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

23 December 1995

Princeton WUDC 1995 some e-mails

Here are some e-mails that were sent to mailing lists at the time of Princeton Worlds in 1995.  It was one of the first Worlds to use e-mail to communicate with participants.


---------- Forwarded message ----------



Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 17:26:40 EST


From: World Debates 95


To: Multiple recipients of list APDA


Subject: Worlds registration deadline






As mentioned in registration packets, the deadline for registration


forms and registration payments for the Worlds Debating Championship


is TOMORROW, NOVEMBER 1.






If you plan to attend Worlds, have not sent in your registration payment


yet, and have not spoken to me yet, please get in touch with me tonight


or tomorrow! Teams paying late who have not spoken to me by tomorrow will


be charged a $US25 per person late registration fee, and space cannot


be guaranteed.






I may be reached at the Worlds office, 609-258-2255, ext. WORLDS (leave a


message detailing your situation), or at this e-mail address


(worlds95 at phoenix.princeton.edu).






Christopher Paolella


Tournament Director














Christopher Julian Paolella cjp at phoenix.Princeton.EDU


Fri Nov 11 16:26:55 PST 1994






Previous message: heckling


Next message: heckling


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Dear Debaters,






As you might be aware, Princeton University will host the XV Annual World


Universities Debating Championship from 2-8 January 1995. This tournament


is the largest and prestigious parliamentary debating event in the world,


and will feature over 600 participants from more than 25 nations. Also,


in a break from Worlds tradition, the format of debate for this year will be


American parliamentary style, as is used on APDA and NAPDA.






The tournament will feature lodgings at the Princeton Hyatt-Regency, a four-


start hotel, an extensive social package, dignitaries on hand ranging from


the Governor of New Jersey to Robert MacNeil of the MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour,


nine preliminary rounds of debate, a break to double-octo-finals, and


competitions in serious and humorous impromptu speaking.






Preliminary registration figures indicate a strong turnout from NAPDA and


the Western U.S. However, if there are any other universities who are


interested in participating, but have not yet returned (or received!)


a registration form, please get in touch with me as soon as possible. I'd


be happy to mail or fax additional information about the Championship as


well, if you'd like.






Registration fees for the event are $150 per person (debater or adjudicator,


two-person debating teams), and hotel fees are $140 per person for a


week's accomodation in a quad-occupancy room. Final deadlines are fast


approaching, so if you are at all interested in competing, please contact


the Championship office at 609-258-2255, ext. WORLDS, or by email at this


address, worlds95 at phoenix.princeton.edu .






The 1995 Championship promises to be the largest and most competitive in


history, and is the first time in six years that Worlds has come to America.


It is truly a debate opportunity not to be missed. I look forward to seeing


you in January!






With all good wishes,






Christopher Paolella


Tournament Director


XV World Universities Debating Championship














---------- Forwarded message ----------


Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 02:09:41 EST


From: Christopher Julian Paolella


To: Multiple recipients of list APDA


Subject: Worlds judges






One final announcement:






I know I've mentioned it before, but this time I really mean it:






Dinosaur judging invites for Worlds are going in the mail today and tomorrow.


If you have the address of any APDA or CUSID dinos from your school or


elsewhere who you think might be interested in judging, please forward them


to the worlds email account (worlds95 at phoenix.princeton.edu (note: not *my*


email account!) ASAP. We already have a pretty extensive list, and have


pledges of attendance from over 20 dinos, but we could always use more.


In particular, there are several former debaters who I have seen around


tournaments this year who are not on our list (i.e., Nico, Desmond, Aaron


Seeskin, Adam Rothman, Martin, Karen, etc.). We'd love to have all these


people around for Worlds, so if you know how to contact them, let me know!






-Chris






p.s. If we are still waiting for your registration (you know who you are) please


contact Boris Shor, our financial director, at the worlds email account or


at 609-258-2255, ext. WORLDS, to discuss your financial situation ASAP!]


















20 questions on Worlds (fwd)


DIRGO ddirgo at s-cwis.unomaha.edu


Thu Dec 1 20:39:09 PST 1994






Previous message: Evidence and Mr. Wand's Points, cont'd.


Next message: Evidence and Mr. Wand's Points


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






This message came over the Canadian listserv, but was so chock-full of


goodies about Worlds that I decided to pass it along. This'll teach


those geeks at unnamed schools who aren't on the listserv what they get


for missing staff meetings.






Incidentally, I've been lurking on the Cusid and APDA listservs in


preparation for Worlds, and I've found them to be quite interesting.


I've even been posting a little and swapping messages with some of the


APDA folks; they're more congenial than I might have expected. If anyone


else out there is interested in tuning them in...






To get on the CUSID E-mail List, send a message to CUSID.Subscribe at Uwo.Ca


including your name, university, and all information that would help


people contact you that you don't mind being made public, and you will be


added within one day.






To get on the APDA E-mail list, send a standard "SUBSCRIBE APDA


your-name-here" message to LISTSERV at PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU.






I encourage it, if only to get a feel for the people against whom you


will soon be competing, and maybe a little sense of who's important out


there as well.






David






---------- Forwarded message ----------


Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 21:14:46 -0500


From: Christopher Julian Paolella


To: Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate


Subject: 20 questions on Worlds














Sorry not to have responded earlier to Shuman's very pertinent


questions. We are currently in the middle of final registration crunch


for Worlds, so I am currently a couple of days behind on my


non-registration related email. I thank Jeremy for his help on this --


I've just appended a few more comments that might be of use. If anyone


has any questions, please feel free to contact me at the worlds account


(Worlds95 at phoenix.princeton.edu) or at the Worlds office, 609-258-2255,


ext. WORLDS.










On Wed, 30 Nov 1994, Shuman wrote:






> I'm passing this along, as I thought it was very helpful.


> Jeremy-- thank you very much for your help!


>


> - Shuman


>


> --


> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 18:11:00 -0500 (EST)


> From: Jeremy Mallory


> To: Shuman


> Subject: Re: 20 Questions - Worlds'


> In-Reply-To: <199411290306.WAA29897 at oak.cc.swarthmore.edu>


> Mime-Version: 1.0


> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


> Content-Length: 9041


>


> Here are my instinctive replies, please feel free to repost these


> if you see fit. Some of them will direct you towards people who _really_


> know what they're talking about...


>


> > 1. What is the American marking scale for speaker points? In Canada


> > we use 0-50, with 40-43 generally being an excellent speech, and


> > lower than 33 is almost unheard of.


>


> 0-30, with the effective range from 19-28. A solid average speech


> should get from 23-25. Novices should expect 21-24. Offensive speeches can


> expect 19 and below. On the upper end, experienced debaters can usually


> expect 25-27. 28's are usually the top given, though 29's happen every so


> often. I don't remember a 30, though it may have happened. The tab room


> will probably ask you if you are positive (and/or sober) if you hand in


> 29-30. You might even be questioned about a 28.


> If it helps, top 10 speaker awards usually start (10th place)


> around 130-132 (130 means an average of 26 each of 5 rounds). Depending on


> how the points fell out, the top speakers might have anywhere from 134 to


> 141 (the highest I have ever heard of).


>


Recommended point scales for judges will approximate those used at the


Princeton tournament last year. Roughly speaking, an average speech will


earn a 23, a good speech 24, a very good speech 25, an excellent speech


26, and a truly phenomenal speech a 27 or higher.










> > 2. Will there be seeding? If so, on what basis, and will each school


> > get a free seed?


>


> Ask Princeton.


>


There will be no seeding at Worlds. The first two rounds will be


completely random, with the remaining rounds power-paired.






> > 3. How many teams are registered?


>


> Ask Princeton.






Currently, we are expecting approximately 225 teams, with participants


from places as far afield as Croatia, Ethiopia and Jordan. If any team is


interested in participating, but has not yet sent in their registration


payment (you know who you are!), IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT YOU GET


IN TOUCH WITH THE CHAMPIONSHIP OFFICE WITHIN THE NEXT 24 HOURS! Late


fees are already accruing; as we need to finalize our contract with the


hotel and other organizations within the week, we need a firm number for


registration within the next two days or so.






> > 4. What are some examples of World's Style resolutions, that schools could


> > use to practice in-house? What is the policy on links? I remember


> > that squirelling was prohibited at Princeton last year, but it was


> > ok to run hypotheticals (or so it seemed, watching the open rounds).


> > Will there be two resolutions per round? How much general knowledge


> > of U.S. domestic affairs will be required?


>


> My guess is that Princeton will be sticking to the same flavor of


> resolutions offered at Melbourne last year. That means several


> philosophical, some policy, a couple non-Western, one of local (US)


> interest, and a humorous round. If you like, I have a record of the 13


> resolutions used at Melbourne that I can send you (9 rounds plus 4 total


> elimination rounds). My guess is only one resolution per round, but I may


> be wrong. I would recommend a passing familiarity, but not necessarily


> in-depth knowledge, of US domestic affairs






Jeremy is essentially correct here -- Princeton will be adhering to the


general style of Worlds resolutions offered at Oxford and Melbourne.


There will be one resolution per round, with no choice as to side. I


cannot detail the exact proportion of topic areas that will be covered


(classified information! hee hee!) , but again, we will follow general


Worlds precedent. As to hypotheticals, it entirely depends on how


closely linked the hypothetical is to the resolution. If the "case" run


is a clear example or illustration of the resolution, then judges will


most probably accept the definition, although the opposition is free to


challenge it. The point is, some reasonable flexibility will be allowed


in defining the terms of the resolution, but for most resolutions, the


intended topic of debate will be more of less obvious, and all are


strongly encouraged to leave their case lists at home.






> > 5. If the LO uses 12 minutes, does this mean no POI's one minute into and


> > 4 minutes before, or 5 minutes before? The first option would mean an


> > extra minute of POIs for those who opt for no-split. In general,


> > how many POI's should each speaker take? Will we be penalized for


> > not asking/taking POI's?


>


> Probably 5 minutes before, leaving the usual 6 minutes open for


> PoI's. The general rule I've heard used by P'ton folks is the "Give 2,


> Take 2" maxim. Penalties will probably be basically at the judge's


> discretion, but remember that many of the judges will be foreign as well.






Jeremy's right here -- POI's in no-split speeched will be available after


the first and before the seventh minute of the speech. Two to three


points of information taken or offered each round is, in my opinion, a


good general rule, although this will vary according to the style of


individual debaters.






> > 6. What tabs will be released? Will we only get the top 25 teams, or


> > more? Will I.E. tabs be divulged or will we have to trust whatever


> > voodoo implement produces the final round speakers?


>


> Ask Princeton. I HOPE they release complete tabs.>






Full tabs will be released.






> > 7. How advantageous will it be to have a car? Will we be able to actually


> > park it? If not, what transportation will be provided?


>


> If you can park it, I would personally recommend a car. I know I


> will have one there, so I hope parking is available.






As we will be running shuttle buses between the hotel and campus, a car


is not necessary, although it would probably make getting back and forth


considerably more convenient for you. Parking will be provided at the


hotel, and we are currently arranging day parking on campus as close to


the debate venues as possible.






> > 8. Will judges be given stopwatches or should we start practicing


> > timing our partners? Approximately how many judges will we have, per room?


> > Will the judges decide by consulting with one another, or will the


> > ballots be averaged?


>


> I wouldn't count on the judge timing you. US style usually leaves


> timing up to the partner. The other team also often "back-times" the


> other team, to be sure partner isn't padding the speaker's speaking time.


> As for panels, consulting, and averaging, I have no clue: ask Princeton


> there.






Judges will be instructed to time speeches, and call competitors to order


after a 30-second grace period at the end of their speeches. Feel free


to time yourselves as well, if that's what you are comfortable with.


In-rounds will be judged by either one judge or a panel of three,


according to the individual round. Judges' decisions will be


non-consultative; majority of ballots wins, with median (NOT mean)


speaker points given.






> > 9. What are some of the general things that judges will be told?


> > For example, how will they handle truisms and tautologies?


>


> I would imagine that none of the propositions will be truistic.


> You'll have to ask Princeton about specific rules on tautologies.






A further elaboration on the rules will be faxed to all registered teams


by the end of the week. For further information, competitors will be


welcome to sit in on judges' training to observe exactly what they are


being told (we will also have an orientation session for debaters).


Marq Paulding will be running judges' instruction (with help from several


other team members).






> > 10. Does the team with the highest point total win? What happens in the


> > case of a tie?


>


> I doubt Princeton will allow low-point-wins (knowing the folks in


> tab). Generally, people tend to think that ties go to Opp, but I


> personally disagree, and I think the tab room might as well. You will


> (again) have to ask Princeton about specific directives given to judges.






Low point wins are prohibited. In a tie, the winner of the round is at


the judge's discretion.






> > 11. Is it true that in American Debating, if the L.O. doesn't bring up


> > a line of argumentation in her first speech, then the M.O can't


> > embark upon it in her's? (I just KNOW this is false-- but a few


> > American not-so-novice's have told me this in a round).


>


> False. It is considered BAD FORM (but not against the "rules") for


> MO to put out AN UNREASONALBE NUMBER (but not merely one) of new


> arguments, however. That's termed and "MO Dump", and it gives PM some


> ground to ask for leeway in rebuttal.






Again, I'll just second Jeremy here.






> > 12. What are the restrictions placed upon the P.M. and L.O. in their


> > rebuttals, EXACTLY?


>


> "No new arguments are allowed, but new examples are welcome," is


> the usual rubric. For LOR, this means that if MG brought up an issue and


> MOC didn't cover it, LOR cannot address it. For PMR, this means that if


> LOC brought up an issue and MG didn't cover it, PMR cannot address it. In


> short, MG and MO cannot drop anything. If they do, their respective leader


> cannot pick it up again in rebuttals without risking a point of order.


>


> > 13. Will the debates be flowed? If so, will we be required to hit every single


> > stupid little point on the flow in order to win? Generally, how much


> > emphasis is placed on style vs. content? In Canada it's about 40/60 or


> > 60/40 depending on the judge.


>


> I will wager that Princeton will ask judges to flow. If you do


> drop a point, show how irrelevant it is. If you are winning other BIG


> arguments, a small drop will be irrelevant. I think it's not entirely


> accurate to think of the US as _content_ obsessed, but rather


> _organization_ obsessed. I would imagine most US judges will fall within


> the range of 70-30 to 50-50 (content-style). The key, as I perceive it,


> to US judges: they will almost always take the path of least resistance.


> If you (almost literally) tell them word-for-word what you want them to


> write in the Reason for Decision (RFD) box, they may very well do just that.






We will instruct judges to flow. We will also instruct them not to rely


solely on the flow in their decisions. While every judge has his/her own


criteria of what makes a good speech/round, we will encourage judges to


weight content/style on about a 60/40 proportion.






> > 14. I know there are going to be really important people there, such as


> > the Indian and Australian Ambassadors. When will they being showing


> > up, and what will they be doing-- i.e. will they be keynote speakers,


> > judges, observers, celebrity runners, what?


>


> Ask Princeton.


> Celebrity Runners. Wow, what a thought. How about having Their


> Excellencies the Ambassadors pair a round? Celeb Tab Officials! :)






Robert MacNeil will be serving you breakfast, and Kenneth Starr will sing


Scottish drinking songs at the banquet. Just kidding.






Actually, we have a number of "celebrities" on hand who will be in


attendance for the Championship Banquet and Final Round, including Robert


MacNeil, Kenneth Starr (former Solicitor-General and chief Whitewater


investigator), Paul Volcker, the ambassadors of India and Australia and


the Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court (he handled the Mike Tyson


trial). These individuals will make up the majority of the judging panel


for the Grand Final, and will be making a number of addresses to


competitors and the general community during their stay (the speeches are


optional -- though we would certainly encourage you to go, as they should


be excellent.






> > 15. Who is the Chair of World's Council? How do we get in touch with


> > this individual?


>


> I *think* it is Kelly Marston. The e-mail address I have for her


> is kmarston at princeton.edu.






Kelly is the Chair, and the above email address is accurate.






> > 16. Is a hotel the only form of accomodation available, or will there be


> > billeting in the dorms as well?


>


> If I recall, they are making billeting available for those who


> desire/need it. I'm sure the number of spaces is quite limited, so if you


> need it, tell them ASAP.






Actually, there was a limited amount of on-campus housing available, but


it has been entirely given out already to teams from developing countries


who demonstrated financial need. No further campus housing is


available to competitors. If you have not yet registered for hotel


accomodations, or sent us the money, GET IN TOUCH WITH THE WORLDS OFFICE


IMMEDIATELY! I mean it!!! We are finalizing our hotel contract within a


week, and if we don't have your money in hand within a day or two, you


*will not* be getting the special Championship rates (i.e., the hotel


will cost twice as much).






> > 17. How will appeals work?


>


> Ask Princeton.






Any problems should be addressed directly to the Tournament Director or a


designated representative. The Tournament Director has final discretion


over all appeals.






> > 18. How many people break to finals for I.E.? How will I.E. work?


> > Will it debating be bracketed using a folding bracket? Will I.E.


> > be bracketed?


>


> IE's I can't tell you anything about.






As is traditional, there will be three rounds of I.E.'s with the top six


speakers will break to the finals. We


are running two divisions of I.E. The first will be a Public Speaking


Contest, with extemporaneous three- or four-minute speeched on a selected


topic. Speeches may be serious or humorous, but should make some sort of


point. In effect, wit is encouraged, stand-up comedy is not. Tab


regulations will be distributed at registration. The second


division will not be at all serious -- it will be a "triathalon" of


sorts, and will include humorous speaking (stand-up comedy welcome here),


the ever-popular, nefariously infamous StreetFighter II (tm) battle, and


an undecided third event (we're open for suggestions). We don't even


know how we're going to tab this one.






> I would wager that the debates will be bracketed with a "folding


> bracket" (by which I assume you mean high team with a given record hits


> low team with the same record, right?). You might want to ask how they


> are managing pull-ups (how to even out brackets with odd numbers of


> teams). Also ask about pairing and break priorities: Princeton has, in


> the past, used some strange criteria. Last year, for example, they paired


> by opp strength. The tab folks are extremely competent, and will be able


> to answer any questions you have.






After win-loss, brackets will first be paired on the basis of speaker


points. As for pull ups, I believe that the middle team of the lower


bracket will be paired into the higher bracket according to speaker


points. As I mentioned, full tab rules will be distributed at


registration. FYI, we have assembled an All-Star Tab "Dream Team"


including Raj Vinnakota '93, Marq Paulding '94, Doug Ray, Thanos


Basdekis, Brad Rosenberg, and possibly Dave Ball '91 (the guy who tought


Raj tab!)






> > 19. Can we run Time-Place sets? If so, can we fix the identities of the


> > Speaker, the opposition, or ourselves?


>


> I highly doubt it, but ask Princeton to be sure. I imagine that


> the tight-link rules will preclude time-place sets.






Time-place sets will be prohibited.






> > 20. Will automatic wins be given to members of oligarchies outside


> > the U.S.? Will being rude and obnoxious really win us rounds, in


> > the APDA style?


>


> No. Only members of US Oligarchies will advance beyond quarters.


> Rudeness will be punished by forcing the offending member to explain to


> the Hyatt why the Scots are deliberately standing over air vents in the


> lobby and flashing the other guests.






Jeremy's right again.






>


> I know this is a scattershot response, but I haven't seen many


> other replies to you. I hope this helps. If you have any questions about


> what I wrote, please don't hesitate to ask.


>


> Take care,


> Jeremy


>


>


With all good wishes,






Christopher Paolella


Tournament Director


XV Annual World Universities Debating Championship






















Melbourne Resolutions


Jeremy Mallory jgm at sccs.swarthmore.edu


Thu Dec 1 22:50:08 PST 1994






Previous message: Evidence and Mr. Wand's Points


Next message: Topics


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Since there have been several requests for the actual resolution


used in Melbourne last year, I dug through my archives and found my old


flows. These are the resolutions to the best of my memory (and


deciphering ability of my chickenscratch):






1. This House Believes That: right is more important than peace.


2. THBT: Political Correctness is the new McCarthyism.


3. THBT: space exploration can no longer be justified.


4. THBT: Islam has had a bad press.


5. THBT: East Timor's blood is on Australia's hands.


6. THBT: there is in this age a dearth of heroes.


7. THBT: feminism must give way to multiculturalism.


8. THBT: the West will regret free trade.


9. THBT: cricket is to sport as the Rolls Royce is to motorcars.






O. THBT: the state of the union is stuffed.


Q. THBT: minority groups deserve no special treatment.


S. THBT: the Pope should get married.


F. THBT: Machiavelli is the way to go.






This should give teams some idea of the range of topic areas


covered by Worlds resolutions, in addition to something to practice with.


anybody who was there and has a different recollection of the wording,


please post an emendation (I am especially unsure of the exact wording of


the finals topic).






Enjoy, and see you in Princeton (if not sooner)






Jeremy














Worlds Resolutions (fwd)


DIRGO ddirgo at s-cwis.unomaha.edu


Fri Dec 2 22:47:24 PST 1994






Previous message: Parli topics


Next message: Parli topics


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Here's a nice list of old resolutions from Worlds. I put all the spaces


in so that, if you happen to be a student, you can stop reading right now


and let your coaches use these for practice rounds. This especially


means you, Creighton people! Stop reading right now!






David














---------- Forwarded message ----------


Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 23:17:16 -0500


From: Jason Gottlieb


To: Multiple recipients of list APDA


Subject: Re: Worlds Resolutions






I guess I'll add to the collection of Worlds style resolutions with some


oldies from Trinity College-Dublin Worlds in 1992. Have fun practicing.






1. This house would support positive discrimination.


2. This house would support the right to strike.


3. This house believes that sex kills romance.


4. This house believes that freedom of the individual is a myth.


5. Short men cast long shadows while the sun sets. (Don't ask me.)


6. This house reveres the memory of the British Empire.


7. This house would out closet homosexuals.


8. This house rejects consensus.


9. This house would abolish capital punishment.






(Out rounds motions are from memory, and since this was quite some time


ago, please excuse any inaccuracy: I'll try to get the spirit, if not the


exact wording, and if anyone has the exact wording, feel free to post it.)






O. (I don't remember, but I think it was mostly about which is better at


solving a nation's problems, government or the private sector. Sorry!)


Q. This house would give land for peace.


S. A Federated Europe will protect the weak from the strong.


F. Nationalism is a hangover from history.






Of course, Princeton's resolutions might be nothing like these, but at


worst, it's a page in the history books.






Jason


















World Debating Championships


Shuman Cusid.President at Uwo.Ca


Mon Dec 12 16:50:21 PST 1994






Previous message: Dictionary et.al. -Reply


Next message: Western American Tournaments


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------










December 12, 1994














Dear Debaters in CUSID, APDA, NPDA and abroad,










Here is the Championship Schedule that I acquired at


Princeton's tournament last year, as published by


Princeton. If it has become out of date, I shall post an


update (or hopefully someone else will). However, I have


seen nothing to the contrary, so here it is.










---------------------------------------------------------------------------






Monday January 2nd






Registration 10-5 pm


Opening Ceremonies 8:00 pm










Tuesday January 3rd






Round I 10:00 am


Public Speaking I 11:30 am


Round II 2:00 pm


Humorous Speaking I 3:30 pm


Round III 5:00 pm


Welcome to America Party 9:00 pm










Wednesday January 4th






Round IV 10:00 am


Public Speaking II 11:30 am


Round V 2:00 pm


Humorous Speaking II 3:30 pm


Round VI 5:00 pm


State Reception 7:00 pm


World's Council Meeting 8:00 pm


"The Street Crawl" at 10:00 pm


Princeton's Eating Clubs










Thursday January 5th






Round VII 10:00 am


Public Speaking III 11:30 am


Round VIII 2:00 pm


Humorous Speaking III 3:30 pm


Round IX 5:00 pm


Trips to a Broadway Show after


or Atlantic City










Friday January 6th






Trips to the United Nations 9:30 am


and Day in NYC


Party to announce the Break 10:00 pm










Saturday January 7th






Double Octo-Finals 10:00 am


Octo-Finals 1:30 pm


Quarter Finals 4:30 pm


Championship Banquet and Ball 7:00 pm










Sunday January 8th






Semi-Final I 11:00 am


Humorous Speaking Finals 1:30 pm


Semi-Final II 3:00 pm


Grand Final 8:00 pm


and Public Speaking Finals


Farewell Party 11:00 pm






---------------------------------------------------------------------






As you can all see, this seems to run *quite late*, so it


would probably be advisable to not plan on starting back


home on Sunday. If memory serves me correctly, Princeton


last year went until nearly Midnight, and World's is much


larger, of course. :)






If any of this is typed incorrectly, or has changed, please


let me know ASAP.






For those Canadian debaters who shall be holding the vote


for their debating societies, yes, we WILL be having a


CUSID meeting at Worlds'. The agenda for this will be sent


out over the Net sometime this week.






We need a date and time, however. Please tell me, either


through private e-mail, or through CusidNet, what time-slot


will be preferable. I'm currently leaning toward sometime


on Friday.






Thank you for your time, and I hope exams are going well.










Sincerely,






Shuman Ghosemajumder






President,


CUSID






_______________________________________________________________________________


Shuman Ghosemajumder Phone or Fax: (519) 858-3259


38 Grasmere Crescent


London, Ontario, N6G 4N8






http://www.mps.ohio-state.edu/cgi-bin/hpp?icarus.html


PGP Public Key available at this site


_______________________________________________________________________________






















Worlds final mailing (fwd)


Steven L. Johnson sjohns at creighton.edu


Wed Dec 14 12:13:49 PST 1994






Previous message: Pacific Northwest tournaments -Reply -Forwarded


Next message: Critical Worlds' Info (fwd)


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






David Dirgo plucked this off the CUSID mailing list. I thought it might


be of interest to those NPDA schools going to Worlds.






Steve






Steven L. Johnson


sjohns at creighton.edu






----------------------------------------






Date: Mon, 12 Dec 1994 18:08:48 -0500


From: World Debates 95


To: Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate


Subject: Worlds final mailing










In response to several requests, I am writing to let you know that the


mailing with final details about Princeton Worlds was mailed on Friday;


it should be reaching your universities in a few days. In case you will


be off campus by then, I have included the relevant parts of this


mailing, laong with a Championship schedule, in this message.






The actual mailing included a general informational letter (included


here), A letter regarding financial matters (if your university has a


problem here, don't worry -- we will contact you!), and a guide to


American parliamentary debate desiogned primarily for non-North Americans


and available at registration as well. If you really want a copy of the


guide before you get to the Championship, email me an address at which


you can be reached and I will mail one out to you.






Without further ado, then:






Dear Worlds Participant:






Thank you for your interest in the World Debating Championship. The


enitre Championship COmmittee is looking forward to your arrival with


great anticipation. We are expecting teams from six continents,


representing over twenty-five nation. In all, this year's Championship


promises to be the most international yet.






Just a few reminders and some last minute information.






ATTIRE: Participants are expected to wear business dress throughout the


debate rounds. During the week there will also be the Championship


Banquet and Ball at which black tie or national dress is requested. The


Grand Final will also be a black tie or national dress occasion so plan


accordingly. Most other social events will be casual.






WEATHER: Princeton, New Jersey in January will be cold. Be prepared for


high tmperatures of about 40 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius).


There is also the distinct chance of precipitation during your stay.


Rain is a constant threat in New Jersey and snow is always a possibility.






DIRECTIONS: If you are arriving by plane at any of the New York area


airports, you can either take one of the airport shuttle services such as


the Princeton Airporter or A-1 Limousine (reservations for both can be


made at the airport's ground transportation desk), or take a taxi. If


you take a taxi (which is a good option if there are a number of you to


share the fare) it will cost you about US $ 60 plus tip from Newark


Airport to Princeton.






If you are driving from Princeton from the north, take the New Jersey


Turnpike to exit 9, New Brunswick. After going through the tollbooth,


stay to your right and follow the signs to Route 1 South (the turn is a


bit tricky, so don't go too fast). Follow Route 1 for approximately 40


minutes until you reach the intersection at Alexander Road. There you


will see the Hyatt Regency Princeton on your left.






>From the South, take I-95 to the first exit for Route 1 in New Jersey.


Then take Route 1 North for about 10 miles until you see the Hyatt on


your right.






Registration will be at the Hyatt for all participants (even those with


on-campus housing) on Monday, January 2, 1995 from 11 a.m. until 5 p.m.






When you arrive for the Championship, please check in at the hotel


first. There will be members of the Championship staff there to assist


you and give you further directions. If you are on campus before the


Championship begins and are in need of assistance, come to Whig Hall or


call the Championship Office at 8-3626.






We look forward to seeing you soon.






* * * * * * * * * *






SCHEDULE OF EVENTS






Monday, 2 January






11 a.m. to 5 p.m.


Registration at the Hyatt Regency Princeton. All participants must be at


registration to receive photo identification for the Championship. Even


those individuals receiving on-campus housing should report to the Hyatt


to register and receive housing assignments.






8 p.m. to 9 p.m.


Opening Ceremonies. Princeton University Chapel.










Tuesday, 3 January






9:30 Debate Round I.






1:30 p.m. Debate Round II.






4:30 p.m. Debate Round III.






9 p.m. to 1 a.m. Welcome to America Party.










Wednesday, 4 January






9:30 a.m. Debate Round IV






1:30 p.m. Debate Round V






4:30 p.m. Debate Round VI






9 p.m. to 1 a.m. Irish Party, sponsored by University College Cork, host


of the 1996 World Universities Debating Championship.










Thursday, 5 January






9:30 a.m. Debate Round VII






1:30 p.m. Debate Round VIII






4:30 p.m. Debate Round IX






Evening: Worlds Council Meeting


Championship Pub Round


Optional Trip to Atlantic City










Friday, 6 January






Free day.






Optional trip to New York City and announcement of the break in New York.






9 p.m. Jazz Party, with announcement of the break on campus.










Saturday, 7 January






9:30 a.m. Double Octo-Finals






1:30 p.m. Octo-Finals






4:30 p.m. Quarterfinals






7 p.m. Cocktail Party and Reception






8 p.m. to 1 a.m. Championship Banquet and Ball.










Sunday, 8 January






10 a.m. Semifinal I






1 p.m. Semifinal II






4 p.m. English as a Second Language division Final.






7 p.m. to 10 p.m. Grand Final and Awards Ceremony.






10:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. Farewell Party.










This schedule is not entirely comprehenive; we are currently working on


arranging some additional social events and certain events (such as the


Women's Demonstration Debate Round and Women's Meeting) will be


happening, but have yet to be definitively scheduled. A final schedule


will be available at Registration.


















Critical Worlds' Info (fwd)


Steven L. Johnson sjohns at creighton.edu


Wed Dec 14 12:15:28 PST 1994






Previous message: Worlds final mailing (fwd)


Next message: Aquinas Cup


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------










More Worlds info.






Steve






Steven L. Johnson


Creighton University


sjohns at creighton.edu










---------- Forwarded message ----------


Date: Sun, 11 Dec 1994 15:04:43 EST


From: Charles Douglas Kern


To: Multiple recipients of list APDA


Subject: Critical Worlds' Info






Friends:










Many misconceptions exist about judges' criteria at Worlds's. As


Director of Judges' Education (among other titles), allow me to make some


clarifications.


Every judge at Worlds' - be he or she ever so qualified or unqualified -


must attend a Judges' Education Seminar, wherein Your Humble Narrator will


yak at them for at least an hour and possibly two on the topic of proper


judging. I don't care if you're Ted Cruz, a NAPDA judge, the president of


CUSID, a Harvard novice, or my Aunt Tilly - you're attending my seminar. And


if that means tying you from head to foot and propping your eyelids open


a la "A Clockwork Orange," then that's what we'll do.


During these seminars I will instruct judges on acceptable and


unacceptable debating technique. The Canadian split will be entirely


permissible. American-style "cases" are forbidden.


Some judges may ignore the criteria which I will present. Those judges


will be re-educated, and possibly punished.


Those with more specific questions about the rules or judging criteria


at Worlds should send their inquiries to Chris Paolella or me before Dec. 12.


But you should not be concerned; Chris and I along with the tab room and the


complaints committee have gone to great lengths to create a well-instructed


judging pool. I am confident that Worlds' will be blissfully devoid of needless


wrangling over rules and regulations.






Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, etc.


-Doug Kern














Post-Worlds


lgalizio.DOMAIN1 lgalizio.DOMAIN1.oramail at zeus.cc.pcc.edu


Sat Dec 31 10:47:26 PST 1994






Previous message: Dictionary et.al. -Reply -Reply


Next message: Post-Worlds


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






A request to all of you lucky folks heading/returning from Worlds:






I'm sure those of us unable to go would appreciate postings on the tourney as a


whole. Tell us how it went, and more importantly, what were some effective


cases/techniques/negative positions/etc....and WHY?






Also, what about the resolutions? Perhaps a list of all of the resolutions


could be posted?






Since Parli-L tends to be dormant far too often for folks who otherwise live


to talk, Worlds seems an ideal event to generate lots of useful discussion!






Best of luck to all of those competing at Princeton! Stay warm. Happy New Year


to all!






Larry Galizio-DOF Portland CC






P.S. If you INSIST upon telling us how fun the parties were, please tell us


which coaches and competitors prayed to the porcelin God. It should be public


knowledge.


















Robert Trapp trapp at willamette.edu


Thu Jan 12 16:03:17 PST 1995






Previous message: TOURNAMENT LIST


Next message: funding


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






I thought I would post the records of NPDA teams attending the World Universities Debating


Championship at Princeton. Although no NPDA teams qualified for the elimination rounds, I


thought our new society was quite well represented. Congratulations to all you upstarts form the


Western U.S.










Claremont (Lisa Tran & Sheila Rejouis) 4-5


Claremont (Steve LeWinter & Dhiraj Murthy) 4-5


Creighton (Jason Tebbe & Jay Koehn) 5-4


Creighton (Diana Thomson & James Wright) 6-3


Denver (Ken Kerver & Rick Koerber) 6-3


Laverne (Edward Edge & Bonnie Chuen) 3-6


LaVerne (Shannon Beets & Scott MacKay) 4-5


Loyola (Steve Vrooman & Chad Derum) 5-4


Nebraska (David Dirgo & Shayla Reed) 6-3


Oregon State (Chip Anderson & Dave Hall) 4-5


Regis (Tammy Schultz & Dan Nelson) 3-6


Regis (Marcus Paroske & Anne Jones) 4-5


Rice (Scott Ruthfield & Ryan Levy) 6-3


Stanford (Patrick Sheilds & Matt Mescall) 6-3


Stanford (Matt Rabinowitz & Brendan Maher) 6-3


Willamette (Cheron McGuffey & Melissa Franke) 4-5


Willamette (Bonnie Pennebaker & Wardeh Bishart) 4-5


Wyoming (Ryan Clark & Elizabeth Paone) 4-5










Robert Trapp


E-mail: Trapp at Willamette.edu


Fax: 503 370 6171


Phone: 503 370 6244














Worlds


lgalizio.DOMAIN1 lgalizio.DOMAIN1.oramail at zeus.cc.pcc.edu


Sun Jan 22 16:33:57 PST 1995






Previous message: Willamette Tourney -Reply


Next message: CUSID Web Page


Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






In-Reply-To: ORUNIX:parli at willamette.edu's message of 01-22-95 16:00






Aside from learning that the band at the opening banquet was good, Trischa


Knapp and Steven Johnson aren't Lewis & Clark, and New Jersey be bery bery


cold, we have yet to see postings on the debate rounds at Worlds.






What did the successful teams do that contributed to their success?


What did they NOT do?


What happened to the Yanks?






Larry Galizio-Portland CC

20 December 1995

Princeton WUDC 1995

The final
Princeton hosted once again in 1995. The overall winners, in a 6-5 decision, were the University of New South Wales (James Hooke and Jeremy Philips), who defeated Oxford (Rufus Black and Rod Clayton) in the final, and Harvard (David Panton and Ted Cruz) in the semifinal. Chitra Jenardhanan from Nanyang in Singapore became the first English as a Second Language speaker to win the Best Speaker award.

At the council meeting, two colleges bid to host in 1997 - Stellenbosch and Deree. After presentations and questions, Stellenbosch was selected as the host by a vote of 13-6-1. Australia also proposed standardization of format to British Parliamentary after a heated discussion between Australia, New Zealand, Scotland and Singapore in favour of standardization, and the United States and Canada against, a motion was passed to delay consideration of the issue until the following year.

Princeton also had serious problems with judge numbers. Most colleges failed to send a judge and the 2 teams per debate set-up required twice as many judges as normal. In the preliminary rounds, many rooms had only one judge. As a result the N-1 rule was mooted for future championships, thus ensuring that sufficient judges would be available, but it would not be until Stellenbosch '97 that council would vote to enforce this guideline.

There is an urban myth that after Princeton Worlds council voted never again to allow Princteon to host or never again to leave the US host depending on who is telling the tale and the axe they are grinding.  There is no such rule at Worlds Council.



This History of the World Debating Championships comes in 3 parts. From 1976 to 1990 it is taken almost word for word from the 1991 Toronto WUDC Tournament booklet. Who wrote it isn't known but it was provided by Randal Horobik. At the start of the section on Worlds in 1981 is an extract from an e-mail by Clark McGinn, Convenor of Debates, GU Union 1980 -81 and 1981 and Convenor of the First World Debating Competition, 1981. The history since 1991 has been compiled initially by Colm Flynn and edited by many contributors to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia deleted the history due to copyright concerns so we are back here. Hopefully anyone who contributed to the Wiki article before it was deleted will be happy to see their work preserved here.

30 December 1994

Melbourne WUDC 1994

The University of Melbourne hosted the 1994 championships after the University of Sydney found themselves unable to host having won the bid in Trinity. After 5 years of cold wet championships this must have been a nice change for the teams, in particular Glasgow (Manus Blessing and Duncan Hamilton) who won the competition. Ben Richards (Monash) was the top speaker. The growth of the international aspect of the championships was seen in Melbourne with teams from France, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea and Zimbabwe.

This History of the World Debating Championships comes in 3 parts. From 1976 to 1990 it is taken almost word for word from the 1991 Toronto WUDC Tournament booklet. Who wrote it isn't known but it was provided by Randal Horobik. At the start of the section on Worlds in 1981 is an extract from an e-mail by Clark McGinn, Convenor of Debates, GU Union 1980 -81 and 1981 and Convenor of the First World Debating Competition, 1981. The history since 1991 has been compiled initially by Colm Flynn and edited by many contributors to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia deleted the history due to copyright concerns so we are back here. Hopefully anyone who contributed to the Wiki article before it was deleted will be happy to see their work preserved here.

29 December 1994

Melbourne WUDC 1994 Results

Champions:
Glasgow A

Finalists:
Oxford A
Vassar A
Auckland A

Semi-Finalists:
Monash A
ANU B
Oxford B
Sydney
Middle Temple B


Quarter-Finalists:
Harvard A
Middle Temple A
Victoria-Wellington A
Hart House B
Cambridge B
Princeton A
College of Law
ANU A


Octo-Finalists:
ANU C
Columbia A
Creighton A
Edinburgh B
Inner Temple A
Johns Hopkins A
Macquarie B
Macquarie C
McGill A
McGill B
New South Wales A
New South Wales B
Queensland A Sydney A
University College Cork B
Yale A

23 December 1994

Melbourne WUDC 1994 Advance info

Here is some advance information sent out by Melbourne WUDC 1994






Melbourne WUDC 1994 Championship Rules

Here are the Championship Rules that were used at Melbourne 1994

Championship Rules

Preparation Time
1.1 Resolutions will be announced 15 minutes prior to the scheduled starting time of the debate. Any travelling time to the venue of the debate is part of the 15 minutes. Teams are expected to be punctual.

1.2 No extensions of time shall be granted to teams which arrive late for preparation. Any team failing to arrive within 10 minutes of the scheduled starting time for a debate may, at the organisers' discretion, be given a score of zero for that debate.

Structure of Debates
2.1 All debates will be British Parliamentary in style. There are four teams per debate. Each team consists of two debaters. The two teams affirming the resolution are known as the Opening and Closing Government and the two teams negating are referred to as the Opening and Closing Opposition. The debaters are, subject to these rules, treated as though they were members of a parliament in the Westminster system. All debates will be conducted in the English language.

2.2 The organisers will appoint a Speaker ("the Speaker") for each debate. All Members of the House shall refer to the Speaker as Mr or Madam Speaker during the debate. The Speaker is responsible for calling upon the members to speak and keeping order.

2.3 The organisers will appoint a Chairperson of adjudicators for each debate (the "Chairperson"). The Chairperson is responsible for appointing a timekeeper and, subject to these rules, deciding on any aspect of the procedure of the debate that may be in dispute. The Chairperson may also be the Speaker.

2.4 Members will be called on to speak by the Speaker (as directed by the Chairperson) in the following order:
Opening Government 1st Speech
Opening Opposition 1st Speech
Opening Government 2nd Speech
Opening Opposition 2nd Speech
Closing Government 1st Speech
Closing Opposition 1st Speech
Closing Government 2nd Speech
Closing Opposition 2nd Speech

Time Limits on Speeches
3.1 Each speech shall be 7 minutes in length. Members speaking who exceed that time limit by more than 20 seconds, will face marking penalties in the Method category (see 6 below).

3.2 The timekeeper will give time signals at one minute, six minutes and seven minutes after the commencement of each member's speech.

Definitions
4.1 The main right and obligation to define the resolution lies with the Opening Government team.

4.2 Definition should be reasonable. There must be a clear logical link between the resolution, the definition and the argument.

4.3 The Opposition shall only be entitled to substitute another definition for that of the Government on the grounds that the Government definition bears no reasonable relation to the resolution, it is tautological, or will lead to an argument which is circular or truistic. The Opposition is not entitled to substitute another definition merely on the grounds that theirs is more reasonable.

4.4 "Squirreling" and "Time Setting" are absolutely prohibited.

Roles of Teams
5.1 The role of the Government teams is to support the resolution. They must provide constructive material and arguments in support of their case.

5.2 The role of the Opposition is to oppose the resolution. The Opposition teams are not, strictly speaking, obliged to provide constructive material in support of their case. However, it is highly desirable that positive material and argument be presented by the Opposition. This should be reflected in marking in the Matter and Method categories (see 6 below).


Marking of individual speeches
6.1 Each speech will be marked out of 100, divided into three categories. (a) Matter 40 marks (b) Manner 40 marks (c) Method 20 marks

An average score is 75 marks. The main criterion for marking any speech is how persuasive it is in support of its side of the resolution, in the context of the debate. The marking categories exist to assist adjudicators with the evaluation of this.

6.2 Matter consists of arguments and examples used. Marks will be awarded for them on the basis of their relevance to the debate, and on their development, explanatory value and interest value. Marks will also be awarded for skilful and effective rebuttal of material introduced by the other side.

6.3 Method Consists of: (a) The effectiveness, structure and organisation of each individual speech; (b) The effectiveness, structure and organisation of each team's case as a whole; and, (c) The extent to which a member speaking and his or her team react appropriately to the dynamics of the debate, including setting up, or continuing her or his side of the resolution, and opposing the other side of the resolution.

6.4 Manner is the style in which material is introduced and will be assessed on the basis of whether or not it is appropriate to the material presented. The criteria for assessing a member's manner shall be how attractively and persuasively she or he presents his or her argument to the audience. Adjudicators shall mark favourably any kind of manner which achieves this. While manner should maintain the interest of the audience and adjudicators, it should also assist the argument being made. For example, humour is appreciated, but will score few marks if it does not advance the argument.

6.5 Both the offering and the acceptance of points of information (see 8 below) shall be marked under the three categories as applicable.

Matter marks shall be awarded for the content of both points offered and responses to points accepted. Method marks shall be allocated for the effective use of points when offered and how well they are controlled and responded to. Manner marks shall be awarded for the style in which the points are offered and responded to.

New Matter
7.1 No new matter shall be introduced in either closing team's second speech. An argument or material is new matter unless: (a) it has been previously used in the debate; or (b) it is introduced for the purpose of rebutting or replying to an argument or material previously introduced.

Points of Information
8.1 A point of information is an interjection which raises some point of importance or attempts to correct a member speaking. It should be brief, pertinent, and witty.

8.2 The member speaking has absolute discretion whether or not to yield to another member who is offering a point of information.

8.3 No point of information may exceed 15 seconds.

8.4 No points of information are permitted during the first or the final minute of a speech. There will be time signals at one minute and six minutes for this purpose.

8.5 Only a member from the opposite side of the House to the member speaking may offer a point of information. A point of information is offered by the member standing in her or his place and putting a hand on his or her head, or otherwise indicating.

8.6 The member speaking may choose to accept the point by motioning or indicating verbally, or may choose to refuse the point in similar ways. Once a point has been refused, the member offering it should sit down and await a later opportunity.

8.7 A member speaking is not obliged to take any points. However, a failure to take any, or continual acceptance of points causing detriment to his or her substantive speech, should not be regarded favourably by the adjudicator(s). It is recommended that approximately two points be accepted per speech. There is, however, no strict limit.

8.8 Once a point has been accepted, the member speaking should not respond to the point until either member offering the point has finished it, or the 15 seconds has expired. It is not wise to cut the point off or speak over the point while it is being offered.

8.9 A bell will be rung by the Timekeeper 15 seconds after the point has been accepted, if the offeror of the point has not concluded. The member offering the point must then conclude immediately and sit down.

Decision of Debate
9.1 The adjudicator(s) of each debate will be allocated by the organisers prior to each round.

9.2 Once the debate is concluded, the Chairperson will either send the teams and any audience out of the room, or retire to a convenient place, and deliberate upon the result of the debate, with other members of the panel of adjudicators (if any).

9.3 All four teams must be ranked by the adjudicator(s). Subject to rule 1.2, the best team must be awarded three (3) points, the second best two (2), the third best one (1), and the worst zero (0). The adjudicator(s) should be guided in their ranking by the marking of individual members' speeches, but are not bound by it.

9.4 If a panel of adjudicator(s) cannot agree, then the decision of the majority shall prevail. If there is no majority in favour of a particular outcome, the decision of the Chairperson shall prevail.

9.5 Each adjudicator will record her or his scoring of the speeches in the debate on the form provided by the organisers. The overall decision of the adjudicators will be entered by the Chairperson on his or her form provided by the organisers. Forms must be given to the organisers within twenty minutes of the conclusion of the debate.

Structure of Competition
10.1 The competition will consist of: (a) nine preliminary rounds in which all teams compete, based on a "Swiss Draw" (power matched); and (b) four final rounds, in which the 32 teams that perform best in the preliminary rounds will compete on a knockout basis.

Disputes and Amendment
11.1 Any dispute concerning the interpretation of these rules will be decided by the Chief Adjudicator, whose decision will be final.

11.2 The organisers have the right to add or to alter these rules at any time, including after the commencement of the competition.

Melbournd WUDC 1994 Registration Form

31 December 1993

Oxford Union WUDC 1993

The Oxford Union
Oxford Union Society's convenor was Matthew Christmas (an apt name considering the time of year). The Chief Adjudicator was Michael Gove. The organising committee spanned two pages of its booklet, a sign of the ever increasing complexity of running Worlds.

The prizes were designed to remind the winners of Oxford and so rowing oars (from the famous "Boat Race") were chosen. How exactly these were brought home by the eventual winners, Harvard (David Friedman and David Kennedy), is not remembered. Daniel Mulino (ANU) was best speaker.

Former British Prime Minister Edward Heath addressed the championship dinner. Worlds Council had to select a new host for the 1994 championships after Sydney, who had been awarded the championships in Trinity, had to pull out. They came with another college prepared to host (Melbourne). Princeton also offered a bid to Worlds Council but Melbourne were more prepared, probably because they knew earlier of Sydney's misfortune. Princeton were encouraged to bid for the 1995 championships instead.

This History of the World Debating Championships comes in 3 parts. From 1976 to 1990 it is taken almost word for word from the 1991 Toronto WUDC Tournament booklet. Who wrote it isn't known but it was provided by Randal Horobik. At the start of the section on Worlds in 1981 is an extract from an e-mail by Clark McGinn, Convenor of Debates, GU Union 1980 -81 and 1981 and Convenor of the First World Debating Competition, 1981. The history since 1991 has been compiled initially by Colm Flynn and edited by many contributors to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia deleted the history due to copyright concerns so we are back here. Hopefully anyone who contributed to the Wiki article before it was deleted will be happy to see their work preserved here.

30 December 1992

Trinity College Dublin WUDC 1992

Around 150 teams competed at Trinity College Dublin. The final was competed by 3 Australian teams –- Australian National University (who broke 1st), Sydney A (who broke 2nd) and Sydney B (who broke 11th). The fourth team was Glasgow (Robin Marshall and Gordon Peterson), who won the final and the championships.

The competition was not a total disappointment for Australia as the top speaker award was shared by James Hooke (NSW) (who would later win Princeton World's) and Richard Douglas (ANU). The winning Glasgow team was not actually included in the initial break as the tab system failed early on and manual calculations were used which later turned out to be flawed.

Following complaints by other colleges (not Glasgow) Edinburgh were dropped from 32nd position and Glasgow were added in and had to be woken from their beds to debate in the octo-finals. Rt. Hon. David Lange was the Head International Adjudicator, Ex Prime Minister of New Zealand, and of 1985 Oxford Union Debate famed moot on legality of Nuclear Arms.

Champions:

Glasgow A (32)

Finalists:
ANU A (1)
Sydney A (2)
Sydney B (11)

Semi-Finalists:
UNSW A (3)
Dalhousie A (21)
UCD L&H (23)
Middle Temple (10)

Quarter-Finalists:
Princeton A (4)
Hart House B (9)
Columbia A (12)
Strathclyde A (18)
UCD Law (19)
Aberyswyth A (23)
UNSW B (25)
UC Toronto A (27)
Octo-Finalists:
Middle Temple A (5)
Auckland A (6)
Cambridge A (7)
Oxford B (8)
Wesleyan A (13)
Aberdeen (14)
Cambridge B (15)
Adelaide A (16)
Hart House A (17)
Vassar A (20)
Oxford A (22)
Monash B (24)
Singapore A (26)
Macquarie B (28)
McGill B (30)
Inner Temple A (31)


This History of the World Debating Championships comes in 3 parts. From 1976 to 1990 it is taken almost word for word from the 1991 Toronto WUDC Tournament booklet. Who wrote it isn't known but it was provided by Randal Horobik. At the start of the section on Worlds in 1981 is an extract from an e-mail by Clark McGinn, Convenor of Debates, GU Union 1980 -81 and 1981 and Convenor of the First World Debating Competition, 1981. The history since 1991 has been compiled initially by Colm Flynn and edited by many contributors to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia deleted the history due to copyright concerns so we are back here. Hopefully anyone who contributed to the Wiki article before it was deleted will be happy to see their work preserved here.

23 December 1992

E-mail from the winner of Worlds in 1992

E-Mail from Gordon Peterson Winner Worlds Trinity College Dublin1992


Hello Colm,
First up, well done on the creation of the Worlds site - a feat of great dedication.

I’m writing to add to your History of the Worlds in 1992 in which you correctly state Glasgow were ranked 32nd. There’s a little more to the story that you may be interested in.

We didn’t actually make the break initially. The reason we were ranked 32nd was that during the tournament the computer running the algorithm that ranked the teams ‘went down’ and for a couple of rounds human calculations were used to rank teams and agree match-ups. At the end of the preliminary rounds, the break teams were announced and no Glasgow team had broken. We did what you do when you don’t break – went out, drank, laughed and generally created a little mayhem until around 4am. Unbeknown to us there were two complaints/queries made about their being a possible mistake in the rankings; one by a team from UCD and the other by a judge on behalf of Glasgow (she had judged the us twice and placed us first each time).

On checking the results, it was discovered that there had been a mistake regarding the Glasgow team and the Tournament Director, Margarite Bolger and Chairman, 1985 Champion, Damian Crawford, made the brave decision to offer us the opportunity to take the place of the 32nd ranked team, Edinburgh. This practically involved us being awakened at 8am by Margarite and Damian and, once we were convinced it wasn’t a ‘wind up’, we spent a fair amount of time trying to decide if we were in a fit state to debate. Fuelled by alcohol, we made it through the Octa finals (following which there was an unsuccessful appeal from Hart House A who believed that we had been shown favouritism by the judges “because they were still drunk”), the Quarters and the Semis (where we were greeted by disbelief by some of the debaters, making it out of their beds with whom we had been drinking with the previous night).

On reflection, I do believe that we had spoken well enough to have made the break and also that going out and having a great night the night before the Octas, Quarters and Semis played a big part in our success – we were relaxed and enjoyed the occasion.

I hope this may add a little to your World’s history and if not, then I’ve enjoyed reminiscing all the same,

Warm regards,

Gordon

20 December 1991

University of Toronto Hart House WUDC 1991

Toronto's second championships were held under the North American style of debating, which involved just 2 teams in each debate and Double Octo-finals. The eventual winners were McGill University (Chris Wayland and Mona Gupta), defeating Dalhousie University (Stephen Pitel and John Haffner) in the final. Stephen Pitel would go on to debate for and coach Cambridge and pioneer the case book approach which would come to dominate teams tactics at Worlds. James Rocchi, from the University of Western Ontario Debating Society, was named World Public Speaking Champion.

Champions:

McGill A (8)

Finalists:
Dalhousie B (10)

Semi-Finalists:
Ryerson (13)
Macquarie B (27)

Quarter-Finalists:
UNSW A (1)
Yale B (2)
Sydney A (3)
Oxford A (12)

Octo-Finalists:
Middle Temple (5)
Cambridge A (15)
Glasgow A (17)
Yale A (19)
Edinburgh A (24)
UC Dublin B (26)
Smith A (27)
Glasgow B (29)

Double Octo-Finalists:
Oxford B (4)
Waterloo A (6)
Dalhousie A (7)
McGill B (8)
Johns Hopkins A (11)
Melbourne A (14)
King's Inn A (16)
Swarthmore A (18)
Western Ontario A (20)
Monash A (21)
Concordia A (23)
UC Dublin A (25)
Queensland A (28)
Macquarie A (30)
Monash B (31)
Wilfrid Laurier A (32)


This History of the World Debating Championships comes in 3 parts. From 1976 to 1990 it is taken almost word for word from the 1991 Toronto WUDC Tournament booklet. Who wrote it isn't known but it was provided by Randal Horobik. At the start of the section on Worlds in 1981 is an extract from an e-mail by Clark McGinn, Convenor of Debates, GU Union 1980 -81 and 1981 and Convenor of the First World Debating Competition, 1981. The history since 1991 has been compiled initially by Colm Flynn and edited by many contributors to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia deleted the history due to copyright concerns so we are back here. Hopefully anyone who contributed to the Wiki article before it was deleted will be happy to see their work preserved here.

31 December 1990

Glasgow WUDC 1990

Winner: Yale

Finalists: Melbourne, Sydney A, Sydney B

Glasgow played host to the Worlds for the second time in 1990. Yale University (Matt Wolf & John Wertheim) took home the first American victory in the history of the tournament, over a field of about 165 teams. Hong Kong was represented, and the American Academy in Athens, Greece returned. A Polish team was there, too.

The previous summer, a group of 10 people had toured Eastern Europe to teach debating. One of the Soviet teams the group had met on the tour came to the Worlds that year. Princess Anne was the honored guest at a reception for the Debating Union Presidents before the final round. She presented the award to the winning team from Yale, who were the victors in the finals against three Australian teams.

This History of the World Debating Championships comes in 3 parts. From 1976 to 1990 it is taken almost word for word from the 1991 Toronto WUDC Tournament booklet. Who wrote it isn't known but it was provided by Randal Horobik. At the start of the section on Worlds in 1981 is an extract from an e-mail by Clark McGinn, Convenor of Debates, GU Union 1980 -81 and 1981 and Convenor of the First World Debating Competition, 1981. The history since 1991 has been compiled initially by Colm Flynn and edited by many contributors to Wikipedia. Unfortunately Wikipedia deleted the history due to copyright concerns so we are back here. Hopefully anyone who contributed to the Wiki article before it was deleted will be happy to see their work preserved here.