one of the few times when presidential campaigns loudly tout the skills of their opponent over their own candidate's abilities, and both campaigns were playing that age-old game of downplaying the expectations about their man ahead of Friday's event.

"Have no doubt about the capabilities of Sen. Obama to a debate. He's very, very good," McCain told voters in Ohio. "He was able to defeat Sen. Hillary Clinton, who, as we all know, is very accomplished. He was able to, with his eloquence, inspire a great number of Americans. These will be tough debates."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton delivered similar compliments right back at McCain, even less subtly.

"Given his decades in Washington, John McCain literally has more experience debating than anyone who has ever run for president," Burton said. "If he can't show the skills he's acquired debating foreign policy, it will be a massive disappointment."

McCain is showing more confidence with a full schedule this week that leaves less time for preparations. His advisers said they saw no reason to clear his calendar to prepare, given the Arizona Republican's decades-long experience on foreign affairs issues and his years of debating colleagues in the Senate.

McCain plans to work with advisers on the debate between campaign events this week in Ohio and Michigan, meetings with world leaders in New York for the United Nations General Assembly and briefings on the Wall Street crisis. He also plans to meet with Bono, the rock star and humanitarian, and appear on the "Late Show" with David Letterman.

The debate is being held at the University of Mississippi. With Mississippi firmly in the McCain column, Obama went to Florida, a nearby battleground state, to prepare - at the luxury Belleview Biltmore golf and spa resort in Clearwater.

Among the staff helping are senior advisers David Axelrod, Anita Dunn and Robert Gibbs, with Washington lawyer Greg Craig playing the role of McCain. Craig, a foreign policy expert and member of President Clinton's impeachment defense team, also played President Bush in John Kerry's preparations in 2004.

One goal will be to make sure Obama gets to the point quicker than he tended to in the primary debates, an aide said. The often loquacious Illinois senator has been delivering snappier soundbites recently on the campaign trail at the encouragement of his campaign advisers.
Obama is planning to venture outside the hotel to get local media coverage while he's in Florida. He began his visit with a news conference, has a rally planned for Wednesday, and aides say other outings to meet locals are possible.

Presidential Candidates Arrange Practice Debates

From http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/09/22/the-debate-team-2008-steele-craig-and-granholm/

The Democratic Debate Team 2008: Craig and Granholm
Posted by Dan Slater
There’s a coterie of D.C. lawyers who specialize in debate preparation. Among the most prolific of these practitioners is Williams & Connolly’s Bob Barnett, who played the role of George Bush (for Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and for Michael Dukakis in 1988), and the role of Dick Cheney (for Joe Lieberman in 2000, and for John Edwards in 2004). During the 1992 campaign, Barnett practice debated Bill Clinton more than twenty times.

So who made the taxi squad for the 2008 presidential debates? Two beltway lawyers and a Michigan governor, as it turns out. The WSJ’s Monica Langley reports.


Greg Craig in the role of John McCain: Obama will take practice rounds against the former special counsel to the Clinton White House (and a partner of Bob Barnett’s at Williams & Connolly.) Craig (Harvard, Yale law) will perhaps try to focus on how to provoke McCain into anger or showing what the Obama camp says is how out of touch, or old, he is.

Jennifer Granholm in the role of Sarah Palin: To prepare for Palin, Joe Biden will beat up on Granholm, another female governor who, like Palin, is also a sports mom and former beauty-pageant winner. Biden will reportedly focus on how not to come across as sexist or superior. Granholm (UC-Berkeley, Harvard law) clerked for U.S. Judge Damon Keith on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before becoming an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, and then the state’s Attorney General.

Law Blog Readers: The McCain campaign is reportedly having trouble finding the right person for Palin’s practice sessions. Joe Lieberman was apparently considered, but dropped for being insufficiently fiery and loquacious to do a good Biden impression. Any ideas?

SAARC Tournament Qualifier in Bangladesh

From http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2008/09/18/news0784.htm

The four-day long national round of first SAARC School Debate Championship-2008 ended yesterday at the Teacher-Student Centre auditorium of Dhaka University (DU).

Manarat International School and College, Dhaka secured the championship of the national round participating by 24 schools of the country.

Debaters Saad Bin Amjad and Anam Hossain of the champion team of the country will compete with the national champions of other member countries of SAARC at the regional round to be held in New Delhi next month.

The national round of the debate was organised by the Dhaka University Debating Society (DUDS) with cooperation of London Metropolitan University, UK and Centre for Development Communication (CDC). The regional round will be organised by the Rajib Gandhi Foundation of India.

Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University Professor S M A Faiz spoke as the chief guest at the prize giving ceremony and distributed crests among the champions.

Pro-Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University Prof AFM Yusuf Haider, Executive Director of Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) Dr Iftekharuzzaman, Editor of the editor.net Maskwaith Ahsan and member of Londonmet Bangladesh Alumni Association Tanzim Anwar spoke as special guests.

President of DUDS Mofazzal Hossain Sumon presided over the prize giving ceremony.

Congratulating the champion team, speakers urged them to try their level best at final round in the Delhi for upholding the image of the country.

They also hoped that the first SAARC School Debate Championship would expedite the ongoing effort of transforming the SAARC into a people-to-people forum.

WSDC 2008 Final Video Now Available

This House would expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

New Zealand proposes, England opposes. 5-4 decision for England.

J. Scott Wunn of the USA National Forensic League serves as chair.

NZ BP Open in November

From Chris Bishop:

Dear all

The Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society is pleased to
announce the details of the fifth annual Victoria IV, aka the NZ
British Parliamentary Open Debating Championships.

The tournament this year is being sponsored by the New Zealand
Business Roundtable, an organisation comprising major business firms
committed to contributing to the development of sound public policy
for New Zealand. Their significant financial contribution to the
tournament means we'll be able to provide awesome food, bar tabs and
functions this year.

The tournament will be held from Friday November 28 - Sunday 30
November at the downtown campus of Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand. There will be four preliminary rounds on the Saturday,
one more on Sunday morning, with a break to semis.

The Grand Final will be held on Sunday afternoon in the New Zealand
Parliament's historic and beautiful Legislative Council Chamber, just
across the road.

The Co-CA's of the tournament will be Christopher Bishop (2 x Worlds
octo-finalist, Cambridge IV winner, Oxford IV runner-up, Australs
runner-up, 2 x Australs top ten speaker, 3 x Vic IV winner), and
Gareth Richards (2 x Worlds octo-finalist, Australs quarter-finalist,
3 x Vic IV winner). They'll be supported by Ivan ah Sam (Worlds 2009
DCA, Worlds semi-finalist and top 10 speaker, Australs winner and
best speaker) and other top judges from around New Zealand and
Australia.

Registration will include lunch on Saturday, dinner on Saturday
night, a cooked brunch on Sunday, a cocktail reception after the
Grand Final, and functions on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night.

We are happy to help arrange accommodation for those coming from out
of town.

There is no team cap.

Further details to follow soon, but if you need to know more now,
please get in touch with us on vicdebating@gmail.com

Cheers

Victoria University of Wellington Debating Society

Real Time Discussion Probes Presidential Debate Study

From http://www.debatescoop.org/story/2008/9/21/213250/567

Webinar the Presidential Debate
By Allan Louden 09/21/2008 09:32:50 PM EST
This Tuesday join in a preview of Friday's Presidential Debate. The National Communication Association (NCA) is initiating a Webinar series on Campaign 2008.

My class participated in the inaugural Wedinar a couple weeks ago on campaign oratory. Having students interacting in real time with the panelist proved thought-provoking. I recommend giving it a try.

For Tuesday: Date & time: September 23,noon to 1pm (EDT): Do Presidential Debates Matter? This Webinar explores the importance and place of debates in Campaign 2008.
Panelists: Bill Benoit (Missouri), Gordon Mitchell (Pittsburgh), Kathryn Olson (Wisconsin-Milwaukee)

The link, to join any or all of these sessions, is: https:/sas.elluminate.com d.jnlp?sid=221&password =NCA+Election+participant

The first Webinar has been archived and more information on Tuesday's event is at the NCA Website.
Tags: Presidential Debate, Webinar, NCA, Interactive debates

The program is organized by Shawn Parry-Giles (Maryland) and presented by NCA and the NCA Research Board and hosted by University Educational Technology Services at Georgia State University (James Darsey).
.
Two other Webinars are also scheduled:
October 6, noon-1pm (EDT): Political Advertising in the 2008 Presidential Campaign
Panelists: Stacey Connaughton (Purdue). Charlton Mcllwain (New York U), Trevor Parry-Giles (Maryland)

Monday, October 27, noon to 1:00 p.m. (EDT) ; DebateWatch: The People Talk Back--The 2008 Presidential Debates. Members of the DebateWatch group will provide analysis of the 2008 presidential campaign debates. Panelists: Diana Carlin (Kansas), Barbara Pickering (Nebraska-Omaha), Philip Dalton (Hofstra)

WSDC Tab Error - Filip Dobranic of Slovenia is EFL Top Speaker

From CA Aaron Maniam:

We've checked the tab and it is now official that Filip is the top EFL speaker (ranked 43rd overall). There was indeed a software error so while the round 4 scores were included in the team total, they did not get reflected in the individual tab. I'll do my best to work with future adjudication teams to rectify this glitch on future tabs.

Claire will be sending the revised rankings to all the team managers for their info.

Tuna - would it be possible for you to please do up a certificate for Filip, on his new top speaker status, and convey this through Bojana?

Bojana - this was a tabbing error for which I deeply apologise. I would like to get Filip a new award, that he can keep as a reminder of his achievement. I can do this from Singapore and mail it to you. Could you let me know the best address to send the parcel to?

Thanks everyone for your patience,

Aaron

Debating is Back in Memphis

From http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/sep/21/area-students-match-wits-in-verbal-joust/

Memphis school system brings back scholastic debate contest

By Nevin Batiwalla (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal
Sunday, September 21, 2008

Normally weekends mean hanging out together and watching TV for Denise Richard and Markettia Morrison.

But on Saturday, it was all about U.S energy policy as the two Trezevant High School freshmen matched wits and traded verbal jabs with teams from other Memphis City Schools in the district's first scholastic debate in almost 40 years.

"We need this, you know, to keep us out of the streets and keep us from doing things we might regret later on in life ... or in a couple of days," Richard said as she leaned against a locker waiting for the fourth round of debates to begin.

Almost 100 students from 14 schools were scattered across Overton High to compete in the debate tournament, set up by the Memphis Urban Debate League. The 49 two-person teams argued whether the federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives.

The event was the largest first tournament in the history of the Urban Debate League, said Les Lynn, a consultant with the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues.

The young debaters have been gearing up for Saturday since spring. Over the summer students attended a four-day workshop, and they have been practicing five hours a week after school since the semester started. There will be five more debate tournaments throughout the year culminating with a city championship tournament in late February.

The league's director, Sarah Meltzer, said the program helps students succeed by improving reading comprehension and teaching students how to think critically.

"What debate does is, it not only gives them a greater opportunity to get into college; it gives them the groundwork to succeed once they get there," said Meltzer, who debated when she was in high school in Dallas.

Richard said she has learned a lot from hearing both sides of the argument. She said she joined the league because she has big plans for when she goes off to college.

"I'm doing it to sharpen up my lawyer skills," she said.

For more information about the program, visit Memphis Urban Debate League at memphis debate.org

Qatar Soaks Up First Time WSDC Success

From http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/printArticle.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=242844&version=1&template_id=36&parent_id=16

Team Qatar sets world record at international debate contest
Publish Date: Sunday,21 September, 2008, at 01:33 AM Doha Time

Just and the team members talking to the media yesterday
By Ourouba Hussein
THE first Qatar National Debate team set a new world record for a team making its debut at the World Schools Championship by coming 19th at the international event that concluded in Washington DC, recently.
Senior instructor and programme manager Alex Just told reporters that the five-student Qatari team won four of their eight debates, and finished 19th in the 2008 World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC), ahead of teams from established debating countries like Kuwait, India, Germany, Japan and the USA.
“Team Qatar won preliminary debates against high school debaters from Botswana, Japan, Zimbabwe and Montenegro, which is a new world record for a team making its debut at the tournament,” he explained.
Qatari member of the group Talal Burshaid speaking about the competitions, said the team had four prepared debates and four extempore ones. ‘Delivering emergency aid in any humanitarian crisis’ was the first prepared topic which the Qatar team won against the Botswana team.
The Qatar team debated against team England in the second prepared topic, which was about scientific research.
“It was a close debate. England won the 2008 WSDC, but the members of the winning team said one of their hardest debates was the one they ran against Qatar,” he said.
Just pointed out that team England had five-and-a-half years of debating experience, while the Qatar team had started practicing some 10 months ago.
He said that the Qatari team competed in two debates against each of A, B, C and D teams, and recorded their best performances against the A teams. “That made the judges say that the Qatar team has done very well.”
The five students said they have learnt a lot from the trip and debates.
Burshaid said he learned not to underestimate or overestimate rival teams, but to just give his best.
Fatima Hijran spoke about gaining more knowledge related to business, ethics and science.
Tina Niaki cited her gains as exchanging of ideas and acquiring more knowledge.
All the team members agreed that taking part in WSDC made them learn how to defend their position, form their own opinions and respect others’ opinions.
The team members described the competition ambience as funny and enjoyable and declared their willingness to participate in the next WSDC which will be held next year in Greece, if they win the selection process in Qatar.

WSDC Semifinal Debate Now Online

New Zealand proposition, Scotland opposition.

This House would drop all US sanctions on Cuba. Semifinal round at WSDC 2008 in Washington DC USA. The debate was won by New Zealand 7-0.

Latest News from WUPID

From Muhammad Yunus:

Due to the amount of available space (as of current) and the list of universities in the waiting list, the committee has agreed to increase the institutional cap to 4 teams - where all are qualified to break. During the protected registration period for invited institutions, each institution can only register a maximum of 2 teams. The other 1 or 2 additional team will have to be placed in the waiting list.

The selection of the teams (within the waiting list), will be decided by the committee and suggestions / advices from the adjudication core. Generally, the selection will be on the basis of the institutions / teams contribution to the competitiveness of the entire debating tournament. The committee will also give preference to teams that has supported WUPID last year and opportunities to teams which are not in the top 30. Yet again, competitiveness is the general criteria. And conclusively, the choice is up to the good judgment of the lovely organizers.
Read the registration process here (http://mlysn.wordpress.com/cimb-wupid-2008/registration/). And if you need to contact us, feel free to email yunus@hngsc.com

Rgds.
Yunus
CIMB WUPID 2008

UN Foundation's Global Debates Project

From Kaitlin Barry:

Are you interested in global issues? Do you have something to say? Don’t miss out on the opportunity to join high school students all over the world in discussion and action around climate change by participating in the UN Foundation’s Global Debates. This year, students will be designing and arguing the significance of their very own Climate Change Action Plan. The possibilities will be vast and exciting as some students will address climate change on a local, grassroots level and others will examine current policies and government action.

Last year over 88 countries participated by holding public debates in their schools. Yet, they didn’t just debate. They also competed in a host of Point Activities ranging from school-wide service projects to guest blogging in order to win a trip to the first-ever UN Foundation Youth Leadership Summit. Register now and you too can represent your school and country at the 2009 Youth Leadership Summit.

The Global Debates are run through the UN Foundation’s program The People Speak, which engages young people on the global issues that will shape their future.

Official Team Results from WSDC 2008

From Chief Adjusicator AARON MANIAM:

Final Ranking Prelim Ranking Prelim Wins Prelim Judges Points
1 England 3 8 21 6169.5
2 New Zealand 1 8 23 6237
3 Greece 10 6 18 6091.5
4 Scotland 12 5 15 6144.5
5 South Africa 2 8 22 6147.5
6 Canada 4 7 21 6160
7 Israel 6 7 19 6075
8 Ireland 9 6 18 6172
9 Pakistan 5 7 19 6116.5
10 Singapore 7 6 19 6138
11 Australia 8 6 18 6196.5
12 Slovenia 11 6 16 5981
13 South Korea 13 5 15 6028.5
14 Wales 14 5 14 6044
15 Hong Kong 15 5 14 6035.5
16 Netherlands 16 5 14 5917.5
17 Argentina 17 5 13 5853.5
18 Sri Lanka 18 4 12 5999.5
19 Qatar 19 4 12 5882.5
20 Slovakia 20 4 10 5756
21 Bangladesh 21 4 9 5990.5
22 Peru 22 3 11 5982.5
23 Kuwait 23 3 11 5851.5
24 Botswana 24 3 10 5879.5
25 Germany 25 3 9 5965.5
26 USA 26 3 9 5935
27 Mexico 27 3 9 5793
28 Czech Republic 28 3 6 5747
29 India 29 2 10 5795.5
30 Montenegro 30 2 7 5813.5
31 Zimbabwe Swing Team 31 2 7 5713
32 Philippines 32 2 6 5970
33 Estonia 33 2 6 5858.5
34 Indonesia 34 2 6 5857.5
35 Lithuania 35 1 8 5930
36 Bermuda 36 1 7 5878
37 Romania 37 0 4 5779.5
38 Mongolia 38 0 0 5556.5
39 Japan 39 0 0 5465.5

PBS Television Program to Feature Women's Empowerment Through Debate

From Associated Leaders of Urban Debate http://www.debateleaders.org/root/NEWwelcome.shtml

A program managed by two ALOUD local partners will be featured on PBS. The Bella Abzug Leadership Institute (BALI) and the IMPACT Coalition are partners in running an all-girls debate tournament each year as part of BALI's young women leadership programming. PBS decided to include the segment in its upcoming broadcast on Women & Power because they were so impressed with the young women and felt these girls represented "the future of women's leadership".

The media alert we received from PBS below. A special preview excerpt of the show can be found on the NOW on PBS homepage at www.pbs.org/now .

*The air date is 9/19/08.* The time in NY will be 8:30pm on Channel 13. Please check local listings for your area.

The full title is *"Women, Power and Politics: A Rising Tide?" *The show will have four different segments on impressive women including the story on the BALI program. The BALI all-girls debate tournament we co-host will be part of that segment with our debaters playing a role. Here's a shortcut to the preview on YouTube : http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/437/video-excerpt.html which you can also access on the ALOUD homepage.

From the previews we've seen, the debaters sound impressive. This may be a very useful piece for promoting debate in your area. ALOUD partners will receive a follow-up email that will include some simple ideas for leveraging the broadcast.

PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!

*What Happens When Women Achieve Political Power?**
*

*NOW on PBS' Maria Hinojosa Focuses on ‘Women, Power, and Politics’ for September 19 One-Hour Episode**
*

*Despite high profile achievements of Senator Hillary Clinton and Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin, United States ranks 68th among countries for
number of women in national political office**
*

*NEW YORK, July 24* – From a U.S. Senate race in New Hampshire to the Presidential palace in Chile; from a team of high school debaters in New York City to the halls of Parliament in Rwanda, women are striving for power. But what drives them, and what unique contemporary challenges do they face? *In a special one-hour NOW on PBS airing September 19, 2008,* Emmy-winning senior correspondent Maria Hinojosa embarks on a personal journey around the world for an intimate look at the high-stakes risks, triumphs, and setbacks for woman leaders of today and tomorrow. In the program “*WOMEN, POWER, AND POLITICS: A RISING TIDE?* ,” Hinojosa interviews President Michele Bachelet of Chile, the first woman leader in Latin America who did not have a husband precede her as President, as well as former New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen, now in a tight race for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Hinojosa also travels to Rwanda, where, 14 years after a horrific massacre left nearly one million people dead, women make up nearly half of the government, and an economic boom is enriching lives. Rwanda now has the highest percentage of women in government of any country. The show also follows a group of diverse high school girls competing in a debate competition for the chance to participate in the Bella Abzug Leadership Institute. These girls -- some from disadvantaged backgrounds -- are on the cusp of finding their way as future leaders. “The United States ranks 68th among countries for number of women in national political office,” says Hinojosa, who conceived the project earlier this year. “That says a lot about us, but also about the rest of the world, where women are accomplishing great things in places where you’d least expect it. “This is an important, unique story about empowered women, but the insight we uncover has the power to enlighten and inspire everyone.” Maria Hinojosa is available to share personal and professional details of her journalistic journey. The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will feature web-exclusive commentary from noteworthy women including Maria Bartiromo, Sandra Cisneros, and Mary Robinson, as well as opportunities for all women to post and share their stories of ambition, success, and discouragement.

Peace & Justice,


Will Baker
Executive Director
www.debateleaders.org
1-866-4DEBATE

WSDC Scrapbook is Almost Done

See it at http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/wsdc/Welcome.html

Please check your page and pictures. It is not too late to send me either a new photo or your write-up. I want to fiond some errors, because I know they are there.

I am still looking for photos of:

Break Night Party
9/11 Memorial
England holding their trophy.

Other photos you might feel are of interest. Just attach them to an email and send them along.

More to come.

Pitt To Drop CEDA Debating, Suspends Reid-Brinkley

From http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_588742.html

Pitt dropping from debates after YouTube rant

By Joe Mandak
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
Wednesday, September 17, 2008

A University of Pittsburgh debate coach is limiting her contact with the team and issued an apology for cursing at another coach who dropped his pants while arguing with her at a national championship tournament, an encounter that was recorded and posted on YouTube.

The Pitt professor, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, won't travel with the team or coach in tournaments this academic year, the school announced Wednesday. The school also has withdrawn from debate tournaments conducted by the national group that sponsored the championship tournament.

"Despite serious provocation, such language was unprofessional. I apologize for any embarrassment I have caused the university," Reid-Brinkley said in statement issued by the school.

The apology refers to an expletive-filled argument at the Cross Examination Debate Association's national championship tournament in March.

The argument occurred after the Fort Hays State University team d ismissed Reid-Brinkley, who is black, as a judge of a match between it and Towson University. The Towson debate team and Reid-Brinkley called the decision to remove a black female judge an act of "white hegemony."

A video of the argument, posted on YouTube last month, showed Fort Hays State debate coach Bill Shanahan, 47, in an angry confrontation with Reid-Brinkley. Shanahan, who is white, at one point drops his shorts, exposing his underwear, and points his rear end at Reid-Brinkley.

Pitt said in the statement that "unacceptable behavior was on display in ways that are not compatible with Pitt's standards for participation by our representatives in varsity competitions."

As a result, Pitt will not participate in tournaments conducted by the Cross Examination Debate Association, a major college sanctioning body, until that group completes a "behavior-improvement initiative" aimed at eliminating such incidents.

Reid-Brinkley "will not travel with competitive debate teams or act as a tournament coach this academic year," the statement said.

A Pitt spokesman declined to comment beyond the statement. It was unclear if Reid-Brinkley had been suspended as coach or is just not traveling with the team this year. It also is unclear if the debate team will compete in tournaments sponsored by a different sanctioning body.

Reid-Brinkley and Chancellor Mark Nordenberg did not return messages.

Face to Face - Korean Debate Television

See the website at http://www.arirang.co.kr/Tv2/FaceTo_WhatsOn.asp?PROG_CODE=TVCR0397&sys_lang=Eng

From Logandran Balavigendran at loganimal@gmail.com:

Face to Face, the English language debate show on Arirang TV is looking for contestants for their brand new Season 3! Some quick details

• each team consists of 3 people. There is one speech followed by a 30 minute quickfire discussion, where you exchange 30 second POIs
• the show is open to both university and high school students. You don't all have to come from the same school
  
• shows are shot during the evenings or Saturdays. Each shoot takes slightly more than an hour
• debates are judged by experienced college judges - people who've judged or debated at international debate tournaments
  
• the show is organized in an Octofinals format - if you win the debate, you get to come back next week! Win 4 debates and you're the Champion!
  
• you get a small honorarium each time you come on the show, and a Grand Prize if you win!
• the show is broadcast weekly on Arirang TV to 50 different countries! It's received feedback from places as far as Canada, New Zealand, Bhutan, Philippines and Singapore!
• For more details, and to watch a streaming version of the show, please visit the website at http://www.arirang.co.kr/Tv2/FaceTo_WhatsOn.asp?PROG_CODE=TVCR0397&code=Po1&sys_lang=Eng

For more details, email me! =]

Cheers
Logan

Check out Logan's bio:

Education
Electronics Engineering at Multimedia University, Malaysia
Masters in Engineering at Multimedia University, Malaysia
Experience
Chief Adjudicator of World Debating Championships
Chief Adjudicator of AustralAsian Debating Championships
Deputy Chief Adjudicator of Asian Debating Championships
Asian Debate Champion in 2005 and 2006
Best Speaker in Asia in 2005
Asians Masters Champion in 2004 and 2007
Present
ChungAng University,Seoul, Korea -Coach of the ChungAng University Debating Society(CUDS)
Professor at College of Business Administration

First Video from WSDC 2008 - More to Come

Slovenia vs. USA

This was a special round that had to be made up when round four for these two teams could not take place because of an accident. This was held after round eight. Slovenia won the debate 3-0.

This House would admit Georgia into NATO.

Watch for more WSDC 2008 videos on the way.

WSDC 2008 Prelim Records

Here are the prelim records from WSDC 2008 in Washington.

Country Wins Judges Points
1 New Zealand 8 23 6237
2 South Africa 8 22 6147.5
3 England 8 21 6169.5
4 Canada 7 21 6160
5 Pakistan 7 19 6116.5
6 Israel 7 19 6075
7 Singapore 6 19 6138
8 Australia 6 18 6196.5
9 Ireland 6 18 6172
10 Greece 6 18 6091.5
11 Slovenia 6 16 5981
12 Scotland 5 15 6144.5
13 South Korea 5 15 6028.5
14 Wales 5 14 6044
15 Hong Kong 5 14 6035.5
16 Netherlands 5 14 5917.5
17 Argentina 5 13 5853.5
18 Sri Lanka 4 12 5999.5
19 Qatar 4 12 5882.5
20 Slovakia 4 10 5756
21 Bangladesh 4 9 5990.5
22 Peru 3 11 5982.5
23 Kuwait 3 11 5851.5
24 Botswana 3 10 5879.5
25 Germany 3 9 5965.5
26 USA 3 9 5935
27 Mexico 3 9 5793
28 Czech Republic 3 6 5747
29 India 2 10 5795.5
30 Montenegro 2 7 5813.5
31 Swing 2 7 5713
32 Philippines 2 6 5970
33 Estonia 2 6 5858.5
34 Indonesia 2 6 5857.5
35 Lithuania 1 8 5930
36 Bermuda 1 7 5878
37 Romania 0 4 5779.5
38 Mongolia 0 0 5556.5
39 Japan 0 0 5465.5

England Wins WSDC 2008

On a 5-4 decision England in opposition has defeated New Zealand in the grand finale at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington DC USA.

The motion was
This House would expand the number of permanent members of the UN security council.

More details coming, along with full slate of awards and lots of photos.

Videos will also be coming soon along with a few surprises.

England Will Meet New Zealand in World Schools Final

In the semifinals at the World Schools Debating Championship in Washington DC USA, the results are:

New Zealand 7-0 over Scotland
England 5-2 over Greece

The final is tomorrow afternoon at the Reagan Center.

The motion was: This House would have the United States lift economic sanctions on Cuba.

The Bracket from WSDC in Washington

WSDC Quarterfinal Results

New Zealand charges ahead
Scotland, England with comfortable wins
Greece Squeaks into semifinals

This House regrets holding the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

New Zealand defeats Ireland 4-1
Scotland defeats Canada 4-1
England defeats Israel 4-1
Greece defeats South Africa 3-2

Semifinals will feature:

1. New Zealand vs. 12. Scotland
3. England vs. 10. Greece

The round will be held at the Hyatt Regency Crystal City at 8 PM.

Octafinal Results from World Schools in Washington

Read over the phone by Aaron Maniam, Chief Adjudicator:

THBT heads of government should be required to have a parliamentary majority in order to govern.

New Zealand defeats the Netherlands 5-0
Ireland defeats Australia 4-1
Canada defeats South Korea 3-2
Scotland defeats Pakistan 4-1
England defeats Wales 3-2
Israel defeats Slovenia 5-0
South Africa defeats Hong Kong 3-2
Greece defeats Singapore 3-2

A new bracket will be coming soon.

Watch as WSDC 2008 Scrapbook Takes Shape

As we construct the WSDC 2008 scrapbook we will be posting it so that people can find errors, help identify photos and to see who has turned in their photos and bios and who has not. The finished booklet will be structured as a pdf and sent to every team as well as being made available online.

We are already learning a lot. For example, we now know the difference between a kimono and a hanbok and will make that change. Some teams have found grammatical and spelling errors in their bios and we will be fixing that.

We also need photos from the break night party and the 9/11 memorial. Feel free to send thm to the editor listed below. Any and all photos are welcome.

If you are still not in the book, email information and photos to
alfred.snider@uvm.edu .

See the current version at http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/wsdc/Welcome.html

Cork Worlds Payment Update

From Mark Collins:

Hi Everyone,

Just a quick update in relation to payment for Cork Worlds 2009. I'd like to thank everyone who has paid so promptly thus far, its very much appreciated.

In relation to EFT payments though I would just like to stress how crucial it is that all such transactions are marked clearly with the name of your institution. This is hugely important to enable us to track all the transactions effectively.

Also I would just like to reiterate that all monies owed must be received in our account by October 9th 6pm BSt/GMT+1, and that as a result I would recommend that EFT's are initiated no later than September 29th to allow 10 working days for the transfer to be made.

Furthermore all payments will be confirmed by individual email within 72 working hours of being received. If anyone has any questions or queries at all please do not hesitate to contact me and I will give you very 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

Play Features Debate on Existence of God, But Is Set in Hell

From http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/body_and_soul/article4632628.ece

August 30, 2008
The art of darkness: Sir Antony Sher
The acclaimed actor discusses his harrowing new role in the TV drama God on Trial, battling drugs and why art is the best therapy of all

John Naish

“When they first told me that the screenplay is set in Auschwitz, I said, I think I've done that',” explains Sir Antony Sher in his gently deep voice. The Olivier award-winning actor who has played a host of history's worst monsters, including Hitler, Richard III and Hendrik Verwoerd, the architect of apartheid, will appear on our television screens next week putting God on trial in the middle of a Nazi concentration camp.

These all seem unfathomably dark roles for one so unassumingly amiable.

Sher, 59, has spent the past two months in retreat, quietly painting an enormous canvas of personal portraits. He enters the pub in Stratford-upon-Avon where we meet wearing a shaggy beard and a baseball cap, carrying a plastic carrier bag. A short man with powerful shoulders, he glances about anxiously, worried that I might not recognise him.

Away from any of the immense characters he portrays, Sher can certainly appear unprepossessing. He perches on our window seat, nursing a white wine, fidgeting constantly as he explains his new role in God on Trial, a BBC Two drama by Frank Cotterell Boyce, the writer of Welcome to Sarajevo and 24 Hour Party People. This is Sher's second spell portraying an Auschwitz victim. In a stark one-man stage act three years ago, he brought to life Primo Levi's harrowing memoir, If This is a Man, and took it around the world.

“I have done Primo in theatres and on television and thought that I had finished all that,” he says. “But the moment I started reading Boyce's script, it gripped me. It's an extraordinary idea; the inmates have a debate about God, and it's set, well, in Hell.” The drama is based on an historical story of how a group of Auschwitz prisoners, their faith tested by the Nazis' barbarity, put their God in the dock, charged with breaking his covenant with his chosen people to protect and care for them.

“Effectively it is based on a legend; there are no records and no survivors from the trial,” Sher acknowledges. “Boyce has written the story in a fascinating way. You keep swaying from one argument to another.”

But it is no mere historical exercise, he adds. “The Auschwitz debate has huge currency now because fundamentalism on both sides is coming head to head. Even in schools we are going back to questioning whether Darwin was right,” he laughs incredulously.

“It's so important to keep talking about the subject, particularly in a medium like TV. I'm so pleased that the Beeb could make it at a time when so many people say that television is being dumbed down.”

The hell of fascist persecution has particular resonance for Sher, a Jew who realised he was gay while growing up in apartheid-era South Africa. The experience, he says, turned him against organised religion. “I feel very Jewish in my identity, but absolutely not in a religious sense. I was brought up as a casual orthodox. But as my sexuality was awakening, there was a sense that it was made diseased by my religion. In my life, all the worst atrocities have been done in the name of religion. The Dutch Reform Church supported apartheid by finding obscure biblical passages that purported to justify it.”

Not everyone responds to atrocity in the same way, he acknowledges. “Primo Levi came out of Auschwitz and said, there is no God'. Elie Wiesel, the other great Holocaust writer and survivor, came to see me playing Primo, and said he still practises his faith, although he thinks it was wounded in Auschwitz.”

Sher moved to England in 1968, aged 19, to be free of repression, though it took time for him to feel liberated. “I pretended not to be white South African because I felt very ashamed of the society I had come from. I decided I'd better not be Jewish because I couldn't see any Jewish leading actors, and for the first few years here I wasn't gay either.” Indeed, there remains no trace of Africa in his accent.

“You can think about what it's like to die in Auschwitz, but what about how it's actually like to live there? That's what Levi describes in such detail. After the last performance of Primo, this weight came off me . . . I felt, and I don't want this to sound flippant, that I did not have to go back to Auschwitz any more.”

Going “back” is more than just a psychological move. While Sher performed Primo on a bare stage, the BBC Two drama rebuilt Auschwitz in a disused factory outside Glasgow. “There is an ongoing debate about whether you can describe or film Auschwitz, and we are all too well fed and healthy nowadays. That's why I did Primo as a comfortable-looking man, years after the war, sitting in a bare room,” he says. “When this new play came along I thought that it was so important that you can't do it in abstract. So we just have to accept the convention that we look too well fed and healthy.”

God on Trial, Wednesday, September 3, 9pm, BBC Two

WSDC Bracket

Thanks to Colm Flynn of http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/

FRIDAY AT UNIVERSITY OF DC

Leave from lobby at 9 AM

Transfer at Metro Center, take RED Line car marked “Shady Grove”
Get off at UDC/Van Ness stop.
As we leave the UDC/Van Ness metro stop there will be a student there with a large red umbrella who will direct people. We will make one turn at another red umbrella, then walk into the auditorium building, which is 46 East first floor auditorium.

In auditorium by 10 AM
Pairings and motions at 10:30 AM
11:30 AM-12:30 PM Octafinals
12:30-1 PM Adjudication and feedback

Lunch 1-2 PM

Announce quarterfinals 2 PM
Quarterfinals start by 3:15 PM
4:15-5 PM Adjudication and feedback
5 PM leave UDC

SYDHR Regional Youth Forum in Serbia

From Arminda Lathrop:

On August 16th-23rd, IDEA, Willamette University, and Association for Creative Communication and Debate (ACCD) in Serbia hosted the SYDHR Regional Youth Forum in Mataruska Banja, Serbia. The Regional Youth Forum was part of a larger project the three entities have been working on the past year, called Serbian Youth Debate Human Rights (SYDHR). SYDHR, sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of State, is a project that involves promoting human rights education and debate among youth in Serbia. ACCD has been organizing debate workshops, teacher seminars, and debate tournaments for the past year throughout Serbia. The project also involves the creation of a debate “wiki” in Serbian and the translation of IDEA textbooks into the Serbian language. The Regional Forum was a chance for the three project partners to invite youth from outside of Serbia to join the project—and the debate—as well.

Students, teachers, and coaches from throughout Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Slovenia attended the SYDHR Forum. Thank you to help from IDEA’s local partners in these countries (Logos, CKD, MEF, and ZIP respectively), the event was well-attended and successful. Students left tired but satisfied, excited about debate and all of their new acquaintances!

For the first three days of the event, students and teachers took classes in human rights, leadership, and debate. Human rights and leadership classes involved activities such as debating about human rights and the Olympics, problem solving about child labor, and creating the Constitution for a new hypothetical country, “Freedonia.” Debate classes taught topic preparation and Karl Popper strategy. At the end of the day, students were exhausted—but not too exhausted for walking in the park, participating in evening activities (Macedonians are great dancers), or writing messages for their “secret friends.” Students were assigned a secret friend at the beginning of the week; they could send their secret friend nice messages or gifts, their identity not revealed until the end of the week. The secret friends board was filled with messages, candies, and some admittedly odd items.

The two-day tournament at the end of the Forum was a mixed teams tournament—three-person teams consisted of people from at least two countries. Affirmative and negative sides battled over the resolution, “Multinational businesses should be bound by international human rights law.” Debates were judged by coaches from the U.S. and from the 5 countries in attendance, and all judges agreed that debaters did an excellent job with a very complex topic. Congratulations, SYDHR Debaters!

For more information about the SYDHR project—or to see photos from the SYDHR Forum, you can visit www.idebate.org/sydhr or join the SYDHR Facebook Group called, SYDHR Mat(a)rushka Banja: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=79102500001.

Breaks from WSDC 2008

Unofficial results read over the phone.

From Washington DC USA here is the break as announced by our convener Phyllis Hirth at The Sports Bar in Crystal City:

PLACE COUNTRY WINS BALLOTS
1. New Zealand 8-23
2 South Africa 8-22
3 England 8 21
4 Canada 7 21
5 Pakistan 7 19
6 Israel 7 19
7 Singapore 6 19
8 Australia 6 18
9 Ireland 6 18
10 Greece 6 18
11 Slovenia 6 16
12 Scotland 5 15
13 South Korea 5 15
14 Wales 5 14
15 Hong Kong 5 14
16 Netherlands 5 14

Debate Coach Rosemary Kincaid Never Gave Up on Students

From http://reporternews.com/news/2008/sep/09/former-abilene-high-speech-teacher-debate-coach/

Former AHS debate coach dies

By Sidney Levesque (Contact)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Local residents are mourning the loss of Rosemary Dodd Kincaid, a former Abilene High School speech and debate teacher and coach who was respected statewide in her field.

Kincaid, 57, died Friday in Plano after complications from heart surgery.

A memorial service will be at 7 p.m. Thursday at Ted Dickey Funeral Home, 2128 18th St., in Plano. Kincaid herself requested that jeans be worn to the memorial service.

She was born in 1951 in California, later making her way to Texas, where she graduated from Abilene Christian High School in 1969.

Kincaid earned a bachelor's degree in physical education and speech from Abilene Christian College (now university) in 1973 and a master's degree in communication from ACU in 2006. She also worked on a master's in principalship at ACU.

Kincaid was an educator for 30 years, most recently at Plano East Senior High School.

Her passion for debate began at Westwood High School in Austin, when she was asked to take over as speech and debate coach in the late 1980s. Since then, she led numerous speech students to state and national victories.

Kincaid, and later her husband, Warren, started teaching at Abilene High in 1999. They left in 2007 to teach in Plano.

During her time at AHS, Kincaid was elected president of the Texas Forensic Association, recognized as a finalist for Speech Teacher of the Year by the Texas Speech Communication Association and in 2006, received a Citation Award from the National Federation of State High School Associations. The award is the federation's highest honor.

School administrators described Kincaid as a dedicated teacher.

"She never gave up on kids," said AHS Principal Terry Bull, who was able to see Kincaid at the hospital Friday before she died. "She would take a student who maybe didn't believe in themselves and made them believe they could do it."

Bull said she was a tenacious fighter who stood up for her students and didn't like to lose.

Royce Curtis, a former AHS principal who now oversees personnel for the school district, said Kincaid was a wonderful teacher.

"She loved to compete and had the ability to bring out the best in her speech/debate students," he said in an e-mail. "They excelled under her guidance. It was a privilege working with her."

BP Tournament at North South University in Bangladesh

Alfred Snider with Chief Adjudicator Zunaed Rabbani

From Sinha Humayun:

North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh has successfully launched "Dialogue NSU 08", the BP edition of IV tournament hosted by North South University Debate Club (NSUDC).Held form 3-6th September 2008, "Dialogue 08" is upto now the LARGEST BP format tournament ever hosted in Dhaka. Dhaka is a debate circuit which for the last few years has been evolving and gradually getting used to the BP format, and for Dhaka debating fraternity such tournaments are of monumental importance. This is the first time so many institutions participated in a BP format tournament. Participating institutions are listed
below.

1. American International University Bangladesh
2. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
3. Dhaka University
3. East West University
4. Institute of Business Adminstration
5. Independent University Bangladesh
6. London College for Legal Studies
7. North South University
8. South East University
9. Islamic University of Technology
10. Stamford University

After frour rounds of Prelims, 8 teams were Broken into the Quarters. It was an extremely competitive and challenging process, as every team were pretty much equally balanced in
caliber and talent.

The Breaking Teams are..

1. NSU 8
2. IBA 1
3. NSU 7
4. EWU 1
5. IUT 1
6. IBA 3
7. IUB 4
8. NSU 5

In the Semi Finals, both rooms saw extreme efforts and sheer quality debating. But at the end, the best of Dhaka rose upto the big game, Grand Finale. The Grand Finale of "Dialogue NSU" was without any doubt, THE best BP debate seen in Dhaka ever. It took almost an hour for the adjudicators to decide the winner. After an hour of discussion the adjudicators failed to reach a concencus decision and on a split decision IBA 1 earned the glory. NSU 8 came as the runner up, and EWU 1 and NSU 7 were the third and fourth subsequently.

Motions

Round 1
THW recognise the independence of South Ossetia.
Round 2
THW ban Digital Enhancement in magazines and billboards.
Round 3
THW ban all Blood Sports.
Round 4
THW Ban Coka Cola.

Semi Final
THW legalize voluntary ethunasia for lifetime inprisoned War Criminals.

Grand Final
THW Build the Wall.

TOP 5 Speakers (based on speaker standing)

1. Rishad Sharif (IUT 1)
2. Nayeem Kashem (NSU 8)
Arbaaz Nayeem (IBA 1)
3. Ridwan Karim (IBA 1)
Sinha Ibna Humayun (NSU 8)
4. Sheemtana Shamim (NSU7)
Tanvir Hafiz (SDF 1)
5. Wahidul Bari (NSU 7)

The Chief Adjudicators of the tournament were Zunaed Rabbani and Asif Newaz. In their able supervision, this tournament enjoyed the highest quality of adjudication available in Dhaka (including Rashedul Hasan Stalin, Azim Ahmed, Habib Hafiz and many others).

NSUDC congratulates all the participants and organizers who made this amazing event possible.

Sinha Humayun
Member,
North South University Debate Club (NSUDC)

NPDA Reforms Cause Division in Membership

The National Parliamentary Debate Association is the largest debating organization in the USA. New rules changes have been lauded by some and seriously criticized by others. There is a concern that NPDA debate is becoming too much like policy-cx debate and that members are leaving to do the WUDC format. Based on my experience both are taking place, but I am not going to indicate whether I think they are good or bad.

Here is a document sent by Kevin Minch, NPDA President, to members. I have snipped out large parts of it (mostly the wording of rules changes) but have tried to retain the specifics of the changes.

Changes to National Tournament Operating Procedures and Rules of Debating and Judging

Preface

As caretakers of the National Parliamentary Debate Association, the Executive Council is charged with the consideration of both the present and the future health of the organization. It is also vitally important that we, as leaders, remain cognizant of the conditions that gave rise to the formation of NPDA and its predecessor (WSPDA) while listening to the concerns of ALL constituencies of the organization. In trying to listen to these many voices, and maintain focus on the past, present, and future, one thing becomes immediately apparent—parliamentary debate in the United States is greatly divided, and that division is a very real threat to the educational opportunities presented by the activity’s existence. This observation gives rise to the following document, a product of the summer meeting of NPDA Officers in Kirksville, Missouri, June 27-29, 2008, and work that has continued through August.

Absent Mission or Forgotten Heritage?

A common refrain at NPDA business meetings and gatherings of NPDA coaches these days is, “If we’re going to make some changes, we have to come to an understanding of what this organization’s goals are!” It seems, at times, like those goals are somehow elusive—that students, coaches, and organizational leaders are no clearer today about what those goals are now than when we tried to tackle some of these issues at NPDA’s Constitutional Convention in Prescott, Arizona, in 2004. That assumption, we believe, is shortsighted. Indeed, we have very good guidance as to the organization’s goals if we look to the words of those who gave the organization its start and nurtured it over the last decade.

The earliest conversations that resulted in the formation of the forerunner of NPDA—the Western States Parliamentary Debate Association—focused on access. Al Johnson observed in his account of NPDA’s history (available on the NPDA website) that the then-dominant debate option had “made it almost impossible for bright students with little, or no, experience in debate to compete.” In the Fall 1994 issue of Parliamentary Debate, Johnson reflected on early conversations he had with one of his founding colleagues, noting, “I saw the possibility of parliamentary debate opening the door to two groups of students: first, the same inexperienced student that CEDA originally appealed to and second, those students who normally only do individual events.” For Johnson, NPDA was a useful supplement to existing debate formats and organizations—not necessarily a replacement for them. Susan Epstein, NPDA’s second Executive Secretary, argued in Parliamentary Debate’s Fall 1992 issue that the new format was ideal for smaller programs with fewer resources. Her argument was couched on assumptions of a very different competitive environment than parliamentary debaters face today: a more robust local circuit, more reasonable research burdens, and less pressure for larger coaching staffs.

In the Fall 1996 issue of Argumentation and Advocacy, NPDA President, Robert Trapp, opined, “…the goals of the NPDA should be to create parliamentary debating as a form of good public debating.” Without naming other organizations explicitly, Trapp contrasted the format with cross-examination debating on a number of levels, including that “Parliamentary debaters are expected to develop expertise and understanding of a wide range of topics and issues, unlike cross-examination debaters who will develop more restricted but deeper knowledge on a given topic.”

President Skip Rutledge encouraged NPDA to “appreciate and improve upon what is unique to our format of debate and not worry about what others may say, do or think” when he wrote in the Summer 1999 issue of Parliamentary Debate. He continued: “Let us not define ourselves by what we are not, but instead seek out what we are and what we wish to become, and know the reasons why.”

In the Summer of 2001, President Tom Kuster reaffirmed much of what had been said by his predecessors in an article for Parliamentary Debate, writing:

NPDA is broadly thought of as the primary organization for promoting the practice of parliamentary debate in the U.S. on all levels. Parliamentary debate honors this educational value by developing NPDA programs for encouraging the novice speaker as well as the experienced, supporting new or struggling programs as well as the established ones, encouraging focus at all levels on the educational values of parliamentary debate, and guiding practice in tournaments around the nation as well as in the NPDA National Championship Tournament. We risk losing this educational value when we consider NPDA primarily or solely it’s National Championship Tournament, or view the organization’s function primarily or solely as a means of determining who are the top of “elite” debaters in the nation.

Even a cursory read of the historical documents of NPDA, and the articles appearing in its own journal over the years, reveals far more of a consensus among the organization’s founders and elected leaders on the pedagogical and organizational objective of the organization than may be immediately apparent to the participant in 2008. These values, however, contrast with much of what parliamentary debate is now becoming.

The Kirksville Consensus

The Executive Council, in session for a summer meeting, reached unanimous agreement on the need for substantive change in the direction of NPDA. Through several actions taken at that meeting, the five elected officers (including the National Student Representative) made several crucial observations about the state of parliamentary debate and formulated policies accordingly. We observed that:

• Current trends in parliamentary debate competition, including the evolution of a competitive national circuit, and the weakening of regional circuits, have contributed to the exclusion of several constituencies of the NPDA community, including novices, under-funded programs, and programs with traditional perspectives on debate competition.
• While NPDA membership remains numerically stable, numerous long-term programs have begun to leave the format for alternative formats (such as Worlds) perceived as more pedagogically or philosophically consistent with the reasons they originally joined NPDA. These departures include founding programs and directors, long-term organizational stalwarts, former Presidents, and former national champions.
• The competitive environment at NPDA tournaments has become increasingly litigious, contentious, and unwelcoming. Rightly or wrongly, charges of unethical, unsporting, or antisocial behavior are becoming more routine, and as officers, we find ourselves devoting more and more time to fielding complaints that begin with, “Don’t you think ‘x’ is illegal under the rules?” or “When are you going to do something about ‘y’ we keep seeing in rounds?” We have become arbiters of competing opportunistic strategies rather than facilitators of educational opportunity.
• Community has become subordinate to competition and strategy. When claiming ownership over the optimal classroom space for preparation, or dodging ballot pickup to get a jump on prep time becomes more important than the shared experience of learning and growing, it is time to take stock of where we are.

“W(h)ither” NPDA?

This question was posed by Donn Parson, long-term Tournament Director of the NDT, when writing in commemoration of the tournament’s 50th Anniversary in the Summer 1996 issue of Argumentation and Advocacy. Then he was talking about the health and vitality of his organization in a world where CEDA and NDT were merging (and though unmentioned in the article, NPDA was emergent). His question is not unlike one some can ask about NPDA today.

Where do these changes come from? Where are we going? In truth, evolution in debate organizations is most likely an inevitable outcome of our very human strivings for perfection. Nonetheless, we cannot help but observe that many of the trends that have driven the development of parliamentary debate have come, at least in part, as a result of the birth and growth of the National Parliamentary Tournament of Excellence (NPTE). Before we continue this line of thought, it is important to underscore the words of former President Kuster in 2003:

Certainly, all forms of academic debate furnish important benefits to student participants as well as to school programs. It does not disparage any debate format to observe that each provides its own special profile of educational values. A program director’s thoughtful choice of format is based on the specific educational outcomes sought for students, and does not imply the superiority or inferiority of any format.

It is, perhaps, ironic that an NPDA President who was so widely criticized by some in this community for his traditional outlook on debate, would be the person we turn to in support of the claim that difference can be celebrated. But Kuster was right on this, and many other points.

The NPTE’s success as a quasi-organization has carved-out a special space for those teams who wish to compete in an environment that nurtures and rewards elite competitors in parliamentary debate. It has enabled students with greater experience in the activity to experiment with arguments that may or may not be accessible to all who participate in the activity.

Nonetheless, the existence of a growing elite circuit in parliamentary debate, with all of the unique challenges that greater competitiveness brings, has pushed an element of the NPDA community out of parliamentary debate altogether and has helped to produce a form of debate that is largely unrecognizable to those who embraced the format in the early 1990s. Because NPTE and NPDA share a common circuit, the drive among many participants has been to remake NPDA in NPTE’s image—to create two chances at a national championship with a common rule set. It is because we value access that we think more of a concerted effort needs to be made to preserve space for all types of debater in the broader American parliamentary debate spectrum.

Our Suggested Course

Because we believe a space is needed for ALL kinds of debaters in the parliamentary debate community, we believe it is necessary to make reasonable adjustments to NPDA’s Tournament Operating Procedures and Rules of Debating to preserve a space that welcomes those who may not feel fully at home in the elite space promoted by the NPTE. The changes offered in this document are designed not to retrench NPDA in some backward, reactionary posture; but to clarify existing practices to reflect the traditions that defined NPDA in the first place. At the same time, we wish to celebrate NPTE and its success. We see the parallel growth of the NPDA and NPTE as alternatives to different constituencies in the parliamentary debate community and a welcome opportunity to keep American parliamentary debate alive and vibrant in all its forms. We see these two tournaments as different branches of the same tree, but separate branches nonetheless.

Most of the actions described in the following document are relatively non-controversial adjustments to existing procedures to make our National Championship Tournament more efficient and fair, and to protect students in instances where disputes arise. There are, however, several changes which are more sweeping in their impact. These include: changes in NPDA’s policy regarding constraints, the implementation of measures to prevent materials prepared in advance from being brought into debates, and measures to better ensure the accessibility of debates to a broader audience of auditors. The rationales for each of these changes are offered below.

Force of Action

While the NPDA has a long history of submitting all its changes in policy to a membership vote, and the general oeuvre of the Prescott Convention was to further curtail the power of the Executive Council, the Rules of Debating, the guidelines for tournament hosts, and the Tournament Operating Procedures were severed from the Bylaws in 2005 to create greater flexibility in their management and adjustment, and to position these policies as management guidelines—not laws. While the Council has generally been passive, deferring to initiatives from the membership to adjust these documents legislatively, the Executive Council has acted here to amend these policies under its authority to manage these documents on an on-going basis.

While healthy change is good, we firmly believe that the continued loss of members to the rapid pace of exclusionary change is a trend that simply cannot be allowed to continue unchecked and that the urgency of the problems observed here negates waiting the one or two years that it would take to address each of these issues by differing to NPDA’s legislative process. Nonetheless, we clearly recognize past practice is a powerful force, and we take very seriously the choice to initiate such changes as a Council. Consequently, we have limited these changes to ones of great managerial importance for the National Tournament and philosophical consistency with past practice. We hope that our unanimity underscores the thought we have given to this question.

As always, members are entitled to bring forth legislation to expand upon these actions, amend, or overturn them by filing legislation for consideration at the November business meeting no later than October 22, 2008. It is our hope that the membership will find themselves in substantial agreement with the motives and the outcomes articulated in the following pages.

Kevin Minch, President
Renea Gernant, Vice President
Danny Cantrell, Executive Secretary
Brent Northup, Treasurer
Joshua Seefried, National Student Representative

Getting Rounds Started on Time

Change #1: Alteration in the Procedure for Pushing Ballots to Judges and Enforcing Judge Presence

Summary: This policy codifies a set of procedures for the prompt distribution of judges’ ballots and penalties for judges who are not present in the announcement venue at the time of ballot distribution. It also ensures the timely arrival of judges at their rounds.

Rationale: Ballot distribution has become a very difficult business at the National Championships. Because coaches and judges are frequently ensconced in preparation rooms, they are increasingly not available to pick-up their ballots in a timely fashion. Perhaps even more critically problematic is the process of “pushing” ballots. For fairness in distribution of qualified judges, the computer generates a list of possible replacement judges when a ballot is pushed. The tab room attempts to place the first available judge, then the second, and so forth. However, when only a small number of judges are present in the announcement venue each round, these ballots are repeatedly distributed to the same people. Not only is this unfair to those individuals, but it also decreases an optimal distribution of rounds to judges across the pool—something that should be the goal of everyone in creating a fairly judged tournament.

This policy also stipulates that judges are to arrive at their rounds on time—just as students are required to do. It suggests a mechanism whereby students might inform the tab room of judges who are showing-up late to their rounds. We envision a simple “judge survey” form, made available to students, who can place reports on judges in a box outside of the tab room. The tab staff can use this to monitor and follow-up on errant judge behavior with regard to time of arrival, or other problems.

Change #2: Changes in Procedures for Enforcing Timely Arrival and Start of Debates

Summary: This policy creates a more predictable mechanism for enforcing the start of debates. It eliminates the ambiguous notion of a grace period and clearly defines expectations for the timely start of the debate round. It adopts a system whereby initial offenses and repeat offenses might be sanctioned differently. It empowers the tournament director to clearly establish the maximum duration of preparation and transit time.

Rationale: Numerous teams abuse the length of prep time—both at invitational tournaments and at Nationals. This abuse ranges from bathroom breaks taken at the expiration of prep time to flagrant lateness that sometimes extends for lengthy periods. While the unique layout of USAFA allowed for relatively prompt and strict enforcement of published time limits for preparation time, this is not as practical at other tournament locations. A mechanism needs to exist whereby judges might enforce time limits with clear guidelines—and enforce them consistently. Where the status quo gives judges wide discretion to enforce a penalty up to and during a five minute grace period, allowing for differential enforcement, this policy allows for consistent application of penalties. The procedure also needs to allow for the possibility of the occasional “error” in late arrival due to misdirection. The proposal adopts the language of the “yellow card” and “red card” to flag different degrees of lateness and repetition to allow for the possibility that one “accidental” late arrival might occur.

Change #3: Changes Pertaining to Online Posting

Summary: This policy expressly limits online posting by tournament officials to results and topics AFTER the conclusion of the round (similar to existing warm room postings) and prevents the tournament director from posting topics or schematics online in digital form.

Rationale: As the last two years have demonstrated, there is too much that can go wrong with online postings: network problems, posting delays, problems reading visual displays. Additionally, the use of online postings has decreased attendance at the topic announcement, reducing the number of judges available to receive assigned or pushed ballots and confusing student/judge perceptions of the actual start of preparation time. A return to an exclusively oral and auditorium-based topic announcement ensures a common topic announcement time, and increases judge and student attendance at the announcement site.

Change #4: Clarification of NPDA’s Position on Team “Preparation Rooms”

Summary: This policy statement regulates the use of preparation rooms and offers penalties for the abuse of these rooms by the teams that appropriate them.

Rationale: A common outgrowth of the use of preparation rooms is rooms that are not clean-enough to use in competition—that participants have to clean or reorganize to find workable space for competition. An additional outgrowth is cost to hosts in time and custodial service fees for the clean-up of rooms used by teams in preparation. On occasion, host schools receive complaints about the treatment of classrooms. Indeed, the tournament administration of NPDA has received these complaints at past tournaments. This policy does not aim to eliminate the preparation room, but does place upon the user the responsibility for the care of the room and any financial penalties the host my incur as a result of a team’s abuse of preparation space.

The following statement shall be added to the NPDA national tournament invitation:

Prep areas are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Teams who use prep areas must register the location with tournament staff. Teams are responsible for returning the room to its original condition at the end of preparation time. Teams prepping in competition rooms must completely vacate the room at the end of prep time. Teams failing to comply with these guidelines shall be stripped of the privilege of using host rooms for preparation for the duration of the tournament. If costs are incurred by the host school to clean the space, these costs will be billed to the offending school and that school shall be excluded from NPDA membership until such fees are paid.

Change #5: Clarification of Expectations About Internet Availability

Summary: This policy makes it clear to potential hosts that provision of the Internet to participants is not a requirement and cannot be used by the Site Committee to exclude their institution from consideration as a site.

Rationale: Universities are imposing increasingly restrictive policies on access to their computer networks. While some institutions maintain liberal policies, an increasing number impose limits on access by large groups—or prohibit it altogether. The last two sites have experienced problems with Internet access. At the same time, the Topic Committee has demonstrated that it is possible to frame topics that are debatable, absent Internet access. In a time when the NPDA is lucky to get more than one site bid in a given year, a perceived or actual policy requiring Internet access (with the emphasis today on perception) deters possible hosts. Similarly, the complexity of getting commitments from IT departments in any given year risks continued uncertainty as to the Internet’s availability at any given site. This policy makes it clear to members that there is no certainty of Internet access at national tournaments and assures hosts that they should proceed with bids, even if access to the Internet on the campus is uncertain.

Change #6: Application of a Speaker Point Rubric

Summary: This policy mandates the restoration of the previously-employed speaker point rubric, used on ballots in most of the period after 2001 and prior to 2007.

Rationale: Speaker points being assigned at Nationals are widely inconsistent in a way that does not appear to be reflective of actual differences in skill. On one end of the spectrum, there is widespread point inflation, with many ballots providing straight 30s all-around. On the other end of the spectrum the tab rooms receive ballots from judges who consistently provide points in the range from 10-20. Indeed, while there are instances where extremely low, or extremely high, points are warranted, the pattern of these outliers would seem to suggest a less than meaningful result.

The most recent printed speaker point rubric, used at the 2005 National Tournament, but left off ballots in 2007 and 2008, shall be returned to regular use.

Strikes and Constraints

Change #7: Change to the Strike Ceilings

Summary: The Tournament Director, in concert with the Executive Council, has elected to set the number of strikes for the Championship Tournament at or near the minimum level permitted by current language in the Tournament Operating Procedures, which is 15%.

Rationale: NPDA affords teams the right to constrain judges who will not evaluate rounds fairly. The actual number of strikes has escalated to such an extent that teams are more in a position to select the judges they want through strikes than to merely exclude those who judge them unfairly. A more diverse and random judge assignment procedure should produce greater opportunities for judge adaptation and be more inclusive of a diverse range of opinions in debate. This change does not alter existing policy, but merely draws down the actual number of strikes allowed towards the minimum previously established for the Championship Tournament.

Change #8: Change to the Procedure Used to Declare Constraints

Summary: This policy will create a double-check in the process of assigning constraints. Both teams and judges will be asked to provide a list of constraints and they will be asked to justify them. Categories for possible constraints will be limited to prevent constraints from being used strategically to exclude judges with whom teams merely have a bad track record with, or with whom they have previously had a poor relationship.

Rationale: Currently, only students mark constrained judges on the judge strike form. However, there may be cases were teams miss judges to constrain. The tabulation room needs the most accurate list of team-judge constraints in order to avoid pushing ballots of unknown constrained judges. Furthermore, currently, students mark constraints on the judge strike form. Past tournament directors have reviewed each team’s number of constraints to ensure no one is “gaming out” the situation although there is no requirement that they must review these constraints. Therefore, teams, when entering constraints, should have to provide an acceptable justification for the constraint. Teams should not be able to increase the number of strikes by exploiting the constraint process. This ensures that the TD is convinced that all constraints are warranted.

Scheduling and Paneling Rounds

Change #9: Changes to the Scheduling of Hybrid Teams

Summary: This change is designed to protect hybrid teams from meeting their school’s teammates in rounds and to divide the sweepstakes points they earn between the two squads their members come from.

Rationale: Hybrid teams serve, first and foremost, a pedagogical purpose. They exist to empower students to compete who would not otherwise be able to do so because of an odd number of competitors on their squads or extenuating circumstances (a sick partner, etc.). Teams should not be discouraged from providing tournament access to these students when such a hybrid is truly necessary. This policy ensures that teams will not face the uncomfortable experience of having to debate their teammates because of their membership in a hybrid. The proposal is consistent with the practice the organization already employs when brackets pit members of the same school against one another. The division of earned sweepstakes points appropriately rewards the teams from which the students emerge for their investment in the work of the students.

Change #10: Structure of Semifinal and Final Round Panels

Summary: The policy expands the judge selection procedure for the final round to the semifinal rounds.

Rationale: In an effort to diversify the judging panels for the semi and final rounds to be representative of the national organization the judge assignment method for semis and finals would change from the standard elimination round procedure. We feel it would be beneficial to potentially include dignitaries in our national championship rounds and are worried that if they are invited they will not have the opportunity to judge. We also feel that the most geographically diverse panel would best be able to determine the national champion. Furthermore, by defining what the NPDA final should look like we hope to influence what the rest of the debates in the tournament look like. If teams are aware that the final round judging panel will follow this procedure then earlier rounds will likely feature greater judge adaptation.

Change #11: Changes to Coin Toss Procedure

Summary: The policy brings the coin toss back at the quarterfinal level of the tournament.

Rationale: It is believed that ceremony adds to the Championship Tournament experience. The change is a minimal investment in time without changing randomness.

Rule Enforcement and Implementation

Change #12: Changes in Preparation Material / National Tournament Paper

Summary: The policy would create new language designed to prevent the use of materials prepared outside of the preparation time for any given round. It would use official paper as the mechanism to achieve this while clearly stipulating the penalty for using material prepared before the round or not copied during preparation time.

Rationale: It is a well-known reality that many teams are employing materials that were prepared for other rounds, or were prepared before the tournament, by merely pulling old notes from their backpacks or files. It is further well-known that students are employing work written by teammates or coaches. While this policy does not aim to prevent students from copying-over material used in previous rounds to a new sheet of paper in order to reuse it, it is aimed to prevent students from amassing pre-prepared materials in significant quantities. In short, it aims to reinforce the extemporaneous nature of parliamentary debate as described in organizational documents.

Change #13: Clarification of Speaker Positions

Summary: This policy clarifies speaker roles to make clear that the first constructive speaker is also the team rebuttalist.

Rationale: The previous language of the NPDA Rules of Debating and judging left some ambiguity as to whether a second constructive speaker could also provide a rebuttal, thereby rendering the first proposition speaker a simple mouthpiece for the articulation of the team’s case and raising the possibility that the second opposition speaker might create a de facto 12 minute opposition speech. As some teams began to engage in this practice this season, confusion emerged as to whether this was or was not consistent with the activity’s history and intent. This change is made to eliminate that confusion and underscore the distinct importance of each speaker in the debate. From researching old documents we have determined that the prior change in language on the NPDA website was not intentional. This provides the necessary clarification.

Change #14: Tournament Director Oversight

Summary: This change places the Executive Council in a position of responsibility for supporting the Tournament Director’s choice to deviate from standard operating procedures. The policy also enables the line of appeal for Tournament Director decisions taken to the National Championship Tournament Ombudsperson.

Rationale: The Tournament Director appoints the National Championship Tournament Committee, making it an inappropriate body to affirm or deny the Tournament Director’s desire to deviate from standard procedures or abrogate the Bylaws. Because the Executive Council is an elected body, with jurisdiction over the Tournament Director’s appointment and the management of Tournament Operating Procedures, it is the appropriate body for oversight in these instances.

Change #15: Empowering the National Championship Tournament Ombudsperson

Summary: This policy describes the National Championship Tournament Ombudsperson’s role in hearing appeals of decisions by judges or the tournament director. The policy limits the timeframe in which appeals may be made and further describes the National Championship Tournament Committee’s role in interpreting and apply the Rules of Debating and Judging.

Rationale: Most of this proposal is aimed at clarifying existing rule enforcement policies and further describing the role of the Ombudsperson (being created by a Constitutional amendment submitted to the membership by mail ballot). The addition of a time limit on appeals is a crucial move needed to keep the tournament moving forward. In previous years, appeals of decisions made by judges or tournament directors were sometimes made several rounds after the decision prompting the appeal. These delays had the effect of limiting options for remediation, possibly changing the nature of the bracket for pairing rounds, and interminably delaying rounds as late appeals were resolved at inopportune moments. While it is clear that not all appeals can be heard immediately upon their being lodged, prompt reporting of concerns increases the probability of an efficient and fair disposition of these complaints.

Supplemental Event

Change #16: Creation of a Consolation Event

The National Championship Tournament Operating Procedures shall add Section K, if necessary, to implement the following proposal.

Proposal: Create a final day consolation event for debaters not participating in the final day of debate.

Background: Currently, debaters who do not advance to the double-octofinal round have nothing to do at the tournament until the awards ceremony. This creates a situation where debaters can watch some rounds but usually end up sightseeing or wanting to do something else. This then means that many judges are pulled away from judging out rounds because their teams are not participating in the tournament. While we do not want to discourage individuals from visiting the host city or watching elimination rounds, for those debaters who wish to continue developing their public speaking and debate skills, a consolation event could prove to be a welcome opportunity. Additionally, with a consolation event, more judges are committed to judge and can be mixed with the NPDA elimination rounds to create more diverse panels.

The National Forensics League offers consolation events for competitors who are not participating in elimination rounds. This provides additional educational opportunities for students.

Rationale: Students will gain additional debate experience and education by participating in the consolation event. It also provides programs a second event to anticipate entering students who may be unlikely to advance to the final day of elimination rounds. It makes attending the NPDA national championship tournament more attractive by increasing the opportunities for debating.

Details:

Many details could be ironed out over the next year as long as the overall goal is accepted.

World Schools Standings after Four Rounds

Loading buses in the morning

See individual results at http://debate.uvm.edu/wsdc08results.html

FOUR WINS
Australia
Canada
England
Ireland
New Zealand
Pakistan
Singapore
South Africa

THREE WINS
Argentina
Bangladesh
Israel
Peru
Scotland
Slovakia
Wales

TWO WINS
Botswana
Czech Republic
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Mexico
Netherlands
Sri Lanka
South Korea
Qatar

ONE WIN
Bermuda
Kuwait
Lithuania
Montenegro
Philippines
Slovenia

ZERO WINS
The rest of the pack, and good luck to them!

Conference Funds Attendees - Debate Invited!

From David Williams of Florida Atlantic University:

I am attaching a CFP for a conference on American Democracy and Civics Education that will be held at Florida Atlantic Univ. in January, 2009.  The conference is well-funded, and it could provide an ideal forum for the exploration of relationships among public argument, debate, related pedagogy, and democracy.  Please consider submitting a proposal and/or circulating this call to those who you think might be interested.

A Nation of Immigrants:
American Democracy and Civics Education

January 28 – 31, 2009

Bridge Radisson Waterfront Hotel

Boca Raton, Florida

Host Institution: Florida Atlantic University
Sponsor: FAU Jack Miller Forum for Civics Education


Call for Papers

Scholars, policymakers & civics educators are invited to submit proposals to participate. Conference papers, which may reflect any of a variety of methodological approaches, should address some aspect of the role of civics education in the American democratic process.

Conference participants will be provided hotel accommodations (Wednesday arrival, Sunday departure), breakfast and lunch each day, one dinner and an honorarium of $500 to cover airfare, ground transportation and incidentals.

Proposals should be submitted in electronic form to Jeffrey S. Morton (jmorton@fau.edu) no later than October 1 for first round consideration. Complete proposals will include participant title and contact information, paper title and a brief abstract.

We are particularly interested in papers that address any of the following areas: immigration and civics education; secondary and post-secondary civics education, the continued relevance of the Founding Fathers for modern democratic society; the role of the media in civics education; democracy’s impact on American foreign policy; campaigns and democracy; legislative policies on civics education; among others.

Papers presented are expected to be of sufficient quality to be included in an edited volume after the conference. Polished versions of the papers should be submitted no later than April 15, 2009 for volume inclusion consideration.

The Florida Atlantic University Jack Miller Forum for Civics Education is committed to a broad understanding and appreciation of American civics education. It is generously funded by the Jack Miller Center and a grant from the National Endowment of the Humanities.

Debate is Back at Wiley College

Debate coach Shannon LaBove smiles during a reception Thursday in the Freeman P. and Carrie E. Hodge Building at Wiley College.

From http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/08/090508_web_debate.html

Wiley hires debate coach

By Benjamin Fort, News Messenger
Thursday, September 04, 2008

Wiley College celebrated its storied debate program Thursday with the hiring of a new debate team coach and the world premiere screening of "The Real Great Debaters."

The night began with a reception at Wiley College's Freeman P. and Carrie E. Hodge Building, where guests were led down a red carpet, past a mounted poster of the film and to a gourmet buffet.

Dr. Shannon LaBove, the guest of honor and head of the newly developed forensics program, was present at the event, along with Brad Osborne and Andy Streitfeld, director/writer and executive producer, respectively, of the documentary.

"When I saw the movie ("The Great Debaters"), I loved it," Osborne said. "It moved me, intrigued me. I started asking questions."

Unlike the Hollywood movie, "The Real Great Debaters" portrays how the real 1935 Wiley College debate team defeated the University of South California, not Harvard. Those talented students went on to devote their talents to the causes of civil justice and social progress, and become leaders in the civil rights movement.

Osborne traveled from California to Texas and Oklahoma filming the documentary, and hopes, "as many people see it as possible. The most gratifying thing about directing a movie is to sit with the audience."

Though historical events can be empowering, Ms. LaBove has confidence in the current team.

"We can do well competitively with all the talent we have," said Ms. LaBove of a program that was defunct for more than five decades, until a $1 million donation from Denzel Washington and the combined efforts of Wiley College and other institutions brought it back to life.

During the 2008-2009 school year, the Wiley College debate team will compete in cities all over Texas and Louisiana, including meets in Tyler, Houston and Corpus Christi.

Ms. LaBove plans to keep it local this year, but she is hoping to have a tournament in Arizona or California next year.

Debate practice, which is held every Wednesday evening at Wiley College, includes debate rounds and a debate club. Any Wiley student can participate in the program.

The 12-member debate team and 24-member debate club will also participate in community service and on-campus activities.

Though debate has lost popularity over time, the activity is picking up steam again, especially at Wiley College, according to Ms. LaBove.

She described her teaching techniques as, "probably traditional ... iron fist in a velvet glove."

"I want the students to understand the concept of persuasion and argumentation, then they will be strong for anything," Ms. LaBove, who shows great compassion for the program and students, said. "They have so much talent. It is amazing and I am very privileged to be able to help them harness all of that potential.

"As long as you are true to yourself, your team and your school you will be just fine."

Debate captain Megan Moten and other team members were also present for the reception.

"It's amazing to be able to breathe life back into the team," Ms. Moten said. "I'm excited to debate for Wiley. Dr. LaBove is tough, but she knows what she's doing."

Ms. LaBove received a bachelor's degree in political science from the University of Houston, a master's degree in speech communication from West Texas A&M University and a Juris Doctorate from Georgia State University's College of Law.

She has previously served as instructor of speech communication at Morehouse College and assistant director of forensics at both West Texas A&M University and the University of Houston.

WSDC 2008 Opens with Banquet

Convener Phyllis Hirth

Some of what happened at the opening banquet at WSDC 2008 was to be expected. The fellowship was hearty and genuine and the food was excellent. We were warmly welcomed by convener Phyllis Hirth and executive Chris Erskine. But there were surprises in store for all.

Michelle Rhee was one of those surprises. She is the chancellor of the DC Public Schools system. She gave a remarkable speech in that she acknowledged that she led one of the worst school systems in the nation and faces huge challenges, but she noted that her first priority was improving teacher quality in the system. She acknowledged that she was in the presence of many future world leaders and asked them to remember that a quality education with quality teachers has to be the foundation of national and community development. Her remarks were unscripted but excellent, and she showed outstanding public speaking ability. An incredibly busy person, she had delayed picking up her two young children so that she could be the keynote speaker at WSDC 2008.

Here is her bio:

Chancellor Michelle Rhee was appointed by Mayor Adrian Fenty June 12, 2007. She leads D.C. Public Schools, a district numbering 50,000 students and 144 schools. In the Mayor’s search for a change agent for schools in the District, experts in education recommended Ms. Rhee, who had already transformed many urban public school systems through her work with The New Teacher Project (TNTP). Chancellor Joel Klein, whose work in New York City’s public schools is a model for effective change, said of her appointment that it was “the choice D.C. needs, given that, year in and year out, they have not gotten results.” Results drive the Chancellor every day. Whether she is developing effective measurements to track student achievement and teacher quality; talking with principals and teachers in one-on-one meetings; developing new measures to hold herself and staff accountable for their roles in student achievement; traveling throughout the community to engage parents and other stakeholders in our schools; establishing partnerships with neighborhood organizations; meeting with business leaders as she transforms a broken organizational structure into one that works for students and families; or ensuring that needed repairs are completed to create physical learning environments serve students, Chancellor Rhee’s vision rests on results.

She had these results in mind when she founded The New Teacher Project (TNTP) in 1997, and it is now a nationally recognized leader in understanding and developing innovative solutions to the challenges of new teacher hiring. As Chief Executive Officer and President, she partnered with school districts, state education agencies, non-profit organizations, and unions, to transform the way schools and other organizations recruit, select, and train highly qualified teachers in difficult-to-staff schools. Her work implemented widespread reform in teacher hiring, improving teacher hiring in Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Miami, New York, Oakland, and Philadelphia. Thanks to TNTP, 23,000 new, high-quality teachers were placed in these schools across the country.

Ms. Rhee’s commitment to excellence in education began in a Baltimore classroom in 1992, as a Teach-for-America teacher. The lesson she learned at Harlem Park Community School informs her mission today: with the right teacher, students in urban classrooms can meet teachers’ high expectations for achievement, and the driving force behind that achievement is the quality of the Educator who works inside it.

Chancellor Rhee currently serves on the Advisory Boards for the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ); the National Center for Alternative Certification (NCAC); Project REACH of the University of Phoenix’s School of Education. She is an Ex-Officio Member of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees. Chancellor Rhee’s expertise on education is also informed by a Bachelor’s degree in Government from Cornell University, and a Master’s degree in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

The next big surprise was the appearance of a group from the Piscataway nation to represent and communicate about the native people of America. While our convener Phyllis Hirth is proud to be very pro-American and a patriot, she made sure that world guests were greeted and educated by the original people of this land. They talked about their culture and language, about remaining in balance with the land and the animals and also about community, conflict and celebration. The indigenous music, dances and stories of this land were shared with the audience.

Symbolic dances were performed and songs were sung. A good portion of the crowd was engaged in the snake dance as well as the war dance. The war dance was introduced as one of the ways that native peoples solved their conflicts, with the other being a long game of stick ball, but that formal war was rarely engaged in. I am sure many of us will remember the stirring rendition of the war dance given by one of the Mongolian debaters after a bit of training. Watch out opponents! Hopefully someday we can replace wars with stick ball games, or perhaps debates!

Round Zero at WSDC Washington

Team Bangladesh before Round Zero. they debated....

Team Qatar, seen just before Round Zero

Round Zero is the round held before the tournament in which all of the teams who receive byes debate each other.

The motion: this House would ban government funding from being given to faith based initiatives.

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE
Botswana Japan Hotel Potomoc 1
Slovakia India Hotel Potomoc 2
Mongolia Sri Lanka Hotel Potomoc 3
Qatar Bangladesh Hotel Potomoc 4

Results coming later today.

Live Blogging from World Schools

I drive to Washington today, and I will be at the WSDC for the duration.

Stand by for live reports and pictures from the tournament, and learn about it as it happens, round by round.

As they say:

The World Schools Debating Championships (WSDC) is a truly global competition for high school debaters. The Championships take place each year in a different country, hosted by a national debating body. Recent venues include Sydney, London, Johannesburg, Singapore, Lima and in 2006 Cardiff, Wales.
All debates take place in English. Each country can submit a squad of 3-5 students under 19 in full time education in that country to debate social, moral and political issues.

Past patrons of the Championships include Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela.

Asian Debate Institute 2008 Report

A report from our correspondent Jason Jarvis:

The 5th Annual Asian Debate Institute concluded recently.  The program, held in Seoul, Korea was significant this year for the size of the staff and the diversity of the student body.  Faculty and staff for ADI 2008 came from 23 different institutions representing 14 nations: Africa, Asia, Europe and North America were all represented!  Half of the students for the program came from outside of Korea....the highest percentage in the history of the ADI.

Anyone who doubts the rapid pace of development in Northeast Asian debating need only look to the list of students at this program: China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan were all highly represented and these students will return with a wealth of information and materials to teach novices at their home institutions.  I am particularly proud of this group of students as they came together and formed what was truly a global community for 10 days of intense instruction and debating.  Across the board the students worked cooperatively, played hard and (according to the evaluations) were tremendously happy with the performance of their faculty.

It is incredibly important to applaud the dedication of the faculty this year.  In particular, Christy Bradley (Emory University, USA), Adiba Shareen (UT Mara, Malaysia), TJ (Assumption Univ., Thailand), Matt Stannard (Univ. of Wyoming, USA), John Lin (St. John's Univ., USA), and Jonathan Borock (USA/Japan) deserve special recognition for buying their own plane tickets in order to come and teach at the ADI.  At a time when prices for everything have skyrocketed, it was difficult to balance this year's budget.  Without the personal donations of time, effort and money by these faculty members the program simply could not have happened.

Plans have already begun for ADI 2009!  Stay tuned and please plan to come to Korea and join us next summer!

Know more! Think More! Love More!

Jason Jarvis
Korea Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management

Asian Debate Institute 2008
http://asiandebateinstitute.com

World Schools Pairings with Venues

From WSDC 2008 Organizing Committee:

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP 2008
WASHINGTON DC
Preliminary Round Draw

VENUE KEY, INCLUDING ADDRESSES, ON THE LAST PAGE.
All rounds that are GMU AM 10:30 AM start, GMU PM 2:30 PM start.
All rounds at other locations (schools) are approximately the same, but will start in synchrony with the class schedule of that school.

Round 0 – Impromptu Debate (Bye Round) – SATURDAY 1 PM

PROPOSITION TEAM OPPOSITION TEAM VENUE

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

Round 1 – Prepared Debate – SUNDAY AM

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 – SUNDAY PM


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 – MONDAY AM

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 = C. Milton Wright HS
Zimbabwe Hong Kong A = C. Milton Wright HS
India Pakistan B = Patrick Henry HS
Botswana Australia B = Patrick Henry HS
Czech Republic Slovenia C = Eastern HS
USA Germany C = Eastern HS
Wales Netherlands D = Eastern HS
Lithuania Philippines D = Eastern HS

Bye: Sri Lanka
Round 4 – Impromptu Debate – MONDAY PM

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 = C. Milton Wright HS
Scotland Zimbabwe A = C. Milton Wright HS
Australia India B = Patrick Henry HS
Pakistan Botswana B = Patrick Henry HS
Slovenia USA C = Eastern HS
Germany Czech Republic C = Eastern HS
Netherlands Lithuania D = Eastern HS
Philippines Wales D = Eastern HS

Bye: Mongolia
Round 5 – Prepared Debate – TUESDAY AM

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 = Indian Creek HS
Hong Kong Singapore A = Indian Creek HS
Australia South Africa B = Patrick Henry HS
Ireland Pakistan B = Patrick Henry HS
Mexico India C = Eastern HS
Botswana Slovakia C = Eastern HS
Netherlands Czech Republic D = Eastern HS
Lithuania Germany D = Eastern HS

Bye: Japan
Round 6 – Impromptu Debate – TUESDAY PM

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 = Indian Creek HS
Singapore New Zealand A = Indian Creek HS
Pakistan Australia B = Patrick Henry HS
South Africa Ireland B = Patrick Henry HS
Qatar Montenegro C = Eastern HS
Slovakia Mexico C = Eastern HS
Czech Republic Lithuania D = Eastern HS
Germany Netherlands D = Eastern HS

Bye: Botswana
Round 7 – Prepared Debate – WEDNESDAY AM

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 = Indian Creek HS
Germany Canada A = Indian Creek HS
Singapore Estonia B = to be announced
Scotland Romania B = to be announced
Ireland Sri Lanka C = Eastern HS
South Africa Czech Republic C = Eastern HS
Pakistan Netherlands D = Eastern HS
Australia Bermuda D = Eastern HS

Bye: Qatar
Round 8 – Impromptu Debate – WEDNESDAY PM

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 = Indian Creek HS
Lithuania Canada A = Indian Creek HS
Estonia Scotland B = to be announced
Romania Singapore B = to be announced
Sri Lanka South Africa C = Eastern HS
Czech Republic Ireland C = Eastern HS
Bermuda Pakistan D = Eastern HS
Netherlands Australia D = Eastern HS

Bye: Bangladesh



INFORMATION ABOUT HOST SCHOOLS

GMU = George Mason University
Fairfax Campus
4400 University Dr., Fairfax, VA
Sunday-Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday those wishing to see debates should come to SUV 2, also known as Student Union 2.

Hotel = Hyatt Regency Crystal City at Reagan National Airport
2799 Jefferson Davis Hwy.
Arlington, VA 22202
703 418 1234

Andrew Colley
acolley@indiancreekschool.com
Indian Creek HS
1130 Anne Chambers Way
Crownsville, MD 21032
410-849-5151
9-10 Tues-Wed 4 teams 2 rooms
Wants a workshop

Rebecca Dovi
RDovi@hanover.k12.va.us
Patrick Henry High School Ashland VA
804-263-1626
MONDAY & TUESDAY, FOUR TEAMS, TWO ROOMS.
Lunch supplied.

Ginnie Bullis
Ginnie.Bullis@hcps.org
C. Milton Wright High School
1301 N. Fountain Green Rd.
Bel Air, MD 21015
MONDAY = A

Eastern Senior HS
1700 East Capitol St. NE
WASH DC 20003
202-698-4500
William Chiselom william.chiselom@dc.gov
698-4590
4 ROOMS MON-TUES-WED

Malaysia Debate Tournament in Mandarin

From http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=/2008/8/31/education/1898063&sec=education

Sunday August 31, 2008

Winners again
FOR the second year in a row, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) has emerged champion of the 11th Mandarin Debate Competition for institutes of higher education.

The university was represented by Teh Siao Jing, Hew Kok Hong, Tay Fui Fang, Chai Yuk Ping, Lim Khai Han, Low Chin Lin and Woon Wen Xin, who beat the team from Universiti Teknologi Petronas (UTP). The topic was “In improving standards of our country’s judiciary system, politicians and judiciary officers should play a more significant role”.

The UPM students received a cash prize of RM3,000, trophies and certificates. Best debater Fui Fang will represent Malaysia at the International Mandarin Debate in 2010. The Bachelor of Science student said her achievement was a victory for everyone involved in the UPM Mandarin Unit Debate Club.

Organised by Universiti Malaya in collaboration with Sin Chew Daily, the competition attracted 20 teams from local and private higher education institutions participated in the competition. Deputy Information Minister, Datuk Tan Lian Hoe, presented the prizes.

Native American Studies Debate Society

Pictographs on Hide, Lakota, 1880s

From Jackie Massey at the University of Oklahoma:

Hello

I had a strange event occur this summer, and was approached by someone in the Native American Studies Department about debate.

I had to leave town for Vermont for the summer, and so we talked about what we thought we might able to do, and how to get there.

Then I respectfully asked the people at UCO to step in while I was gone and help prepare theses students for these debates. After a summer of speaking and working with the idea, mostly Eric Marlow, Scotty Ketchum and Andy Casey we had the debate in front of the people of the Cherokee Nation.

Now here is our goal and vision and you can see if you fit in.

We are going to have schools with Native American Studies Programs have public debates against each other, back old school style. The topics will be about issues relating to the indian nations, and the students will be Indian Studies Majors and Minors. It is not for competitive purposes, it is for informative and training purposes.

If your University has a Native American Studies Program, it would be nice if you could email me and help us get started at your school.

It is somewhat of a debate across the curriculum experiment, but more importantly we are hoping this activity will help our young Indian people acquire the skills to help protect our indigenous interests in the future. Without adequate representation, sovereignty will be washed away.

Thanks for reading and thanks to the UCO team for helping.

Best,

Massey
OU Debate

Philippines Schools Championship

From http://parliamentarydebate.blogspot.com/2008/09/philippine-schools-debate-championship.html

Philippine Schools Debate Championship
The Ateneo Debate Society (ADS) is pleased to invite high school institutions to take part in the largest and most prestigious gathering of the country’s brightest high school public speakers and debaters.

The Philippine Schools Debate Championship (PSDC), the first-ever national high school debate tournament, now on its 7th year, will be held on November 4-9, 2008 at the Ateneo de Manila University. This truly national event brings together high school debaters from all over the country to compete in several rounds of British Parliamentary debate. Furthermore, members of the top 32 teams will have the chance to try out to be part of the official Philippine team that will represent the country in the 2009 World Schools Championship to be held next February in Athens, Greece.

Registration fees for the tournament will be P2,300.00 for stay-out delegates and P 3,000.00 for stay-in delegates.

Register your institution right away and the number of teams that you wil be sending. Institutions may send a maximum of 5 teams.

Details of the registration process can be found at www.psdc2008.multiply.com

Victoria Wins New Zealand Prepared Debating Championships

From http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/2008/09/victoria-wins-joynt-scroll-nz-prepared.html

Victoria wins Joynt Scroll (NZ Prepared Debating Champs)

Victoria University of Wellington has retained the Joynt Scroll by winning the New Zealand Universities' Prepared Debating Championships, held from August 29 to September 1 at Canterbury University.

Winners: Victoria University of Wellington B (Kathy Errington, Jane Pring, Seb Templeton)
Runners-Up: Victoria University of Wellington A (Yogesh Patel, Kathy Scott-Dowell, Ella Edginton)
Semi-finalists: Otago Two and Auckland One
Best Speaker: Kathy Scott-Dowell (Victoria A)
NZU Prepared Debating Team: Kathy Scott-Dowell (Victoria A), Kathy Errington (Victoria B), Max Harris (Auckland A)
Most Promising Speaker: Jenna Raeburn (Victoria C)
Best Adjudicator: Gareth Richards (Victoria)
Bledisloe Award for Oratory: Julia Whitehead (Canterbury)

Joynt Scroll 2009 will be hosted by Otago University.

10-year-old Orator Knows How to Move Audiences

The star of DISD's pep rally this week was a pint-size orator named Dalton Sherman. He had some teachers in tears, others cheering.

From http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/DN-dalton_23met.ART0.North.Edition1.4d71657.html

10-year-old orator has big voice, big dreams
12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, August 23, 2008

By KATHERINE LEAL UNMUTH / The Dallas Morning News
kunmuth@dallasnews.com
Thousands of Dallas teachers are talking about the little boy with the big voice who wowed them earlier this week at a start-of-school pep rally at American Airlines Center.

"Who is this kid?" they wondered.

At 10 years old, Dalton Sherman is a speech-making pro. Since winning a big oratory competition in Dallas last January, he has performed at numerous churches and events all over town. He even opened an event for famed poet Maya Angelou.

"He has the 'it' factor," said Dawn Blair, Dalton's godmother. "Like Tiger has it, Obama has it. You can't put your finger on it."

And since Wednesday's speech, which left many teachers cheering and others in tears, his family has been inundated by phone calls and e-mails.

Dalton is a talkative kid. He bounces up and down on a couch in his family's home, talking about his craft. His parents call it his "gift."

"I try to shake and move when I'm getting ready to go on," Dalton said while demonstrating his movements. "I walk out there, and I'm like, 'Here it comes – no turning back now.' Then I just begin."

Dalton is a fifth-grader at Charles Rice Learning Center. His family lives down the street from Kimball High School in southern Dallas in a neat ranch house filled with photos. His brother, Demosthenes, 13, wants to be an astronaut, and his sister, De'asure Crawford, 22, is an accountant.

Dalton is an A student, plays basketball and is a blue belt in karate. His favorite books are the Magic Tree House series. He won his first oratory competition in the first grade. His family describes him as energetic and competitive. His motto is "I'm in it to win it."

Talking in front of 17,000 people at American Airlines Center was his biggest event yet. The applause motivated him, especially when he gestured and gave shout-outs to different neighborhoods, like Oak Cliff and Pleasant Grove, telling teachers to help children no matter where they're from.

"When I hear them cheering, it's like, 'Oh, yeah, they're feeling me,' " Dalton said.

Then the end came.

"I felt drained. I kept shaking. That's what happens after every speech," he said.

His dad, Carlos, was impressed.

"He rocked the house. I'm super-proud," he said.

Dalton turns to his dad. "You cried?" he asked.

"Yeah, I cried. Daddy cries, too," Mr. Sherman said, hugging his son.

Dalton's speech was directed toward teachers.

"We need you," he told them. They played a big role in preparing him for his big performance. Irene Redmond, Dalton's oratory coach and a fourth-grade teacher at his school, and his mother, DISD fifth-grade teacher Donna Sherman, coached him all summer in preparation for his performance. They focus on proper diction and pronunciation of words.

Ms. Redmond said she immediately recognized Dalton's big vocabulary when she began coaching him. She described him as a hard worker.

"He lives to please you," she said. "He feels disappointed when he doesn't."

"I hope that I touch a lot of people," Dalton added.

DISD officials contacted the family in May about having Dalton give the convocation speech for teachers. District officials wrote it.

In June, he memorized the words. Then he practiced giving the speech as many as three times a week at his family's church, Concord Missionary Baptist. His mother and Ms. Redmond stood in the balcony as he practiced his movements and the built-in pauses to punctuate the text.

Mrs. Sherman uses a worn book of her grandfather's, Natural Drills in Expression, published in 1909, to coach her son on pronunciation.

Demonstrating, she read a passage. Dalton repeated it – "to dare, to do, to die." He loves the book.

Dalton said he wants to be a news anchor someday, but he also has even bigger plans.

"Maybe after that, I'll try to be president," he said. "I want to be the next Obama."

Team Germany On Their Way to WSDC

From http://www.schoolsdebate.de/wsdc08.htm

Debaters:
Belafi, Carmen; Murrhardt
Deiss, Valerie; Korb
Dressel, Leonie; Stuttgart
Gilke, Jana; Backnang-Heinigen
Seethaler, Franziska; Böblingen

Coach:
Laux, Sven; Bietigheim-Bissingen

Judges:
Hoeness, Angelika; Korb
Heil, Klaus-Peter; Mutlangen
Trefz, Birgit; Aspach

Contact for Germany (Team Manager):
Hoeness, Angelika; 71404 Korb

Team Slovenia Does TV in USA Pre-Tournament

Anja, Filip, Jernej, Eva and Zan visit with Alfred Snider about their experience in the Slovenian debate program, their selection to the World Schools team and their upcoming competition in the World Schools Debating Championship in Washington, DC.

Our apologies as 40 seconds of dead air begin the program.

From http://flashpointtv.blogspot.com/2008/08/366-slovenia-debate-in-vermont.html

Team Romania on their Way to WSDC Washington

From http://wsdcro.wordpress.com/2008-delegation/

Also in the picture, but unfortunatelly not able to attend: Andrei Georgescu, Eveline Dicu, Iulian Maier and Catalina Secreteanu.

The Team:

Debaters:
Mihai Alexandrescu
Raluca Tudoroiu
Sabin Ciornea
Nicolae Sovaiala-Ionescu
Valeria Burdea

Coach: David Moscovici

Adjudicatiors:
Simona Mazilu
Alexandra Neacsu
Gelu Hanganu
Serban Pitic

HISTORY OF THE ROMANIAN WSDC TEAM

Starting with WSDC 2004, Germany,

where the pioneering team for Romania, into the Worlds Championship consisted of members: Alexandra Neacsu, David Moscovici and Andreea Militaru, coached by Mrs. Simona Mazilu.

WSDC 2005 Calgary, Canada

The Team composed by Alexandra Neacsu, David Moscovici and Andreea Militaru had another go at the Championship and achieved, after 4 victories out of 8 rounds, the great standard of being only one half of a point away from breaking into the octo-finals and winning 1st place in the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) section, which was awarded to Slovenia. Also at this edition of the championships, 2 back-up members qualified to pariticipate on the team: Ana Rus and Serban Pitic.

WSDC 2006 Cardiff, Wales, UK

In 2006 the national selection chose a team of 5: Serban Pitic, Ana Rus, Simona Olteanu. Alexandra Oprea and Anca Onutan. The team managed to win 2 victories out of 8 in the rounds. Mr Gelu Hanganu participated as a coach and Mrs. Simona Mazilu was the adjudicator in the Romanian Delegation.

WSDC 2007 Seoul, South Korea

The 2007 Team Romania consisted of: Valeria Burdea, Raluca Tudoroiu Andreea Geacu, Iulian Maier and Maria Tanase. The selected coach for the 2007 WSDC team Romania was David Moscovici. Also Alexandra Neacsu participated alongside Simona Mazilu as a judge in the championship.

USA School Topic Areas for 2009-10 Announced

From NDCA's Tara Tate:

SYNOPSIS OF THE PROBLEM AREAS FOR 2009-2010

PROBLEM AREA I: SPACE

Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase its exploration and/or its development of space beyond Earth’s mesosphere.

Space, the “final frontier,” captures the human imagination as few other subjects are able to do. As the space telescope and various probes continue to add to our knowledge about the universe, new areas for research continue to emerge. The application of space research has already changed our lives in numerous areas involving communication technology, electronics miniaturization, propulsion and military capabilities. Advocates imagine that the exploration and development of space can lead to even more dramatic breakthroughs involving resource extraction and space colonization. Others emphasize the cost and technological barriers preventing the realization of these claims. Affirmative case areas may include the use of space to improve medical technologies, space manufacturing in microgravity, space colonization, remote sensing for agriculture or climate research, laser systems for anti-missile defenses, space battle stations, among others. Negative teams may argue that the exploration and/or development of space will lead to space militarization, delay environmental efforts (creating a false sense that humans can escape the limits of Earth’s resources), cause runaway federal spending, undermine international space programs, trade-off with private space programs, catch the attention of malevolent extraterrestrial beings, among others. Author: W. E. Schuetz, Texas.

PROBLEM AREA II: HEALTH CARE

Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a universal health care system in the United States.

Health care is the most important domestic issue facing policymakers in the United States today. This topic offers an opportunity to expose students to divergent views on a crucial topic. The ongoing national debate over health care in the United States centers on three key problems: cost, quality and access. Total spending on health care has been rising at about twice the rate of national income, increasing from 2.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1970 to 16.2 percent today. Currently the United States spends about $2 trillion on health care, or $6,500 per year per person. This is $477 billion a year more than any other developed country. Despite spending much more, 47 million Americans have no health insurance. Affirmative positions would include cases dealing with single pay systems, international models, programs to fill in the lapses in coverage, Medicare and Medicaid expansion and others. Negative positions could include substantial case debate on empirical problems associated with existing single payer systems programs, state solutions, problems with rationing and the high cost of health care. Negatives would explore competitiveness, political scenarios, federalism, spending and trade off positions, as well as host of critical arguments on increased governmental intervention. As the 2008 election nears, the issue of national health care will only continue to grow increasingly important in the media and in the public debate throughout the country. Authors: Christa Bieker and John Goodman, Texas

PROBLEM AREA III: IMMIGRATION

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its restriction of immigration to the United States.

In a myriad of post-9/11 political issues, none has been at the forefront of more controversy than United States immigration policy. In the wake of the major defeat of President Bush's immigration proposal, we stand at a crossroads in determining the future of foreign citizens who wish to immigrate to the United States. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services estimates over 35.2 million immigrants are currently living in the United States with another 2.9 million citizenship applications submitted per year. Affirmatives would be able to alter existing policies including the PATRIOT Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, create new policies or organizations to process immigration related issues, grant amnesty, increase asylum in one or more areas and increase approved visa applications, among others. Disadvantages would include terrorism, crime, politics, economy, disease, drugs, social fragmentation, social services, cultural dilution and hegemony, among others. The negative could also argue that the states or other nations are better suited to address immigration issues. International organizations like the UN or Amnesty International could be better suited to address global issues like refugee crises. Never far from the headlines, immigration offers an incredibly rich area for discussion. Author: Matthew Murrell, Texas

PROBLEM AREA IV: FEDERAL ELECTIONS

Resolved: The United States should substantially change its federal election system through one or more of the following means: legislation, court decision, constitutional amendment.

Our federal election system is the cornerstone of our democratic process. It begins after the previous election and may not end until weeks or months after the final votes are cast. Its participants include candidates, party officials, lobbyists, interest groups, the media and, of course, voters. Though eight years have passed since major problems were exposed in November of 2000, little substantive change has occurred, voting technology problems remain significant and political passions have rarely run so high. Although one significant piece of campaign-finance legislation (McCain-Feingold) was signed into law by President Bush, critics argue that it ignores serious loopholes such as interest group attack ads. Specific affirmative case areas could include primaries, terms of office, political party processes, campaign finance, voting technology, the Electoral College, third parties, Federal Election Commission powers, voter civil rights, media limitations and structural reforms such as changing Congressional proportions, electing federal judges, a bifurcated presidency, a unicameral legislature or a parliamentary system. Negatives could dispute case impacts on a variety of philosophical grounds, including racial equality, freedom of expression and disenfranchisement of various voting groups. Solvency issues might be raised with regard to voter participation, excess or inadequate party influence, denial of a convincing majority and the role of fringe-party candidates. The fact that several key issues lie within state purview provides solid ground for counterplans. Disadvantages would include free speech and press rights, political gridlock, voter apathy, loss of influence by voters and/or states, increased power of lobbies, vote fraud and, of course, federalism. Author: Randy Pierce, Missouri.

PROBLEM AREA V: POVERTY

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

Unfortunately, more than four decades after Michael Harrington identified those living in poverty as “The Other America,” poverty is still an endemic problem in the United States. In 2005, close to 13 percent of the total U.S. population—about 37 million people—were counted as living below the poverty line, a number that essentially remained unchanged from 2004. Of these, 12.3 million were children. Poverty is associated with many harmful outcomes, including poor health, crime, educational difficulties and other social problems. Poverty continues to plague our society despite over four decades of national effort and trillions of dollars in federal spending to combat it. In a nation as wealthy as the United States, such a high level of poverty is certainly appropriate for the examination and reflection provided by a variety of debates on the topic. Affirmatives advocating this topic will be able to defend a wide range of social services designed to both ameliorate the harms of poverty and to reduce the number of people living in poverty. These services would include expanding child care, health care, Food Stamps, housing assistance, mental health care, educational assistance, early Head Start and job training, among others. Negatives would be able debate against the harms of poverty, the ability of various plans to solve the problems identified and many disadvantages, including spending, politics, federalism and net widening. They would also be able to counterplan many of the affirmative plans with the state counterplan. The negative would also have several critical options, including objectivism, statism, dependency and even critiquing the use of the term poverty. Author: Chuck Ballingall, California

Pakistan to Host International Schools Tournament

From Wasif Mir E-mail: info@sisa.edu.pk

Subject: Invitation to participate in the SISA Individual Debating & Public Speaking
Championship 2008 (SIDPSC 2009)

Dear Sir/Madam,
School of International Studies in Sciences and Arts (SISA) is hosting the International SISA Individual Debating & Public Speaking Championship 2009 (SIDPSC 2009) from 20th February to 23rd February 2009 (tentative dates). The competition is the only one of its kind in Pakistan and may be even in South Asia. It is conducted on the lines of the World Individual Debating & Public Speaking Championship (WIDPSC).

Like last year’s event this year’s competition promises to bring together the top student public speakers from across the globe and offer them all a unique chance to interact with each other. This will also be a wonderful opportunity for all our international teams to experience the exotic and rich culture of Pakistan and there is no better place to do that, than the historical city of Lahore.

The registration fee is $75 (U.S) per participant/coach or chaperone (seventy-five dollars U.S). This will cover all the boarding & lodging arrangements and all the social events for the duration of the stay in Lahore. The registration fee can be paid upon arrival in cash or if team’s want we can give them the bank/account details where they can transfer the necessary amount.

You are requested to kindly fill in the pre-registration form for your institution to indicate your willingness to participate in SIDPSC 2009. Please send us the completed pre-registration form before 31st October, 2008. The tournament organizing committee would be working all through the winter break so please feel free to contact us by email, phone or fax for anything regarding the tournament.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,


Wasif W. Mir
(Convener SIDPSC 2009)