This Blog has now moved to idebate.org/worlddebating - all future posts will be made there!

13 October 2007

Debatepedia/IDEA launch

The International Debate Education Association Launches Debatepedia.org

Debatepedia calls on citizens to join in building the "Wikipedia of debate and reason"

NEW YORK, NY (October 12, 2007) – The International Debate Education Association (IDEA) announced today its launch of Debatepedia.org, a wiki with the ambitious mission of becoming the world's "Wikipedia of debate and reason". On Debatepedia, at www.idebate.org, people can help edit and co-create an encyclopedia of debates by adding pro and con arguments and compiling bodies of supporting evidence within a unique pro/con "logic tree" structure. Debatepedia is also a place for documenting the positions of leaders and organizations. The potential range of debates on Debatepedia is limitless and includes topics that are international, national, and local in scope. It also intends to offer different language versions. Its ambitious mission will have a major impact on the way citizens engage in pressing debates, draw personal conclusions, and even influence their representatives and leaders.

Debatepedia is the product of over a year-and-a-half of work by a dedicated team of individuals. It was founded by Georgetown students and alumni in the Winter of 2006, who then outsourced a software project to India in the Spring and Summer of 2007, creating software that enables users to easily use and manipulate the original and essential "logic-tree" pro/con structure of debates. Debatepedia merged with IDEA in the summer of 2007, joining a talented international team, and benefiting from the migration of roughly 500 refined debate articles from IDEA's existing Debatabase (the product of over 8 years of work). The merger of these teams under the umbrella of IDEA and its network has made the new Debatepedia into a powerful force of effort, vision, and potential.

With Debatepedia's launch, the focus moves to building a vibrant wiki community of volunteer editors. Like Wikipedia, such a community is fundamental to its mission. Debatepedia's launch is a call to debaters, students, experts, and citizens to register on Debatepedia and become active editors and members of its community. It encourages editors to engage for personal reasons in the issues they care most about, using Debatepedia as a tool to gather and weigh pros and cons, and back up the positions they take.

Debatepedia founder and chief editor Brooks Lindsay says, "I am incredibly lucky to be the chief editor of Debatepedia because the process and structure pushes me to read widely on the most important issues of the day, inquire in areas of uncertainty, gather and organize arguments, deliberate on them, and determine where I stand. It's the ultimate personal philosophical tool. I'm hard to beat in a debate with friends."

In the coming year, Debatepedia's focus is squarely on the hottest debates in the world today. For those living in or interested in the United States, it will be featuring roughly 50 essential debates that surround the 2008 US presidential and congressional elections.

University Debate Jobs in Korea‏

email from Jason Jarvis

Greetings,
I have been asked to post the following job advertisements for 2 English lecturers at Hansung University in Seoul, South Korea.

The positions will be available for native English speakers with at least a BA, though they prefer an MA level candidate.

Please direct specific questions to Dr. Wee at: namsook@gmail.com

*********************
Recruitment Ad for March 2008 Position
Posted By: Hansung University

Hansung University in Seoul, South Korea, seeks a well-qualified, highly motivated native English speaker, enthusiastic about teaching, to become a full-time faculty member (non-tenure track) in the Hansung Institute of Language Education.

1. Qualifications: Language education majors with MA or TESOL specialists arepreferred.

2. Contract Period: One academic year (March 1, 2008 –February 28, 2009) and renewable

3. Teaching Obligation: Minimum 15 lecture hours perweek
(1) If there is a need, instructors may be required to teach non-credit enrichment classes during semesters.
(2) Instructors are also responsible for class-related extra activities, student counseling, committee work and attendance at faculty meetings.
(3) If needed, all instructors are required to teachclasses of the summer or winter school.

4. Payment:
(1) BA holder will receive \2,400,000 per month(before tax)
(2) MA holder in language education will receive from\2,500,000 permonth (before tax)Allowances such as medical insurance and private school annuity will be provided. Salary can be raised according to lecturer's successful achievement.
Extra work demanded by the University can be compensated.

5. Housing: Free housing minus utilities can be provided if any vacant school house is available. Otherwise, \300,000 for housing subsidy will be paid on off-campus residence.

6. Vacation: Two month-paid vacation per year

7. Required Documents:
(1) Application Form (downloadable)
(2) CV with
(3) Copies of diplomas and certificates
(4) Copies of academic transcripts for the screening process
Official sealed transcripts should be mailed to the University directly from the designated college or university for final approval.
(5) 2 recent Recommendation Letters from former employers or professors including phone numbers or email addresses.
(6) Copy of ID page of passport

Please submit your application form first by e-mail toeunice814@hansung.ac.kr, which should be followed by all the required documents via regular mail to the following address no later than October 27, 2007.

Gui-Sun Moon
Professor of English Department
389 Samseon-dong 3-ga, Seongbuk-gu
Seoul 136-792, Korea

Jason Jarvis
Assistant Dean and Lecturer
Korea Development Institute Graduate School of Public Policy and Management
http://www.kdischool.ac.kr/
Office: 82-2-3299-1031
Email: debatekorea@kdischool.ac.kr
President, All Asian Debate Championship Executive Council

12 October 2007

Tips: What you need to hold a debate


It doesn't take much to hold your first debate but it is one of the most common queries I get.

Therefore the basic elements are:

- A motion that is debatable and challenging but suitable for the level of experience of the debaters.

- Two sides (Government/Proposition and Opposition)

  • There should be at least 3 people on each side.
  • This can be made up of one team or multiple teams/individuals on each side.

- A chairperson to introduce the speakers and control the debate

- A time keeper to keep time and make the time signals

- For competitions you need an adjudication panel of at least 3 people. The chair of the panel should be the most experienced adjudicator.

- Layout the room so that the proposition are to the right of the podium and the opposition are to the left.

- The "podium" can either be in the middle between both teams (most common) or there can be one on either side.

- The Adjudicators should sit together in the middle facing the podium.

10 October 2007

5th International Debate Academy Slovenia

For university students and trainers/teachers17th – 25th November 2007, Ormož/Ljubljana, Slovenia

The website and the application forms are athttp://debate.uvm.edu/idas2007.html
The news blog with updates is athttp://internationaldebateacademy.blogspot.com/

*THE FACULTY - DEBATE TRAINING SUPERSTARS FROM MANY CONTINENTS*

Jens Fischer, Berlin Debating Union, Germany Chief Adjudicator Europeans, famous Worlds/Euros correspondent, Eurosfinal judge, founder of Berlin Debating Union.

Neill Harvey-Smith, UK Worlds finalist in 2001, English Mace winner in 1999, Scottish Macewinner in 2002, Worlds Masters winner in 2006, won 25 IV tournaments,professional communication consultant. http://www.debatechamber.com/

Steve Llano, St. Johns University, USA Won national championship in USA as coach, six years faculty at WorldDebate Institute, twice faculty at International Debate Academy.

Loke Wing Fatt, SAID, Singapore WUDC breaking judge, legendary debate trainer in Asia, three timesfaculty at International Debate Academy, one of the world's most activedebate trainers.

Branka Marušic, Croatia EUDC President, Finalist at International Debate Academy, leadingEuropean debate organizer and high school trainer and coach.

Rhydian Morgan, UK Chief Adjudicator at four tournments, European Open winner, professionalcommunication consultant.

Sam Nelson, Cornell University, USAWon national championship in USA as coach, organized ESU USA Tour 2007,three times faculty at International Debate Academy.

Uve Poom, Estonia 2007 Europeans ESL Champion, Finalist at International Debate Academy,organizer of Europeans Tallinn.

Bojana Skrt, Slovenia Founder and director ZIP Slovenia, twice World Schools EFL worldchampion coach, in 2006-2007 school year held 234 debate events and 16tournaments.

Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont, USA Director, World Debate Institute, 35 years as debate coach, fifth yearat International Debate Academy as training director, multiple nationalchampionships in USA as a coach, editor ofhttp://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/, full details athttp://debate.uvm.edu/acsprosevita.doc .

Watch for more additions.*AT THE END OF THE TRAINING SECTION OF THE PROGRAM WE WILL MOVE TO LJUBLJANA BY BUS AND HOLD AN INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITIES DEBATE TOURNAMENT. ATTEND JUST THE TOURNAMENT IF YOU WISH. THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL TRACK FOR COACHES AND TRAINERS.*

For more details click here

Tips: World Debating Championship Rules

Adjudicators and debaters at Worlds are expected to be familiar with the Rules of the World Championships. You would be amazed how many people aren't and lose points in the first few rounds working out silly mistakes. Below are the official rules. They are probably going to prompt more questions than answers when you read them. You should use these along with the Tips section which will (or at least should) explain how to debate in far more detail than the official rules can.

WUDC World Parliamentary Debating Rules



Part 1— Introduction


1.1 The format of the debate


1.1.1 The debate will consist of four teams of two persons (persons will be known as "members"), a chairperson (known as the "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame Speaker" and an adjudicator or panel of adjudicators.


1.1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:


1.1.3 Members will deliver substantive speeches in the following order:
(1) Prime Minister;
(2) Opposition Leader;
(3) Deputy Prime Minister;
(4) Deputy Opposition Leader;
(5) Member for the Government;
(6) Member for the Opposition;
(7) Government Whip;
(8) Opposition Whip.


Opening Government:
" Prime Minister" or "First Government member" and
" Deputy Prime Minister" or "Second Government member";


Opening Opposition:
" Leader of the Opposition" or "First Opposition member" and
" Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or "Second Opposition member";


Closing Government:
" Member for the Government" or "Third Government member" and
" Government Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member";


Closing Opposition:
" Member for the Opposition" or "Third Opposition member" and
" Opposition Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member".


1.1.4 Members will deliver a substantive speech of seven minutes duration and should offer points of information while members of the opposing teams are speaking.


1.2 The motion

1.2.1 The motion should be unambiguously worded.

1.2.2 The motion should reflect that the World Universities Debating Championship is an international tournament.

1.2.3 The members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament.




1.3 Preparation


1.3.1 The debate should commence 15 minutes after the motion is announced.


1.3.2 Teams should arrive at their debate within five minutes of the scheduled starting time for that debate.


1.3.3 Members are permitted to use printed or written material during preparation and during the debate. Printed material includes books, journals, newspapers and other similar materials. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during preparation and in the debate.






1.4 Points of Information


1.4.1 Points of Information (questions directed to the member speaking) may be asked between first minute mark and the six-minute mark of the members’ speeches (speeches are of seven minutes duration).


1.4.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand, place one hand on his or her head and extend the other towards the member speaking. The member may announce that they would like to ask a "Point of Information" or use other words to this effect.


1.4.3 The member who is speaking may accept or decline to answer the Point of Information.


1.4.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.


1.4.5 The member who is speaking may ask the person offering the Point of Information to sit down where the offeror has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood.


1.4.6 Members should attempt to answer at least two Points of Information during their speech. Members should also offer Points of Information.


1.4.7 Points of Information should be assessed in accordance with clause 3.3.4 of these rules.


1.4.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.




1.5 Timing of the speeches


1.5.1 Speeches should be seven minutes in duration (this should be signaled by two strikes of the gavel). Speeches over seven minutes and 15 seconds may be penalised.


1.5.2 Points of Information may only be offered between the first minute mark and the six minute mark of the speech (this period should be signaled by one strike of the gavel at the first minute and one strike at the sixth minute).


1.5.3 It is the duty of the Speaker of the House to time speeches.


1.5.4 In the absence of the Speaker of the House, it is the duty of the Chair of the Adjudication panel to ensure that speeches are timed.




1.6 The adjudication

1.6.1 The debate should be adjudicated by a panel of at least three adjudicators, where this is possible.


1.6.2 At the conclusion of the debate, the adjudicators should confer and rank the teams, from first placed to last placed. (see Part 5: The Adjudication).


1.6.3 There will be verbal adjudication of the debate after the first six preliminary rounds of the tournament. The verbal adjudication should be delivered in accordance with clause 5.5 of these rules.





Part 2 — Definitions


2.1 The definition


2.1.1 The definition should state the issue (or issues) for debate arising out of the motion and state the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation.


2.1.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech.


2.1.3 The definition must:
(a) have a clear and logical link to the motion - this means that an average reasonable person would accept the link made by the member between the motion and the definition (where there is no such link the definition is sometimes referred to as a "squirrel");


(b) not be self-proving - a definition is self-proving when the case is that something should or should not be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal. A definition is may also be self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists or does not exist and there is no reasonable rebuttal (these definitions are sometimes referred to as "truisms").


(c) not be time set - this means that the debate must take place in the present and that the definition cannot set the debate in the past or the future; and


(d) not be place set unfairly - this means that the definition cannot restrict the debate so narrowly to a particular geographical or political location that a participant of the tournament could not reasonably be expected to have knowledge of the place.




2.2 Challenging the definition


2.2.1 The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules. The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.


2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister.




2.3 Assessing the definitional challenge
2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be ‘unreasonable’ where it violates clause 2.1.3 of these rules.


2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members asserting that the definition is unreasonable.


2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable.


2.3.4 Where the definition of the Opening Government is unreasonable and an alternative definition is substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing Government may introduce matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Opening Government and consistent with the definition of the Opening Opposition.


2.3.5 If the Opening Opposition has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable, the Closing Government may challenge the definition of the Opening Opposition and substitute an alternative definition.


2.3.6 If the Closing Government has substituted a definition that is also unreasonable (in addition to the unreasonable definitions of the Opening Government and Opening Opposition, the Closing Opposition may challenge the definition of the Closing Government and substitute an alternative definition.





Part 3 — Matter


3.1 The definition of matter


3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.


3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.


3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information.






3.2 The elements of matter


3.2.1 Matter should be relevant, logical and consistent.


3.2.2 Matter should be relevant. It should relate to the issues of the debate: positive material should support the case being presented and rebuttal should refute the material being presented by the opposing team(s). The Member should appropriately prioritise and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate.


3.2.3 Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed logically in order to be clear and well reasoned and therefore plausible. The conclusion of all arguments should support the member’s case.


3.2.4 Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure that the matter they present is consistent within their speech, their team and the remainder of the members on their side of the debate (subject to clauses 2.3.4, 2.3.5 or 2.3.6 of these rules).


3.2.5 All Members should present positive matter (except the final two members in the debate) and all members should present rebuttal (except the first member in the debate). The Government Whip may choose to present positive matter.


3.2.6 All Members should attempt to answer at least two points of information during their own speech and offer points of information during opposing speeches.




3.3 Assessing matter

3.3.1 The matter presented should be persuasive. ‘The elements of matter’ should assist an adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness and credibility of the matter presented.


3.3.2 Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person. Adjudicators should analyse the matter presented and assess its persuasiveness, while disregarding any specialist knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate.


3.3.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference, age, social status or disability.


3.3.4 Points of information should be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information.



Part 4 — Manner


4.1 The definition of manner
4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.

4.1.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Some, but not all, of these elements are listed below.



4.2 The elements of style


4.2.1 The elements of style include eye contact, voice modulation, hand gestures, language, the use of notes and any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member.


4.2.2 Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as it allows the member to appear more sincere.


4.2.3 Voice modulation will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as the debater may emphasise important arguments and keep the attention of the audience. This includes the pitch, tone, and volume of the member’s voice and the use of pauses.


4.2.4 Hand gestures will generally assist a member to emphasise important arguments. Excessive hand movements may however be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of the audience to the arguments.


4.2.5 Language should be clear and simple. Members who use language which is too verbose or confusing may detract from the argument if they lose the attention of the audience.


4.2.6 The use of notes is permitted, but members should be careful that they do not rely on their notes too much and detract from the other elements of manner.



4.3 The elements of structure


4.3.1 The elements of structure include the structure of the speech of the member and the structure of the speech of the team.


4.3.2 The matter of the speech of each member must be structured. The member should organise his or her matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation. The substantive speech of each members should:
(a) include: an introduction, conclusion and a series of arguments; and4.3.3 The matter of the team must be structured. The team should organise their matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation. The team should:

(b) be well-timed in accordance with the time limitations and the need to prioritise and apportion time to matter.


(a) contain a consistent approach to the issues being debated; and
(b) allocate positive matter to each member where both members of the team are introducing positive matter; and



4.4 Assessing manner


4.4.1 Adjudicators should assess the elements of manner together in order to determine the overall effectiveness of the member’s presentation. Adjudicators should assess whether the member’s presentation is assisted or diminished by their manner.


4.4.2 Adjudicators should be aware that at a World Championship, there are many styles which are appropriate, and that they should not discriminate against a member simply because the manner would be deemed ‘inappropriate Parliamentary debating’ in their own country.


4.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, language (subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preference, age, social status or disability.




Part 5 — The Adjudication


5.1 The role of the adjudicator

5.1.1 The adjudicator must:
(a) Confer upon and discuss the debate with the other adjudicators;
(b) Determine the rankings of the teams;
(c) Determine the team grades;
(d) Determine the speaker marks;
(e) Provide a verbal adjudication to the members; and
(f) Complete any documentation required by the tournament.5.1.2 The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on the adjudication of the debate. Adjudicators should therefore confer in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect


5.1.3 Adjudicators should acknowledge that adjudicators on a panel may form different or opposite views of the debate. Adjudicators should therefore attempt to base their conclusions on these rules in order to limit subjectivity and to provide a consistent approach to the assessment of debates.




5.2 Ranking teams
5.2.1 Teams should be ranked from first place to last place. First placed teams should be awarded three points, second placed teams should be awarded two points, third placed teams should be awarded one point and fourth placed teams should be awarded zero points.


5.2.2 Teams may receive zero points where they fail to arrive at the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled time for debate.


5.2.3 Teams may receive zero points where the adjudicators unanimously agree that the Member has (or Members have) harassed another debater on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference or disability.


5.2.4 Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings. Where a unanimous decision cannot be reached after conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the rankings. Where a majority decision cannot be reached, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators will determine the rankings.


5.4 Marking the members
5.4.2 Speaker points should be given the following interpretation:


Grade Marks Meaning


A 90-100 Excellent to flawless. The standard of speech you would expect to see from a speaker at the Semi Final / Grand Final level of the tournament. This speaker has many strengths and few, if any, weaknesses.


B 80-89 Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see from a speaker at the finals level or in contention to make to the finals. This speaker has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.


C 70-79 Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses and roughly equal proportions.


D 60-69 Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor strengths.


E 50-59 Very poor. This speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.




5.5 Verbal adjudications
5.5.1 At the conclusion of the conferral, the adjudication panel should provide a verbal adjudication of the debate.


5.5.2 The verbal adjudication should be delivered by the Chair of the adjudication panel, or where the Chair dissents, by a member of the adjudication panel nominated by the Chair of the panel.


5.5.3 The verbal adjudication should:
(a) identify the order in which the teams were ranked

(b) explain the reasons for the rankings of team, ensuring that each team is referred to in this explanation; and
(c) provide constructive comments to individual members where the adjudication panel believes this is necessary.

5.5.4 The verbal adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes.


5.5.5 The members must not harass the adjudicators following the verbal adjudication.


5.5.6 The members may approach an adjudicator for further clarification following the verbal adjudication; these inquiries must at all times be polite and non-confrontational.

5.5.4 The verbal adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes.

5.5.5 The members must not harass the adjudicators following the verbal adjudication.

5.5.6 The members may approach an adjudicator for further clarification following the verbal adjudication; these inquiries must at all times be polite and non-confrontational.

6th National Health Sciences Debate Motions

The International Medical University in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia will be hosting the 6th National Health Sciences Debate from 27th to 29th October 2007


The list of motions has been released for participants to view.

6th National Health Sciences Debate MOTIONS
(21st Century Medicine: Making Us Better???)
International Medical University
Bukit Jalil, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
27th – 29th October 2007


1. This house should give the Government the go-ahead in eKesihatan.
2. This house would stand behind hybrid-embryonic cloning.
3. This house believes that the private sector should do more to support the healthcare service in Malaysia.
4. This house would make medical insurance compulsory for all.
5. This house would stand behind a National Healthcare Plan.
6. This house believes that the Malaysian Government is not paying enough attention to the healthcare sector.
7. This house would urge the Malaysian Government to play a larger role in women's healthcare. 8. This house believes that only pharmacist has the right to dispense drugs.
9. THW honour only the words of the terminally ill patient for euthanasia.
10. This house would make passing an aptitude and communication test compulsory for all medical student before progressing to their clinical years.
11. This house would make organ donation compulsory for all brain dead patients.
12. THBT medical schools should do away with the current PBL based medical curriculum.
13. THBT that medical services provided in-flight by a doctor should be absolutely free.
14. THBT the US child health insurance program should be implemented in Malaysia.
15. THBT athletes suffering from Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome should be excluded from the Gender Testing regulations.
16. THBT the government should make it compulsory for the private sector to offer the option of the 5 years maternity leave.

9 October 2007

Tips: The points system

How do the points at Worlds work? Well there are actually two sets of points. Team points and Speaker Points. The team points determine the rankings of the teams especially for the break and speaker points break any ties between teams on team points and are used to determine the best speaker of the tournament

Team Points.
Team points are awarded as follows
3pts for a win
2pts for second
1pt for third
0pts for fourth

This means the maximum points any team can win is 27. In general the top team will score 23-24 points.

At Worlds Teams are randomly drawn in round 1 and after that they are drawn based on their "power match" (i.e. top 4 teams meet the top 4 and so on). There are other considerations in tabbing such as roles in a debate, "pull ups" etc but that is for another post.

At the end of 9 rounds the top 32 teams proceed to the knockout rounds. (There is also a knock out tournament for EFL and ESL teams outside the top 32).

At the last 4 worlds 18 points has been needed to break. The previous 4 tournaments (excluding Glasgow which was only 8 rounds) the break was at 17 points. The points depends largely on the number of teams at the tournament but it is safe to say that 18 plus speaks is now the standard people must reach to break.

18 points means averaging second in every debate (i.e. be in the top half). For every third you take you must win a debate to get back on track. For every fourth you must win two debates.

Speaker Points
A 90-100
Excellent to flawless. The standard of speech you would expect to see from a speaker at the Semi Final / Grand Final level of the tournament. This speaker has many strengths and few, if any, weaknesses.

B 80-89
Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see from a speaker at the finals level or in contention to make to the finals. This speaker has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.

C 70-79
Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses and roughly equal proportions.

D 60-69
Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor strengths.

E 50-59
Very poor. This speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.

You can't give a speaker less than 50 points. As a general guideline you should have a good reason to give an A and you should have an excellent reason (i.e. be able to defend it if asked by the adjudication team) for giving an E.

With 70-79 being the middle rank the average speaker points at worlds is around 73.

The best speaker usually comes in averaging somewhere in the mid to high 80s.

For the past two worlds teams have needed to average just over 79 to break on 18 plus speaks.

So all that means that to break at the world championships you need to average second in every debate and average B's in speaker points.

Tabbie Update

We've just released Tabbie version 1.3. This is pretty much the version as it's going to be used at the Worlds in Bangkok and also coming weekend at the Haifa Nightly Tournament (we trust that Tabbie is now stable enough to be operated by drunks)

New in this version:

Adjudicator Allocation has been completely redone. It takes into account the following:

  • University - Adjudicator conflicts ('scratches'),
  • Team - Adjudicator conflicts ('scratches'),
  • Better adjudicators should be chairs
  • Better debates get better panels
  • Adjudicators should avoid previous co-panellists
  • Adjudicators should avoid previous adjudicated teams

Overview page made more clear - only currently possible options are shown

Layout:

  • Removed big "Tabbie" header to clear up some space
  • Personalized Adjudicator Sheets in smaller font for longer names
  • Removed confusing "settings" option

Technical:

  • Removed the website from the codebase to separate host
  • GPL Licence header added to all code files

General Tabbie Information: http://tabbie.wikidot.com/

Online demos: http://www.smoothtournament.com/

Downloading: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=199347

What is Tabbie?

Tabbie is Tab Software for British Parliamentary Debating Tournaments. It calculates the fairest possible draw for you, based on the official WUDC rules. It has an easy to use Web Interface, allowing input from multiple computers. Tabbie is very stable - it's been around since the NTU Worlds 2004 and is the software of choice for Bangkok Worlds 2008. Tabbie is Free (Open Source) Software.

Klaas Van Schelven

8 October 2007

CIMB WUPID Update

Listed below are the institutions that have confirmed their participation for CIMB WUPID,

Australian National University, Australia
International Islamic University, Malaysia
Monash University, Australia
Multimedia University, Malaysia
National University Of Singapore
Queen’s University, Canada
Singapore Management University, Singapore
Universiti Teknologi Mara, Malaysia
University College Cork, Ireland
University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
University of Oxford, United Kingdom
University of Queensland, Australia
University of Sydney, Australia
University of Vermont, United States

IF you have interests in attending CIMB WUPID, or
IF you are interested but need some more time to decide or,
IF you might come but you are still waiting for managements approval, or
IF you would definitely come but you haven’t finalized the debaters, or
IF you are invited and you want the organizers to stop bugging you with reminders, or
IF you don’t know what CIMB WUPID is, or
IF you feeling lonely and need someone to talk to, or
IF you need any advice on relationship, pet care, life, travel, fashion, etc;

Please do not hesitate to contact me at your soonest convenience. Otherwise, looking forward to seeing you at the inaugural CIMB WUPID this December.

Cheers !!

Ahmed Ilyas bin Adam
Tournament Organizer,
CIMB WUPID

Join the best teams and adjudicators in beautiful Malaysia this December http://www.wupid.hngsc.com/

Tips: Tab Sheets

Many debaters will have experienced the long wait in the corridor outside the debate venue as the judges inside deliberate on their decision. Then the door will open and a piece of paper gets handed to a runner and the door closes again for 5 minutes. Then when the teams get called in to hear the oral adjudication a second piece of paper gets passed to the runner.

What are those pieces of paper and for anyone planning to adjudicate what do they contain.

Speed Ballot: This is the critical information that the tab room needs to draw the next round. It ranks the teams from first to fourth. The example below is the version that was used at Worlds in Stellenboach. At the main competitions the tab system will produce a ballot paper with much of the information already filled in (i.e. judges, rooms, teams). All the chair of the panel has to do is fill in the result.



The Full Ballot: This contains similar basic details to the speed ballot but in this case it also contains the speaker points. This data is sometimes inputted a round later than the team points in order to speed up the draw process for the next round. One thing to note is the whole concept of no low point wins. After team positions have been determined (and the speed ballot submitted) then the speaker points will be decided and the total speaker points a team gets must not exceed the points of a team who finished ahead of them in the debate.

Many modern tab systems will prevent low point wins from being entered. This really annoys the tab room and adjudication team as they have to find the chair judge and get them to correct the results. However nothing will see a judge moved from being chair faster than submitting different results between the speed ballot and the full ballot. I have seen it done. The judge stood in front of me and explained that they changed their mind on the result when they looked at the speaker points and that it shouldn't be a problem because afterall the result was more important than the paperwork. Well they had just completely messed up the draw for the next round and some tab systems are designed in such a way that the results cannot be changed. As judges you must get it right first time.







7 October 2007

Tips: The Training Presentations

Anyone who has been at the World Debating Championships will be familiar with the training presentations given by the Adjudication team the day before the championships starts. The aim of these are to give everyone an overview of Worlds style debating.


Like any presentation they are designed with bullet point sentences which the adjudication team talk about and expand. Thus they are not a complete training presentation by themselves.

CIMB WUPID update


Join the best teams and adjudicators in beautiful Malaysia this December http://www.wupid.hngsc.com/
While I'm writing this, there's about 2 months left for the inaugural CIMB Group World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (CIMB WUPID) 2007. Our Sponsors and the organizing committee has been working 24 hours a day to ensure a great and memorable tournament. As registration for the invited teams have been opened, it has come to our notice that there are a few teams that could not make it for the tournament due to some unforeseeable circumstances (exams, university approval etc).

Proudly we at CIMB WUPID would like to open up registration of interests for teams who would like to come and compete in tournament. All you need to do is, email me at Ilyas@hngsc.com and leave your contact details i.e. email add, handphone number.

Another important note is that, an invitation to CIMB WUPID would also mean access to a entirely free tournament and a chance to win prizes worth MYR 18, 000. The cost of accommodation, food, venues and socials would all be absorbed by the organizer. Each institution is allowed to send a maximum of 2 teams (4 debaters) and the N=1 rule would apply for adjudicators. Any more than that, observers would have to pay a rego fee of 100 USD.

Kindly express your interest via email as we are looking forward to finalize the participants. Looking forward to see you at the inaugural CIMB WUPID.

Cheers !!

Organizers,
CIMB WUPID

Bangladesh Open 2007

The organizing committee of Worlds MINI and Bangladesh Open would like to thanks all the registered participants form India, Malaysia, Korea, Philippine, Australia, Pakistan and other parts of the world for their registration. We are 20 days way to the registration closing. We would like to remind all of our prospective participants to register as soon as possible. We are going to reach our championship team cap very soon like this year WUDC.

For registration please visits our online registration page at http://www.bangladeshopen.net/registration_policy.htm

We are currently having very experience adjudication panel for this Esteemed Global BP Debating Championship which is led by Ravi Prajapati, chief adjudicator internal to this year WUDC. Participants of this year World Universities Debating Championship and many Teams, who are failed to register to WUDC 2008, all will get the mint of WUDC in this Worlds MINI in Bangladesh. We are planning to accommodate 100 teams which will open the door for these universities to experience World Class BP Debating Championship in South Asian region.

Please visit Bangladesh Open 2007 and Worlds MINI 2007 official website at
http://www.bangladeshopen.net/

The organizing committee has also decided to raise the Local (Bangladeshi Teams) registration fees for the Championship. According to the new registration policy the local teams from Bangladesh have to pay USD 100 for per team. And the Local Adjudicator will pay USD 50 for this grand championship.

We are working 24/7 for this Championship to make it a grate and memorable one for our participants from around the World and we are confident with our Most Experience adjudication panel and with championship utilities; that Bangladesh Open 2007 and Worlds MINI 2007 will give you memories to remember.

Details of the Final Adjudication Core Bangladesh Open 2007 and Worlds MINI can be found here