Points of Information
What part do POIs play in a debate?
To give and take Points of Information is the role of every speaker. Not doing either is failing to fulfil your role. POIs contribute matter to the debate, and the way in which they are given or taken is a reflection of manner. Thus not taking any POIs means a failure to fulfil your role and potentially lower contribution in matter (however that does not mean an automatic last place).
How long should POIs be?
POIs are not a place to make an argument, just a point, an example, an accusation or to ask a question. Typically Points Of Information are about 2 sentences long or 15 seconds in length. If a POI is too long, it eats into the time allocated for the speaker and the adjudicator may call order and request the person asking the POI to quit.
How many must I take?
It is recommended that each speaker takes 2 points of information, 1 from the opening team and another from the closing team. This is fairest and most optimum for interactivity in the debate.
Are speakers who do not take 2 points of information automatically punished?
No. However it is a consideration when discussing if teams have fulfilled their roles in the debate. Also speakers who take effort to engage with other speakers and encourage interactivity should be rewarded. While this will not guarantee win/loss, it might make a difference in close debates.
The context of the debate should also be taken into account. It is understandable to not take a POI if no POIs are offered, or if the speaker is fulfilling his/her role in some other aspect.
Can I take more than 2 points of information?
Yes, there is no limit to the number of POIs one can take, but while POIs are an important part of a speech and should become the speech itself.
Can I interject into someone else’s speech or offer my point of information by saying something colourful (verbalising), instead of just “on that point”?
Interjections, heckles, comments whether in the process of giving POI or otherwise, are not automatically punished unless they interrupt the speech of the speaker on the floor. Then the debater is exhibiting bad manner and the chair can instruct him/her to maintain order. While contributing to the dynamism and interactivity of the debate, interjections etc do not count as matter points.
Are adjudicators then supposed to explicitly ignore everything that is offered through interjection or heckles?
If someone says what you were thinking in your head, that does not subjugate your intelligence and your ideas remain valid. It is important however to protect the integrity of the speech of the speaker on the floor. The debate format has to be maintained and if interjections were treated as valid points, no one would bother with making speeches.
Nevertheless there are situations where the context of the debate may deem the interjection legitimate. For example, if the speaker is not taking any points of information or trying to shut out one of the teams. In those situations, the person offering the interjection is not trying to interrupt the speech before him but bring attention to the fact that the speaker is not being dynamic and engaging his ideas. The adjudicator then assesses if this is true, decides if action is necessary and acts accordingly.
Extensions
What is an extension?
An extension is matter contribution from the closing team, other than rebuttals. It is an extension of the position of the opening team, and thus should be consistent with them. An extension can be new arguments to support the case, further developments of previous arguments, analysis of previous arguments in a wholly different yet still relevant context or specific case studies that further argue the case of the opening team. However it has to be significantly different from the arguments run by the opening team, enough to distinct the case of the closing and opening.
Is it absolutely necessary for closing teams to have an extension?
It is the role of every team to further their case in the debate, and extensions are part of that role. Not extending the case is to not fully fulfil your role. Therefore while not having an extension doesn’t mean an automatic last, it means a difficult first.
In a negative case, do you still need an extension?
It becomes more difficult to because there isn’t a positive direction that can be extended, but closing teams are still expected to distinct themselves from their opening and offer a unique contribution to the debate.
What if the extension contradicts the position of their opening team?
The closing team can choose to ditch their opening team (to shaft them so to speak) if they feel their approach to the debate is not acceptable. They risk being cut out of the debate, if no one else engages their approach, but it is a tactical call and is not an automatic loss.
However if the closing team unwittingly contradicts the opening team, then their matter is not consistent and becomes less relevant.
Definitions
What is a “good” definition?
A definition that is in the spirit of the motion and clearly explains the contention of the debate. Definitely not a definition that wins the debate, as that means no debate occurs.
How much of freedom does the Government have in defining the motion?
A team can define the debate in any way they choose and it is up to the other teams in the debate to question their approach. Adjudicators cannot compare the definition to what they think the definition should be. Instead, adjudicators should evaluate the effect of the definition. If Govt defines too narrowly and cannot develop matter to prove their self-proving case, then they contribute little to the debate. If Govt defines poorly and creates too many holes, then defending their case will be difficult.
Can team parameterise definitions?
Yes. Teams are allowed to set parameters to limit the grounds of the debate, as long as those parameters are fair. For example, in a debate about child labour, restricting it to legal occupations. If it helps to clarify the area of debate and leads to a good debate happening, the action of setting those parameters should be rewarded.
However these are not set in stone and up to question from the opposition. If the Government unfairly restricts the parameters of the debate, it is fair for Opposition to expand the area of debate. Thus Govt cannot limit a child labour debate to discussing the right to earn allowance by shovelling snow if the Opp argues that is unfair and expands it. On the other hand if the Opp likes to discuss snow shovelling, that is also their right and they should not be punished for not expanding the parameters.
Do you have to include every word in the motion during the definition?
You do not have to define every word, but the words in the motion define the potential scope of the debate and the onus of the teams. If the motion reads “this house will condemn people who encourage suicide”, the focus of the debate is on people who encourage, not commit suicide and not taking that into account could seriously affect the direction of the debate. However you do not have to define people and perhaps can even assume what suicide means.
On what basis can you challenge a definition?
A definition can be challenged on the basis that a definition is: (take definitions from rules)
a) time set/place set
b) truistic/tautological
c) wholly unreasonable/squirrel
Who can challenge and who can’t?
Any team in the debate can challenge the definition, because each team is a unique entity. Thus, a debate could have 4 definitions.
What happens during a definition debate?
To challenge the definition, one has to
a) explicitly state that you are challenging the definition
b) state why (time or place set, truistic, unreasonable) and explain
c) provide a new definition
You still maintain your positions in the debate and have to argue appropriately. Thus the Opening Opposition, after challenging the definition and providing a new one would then proceed to oppose the motion, not support it.
Once you challenge a definition, other than to show why the previous definition is inaccurate, you do not have to address the issues/arguments that fall under it. One basically ignores that definition.
Matter & Manner
What is good matter?
Good matter is matter that is logically developed, relevant to the case at hand and substantiated.
What is good manner?
Good manner is manner that is effective in strengthening the argument/case, is entertaining.
Which is more important?
They are both equally important (check section on scoring). Thus a team could win on manner just as easily as a team could win on matter.
Scoring
Matter Manner Total Range
25-30 25-30 50-59 poor
30-35 30-35 60-69 below average
35-40 35-40 70-79 average
40-45 40-45 80-89 break worthy
45-50 45-50 90-100 good (semi-finals level)
Miscellaneous
Is there such a thing as an automatic last in a debate? What most horrible sin must a team commit to immediately earn a last position?
No. There is nothing in a debate that you can do to get an automatic last short of not showing up. If a first prop team squirrels the motion into a tautology and then the second speaker knifes the first, they probably won’t win the round but should not receive an automatic last, they just set a very high threshold for what some other team in the round would have to do in order to take last place away from them (perhaps wetting themselves during their speech or something).
This Blog has now moved to idebate.org/worlddebating - all future posts will be made there!
2 May 2005
WUDC Malaysia 2005 Results
Congrats to Erik & Jamie from Ottawa A. They have been one of the top teams competing in competitions around the World for the last couple of years and are well deserved winners of the World Championships. Well done, and hard luck, to the other teams in the final.
THE GRAND FINAL
Ottawa A (Erik Eastaugh & Jamie Furniss) WINNERS
Cambridge A (Daragh Grant & Joe Devanney)
Oxford. D (Alex Just & Jonathan Bailey)
Hart House B (Michael Kotrly & Joanna Nairn)
Best Speaker
Kylie Lane (Monash A) 741
Seb Isaac (Lincoln's Inn) 736
Erik Eastaugh (Ottawa A) 735
Richard Osbourne (Inner Temple) 730
Jamie Furniss (Ottawa A) 730
Joe Devanney (Cambridge A) 728
Daragh Grant (Cambridge A) 728
Andrew Fitch (Monash A)728
Rory Gillis (Yale) 726
David Whelan (Kings Inn) 724
ESL Finalists:
UKM A (Tan Ai Huey & Khor Swee Kheng) WINNERS
Nanyang Tech U A (Anirudh & Ajay)
Nanyang Tech U B (Ankit & Karthik)
MGIMO Moscow (Zalivako & Akulich)
Masters finalists:
Australia (Roland Dillon & Michael Smith) WINNERS
Ireland (Derek Lande & Conor Buckley)
New Zealand (Rachel Carrell & Caleb Ward)
Tamil (Praba Ganesan & Kevin Moar)
Comedy:
ANU (including: Jeremy Farrell, Toby Halligan, Patrick Moody, Emily Byrne, Jeremy Farrell and Bill Bannear).
Public Speaking:
Rahim Moloo (UBC) WINNER
MMU Worlds are the largest ever with 312 teams.
Motions:
1. This House would compel HIV infected people to disclose their disease to their sexual partners
2. This house believes the EU should open its doors to North Africa
3. This House would not teach vocational studies at University
4. This House would positively discriminate women in the armed forces
5. This House believes that outsourcing is good for the developed and developing nations..
6. This house would have harsher sentences for celebrity criminals
7. This house believes that anti-terrorism is the new McCarthyism
8. This house would expand NAFTA into South America
9. This house would prioritise organ donations to those who have lived a healthy lifestyle
Octo: This house believes it is time for an ASEAN parliament
Qtr: This House Believes That Mentally Handicapped People Are Better Cared For In The Community Than In Institutions
Semi: THW Use Gambling To Rejuvenate Depressed Economic Zones
Final: This House supports corporal punishment in schools
THE GRAND FINAL
Ottawa A (Erik Eastaugh & Jamie Furniss) WINNERS
Cambridge A (Daragh Grant & Joe Devanney)
Oxford. D (Alex Just & Jonathan Bailey)
Hart House B (Michael Kotrly & Joanna Nairn)
Best Speaker
Kylie Lane (Monash A) 741
Seb Isaac (Lincoln's Inn) 736
Erik Eastaugh (Ottawa A) 735
Richard Osbourne (Inner Temple) 730
Jamie Furniss (Ottawa A) 730
Joe Devanney (Cambridge A) 728
Daragh Grant (Cambridge A) 728
Andrew Fitch (Monash A)728
Rory Gillis (Yale) 726
David Whelan (Kings Inn) 724
ESL Finalists:
UKM A (Tan Ai Huey & Khor Swee Kheng) WINNERS
Nanyang Tech U A (Anirudh & Ajay)
Nanyang Tech U B (Ankit & Karthik)
MGIMO Moscow (Zalivako & Akulich)
Masters finalists:
Australia (Roland Dillon & Michael Smith) WINNERS
Ireland (Derek Lande & Conor Buckley)
New Zealand (Rachel Carrell & Caleb Ward)
Tamil (Praba Ganesan & Kevin Moar)
Comedy:
ANU (including: Jeremy Farrell, Toby Halligan, Patrick Moody, Emily Byrne, Jeremy Farrell and Bill Bannear).
Public Speaking:
Rahim Moloo (UBC) WINNER
MMU Worlds are the largest ever with 312 teams.
Motions:
1. This House would compel HIV infected people to disclose their disease to their sexual partners
2. This house believes the EU should open its doors to North Africa
3. This House would not teach vocational studies at University
4. This House would positively discriminate women in the armed forces
5. This House believes that outsourcing is good for the developed and developing nations..
6. This house would have harsher sentences for celebrity criminals
7. This house believes that anti-terrorism is the new McCarthyism
8. This house would expand NAFTA into South America
9. This house would prioritise organ donations to those who have lived a healthy lifestyle
Octo: This house believes it is time for an ASEAN parliament
Qtr: This House Believes That Mentally Handicapped People Are Better Cared For In The Community Than In Institutions
Semi: THW Use Gambling To Rejuvenate Depressed Economic Zones
Final: This House supports corporal punishment in schools
Cork 2005 Europeans Results
The Winners: European Champions: Durham A (Bob Nimmo & Erin O'Brien)
Best Speaker: Niall Kennedy (GUU A)
ESL Champions Erasmus A (Lars Duursma & Sharon Kroes)
ESL Speaker: Anat Gelber (Haifa A)
Grand Final:
1st Gov: UCD L&H A (Ciarán Lawlor & Eoghan Casey)
1st Opp: Inner Temple (Greg O'Ceallaigh & Charlie Spalding)
2nd Gov: Oxford C (Timothy Saunders & Alex Hill)
2nd Opp: Durham A (Bob Nimmo & Erin O'Brien)
Judges: Caleb Ward (c), Connor Buckley, Jan Rosing, Colm Flynn, Darragh Grant, Derek Lande, Can Okan, Mirand Wigler, Uri Zakai
ESL Final:
Haifa C (Nimrod Gruver & Reut Rubinstein)
IDC A (Ohad Orgal & Benny Feifel)
Haifa A (Shir Barniv & Anat Gelber)
Erasmus A (Lars Duursma & Sharon Kroes)
Judges: Colm Flynn (c), Caleb Ward, Tara Mounce, Sarah Jones, Jake Steinberg, AN Other, AN Other.
The Semi Finalists
Oxford A (Gavin Illsley & William Jones)
City A (Jessica Harvey-Smith & Jenny Twite)
Cambridge A (David Tite & Daniel Warents)
GUU C (David Adams & David Tait)
The Break: Team Spk 1 Spk 2 Pts
1 GUU A Niall Kennedy Kenny Flemming 15
2 City A Jessica Harvey-Smith Jenny Twite 15
3 Durham A Bob Nimmo Erin O'Brien 15
4 UCD L&H A Ciarán Lawlor Eoghan Casey 14
5 Oxford B Eusebius McKaiser Richard Goodman 14
6 Oxford A Gavin Illsley William Jones 14
7 TCD Hist Hannah Murphy Josephine Curry 14
8 Bristol A Hannah Klein Leila Sales 13
9 Inner Temple Greg O'Ceallaigh Charlie Spalding 13
10 Oxford D Samir Deger-Sen Roger Cotes 13
11 Galway A Sharon Dillon-Lyons Stephen Nolan 13
12 Bristol C Toby Eley Ed McRandal 13
13 Cambridge A David Tite Daniel Warents 12
14 Haifa A Shir Barniv Anat Gelber 12
15 Oxford C Timothy Saunders Alex Hill 12
16 Middle Temple Willard Foxton Bridget Burns 12
17 GUU C David Adams David Tait 12
Note: Middle temple are not eligible to break as they are a composite team.
The ESL Break: Team Spk 1 Spk 2 Pts
1 Haifa A Shir Barniv Anat Gelber 12
2 TAU A Noga Isaacson Michelle Mendes 11
3 IDC A Ohad Orgal Benny Feifel 11
4 Erasmus A Lars Duursma Sharon Kroes 10
5 UBB A Nicoleta Lupea Dan Cristea 10
6 Hebrew C Nadav Kedeh Ofir Reich 10
7 Haifa C Nimrod Gruver Reut Rubinstein 10
8 IUB A Bastian Laubner Sebastian Hirsch 10
Motions: (may not be exact wording)
1. THW make the post-mortem donation of organs compulsory without exception
2. THW support the right of Chechnya to secede
3. THBT popular referenda should not be used to ratify the EU constitution.
4. THW prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence without the consent of the victim
5. THW grant immunity from prosecution to dictators who step down.
6. THBT the state should assist healthy people commit suicide.
ESL Semi: TTHW remove the Arms Embargo on China
ESL Final TTHW make failure to render reasonable assistance to a person in distress a criminal offence
QTR: THW condemn companies that seek to avoid first world regulations on human drug testing by conducting their trials in the developing world.
Semi: THW withdraw from the Ottawa convention banning the sale of land mines.
Final: TTHW allow the use of racial profiling by police forces.
Team Tab
Position Team Total
1 GUU A 15
2 City A 15
3 Durham A 15
4 UCD L&H A 14
4 Oxford B 14
6 Oxford A 14
7 TCD Hist 14
8 Bristol A 13
9 Inner Temple 13
10 Oxford D 13
11 Galway A 13
12 Bristol C 13
13 Cambridge A 12
14 Haifa A 12
15 Oxford C 12
16 Middle Temple 12
17 GUU C 12
18 TCD Phil B 12
19 Manchester 12
19 TCD Phil A 12
21 LSE A 12
22 St. Andrews A 12
23 Bristol B 11
23 Cambridge C 11
25 Durham B 11
26 BPP B 11
27 Delft A 11
28 BPP A 11
29 TAU A 11
30 Nottingham 11
31 Aberdeen A 11
32 TCD Law A 11
33 IDC A 11
34 Erasmus A 10
35 UCD Law B 10
36 Durham C 10
37 Dundee B 10
38 Cambridge B 10
39 Hebrew A 10
40 Newcastle B 10
41 BPP C 10
42 UBB A 10
43 UCD Law A 10
44 Hebrew C 10
45 Alaska A 10
46 Haifa C 10
47 IUB A 10
48 Swing A 10
49 Aberdeen B 10
50 Galway Law 9
51 GUU B 9
52 St. Andrews B 9
53 Colgate A 9
54 Hebrew B 9
55 SSE Riga A 9
56 UCD Law C 9
57 Galway D 9
58 Ljubljana B 9
59 RHUL A 9
60 Tilbury House 9
61 Leiden A 9
61 Berlin C 9
63 MGIMO 9
64 York A 9
65 Alaska C 8
66 IDC B 8
67 Galway B 8
68 RRIS A 8
69 Colgate B 8
69 TAU C 8
71 Bonn A 8
71 UCD L&H B 8
73 IDC C 8
74 Haifa B 8
75 Newcastle A 8
76 Dundee A 8
77 IDC D 8
78 Erasmus B 7
79 Alaska B 7
80 Kings A 7
81 Bogazici B 7
82 Zagreb A 7
83 Galway C 7
84 Queen Mary A 7
85 Technion A 7
86 Deree A 7
87 Porto A 7
88 METU A 7
89 TAU B 7
90 Berlin A 6
91 Technion B 6
92 Zagreb D 6
93 Haifa D 6
94 Koc A 6
95 Ljubljana A 6
96 Zagreb B 6
97 Bilkent B 6
98 METU B 6
99 Bogazici A 6
100 Berlin B 5
101 Hacettepe A 5
102 Technion C 5
103 Bilkent A 5
104 Zagreb C 5
105 Galatasaray A 5
106 Porto B 5
107 Koc B 5
108 Galway E 4
109 AUP A 4
110 Leiden B 4
111 Zagreb Law A 3
112 AUP B 3
Speaker Tab
Position Name Team Total
1 Niall Kennedy GUU A 475
2 Leila Sales Bristol A 474
3 Jessica Harvey-Smith City A 470
4 Hannah Klein Bristol A 468
5 Ciarán Lawlor UCD L&H A 467
5 Erin O'Brien Durham A 467
7 Gavin Illsley Oxford A 466
7 Richard Goodman Oxford B 466
9 Samir Deger-Sen Oxford D 465
10 Hannah Murphy TCD Hist 464
11 Greg O'Ceallaigh Inner Temple 463
12 Kenny Flemming GUU A 462
12 David Tite Cambridge A 462
14 David Ham Delft A 461
15 Eusebius McKaiser Oxford B 460
16 William Jones Oxford A 459
16 Eoghan Casey UCD L&H A 459
16 Charlie Spalding Inner Temple 459
16 Daniel Warents Cambridge A 459
20 Willard Foxton Middle Temple 458
20 Sharon Dillon-Lyons Galway A 458
22 Anat Gelber Haifa A 457
22 Josephine Curry TCD Hist 457
22 Jenny Twite City A 457
22 Alex Hill Oxford C 457
26 Bob Nimmo Durham A 455
27 Paul Novelle Manchester 454
27 Roger Cotes Oxford D 454
29 Aileen McErlean Bristol B 451
29 Stephen Nolan Galway A 451
31 Kerron Nelson Rohrer BPP B 449
31 Peter Malone TCD Phil B 449
33 Shir Barniv Haifa A 448
33 David Adams GUU C 448
33 Ali Dewji LSE A 448
36 Luke Ryder TCD Phil A 447
37 Timothy Saunders Oxford C 446
38 David Tait GUU C 445
38 Jon Donenberg Cambridge C 445
38 James Dixon Cambridge C 445
38 Thomas Ball Durham B 445
42 Peter O'Brien Galway Law 444
42 Lars Duursma Erasmus A 444
42 Alisttair Cormack Durham B 444
42 Bridget Burns Middle Temple 444
42 Becca Gill Durham C 444
47 Fiona Coady BPP A 443
47 Lorcan Price Galway Law 443
47 Steve Doran Nottingham 443
50 Stuart Smith Cambridge B 442
50 Susan Connolly UCD Law B 442
50 John McGuirk TCD Law A 442
53 John Stewart St. Andrews A 441
54 Noga Isaacson TAU A 440
54 Michelle Mendes TAU A 440
54 Atul Singh BPP A 440
54 Tom Lassen Alaska C 440
54 John Harvey UCD Law B 440
54 Francesca Reinhardt TCD Phil A 440
54 Shane Farragher TCD Phil B 440
61 Sharon Kroes Erasmus A 439
61 Matt Higbee Bristol B 439
61 Ed McRandal Bristol C 439
61 MacKenna Roberts BPP B 439
61 Alex Ward Newcastle B 439
66 Bilal Khan Dundee B 438
66 Michael Rose Alaska C 438
66 Jason Vit St. Andrews A 438
66 Haran Pilpel Hebrew A 438
70 Greg Murray Aberdeen A 437
71 Matthew Sinclair LSE A 436
71 Andrew C Forsyth GUU B 436
71 Yuri Romanenkov SSE Riga A 436
74 Keith Newman Dundee B 435
75 Niall Rowantree GUU B 434
76 Peter Eastwood Manchester 433
76 Kate Hoffman Durham C 433
78 Doug Cochran St. Andrews B 432
78 Jan Lasik BPP C 432
80 John Thuillier UCD Law A 431
80 Myles Nester Nottingham 431
80 Nicoleta Lupea UBB A 431
83 Alhanan Miller Hebrew B 430
83 Aissa Watson Aberdeen A 430
83 Daniel Lead BPP C 430
86 Andrew Sanger Cambridge B 429
86 Luke Champlin Colgate A 429
86 Lindsay Eberhardt Alaska A 429
89 Jacob Shwergold IDC B 428
89 Toby Eley Bristol C 428
89 Raanan Eichler Hebrew A 428
92 Daffi Kudish TAU C 426
92 Roisin McGrogan Galway B 426
92 Brian Sharkey Galway D 426
95 Benny Feifel IDC A 425
95 Irwin Gill UCD Law C 425
95 Katherine Robson Newcastle B 425
98 Florian Wichelmann Berlin A 424
98 Rosanne Herzberger Delft A 424
100 Tammy Varkony RRIS A 423
100 Nadav Kedeh Hebrew C 423
102 Lindsay Bourne Colgate B 422
102 Swingy Swing A 422
102 Nimrod Gruver Haifa C 422
102 Martin Pinnes Colgate A 422
102 Bastian Laubner IUB A 422
102 Dan Cristea UBB A 422
102 Ofir Reich Hebrew C 422
109 Nadav Gan IDC B 421
109 Connie Grieve St. Andrews B 421
109 Sean O'Quigley UCD Law A 421
109 Ohad Orgal IDC A 421
113 Jotham Kinder RHUL A 420
113 Aviv Maman Hebrew B 420
113 Matthias Kehrig Tilbury House 420
116 Simon Grabrovec Ljubljana B 419
116 Ewan McGaughey Berlin C 419
116 Niall McGoldrick UCD L&H B 419
116 David O'Connor UCD Law C 419
120 Adriaan Andringa Leiden A 418
120 Maya Zehavi IDC C 418
120 Isabelle Loewe Bonn A 418
120 Anastasiya Putilova MGIMO 418
124 Matthias Lux Bonn A 417
125 Moran Levinovitz IDC C 416
125 Jeremy Kinsella UCD L&H B 416
125 Mateja Peter Ljubljana B 416
125 Dov Levin Haifa B 416
125 Jeffrey Rocket Galway B 416
130 Saqib Alam Kings A 415
130 Julia Mayersohn RRIS A 415
132 Mark Grobman Technion B 414
132 Janvier Palmer Newcastle A 414
132 Bobby Seagull RHUL A 414
132 Sean Butler Galway C 414
132 Robert Sobelman Colgate B 414
132 Karl Bagga York A 414
138 Rose Helens-Hart Alaska B 413
138 Fleur Praal Leiden A 413
138 Manuel Klop Erasmus B 413
138 Reut Rubinstein Haifa C 413
138 Kai Menzel Tilbury House 413
143 Simon Koschut Berlin C 412
144 Daina Oniunas Pusic Zagreb A 411
144 Mert Onen Bogazici B 411
144 Thomas Wells Erasmus B 411
144 Donna Cummins Galway D 411
144 Karen Ralph TCD Law A 411
149 Boaz Zirkel TAU C 410
149 Daniel Maier Berlin A 410
149 Daniel Andrews Alaska A 410
149 Koby Sadis Haifa B 410
153 Anthony Morrissey Queen Mary A 409
153 Chris Kolerok Alaska B 409
153 Tomas Kairys SSE Riga A 409
156 Jenni Harrison Dundee A 408
156 Andew Black Aberdeen B 408
156 Sebastian Hirsch IUB A 408
159 Shahar Ronen Haifa D 407
159 Manos Moschopoulos Deree A 407
159 Laura Horvat Zagreb D 407
162 Patrick Cluskey Galway E 406
162 Rich Croker York A 406
162 Ivana Reljanovic Zagreb D 406
165 Ravid Barak Technion B 405
165 Ozgur Bozcaga Bogazici B 405
167 Cathy Egan Galway E 404
167 Borna Sor Zagreb A 404
167 Karen Reid Aberdeen B 404
167 Engin Ural Koc A 404
167 Alon Altman Technion A 404
167 Maria Savostyanova MGIMO 404
173 Fran Pelicaric Zagreb B 403
174 Marc Naether Kings A 402
174 Primoz Karnar Ljubljana A 402
176 Lotem Rottbain Haifa D 401
177 Yair Carmon Technion C 398
177 Orkun Girban METU A 398
177 Grega Gostencnik Ljubljana A 398
177 MacSwing Swing A 398
177 Leticia Teixeira Porto A 398
177 Faruk Aktay Koc A 398
177 Ezgi Sakman Bilkent B 398
184 Michael Parker Newcastle A 397
185 Saskia Dürr Berlin B 396
185 Boaz Goldstein Technion A 396
187 Sevil Ozgalik Hacettepe A 395
188 Gary Vernon Queen Mary A 394
189 Sven Köhler Berlin B 392
189 Branka Marusic Zagreb C 392
189 Stephanie Joyce Galway C 392
192 Seda Caglayan Hacettepe A 391
192 Steven Rome Dundee A 391
194 Maria Avgitidis Deree A 390
194 Joana Pereira Porto A 390
196 Gamze Ovacik Bilkent A 389
197 Linor Deutsch TAU B 388
197 David Barros Porto B 388
199 Iva Kustrak Zagreb B 387
199 Caglar Kurc Bilkent A 387
199 Erdem Demirba METU B 387
202 Sarp Erzi Galatasaray A 386
203 Sarper BOZ Galatasaray A 385
204 Sergey Kuniavsky Technion C 382
204 Robert Ustian METU A 382
204 Pedro Costa Porto B 382
207 Vilko Kos Zagreb C 381
207 Erez Kamer TAU B 381
207 Ben Lerner IDC D 381
210 Ozgen Dundar METU B 380
211 Jan Steyn AUP A 379
212 Frederic Sanders Leiden B 378
212 Yigit Engin Bilkent B 378
212 Nisa Genc Bogazici A 378
215 Marko Orec Zagreb Law A 375
215 Avihu Tamir IDC D 375
217 Teo Giljevic Zagreb Law A 374
218 Briana Sapp AUP A 373
219 Jung Woo Lee AUP B 371
220 Izaäk Vervliet Leiden B 370
220 Neset Guner Koc B 370
222 Pemra Narli Bogazici A 369
223 Riza Isik Koc B 365
224 Allison Sanders AUP B 358
Best Speaker: Niall Kennedy (GUU A)
ESL Champions Erasmus A (Lars Duursma & Sharon Kroes)
ESL Speaker: Anat Gelber (Haifa A)
Grand Final:
1st Gov: UCD L&H A (Ciarán Lawlor & Eoghan Casey)
1st Opp: Inner Temple (Greg O'Ceallaigh & Charlie Spalding)
2nd Gov: Oxford C (Timothy Saunders & Alex Hill)
2nd Opp: Durham A (Bob Nimmo & Erin O'Brien)
Judges: Caleb Ward (c), Connor Buckley, Jan Rosing, Colm Flynn, Darragh Grant, Derek Lande, Can Okan, Mirand Wigler, Uri Zakai
ESL Final:
Haifa C (Nimrod Gruver & Reut Rubinstein)
IDC A (Ohad Orgal & Benny Feifel)
Haifa A (Shir Barniv & Anat Gelber)
Erasmus A (Lars Duursma & Sharon Kroes)
Judges: Colm Flynn (c), Caleb Ward, Tara Mounce, Sarah Jones, Jake Steinberg, AN Other, AN Other.
The Semi Finalists
Oxford A (Gavin Illsley & William Jones)
City A (Jessica Harvey-Smith & Jenny Twite)
Cambridge A (David Tite & Daniel Warents)
GUU C (David Adams & David Tait)
The Break: Team Spk 1 Spk 2 Pts
1 GUU A Niall Kennedy Kenny Flemming 15
2 City A Jessica Harvey-Smith Jenny Twite 15
3 Durham A Bob Nimmo Erin O'Brien 15
4 UCD L&H A Ciarán Lawlor Eoghan Casey 14
5 Oxford B Eusebius McKaiser Richard Goodman 14
6 Oxford A Gavin Illsley William Jones 14
7 TCD Hist Hannah Murphy Josephine Curry 14
8 Bristol A Hannah Klein Leila Sales 13
9 Inner Temple Greg O'Ceallaigh Charlie Spalding 13
10 Oxford D Samir Deger-Sen Roger Cotes 13
11 Galway A Sharon Dillon-Lyons Stephen Nolan 13
12 Bristol C Toby Eley Ed McRandal 13
13 Cambridge A David Tite Daniel Warents 12
14 Haifa A Shir Barniv Anat Gelber 12
15 Oxford C Timothy Saunders Alex Hill 12
16 Middle Temple Willard Foxton Bridget Burns 12
17 GUU C David Adams David Tait 12
Note: Middle temple are not eligible to break as they are a composite team.
The ESL Break: Team Spk 1 Spk 2 Pts
1 Haifa A Shir Barniv Anat Gelber 12
2 TAU A Noga Isaacson Michelle Mendes 11
3 IDC A Ohad Orgal Benny Feifel 11
4 Erasmus A Lars Duursma Sharon Kroes 10
5 UBB A Nicoleta Lupea Dan Cristea 10
6 Hebrew C Nadav Kedeh Ofir Reich 10
7 Haifa C Nimrod Gruver Reut Rubinstein 10
8 IUB A Bastian Laubner Sebastian Hirsch 10
Motions: (may not be exact wording)
1. THW make the post-mortem donation of organs compulsory without exception
2. THW support the right of Chechnya to secede
3. THBT popular referenda should not be used to ratify the EU constitution.
4. THW prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence without the consent of the victim
5. THW grant immunity from prosecution to dictators who step down.
6. THBT the state should assist healthy people commit suicide.
ESL Semi: TTHW remove the Arms Embargo on China
ESL Final TTHW make failure to render reasonable assistance to a person in distress a criminal offence
QTR: THW condemn companies that seek to avoid first world regulations on human drug testing by conducting their trials in the developing world.
Semi: THW withdraw from the Ottawa convention banning the sale of land mines.
Final: TTHW allow the use of racial profiling by police forces.
Team Tab
Position Team Total
1 GUU A 15
2 City A 15
3 Durham A 15
4 UCD L&H A 14
4 Oxford B 14
6 Oxford A 14
7 TCD Hist 14
8 Bristol A 13
9 Inner Temple 13
10 Oxford D 13
11 Galway A 13
12 Bristol C 13
13 Cambridge A 12
14 Haifa A 12
15 Oxford C 12
16 Middle Temple 12
17 GUU C 12
18 TCD Phil B 12
19 Manchester 12
19 TCD Phil A 12
21 LSE A 12
22 St. Andrews A 12
23 Bristol B 11
23 Cambridge C 11
25 Durham B 11
26 BPP B 11
27 Delft A 11
28 BPP A 11
29 TAU A 11
30 Nottingham 11
31 Aberdeen A 11
32 TCD Law A 11
33 IDC A 11
34 Erasmus A 10
35 UCD Law B 10
36 Durham C 10
37 Dundee B 10
38 Cambridge B 10
39 Hebrew A 10
40 Newcastle B 10
41 BPP C 10
42 UBB A 10
43 UCD Law A 10
44 Hebrew C 10
45 Alaska A 10
46 Haifa C 10
47 IUB A 10
48 Swing A 10
49 Aberdeen B 10
50 Galway Law 9
51 GUU B 9
52 St. Andrews B 9
53 Colgate A 9
54 Hebrew B 9
55 SSE Riga A 9
56 UCD Law C 9
57 Galway D 9
58 Ljubljana B 9
59 RHUL A 9
60 Tilbury House 9
61 Leiden A 9
61 Berlin C 9
63 MGIMO 9
64 York A 9
65 Alaska C 8
66 IDC B 8
67 Galway B 8
68 RRIS A 8
69 Colgate B 8
69 TAU C 8
71 Bonn A 8
71 UCD L&H B 8
73 IDC C 8
74 Haifa B 8
75 Newcastle A 8
76 Dundee A 8
77 IDC D 8
78 Erasmus B 7
79 Alaska B 7
80 Kings A 7
81 Bogazici B 7
82 Zagreb A 7
83 Galway C 7
84 Queen Mary A 7
85 Technion A 7
86 Deree A 7
87 Porto A 7
88 METU A 7
89 TAU B 7
90 Berlin A 6
91 Technion B 6
92 Zagreb D 6
93 Haifa D 6
94 Koc A 6
95 Ljubljana A 6
96 Zagreb B 6
97 Bilkent B 6
98 METU B 6
99 Bogazici A 6
100 Berlin B 5
101 Hacettepe A 5
102 Technion C 5
103 Bilkent A 5
104 Zagreb C 5
105 Galatasaray A 5
106 Porto B 5
107 Koc B 5
108 Galway E 4
109 AUP A 4
110 Leiden B 4
111 Zagreb Law A 3
112 AUP B 3
Speaker Tab
Position Name Team Total
1 Niall Kennedy GUU A 475
2 Leila Sales Bristol A 474
3 Jessica Harvey-Smith City A 470
4 Hannah Klein Bristol A 468
5 Ciarán Lawlor UCD L&H A 467
5 Erin O'Brien Durham A 467
7 Gavin Illsley Oxford A 466
7 Richard Goodman Oxford B 466
9 Samir Deger-Sen Oxford D 465
10 Hannah Murphy TCD Hist 464
11 Greg O'Ceallaigh Inner Temple 463
12 Kenny Flemming GUU A 462
12 David Tite Cambridge A 462
14 David Ham Delft A 461
15 Eusebius McKaiser Oxford B 460
16 William Jones Oxford A 459
16 Eoghan Casey UCD L&H A 459
16 Charlie Spalding Inner Temple 459
16 Daniel Warents Cambridge A 459
20 Willard Foxton Middle Temple 458
20 Sharon Dillon-Lyons Galway A 458
22 Anat Gelber Haifa A 457
22 Josephine Curry TCD Hist 457
22 Jenny Twite City A 457
22 Alex Hill Oxford C 457
26 Bob Nimmo Durham A 455
27 Paul Novelle Manchester 454
27 Roger Cotes Oxford D 454
29 Aileen McErlean Bristol B 451
29 Stephen Nolan Galway A 451
31 Kerron Nelson Rohrer BPP B 449
31 Peter Malone TCD Phil B 449
33 Shir Barniv Haifa A 448
33 David Adams GUU C 448
33 Ali Dewji LSE A 448
36 Luke Ryder TCD Phil A 447
37 Timothy Saunders Oxford C 446
38 David Tait GUU C 445
38 Jon Donenberg Cambridge C 445
38 James Dixon Cambridge C 445
38 Thomas Ball Durham B 445
42 Peter O'Brien Galway Law 444
42 Lars Duursma Erasmus A 444
42 Alisttair Cormack Durham B 444
42 Bridget Burns Middle Temple 444
42 Becca Gill Durham C 444
47 Fiona Coady BPP A 443
47 Lorcan Price Galway Law 443
47 Steve Doran Nottingham 443
50 Stuart Smith Cambridge B 442
50 Susan Connolly UCD Law B 442
50 John McGuirk TCD Law A 442
53 John Stewart St. Andrews A 441
54 Noga Isaacson TAU A 440
54 Michelle Mendes TAU A 440
54 Atul Singh BPP A 440
54 Tom Lassen Alaska C 440
54 John Harvey UCD Law B 440
54 Francesca Reinhardt TCD Phil A 440
54 Shane Farragher TCD Phil B 440
61 Sharon Kroes Erasmus A 439
61 Matt Higbee Bristol B 439
61 Ed McRandal Bristol C 439
61 MacKenna Roberts BPP B 439
61 Alex Ward Newcastle B 439
66 Bilal Khan Dundee B 438
66 Michael Rose Alaska C 438
66 Jason Vit St. Andrews A 438
66 Haran Pilpel Hebrew A 438
70 Greg Murray Aberdeen A 437
71 Matthew Sinclair LSE A 436
71 Andrew C Forsyth GUU B 436
71 Yuri Romanenkov SSE Riga A 436
74 Keith Newman Dundee B 435
75 Niall Rowantree GUU B 434
76 Peter Eastwood Manchester 433
76 Kate Hoffman Durham C 433
78 Doug Cochran St. Andrews B 432
78 Jan Lasik BPP C 432
80 John Thuillier UCD Law A 431
80 Myles Nester Nottingham 431
80 Nicoleta Lupea UBB A 431
83 Alhanan Miller Hebrew B 430
83 Aissa Watson Aberdeen A 430
83 Daniel Lead BPP C 430
86 Andrew Sanger Cambridge B 429
86 Luke Champlin Colgate A 429
86 Lindsay Eberhardt Alaska A 429
89 Jacob Shwergold IDC B 428
89 Toby Eley Bristol C 428
89 Raanan Eichler Hebrew A 428
92 Daffi Kudish TAU C 426
92 Roisin McGrogan Galway B 426
92 Brian Sharkey Galway D 426
95 Benny Feifel IDC A 425
95 Irwin Gill UCD Law C 425
95 Katherine Robson Newcastle B 425
98 Florian Wichelmann Berlin A 424
98 Rosanne Herzberger Delft A 424
100 Tammy Varkony RRIS A 423
100 Nadav Kedeh Hebrew C 423
102 Lindsay Bourne Colgate B 422
102 Swingy Swing A 422
102 Nimrod Gruver Haifa C 422
102 Martin Pinnes Colgate A 422
102 Bastian Laubner IUB A 422
102 Dan Cristea UBB A 422
102 Ofir Reich Hebrew C 422
109 Nadav Gan IDC B 421
109 Connie Grieve St. Andrews B 421
109 Sean O'Quigley UCD Law A 421
109 Ohad Orgal IDC A 421
113 Jotham Kinder RHUL A 420
113 Aviv Maman Hebrew B 420
113 Matthias Kehrig Tilbury House 420
116 Simon Grabrovec Ljubljana B 419
116 Ewan McGaughey Berlin C 419
116 Niall McGoldrick UCD L&H B 419
116 David O'Connor UCD Law C 419
120 Adriaan Andringa Leiden A 418
120 Maya Zehavi IDC C 418
120 Isabelle Loewe Bonn A 418
120 Anastasiya Putilova MGIMO 418
124 Matthias Lux Bonn A 417
125 Moran Levinovitz IDC C 416
125 Jeremy Kinsella UCD L&H B 416
125 Mateja Peter Ljubljana B 416
125 Dov Levin Haifa B 416
125 Jeffrey Rocket Galway B 416
130 Saqib Alam Kings A 415
130 Julia Mayersohn RRIS A 415
132 Mark Grobman Technion B 414
132 Janvier Palmer Newcastle A 414
132 Bobby Seagull RHUL A 414
132 Sean Butler Galway C 414
132 Robert Sobelman Colgate B 414
132 Karl Bagga York A 414
138 Rose Helens-Hart Alaska B 413
138 Fleur Praal Leiden A 413
138 Manuel Klop Erasmus B 413
138 Reut Rubinstein Haifa C 413
138 Kai Menzel Tilbury House 413
143 Simon Koschut Berlin C 412
144 Daina Oniunas Pusic Zagreb A 411
144 Mert Onen Bogazici B 411
144 Thomas Wells Erasmus B 411
144 Donna Cummins Galway D 411
144 Karen Ralph TCD Law A 411
149 Boaz Zirkel TAU C 410
149 Daniel Maier Berlin A 410
149 Daniel Andrews Alaska A 410
149 Koby Sadis Haifa B 410
153 Anthony Morrissey Queen Mary A 409
153 Chris Kolerok Alaska B 409
153 Tomas Kairys SSE Riga A 409
156 Jenni Harrison Dundee A 408
156 Andew Black Aberdeen B 408
156 Sebastian Hirsch IUB A 408
159 Shahar Ronen Haifa D 407
159 Manos Moschopoulos Deree A 407
159 Laura Horvat Zagreb D 407
162 Patrick Cluskey Galway E 406
162 Rich Croker York A 406
162 Ivana Reljanovic Zagreb D 406
165 Ravid Barak Technion B 405
165 Ozgur Bozcaga Bogazici B 405
167 Cathy Egan Galway E 404
167 Borna Sor Zagreb A 404
167 Karen Reid Aberdeen B 404
167 Engin Ural Koc A 404
167 Alon Altman Technion A 404
167 Maria Savostyanova MGIMO 404
173 Fran Pelicaric Zagreb B 403
174 Marc Naether Kings A 402
174 Primoz Karnar Ljubljana A 402
176 Lotem Rottbain Haifa D 401
177 Yair Carmon Technion C 398
177 Orkun Girban METU A 398
177 Grega Gostencnik Ljubljana A 398
177 MacSwing Swing A 398
177 Leticia Teixeira Porto A 398
177 Faruk Aktay Koc A 398
177 Ezgi Sakman Bilkent B 398
184 Michael Parker Newcastle A 397
185 Saskia Dürr Berlin B 396
185 Boaz Goldstein Technion A 396
187 Sevil Ozgalik Hacettepe A 395
188 Gary Vernon Queen Mary A 394
189 Sven Köhler Berlin B 392
189 Branka Marusic Zagreb C 392
189 Stephanie Joyce Galway C 392
192 Seda Caglayan Hacettepe A 391
192 Steven Rome Dundee A 391
194 Maria Avgitidis Deree A 390
194 Joana Pereira Porto A 390
196 Gamze Ovacik Bilkent A 389
197 Linor Deutsch TAU B 388
197 David Barros Porto B 388
199 Iva Kustrak Zagreb B 387
199 Caglar Kurc Bilkent A 387
199 Erdem Demirba METU B 387
202 Sarp Erzi Galatasaray A 386
203 Sarper BOZ Galatasaray A 385
204 Sergey Kuniavsky Technion C 382
204 Robert Ustian METU A 382
204 Pedro Costa Porto B 382
207 Vilko Kos Zagreb C 381
207 Erez Kamer TAU B 381
207 Ben Lerner IDC D 381
210 Ozgen Dundar METU B 380
211 Jan Steyn AUP A 379
212 Frederic Sanders Leiden B 378
212 Yigit Engin Bilkent B 378
212 Nisa Genc Bogazici A 378
215 Marko Orec Zagreb Law A 375
215 Avihu Tamir IDC D 375
217 Teo Giljevic Zagreb Law A 374
218 Briana Sapp AUP A 373
219 Jung Woo Lee AUP B 371
220 Izaäk Vervliet Leiden B 370
220 Neset Guner Koc B 370
222 Pemra Narli Bogazici A 369
223 Riza Isik Koc B 365
224 Allison Sanders AUP B 358
Irish Times Debating Rules
Information for Competitors in the Irish Times Debating Competition
by
Rossa Fanning
Convenor 2000-2001,
Introduction
Whether you are an experienced Irish Times speaker, or a novice, you are likely to have questions about the competition’s format and timetable, the difference between the Irish Times and other competitions, the way to approach Irish Times motions, and the way in which debates are adjudicated.
This guide should provide you with all the information that you need. It may be helpful to retain a copy throughout the duration of the competition for reference. This guide, and other information about the competition, is available at http://www.debating.ie/
Competition Structure
There are 16 first round debates, each including around 8-10 teams of two speakers.
2 teams and 2 individual speakers will qualify from each debate for the second round. The 32 teams and 32 individuals who qualify for the second round will be divided into 8 second round debates, each with 4 teams and 4 individuals.
From each second round debate, 2 teams and 2 individuals will qualify for the semi-finals.
At the semi-final stage, the 16 teams and 16 individuals will be divided into 4 semi-finals, each containing 4 teams and 4 individuals. From each semi-final, 1 team and 1 individual qualify for the final.
At the final, the winning team and winning individual speaker are chosen, The prize for the winners is an all-expenses-paid debating tour of U.S. Universities.
Logistics
The only information that you need to compete is an order paper. At the first round stage, you will be selected by your union or society to compete in a particular debate, as DIT C, UCC Philosoph F, TCD Hist A or something similar. The number has no significance, and will be replaced by your names, at the first round debate.
The order paper will detail the motion, your speaking position, and the time and place of the debate. On each order paper, a meeting point will be specified (sometimes a reception venue, sometimes the actual debate venue) for 30 minutes prior to the scheduled commencement of the debate. The debate will start punctually, and without you, so be there at the specified time. Allow margin for error if it is your first time travelling to the venue.
Each debate is hosted by a particular society or union in the relevant college. They are responsible for providing you with directions, and information on travel and accommodation in the location where the debate is taking place. A contact person and a contact telephone number in the host college are supplied on each order paper, if you need any help.
Notwithstanding this, it is your own responsibility to arrange transport and accommodation for each debate. The college or society that you represent will often make some arrangement with you about defraying your costs. Discuss the matter with them.
Once the competition starts, details of results, and the draw for subsequent rounds will be available on the website, as soon as they are available -
The order papers for the subsequent rounds will not be posted to speakers, but to the society or union that you are representing. If you qualify for a subsequent round, your society or union is responsible for passing on the details to you, though you can access them yourself on the website.
Format of Debates
There is a necessary distinction in format between first round debates, and all subsequent debates.
The First Round
In a first round debate with 8 teams (an average number), 4 teams will propose the motion, and 4 teams will oppose the motion, beginning with the proposition, and speaking alternately, one member of a team at a time. Thus, at the half-way point, the first speaker from each team will have spoken. The second half of the debate follows the same order, with the second member of each team speaking in the same sequence. Thus, in a debate with 8 teams, the order of speaking would be as follows:-
(1) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 1 (2) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 1
(3) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 2 (4) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 2
(5) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 3 (6) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 3
(7) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 4 (8) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 4
(9) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 1 (10) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 1
(11) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 2 (12) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 2
(13) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 3 (14) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 3
(15) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 4 (16) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 4
Subsequent Rounds
Each of these debates will feature 4 teams, and 4 individual speakers. 2 teams and 2 individuals are on each side of the motion. The first member of each team speaks first, then the four individuals, then the second member of the four teams. The order paper will thus be:
(1) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 1 (2) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 1
(3) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 2 (4) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 2
(5) Proposition Individual 1 (6) Opposition Individual 1
(7) Proposition Individual 2 (8) Opposition Individual 2
(9) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 1 (10) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 1
(11) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 2 (12) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 2
Competition Rules
Speeches are of 7 minutes duration. A bell is rung after 1 minute, after 6 minutes, and after 7 minutes, when there is a double bell. Speakers who continue for longer than 30 seconds after this point will be penalised.
Points of Information may be offered from the end of the first minute (when the first bell rings) and until the sixth minute elapses (when the second bell rings). They may only be offered by participating speakers on the opposing side of the debate. To offer a point of information, a speaker should stand up and clearly say “Point of Information” in such a way as to attract the attention of the speaker. A point of information should be no more than 10 seconds in length, and should either take the form of a question, or a brief statement of fact that undermines the speaker’s current point. Accepting points of information is entirely a matter of the speaker’s discretion.
Speakers must be current registered students in the College which they are representing. Any third level educational institution can participate.
Entry fees must be paid in full for the institution before any team is permitted to speak. If you are in doubt as to whether these have been paid, check with your sociey or union.
Debates will start punctually. If you are not there at the commencement of the debate, the order paper will be re-organized and the debate will begin. At that stage it may be impossible for you to participate if you arrive late.
Dress Code
Informal for the first and second round. Formal (black tie) for both semi-finals and final.
Who are the Adjudicators ?
A debating competition is only as good as the persons judging it. Competitors have a legitimate concern about the quality of the judges. Adjudicators of the competition will only be persons of demonstrated ability and experience in competitive debating.
Specifically, this means that first and second round adjudicators will have:
reached a National Final (Times/Mace), or
reached the final of a major International Intervarsity Competition (Oxford, Glasgow, Strathclyde, Cambridge), or
reached the knock-out stages in the World Universities Debating Championships, or
acquired extensive chief-adjudicating experience at International Intervarsity and World Championship Debate level.
Adjudicators at semi-final and final stages:
will have done at least two of the above, and
will have won a National Title, a major International Intervarsity Competition, or reached at least the quarter-finals of the World Championships.
Each adjudication panel will contain graduates from at least two different colleges
· This is the first year that criteria for choosing adjudicators have been made explicit prior to the competition. The idea is that having strict criteria, and making them public at the outset of the competition is in the best interests of the stature and credibility of the competition. If, on any occasion a competitor feels that the adjudicating panel at an Irish Times debate falls short of these criteria, please speak to the Convenor about it. You are entitled to an explanation.
Adjudication Criteria
Adjudicating debates is an inexact science. Experience shows that the only protection against irrationality or subjectivity is an experienced and qualified panel of adjudicators.
Whilst no specific marking scheme is used, and many adjudicators will legitimately disagree on what wins debates, some points are so commonly understood and accepted that they verge on the axiomatic, and are offered here as general guidelines.
Cardinal Rules
Ø Every aspect of your participation in a debate should be directed towards persuading the audience and adjudicators to either support or reject the motion, according to what side you are on.
Ø Always try and present your argument as being more reasonable than that of your opponent. (“The-always-compare-the-opposition-to-Hitler-rule”) Even if you really are in favour of assasinating Tony Blair, this isn’t likely to be a winning argument in a debate on New Labour.
10 Vital Components of a Sucessful Speech
1. Argument
The basis of every successful speech is a coherent argument. A successful speaker will always have a clear argument which is continuously impressed upon the adjudicators in a convincing fashion. The ability to address earlier contributions while remaining original is an important balance to strike in the presentation of an argument. An argument must make an impact while remaining logical. A chain of thought and clear progression is important to avoid losing the audience. This is best done by having a clear structure.
2. Content
Content distinguishes a good argument from an array of unsupported assertions. Content should be relevant, interesting and ideally, innovative. In a debate on an ethical or moral issue, little research may be required, but on a specific economic or political topic, extensive reading may be necessary unless you are particularly well-informed in that area. “Specialist” arguments based on knowledge acquired in your particular academic discipline are not welcome (and probably not very interesting if you are a neurophysics PhD) - the content that you use in any debate should be available in popularly read quality current affairs material, from The Irish Times to The Economist.
3. Fluency
A good speech must be delivered fluently with minimal use of notes. A fluent speaker will be more persuasive as he/she will appear to be more convinced of the truth of what they are saying. Never forget that a debate is an argument with rules, not an exchange of position papers. Reading is not debating and will be penalised by any adjudication panel.
4. Refutation/Rebuttal
This is the ability to effectively attack the critical point of an opponents position, while retaining your own argument and structure. It is critical to undermine the arguments of opposing speakers and this should be incorporated into your own speech. If you deliver a pre-prepared speech for five minutes, and then say “now for some rebuttal” you are missing the point. The whole point of your participation is to undermine the stance taken by the opposite side - as you are making your own points you should refer to the weaknesses that they expose in the opposition’s case.
5. Humour
Humour can help you to win over an audience and can make your speech stand out from the rest. Frequently, the most effective use of humour is as a tool to ridicule the position of your opponents. Remember though, that while a successful stand-up routine might persuade an audience or adjudication panel that a speaker has a great sense of humour, unless there is a point to it, it is irrelevant and a waste of time.
6. Style and Presentation
This is a general heading incorporating a speaker’s general competence as an orator. It includes conviction, humour, presence, gesture, tone, eye contact, a clear and audible delivery, and freedom from notes. Many of the best speakers have quite a quite a distinctive style. Obvious stylistic weaknesses, such as speaking too softly or loudly, too quickly or in monotone will detract from an otherwise strong performance.
7. Points of Information
A speaker is not obliged to accept points of information but it is recommended that speakers accept 2 or 3 points during a speech. They should be accepted at an appropriate time, - never in the middle of outlining a particular argument or example - and answered decisively. Refusal to accept any points, or failure to answer them undermines your argument, as you appear unwilling or unable to defend it from attack. Accepting 4 or more points of information is generally regarded as unwise, as it will excessively distract you from the central purpose of offering your own argument. Your speech is not a question-and-answer session.
Each speaker should offer points of information throughout the duration of the debate. They should be short and directly relevant to the point that the speaker is currently making. Abuse of this facility so as to upset or distract a speaker, by continually offering points at short intervals (“barracking”), or by offering points at an inappropriate time - when a speaker is patently only introducing or outlining the basis of his argument - will be heavily penalised.
8. Teamwork
A team speaker will be judged as such. A successful team will have a coherent argument which unifies both of their speeches. The first speaker in a team should set out the argument of the team with supporting examples and the second speaker should defend it, by showing how the arguments that have been offered in the intervening time have not effectively undermined the team line, as set out by the first speaker. If the second speaker for a team departs from his/her partner’s argument, he/she will be heavily penalised.
9. Individual Speakers
In the subsequent rounds of the Irish Times there are individual speakers as well as teams. The individual speakers are “sandwiched” in the middle of the debate, and the principal arguments will typically have been made by the first speaker on each of the teams. Because they have no team-mate to reiterate their argument, it is often the case that successful individuals will in some way add a novel dimension or perspective to the debate. There is an important distinction between novelty and irrelevance - an individual will not be rewarded for introducing completely different subject matter, but a new argument, or a reworked version of an existing argument, used to prove the same point, will be welcome.
10. Order of Speaking
Different responsibilities attach to different positions on the order paper.
The first proposition speaker has the specific responsibility of defining the motion, and explaining what he/she believes is at issue in the debate.
The first opposition speaker may respond to this definition, but should in almost every case, accept it and work with it. Only in the very rare situation of a “squirrel” (where the proposition have defined the motion in such an unreasonable fashion that their definition bears no relation to any meaning that could reasonably be ascribed to the text of the motion) is the opposition entitled to disregard the definition offered by the proposition, and substitute their own definition.
Thereafter, the first speaker from each team should clearly state what that team will seek to argue. Although what is at issue in the debate should now be apparent, each team is free to adopt its own different arguments, different structure and different examples to argue their side of the motion.
As a general rule, the later a speaker is on an order paper, the greater the responsibility to refute arguments already made, and the lesser the responsibility to introduce new material. Indeed, the last speakers for the proposition and the opposition should sum up the arguments made by all of the speakers on their side of the motion and rebut the arguments of the opposing teams. They should not introduce new arguments - rather, they should confine themselves to reiterating the arguments advanced by their teammate.
Types of Debate
All debates in the Competition are “prepared” - speakers will have notice of the motion, usually for over a week.
Because of this it is generally regarded as inappropriate to have “vague” motions that have no apparent meaning, and could be interpreted as any one of an infinite number of possibilities by the first proposition team. Thus, there are no motions such as “That This House would look before it leaps” or “That This House believes the glass is half-empty” which are so beloved of impromptu-style competitions. The reason is that this practice defeats the object of having preparation time, and also offers the first proposition team a large advantage, as they are the only team going into the debate who know what the issue to be discussed is.
Irish Times motions normally posit a relatively clear issue. For example, to take a hackneyed topic that will certainly not be part of this year’s competition, “That This House would Ban Boxing”, it can readily be seen that the issues, and the arguments are straightforward and apparent. That is the tradition of Irish Times motions. Adopting an unusual definition - in the above case defining the debate as being concerned with banning the boxing of fruit - perhaps because of damage to rainforests caused by the demand for wood to make the boxes - impresses nobody and will almost certainly backfire. The first opposition team, in an Irish Times debate would be entitled to disregard this definition, and substitute their more conventional understanding of the motion.
To the extent that there is any ambigouity at all in the motion “That this House would Ban Boxing”, that ambigouity is contrived. The motions chosen for the competition seek to avoid cases of genuine ambigouity which might be caused by a motion such as “This House supports the right to strike”, which could be legitimately defined in the very different settings of labour relations, corporal punishment, or military initiatives.
If you are in any doubt, the best tactic in any Irish Times debate is to tackle the most obvious and straightforward meaning of the motion. That way, you are certain to be in the thick of the debate, and not on the sidelines.
Motions usually deal with a particular political, moral, religious, economic or international issue. The quid pro quo for having time to prepare, is an expectation that you will be well-informed on the topic.
Conclusion
I hope these notes are of some use in helping you to prepare for your participation. I would like to acknowledge a number of people who have generously offered me their advice and assistance, in particular, Colm Flynn, Caoilfhionn Gallagher, Ian Walsh, Bernadette Quigley and Adrian Langan. I hope you enjoy the experience of competing as much as I did, and I wish you the very best of luck.
by
Rossa Fanning
Convenor 2000-2001,
Introduction
Whether you are an experienced Irish Times speaker, or a novice, you are likely to have questions about the competition’s format and timetable, the difference between the Irish Times and other competitions, the way to approach Irish Times motions, and the way in which debates are adjudicated.
This guide should provide you with all the information that you need. It may be helpful to retain a copy throughout the duration of the competition for reference. This guide, and other information about the competition, is available at http://www.debating.ie/
Competition Structure
There are 16 first round debates, each including around 8-10 teams of two speakers.
2 teams and 2 individual speakers will qualify from each debate for the second round. The 32 teams and 32 individuals who qualify for the second round will be divided into 8 second round debates, each with 4 teams and 4 individuals.
From each second round debate, 2 teams and 2 individuals will qualify for the semi-finals.
At the semi-final stage, the 16 teams and 16 individuals will be divided into 4 semi-finals, each containing 4 teams and 4 individuals. From each semi-final, 1 team and 1 individual qualify for the final.
At the final, the winning team and winning individual speaker are chosen, The prize for the winners is an all-expenses-paid debating tour of U.S. Universities.
Logistics
The only information that you need to compete is an order paper. At the first round stage, you will be selected by your union or society to compete in a particular debate, as DIT C, UCC Philosoph F, TCD Hist A or something similar. The number has no significance, and will be replaced by your names, at the first round debate.
The order paper will detail the motion, your speaking position, and the time and place of the debate. On each order paper, a meeting point will be specified (sometimes a reception venue, sometimes the actual debate venue) for 30 minutes prior to the scheduled commencement of the debate. The debate will start punctually, and without you, so be there at the specified time. Allow margin for error if it is your first time travelling to the venue.
Each debate is hosted by a particular society or union in the relevant college. They are responsible for providing you with directions, and information on travel and accommodation in the location where the debate is taking place. A contact person and a contact telephone number in the host college are supplied on each order paper, if you need any help.
Notwithstanding this, it is your own responsibility to arrange transport and accommodation for each debate. The college or society that you represent will often make some arrangement with you about defraying your costs. Discuss the matter with them.
Once the competition starts, details of results, and the draw for subsequent rounds will be available on the website, as soon as they are available -
The order papers for the subsequent rounds will not be posted to speakers, but to the society or union that you are representing. If you qualify for a subsequent round, your society or union is responsible for passing on the details to you, though you can access them yourself on the website.
Format of Debates
There is a necessary distinction in format between first round debates, and all subsequent debates.
The First Round
In a first round debate with 8 teams (an average number), 4 teams will propose the motion, and 4 teams will oppose the motion, beginning with the proposition, and speaking alternately, one member of a team at a time. Thus, at the half-way point, the first speaker from each team will have spoken. The second half of the debate follows the same order, with the second member of each team speaking in the same sequence. Thus, in a debate with 8 teams, the order of speaking would be as follows:-
(1) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 1 (2) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 1
(3) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 2 (4) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 2
(5) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 3 (6) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 3
(7) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 4 (8) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 4
(9) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 1 (10) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 1
(11) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 2 (12) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 2
(13) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 3 (14) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 3
(15) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 4 (16) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 4
Subsequent Rounds
Each of these debates will feature 4 teams, and 4 individual speakers. 2 teams and 2 individuals are on each side of the motion. The first member of each team speaks first, then the four individuals, then the second member of the four teams. The order paper will thus be:
(1) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 1 (2) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 1
(3) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 2 (4) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 2
(5) Proposition Individual 1 (6) Opposition Individual 1
(7) Proposition Individual 2 (8) Opposition Individual 2
(9) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 1 (10) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 1
(11) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 2 (12) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 2
Competition Rules
Speeches are of 7 minutes duration. A bell is rung after 1 minute, after 6 minutes, and after 7 minutes, when there is a double bell. Speakers who continue for longer than 30 seconds after this point will be penalised.
Points of Information may be offered from the end of the first minute (when the first bell rings) and until the sixth minute elapses (when the second bell rings). They may only be offered by participating speakers on the opposing side of the debate. To offer a point of information, a speaker should stand up and clearly say “Point of Information” in such a way as to attract the attention of the speaker. A point of information should be no more than 10 seconds in length, and should either take the form of a question, or a brief statement of fact that undermines the speaker’s current point. Accepting points of information is entirely a matter of the speaker’s discretion.
Speakers must be current registered students in the College which they are representing. Any third level educational institution can participate.
Entry fees must be paid in full for the institution before any team is permitted to speak. If you are in doubt as to whether these have been paid, check with your sociey or union.
Debates will start punctually. If you are not there at the commencement of the debate, the order paper will be re-organized and the debate will begin. At that stage it may be impossible for you to participate if you arrive late.
Dress Code
Informal for the first and second round. Formal (black tie) for both semi-finals and final.
Who are the Adjudicators ?
A debating competition is only as good as the persons judging it. Competitors have a legitimate concern about the quality of the judges. Adjudicators of the competition will only be persons of demonstrated ability and experience in competitive debating.
Specifically, this means that first and second round adjudicators will have:
reached a National Final (Times/Mace), or
reached the final of a major International Intervarsity Competition (Oxford, Glasgow, Strathclyde, Cambridge), or
reached the knock-out stages in the World Universities Debating Championships, or
acquired extensive chief-adjudicating experience at International Intervarsity and World Championship Debate level.
Adjudicators at semi-final and final stages:
will have done at least two of the above, and
will have won a National Title, a major International Intervarsity Competition, or reached at least the quarter-finals of the World Championships.
Each adjudication panel will contain graduates from at least two different colleges
· This is the first year that criteria for choosing adjudicators have been made explicit prior to the competition. The idea is that having strict criteria, and making them public at the outset of the competition is in the best interests of the stature and credibility of the competition. If, on any occasion a competitor feels that the adjudicating panel at an Irish Times debate falls short of these criteria, please speak to the Convenor about it. You are entitled to an explanation.
Adjudication Criteria
Adjudicating debates is an inexact science. Experience shows that the only protection against irrationality or subjectivity is an experienced and qualified panel of adjudicators.
Whilst no specific marking scheme is used, and many adjudicators will legitimately disagree on what wins debates, some points are so commonly understood and accepted that they verge on the axiomatic, and are offered here as general guidelines.
Cardinal Rules
Ø Every aspect of your participation in a debate should be directed towards persuading the audience and adjudicators to either support or reject the motion, according to what side you are on.
Ø Always try and present your argument as being more reasonable than that of your opponent. (“The-always-compare-the-opposition-to-Hitler-rule”) Even if you really are in favour of assasinating Tony Blair, this isn’t likely to be a winning argument in a debate on New Labour.
10 Vital Components of a Sucessful Speech
1. Argument
The basis of every successful speech is a coherent argument. A successful speaker will always have a clear argument which is continuously impressed upon the adjudicators in a convincing fashion. The ability to address earlier contributions while remaining original is an important balance to strike in the presentation of an argument. An argument must make an impact while remaining logical. A chain of thought and clear progression is important to avoid losing the audience. This is best done by having a clear structure.
2. Content
Content distinguishes a good argument from an array of unsupported assertions. Content should be relevant, interesting and ideally, innovative. In a debate on an ethical or moral issue, little research may be required, but on a specific economic or political topic, extensive reading may be necessary unless you are particularly well-informed in that area. “Specialist” arguments based on knowledge acquired in your particular academic discipline are not welcome (and probably not very interesting if you are a neurophysics PhD) - the content that you use in any debate should be available in popularly read quality current affairs material, from The Irish Times to The Economist.
3. Fluency
A good speech must be delivered fluently with minimal use of notes. A fluent speaker will be more persuasive as he/she will appear to be more convinced of the truth of what they are saying. Never forget that a debate is an argument with rules, not an exchange of position papers. Reading is not debating and will be penalised by any adjudication panel.
4. Refutation/Rebuttal
This is the ability to effectively attack the critical point of an opponents position, while retaining your own argument and structure. It is critical to undermine the arguments of opposing speakers and this should be incorporated into your own speech. If you deliver a pre-prepared speech for five minutes, and then say “now for some rebuttal” you are missing the point. The whole point of your participation is to undermine the stance taken by the opposite side - as you are making your own points you should refer to the weaknesses that they expose in the opposition’s case.
5. Humour
Humour can help you to win over an audience and can make your speech stand out from the rest. Frequently, the most effective use of humour is as a tool to ridicule the position of your opponents. Remember though, that while a successful stand-up routine might persuade an audience or adjudication panel that a speaker has a great sense of humour, unless there is a point to it, it is irrelevant and a waste of time.
6. Style and Presentation
This is a general heading incorporating a speaker’s general competence as an orator. It includes conviction, humour, presence, gesture, tone, eye contact, a clear and audible delivery, and freedom from notes. Many of the best speakers have quite a quite a distinctive style. Obvious stylistic weaknesses, such as speaking too softly or loudly, too quickly or in monotone will detract from an otherwise strong performance.
7. Points of Information
A speaker is not obliged to accept points of information but it is recommended that speakers accept 2 or 3 points during a speech. They should be accepted at an appropriate time, - never in the middle of outlining a particular argument or example - and answered decisively. Refusal to accept any points, or failure to answer them undermines your argument, as you appear unwilling or unable to defend it from attack. Accepting 4 or more points of information is generally regarded as unwise, as it will excessively distract you from the central purpose of offering your own argument. Your speech is not a question-and-answer session.
Each speaker should offer points of information throughout the duration of the debate. They should be short and directly relevant to the point that the speaker is currently making. Abuse of this facility so as to upset or distract a speaker, by continually offering points at short intervals (“barracking”), or by offering points at an inappropriate time - when a speaker is patently only introducing or outlining the basis of his argument - will be heavily penalised.
8. Teamwork
A team speaker will be judged as such. A successful team will have a coherent argument which unifies both of their speeches. The first speaker in a team should set out the argument of the team with supporting examples and the second speaker should defend it, by showing how the arguments that have been offered in the intervening time have not effectively undermined the team line, as set out by the first speaker. If the second speaker for a team departs from his/her partner’s argument, he/she will be heavily penalised.
9. Individual Speakers
In the subsequent rounds of the Irish Times there are individual speakers as well as teams. The individual speakers are “sandwiched” in the middle of the debate, and the principal arguments will typically have been made by the first speaker on each of the teams. Because they have no team-mate to reiterate their argument, it is often the case that successful individuals will in some way add a novel dimension or perspective to the debate. There is an important distinction between novelty and irrelevance - an individual will not be rewarded for introducing completely different subject matter, but a new argument, or a reworked version of an existing argument, used to prove the same point, will be welcome.
10. Order of Speaking
Different responsibilities attach to different positions on the order paper.
The first proposition speaker has the specific responsibility of defining the motion, and explaining what he/she believes is at issue in the debate.
The first opposition speaker may respond to this definition, but should in almost every case, accept it and work with it. Only in the very rare situation of a “squirrel” (where the proposition have defined the motion in such an unreasonable fashion that their definition bears no relation to any meaning that could reasonably be ascribed to the text of the motion) is the opposition entitled to disregard the definition offered by the proposition, and substitute their own definition.
Thereafter, the first speaker from each team should clearly state what that team will seek to argue. Although what is at issue in the debate should now be apparent, each team is free to adopt its own different arguments, different structure and different examples to argue their side of the motion.
As a general rule, the later a speaker is on an order paper, the greater the responsibility to refute arguments already made, and the lesser the responsibility to introduce new material. Indeed, the last speakers for the proposition and the opposition should sum up the arguments made by all of the speakers on their side of the motion and rebut the arguments of the opposing teams. They should not introduce new arguments - rather, they should confine themselves to reiterating the arguments advanced by their teammate.
Types of Debate
All debates in the Competition are “prepared” - speakers will have notice of the motion, usually for over a week.
Because of this it is generally regarded as inappropriate to have “vague” motions that have no apparent meaning, and could be interpreted as any one of an infinite number of possibilities by the first proposition team. Thus, there are no motions such as “That This House would look before it leaps” or “That This House believes the glass is half-empty” which are so beloved of impromptu-style competitions. The reason is that this practice defeats the object of having preparation time, and also offers the first proposition team a large advantage, as they are the only team going into the debate who know what the issue to be discussed is.
Irish Times motions normally posit a relatively clear issue. For example, to take a hackneyed topic that will certainly not be part of this year’s competition, “That This House would Ban Boxing”, it can readily be seen that the issues, and the arguments are straightforward and apparent. That is the tradition of Irish Times motions. Adopting an unusual definition - in the above case defining the debate as being concerned with banning the boxing of fruit - perhaps because of damage to rainforests caused by the demand for wood to make the boxes - impresses nobody and will almost certainly backfire. The first opposition team, in an Irish Times debate would be entitled to disregard this definition, and substitute their more conventional understanding of the motion.
To the extent that there is any ambigouity at all in the motion “That this House would Ban Boxing”, that ambigouity is contrived. The motions chosen for the competition seek to avoid cases of genuine ambigouity which might be caused by a motion such as “This House supports the right to strike”, which could be legitimately defined in the very different settings of labour relations, corporal punishment, or military initiatives.
If you are in any doubt, the best tactic in any Irish Times debate is to tackle the most obvious and straightforward meaning of the motion. That way, you are certain to be in the thick of the debate, and not on the sidelines.
Motions usually deal with a particular political, moral, religious, economic or international issue. The quid pro quo for having time to prepare, is an expectation that you will be well-informed on the topic.
Conclusion
I hope these notes are of some use in helping you to prepare for your participation. I would like to acknowledge a number of people who have generously offered me their advice and assistance, in particular, Colm Flynn, Caoilfhionn Gallagher, Ian Walsh, Bernadette Quigley and Adrian Langan. I hope you enjoy the experience of competing as much as I did, and I wish you the very best of luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)