Successful Debate Team at Portland State Faces Crippling Cuts

From http://www.dailyvanguard.com/debate-team-budget-woes-1.2207106

Debate team budget woes

SFC travel caps render the team unable to compete, the future is uncertain

By Vihn Tran

Vanguard staff

Published: Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Updated: Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Shortly after Portland State’s internationally competitive debate team brought home its third consecutive victory at the 79th annual Mahaffey Memorial Debate Tournament, it faced a major setback when the Student Fee Committee released its 2010-11 budget for student groups. 

Noticeably absent from the group's budget: $10,000 in traveling expenses requested to go compete in local and regional tournaments, as well as $14,000 in entry fees to participate in those tournaments. 

Members of the debate team are frustrated, particularly because they have gained a significant amount of momentum over the past year. In 2009-10, the team won five out of eight tournaments, but the cap on travel will severely limit their ability to compete in the future. 

"It's hard to be an intercollegiate competitive team without the intercollegiate and competitive part," said debate member Aaron Baker, who won first place with his partner Lindsay Bing at the Mahaffey Tournament. "It's like telling the director of athletics that their team can't go anywhere and compete."

According to several members, travel is an integral part of the debate team. Chris Richter, the debate team’s coach, said not being able to travel and compete takes away much of the team’s drive to improve because members don’t have an opportunity to prove their abilities. 

Kelly Welch, student coordinator and debate team member said, "All other benefits we provide to our members and to the school fundamentally collapse without the foundation of education and experience that competition affords us."

However, the debate team is unique amongst other SFC-funded groups because of its competitive aspect. While it competes regularly in tournaments held at regional and out-of-state schools, the team has no foundation of support from an academic department or athletic division. The debate team relies solely on student fees for its funding.  

According to Richter, the debate team was housed under the Department of Communication when it first began in the 1960s, and therefore received its funding through that department. However, when Richter became involved with the team in 2005, it was an SFC funded group. 

Though they acknowledge the financial benefits of being supported by an academic department, Hawthorne and others are concerned about the team’s autonomy. 

"As a student group, the students make the decision on where we go to compete with the advice from our coach, how many teams are going to tournament, who gets to go," Hawthorne said. "Under a department, we cannot make that decision to go to any tournament we want." 

According to Hawthorne, the Communication Department has not expressed any interest in supporting the debate team.

SFC Chair Johnnie Ozimkowski said PSU is different from other schools because it still pays for the debate team’s coach out of student fee money, rather than through a department.

"I've been talking with various administrators and departments to figure out what's the best place for debate to live," he said. "If we can figure out a way for them to pay for their coach, whether through the communication department or the center for academic excellence, then they can have more money [from the SFC] for travel." 

According to Ozimkowski, the SFC set a cap of $10,000 a year for student groups to pay for a coach, but decided to allow the debate team almost $25,000 for its coach. In addition, Ozimkowski said the team was allowed to use some of its coach’s salary to pay for travel expenses. 

"They could move $15,000 from their coach's salary to travel and pay their coach $10,000," Ozimkowski said. 

Baker said paying $10,000 for their coach would be unfair, given the amount of work he contributes to the team. 

Welch said the team has appealed the budget and is currently waiting for the Student Senate to make a recommendation to the SFC.

In a letter to the SFC, Colm Flynn, former chair of the World Debating Council, said the cut to travel will severely set back the progress of debating at PSU for years to come and result in a loss to the international debate community.

Debate team members also participate in several public service events, such as the recently hosted public debates on Measures 66 and 67. Members also volunteer at several local high school tournaments and recruit high school students who are interested in debate. 

Patrick Johnson, Westview High School's speech and debate teacher, said debate team members volunteer their time at his school's debate tournament.

“They did it out of the goodness of their heart and love for debate, they were not getting paid,” said Patrick Johnson, Westview High School’s speech and debate teacher. “Without their help, the high school students would not have a debate tournament.” 

Ozimkowski said he is currently working on a transitional funding model for the debate team, including setting up a foundation account where alumni can make donations to the debate team. 

Hawthorne said, "We have talked to Johnnie a little bit about transitioning to some other funding model but we don’t have any real idea about what this would look like.”

Welch said she is a bit wary of a transition process because they don't know which option would work best, and that a foundation account would not be the primary source of funding. 

"We would like to look into transitioning, since we've frequently felt like a square peg in a round hole," Welch said. "But if there are no better options, we hope we wouldn't be forced to transition just because we're an inconvenience here."

In the meantime, the group is holding practice to get ready for the upcoming National Tournament, to be held at Regis University in Denver, Colorado. Welch said the SFC gave them travel funding for next year’s Nationals, but did not give them funds to register. As of now, the team is unsure whether it can attend the National Tournament in 2011.
 

Is This the End for Macalester's 100 Year Policy Debate Tradition?

From http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2010/03/30/16962/is_this_the_end_for_macalesters_near-century-old_policy-debate_program

Is this the end for Macalester's near-century-old policy-debate program?

By Jeff Shaw | Tuesday, March 30, 2010

In 1986 and 1987, two students from Macalester College won theCross-Examination Debate Association national tournament two years running — a feat that had never been repeated until this past weekend. Since before World War I, debaters from the school have been toppling larger, better-funded rivals.

But next year, the liberal arts college in St. Paul with 99 years of debating tradition will eliminate the crown jewel of its speech program: team policy debate.

Part of this is to save money, although administrators say dwindling participation is also to blame. The policy squad's numbers dipped to four active members (a fifth, expected to return next year, is spending a semester abroad).

The decision has students, parents, alumni and others in the Minnesota debate community flummoxed and scrambling to persuade the administration to reverse its decision. At issue isn't just Macalester's near-century old legacy of debate and education, they say. It's the health of an activity that provides essential opportunities for hundreds of other Twin Cities high school and college students.

Why policy debate matters

Doing battle with brain and wit is as old as language itself, but not all arguments are created equal. Intercollegiate policy debate in America is a form of this ancient activity unlike any other, and backers say there's just no substitute.

"Policy debate is the most intellectually and academically rewarding extra-scholastic activity there is," says Mike Baxter-Kauf, a 2002 Macalester graduate who has coached the team for the past three years.

He's far from alone is this assessment. Competitive speech and debate (which is known collectively as "forensics," with no relation to the crime-scene science that bears the same name) consists of several different events. All teach different lessons. None, say most veterans of the activity, teaches as much as well or as fast as policy debate.

Why is this form of competitive speech valued above the others? Focused on what can be proven with facts, college policy debate eschews simple rhetorical prowess in favor of high-level thinking, voluminous research and comprehensive analysis. Policy debate requires more of its participants than alternative events like parliamentary-style debate — more work, more thought, more of your life. But, say its adherents, it gives back immeasurable rewards.

"Policy debate is the only type of speech activity that forces you to always be thinking, and thinking at a rapid rate," says Adam Freedman, a sophomore who came to Macalester from the Chicago-area debate powerhouse New Trier High School. "Compared to other forms of debate, it forces you to think more critically, more quickly, and rely more on hard evidence."

In a team policy debate — often referred to as NDT or CEDA-style debate, after the two national policy-debate organizations who merged in 1996 — one team of two students argues in favor of a resolution while another team of two students argues against. It becomes a rapid-fire game of argumentative strategy in which each argument becomes a tactical weapon.

Critical thinking skills

"The other events I tried didn't provide the same level of argumentation and weren't as challenging," says Cory Copeland, a junior policy debater at Macalester who believes the loss of the program will cost him "a unique educational opportunity ... I think [policy debate] may have done more to develop my critical thinking skills than any other activity or class I have participated in."

Whatever benefit debaters like Copeland and Freedman might have gleaned from the activity pleases Mac administrators. They just wish, especially in these economic times, that there were more students getting those benefits.

Last month, college dean Laurie Hamre decided to cut funding for the assistant coach job — Mike Baxter-Kauf's job, the three-fourths-time position responsible for maintaining the policy team.

"It wasn't an easy decision," says Hamre. She stresses that it wasn't based in any way on Baxter-Kauf's performance or the performance of the Mac debaters. Nevertheless, unless something unforeseen happens, this spells the end of team policy debate at Macalester.

A storied history

Since his freshman year as a Mac undergrad, Dick Lesicko has been helping to build Macalester's speech and debate team. Now 56, the director of Mac's forensics program has led his team through some of the highest points during the program's storied history.

From 1973 through 1987, Macalester qualified a team for the National Debate Tournament every year. After jumping ship to NDT's rival organization, the Cross-Examination Debate Association, a Macalester team won the first two CEDA national tournaments — again, the only team in history to win two in a row.

It's impressive for any school to stand toe-to-toe with powerhouses like Harvard. For a tiny institution like 1,900-student Mac, it's more remarkable still.

Macalester competes against teams like 2009 National Debate Tournament champion Kansas and perennial power Michigan State. Kansas' student pool is more than 10 times greater, and MSU's is more than 20 times larger. Nationwide among small liberal arts colleges, only Dartmouth, Whitman and Gonzaga compete on the same level that Macalester has.

This is a point of pride for alums, many of whom remain in the activity.

"It breaks my heart that they might not have a team," says Becky Opsata, who debated at Macalester from 1988-1992 and now runs a college debate program of her own, at Diablo Valley Community College in California.

Strictly speaking, debate will still exist at Macalester even after the coaching position is eliminated. Students can do parliamentary style debate, mock trial, or even a relatively new form of policy called National Forensic Association Lincoln-Douglas, named after the famous Abraham Lincoln-Stephen Douglas one-on-one debates.

Any form of debating, Lesicko says, is educational.

"As long as you're traveling to tournaments, you can access critical thinking and cognitive skills," he says. In the next breath, though, he acknowledges that the new form of debate isn't a substitute for NDT/CEDA style policy, the crown jewel of academic debating.

"It doesn't have the prestige, or the depth of field, or the quality of judging associated with NDT," Lesicko says. Fewer schools compete in these Lincoln-Douglas tournaments, the quality of competition is lower, and students neither do as much research nor are forced to learn teamwork skills.

On the other hand, Lesicko says, the solo format is more accessible to average students and more realistic given budgetary and time constraints. This could engage students who might not make the commitment to the more rigorous policy style.

"We've killed off the honors course," says Lesicko, "to beef up the basic course."

Administration cites too few students

Like any honors course, policy debate is more exclusive. Fewer students sign up. And this is the crux of the administration's position: too few students are doing policy to justify the expense of an assistant coach.

"Nowhere on this campus do we have a three-quarter-time staff person responsible for just four students," Hamre says.

Critics of the decision cite a robust crop of recruits anxious to do policy debate at Macalester next year. They also say that if the program is to grow, eliminating coaching isn't a good start.

Gregg Fishbein, a partner at the Minneapolis law firm Lockridge Grindal Nauen, coached debate at The Blake School in Minneapolis for 15 years. Students interested in debating in college, he says, look for the option to debate at the highest level.

"I had one student go to Macalester that would not have gone there if they did not have a policy debate program," he says. "They are going to offer other forms of debate. In my view, that is the equivalent of having a high school all-star baseball player showing up at Macalester and being told that the baseball program has been cut, but he shouldn't worry because the school has a really good intramural Wiffle ball program available to him instead."

Another worry in the debate community is that cutting coaching leads to a vicious cycle. Too few students? Can't justify a coach. Can't justify a coach? Extremely difficult to crack that "too few students" problem.

"We were expecting next year to have five debaters back, and hopefully a good number of [recruits] get in for next fall," says coach Baxter-Kauf. "It's a young team, and I think we're headed in the right direction." But six or seven of this year's prospective Macalester recruits say debate is a major factor — in some cases a deal-breaking factor — in their decision about where to attend school. Many of Mac's current debaters, like junior Jonathan Chen, say they "probably would not have enrolled" if the school didn't have a policy program.

A ripple effect

Then there is the broader impact of Mac's policy team in the community.

Amy Cram Helwich is executive director of the Minnesota Urban Debate League, a nonprofit bringing debate education to underfunded schools in the Twin Cities. She says the Macalester policy team plays a major role in helping her organization provide opportunity to hundreds of primarily low-income and minority students.

"We've just had this great connection with Macalester," she says. "Part of the reason that the UDL has grown so much is that we have this wonderful college debate community that can come in and act as coaches, judges, and volunteers. We couldn't find enough people to coach our kids or judge at our tournaments without a college policy [debate] community."

Minnesota's Urban Debate League is a major educational success story, and one she contends wouldn't be possible without policy debate. The program serves 350 students annually, in 15 partner schools within St. Paul and Minneapolis. Of those, 75 percent are low-income and 70 percent are students of color.

Their graduation rate and college attendance rate? Last year, 100 percent. Every single senior graduated on time, and all went on to college. This is all the more stunning given that some estimates place North's overall graduation rates as low as 40 percent.

"We're talking about a lot of first-generation college students here," says Cram Helwich. "I don't think you can get those same successes with a different kind of debate."

The research backs her up. A new study last fall examining high-school debaters in Chicago showed that when students were introduced to policy debate, it had a huge impact on literacy rates, graduation rates, grade-point average and standardized test results — all benchmarks for success in college.

"Even though [Macalester's program is] not robust in size, their existence makes an impact on our program," Cram Helwich says. "It becomes one big loop, where having a thriving policy debate community means we have access to college students who are mentors, judges, volunteers and coaches for our high school league. Then I have kids who, when we grow this high-school program, want to do policy debate in college. The two feed each other."

What next?

Opsata, the Mac alum who directs a college debate program of her own, is sympathetic to the school's desire to broaden access to debate.

"It doesn't have to be an either-or scenario [between expanding debate and doing policy]," she says. "From an administrative perspective, you can do both, and you should do both. But if you want to increase participation, there needs to be a full-time coach working on increasing participation. There's no way you can increase participation without somebody who is an advocate on campus."

A "Save Macalester Debate" group on Facebook has more than 1,000 members so far. A letter-writing campaign to Hamre and school president Brian Rosenberg has generated 20 or so responses, Hamre says, from alumni, parents of prospective students and members of Minnesota's broader debate community.

The budget crisis is affecting schools nationwide, but policy debate is managing to survive and even grow in places. Later this month, Mac debaters will compete at the CEDA national tournament in Berkeley, Calif. There are 210 teams registered for the event, making it the biggest field in 10 years at least.

As for Lesicko — who traced Macalester's first debate to April 7, 1911 — he's taking the long view.

"I'm looking forward to the occasion when we can field an assistant and bring back NDT," Lesicko says. "Maybe the 100th anniversary will be an occasion for that."

Jeff Shaw is a freelance writer and former web editor of City Pages. He was a debater at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Ore.

Update: An earlier version of this story said that Macalester was the only team to have won the CEDA National tournament twice in a row. This was true until Sunday, when 2009 champions Nick Watts & R.J. Giglio from the University of Oklahoma defended their title by winning 2010's tournament in Berkeley, Calif.

IDEA Exchange in Lithuania a Success

From Marcin Zaleski:

Dear All,

IDEA and Informal Education Debate Centre from Lithuanian organized IDEA Exchange on 27-28th March in Vilnius. The Exchange was made possible thanks to a generous support from the Open Society Institute.

The Exchange brought together youth activists working on the promotion of democratic values, interested in historical memory of their countries and the region, promoting debate and use of new media.

The Exchange was based on the principle of BarCamp and allowed participants to exchange ideas, present their work and projects to each other, and discuss ways for possible future cooperation. IDEA exchange featured over 40 presentations in English, Russian and Lithuanian and brought together over 130 participants.

In addition to the presentations, the Exchange also included a teacher training in debate and a workshop and mini tournament in British Parliamentary debate, as well as three public debates – in English, Russian and Lithuanian and a panel discussion on historical memory.

IDEA would like to thank Informal Education Debate Centre and particularly its Director, Virginija Paksiene, for her hard work and efforts to make this event possible.

We would also like to thank all the trainers, volunteers, Santara School in Vilnius, participants and debaters! If you would like to read more about the Program of the Exchange, please go to:

in English: www.idebate.org/ideaexchnage2010/en/

in Russian check: www.idebate.org/ideaexchange2010/ru/

in Lithuanian check: www.idebate.org/ideaexchange2010/lt/

For some first pictures from the Exchange see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/idebate/sets/72157623719506498/

More pictures and videos from the Exchange will be available in the next few days.

IDEA will be organizing a similar Exchange in the spring 2011 and we will be updating the above pages with new content and information, seeking your advice and involvement in preparation for IDEA Exchange in Vilnius 2011!

If you should have any questions about the past Exchange or would like to get involved in the Exchange next year, have creative ideas and suggestions, contact Marcin at mzaleski@idebate.org

--

Marcin Zaleski

Executive Director, IDEA

Donker Curtiusstraat 7/501

1051 JL Amsterdam

the Netherlands

tel/fax (NL) (+31) 20 6927299

cell phone (UK) +447885237108

skype: marcizale

McGill Wins CUSID Nationals

From: http://www.cusid.ca/community/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20092


The CUSID (Canada) National Results were held in University of Alberta. The results are:

Champion: MCG Goldenrod (Sophie MacIntyre & Vinay K Mysore)

Finalist: MCG Unmellow Yellow (Saro Setrakian & Sean Stefanik)

Semifinalists:
MCG Laser Lemon (Jake Liang & Bryce Balcolm)
YU Shocking Pink (Rudi Lof & Brent Kettles)

Quarterfinalists:
HH Cerulean (John Ashbourne & George Trotter)
UBC Robin's Egg Blue (Joshua Sealy-Harrington & Evan Choate)
MCG Sunglow (Joe Bricker & Cal Rosemond)
DAL Spring Green (Ali Cherri & Max Rau)
Top Speakers
1. Sean Stefanik (McGill)
2. John Ashbourne (Hart House)
3. Brent Kettles (Osgoode)
4. Saro Setrakian (McGill)
5. Jake Liang (McGill)
6. George Trotter (Hart House)
7. Andrew McCoomb (Dalhousie)
8. Sophie MacIntyre (McGill)
9. Bryce Balcolm (McGill)
10. Mark Rubenstein (Queen's)


Top Novice Team: HH Inchworm (Deirdre Casey & Sam Greene)

1st Novice Speaker: Tim Abdulla (McGill)
2nd Novice Speaker: Sam Greene (Hart House)
3rd Novice Speaker: tie between Deirdre Casey & Howard Cohen

Public speaking results
Champion: Christopher McMillan (Calgary)
2nd: Keith Lehwald (Dalhousie)
3rd: Meritt Koçdağ (Saskatchewan)

Alberta Nationals 2010 - Break Announcement

Team Break:
1st: HH Cerulean (John Ashbourne & George Trotter), on 6 points
2nd: MCG Unmellow Yellow (Saro Setrakian & Sean Stefanik), on 5 points
3rd: MCG Laser Lemon (Jake Liang & Bryce Balcom), on 5 points
4th: YU Shocking Pink (Rudi Lof & Brent Kettles), on 5 points
5th: UBC Robin's Egg Blue (Joshua Sealy-Harrington & Evan Choate), on 5 points
6th: MCG Sunglow (Joe Bricker & Cal Rosemond), on 5 points
7th: DAL Spring Green (Ali Cherri & Max Rau), on 5 points
8th: MCG Goldenrod (Sophie MacIntyre & Vinay K Mysore), on 4 points

Novice Break:
1st: McGill Green Yellow (Tim Abdulla & John Clarke), on 4 points
2nd: Hart House Inchworm (Deirdre Casey & Sam Greene), on 4 points

Public Speaking Break:
1st: Keith Lehwald (Dalhousie University)
2nd: Jordan Rederburg (University of Saskatchewan)
3rd: Sean Husband (McGill University)
4th: Chris McMillan (University of Calgary)
5th: Meritt (University of Saskatchewan)
6th: Garrett Richards (University of Saskatchewan)

Judges Break:
In no particular order (and hopefully this list is accurate):
Alan Cliff (UADS)
Erin Reddekop (SFU)
Gavin Charles (DAL)
Jason Rogers (HH)
Richard Lizius (HH)
Monica Ferris (HH)
Guillaume LaRoche (MCG)
Ian Freeman (HH)
Margherita Wisdom Devine (MCG)
James Crossman (UADS)
Patrick Meehan (UBC)
Roman Kotovych (UADS)
Neil Frazer (HH)
Andrew Baker (USDS)
Angela Jansen (USDS)
Ian Burch (UADS)
Iain Ireland (UADS)
Emily Cliff (UADS)
Wallis Rudnick (UADS)
Sean Lee (UADS)
Nick Tam (UADS)
Siobhan Kirkland (UCDS)
Michael Hsaio (UBC)
Miriam Gough (MCG)
Anno Laarman (UADS)
Krum Dochev (DAL)
Janna Robblee (UCDS)

Sydney Wins Colgate IV 2010

The team of Tim Mooney and Bronwyn Cowell won the Colgate International IV tournament held at Colgate University in Hamilton, New York. Cornell finished second, with Rhodes University and Hobart WIlliam Smith Colleges as finalists. The decision was unanimous for Sydney and 4-1 for Cornell.


The motion was: This House would legalize duels to the death.




Semifinalist teams who did not advance were Vermont LG and Vermont HD in one room and Laverne College and Kings College in the other. 


The top ten speakers were (sorry about some last names being left out but I do not have a copy of the results)

1. Mooney, Sydney
2. Cowell, Sydney
3. Clive, Rhodes
4. Bores, Cornell
5. Ingrid, Rhodes
6. Loeb, Vermont
7. Gross, Vermont
8. Klinger, HWS
9. Hernandez, HWS
10. Briana, Laverne

Breaking judges were:
Martin, West, Champlain, Dodge, Nelson, Carter, Aftab, Snider, Logan, Barnes


Motions:
1 give parents access to their children's social networking sites
2 allow those with life sentences to choose the death penalty.
3 US should grant most favored nation trading status to Cuba.
4 not use women for advertising in products not directly related women
5 impose a 100% death tax.
6 African nations should expel NGOs with religious affiliations.
Semi US should give other countries electoral votes in its presidential elections.
Final legalize duels to the death.

Oklahoma Wins CEDA Nationals - Second Year in a Row

Huge congratulations to Watts and Giglio, to my good friend Jackie Massey, and to all Sooners everywhere.


From Paul Mabrey:


Oklahoma GW (A) defeats Whitman CS on a 6-3  - Chris Crowe, Dylan Keenan*, Paul Mabrey, Scott Odekirk, Sue Peterson*, David Register, Jason Regnier, Scott Harris*, Kelly Winfrey. 

AUDC Judge Subsidies Discussion

This comes from the debateasia listserv and, I think, illustrates the situation. People have been asking.

Hi all

We have wound up discussions within the Exco on the merits of all the

applicants for adjudication subsidy due to the understandable need for

haste in announcing them.

In particular, upon reviewing the list of applicants rejected by the

adj core earlier, we decided to expand the list by creating two

categories of subsidies - 100% subsidies for 13 individuals, and 50%

subsidies for 4 individuals. We hope this would enable us to help more

judges go to UADC 2010 - with 140 teams the tournament will need all

the judges it can get. We also would like to point out that this

modification will make the applicant pool a little more D&I at the

same cost to the organisers.

The final list is as follows (within a category, the names are in no

particular order):

Full-subsidies (100% rego waiver?):

1. Bernard Guerrero (UPD)

2. Adiba Shareen (Independent)

3. Iqbal Hafiedz (Independent)

4. Sharmila Parmanand (ADMU)

5. Ely Zosa (ADMU)

6. Andrew Gnananaatham (MMU)

7. Bernadette Angangco (ADMU)

8. Dino de Leon (DLSU)

9. Loke Wing Fatt (Independent)

10. Danial Abdul Rahman (Independent)

11. Suhaib Hassan Syed (Independent)

12. Leigh Anne Choo (NUS)

13. Badrinarayanan Seetharaman (NLSIU)

Half-subsidies (50% rego waiver?):

1. Jayson G Maulit (San Beda)

2. Siddharth Chauhan (NLSIU)

3. Nishita Vasan (NLSIU)

4. Prithvi Sudhakar Acharya (MSRIT)

All applicants need to note that:

1. They cannot be used to satisfy the N-rule of their institutions for

very obvious reasons.

2. They still need to declare their conflicts like everyone else even

if they class themselves as 'Independent'.

We concede that there can be improvements made in the way subsidy

applicants are evaluated, and would encourage anyone with concrete

suggestions to make it at the coming Union meeting. Adjudication

subsidies come from money that indirectly belongs to the Union

membership and its distribution needs procedural clarity and oversight

that currently is insufficient.

But we would like to clarify that we will not be reviewing this list

any further. We still strongly encourage those who want to adjudicate

at this tournament to participate.

Thanks!

Vikram.

On Mar 25, 1:59 am, Vikram wrote:

> > Hi all

> >

> > As TJ has clarified, the Exco are reviewing adj subsidy applications.

> > While we are quite happy with the process the nominated adj core took

> > in reviewing these applications earlier, we are still looking through

> > every application afresh.

> >

> > Please note the following:

> >

> > 1. We intend to announce the confirmed list by 1 April latest.

> > Apologise if that is tight for the applicants to finalise their travel

> > plans.

> >

> > 2. Members of the exco who have themselves applied for the subsidy are

> > not involved in the review process.

> >

> > I would also like to request the co-operation of online union reps in

> > completing the adj core ratification quickly.

> >

> > Thanks!

> >

> > Vikram.

> >

> > On Mar 23, 12:21 am, Thepparith Senamengern wrote:

> >

> >

> >

>> > > Dear All,

> >

>> > > I would like to inform you that all of the 15 Adjudicators which where

>> > > selected by the Adjudication Core would need to be confirm by the Exco, I do

>> > > apologize due to the Adjudication Core wasn't aware of such process. This

>> > > process was passed at IIU AUDC which rational is as followed:

> >

>> > > 1. appreciate that the subsidy money belongs to the Union as the organisers

>> > > could have otherwise have used that to offer lower rego for participants.

>> > > 2. to ensure that the org comm does not make the decision unilaterally.

> >

>> > > The Adjudication Core will provide all information to the Exco and the later

>> > > the Asian Community on the qualification of the selected adjudication. I

>> > > would also ask the Exco to please process the confirmation as soon as

>> > > possible so that the adjudications which are selected can process further

>> > > with  their airfare and plans.

> >

>> > > Thank you,

>> > > --

>> > > Thepparith Senamngern (TJ)

>> > > Chief Adjudication

>> > > UADC 2010

>> > > tjt...@gmail.com- Hide quoted text -

> >

> > - Show quoted text -

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "debateasia" group. To post to this group, send email to debateasia@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to debateasia+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/debateasia?hl=en. 

Finals at CEDA Nationals

From Gary Larson:

.	.	JUDGE
Whitman College CS	Oklahoma WG	Crowe, Chris - Texas-San Antonio
		Keenan, Dylan  - Emory
		Mabrey, Paul - James Madison
		Odekirk, Scott - Idaho State
		Peterson, Sue - Cal. State Chico
		Register, David - Vermont
		Regnier, Jason - Concordia
		Harris, Scott - Kansas
		Winfrey, Kelly - Kansas

Semifinals at CEDA Nationals

From Gary Larson:

	Kansas QK	Whitman College CS	Morris, Eric - Missouri State
			Hoe, Josh - Michigan
			Keenan, Dylan  - Emory
	California BP	Oklahoma WG	Roland, James - Emory
			Cram, Travis - Kansas
			Harris, Scott - Kansas

Top Thirty Speakers from CEDA Nationals

From Gary Larson:

1	Nick Watts	Oklahoma WG
2	Jacob Polin	California BP
3	Mike  Gentile	Kentucky GG
4	Nate Cohn	Whitman College CS
5	Kathy Bowen	California BP
6	R.J. Giglio	Oklahoma WG
7	Brian Rubaie	Texas-Dallas BR
8	Christopher Thomas	Texas-San Antonio TM
9	Rahul Jaswa	California BJ
10	Mike Kearney	Missouri State FK
11	Kenny Cauthen	Texas CM
12	Mima Lazarevic	Southern California HL
13	James Brockaway	California BJ
14	Andrew Baker	Texas-Dallas BR
15	Daniel Straus	Whitman College CS
16	Dylan Quigley	Kansas QK
17	Jordan Foley	Missouri State FK
18	Spencer Janyk	Whitman College EJ
19	Edmund Zagorin	Michigan ZG
20	Whitney Abernathy	Louisville AM
21	Sean Kennedy	Kansas QK
22	Andy Montee	Texas-San Antonio TM
23	Chris Stone	Kansas SK
24	Jake Ziering	Redlands IZ
25	Rosie Washington	Louisville WW
26	Alex McVey	Baylor CM
27	Laura Boyle	Texas BS
28	John  Cook	Baylor CM
29	LaToya Williams-Green	Emporia State WW
30	Drew McNeil	Texas CM

Sweet Sixteen at CEDA Nationals

From Gary Larson:

26	Towson CK	Ben Crossan	Fernando Kirkman
21	Towson JM	Adam Jackson	Deverick Murray
17	Idaho State JJ	Danielle Jennings	Tony Johnson
15	Baylor CM	John  Cook	Alex McVey
14	Kentucky GG	Sohin  Gautam	Mike  Gentile
13	Gonzaga KM	Paul Kannellopoulos	Leah Moczulski
11	Michigan ZG	Edmund Zagorin	Aakash Gupta
10	Kansas SK	Chris Stone	Patrick Kennedy
9	Texas CM	Kenny Cauthen	Drew McNeil
8	Kansas QK	Dylan Quigley	Sean Kennedy
6	Missouri State FK	Jordan Foley	Mike Kearney
5	California BJ	James Brockaway	Rahul Jaswa
4	Whitman College CS	Nate Cohn	Daniel Straus
3	Oklahoma WG	Nick Watts	R.J. Giglio
2	California BP	Kathy Bowen	Jacob Polin
1	Texas-Dallas BR	Andrew Baker	Brian Rubaie

Breaking Teams at CEDA Nationals in Berkeley

From Gary Larson:

Baylor CM	John  Cook	Alex McVey
Baylor MH	Ashley Morgan	Sam Hogan
Baylor RL	Chris Rooney	Amanda Luppes
Binghamton TF	Matthew Torsiello	Peter Fountain
California BJ	James Brockaway	Rahul Jaswa
California BP	Kathy Bowen	Jacob Polin
California GP	Rishi Gupta	Sunil Pai
California GW	Andres Gannon	Sarah Weiner
Central Oklahoma KE	Scott Koslow	Michael Ely
Central Oklahoma SL	Sean Sales	Ian Lee
Columbia DA	Jonathan  Dentler	Shree  Awsare
Cornell KH	John Karin	Daniel Himmelstein
Cornell WL	Jason Wright	Nafeesa Laiwalla
CSU Fullerton BG	Bryce Bridge	Caitlin Gray
CSU Fullerton CT	Marvin  Carter	Lee Thach
Dartmouth AG	Jenn  Armstrong	Sandra Gonzalez
Dartmouth CM	Trevor Chenoweth	Marc  Milani
Dartmouth DS	Nick Donlan	Craig Smyser
Dartmouth MS	Andrew Manns	David  Sterman
Emory CR	Erin Collins	Fayzan Rab
Emory GM	Kirk  Gibson	Mikaela  Malsin
Emory HP	James  Hamriae	Anuj  Panday
Emporia State FL	Kurt  Fifelski	Chris Loghry
Emporia State WW	Ryan Wash	LaToya Williams-Green
George Mason HO	Adam Herbert	Mark  Offenbach
Georgia State GS	Josh Grace	Zak Schaller
Gonzaga KM	Paul Kannellopoulos	Leah Moczulski
Idaho State JJ	Danielle Jennings	Tony Johnson
James Madison LC	Sean Lowry	Shruti Chaganti
Kansas QK	Dylan Quigley	Sean Kennedy
Kansas SK	Chris Stone	Patrick Kennedy
Kansas State MZ	Beth Mendenhall	Derek Ziegler
Kansas WP	Mark Wilkins	Mathew Petersen
Kentucky GG	Sohin  Gautam	Mike  Gentile
Kentucky OG	AJ O'Donnell	Suneet Gautam
Liberty FH	Eddie Fitzgerald	Ben Hagwood
Liberty PT	Jacquelyn Poapst	Joshua Turnage
Louisville AM	Whitney Abernathy	Tiffany McCollum
Louisville KV	Marian Kennedy	Chris Vincent
Louisville PW	Shelby Pumphrey	Aaron Weathers
Louisville WW	Jason Walker	Rosie Washington
Macalester CF	Cory Copeland	Mike Freedman
Michigan State GS	Tom Gliniecki	Sam Shore
Michigan State KM	Katie Klante	Josh  Miller
Michigan ZG	Edmund Zagorin	Aakash Gupta
Minnesota LN	Brett Lind	Kelly Nickel
Missouri State FK	Jordan Foley	Mike Kearney
Nevada Las Vegas  EL	Michael  Eisenstadt	Alyssa Lucas-Bolin
North Texas RQ	Daniel Rowe	Colin Quinn
Oklahoma BT	Shae  Bunas	Keegan Tomik
Oklahoma DA	Evan Defilippis	Danny  Abbas
Oklahoma MW	Michael Masterson	Weston Watts
Oklahoma WG	Nick Watts	R.J. Giglio
Pepperdine FY	Jaimie Franklin	Carina Yagheszian
Pittsburgh KM	John Karlovic	Michael Mangus
Puget Sound GJ	Will Gent	Philip Johnson-Freyd
Redlands IZ	Sam Iola	Jake Ziering
San Fran State  WiGo	Trevor Wittke	Constance Gordon
Southern California HL	Sean Hernandez	Mima Lazarevic
Southern California MO	Avi Munoz	Debbie Oh
Texas BS	Laura Boyle	Shikar Singh
Texas CM	Kenny Cauthen	Drew McNeil
Texas-Dallas BR	Andrew Baker	Brian Rubaie
Texas-Dallas DR	Wes Dwyer	Collin Roark
Texas-San Antonio TM	Christopher Thomas	Andy Montee
Towson CK	Ben Crossan	Fernando Kirkman
Towson EM	Ignacio Evans	Ben Morgan
Towson JM	Adam Jackson	Deverick Murray
Vanderbilt BN	Nicholas Brown	Cameron Norris
Vermont RH	Marnie Ritchie	Chuck Harris
Wake Forest BM	Francisco Bencosme	Andrew McCarty
West Georgia GM	Adam  Grellinger	Jadon  Marianetti
Whitman College BS	Tia Butler	Lewis Silver
Whitman College CS	Nate Cohn	Daniel Straus
Whitman College EJ	Ali Edwards	Spencer Janyk
Whitman College HZ	Allison Humble	Alex Zendeh
Wichita State BR	Brian Box	Eric Robinson
Wichita State CM	Creighton Coleman	Matt Munday
Wyoming BH	Mike Bausch	Grae Harper

SAMBA Explains Itself and Its Awards

From Sam Nelson:


Every year in February  for the past 25  years the Society Advocating More and Better Argumentation (SAMBA) selects at least one institution of higher learning that participates in competitive debate for its "Program of the Year" Award. This year SAMBA selected two winners:  Monmouth University and Cape Cod Community College. Monmouth was cited for its outstanding performance in policy debate. Monmouth's policy debate program has achieved nearly unmatched success for a new program with limited financial and coaching resources. Samuel Nelson, the Director of Debate at Cornell University and the chair of the selection committee for this year's SAMBA Awards noted: "Monmouth's debate coach, Joe Patten, has provided the learning environment for Monmouth students so that they can expect to compete against schools with much more established debate programs and expect to win. To have their level of success so quickly is very unusual in this highly competitive activity."

Cape Cod Community College was cited for their success in World's Format debate. World's Format debate is the fastest growing form of debate in the Northeastern United States and is modeled on the debate that takes place in the British Parliament. As opposed to policy debate, which emphasizes research and precision of clash in argumentation, World's Format debate stresses issue selection and eloquence. Nelson said: "Cape Cod Community College fielded some of the most spirited and eloquent debaters I have seen in nearly three decades of judging debate. Lisa Heller-Boragine, the Cape Cod Community College coach,  deserves a lot of credit."

SAMBA was founded 25 years ago to promote quality competitive debate by all means that its members have at their disposal. These include hosting workshops, sanctioning tournaments, presenting awards, and fund raising. SAMBA has hundreds of members  including members residing  in Europe, Africa, North America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. This years award selection committee included members from Binghamton University, Cornell Univerisity, the University of Rochester, the University of Vermont, and the United States Military Academy at West Point.

American Presents Debate Lecture in Finland via Technology

From http://utadebatesociety.blogspot.com/2010/03/dr-steve-llano.html

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Dr. Steve Llano

On Tuesday March 23rd Dr. Steve Llano from The University of St. Johns lectured on Argumentation. Steve delivered his lecture from his office in New York City. The lecture focused on the Toulmin model of argumentation (see image to the left). There was also interactive discussion between the members of UTA and Steve. Using the Toulmin model they discussed and developed arguments for the motion: THW Ban Boxing.

Following the lecture the members of UTA Debate held a practice debate. The motion was THW Ban Gambling. Steve adjudicated and gave great feedback to all of the participants. Thank you Steve for all of your help and we look forward to working with you again!

Michigan State Luxuriates in USA Policy Debate Title

Image via Wikipedia

From http://www.articleant.com/p/re/67444-msu-crowned-national-debate-champ.html?print

EAST LANSING, Mich. — For the third time in seven years, a team from Michigan State University has won the National Debate Tournament.
Senior Carly Wunderlich and junior Eric Lanning claimed the honor early Tuesday morning at the 64th annual competition. The five-day tournament was held at the University of California in Berkeley, Calif.
The MSU team’s road to the championship included victories over the University of Kansas, Emory University (which entered the tournament ranked No. 1 in the nation) and the University of Mary Washington in Virginia.
In the final debate, MSU faced fellow Big Ten competitors Northwestern University, which entered the tournament No. 2 nationally and had not lost a debate at the tournament. At about 1 a.m. Tuesday, after two hours of debate and another hour of waiting, the five-judge panel voted unanimously and named MSU champions.
“Carly and Eric’s victory demonstrates their commitment to hard work, research and devotion to the activity,” said Greta Stahl, MSU’s director of debate. “Supported by a team of extremely hard-working coaches and teammates, their success demonstrates that MSU continues to stand among an elite group of competitors in the debate community. Their success is incredibly well-deserved.”
MSU won this particular tournament two other times – in 2004 and 2006 – and had been to the “Final Four” five times before that. MSU also won the Cross Examination Debate Association National Tournament in 1995 and the Seasonal National Championship Awards in 1996 and 2002.