Minutes of the XXth World Universities Debating Council
12 noon 10th January 2000,
St Pauls College, University of Sydney
Meeting Opened by the Chair Nick Purtell at 12.35pm.
1) Attendence:
Sydney People:
Chair of Meeting : Nick Purtell (Chair of the Executive Organising Committee)
Tournament Director: Dom Knight
Minute Taker/ Communications Director: Peter Nicholas
Country representatives:
Israel: Yehoshua Gurtler
USA: Matthew Schwartz
Canada: Rob Silver
New Zealand: Kevin Moar
England and Wales: Rob Garson
Australia: Meg O'Sullivan
Japan: Masako Sujuki
Singapore: Derrick Paulo
Hong Kong: Dinesh Moorjani
Malaysia: Shami Nazmus
Thailand Haphat Kijsamrej
Scotland: Ross Macdonald / Andy Hume (DCA)
Netherlands: Jan-Pieter Oostevum
Indonesia: Firliana Purwanti
Jamaica: Carlton Lowrie
Philippines Ricky De La Cruz
Greece: Yiannos Ashiotis
Croatia: Iva Kutle
South Africa: Estelle Dehon
Ireland: Colm Flynn
Bangladesh ?
Absent: Pakistan, Slovenia
Others in attendance
Chair WUDCC Omar Salahuddin
WUDCC Europe and Middle East Edwin Meulensteen
Ateneo: Pia Arcangel
Glasgow: Lynne Roach
Hart House Toronto: Rory Mckeown
Steven Budlander Wits
Katie Telford Ottawa
2) Manila Minutes
Minutes of the Manila Worlds Council Preliminary Meeting circulated at the Preliminary Meeting on the 4th
officially ratified (Israel/ Netherlands) with the amendment that the names of the Worlds Council Committee
regional positions had been changed as follows
Worlds Constitution Article 28 / 2)
Nations from the following jurisdictions represented at Council shall elect a delegate from the participants of the
Championship
The Americas
Islands of the North Atlantic
Continental Europe and the Middle East
Africa
Asia
Australia, New Zealand and Oceania
3) Prelim Minutes
Minutes of the Preliminary Meeting of Worlds Council circulated at the meeting were ratified with two
corrections: (USA/ Ireland)
Corrections Being Matt Schwartz abstained on the Princeton issue because he was from Princeton. Also under
the discussion of Institutions Rob pointed out Kings College and not Kings Inn to be a part of the London
University Union.
(These amended minutes are attached at the end of this document)
4) Status of Nations and Voting Rights
Discussion of the status of nations in relation to countries whose attendance has dropped for a year.
Greece: asked that their status be raised. They argued that they had done a great job in hosting worlds at Deree
and were now shocked that their status had been downgraded to a C instead of a B.
Omar: pointed out that nations could have a years grace, and Greece must have had this in Manila. Now it was
time for their status to be downgraded by one level.
Greece: argued that rich countries and universities could afford to send people everywhere, but Greece was too
poor to do this.
Greece put motion to be exempted for an extra year, motion failed without a seconder.
Motion to accept the voting system which was based on the attendance of universities at Sydney and Manila
Worlds as per the constitution. Passed (Canada/ England)
The status of Nations and voting rights for this meeting are as follows
Country Status Sydney Worlds Manila Worlds
Australia
A
UNSW, Melb, Monash, UTS…
Sydney, ANU, Melb, Monash…
Canada
A
Queens, McGill, Toronto, Ottawa
Alberta, McGill, Queens Toronto …
Ireland
A
Limerick, Cork, Dublin, UCD
DIT, DCU, UCD UCC
Japan
A
ICU, Tokyo Womens, Keio, Seikei
ICU, Tokyo Womens, Keio, Kanda,
Philippines
A
Ateneo, DLSU, UST, St Benilde
UST, Ateneo, DLSU, Diliman, Manila…
Scotland
A
Glasgow, Strathclyde, St Andrews,
Edinburgh
Glasgow, Strathclyde, Edinburgh, Dundee..
South Africa
A
UCT, Wits, Rhodes, Stellenbosch
UCT, Wits, Rhodes, Stellenbosch
England and Wales
A
Oxford, Cambridge, London, Inner
Temple
Oxford, Cambridge, London, Inner
Temple…
USA
A
Bates, Princeton, Stanford, Yale…
Bates, Princeton, Stanford, Yale…
China
B
Chinese U, HKUST, HKU
Chinese Uni, HKUST, HKU
Malaysia
B
IIU, Mara, UTM, Tenaga, MMU..
IIU, UTM, Utara
New Zealand
B
Victoria, Auckland, Canterbury,
Victoria
Bangladesh
C
BUET, North South
BUET, Uni Dahka, North South
Croatia
C
CAS, Zagreb law
CAS, Zagreb Law, Rijeka
India
C
n/a
Ahmedbad, IIManagement, Symbiosis,
Dehli
Israel
C
Haifa, Hebrew
Haifa, Hebrew, Bar Ilam
Jamaica
C
UWI Mona, Utech
UWI Mona,
Singapore
C
Nanyang, NUS
Nanyang, NUS
Greece
C
Deree
Athens, Deree
Netherlands
C
Erasmus
Erasmus, Leiden , Dutch Debating Institute
Indonesia
D
Uni Indonesia,
Uni Indonesia
Pakistan
D
Lahore Management,
Government
Slovenia
D
Ljubljana, Maribor
Thailand
D
Chulalongkorn University
Chulalongkorn University
Thus for every substantive motion of this meeting Status A nations cast 4 votes, B nations 3 votes, C nations 2
votes and D nations 1 vote.
5) Ateneo Report
Pia reported on behalf of the Ateneo Organising Committee. She reported on the success of the tournament and how everyone was very happy with how it went. They were particularly happy with the press coverage of the event including television coverage of the final. The university was also happy at all the publicity and visitors.
In financial terms a debt of $44,000 was left by the tournament which the University paid to the Hotel and the debt from using its own venues.
On the Fordham Issue. Ateneo had recently received all the outstanding funds of 1800 US dollars.
On the Ben Bolger Issue Ateneo claimed that he hadn't paid.
Finally Ateneo thanked the Worlds Community for their participation in the Manila Worlds tournament.
Ben Bolger issue:
USA wanted Ateneo to cross check their documentation for whether Ben had paid. Matt was currently holding unsigned travellers cheques from Ben as a guarantee of payment.
Omar stressed that Ben had said he was clearly willing to pay at the preliminary meeting and he should be made to.
Peter mentioned that Edsel Tupaz had emailed Sydney in March documenting those who had not paid and Ben was on the list with Thiru his partner. Also mentioned how Sydney did not expect Ben to arrive at the tournament at all.
USA: asked for arbitration on the issue and the need for proof.
Ireland supported the idea that with out proof we couldn't compel him to pay.
Edwin: pointed out how Matt could get the cheques signed and we could wait till the matter had been proved one way or the other.
England: Said this was dodgy and Ateneo had tried to find this out. He stated it was an unfair onus on Ateneo to prove.
Canada: stressed the need for documentation
Pia: said this may be possible
USA: Matt offered to take the cheques for 1 month during which time Ateneo would provide the new Worlds Council Committee documentation. Motion (USA / Israel) passed with all in favour. Matt gave his email address as a contact mas@princeton.edu
6) Sydney:
Laila was still coming with the budget, but any excess money would be put on the Bar tab. In ESL Dom mentioned that Lahore also broke.
Canada: commended Sydney on their efforts to accommodate North American interests, especially with the inclusion of Ben Foss as a DCA. They would also encourage Glasgow to do the same.
Israel: congratulates Sydney on their efforts to accommodate different religious needs such as Kosher and Hallal food and the end of Ramadan.
Philippines asked if rice could in future be offered for lunch as they weren't used to bread.
Hong Kong also asked about Alcohol, stating how Muslim's don't drink and the amount spent on Bar tabs could be unfair.
Lynne from Glasgow stated how lunches and breakfasts would be accommodated at their worlds.
Nick Purtell commented how Sydney had tried to address this concern by making soft drink free where ever possible even when you had to pay for alcohol. There was an idea of looking at identification for non-drinkers, but this was too hard to enforce. Differential pricing could be too tricky.
Omar said Worlds Committee would put this on their list of things to do and come up with some more recommendations of how to accommodate non-drinkers interests.
7) Glasgow Worlds 2001: Conformation of Bid
Lynne Roach reported how everything was coming together as a committee had been formed and was already in action. They have got themselves on the Union Website and set up the official structure of the tournament.
Glasgow has hosted 2 times before and so they could draw on those resources.
They have already looked at how people will be transported into Glasgow and stated how many people will be able to fly direct. The tournament would go from the 27th of December till the 4th of January and an information sheet was circulated to everyone at the Glasgow night and at the meeting.
For transport Lynne warned people that it would be wise to make arrangements early on and that they were negotiating with the Glasgow Tourist board to help get discounts.
Glasgow will be using the Union buildings and facilities for briefings and the organising committee is trying to use a few a possible to avoid the spread of contestants around campus. They will probably use the main hall for the opening ceremony and final. Some of the out rounds could also be held in the modern art gallery etc.
Accommodation will most probably be in the halls of residence and they hope to get single rooms and use as few buildings a possible.
Registration: Lynne asked everyone to register early for the tournament as Glasgow must know how many people were coming as early as possible. They anticipate there will be a high demand for the tournament.
Andy Hume will be the Chief Adjudicator for the tournament and will use the knowledge he accumulated working for Sydney. The DCAs were not yet chosen.
Food: Breakfast should be provided every morning at the Union and biscuits and stuff between rounds.
Dinners: The will be the championship dinner and one other. + snacks available at the others. The University is in the west end of Glasgow surrounded by a large number of food outlets.
Glasgow would also try and get people not normally involved in worlds to help out and also attend the tournament.
They would also put on karaoke again, and have a 21st birthday for worlds debating using a top Glasgow hotel.
Andy Hume: spoke of adjudication use same program as Sydney and also bring in a few fossils to adjudicate.
Lynne: Can accommodate only 300 teams and there already have lots of interest from the UK already. Thus they would start with a three team cap.
If the total cap was not filled they would relax the 3 team institution cap.
South Africa: asked if a women's forum would be run, Glasgow said yes.
Edwin whinged about the cost and sponsorship.
Lynne reported how they were already asking for a lot from Sponsors and that the cost was comparable to Sydney.
Omar was worried how costs had doubled since Melbourne, and it was a concern for Worlds Council Committee.
Nick Purtell answered Edwins concerns saying how is Glasgow got the amount of Sponsorship that they had asked for it would be a great achievement. He stressed how hard Sydney had found it getting sponsors and the huge costs incurred by running worlds.
Andy Hume stressed how they were sensitive of the need to keep prices down.
England stressed again how hard sponsorship is to get.
Israel asked about ESL semi finals: Glasgow said they would have them.
Glasgows bid accepted unanimously (England/ Canada)
8) Worlds 2002
Toronto's bid given by Rory McKeown
This will be 3rd time Hart House has hosted worlds, but worlds hasn't been in North America for a long time.
They felt it was time they put themselves in to do some work. They would have a high team cap and could accommodate up to 400 teams.
They had lots of resources, buildings and huge campus. They also had a large number of Alumni who could help out.
Accommodation would probably be in the Royal York which is a 5 star hotel- Probably 4 to a room with possibly of twins and triples for an extra fee.
They said this should be affordable due to their weak dollar.
They would have ESL semi finals and had a large ESL population themselves.
Ski trips could also be possible.
For tab they would also use Sydney's program
Bid passed unanimously (England / Canada)
2pm Council adjourned for ice cream, sandwiches and cricket for 20 minutes.
Meeting reconvened 2.35pm
9) Issues from Manila council.
9.1 tabulation issues: Random within brackets used
Canada asked about the random pull up and whether the program stopped you from being pulled up more than once?
Omar not sure if could be done.
Canada said how understand its logistics of worlds and the large number of teams that mean that it has to be random.
Steven asked if the programme could be made so that Swing couldn't be opening Government.
Greece also complained about having Swing as the Opening Opposition.
This was held to be too difficult for the programme but swing teams were to be asked to take everything with the upmost seriousness.
9.2 ) ESL : Who qualifies
Israel reported how the honour system was not working properly. There needed to be serious consideration of what makes an ESL team. Israel asked that the language used in the institution should be the most relevant criteria. Thus if taught in English they should not be ESL unless there is a good reason for them to be considered so.
Omar stated how WUDCC had discussed this and how it needed to be revised. It was to be used for supporting and encouraging development. Proposed a motion that once ESL institutions break, they would no longer be considered ESL until they had a period of time of not breaking which would be determined by the Worlds
Preliminary Council.
Broad Discussion on institutions and ESL:
New Zealand pointed out that one of the Thai people was from Britain
South Africa : how there could be some ESL teams from an institution while others weren't ESL.
Canada said how Ottawa had a large French speaking population of ESL speakers
Nick clarify issues: one about getting list to preliminary council for ratification, and the other about the 3 criteria- Language used at home, language of institution, National language.
England rejected the idea that you needed to prioritise the language of the institution .
Barrier test:
Dom Knight : suggested that the real test should incorporate whether there was a barrier to you participating and be to the individual.
England supported the idea of a test for the barrier that the participants suffer and how this helps the aim and
Spirit of ESL. The 4th question would help and reinforce the honour system rather than set out a list of criteria that could operate harshly
Israel asked for clarity and an accessible set of criteria
Dom restated how the goal was to look at barriers.
Question of places like Singapore where they are taught in English
Omar shared concerns about institutional basis for selection.
Dom's Motion to add a 4th question to ESL test: "Does individuals level of English present a barrier to participation"
Passed (Dom/ England), Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand against; USA, Malaysia, Netherlands Abstained.
Motion on "That a list of ESL institutions / teams would be approved for each worlds tournament at the preliminary meeting of the council"
Passed (England/ Canada) with Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia against.
Omar motion- exclusion of breakers
USA question of who it applies to- Speakers individually or University: in favour of the former.
Israel in favour of the team who broke to be excluded.
New Zealand in favour of quality debating making break a achievement , don't need to be in ESL break.
England pointed out in ESL break one or two institutions are dominating, hinders the other teams development.
Also hard when you break in both and have to do three finals debates in one day.
Ireland: goes back to goal of developing debating in those nations : once you have broken you should coach and teach others you skills.
Canada argued not to punish schools because a team broke.
Omar pointed out individuals not the same in following years.
Nick does this apply for break in the year that they first break?
Greece, Croatia, Hong kong point out that ESL question still not solved and that their countries are more disadvantaged than others.
Omar Puts the motion (Omar/ England) that
"Individuals and teams (institutions) who make the break at worlds are no longer to be considered for the ESL break in that year and following years of the competition unless the preliminary meeting of worlds council rules otherwise."
38 votes in favour, 19 against. Motion carried.
9.3 Princeton Money:
USA reported that it has been paid, 500 still owed to Glasgow.
9.4 Stellenbosch money issue now agreed to have lapsed. (South Africa/ Canada)
10) Prelim Meeting Issues:
10.1 Breaches of N-1 John long and Ben Foss agreed to act as adjudicators for contingents in question.
10.2 What is an Institution
Omar said this was part of the Worlds Constitution language that needs to be defined more clearly, perhaps in a glossary of terms.
Nick asked if a list had been complied as there was talk of such a list at earlier worlds council meetings.
Peter pointed out how he had been compiling a list of institution who had attended worlds from Cork onwards.
Croatia spoke how at their institution there were 4 societies from the different faculties of the university.
Peter commented that real need to define institution was the n-1 rule as each institution must send n-1 adjudicators and it doesn't matter how many societies are represented. The team cap issue is up to the host university and could be done by institution or by society.
Ireland also pointed out the different societies within their universities, been around for ages.
Edwin worried that different institutions just a cover for sending more teams.
Andy Hume stated how he'd always be happy to have more Croatians.
England said how worlds Council Committee would deal with this issue and work and some sort of list.
11. Worlds Committee Issues
Omar explained how the Worlds Committee has been set up to maintain continuity between worlds and help process information about the issues of the council.
Website: worked on currently by Wilbert Yuque. Hopefully will have a domain by the end of the month. It will have on it Constitution, records of who won, topics, rules, Public speaking rules, adjudication guidelines, articles on debating, regional reports
Public Speaking Rules: Omar has written some
Adjudication Guide: abridged version was handed out at Worlds. It helps lead people through the adjudication process. Omar congratulated Sydney on the way adjudication didn't involved problems on national biases and commended the change of viewpoint from a few years ago.
Women's Issues: AA quotas have been discussed, such as Australasians where 1/3 are females, but it has been found too hard to implement into worlds.
Constitutional review: have found constitution, will keep working on ideas to update it.
Question and Answer Session: implemented at Sydney, Should be formalised for future worlds. It allows issues to arrive at worlds council in an educated form.
Development officer: idea that a officer for development of debating in other areas of the world should be found.
That person would help with sponsorship.
Article 19 of Constitution also questioned about where it would be held. This article would be considered forchange next year. Possibly constitution should rest with worlds committee and on the website.
USA: asked why current system didn't work?
Pointed out that some of the people didn’t exist.
Ireland should keep it and add to it. The more copies of the constitution the better.
Omar on adjudication commended Sydney for the accreditation tapes that were sent out. Hoped trend would continue. Work on accreditation system proposal.
Glossary of Terms and definitions would be made also in the future.
Registration costs issue: Worlds Committee will look at that in the future and see what non-drinkers can get out of it.
Encourage bidding: The Committee would also encourage more bidding in future so bids aren't just passed
because they are the only one.
Sydney's media profile of worlds was also said to be very high and the profile would be passed on to Glasgow.
USA remarked how Public speaking rules would be at hosts discretion.
Edwin expressed the need to review article 7 over institutional representation at council. Issue whether a university had to send teams or just adjudicators.
Canada: need for a women's officer.
Formal proposal of change of chair of Worlds Council Meeting to be the Chair of the Worlds Council Committee.
USA said Nick was doing a great job and was more impartial.
Canada expressed that there was no real conflict of interest.
England pointed out all tabled issues had to be considered.
Motion for change of Chair Passed (Nick/ Australia), USA against.
Omar: suggested Women position + development position.
Article 7 left till next year.
Election of Committee Positions:
Omar Nominated Chair (Israel/ New Zealand)
Elected unopposed
Registrar : Colm and Peter nominated.
Each gave speeches, secret ballot conducted. Colm Flynn declared elected.
Secretary: Rob Silver and Peter Nominated
Each gave speeches, secret ballot conducted. Rob Silver declared elected.
Regions broke up for elections on representatives.
Americas: Matt Schwartz
Islands of the North Atlantic: Rob Garson
Continental Europe and the Middle East: Yehoshua Gurlter
Africa: Steven Budlander
Asia: Mohanaraj Gopala Krishnan
Australia- New Zealand - Oceania: Peter Nicholas
Womens Officer: Meg O'Sullivan
12) Womens Participation
Meg: idea women's forum should be open to all delegates. At the Women's meeting men could be invited to
speak.
Numbers of women reported to increase, some regions better than others.
6) Return to Sydney
Laila circulated a budget including Princeton payment. Any Surplus would be spent on the final night.
USA questioned about the money from T-shirt sales, Nick said this would be included in the surplus on the final
night.
Motion to ratify the budget (USA/ England) passed
13) Style Issue
USA: argued the constant style or worlds was an extreme solution to the problems confronted by worlds. Argued that there was a wide diversity of debate in the world and this was being lost by the imposition of one style.
Argued that allowing the bidder to choose the style would solve these problems and still be possible within the limits of words with the number of judges and rooms.
New Zealand worried that the adjudication of different styles would be a huge problem and hard to adapt to different styles. Also argued that bidding in a different style would disadvantage bids as people could veto the style they like.
England pointed out how the style had changed a lot in five years. 3 years ago the style was heavy on rhetoric, but now it had evolved more to matter. The method of adjudication has been adapted to be fairer to all the different styles.
Greece argued that the developing nations couldn’t cope with large style changes. They have trouble learning the worlds style.
South Africa: schools debating and university debating organised to follow worlds style.
Possibility of having exhibition debates in the national style and test debates to showcase style to world
Canada remarked how worlds had changed tremendously. Before North Americans were ridiculed and joked out, now they were treated with a lot more respect and thanks should go to Sydney for all its efforts such as the training video to ensure this. Canada remarked how they had a large proportion of breaking teams and have not been disadvantaged by the style.
USA still argued for choice of style in bid, showing they could deal with logistics and uniformity issues and teach the rules.
Croatia expressed the danger or many styles when people don't know the rules.
USA: still problems about rules when the style is the same.
New Zealand: why not have worlds masters in the home style.
Greece said this was better than sacrificing what we had gained so far.
Omar said it was a national development issue as Malaysia had geared itself up to working with British
Parliamentary style. This was up and running, they would have difficulty changing.
USA stressed worlds style has stopped the development of different forms of debate from developing from indigenous forms of argumentation.
Croatia spoke in favour of demonstration debates.
Issue left to Worlds Council Committee
14) Development issues:
Left to worlds council development officer
15) General Business
Israel: ESL adjudicators asked why none from Middle east of Europe in break
(this was wrong as Nica from Slovenia had broken and there were very few other adjudicators)
Croatia asked for a raise of status to B. Left for next meeting.
Nick reported gabble had been found
Meg proposed a vote on thanks to Sydney for all that they had done
Passed by acclamation
Meeting Closed at 6.20pm
Minutes of Preliminary Meeting of the XXth World Universities
Debating Council.
1pm 4/1/00 Main Quadrangle, University of Sydney
Attendance
Chair (Chair Executive Organising Committee) Nick Purtell
Tournament Director : Dominic Knight
Secretary : Peter Nicholas
Israel: Doron Shultcziner
USA: Matthew Schwartz
Canada: Rob Silver
NZ: Kevin Moar
England and Wales: Rob Garson
Japan: Masako Sujuki
Sinapore: Harvinder Singh Bajaj
Hong Kong : Danesh
Malaysia: Liew Ngai Hoe
Thailand: Naphat Kijsamrej
Chair WUDCC: Omar Salahuddin
Secretary WUDCC, DCA: Andy Hume
Ireland: Tim O’Connor
Scotland : Ross Macdonald
Netherlands: Edwin
South Africa : Estelle
Absent: Philippines, Bangladesh, Jamaica, Greece, Pakistan, Slovenia, Croatia, Indonesia,
Observers
Ben Bolger
David Gamage
Laura Brown
Francisco Lay
Steven Budlander
Meeting opened 1.30pm by Nick Purtell welcoming all participants to Sydney and the historic main quadrangle of
Sydney University. Mentioned how this will deal with preliminary issues of worlds in ‘eligibility of competitors and
institutions and the voting rights of nations.’ All representatives introduced themselves to the council.
Eligibility
Individuals as per article 22 of the worlds constitution.
Peter and Dom reported that after their extensive registration form collection process they knew of no one who
had individually breached the requirements. Peter and Dominic mentioned that the list of attendants for worlds
had been on the webpage from the 19th of December. No one had challenged any individual. A list of participants
was also in the tournament handbook. Peter and Dominic asked anyone to speak now if they knew of any
participant who had breached the article and no one spoke.
Institutions.
Peter had prepared a written report on all the Universities who had breached the n-1 rule and those with
outstanding finance issues. The N-1 issue is the issue of the motion of the XXVII World University Council that
“Each participating University must send one adjudicator for each team after the first.”
Robert Garson: Explained that this meant that if you send two teams you must send one adjudicator, fro three
teams two adjudicators and so forth.
Peter had prepared report distributed with the minutes and items were addressed in order.
ADFA
Report reads “The Australian Defence Force Academy is attending worlds for the first time ever. Their debating
society is an recent addition to their university life. They are sending 2 teams to this years worlds but do not have
the resources to send an adjudicator. They have fought hard with their University Administration to find the
funding for the extra person, but this was not possible.
As a new institution they are applying for an exemption from the n-1 adjudicator rule.”
Dom also talked about how ADFA were a different institution from UNSW although technically part of the same
university. This was because ADFA is a Defence academy in Canberra with a separate campus and it has been
recognised as such by AIDA. Council accepted this distinction.
Franciso for ADFA added that they had a person who they wanted to come as a trainee adjudicator, but because
they had recently transferred to an active regiment they were not allowed by the administration to represent it.
The Council and Omar stated that this was basically a case of was has ADFA ever been to worlds before. Since
ADFA has never been, they could be exempted. Council passed this motion with all in favour.
Lahore University of Management Services.
Report reads “This is a Pakistani University which has never attended worlds before. They intended to send 2 teams
and one Adjudicator Khadija Hasan Aftab. Unfortunately their adjudicator was unable to attain a visa to enter Australia
and was thus unable to come to Sydney. We only received this information upon arrival of 4 instead of five people.
They would thus like to apply as a new institution and a ‘force majeur’as per Athens where it was recorded that
“the two cases where the “rule” was not enforced were results of “force majeur” (people falling sick just prior to
the arrival)””
Omar reported that Government College had attended worlds for the first time last year. He also reported that
Government college is part of the University of Lahore, so this could be the same institution. Although it was not
the same participants.
Worlds resolved that it couldn’t decide upon the institutional status of Lahore and government college but it
decided that although a Force majeur could be seen, Lahore was to be warned that this was not to continue into
the future.
Fairfield University.
Report reads “Fairfield University is sending two teams to the tournament. Originally they had trouble finding an
adjudicator to meet N-1. They searched diligently and found one in a Miss Hellen Martinez-Visbal. Unfortunately
Hellen mother has fallen ill and this has meant that she cannot leave her to attend the tournament. This
information was only received on the 1st of January. Hellen had booked tickets and was to arrive on Air pacific
flight 911 on the 4th.
They would like to be granted an exemption to N-1 by the Force Majeur principle above.” General discussion felt
a little concerned about the details, but felt this would be accepted as a Force Majeur. There was some discussion
over what should be the result of this.
The adjudicator for hire principle was raised. The university would be forced to help out an independent
adjudicator with money so they would judge for them. Council was very against this idea as a bad way for
debating to end up in commercialism.
In this case the fact that tickets had been booked and the email was so close to the tournament along with the
unproved fact that Sydney had received registration payment was a strong reason to believe the Force Majeur.
Motion to Fairfield that this cannot happen next year and they must meet N-1 in future.
Columbia
Report “Columbia has a team from its institution’s Parliamentary Debating Society. Nevertheless there is also a
team from a law school of Columbia University. This could be interpreted as breach of N-1, but we were not
aware of this until quite recently. Jeff Williams has sent a email upon this issue.” Dismissed since Columbia law
failed to show. But issue of institutions at worlds generally brought up.
Matthew Schwartz, Omar, Andy and Meg all spoke on the issue, stressing how it needed to be looked into.
Stanford
Report “Stanford Parliamentary Debate Society has sent two teams and an adjudicator to Sydney. Furthermore, a
Stanford Post Graduate team also intends to register for the competition. We never received any formal
registration information from them and they have just arrived in Sydney. Ben Foss who is one of our deputy Chief
Adjudicators is also from Stanford and so he may qualify as a adjudicator to meet N-1. One of the team Ben
Bolger was in a team with finance problems in Manila. Ateneo will need to confirm this.”
This continued the discussion on what is an institution for worlds purposes.
David from Stanford explained that they were under the impression that it was ok to have separate Post-Grad /
Law contingents after Manila. There also had not been much communication between the Post grad teams and
the Stanford parliamentary debate society.
Rob Garson argued that you can’t just say that you thought it was ok. It is up to the institution to check whether
they comply with the rules themselves.
Mentioned that Ben Foss a deputy chief adjudicator was also from Stanford and so could be included for them to
meet N-1. Andy suggested that the test might be whether you are barred from adjudicating that particular
university. Although there was no consensus on that issue. Andy also stated that they should have got in touch
about it a lot earlier.
Omar stated how they should put it too Ben Foss and ask if it was Ok with him. All in Favour.
Discussion of Institutions.
Considerable confusion about what was an institution for worlds. General agreement things need to be made
clearer for everyone.
Rob Garson explained how London University Union was made up of the University of London , LSE, Kings
College.
Discussion also of Indians, Croatians, and Irish institutions that people were a little concerned about.
Omar was of the opinion institutions should be warned to get their act together so that they could meet N-1 and
coordinate their societies. It was mentioned clearly that institutions must meet N-1
Peter raised concern about when we have several competing societies from the same institution attending worlds
which society is the correct one.
Dom mentioned that his policy had been to allow teams to be called what they like for the draw, but they must as
a whole meet N-1 and the 6 team Cap which Sydney had set.
The issue was deferred to the full meeting of Worlds Council where a resolution should be formulated to set out
guidelines for what is an institution at worlds.
Peter asked whether this would be a constitutional change, but general opinion was that it should not be set so
firmly.
Meg raised the issue of Ben Bolger and his payment problems to Manila.
Peter reported that he had received an email from Edsel Tupaz of Ateneo in May stating Ben and Thiru had an
outstanding debt of $US 295. He had asked Ateneo to confirm this when Ben arrived on the 31st of December.
The committee expressed their concern about this debt.
Rob Garson explained what happened in Manila when Ben came as an adjudicator and conspired with Thiru to
form a ULU team and replace a female debater who had been paid for by the University.
The Issue was deferred to Worlds Committee on the issue so that they could determine whether Ben had
outstanding debts. If they resolved Ben did and couldn’t compete it would go back to a meeting of Worlds
Council on the issue. The Committee would be Omar, Andy, Estelle, Meg, Edwin, Matt Schwartz.
Dom expressed the strong opinion that all debtors to worlds must be chased up and the sanction of not being able
to compete as had been threatened to Fordham.
HKUST
Extra issue just arisen of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology where an adjudicator could not come
due to the death of a parent. They are sending 5 teams and 3 adjudicators.
The Council expressed sorrow at the incident and commended them for sending so many people to Sydney.
De La Salle University and DLSU College of St Benilde
Dom asked Council whether these were the same institution.
Omar explained that they were different institutions with different systems, St Benilde was a private institution.
Omar stated that they had been considered separate institutions at Asians.
The Council voted to accept this distinction
Matthew Schwartz warned that institutional differences should not be up to national or regional bodies to decide.
He explained how people in USA might consider Stanford and Stanford grad are separate institutions.
DE La Salle University
Report read “De la Salle University of the Philippines is sending 3 teams an adjudicator and an observer (Bombit)
to the tournament after a second adjudicator was unable to come at the last minute.”
Worlds was clear the Bombit should adjudicate considering his experience of debating in 4 worlds. They felt it
was silly to have a competent observer just sit and video his teams while the university breached N-1. All were in
favour of turning Bombit into an adjudicator.
DLSU College of St Benilde.
Reprot read “This is a Private University in the Philippines who intended to send 2 teams and an Adjudicator Joel
Sy to worlds this year. In the middle of December Joel was suddenly unavailable to attend. They searched
around and had found a Sinaporean girl Sharon Lok who seemed prepared to come as their adjudicator. This
never eventuated. The last news we had from them was that they would be approaching Wilbert Yuque to be
their Adjudicator. We were notified of this on the 1st of January by ICQ” Worlds accepted this report. They had
competed before in Stellenbosch.
Indonesia
Report that “Indonesia competed at worlds for the first time in Manila. This year they intended to send 3 teams
and two adjudicators to the tournament. Unfortunately on the 24th of December the money situation of the
adjudicators collapsed. Later at the end of January the money for the two adjudicators was won back, but since
the airlines were booked out only one adjudicator could regain their ticket. Thus they have come to Sydney with 3
teams and one adjudicators.”
Discussion about Sydney University at Manila worlds where Sydney sent 8 teams and 4 adjudicators.
Omar made it clear that this exception was mainly implemented because Sydney was organising and would use
the experience.
In this case worlds council decided to ask John Long whether he would adjudicate for them considering John and
Ben Richards had been training the Indonesian team beforehand.
All voted in favour.
Finance Issues
Princeton, report “Payment of money owed to Worlds due to the purchase of computers at their 1995
tournament. Princeton are to report on what has happened with this payment.”
David Silverman reported that they had paid the debts to Stellenbosch. The worlds Council asked Laila to report
to them about the payment issue at the full meeting.
Idea that 500 was still to be paid to Glasgow, Andy suggested this money would go on the bar at Glasgow night.
Worlds resolved that registration for this worlds would be accepted when payment had been confirmed by Laila.
All in favour except Matt Schwartz who abstained because he was from Princeton.
Fordham
Report “Fordham owed money for last years worlds in Manila. We believe that they have paid the $US1770 debt
to Ateneo. Ateneo will confirm this.”
Ateneo to report later on this issue, general belief that this money had been paid although not formally confirmed.
Stellenbosch Worlds
Report “Stellenbosch have also been asked to inquire about anyone who may not have paid for their tournament.
Failing any confirmation all debts are to be assumed paid.”
No known issues raised.
Omar raised the issue of whether pre break rounds would be taped and passed on to the Worlds Committee for
accreditation purposes. He expressed that Worlds was considering a accreditation system for Glasgow.
Omar also suggested a question and answer session with worlds committee should be held to answer any issues
relating to worlds such as rules etc and what had been passed at the council meetings. This was raised as a
suggestion to the Sydney organisers and not a resolution.
The Status of Nations was passed as reported by Peter.
Nation
Status new
Teams in Sydney
Teams in Manila
Australia
A
UNSW, Melb, Monash, UTS…
Sydney, ANU, Melb, Monash…
Canada
A
Queens, McGill, Toronto, Ottawa
Alberta, McGill, Queens Toronto …
Ireland
A
Limerick, Cork, Dublin, UCD
DIT, DCU, UCD UCC
Japan
A
ICU, Tokyo Womens, Keio, Seikei
ICU, Tokyo Womens, Keio, Kanda,
Philippines
A
Ateneo, DLSU, UST, St Benilde
UST, Ateneo, DLSU, Diliman,
Manila…
Scotland
A
Glasgow, Strathclyde, St Andrews,
Edinburgh
Glasgow, Strathclyde, Edinburgh,
Dundee..
South Africa
A
UCT, Wits, Rhodes, Stellenbosch
UCT, Wits, Rhodes, Stellenbosch
England and Wales
A
Oxford, Cambridge, London, Inner
Temple
Oxford, Cambridge, London, Inner
Temple…
USA
A
Bates, Princeton, Stanford, Yale…
Bates, Princeton, Stanford, Yale…
China
B
Chinese U, HKUST, HKU
Chinese Uni, HKUST, HKU
Malaysia
B
IIU, Mara, UTM, Tenaga, MMU..
IIU, UTM, Utara
Bangladesh
C
BUET, North South
BUET, Uni Dahka, North South
Croatia
C
CAS, Zagreb law
CAS, Zagreb Law, Rijeka
India
C
n/a
Ahmedbad, IIManagement,
Symbiosis, Dehli
Israel
C
Haifa, Hebrew
Haifa, Hebrew, Bar Ilam
Jamaica
C
UWI Mona, Utech
UWI Mona,
Singapore
C
Nanyang, NUS
Nanyang, NUS
Greece
D
Deree
Athens, Deree
Indonesia
D
Uni Indonesia,
Uni Indonesia
Netherlands
C
Erasmus
Erasmus, Leiden , Dutch Debating
Institute
New Zealand
B
Victoria, Auckland, Canterbury,
Victoria
Pakistan
D
Lahore Management,
Government
Slovenia
D
Ljubljana, Maribor
Thailand
D
Chulalongkorn University
Chulalongkorn University
Meeting concluded at 3.20 pm
This was seen as a championship that again raised the bar in terms of standards expected of the host. An opening night harbour cruise around the beautiful natural harbour left participants wondering how the host committee could match this standard for the full week. They did. 
