Debate News April 2012--Thailand and Beyond

Anglo Singapore International school has opened registration for their tournament to be held in Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 – Monday, August 28th, 2012 . It's an international competition with the team cap at three teams per school, total cap is 30.

check the website:  http://twsdc2012.com/wsdc/



The Thailand National Team Pool:   They will start practicing next week Thursday at Panyarat High School from 4-7.  Others interested in participating, please contact Mr. Gary Sakuma for availability.  email gary@panyarathighschool.ac.th


Congratulations to Kevin Liu, Tidda, and Phrawta for winning the MUIC Mixer over Rain, Jazlina, and Boat.  Khun Plai took great pictures of the event:  
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150827738492442.463470.638017441&type=1


https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150830722447442.463925.638017441&type=1

Have a wonderful day

Adjudications tips and rants from Sharmila

Since adjudication-related FB notes are in vogue ... :)

by Sharmila Parmanand on Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 3:53pm ·

So maybe I have been to too many tournaments or I just have a massive procrastination problem, but I experienced an irresistible urge to rant about adjudication-related pet peeves and the sandtraps adjudicators fall into, and I figure these voices in my head will not go away until I indulge them. Obviously, if these things seem like common sense to you, then pat yourself on the back and go do something else. Here goes:

1. The status quo is not an argument. Saying X should happen because that is how it's done in the status quo is not an argument. The status quo isn't an adequate defense of ... the status quo! This is purely descriptive, not analytical, material. Debates are about reimagining the world, and that includes an assessment of why the status quo is right.

2. Liberal-sounding arguments are not trump cards. Given the liberal bias of most debaters, our cognitive scripts may be more immediately compatible with ideas such as 'the right to free speech' or 'the right to know', but in debates, these rights themselves are up for discussion. The burden is not only on one side to demonstrate that the right to free speech/to know does not exist/should be curtailed in a particular situation; a converse burden exists on the other side as well to demonstrate why such rights need to be upheld in the same situation.

3. Quality over quantity. There will never be a perfect policy or a perfect ethical position (duh, that's why it's a debate!), but teams should be evaluated on how they engaged with the best arguments/rebuttals in the debate, not on how many arguments or rebuttals they raised per se.  If a team launches a large number of (mostly nitpicky) rebuttals, but does not address the strongest material of the other side, they may still be in trouble. Also, different teams may win different issues in the debate (especially in BP) - which issues were the most important, and by how much did they win/lose the issues they did?

4. Role fulfillment and technicalities matter.  Duh. Obviously, they do. Otherwise, we'd just sit around and have a nice conversation over coffee. Teams have to be evaluated based on how well they worked within the a given structure and given 'rules of the game' (which is why we dislike Opposition Whips who raise new arguments, closing teams that shaft their opening teams, or speakers who speak for ten minutes). Technical flaws, however, should be viewed relative to each other in a debate, and not entirely distinct from the quality of arguments and issues raised.

5. No one has to solve the root of the problem. There is almost never a single root of the problem for any problem. Besides, a model cannot be expected be expected to solve everything (especially in a seven-minute speech and with limited prep time!). Teams just have to prove that the situation is better/not as bad in their world/under their model. Hold all teams to those equal burdens.

6. Pay attention to mutually exclusive ideas. Teams don't have to disagree on every single thing in the debate. Where they agree on common goals, or the need for a certain degree of punishment or protection for certain actors, or share mechanisms in their policies, the debate should shift to more mutually exclusive grounds. For example, both teams in a debate about requiring parental consent for minors undergoing an abortion are likely to want to protect minors, and hence, arguments about why the protection of minors is important become less relevant, while arguments about which policy better protects them become the decisive issues of the debate.

7. Don't ignore points of information! POIs are not there for decoration. They are an integral part of the BP and Asians formats because they increase dynamism in debates. Pay attention to them when comparing teams (especially diagonals in BP), or when assessing team strategy. Refer to good/bad POIs/responses to POIs in your feedback.

8. Generic comments are meaningless. Shortcuts such as "this argument was better-analysed" or "this rebuttal was more persuasive" are meaningless unless you explain why or how.

9. Team feedback on judges is a double-edged sword. Feedback on adjudicators by debaters is an essential source of information for adjudication cores to assess their judging pool. It must definitely be taken seriously by all parties. The flip side, however (yes, I am going to name the elephant in the room!), is that when judges are evaluated on and compete against each other purely on the basis of adjudicator feedback, a variety of perverse incentives are created. Teams start thinking they need to be convinced BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that they lost debates, when in fact judges and teams need to meet each other halfway. The feedback system becomes a straitjacket on judges who now opt to sugarcoat their comments to avoid pissing off teams. Instead of saying, "this is a ridiculous argument for X, Y, and Z reasons", a judge is now forced to call it "promising" or "slightly underdeveloped". Unfortunately, teams need to hear the harsh truth to get better. Debate is a competition, not a mutual admiration society.10. You are an average reasonable college student, not a monkey. Even if arguments are not responded to, you do not automatically believe them, hook, line, and sinker. You are meant to subject them to a reasonability test - i.e. are there logical links, no glaring factual errors, plausible evidence, analysis, etc., etc. This is not unacceptable intervention. This is using your brain.

Australia vs Singapore WSDC Prep 2001 TH Fears a Nuclear India

Singapore Tournament

Observations from Singapore:

The first thing you notice about debate in Singapore is the structure.  Every team we’ve seen, has excellent structure.  The template for every speech is straight out of a debate manual.   The second thing is the aggression.  Each team poi’s all the time extensively.  They poi every thirty seconds practically.  The POI’s are cutting and direct never exceeding 15 seconds.  The last thing is the seriousness of every team in the tournament.  What I found historically interesting is that debate in Singapore starts in primary school.  Being involved in the secondary level debate which is M1-M3 while the Junior College school division, the teams were very good.  Also, they see nothing wrong with debating four rounds in one day whereas in Thailand, we’re pressed if we debate three rounds in one day.   The whole debate experience in Singapore is a much more serious and grueling event.

this is a great school

course I do work here also

WSDC 2011 England vs Scotland

Note Taking in Debate Matches

Have your students listen to a debate and have them take notes, teach them how to take notes, walk through the debate and examine their notes.   Common errors are there is no template before they start.  For example, you know for the PM speech, the format is background, definitions, harms, model/principle, and advantages.  Divide the paper in half so they can take notes and have an area to write a short reply.

Secondary issues are they take notes trying to write down every word and get bogged down and cannot complete the note taking.  Teach them to do shorthand.  Finally, they must write down notes on the POI's.  The POI's don't enter the debate until they're brought up by the next speaker. 

After you examine their notes, teach them to write down quick replies in the sidebars on their sheets to help them get ready for their speeches.



this sample debate pm speech is excellent as it's very slow and clear along with good structure.