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

26 March 2009

Sydney Grand Slam Novice Tournament 2009

Winners: Elle Jones, Daniel Swain, Paul Karp
Runners-up: Eliza Forsyth, Heydon Letcher, Rob Pietriche
Best Speaker: Elle Jones
CA: Naomi Oreb

Motions:
Health (r 1)
That the State should prioritise organs to people who have lived a healthy lifestyle
That the State should ban alcohol advertisements during sporting broadcasts
That clinically obese children should be removed from their homes

Law and Order (r 2)
That we should directly elect our judges
That the government should force people to evacuate their homes in the event of an impending natural disaster
That we should abolish custodial sentences for all young offenders

China (r 3)
That governments should limit the number of children that people can have in overpopulated nations
That Tibet should be free
That China should stop using the death penalty

Sport (r 4)
That the Olympics should be held only in developing nations
That Australia should boycott international sporting events held in nations with poor human rights records
That contracts of employment for professional rugby league players should include a promise not to consume any alcohol

Education (r 5)
That we should ban home schooling
That high school teachers should receive bonuses based on the performance of their students
That universities should reserve a certain number of places for Indigenous students

Government/politics (semi-final)
That drug testing should be mandatory for public officials
That the Government should cap Executive salaries
That politicians should have term limits

Family (grand final)
That adopted children should have the right to know the identity of their birth parents
That in the event of a divorce, parents should have equal custody of their children
That women over 40 should not be allowed access to IVF

23 March 2009

Interesting debate format.

Georgie from www.debatemate.com recently posted an e-mail to britishdebate about a couple of new formats of debating they were trialling. I don't know how the event turned out but I think the format sounds interesting especially if you are looking for a way to involve a large number of people in a debate. It could be of use if you are looking for a format to have a class discussion on a topic.

Here are some details from the e-mail

Debate Mate is helping the New Economics Foundation to try out a new idea called a ‘Policy Slam’ as part of the Ministry of Justice’s wonderfully entitled Democratic Innovation Fund. We want to try and harness people's competitiveness, to get them to engage in a dialogue and search for common ground.

We want up to 20 of you guys to spend the afternoon of Tuesday March 17th testing out two new debating formats whilst discussing detention without trial. This is a fantastic opportunity to meet and get to know a fantastic think tank. NEF do some really interesting stuff and if you are thinking about a possible career in this sector then do come along. We’ll also pay you £25 for your time. To register please e-mail georgie@debatemate.com (georgie[at]debatemate.com) and include a brief sentence about where you stand on the issue (i.e. in favour, in favour with certain limitations, generally opposed, absolutely and always opposed etc.).

The Format:

1. Fishbowl
This involves two concentric circles of chairs - the inner circle with 6-8 chairs and the outer with approximately 10. To start with, the inner circle has a facilitator, some participants who support particular positions on the topic in question and some vacant seats. Everyone else sits as an audience in the outer circle. The facilitator introduces the topic and a discussion begins. After a while, anyone from the audience can come up, take one of the spare seats and join in the discussion. As more of the outer circle move in those who have been the longest in the inner circle are asked to move out. The format combines the coherence of small group discussion with wider inclusiveness.

2. Consensus voting
This involves a discussion followed by all participants ranking the various positions in preference order. The higher the preference, the greater the number of points ie. if there are 6 participants the voter gives his 1st preference 6 points, 2nd preference gets 5 points, and so on. The winner is the option with the most points and the higher the number of points the winner gets, the greater the degree of consensus. The aim of this type of debating is that even if you strongly disagree with someone else's views, you have an incentive to have a proper dialogue with them so that they rate your opinion higher in the list of preferences.

An event would involve two consensus votes, one part-way through a debate and the other at the end. You win if your proposal either comes top in the final vote, or improves the most between the two votes.

For more info visit www.debatemate.com

EWU to continue as hosts of AUDC 2009

As you may be aware there were some recent concerns about the ability of EWU to host the upcoming Asian Championships due to organisational and security issues.

A team from the AUDC Exco committee recently visited EWU to assess the actual situation on the ground and come up with a report on the organisation. This team has published their reports and the outcome is that EWU will continue as hosts of the championships. Below is one e-mail summary of that decision but if you want more detail and background visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AUDC/messages


Dear Friends,
Given the comprehensive reports of Azrul, LP and TJ, the exco believes it is reasonable to allow EWU to remain as host for this year's tournament.

According to the Malaysian and Thai embassies, the situation in Dhaka has normalized, so much so that the Thai embassy did not change its plans of bringing in Thai businessmen for a trade fair a week after the mutiny (please see LP's report). Despite this, EWU will still ensure our security by providing police escorts for transportation, as well as security sweeps for our socials venues (for further details of EWU's commitment to security, please read Azrul's report).

While the orgcomm may lack experience in running a tournament this size, they are willing to get assistance from Mr. Yasat Sarwar, previous president of the IIU Debate Club during the IIU AUDC who is currently working in Dhaka. Moreover, they are also willing to fund a site visit every two weeks prior the tournament if necessary, so that the Union will be able to monitor their progress. The orgcomm will also be inviting the DCAs to the EWU National Tournament to assist with adjudication training, and Latif will be flown in 1 week prior the tournament to help train the tab team and runners (please see TJ's report). We believe this shows EWU's willingness and commitment to make this tournament a good experience for everyone.

The exco will be working closely with the EWU orgcomm and their faculty committee to make sure that these promises are kept and that the tournament is on track with its preparations. We will keep you updated of developments. As always, constructive concerns, suggestions, and questions are most welcome.

Thank you very much and we look forward to seeing everyone at EWU this May!
Sincerely,
Estelle