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

18 December 2010

How the WUDC preliminary rounds work

With World's in Botswana fast approaching here is a brief overview of how the preliminary rounds work.

There are 9 preliminary rounds. In each round the 300+ teams are divided into "rooms" of 4 teams with at least 3 adjudicators. In each room the teams are divided into Government and Opposition (2 teams on each side).  For round 1 the draw is random.  After that teams are grouped into rooms based on a system of power matching.  The idea is teams will debate against other teams on the same (or very similar) points.  Teams that win move up the rankings and the rooms and teams that lose move down the rankings and the rooms.  Over 9 rounds this means teams should float to a level that fairly accurately reflects their ability.

Motions are announced 15 minutes in advance in large briefing halls (usually one hall for all the debaters and one hall for all the judges).  The time to walk to your room is included in the 15 minutes so get there quickly and be sure to discuss the topic with your team mate along the way.  Be careful not to discuss it with other teams as the rules do not allow teams to consult with other teams (or coaches) in the 15 minutes.  Also electronic devices are not permitted so don't pull out your laptop or smart phone and start googling the topic.  The speeches last 7 minutes each and each team member speaks only once.

After each debate the adjudication panel for the room will decide how each team did and award 3 points to the winner, 2 to second place, 1 to third and 0 to the final team. The adjudicators will also decide speaker points to each team member based on a scale of 50-100. More details can be found in the tutorial section of this site.

For rounds 1-6 there is an open adjudication. Teams are told the team points they recieved (but not speaker points) and given feedback by the experienced chair adjudicator in each room. This allows the "results" that will be assembled after each round. However as this is done by word of mouth at the championships it is not a complete list.

Rounds 7-9 are closed adjudication and the results are not announced until after the "break" on New Year's eve.

I'll provide more details on how the break works closer to the time.

17 December 2010

Guide to bidding and hosting Worlds

With Worlds just a couple of weeks away and with two bidders so far confirmed for Worlds 2013 I thought now would be a good time to republish this excellent guide written by Ian Lising a few years ago.  Hopefully it will give some guidance to the bidders and hopefully it give participants travelling to Worlds some insight into what happens behind the scenes at the tournament.


Guide to Bidding, Planning, and Running a World Universities Debating Championship
By Ian T. Lising


I. Should we bid to host Worlds?

1. What do we get from hosting Worlds?
a. International Recognition
b. Immediate Worlds Exposure

2. What is our timetable for the bid?
a. Getting University Support
b. Getting Community/Corporate Support
c. Getting Materials Prepared

3. Who do we need to be on our Bid Team?
a. The Convenor/Championship Director
b. The Chief Adjudicator
c. Worlds Delegates

4. How does the Bid Process work?
a. Knowing your competition
b. Do we really need our DCAs now?
c. Pre-Council Materials
d. New Year’s Day


II. Great, we won the bid! Now what do we do?
1. Building your team
a. The Deputy Chief Adjudicators (DCAs)
b. Registration Director
c. Finance Director
d. Tab Director
e. Contingency Director
f. Equity/Women’s Officers
g. Accommodations Director
h. Event Directors
i. Communication Director
j. Logistics Director
k. Transport Director
l. Socials Director

2. Work out the details

3. Defend the Bid
a. The Mid-Year Report
b. The Ratification Process

4. Future Host’s Night

III. We have over a thousand people at our doorstep, what happens now?
1. Execute the Plan (Get enough sleep)
2. Trust your Team (Don’t micromanage)
3. Passing the Gavel (It is done)


I. Should we bid to host Worlds?
Deciding to host a World Universities Debating Championships (WUDC or Worlds) is (to put it mildly) a life-altering event. The inaugural Championship was hosted by the Glasgow University Union in January 1981 with 50 teams from 8 nations competing. Since then it has dramatically expanded to an event that hosts over 350 teams from 150 universities of 40 nations. Worlds has been patronised and supported by several world leaders and sponsored by several transnational corporations.

That does sound a bit daunting. Perhaps this is the time where most people feel intimidated and think to themselves, “You must absolutely mad to take on something like that.” Though that may be partially true, this guide is meant to dispel the myths, spark ideas, and provide general direction to those who are willing to take on the task of hosting Worlds.

Before we get into any of that, the first question that comes to mind usually is:

1. What do we get from hosting Worlds?
Hosting Worlds is neither something you decide to do on a whim nor a responsibility you take on if you lose a bet. You will undoubtedly risk several sleepless months, fractured relationships, and other personal losses. But in the end, it could lead to tremendous international recognition and an opportunity for your debating organization, university, community, nation and region to experience Worlds firsthand in one glorious week.

a. International Recognition
No, not for you (although that does come for some from time to time), but international recognition will be earned for your debating organization, university, and nation. Offhand, this might sound shallow to some. But its impact is far deeper than they would first think.

Much like the universities they represent, debating organisations are only as successful as their reputation permits them to be. It is a sad notion, but unfortunately true. No matter what successes you enjoy over a debating career, short of winning Worlds, people tend to forget. Each year, only two universities’ names go down on the permanent history of the Championship, the winner and the host. Trust me, hosting is the more realistic venture of the two.

b. Immediate Worlds Exposure
If you have participated at Worlds, you often feel the need to share the experience with others as soon as you return home. My family knew that I would fly to some exotic locale around Boxing Day and miss the holidays every year, but that was the extent of their Worlds experience. The same is true unfortunately for everybody else in your region, country, university, and even debating organization. Each year, I take my students to Worlds and those new to the experience always say the same thing, “I had no idea it would be like this.” No matter how many debates you participate in, there is nothing quite like Worlds.

This is where hosting changes everything. When we hosted Worlds at Ateneo de Manila in 1999, there were high school students who worked as volunteers, sat in audiences, and even joined some events during the week. Several of them went on to have their own fantastic debating careers. National media helped us reach a much larger audience and the impact of that is immeasurable. Debating culture in the Philippines became something tangible.

After hosting Worlds, the Ateneo Debate Society was able to built on that success and take it much further. The same could be said of Stellenbosch 1997, Nanyang 2004, etc. The general interest in debating can be more easily piqued if the venue is somewhere closer to home. Sharing Worlds with the upcoming generation of your debating organization would be the best way to ensure its future.

2. What is our timetable for the bid?
The first thing you must do is to determine what type of experience your organization has in running a major international intervarsity debating tournament. Have you hosted a local, national, or even regional IV? It would be wise to start here first. Build your way up the ladder until you are able to get some experience with smaller-scaled events.

You must also take into consideration that your organisation must have dedicated members who have been to a few international intervarsity tournaments and who will be at your institution for a few years to come. This may be the more difficult task given that the soonest that the Worlds you’d run would be two and a half years from the time that you first decided to do it. So if you have a crop of committed second-years/sophomores/undeclared-majors-who-will-undoubtedly-overstay, then you are in business.

a. Getting University Support
Convincing your college/university/institution to host this prestigious event might sound academic, but don’t fool yourself. If the administration is not unquestionably supportive and enthusiastic about the bid (i.e. if they use language like, “Well, that sounds nice,” or “What’s Worlds?”) then you might reconsider.

Without the total support, your work will be that much more difficult. Some institutions have even gone to the extreme of charging their very own organising committee for the use of their classrooms during the tournament. Set up meetings with your institutional president as well as the deans, chancellors, department chairs, and faculty. The more people you have behind you, the better. Make sure that you fully communicate the gravity of the event and how it will infinitely benefit the institution.

b. Getting Community/Corporate Support
If you were extremely lucky, you would be attending a university that will fully fund your Worlds and all of its needs. Now, wake up, because that is never going to happen. The may take lead sponsorship (if you have some luck), but most institutions will just say that they “support” the idea and leave it at that. This means that you must find other financial measures for the bid. If your university has a lot of donor support, then you could persuade your administration to help set up a meeting. This will ensure compatibility with your sponsor and the institution. There have been several tournaments where this was not the case and it led to, well, complications.

Make sure that if you are lucky to land a business that is willing to go in as the title sponsor that your contracts are in order. It would be smarter to have them fix their pledge expressed in stable currencies. After our bid in January 1997, we suffered under the strain of the Asian-currency crisis and the worth of our committed budget was halved. Be very careful with all of your contracts.

Title sponsors may also enforce exclusivity clauses that will invariably hamper your ability to find other sponsors. In other words, if you find a willing giant, make sure they commit an ample amount worthy of their reputation and your need.

c. Getting Materials Prepared
The initial bid document has come in several forms. They range from flashy, colourful ones that are professionally printed on glossy brochures worthy of being framed, or simple black and white text forms with no photographs, and everything else in between. How much money you decide to spend on the document that will be scrutinised by the members of the World Debating Council is really up to you. I must be honest, though. Take time on ensuring that every detail on the copies you hand out are completely accurate. Do not make promises that you cannot keep. Be realistic with what you are offering.

The bid document must include a short history about your institution and debating organisation. You may include a short national bit if you wish. It should include support letters from the institution and, if you have them, letters of support from your sponsors. You should include the events that you are planning as well as your proposed logistical schematic. This means that you would have to estimate how much Worlds would cost and how you plan to cover it.

You must have projected registration fee as well as probable residence facilities. If you are fortunate to have suitable on-campus accommodations that will be vacant for the duration of the event, then plan on using it. Melbourne 1994, Stellenbosch 1997, and Sydney 2000 all had fantastic on-campus facilities that worked wonderfully. Of course, they had to carefully plan and execute information desks, food distribution, medical needs, communication, amenities, etc.

If you don’t have on-campus vacancy for the duration of Worlds, find out if you have a major hotel (or two nearby ones) and determine what the maximum capacity would be. At the institution, find the area that you plan to use as your briefing room and estimate its full capacity. These will help you determine what your maximum team capacity will be. Always remember to cap the number of teams per institution before you turn away entire institutions. Worlds is about inclusion. But remember, shooting for “the Biggest Worlds ever” will NEVER make it the “BEST Worlds ever”.

Estimate the expected travel time from the hotel, event locations, and the campus as well as the means (i.e. buses/walking). Toronto 2002 issued the tournament ID cards that doubled as free passes on their public transportation system for the whole week. You may not be able to pull off something magical like that, but the foresight and little touches like that will make the difference between a decent Worlds and a legendary one.

3. Who do we need to be on our Bid Team?
Typically, the same people who are intending to do the heavy lifting for Worlds would be the exact same ones making all of the promises at Council. The bid presenter should be the intended Convenor for the tournament. Some bid presentations in the past have been made by the Chief Adjudicator (CA). This would be fine if the proposed CA is directly connected to the bidding institution and will be with the hosts for entire duration. Council members usually get nervous about placing their vote with a personality who changes with each segment of the bid process. Consistency is the key for building trust with the council members. So the bottom line is, the bid presenter must be articulate, trustworthy, have a significant role with the organising committee, and be present at every stage of the bid process and throughout the running of the event.

a. The Convenor/Championship Director
Often mistaken for the most obsessive and control freakish of the lot, the Convenor or Championship/Tournament Director will primarily be the face of Worlds. As daunting as this position may seem, some Worlds have segregated the role into two or even three positions. But the function is to be the focal person to manage and direct Worlds at every stage. It is ideal that the proposed convenor has been to more than one Worlds before the bid process begins. There have been a couple of instances where a Worlds rookie stood before council as the proposed convenor and those Worlds turned out fine. But the more experience that they have with what Worlds is supposed to be like, the better. The convenor should have an outgoing spirit and know how to manage and trust their team.

b. The Chief Adjudicator
The proposed Chief Adjudicator should have adjudicated in at least one Worlds before joining the bid process. It would be a good idea to have a CA who is very familiar with the organising committee. But there have been a few occasions when the CA was not student/faculty/alumnus of the proposed host school. In fact, there has been at least one Worlds where the CA was from a different country altogether. It is crucial to have a CA who is exceptionally respected as an adjudicator in at least their country and region. However impossible at certain circumstances, it would be highly advisable to have a CA who is widely known and greatly respected throughout the Worlds circuit.

c. Worlds Delegates
It is also very critical that a strong buzz is created during the tournament even before the bid presentation takes place. This means that all of the debaters and adjudicators from the proposed host should act as ambassadors of the bid committee at all times. It would be equally helpful to get the support of all the national and regional delegates present. Often, the proposed host delegates would wear t-shirts, jumpers, jerseys, or any other paraphernalia bearing their Worlds during the tournament and as they stand in for support at the bid presentation. The delegates should be briefed about the basic information and be ready to answer questions informally as they are most certain to come.


4. How does the Bid Process work?
The formal process of announcing the bid goes through the World Council Chair. You should contact the Chair two months before Worlds at the very latest. Technically, you could just show up at the pre-council meeting on the 27th and announce your intentions then, but that would not be such a great idea. Potential bid competitors creating their buzz months ahead of you would be a huge disadvantage coming in. Additionally, a seemingly last minute presentation doesn’t give the appearance of a serious bid. The Chair will formally announce your bid when they post the agenda for the upcoming World Council Meeting. This is usually done online through the various debating list serves.

If you wish to generate your own fanfare prior to the announcement, it will help you gauge what reactions you might have (especially from your region). This inevitably helps you determine if you will have the support of everyone you need it from. It has also become rather in vogue to create a website for the bid. It is recommended to find formal online addresses as a Facebook or Myspace page will not reflect the seriousness of your endeavour. Usually, a space provided by your institution website demonstrates the support that you are receiving from them. The site will become indispensable if you win the bid.

At Worlds, bidders are allowed to hand out all of the paraphernalia that they wish to Council members at the pre-council meeting typically held on the afternoon of the 27th of December. They are not allowed to make announcements nor are they allowed to field questions at the meeting, but they are welcomed to sit in during the proceedings. At the conclusion of the pre-council meeting, bidders are allowed to introduce themselves informally to the council delegates and field questions as they wish. The formal bid presentation is reserved for the main Council meeting on the 1st of January.


a. Knowing your competition
It is but natural to feel competitive with any other university that wishes to bid at the same year that you have been long preparing for. But you must resist the urge to engage in silly confrontational tactics as you try desperately to undermine the competition. Typically, this usually backfires. Knowing what your competitor is offering and making sure that you cover your own bases is far more effective and constructive in the long run.


b. Do we really need our DCAs now?
No. It may be true that all bidders should always have their ducks in a row, but naming the Deputy Chief Adjudicators at the initial bidding stage is not one of the steps that I would recommend. Yes, it is critical to have all the proposed DCAs there for the bid confirmation a year later, but this early in on the process, it is unlikely that you will find Worlds personalities who could positively guarantee that they will be available two years later. To illustrate the point, during the Ateneo de Manila 1999 initial bid presentation at the Council meeting in Stellenbosch 1997, I was announced as the proposed Chief Adjudicator. A year later, circumstances required me to shift roles to Championship Director. Things happen, situations change, and DCAs will almost certainly not have the ability to secure a full commitment that far in advance.

c. Pre-Council Materials
Most bidders will hand out the official bid document at the pre-council meeting. This must include all the plans and letters of commitment that you received at this point. Letters of support from your university and sponsors will give council members a sense of how serious you are about the prospects of hosting Worlds and that your institution and community are willing to share the responsibility. Commitment letters from hotels may be a little more difficult to obtain at this point, but the logistical blueprints for the entire event should be included. Be certain that you will not make promises that you can’t keep. The purpose of handing out materials at the pre-council meeting is to give the council delegates an opportunity over the next few days to consult with their contingents and fellow nationals with all the information available. Once again, no formal statements or announcements should be made at this time. The handouts should just be simply distributed. They are welcomed to hand out other paraphernalia if they wish, but most save it for the main council meeting.

d. New Year’s Day
One of the toughest things to do is to spend your New Year’s Day sitting through the quagmire that is the World Debate Council. While the rest of Worlds enjoys the free day touring the city, nursing their hangovers, and catching up with the week’s lost sleep, council members will find themselves stuck in a conference room for about 12 glorious hours. The bid presentations are usually held during the first part of the council meeting after the final report from the preceding Worlds, the initial report of the current Worlds, and the confirmation report of the next year’s host. This is a good opportunity for the bidders to observe the process that every Worlds host goes through. Then, there is usually a coin-toss or other simple mechanism to determine bid presentation order. After each presentation, a question and answer period is allotted. Finally, voting takes place and the winning bid is announced.



II. Great, we won the bid! Now what do we do?
Congratulations. Here’s where the fun begins. After all of the necessary announcements and celebrations, work starts in earnest. Some winning bids think that the bulk of the work happens a few days before the Mid-Year Report is due in July, but the truth is that you shouldn’t put off any detail with Worlds as it is bound to creep up on you before you know it. Working up a week-to-week schedule is extremely important to ensure that you are on top of things.

1. Building your team
It is absolutely vital to secure a team of people who have the trust and respect of one another. Each member should be able to commit a massive amount of time and energy over the next two years. Friends are often lost in the process of running Worlds. So please keep in mind that it is very different from throwing a party with a bunch of your mates. It is very serious work and requires a lot of discipline. Your organizing team should not just understand that principle, but they should ultimately reflect it.

a. The Deputy Chief Adjudicators (DCAs)
The purpose of having a Deputy Chief Adjudicator can be traced back to the 1996 Worlds in Cork. Having just passed the new set of rules, Council decided then that the following Worlds in Stellenbosch would need some oversight in implementing them. John Long (Chief Adjudicator 1996) and Ray D’Cruz (author of Worlds Rules) served as the very first DCAs.

It has been clear that the DCA has become a largely politicised position. In part, people think that regional/national bias is better served with “one of your own” being named DCA. This is not just unfortunate, but it is patently wrong. The DCA is there to serve as both an external trouble-shooter and quality assurance manager. They are there to ensure that the motions are closed and fair, that the adjudication panels are balanced and that the rules are properly upheld.

Getting people with fantastic debating CVs is not as important as getting people who have competent adjudicating CVs. The DCAs should have a solid reputation and the respect of the international debating community. They will be expected to fly out earlier to work with the organising committee and train the local adjudication pool.

b. Registration Director
This person is accountable for the involvement all of the participants of Worlds. They are tasked with sorting out debaters, adjudicators, and observers for each participating institution, ensuring their legitimacy and eligibility. Though all of this work does not start until after the bid is confirmed, it is important to work together a strategy that could be utilized immediately after the bid is confirmed.

Winning a bid will create a surge of interest from every corner of the globe. But you must be able to filter the interested parties from the somewhat-curious-about-this-debating-thing, and the dead-set-on-being-there. This person will need to liaise heavily with the Accommodations Director prior to and throughout registration day.

c. Finance Director
More than just a glorified accountant, this person is responsible for all of the sponsorships, donations, and gifts given to Worlds. Some committees chose to split the job into two roles, finance and marketing. Others kept it as one person to ensure that the money being spent actually existed. This person should always get everything in writing. Records of contracts, letters of intent/support, and receipts should be safely copied and kept.

d. Tab Director
There is a specific code that needs to be protected during the tournament. This person should not only be an expert with computers and large quantities of data, but needs a clear understanding of how that code relates to running an effective tournament. In other words, you could get an IT genius who never debated before in their lives, but they should know the Worlds Constitution Tabulation Article by heart. Even though it may hopefully never be necessary, they should also know how to run a manual tab.

Additionally, this person will need to liaise with the Adjudication Team, and should be flexible with their advice. It is not required for an organising committee to construct their own tab program given the existence of several excellent ones used at past Worlds. The Singapore 2004 Tab was designated as the “official” tab by Council, but it is dependent on compatible hardware.

e. Contingency Director
Often referred to as the worrywart of the team, this person serves as the internal trouble-shooter and quality assurance manager of the entire event. They should develop alternative plans for even the most extreme of circumstances. They should sit in at almost every meeting held by each Director.

f. Equity/Women’s Officers
Though Council has a very specific code of conduct and an Equity Officer on the Executive, it is important to have an Organising Committee Equity Officer to deal with all issues pertaining to conduct. The sensitive nature of this position requires this person to be extremely fair, trustworthy, and decisive.

g. Accommodations Director
This person is responsible for securing a proper location to house all of the participants, organising committee, and other guests. They should map out all area police stations, hospitals, embassies, restaurants, transit stations, and other places of interest. Some Worlds utilised 24-hour help desks with first-aid kits, emergency contacts, and other vital information. They will liaise with the Registration Director, the Hotel Manager/Student Residence Manager, and the Contingency Director to meet the lodging needs of the participants. The Accommodations Director must also secure the availability of Kosher, Halal, Vegan, Vegetarian, and any other special dietary requirement for all participants.

h. Event Directors
In addition to the main tournament, Worlds features the World Masters Championship, the World Public Speaking Championship, the World Stand-Up Comedy Competition, and the World Council, Women’s & Developing Nations meetings. Each event should have a person in charge, determining the proper location, paraphernalia, and logistics to ensure that everything runs smoothly. The events have very specific requirements and need the requisite coordination.

i. Communication Director
This person must have the ability to keep consistent correspondence internally and externally from the start until the end of the event. They should maintain the website and be connected to all of the appropriate listserves. They have to develop a system to ensure that all of the information is duly passed from and to the right parties. They also should be in contact with national and regional media services.

j. Logistics Director
Anyone who has ever run Worlds before will tell you that volunteers are the lifeblood of an effective event. This person is in charge of the recruitment, training and deployment of the army of people needed to make this whole thing work. They are also need to work out the physical details of each classroom, lecture hall, and campus facility used. They coordinate the room reservations and equipment requirements to ensure a secure environment for the tournament.

k. Transport Director
From the air/bus/train terminal arrival to the eventual departure, Worlds will depend on this person to make sure that they can get to where they need to be. The coordination necessary to allow for traffic and weather conditions and mapping out routes to all venues will often be the difference between running a smooth tournament and an sheer disaster. Delegates should never be stranded nor should they lack access to sensible transportation alternatives. All transport within the tournament events should be included as part of the expenses.

l. Socials Director
As much as this might seem to be the “party person” of the team, the socials director will ironically not have the opportunity to enjoy the fruit of their labour. This Director will spend all of their time sorting out details like, “Is everyone getting the food they signed up for? Is the venue up to code for over 1000 people? Are the delegates being charged for stuff we paid for? Are the bouncers turning our delegates away? Is management going to complain about noise ordinances? Are there local party crashers present?”


2. Work out the details
There are two simple rules to follow: expect the unexpected and get it in writing. Many of the headaches that past organisers have faced surfaced in the most inopportune time. Attention to detail should come in the planning stage and not during its execution. Schedule the entire event from beginning to end and account for every single hour of every single day. Hear out all of the ideas and work through the alternatives. This is where you have to assume the worst.

Don’t depend on a situation unless you have scouted and sourced it out yourselves. You must be able to visualise the angles of everything falling apart and determine how you will come out of it. The team that you just built has to learn how to trust one another. Spend a couple of sessions early on just getting to know each other with team building exercises.


3. Defend the Bid
You have a year to firm up all of the promises you laid out during the bid presentation. Now is the best time that you will have to start tweaking the bid in spots where you have had the most criticism. Don’t spend time trying to spin the circumstances and rationalise errors in early judgement. Take the criticism and see if a correction can be made at this point in time.

a. The Mid-Year Report
In the July of the year before your bid confirmation, you should send a progress report to the World Council Chair. They will first help you determine weak spots in the report and then spread it to the rest of the executive and others interested in your developments. They will have the ability to let you know about where they feel you need help and spot trouble areas.

b. The Ratification Process
By October, you should send a Ratification Report to the Council Chair. This will give the Worlds Executive the ability to see the further progress and firm up the Council support by ratifying the bid. The final preparations should continue for the bid confirmation at the Council meeting in January.

4. Future Host’s Night
This event is held at the Worlds prior to yours. This is the best opportunity for you to promote your event, institution, and country. You should work through the details with the organisers of the current Worlds. This is a great opportunity for you to establish connections with the potential delegates to your Worlds. You will need to bring a lot of business cards and contact information.


III. We have over a thousand people at our doorstep, what happens now?
Once the bid confirmation is done and you have recovered from Worlds, you have to switch gears for the homestretch. You have the plan and all of the details of your work cut out for you.

1. Execute the Plan (Get enough sleep)
The plan should be organised into three time frames; the pre-registration period, the registration period, and the event period. The pre-registration period is rather delicate. This is the first time when you will experience the care necessary in getting the right information at the right time.

Your website should be recreated to include the pre-registration section. It would be smart to require a nominal fee from each participant early on (usually the July prior to your Worlds). This should be collected with the clear caveat that this will not guarantee eligibility for the debaters they field, merely slots for participants. This will give you an early glimpse of what you should expect coming in.

It is recommended that you allot more time for the registration period to begin. The October – November Period is best. This will allow for teams to sort out all of their own details and get the payments to you. Doing it too early will make things much easier for you (i.e. you will have the registration fees to work with) but it might be a little unrealistic to expect teams to organise themselves fully by June.

When Worlds rolls around, make sure that you stick to your plan as much as possible. If you need to make changes, do so with your entire team on board. Communication between you and your team as well as the delegates is paramount to running a successful event. Work hard, but don’t burn yourself out. Get ample sleep - you are going to need it.


2. Trust your Team (Don’t micromanage)
You are a part of a team for a reason. Delegation and trust will help you keep your sanity. More importantly, the last thing you want to happen is to be involved in the minutia that a volunteer could have taken care of. You have good people. Let them be good at what they do. Support their decisions as long as the major issues and conditions for Worlds are unaffected.

Keep calm in dealing with the problems that come your way. Yelling at your team will never help. Yelling at the delegates is even worse. And yes, that has been done. This should never be an option for you. Grace under pressure is a contagious attitude. Lead by example.


3. Passing the Gavel (It is done)
I hope that this guide will help you put together the most excellent event of your lifetime. Bidding, planning, and running Worlds will be an endeavour that will inevitably change your life and lives of the debaters, adjudicators, observers, organisers, and volunteers who look part. With all of your hard work, you will win the respect of the entire World.

And who knows, you might end up having fun in the process.

16 December 2010

Last minute gift for the debater in your life



Cover of Across the House

If you are looking for a last minute Christmas guift for the debater in your life then why not try Ian Lising's book Across the House.  The book deals with "the Art and Science of the World Universities Debating Championships".  It contains chapters on each element of debating from your style and argument to the different roles in a debate.

Ian is a former Chair of World's Council. He was also a debater, organiser and judge at many many Worlds. He has also coached the University of LaVerne to prominance at Worlds including one team in the grand final. There is no greater expert on the style of debating found at the World Universities Debating Championships than Ian.

I also see that the book is now available on Amazon.  That should save a little as the international shipping costs from the publisher were extremely high when I purchased the book a few months ago.

Across the House: The Art and Science of World Universities Championship Debating

Other gifts to consider include:

Pros and Cons : A Debater's Handbook

THE GREAT DEBATERS (2007)

Pocket World in Figures 2011

Debating's America's Cup 2011

Excitement is building about what promises to be the largest WUDC format tournament in North America, with a 200 team cap - The US Universities Debating Championships, or USU 2011 1-3 April. Entry opens on 1 January 2011.

http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/usu2011
But, the University of Vermont is proud to announce a companion event that will be held right before US Universities. A 16 team field will compete for the AMERICA'S CUP.

A one-day tournament will be held. Sixteen teams from around the world will be chosen. They will debate in one seeding round, quarterfinals, semifinals and then a grand final round. The winner will win the AMERICA’S CUP and will be asked to defend it the following year. All motions will be announced on Twitter.

Competitive application. Hybrid teams are welcome. Debaters no longer in school are welcome. Apply today! Deadline is January 30. Field announced on February 1. Send a pitch to alfred.snider@uvm.edu and get entered!

Judges are invited to submit their particulars and many will be chosen to be our guests at the tournament.

31 MARCH 2011

Then, attend US Universities at no charge 1-3 April, take advantage of
crash housing, get two great tournaments. Attend as a judge or as a
debater.

Convener: David Register, University of Vermont
Chief Adjudicator: To be announced

PRELIMINARY SCHEDULE

THUR 31 MARCH 2011
8:30 AM - Roll Call at Huber House
9 AM - Seeding round
11:30 AM - Quarterfinals
1:30 PM - Lunch
3 PM - Semifinals
5:30 PM - Announcement of Finals on Twitter
7 PM - Finals with audience

--
Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna
Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA

15 December 2010

Guide to Chairing and Adjudicating a Worlds Debate

With Worlds approaching most of the attention will be on the debaters.  However equally important is the quality of adjudication.  The Botswana adjudication team have published an excellent adjudication briefing on http://www.botswanaworlds.com/. With that in mind this is a good time to republish the official guide to Chairing and Adjudicating a Worlds Debate to supplement the briefing by Botwsana.  Anyone travelling to Worlds as a judge (or even as a debater) should read and understand this guide.



Guide to Chairing and Adjudicating a Worlds Debate

by Omar Salahuddin Abdullah, Ian Lising, Steven Johnson and others


1. INTRODUCTION
This booklet is intended as a guide, to assist you in performing effectively in your principle role as an adjudicator in this competition, and to help you fulfil the other important responsibilities that are likely to be asked of you. These include things like: convening and chairing a debate, keeping time, conducting a post-debate adjudicators' discussion, and finally giving feedback and results to debaters. We understand that every experienced adjudicator will have developed an individual method for the way in which he or she runs a debate, records that debate, and gives feedback to teams and individual speakers. We are also aware that the type, quality and duration of experience will vary considerably from one individual adjudicator to another in a tournament of this type.



2. ORAL ADJUDICATION: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
For the first time, in 1998, adjudicators were asked to give an oral adjudication, or feedback, at the conclusion of each of the first six rounds of debating (preliminaries). It is designed to accomplish a number of objectives; all of these being established by Council in response to the needs of debaters as they have been expressed over the years. The first of these relates, of course, to the development of better debating. It has been a criticism of the World's format in the past that debaters, teams and coaches have almost no access to the kind of constructive criticism that would allow them to hone their skills during the preliminary rounds of the competition. Moreover, teams could only guess at how well they were doing during this stage, based primarily on the kind of company they were debating in as the early rounds progressed.

With the introduction of an oral adjudication, delivered by the Chairperson, at the end of a debate, the debaters will know their finishing position (first to last) and the points (3 to 0) that they will have been awarded for that particular debate. Similarly, the adjudication will indicate how and why the adjudicators have arrived at their decision and precisely what teams and individual speakers did well, and what they did not do so well (constructive criticism). The oral adjudication then provides debaters with exactly the kind of constructive criticism that they need.

The second group of objectives relates to the development and refinement of adjudication at Worlds. Oral adjudication provides an insight into the way that adjudicators observe and adjudicate debates; one that will not only benefit debaters, but also adjudicators. The discussion leading to the decision-making stage gains a new importance as the Chair now has to advance the collective opinions of the panel in order to justify the unanimous or consensus decisions that are made when the feedback is given. This encourages all of the adjudicators on a panel to be particularly considerate and careful in the processes of observation, recording, decision-making, justification and tabulation.


3. COMPETITION ADJUDICATION

3.1 Pre-Competition Workshops
In every major international competition these days, all those registered as adjudicators for the duration of the competition will have to attend a seminar/workshop. It is important that you attend this seminar, even though you have a wealth of experience in World's adjudication. This is because the Chief Adjudicator for the competition will have certain specific things that he/she will want you to focus upon in your adjudication and, as these will differ in perspective from previous competitions that you have attended, you will need to know them too.

Similarly, once you register as an adjudicator, you can expect to adjudicate in all of the preliminary rounds of that competition. If you are adjudicating well, and the feedback that the Chief Adjudicator's Panel is getting on your post-debate discussions is good, then you might be honoured with selection to adjudicate after the break. In this light, once you register as an adjudicator, you should commit yourself to acquitting that responsibility until the Chief Adjudicator indicates that your services are no longer required. This means turning up to every briefing on time and in an appropriate physical and mental state.


3.2 Rules and Regulations
As an adjudicator, you should take some to familiarise yourself with the rules of the competition. Any questions that you think you might want to ask during the seminar should be noted down, no matter how silly you might think them to be. Even if you don't ask them during the seminar proper, you can always approach one of the adjudication panel immediately after the seminar is over.

3.3 Testing and Accreditation
Each of these pre-competition seminars will end in an examination or test. This commonly takes the form of an adjudication of a live exhibition debate, staged there and then, or the observation and assessment of prerecorded videotape of a selected World's style match. At the end of the test-debate, you will be given some time to go through your notes, arrive at a decision (finishing positions) and then give your justification for this in written form. Your familiarity with Worlds’ Rules will also be tested. This will result in your name joining a pool of adjudicators with similar levels of skill, something which will in turn permit the Panel adjudicator in charge of the adjudicators tab to balance the panels (members) in terms of experience and skills.


4. RUNNING THE DEBATE

4.1 Getting There
Adjudicators should get into the habit of carrying around what might be recognised as 'the tools of the trade', or an adjudicator's kit, if you prefer. At the very least, this must consist of a pad of paper and a writing implement. A watch is fairly essential. You should have a digital watch if no stopwatch is available to you, just so that you can time speeches for yourself.

You will be part of a briefing that precedes each and every round. This is your opportunity to ask the Chief Adjudicator and members of his/her panel for any further clarification of the rules, their application and for help in solving any problems that you are having in your adjudication of your rounds. This also an opportunity to address your particular concerns to that same panel. Similarly, listen to any announcements regarding adjudication processes that are made during these briefings.

At some time during the briefing, the match-ups will be either displayed on a screen (via OHP transparency or 'Power Point' slides), or photocopies of the draw will be handed out. These lists will tell you which room you will be adjudicating in, who will be on the panel with you and which one of you will be chairing the panel. You will also know which teams you will be adjudicating and the respective positions that they will be debating in.

The other things that you should consider, as the list of matches is revealed;

Whether there is a potential conflict of interests created because you have been scheduled to adjudicate your own university, or people with whom you have relationships that are likely to bias your judgement.

Whether you have adjudicated one or more of the teams in the forthcoming round more than twice in succession.

Whether there are other things that make the potential adjudication of that match difficult for you, and therefore likely to affect your adjudication of the round.

Raise these concerns with either the Chief Adjudicator, or one of his/her panel of deputies, as soon as you recognise them.

At the appointed time, the motion will be released to both debaters and adjudicators. You should write this down as well, checking tomake sure that you have the exact wording, as it is given. Debates should commence fifteen minutes after the motion has been announced (Worlds’ Rulebook 3:1.3), so you should arrive at the venue of your match at least two or three minutes before that.

When the time has come for the debate to start, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators should start things off by calling teams into the room and saying something like, "I call this house to order". The Chair may then make some opening remarks.

The panel member responsible for timing speeches starts his or her watch as soon as the speaker starts speaking (not as soon as he or she stands up, clears the throat or shuffles some papers).


4.2 Being There
From that point onwards, the debate progresses with speakers being thanked for speaking by the Chair (functioning as nominal Speaker of the House) as they conclude their speeches, and subsequent speakers being introduced by title, position or name, or combinations of these, as their turn comes to speak.

The panel member responsible for keeping time should try to give clearly audible signals (Worlds’ Rulebook 4:1.6). A sharp slap or knock on a flat surface (such as a table or a book-rest) with the flat of the hand will normally suffice. If a speaker begins to run overtime, it is not necessary to knock continuously, or otherwise signal that the prescribed optimum time is being exceeded. Good time management should be the responsibility of individual speakers and their teams, not the timekeeper. In this regard, it might be a good idea for the Chair of the panel to remind speakers during the opening commentary that it is acceptable for speakers to receive time signals from their teammates.

Other than these invitations, thanks and time-signals, the adjudicators do not interfere in the debate, being involved in taking notes which detail the process and progress of the debate and observing those aspects detailed in the Worlds’ Rulebook 8-12: 3.1-4.4. The only time at which an interjection may become necessary from the Chair of the panel is in the event that teams or individuals are becoming unacceptably and inappropriately obtrusive during the speeches of other members. This will be times at which the members not holding the floor have begun to indulge in behaviour that amounts to things like heckling, barracking and the advancement of otherwise malicious interruptions in the speech of the member holding the floor.

It should be noted that these terms are subjective, and that the competition attracts many different styles of debating which are acceptable and appropriate in such a forum (Worlds’ Rulebook 11: 4.4.2). However, when adjudicators on a panel begin to feel that the manner of members is becoming inappropriate in such cases, then the issuance of a verbal warning to that effect, directed towards the individual, team or bench that is behaving in such a way, allows those thus warned to amend such behaviour before adjudicators begin to penalise them for the perceived breach of debating decorum. At this point, the Chair may call for “order” to be restored to the round. In this way, a clear signal is sent to those verging on the offensive and they have the option to curtail that behaviour before it begins to affect their own team's manner marks.

Remember that what is, or is not, acceptable to you in this context is largely a matter of common sense, but it is better to send a clear signal to debaters in danger of overstepping these bounds before it starts affecting their marks/grades for the debate and allow them the benefit of the doubt up to that point.

If you are concerned that someone has overstepped these bounds, whether subjective or not, discuss this matter with the others on your panel at the conclusion of the debate before you reach a hard and fast conclusion.

4.3 Note-taking and making
The note-taking/making process is an important one. Not only should such notes provide you with a fairly complete description of the debate after it has been concluded, it should also present you with concrete reasons why you have reached your own particular conclusions as to how individual speakers and each of the four teams has performed. You should try to record, for example, the degree to which individuals we keeping in touch with the dynamics of the debate through things like POIs and intersections. You should also be able to indicate, within a particular speech, whether POls have been accepted, when, what they consisted of and how the speaker holding the floor at the time responded to them.

You should also be able to track the logic and flow of an argument or idea through your own notation and determine whether statements have been left largely unsupported (asserted) (Worlds’ Rulebook 8: 3.3), whether speeches have a reasonable balance and are consistent (Worlds’ Rulebook 8: 3.3.3-3.3.4) and whether speakers have misrepresented things said earlier in the debate, among other things.

An individual adjudicator’s approach to note taking is likely to be markedly different from person to person. The main thing is that you develop a means of accurately charting what has happened in the debate.


4.4 The Observation Process
The observation process is also important. You should be watching how readily a speaker's manner develops a rapport with the audience (if any - or your panel, if not), how she or he stands, gesticulates and is expressive during the delivery of their speech. Similarly, you should watch for things such as how members not holding the floor continue to communicate with each other during the course of the debate and maintain contact with it through the POI and more general interaction (appropriate reactions to statements being made; laughter, etc.).


4.5 Conclusion of the Round
When the last speaker has concluded his/her remarks and retaken his/her seat, it is customary for the Speaker, or Chair of Adjudicators (in the event that he/she is taking the role of the Speaker of the House) to give the debaters "permission to cross the floor". This is so that teams can shake hands and congratulate each other on a successful debate.

It is pertinent at this point to tell members that they can withdraw while a decision is made by adjudicators, in which case they must all withdraw until asked to return to the room.




5. THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

5.1 The Integrity of Opinions, Decisions and Processes
Either way, the discussion that is then held between adjudication panel members is confidential, and its course and specifics should not be made known to individual debaters. This confidentiality is essential if adjudicators are to maintain a degree of professionalism, and neither to undermine, nor be undermined by, their fellow adjudicators.

Consensus decisions are exactly that. Different adjudicators see debates in different ways. That's exactly why we have panels of adjudicators. However, we should avoid making individual perceptions about a particular debate, or a particular adjudicator, common knowledge. This in no way restricts the kind of advice that you may be asked for by a particular speaker or team: it merely asks of you that you are considerate of your colleagues in advancing your own comments and suggestions.


5.2 Arriving at a Decision
At the end of the debate, your panel begins the process of discussion and decision-making. While the following is not presented as either a schedule or a checklist for this process, it is clear that these major components will each have to feature somewhere in the process of your deliberations.


5.3 Time to Reflect
The first thing that should happen, after the debaters, audience and television crew (it happens!) have left the room, is that the panelists should take a few minutes to review their notes before any form of discussion begins. During this 'quiet time' individual panelists should highlight items, arguments, comments and so on, that they consider to be critical in terms of the debate, its outcomes and their respective decisions.

Don’t let any of your preconceptions or individual knowledge on the motion affect the outcome of the round. It is absolutely unacceptable for a judge to say, “If I were in the round, this is what I would have said. And since they failed to bring that up, they should be penalised for it.” Your decision should not be based on what wasn’t or what should have been what said, but ONLY on what was said by the debaters during the round.

Don't let any of your preconceptions about the degree of difficulty imposed bv the wording of the motion on teams (on either side) create notions of sympathy which then bias your grading in their favour (or against them).

Do consider each team (and speaker) as having a specific range of roles that they must fulfill in the debate. Teams and speakers have responsibilities and roles which are often markedly different, but nonetheless vital to the successful progress of a debate.

Don't lose sight of the balance in an individual speech. There should be a natural and appropriate portion of time devoted to definitions, rebuttal arguments, the development of arguments in support of a case, summaries, and responses to questions and challenges. A speaker who spends six minutes haranguing the opposition and only starts on his or her portion of the split as the second single knock of the gavel sounds is not delivering a very balanced speech! Keep an eye on the watch as speakers move through transitions from one phase of a speech to another. Not all speakers will 'signpost' these transitions, but you must endeavour to recognise them anyway.

Do continually test arguments for their logical development, relevance to the case being presented (or argued against) and the validity of any support (examples, models, statistics, etc.) that is delivered in respect of these arguments.

Don't ignore cries of misrepresentation, squirreling, self-serving definitions, slides and so on. Check these claims against your notes before you judge them to have been validly or invalidly made.

Do enjoy the debate, but don't communicate anything specific to the debaters as you observe it and take notes. This is sometimes as innocent as an inadvertent nod of the head at the moment that a speaker advances the weakest argument in the history of parliamentary debating, but the apparently duplicitous nod suddenly makes it appear to be potentially the best one, and suddenly the whole complexion of the debate changes. The key here is to be sufficiently conscious of your own body language and reactions to keep them consistent with the kind of normal reaction that a speaker is trying to evoke (laughter, seriousness, etc.).

Don't get too caught up with technicalities, minor infringements of the rules as you interpret them, or pet likes and dislikes. You should be viewing the debate from the macro-level as much as from the level of its sophistication, its intricacies and technical complexity. An adjudicator who penalises a speaker for '...gesticulating with their left hand too much', or wearing a blouse that clashes with their handbag, is definitely missing the point somewhere.

5.4 Panel Decisions
Panel Decisions are final

Panels have to place the four teams in the debate round, as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. 1st ranked team has won the round, and the 4th ranked team has finished last in the debate round.

No two teams can be placed in the same rank

The total team scores must reflect the rankings of the team, and no two teams should have the same total team scores.

A Consensus decision is when all members of the panel agree on the rank of a team.

A complete consensus decision is when every single team rank has been decided through a series of consensus decisions amongst the panel members. The panel therefore had complete unanimity over all the team ranking decisions.

A majority decision is when a majority of the panel members agree on the rank of a team.

A complete majority decision is when every single team rank has been decided only by majority decisions.

A partial Consensus-Majority decision is when the panel is in consensus over some rank/s and made majority decisions over the other rank/s.

There can be either a complete consensus decision, a complete majority decision or a partial Consensus-Majority decision.

A panel should discuss all pertinent issues of the debate adequately, and deal with all concerns of panel members.

Chairs have the discretion to end discussions on particular issues or on the whole debate, if they find the discussion to cease being constructive or not progress.



5.5 Panel Members
Members should contribute constructively and the chair of the panel is obliged to promote fair exchange of ideas on the debate, amongst panel members.

Panel members should provide their brief read of the debate, focusing on their main concerns and observations before the panel tries to reach a decision

Panels are encouraged to arrive at a consensus, however the final decision to cast a vote is the privy of individual panel members. Panel members should vote according to their conscience, and not according to expediency.

A panel member can shift positions on an issue or the whole debate during/after the discussion process, because the discussion has convinced them it is appropriate to shift position. Panel members are warned not to shift positions purely because of the experience, reputation and intimidation of any panel members or panel chair.



5.6 Chair of panel
Assumes the role of facilitator, mediator and leader of panel.

Have NOT failed to fulfill their roles if there is no complete consensus decision or if they find themselves in the minority of a majority decision.

Should encourage panel members to offer their opinion or observations of the debate.

Have to respect the views of all members of the panel.

Should organise the thread of discussion, in order to cover all concerns of panel members as much as possible.

Use discretion when ending a discussion on a particular issue or the debate as a whole, and resort to a vote.



5.7 Agreeing on grades for speakers and teams
Panelists should then move on to confer on grades for teams and speakers. You should reach agreement on these things if you can, because it makes the work of the tabulation crew that much less complicated, and they can look forward to living longer and more productive lives. While the rules allow for a degree of flexibility within the grade bandwidths that you have already decided upon, you've managed to achieve consensus thus far, so why not push your luck a little further!

One way to approach this is to try and agree on the standard of the debate as a whole. As the power-matching software starts to spread things out nice and evenly after about round three, you should find this progressively easier to do as the competition goes on, because there should be an increasing level of similarity in the strengths and skills of teams debating in each match. Remember that you still have a little flexibility within a particular grade (or band) in terms of the marks that can be awarded to an individual speaker, so you can still use this range to reflect your own opinions. However, remember also that the marks of the two speakers, when added together, must still equate with the overall grade that has been agree for the team.


5.8 Filling in adjudication sheets
At this point, the panelists can begin to fill in their adjudication sheets, with perhaps one last communal cheek through what has been agreed and what the final decision is, just to make absolutely sure. It may also be a good idea at this stage for the Chair to ask for any points that the panelists would like incorporated into the oral adjudication of the debate.

Decide on finishing positions.

Fill in the Speed Ballot form [Chair].

Check that the Speed Ballot has been filled in correctly [Panelists].

Summon a 'runner'.

Send the Speed Ballot off to the Tab Room.

Decide team grades.

Contribute and summarise points to be included in the feedback.

Call teams back into the room.

Commence the oral adjudication.

Fill in the adjudication sheets, completing all mark and grade boxes and appending comments where relevant or required.

Give all the completed forms to a runner before you leave the room, floor or area.

Once members have settled again, the Chair will then begin the oral adjudication


6. EVALUATING COMPETING LINES OF ARGUMENT
While the broad categories of “matter” and “manner” serve as touchstones for evaluation, they focus mainly on assessing the qualities of an individual’s performance in the round. Manner is concerned with the style and structure of a speaker’s presentation—delivery, organization, and language use—while matter is concerned with the content and analysis of an individual’s presentation—that a speaker’s arguments are relevant, logical and consistent with his or her team’s or side’s positions.

While useful, these categories do not provide the adjudicator guidance on how to weigh competing lines of argument. Though the adjudication of a Worlds round does not require that the adjudicators declare a winning “side” in the debate, the debaters involved will almost unfailingly be concerned with whether the Government or Opposition prevailed on the question. Moreover, successful adjudication of a round in the Worlds style—that is, the ranking of teams from best to worst—must be concerned with the comparison of each team’s positions relative to the other teams’ positions.

Adjudicators, both when adjudicating the debate and when articulating the panel’s decision to the debaters in the oral adjudication, should pay particular attention to three elements of the argument: the issue over which the debate is contested; the standard by which the arguments on either side of the issue may be assessed; and the appraisal of each team’s arguments relative to that standard.


6.1 Identifying the Issue
All debates may be characterized as a clash of arguments over an issue—some statement that serves as the ideological dividing line between Government and Opposition argumentative ground. Identifying the issue in a debate is the first step toward successfully adjudicating the competing arguments in the round.

Ideally, the issue is made clear early in the debate, either by the motion or by the Government. The majority of Worlds-style debates will have as their central issue the motion as announced. This is particularly true when the motion is exceptionally clear: “This house believes that making Yassar Arafat a partner in peace was a mistake” or “This house would make company directors criminally liable for the wrongs of their companies” are examples of motions that define clear ground for the Government and Opposition and, therefore, serve as the primary issue in the debate.

Other motions are less useful as issue statements. Motions that allow the Government room to interpret the topic and define the focus of the debate are less likely to function as issue statements. A motion such as “This house believes that religious leaders should listen to public opinion” may be supported by a general case in which a Government offers arguments that clergy should be responsive to their followers or it may motivate a Government to run a specific case that is derived from the motion. When presented with the motion above, for example, the Government could choose to run a case that argues the Catholic church should be more proactive in acknowledging and addressing issues of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests. When the Government chooses to define a case that is more specific than the motion offered, the central issue in the round typically is the thesis of the case offered by the Government, not the motion itself.

While the issue statement will usually be explicit in the round, there will be cases in which neither side makes apparent the central issue in the round. In this case, the adjudicator must articulate an issue as a starting point for his or her adjudication. When doing so, an adjudicator should phrase an issue statement that is clear and balanced. To be clear, an issue statement should define ground for both the Government and Opposition team in a way that makes obvious their responsibilities. A balanced issue statement will avoid expressing the controversy in a way that might be weighted toward one side or the other.


6.2 Determining the Appropriate Standard for Evaluation
In all decisions, the adjudicator will utilize some criterion or criteria to make his or her assessment of the arguments advanced by the debaters. For example, when adjudicating a debate on the motion “This House believes the International Monetary Fund has done more to harm than help the global condition,” an adjudicator must be able to determine how to evaluate relatively the instances of the IMF “harming” and “helping” the global condition as argued by the debaters. Should impact to local economies be prioritized over facilitating the transition to a global economy? Should concern for effects on the environment and workers’ rights be subjugated to the long-term benefits of capitalism? How should the deterioration of state sovereignty be weighed against the benefits of global trading opportunities?

The issue statement for the debate will usually contain some term or phrase that will serve as the standard for evaluating the competing arguments of each side. This term or phrase typically expresses some evaluation of the subject under consideration. Consider the previously mentioned motion: “This house believes that making Yassar Arafat a partner in peace was a mistake.” In this example, the term that proposes an evaluation of Arafat’s performance is “mistake.” In other words, to evaluate the competing arguments in the round, the adjudicator will employ as his or her standard whether the examples of Arafat’s performance offered by each side constitute a “mistake.” For this term to function as a standard, the adjudicator must know what constitutes a “mistake.” For the IMF motion, the adjudicator must understand what is meant by “the global condition” before he or she may determine which side has best substantiated the impact of the IMF on the global condition. Thus, the nature and definition of the “global condition” becomes the standard for evaluating the competing arguments.

In an ideal situation, the debaters would make clear the standard to be used to weigh competing arguments in the round. The definition of the pertinent term or phrase would be made clear by the Government side and their all arguments would be made relevant to that definition. Similarly, the Opposition would recognize the Government’s definition and orient their arguments toward that standard as well. For example, if “mistake” in the Arafat motion was defined as “anything that has served to impede the progress toward peace,” both the Government and Opposition would align their arguments for Arafat’s influence with an eye toward proving that his presence has affected—either positively or negatively—the progress toward peace.

More typically, however, both sides in a round will have competing standards for evaluating their arguments. With the IMF motion, the Government may defend the escalating Gross Domestic Product of IMF beneficiaries while the Opposition may argue that the austerity measures imposed by the IMF cause significant damage to social programs. Without a clear standard advanced by either side, the adjudicator is left to decide how to evaluate these competing positions. In cases where the respective sides in the debate have failed to “agree” on a particular standard, the adjudicator must determine the standard for evaluating the competing arguments.

When determining a standard, the adjudicator should acknowledge the Government’s responsibility to define the terms of the motion. Assuming that the Government has defined the terms, particularly the term or phrase that will serve as the standard for the competing arguments, some presumption should be given their definition regardless of whether the Opposition chooses to orient their arguments toward that standard. The criteria of clarity and balance applied to the issue statement are also relevant to the definitions offered by the Government: any definition of a standard should increase the clarity of the debate and should not exclude the potential for Opposition argument.

Frequently, however, the Government will fail to define the pertinent term or phrase and the adjudicator will be required to extract a standard for evaluation from the arguments made by both sides in the debate. In the IMF example, the arguments that a beneficiary country’s GDP has improved following IMF intervention and that austerity measures have had a detrimental impact on the social welfare of a country may both be true. The adjudicator must then decide how to compare the competing arguments. Ideally, the debaters will give cues on how to do so in their own argumentation. In this instance, the arguments relevant in the round are focused on the effect of IMF involvement on the beneficiary country. While this may not evaluate the consequences of IMF actions on “the global condition” as most would understand the “global condition” (i.e.: as more broad reaching than the effect of the IMF on a single country) it is what the debaters have opted to focus on. To penalize either side for failing to make the arguments the adjudicator believes would be most appropriate is not sound adjudication.

In such a case, directed by the arguments the debaters have made, the adjudicator may extract a standard of “impact to the beneficiary country.” He or she would then evaluate competing arguments about the benefits or harms of IMF involvement from the perspective of how those outcomes may affect a beneficiary country.


6.3 Appraising the Arguments
Once a standard has been determined, the adjudicator must compare the arguments made in the round to that standard. At this point, the adjudicator should appraise each argument for its relevance to the standard. That relevance may be measured in two ways.

Initially, relevance may be measured from a quantitative perspective. The adjudicator may appraise a side’s arguments for the impact the totality of those arguments has on the standard. More positions relevant to the standard, using a strict quantitative perspective, mean that a particular side should prevailed. If the Government offers five examples of how Arafat’s presence has diminished the prospects for peace to the Opposition’s two examples of how Arafat has improved the prospects for peace, the Government would likely prevail. This perspective, however, has limited utility on its own.

Arguments must also be appraised from a qualitative perspective in which the adjudicator assesses the significance of each argument’s impact to the standard. Some examples or arguments will be more relevant the standard than others. Building off the previous example, the adjudicator may believe that the two arguments offered by the Opposition are more relevant to the standard—perhaps those two examples of how Arafat benefited the peace process were very detailed and specific whereas the Government’s five examples of Arafat’s detractions from the peace process were vague and ill developed. In this case, the Opposition would likely prevail.

Thus, a Worlds round might have a team present seven arguments, but have the opposing team address all of them sufficiently with just one. The most important point here is that the adjudicator account for each major line of argument advanced by the Government and Opposition and assess the merit of each of those arguments relative to the standard.


6.4 Conclusion
This approach to adjudication of the round is most useful for clearly articulating a basis for decision in a verbal adjudication. Verbal adjudications may be structured around these three concepts quite simply.

The Chair of a panel may open an oral adjudication by identifying the issue that divided the Government and Opposition ground in the debate; this may be as simple as saying “The central issue in the round was whether involving Arafat in the peace process was a mistake.” From there, the Chair would articulate the panel’s consensus as to the standard employed for evaluating the competing lines of argument: “The Panel understood that whether Arafat’s involvement would be considered a mistake depended upon whether he had contributed to or detracted from the peace process.” Finally, the Chair would sort through the major lines of argument advanced by each side to offer an appraisal of those each of those arguments relative to this standard.

An oral adjudication structured around these concepts will provide the debaters with the certainty that each of their respective arguments was weighed in the adjudicators’ consideration. That certainty will, in turn, demonstrate that the adjudicators were discharging their duties responsibly.



7. THE ORAL ADJUDICATION
As with things like note taking, individual adjudicators will each have their own way of giving an oral adjudication.

7.1 Announcing Positions
There is a division of opinion over whether it is best to announce results first and then give the feedback, or whether to give the feedback first and then announce the result. Our advice would be to adopt the former method, because it is questionable how much benefit teams and speakers can get if they are anxiously waiting for the result and you are, unconsciously perhaps, trying to give nothing away.


7.2 Opening Remarks
You may like to preface your remarks with a few comments on the quality and standard of the debate (coming from your discussions on an overall debate grade?). You may also indicate whether there was a unanimous agreement, or whether the panel encountered some resolvable disagreements in the course of its discussion (thereby indicating that the match might well have been very close in some respects).


7.3 The Framework and Content of your Feedback
As with the set-up for a debater's speech, an adjudicator's feedback should have 'matter' and 'manner'. You should also 'structure' your own intended feedback.

Give the finishing order, from team placing first in the debate (and therefore &winning' it), to that placing last.


7.4 The Overview
Then, proceed with the overview of the debate that your panel has assembled during your discussions, but keep it brief. Focus on the definition, the parameters and demands that this set up, the cases and major arguments that followed this, the challenges that these represented and the way that these challenges were met.

You should be able to trace the major issue(s) or themes that ran through the debate through this overview, as well as focusing on the ways in which various teams dealt with these.


7.5 Relative merits of teams, roles, cases, argumentation, etc.
It would then be a good idea to explain exactly why the debate has been awarded to a particular team, and consider the positions of the other teams relative to this. The reasons why teams have finished in the particular order that you have determined should then follow, with the relevant explanations offered as you go. You should conclude this phase by summarising what you have said, but by means of reference to the key arguments and issues that you outlined in your opening commentary. Comments about eye contact, off-key humming and torn jeans are probably not appropriate at this point.


7.6 Concluding
Your adjudication feedback might then move towards a conclusion with any specific comments on the roles, performance and style of individual speakers being offered. However, this should only be necessary in the event that an individual's speech has affected the debate, or a team's role, in a particularly critical way. Please try to keep your remarks in these cases constructively critical, perhaps softening what might be construed as negative criticism by picking out some positive aspects as well and mentioning them.



8. CONCLUSION

The main thing is that you enjoy the experience of adjudicating at Worlds and profit from this in the context of your own development as an adjudicator, and perhaps even as a debater. It comes down to one thing: common sense. If you continually apply that particular quality to the process of running, observing, discussing and assessing the debates that you will see, it will not only be you that gains. The debaters, the organisers and the competition that is Worlds Universities Debating will profit too.





The Adjudication Check-list

The phases of a debate adjudication : Observing the debate (which includes chairing and time-keeping if necessary), Discussion of the debate ( a session led by the chair of the panel) and giving the oral adjudication ( announce decision, provide reasons for decision and offer advice to debaters). The final phase is excluded for the final three preliminary rounds and the final series.


Observing the debate
Chairing the debate also includes the responsibility of keeping order in the debate, inviting speakers to speak and cautioning against inappropriate behaviour when warranted.

Discussing the debate
Matter and Manner contribution of each team should be discussed (along with Points of Information- as in the quality of the questions and the responses to them, which possesses both manner and matter elements)

All members of the panel are obliged to provide their read of the debate, and listen to the various views of the other members of the panel.

Chairs of panel should drive the discussion and attempt to move it forward. Use their discretion to end dead discussions and allow all panel members equal access to the discussion.

Oral Adjudication
Presented by the chair of the panel, or a member of the majority, if the chair is dissenting.

Announce the rankings before explaining the verdict (encouraged), if not the explanation would ambiguous and not constructive.

Explain to the debaters, why the panel/majority decided the team ranking in that order, so debaters can understand how the adjudicators distinguished the teams in terms of contribution and delivery.

Provide constructive advice (drawn collectively from the panel) for the debaters.

14 December 2010

BW2011 : Training Materials and Adjudication Test!

Greetings Participants of Botswana Worlds!

Only 12 days away! Can you feel it? It is *almost* here!

At this stage all of you should have entered your personal details on the registration system and read the Botswana Worlds Survival Guide (on the front page of our website). We need that information to finalize catering and accommodation details, and you need the Survival Guide information to ensure you have everything you need once you get to Bots. 

Training Materials

We've edited the training material used at Koc Worlds (thank you Koc Adjudication team!) and will be using them as the official Speaking and Adjudicating Reference material for Botswana Worlds 2011. If you are speaking at the tournament, it's a good idea to take a look at the Speaker's Briefing. If you are judging at the tournament, please do take a look at the Judges Briefing. You can visit http://www.botswanaworlds.com/adjudication to download the briefings.

While we will be doing a briefing at Worlds, we are going to assume that everyone has read and understood these materials. We will NOT be discussing these documents in detail at Worlds.

We will also be publishing a debate video accompanied by an adjudication. For that, you will have to wait just a little bit longer.


Adjudication Test


The adjudication test will be held online on botswanaworlds.com from the 18th of December. A detailed guide on the adjudication test will be published just before the test goes online, but briefly - adjudicators will be required to watch a debate video and then write answers to a series of questions. You will have 5 days to complete the test. It is MANDATORY for ALL judges to take the adjudication test. 

We appreciate that many of the judges are busy individuals and that watching a debate video online may not always be the most pleasant experience. However doing the test online gives us more time to properly evaluate your responses and allows us to use time at the tournament more efficiently thus ensuring a smoother tournament makes everyone happy!


See you in Botswana!


Cheers

Logan



--
Chief Adjudicator
World Universities Debating Championships 2011

Getting Ready for Botswana 2011

For those going to the World Debating Championships there are 2 final tasks you need to carry out that should take only a few minutes to complete but critical for a successful Botswana WUDC 2011:

1) Go to http://www.botswanaworlds.com/ and verify your registration information. email graham (me) if you see any problems (no facebook messages please, they won't be responded to) also, check out the mosquito net donation drive for the Gaborone Rotary Club.

2) Go to the registration website if you have not done so and enter all your delegate information. We needed this a couple of weeks ago, but better late than never.

Thanks for your help, patience, and enthusiasm for BW2011. The memories you make here don't have a date of expiration!

-Graham
Rego Director

13 December 2010

DLSU Worlds 2012: List of DCA Applicants

Dear World Debating Community,

We are writing to begin the final phase of the DCA selection process for De Le Salle WUDC 2012. We are very pleased and hugely excited by the pool of talented applicants the process has attracted, and know we have some pleasingly difficult decisions ahead of us. Particularly because of the high quality of applicants, it is more important than ever that we receive as much feedback as possible on candidates. Feedback will form a very significant part of decisions about DCA appointments.

Below is a list of all applicants, listed by the debating region they could best represent (i.e. the region where they do/did most of their international debating – not necessarily their current country of residence). We encourage all members of the international debating community to give feedback on any candidates they have any familiarity with. This includes those who are themselves candidates. Unfortunately, anonymous feedback cannot be taken into account; this is simply to ensure we know each piece of feedback is from a separate unique individual. All feedback is, however, entirely confidential, and will be seen only by the Chief Adjudicators.

We are seeking feedback on all aspects of candidates’ ability to do the DCA job. As well as feedback about ‘how good’ candidates are, feedback on candidate’s particular strengths and weaknesses are valued, as they help build a good all-round team. All feedback should be sent to both sam.block@dlsuworlds.com and lucinda.david@dlsuworlds.com, and should include the word ‘Feedback’ in the subject-line. All feedback must be received by 1200 GMT on the 22nd of December.

The candidates are:

The Americas
Adam Goldstein
Colin Etnire
Cormac Early
Josh Martin

Asia
Ahyoung Kim
Bryan Gunawan
Ely Zosa
Masako Suzuki
Nishita Vasan
Rajkumar Narendra
Rishad Sharif
Thepparith Senamngern

Europe
Alex Worsnip
Art Ward
Daniel Berman
Engin Arikan
Fred Cowell
Jonathan Leader-Maynard
Shengwu Li
Victor Chernov

Oceania
Amit Golder
Tim Mooney

Unfortunately, there were no candidates for whom the most appropriate debating region was ‘Middle East and Africa’. We hope, however, that this lack of candidates for this role will not be permanent; the selectors plan to re-open applications for candidates who have done most of their international debating in the Middle East and Africa next year, hoping that Botswana Worlds will constitute an opportunity to further spread awareness about this role.

Finally, if you believe you have applied to be a DCA but do not see yourself on the list above, please do get in touch.

Once again, please do send in your feedback; it will make a real difference to this process.

Many thanks,

Sam Block and Lucinda David
Chief Adjudicators
De La Salle WUDC 2012

Sydney University win Sydney Mini

Pat Caldwell and Paul Karp from the University of Sydney Union have won the Australian British Parliamentary Debating Champs, known as Sydney Mini.

In the Grand Final they defeated Tim Mooney and Bronwyn Cowell (Sydney A), Victor Finkel and Fiona Prowse (Monash University A) and Amit Golder and Seamus Coleman (Monash/Melbourne).

Top Ten Speakers

1. Amit Golder (Monash) 509
2. Tim Mooney (Sydney) 504
3. Daniel Swain (Sydney) 503
4. Bronwyn Cowell (Sydney) 501
5. Fiona Prowse (Monash) 499
6. Christopher Bishop (Victoria Wellington) 498
7. Victor Finkel (Monash) 497
8= Dom Bowes (Sydney) 494
8= Elle Jones (Sydney) 494
8= Seamus Coleman (Melbourne) 494