International Debate Academy 2009

THE SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ACADEMY SLOVENIA
& IDAS/FUTUR 2009 TOURNAMENT

THE BEST IN WUDC/BP DEBATE INSTRUCTION AND COMPETITION

21-29 NOVEMBER 2009
Full program for students – instruction, IDAS/FUTUR 2009 tournament
IDAS/FUTUR 2009 tournament for students – tournament in Ljubljana at the Faculty of Administration-University of Ljubljana.
Full program for trainers, teachers, coaches, club leaders, judges at any level in any debate format.

SPECIFIC DATES
Arrive in Ormoz, Slovenia November 21 2009
Instruction in Ormoz November 21-26 2009
Transfer to Ljubljana morning 27 November 2009
FUTUR tournament in Ljubljana afternoon 27-29 November 2009

APPLICATION FORMS AVAILABLE FOR TOTAL PROGRAM OR JUST TOURNAMENT

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

Scholarship Fund established by
Download Application Form HERE

FACULTY -- more to come!

• Loke Wing Fatt, Singapore: Well known Asian debate trainer, WUDC breaking judge, honorary professorship North-Eastern University China, SAID Singapore, 5th IDAS.
• Jens Fischer, Germany: Berlin Debating Union, Chief Adjudicator at Europeans, 5th IDAS.
• Leela Koenig, Netherlands: Cork Worlds 2009 Best ESL speaker, Top ESL Speaker at Euros 2007 and 2008, DCA Newcastle Euros 2009, CA of Amsterdam, Euros 2010 bid, lecturer at The Hague University, philosophy student at Leiden University. 1st IDAS.
  
• Chris Langone, USA: Cornell University. 2nd IDAS.
• Isabelle Loewe, Germany: Winner EUDC (ESL), ESL-Semifinalist Worlds 2007, DCA Tallinn EUDC 2008; CA/DCA of several tournaments, among them, Prague, Tilbury IV, Yeditepe Open, Jacobs Open; Winner and finalist of several tournaments in Europe; Officer for International Law and Human Rights Education
• Branka Marusic, Croatia: Former President Europeans Council, IDAS Finalist, 3rd IDAS.
• Rhydian Morgan, UK: Chief Adjudicator and Finals judge at numerous tournaments, Welsh Debating Federation, World Debate Institute faculty 2008-09, 3rd IDAS.
• Maja Nenadovic, Croatia: Founder of several debating societies across Europe, currently busy with introducing debate to countries in the Western Balkans region, and with finishing her PhD in political science at the University of Amsterdam. 2nd IDAS.
• Debbie Newman, UK: President of Cambridge Union, England and Wales National Champion, WSDC 2008 World Champion coach for England. 2nd IDAS.
• Alfred Snider, USA: Professor at University of Vermont, Director World Debate Institute, USA Coach of the Year, six recent debate textbooks, Convener 2009 US Universities Nationals, 7th IDAS.
• Bojana Skrt, Slovenia: Director ZIP, three times WSDC EFL World Champion coach, 7th IDAS.
• Anne Valkering, Netherlands: Oxford ESL semi-finalist 2006, finalist 2007, winner ESL final Manchester IV 2007; EUDC ESL finalist 2006, semi-finalist 2007, quarterfinalist 2008, ESL second speaker 2008, fifth speaker 2006; WUDC ESL champion 2008; DCA Dutch Nationals 2009, CA Bonaparte Debate Tournament 2007, DCA Amsterdam Open 2008 and 2009, CA Sciences Po IV 2009.
  

CURRICULUM

• STUDENT TRAINING : Each Instruction day features a main lecture, exercise and drill sessions, and two complete critiqued practice debates. Many elective classes offered. Many training preparation sessions offered. Judge evaluation and training offered. Advanced, basic and beginner tracks available. The best way to get ready forn WUDC in Turkey.
• IDAS 2009 TRAINER PROGRAM
  The International Debate Academy Slovenia will be offering a special track for trainers, coaches and those interested in learning about how to train debaters and create debate organizations such as clubs, academic programs and leagues. The program will call upon the extensive experience of the faculty to provide specialized training, including: Basic debate training steps: observation, advice from experienced trainers and curriculum guides Judging: instruction, shadow judging, real judging experience Tournaments: hosting, administering, including tabulation software. Advanced debate training: observation, advice from experienced trainers, curriculum guides. Organizing: recruiting debaters, implementing training, scheduling meetings, publicity. Attendees will have a sample judging session every morning as well as a special training session in the afternoon. All events at the program will also be open to attendees. Special needs and requests specific to individuals can be met if given advance notice.
• TOURNAMENT: Sponsored by IDAS, ZIP and hosted by Faculty of Administration University of Ljubljana. Six preliminary rounds and semifinals in the WUDC format. No team caps as of now. Faculty will serve as adjudication core and administration for the tournament.
  
  COST
  
  250 Euros for full program, 60 Euros for tournament.
  Fees: Includes all meals, double rooms, instructional materials, transportation from Ormoz to Ljubljana, and social activities. Accommodations: Rooms and full meals provided in Ormoz and Ljubljana. Social activities each evening. Limited crash available for tournament.
  
  Scholarships: We hope to offer substantial scholarships to needy applicants. Scholarship forms available soon.

Financial Disclosure: IDAS is a non-profit program, trainers are not paid, trainer travel is not reimbursed, participation fees pay for attendee expenses of rooms and food only, trainer accommodations and food and other costs are covered by ZIP.

Social Events: We will have frequent social events. We will not distribute free alcohol to 18+ attendees out of the workshop fees. We will seek soft drinks-beer-wine sponsors. We prioritize scholarships for attendees over free alcohol. We want as many people as possible to join the program.

Website: http://debate.uvm.edu/idas.html
Blogsite: http://internationaldebateacademy.blogspot.com/

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

Bickel & Brewer Announce Grant for International Debate Academy Slovenia

The Dallas-based law firm of Bickel and Brewer announced today a $5000 grant to the International Debate Academy Slovenia, sponsored by ZIP Slovenia and the World Debate Institute USA, for scholarship funds to bring the best and neediest of students to the 2009 program, a week-long intensive debate training program that will take place in November.

Sarah Marshala, director of the Bickel and Brewer Foundation, called in this message to Bojana Skrt, IDAS director. "I am happy and very grateful for this award, and I am excited about now offering more scholarships than ever. I hope that the example set by this visionary law firm is something that lawyers in Europe will learn from," said Skrt.

Bickel & Brewer is one of the most aggressive, creative and successful litigation firms in the United States. The firm's concentration in complex litigation and dispute resolution is not confined to particular substantive areas of the law, but to the litigation practice itself. As such, many of the firm's attorneys have gained national recognition by handling cutting-edge cases in a wide variety of substantive legal fields. Bickel & Brewer has proven time and again that the well-honed skills of its litigators may be universally applied to forge profitable resolutions of disputes in any area of law or any area of commercial enterprise. Although the trial and forensic abilities of Bickel & Brewer litigators are unparalleled, these tools are often used as strategic deterrents rather than as implements of first resort. Thus, a substantial portion of the firm's practice is preventative counseling and problem solving. The firm recognizes that in many instances its clients' objectives are best served by successfully avoiding litigation and that success is measured by the advice and counsel provided to achieve this end. However, if full-scale litigation is in the client's best interest, no law firm in the country understands and successfully galvanizes the process as well as Bickel & Brewer. http://www.bickelbrewer.com/index.php?id=the_firm

The International Debate Academy Slovenia is now in its seventh year and has become one of the world's premier debate training programs, focusing on training in the WUDC format. Students from over twenty countries have attended the program, and faculty members come from the top ranks of debate trainers from around the world. http://debate.uvm.edu/idas.html

The dates for 2009 are 21-29 November 2009.

One of the other events Bickel and Brewer supports is the International Public Policy Forum that it operates in partnership with New York University. It is a debate contest that allows high school students from all over the world to compete against each other to earn an all-expense paid trip to New York City for the top eight teams and a chance to win $10,000. Formerly known as the Bickel & Brewer/ NYU National Public Policy Forum, the IPPF is a unique debate competition involving public and private schools from across the globe. Visit www.nppf.net for more information! See their Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/International-Public-Policy-Forum/211483875322?ref=ts .

Half Way Point in IDEA Youth Forum in Bosnia

Image via Wikipedia

From Jesse Towsen:

For Youth Forum updates every day, please visit www.idebate.org/ideaforum.

Meet the new KPDC champions!
We can't believe the 2009 Youth Forum is already halfway through! So much has already happened in the mountains of Jahorina, Bosnia. The Karl Popper Debate Championship, which saw 34 teams clash on a variety of topics related to climate change, culminated Monday in Sarajevo. The two final teams, USA-Unicorns and Korea HAFS 1, debated in the Bosnian Parliament on the resolution: To combat climate change, nations should use cap and trade regulations rather than impose taxes on carbon emissions.After an exciting debate, broadcast live over Bosnian National Television, the USA Unicorns are this year's KPDC champions! Both teams had the great honor of receiving their awards from the President of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina. For complete results of the KPDC tournament, please download the KPDC Tournament Packet.


Labs are fully underway!

*
In the Skills Labs, debaters learn to battle anxiety, sharpen their cross examination skills, reinforce their understanding of causality and argumentation, and more.
*
In the Mixed Teams labs, debaters from around the world are joining their efforts. They can be seen around the YF facilities, huddling together to draft cases for the mixed teams resolution: A just society prioritizes rehabilitation over retribution in its juvenile justice system.
*
Students going into university are learning the nuances of British Parliamentary Debate from trainers Logandran Balavijendran, Sharmila Parmanand, and Justice Motlhbani. Whether it's switching from cross examination to points of information, grasping the four-team system, or learning to write a case in just 15 minutes, the BP track is introducing a new side of debate to our veteran students.
*
Those looking to improve their confidence debating in a foreign language have joined Elizabeth Humphrey in the English as a Foreign Language track. Yesterday they twisted their tongues around phrases like, “On Friday, February fifth, Frank fed fishes and found flamingos in France for Frank's friend Francis.”
* New this year, the Coaches and Judges track trains our mixed-teams coaches to work with debaters from different areas, improve their coaching and judging skills, and develop debate programs back home.

We are all excited for day trips tomorrow, and for the upcoming Mixed Teams and British Parliamentary tournaments!

Keep yourself up to date with photos, videos, and news stories from the Forum at www.idebate.org/ideaforum.

Jesse Towsen
Youth Forum Media Staff

World Debate Institute Holds World Schools Workshop

Rhydian Morgan works with a small group on proposition cases

The 2009 WDI world schools debate workshop began on Sunday and is in high gear as of today.

Each day begins at 9 AM and about half the time ends at 9 PM and half the time at 5 PM. There was even an afternoon at the beach on Tuesday as well as a number of evening movies.

But what students seem to like to do the most in their free time is prepare for the motions by working in the library. Bojana Skrt, program director, was astounded that after library work was over students still wanted to stay on. "They are very curious and very ambitious, so I just let them go ahead." All agree that the group is very well-informed and for the most part are already strong public speakers.

The group has students from the USA, of course, but also students from Greece, Canada, Korea and Kuwait. The faculty is Bojana Skrt ZIP Slovenia, Rhydian Morgan of Stylus Communications UK, Debbie Newman of UK and Alfred Snider of WDI USA.

"This is a unique opportunity," sad WDI director Snider. "Bojana, Rhydian and I have been working with the same curriculum over a one week period at the World Schools Debate Academy held in Slovenia, but now we get to expand it here because we have a two week session. It allows for a lot more depth as well as just a bit more recreation time for the students."

Here is the schedule for the sessions:

World Debate Institute, University of Vermont
WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE WORKSHOP

July 25 – August 7, 2009


Arrival: Saturday, 7/25
3:00 – 5:00 Check-in to Residential Hall

Day 1: Sunday, 7/26
9.00 – 10.00 Opening ceremony, briefing
10.00 – 11.30 Introduction to debating, lecture
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30- 3.30 Library tour, librarians doing it
4.00 – 5.00 How to research for debate, lecture
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
Free evening

Day 2: Monday, 7/27
9.00 – 10.00 Public speaking, lecture.
10.00 – 11.30 Public speaking, exercises
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30 – 2.30 Introduction to Worlds School Debate Format, note taking, lecture
2.30 – 3.30 Debate preparation
3.30 -5.00 Debate and critique
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
7.00 – 9.00 Researching and brainstorming for the next day debate.

Day 3: Tuesday, 7/28
9.00 – 10.00 Debate preparation
10.00 – 11.30 Debate and critique
11.30 – 1.00 Lunch
Beach time
5.00 - Dinner and free evening

Day 4: Wednesday, 7/29
9.00 - 10.00 Argumentation 1, lecture,
10.00 – 11.30 Argumentation exercises
11.30 - 1.00 Lunch
1.00 – 2.00 Debate prep
2.00 - 5.00 Debate and critique, repeat
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
7.00 – 9.00 Researching and brainstorming for the next day debate

Day 5: Thursday, 7/30
9.00 – 11.30 Proposition case, lecture and exercises
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30 – 2.30 Role of the speakers, lecture
2.30 – 3.30 Debate prep
3.30 – 5.00 Debate and critique.
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
Free evening

Day 6: Friday, 7/31
9.00 – 11.30 Points of information, lecture and drills
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30 – 3.30 Debate prep
3.30 – 5.00 Debate and critique of debate
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
7.00 – 9.00 Repeat debate

Day 7: Saturday, 8/1
9.00 – 11.30 Motion analyses, lecture and drills
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30 – 2.30 Style
2.30 – 3.30 Debate prep
3.30 – 5.00 Debate and critique
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
7.00 – 10.00 Free evening on Church street

Day 8: Sunday, 8/2
Free time
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30 – 2.30 Third speeches, lecture
2.30 – 3.30 Debate prep,
3.30 – 5.00 Debate and critique
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
7.00 – 9.00 Researching and brainstorming for the next day debate

Day 9: Monday, 8/3
9.00 – 11.30 Argumentation 2
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30 – 2.30, Opposition case
2.30 – 3.30 Debate prep
3.30 – 5.00 Debate and critique
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
7.00 – 9.00 Researching and brainstorming for the next day debate

Day 10: Tuesday, 8/4
9.00 – 11.30 Reply speeches, lecture and drills
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30 – 2.30 Open forum
2.30 – 3.30 Debate prep
3.30 – 5.00 Debate and critique
5.00 – 7.00 Dinner
Free evening

Day 11: Wednesday, 8/5
Free morning
Mini tournament
Round one:
1.30 – 4.00 Round 1
4.00 – 6.00 Dinner
6.00 – 8.00 Round 2

Day 12: Thursday, 8/6
9.00 - 11.30 Round 3
11.30 – 1.30 Lunch
1.30 – 4.00 Round 4
4.00 AWARD CEREMONY
5.00 Dinner

Departure: Friday, 8/7
9:00 – 11:00 Check-out of Residential Hall & depart campus

Using New Technology in Policy Debate - a Thought Experiment

From http://www.the3nr.com/2009/07/29/guest-post-alex-gulakov/

Guest Post- Alex Gulakov

July 29th, 2009

The starting premise of this thought experiment is that technology should adapt to people.

Debaters have quite well adapted various technological advances to be used for debate purposes, but this has also changed the nature of what we refer to when we think of debate. Someone not involved in a debate might conceptualize of it as it might have had looked like when it first began, but before it started internal adaptations to technology. The thoughts that come to mind when most of us think about debate (and the things that stand out to outsiders that have observed us for a bit) are probably cutting lots of cards, organizing files, carrying around tubs, then assembling all those blocks and card into a speech.

Much of the time we spend in debate involves copying paragraphs from a book or webpage, writing a sentence summary of it in order to have that sentence qualify as something like a single brick from which files are created, using a document map to build a table of contents. “Cards” were invented because it wasn’t practical for debaters to carry books around to quote from in support of their arguments; note cards were used. These cards were essentially in the same format of authoritative snippets and personal summaries that we use today. Having these types of “cards” to back arguments became a norm, a computers only furthered this need for more cards. The need was created by a lack of fast access to authoritative texts during spoken speeches, but because we continued to use that same formatting norm, faster access via information digitization only furthered that need to reduce information into files and tubs ready at our reserve.

Picture what academic competitive debate might look like it if began for the first time today, and there was new technology written specifically to adapt to the needs that these debaters would have as a result of being debaters. If you think of how the mind works, your thoughts aren’t organized top-down (like a Word document where you have to scroll down) but through relative connections. So the new debater (if debate began today) might hear or make an argument and then connect that to five related responses in his mind. Debate would start off a simply listening to opposing arguments, and needing to make mental associations to offer the best responses. If you take that last sentence as the primary need that a person choosing to do debate has, then the question is: in what ways should technology adapt to meet this need, without creating extrinsic demands and dependencies.

For a start, I think evidence might be mapped out like a web diagram – the argument to respond to in the center circle, with associated argument responses in their own circles in a secondary ring, and arguments associated with those further down. So what might evidence research look like? Creating files made sense before computers since files resembled a book, but with computers we’ve continued to use that same organization format for organizing cards into files. We’ve grown much more dependant on these files with computers and the internet. The debate process has become split between the debating that goes on in a speech and the file creation stage.

Here’s what it might look like if technology available today was repurposed and adapted to the needs that debaters would have solely as a function of being debaters (not as a function of inheriting the needs created by the limits of former technology.) When using the internet to do research in either digitized books or articles, you’d highlight text right on the webpage. You would “tag” what you have highlighted not through a sentence summary but through keywords. These keywords function like chains that would form the backbone of something I’ll refer to as an argument root. From this root, today’s equivalent of files would “grow” by having more associated snippets tagged on to it. The technology would store the entirety of the source document as well as your highlighting of it to your computer or a central team server. You would also add analytical arguments to this root; they would be chained by their keywords to references to other sources.

Today, files are walled-in and separate from other files. Think of what a politics file looks like today. We’d generally expect to find a 1NC, then a uniqueness section, links, internal link extensions and so on, organized from the top going down; we’d flip through all the pages to find the relevant new uniqueness cards, then go to our tubs to pull out a theory file to answer a theory indict of politics, get something from the internal links file, find an impact card for add-on and so on. While this was the best we could make of available technology at one point, it is clearly not how our minds conceptualize arguments – answers to politics theory should obviously be tagged with both theory and politics.

These roots would be very easy to merge with prior research you or someone else has done because the snippets are associated by their content, keywords, and the tags you have added. Right now, document files are static since you need to reorganize and rewrite them to update with new content or reference other files. A dynamic model of organization would work like the mind, which makes mental associations across the spectrum of available knowledge. The research a team does throughout the year might be referred to as their argument garden. (The names might sound odd, but think about why we call it storing cards in tubs.) Some schools would choose to keep these gardens closed to only their debaters, but there’d probably be at least a few that everyone could contribute to.

There would be a very important ancillary benefit to a public, or “open” garden. Information on the internet is organized pretty poorly now – pages related to a given webpage can only be found through a search engine, not through “browsing” or “surfing” the web more into that area (hyperlinks are the start of a solution, but obviously the author chooses which links to include and they do not update as new sources are found.) Debaters could perform an important service by organizing that information a) based on logical associations and b) based on article or webpage snippets as opposed to linking to the entire document. Knowledge would be organized by argument or idea instead of by webpage. After the season, some schools might chose to open their gardens by merging it with the public one. Whatever the debate topic was – there would be a great resource to anyone interested in developing their personal stance on it. It would resemble Wikipedia in some ways, but would have a much greater variety or arguments associated for and against that viewpoint. Wikipedia tries for a neutral point of view, whereas an open debate garden could provide all points of view so that people can understand the most popular and most “round winning” arguments against their personal beliefs. I think many people today have lost faith in the existence unbiased media sources or the authority of field experts; the neutral stance is only possible through presenting every ideology available. Today, when most people are provided an opposing point of view they’re usually only given a reductionist strawperson argument; this service would provide an easy way to view what’s actually the best and most reasoned argument for the other side so that people have a chance to understand what those opposed to them truly believe, in their own unfiltered words.

Returning to how a debate round might look like, debaters would likely “flow” the speech of their opponent by entering the keywords of that argument as the center bubble in the argument web. From that, the most relevant associations from the root you’ve assembled in your reading on the topic will pop-up and you can pick and drop analytics and “cards” you find relevant to form your own speech. These wouldn’t really be cards in the format we use today. They would not be taken or “cut” from their original source in any way. The root could also change dynamically as the source on the internet might be updated. This way, you could browse the source your opponent used, and maybe make a contextual indict of that. This note would be tagged on to that article so that everyone using the same garden as you would instantly have that indict visible as well. Your research would be “cutting for” every part of the topic at once, since you wouldn’t be researching files with a narrow topic but reading good articles overall and tagging paragraphs and sentences that might be relevant to this or that in the future. Much like online social bookmaking, multiple users could tag part of an article and you might be suggested the most popular tags or related article snippets. You could browse forward to what others have suggested you read and tag on that topic, as well as generally popular articles in that area. This system would enable you to research many, many times fasters than in today’s system, and you would be able to find relevant snippets in online articles for responses immediately after hearing their argument; no longer would research and argumentation phases be split.

This system would be designed to aid you in organizing your response; and it would also reward closer listening to their argument. The closer you listen, the more specific the response snippets can be – you might have less of the paragraph highlighted if their argument was a shortened version, for example. Debate rounds would look like the concept of debate was imagined in the original sense, and the technology would work only in the background to assist you in the argumentation and response, but without creating new needs to be met and without changing the way you approach listening and responding. You wouldn’t listen to a speech as “frontlines” or “offcase” but as keywords of the main argument their source is making. The strategism of debate has compartamentalized arguments into positions, so the focus now is more on refuting the position as a whole as opposed to the specific nuances of the argument. This is in part because the files are static and organized into responses before the round and before listening to the different arguments of that position. If a team emphasizes more on a particular argumentative point of a position, with the new system that would represent a larger argument bubble and have more response snippets and more highlighted versions of snippets of that webpage (since the entirety of the source is stored locally) associated to it.

Obviously all this would be done on a computer, but there’d be just the one window open where you are flowing – and at the same time, you are picking the best out of what’s displayed as a likely response. The responses you find or make on the spot would be added to your root, and the ones that you extend, go for, or win on would be given more chance of showing up again. This mimics how if you win on an argument, you’re more likely to repeat it. In essence, all the gathered snippets of knowledge from web pages, databases, articles and books would be stored right behind your flow and show up when needed – this imitates the way the mind stores all the knowledge you’ve amassed on a topic and makes mental associations when you hear a related argument. This close parallelism means the needs created by citing authoritative sources to support your argument is less likely to create additional needs, norms, or practices that for policy debaters get in the way or alter the idea of debate as thought of by most people. This concept would also have the ancillary benefit of creating a more logically-fluent storage and browsing model for information, and maybe influencing future generations to make other things – like internet websites, newspapers, and books – less separated into different files, or “walled-in,” and instead more dynamically oriented.

Parties Feel Left Out of Czech TV Debate

Image via Wikipedia

From http://praguemonitor.com/2009/07/29/parties-criticise-final-tv-debate-ahead-election

Parties criticise final TV debate ahead of election

ČTK |

29 July 2009

Prague, July 28 (CTK) - Four Czech parties represented in parliament Tuesday criticised the fact that only the leaders of the two biggest parties, the Civic Democrats (ODS) and the Social Democrats (CSSD), are to appear in the last pre-election debate on public Czech Television (CT).

CT dismissed the criticism.

The general election will be held in the Czech Republic in October.

Christian Democrat (KDU-CSL) chairman Cyril Svoboda said he would ask CT general director Jiri Janecek to interfere and enable a debate of more political parties in the Questions of Vaclav Moravec programme.

Communist (KSCM) leader Vojtech Filip said it was not fair to give space only to two parties in the last debate ahead of the elections.

Filip said he would send Janecek a complaint Tuesday, which he planned already last week.

Greens (SZ) head Ondrej Liska said a public television "should respect that the political scene is not divided only between two parties."

Svoboda noted that Janecek after his re-election two weeks ago said that everything would be different and better in CT.

"He will have a chance to show it," Svoboda said about Janecek.

The fight between the ODS and the CSSD might distort the results of the early general election due on October 9-10 since it would make an impression that voters can choose only between them, Svoboda pointed out.

In the letter to Janecek, the Christian Democrats will propose that the leaders of all parties that cross a certain threshold in public opinion polls participate in the programme, Svoboda said.

TOP 09 founder Miroslav Kalousek indicated that he acknowledged the ODS-CSSD debate as a signal that CT serves these parties, but that the ODS-CSSD debate would only show it was good to support some other party than the CSSD or the ODS.

Political pressure exerted on the CT management has been speculated about for a long time.

The Greens recently criticised the CT practice, saying the TV Council members, elected by the Chamber of Deputies, feel obliged to the CSSD and ODS politicians. This is why the Greens wanted to change the rules for the CT Council's election.

CT spokesman Ladislav Sticha rejected the view that CT would prefer the CSSD and the ODS in any way.

Sticha recalled that the CT debates ahead of the elections would take place in seven out of 14 Czech regions with leaders of the several parties most popular in the region according to two different opinion polls.

He said the leaders of the two strongest parties according to current polls would meet in the last debate ahead of the elections.

Sticha pointed out that they do not have to be the leaders of the CSSD and the ODS.

"Any party can increase its voter support through its campaign by September," he said.

In the previous general election in 2006, the ODS received over 35 percent of the vote, the CSSD over 32 percent, the Communists nearly 13 percent, the KDU-CSL over 7 percent and the Greens over 6 percent. TOP 09 broke away from the Christian Democrats in June.

UK Warming to Idea of Potential PM Debate

Image by bixentro via Flickr

See video of Cameron's remarks at the website.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8174385.stm

Cameron's 'delight' at TV debate idea

Gordon Brown is ready to face Conservative leader David Cameron in a presidential-style television debate at the next general election, Business Secretary Lord Mandelson has hinted.

If the prime minister does take part in such an exchange, he would be the first premier to do so.

Mr Cameron welcomed the news, saying TV debates would help engage the public.

USA WUDC Format Tournament Calendar Website

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

We will gather up all of the tournament invitations we can find that offer WUDC format competitions on USA-Canada soil and make them available, as well as some other tournaments. Check back for regular updates. Use the search box to find specific tournaments, or go to the archive to see all of them.

Send invitations to be posted to alfred.snider@uvm.edu

Tab sheets from tournaments are at http://debate.uvm.edu/usudc/usudctab0809.html

What is Approrpiate to Debate About? Denial Movement Theory

Image via Wikipedia

We often confront whether some issues are appropriate to have public debates about. Often people will want to help finance debates if they explore a certain issue in a certain way. Discovering what is and is not appropriate may gain some guidance from this discussion of "denial movements" that I discovered.

From http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/29/758787/-Denial-Movements-102:-crazy-on-purpose

Denial Movements 102: crazy on purpose

by Caj

Share this on Twitter - Denial Movements 102: crazy on purpose

Wed Jul 29, 2009 at 09:48:02 AM PDT

Since my last installment on denial movement tactics, a lot has happened in wacky conspiracyland. The denial movement surrounding the President's birth was then such a faint glimmer that I barely considered it.

But the breaking of birtherism into the media is an excellent opportunity to discuss a major misunderstanding about deniers, one that often fools the unwary debunker into aiding their cause: they may seem nuts, but it's intentional.

Again, a denial movement is an ideological effort to deny some well established scientific or historical event or fact. These include creationism, moon landing denial, holocaust denial, 9/11 trutherism, the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crowd, and now Obama Birtherism. [note: at least some of these conspiracy theories are banned from Daily Kos. Clearly this diary does not advocate, promote or otherwise aid them]

A denial movement is not quite the same thing as a conspiracy theory, although there is significant overlap. They often imply one another: if you attempt to deny something well established, you need a conspiracy theory to explain it. But here is the crucial difference: a conspiracy theory is a belief system. A denial movement is an ideological effort to push an idea on the populace. It's not something you believe, but something you spread.

This teensy little difference explains half of the insanity you see from conspiracy people. For example, consider Orly Taitz confiding in Lou Dobbs that nothing would convince her: if the "original birth certificate" were released, she still wouldn't believe. All around the Internet birthers are demanding the next document, having completely dismissed the last one. Release it and they'll just declare it counterfeit and start yelling for hospital records. If pressed, they cannot name a single thing that will change their minds, and yet they demand evidence anyway.

Does that sound schizophrenic to you? If so, then you don't understand the strategy: Orly Taitz does not actually want evidence. She wants to continually demand evidence, in order to give the impression of a cover-up. It's quite rational, even canny, and lots of people fall for this deception.

This is an example of a common tactic among deniers: the eternal request. Deniers pretend that all they want is one little thing, giving the impression that the corrupt establishment hasn't or cannot provide it. Examples:

• Creationists continually demand one single example of a transitional fossil. Many exist, but they simply ask for another.
• 9/11 truthers ask for a real, impartial investigation of WTC-7. After NIST investigates they simply ask again. By their own definition, nothing that actually happens is genuine or impartial.
• Holocaust deniers repeatedly ask for any evidence of a homicidal gas chamber. Even after the Irving trial, establishing these chambers and crematoria beyond a shadow of a doubt, they keep asking for a single shred of evidence, pretending they haven't gotten any yet.
• Birthers continually ask for one little piece of paper, although they have laundry lists of documents they are going to demand, one at a time, from Obama's kindergarten records to his college transcript.

The overall tactic is: ask for a specific piece of evidence, investigation, or even an open discussion of your claims. If you already got it, pretend you haven't. Suggest that your humble request should be super-easy to fulfill. "Obama could end this today," goes the common refrain on message boards. Therefore something must be wrong, right?

The important fact about this strategy is that it isn't really a sincere demand for evidence: it is a public relations tactic. You cannot fulfill the eternal request, and you cannot stop it with any evidence or argument. This is like stopping spammers, by convincing them that their boner pills don't really work. If you think you can do that, then you don't understand the business model.

Indeed, by engaging a denier in debate you often aid them: every inch of copy space is a small victory for these people. One of the most blatant examples of this is creationist Ken Ham, who challenges any biology professor to debate him on campus. Several gullible but well-meaning people take him up on this. They don't lose the debate, but in the process they let a creationist on campus to hold a little circus and hand out literature. An article lands in the student newspaper, a debate ensues. That's the point, to sneak your ideas into a legitimate institution. And after it's all over, regardless of how firmly you debunk Ken Ham, he simply repeats his open challenge for a debate. He's not going to stop because of your impeccable logic: his mission is simply to spread an idea.

How to deal with these people.

First and foremost, you need to fight deniers on their own turf, meaning off campus, and outside of major media outlets. Take them on the air even to debunk them and you lose. Remember that their goal is to reach an audience.

Second of all, remember that you're not going to convince them. This doesn't mean it's pointless to argue: it just means you aren't doing it for their sake. You debunk these people for the sake of anyone who may be watching, the zillion people who heard about this moon-landing stuff and want to know if it's legit or crazy. Your goal is to communicate with them---that implies that you shouldn't just abuse the deniers, as that provides no information and aids their whole innocent victim narrrative.

A good overall strategy is to force deniers to say crazy, stupid things. Some effective tactics include:

• Ask deniers to name a single piece of evidence that will change their minds, and get them to commit to that fact. Don't let them mumble that a birth certificate will "help."
• If deniers don't have an answer, ask them what business they have asking for evidence that will never change their minds.

• Ask them why you only hear their claims from internet people, rather than official sources. If there really were holes in evolution, wouldn't I hear about it from biologists rather than some dude?

  There is a response to this---biologists are participating in a vast cover-up to protect their jobs, every single dang one of them---but make sure you get them to say this out loud. You want people to hear the daffy side of the denial movement, the part that deniers try to avoid writing.

• Maintain a list of urban legends, and expose them when used. Don't ridicule, just say, "this post contains the following false claims:" Remember, you're writing this for a third party who may be sitting on the fence between birtherism and sense. That person needs information, not snide one-liners.
• If possible, track a denier's writing over time. It's very effective to say, "you said the same thing last week, five people debunked it, you went quiet for a few days and now you're repeating it again. Why?"
• It doesn't hurt to ask deniers where they stand on other denial movements. You'd be surprised how much overlap there is between them. If I'm sitting on the fence about the moon landing and suddenly the moon landing denier starts ranting about the Jews, it really helps to make up my mind who the lunatic is.

  
  

To sum up, conspiracy theorists often have strategic goals that are completely orthogonal to yours. You wish to establish the facts; they want to broadcast their claims to as many people as possible. You may see a debate as a chance to settle the matter; they see it as a marketing opportunity, a platform for exposure.

How Debate Changed a Life - One LA Teen's Story

From http://www.layouth.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Issue&action=IssueArticle&aid=2494&nid=86

The great debater

By Janie Lee, 16, Troy HS

Photo by Cathleen McCaffery, 18, Marlborough School (2009 graduate)

Janie's tools for debate are her timer and note pad with research.

I had sweaty palms, shaking legs and little confidence. Five years ago in fifth grade I was giving a presentation on Anne Sullivan, Helen Keller’s teacher. As I was squeezing my hands underneath a table where nobody could see, I stuttered through the longest five minutes of my life. I told myself was to not screw up or look stupid. I thought that everyone would laugh at me or think that I was boring.

My mom noticed how much I feared projects in which I had to speak in front of the class so in seventh grade she signed me up for a speech and debate class at a local tutoring center. I was so mad at her for making me go. She told me, “You have to get over this fear. It’s never going to get better if you don’t do anything about it.”

When I first started going to class I dreaded it. Whenever I knew I had to speak, I would try to delay it as much as possible by asking the teacher questions or shuffling through papers pretending that I forgot my materials at home. When the moment to speak finally came, I always tried to get through it as quickly as possible. The first time I had to speak in front of everyone, I kept my eyes glued to my paper as I read. When I tried to say something, nothing came out, and when something finally did, I stuttered a lot. I cannot even remember what I was talking about that day because I was so nervous.

It was almost as bad as when people would critique me. One boy told me that I needed to make more eye contact and another boy told me that I didn’t look very comfortable. Although the critique was hard to hear, it was helpful. It was the first time anyone had told me something specific that I needed to work on so it gave me a goal.

Class was fun

After a month, I started looking forward to the class. My teacher Tom showed me that public speaking is not as bad as I thought. He taught me that as you start getting passionate about what you talk about, the easier it becomes to talk in front of others. Although the advice Tom gave me seemed helpful, I learned most through his example. Whenever Tom spoke, he used hand gestures to help emphasize what he was saying and made a connection with his audience through eye contact. One assignment was debate the No Child Left Behind Act, which raises the federal academic standards that all students have to meet. I had no idea what it was, but after researching I started to see it was not an effective way to measure students’ academic abilities and too expensive. Tom started by asking my opinion and made me elaborate. Before I knew it, I was speaking in front of the whole class ranting about why I thought the No Child Left Behind Act was a bad idea. It felt great to be able to express my opinion.

We would debate every other week. There are different types of debate such as team debate, partner debate and individual one-on-one debate. You start with a resolution, which is a statement that one side must support and the other side must oppose. The resolution is usually related to current events, like: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Through debate, I learned so much about things I was interested in. We debated the war in Iraq, offshore drilling and Tibet. We spent two weeks on every resolution. For one week, the class would do research, learning all sides of the issue. The next week, we debated each other. More than debating, I enjoyed the research and discussion. It was fascinating learning about current events that I did not even know were occurring, like offshore drilling or education reform policies.

One night at the dinner table with my parents, the news was on in the living room and there was a story about offshore drilling. I asked my parents whether or not they supported it. They were against it, but for different reasons than I was. My mom said, “It is not guaranteed that oil will be found from offshore drilling. Even if oil were to be found, nobody would see lower gas prices for another decade.” I agreed with them, but I wanted them to know why I was against it. I told them, “The environmental effects of offshore drilling are disastrous. It can harm phytoplankton, our number one source of oxygen. Millions of animals are affected because their habitats are disturbed as well.” My parents were astonished. They told me they were proud of how much I changed and how well I was able to carry on an intelligent conversation with them.

As much as I liked class, I knew that the day would come when we actually had to debate against other teams outside of class.

Two years ago, my team of four from class went to our first competition at UCLA. All of us had half a year’s worth of experience. We prepared for months by doing research and debating against one another, although we did not know what type of competition we’d face. There could have been teams that had years of experience and teams that had way more preparation and skill than us. We went through three rounds and just hoped for the best. Our months of preparation really helped. We debated the No Child Left Behind Act against three other teams. We got points throughout the debate for the quality of our arguments and the quality of our speaking, but we didn’t find out exactly how many points we got until the end of the day. I felt like we had solid arguments against most of our opponents.

We stayed for the awards ceremony to see who won. We didn’t think we’d receive any awards since there were so many other competitors and it was our first tournament. When first place was about to be announced, my team and I were preparing to leave but to our surprise, our name got called. We all looked at each other in amazement. We got a letter from Governor Schwarzenegger congratulating us. It left me speechless. I knew debate was something I was serious about and wanted to do more of.

I used to hide my hobby

However, I had a hard time talking about my passion with other people. At school and to my friends, I was the girl interested in clothes and always having a good time. Debate was perceived as something nerdy by my friends. Nobody expected me to do something like debate. To fit in I felt like I needed to play a sport like soccer or tennis. One of my best friends was a star volleyball player, the other was class president … and I was a debater.

Once when someone asked me what I was doing over the weekend, I told him, “I’m going to a debate tournament.” All I got as a response was a bewildered look and, “You debate?” I felt self-conscious and tried to hide it from my friends because I was embarrassed. When a debate tournament and a friend’s birthday party conflicted I lied and told my friend that I had to go to a family party. However, I realized that I shouldn’t be embarrassed or ashamed of something just because it’s different. My mom told me that I should be proud of debate, because it makes me unique.

I started to share my passion, even though it took several months for my friends, even my brother, and classmates to get used to the fact that I debated. I invite my friends and family to some of my debate tournaments and try to recruit others to join the debate team. The first time my mom watched me debate, she told me she felt like she was watching a different person. She said, “I’ve never seen you so confident when you speak!” It’s encouraging to see the people I care about come and support me, and it makes me want to do better.

The debate team at my school is close to nonexistent and I’ve had to go to some tournaments on my own. Rather than signing up for a tournament with a school, I would sign up individually and attend by myself. It has been hard sometimes, especially during tournaments. Looking at everyone who was with their teams of more than 50 people, I felt alone. Sometimes I felt like quitting debate. But every time I stepped into a classroom and started to debate, I would be reminded about how much I love debate. Listening to an opponent’s rebuttals while a million thoughts are going through my head trying to find a counter argument or asking questions during cross-examination were thrilling.

Through the tournaments, I’ve met more and more people that have become good friends. Thankfully, we have a new debate advisor at our school and we’ve been going to more tournaments gradually as a school. We have about seven students go to each tournament. It’s so refreshing to be able to go to tournaments with a team. Hopefully, our debate team continues to develop into a stronger team and we go to more tournaments. This year, I almost made the cut to go to state, but I’m motivated to do better next year.

Last year in my European history class, we were having a discussion on children’s rights during the Industrial Revolution and I found myself in the middle of a heated debate with other students. One of my classmates said, “If the only way to make ends meet is to work, then they should help their families and work.” With a completely opposite opinion, I said, “It’s unfair and inhumane for children to have to work for up to 16 hours a day. They should have protection from cruel treatment.” I loved how I could express my feelings without being afraid of what other people thought.

I am so thankful for my mom for pushing me toward debate. I was mad at her at first, but I’m grateful now. Debate has given me a passion for current events and issues in society. It even motivates me to want to study political science in college so I can hopefully be able to make changes in policies, not just debate about them.

USA Soldiers Compete in Speech Contest - in Korean

Image by UNC - CFC - USFK via Flickr

From http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/07/205_48484.html

By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter

A South Korean Army group supporting the 8th U.S. Army here will host a Korean-language speech contest for American servicemembers today, the group said Tuesday.

Eight finalists from the Yongsan Garrison in Seoul, the 2nd Infantry Division north of Seoul, Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province, and a Daegu base will participate in the contest at Balboni theater in the Yongsan Garrison, it said in a news release.

Wednesday's contest will be the 11th of its kind since 1999, it said.

The group runs voluntary Korean-language classes for some 270 U.S. servicemembers and their families here, it said.

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr

Afghan Televised Presidential Debates

From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/24/world/main5185492.shtml

Afghan Pres. Skips Country's 1st TV Debate

Incumbent Bails on Presidential Debate, But Still Favored to Win as Country Continues Experiment in Democracy

• 

  An Afghan man walks past a huge poster of presidential candidate and current President Hamid Karzai in Jalalabad, Nangarhar province, east of Kabul, Afghanistan, July 20, 2009. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)

• Fast Facts Afghanistan

(CBS) Like millions of Afghans, the Fazly family watched the country's first-ever major televised presidential debate on Friday.

Modeled on the style of U.S. presidential debates, the plan was to have the incumbent, President Hamid Karzai, take on his two main rivals.

But just 24 hours before airtime the Afghan leader pulled out, saying he didn't have enough time to prepare, reports CBS News correspondent Mandy Clark.

It's an excuse Khalid Fazly doesn't buy. "He would not be able to defend his activities and that is why he didn't appear for the debate."

Instead, Karzai's two closest rivals - former top World Bank official Ashraf Ghani and the president's own former foreign minister, Abdullah Abdullah, soaked up two hours of prime-time television.

They both pointed to high civilian casualties as the primary reason for Afghan's opposition to foreign forces in the country - most of whom are Americans.

Despite the criticism, President Obama's special envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, said the American presence is important, pointing to the on-going operation in Helmand.

"This election will take place on schedule, and Helmand will be able to participate thanks to this offensive that General Nicholson and his colleagues are directing," said Holbrooke, referring to a surge of U.S. Marines into the southern province to go after Taliban militants.

Karzai has been accused of running a lackluster campaign, but is still widely expected to come out on top. His no-show at the debate may not have even hurt his chances significantly.

Relations between Karzai and the U.S. are at a low point, with members of the Obama administration openly referring to Karzai's government as inefficient and corrupt.

To boost his re-election chances, Karzai has made questionable deals with former warlords - even selecting one as his running mate. That comes on top of the president pardoning five influential drug smugglers.

On June 27, Karzai hit back at the criticism from Washington, complaining about the American ambassador's attendance at a press conference of his rival, Abdullah Abdullah. Karzai said it amounted to foreign interference in the electoral process.

American Ambassador Karl Eikenberry argued that he's met many of the 41 presidential candidates and said the U.S. government is not picking favorites - merely supporting the election process.

The Fazly family is split on who to vote for, with two backing Ghani and two in support of extending Karzai's tenure.

Whether the debate will have the same impact on the Afghanistan's voters as political debates can in America is unclear. Democracy is still very much an experiment in this country.

USA Policy Debate Captures Student Interest in Energy Issues

From http://www.earthzine.org/2009/07/27/high-school-students-debate-federal-incentives-for-alternative-energy/

Education Around Earth
High School Students Debate Federal Incentives for Alternative Energy

By David F. Mullins Ph.D., posted on July 27th, 2009 in Articles, Education, Energy, OpEd

U.S. Department of Energy Digital Photo Archive. Ames scientist adds heterogenerous catalyst to soybean oil to create biodiesel.

During the week of June 15, 2009, an estimated 3,500 high school students from across the U.S. debated the politics, challenges, advantages, and science of federal incentives for alternative energy at the National Forensic League (NFL) National Speech and Debate Tournament in Birmingham, Alabama. Students who participated in the national tournament had to win district tournaments in their respective states in order to advance to the national competition. This year’s national topic was, “Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.”

“The National Forensic League is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit educational honor society established to encourage and motivate high school students to participate in and become proficient in the forensic arts: debate, public speaking, and interpretation,” according to the NFL website. Since its inception in 1925, the NFL has enrolled over 1 million high school students as members in all 50 states.

For the entire 2008 school year, high school students in every state in the U.S. have been debating the environmental, political, and financial harms of the United State’s current dependence on oil for energy. They have spent countless hours studying alternative energy sources such as Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), wind energy, photovoltaic cells, and biofuels, ranging from ethanol, to those based on cooking oil, to those produced from algae. Students also debated the potential environmental impacts of alternative energy technologies such as noise created by wind turbines, required land mass availability for biofuel production, possible bird strikes in wind turbines, the potential inadequacy of the present power grid to support any alternative energy technology, and the impact of energy producing technologies in the world’s oceans.

The students also studied the realities of private industry’s ability to market alternative energy technologies and the profit motives that guide business. To be competitive, students not only needed to understand alternative energy funding, environmental concerns about oil dependence, and the science of alternative energy technologies, they also had to be able to defend both sides of the resolution. Students are randomly assigned to either argue the affirmative or negative side of the resolution at the beginning of each debate round. The most competitive debaters were those who not only developed a plan for an alternative energy incentive that was affordable and that could be a feasible solution for a sustained U.S. energy policy, but who could also articulate a logical argument why that same plan would not solve the harms and inherent barriers they claimed led to the solutions and benefits they argued for in their last debate round.

The amount of work necessary for debaters to be successful is astounding. Students often begin in the summer preparing for the upcoming debate season. They often study, give practice speeches, prepare cross examination questions, and develop their sizable files of reference cards from leading experts on the environment, fiscal policy, and alternative energy technologies late into the night. The alternative energy incentives resolution was debated in what the NFL refers to as “policy” or “team” debate.

U.S. Department of Energy Digital Photo Archive. This photo illustrates the surface temperatures of the ocean as simulated with a three dimensional global ocean model developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Warm temperatures are shown in red and coolest in blue. Continents and islands are black. Differences in ocean current temperatures are essential to Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion as an alternative energy.

The teams consist of two high school students and have the following format. Each of the four speakers has eight minutes to speak about the resolution. In between each of these speeches, a student from the opposing team questions the speaker for three minutes. After all four students have spoken and been cross examined, each student gives a four minute rebuttal speech. Each team has a total of only five minutes of prep time to use during the entire round! The amount of preparation is obvious when the students enter the room with their portable plastic filing cabinets, often stacked three high and filled with evidence to support or refute any argument presented during the round.

Almost every Saturday from September through March, students get up at 5 a.m., wearing suits and dresses, board buses for that week’s tournament, wheel their cases of evidence into the host school, and debate at least four rounds of about 90 minutes each, followed by a well-deserved awards ceremony, and the chance to continue to the national tournament. The pressure to win the district and state tournaments is tremendous, during which students debate Friday night for three hours and then debate all day Saturday in a dual-elimination format until the final winning team is decided.

Students learn the value of teamwork, respect for the opinions of others, and the value of working toward a goal, all within an atmosphere of enjoyment in which student competitors play video games between rounds, talk about their schools, and revel in the company of friends who they may have just debated or may debate in the next hour.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Bob Brittain, who has been the Debate Coach at Columbia City High School in Columbia City, Indiana, for 39 years. During our discussion, Brittain repeatedly stressed the timeliness of this year’s resolution. He said that, “Students studied science, economics, and Americans’ attitudes about energy with this topic. It was much harder for students to separate fact from opinion with this topic in comparison to previous years’ topics because of the number of blogs and websites from sources that were biased.” But he also stressed the value to students in learning how to differentiate between credible references and those based on opinion or non-scientific and anecdotal evidence. Students also learned about the integral role that universities play in research and development of alternative energy technologies and policies. And, according to Brittain, “Students developed a great deal of respect for science in general.”

Students gained an understanding of the complexity of energy production and the role it has in the economy. They also garnered an appreciation of the significance of seed money for energy research to solve social problems. The learning didn’t stop when debate rounds ended, however, as students asked questions and led discussions in their classes in history, science, and English.

When I asked Brittain about how interested the students were in the topic, he said this year’s topic really hit home for many students. “The topic was an easy sell for student debaters. We were fresh off $4 a gallon gasoline prices which caught the attention of high school students who were just getting their driver’s licenses!”

News About World Schools Debating Championships 2010 in Qatar

Image via Wikipedia

Two bits of news.

First, there is a newsletter about the tournament.

From Claire Ryan:

Hi everyone.

Here is the first newsletter as we prepare for Qatar 2010. Enjoy!!!! And do not hesitate to share the news far and wide.

Kind regards,

Claire Ryan,
Chair, Executive Committee,
WSDC Ltd

The docment mentioned can be found at
http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/wsdcnewsletter2009-1.pdf

Second, there is an effort to bring excellent judges to the tournament. They would be sponsored by QatarDebate. Here is the latest news.

From Chris Erskine:

This document has the more detailed principles for selecting judges for the 30 positions. It has been worked out in consultation with the CAP. We don’t think it changes the information the CAP needs from each applicant in any way. However, any applicant is welcome to put in any supplementary information they think might be relevant.

May I remind people that these 30 (plus the 7 CAP) are not the end of the story for judges seeking assistance in coming to Qatar. In fact, the bigger amount is likely to be that Qatar will pay for all registrations for a delegation of 8 people from each country, including judges, in addition to the 30 plus the CAP. So, for example, if your delegation has a team of 5 plus a coach, you will get 2 free registrations for judges from your country (making a total of 8). And if you want to bring more than that, all the unused registrations (from countries who don’t have a delegation of 8) will be pooled and will be available for yet more judges who want to come.

So while attention is currently focused on working out who the 30 will be, please remember the free registrations available to your country as well.

Cheers
Simon Quinn
Chris Erskine

The World Schools Debating Championships is the premier annual international competition for high school debaters. It is open to any country subject to their commitment to its Charter. For the Charter, Rules, and other information please see www.SchoolsDebate.com.

Blog: www.SchoolsDebate.com/blog

The document mentioned can be found at:
http://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/qatar10sponsorshipcriteria.pdf

High School & Middle School Workshop in Thailand

Students who won team and/or speaker awards with their coaches. The students are from Chalermprakiatsomdetprasrinakarin Phuket School, Hatyaiwittaylai School, Satree Phuket School, and Suratthani School.

From Jeff Hobbs:

The English Programs of southern Thailand sponsored a
workshop on “Debating Values and Policies on the
Affirmative and Negative” on July 24-26, 2009. The
workshop was held on the Chalermprakiatsomdetprasrinakarin
Phuket School Campus in Phuket, Thailand. The workshop was
taught by professors Darunee Boonyaudomsart, Piengpen Na
Pattalung, and Jeffrey Hobbs from Phuket Rajabhat
University.

The workshop featured a debate tournament with four
preliminary rounds and two elimination rounds. A total of 15
three-person teams entered the tournament from ten different
junior highs and high schools. The students debated both
value and policy topics on subjects such as school uniforms,
violent video games, and the environment. It was the first
tournament experience for most, if not all, of the students.
Every team at the tournament won, at least, one round. The
final round was between Hatyaiwittaylai School, on the
affirmative, and Suratthani School, on the negative. The
round ended with a 3-0 decision for the affirmative.

Eulogy for Ross Smith

Image via Wikipedia

From Tim O'Donell and Allan Louden:

Eulogy for Ross Kennedy Smith
Wait Chapel, Wake Forest University
July 23, 2009

My name is Tim O’Donnell. Over more than two decades, I was Ross’ student, employee, colleague, fellow competitor, friend, caddie, and one of his many sidekicks—you know – the sidekick that every superhero has. For so many of us here today and around the world, Ross was our hero – foibles and all. The one thing I never was, was Ross’ partner. There were only a few of those over the years – and they included John Graham, Roger Solt, and of course Allan Louden… It is a distinct honor to give voice to his words.


Ross Remembered
by Allan Louden


Ross was bigger than life.
Ross challenged and changed those he encountered.
Ross truly loved his work, a gift of life that he appreciated


For a time I had the image of Ross giving my Eulogy in a setting much like this. I was reassured knowing in Ross-style he would speak essence, capturing what mattered. I also knew that when Ross stood up to talk you never knew what would follow, but you knew you’d be surprised and delighted. I wish that were the case some time in the distant future, not to change providence, but it would be the natural order, as it ought to unfold.

As I’m sitting in a Bulgarian dorm, trying to write my thoughts I’ve allowed the tears. Like all of you, it hurts. Just doesn’t feel fair.

I believe that Ross would want us to continue our work. Ross was never one for excessive ceremony, nor for lamenting that which cannot be changed. While Ross theorized, fundamentally he was a doer, happiest when engaging students and debaters.

It is of course with a grieving heart I have to write from this great distance. The depth of my very being knows I ought to be in Winston-Salem, to be with all of you gathered at Wake Forest, in celebration of a life worth living.

Circumstance makes that impossible. Yet part of Ross is with us in Bulgaria as well. The 160 students here all took a class from Ross, and now carry with them a part of his passion and insight. Tonight, Wednesday, at the student’s initiation, they are observing a moment of silence in Ross’ honor.

We’re also comforted by a cadre of the Wake Debate community tucked in the Mountains of Bulgaria—Odile, Taylor, Sean, David, Blake, RJ--whose hearts are hurting and spirits are with those at Wake Forest. Like you, we are sharing our favorite Ross stories, laughing at the “moments,” freshly aware of how much he taught us, and each trying as best we can to reach an understanding.

It will take time, but we’ll be fine, in part because we all are supported by the Wake Forest family and the larger Debate community, each of which Ross distinctively shaped and occupied.


At this point I imagine the natural move for a speaker would be to share some witty stories from Ross’s life. And as you know they are legendary. Imagine sharing hotel rooms with Ross Smith for twenty plus years every other weekend at debate tournaments. That alone takes a certain fortitude.

I have chosen, however not to tell these stories, for others here and on the web are recounting their narratives of this unique man. I have received hundreds of messages, facebook posts, and phone calls, many retelling the moments when Ross touched their lives. I am grateful for those remembrances, as they are a tour de’ force of Ross’ presence in our lives.

I searched for the perfect antidote, but without satisfaction. The truth of the matter is our relationship was composed of countless stories, much more a matrix, a tapestry of time and respect, that resulted in the best times of my life.

I often tell the account, perhaps a tall tale, that the secret to any success I had with Wake debate was for two reasons: to not be afraid to hire folks smarter than myself, and then know enough to get out of their way.

Ross proved the first rule, as all of you know; he was brilliant, even to a fault at times. But when there was a problem to solve, a need for a fresh perspective, an occasion when clearing the clutter was needed, we all turned to Ross. Simply put, he was smarter than the rest of us.

As for rule two--knowing enough to get out of the way—any claim of having that insight on my part is exaggerated. Those who know Ross, have to be smiling--“As if that was a choice.” Ross marched to his own drummer. And he earned our respect for that very trait; his independence of thought and action.

Working with Ross was not always easy, which is part of the explanation for why it was so worth it. If you were around Ross you grew. He often referred to our tag-team as “partners.” I always liked that characterization.

Across time Ross toughened me up and I hope I offered him a bit more forbearance.

Ross, speaking for myself, you will be terribly, terribly missed.


I had two opportunities this year to publicly praise Ross’ accomplishments; once before the Wake Forest Board of Trustee’s dinner and the second at the National Debate Tournament which was held at the University of Texas at Austin, where he was presented with the George Ziegelmueller award for his distinguished career.

Each was a different mission and each recalls what should be part of our remembrance.

Before the Trustees I wanted administrators to appreciate just how hard it is to be a top coach, to navigate the labyrinth of argument and personality, to labor unselfishly for too many hours in a day. It is difficult enough to reach the apex of this competitive world, yet Ross did not reach the pinnacle for a season, or even some years; he was at the top for decades with no demise in sight.

For the NDT Community gathered in Texas, the message was, while accomplished, Ross’ motives, his simple love for the activity and those who also love debate, was the measure of his career. Winning was fun, an end, but not the end. He loved what he did and he loved those who shared in that journey.

Those who know him best often recount their Ross emersion. Even as some said Ross scared the heck out of them, they eventually found the caring--do anything for you--Ross. We who know him are forever loyal, just as he was loyal in return.


Please indulge a few personal remarks that I wish were given in person.

To the Smith family: I was always grateful to be included in the family, the often turbulent lasagna celebrations authored by Ross, the Christmas gatherings somewhere between Norman Rockwell and Family Feud, and the numerous occasions when the family embraced Ross’ debate family. Those decades of warmth taught me that which defines the family Smith is love and respect. The Smith’s will be fine, the family its own Citadel.

To Ross’ Mom: Marguerite I trust you know full well that you and Ross were incredibly alike: your passion, your intelligence, the rightness, and in the end your compassion. This loss asks too much from a Mother, yet, as with Ross, your strength shelters others.

To Ross’ son: Alex, losing your mentor and I suspect in phases of your life, your hero, cannot be easy. I remember well the day you were born, during the Dixie Classic tournament. The tournament nearly melted down with the absence of an incredibly proud papa. And for three days I thought your name was Axle. Always remember you are without doubt a “chip off the old block.” And be assured “hearing your own drummer” in its own way made Ross proud.

To Ross’ Wife: Jayne I love you as family. You saved me at more than one faculty party, provided comfort when it was needed, and as always are a stalwart in my life.

We’ll talk, and hang, and hug, when I return.

What matters more, in these tough times, is your bequest to Ross. I knew the before and after. The simply truth is you changed his life. You grounded him, gifted him place and emotional shelter. Ross was a lucky man. Yours is the most difficult path, but it will be a journey surrounded by loving friends.

To the Wake Debate Community: Ross believed in Wake debate, in part for it prowess, but more for its sense of community. Our debate family has lost more than any one of us can individually comprehend. Through our shared stories, we might approach how cavernous the void will be. Ross, in the most important respects, was Wake Debate.

It is not an exaggeration to say that even when Ross frustrated, he was our leader, our mentor, the embodiment of what it meant to be a part of Wake Debate. Our family will continue, even prosper, but that future will forever be influenced by Ross. Collectively we are his legacy.

God Speed my friend. I am forever grateful for having known you.

Your partner in a life’s work, Allan Louden



I [Tim O’Donnell] would like to impose on you for a few moments more—to reflect as one of his many students. Ross always wanted to know what his debaters were thinking – so I’ll think hard and talk fast.

For us, his students, Ross was a noun, a verb, an adjective and an idiom. He loved to talk—and talk a lot, but he thought and taught in aphorisms. He was intercollegiate debate’s leading innovator yet was deeply sentimental and held strongly to tradition. He was clumsy and awkward but so graceful and dignified. He had no time for protocol and decorum, but insisted that we all follow the protocols and sense of decorum that he created.

He was for so many of us, the living embodiment of the virtues we aspire to exhibit in our own lives and none was more characteristic than his passion. Passion for life and family, passion for debate and golf, passion for politics, public policy, and living the life of the mind. And central to it all, passion for Wake Forest. He sure did love Wake Forest—this place, its people, the very idea.

Over the years, Ross taught us all many things – big and small. Of course, he taught us about debate – and he did that exceptionally well. He also taught us to be fierce in competition, but gracious in victory as well as defeat. He taught us to eat savory foods and that the best humor was self-deprecating. He taught us how to think, how to ask questions, how to solve problems and how to make sense. He had no time for those unwilling to make sense. He taught us what is right, what is wrong, and how to split the difference. He taught us how to bridge differences, build networks, and engage others in the communities we inhabit. He taught us how to dream, how to love, and how to smile. He taught us that we should have no time for petty things, because more time needed to be devoted to the really big things. He tried to teach me and a few others how to swing a golf club and stroke a putter. But that failed miserably – and it wasn’t because he was a poor teacher. We were poor pupils. But most of all, he taught us how to serve and care for others and showed so many of us through the overwhelming power of his example, that no job, however dirty, however small, is beneath any of us. Ross taught us so many things. . . . . and over the last few days, he’s taught us how to hug and how to cry.

Yet for all the time we spent together there were so many things he didn’t teach us…too many things. But he gave all of us -- and the tens of thousands of others like us all over the globe – who are just a few degrees of separation from Ross -- the tools to figure it out. He left us too soon, but I know that he had confidence in us to continue the work—not as a legacy, but because it will make a difference.

His email signature line urged us all to “Be the debater you want to see.” Thanks to Ross we all know better how to bring what it is that we want to see into focus. I can’t imagine life without him, but I know that tomorrow and every day after it will be better for me and everyone around me because of him. And while we will all miss him, his life and all those he has touched – in so many wonderful ways – has already filled the void that we feel so acutely at this moment.

Ross was not one for goodbyes. And I’d very much like to think that he just decided this past Sunday to hop a flight for Turnberry, Scotland – a place very near to the ritualistic gathering place of the Scottish Clans of Smith and Kennedy – a place which Ross’ uncle, Selden Kennedy Smith, summoned in his eulogy for his brother -- and Ross’ daddy – little more than a year ago. Yes, Ross circulated that eulogy, like so many other things, because he always wanted to share his family with us his debate family.

So I’ll end, simply by using the three words that he used often. I love you. We all love you.

Philippine Debate Tournament Focuses on Development

Image via Wikipedia

From http://teamyeheyblog.yehey.com/?p=683

The UP Pi Sigma Fraternity, established in 1972 with the twin principles of Paglingkuran ang Sambayanan and Paragon of Scholarship, holds its 22nd Annual Open Debate Tournament this August at the Claro M. Recto Hall, Faculty Center, UP Diliman.

The debate tournament, themed – The Underdeveloped State of the Philippines: Causes and Solutions, enjoins the economic implications of the proposed charter change, the salient provisions of present land reform bills, the proposed Reproductive Health bill, the subjugation of the University of the Philippines’ idle lands to private commercial institutions and the socialization of tuition fee as its topics to be debated on.

Prizes of 10,000php, 5,000php and another 5,000php shall be awarded to the Champion debating team, 1st Runner Up debating team and the best debater of the tournament, respectively.

The UP Pi Sigma Fraternity takes pride in being able to spearhead activities like these. Indeed, it strives hard to enliven its twin principles for the betterment of the majority thru such. There is more to being just a band of brothers trying to dominate with pure machismo. UP Pi Sigma is a brotherhood with heart. It may not be loud in words, but it is visible in action as one could never imagine. Participate in the fraternity’s endeavors if you believe that something can be done.

New Debate Videos from Slovenia

With two high school workshops in Slovenia concluded, I am putting a lot of the videos I have from them on the web. They are mostly world schools format but still widely useful.

These videos are marked by type (lecture, debate, discussion, speech) and then by format, and then the topic followed by the last name of the primary speaker or teams.

Here are some:

• Debate - World Schools - International Adoption - ...
• Lecture - World Schools - Reply Speeches - Cimerma...
• Lecture - World Schools - Third Speeches - Dobrani...
• Lecture - Background - Capitalism - Morgan
• Lecture - World Schools - Motion Interpretation - ...

See them all (and a lot more to come) at DEBATE VIDEO BLOG
http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/

Here is a sample...

Lecture - Background - Capitalism - Morgan from Alfred Snider on Vimeo.

IDEA News - Youth Forum Begins

Image via Wikipedia

From cphillip@idebate.org

Youth Forum trainers prepare to host guests from around the globe!

On July 21, twenty-three skilled trainers were welcomed to the 2009 IDEA Youth Forum in Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The next day, they began preparing for the forum at the “Training of Trainers” sessions, where they exchanged their best training tips and finalized their strategies for each track at the forum. They worked vigorously to prepare for the arrival of 200 debaters, coaches, IDEA staff and guests.
On July 23rd, participants attending the 2009 Youth Forum arrived from thirty different countries: Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, Phillipines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, United Kingdom, and USA.
The Youth Forum website will be updated daily with reports on activities, photos, videos and online blogs. Online debates will also take place during the elimination rounds of the Karl Popper Debate Championship on July 24th- 27th while they are taking place. For more information on how to join the online debates and more, visit the Youth Forum website!

The annual IDEA Youth Forum begins today!

IDEA's biggest, and longest running, event has finally arrived! The 15th annual Youth Forum kicked off today in the beautiful city of Jahorina, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The trainers of the forum arrived on July 21st to prepare for the forum, while the other 200 guests checked in yesterday for a pre-youth forum welcome.
Every day at the forum is jam-packed with different events and tasks for trainers, coaches, judges, and most of all, for debaters. In preparation for the Karl Popper Debate Championship on Monday, each day of the forum entails several labs and prep times for Karl Popper debaters. There will also be three or four workshops offered daily for debaters in the International New Debaters Track.
The Youth Forum is rigorous for all, but there is also plenty of time for fun! Many social events and field trips have been organized to help participants unwind from their daily activities. Games, sports, movies, and music have been arranged for every evening. Tonight features a cultural night about the host country, which will include dancing, singing, and costumes from the culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina. A drum orchestra workshop is scheduled for Saturday night; and Cultural Expo night is on Sunday, which features a festival and exhibition of the diverse cultures at the forum.
Monday is especially exciting because everyone will travel to Sarajevo. This day trip will include the KP Debate Championship, a carnival walk through the city, a tour of the city, all topped off with a cocktail party that night.
Until the end of the forum on August 5th, everyone at the Youth Forum will be learning new skills, expanding their cultural knowledge, and enjoying all the fun activities!

Youth Debate project holds national finals in Bucharest, Romania

The national finals of the Youth Debate project held on May 31st and June 1st in Bucharest, Romania, was organized by the Romanian Ministry of Education, Research and Innovation. The two best speakers of the tournament, Cluj Napoca and Calin Muresanu, were both from the ARDOR network; and the team from Emil Racovita National College won the tournament.
The tournament topics focused on the difficulties the Roma minority faces in Romania. The quarter finals discussed the censorship of racist statements on the internet. The semi-finals covered the inefficiency of Roma education, and the finals centered on the continuation of affirmative measures for the Roma minority.
Many honorable guests attended the tournament, such as Ms. Oana Badea, the Secretary of State from the Ministry of Education. She expressed how important it is to introduce debates in school curriculum, so that projects like this may reach a wider range of schools. Other guests that attended the tournament include:

*
Csaba Asztaloz (President- National Council of Anti Discrimination)
*
Ms. Monica Anghelescu (Councilor- National Agency for Interethnic Relationships- Councilor)
*
Ms. Maria Mota (President- National Agency for Equal Opportunities between Men and Women)
*
Valeriu Nicolae (Open Society Institute)

Several other organizations that made this tournament a success include ARDOR, Debate House, the Impreuna Agency for Community Development, the National Network of the Young Roma, and the Open Society Institute - A Decade of Roma Inclusion.
Oana Stanciu, Debate House, and Monica Mocanu, ARDOR

Climate Advocacy Institute participants travel to the site of the Odyssey

Despite the extremely hot weather in Turkey lately, more than 80 youth climate activists from all over the world have met there at the Climate Advocacy Institute to collaborate on ideas of how to build up the 350 movement.
On July 15, the students took time off to visit one of the oldest amphitheaters on earth in Ephesus, Turkey, from which they all shouted out the 350 message. This site is only a few dozen kilometers away from where Homer, the author of the Odyssey, lived much of his life. While they were there, they thought about their own personal Odysseys to climate activism, and the challenges they face ahead. Before the end of the institute, the participants hope to bring their knowledge together, from each different track, to foster climate change and the 350 campaign.


The official enewsletter of the International Debate Education Association, July 24, 2009




In this issue
• Youth Forum Trainers Prepare
• Youth Forum Kicks Off Today!
• Youth Debate in Bucharest, Romania
• Climate Advocacy Institute shouts out 350 message

Submit your stories!
Have a great story to share about your IDEA experience? Send them to: cphillip@idebate.org

IDEA BLOG
For the latest IDEA news, visit and subscribe to our blog!

USA National Debate Leaders Remember Ross Smith

From Gordon Stables:

In Recognition: Ross K. Smith

Earlier this week the college debate community lost one of its most accomplished and influential coaches, leaders, mentors, and friends. Ross Kennedy Smith passed away on July 19, 2009, but his influence will be felt for many years.

In the shock of the last few days the debate community has paused and reflected on the ways in which Ross influenced us all. The tremendous outpouring of condolences and memories is a testament to how many lives Ross touched. As representatives of the three largest collegiate policy debate organizations we take this moment to remember a coaching legend.

For the last quarter century Ross, as Director of Debate, and Alan Louden, as Director of Forensics, embodied the Wake Forest University Debate team. As we celebrate Ross, we also celebrate the remarkable partnership of these two remarkable forensics educators. Together they defined a standard of excellence for all debate programs. It is not always easy to highlight their accomplishments in isolation of each other, because they both exemplify such modesty. Today we celebrate their partnership as we remember Ross.

A Wake graduate himself (’82, ’84), Ross started coaching the Demon Deacons in the fall of 1984 as he began one of the most significant coaching careers in the history of intercollegiate debate. As the Director of Debate at Wake Forest, Ross left his mark as a deeply committed and incredibly successful coach. His list of accomplishments is long and well-known. He coached the 1997 and 2008 National Debate Tournament National Champions, the 2006 and 2009 NDT 2nd place teams, was named National Coach of the Year in 1994 and 1998, and District VI Coach of the Year in 2000 and 2006. In Best of the Decade polling he was named Best Judge of the 1990's and Second Best Coach of the 1990's. He qualified more teams to the elimination rounds of the National Debate Tournament than any other coach in the last decade.

As remarkable as this list of accomplishments is, it only begins to appreciate his energy and his passion as an educator. Ross was a tireless advocate for bringing the very best from policy debate. A brilliant teacher, Ross was a mentor to Wake students of all competitive abilities. With leadership from Al and Ross the Wake Forest debate program has influenced hundreds of undergraduate and graduate students. Many fields owe a debt of thanks for the talented young professionals that learned from Ross. It is almost impossible, for example, to find a debate program untouched by Wake graduates.

Regardless of when they were involved with the team or if they were an undergraduate competitor or a graduate teaching assistant, these students fondly recall the influence Ross has on their development. Marcia Tierksy (WFU Class of ’94) explains,

"Ross was a remarkable person. He was a great mentor and a brilliant innovator. I know that I would not be the person that I am today without Ross's influence, and I could easily name 50 other people who could say the same. Ross had a great gift for making those who debated for him better. Better debaters, better thinkers, better speakers, and better people. There are no words for how much he is missed."

His influence was not just limited to those enrolled as students at Wake Forest. Ross saw competition not as a way to divide people, but as an opportunity to teach all those around him. Many of those who have shared their memories in recent days are those who competed against Ross and his Wake teams. Dan Shalmon (Berkeley, ’04) shared what is was like to compete against Wake Forest,

"Debate coaches are intensely competitive people. Rivalries can become intense, personal and mean. Races for the Copeland Award, which recognizes the best team of the course of a season can become downright ugly. Such races usually are waged between two, or at most three teams…. Ross was a mentor to me and my teammates. He was also the coach of the team we contended for the Copeland with most closely. Our race came right down the wire; our debates with Wake were exceedingly close and often infuriatingly so. Ross was always - and I mean without fail - friendly and supportive."

Ed Panetta, the Director of Forensics at the University of Georgia, himself a former Wake debate graduate assistant, noted this same experience of coaching against Ross,

"While his teams were very competitive -- he didn't project a sense of being competitive with his professional colleagues. This is a gift that fewer and fewer coaches exhibit. When Georgia was in the finals of the (1997) NDT against Wake Forest we spent most of the debate together sharing fun memories. And, he was very gracious in victory. In fact, he was the only person left to help me move [our] evidence from the ballroom that night after the dust settled."

Debate coaches and students spend a great deal of time together during the competition season, much of it at three day competitions, known as tournaments. Never content to direct countless tabulation rooms at other schools’ tournaments and host the largest regular season tournament each year, Ross always worked tirelessly to make tournaments better. As the hosts of the ‘Dixie’ (now renamed as the ‘Franklin Shirley’) college debate tournament, Ross was a driving force in improving the way that debate tournaments operate. Ross had as much influence as anyone in the last quarter-century in improving their operation.

His willingness to take risks and experiment with new practices brought many of the innovations that today the debate community takes for granted. Everything from the basic time limits for each speech, the scale used to evaluate the way in individual debaters are judged, use of precise and accurate schedules, greater transparency in pre-tournament disclosure, and groundbreaking use of computer tabulation software were innovations developed at Wake Forest.

He strove to provide great competition and legendary hospitality. It is not surprising that the annual Wake tournament was selected as the best tournament of the both the 1980s and 1990s. The humane and professionally managed tournament attracted the very best in college policy debate and is a positive memory for everyone who attended as a coach or competitor.

Ross also influenced many more students by directing Wake’s summer debate institutes for high school students, organizing public debates and teaching Debate and Advocacy at Wake Forest. His high school summer workshop and early season national high school tournament provided high quality instruction and competitive experiences for thousands of high school students from across the nation. He also edited more than twenty volumes of the "Debater's Research Guide", the most widely respected annual guide to the policy literature and arguments surrounding each year's national high school debate topics.

His service includes leadership at the national level of intercollegiate debate organizations. He served as the District IV representative to the National Debate Tournament for several terms and served on the national topic selection committee. Ross was a leading voice in making the merger of the NDT and CEDA communities possible, a tremendous step forward in the integration of our debate community. In just the last few months he played an active role in The National Development Conference on Debate, hosted at Wake Forest. He served as a member of the Best Practices Committee, a group that continued the spirit of his labors. He was a vocal and enthusiastic advocate at this forum, just as he had been his entire career.

Ross saw debate as something that was not limited to just tournament competitions. He founded the Open Source Debate Foundation, which has as its mission the connection of the research and analytic capacities of the academic debate community and its graduates to the wider political and policy communities. He cofounded DebateScoop, a community blog devoted to coverage of campaign debates led by the nation’s leading debate and political communication scholars. He was active in local Democratic Party politics, including running for the Board of Education Forsyth County, NC, in 2006. He also taught regularly at the Ben Franklin Transatlantic Fellows Initiative, a U.S. Department of State-sponsored program that brought hundreds of high school students from around the world to Wake Forest for study of civic activism.

In recognition of his exemplary service, he was named the 2009 recipient of the George Ziegelmueller Award. The award, named for the longtime coach at Wayne State University, is presented to a faculty member who has distinguished himself or herself in the communication profession while coaching teams to competitive success at the National Debate Tournament. Ziegelmueller’s son, Bill (‘91), debated at Wake Forest. Al Louden, himself a recipient of the award in 2000, presented the award.

"The Ziegelmueller award is the top award presented by the National Debate Tournament, which recognizes long-term career contributions to the national debate community, akin to a lifetime achievement award … In Ross’ case, his competitive success, coupled with being widely recognized as the leading innovator for debate practice in the country, contributed to his selection."

The generational nature of academic debate lends to a sometimes fleeting institutional memory. Students and coaches pass through each year. Some influence others as a judge, others host competitions, and still fewer truly become mentors to the next generation of talented students. Ross not only thrived in each of these roles, he set a standard for others to follow. Bill Ziegelmueller’s college debate partner, Mark Grant (’93, ‘95), expresses how Ross lives on in those he touched.

Ross's passion, intelligence, wit, willingness to challenge contemporary thinking, and kindness won't be forgotten. Ross changed the world around him for the better, in ways varying from as personal as helping troubled students to as vast as improving the quality of debates in countless places and ways. Those of us still here already miss you terribly, but beneath that, are overwhelmed by how you positively touched our lives. Coach, teacher, boss, friend, I am deeply thankful for the time you had with us.

Every person who has passed through debate in the last quarter-century has been influenced by Ross. Dallas Perkins, the Director of Debate at Harvard University described Ross as “one of the most highly respected judges in history” and “One of the greatest coaches in the history of academic debate in America has left us at a terribly young age.”

At this truly sad moment we face the future and the change that will come. This will be all the more difficult because of how important Ross was in difficult times. When circumstances warranted change, Ross was not afraid to act decisively. Within weeks of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 Ross broke with traditional tournament format to provide opportunities for extended discussions of issues affecting the nation and world following the attacks during the Franklin Shirley tournament’s public debate-ins. The process of making this happen was challenging and it required motivating an entire community to adjust its practices. Appropriately, Ross voiced the challenge,

"Look folks, there are thousands of people who WANT TO HEAR YOU. They are calling on you to debate in a way that answers their real need for something beyond the drumbeat of the media and the administration. Will you answer their call?"

For the last twenty-five years Ross answered the call with a sense of joy and energy that inspired us all. We are better for having had the pleasure of knowing him. His pioneering contributions advanced our competition practices and our activity's pedagogy single him out as a true visionary who will be dearly missed. Today we begin the difficult task of moving forward, inspired by his legacy and answering that call. It will be very difficult to experience tournament competition without him. His influence, however, will last as long as we honor his memory.

As the representatives of intercollegiate debate organizations, we recognize Ross K. Smith’s lifetime of service to our community and we express our most profound condolences to his wife Jayne, their son Alex, their entire family, Alan Louden, the entire Wake Forest debate family, and Wake Forest University.



Brent Brossman, President – American Debate Association

Tim O’Donnell, Committee Chair – National Debate Tournament

Robert C. Rowland, Chair of the Board of Trustees, National Debate Tournament

Gordon Stables, President – Cross Examination Debate Association

Amsterdam EUDC 2010 Launches Website

Image by Bettaman via Flickr

From valkanne@yahoo.com

Dear debaters of Europe,

The Free University of Amsterdam and ASDV Bonaparte are proud to present the Amsterdam bid to host Euros 2010. With the countdown to Newcastle EUDC and, thus, Euros Council, a matter of days rather than weeks now, our website should give you some information about our bid: http://www.amsterdameudc.org Should you have any more questions after visiting the site, please contact us at amsterdameudc@gmail.com

With kind regards,

Anne Valkering
prospective convenor of Amsterdam EUDC 2010

What we offer:
- Participation of 200 teams and a reg fee of 250 euros.

- Motions set by an experienced CA team: Leela Koenig, Jonathan Leader Maynard, Doug Cochran and Ross Reid McGuire

- A large and very capable pool of local judges in addition to which we will fly in judges to increase the quality of our judging pool

- Preliminary rounds at the VU Free University of Amsterdam, outrounds in Amsterdam's unique city centre with its canals, multicultural atmosphere and liberal policies.

- A variety of food until you can't eat any more, with special regard for all who want or need a special diet.

- Parties that cater to all tastes: experience Dutch club culture with its world-famous DJs, enjoy our bar culture in one of the many neighbourhood pubs and see the canals by night.

- An experienced and large organisation that can deal with any requests and problems and will do its utmost best to make this the best tournament you've been to in a long while.

If you need to find out anything more, please check out: http://www.amsterdameudc.org

Serbia Summer Debate Camp Concludes

In the mountain village of Divcibare, a tourist resort with forests, natural beauty and plenty of recreational opportunities, the Serbia Summer Debate Camp has concluded. The camp was sponsored by Serbia Open Communication, the USA Embassy and the Faculty of Organizational Sciences of the University of Belgrade.

Each day was a rigorous session of debate preparation in the WUDC format, featuring a lecture followed by drills and exercises implementing the lecture material for two hours and then another lecture before lunch. After lunch there were two full practice debates followed by lengthy critiques from staff, with eight such debates during the sessions. In the middle of the program was a five-round tournament followed by semifinals and finals. Of course, there were also the social events that Serbia is famous for, including a piglet/lamb roast on a spit, social hours, a final night party and opportunities to swim in the pool at Hotel Divcibare.

The tournament was won my Manos Moschopoulos (Greece) and Milan Krstanovic (Bosnia) over the competition of Borna Sor and Daina Oniunjas-Pusic (Croatia), Dino Ibisbegovic (Serbia) and Sloba Trivic (Montenegro), and Goran Jankulovski (Serbia) and Viktor Prlja (Serbia). The top ten speakers were:

Position	Name	Team	Total points	Average	Round 1	Round 2	Round 3	Round 4	Round 5
1	Manos Moschopoulos	Manos-Milan	398	79,59	77	78	83	80	80
2	Borna Sor	Daina-Borna	394	78,79	80	78	81	77	78
3	Mladen Sulejic	Mladen-Mirko	386	77,20	79	76	79	78	74
4	Mirko Dautovic	Mladen-Mirko	385	77,00	78	76	79	77	75
5	Daina Oniunjas-Pusic	Daina-Borna	384	76,79	82	77	78	77	70
5	Ivan Stahojevic	Ivan-Andjela	384	76,79	75	78	79	74	78
7	Marko Cirovic	Marko-Milan	382	76,40	80	70	80	77	75
7	Goran Jankulovski	Goran-Viktor	382	76,40	78	75	76	73	80
7	Dino Ibisbegovic	Sloba-Dino	382	76,40	78	77	74	79	74
10	Milan Krstanovic	Manos-Milan	381	76,20	74	75	79	77	76
10	Milan Vignjevic	Marko-Milan	381	76,20	79	69	80	78	75
10	Nebojsa Koludzic	Nebojsa-Stefan	381	76,20	81	71	74	80	75

Full tournament results can be found at http://debate.uvm.edu/usudc/usudctab0809.html

The faculty at the program included:
Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA, CA
Bojana Skrt, ZIP, Slovenia, DCA
Rhydian Morgan, Stylus Communications, UK, DCA
along with much help from visiting staff and Serbian trainers.

There was a separate Serbian language track and tournament.

A great time was had by all.

Sixth Asian Debate Institute Concludes in Korea

Students
Faculty at play

From Jason Jarvis:

The Asian Debate Institute concluded on July 20, 2009. The ADI was held at Chung Ang University in Seoul. This was the sixth installment of the annual program which brought together faculty and students from Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, Mongolia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines and the United States. 75 high school and university students participated in 5 days of intensive training.

The ADI continues to be a labor of love made possible by the dedication of the faculty who gave up summer vacation time and/or financial resources to join the staff and teach students without compensation. Our outstanding faculty were:

Logan Balavijendran (Co Director, Chung Ang University, Korea)
Jason Jarvis (Co Director, Georgia State University, USA)
Andy Hume (Paragon Academy, Korea)
Cpt. Ryan Sullivan (US Army, Camp Carroll, Korea)
NG Goh (Multimedia University, Malaysia)
Ah Young Kim (Ewha University, Korea)
Thepparith "TJ" Senamgern (Assumption University, Thailand)
Loke Wing Fatt (SAID, Singaore)
Miji Choi (Ewha University, Korea)
Christy Bradley (Emory University, USA)
Sunhee Kim (Incheon University, Korea)
Omar Salahuddin (UT Mara, Malaysia)
Sharmila Parmanand (Ateneo De Manila University, Philippines)

33 teams competed in a 7 round, 3 day tournament at the conclusion of the workshop presided over by Chief Adjudicator Omar Salahuddin and DCAs Sharmila Parmanand and NG Goh. Christy Bradley served as Tabulations Director. The tournament was unique this year as it had non-workshop participants who entered for the first time. Additionally, high school and college students debated against each other and were allowed to enter as mixed teams.

The high school teams proved to be formidable as the team from KMLA (Korea Minjok Leadership Academy) achieved the rank of 2nd seed and lost in the semi-finals on a controversial 2-1 decision. Team member Sung Ah Yoon was the 2nd Speaker in the tournament. The Grand Final Champion was team "3 Hot Debaters" led by Top Speaker Hannah Jung from Ewha University.

Finally, the ADI is please to announce that it will be making a donation to Iraq Debate to help Muhammad Duhoki in his efforts to spread debate in Iraq.

--
Jason Jarvis

Director, Asian Debate Institute
http://asiandebateinstitute.com

USA 2009-2010 Policy Debate Topic Announced -- Nukes

Image via Wikipedia

From Jeff Jarman:

Cross Examination Debate Association newsletter: Topic Announcement
Resolution Two (Size, Role, Mission) was selected as the topic for the 2009
– 2010 season. The awards amendment passes. A complete breakdown of
voting and a list of the school that voted is below.

RESOLUTION VOTE 66 ballots were submitted. The first count of
first-place votes was: Res 1 (Posture): 18 votes Res 2 (Size, Role,
Mission): 23 votes Res 3 (List): 25 votes

So, Res 1 was dropped, and its votes were transferred to Res 2 & 3.

The second count of first-place votes was:

Res 2: 35 votes

Res 3: 30 votes



So, Res 2 wins with a majority of the first-place votes.



Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce the
size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or substantially reduce and restrict
the role and/or missions of its nuclear weapons arsenal.

AMENDMENT Passes on a vote of 31-21.

LIST OF SCHOOLS THAT VOTED
AppState Arizona State University Augustana College binghamton
university Boston College Cal California State University Northridge CSU
Fullerton CUNY Dartmouth College Emory University Fayetteville State
University George Mason University George Washington University Georgetown
University Georgia State University Gonzazga University Harvard Idaho State
University JCCC JMU John Carroll University Kansas State University Liberty
University Louisiana Lafayette Macalester College Marist College Michigan
State University Missouri State Northwestern Univeristy Pepperdine
University Puget Sound Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute richmond Sac State
Samford University San Francisco State University Texas The University of
Michigan Trinity University U Northern Iowa UMKC University of Central
Oklahoma University of Florida University of Georgia University of Iowa
University of Kansas University of Mary Washington University of Miami
University of Minnesota University of North Texas University of Oklahoma
University of Pittsburgh University of Rochester University of Texas at
Dallas university of west georgia UNLV USC UW Oshkosh Wake Forest Wayne
State University West Virginia University Western Connecticut State
University Whitman College Wichita State Wyoming

Ross Smith, American Policy Debate Coach, Suddenly Passes Away

A shock for so many of us. Here are some comments.

Posted on behalf of Dr. Allan Louden (louden at wfu.edu):

I am very sorry to share the news that Ross Smith passed away around 6 pm
Sunday from a massive heart attack.
The loss to our community is obvious to all who were friends with Ross.
There are no details yet, but I or others from the Wake Forest Program will
share them as we know more.
I am in Greece but am in contact with folks in Winston-Salem and will be in
touch as appropriate.

Josh Hoe, Michigan:

There are many better people to say what they feel about Ross than me, I
just want to say that my whole heart goes out to every Deamon Deac tonight,
to his family, and to all of us who will miss Ross terribly.

Thanks for everything Ross you were truly the best, a giant, and had a huge
impact on me and on debate,

Shock doesnt cover my feelings, RIP,

Josh

Dallas Perkins, Harvard:

One of the greatest coaches in the history of academic debate in America
has left us at a terribly young age. Our thoughts go out to the entire
Wake Forest Debate Family.

dp

David Hingtman, Iowa:

He was as enthusiastic, friendly, and generous a forensic educator
and competitor as we have ever known. He will be sorely missed.

Dr. Dave

Jon Bruschke, Fullerton:

I really can't say how much I'll miss Ross, or how much I admired him. He and I should have been natural enemies, as different in style are argument choice we were, but I loved the guy, and never had a conversation with him where the betterment of our greater community wasn't at the bottom of our heart. He was always such a constant, setting the standard of excellence for everyone. Truly one of the greats our activity has ever seen.

Jon

Steve Mancuso:

Ross Smith stood for progress, integrity, excellence, teaching, and dedication.

His profound influence in these areas will be sustained through the enormous network of debaters and coaches he has mentored.

And I'm so sad for having lost such a true friend tonight.

Mike Hester:

As the current chair of District VI, my heart goes out to the family
of Ross Smith. All of his loved ones are in my thoughts and prayers.

The best chair our district ever had - heck, we only let him opt out
because we felty guilty for leaning on him so much.

Since the time I first entered college debate in 1989, no individual
has done more to influence our activity than Ross Smith.

"I heart D6" was inspired by Ross' words and enacted by his works.

Sad to see him leave us, but ever grateful for what he left us.

Dr. Michael Hester
Associate Dean, Honors College
& Dircector of Debate
University of West Georgia

WUPID 2009 Announcement of Adjudication Core

Image by خليفه خله على كيفه →♥ via Flickr

From http://wupidmania.wordpress.com/

December 19 – 23, 2009

Introducing The Final Adjudication Core Line-Up For WUPID 2009

Dubbed the ’surprise recession’ adjudication core line-up for WUPID 2009, one might presume that the quality of the current line-up is no where close to the line-ups of 2008 and 2007, but that is why it is all a surprise. Below are the list of the adjudication core. You can can be view the list here as well.

Dr. Omar Salahuddin (Chief Adjudicator)

In many ways Omar is a perfect adjudicator. It is the little things that spoils him - the Jabba the Hutt look. But I could care less. Omar could accidentally forget to close the doors on a flying plane, for instance. But to me, these are minor errors. These are evidence of human fallibility. What I cannot abide is the wilful lack of interest in adjudication that ruins interest and motivation in debating.

His love and concern for people’s interest and spirit is fascinating. Despite quitting smoking, Omar would never design a ciggarette packet shaped like a penis, or covered in curry. A hands on person that will make sure that not even one would ever refuse to light, or explode when burnt.

In Malayisa, you sometimes get a beetle in your chocolate shake or an earwig in your curry. But at WUPID, with Omar, every single round is just as you would expect - a perfectly tailored adjudication delivery service.

Saiful Amin (Senior Private Secretary to the Chief Adjudicator)

When people are too paralysed with fear in a real emergency, they look for hope. Saiful is NOT that hope. He’s just fun.

Naomi Oreb (Deputy Chief Adjudicator)

The world of debating has stopped producing boring-looking debaters. I almost immediately like her. Her styling is right and her approach to debate is both extraordinarily savage and graceful.

Sherrie Razak (Deputy Chief Adjudicator)

As an obstacle for stopping a stampede, Sherrie is as good as a sack of muddy spinach. The best thing about Sherrie though, is how she makes you feel after arguing with her on peace related issues - she makes you feel really middle class.

Jason Jarvis (Deputy Chief Adjudicator)

The passion for debate on this guy is astonishing. He has a supercharged drive for debating that attempts on making his debate-drive any better, would be like nailing a wooden plank on the Taj Mahal - unnecessary.

Dr. Kamalan Jeeva (Deputy Chief Adjudicator)

You can actually feel your face coming off when you debate against this guy!

Klass van Shelven (Tab Director)

You might have not noticed. But your life has been drowned by works of geniuses who are Germans. Albert Einstien is German, Levi Strauss is German, Beethoven is German, Claudia Schiffer is German, Adolf Hitler is German, Franz Beckenbauer is German, Michael Schumacher is German . . . And Klaas is German as well.

Fairuz Zafirah Merican (Deputy Tab Director)

I simply do not know how those tab people could manage the first round of debate at all. And what’s more, I don’t really have much of a clue about how they do the following rounds either. Then again . . . Fairuz has OCD.

WUDC Phase One Registration Ends

Image via Wikipedia

From h.s.arik@kocworlds2010.com

As you know, the deadline for the second stage of registration was the 17th of July. This means the prepayment of EUR100 per head should already been paid. If you have not started the payment process yet, please do not make the payment hereafter. We will delete the institutions who did not make the payment by the 17th of July. Also please note that we have no refund policy for the second stage. We will not be able to pay you back your money if you pay next week.

Of course, those who have paid on the last day of the phase should not worry. We will not delete any teams from the list before the 24th of July since the maximum transaction time from anywhere around the world to Turkey is 1 week. But this does NOT mean that It is okay if you pay next week and we receive it before the 24th. We are able to see the actual day you make the payment, and we will show no mercy to those who make the payment next week. We hope you understand why we are doing this so, there are more than 100 institutions in the waiting list.

If you are one of those who had payment difficulties and informed us before the deadline, you do not need to respond to this email by restating your condition. What we said previously in our emails is still binbing.
Those in the waiting list, after the 24th of July, we will let you know if you make it to the main list. All offers to those in the waiting will be made via email and has to be accepted in 3 days. We will have to offer that place to the next institution in the waiting list in case of the failure of accept within those 3 days.

Lastly, If you think the confirmation of your payment is delayed, we kindly ask you wait for two more days until we check the bank account on monday. We hope that you will appreciate the difficulty we have had in ensuring that we get this right.

Let me know if you have further questions regarding the second stage.

Hope to see you in December,

--
Hasan Sadik Arik
Director of Registration & Communications,
The Vehbi Koc World Universities Debating Championships 2010
E-mail: h.s.arik@kocworlds2010.com
Web: www.kocworlds2010.com

"Debate Team" Documentary Shows Ruthless USA Policy College Debating

From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/17/DDLO18NCN6.DTL

Review: 'Debate Team' a feast of ruthlessness

David Wiegand, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, July 17, 2009

Debate Team: Edited and directed by B. Douglas Robbins, produced by Robbins and Joseph W. Walling. 5:30 p.m. Sunday, KQED.

Back in high school, debate teams may have ranked just above audiovisual clubs in the social pecking order, but Bay Area filmmaker B. Douglas Robbins takes us inside the kill-or-be-killed world of obsessive arguers at a college level to suggest that these nerdy young men and women will either take over the world some day, or represent it in court.

"Debate Team," a Truly CA documentary airing Sunday on KQED, focuses on the 2005 national debate tournament in which the UC Berkeley team of Stacey Nathan and Craig Wickersham came from behind to beat Dartmouth in the finals at UC San Francisco.

That's no mean feat, considering that some 180 teams were competing, but the film is much more than a "Bad News Bears" of the debate world: It's an often compelling, and even scary, look at people who spend hours and hours without sleep or showers, researching topics and amassing files of data which are culled down to debate length through a process called "cutting cards."

If you think a debate is a staid, gentlemanly (or gentlewomanly) event where each side quietly offers either an affirmative or contrary argument, Robbins and his subjects are here to show you otherwise. The goal of presenting a good debate is to pack as many arguments into a six-minute period as possible, to give your opponents so much to chew on that they choke. To do that, debaters stand in over-lit meeting rooms and rattle off their positions like tobacco auctioneers, gasping every few hundred words for breath. "Sometimes you just have to deal with drool and spit," one debater offers.

And sometimes, you have to deal with a degree of depression and personality disorder - one debater insists unconvincingly that the practice is not nihilistic. "You never hear the possibility of human extinction discussed so much as in debates," another debater concedes. Topics usually range from world political crises, to global warming, to the depletion of fossil fuels.

While it's fascinating hearing today's herd of debaters, we also get incredible and rather sad insight from Michael Miller, one of the most victorious debaters ever, who racked up win after win after win, only to see it all end when he lost the nationals in 1969. He had no plan for his life after that tournament and 40 years later, he's still wounded by the loss.

Debaters are ruthless strategists, who must be willing to "kill the puppy," in debate parlance - to unnerve their opponents at every opportunity. They have to think on their feet and be prepared for anything from the other side.

"Debate is primarily about psychology," offers a seasoned debate coach, but the fascinating aspect of Robbins' film is what we learn about the psychology of the debaters themselves. One kid tells us he tried and failed at every sport imaginable in high school, only to find his niche in debating. One of the most intriguing characters is Aaron Hardy, a debater from Michigan State University who was formerly known as Mountain Man because of his beard, long hair and aversion to soap and water. Listening to him talk, you almost think he'd literally kill a puppy to win. And when his side loses, the intensity of his unspoken rage is downright frightening.

Robbins has done a terrific job detailing a world that seems almost entirely disconnected from the rest of us. The editing of the film makes it a bit challenging here and there as Robbins skips back and forth from the 2005 finals in San Francisco, to earlier tournaments. You may have some difficulty remembering who's who at various points, as well, because the fast-talking heads aren't always identified. Given how many of them we hear from, it probably would be helpful to ID them more frequently.

That said, "Debate Team" is a surprisingly comprehensive look into a world where winning is really the only thing, for better or worse.

Want to make something of it?

E-mail David Wiegand at dwiegand@sfchronicle.com.

Verbattle Vertex - Huge Debate Competition in India

From http://www.mangalorenews.info/sports/verbattle-debating-competition-for-school-and-college-students-to-be-held-from-1st-august-2009-in-mangalore/690/

Jul 13

Report by: R K Media – Tuesday 14th July 2009

Mangalore: Verbattle Vertex, the biggest state level debate tournament for school and college students was announced at a press conference here today. The debate tournament will be held in the three key zones of Bengaluru, Mangalore and Hubli. Verbattle Vertex is being managed and conducted by TV House Network (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., a well known media and production house operating from Bangalore.

The participants for Verbattle Junior and Verbattle Senior are students ranging in the age group of 12 to 24 years. Verbattle Junior zonal selection will be held on August 1st and 2nd .Verbattle Senior zonal selection round will be held on August 3rd and 4th, 2009. The semi-finals and the finals will be held in Bangalore on August 14, 2009.

The founder and chief of Verbattle Deepak Thimaya, will Supervise the event and the event will see participation by more than 300 schools/colleges from Mangalore Zone with a reach of around 3000 schools/colleges from across Karnataka.

Serbia Summer Debate Camp Begins

Piglet and lamb roasting on a spit

We are in the mountains of Serbia in a beautiful resort village called Divcibare. We are surrounded by pine trees and cool breezes. Yesterday some 70 people assembled here at two of the hotels in the complex to begin the camp.

There was an introductory session where the trainers were introduced, a short video was shown and I gave a few remarks about how debate in Serbia has changed since I was first here 13 years ago. While in those old days people came from outside to teach debate, now people come from outside to learn debate. Then there was an international demonstration debate featuring debaters from Serbia, Croatia, the UK and the USA on the motion, THBT governments should subsidize print journalism. No vote was taken and the crowd seemed to thoroughly enjoy this friendly event.

Then it was adjournment (after a brief staff meeting) to the site of the evenings festivities, the cooking of a lamb and a piglet on a pit over an open fire. The jolly mood continued and (in traditional Serbian style) late into the night.

The camp has been organized by Milan Vignevic and Marko Cirovic of the Faculty of Organizational Sciences at the University of Belgrade. They have received substantial support from the USA embassy and one faculty member (myself, Alfred Snider) was brought over on a USA Department of State guest speaker grant.

More news, events and pictures coming up. There will be many videos when I have the chance to upload them. We have a tournament that begins on Saturday.

Photos from World Schools Debate Academy in Slovenia

View from the window at the camp hotel in Zrece

Semifinalists from Qatar

First Place from Slovenia - "Hair"

Semifinalists from Croatia

Judges in final round

Faculty David Register & Ruth Zisman, University of Vermont

British Council in India Holds National Schools Debate Contest

From http://www.indiaedunews.net/Delhi/Unique_school_debate_competition_to_be_held_again_8712/

Unique school debate competition to be held again

July 14, 2009

---

New Delhi: After the success of the debate programme last year, British Council has planned to repeat the success story yet again by announcing the second year of its unique national schools' debate programme titled "Debating Matters India".

The schools keen in participating in the debate have been asked by the Council to participate in the online elimination test for an exhilarating national debating competition for high school students on issues which concerns them in their day-to-day lives.

The last date of entry for the online elimination test is August 31.

The debate competition has a successful record in schools' across the United Kingdom, and it is less formal than the conventional debating competitions.

It is a highly meticulous debate and the students have to delve thoroughly into relevant topics to make arguments convincing.

The new format introduces students to an insight into the world of ideas.

The debate received a tremendous response in India last year as a pilot year programme.

Usually in the conventional debates, teachers write down the speeches and train their students with a stopwatch, whereas, in this debate, students will think for themselves and speak impromptu, for this the students must understand the given topic completely.

"This debate has an excellent format that focuses on the substance and depth rather than the superficial gloss and style. The students are avidly engaged and exceptionally well-prepared," said Ranjana Bhattacharya, Teacher, St. Xaviers Collegiate School, Kolkata.

"Debating Matters India" is open across the country for students of Class XI and Class XII.

Each school will be allowed to register only one team but will be encouraged to register a six-member debate team along with a debate coordinator teacher from the online elimination stage itself.

The schools can be a part of the competition by giving the Online Elimination Test (OET), which is the first stage of the competition.

Once the registration is done online, the team has to download a topic guide from which they will prepare for the OET.

After the completion of the test, the team has to submit their answers online that will be examined by British Council examiners.

The teams' selection will be based on the answers they have given at the OET.

After the completion of the entire process, the 12 short listed schools from each region will be provided with a seeding based on their performance in the OET.

The schools can register themselves by logging on to www.britishcouncil.org.in/debatingmattersindia.

South African Universities Results

Image via Wikipedia

JoziSpeak 2009 results

Results from JoziSpeak 2009 (South African Universities Champs), hosted by Wits University last week, from Richard Stupart's blog:

Winners of the EFL (English First Language) category:

Chris McConnachie and Michael Anderson from Rhodes University

Winners of the ESL (English Second Language) category:

Ayanda Siyuyu and Bonga Malewa from the University of Cape Town

Best EFL Speaker:

Daniel de Kadt from the UNiversity of KwaZulu Natal

Best ESL Speaker:

Albert Titus from the University of Namibia

Best New EFL Speaker:

Michael Anderson from Rhodes University. Incorrectly announced originally as Razina Thokan from Wits University, as the committee – in great excitement – never thought to consider that the winning team might have a first-year debater in it.

Best New ESL Speaker:

Mhlanganisi Madlongolwai from the University of the Free State

Best Public Speaker:

Leon Jamaine Mithi from Wits University

Best New Adjudicator:

Nezi Ndamasa from the University of the Free State

Best Adjudicator:

Deborah Nixon from The University of Pretoria

Full Australs Results

Image via Wikipedia

Hopefully now these are also correct.

Australs 2009 Full Results

2009 Australasian Intervarsity Debating Champions: Monash University 1(Amit Golder, Tim Jeffrie, Fiona Prowse)

Runners-Up: Victoria University of Wellington 1 (Polly Higbee, StephenWhittington, Ella Edginton)

Grand Final Topic: "That Palestine should accept demilitarisation inreturn for a guaranteed sovereign state"

Martin Sorensen Cup for Best Speaker: Amit Golder

Jock Faneslow Cup for Best Speaker in the Grand Final: Amit Golder

The Top 10 Speakers:
1. Amit Golder (Monash University)
2. Claudia Newman-Martin (Australian National University)
3. Tim Jeffrie (Monash University)
4. Chris Croke (University of Sydney Union)
5. Fiona Prowse (Monash University)
6. Sam Greenland (University of Sydney Union)
7. Max Harris (University of Auckland)
7. Viv Jones (Monash University)
9. Su-Min Lim (University of New South Wales)
9. Steve Hind (University of Sydney Union)
9. Tim Mooney (University of Sydney Union)

Grand Final Adjudicators:
Leloy Claudio (Ateneo de Manila) (DCA) (Chair)
Suthen "Tate" Thomas (Multimedia University Cyberjaya)
Sharmila Parmanand (Ateneo de Manila)
Logan Balavijendran (Chung Ang University)
Art Ward (University College, Cork)
Harish Natarajan (Cambridge University)
Julia Bowes (University of Sydney)
Jason Jarvis (Korea Development Institute) (DCA)
Sadhana Rai (National University of Singapore)

Defeated Semi-Finalists: University of Sydney Union 1 (Tim Mooney, Steve Hind, Chris Croke) and Monash University 4 (Viv Jones, Ravi Dutta, Nita Rao)

2009 Australasian Intervasrsity Debating Champions – ESL DIVISION: University of Indonesia 1 (Tirza Reinata, Intan Hadidjah, Freida Siregar)

ESL Runner-up: The Chinese University of Hong Kong 1 (Doriane Lau, Dominic Yang, Mary Jean Chan)

ESL Grand Final Topic: "That ASEAN should establish a Human Rights Court"

The Top 5 ESL Speakers:
1. Tirza Reinata (University of Indonesia)
2. Melanie Tedja (Monash University)
3. Aishwarya Nair (Assumption University)
4. JiSoo Kim (Korea University)
5. Freida Siregar (University of Indonesia)
5. Minjae Matthias (Underwood International College)

ESL Grand Final Adjudicators:
Jacob Clifton (Monash University) (CA)
Duncan Campbell (University of Melbourne)
Chanelle Carr-Janif (Australian National University)
Masako Suzuki (Kanagawa University)
Mabroor Wassey (Bangladesh Debating Council)
Clodagh O'Connor-McKenna (Victoria University of Wellington)
Zid Niel Mancenido (Australian National University)
Pam Chan (Ateneo de Manila)
Brad Ward (University of Auckland)

Defeated ESL Semi-Finalists: University of Tokyo (Dai Oba, Ryotaro Tanaka, Atsushi Inutsuka) and International Christian University 1 (Miyuki Nozu, Ayana Shimizu, Keiichi Ishiwata)

Adjudication team:
Chief Adjudicator: Jacob Clifton (Monash University)
Deputy Chief Adjudicator: Jason Jarvis (Korea Development Institute)
Deputy Chief Adjudicator: Leloy Caludio (Ateneo de Manila)
Deputy Chief Adjudicator: Sayeqa Islam (Victoria University ofWellington)

Tab Director: Michael Ciesielski (University of Melbourne)

TOPICS:

Round 1: Education
That extra fees or donations above the actual cost of education should not be used to gain admission into university.
That talented students should be taught separately from their peers.
That indigenous people should have free and unqualified access touniversity

Round 2: Global Financial Crisis
That Governments should bail out homeowners directly.
That trade unions should have their power restricted during times of economic crisis.
That Governments should obtain a majority stake in companies that they bail out.

Round 3: Sexuality
That the gay rights movement should not support the institution ofmarriage.
That we should recognise the right of religious groups to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
That sexual education classes at school should include, but not be limited to: sexual orientation, anal sex, mutual gratification andmasturbation.

Round 4: The Environment
That population control should be part of any global approach to tackle climate change.
That protection of the environment should be considered a mitigating factor when sentencing eco-terrorists.
That the developed world should not sell contaminated material to the developing world for processing.

Round 5: Borders
That soliders who have fought for foreign countries should be granted citizenship within the country that they fought for.
That this house would open all borders.
That the US should grant citizenship to all Guantanamo detainees regardless of guilt.

Round 6: Latin America
That the United States should stop funding the Columbian Government.
That Latin American countries should take action against countries whose leaders took power through military coups.
That the United States should stop buying Hugo Chavez's oil.

Round 7: Law
That single parents in prison should be provided special treatment to allow them to raise their young children from behind bars.
That parliamentarians should receive no compensation beyond their base salary.
That employees of the United States Government who authorised or carried out "enhanced interrogation techniques" during the Bush administration should be prosecuted.

Round 8: The "STOP" round
That we should ban celebrities from participating in political campaigns.
That we should ban mail-order brides.
That we should ban the use and development of all unmanned offensive military weaponry.

Quarter Finals
That businesses should refuse to comply with China's internet restrictions.
That the hiring and firing by employers should not be influenced by information found on social networking sites.
That the Government should subsidise print journalism.

Semi-finals (wording TBC)
That we should not privatise water
This House supports a global free market in drugs
This House supports buying babies

Grand Final
That Palestine should accept demilitarisation in return for a guaranteed sovereign state.
That we should grant the Roma (Gypsies) a sovereign state.
That we should divide Sudan.

Iraq Debate Attempts to Raise Funds for WUDC

From Muhammad Duhoki

Dear Sir/Madam

Iraq Debate wishes to continue spreading debate in Iraq as a positive initiative in this country during a transition period of instability.

We are starting from the north and our destination is the farthest South of Iraq but the nature of our situation is currently somewhat difficult. There is a lack of understanding of the role debate can play in creating and stabilizing a complex and multi-ethnic society. In a time of many challenges it is difficult for people to accept the need for training Iraqi youth for a better tomorrow -- a time when disagreement can be used constructively to solve problems and not just to divide people.

Now, we are facing a problem of a lack of funding as the income of students in Iraq is very low. We are seeking funds to partially cover our trip to Turkey for the World Universities Debating Championship. Each student who can attend the World Universities Debating Championships can return as an ambassador for debating and have a huge impact training and sharing with others.

Iraq Debate has several teams now registered to attend the World Universities Debating Championships to be held in December-January in Antalya, Turkey. We have teams and enthusiasm and some financial support, but we are just a bit short and the time draws near to pay up or drop out.

Please help us improve Iraqi Society through making people familiar with tolerance and understand the power of diversity, love of free speech, and appreciate the value of fair dialogue and informed decision-making procedures.

Help us improve the lives of Iraqi citizens by supporting our efforts to instill passion for learning in the hearts of Iraqi students. Students will go further in life with the ability to think logically, the ability to present complex ideas clearly, a keen ear to listen well to the words of others, a wide but deep knowledge of the Iraqi society, a proactive desire to solve both Iraqi and world problems, and confidence to do all that, and keep on moving ahead. Students of debate find new reasons to make the most of their education and strive to become better, more informed people in an imperfect world.

Please help us to replace conflict with constructive debate. The lives of debaters, the people in their lives and the future of Iraqi leadership and of Iraqi society will only benefit from any financial help you can give now.

If you could help Iraq Debate students debators it would be greatly appreciated.

For donation please visit this page

www.iraqdebate.org/donate.htm

Thank you for your cooperation.

Muhammad Duhoki

Director, Iraq Debate

Note: please send an email to donate@iraqdebate.org when you are donating to save your name in our database and keep it.

World Schools Debate Academy Concludes in Slovenia

The five round tournament at the World Schools Debate Academy has been concluded. The semifinal and final rounds are now concluded. Here are the results.

Vanja Vrecic of Slovenia was the top speaker, followed by Zan Zveplan and Damjan Denkovski. The team called Hair from Slovenia (Zan, Monika Sobocan and Damjan) defeated the team called Big Bang (Vanja Vrfecic, Barbara Zitek and Tamara Juricic) 5-0 in the finals. In the semifinals Big Bang defeated Team Croatia (Ema Karwelic, Nives Orlic, Matea Tomasic) and also the team called Hair advanced over Lawnmowers (from Qatar) (Mohammed Al Sabbagh, Mohammed Hubrack and Moiz Bohra).

The tournament followed a previous wek of instruction with debates, exercises, lectures and elective classes lasting all day each day. Look for lots of videos coming up soon.

The event took place in the beautiful small town of Zrece in the mountains of Slovenia and in a delightful place to stay and eat, Hotel Smogavsc.

Thanks to all of the faculty:
Rhydian Morgan, UK
David Register, USA
Bojana Skrt, Slovenia
Alfred Snider, USA
Ruth Zisman, USA

The great instructors who helped students endlessly deserve thanks:
Maja Cimerman
Filip Dobranic
Anna England-Kerr

More photos coming!

Next year -- bigger and better.

Debater Becomes USA National Storytelling Champ

Image via Wikipedia

From http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-new-trier-debator-10-jul10,0,4902788.story

New Trier grad wins storytelling title in national speech tournament

No debate about it -- Frank Austin is a champ

By Courtney Flynn |Special to the Tribune

July 10, 2009

Recent New Trier Township High School graduate Frank Austin lived and breathed debate for four years, attending speech camps to perfect his skills and traveling to tournaments across the country to compete.

Last month, his hard work paid off when he won the storytelling category at the National Forensic League's National Speech & Debate Tournament in Birmingham, Ala.

The win meant Austin became New Trier's first national champion in speech or debate since 1975, said Monica O'Connor, New Trier's speech coach. It also meant a $500 scholarship for Austin and what he characterized as a "really big trophy."

"To be on stage and to hear my name called, it was really exhilarating," said Austin, 18, of Winnetka. "The championship meant the world to my coaches and to my school and to my speech team."

Austin and other members of the New Trier Speech and Debate Team practiced and competed at the national tournament for a full week. Austin initially vied in a category called duo interpretation, in which he and a partner, Hana Bajramovic, performed a scene from a play, "The Glass Room" by Ryan Craig, about Holocaust denial.

When they failed to advance far enough in that category, Austin entered to compete in storytelling. He ended up performing a five-minute piece involving a scared, young girl from Ray Bradbury's 1957 book, "Dandelion Wine."

That last-minute entry and performance landed Austin the national championship in storytelling.

"This guy is so talented he can do anything he wants in life," O'Connor said. "He knows how to go after something he wants."

Austin said he will spend the summer working at a Chicago law firm as an assistant clerk. In the fall, he will attend Fordham University in New York, where he plans to study math and economics before pursuing law school.

"I have to tell you, for four years, I pictured myself on stage as a national champion," Austin said. "But when I won, I really came to this realization ... that it's not about the destination, it's about the journey."

Louisville Debate Coach Denies Allegations

From http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090710/NEWS01/907100376/U+of+L+professor+accused+of+arson+denies+charges

Ede Warner Jr. read a statement proclaiming his innocence during a news conference Friday. His attorney Mike Goodwin looked on at left. (By Chris Quay, The Courier-Journal)

University of Louisville professor Ede Warner Jr. has denied allegations that he set fire to his house Sunday while his wife and one of their children were inside.

Warner, a 16-year tenured professor of pan-African studies and debate coach, faces felony arson, wanton endangerment and assault charges in the incident, which Warner said was the first domestic disturbance between him and his wife in their 16 years of marriage.

"I want to publicly maintain that I am 100 percent innocent of all of these charges," he said at a news conference Friday at his attorney's office.

"I am a deeply passionate and compassionate man who loves his family very much," he said, reading from a statement.

According to authorities, a daylong dispute between Warner and his wife, Motriyo Isles-Warner, escalated with Warner "throwing things around the house, destroying things."

Maj. Henry Ott, chief arson investigator for Louisville Fire & Rescue, said Warner allegedly threw his wife's coat on the stove, setting it on fire, while his wife and one of their children were upstairs in a locked bedroom.

Warner yelled to his wife that the house was on fire and all three got out unharmed, Ott said. The Warners' home, in the 11000 block of Deutsch Farm Road, received minor damage to the stove and kitchen.

Warner also allegedly threw Isles-Warner on a sofa and the floor.

Warner was charged with arson for "intentionally setting fire to a building when it is occupied," Ott said.

Warner did not address any direct questions at the news conference.

Mike Goodwin, his attorney, said his client would not answer questions until they go through the litigation process.

"Dr. Warner would love to have his side of the story heard, but unfortunately you have to wait and have that heard in a court of law and not the court of public opinion," Goodwin said.

Warner will begin getting help from the university's Employee Assistance Plan next week, which provides assistance for emotional, behavioral, family and marital problems. He plans to teach during the fall semester.

"He wants to reassure the University of Louisville and the students that he has there that he's still the same Dr. Warner that they've had in the past," Goodwin said.

University spokesman Mark Hebert said the school supports Warner's decision to work with the assistance program.

"We're concerned about the charges against Professor Warner and we'll continue to monitor the situation," he said in an e-mailed statement.

Warner helped the university's debate team adopt a hip-hop and theatrical style. He also recruited black students with little or no debate experience, creating one of the more diverse squads in the nation.

Urban Debate Camp Comes to Texas

From urbandebatecamp@yahoo.com

“URBAN DEBATE CAMP RETURNS FOR SECOND YEAR, CONTINUING TO PAVE WAY FOR SUCCESS - Experienced and Novice students return to camp, taking their Forensic events to the next level of competition.”

After an extremely successful first year, Rodney Mays and the Urban Debate Camp are prepared to raise the standards of the important program to the next level. The camp will be held again at Prairie View A&M University, staring Sunday, July 12th and will end Saturday, July 18th. Over 25 students will be introduced to an array of Speech and Debate events that they will use to be successful in their high school forensic programs. Events include Poetry, Prose, Extemporaneous Speaking, Impromptu, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Duet Acting, Parliamentary Debate, and Lincoln – Douglas Debate.

Throughout the academic year high schools across the Houston area, State of Texas, and the nation compete in each of these events. As the year progresses, the competitions are narrowed down to the State and then National level. The goal of Urban Debate Camp is to educate its attendants about the events as well as thorough training in each of them so that the students can compete at every level of competition successfully. Last year, many of the camp’s attendants placed in the Final rounds of many of these events, and even had several students place at national competitions. Taylor Hicks, surprised the debate community as a novice, having attended the camp, and consistently ranked in the top 8 at local tournaments for her events. Brandon Barnes, a recent graduate from Westside High School, place in the top 8 at Nationals for his events as well. Other students started programs at their high school and each saw varying degrees of success in an atmosphere many of them would not have been exposed to if it were not for the Urban Debate Camp.

All of last year’s coaches will return including Brandon Barnes and Taylor Hicks, to coach at the events they were successful in. Also, Luis Baez, a junior year debater for Texas State University, who has ranked in the top ten for Parliamentary Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking and Impromptu at national college level tournaments, will be joining the staff to teach the students advanced debate skills. The last day of camp will feature a showcase, where all students will perform what they learned in front of their friends and family.

If you would like more information about this event, or to schedule an interview with Rodney Mays, feel free to call at 281-773-6343, or send an email to urbandebatecamp@yahoo.com

IDEA News for July

From cphillip@idebate.org

Climate Advocacy Institute features engaging debates on the Aegean coast
Facilitators are posting Institute video as the action happens. Watch them all on BlipTV or our blog.

From instructor David Douglass:
The Debate and Argumentation track at the CAI has gotten off to a terrific start. Our group is comprised of a wide range of nationalities and interests, but everyone shares a passion for public advocacy. We began our first week by getting to know each other, and then established a grounding in debate and argument theory.

We discussed the classical roots of democratic societies, and examined the ways that public discourse contributes to social change. We zeroed in on fundamental skills of affirmative and negative argumentation, cross examination, and points of information. After that, we covered various styles of debate, with a focus on British Parliamentary, World Schools, and Karl Popper.

Each session involves a great deal of engagement and varied exercises that bring participants together for discussion and argument, so there's never a dull moment. Yesterday, we held our first full set of debates, with four-person teams and adjudication — it was a blast!

Passionate arguments made in the open air next to the gentle waves of the dark-blue Aegean — what could be better than that? Beachcombers stopped to listen, and even the seagulls seemed impressed by the authority of our rhetoric.

Next week, our work will culminate in a grand competition involving topics related to the environment. Stay tuned!
David Douglass is Interim Dean to the College of Liberal Arts, and a professor of Rhetoric and Media Studies at Willamette University

IDEA and DebateWise to hold
first World Online Debate Championship
Debatewise and IDEA are proud to announce the first ever World Online Debating Championship and formally invite you to take part.

This is an innovative competition and presents a new form of debating. 32 countries will take each other on in a knockout tournament open to anyone.

It takes place over the Internet, so you can participate from any place at any time. Debate with people from all over the world, and get to understand them better, all without leaving home. Plus, you have a full 24 hours to craft your arguments to perfection.

The competition is being run by Debatewise in collaboration with the International Debate Education Association; Chief Adjudicator is Neill Harvey-Smith, the President of the World’s Debating Council. Round 1 will start on August 10th and the winner will be declared on September 21st.

To find out more, including how to enter, please email dc@debatewise.com or visit DebateWise and we’ll be delighted to help. The closing date for registration is Sunday, July 19th.

IDEA-NJFL Nationals a huge success
The seventh annual National Middle School Forensics Tournament was held June 26-28, 2009 at St. Mary’s Hall in San Antonio, Texas, and co-sponsored by IDEA and the National Junior Forensic League (NJFL). Attending the tournament were more than 240 students from 35 schools spanning 13 states, the territory of Saipan and the guest country of South Korea. Those students constituted more than 550 entries across a dozen speech and debate events.

Champion students in each of the events included:
Policy Debate: Aritra Biswas & Shalina Chatlani, St. Andrew’s Episcopal
Student Congress: Alexa Palomo, St. Mary’s Hall
Lincoln-Douglas (Co-Champions): Ben Liu & Michael Portal, Sidney Lanier
Public Forum: Viveka Advani & Nikita Datta, Capitol Debate
Prose: Callum Morrison, St. Mary’s Hall
Poetry: Sahil Bhaiwala, The Pike School
Humorous Interpretation: Jared Naylor, St. Mary’s Hall
Dramatic Interpretation: Dane Schnake, Raymore-Peculiar
Impromptu: Harry Wood, The Pike School
Extemporaneous Speaking: Gregory Ross, Sidney Lanier
Original Oratory: Caroline Ford, Stonewall Academy
Duo Interpretation: Parker Evans and Bryce Prior, Brentwood Academy

For more details, visit the National Forensic League.

Teachers of Entebbe, Uganda complete debate training
July 3rd and 4th remain memorable days in the educational history of Entebbe, Uganda. Teachers of English and debate patrons from 10 schools within the municipality were trained in modern debates and refreshed on how to integrate debate into the curriculum for the promotion of leadership, public speaking, analytical and critical thinking skills.

Participants from over 10 schools were excited about the program and hoped for more trainings of such kind, since this opportunity was rather rare for this long-forgotten area. Participants resolved to organize annual debate tournaments and selected a four-person committee that will be mentored and coached by the trainers so that they can help organize tournaments in the Entebbe Municipality.

The local leadership couldn’t wait to throw their support behind the project. The District Education Officer, the Inspector of Schools and the Hon Muhammad Kauma MP Entebbe Municipality all attended. Hon Kauma remarked, “This is so far the first serious youth program that has come up since I was elected to parliament and I can’t wait to support [it],” says Hon Kauma.

IDEA trainers in Uganda facilitated this debate training.
Muhindo Johncation, Ugandan Debate League Program

ARDOR announces
Best Debaters 2009
Best Debaters 2009, July 6th-8th in Bucharest, took place under the auspices of the Prime Minister of the Romanian Government, Mr. Emil Boc. The event brought together some of the most talented members of the Romanian debate community – 2009 world champions, 2008 national champions, both high-school and university students and also “veterans” of the debate movement, with over 10 years of experience in the field of academic debate.

The best teams after the preliminary rounds from 7th July were qualified in the grand finale, held on 8th July, at the Victoria Palace – headquarters of the Romanian Government. The topic for the debate was “This house believes it is better to study at a foreign university than at a Romanian one”. One of the teams playing in the finale will have as a special member the Prime Minister of Romania, Emil Boc, who displayed a real interest for this debate, as he is also a university professor and as this is a very up-to-date topic for the Romanian youth.

View photos of the event online.
Monica Mocanu, Romanian Association of Debate Oratory and Rhetoric (ARDOR)

Be the Change
Peace Child International has launched the Be the Change! program (BTC!) to encourage youth involvement in local community action and development projects. Through small-scale grants for projects, youth can be the change they wish to see in their communities.

If you are below 25 years of age and have a project that concentrates on the development of your community at a local level, carefully read the program requirements and submit your proposal to Peace Child International.

Be the Change! staff will assist you in identifying your own local issues, priorities and problems and will also help you to create your own solutions.

The application deadline is October 31, 2009. To find out more, visit the site.
IDEA is not affiliated with Peace Child International or Be the Change

Results from Australs - It Is Monash

Image via Wikipedia

From http://worlddebating.blogspot.com/2009/07/monash-win-australs.html

Monash Win Australs

From Chris Bishop's Facebook page.

Australasian Debating Champions 2009: Monash (on a 5-4 split)

Best speaker in Grand Final: Amit Golder (Monash)
ESL Winners: University of Indonesia

Top 10 speakers:
1. Amit Golder (Monash)
2. Claudia Newman Martin (ANU)
3. Tim Jeffrie
4. Chris Croke
5. Fiona Prowse
6. Sam Greenland (Sydney)
7= Max Harris (Auckland)
7= Viv Jones (Monash)
9= Tim Mooney
9= Steve Hind
9= Su Min Lim (unsw)

Austral's Final Motion and positions

From Chris Bishop's face book page.

Australs Grand Final topic (unconfirmed) THBT the Palestinians should accept demilitarisation in exchange for a sovereign state. Monash affirming, Victoria neg.

Australs semi results

Victoria University of Wellington One defeated Monash University Four in a 4-3 split decision.

Monash University One defeated the University of Sydney Union One in a 6-1 decision.

The final is therefore Victoria v Monash.

Grand Final starts at 6pm, Melbourne time.

--
From Chris Bishop

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Australs quarters and semi draw

Quarter Final Results
Monash 1 defeat UNSW 1 by 5-0
Sydney 1 defeat ANU1 by 5-0
Victoria Wellington 1 defeat Ateneo 1 by 4-1
Monash 4 defeat Monash 3 by 3-2

Semis draw
Sydney 1 v Monash 1
Victoria Wellington 1 v Monash 4


--
Sent from my mobile device

Australs Octo-Results and Quarters Draw

Octo-final results

Monash 1 (1) defeated Queensland 1 (16) by 3-0
Ateneo 1 (15) defeated Sydney 3 (2) by 2-1
Monash 3 (3) defeated Melbourne 2 (14) by 3-0
Sydney 1 (4) defeated Queensland 2 (13) by 3-0
Australian National University 1 (5) defeated Auckland 2 (12) by 3-0
Monash 4 (6) defeated Multimedia University 1 (11) by 3-0
Victoria University of Wellington 1 (10) defeated Sydney 2 (7) by 3-0
UNSW 1 (8) defeated Auckland 1 (9) by 3-0

Quarters Draw:

Monash 1 (1) v UNSW 1 (8)
Ateneo 1 (15) v Victoria University of Wellington 1 (10)
Monash 3 (3) v Monash 4 (6)
Sydney 1 (4) v Australian National University 1 (5)

Debater Hones Art of Argument

From http://www.planetdebate.com/blogs/view/320

Debater hones art of the argument

July 09 2009

Lincoln Journal

Alex Jacobs dreams of making it big in the NFL — the National Forensic League.

The 17-year-old high school student from Lincoln was one of four members of the Lincoln-Sudbury Regional High School speech and debate team to compete in the NFL National Tournament in Birmingham, Ala. in June. Although Jacobs and his teammates did not make it to the final rounds, they advanced further than any team of L-S juniors before them.

The team also competed in the National Catholic Forensic League Grand Nationals in Albany, N.Y. in May.

Jacobs, who competes in public forum debate with partner Jon Weinstein, recently spoke with the Journal to reflect upon his experiences as a junior and look ahead to his senior year.

Q: How did you get involved in debate?

A: I did one local debate last year in a different event called group discussion, which is kind of the event we use to bring people in. It’s an easy event — you sit in a circle, you’re given three topics and you discuss each of them. You don’t really have to know formal debate. I did that once last year.

And then this year, one of my friends kind of sensed that I might be good at debate. He took me to the Yale tournament. That was my first experience. It was great — if I had been another topic, I probably wouldn’t have been as enthusiastic. But it was the draft, which I found really interesting. I was so interested in that topic and I argued so passionately, that kind of hooked me. From that point forward, I wanted to do every possible debate event. This year has been a lot of fun.

Q: What do you like about debating?

A: I’m often verbose. I use a lot of rhetoric in my writing. I kind of write more like I would speak in public. That has hurt me in my writing but that has helped me a lot in terms of debate.

I’ve always loved arguing. I argue with my parents a lot. I argue with my teachers and my friends. This was a venue where I could really just involve it and be successful, put it toward a constructive purpose.

Q: Is there any animosity between the teams you compete against?

A: I love debating and I’m a friendly guy. These people are nice, intelligent people who you share interests with or you wouldn’t be in the same venue. But by the end of the round, when you’ve spent 40 minutes putting down the other person’s points, you berating theirs and they berating yours, it’s really hard for there not to be animosity. It’s like a heated argument. No matter how much nuance you put into it, it’s hard to be friends. And I try because I like people, but it doesn’t always work out that way.

Q: What makes a good debater? How important is preparation versus performance?

A: I don’t do a lot of preparation. I should, but I don’t mostly because I’ve been successful without doing it. But a good debater has an effective balance of both preparation beforehand and the ability to react and sound intelligent immediately. You cannot win with one or the other. You need balance.

Q: What is the hardest part of debate?

A: For me, academics are usually reactionary. I pretty much do stuff at the latest possible time. I’ve had to change my attitude towards that with debate by doing a little bit of prep beforehand. Working to overcome my desire to put things off is something that’s been necessary and will continue to be necessary.

Q: What is the best part?

A: Winning! I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t win. I love arguing and I love being in there, but if I didn’t win, it wouldn’t do it for me. Being successful is really what motivates me.

Q: How was your experience competing at the national tournaments?

A: Both tournaments were great.

The one in Albany that we went to — we didn’t do great, but we learned a lot from the experience. Our contentions were econ heavy and it was a health care topic — everything does relate to economics but we kind of need to work on the human element more in our cases. We need more diverse, more well prepared, well-rounded cases.

We learned a ton from Birmingham as well. Both teams were close to breaking past the preliminary rounds.

We will be back there. There’s a lot of subjectivity in the judging, however, I can definitely say that, with what we’ve learned, we have the potential to be successful at the national level.

Q: Do you plan to continue with debate after high school?

A: For me, I’m going to do ROTC in college and I think I’m going to be an Army officer — that’s what I want to do with my life.

Everything necessary to be successful in debate applies in some way. Every aspect of debate I know I’ll use at some point, whether it’s research, preparation, or just the ability to diplomatically yet effectively respond to a point of view.

Group Sponsors Low Cost Summer Debate Workshop

Image by Pensiero via Flickr

From http://blogs.phillyburbs.com/news/bcct/students-to-develop-debate-skills-during-workshop/

Students to develop debate skills during workshop

Posted in News on Tuesday, July 7th, 2009 at 11:10 pm by Joan Hellyer

Summer debate workshops at colleges and universities can costs hundreds of dollars, often leaving high school kids will little or no chance to hone their skills between school years.

The well-known Harry S Truman High School debate and speech team is trying to change that.

Debate coaches and former Truman debaters are teaming up this summer to host a weeklong workshop from Aug. 3 through Aug. 7 for aspiring debaters at the Bristol Township high school off Green Lane.

The workshop is open to high school students who will be ninth- and tenth-graders in the coming school year, organizers said. Bristol Township residents will attend for free and tuition will be $50 for students from neighboring communities, the organizers said.

Debate team coach Carl Grecco credits 2009 Truman graduate Nicole Pagliaro, a four-year member of the team, with thinking up the workshop idea. Nicole said she wanted other kids to benefit from what she considered the best experience she had during high school.

“I learned to speak better. I learned to control my tongue. I learned about different philosophies and politics and I was always reading,” said Nicole, 18, who plans to attend Bloomsburg University.

During the workshop that runs from 8:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. each day, students will learn basic skills of debating and will be able to practice what they learn by using two different types of debate, said Grecco.

The first is policy debate, where two students team up to research an issue and develop an argument for or against it, he said.

The other debate form to be used at the workshop is known as “Lincoln-Douglas,” in which students work alone and need to be able to argue both sides of a topic, the debate coach said.

The workshop will help students prepare to compete in debate contests in the Philadelphia area and states along the East Coast throughout the school year, he said. The competitions open up students to many possibilities, said Grecco, who has led the Truman team to nationals for 34 straight years.

During the most recent national competition, held in Albany, New York in May, the Truman students finished in the middle of pack of the 250-team contingent, Grecco said.

The national exposure helps the kids see the world beyond Lower Bucks County and also helps them in the classroom, he said. The students are well-versed when they give verbal presentations and they have a good grasp of how to develop arguments in their essay assignments, the debate coach said.

July 20 is the registration deadline for the Truman debate workshop.

Call 215-788-0436 and ask for Shawn Eliason or Tom Gushue, the assistant Truman debate team coaches, or send an e-mail to trumandebate@yahoo.com for additional information about the workshop.

World Online Debating Championships

Debatewise and IDEA are proud to announce the first ever World Online
Debating Championship and formally invite you to take part.

This is an innovative competition and presents a new form of debating.
32 countries will take each other on in a knockout tournament open to
anyone.

It takes place over the internet so you can participate from any place
at any time. You can debate with people from all over the world, and
get to understand them better, all without leaving home.

Plus, you have a full 24 hours to perfect your arguments so can craft
them to perfection.

The competition is being run by Debatewise in collaboration with the
International Debate Education Association; Chief Adjudicator is Neill
Harvey-Smith, the President of the World’s Debating Council. Round 1
will start on August 10th and the winner will be declared on September
21st.

To find out more, including how to enter, please email
dc@debatewise.com or visit www.debatewise.com/wodc and we’ll be
delighted to help.The closing date for registration is Sunday 19th
July.

Australs 2009 Break

From Colm Flynn:

Australs 2009 Break

Chris Bishop has published the Australasians break on facebook

Main Break
1. Monash 1, 8 wins,
2. Sydney 3, 7 wins.
3. Monash 3, 7 wins.
4. Sydney 1, 6 wins.
5. Australian National University (ANU) 1, 6 wins.
6. Monash 4, 6 wins.
7. Sydney 2, 6 wins.
8. Uni New South Wales (UNSW) 1, 6 wins.
9. Auckland 1, 6 wins.
10. Victoria Wellington 1, 6 wins.
11. Multimedia University Malaysia (MMU) 1, 6 wins.
12. Auckland 2, 6 wins.
13. University of Queensland (UQ) 2 6 Wins.
14. Sydney 5, 5 wins (cannot break team cap reached)
15. Sydney 4, 5 wins (cannot break team cap reached)
16. Melbourne 2, 5 Wins.
17. Ateneo 1, 5 Wins.
18. University of Queensland 1, 5 Wins.

ESL break:
University Indonesia
University Tokyo
Chinese University of Hong Kong
ICU 1

Asian Schools Poster Being Circulated

Contact Dino for a full size image.

Dino de Leon
Chair, Philippine Debate Union

Vice Chair, United Asian Debate Union
dinorm58@ yahoo.com
+639164264189

Louisville Debate Coach Arrested

I am sure there are many sides to this story and I look forward to hearing more. I know both Ede and his wife and they are very good people. I hope for the best for all of them.

From http://www.whas11.com/topstories/stories/whas11-topstories-090706-uofl-arson.155519f9.html

U of L professor charged with arson, assault

06:19 PM EDT on Monday, July 6, 2009

WHAS11 coverage

Ede Warner Jr.

(WHAS11) - A University of Louisville professor is in trouble with the law tonight.

Authorities say Ede Warner Jr. is charged with arson, wanton endangerment, and assault.

Warner is a communications professor and coach of the U of L debate team.

The arson charge is a felony that could land Dr. Warner in prison for 20 years if he's convicted.

People who know Dr. Warner are shocked, describing him as a thoughtful professor who solves problems through the art of debate, not through violence.

Loading Video...

Watch this story

But his actions Monday night could change this academic star's future forever.

Dr. Ede Warner seems to have it all. He's an award winning coach of the University of Louisville debate team and an associate professor of pan-African studies.

His home is in this quiet suburban neighborhood, where he lives with his wife of 16 years and 2 children.

But according to a police report, that new home is where Dr. Warner became violent just before midnight.

Police say Warner got into a fight with his wife, saying, "it was on." He then allegedly threw her onto a couch.

While she was in a locked bedroom, she told police Ede Warner tossed her coat onto the stove and turned it on.

The victim was able to escape with a 12-year-old child and throw the burning coat out into the yard before the entire house caught fire.

Dr. Ede Warner was arrested, charged with assault, first degree arson and wanton endangerment.

His wife also took out a domestic violence order petition against him, saying she was afraid he would harm her and asking the court to keep him away.

On campus Monday, students were surprised.

“You don't expect something like that to happen. Especially with him being a U of L professor. It's a bad example for students, but I think students are brought up in homes a lot of times where it happens, so it's real life,” said one student.

The university says since the incident happened off campus, it doesn't require any disciplinary action.

University officials say they will wait to see what happens in court before taking any action.

Dr. Ede Warner is due in court on the domestic violence petition on July 14th.

Before then, he's expected to begin teaching a U of L summer school class.

Howard County Middle School Students Win National USA Title

Image via Wikipedia

From http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/bal-ho.debate05jul05,0,6818357.story

Pair from Howard win national debating contest

By John-John Williams IV | john-john.williams@baltsun.com

July 5, 2009

Nikitia Datta, 11, did not know what to expect when she headed to San Antonio late last month for the 2009 Middle School National Debate Championship.

Sure she had practiced for hours each week since September, and she knew that she had a passion for debate - especially the rebuttal - but she was still slightly intimidated by the competition.

Datta, a rising seventh-grader at Lime Kiln Middle, and her partner, Viveka Advani, who just completed eighth grade at Burleigh Manor Middle, quickly got over their initial anxiety and became the first Howard County students to win the competition in its 10-year existence.

The duo won the Public Forum Debate category beating the reigning national champions from Lanier Middle School in Houston to win the title.

"It was exciting," Datta said. "When I went there, I didn't expect to win anything. It was intense. The other team almost knew they were going to win. It was tough to go up against a team that thought they were going to win. But we did our best in the debate."

In addition to the championship team, Howard County students also excelled in the Policy Debate category. Srinidhi Muppalla of Burleigh Manor and Niran Lakhanpal of Clarksville Middle tied for third place with Madeleine Houck of Folly Quarter Middle and Vivian Wang of Burleigh Manor. All just completed eighth grade.

Muppalla was named Top Speaker in the Nation, which was also a first for Howard County. He scored 149 out of a possible 150 points to win the title. Wang finished second; Lakhanpal finished fourth; and Houck finished fifth.

The students all belong to Capitol Debate, a nonprofit based in Ellicott City that coaches students in debate techniques and strategies.

"The national champions and the entire team worked extraordinarily hard," said Ronald Bratt, CEO and founder of Capitol Debate. "They did a lot of work and put a lot of effort into this national championship."

The students were advised by Cayman Giordano, the debate coach at Howard High School who also works at Capitol Debate, and Les Phillips, a coach with Capitol Debate.

Datta, who favors the actual debate over the research and writing aspect of the competition, said she plans to defend her title next year. "It's a lot of fun," she said.

Republican Rant Against Schools Debate in USA

Image via Wikipedia

This individual obviously yearns for a past that never existed and even if it did could not be duplicated now (Douglas would give speeches of more than an hour). He may have a point about speaking too fast (unless the audience and judge can understand it) but his moans about having to debate both sides of a question is closed-minded and is an issue that was settled in the USA at the beginning of the 20th Century.

From http://www.republicanoperative.com/forums/cigar-lounge/21027-gene-edward-veith-debate.html

The Lost Art of The Debate:
How Today's Debates Teach Cynicism and Relativism

Gene Edward Veith

On October 16, 1854, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas debated in Peoria, Ill. Neither was a candidate for president at the time; it would be four years before they ran against each other for the U.S. Senate. But they were already debating the issues facing their state and their country.

It started at 2:00 p.m. and Mr. Douglas spoke for three hours. When it was Mr. Lincoln's turn, he said that he would need at least as much time to respond, and then Mr. Douglas would need time for his rebuttal. He proposed that everyone go home for dinner and come back for the rest of the debate. The audience consisting of pretty much the whole community agreed. After they came back, the debate went on for four more hours.

In 1858, the Lincoln Douglas debates had a faster paced format: Mr. Douglas would speak first, for an hour; then Mr. Lincoln would take an hour and a half to reply. Then Mr. Douglas would have a half hour for a rebuttal.

By all accounts of the Lincoln Douglas debates (a good one can be found in Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death), ordinary Americans down to the lowliest farm boy turned out as part of their participation in their own self government. The crowd could get boisterous, with applause and catcalls, but they were able to follow complex, sophisticated discussions with rapt attention.

In contrast, in today's presidential debates, each candidate has two minutes to make his case, with rebuttals and answers measured in seconds instead of hours. The format never allows time to develop a coherent argument or to answer fully an opponent's charges. Both candidates know that image, not truth, is the real issue. How they come across not what they say is what really matters to the media and to the American public. To score points, they must avoid gaffes, score zingers, and, above all, seem presidential.

Pundits attempt the ultimate micro poll in actually charting a focus group's reactions as the debate takes place. On a graph, we can see opinions rising with good lines and falling when the candidate "goes negative." After the vice presidential debate, which actually did involve some high level discussion of the issues, just about all the CNN focus group wanted to talk about was "Mr. Lieberman's smile," how relaxed and confident Mr. Cheney was. Above all, the focus group representing a culture in which all ideas have to be seen as equally valid and in which the only moral absolute left is tolerance appreciated how neither candidate was excessively "negative" about the other person.

The decline of the art of debate can also be seen in our schools. "Disputations" once played an important part in the great Christian universities of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Scholars sharpened their intellects by having to defend their positions against their peers and against faculty members. Disputations on different topics forced them to apply the liberal arts of logic (to prove their case) and rhetoric (to present it effectively). Such debates were ways to think through important issues. Luther's 95 Theses were a challenge to a theological debate.

If you go to a high school or college debate tournament today, you are likely to find little attention to measured reasoning or rhetorical eloquence. Instead, debaters speak as fast as they can (to stay under the time limits) with arguments consisting mainly of isolated statistics (since numbers are considered more factual than logical chains of thought). Worse, debaters must prepare to argue for both sides of any issue, and they do not know the position they will have to take in the debate until they have to perform. If they are debating, say, the morality of capital punishment or euthanasia or abortion, their own convictions may have nothing to do with it.

This may be a good way to train lawyers, but it teaches that thinking is nothing more than an arbitrary game, a matter of scoring points rather than reaching truth. One side really is as valid as the other, and your own beliefs, being nothing more than a private interior opinion, are not allowed to get in the way. Depth of conviction and intellectual honesty the refusal to advocate what one does not in fact believe can have little place in a typical debate tournament.

Debate practiced this way teaches not logic or rhetoric but intellectual cynicism. And that cynicism which in turn breeds relativism and the disconnect between truth and opinion is what makes our culture incapable of conducting or even sitting through a Lincoln Douglas debate.

Debate Summer School Finishes in Slovenia

Dom Gorenje

Anja Serc knows what it is like. This is her seventh debate summer school that she has attended in Slovenia. She started as an inexperienced student and now she is a trainer at the school as well as a coach at a leading high school in Ljubljana and an important force in the administration of Za in Proti, the national debate program of Slovenia. The one-week program ends on 4 July 2009.

Like so many events in Slovenia, this one has taken place in an extremely beautiful place. High in the mountains of the region of Pohorje in a litle spot near the ski resort of Rogla is the location. The school itself is taking place in a youth ecological education center called Dom Gorenje. There, the students live in the dorms and debate in the classrooms, but they also walk in the fields, play basketball on the courts and sip coffee at Smogvasc, a tavern across the street (where sometimes to staff ends the day and trades stories).

View from a bedroom window

It has been a busy week, with lectures and electives filling the days in the gap between the many debates. The students are a hearty lot, and even though the schedule is demanding they seem anxious for more and genuinely committed to debate. They are all high school students, though a few of them are entering university in the fall and just want more debating. The event is also part of the selection process for the Slovenian team to attend the World Schools Debating Championships to be held in Qatar in 2010.

The motions have been an interesting mix, including:

• Social networking websites like Facebook do more harm than good
• We should not eat meat.
• We should forcefeed anorexics
• Casino gambling should be made illegal
• Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children.

Because they are interested in debate at the university level there was a demonstration debate one evening in the WUDC format on the motion that this House would engage with any leaders chosen through elections as credible partners. It was a vigorous debate and the students voted for a winner at the end. That debate should be available at the Dbate Video website as soon as it can be uploaded. See http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/

During the week there were teacher workshops, with over fifteen techers receiving intensive advanced instruction on administering debate clubs and training students.

It is clear why the debate program in Slovenia is excellent, popular and produces so many excellent debaters. It has sophisticated training, the students are enjoying it and the teachers are dedicated and committed.

Iraq Debate Gets Press Coverage in UK

From http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/3735836/debating-in-iraq.thtml

Debating In Iraq
ALEX MASSIETHURSDAY, 2ND JULY 2009
The university debating circuit isn't quite what it once was. Once upon a time it was, if not a closed shop, a cosy cartel organised by Scottish, Irish and English universities with the Australians and the occasional American or Canadian providing whatever passed for international glamour. Changed times and these days English-speakers can lose to debaters from any number of other countries all of whom are trouncing you in a language that is not their own. Gone are the days when being beaten by Zagreb B ("If that's what they're like, I wouldn't want to come up against Zagreb A etc etc") was considered a rogue result.

This is, doubtless, progress and globalisation and all that. The latest country trying to establish a spot in the international arena is, however, a horse of a different colour. That is, there's a movement afoot to try and bring some Iraqi debaters to this year's World Championships, taking place, conveniently, in Turkey.

As the blurb puts it:

Iraq Debate is an independent civic engagement initiative to foster and promote open discussions and debate culture in Iraq and plans to promote and teach debate across Universities and Schools in the country.
Iraq Debate brings together Arabs, Kurds, Chaldo-Assyrians, Turkmen, and all components of Iraq communities to participate in debate workshops and tournaments.

Currently, Iraq Debate works with students from University of Duhok- Duhok, University of Salahaddin- Erbil and University of Technology- Baghdad. however we are looking forward to extending our activities to all Universities and Schools in Iraq in near future.

Recently, Iraq Debate held a successful workshop in the University of Duhok for 22 students debaters [ April 1-7, 2009]. we then trained and sent students to participate in Qatar National Schools Debate Championships and Qatar National Universities Championships with 5 students debaters representing the Iraq Debate Team...

Iraq Debate currently is planning to train students for the Worlds Universities Debate Championships 2010, to be held in Turkey, where they will compete with over 300 teams.

Understandably, they need help and could do with some extra sponsorship to help make this happen. If this is the sort of thing that interests you or you think you can be of some assistance, then get in touch with Iraq Debate here.Certainly, the Iraqis would bring more to the tournament than, to choose a university completely at random, yet another team from University College, Dublin...
Happily, I'm retired and out the game and so no longer liable to be trounced by Kurdistan C...

Shanley Brothers Bring Home Speech Success

Teagan, left, and Mason Lende talk about competing in the National Forensics League tournament in June. Six of their Shanley High School peers also competed. Carrie Snyder / The Forum

From http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id/245671/group/News/

Shanley brothers take home high forensics honors
It’s likely most people aren’t too familiar with the Puntland region in Somalia or the status of the Russian economy.

By: Kelly Smith, INFORUM

But two local teens could tell you all about both – and many more topics – thanks to their success and passion for debate and speech that recently made them among the nation’s best.

Last month, Shanley High School’s Mason and Teagan Lende took home two of the top honors at the National Forensics League’s national tournament.

“If you don’t take it seriously, you don’t have much of a chance,” said Teagan, 15. “I enjoy it greatly. It teaches you to take a different perspective.”

His older brother, Mason, said he had the highest number of earned points of anyone in the nation going into this year’s national tournament. And in the end, the 17-year-old won second place out of 483 students in the nation – the highest finish ever, he said, for a North Dakota student.

In the same category, extemporaneous commentary, his younger brother took home fifth place.

Six of their Shanley peers also competed at the tournament – the highest number of students to qualify from a North Dakota school for this year’s tournament, they say.

It’s a lot of achievement in an activity Mason calls a high school hobby.

“Just competing in itself was a crash course,” said the recent Shanley High graduate.

The teens plan to use the public speaking and researching skills later in their careers – Mason with bioengineering and Teagan with politics or law.

Teagan, a sophomore this fall, aims to surpass Mason next year by bringing home the No. 1 spot.

“Mason is his goal,” said their mom, Nancy. “He sets the standards, and he sets them pretty high.”

It’s friendly competition that has only propelled the brothers higher.

“They’ve always been supportive of each other,” she said. “I’ve learned unbelievable amounts of information from them.”

VH1 Network Creates "Debate Club"

From http://www.metro.us/us/article/2009/07/02/03/4910-72/index.xml

Published 21:49, July the 1st, 2009

You may be surprised to find out who wins this battle.

VH1’s ‘debate’ club

New Vh1 show poses the ultimate pop culture questions

Who is more bootylicious, J.Lo or Beyonce? Who was the greatest band of all time, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

We can spend hours with friends debating these earth-shattering issues, and now Vh1 will bring them to television with “The Great Debate,” in which our favorite talking heads discuss who wins out in the realm of pop culture stardom.

We asked one of those heads, comedian Chuck Nice, to weigh in on our own dilemmas.

Dorkier franchise: “Harry Potter” or “Lord of the Rings”?
Oh my God, wow. That’s like asking, ‘What is the worse kind of cancer?’ I am going to have to say “Harry Potter.” When grown people dress up like a child wizard, you know there’s a problem.

Better remake: “Star Trek” or “Land of the Lost”?
Oh, come on. First of all, I’m a trekker. The better remake by far is “Star Trek.” You’re dealing with J.J. Abrams. Is there anything that he cannot do?

Most annoying male romantic comedy staple: Matthew McConaughey or Ryan Reynolds?
Definitely Matthew McConaughey with his bongo-playing, weed-smoking, ‘I had a baby in a birthing chair underwater’ hippie-ass self. I’m not buying that Southern gentlemen vibe that he’s kicking.

“Transformers” or “G.I. Joe”?
It’s as simple as this: Let’s talk about the cartoon theme songs. “G.I. Joe, a real American hero” — if you say that to somebody, they may or may not know the song. But if you say to someone, “Transformers,” people will go, “More than meets the eye.” People will sing it right back to you.

Bigger pop star mess: Amy Winehouse on crack or Britney Spears on psychotropic drugs?
First of all, you would have to ascertain whether Britney Spears was on psychotropic drugs. She just might be crazy. She may not need the benefit of drugs. We all know Amy Winehouse was on crack. We don’t know what Britney Spears’ excuse is.

Messier public divorce: Jon and Kate Gosselin or Paul McCartney and Heather Mills?
I am going to go with Jon and Kate, and the reason is because we actually do care about Sir Paul McCartney — that’s why we were interested, whereas with Jon and Kate, you don’t know who you care about less.

Debatepedia Completes Overhaul, Makes Use Easier

From http://www.live-pr.com/en/debatepedia-makes-site-fully-categorized-searchable-r1048291655.htm

Debatepedia Makes Site Fully Categorized, Searchable, Usable

30.06.2009 12:02:35 Debatepedia finished making its site fully categorized, searchable, usable by categorizing all of its more than 2,000 pro/con articles into over 1,200 categories. This allows readers to browse the site, find areas of interest, dig in, and become active contributors.

(live-PR.com) - Washington, DC June 30, 2009 -- Debatepedia finished on June 30th a complete overhaul of its site organization. This started with a highly ambitious effort to categorize its more than 2,000 articles into over 1,200 categories. Categories range from politics to security, international law, bioethics, animal welfare, climate change, history, entertainment, personal choices, culture, United States, Latin America, Taiwan, to any range of possible categories that a debate article could fit within. All categories are organized into a topical hierarchy, so that, for example, the category on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict falls under International Politics. This ensures that users can narrow their search for topics of interest by first starting with the international politics category and then moving to such categories as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One objective of this effort is to make every page on Debatepedia find-able within three clicks of the main page. This is actually really challenging, but it is also a wonderful rule of thumb for organizing a site and optimizing for search engines, as search engine "crawlers" make page-rank judgments based on links from the main page (and many argue it's "within three clicks" that is Google's rule of thumb).

The importance of this effort also reflects the fact that Debatepedia has grown massively, proliferating from around 500 articles to over 2,000 articles in just over a year. With such a large swath of articles, it has become increasingly unappealing for users to rely on basic categories such as politics or law or for alphabetical listings in their searches. A robust categorization of all of Debatepedia's articles was inevitable and necessary.

Debatepedia is a global wiki encyclopedia of public debates, pro and con arguments, and supporting quotations. A project of the International Debate Education Association (IDEA), Debatepedia is something like "the Wikipedia of pros and cons". It aims to engage you and other citizen-editors in centralizing your original arguments - as well as arguments and quotations found in millions of articles, essays, and books - into a single encyclopedia. This helps you and other citizens better weigh the pros and cons in important public debates and make decisions.

Related links:
Home page (for category browser): wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedi ..
Media kit: wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debatepedia:Media_Kit
Categories: wiki.idebate.org/index.php?title=Special:Categor ..
Community portal: wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Community_portal

Contacts:
Brooks Lindsay
Founder of Debatepedia
Debatepedia
3731 E Prospect
Seattle WA, 98112
206-406-7558
brooks@debatepedia.com
wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedi ..
Twitter: brookslindsay, debatepedia

Contact information: Debatepedia Seattle WA, 98112 Contact Person: Brooks Lindsay Phone: 206-406-7558 eMail: eMail Web: http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Welcome_to_Debatepedia! Author: arun kum e-mail Phone: 04422644656

Virginija Paksiene of Lithuania Gets Recognition in Doumentary

Image via Wikipedia

FROM cphillip@idebate.org

IDEA-NL board member to be interviewed for documentary
In late July, IDEA-Netherlands board member Virginija Paksiene of Lithuania will be interviewed for Daily Life in Europe, a documentary commissioned for the new Visitors Center of the European Parliament, Brussels.
During documentarian Viviane Blumenschein’s stay in Lithuania, she will capture the personal stories of Paksiene and one of her students. Blumenschein also plans to cover “Youth for Europe, Europe for Youth,” a project Paksiene implements as Executive Director of the Informal Education Debate Center. Paksiene‘s project, “Youth Debates in the Baltic States,“ received a grant from the European Parliament in 2008.
Daily Life in Europe will share the European Parliament’s positive impact throughout Europe with 54 personal stories told in 27 countries.

Support Iraq Debate

Hello supporters of debating.

I am working with some Iraq debaters to promote debating in Iraq. I feel
a special burden to assist our brave brothers and sister in Iraq to try
and improve their society through debate. It is easy for us to take for
granted the debating communities we have, but we should not forget about
others for which it is not so easy.

The spearhead for this is Muhammad Duhoki who has organized a group
called Iraq Debate. Muhammad received training in Korea from Jason
Jarvis and others at the Asian Debate Institute and at the Korea
Development Institute. Muhammad has been back in Iraq for a while now
and is acting very vigorously to train debaters and create debating
networks. He took a group to Qatar recently for a competition and the
Iraqis did quite well. He is also coming to the Serbian Debate Camp to
be held later this month.

http://www.iraqdebate.org/

Iraq Debate has several teams now registered to attend the World
Universities Debating Championships to be held in December-January in
Antalya, Turkey. He has teams and enthusiasm and some financial support,
but he is just a bit short and the time draws near to pay up or drop out.

If you would like to help Iraq Debate it would be greatly apprciated. I
have personally made a financial commitment of $300 and will help
sponsor them. I chalenge you to do as much if not more. If you would
like to find out how you can donate, please email him for details at
muhammad@iraqdebate.org

We need to act soon and they need our help now in order to attend worlds.

Future projects involve a debate workshop in Iraq featuring instruction
in Arabic, Kurdish and English to be held in the fall. Muhammad and I
will be reporting more on this in the future.

Hee is some text from their website.

"Mission:

1. Iraq Debate’s mission is to promote debate culture among Iraqis,
especially Students across the universities and schools, to provide them
with the modern concepts of analysis and communication skills so that
they can meet the challenges which face Iraq. Iraq's challenges and
diversity means that it can and should be a leader in Debate Education
and Research.
2. Promoting the value of Education.
3. Showing Iraq's unique cultures and civilization to the world.
4. Promoting a sense of community.
5. Promoting Peace through dialogue and understanding."

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

Iraq Debate Emerges Into Debating World

From http://www.iraqdebate.org/

For the First time, A Debate Team represented Iraq. Its Iraq Debate Team which participated successfully in a workshop and followed by moving to Qatar to have a series of workshops to debate, judge and observe then participating in Qatar National Universities Debate Championships and Qatar National Schools Debate Championships in April 2009.

In Qatar National Schools Debate Championships they all Judged and for the Grand Final of the competition Ms. Suzanne and The Coach of Iraq Debate Mr. Muhammad Duhoki judged on the panel.

Iraq Debate Team, experienced Qatar Debate and the State of Qatar with a Scheduled timetable. H. E. The Ambassador of Iraq in Doha met them and was proud that this team represented his country for this cultural event in Doha. Iraq Debate Team attracted views of many people who were visiting there for debate. as was something historical to be done by Iraqis Students Debaters .

Hussein Bakr asked to participate, at late notice, in the National Universities Championships; the student was placed third on individual speaker scores and assisted his team to make the Grand Final.

Iraq Debate Team has a high respect to Qatar Foundation and Qatar Debate for their very kind hospitality and the invitation. we are dedicating our thankfulness to Dr. Hayat Maarafi the Executive Director of Qatar Debate and Ms. Rita Edde the Coordinator of QD and every single one in QD for their helpfulness and facilities to Iraqi Delegation.

We are dedicating our special thanks to Dr. Asma Bamerni for her support to company her university students and to participate in promoting debate in Kurdistan and Iraq. She contributed to have seminar on Qatar Debate Experience in the College of Arts at University of Duhok.

We are looking forward working together to promote debate in the region and we are expecting to participate in the World Schools Debate Championships, to be held in Doha in 2010.

for more details please visit http://qatardebate.org/news/item.asp?n=4304





www.iraqdebate.org

World Schools Debate Academy About to Begin

WORLDS SCHOOLS DEBATE ACADEMY AND TOURNAMENT

Zreče, Slovenia, 5th – 12th July 2009

Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga Slovenia, www.zainproti.com and World Debate Institute, USA, debate.uvm.edu kindly invite you to participate at the International Worlds Schools Debate Academy and Tournament Zreče Open, 5th – 12th July 2009.

The Academy is divided in two parts. The training part starts on Sunday evening, and finishes on Friday lunch time. The tournament starts on Friday early afternoon, finishes on Sunday evening. The participants can apply for the whole event or for the tournament only.

High school students, teachers, coaches and trainers are invited. At the training part the participants will be divided into three different groups based on their experience and expertise - beginners, intermediate and advanced. There will be a special group for trainers and coaches. There will be small groups with a 1 to 6 student trainer ratio, meaning lots of individual attention.

Participants will be staying in Hotel Smogac in the center of Zreče. You can check about the hotel at www.smogavc.si

Prepared motions for this year:

This house has no confidence in capitalism.
This house would focus more on adapting to climate change than preventing it.
This house believes that religious belief is the most important barrier for multiculturalism.
This house would forcefeed anorexics.

Quarterfinals: This house would make only organ donors eligible for organ transplant.
Finals: This house believes trade unions should be mandatory.

Trainers:

Maja Cimerman, member of the Team Slovenia at Worlds Schools Debate Championship 2006, 2007 (EFL World Champion WSDC Korea)

Filip Dobranic, member of the Team Slovenia at Worlds Schools Debate Championship in 2006, 2007, 2008 (Top EFL speaker at WSDC 2007 Korea and 2008 USA, EFL World Champion WSDC 2007 Korea and 2008 Washington).

Anna Mojca England Kerr, member of the Team Slovenia at Worlds Schools Debate Championship 2006, 2007 (EFL World Champion WSDC Korea).

Rhydian Morgan, Great Britain, Chief Adjudictor at numerous tournaments and trainer.

David Register, University of Vermont. USA, award-winning coach.

Bojana Skrt, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga, Slovenia (EFL Worlds Champion Coach WSDC Canada, Korea, USA).

Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont, USA, award-winning coach.

Anja Šerc, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga, Slovenia

Ruth Zisman, Doctoral Fellow at New York University, USA, award-winning coach.

Organising committee:
Miha Andric
Bojana Skrt

Attend the entire event:
Arrival on Sunday late afternoon, July 5th
Departure on Monday morning, July 12th
Participation fee: 250 EUR covers all instruction, accomodation and food for 8 nights, trainers, materials and tournament.
Application form for entire event

The participants should apply individually.

Attend the tournament only:
Arrival: Friday, the 10th, morning
Departure: Monday, the 12th, morning
Participation fee: 100 EUR covers accomodation and food for 3 nights and tournament expences.
The cost for an additional night (coming on Thursday) is 30 EUR.
Application form for tournament only

The participants should apply as 3 members teams. Each team should be accompanied by a judge.

Participation fees should be paid in cash upon arrival or via bank tranfer prior to the event. The ones who would like to pay via bank tranfer, please, contact debata@siol.net for additional information.

Application forms in the attachments. Please, send the application forms to debata@siol.net as soon as possible but not later than June 25th.

You can check the news and updates at http://debate.uvm.edu/wsda.html

SCHEDULE

Sunday, 5th of July 2009
16.00 – 19.00 Registration
19.00 – 20.00 Dinner
20.00 – 22.00 Opening, participants test, demo debate and introduction to the format.

Monday, 6th of July 2009
7:30 -- 8:30 Breakfast
8:45 Morning announcements
9.00 – 10.00 Lecture: Public speaking
10.00 – 12.00 Exercises
12.00 – 13.00 Lecture: Points of information
13.00 – 14.30 Lunch
14.30 – 19.00 Debates (preparation for debates, debates, feedback)
19.00 – 20.00 Dinner

Tuesday, 7th of July 2009
7:30 -- 8:30 Breakfast
8:45 Morning announcements
9.00 – 10.00 Lecture: Argumentation
10.00 – 12.00 Exercises
12.00 – 13.00 Lecture: Argumentation
13.00 – 14.30 Lunch
14.30 – 19.00 Debates (preparation for debates, debates, feedback)
19.00 – 20.00 Dinner
20.00 – 21.00 Electives

Wednesday, 8th of July 2009
7:30 -- 8:30 Breakfast
8:45 Morning announcements
9.00 – 10.00 Lecture: Building proposition case.
10.00 – 12.00 Exercises
12.00 – 13.00 Lecture: Motions analyses
13.00 – 14.30 Lunch
14.30 – 19.00 Debates (preparation for debates, debates, feedback)
19.00 – 20.00 Dinner
20.00 – 21.00 Electives

Thursday, 9th of July 2009
7:30 -- 8:30 Breakfast
8:45 Morning announcements
9.00 – 10.00 Lecture: Building opposition case.
10.00 – 12.00 Exercises
12.00 – 13.00 Lecture: Refutation.
13.00 – 14.30 Lunch
14.30 – 19.00 Debates (preparation for debates, debates, feedback)
19.00 – 20.00 Dinner
20.00 – 21.00 Open Forum

Friday, 10th of July 2009
7:30 -- 8:30 Breakfast
8:45 Morning announcements
9.00 – 10.00 Lecture: Third speeches
10.00 – 12.00 Exercises
12.00 – 13.00 Lecture: Reply speeches

TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE

Prepared motions will be announced during first weekend in May.

Friday, 10th of July 2009
13.00 – 14.00 Lunch
14.30 Openning of the tournament

15.00 – 17.00
Debater briefing
Adjudication briefing and judges test

17.00 Round 1 prepared

19.00 – 20.00 Dinner

Saturday, 10th of July
9.00 Round 2 – prepared

11.00 Impromptu motion announced
12.00 Round 3 – impromptu

13.00 – 14.00 Lunch

14.00 Impromptu motion announcement
15.00 Round 4 – impromptu
17.00 Round 5 – prepared
19.00 – Dinner and socials

Sunday, 11th of July
9.00 Round 6 – prepared

11.00 Impromptu motion announcement
12.00 Round 7 – impromptu

13.30 – 14.30 Lunch

14.30 Quarterfinalists announcement
15.00 Quarterfinal – prepared

16.30 Semi – finalists announcement, impromptu motion announcement
18.00 Semi – finale
19.30 Dinner

21.00 Finale – prepared
Closing ceremony
Party

High School Debate Increases College Attendance in Chicago

From http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-debate-city-zonejun17,0,6855202.story

More than idle talk

Debate team skills put students on a special stage

By Cara Anthony |Tribune reporter

June 17, 2009

Brandon McNamara (center) hugs fellow graduate Felice Kimbrew after the Harlan High School graduation June 5. McNamara received a full ride to Northwestern University because of his debate skills. (Photo for the Tribune by Yvette Marie Dostatni / June 5, 2009)

Some high schoolers use free time to goof off with friends, but Brandon McNamara studied tough topics like nuclear war and alternative energy when he was not in the classroom.

McNamara was a member of the Harlan Community Academy's debate team, which meant he often stayed up late doing research on issues like biofuels and global warming, and he and his teammates set up mock debates on weekends so they could practice for tournaments. Because of his dedication and debating skill, McNamara won a full ride to Northwestern University. He's just one example of how participating in debates has helped Chicago Public Schools students excel academically, while also improving their social skills.

"I was never really a good speaker when I was younger, that's how most people are," said McNamara, who joined the team his sophomore year and stayed because of the "real world" experience he gained on the team.

"It makes you want to learn more," he said.

Debate students at Chicago schools participate in Chicago Debate League competitions. Sylvia Nelson, who manages the debate program for the school district -- there are teams at 51 high schools and 9 elementary schools -- said increased awareness of the program helped the Chicago Debate League to grow.

The number of competitive academic debaters in the league grew to more than 1,000 this school year -- a 37 percent increase from a year ago, said Les Lynn, executive director of the Chicago Debate Commission, which gives support to schools with debate teams.

Like McNamara, Halle Apy said she didn't like speaking in front of people before joining the debate team at Walter Payton College Preparatory High School on the Near North Side.

"It's one of the best decisions I made in high school, and I am glad I stuck with it," said Apy, who just finished her junior year.

Apy and teammate Jeremiah Pickert in April took first place at the National Association for the Urban Debate League's high school debate championship in Chicago.

The two are in Birmingham, Ala., competing in the National Forensic League's National Speech Tournament, which ends Friday. The tournament is the originator of the oldest high school debate competition in the country

Pickert, 17, a recent graduate, isn't sure where he will go to college but knows his research and study habits honed by debating will help him to succeed.

"The things you learn in debate spill over," Pickert said.

Research indicates Pickert is likely right. 2004 University of Missouri study found that debating skills have a positive effect on academic performance. And researchers at the University of Michigan are looking at the impact on academics.

Robert Pincham, Harlan's debate coach, says all of his debaters have received college acceptance letters from such schools as the University of Illinois, Howard University and Vanderbilt University.

canthony@tribune.com

DAPDI Adds Judging Workshop

Image via Wikipedia

Dear all,


As you know, there's no better place to practice for Euro's and improve your debating skills than DAPDI (July 13th - July 17th, in Rotterdam): A three days summer school, topped by a 2 day tournament.

DAPDI is not only for improving your skills as a speaker. New at DAPDI this year are workshops for Adjudicators. There will be the opportunity to judge different debates, get to know different perspectives and judging styles and get to know how the mentioned trainers evaluate a BP debate.

You can still register, just send this registration form (http://www.dapdi.nl/registration_dapdi09.doc)
to convenor@dapdi.nl

DAPDI will be held in Rotterdam and starts Monday the 13th at noon. Our trainers are:
- Will Jones (head trainer),
- Gavin Illsley
- Jo Box
- David Middlemiss
- Max Kasriel
- Mark Manson
- and Jack Watson

The registration fee is € 95. This includes workshops, tournament, and off course crash & food.


I hope see you in July,

------
Abulhassan Al-Jaberi,
convenor@dapdi.nl
www.dapdi.nl
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10848834884

Last Chance to Register for Euros 2009

Image via Wikipedia

Oskar Avery

Co-Convenor EUDC Newcastle 2009 @NewcastleGateshead

Dear Debaters,

After all the excitement from Worlds Reg, here is the latest news from EUDC Newcastle. We've been having a good summer so far. It's decided to rain today but the forecast is for more sunshine tomorrow. Let's hope for good weather come August!

1) Registration: This has dragged on a lot longer than we expected, but hasn't proved too much trouble in the end. Reg will finally close to everyone on Friday July 3rd at 1700hrs GMT. Reg currently stands at 192 teams. That leaves us some spare capacity, so if you are still looking to attend a major international competition (wink) maybe we can help. Remember, non-European teams can come but will not be eligible for the Open Break. We will be running a small non-Europeans final in order to provide incentive to do well. European teams, are of course, extremely welcome.

2) Weather: continuing the weather theme, many people have asked for advice about what weather to expect in Newcastle. It'll be British summer time, so expect a little of everything. At a guess, anything between wet and temperatures of 5deg C and sunny up to 25degC. Packing advice: a little of everything, be prepared. The British Meteorological Office forecast is available here: http://tinyurl.com/bsm7vy

3) Location: Accommodation will be at Castle Leazes Halls of Residence. The Address is

Castle Leazes Halls of Residence
Spital Tongues
Newcastle upon Tyne
Tyne & Wear
NE2 4NY

and can be found on Google maps here http://tinyurl.com/mo999t

4) Arrival: Remember that you need to arrive and be registered by 1600hrs on the 1st August so that judges can sit the Adjudication Test at 1700hrs. There will be a separate adjudication test at the Halls at 2230hrs for observers of Shabbat. We will have volunteers posted at Newcastle Airport, Newcastle Central Station and the Ferry Terminal. If you're arriving anywhere else strange, please email us on eudc.union@ncl.acl.uk Parking will be a massive problem. We will try to find a side street for you to park in, but that's not guaranteed!

Please be advised that unlike previous years, we don't have the funding to provide a shuttle bus service to the accommodation. We will be escorting people on the Metro service from the station and airport. On arrival this means that you will need a small amount of UK pounds in your hand. The cost of a Metro ticket will be Airport - £2.90. Railway Station - £1.40. The Ferry Terminal shuttle bus to the Station is £3.00 from where you can get a Metro onwards.

5) Also, we have a nice new sponsor. Many thanks to OneNorthEast!

Thanks,
Russell Haswell
EUDC Newcastle'09
@NewcastleGateshead
Co-Convenor