2009 Hart House IV
The first tournament of our debating season was a great success. Congratulations to all our novices on competing at their first university tournament and to the rest of the team for a great season opener.
Special Congratulations to our VP Training Lenny Loewith for his 4th place finish in public speaking!
Resolutions for the tournament included:
Round 1: THW admit Turkey into the European Union.
Round 2: TH supports the use of bounty hunters.
Round 3: TH opposes the ahistorical inclusion of minorities in film and television.
Round 4: TH would forcefully reintegrate Taiwan into China.
Round 5: Provided that the scientific technology exists, THW allow human cloning.
Quarter-finals: TH supports a 100% death tax.
Semi-finals: THBT when states are unable to defend themselves by conventional means, targeting civilian populations is a legitimate act of war.
Finals: THW not contact undiscovered human populations
A special thanks to the Hart House Organizing Committee for a wonderful tournament.
Check out the debaters below:
Fall Tournament Sign-Up
Fall Tournaments
We will be attending 4 tournaments this fall:
Hart House IV (at the University of Toronto) October 16th-18th. We will be leaving around 1pm on Friday, and returning around supper time on Sunday.
Yale IV October 23th-25rd. We will be leaving in the afternoon/evening on the Thursday, and returning on Sunday, likely around supper time.
Guindon Cup November 6th-8th. We will be leaving very very early in the morning on Friday, and returning very very late on Sunday.
Chancellors Cup November 13th-15th. We will be leaving very early in the morning on Friday, and returning very late on Sunday.
For all tournaments, the club covers your registration (most of your meals) and your accommodation. You're responsible for your share of the car rental and gas - somewhere between $30-$60.
How to sign up:
E-mail Lenny Loewith - training@uwodebate.com - with your name, e-mail, phone number, student number, year of study and faculty (so we can apply for faculty specific funding), and your availability for each tournament. If you are over 21 with a G license, and willing to drive a rental car, or have your own car, please let him know that as well. If you have an exam on the weekend of a tournament, it may be possible to get it rescheduled, so please let us know if you have a conflict.
We need to do tournament selections for the October tournaments very soon, so if you are interested in attending one of those tournaments, please be at both meetings next week and have your tournament availability email in by noon on Thursday.
It would be helpful if you could copy the following list and place your information beside each entry in the email totraining@uwodebate.com
Name
Phone Number
Student Number
Year
Faculty
Tournament Availibility
21+ with G
Bids for the 2010 Vebhi Koc World University Debate Championships
We are sending 1 team and 1 judge to the World Championships in Anatalya, Turkey. We are still trying to secure funding from the University for Worlds. Registration is CDN$653, and flights from Buffalo to Anatalya have been seen for as low as $1000.
If funding for Worlds is secured, you will recieve $700 from the UWODS, to help cover the cost of attending Worlds. For more information about worlds visit www.kocworlds2010.com.
How to Bid
The selection for debaters and judges will be conducted independently, you can bid to attend as both a judge and a debater if you wish. The selection committee for debaters will be chaired by Fiona Simpson (logistics@uwodebate.com), and the selection commitee for judges will be chaired by Lenny Loewith (training@uwodebate.com).
Written bids are due by 11:59pm on Friday, September 25th to Fiona and Lenny as appropriate. You also need to express your interest in bidding to them by noon on Thursday, September 24th so that they can schedule you for an interview in the afternoon of Saturday September 26th. You will notified on Saturday night if you have been selected.
You are required to pay Steve Robins the cost of your registration ($653) by the end of the Monday, September 28th meeting. If you do not pay on Monday, your spot will be given to the next person in line.
What's a written bid?
In your written bid you should respond to the following questions:
1) Of the fall 2009 tournaments (HH, Yale, Guindon and Chancellors) which would you be able to, and which would you be willing to attend?
2) What's your debate "resume"? i.e. competitive achievements, tournaments that you competed at/judged at?
3) What has your past contribution to the UWODS been?
4) How will attending Worlds 2010 improve you as a debater?
5) How will you take what you learned at Worlds to contribute back to the club?
Submissions are not meant to be large, and a simple 1-2 page response is more than adequate.
Kick-Off Show Debate and Meeting Information
Our first meeting will be held on Monday, September 28th, 2009 in Social Science Center (SSC) 2020. Come check out our show debate to see what formal parliamentary debate is like in person. We'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about debate at Western or upcoming tournaments.
We hope to see you on Monday!
Regular meetings will be held Monday and Wednesdays from 5:30 to 7:30 starting Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 in the Kresge Building Room 106. The Kresge building is linked to Medical Sciences and the room in on the 2nd floor.
Leger 2010
UWODS Members: What we’re asking of you
Positions: We are still in need of a Head of Logistics and additional equity officers. If you are interested, please contact Tournament Director Courtney Davis at leger@uwodebate.com.
Billeting: We would like to be able to offer billeting for this tournament. If you think you could help, please begin talking to your roommates.
Sponsorship: If you have any ideas for sponsorship, including, but not limited to food donations or finalist prizes, please speak to Steve Robins or Shaunvir.
Pancakes: Let us know if you have access to a griddle so we can make our delicious pancake dreams a delicious reality.
Hart House Invitational – October 16th-18th
The second major tournament of the year is the Hart House Invitational, running from October 16th-18th at the University of Toronto. You can check out the official invitation on CUSIDnet.
The Hart House Invitational is one of the largest British Parlimentary tournaments in North America and attracts teams from Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and Ireland. Hart House is one of the largest and most successful debate societies in Canada. This tournament is renowned for having one of the deepest judging pools, largely because it attracts not only Hart House alumni, but many CUSID alumni working in Toronto. The quality of debate at this tournament is very high because of great teams, great judging and excellent feedback for everyone from novices to teams on track for Worlds. It is considered a vital part of Worlds prep for pretty much any team who can attend, on par with international tournaments like the Oxford and Cambridge IV's.
Hart House is also known for throwing some of the ritziest socials in Canada. The Saturday night banquet and break-announcement in the Great Hall is a black-tie event with live entertainment. The lobster bisque has even attained a cult following among debaters. It's one of the few opportunities outside title tournaments and Worlds to see debaters in formal eveningwear. Ask anyone who was present last year, it was an evening few us will forget.
Western will hopefully be sending a full complement of 6 teams and 2 judges, so get involved early if you want to attend. This tournament is only three weeks after our club starts meeting for the year so we need to fit in alot of practice in a short time!
Here's a picture of last year's banquet.
Debatespeak
I went to write a post about another upcoming tournament and realized that new debaters would have no idea what some of the words meant. So here's a primer on debatespeak, to help figure out the slang of debating. I've done my best but this may not be an exhaustive list. I hope it helps somewhat! Fell free to add more definitions in the comments.
Pick-up: To win a round of debate
Drop: To lose a round of debate.
In-round: Rounds of the tournament in which everyone participates.
Out-round: Depending on the size of the tournament thos compromises quarter finals, semi finals and finals. These are public rounds where the top teams of the tournament compete.
Break: The "break" is the top teams of the tournament that go on to compete in out-rounds. Ex 1: Western is so pround to have had a team break at Winter Carnival last year. Ex 2: I'm so glad that we broke to semis!
Bracket: Debate tournaments are bracketed, meaning that teams of equal wins and losses compete against each other. After the first round there are 2 brackets 1-0 and 0-1 after the second round there are 3 brackets 2-0, 1-1, 0-2 etc. Brackets fold in on each other so the lowest team in the bracket faces the highest team in the bracket.
Pull-Up: In the event that a bracket doesn't have an even number of teams, a team is "pulled up" to compete in the bracket above them. Normally this is the team at the bottom of the lower bracket.
Ride the bracket: If you are the team at the top of the bracket you will always face the lowest teams or pull-ups with a greater chance of continuing to pick up rounds. This is usually done in the second or third highest bracket.
Room of death: If you are in the higher or highest brackets of a tournament you will eventually find yourself in a room full of excellent, break-class teams. In BP this means two teams are going to lose points, it can be unpredictable as these teams are often very evenly matched.
Chief Adjudicator: The head judge at a tournament who is responsible for placing the judges in all of the rooms of the tournament.
Tabs: The tab is the statistics of wins and losses and speaker scores that determines the relative pleacement of the teams in the tournament.
Speaker Scores: In addition to deciding the ranking of teams in a room, judges also assign individual speaker points to each team member. The winning team must have the highest cumulative score, the second teams the second highest score. There is no such thing as a low point win.
Org Com: Organization Committee - pretty obvious I think
Public Speaking: To allow time between the rounds of debate for people to assemble the tab, there are rounds of public speaking. Every round has a topic and idividuals get 3 minutes to speak on it. Usually, the intent is to be funny, but seriosu public speaking should also be encouraged, even if it isn't always.
Dino: An "old" debater who has graduated from undergraduate. This includes law students, medical students, grad students and alumni.
Basics of Judging British Parliamentary Debate
This sheet is just a basic explanation of how to judge BP debating; complementary experience judging and debating in BP rounds is essential.
Your Role: judges need to rank teams from 1 to 4 (1 is best) and assign speaker points to every speaker. You need to take notes and determine your method/reasons for ranking teams in the specific round. The chair needs to deliver a reason for decision to the teams.
Teams and speakers in a BP Debate
|
First Proposition: First Speaker 7 minutes Second Speaker 7 minutes |
First Opposition: First Speaker 7 minutes Second Speaker 7 minutes |
|
Second Proposition: First Speaker 7 minutes Summary/Whip Speaker 7 minutes |
Second Opposition: First Speaker 7 minutes Summary/Whip Speaker 7 minutes |
Key Differences between judging BP and CP:
Debaters need to provide relevant examples and apply their knowledge of the topic. Debaters who use information to construct deep arguments are rewarded.
More constructive and analysis burden for second speakers. There should be an equal balance between speakers in the first half.
A longer debate means debaters have to keep your arguments alive and relevant throughout the debate. They need to differentiate their team.
How to Approach the Adjudication:
Keep track of arguments brought up by each speaker on each team, and whose arguments they dealt with in refutation.
Look at your notes to determine role fulfillment on each speaker’s part.
Which team stood out the most throughout the debate? Who was in there the whole time, clashing and constructing?
On a panel, decide what the major issues of the round are. Look at who brought those issues up, and who kept them relevant. Reward teams who added the most to the debate and defended their arguments.
Role Fulfillment
In BP, this is important. In a messy round, panels often focus on role fulfillment to distinguish between teams. Sometimes 1 and 4 are obvious but 2 and 3 are not. Here, you can draw differences between the 2 and 3 teams by who did the best job that they were supposed to do.
Note: the point of BP debating is not just to fill a role, but everyone has a specific role and with four teams, it is not always obvious or easily decided who won. This fulfillment is one of the factors that should be considered, alongside constructive material, refutation, and depth of comments.
First Prop: needs to provide a clear model and have arguments that last to the end of the round. They need to stay active in the back half of the round.
First Opp: needs to set up a convincing Opp case and defeat (or bring doubt unto) Prop’s model. They need to stay active in the back half of the round.
Second Prop: needs to provide a clear extension (that you decide is valid), and improve the quality of the debate. They need to provide a summary of the round that is on target and convincing. They need to have been active in the first half of the round
Second Opp: needs to continue bringing new opp constructive to the round, and defeat (or bring doubt unto) the prop extension. They need to been active in the first half of the round. They need to provide a summary of the round that is on target and convincing.
Points of Information: one way to keep track of POIs is to draw ticks next to someone’s name each time they get up and circling the ticks when they get accepted. Try to separate POIs in first half from those in back half.
Basics of Canadian Parliamentary Debate
|
|
Member |
Role |
|
Government 7 Minutes |
Prime Minister (PM) |
Build Government’s case by presenting a number of arguments. |
|
Opposition 7 Minutes |
Member of the Opposition (MO) |
Introduce Opposition arguments, rebut Government’s case. |
|
Government 7 Minutes |
Minister of the Crown (MC) |
Introduce Government’s final arguments, rebuild Government’s original arguments and rebut Opposition’s arguments. |
|
Opposition 10 Minutes |
Leader of the Opposition (LO) |
Introduce Opposition’s final arguments, rebuild Opposition’s original arguments, and rebut Government’s entire case. |
|
Government 3 Minutes |
Prime Minister (PM) |
Rebuild critical aspects of Government case and sum up entire debate by showing why the Government has won the debate. |
Road mapping: “Tell them what you’re going to say, say it, and tell them what you said.”
Prime Minister Constructive (PMC):
- Introduce the issue by stating and briefly describing the problem you wish to solve or the side of a philosophical issue you wish to defend.
- Case statement: one or two sentences outlining what you, the Government, propose.
- Roadmap your arguments. For each argument, state the point and flesh out your argument with proof. The more your case is based on logic and observable knowledge, rather than numbers, the stronger your case is.
- Conclude by summarizing your case and the arguments you brought up. Reiterate the most important thing in this round.
Strategic point: your purpose is to introduce a strong Government case with confidence and clarity, setting the right tone for the debate and forcing the Opposition to work hard to bring you down. Bury a weak point in the middle of your speech, making sure to leave a strong one for the MC.
Member of the Opposition (MO):
- Take the case the Government presented and explain why their solution cannot work, or why the problem doesn’t actually exist.
- Present a new, independent argument relating to the case. Your argument is for the opposite of the government’s case, bringing it down.
- “Crash and Burn:” Go through each of the PMC points and explain why they fall.
Strategic point: your purpose is to introduce the Opposition stance (the crux of the Opposition case) and to bring down all that the PM just said, making it difficult for the MC to rebuild.
Minister of the Crown (MC)
- Bring forth an additional one or two arguments supporting the government.
- Go through the points presented by the MO and rebut them. Take issue with their assumptions, and challenge their premises. Try to take the MO out of the round!
- Reconstruct the PMC points that were refuted by the MO. Clean up the mess left in the last speech and explain why the MO is wrong. Go through each of the PMC arguments, say what the MO said about them, and prove why they still stand.
Strategic point: your argument(s) must be different from those of the PM, as you are required to add value to the round of debate. Make sure not to spend too much time on constructive argumentation. Reconstruction is key!
Leader of the Opposition (LO):
- Introduce the bulk of the opposition arguments. Try to maintain thematic consistency, following the stance introduced by the MO but developing it much further with your 3 or 4 points. In general, try to have as many arguments as the PM had.
- Reconstruct the argument(s) presented by the MO.
- Go through each Government argument and destroy it. Challenge the logic, the assumptions, the feasibility, etc. At the end, none of the strong Government points should be standing.
- In the final three minutes, present a final rebuttal. Go through the round thematically, and explain why the Government cannot win the round. Refute the Government’s strong points and highlight your strong points. Explain why you deserve to win.
Strategic point: You have 10 minutes, so pace yourself carefully, and watch the time signals. You cannot bring up new evidence in the last three minutes, as that is your refutation time. Hopefully, you have already begun attacking the Government arguments by this time. Use the last couple minutes to look at the round more generally. Talk about the theme of the round, the strongest couple arguments, and why the Opposition has done a better job. End strong!
Prime Minister Rebuttal (PMR):
- Take the two or three strongest points against you and rebut them.
- Conclude by returning the debate to the thematic principles you outlined in the PMC.
- Explain why you win.
- Note: new arguments cannot be presented in the PMR.
Strategic point: you do not have time to go through every argument in the round, so do not attempt this!! If you can, organize your speech into the main three issues/types of arguments. Take each issue, say a few things about what was said by each side, and show how the balance swings in your favour. End strong!!
The Three Types of Cases
Policy Case (Needs Plan) Philosophy/Values Case Time-Place Set
POINTS OF INFORMATION
POIs are opportunities for you two rise during your opposition’s speeches and offer a question or comment. By saying “On a Point of Information” and displaying correct form (one hand on your head, one hand held out palm up), the speaker knows you are interested in stealing the floor. They can accept your POI or decline it by waiving you down or saying “No thank you.”
You can use the POI to clarify something about which you are confused, point out a flaw/contradiction in the speaker’s argument, or make a comment that will link to something you will talk about later.
It is important to keep the POI brief and to the point (5-10 seconds), but also to keep yourself in the round with both strong use and reception of POIs.
*The general rule in a round of debate: “Give Two, Take Two”
Protected time: POIs cannot be offered during the first and last minute of constructive speeches. In the LO speech, POIs cannot be offered in the last three minutes, and the entire PMR is protected.