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:

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.

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.

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

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.

Teams and speakers in a BP Debate

In adjudication, teams are ranked from 1 to 4 (1 is best).

Key Differences between BP and CP:

Twice as many teams

More emphasis on knowledge (no spec knowledge rules). You need to have information and relevant examples to deepen or extend the debate.

More constructive and analysis burden for second speakers. There should be an equal balance between speakers in the first half.

A longer debate means you have to work harder to keep your arguments alive and relevant throughout the debate. You need to put more work in to differentiate your team.

Team Responsibilities and Strategies

First Prop:

Defines the resolution, lay out a prop focus. Present a “model” from which Prop will approach the debate, setting the framework from which Opp can work.

The second speaker: continue constructive material, refute First Opp.

Difference from CP: the case should be broader, in order to make it more difficult for 2nd Prop to expand.  You want to cover as much ground as possible, as long as you can properly deal with each of your arguments. Arguments are larger, less specific in title.

First Opp:

Lays out the opp focus, clashes with First Prop’s model and constructive.

Difference from CP: Opp needs to have more construction than normal, with an equal burden between speakers. Opp is expected to bring up substantial constructive, with relevant examples and deeper arguments. The main strategy is to take 1st Prop out of the round, while building an Opp case that will be tough for 2nd prop to refute and 2nd Opp to beat.

Second Prop:

Extend the debate; move the prop case in a different direction with an explicit “extension.” Stand firmly on a specified ground. You can make the case narrower or broader, expand to a different region, approach with a different philosophy, anything that is a new element to the debate.

Make sure it is obvious what your extension is. Prove that it has bettered the debate.

Do not forget to refute the last speaker on First Opp.

Main strategy: move the debate forward, but make sure to support First Prop; do not knife! It helps to give a picture of where the debate has been so far, and take First Opp out of the round, to try to focus on the debate on the second half and then steal it.

Second Opp:

Analyze the Second Prop’s extension and refute it. Question the validity of their extension, and try to minimize its impact. Clash with Second Prop!!

Expand the debate for Opposition by adding new substantive matter. You do not need a formal extension, but you must add Opposition arguments that are differentiated.

Main strategy: Do a better job that First Opp of clashing with the case, and take Second Prop out of the round. If Second Prop did a poor job, spend more time clarifying how your arguments defeat First Prop.

Summary Speeches: the last two speeches of the round.

Purpose: to summarize the round (not just a rebuttal) in terms of what it boils down to, and to show how your bench- and more specifically, your team- took the round. This speech should cover what was brought up from start to finish, but focus on the heaviest issues. A good way to look at it is as a biased news report.

Structure: can be any way of summarizing- by team, by speaker, or by theme. The thematic approach is just like a classic CP rebuttal, and is most common. NOTE: this is not just a rebuttal speech. You need to deal with the matter by explaining what each team said to the issues, and how your team dealt with them best. “Like a biased journalist recapping the round”

Strategy: Show the weaknesses of the other benches, support the other team on your bench, but emphasize what your extension speaker brought up and how your refutations and POIs best addressed the issues of contention. Summarize the round in terms of your team’s stance.

Points of Information

These are mandatory in BP! You need to use POIs to get into the round early, stay relevant throughout the round, claim ground, remind the judges of your stance, defeat your opposition’s arguments, and be noticed in a round of 8 debaters.