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

24 December 2010

National University of Singapore win WUPID 2010

The National University of Singapore (NUS) have won the 2010 WUPID.  In the final they defeated University of Cambridge Monash University and the University of Sydney.

Keep an eye on here or on http://wupidmania.wordpress.com/ for the tab once it is released.

23 comments:

  1. Anonymous11:27 pm

    NUS "win" Wupid.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:18 am

    I never understand why judging panels do this though I have seen it happen quite often.

    It doesn't help Asian debating if a panel of judges who almost all live in Malaysia or surrounding countries gives the only Asian team in the room a win when it was patently clear to everyone who watched the debate that that team was not really in it. There was actually a very strong case for one of the speeches being riddled with equity violations - rather than taking that route, as a former judge I would have merely marked down that entire portion of the speech as deeply unpersuasive.

    NUS got to the final, presumably with good performances. I doubt anyone would call it a fix but there is certainly a case for "herd mentality" in the case of the final. I think WUPID was damaged by the result: I see no reason why Sydney, Monash or Cambridge would go back given that WUPID no longer bothers with bringing in good judges (Naomi aside, who was clashed from the final) and this year gave rather a lot of prize money to the only team in the room who had no rightful claim to win.

    Debating develops in new regions through actual winning. Fake winning won't develop anything, just a sense of mistrust.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:23 am

    I agree completely. The worst decision at a major tournament I've ever seen. Patently rigged isn't strong enough a term. I mean, even the topics were awful this year (the Euro in the Semi? If that's a "peace" topic, then anything is), and the GF topic (place set to Malaysia) still couldn't give NUS a chance. Ugh. This IV has already been struggling to maintain sponsorship, I predict it will collapse within 5 years.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous4:31 am

    WUPID has always been a joke and always will be (for the short amount of time it will continue for). The "top 32" invitation system is stupid given there are lots of universities who don't qualify because they don't send lots of teams to Worlds, but send a smaller number of teams who break or are seriously in contention for it. Hence Colgate and Bates are considered a top 20 universities and places like LSE and Victoria Wellington in NZ miss out. Ridiculous.

    The "peace" part of the tournament has been totally dropped since its first inception (thankfully) and it is now just a self-indulgent little project for Malaysian debating (which is actually harming Asian debating)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have activated comment moderation because if people can't play nicely with the Anonymous toy it will be taken away. Freedom of speech does not apply to Anonymous. Use your own name and I'll post pretty much anything. Use Anonymous and I'll delete pretty much anything.

    As to the attack on WUPID well I don't know about the result of this year's final but I have always found WUPID and the organising team there lead by Yunus to be excellent. It is a valuable addition to the World debating circuit. As to the internal issues within Asian debating well perhaps if some of the tournaments were more like WUPID and some of the organisers more like Yunus and Omar then we would not see the constant state of civil war that exists in the region and within some national debating associations.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:58 am

    I notice a number of comments were removed. For shame.

    My name is Joseph Smith btw. Welcome to the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Classic behavior of sore losers:
    a) look for foul play
    b) decide the grapes were sour.

    Thanks for confirming that even the best debaters conform to the worst of human nature.

    NUS did awesome btw. I thought the teams which didn't have a 'rightful claim to win' were those which suggested that Malaysia should get nuclear technology because it is "uniquely" blessed with engineers, and the team which claimed that a non-existent Copenhagen pact makes it imperative for people to switch to nuclear power.

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes some comments that violalted the basic rule of dont get colm sued were deleted. If you wish to repost them giving your name and contact details I'll allow them up.

    Freedom of speech does not apply to anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous1:00 pm

    If WUPID is so confident in the decision, they should put the video of the GF they have online, like they have in the past. I don't see that happening, because the decision was such a farce.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous12:49 pm

    Let's wait and watch how this NUS team does at the Worlds 2010... We basically need to wait for three-four more days to see how much the WUPID final was "rigged"...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mister-who-ever-you-are just above me. I don't know how Day 3 will unfold, but NUS A is third on the tab in worlds right now. 'rigged'? :P :P not likely...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous12:03 am

    And Sydney A broke 2nd... your point being? It has no relevance to whether this particular debate was a dud decision (I disagree with the above poster). Also, NUS B won WUPID, not A, are they even the same worlds team?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous2:32 am

    btw, just so it's clear, I disagree that what happens at worlds affects the validity of the decision at WUPID (not that the decision at WUPID was right, as it clearly wasn't).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rebecca5:08 am

    They are the same worlds team.

    Anyway, the logic about the irrelevance of the worlds break ranking applies regardless. Whether or not NUS A (or at Wupid, NUS B) was placed above or below the teams that it beat in the finals does not imply that the finals were rigged or unfair. Any debater knows that there are upsets in rounds. Just simply because the supposedly better teams screw up in that one round, does not mean that the underdog that did win had "no right" to do so. So tough luck that it was a finals round in this case but it happens.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous5:16 am

    Yes they are the same team.

    Personally i watched the Finals and saw various reasons as to why the debate could have gone either to them or Monash. Don't blame this on the 'herd' mentality. Did u know that 3 judges in the finals, Malaysians, dissented?

    I fear that no matter how much we discuss, some people will not be satisfied.

    Congrats to NUS for breaking at worlds 2011!

    Siron Pereira

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rebecca5:17 am

    Yes, the Worlds' NUS A is the same as Wupid's NUS B.

    The above argument about relevance is true and should thus be applied in the case of the WUPID finals as well. Any debater will tell you that there are upsets in rounds and even the supposedly better teams can screw up in a round. Everyone's done badly in a round against other teams that, according to statistics, expectations etc, are weaker. Just because the 'good' teams mess up in a finals of a tournament and lose to the underdogs, does NOT mean that the dark horses had "no right" to win. Do check your logic and self-righteous indignation before you post.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous9:11 am

    The debate was broadcast online... if they make it available online for people to go watch it, I doubt you'll find many people willing to put their hands up for an NUS win. The GF wasn't a crap decision because upsets can't happen, they were a crap decision because in that debate NUS was dead last.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous11:55 am

    ^ That is incorrect. It was a close debate but NUS's win was completely justified. I'd like to see you finding evidence of this apparently popular opinion that NUS didn't deserve the win. And for someone so uptight about the verdict, you sure aren't willing to offer any reasons at all to justify your claim.

    - Jacob

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rebecca4:01 pm

    What perplexes me is the fear that people have to put up their names and affiliations. I'm from NUS and am more than willing to declare that, knowing that some may think that my arguments are therefore coming from a biased perspective. Perhaps certain anonymous comment-ers are afraid of appearing biased in their pov?

    ReplyDelete
  20. My comment on this is that while the motion of the GF could have favoured one team over the other four, the win by NUS was definitely a deserved one. Unfortunate as it was, the other three teams failed to effectively contextualize the debate in a Malaysian context- something which only NUS managed to do.

    So while the decision to choose a localized motion might have been a wrong decision, the decision to award the win to NUS was a right one.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous10:45 am

    hey anonymous,

    any comments on the worlds GF? was that rigged too? just curious...
    get a life dude...

    cheers!

    -shafiq-

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous3:23 pm

    before this, i can proudly say that debaters are a bunch of people who are confident, talk with reasonable facts to support their arguments and most importantly, professional and classy.
    sadly, i can't say the same thing after reading some of the comments above.

    i think WUPID 2010 was a great event, Yunus and his team did a great job. kudos to them.

    and congratulations to NUS, they did great job not just as WUPID, but also at Worlds.
    they deserve it.

    cheers,
    emellia

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous10:06 am

    No, but now that I've seen the Semi I have to say I don't think much of that decision either, even though it's not the open and shut error the GF constituted.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.