NPDA National Rankings for February

USA parliamentary debate competition within the National Parliamentary Debate Association.

From debaterdanny@yahoo.com

1. I have been entering results all week and there are now 72 tournaments recorded representing over 8,000 preliminary rounds and almost 1,200 elimination rounds this season. Results can be viewed by going to http://www.parlidebate.org/ and clicking on the executive secretary link, then results, then overall results. Over 220 schools are represented in the rankings. Here are the top twenty schools as of this evening:


1 Univ of Pacific 106.68
2 El Camino Comm College 105.75
3 Western Washington 105.33
4 USAFA 101.84
5 Pt. Loma 93.59
6 Washburn 90.22
7 Western Kentucky 89.48
8 Whitman 88.84
9 Carroll College 85
10 Northwest College 84.66
11 Grove City College 84.57
12 Northern Arizona 83.83
13 SW Baptist 78.34
14 Willamette 75.31
15 San Diego Mesa 75.24
16 Santa Rosa Junior College 74.5
17 Hillsdale 73.25
18 UC Berkeley 72.92
19 Lewis Clark College 71.3
20 McKendree 69.83

2. By my count there are still roughly 50 tournaments to enter before the end of the season so results are likely to continue to change throughout the season. Here is a list of tournaments that my records indicate results have not yet been submitted:


7th Annual Music City Invitational, Pt. 1
College of DuPage
Double-Up Swing (Pt. 1)
Forum in the Forest, Pt. 1
Great Salt Lake Invitational
Jackson Purchase Swing
M. Jack Parker Invitational
Mardi Gras Classic, Pt. 1
Mid-Winter Blues
Mile High Swing Part 1
Mile High Swing Pt2
Motor City Swing
Northern Arizona University Invitational
PLUM 12.2
PLUM 12.3
PLUM 12.4
Spring HALF Marathon
Sweetheart Swing Pt. 1
Texas Intercollegiate Forensic Association (TIFA) Fall Championships
THBT
The Hollatz Debates
TIFA Spring Championship
Tulsa Tussle
Volunteer State Pioneer Pride Invitational
If you can get the results for these tournaments in ASAP I would appreciate it. go to http://www.parlidebate.org/ and click on tournaments then the various result links for the different divisions. Or you can email me a team ranking and elim outrounds.

3. Please help me by double checking the results and letting me know of any mistakes. So far, my estimate is that I have recorded close to 30,000 data points for season sweepstakes. Even holding myself to a 99.9% accuracy rate would mean there are roughly 30 errors in the sweepstakes data.

Thanks for your patience. This is indeed a monumental task - kudos to Dr. Gernant for doing it for so many years!

-Danny Cantrell
NPDA Executive Secretary

Alaska Debates Support of Rural Communities

From http://www.thedutchharborfisherman.com/news/show/4991

Debate addresses state’s responsibility to villages

MIKE PETERS
February 26, 2009 at 9:16AM AKST

UAA’s award-winning speech and debate team served up a lively discussion before a packed auditorium last week when four members squared off on the question: “Should the state of Alaska devote resources to sustain rural villages?”
Before the program began, moderators explained that the four students did not choose which side of the question they’d represent; they were assigned to support or oppose the question by their faculty coach, Steve Johnson.
The students didn’t need passion for their position to get passionate in the debate.
“Rural life is essential to sustain our Native cultures,” said Sarah Carpenter in support of massive state support for sustainable resources. “Each culture has its own spirituality and language, and each is unique to our state and our identity.”
Commercial fisheries took a lot of heat as the debaters gave way to four academic experts and later to comments from an audience that numbered more than 150.
“Commercial fishing has been favored over rural and subsistence fishing,” Carpenter said, “and that’s why the king salmon run for villages like Emmonak was way down. It wasn’t because the salmon decided not to spawn.”
The impact of industrial fishing was cited by both sides of the debate, though the opposing team of Vasilios Gialopsos and Michaela Hernandez argued that the state was the wrong agent to solve the problem.
“The issue is not whether we as people should come to the aid of people who are suffering,” said Gialopsos, “but where do we go from here?”
He and Hernandez said it was absurd to look to the state as the actor to solve the problem, because:
• the state has made a bad job of it to date;
• giving mostly urban legislators the power to rescue villages they’ve never seen would actually seal their doom;
• the state can’t control the declining world economy or global warming even if it had the will to act on behalf of villages.
Scoring the hardest jabs at the state, Hernandez said that the position of rural adviser to the governor remained vacant for five months despite clearly worsening conditions in the Bush. Meanwhile, five weeks after Nicholas Tucker made his now-famous plea from his village of Emmonak, private groups generated $15,000 in cash and 20,000 pounds of food for the community.

Commercial fishing’s role
A mixed panel of faculty and experts generally applauded the students’ points and efforts, though ISER economist Marie Lowe said her study of Alaska’s fisheries suggested that it was simplistic to paint commercial fishing as the bad guy.
“Commercial fishing is part of the rural lifestyle,” she said, insisting it was critical to look at how resources were allocated in and out of the state.
Lowe said young people in rural communities were losing opportunities to make a living in their regional fisheries and were moving to cities in large numbers in pursuit of higher education. The caveat: It’s hard to go back home “where the careers they trained for don’t exist.”
Education professor Paul Ongtooguk said rural Alaska had to be preserved for the state’s own economic interest. Studies show rural Alaska is the No. 3 reason people visit the state, he said: “Otherwise, we’re just Minnesota with better zoning.”
Ongtooguk recalled how his father came to Anchorage for essential medical care but then returned to Kotzebue instead of staying near the health facilities, provided by a tribal government, that he might have still needed.
“I asked him why he made that choice,” said Ongtooguk, “ and he said being an elder in rural Alaska is a richer way to live than being an old person in a modern culture.”
At the end of the program, audience members said respect was key to solving problems in rural villages. Several mentioned the imminent census and the legislative reapportionment that will follow, noting that rural Alaskans will lose power in the process even if they are all successfully counted. Some advocated increasing the size of the 40-member state House and 20-member state Senate as a way for villagers to sustain their voice in the Legislature.
Diane Benson, a former congressional candidate, said rural Alaska has been given a standard other parts of the country are not asked to meet.
“Rural New York and urban Southern California don’t sustain themselves,” she said. “We all sustain each other to one extent or another.”
She saw a double standard within Alaska, too.
“Emmonak has some of the strongest people of spirit anywhere,” she said. “They are not people looking for a handout.”
But that’s the impression you get from some of the public reaction to the villages’ plight, she said. “If this had happened in Wasilla, if something somehow had prevented people in Wasilla from getting food or fuel, we would have all helped out without thinking anything about it.”
“Every single person deserves safety,” Benson said, insisting that was the job of government. “And that responsibility has not been satisfied.”

Center for Strategic & International Studies Seeks Policy Debaters for Internship

From Alexander T. J. Lennon

The William J. Taylor, Jr. Internship

The 13th Annual William J. Taylor internship recognizes the outstanding
training intercollegiate debate gives students by reserving one
internship annually at CSIS, exclusively for a college debater.

Eligibility: Applications are due March 1, 2009. Candidates for the
award must currently be undergraduate (including seniors graduating this
year) policy debaters. Major field(s) of study should be related to
international affairs. Applicants are expected to have strong writing
skills, an exemplary debate record, an interest in international
affairs, strong communications skills, as well as demonstrated
leadership potential and maturity.

Application: Simply submit a cover letter and resume (which would
include some indication of your debate record, specifically whether you
expect to receive a first-round or not) by March 1 to:

Alex Lennon

Editor-in-Chief, The Washington Quarterly

Senior Fellow, International Security Policy

CSIS

E-mail applications are preferred at alennon@csis.org



Recommendations from coaches and short (no more than 3 page) writing
samples are welcome but not required.



About Dr. Taylor: Dr. William J. Taylor was the senior vice president
for international security affairs at CSIS until 1999. He was a
professor and director of national security studies as well as the
director of debate at West Point. Dr. Taylor was responsible for
bringing many debaters to CSIS--including Mike Mazarr, the 1986 NDT
finalist from Georgetown and former editor of The Washington Quarterly;
and Alex Lennon, 1990 NDT champion from Harvard and current
editor-in-chief of TWQ.



Previous recipients of the award include:



2008 Chris Jones, USC

2007 Jessica Yeats, Idaho State University

2006 Josh Branson, Northwestern University

2005 Victoria Suarez Palomo, Emory University

2004 Nirav Patel, North Texas State University

2003 Shawn Powers, University of Georgia

2002 Austin Carson, Michigan State University

2001 Andrew Peterson, University of Iowa

2000 Mike Horowitz, Emory University

1999 Chris McIntosh, University of Georgia

1998 Corey Stoughton, University of Michigan

1997 Kelly Dunbar, Baylor University





Alexander T. J. Lennon, Ph.D.

Editor in Chief, The Washington Quarterly

Senior Fellow, International Security Program

CSIS/www.csis.org

www.twq.com

Student Interest Creates New Debate Team at Haverford

From http://www.biconews.com/?p=15231

Debate Team Argues for a Great New Start
Posted By iclark On February 24, 2009 @ 7:43 pm In Features

By Mara Miller

Freshman Robert Thorstad would not normally call himself a “start-clubs kind of person,” but when he got to Haverford and realized there was no longer a debate team, he took things into his own hands. “There was a huge lack on campus,” he says.
Thorstad debated in high school, where he says the activity was popular and well respected. “There was a giant trophy case,” he says, “and it wasn’t for athletics.” He used the Go! Boards to muster a like-minded group of students who now form Haverford’s own Debate Team. In January, he posted a thread looking for interest in debating, and saw an enthusiastic reaction within days. Contributors considered latching onto Bryn Mawr or Swarthmore’s teams, but eventually realized that forming Haverford’s own contingent was in fact feasible

The budgeting committee was kind to the team, allotting them $1,700 for travel and other expenses. “We went out on a limb as a new club,” says Thorstad, “but we’re actually quite satisfied with the amount of funding we got.” This support gave the team the momentum they needed to get off the ground.

As a traveling team, their goal is to get tournament experience. The first test for Haverford came the weekend of February 7, when several debaters traveled to Bryn Mawr for a nationwide competition. As a pair, Thorstad and fellow freshman Audrey Saul won three rounds and lost two, and Thorstad was individually ranked ninth in the novice category. The other Haverford duo of James Merriam ’11 and Laura Martin ’12 triumphed in one of their rounds as well. Says Thorstad, “For a tournament that had first-year novices competing with varsity debaters, I think it went really well.”

Martin, who participated in Mock Trial during high school but only dabbled in debate, feels that such skills come in handy at Haverford. “I think it’ll be really helpful in class,” she says. At a school like the Ford, where class discussion is often crucial to one’s grades, speaking and rhetorical skills are invaluable, and debating is a great way to build confidence.

Freshman Rob Williams, who plans on competing in future tournaments, says he’s focused on fun. “Our high school team was really intense,” he says. “Here, I just want to enjoy it.”

Haverford’s team, composed of beginners and veterans alike, competes in Parliamentary debate, in which all arguments are made up on the spot. “You get to argue about stuff you care about,” says Williams, “and there are no coaches. We all help each other.”

At practice, the debaters work on all sorts of skills; last week, I found them bantering over whether or not the government ought to banish Ann Coulter. The debaters mapped out points and counterpoints on the blackboard and then delivered impromptu speeches. “We’re always recruiting,” says Thorstad, “and you really don’t need any experience. We mean it. We have a huge mix of people.” Anyone can check it out—the team practices every Thursday at 7 p.m. in Gest 102.

Fans Debate Harry Potter vs. Twilight

At the end of the article you can click to see the rest of the debate.

From http://www.examiner.com/x-562-Book-Examiner~y2008m12d24-The-Twilight-vs-Harry-Potter-debate--Team-Potter-and-Team-Twilight-take-on-Question-1

The Twilight vs. Harry Potter debate : Team Potter and Team Twilight take on Question #1

December 24, 12:44 AM
by Michelle Kerns, Book Examiner

If you haven't met the members of the Twilight versus Harry Potter Debate Team, cast your eye on their qualifications here.
Now, on to the debate! If you've got your own opinions (and what self-respecting Twi-hard or Potter head doesn't?), feel free to leave a comment at the bottom of the page. However, let's remember we are civilized witches, wizards, vampires, and werewolves engaging in a bit of well-mannered frivolity; don't let your devotion to your series turn you into a screaming banshee.

Question #1: How does the development of the main characters in each series compare to one another?



Let's see Team Twilight's response to this one.

Ms. Laura Nelson: I think that variances in narration make a big difference here. The Harry Potter Series is written mostly in 3rd person narrative, while the Twilight Series is written in first person (with a changing narrator in Breaking Dawn.) I think that this made the reader’s absorption of the main characters much different. For example, my introduction to Edward and the rest of the Cullens was through Bella’s awed point of view. I think this made for a more dramatic character development of such complex characters as vampires. The reader became educated about the intricacies and secrets of the Cullen family through Bella’s eyes, rather than a narrator which, in my opinion, is part of the reason so many people fell in love with vampires. Basically I felt immersed in Bella’s world and all the characters in it, while reading Harry Potter I felt more informed of the characters.

Twilight was also full of characters with rich and vast backgrounds, who where fully developed at the beginning of Twilight. The Cullens had centuries of years lived that readers where informed about, mainly through Edwards explanations to Bella. The introduction and perception of Charlie, Renee, Jessica, Angela, Mike, Eric and other pivotal characters where all through Bella’s eyes, therefore they were perceived in a different light than main characters in Harry Potter. For example, we were given a personal look into Charlie and Renee’s private life, including their daily habits and funny quirks. This was not always the case in Harry Potter. The use of third person narrative made for an extremely detailed and sometimes humorous use of main characters’ development. I should also state that I think the incredibly rich and realistic characters that make up the Twilight series in one of the core reasons the books have become a big enough of a phenomenon to rival Harry Potter. The characters truly seemed like real people to me. Stephenie Meyer saw Edward and Bella as real people in her head while she composed these books, and their reality is prevalent on every page.
Ms. Caroline Gates: I think the development of the characters are similar in the fact that you get to watch them grow up. The only real difference is the time span. In Twilight you get to see Bella grow into herself as a person and Edward finally finding out what he wants in his insanely long life. With the Harry Potter books, you get to see Harry, Ron, and Hermione go through everything together. You literally get to see them grow up from an awkward dorky kid to a still-dorky-but-more-mature young adult. I personally enjoyed reading about Bella's character developing rather than Harry Potter because Harry is just dealing with an evil wizard lord coming to kill him. With Bella, you get to see how she really handles her life. She was very interesting to see from the beginning as she moves away out of her comfort zone, deals with a vampire boyfriend, gets hunted by James, goes through a break-up, deals with her best friend as a werewolf, gets back together with Edward, gets hunted by Victoria, gets married, has a kid, and then becomes a vampire, and then deals with the Volturri. Remind you, the Twilight books only deal with the span of about two-ish years. Thats a lot of a young girl to go through. Harry, he had a few more years to deal with Voldemort, friends, and family issues. It got boring at times though.



Ms. Taelor Ball: *Breaking Dawn Spoiler Alert* Twilight is a love story where an average, ordinary girl falls in love with the one guy she can’t have, but they eventually get through all the difficulties and get married and have a child.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, is a story about a bunch of friends getting through school, and the problems and possible near-death experiences that being a wizard brings.

Ms. Caroline Suh: In terms of character development in the Twilight series, I am going to make it easy on myself and stick to the two main protagonists of Bella and Edward and just Harry in the Harry Potter series. In Twilight, we first meet Bella as a teenager who already seems to have her priorities straight, with a set opinion on matters in life, and her own self-identity that doesn't match those around her. The divorce of her parents caused her to mature faster than others her own age and become the parent-figure over her own mother. Her character development is initiated by her introduction to a supernatural world once she meets Edward. Her world of realism is overthrown as she comes to terms with the fact that vampires and werewolves exist. It is in that fantastical world that she learns about true self-sacrifice for the love of her life and her choice to exchange her mortal existence for an immortal one. With Edward, on top of being a self-restrained and well-educated vampire, readers are constantly reminded, throughout the series, of his perfect beauty and charm. Before meeting Bella, he decided for himself that even though he may have been turned into a vampire, he chooses to live a life that requires self-control and restraint (with a different eating habit) rather than live out the expectations of a lifestyle set before him. However, his character development is brought on by the challenges his relationship with Bella faces. It is through these challenges that what were once dormant human flaws of Edward's are revived (ex. jealousy towards all the boys pining for Bella's attention, especially Jacob; irrational thinking, over-reactions etc.), which makes him all the more the perfect man. For Harry, his development takes off at an earlier age of 10 and his story is more of a coming-of-age tale. His whole future is presided over an event that took place when he was merely a baby. Even after his first near-death experience at Hogwarts, he still chooses to live under the limelight of being the savior of the school and his peers - why? Obviously because he likes the attention. What else would a boy who spent a decade living as something more useless than a broom in a closet under the staircase do with his time at a magic school? The characters of the Harry Potter series depend on dramatic events for character development to take place and set in motion, whereas the characters of Twilight evolve from what they learn from each other in their relationships.

Hmm...Not surprisingly, Team Twilight feels like the Twilight series offers better character development. What say you, Team Potter?


Ms. Victoria Landaker: In my opinion, the development of the main characters in the Potter series is far more complex than that of the development of the main characters in the Twilight series. In the Potter series, the reader is allowed to grow in age and experience along with Harry, Ron, and Hermione. As readers, we get to read about Harry’s life from the age of eleven to the age of seventeen; which means that we get to experience every battle with Lord Voldemort and awkward teenage moment with him. Who Harry is in the Deathly Hallows is far different from the character he is in the Sorcerer’s Stone because of the trials he is made to face throughout the entire series. In the Twilight series, we are shown the characters in the first book, and almost nothing is left to develop in the next three books. In Twilight, we learn that Bella is caring, self-less, clumsy, shy, and intelligent; traits that become constant, and even a staple, for her character in the following books. Bella never has an experience that points towards the development of her character because she is always in the same type of “life or death” situations. The Cullen’s, as we already know, are a family of vampires, who we must assume are unchanging. Therefore, there is very little that we are able to learn about Edward and Bella after the first book.

Ms. Annalisa Freeman: One of the beacons of JKR's talent is her ability to write so many different characters all with varying and distinct personalities through a time in life when one develops and changes the most and keep all their personalities consistent. These characters start out as nave children scared about what test they will need to pass in order to be assigned a house and as they grow upmood swings, insecurities, and allthe trio ends courageously battling evil by taking on Gringotts, Bellatrix Lestrange, and even Lord Voldemort himself. Ron starts out as the insecure boy with dirt on his nose who becomes funnier as the books progress. The temper typical of a 14-year-old boy enhances that insecurity when he turns on Harry for his fame, but in the end he jumps in a lake to save his best friend now comfortable with his position of sidekick to the famous Boy Who Lived. Hermione starts out insecure in her Muggle-born status and showcases this nervousness by showing everyone up in class. As she learns more about the magical world her activism gets the better of her with her ridiculous SPEW project showing how lacking her practical knowledge of the magical world really is, but by Deathly Hallows she gently guides Harry in his choice between horcruxes and hallows, still stubborn but not so self-righteous. Harry himself starts out ignorant and in wonder of this world of wizards, works through years of infamy and anger, until he is ready to command a school of the very wizards he felt so in awe of and fall into the role that was marked on his forehead as a baby. Through the novels, one gets a real sense that these kids are growing and learning and preparing for the epic battle that is their destiny. Nobody would think the 11-year-old boy would be ready for the fight, but by the end of book seven he is. Because we as readers have grown with him, we are fully invested in his outcome and become emotional about his destiny. As you walk with Harry to the forbidden forest you can't help buy reminisce at how far he has come. The main reason closing Deathly Hallows is so hard is not because we mourn the tragedy but because we have grown right along with these characters and we hate to see their story end.



Twilight characters on the other hand start out strong and stagnate or digress. At the beginning of Twilight I was glad that Bella was smart, independent, and considerate of others. The girl moved to a town she hated in order to allow her mother marital bliss showing maturity well beyond her years. Here was a heroine I could truly back. But then Bella meets a boy and all her reason and power dissipate. After she starts dating Edward she quits making decisions for herself and being the strong unique girl that caught his eye. We end with a girl who uses Jacob, whom she knows is in love with her, without regard to the consequences, even kissing him in front of her fiance, and eventually refusing to discuss a dangerous pregnancy with her husband. While I would expect a girl who marries at eighteen to showcase plenty of immaturity and even selfishness, SM had originally portrayed this character as a girl who had grownup quickly in order to care for her mother and therefore Bella should have acted with more responsibility. In Breaking Dawn, SM quit introducing conflict in order to protect her happily ever after marriage robbing Bella of further character development. The scenes where Bella became a vampire could have been some of the most exciting and intriguing ones of the series, but Bella quit progressing when she moves to Forks and consequentially her experiences as a changed being lack discovery and insight and become almost boring.

Edward starts off as a strong, sexy, mysterious vampire, somewhat creepy in his monstrous secret, but a puzzle you can't wait to solve. I get the appeal of Edward. He is aloof and disinterested, but after almost 100 years, Bella catches his eye and his world collapses to include her. After reading Twilight I wanted to get to know him better, but in the end I wondered what happened to the character I had loved. When that boy approached Jacob to ask him to father Bella's children, I couldn't imagine that this was the same confident, decisive character we met in Twilight. I understand that the scene was supposed to demonstrate just how broken Edward had become, but the Edward in Twilight foresaw problems and could always come up with a plan of action. The Edward in Twilight was a little too bossy and possessive of Bella. He smashed a car to save Bella and skid his own car to retrieve her from predators. The Edward in Breaking Dawn was bland. The Edward in Breaking Dawn became a doormat to Bella's desires and became almost nonexistent in the story progression. I don't feel I learned anything new or interesting about him after book one, or even that I was reading the same character. By the time Breaking Dawn ended, I just wanted the Edward of Twilight back.



Ms. Molly Gerber: At the core of the greatness of both series is, I believe, the fact that readers are able to identify with the characters in them. Whether you feel like a clumsy, fish-out-of-water like Bella, a book smart, average looking Hermione, or a misfit that can't seem to live up to the expectations of family, like Neville, you can find someone in the books to identify with. However, the characters in Twilight don't really seem to develop very much. Edward is perfect at the beginning, and he's perfect at the end. Bella is clumsy at the beginning, and at the end she is a vampire. Jacob is a normal, kind friend to Bella at the beginning, and at the end he is a werewolf. Is that really development? I suppose you could, somehow, consider it development. However, it is nothing like the development of characters in the Potter books.

Outside of the natural coming-of-age development of the younger characters in Harry Potter, each character is so fully fleshed out. I could go character by character, but that would take up way too much time, as each character has such a rich history that it would take pages to document even one. The whole story is character based. It depends to much on why the characters act the way they do and what choices each character will make. Without character development, there would be no story.
Ms. Juliana Gomes: This is a tricky question. I think the characters from both of the books are equally interesting, but obviously with different personalities. In my opinion, though, the development of the characters in the Harry Potter series is, in some sort of way, a bit more fun to watch (or read. You know what I mean.)

In Harry Potter, you actually get to see the characters grow, and not only in the physical way, but in the emotional and psychological way as well. You can see the whole difference between the eleven-year-old Harry to the seventeen-year-old. You see and you feel everything that he’s been through, especially with the Harry-Voldemort relationship, how it affects the way he is or the way he acts and feels, and then how that kind of relationship turns him in this mature and protective human being.
Those characteristics about Harry can also easily describe Bella – mature, selfless, overprotective to the people they love, and I think these peculiarities only tend to grow throughout the books, in both of the main characters.

First Three Districts Qualify Teams for the NDT in the USA

Three districts had their qualifying tournaments to get teams into the USA National Debate Tournament, the premier policy debate event. From the listservs, here they are. More to come after the next weekend.

DISTRICT 5
1. Michigan State BE? (Amit Bindra & Carlos Gustavo Eyzaguirre), 8-0 -- 22 ballots.
2. Northwestern MS (Robbie Mullholland & Stephanie Spies), 7-1 -- 22 ballots
3. Wayne PP (Alex Pasquinelli & Sydney Pasquinelli), 6-2 -- 15 ballots
4. Michigan LZ (Maria Liu & Edmund Zagorin), 5-3 -- 17 ballots
5. Miami VW (Aaron Vinson & Drew Wallenstein) 5-3 -- 16 ballots.

DISTRICT 7
1. Georgetown FK: 7 wins, 21 ballots
2. Liberty DG: 7, 19
3. George Mason HO: 7, 16
4. Towson JM: 6, 16
5. George Mason OR: 6, 15
6. Richmond FL: 5, 12, 37 opponent wins

DISTRICT 9
Idaho State JM
Wyoming AP
Wyoming BH
UNLV CE

World Scholars Cup for High & Middle Schools in Singapore

From demidec@gmail.com

Dear Debate Community,

I'm writing to invite you to participate in the upcoming World Scholar's Cup for middle and high school students, to be held June 13-14 at Nanyang Girls School.

We are very grateful to our hosts at Nanyang Girls for all their help putting together the event. Teams will be housed together at the Concorde Hotel on Orchard Road, with easy access to shopping, food and entertainment; perhaps more importantly, the hotel staff is providing abundant practice space and study areas!

Debate is at the heart of the World Scholar's Cup: teams debate resolutions related to a different themed curriculum each year. This year's theme is The Fall of Empires. Within that theme, you'll learn subjects such as Sustainable Development, the Economics of Spectacular Collapse, the History of Empires on the Brink, and the Art of Decay and Decadence. You'll also watch two films: The Last Emperor and Serenity.

In addition to debate, the other three events in the World Scholar's Cup are an essay, a multiple choice challenge, and an exciting bowl-style public tournament, the Scholar's Quiz.

In case it helps, I'm attaching a poster containing some more information. Coaches and students interested in exploring the curriculum before deciding whether to participate might want to review the free, downloadable study guides at www.scholarscup.org--or watch the preview video there, which features footage from last year's World Finals in South Korea.

Afterward, you can register your teams directly at www.scholarscup.org. There is a registration fee of $49 USD per student, to help cover transportation costs and select meals and other incidentals throughout the competition; however, teams for whom this presents a significant obstacle can request a fee waiver.

We're already expecting participants from countries across Asia, Europe, and the United States; we'd be honored if you would join us as well. If you have any thoughts or questions, please don't hesitate to e-mail me.

I hope to see you many of you in Singapore--or at one of our regional practice scrimmages before that!

Best wishes,

Daniel

---
Daniel Berdichevsky
Competition Director
The World Scholar's Cup
www.scholarscup.org

Monash Australs Registration Process

From: Victor Finkel

Subject: [australs] Australs Registration Timeline and Process
To: australs@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 5:32 AM

Registration Update- Australs List

Dear Australs Community,

We are excited to confirm registration details for Monash Australs

2009.

Tournament Cap:

The team cap for this tournament will be 100 teams.

Registration Costs:

Registration costs for Monash Australs 2009 will be as follows:

Debaters: $550 AUD

Adjudicators: $550 AUD

Observers: $600 AUD

Registration includes a 10% Goods and Services Tax that may be

redeemable for foreign delegates – we are currently seeking

professional advice on this.

We recognise that our final registration cost is higher than our

working target of $500 AUD, and it is not a decision we have taken

lightly. The current financial climate has made fundraising for the

tournament difficult. We will continue to aggressively pursue

sponsorship opportunities, and any additional funding we secure will

be used to return benefits to everyone attending the tournament.

Pre-registration: March 15-April 5

The pre-registration phase will allow institutions to secure a

certain number of teams, adjudicator and observer spots for the

tournament. We strongly encourage pre-registration as demand for

this tournament is high, and it is an easy way to ensure that spots

for the tournament are secured. Contingents also have the option to

pay the full registration costs for pre-registered participants at

this stage.

Teams will be allocated tentatively when your online form is

received on a first-come, first-served bases, but entry to the

tournament will only be fully confirmed when a required deposit is

received..

If our team cap is not met in the pre-registration stage, we will

allow registration of extra participants. Our pre-registration

system will allow contingents to register expressions of interest

for additional teams and adjudicators, but this will not guarantee

extra spots – it is simply to allow us to know to contact you if

more spots become available.

Timeline and logistics:

We will be using an online registration system for the tournament.

Participants must submit pre-registration details between March 15

and March 30. A link will appear on our website allowing people to

access this site.

The payment of deposits must be received by April 5th, or pre-

registered spots will be void. Our payment transfer details will be

made available when you complete your pre-registration form.

Cap:

There will be a 4 team cap in the pre-registration phase of the

tournament. This is in order to maximise participation across a

diverse range of contingents. Each contingent must pre-register

their allocated n-1 adjudicators, and may register additional

adjudicators to a maximum of 6.

Costs:

In order to pre-register teams, a deposit is required to confirm

spots at the tournament.

The costs of pre-registration are as follows:

$150 AUD per team

$50 AUD per adjudicator

$50 AUD per observer

We recognise the difficulties which some contingents face in

securing funding for the tournament.

It is for this reason that we are proud to introduce a Deposit

Waiver Scheme:

Institutions will be allowed to pre-register a single team with no

deposit in cases where they believe they will have financial

difficulty in attending the tournament.

This is to allow teams a chance to explore funding opportunities

while having a guaranteed spot on offer.

Contingents which require a waiver must send an email explaining

their circumstances to monash.australs@ gmail.com before March 25.

Full registration: April 22-May 4

Contingents who have pre-registered should pay the remainder of

their registration fees at this stage. Depending on capacity,

contingents may also have the opportunity to register more team,

adjudicator and observer spots.

Contingents who have not pre-registered participants may register

and pay for spots, on a first- come, first-served basis.

Timeline and logistics:

The full registration system will run from April 22-May 4. We will

post information to the Australs List and on our website in coming

weeks with more information about full registration.

Individual Registration: May 11- May 25

We will require contingent organisers to register the details of all

individual participants at the tournament before May 25. This will

enable us to cater for rooming preferences and dietary requirements.

Protesters Disrupt Live TV Debate in South Africa

From http://www.theherald.co.za/herald/news/n26_23022009.htm

Azapo disrupts live PE TV debate

Khanyi Ndabeni HERALD REPORTER

PANDEMONIUM broke out last night when Azapo supporters disrupted a live SABC2 political debate broadcast from Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth.

The television show hosted by Tim Modise had representatives from the ANC, UDM, Cope and DA debating health issues, with supporters cheering for their parties and waving placards.

Azapo supporters stormed the stage and police and security evicted them from the hall after scuffles broke out.

Azapo regional chairman Lungile Dick said the party disrupted the debate because it wanted to expose the public broadcaster‘s “unfair and unbalanced” reporting of local politics.

“We had a meeting with the programme‘s producer two hours before the show, but we were told that the TV station could only cover parties that have at least one per cent of the vote in parliament,” said Dick.

He said Azapo was invited to the live debate, but was excluded from the debating panel at the last minute.

SABC spokesman Kaizer Kganyakgo could not comment about the matter last night, saying he only saw what was happening on TV.

“These guys had clearly planned to cause a disturbance,” he said. “Because when the programme started, they were sitting down – and immediately when we started broadcasting, they stormed the stage.”

Great Debater of the 1970's Gives Back

Good to see Georgetown Great Tom Rollins sharing with students.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/23/ST2009022300874.html

New Crop of Great Debaters
Program at the Potomac School Strengthens Its Argument by Racking Up Wins
By Nelson Hernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 23, 2009; B02

Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, one of Virginia's top high school debaters, is talking very fast. When you're contending that "the United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity," there's a lot to squeeze into a six-minute speech: the skeleton of an argument, the sinews of logic, the muscle of evidence.

There's no room for rhetorical frills, and even if there were, they wouldn't mean anything to Adam Gerchick, sitting at the other end of the table. He intently scribbles down every point Batmanghelidj makes. He's putting together an outline of the argument so he can rip it apart -- all in good fun, of course.

Both students attend the Potomac School in McLean and are members of a tiny, upstart debate team that has taken Virginia by storm, winning state championships in Lincoln-Douglas-style debate for two consecutive years. Batmanghelidj and Gerchick were the last two debaters left standing at the state tournament in January, meaning they didn't have to face each other in the final round.

Watching the students prepare for a tournament at Harvard University, one can see why they're so good. Rather than lapsing into the sloppy street brawl of a typical argument without time limits or standards of evidence, these teenagers trade verbal punches with the speed of Olympic boxers. Batmanghelidj, 17, a junior, offers another comparison: "It's a lot more like a game of fast-paced chess. If you treat arguments like pieces on a chessboard, the goal is to move your arguments in such a way that you win."

Batmanghelidj argues that the International Criminal Court will save lives by helping fight global terrorism. No sooner does he finish his speech than Gerchick, 18, a senior, launches into a series of questions.

"Are terrorists going to respond to the threat of prosecution?" Gerchick asks.

"We're not going to prosecute terrorists but states that harbor terrorism," Batmanghelidj replies.

"So states like Libya, which sits on the board of the ICC, are going to allow them to prosecute their leaders?"

Batmanghelidj tries to reply again, but Gerchick cuts him off. Next question.

So it goes for almost an hour of intense argumentation. Then coach Tom Rollins dissects the round. He doesn't mince words, critiquing Gerchick for missing an opening for what he calls his "magic card": a piece of evidence showing many civil wars have been resolved internally rather than by international court. He advises Gerchick to tattoo it on his arm.

"I want it tattooed on there so you can just read off it," he says. "That card is wicked good."

The advice is easy to take from an acknowledged master. In high school, debate is something that a small guy can be good at, and Rollins was one of the best. Coaches voted him the top debater of the 1970s, and he continued in college, where one of his rivals was Lawrence H. Summers, the future Treasury secretary and head of the National Economic Council. Rollins became a lawyer, worked for a Senate committee and is now more or less retired.

When his children entered Potomac, he discovered that the 950-student private school didn't have a debate team. So he ruminated about starting one. The lure of returning to forensics was visceral: "It's like the DNA in every cell in my body is asking, 'Where can I get some more of that?' " Rollins said.

So, with approval from the school, he recruited a handful of students -- Gerchick and Batmanghelidj among them -- and set out on a quest in early 2007 to win championships. Less than a year later, students won their first state title.

"He's basically a dad. I think he cares about us," said Gerchick, who is headed to Amherst College after graduation. "I guess we return the favor by winning."

Speaker Awards from WSDC Athens

Top Speaker Daniel Kaliski from South Africa

From http://www.schoolsdebate.com/blog/

The top 10 speakers for WSDC 2009 are (hopefully accurate, as I hastily scribbled the names):

10. Melanie Pope (England)
9. Lee Jia Wei (Singapore)
8. Iqbal Kassam (Canada)
7. Ben Woolgar (England)
6. Jack Gamble (England)
5. Anish Hazra (Singapore)
4. Teoh Ren Jie (Singapore)
3. Christopher Bissett (Australia)
2. Maria English (New Zealand)
1. DANIEL KALISKI (South Africa)

ESL best speaker
JANICE YOON from the Republic of Korea!

EFL best speaker
DO HYEONG KWON from the Republic of Korea

Adjudication Core Announced for US Universities

Neill Harvey-Smith at WUPID in Malaysia

From http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu/About_Us.html

Neill Harvey-Smith is proud to announce his core for administering US Universities National Debating Championship to be held at the University of Vermont 3-5 April 2009.

NEILL HARVEY-SMITH - CHIEF ADJUDICATOR

Neill is a former World Championship grand finalist and won the John Smith Memorial Mace in England & Wales and Scotland. He was Chair of the Grand Final at the 2004 World Debating Championships in Singapore, having previously adjudicated the Grand Finals of Worlds, the European Championships, the International Mace. As a student he won around 25 inter-varsity debating competitions. He is also the current President of the World Debating Council. Neill will be helping to select international judges to bring to the tournament.

STEVE LLANO - DCA

Steve has been involved in debate since he was 15 years old, participating in high school policy debate in the great state of Texas. He attended Texas A&M University and helped to found their NPDA program. Steve became the Director of Debate at A&M Consolidated High School after graduation where his students achieved success in Lincoln-Douglas and Cross-examination style debating at the state and national level, qualifying for the TOC and winning the Texas state championship in cross examination debate. Steve served as assistant debate coach at the University of Rochester where in 2001 the team took first in the NDT sweepstakes rankings. He has also worked as an assistant coach at the University of Pittsburgh, and as a faculty member at the World Debate Institute at the University of Vermont. He is currently an Assistant Professor and Director of Debate at St. John’s University in New York City. He was recently the Chief Adjudicator at the Cornell Debate Tournament. Steve recently staged the first debate ever held in a virtual reality, Second Life.

IAN LISING - DCA


Professor Ian T. Lising is the co-author of the World University Debating Championships Adjudication Guide and Member Emeritus of the World Universities Debating Council. He was the co-Founder, Chair and Coach of the Ateneo Debate Society (Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines). Since 1999, Ian continues to serve as the Director of Forensics and Faculty of the Speech Communication Department at the University of La Verne. He has coached both the Ateneo and La Verne at the WUDC. His teams have become World Octofinalists, Quarterfinalists, Semifinalists, and Grand Finalists. 
He is a six-time Grand Finals Adjudicator at the World University Debating Championships (WUDC). He has also judged finals of the Australasian Debating Championships, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, CUSID B.P. National, U.S. Universities, and All-Asian Debating Championships. Ian served as the Chair of the World Debating Council from 2002-2008.

BETH CONNER - DCA


Beth Conner received a First in English from the University of St Andrews and is currently studying law at City University in London. She is a Worlds Masters finalist and has made the finals of 10 IVs in the UK and Ireland, including the Scottish Mace final 2008. As a judge, she broke at Worlds in 2009, judged the final of the World Universities Peace Invitational Debate, the final of the Bar Council of Malaysia Human Rights Debate 2009 and the semi- final of the English Mace.

J. SCOTT RODRIGUEZ - DCA


Since becoming Director of Forensics at CSU San Bernardino in 1990, J. Scott Rodriguez has coached teams that have attended both the Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) National Championship Tournament and the National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) National Championship Tournament, and was among those selected to judge in the late elimination rounds at both of these organizations' premier annual events. Since Dublin Worlds 2006, the CSUSB squad has converted to Worlds Format, and have been represented in Dublin, Vancouver, Bangkok and Cork. In July, 2007, Rodriguez became the first American debate instructor ever to lead a delegation of US debaters to the Australasian Championship Tournament, hosted by UT Mara in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In recent years, Rodriguez has also judged at USU Nationals, CUSID BP Nationals, the FLTRP Cup in Beijing, China and the Koc University 2008 Invitational in Istanbul, Turkey.

ALFRED SNIDER - CONVENER

Alfred C. Snider is the Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics at the University of Vermont. He has degrees from Brown University, Emerson College, and the University of Kansas. He teaches courses in debate, argumentation, persuasion and rhetorical analysis. He is the Director of the World Debate Institute and the Lawrence Debate Union.
Dr. Snider has spent the last thirty-six years promoting debate and critical communication as an alternative to violence and conflict as well as a method for achieving real democracy and a true civil society. He has done formal debate training in twenty-seven countries and has trained debaters from over thirty-five nations at the World Debate Institute’s sessions in the USA, Korea and Slovenia. He has directed the debate program at international conferences in Turkey, Estonia and Slovenia attended by scholars from over thirty-five nations.
Dr. Snider has received every major award given to debate educators in the USA, including the Pelham Coach of the Year award, the Don Brownlee Service to Debate award, the Ziegelmueller Debate Coaching award, the Slappey Diversity in Debate award, the Douglas Dedication to Debate award and the Jacobsohn Service to Debate award. His work in promoting debate has also brought him awards from Emory University, the University of Utah, Cornell University, Binghamton University, the University of South Carolina as well as from the National Forensic League and the Cross Examination Debate Association. In the last eight years he has been very active in WUDC/BP format debate activities, and has six times been the training director at the International Debate Academy held in Europe in that format.
Dr. Snider had published five books on debating in the last five years and during his career has edited or written over fifty volumes about debating and for debaters. He is the host of the television program Flashpoint that has over three hundred and seventy episodes and deals with political and social issues. He was named 2008 Director of the Year by Vermont Community Access Media for his work on this program. He maintains one of the world’s busiest debate websites, Debate Central (http://debate.uvm.edu), and is the editor of Global Debate (http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com ). He has pioneered using the Internet and new media for debating.

National Public Policy Forum 09 Reaches Great Eight

Now they are just a few. Schools from all over the world have participated in the 2009 National Public Policy Forum, aiming at the gala semifinals weekend in New York City's New York University on April 17-19 2009.

The NPPF is sponsored by the Bickel & Brewer Law Firm and New York University.

The four current match ups are:

• Bellaire High School vs. Bronx High School of Science
• Glenbrook North High School vs. North Allegheny High School
• Plano Senior High School vs. La Salle College High School
• Suncoast High School vs. Deer Park High School

Find out more at the NPPF website http://nppf.net/

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

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

Top Five Reasons Why You Should Participate in the National Public Policy Forum

Reason Number Five:
It’s easy.
Participation in the NPPF is simple and fun; just work with your debate team or English class to prepare and submit a Qualifying Round essay. The NPPF is unlike any other form of debate. While NPPF bases its topic on the current Policy/Team debate topic for the 2008-09 year, it welcomes debaters from around the world and across the spectrum of debate and forensic events.

Reason Number Four:
It’s fair.
All essays submitted during the NPPF competition remain anonymous before the panel of judges. This blinding method prevents judges from adjusting the ranking of an essay due to bias, or simply because it was written by a well known school. The NPPF provides each school - public and private - an equal chance to compete.

Reason Number Three:
It’s unique.
This is not your average debate tournament. The NPPF is the only international debate tournament that combines persuasive essay writing with oral argument. This challenging format is increasingly important now that the SAT includes an essay section.

Reason Number Two:
It’s free.
That’s right. There is no entry fee. You don’t have to pay for expensive airline tickets to compete in this tournament. (We will pay the airfare to New York for the final four teams.) The only initial requirements are to register for the competition and e-mail your school’s Qualifying Round essay to sem@bickelbrewer.com. The Bickel & Brewer Foundation will handle the rest!

And….Reason Number One:
It’s rewarding.
The NPPF is the only tournament that provides students with the opportunity to compete before a panel of some of the world’s foremost experts in debate, business, law and politics. And, the prizes are unlike any other awarded by debate tournaments. The top 16 schools that place in the competition each receive cash awards for their teams. Best of all, teams that advance to the Final Four round receive an all-expense-paid trip to New York City to compete for the $10,000 grand prize!

Northeast Universities Debate Rankings

After Cornell...

Those with at least 100 points...

PLACING SCHOOL CORNELL POINTS NEW TOTAL

1. VERMONT 72 424
2. CORNELL 0 344
3. ST JOHN'S 57 330
4. COLGATE 69 329
5. HWS 46 199
6. BARD 38 165
7. RIT 0 122
8. ROCHESTER 10 104

Full results are at
http://debate.uvm.edu/usudc/usudctab0809.html
Cornell at bottom of page.

HOW IT WORKS

SWEEPSTAKES FOR NORTHEAST UNIVERSITIES RANKINGS

BECOMING A PART OF THE SWEEPSTAKES:
• SCHOOLS ASK TO BE LISTED.
• YOU SELF-IDENTIFY TO BE PART OF THE SWEEPSTAKES.
• EACH SCHOOL SUPPLIES THEIR RESULTS TO THE TABULATOR.

TOURNAMENTS AND POINTS:
MUST BE A WORLDS FORMAT TOURNAMENT. ONLY THOSE COUNT. ALL TOURNAMENTS WHERE A LISTED SCHOOL ATTENDS COUNT IF THEY ARE BP, SO WUDC,WUPID, EUDC, HART HOUSE, ETC. ARE ACCEPTABLE.

• TOP FOUR TEAMS COUNT FOR SWEEPSTAKES.
• 1ST=3 POINTS, 2ND=2 POINTS, 3RD=1 POINT, 4TH=0 POINTS.
• COUNT THE LAST SIX ROUNDS.
• 6 FOR ADVANCING IN ELIMS.
• 10 FIRST PLACE, 7 SECOND PLACE.
• HOSTING TEAMS CAN DEBATE BUT NOT GET POINTS, UNLESS HOSTING USU NATIONALS.
• COUNT ALL TOURNAMENTS DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR SEPT 1 UNTIL APRIL USU.
• HYBRIDS CAN DEBATE BUT NOT GET POINTS.

AWARDS
• AWARDS GO TO THE TOP FIVE SCHOOLS
• THE NUMBER ONE SCHOOL HAS TO BUY THE AWARDS.
• AWARDS MUST BE ENGRAVED WITH SCHOOL NAMES.
• THE AWARDS FOR 1-5 MUST BE THE SAME SIZE.
• MUST BE DELIVERED BY SEPTEMBER 15 OF FOLLOWING YEAR.

New Zealand Wins World Schools

From http://www.schoolsdebate.com/blog/

NEW ZEALAND!!! 6-1

Whaia e koe ki te iti kahurangi; ki te tuohu koe, me maunga tetei
(Seek the treasure you value most dearly: if you bow your head, let it be to a lofty mountain.)

From http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4852614a7694.html

NZ wins world debating champs
Thursday, 19 February 2009

The New Zealand team has won the World Schools' Debating Championship in Athens, Greece, after a convincing victory over England.
The team beat England by a 6-1 margin, proposing the motion "That all illegal immigrants should receive amnesty".
Speaking from Greece, team captain Maria English of Wellington's Samuel Marsden Collegiate told NZPA the win had capped off an exciting competition.
"It's fantastic, it's a great feeling," she said.
"The whole competition was the most amazing experience and getting the chance to represent our country has just been fantastic."
This morning's win over England was particularly satisfying as New Zealand suffered a heartbreaking 4-5 decision loss to their English counterparts in last year's final in Washington.
"It was a great rematch actually, and a really close debate as well," Ms English, daughter of Finance Minister Bill English said.
"You've got to be confident and you've got to believe in the team, which we did, but at the same time it's always so close, and England is such a great team."
Ms English, 17, and fellow 18-year-old teammates, Holly Jenkins, of Lower Hutt's Sacred Heart College, Jennifer Savage of Wanganui Collegiate, Tom Chen of Hamilton's Hillcrest High School and Ben Kornfeld of Auckland's King's College, had been kept busy since their win with phone calls and text messages from home.
"It's been really exciting and the support from back home has been great."
On the way to the final, the team defeated Singapore, Scotland, Canada, Wales, Peru, the Netherlands, Chile, Bangladesh and Germany.
It was the first time since 1995 that New Zealand had won the championships.
- NZPA

2009 Global Youth Debate Conclave in Bangalore, India

This was an awesome event last year and will be even better this time. Hurry and get involved!

From http://gydc09.blogspot.com/

GYDC 2009 Edition: SHIFTING SANDS - The Times they are a-changin’

‘Only the wisest and the stupidest of men never change’ – Confucius

The 2009 Edition Global Youth Debate Conclave focuses on opening up an interactive and international platform for discussions on the radical changes – political, economic and cultural that we are seeing today. In the new millennium all our realms of understanding are seeing constant upheaval and the impact on our lives and our future generations is going to be significant. GYDC 2009 will try to make sense of it all and discuss issues of immediate concern. The debate will happen across three rounds (One preliminary and two final rounds), and the topics will all relate to various social, economic and cultural changes that have been taking place as well as the key issues being debated in these spheres today and how they’ll impact our world. This debate conclave would be on the 23rd and 24th of March 2009 and is open to participation from undergraduate and Post Graduate Students of both International and National Universities and eligible youth between the ages of 18 to 26 years. The first round would be a preliminary round where the participants would be tested on their oratory/writing skills and eliminated accordingly. The second round would be on a two team debating format and topics would be given in advance. The final round would be a decider of individual best debaters. There would be special prizes that would be given out to the best orator on day one, best team in round two and the best debater in the final round overall.

INITIAL SCREENING FOR INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPANTS
This round is specifically for international participants who may not be present for the preliminary round due to the vast geographical differences we face. This round would act as an initial screening round and would be a written round in which after receiving your initial email enquires we would mail you a topic which would have to be submitted as a written assignment (only original work, references can be cited for quotes and examples). Based on this submission we would be choosing top 10 contestants whose travel and accommodation would be fully sponsored by us. Apart from these 10 contestants the others eligible would be informed and we would provide only free accommodation in India, though travel would have to be organized by the contestant or the college/university/organization to which the contestant belongs, from home country to Bangalore City in India.

PRELIMNARY ROUND: PIC-TO-REALLY SPEAKING
The preliminary round would be an on the spot extempore on the environmental issues in India, where participants will be shown pictures/videos of live situations (e.g.: a pothole on the road, a beggar on the street etc) and asked to opinionate on what the picture/video speaks about. It will be totally extempore and no prior preparation time will be provided to the participants. SECOND ROUND: TEAM FACE OFF All the participants will be paired into groups of two and they are to participate in a face off against the other teams (two teams will be pitted against each other). The teams will have one topic (with one team for and the other against) and speakers will alternate fromeach team. The best 12 individual scorers will move to the final showdown. Each speaker will have 3 minutes (+1 minute grace) to make his points. A minute rebuttal with one question each allowed from the opposition team will be after all 4 speakers have made finishedtheir debates. No cross questions will be entertained. Each team face off will have a winner who will receive separate recognition and accolades. However, only the best individual scorers will make it to the next round.

TOPIC ONE: The End of Poverty is just a utopian dream
TOPIC TWO: Financial Globalization only promotes speculation and ruin
TOPIC THREE: Urbanization is the key to development
TOPIC FOUR: World Peace is history
TOPIC FIVE: Liberal societies can never be terror free

FINAL ROUND: BEST DEBATER
FINAL TOPIC: The greed of Oil and Auto Corporations is the only thing preventing clean energy from becoming a reality.
The selected finalists will debate individually on a given topic that will again be handed in advance to all participants. Only the stands will be allotted by a draw an hour before the round. The speakers again will have 3 minutes (+1 minute grace) to make his points. There would be no rebuttal. The best
scorer will be the winner of the 'IIPM Global Youth Debate Conclave 2009'!

CONTACT INFORMATION
All interested in participating can request for registration forms and further details
Name : Ms. Ninfa Chacko
Designation : Tournament Director
Address : #419, IIPM TOWER, 100 Feet RoadKoramangala, Bangalore 560032, INDIA
Hand Phone : +919823400123
e-mail : ninfa.chacko@gmail.com

Recent American Debaters Make Policy Waves

Congratulations to Colin Kahl & Nirav Patel.

From http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/11/names_latin_america_nea_and_dod

DoD: Colin Kahl, a professor at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, has been tapped to become the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East. In the position, he will help shape Defense Department policy on Iraq, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

From the LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-patel14-2009feb14,0,3702324.story

Opinion
Clinton's heading in the right direction -- Asia
Her first overseas trip as secretary of State acknowledges the growing significance of the region and the need to adjust America's global priorities.
By Nirav Patel

February 14, 2009

When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visits Asia next week, she will fundamentally and profoundly change the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy. The "Iraqification" of foreign policy under President Bush permeated strategic thinking during the last eight years and undermined the United States' standing around the world. As the tides of power shift from the West to the East, the United States has been stuck in the sand. Clinton's decision to go to Asia for her first overseas trip underscores the growing geopolitical significance of the region and a strong desire to rebalance American engagement.



All but one of the last 10 secretaries of State have taken their maiden voyage to Europe or the Middle East. Until now, only George P. Shultz, who served in the Reagan administration, broke this trend when he chose to focus on the Americas. His decision was not popular.



Clinton's decision to go to Asia also has been subjected to tremendous scrutiny -- especially because the U.S. remains embroiled in two wars, in the Middle East and Central Asia. Despite her critics' skepticism, her decision demonstrates an acute strategic understanding of the changing dynamics of global power. Her trip will come at a time of tremendous uncertainty in Asia, and serves three strategic objectives:



First, the trip is a strong indication that President Obama will be active in Asia. In many ways, the United States' deteriorating position in the region was catalyzed by Iraq, the "great strategic distraction" of the 21st century. Washington's disregard and strategic neglect of Asia -- epitomized by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's repeated absence from high-level ministerial meetings -- gave China an opportunity to launch a diplomatic "charm offensive" and gain political capital among regional allies. Clinton's trip signifies an appreciation of Asia's diplomatic culture, which values face-time and presence, and will be crucial to fostering a more balanced U.S. foreign policy.



Clinton's visit also will help allay regional anxiety amid major economic and political uncertainty. Before the global economic recession, Asia accounted for almost 40% of the world's gross domestic product and was a crucial engine of global prosperity. At a key point in the current credit crisis, Asian equity was key to slowing the impending financial meltdown. Japanese banks and Chinese financiers injected billions of dollars of capital into toxic U.S. financial institutions, and gave Washington much-needed time to help engineer a massive bailout of the nation's beleaguered economic system.

However, the depth of the financial crisis has now triggered massive fallout in Asia as its export-dependent economies face an oversupplied, low-demand market.



Compounding Asia's growing financial uncertainties are looming security challenges that could catalyze conflict and even war. Territorial disputes over post-colonial occupations in the Pacific waters continue to animate interstate relations between Japan, South Korea and China. And North Korea's nuclear weapons program and China's continued military buildup pose traditional security concerns that, if not properly managed, could ignite war. All the while, a caldron of emerging nontraditional security challenges -- such as radicalism in Southeast Asia, climate change and pandemic diseases -- could induce conflict.



Last, the United States seeks to engage in a civil dialogue with Muslims in Southeast Asia and around the world. One of the many lessons learned from the Bush administration is that military force alone is insufficient to counter terrorists and their radical ideology. Clinton's decision to go to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, underscores how serious Obama is about enhancing U.S. public diplomacy and outreach efforts in the Muslim world. This may prove to be the most significant leg of Clinton's journey, as she attempts to orchestrate a major shift in the United States' overall approach to the war on terrorism.



It is no secret that Clinton has great admiration for Shultz. And just as her decision to first travel to Asia has been debated, Shultz's tour through the Americas also was initially subject to demarches by Washingtonians who felt his trip reflected poor strategic judgment about the contours of Cold War geopolitics. In the end, many naysayers of Shultz became his biggest advocates as he helped engineer the peaceful collapse of the Soviet empire and the expansion of American values. Clinton's trip to Asia represents a similar diplomatic spirit that sees a region ripe with opportunities for bold departures and strategic gains.

Nirav Patel is a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, specializing in Asia-Pacific affairs.

Sub-Editor of the Monash Debating Review

From monash.debaters.president@gmail.com

Sub-Editor of the Monash Debating Review: Call for Applications

DEADLINE: February 28, 2009

The Monash Association of Debaters (MAD) is currently soliciting applicants for Sub-Editors of Monash Debating Review (MDR).

About the MDR
First published in 2002, the MDR is an annual publication that aims to both inform readers and provide a forum for discussion of issues as they relate to debating and adjudicating. The MDR draws on the opinions and experiences of some of the best debaters, adjudicators and coaches from around the world.

The MDR is the world’s only international debating journal. It is a scholarly, interdisciplinary journal that has featured articles from Australia, Russia, New Zealand and the United States, as well as interviews with prominent public intellectuals and policy-makers. For instance, previous editions have contained articles on British Parliamentary strategy, argumentation strategy, debating policy, global debating styles, the role of affirmative action in debating and backgrounders to contemporary debating topics.

Position Description
The Sub-Editors source and edit articles for the Monash Debating Review.

There are four Sub-Editor positions. This year, the MDR is expanding its worldwide appeal and is looking to appoint at least one Sub-Editor each from Europe, North America and the Australasia region. The Editor-in-Chief will be Michael Kotrly, winner of the World Universities Debating Championships 2006.

A Sub-Editor will:
• Encourage the submission of manuscripts from the worldwide debating community
• Proofread and edit submitted articles
• Report regularly to the Editor-in-Chief

Selection Criteria
Applications will be judged based on the best combination of
• Previous editorial and/or publication experience
• Debating and/or adjudicating experience
• Vision for the MDR and an understanding of its importance
• A cover letter detailing reasons for wanting to serve

Compensation
The Sub-Editor role is a volunteer position.

Application Procedure
The deadline for submitting applications is February 28, 2009. Applications should be emailed to Damien Bruckard, President, Monash Association of Debaters at monash.debaters.president@gmail.com.



--
Damien Bruckard
President, 2009
Monash Association of Debaters
monash.debaters.president@gmail.com
0400 606 608

WSDC Semifinal Results

From http://www.schoolsdebate.com/blog/

News just to hand.....
We have our finalists.

The semi-final topic this afternoon was "THBT dictatorships should not receive international aid". England proposed against Greece. New Zealand proposed against Singapore. England won 4-1 and New Zealand won 3-2.

WSDC Quarterfinal Results from Athens

From http://www.schoolsdebate.com/blog/

Close encounters of the word kind
Resolution: THW lower the voting age.

The teams are listed below, proposition first then opposition, with the number of judges obtained. From all accounts, the debaters were close encounters and had fought. I witnessed the best debate I'd seen all tournament between Pakistan and England, a joust full of sophistication, wit and rhetoric and the best of debating.

Pakistan 1 v England 4
Australia 2 v Singapore 3
New Zealand 4 v Canada 1
Greece 4 v Scotland 1.

So England meets Greece in a semi final for the second consecutive year and New Zealand meets Singapore.

NDT First Round Bids 2009

These teams will an automatic invitation to the National Debate Tournament, the policy debate invitation-only national championships for the USA.

Announced by Jim Hanson:

Here are the NDT First Round Bids, 2009, announced today:

California BP
Dartmouth AH
Emory MS
Emory WS
Harvard RS
Kansas BJ
Mary Washington KS
Michigan State AW
North Texas CP
Northwestern FW
Oklahoma GW
Towson CL
USC JL
Wake GL
West Georgia BS
Whitman CS

IDEA News 2-15-2009

From cphillip@idebate.org

IDEA opens CafePress store
Support a good cause, and order an awesome IDEA logo item from IDEA's new CafePress store! We're offering T-shirts of every fit, color and style (including ringers and raglans), as well as mugs, mouse pads, and more. Shop IDEA!

President Abe Lincoln and the Spring Global Debates
Thursday was Lincoln’s birthday, Monday is President’s Day, and on March 1, The People Speak Global Debates begin. It’s never been a better time to ask the question: given this spring’s Global Debate topic, “Developed nations have a higher obligation to combat climate change,” what case for the proposition would the late President Lincoln devise? Honor a great US president by researching his moral and political beliefs, and speculate what he would have done.
What is your obligation to combat climate change? To answer this question, register and compete in The People Speak Spring Global Debates! High school students in more than 80 countries participate. Overall winners of the 2008-2009 Fall and Spring Global Debates receive a trip to the Youth Leadership Summit in NYC, July 2009!
Find out more!

Registration opens for the 2009 Turkey YouthCamp
YouthCamps connect youth who have goals and ideas for a more open society, with youth wishing to contribute to these goals, in collaborative, inspirational projects. These collaborations empower youth to become active citizens willing and able to influence public life, and they promote open society ideals. Join the April 2009 YouthCamp in Istanbul, Turkey, to guide this new effort by sharing your ideas and experiences.
Visit the site to learn more.

IDEA Youth Forum registration is about to begin!
The Forum is accepting up to 200 participants, or 50 Karl Popper Debate Championship teams. Every institution that participated in past Forums has 1 place granted automatically. After that it’s first come, first served!
Participation in the IDEA Youth Forum is conditional. All participants will be reviewed and invited to attend the IDEA Youth Forum by the Participants’ Selection Committee. The only exceptions are individuals coming for the Karl Popper Debate Championship (KPDC), and observers.
The Forum will take place in the Olympic Center, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina from July 23 to August 5. The cost for the whole Youth Forum is 600 EUR per person. Some participation fee waivers are available. Registration opens soon and will close on April 30, 2009. Applicants wishing to apply for a fee waiver have to submit their application by March 31, 2009.
For more information please go to the Youth Forum website or download the invitation letter!
Veronika Vlckova, Forum Coordinator, IDEA Netherlands
Forum topic library coming soon!
We will start an article library for the 2009 Youth Forum KP and MT topics! Each week, I’ll post an article pertaining to each of the topic sets. Each article will include an accompanying synopsis that gives you a brief look into what the article deals with and what it says. Also look for contributions from this year’s YF trainers on articles that are essential reading on the forum topics. Simply access the Youth Forum website.
Bill, Forum Curriculum Director

Debatepedia launches debate article on US stimulus package
Debatepedia recently completed a comprehensive debate article on the $800 billion US economic stimulus package. Even after the passage of the stimulus legislation through the Senate on February 10th, 2009, the debate over the package continues, particularly with so many important philosophical questions at stake. Can the government have a significant impact in stimulating the economy? What does history tell us, particularly with examples such as the impact of the New Deal on the Great Depression? Is spending a better way to stimulate the economy than tax cuts? Is deficit-spending to fight off recession necessary and tolerable? What are the consequences of adding to the national debt?
View the arguments underlying these questions on Debatepedia.
Brooks Lindsay, Debatepedia

Join IDEA on Facebook
Please join 1,300 IDEA members on Facebook, and get up-to-date IDEA news as it happens. Join the Youth Forum and Debatepedia there too!

IDEA member countries: submit content for Idebate Magazine by February 20th
The next issue of Idebate Magazine is set to mail at the end of March. Do you have an exciting, brief debate report to share from your member country? Email it to cphillip@idebate.org by Friday, February 20.

HWS / IDEA Round Robin field announced
The following teams will compete at the 2009 Round Robin in April:
Babes Bolyai
Brandeis
Cambridge
Columbia
Hart House (Ferris/Jorgenson)
Hart House (Freeman/Lizius)
Harvard
Loyola Marymount (Kiley/Schwab)
Loyola Marymount (Aguilera/Molison)
MIT
National Law School of India
Oxford
Tel Aviv
Witswatersrand
Yale
York
Judge selections will be made soon. Anyone interested in adjudicating should contact Eric Barnes at: barnes (at) hws (dot) edu.
Just a few selected accomplishments of these teams includes: - 3 Quarterfinalist teams at the World Championships - Semi-finalists at the World Championships - 2 Finalist teams at the Canadian National Championships - Finalists at the US National Championships - Finalists at the North American Championships - Finalists at the Southern African Championships - Finalists at the Oxford IV - The second breaking ESL team at Worlds - The ESL World Champions - Finalists at the World Championship - The Canadian National Champions - The US National Champions - The All-Asian Tournament Champions
Eric Barnes, Hobart & William Smith Colleges

NPDA teams welcome at US Universities Nationals
NPDA teams and adjudicators are welcome to join us and debate in the WUDC format, at the US Universities Debate Championships. While foreign teams can win the tournament, the highest-ranking US team will be named national champion. The championship is hosted by the University of Vermont and sponsored by the International Debate Education Association.
All of our information is online.
We are expecting 100 teams and are at over 50 now. We already have a strong entry, with many overseas teams, and I was contacted by Middle Temple and a team from India today.
Our chief adjudicator, Neill Harvey-Smith, president of World Debating Council, will announce his DCAs at any moment, and promises a well-run and adjudicated event.
Please joins us! Contact me at alfred.snider@uvm.edu
Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna, University of Vermont

Break at World Schools in Athens

From http://www.schoolsdebate.com/blog/

YES!!!! It's the break
Here I am, blogging live from the St Catherine's School Hall, thanks to their IT department! Chief Adjudicator James Probert has just read out the names of the top 16teams and wow, what match ups there will be at Delphi tomorrow. There's been a huge amount of cheering, especially for Team Greece.

Here is the break;
1. England 8 wins, 22 judges
2. Australia 8 wins, 21 judges
3. New Zealand 8 wins, 19 judges
4. South Africa, 7 wins, 20 judges
5. Peru, 7 wins, 20 judges
6. Canada, 7 wins, 19 judges
7. Singapore, 6 wins, 20 judges
8. Korea Republic, 6 wins, 19 judges
9. Pakistan, 6 wins, 19 judges
10 Slovenia, 6 wins, 18 judges
11. Ireland, 6 wins, 16 judges
12. Greece, 6 wins, 16 judges
13. Scotland, 5 wins, 16 judges
14. Wales, 5 wins, 16 judges
15. Netherlands, 5 wins, 16 judges
16. Philippines, 5 wins, 14 judges.

The rankings are done by wins, then ballots or number of judges, then speaker points.

For the octo-finals at Delphi, the sides to be determined by coin toss, team 1 meets 16, 2 meets 15 and so on.

The line-ups are:
England v Philippines
Australia v Netherlands
New Zealand v Wales
South Africa v Scotland
Peru v Greece
Canada v Ireland
Singapore v Slovenia
Korea Republic v Pakistan.

World Schools Standings After Four Rounds

From Colm Flynn:

WSDC Standings after four rounds

Standings after four rounds - note some teams still have bye rounds to go.

1 Peru: 4 wins, 12 judges
2 South Africa: 4 wins, 11 judges
3 Australia: 4 wins, 11 judges
4 New Zealand: 4 wins, 10 judges
5 Scotland: 3 wins, 10 judges
6 Singapore: 3 wins, 9 judges, plus BYE
7 England: 3 wins, 9 judges, plus BYE
8 Ireland: 3 wins, 9 judges, plus BYE
9 Korea: 3 wins, 9 judges
10 India: 3 wins, 9 judges
11 Greece: 3 wins, 8 judges
12 Slovakia: 3 wins, 7 judges
13 Czech Republic: 3 wins, 7 judges
14 Philippines: 3 wins, 7 judges
15 Bermuda: 3 wins, 6 judges
16 Pakistan: 2 wins, 8 judges
17 Canada: 2 wins, 6 judges, plus BYE
18 Wales: 2 wins, 6 judges
19 Slovenia: 2 wins, 6 judges
20 Netherlands: 2 wins, 6 judges
21 Argentina: 2 wins, 6 judges
22 Sri Lanka: 2 wins, 5 judges
23 Mexico: 2 wins, 5 judges
24 Indonesia: 1 win, 6 judges
25 Lithuania: 1 win, 5 judges
26 Israel: 1 win, 5 judges
27 Estonia: 1 win, 4 judges
28 Thailand: 1 win, 3 judges
29 Bangladesh: 1 win, 3 judges
30 Sweden: 1 win, 2 judges
31Qatar: 1 win, 2 judges
32 Turkey: 0 wins, 3 judges
33 Chile: 0 wins, 2 judges plus BYE
34 Kuwait: 0 wins, 2 judges
35 Namibia: 0 wins, 2 judges
36 United States: 0 wins, 1 judge
37 Romania: 0 wins, 1 judge
38 Germany: 0 wins, 0 judges
39 Japan: 0 wins, 0 judges

World Schools Rounds 3 and 4

ROUND THREE

Topic (prepared): THW encourage the expanded use of civilian nuclear energy.

Czech Republic 2 Argentina 1
Bangladesh 3 Germany 0
Canada 3 United States 0
Greece 3 Mexico 0
India 2 Kuwait 1
Romania 0 Slovenia 3
Slovakia 2 Israel 1
Sri Lanka 0 Netherlands 3
Chile 0 New Zealand 3
Pakistan 3 Namibia 0
Qatar 2 Indonesia 1
Scotland 3 Japan 0
Estonia 0 Australia 3
Bermuda 0 Korea Republic 3
Turkey 0 South Africa 3
Sweden 0 England 3
Thailand 0 Ireland 3
Philippines 0 Peru 3
Wales 2 Lithuania 1
Singapore - BYE

ROUND FOUR

Topic: (limited preparation): TH believes that terrorism can never be justified

Australia 3 Bangladesh 0
Bermuda 2 Indonesia 1
United States 0 Wales 3
Greece 0 Pakistan 3
Ireland 3 Mexico 0
Israel 3 Germany 0
Japan 0 India 3
Korea 2 Lithuania 1
Kuwait 0 South Africa 3
Netherlands 0 Singapore 3
New Zealand 2 Scotland 1
Philippines 3 Namibia 0
Romania 0 Argentina 3
Slovakia 0 Estonia 3
Sri Lanka 2 Slovenia 1
Sweden 0 Czech Republic 3
Thailand 0 Peru 3
Turkey 2 Chile 1
Canada 3 Qatar 0
England- BYE

Day Two at WSDC in Athens

The shoes that were stolen

From our correspondent Filip Dobranic:

The second debating day of the 21st WSDC is nearing it's end as debaters are once again closed in their rooms, preparing for tomorrow's debates. The hallways are deserted, with the occasional exception of a judge making his or her way to the bar.

Yesterday evening carried a surprise for all attending the championship, free dinner was provided. The dinner was great, the only problem was, that most of the teams were so caught up in preparing, that the socialising »element« wasn't present.

The organisers prepared another pleasant »surprise« when they announced that the busses are leaving a whole 15 minutes later tuday. Still, 8 teams, coaches and judges took on a long journey to St.Catherine's school in northern Athens with the miracle of public transport and the help of volunteers. That said, nobody got lost. :D

I had the fortune of shadow-judging what turned out to be probably one of the most amusing debates of the day. The motion was that This house beleives that terrorism is never justifyable. When the time came for the 3rd government speaker to present his speech, he started in the usual manner. However, after 15 seconds into his speech, he walked off the podium and stole a shoe from the first opposition speaker. While all of the judges were expecting a close lesson on how to feel empathy for the former president of the United States, the speaker used the shoe to demonstrate one of the major points of the debate.

While all of the other judges showed dislike of this act, I liked it, because I believe it raises some interesting questions about the format we use. What are it's limitations. The speaker was respectfull and the opposition liked the idea too, so there was no harm done. Still: should he be rewarded for his stylish idea? Or maybe an even more interesting one: the category »strategy« awards points for using the limitations and liberties of the format structure and the fact that the persuasion is taking place in the form of a debate. Should he be awarded an extra point? He used the debate setting (two teams, podium, audience) to entertain quite a big audience, while at the same time not acting disrespectful and proving a point ... Decide for yourself.

INCOMPLETE RESULTS -- MORE COMING

Win Loss
England Sweden
Slovakia Izrael 2 1
Australia Estonia
Scotland Japan
India Japan 3 0
Izrael Germany
Pakistan Greece 3 0
Pakistan Namibia 3 0
Greece Mexico 3 0
Ireland Mexico 3 0
Holland Sri Lanka 3 0
Slovenia Romania 3 0
Wales USA 3 0
Bermuda Indonesia 2 1
India Kuwait 2 1
Sri Lanka Slovenia 2 1
Canada Qatar 3 0
Korea Lithuania 2 1
Canada USA 3 0
Qatar Indonesia 2 1
South Korea Bermuda
Wales Lithuania 2 1
New Zealand Chile 3 0

Singapore won both debates

Increasingly, Student Leaders Need Debating Skills

Very interesting story indicating a trend I have seen in a number of student newspapers.

From http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=News&articleID=1330&month=02&day=10&year=2009

Debates test candidates' mettle on the hot seat
Analyzing how presidential hopefuls handled public forums
By Mallory Daley and Mike Hayes
Tuesday, February 10, 2009


Over the last two weeks the candidates for next year’s University Students’ Council presidency have faced the student population in a variety of formats. But nothing is quite as revealing as the various opportunities for candidates to greet students in a public debate.

Starting with the USC general meeting two days after the election’s official start and ending with the irreverent debate moderated by current USC President Stephen Lecce, candidates have only a handful of chances to make their case to students on why they are the best choice to vote for.

For this year’s debate analysis, The Gazette enlisted the aid of Ninian Mellamphy, professor emeritus in the department of English, and Kimble Sutherland, USC president during the 1989-90 school year. Sutherland and Mellamphy attended three separate debates: the Media Forum, the Big Purple Couch debate and Politically Incorrect with Stephen Lecce.

In general terms, both panelists were quite impressed with the level of discourse and strength of the candidate’s public speaking skills. The panelists frequently agreed on many individual candidate issues.

What follows is the collected comments from both the panelists and our own thoughts on how the candidates performed in the debates, without dealing with specifics of platform points.

First off is Andrew Beach, whom both panelists liked.

Sutherland thought Beach possessed the best knowledge of the USC and was effective at getting his points across, though he came off as “too snarky” at times. Sutherland outlined one such case, where he said Beach committed the cardinal political sin of insulting voters when he expressed a frustration at students who don’t care about the race.

Mellamphy also picked up on some prickliness, noting Beach chose at times to jump in without providing much of a basis for doing so. This was seen in the Media Forum where Beach chose to question Singer on the legitimacy of Senate representatives in the USC and once again in the Politically Incorrect debate where Beach claimed he would throw coffee in the face of Singer if he won. Both cases were intended to be funny, but the humour fell somewhat flat.

On the bright side though was Beach’s smooth demeanour. He rarely dodged questions and even if some of his reasoning was faulty he did not back down from a line of questioning.

Though Beach is one of the top three debaters, his strong performance in the first debate seemed to be based more upon the comparative weakness of the other candidates. As the other candidates became stronger in this setting, Beach maintained his intensity level.

For Ashley Bushfield, her ability to clearly state how she felt about various issues was one of her strongest features. Once again among the top three debaters, Bushfield clearly showed she knew how to think on her feet and was well versed on the issues to be able to confront other candidates on the various subjects.

In the Media Forum, both Sutherland and Mellamphy noted her choice to embrace equality and inclusiveness issues.

“Bushfield presented herself as a champion of the marginalized students and a champion of green thinking too, but she left us wondering about her potential role in the wider political field,” Mellamphy said.

However, following the first debate, both panelists noted her ability to evolve. Her ability to effectively make a case for not being the “single issues candidate” was clearly shown when other candidates changed their choices to Bushfield when asked whom else they would vote for at the Big Purple Couch debate.



If any criticisms were to be made for Bushfield, it is how quickly she would assume a defensive position on issues. For someone who came off as strongly as she did, these cases marred an otherwise very polished candidate.

A candidate with less USC experience generally is a breath of fresh air to the campaign. The fresh perspective they can bring to the debates offsets their lack of experience with the USC. With this in mind, Ryan Cassidy did a fairly good job of embracing that role and using it to his advantage.

“[Cassidy’s] got a very nice way with the crowd,” Mellamphy said. “He looks them all in the eye and everyone likes him.”

But Sutherland explained this was not such a valuable thing.

“If you are going to run as the outsider candidate, then you must articulate a strong rationale as to why strong change is needed in the USC and why you offer that.

“Ryan has not done this on either point.”

But for all his faults, Cassidy was at least able to be honest with the audience — even to the point of fault when he claimed he was “not intellectually capable” of answering a question at one debate.

Unfortunately, the bottom line is that while Cassidy remained captivating during the debates, audience members generally did not leave the debates remembering anything he said.

One of the good things to be said about Tabitha Navratil’s debate performances is that she improved the most of all candidates. However, her reluctance to directly answer questions never really went away.

“Tabitha had some strengths but I was never sure about the clarity,” Sutherland said. “She was stronger [at the Politically Incorrect debate] but still not good on specifics.”

“One should not have to go to her website to remember her major plans,” Mellamphy noted.

Ultimately while Navratil had ample opportunity to do so, she failed to make a clear case to fully legitimize her candidacy.

Emily Rowe was able to take full advantage of a friendly crowd at nearly all debates. With a strong presence in the room, Rowe was perhaps able to get away with being more evasive on questions then she ought to have been. Though she showed evidence of heavy amounts of debate preparation, the debates were definitely not the best medium for her to disseminate her ideas.

“Rowe is too inclined to discuss her ‘passion’ for issues,” Mellamphy said. “As if politics was about having a passion for things. Politics is about trickery and effectiveness.”

“Emily is the one that keeps confounding me,” Sutherland admitted, noting her previous experience in the USC. “She should be a frontrunner ... [But] she has not taken her strengths and utilized them very well [at the debates].”

Rounding out the candidates is Ben Singer, a candidate both panelists liked.

Singer, similar to Beach and Bushfield, always provided a strong case for his answers and was direct in his responses.

“Next to Andrew, Ben has the best understanding of the issues and challenges facing the USC,” Sutherland said.

However, a slipup in handling a question about his campaign’s conduct at the Politically Incorrect debate may have been costly.

“Singer didn’t handle [the situation] well at all,” Mellamphy said.

“You have to take responsibility for what your volunteers say for you,” Sutherland agreed.

World Schools Day One Results

From correspondent Filip Dobranic

Round 1

Argentina 2 Estonia 1
Australia 3 Wales 0
Bermuda 2 Thailand 1
Slovakia 2 Chile 1
Peru 3 Czech Republic 0
England 3 Turkey 0
Germany 0 Mexico 3
Netherlands 0 Indonesia 3
Korea Republic 3 Bangladesh 0
Kuwait 1 Greece 2
Lithuania 0 India 3
Namibia 1 Sweden 2
New Zealand 2 Canada 1
Pakistan 1 South Africa 2
Israel 1 Philippines 2
Romania 0 Scotland 3
Singapore 3 Qatar 0
Slovenia 2 United States 1
Japan 0 Sri Lanka 3
Ireland - BYE

Round 2

Argentina 0 England 3
Australia 2 Korea Republic 1
Bangladesh 0 New Zealand 3
Czech Republic 2 Turkey 1
Wales 1 Canada 2
India 1 Bermuda 2
Indonesia 1 Philippines 2
Lithuania 3 Sweden 0
Mexico 2 Romania 1
Namibia 1 Thailand 2
Netherlands 3 Germany 0
Pakistan 1 Unites States 2
Peru 3 Estonia 0
Qatar 0 Ireland 3
Scotland 3 Israel 0
Singapore 3 Kuwait 0
Slovakia 3 Japan 0
South Africa 3 Slovenia 0
Greece 3 Sri Lanka 0
Chile - BYE

Report from World Schools in Athens

CA James Probert conducts judge training

From our correspondent Filip Dobranic:

The 21st WSDC has started in Athens. So far everything is going as it should be, apart from the traffic, of course. The opening ceremony provided the usual outstanding combination of important speakers, great food, fun and loads of socialising.

The Stanley hotel staff and the organising committee are doing a great job, while most of the teams are stuck in their rooms preparing for tomorrow's debates. The hallways are completly deserted.

James Probert, this year's CA is taking matters into his own hands, ensuring that judges are properly »educated«. The judging briefing included coaches, judges and the CAP.

----------------------

The first debating day is over, debates were taking place in several schools throughout Athens. I'm still fishing for results, this is what I have so far.

Slovenia : USA 2 : 1
S. Africa : Slovenia 3 : 0
Argentina : Estonia 2 : 1
Peru : Estonia 3 : 0
New Zealand : Canada NZ won
Argentina : England 0 : 3
S. Korea won 1 lost 1
Mexico : Romania Mexico won
Mexico won the second debate too
Bangladesh lost both
NZ won both
Australia won both debates
Estonia lost both
Scotland (not 100%) won both
Peru beat Czech Republic

IDEA Youth Forum Registration to Open

From vvlckova@idebate.org

IDEA Youth Forum is about to launch the registration!
Participation in the IDEA Youth Forum is conditional. All participants will be reviewed and rejected or approved to attend the IDEA Youth Forum by the Participants’ Selection Committee. The only exemptions are individuals coming for the Karl Popper Debate Championship (KPDC).

Dates: The whole event lasts from July 23 to August 5. You may attend just the IDEA Karl Popper Debate Championship, July 23-27, or just for the separate educational tracks, July 27-August 5

Location: The 2009 IDEA Youth Forum will take place in the Olympic Center, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Attendees will stay at the 4-star hotel Bistrica.

Transportation: We will be providing pickup at the airport, bus and train station upon your arrival to and departure from Sarajevo. All you need to do arrange is your travel to Sarajevo.

Fees:
Whole YF: 600 EUR per person
IDEA KPDC and IND only: 200 EUR per person
Tracks only: 400 EUR per person
Extra €300 fee for each team who fails to bring a coach
Some participation fee waivers available

Cap: The YF is accepting up to 200 participants, or 50 Karl Popper Debate Championship teams. Every institution that participated in past Forums has 1 place granted automatically. After that it’s first come, first served!

For more information please go to the Youth Forum website or download the invitation letter!


Reminder: The IDEA Youth Forum group is now on Facebook!
Join us there! Show us your support by indicating that you are coming! Send the invitation to everyone who might find it interesting!

European Universities Debate Rankings

From http://sserdc.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/european-university-debating-rankings/

Jonathan Leader Maynard is apparently not doing IONA rankings, but now European rankings. Good stuff.

European University Debating Rankings 26/12/08 - After 16 Events - Author JLM

Rank - University - Points

1 Oxford 357.9
2 Cambridge 253.8
3 LSE 208.0
4 ULU 172.7
5 Manchester 137.0
6 Nottingham 114.3
7 KCL 100.6
8 Bristol 94.5
9 St. Andrews 83.7
10 MIT 72.0
11 Warwick 63.6
12 TCD 57.6
13 UCD 53.6
14 Birmingham 52.8
15 Helsinki 44.8
16 UCL 39.9
17 UCC 39.4
18 SOAS 38.8
19 Tartu 37.6
20 Tallinn 37.0
21 Loyola Marymount 36.4
22 Cardiff 35.0
23 Lincoln’s Inn 31.9
24 Newcastle 31.6
25 SSE Riga 31.2
26 Yale 30.2
27 Kings Inn 26.0
28 Haifa 24.4
29 Edinburgh 23.2
30 METU 20.8
31 York 20.4
32 Durham 19.2
33 Glasgow 18.0
34 NLS India 16.0
35 Portland 15.6
35 IIUM 15.6
37 Princeton 15.2
38 Erasmus 14.8
39 Galatasaray 13.2
39 VU 13.2
41 UNSW 10.5
42 Inner Temple 10.4
43 Stanford 9.4
44 City 8.5
45 Fordham 8.0
46 Bates 7.8
46 QMUL 7.8
48 Aberdeen 7.6
49 Strathclyde 7.2
50 BBU 6.8
51 Leeds 6.0
52 Aberystwyth 5.6
53 Ljubljana 4.8
53 NUIG 4.8
53 MRU 4.8
56 LZUU 4.0
57 Koc 3.2
57 Dundee 3.2
59 Imperial 2.4
59 Delhi 2.4
61 Glamorgan 1.6
61 Hacettepe 1.6
63 Leiden 1.0
64 VGTU 0.8
64 LU 0.8

Kansas Debate Coach Sentenced to 13 Years for Child Molestation

From http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/state/story/Kan-debate-coach-sentenced-to-13-1-2-years/-XyHXVpvwUuwFK4QD9IeVA.cspx?rss=766

Kan. debate coach sentenced to 13 1/2 years

Last Update: 2/09 11:06 pm
HUTCHINSON, Kan. (AP) - A former Kansas debate coach convicted of molesting a student is sentenced to more than 13 1/2 years in prison.

Richard Young was sentenced Monday in Reno County District Court on four counts for sexually abusing a 15-year-old foreign exchange student who stayed at his home in 2007.

Prosecutors said he fondled the student within days of the boy's arrival to attend Buhler High School.

The 68-year-old Buhler resident was a teacher and debate coach at Buhler High School. He taught for 47 years in various Kansas school districts. Young had hosted as many as 12 foreign exchange students in his home since 1997.

2009 World Schools Debating Championship Begins Today

Website is at http://www.schoolsdebate.gr/index.asp

WSDC blogsite is at http://www.schoolsdebate.com/blog/

Here is the schedule:

Schedule

Monday 9 February

Arrivals: teams will be met at Athens International Airport (Eleftherios Venizelos)
Organisers available all day for enquiries

Tuesday 10 February


Orientation day
10:00 Meeting with Coaches- Team Managers (Hotel)
11:00 Briefing for adjudicators (Hotel)
11:00 Debaters visit the National Archaeological Museum
18:00 Buses depart for the Opening Ceremony
19:00 Opening Ceremony (Formal or Traditional Dress)
20:30 Welcome Party
22:30 Buses depart for Hotel

Wednesday 11 February


8:30- 9:00 Buses depart for venues
Debating round 1 (Athens schools)

Lunch

Debating round 2 (Athens schools)

Buses depart for Hotel

Thursday 12 February


8:30- 9:00 Buses depart for venues
Debating round 3 (Athens schools)

Lunch

Debating round 4 (Athens schools)

Buses depart for Hotel

Friday 13 February


8:30- 9:00 Buses depart for venues
Debating round 5 (Athens schools)

Lunch

Debating round 6 (Athens schools)Buses depart for Hotel


Saturday 14 February



Day off

Optional organised visit to the Acropolis

Debating round 0 (Hotel)


Sunday 15 February



9:00 - 9:30 Buses depart for venues
Debating round 7 (Athens schools)

Lunch

Debating round 8 (Athens schools)

Buses depart for Hotel

18:00 Buses Depart for Break Night Party
19:00 Break Night Party
10:00 Buses depart for Hotel

Monday 16 February



7:30- 8:00 Buses depart for Delphi
10:00- 11:30 Visit to the Archaeological Site
12:00- 12:30 Welcoming Ceremony
Octo- Final Round
16:00 Late Lunch
18:00 Buses depart for Athens

Free evening


Tuesday 17 February



9:00- 12:00 Quarter-Finals
12:30- 15:30 Semi-Finals


Wednesday 18 February



10:00 World Schools Debating Council meeting (free morning for those not involved)
16:00 Buses depart for venue
17:00 Grand Final / Closing Ceremony (Formal/ Traditional Dress)
20:00 Dinner

Thursday 19 February


Departures

Watch First Debate in Virtual Reality

Here is the video from the debate on 4 February 2009 held in Second Life, a virtual reality.

The motion: This House would abolish faculty tenure at colleges and universities.

Proposition: From St John's University, Tim & Don
Opposition: From University of Vermont, Tuna & Jacob

The chair was Peter Mesarec of Slovenia.

Thanks to Steve Llano of St. John's University for organizing this event.

Heart of Europe for High Schools in August

From heartofeurope2009@gmail.com:

To whom it may concern

On behalf of The Debating Club Olomouc and as the chief organizer of the Heart of Europe 2009 I am delighted to invite teams from all countries to come to Olomouc, Czech Republic for Heart of Europe 2009 which is going to take place from 16th-21st August 2008 (provisional schedule below).

Heart of Europe is a world-style debating tournament opened for debaters of high schools, which on its previous occasions was extremely successful and very popular among its participants. Despite some difficulties in past years the tournament was not regularly organized but last year we returned to the tradition of hosting this fabulous event. Tournament has eight rounds. The motions are prepared and impromptu.

I believe that you will appreciate the value of debating and the many skills it develops in young people, the need to research sophisticated topics of politics, science or other important matters of current interest, to work together as a team to develop and prepare their case, and to understand both sides of an argument which helps students to understand that alternative points of view are one of the main parts and the greatest strengths of a democracy.

As for the prices we are yet in proceeding with sponsors but under any circumstances the fees should not exceed 100€ per debater and 50€ per judge (which includes six-day stay, most of the meals, transport all over the place and international friend ship night)

Please, let us know if you are interested in coming as debater or adjudicator, with a team (or more) BY 15th April 2009 at E-mail address heartofeurope2009@gmail.com . There are other newsletters to be distributed soon, with information about events, registration and other important matters and updates.



Jakub Kadlec

Chief organizer

Provisional schedule. At the moment, this is purely for guidance. The dates should remain the same, but specific activities are subject to change

SUNDAY 16.8.

ARRIVAL

???sightseeing tour Olomouc???

ACCOMMODATION

17:00-18:30 DINNER - SAJM

18:00-?? judges briefing with chief judge?

18:00-?? registration,team folders - SAJM?

MONDAY 17.8.

7:30 BREAKFAST - packet

8:00-8:30 OPENING CEREMONY - Hejčín building B, room BUHV1??

8:45-9:00 short meeting of judges

9:00-10:00 1ST ROUND OF DEBATES - PREPARED MOTION

10:30-11:30 2ND ROUND OF DEBATES - PREPARED MOTION

11:45 Building clear!!!

12:00-13:00 LUNCH - restaurant SAJM

13:30-14:30 PREP TIME

14:30-15:30 3RD ROUND OF DEBATES - IMPROMPTU MOTION

14:00 Building clear !!!

14:00 - ??? ???volleyball tournament???

FREE TIME

TUESDAY 18.8.

7:30 Building opened

8:00-8:25 BREAKFAST - Hejčín building C

8:30-9:30 PREP TIME

9:30-10:30 4TH ROUND OF DEBATES - IMPROMPTU MOTION

11:00-12:00 5TH ROUND OF DEBATES - PREPARED MOTION

12:15 Building clear !!!

12:30-13-30 LUNCH - restaurant SAJM

14:00-15:00 PREP TIME

15:00-16:00 6TH ROUND OF DEBATES - IMPROMPTU MOTION

16:30-17:00 7TH ROUND OF DEBATES - PREPARED MOTION

17:30 Building clear !!!

sightseeing tour Olomouc

FREE TIME

WEDNESDAY 19.8.

7:30 Building opened

8:30-9:00 BREAKFAST - Hejčín building C

9:00-10:00 PREP TIME

10:00-11:00 8TH ROUND OF DEBATES - IMPROMPTU MOTION

11:30 Building clear !!!

12:00-13:00 LUNCH - restaurant SAJM

14:30-15:00 announcement of results after 8th round and quarter-finals teams

15:15 Building clear !!!

16:00-18:00 visit of Art Museum

FREE TIME

THURSDAY 20.8.

8:30 Building opened

9:00-9:30 BREAKFAST - Hejčín building C

9:30-9:45 announcing of results

10:00-11:00 PREP TIME

11:00-12:00 QUARTER - FINALS - IMPROMPTU MOTION

12:30 Building clear !!!

13:00-14:00 LUNCH - restaurant SAJM

14:30-15:30 PREP TIME

15:30-16:30 SEMI - FINALS - IMPROMPTU MOTION

17:00-17:15 Announcement of the finalist teams

17:30 Building clear !!!

18:00 DINNER - SAJM

19:00 international friendship night

FRIDAY 21.8.

9:00-10:00 FINALS at town hall???

10:15-10:30 prizes and awards

10:30-11:00 CLOSING CEREMONY

TEAMS DEPARTURE

EUDC Newcastle Registration

From convenor@eudcnewcastle09.com

Dear Debaters,

We at EUDC Newcastle09 hope this finds you all in good spirits and
fine health. Good news is contained herein because now is the time to
talk about the exiting prospect of registration for our fine competition.

IMPORTANT NOTE FOR YOUR DIARY:

The registration period will open on 2nd March 2009 at 1200hrs GMT/UTC
Registration will be open for one week and will close on 9th March
2009 at 1200hrs GMT/UTC

The web address for this will follow closer to the time.

1) This period is open for registration of teams/judges and
independent judges.

2) The currency conversion will be set at 1200hrs GMT/UTC on 1st March
2009. Payment will be either by credit card online or by
IBAN/international transfer. All service/currency transaction charges
are to be borne by the customer.

3) The team cap is 3 per institution, therefore there will be 4 options
a. 1 Team, 0 Judge
b. 2 Teams, 1 Judges
c. 3 Teams, 2 Judges
d. I am an independent judge

4) Only one person may register for each institution. This person will
be asked for their details and will be the main point for contact with
us. Duplicate registrations for intuitions will be rejected.

5) EUDC Council says we have to guarantee a slot to any country that
has competed in the previous year. We would like to make EUDC
Newcastle 09 as diverse as possible. Initially there will be 220 team
places. These will be allocated by a modified first come first served
queuing system under the following queuing rules:
a. The first registration received from a country not already
registered will be registered immediately then,
b. First come, first served.

6) Registrations received beyond 220 teams will go into the first come
first served waiting list. As we receive drop-outs etc. registrations
will be moved into the Accepted category. New countries not already
registered will continue to be registered automatically.

7) There will be an opportunity later for above-the-cap registrations
more details on this later; we're keeping it simple to make things
easy to follow for now. If you want to come to EUDC and not use our
accommodation because you live locally or have some other alternative,
the price is €175 per head.

8) When you do register, we'd like you to enter a few details about
your delegation if you know. For example, your best guess as to how
many people might need halal or kosher food; will you need visa
support? You might know for certain that a member of your delegation
has special dietary needs or disability access issues. The earlier you
tell us, the better our provision for you will be.

9) Once your registration has been accepted, then we will send you an
invitation by email to pay. Once we've sent this to you, you have a
one week payment window. If you don't pay on time, you'll lose your
slot and waiting list registrations will move up the queue.
Exceptional circumstances will be considered if you are going to be
slightly late because of banking issues etc. but you must let us know.

10) Exceptional hardship circumstances will be considered in cases
where you think you would be the only institution from your country
and the cost would prevent you from attending. If this is the case,
let us know and we can discuss an arrangement.

11) Next, we'd also like you to provide us with personal details of
your delegation as soon as possible, this will also be done online.
Again, if you tell us your details we will be able to process you much
quicker on arrival and provide you with any special demands you have.
Please let us know as soon as possible if you wish to arrive early or
stay for extra days afterwards. Please let us know as soon as possible
if you wish to stay (at reduced rates!) the daily cost for this will
be set soon. The sooner you let us know what you need then we'll be
able to accommodate you to the same standard. The longer you leave it
the more you gamble!

12) Remember that all judges of all types (independent/institutional
etc) must arrive for the judging test at 5pm Sat 1st Aug.

13) Independent judges are encouraged to register as soon as possible.
There will be a deadline for you, so get in now!

14) We're putting this message out on BD, EUDC and Facebook. Please do
pass it on to concerned people if you know they need this info but are
not on these lists, especially if that person is going to be doing the
registration for you.

15) The OrgComm's decisions will be final.

We look forward to this process running smoothly. Please do get in
touch if you have any concerns.

Yours,

EUDC Newcastle09 @NewcastleGateshead OrgComm

Tallinn Open for High Schools March 2009

From Katrin Viru:

Dear debaters!

Estonian Debating Society is happy to announce that Tallinn Open 2009, a debating tournament for high school students in Karl Popper debating format, will be taking place on 6th to 8th of March in Tallinn, the beautiful medieval capital of Estonia.

The tournament will be in English, with five preliminary rounds and a break to quarter-finals. The chief adjudicator will be our very own Andero Uusberg. We expect teams to bring good judges, but n-1 rule will not be imposed. The resolutions for the debaters are:

Gross national happiness is a better aim than the gross domestic product
Higher education should not be free

Taking into account the chilling effect the global credit crunch has had on Eastern-European economies, we are keeping the participation fee at 20 euro per participant. That includes full meals and accommodation in a neat hotel near the city centre and entertainment, since debaters are people too! You are welcome to register at the tournament website. Although you have time until the 28th of February, we in Estonia go by the saying “the sooner the better” and therefore encourage you to sign up as soon as possible.

All additional information can be found at www.tallinnopen2009.edicypages.com. If you feel that is not enough or if you have any questions whatsoever concerning the event or any problems related to it, feel free to contact us on e-mail tallinnopen@gmail.com or phone +37256482682 (Anna Karolin)

Yours,

Organisers of Tallinn Open 2009

Katrin Viru

MTÜ Eesti Väitlusselts/NGO Estonian Debating Society

juhatuse esinaine/chair of the board

viru@debate.ee

+372 5298 529

http://www.debate.ee

Second Life Debate Succeeds

Click to enlarge - Alfred Snider's avatar during the debate last night

Last night two USA universities staged a debate about abolishing faculty tenure and held the debate in a virtual reality. At 8:07 PM the debate between St. John's University and the University of Vermont began in a virtual debating hall built in Second Life, a virtual reality. Avatars debated each other using the real voices of the individuals while an audience of avatars watched and then made comments and asked questions after the debate.

The organizers, Steve Llano of St. John's University and Alfred Snider of the University of Vermont, declared the debate a success in a variety of ways:

• The technology worked well. Except for one brief microphone outage the process was error free, although some microphones were a bit too loud.
• The room was full. Only so many people can be in a Second Life space and that limit was hit. Others were instant messaging to get in and ended up watching it on a video projection.
• Tricky segments such as points of information also went well, with a natural flow.
• Observers from a number of countries were there, and the debate was chaired by Peter Mesarec of Slovenia.
• There was quite a buzz afterwards as the possibilities of the event began to make themselves clear - training sessions, team meetings, a global tournament and a lot more.
• Some audience members were unable to resist the temptation to fly around the room but this was not disruptive.

The debate was captured on video and is being processed now. For those who have not seen what Second Life looks likes, you can view the invitation at http://vimeo.com/3080355 where Steve Llano talks about the event through his avatar.

Attending the debate was as easy as establishing an account and downloading the Second Life software, which is available at http://www.secondlife.com. Those unfamiliar with the Second Life environment are encouraged to spend time becoming familiar with the program before any future debate.
For those already established in Second Life, the SURL for the debate room is http://slurl.com/secondlife/Emgeetee/110/154/24. Clicking on the link will transport you to the debate venue if you have the Second Life software installed.

"Real Great Debaters" Documentary

From http://realgreatdebaters.blogspot.com/2009/02/whats-new-with-real-great-debaters.html

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2009
What's New with the Real Great Debaters Documentary

Bay Area Colleges and Universitities Clamor to Know the True Story
Eleanor Boswell-Raine

For the past three months I have been exposing students, academicians and community to the true history of the Great Debaters from Wiley College - the debaters who were not composite characters, rather the ones who lived and accomplished equally remarkable feats as seen in the Hollywood version featuring director Denzell Washington.

As the daughter of a "great debater" who debated from 1935 - 1938 along with his roomate James Farmer and his classmates Hobbart jarrett, Henry Heights, I have a special passion to see that the truth of the experience is as well known as the silver screen version. It is important to all Americans to know about a black college team in Texas who reigned for alomost 20 years as one of the finest forensic teams in the nation. To that end I am starting to get the word out here in the bay area where I live.

The film deserves to be seen by young people, because it carries with it a message of hope and overcoming obstacles. It speaks to the tenacity of a teacher who influenced his students to devote their lives to changing Jim Crowism, leading civil rights movements and speaking truth to power in an effort to make America make good on her promise that all of its citizens are equal under the law with rights support those laws.

So far I have scheduled the following public screenings - Times and addresses will be posted this week:
February 26 - San Francisco State College
March 26 - Contra Costa Community College
I am working with Peralta College School District and University of California in an effort to schedule public screenings as well. I would like to introduce the film in community settings as well. I will keep you posted as things continue to develop.

Global Debate Traffic Stays Strong

With the buzz of WUDC Ireland and many other events, traffic continues to grow at http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com. Even after the WUDC and a lull in debating activities, traffic remains strong.

Send in your stories, use our traffic to promote your events, and make your place in the world of debating. Send stories and ideas to alfred.snider@uvm.edu.

Thanks to everyone who finds this website useful!

Thai-American Friendship Debate in Bangkok

Winners group at the end of the tournament

The 175th Anniversary of Thai-American Dioplomatic Relations Commemorative Debate 2009 concluded on 31 January 2009. Assumption University defeated Thammasat University 6-1 in the final round.

Thirty schools from around Thailand gathered on the campus of Mahidol University for the tournament itself. University of Vermont debaters participated even though they were not eligible to reach the final round.

After a two-day air journey that began early Sunday morning the crew arrived in Bangkok and were greeted by the Commission on Higher Education. The next morning the group held a workshop for Thai high school debaters hosted by the US Embassy where they were welcomed by the US Ambassador, Eric John. After a tasty lunch hosted by the embassy at Chulalongkorn University, it was off to Sanitarit School for a workshop for 39 teachers on how to use debate in the non-debate classroom hosted by the Commission. The students put on an exhibition debate to show what could be done in a health class. That evening there was a spectacular dinner on a cruise ship down the river in Bangkok where all of the great landmarks could be seen all lit up in a shining display that the debaters termed one of the most memorable events of their lives.
On Thursday there was a briefing for debaters and adjudicators, and the Vermont crew did a three-hour workshop for debaters. After that there was a “mock round” because so many of the debaters at the tournament who are new to debating could get a chance to warm up.

On Friday there were three prelim debates. On Saturday there were the semis and final downtown at a convention center, along with the Thai-American Friendship debate where Vermont took on the Thailand All-Stars in front of the ambassador.

The final round debated the motion, This House believes that Thailand must ratify the UN convention on the protection of migrant workers. Assumption University was the government and was represented in the All Asians format by Cynthia Yutian Luo, Aishiwarya Nair and Karnnadda Senarak. Thammasat was represented by Sujaat Alikhan, Photchara Vichalai and Aekephop Guruvanich.

The chief adjudicator was TJ Senamngern of Assumption University, along with DCAs Piyanart Faktorngpan, Phra Chainaron Sungsranoi and Lissapat Kraikruan.

Sponsorship was provided by the USA Embassy and the Thailand Commissioner on Higher Education. The goal was to get more Thai nuniversiies debating and it seems to have succeeded.

There are three videos below.

The final round


Debate-Asian format - Thailand Migrant Rights from Alfred Snider on Vimeo.

The Thai-USA friendship debate on the motion, This House believes that American pop culture does more harm than good, between the University of Vermont (Lucas Caress, Allison Hamlin & Sam Natale) as government and the Thai All Stars (TJ Senamngern, Phra Chainaron Sungsranoi and Lissapat Kraikruan). There was no official decision.


Thai-American Friendship Debate - American Pop Culture from Alfred Snider on Vimeo.

These are the comments by USA Ambassador Eric John.


Thai-USA Friendship Debate - US Ambasador's Comments from Alfred Snider on Vimeo.

In Kansas City, Debaters are the Talk of the Town

There is an awesome streaming video at this site.

From http://www.fox4kc.com/news/education/wdaf-story-reaching4excellence-debate-012109,0,136943.story

KANSAS CITY, MO - Urban Debate is one of the nation's fastest growing school activities. Students in nearly 400 high schools and middle schools in 18 large metro areas, including Kansas City, participate in challenging Urban Debate league tournaments.

The FOX 4 Young Achievers of the Week have met the challenge with an impressive run to become the Kansas City metro City Champions for 2009.

It's back to the grind in the Debate Room at Central High School. Seniors Reggie Roby and Taylor Dias are sharpening their skills in their specialty event -- Policy Debate -- a rapid fire brand of speaking and cross examination on a significant national or world issue.

"Perfect practice makes perfect," says Reggie. "And practicing every day and doing the research that you need to do before the actual debate tournament is how you win. The debates aren't won at the tournaments, they are won here in this room."

New trophies at Central are evidence of how hard Reggie and Taylor have practiced and worked. As a team they took first place in this month's Debate Kansas City City Championship held at the University of Missouri Kansas City.

With 250 competitors from 25 area schools, Taylor came away as the tournament's top individual speaker and Reggie was very close at his heels.

"We were able to work together and do a lot of things without actually communicating verbally," says Taylor. "Like, we'll look at each other and then know what we're thinking."

Their victory in Debate Kansas City is remarkable because it usually takes students two or three years of high school debate to get to championship form. Although they are seniors, Taylor and Reggie have been doing debate for just a year and a half.

"Taylor and Reggie work really well together as a team and I think that helps a lot," says Central High Debate Coach Jane Rinehart. "There's a whole lot of chemistry that goes on in a debate team. They've got to be able to be in sync and that helps even though they are really a very young team."

Having come so far in such a short period of time, Taylor and Reggie now are drilling for their biggest test -- the Chase National Urban Debate League Tournament in Chicago in April.

"Last year one of our debaters from Central, he received first place speaker," says Taylor. "So this year, we not only plan to receive first and second place speaker, we plan to actually win the tournament."

"They are going to have to work really hard," says Coach Rinehart, "because the teams that we are up against, most of them are going to be third and fourth year debaters. They are going to have a lot of national circuit experience."

Confident in spite of their lack of experience in big debate events, Reggie and Taylor also have to deal with the pressure of representing Central High with its stellar reputation as a national Urban Debate power since Coach Rinehart started building the program more than a decade ago.

"It does add a little pressure," says Reggie. "They all want to debate us because they know our legacy at Central High School is just fantastic. They want to participate and go against the best. To be the best you have to go against the best."

There's no debate about that or about why these Central High Eagle top talkers are soaring as debate champions.

Taylor and Reggie give a big salute to Coach Rinehart for her leadership and dedication -- and to Sean Easterwood for the standard he set. Sean was the senior at Central last year who won the Top Speaker Award at the 2008 Chase Urban Debate National Championship Tournament.

FOX 4 News is Working 4 You to spotlight outstanding young people and their positive accomplishments. In our weekly report called Reaching 4 Excellence we meet young achievers in subjects like academics, the arts, leadership, community service, volunteerism, career exploration, overcoming obstacles and heroism.

First "Virtual Debate" on Wednesday Night

Full details in this article from Chronicle of Higher Education. Notice the comments.

Attending the debate is as easy as establishing an account and downloading the Second Life software, which is available at http://www.secondlife.com. Those unfamiliar with the Second Life environment are encouraged to spend time becoming familiar with the program before the date of the debate.
For those already established in Second Life, the SURL for the debate is http://slurl.com/secondlife/Emgeetee/110/154/24. Clicking on the link will transport you to the debate venue where you will be able to see and hear the debate live if you have the Second Life software installed.

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=32986894968&h=1TU_y&u=gCM0e

January 23, 2009

College Debate Teams to Face Off in Second Life

College debate matches can be physically intense — with participants rattling off arguments at top speed and gesturing dramatically. So it will be interesting to see if a debate contest can work in Second Life, the virtual world.

This week Stephen Llano, the director of debate at St. John’s University, in New York, announced what is billed as the first tournament debate held in Second Life. It will take place on February 4 at 8 p.m. Eastern Time in the university’s virtual campus (shown below). A two-person team from St. Johns will go head-to-head with two students from the University of Vermont. The topic will be whether or not colleges should limit tenure for professors.



The event will not be an official competition, but if it goes well, it could lead to virtual matches in the future that would count toward tournament scoring, said Mr. Llano.

He said the technology could be particularly helpful in letting students compete against teams in other countries. “Not everyone gets a chance to travel internationally to debate against universities all over the world,” Mr. Llano said. “We could have some international debate online where people could stay at home and particpate in an international debate at very low costs.”

He said he was not sure how well the technology would work. The plan is to use a voice-chat feature of Second Life so that competitors can hear each other. Meanwhile, the participants can use their cartoon-like virtual characters, or avatars, to gesture to emphasize their points.

Mr. Llano said Second Life was chosen for the event over other types of online chat environments because so many colleges have built virtual campuses there. In the past, some debates have been held online using Web cams rather than virtual worlds like Second Life, he said. —Jeffrey R. Young

Posted on Friday January 23, 2009 | Permalink |

Comments

Excellent experiment. My guess is that participants in the SL debate will get a sense of being in front of an audience that is totally missing when using web cams and voip. On the other hand, sl gestures are pretty primitive and a webcam showing the actual speechmaker would probably work much better.

— Riven Homewood Jan 23, 10:25 PM #

My experience with Second Life (some have been funny enough for late night television, like when I couldn’t get off of a stage built for pole dancing until a bouncer shoved me off though I never intended on being there in the first place!), is that experience IN SL will serve as a huge advantage over those students with less experience. Gestures are difficult, flying doesn’t always result in soft landings, and clothing needs to be purchased with Linden dollars which cost actual money (buying clothing is necessary to avoid pitfalls such as my adult female avatar being dressed in toddler clothing which was free). I hope this is successful and SL provides rich experiences. But in Second Life, experience begets better experiences and a novice SL student will be unfairly penalized when going up against a pro avatar. Best of luck. If this is open to “the public,” I, well, my avatar, will be watching and cheering the students on in their quests.

— Cynthia Jan 23, 10:57 PM #

Cynthia: I see a great argument in between the lines for learning how “to be” in 3D. The ability to utilize the medium for self expression is a competency of the Net Gener (Growing Up Digital, Tapscott). Want to be a level 80 in World of Warcraft, be a healer, not a fighter. .

— Randy Jan 25, 02:17 AM #

I am using Second Life in an art history class as a way to simulate the creation of a medieval monastery and its art and architecture. Students will meet up in Second Life and we will determine our needs based on the time period in question. They will “commission” works or art and architecture for the monastery in the form of a “contract” which describes in detail what the work should be like. (the research) Then those of us who are more accustomed to working in SL can actually build them. In the end, we’ll have a “physical” space through which we can move, and look at objects that are consistent with their time and place. So far, students are very excited about the prospect.

— Chris Jan 26, 11:59 AM #

Chris, good luck with your monastery. I hope this is a full semester course because my experience with building sites within SL is that it is incredibly time intensive. And yes, Randy, this is not for the faint of heart, i.e., those not in the net generation. But sustaining interest in building within SL is tough. The teaching is rewarding. I was involved in building on an island for my college, along with developing a course in communications to be taught in SL but the obstacles are huge. This in no way is meant to imply that we should not use SL in classrooms or base courses entirely within SL. I am all for it. I’d recommend teams to address different components of the course so that the work can be accomplished within the timeframe of the course. I love SL. I have been working on learning French and find visiting French sites (preferably the not for mature audiences sites) to be very useful. It isn’t a substitute for immersing myself in France, but I try to do that as often as possible, too. Good luck to all.

Senior Citizens Take Debate Club Seriously

Fred Billmeyer, left, Ronnie Baker, Lee Cordelli and Tony Cordell gather every Saturday morning at Valley Mall to exchange banter.

From http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=215504&format=html

Saturday debate club

Men make shooting the breeze a weekly pastime

By JULIE E. GREENE
FEBRUARY 1, 2009
julieg@herald-mail.com
HALFWAY - They debate the best route from Hagerstown to Charles Town, W.Va. They sometimes argue over politics. And they squabble about baseball.

But it was a discussion about which keys on a typewriter are the home keys that a group of retirees said almost got them kicked out of the Valley Mall food court in December.

They might be exaggerating. They do occasionally, but more often they're prone to getting caught up over nitty-gritty details.

The group of seven men meets every Saturday morning in the food court to argue and are sometimes joined by friends.

"We don't argue. We have different points of view, that's all. ... And we know everything about everything. We're jack-of-all-trades," said Lee Cordelli, 78, of Hagerstown.

They know each other from attending Hagerstown High School and many of them also played baseball or other sports together so sports is a frequent topic.

They also know each other from church - "the church of what's happening now," said Fred Billmeyer, 70, who lives outside Funkstown.

"You make a statement and it's true and they want to argue about it," Cordelli said.

One of their recent debates centered around how many bridges are along North Burhans Boulevard from Antietam to Church streets, though the real question seemed to be how many bridges along Burhans cross West Washington Street.

The railroad overpass appears to have one foundation, but two track overpasses with a significant gap between them.

"I drove (Lee) over there and we counted them," said Harry Parks, 74, of Hagerstown. Parks prefers listening to the debates rather than participating in them.

Some of the men, such as Cordelli, think the overpass at Washington counts as two bridges, while others, like Cordelli's brother Tony Cordell, think it is one. (And yes, Tony's name is Cordell and Lee's is Cordelli, but that's another story.)

Recounting their research the debate picks up again, still with no unanimous consensus.

The Saturday gathering began about 10 years ago when Cordelli and Parks began meeting. Then Billmeyer and Cordell joined in, and before they knew it there was a group of them around a couple of tables pushed together.

One Saturday in December they were arguing about specific plays in a New York Yankees' game in which Joe DiMaggio played, trying to determine whose recollections were correct.

Some of the older men used to go to Dixon's on West Washington Street in the late 1940s and early 1950s to learn about sporting events from the ticker tape telegraphing in news of games.

Some of the men get out together beyond the mall, going to Beaver Creek Country Club to play golf or to Charles Town (W.Va.) Races & Slots to play slots. Some of them play Keno during their mall debates.

The group also includes Ronnie Baker, 73, of Williamsport, and Ryan Granville, 73, of Hagerstown.

The men playfully tease each other, referring to each other's limited knowledge, or explaining how Glenn Kline, aka "the Grinch," earned his nickname.

Billmeyer claims Kline hates everything, including Santa and the Easter Bunny, but Kline disputes that - of course.

"I'm the nicest person you'd be around," said Kline, 71, of Halfway.

And that bridge or bridges over West Washington Street?

"I would say it's one substructure and two superstructures" as the bridge appears to have one concrete foundation, but two track overpasses with a gap between them, Hagerstown City Engineer Rodney Tissue said.

"I would still consider that a single bridge," Tissue said. "Technically, I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer to that."

The debate continues ...

Asian Unity Moves Gain Steam

From Michael Biscocho:

Dear all,

I am posting the following declaration on behalf of Ateneo, Jason Jarvis, Loke from SAID, MMU, NUS, NTU, and SMU.


"Asian Unity Declaration

In the interest of creating a single, united Asian debating championship, I/We openly support:

1. A special session to discuss unity (co-chaired by a representative from the AUDC and a representative from the All-Asians) before the Asian Universities Debating Championship (AUDC) union meeting.

2. Commit to implementing the following changes to AUDC via an open ballot vote:

1. Changing the name of the AUDC to one that is agreed upon by the All-Asians and the AUDC institutions.

2. Recognition of debating and adjudication achievements at both tournaments in publications by future organisers (e.g. tournament handbook), in consideration for adjudication subsidies, and in all other situations when evaluating the competence of debaters or adjudicators.


I/We acknowledge the path towards unity can only be forged if it is inclusive of as many as possible, therefore we extend an invitation to all institutions and individuals to join in this declaration."

Thank you very much. I look forward to seeing all of you in May!

Michael Biscocho
Ateneo Debate Society

2nd International Bioethics Debate in Japan

From Loke Wing Fatt:

Dear Debate Friends and Teachers,

The Second International Bioethics Debate 2009 will be held at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, from 9th to 14th March 2009. This week long event comprises 5 days of lectures/debate workshops led by Mr Joseph Zompetti, Associate Professor at the School of Communication at the Illinois State University and a 1-day (3 rounds and Final) tournament on 14th March.

Six 50,000 JPNYEN cash Scholarships is now being offered to full-time university students from outside Japan to take part in this event as debaters.

The event will employ the Cross-Examination or Policy style of debating on the resolution: "Resolved: That Euthanasia should be legalized."

Please submit your Debate CV to Professor Inoue (inouen@flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp) no later than February 5 (Thursday).

The CV must include:
name in full
sex
date of birth
nationality
current address
current affiliation (name of institution and address)
international airport to leave for Fukuoka
secondary education (high school name, entry/graduation month and year)
tertiary education (university name, entry/graduation month and year)
post graduate education (if applicable)
full-time work experiences (if any)
debating experiences (if any)

For more information on the event, please scroll down and read on, or write to Professor Inoue directly.

Cheers

Loke Wing Fatt
President
Society for Associated Inter-Tertiary Debaters (SAID)
Singapore


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Narahiko INOUE
Date: 2009/1/27
Subject: RE: Bioethics Debate 2009 Kyushu University -- scholarship offers
To: Logan , Loke Wing Fatt , "Zompetti, Joseph" , Narahiko INOUE
Cc: 中里 博史 , 田中 美彩都 , isshy_y@yahoo.co.jp, Hirofumi Kamada


Please pass this info to those who might be interested. Also, would it be
possible for you to post it in international sites like IDEA and Debate
Central at Vermont? I will write a more detailed version in a few days but
here's the plan:

(1) Kyushu University will offer 6 partial scholarships for workshop
participants who participate the entire workshop and the tournament
"International Bioethics Debate 2009"
http://www.flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~inouen/bioethics/.
Each selected participant will receive 50,000 JPNYEN cash for the
entire workshop and the tournament.

(2) Qualification & Selection.
An applicant must be a university student (undergraduate or graduate)
with sufficient English-language ability for debating. He/she must fulfill
the responsibilities given in (5) below.
Selection is based on the first-come, first-serve basis. If a team of
two members applies, they will normally selected as a team.

(3) Application
Send an application with a CV to Professor Inoue
(inouen@flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp) no later than February 5 (Thursday). The CV
must include:
name in full
sex
date of birth
nationality
current address
current affiliation (name of institution and address)
international airport to leave for Fukuoka
secondary education (high school name, entry/graduation month and year)
tertiary education (university name, entry/graduation month and year)
post graduate education (if applicable)
full-time work experiences (if any)
debating experiences (if any)

(4) Dates
A participant leaves his/her home airport and arrives at Fukuoka
International Airport on March 8th (Sunday).
He/She leaves Fukuoka International Airport and arrives his/her home
airport on March 15th (Sunday).
If other departure and/or arrival dates are preferred, please note it
in your application and

(5) Responsibilities
Scholarship recipients must attend all the workshop classes and
participate in the practice rounds (March 13) and the Tournament (March 14).
If a team of two people applies, they are supposed to compete as a
single team but they may be asked to pair with another participant in the
workshop.
If an individual participates in the workshop and tournament, he/she
will be paired with another individual participant.
Each team in the tournament will debate once on the affirmative, once
on the negative, and judge one one round. Two top teams will debate at the
final round. All debate rounds use the same proposition "Resolved: That
Euthanasia should be legalized."
Participants must conduct research about the topic during (and before)
the workshop so that they have supporting evidence to use in debate. (The
tournament employs a so-called Cross-Examination or Policy style in a
moderate fashion.)

(6) Video taping
All workshop classes and debate rounds will be videotaped. Those
recordings will be used for research, education, and PR purposes about
debating and Kyushu University.

(7) Rooms
Non-smoking single rooms are available at Sleep Inn Fukuoka - Kaizuka,
which is about 10-minute walk from the workshop classrooms. A single room
with breakfast will cost 43,700JPN YEN for the entire period. If a
participant prefers not to stay in this hotel, he/she must indicate as such.

(8) Meals
For lunch and dinner, a university cafeteria is open. Each meal is
about or less than 500 JPNYEN.

(9) Visa to enter Japan
Given the limited time, if an applicant needs a visa to enter Japan,
he/she must contact Professor Inoue as soon as possible.

(10) Workshop schedule (tentative)
Monday, 9 March:
1st period 8:40 - 10:10: Introductions & Why Debate? (Its
significance and value)
2nd period 10:30 - 12:00: Basics of Debate (speaker positions and
roles)
break 12:00 - 13:00
3rd period 13:00 - 14:30: Argumentation Theory (construction of
argument)
4th period 14:50 - 16:20: SPAR debates
5th period 16:40 - 18:10: Introduction to the Topic

Tuesday, 10 March:
1st period 8:40 - 10:10: Research Lecture
2nd period 10:30 - 12:00: Constructing AFF & NEG Cases
break 12:00 - 13:00
3rd period 13:00 - 14:30: SPAR debates
4th period 14:50 - 16:20: Argument Construction & Brainstorming
5th period 16:40 - 18:10: Research Session I

Wednesday, 11 March:
1st period 8:40 - 10:10: Morning Off
2nd period 10:30 - 12:00: Morning Off
break 12:00 - 13:00
3rd period 13:00 - 14:30: Speech Delivery
4th period 14:50 - 16:20: Research Session II
5th period 16:40 - 18:10: Argument Construction & Brainstorming
19:00-20:30: Coaches' Workshop

Thursday, 12 March:
1st period 8:40 - 10:10: Research Session III
2nd period 10:30 - 12:00: Writing Briefs
break 12:00 - 13:00
3rd period 13:00 - 14:30: Research Session IV
4th period 14:50 - 16:20: Refutation/Rebuttal
5th period 16:40 - 18:10: Judging (how to judge and adapting to
judges)

Friday, 13 March:
8:40 - 11:15: Practice Debates
11:15-12:00: Discussion
break 12:00 - 13:00
13:00 - 14:45: Practice Debates
15:00-15:30: Discussion
15:45-18:00: Practice Debates

Saturday, 14 March: TOURNAMENT
9:00: Opening
9:30-11:30: Round 1
11:30-13:30: Round 2
14:00-16:00: Round 3
16:30-18:30: Final & Closing




-----------------------------
Narahiko INOUE, Ph.D.
Professor, Faculty of Languages & Cultures
Kyushu University
Ropponmatsu, Fukuoka 810-8560, JAPAN
Email: inouen@flc.kyushu-u.ac.jp
Phone:(+81)92-726-4667(direct)
FAX:(+81)92-726-4511
http://www.rc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~inouen/
-----------------------------