Following on from their work livestreaming rounds from the recent World Debating Championships in Botswana, IDEA were at the Belgrade Open broadcasting a live stream of selected debates. They have now posted a recording of the final.
Motion: This house believes that post-conflict governments should share power between both parties who were involved in the conflict
You can view the final below or click here to see the IDEA video archive.
Senin, 28 Februari 2011
Shortlisted in the Irish Blog Awards
I'm not sure how one goes from the shortlist to the final but fingers crossed. There are some strong blogs on the list but you never know...
Sabtu, 26 Februari 2011
Live debates from Belgrade Open
If you want to watch some live debates today IDEA have a live stream set up for the Belgrade Open. It's similar to the setup from Worlds in Botswana but this time all the streams are in one place and there is an integrated twitter fees.
You can access the site at http://www.idebate.org/bgopen/ and it will go live during rounds.
You can access the site at http://www.idebate.org/bgopen/ and it will go live during rounds.
Kamis, 24 Februari 2011
Galway Euros to hold new registration process
To the Debaters of Europe,
I write this email with great disappointment. The registration process which took place yesterday for EUDC Galway was unfortunately unsuccessful and we must hold a new one.
During registration there was a short window in which the system failed to record entered data such that all those who registered at the time were not oted as having done so. While we have the vast majority of the
participants, owing to the fact that a handful of institutions were left out we feel that the only fair thing to do in this circumstance is to re-run registration. To proceed with the current list of registered teams would not recognise the actual order in which institutions registered and while we know that it will inconvenience many of you to go through the process again we hope that you will accommodate us in the interests of fairness.
We will be running an entirely new registration system, built from the ground up. We want to be sure that this problem will not happen again. As such we have moved the date of registration on the new system to Wednesday March the 2nd at 12 noon GMT. We require this time to ensure that problems such as yesterday's are not experienced again. We are going to great lengths to ensure that this new system is reliable and as such we will be making it available all subsequent hosts of Euros so they do not have to go to the lengths and expense we have.
Please be aware that no institution is exempt from re-registration. In order to ensure that the registration process is fair and accurate, we require all institutions to submit a registration on March 2nd.
Again, I would like to apologise sincerely on behalf of myself and the entire Org Comm for letting you down in this manner and to assure you that every action will be taken to ensure that the registration process will be
successful this time.
Yours Sincerely,
Nollaig O' Scannlainn.
Convenor Galway EUDC 2011
I write this email with great disappointment. The registration process which took place yesterday for EUDC Galway was unfortunately unsuccessful and we must hold a new one.
During registration there was a short window in which the system failed to record entered data such that all those who registered at the time were not oted as having done so. While we have the vast majority of the
participants, owing to the fact that a handful of institutions were left out we feel that the only fair thing to do in this circumstance is to re-run registration. To proceed with the current list of registered teams would not recognise the actual order in which institutions registered and while we know that it will inconvenience many of you to go through the process again we hope that you will accommodate us in the interests of fairness.
We will be running an entirely new registration system, built from the ground up. We want to be sure that this problem will not happen again. As such we have moved the date of registration on the new system to Wednesday March the 2nd at 12 noon GMT. We require this time to ensure that problems such as yesterday's are not experienced again. We are going to great lengths to ensure that this new system is reliable and as such we will be making it available all subsequent hosts of Euros so they do not have to go to the lengths and expense we have.
Please be aware that no institution is exempt from re-registration. In order to ensure that the registration process is fair and accurate, we require all institutions to submit a registration on March 2nd.
Again, I would like to apologise sincerely on behalf of myself and the entire Org Comm for letting you down in this manner and to assure you that every action will be taken to ensure that the registration process will be
successful this time.
Yours Sincerely,
Nollaig O' Scannlainn.
Convenor Galway EUDC 2011
Calling the result of the final Irish election debate
Here is the article I submitted to http://www.electiondebate.org/ about last night's debate between the leaders of the three, currently, largest political parties. I think most people, myself included, will be relieved they are finally over and those of us in Ireland can finally get down to voting on Friday.
This was the long awaited three way debate between Enda Kenny (FG), Michael Martin (FF) and Eamon Gilmore (Labour). After some fairly bland opening statements the debate started divided into a number of sections.
Economy: At times this felt like it was going around in circles partly because most of this had already been trashed out in the earlier debates so they all knew what the others were going to say. Also the moderator Miriam O’Callaghan had a habit of asking questions that have been dealt with 5 minutes before which didn’t help. In this section Kenny did well and probably came out on top mainly because he refused to be dragged down into the row. At times he looked like a bored parent trying to ignore two children squabbling. It would have been nice to see more passion from him but he focused on his core answers and because he refused to get into a row he was able to clearly put his arguments across. Gilmore was probably stylistically better at times but his facts didn’t seem as strong as Kenny who had clearly well researched backup data for his proposals. Throughout this section Martin was being hammered for his record in government and clearly expected this and decided to go back to his strategy of attack being the best form of defence which worked well in the first debate. However this time he ran into a tag team. When he attacked Kenny, Gilmore would come in next and attack him. When he attacked Gilmore the statesman like Kenny would come in and scold Martin for his past performances. At the end of this Martin looked frustrated.
Tax and cuts: In this section Kenny was under more attack on his policies. Telling people to look up www.finegael.ie to get the details just struck me as a cop out. He seemed unable to answer the questions and was resorting back to stock prepared answers and he and got pulled on it when Martin highlighted Kenny’s standard lines of Legacy, 5 year plan and fist in the air. Martin was aggressive on the attack accusing both Kenny and Gilmore of not being specific. The fact that he didn’t give a lot of detail beyond “we have published detailed budgets for each department” may not have given any more detail than the others but it sounded more convincing. Gilmore drifted out of the debate for a while but was strong in defence of his policies and well capable to bring the fight back to Martin’s record in Government.
Jobs: This section felt like it lacked some focus not helped by O’Callaghan asking strange questions (talk about how we can make the banks increase credit flowing to businesses but don’t mention the banks in your answer). Stylistically they were all fairly level. Gilmore did well on catching the other two on flaws such as the nature of strategic state assets. He just about shaded this segment for me but at this point it felt as though the debate was taking a breather for a few minutes.
Health: In this section we were back to Kenny and Gilmore teaming up to attack Martin on his record. In a similar strategy to the first section when Martin would attack one of the others the third would come in and force Martin back on the defensive. At times it was a withering assault on Martin’s record. The only blows Martin managed to land in return were both on Kenny in relation to some flaws in Kenny’s Dutch health model and on losing 8000 health care workers from the system. Gilmore’s proposal to retain but reform the HSE seemed to get less scrutiny and came across as a more balanced approach.
The last two segments (Social Justice and Leadership) were more closing statements than a debate.
So in terms of the winners or losers in the debate it’s tight to call a winner but for me there is a clear loser. Martin comes third because his attack approach now came across as anger and frustration rather than conviction over what he was saying. He found himself out gunned and couldn’t avoid the attacks on his record in government. Kenny and Gilmore both had to achieve different things in this and to a certain degree they will both have succeeded in that. Kenny while suffering a few blows from Martin and perhaps overplaying the aloof statesman strategy in the first segment will be happy that he didn’t make any major blunders and landed a few blows himself. Gilmore will, by now, have given up on any chance of being Taoiseach and that freed his hands a bit more than the first two way debate. He could engage more in his natural aggressive style and also benefitted from his proposals not coming under the same scrutiny as Kenny’s and Martin’s. Kenny and Gilmore will both be happy going away from tonight’s debate but Martin won’t be as happy as he was after the first two debates.
To conclude while this was a debate between individuals if I was marking it like a worlds style debate I feel a team debate style oral adjudication is actually quite appropriate. It was an opposition sweep with the 2nd opposition team (Gilmore) taking the debate narrowly from 1st Opposition (Kenny) both stylistically and on the fact that more of his “extensions” were still standing at the end of the round having been largely ignored by a government side (Martin) who saw his case dismantled.
Economy: At times this felt like it was going around in circles partly because most of this had already been trashed out in the earlier debates so they all knew what the others were going to say. Also the moderator Miriam O’Callaghan had a habit of asking questions that have been dealt with 5 minutes before which didn’t help. In this section Kenny did well and probably came out on top mainly because he refused to be dragged down into the row. At times he looked like a bored parent trying to ignore two children squabbling. It would have been nice to see more passion from him but he focused on his core answers and because he refused to get into a row he was able to clearly put his arguments across. Gilmore was probably stylistically better at times but his facts didn’t seem as strong as Kenny who had clearly well researched backup data for his proposals. Throughout this section Martin was being hammered for his record in government and clearly expected this and decided to go back to his strategy of attack being the best form of defence which worked well in the first debate. However this time he ran into a tag team. When he attacked Kenny, Gilmore would come in next and attack him. When he attacked Gilmore the statesman like Kenny would come in and scold Martin for his past performances. At the end of this Martin looked frustrated.
Tax and cuts: In this section Kenny was under more attack on his policies. Telling people to look up www.finegael.ie to get the details just struck me as a cop out. He seemed unable to answer the questions and was resorting back to stock prepared answers and he and got pulled on it when Martin highlighted Kenny’s standard lines of Legacy, 5 year plan and fist in the air. Martin was aggressive on the attack accusing both Kenny and Gilmore of not being specific. The fact that he didn’t give a lot of detail beyond “we have published detailed budgets for each department” may not have given any more detail than the others but it sounded more convincing. Gilmore drifted out of the debate for a while but was strong in defence of his policies and well capable to bring the fight back to Martin’s record in Government.
Jobs: This section felt like it lacked some focus not helped by O’Callaghan asking strange questions (talk about how we can make the banks increase credit flowing to businesses but don’t mention the banks in your answer). Stylistically they were all fairly level. Gilmore did well on catching the other two on flaws such as the nature of strategic state assets. He just about shaded this segment for me but at this point it felt as though the debate was taking a breather for a few minutes.
Health: In this section we were back to Kenny and Gilmore teaming up to attack Martin on his record. In a similar strategy to the first section when Martin would attack one of the others the third would come in and force Martin back on the defensive. At times it was a withering assault on Martin’s record. The only blows Martin managed to land in return were both on Kenny in relation to some flaws in Kenny’s Dutch health model and on losing 8000 health care workers from the system. Gilmore’s proposal to retain but reform the HSE seemed to get less scrutiny and came across as a more balanced approach.
The last two segments (Social Justice and Leadership) were more closing statements than a debate.
So in terms of the winners or losers in the debate it’s tight to call a winner but for me there is a clear loser. Martin comes third because his attack approach now came across as anger and frustration rather than conviction over what he was saying. He found himself out gunned and couldn’t avoid the attacks on his record in government. Kenny and Gilmore both had to achieve different things in this and to a certain degree they will both have succeeded in that. Kenny while suffering a few blows from Martin and perhaps overplaying the aloof statesman strategy in the first segment will be happy that he didn’t make any major blunders and landed a few blows himself. Gilmore will, by now, have given up on any chance of being Taoiseach and that freed his hands a bit more than the first two way debate. He could engage more in his natural aggressive style and also benefitted from his proposals not coming under the same scrutiny as Kenny’s and Martin’s. Kenny and Gilmore will both be happy going away from tonight’s debate but Martin won’t be as happy as he was after the first two debates.
To conclude while this was a debate between individuals if I was marking it like a worlds style debate I feel a team debate style oral adjudication is actually quite appropriate. It was an opposition sweep with the 2nd opposition team (Gilmore) taking the debate narrowly from 1st Opposition (Kenny) both stylistically and on the fact that more of his “extensions” were still standing at the end of the round having been largely ignored by a government side (Martin) who saw his case dismantled.
Rabu, 23 Februari 2011
Results of SEO 2011
Here is an e-mail from the debateasia mailing list. It details the result of the recent SEO debating tournament. It also seems to have been an initial dry run for many of the systems that will be used at next year's Worlds which is interesting to note this far out.
After 7 days of competition, we are proud to announce the outcome of the recently concluded 2011 Southeast Asian English Olympics. Among the universities and high schools which participated in all the events, Bina Nusantara University (BiNus University) emerged as the institutional champion with 47 olympic points. They are followed by Institut Teknologi Bandung-Indonesia and University Teknologi Petronas –Malaysia with 25 points. You can go to www.seo.mybnec.org for the complete list of winners.
We also would like to congratulate the winner of the Debate Olympics:
MAIN BREAK
Champions: Institute of Technology Bandung A - ITB A (Luthfi and Karina)
1st Runner-Up: Institute of Technology Bandung B - ITB B (Rifan and Andhika)
2nd Runner-Up: BiNus University - BNU A (Sabar and Raden)
Grand Finalist: University of Indonesia A - UI A (Ahdiat and Roderick)
Champion and runners-up were each respectively awarded Olympics medals (gold, silver, bronze), cash prize of 300 USD-200USD-100USD denominated in Rupiahs and some other sponsor packages. The finals was held at @America, the hi-tech US’ cultural center at Pacific Place Mall, Jakarta.
NOVICE BREAK
Champions: STBA Teknokrat Lampung B - Teknokrat B (Sheilla and Nurul)
Finalist: Bina Bangsa School A - BBS A (Claudia and Tara), University of Jenderal Soedirman C - UnSoed C (Riezki and Zaenul), SMAN 3 Bandung A (Lidya and Hurriyah)
The top ten speakers are:
1.(Tied) Roderick - UI A, Luthfi - ITB A, Ahdiat - UI A
4. Andika - ITB B
5. Rifan - ITB B
6. (Tied) Phodiso - UCTI A, Karina - ITB A
8. Mark - UCTI A
9. (Tied) Alisa and Arpaporn - Thailand National Debate Team A, Dimas - UI B
Best novice speaker:
Fildza Nabila Avianti - UGM A
The main break finals was judged by:
Chair: Jayson Gaspar Maulit (Phillipines),
Panelists: TJ (Thailand), Azrul Izzam (Malaysia), Buena Bernal (Phillipines), Rose Lyn (Phillipines),Ely Zosa (Phillipines), Muhammad Akbar Walenna (Indonesia), Melda Mahardita Sari (Indonesia), Huda Fitri Amalia (Indonesia)
As a quick summary, the 2011 SEO employed round zero in order to make sure of the quality of judges as well as to give the participants time to practice. We also had 5 preliminary rounds, quarter final main break and novice final break. The tournament was composed of 4 countries in the ASEAN region given the adjudicators and debaters participation: Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia, and of course with one fascinating additional: England.
We are also delighted to announce that the 2011 SEO has become a very valuable learning platform for the participants in preparing for the upcoming De La Salle Worlds 2012 at Phillipines due to the quality of motions, worlds-standard speaker scoring scale, adjudication test and feedback system.
Furthermore, we are proud to say that the 2011 SEO employed an online system in wherein the scores were inputted online. This meant less papers, less runner involvement, and more efficient tabulation. Kudos to the innovation performed by Krisna and Rendy- our Binus tabulators.
The latter will join the Tabulation team in De La Salle Worlds 2012.
With regard to the adjudicator tabs, it is also important to note that the tab is not going to be released, customary to the execution of De La Salle worlds. The philosophical reason behind is we're under the assumption that adjudicators are not in competition.
Below are the summary of the motions for further practice purposes for everyone: (other details can be seen at http://seo.mybnec.org/debate except for Round Zero - it cannot be displayed as the results are not carried forward to the next round and except for novice finals)
ROUND ZERO: This house believes that countries with problems of overpopulation should pay willing citizens to sterilise themselves
ONE: This house would directly elect captains of national sport teams
TWO: This house believes that state funded health services should be provided by competitively tendered contracts by private companies, without direct state provision
THREE: This house believes that it is legitimate for governments to deliberately lie to their citizens in times of war
FOUR: This house believes that individuals in developed countries have a bigger moral responsibility to poor people in the developing world than their own families
FIVE: This house believes that democratic countries should punish communication companies which cooperate with oppressive governments’ censorship policies
QUARTERS: This house would ban advertisements that use gender stereotypes
SEMIS: This house believes that post-genocide states should punish the perpetrators of the genocide both visibly and publicly for the long term
NOVICE FINAL: This house believes that developing countries should ban family members of the Head of State/Government from running for the same position
GRAND FINAL: This house would ban the celebration of martyrs
Throughout this post we would like to thank EVERYONE involved in the event- OrgComm, participants, Liaison Officers, Hospitality Officers and other officers, Adjudication Core, Subsidized Judges, Country Ambassadors- sorry if I'm missing anyone- needless to say, every little detail of your contribution means EVERYTHING for us. :) And of course, we would like to humbly apologize for every single inconveniences we've might performed during the events. Please give us more suggestions to improve the 2012 SEO throughout possible channels (see below).
This concludes the summary of the 2011 SEO afterglow. All in all, if you have further questions, feedbacks, constructive criticisms, suggestions, complaints of the tournament (be it debate, other tournament, or other issues such as food, logistics, hospitality -anything that have been performed/not performed), particularly that has not been delivered in the questionnaires we've distributed in the D-day, please send them to the committee through the Convenor, seonapis@yahoo.com or you can send them to me gunawan.bryan@gmail.com.
I'll make sure I'll forward it to the committee or related parties to be processed, evaluated and documented for next year's Olympics. If you happen to miss the community- HEY! don't be sad, we have the facebook page "the 2011 SEO community". join us there.
We sincerely hope that the 2011 SEO will advance all of the participants among ASEAN countries, bring Indonesian and ASEAN's debating scene to the international community, and contribute to global debating scene as a whole throughout any possible channels we've performed this year.
This is the 2011 SEO signing off - SEE YOU IN THE 2012 SEO next year! :)
Bryan Gunawan - BiNus University, Indonesia - Chief Adjudicator & one of the advisors to the club (BNEC) and the event (the 2011 SEO), along with the Deputy Chief Adjudicators: Sam Block (England), Jayson Gaspar Maulit (Phillipines), Azrul Izzam (Malaysia), and TJ (Thailand), and with the OrgComm (Convened by Yohanes Santiawan Napis and team)
After 7 days of competition, we are proud to announce the outcome of the recently concluded 2011 Southeast Asian English Olympics. Among the universities and high schools which participated in all the events, Bina Nusantara University (BiNus University) emerged as the institutional champion with 47 olympic points. They are followed by Institut Teknologi Bandung-Indonesia and University Teknologi Petronas –Malaysia with 25 points. You can go to www.seo.mybnec.org for the complete list of winners.
We also would like to congratulate the winner of the Debate Olympics:
MAIN BREAK
Champions: Institute of Technology Bandung A - ITB A (Luthfi and Karina)
1st Runner-Up: Institute of Technology Bandung B - ITB B (Rifan and Andhika)
2nd Runner-Up: BiNus University - BNU A (Sabar and Raden)
Grand Finalist: University of Indonesia A - UI A (Ahdiat and Roderick)
Champion and runners-up were each respectively awarded Olympics medals (gold, silver, bronze), cash prize of 300 USD-200USD-100USD denominated in Rupiahs and some other sponsor packages. The finals was held at @America, the hi-tech US’ cultural center at Pacific Place Mall, Jakarta.
NOVICE BREAK
Champions: STBA Teknokrat Lampung B - Teknokrat B (Sheilla and Nurul)
Finalist: Bina Bangsa School A - BBS A (Claudia and Tara), University of Jenderal Soedirman C - UnSoed C (Riezki and Zaenul), SMAN 3 Bandung A (Lidya and Hurriyah)
The top ten speakers are:
1.(Tied) Roderick - UI A, Luthfi - ITB A, Ahdiat - UI A
4. Andika - ITB B
5. Rifan - ITB B
6. (Tied) Phodiso - UCTI A, Karina - ITB A
8. Mark - UCTI A
9. (Tied) Alisa and Arpaporn - Thailand National Debate Team A, Dimas - UI B
Best novice speaker:
Fildza Nabila Avianti - UGM A
The main break finals was judged by:
Chair: Jayson Gaspar Maulit (Phillipines),
Panelists: TJ (Thailand), Azrul Izzam (Malaysia), Buena Bernal (Phillipines), Rose Lyn (Phillipines),Ely Zosa (Phillipines), Muhammad Akbar Walenna (Indonesia), Melda Mahardita Sari (Indonesia), Huda Fitri Amalia (Indonesia)
As a quick summary, the 2011 SEO employed round zero in order to make sure of the quality of judges as well as to give the participants time to practice. We also had 5 preliminary rounds, quarter final main break and novice final break. The tournament was composed of 4 countries in the ASEAN region given the adjudicators and debaters participation: Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia, and of course with one fascinating additional: England.
We are also delighted to announce that the 2011 SEO has become a very valuable learning platform for the participants in preparing for the upcoming De La Salle Worlds 2012 at Phillipines due to the quality of motions, worlds-standard speaker scoring scale, adjudication test and feedback system.
Furthermore, we are proud to say that the 2011 SEO employed an online system in wherein the scores were inputted online. This meant less papers, less runner involvement, and more efficient tabulation. Kudos to the innovation performed by Krisna and Rendy- our Binus tabulators.
The latter will join the Tabulation team in De La Salle Worlds 2012.
With regard to the adjudicator tabs, it is also important to note that the tab is not going to be released, customary to the execution of De La Salle worlds. The philosophical reason behind is we're under the assumption that adjudicators are not in competition.
Below are the summary of the motions for further practice purposes for everyone: (other details can be seen at http://seo.mybnec.org/debate except for Round Zero - it cannot be displayed as the results are not carried forward to the next round and except for novice finals)
ROUND ZERO: This house believes that countries with problems of overpopulation should pay willing citizens to sterilise themselves
ONE: This house would directly elect captains of national sport teams
TWO: This house believes that state funded health services should be provided by competitively tendered contracts by private companies, without direct state provision
THREE: This house believes that it is legitimate for governments to deliberately lie to their citizens in times of war
FOUR: This house believes that individuals in developed countries have a bigger moral responsibility to poor people in the developing world than their own families
FIVE: This house believes that democratic countries should punish communication companies which cooperate with oppressive governments’ censorship policies
QUARTERS: This house would ban advertisements that use gender stereotypes
SEMIS: This house believes that post-genocide states should punish the perpetrators of the genocide both visibly and publicly for the long term
NOVICE FINAL: This house believes that developing countries should ban family members of the Head of State/Government from running for the same position
GRAND FINAL: This house would ban the celebration of martyrs
Throughout this post we would like to thank EVERYONE involved in the event- OrgComm, participants, Liaison Officers, Hospitality Officers and other officers, Adjudication Core, Subsidized Judges, Country Ambassadors- sorry if I'm missing anyone- needless to say, every little detail of your contribution means EVERYTHING for us. :) And of course, we would like to humbly apologize for every single inconveniences we've might performed during the events. Please give us more suggestions to improve the 2012 SEO throughout possible channels (see below).
This concludes the summary of the 2011 SEO afterglow. All in all, if you have further questions, feedbacks, constructive criticisms, suggestions, complaints of the tournament (be it debate, other tournament, or other issues such as food, logistics, hospitality -anything that have been performed/not performed), particularly that has not been delivered in the questionnaires we've distributed in the D-day, please send them to the committee through the Convenor, seonapis@yahoo.com or you can send them to me gunawan.bryan@gmail.com.
I'll make sure I'll forward it to the committee or related parties to be processed, evaluated and documented for next year's Olympics. If you happen to miss the community- HEY! don't be sad, we have the facebook page "the 2011 SEO community". join us there.
We sincerely hope that the 2011 SEO will advance all of the participants among ASEAN countries, bring Indonesian and ASEAN's debating scene to the international community, and contribute to global debating scene as a whole throughout any possible channels we've performed this year.
This is the 2011 SEO signing off - SEE YOU IN THE 2012 SEO next year! :)
Bryan Gunawan - BiNus University, Indonesia - Chief Adjudicator & one of the advisors to the club (BNEC) and the event (the 2011 SEO), along with the Deputy Chief Adjudicators: Sam Block (England), Jayson Gaspar Maulit (Phillipines), Azrul Izzam (Malaysia), and TJ (Thailand), and with the OrgComm (Convened by Yohanes Santiawan Napis and team)
Selasa, 22 Februari 2011
DLSU Worlds 2012: ME and Africa DCA Announcement
Dear World Debating Community,
Many thanks to all who have been involved in the application process for the final DCA for DLSU WUDC 2012, whether as applicants, or as contributors of feedback. We were again struck by the subtlety and insight of much of that feedback.
We are pleased to announce that Joe Roussos will be joining, and completing, our team. We are very much looking forward to working with him.
Many thanks,
Sam Block & Lucinda David
Chief Adjudicators
DLSU WUDC 2012
Final Irish leaders debate tonight
 |
| Last week's 5-way debate |
The debate will feature the three main party leaders (Enda Kenny, Michael Martin, Eamon Gilmore). It will be hosted by Miriam O’Callaghan a vetern host of a number of leaders debates from past campaigns.
Unlike last week this one will open with brief statements from each leader and then go into the questions. It is scheduled to last an hour and there will be no audience. If you want to follow it from overseas it will be available on http://www.rte.ie/
Once again the team at Election Debates will be judging it as independent observers. Check in there later tonight for the adjudications.
Don't miss the SciencePo IV
This year's SciencesPo IV, hosted in Le Havre, Normandy, France will be between the 7th-9th of May (Saturday to Monday), and the finals will be attended by the Director of SciencesPo --Monsieur Richard Descoings. Website is already up and running at http://intervarsity2011.org/, and registration will start really soon!
Mark the dates on your calendar, folks! It will be amazing!
Paris IV
The preliminary rounds will be held on Friday and Saturday with the final on Saturday night. Sunday you will be free to explore Paris.
Over the weekend there will be amazing socials with lots of food and wine available.
Ben Wollgar is the Chief adjudicator and there will be 5 minute speeches in the preliminary rounds.
Registration is 45EUR/Debater plus 10EUR for 2 nights crash accomodation if required.
For further details e-mail stephan.nunner@sciences-po.org
Senin, 21 Februari 2011
Leeds EUDC 2012 promotional video
Leeds have released a promotional video in advance of their bid to host the European Debating Championships in 2012. I'm sure there will be other videos from both Leeds and Belgrage (and any other bidders) between now and the council meeting in Galway. I'll post them as they pop up on my reader.
Minggu, 20 Februari 2011
Kings Inns win Irish Times 2011
The Kings Inns Team of Lorcan Price and Áine Hartigan have won the 2011 Irish Times Debating Championships (the Irish Nationals). The final took place at Griffith College and the motion was "This House would default".
TCD Law (Ross O’Mahony and Mark Thuillier) were runners up in the team competition. Mark Thuillier also took home the prize for best individual (an award that is open to both team speakers and individual speakers). Janine Ryan (UCD L&H) was the individual runner up.
The final was made up of teams and individuals from TCD, UCD, Dublin City University and Kings Inns.
For more information see the Irish Times article here
 |
| Mark Thuillier winner of the individual award. |
TCD Law (Ross O’Mahony and Mark Thuillier) were runners up in the team competition. Mark Thuillier also took home the prize for best individual (an award that is open to both team speakers and individual speakers). Janine Ryan (UCD L&H) was the individual runner up.
The final was made up of teams and individuals from TCD, UCD, Dublin City University and Kings Inns.
For more information see the Irish Times article here
Jumat, 18 Februari 2011
Some thoughts about leaders debates
With the third and final Irish election leaders debates coming up on Tuesday I thought I would summarise some of my thoughts about the debates. It is based on being applied to an election leaders debate but at the same time many of the concepts can be applied to any debating or interview format.
1. Body language is often cited as a key factor to watch for but it is often overstated as generally speakers will start off nervous and then relax into it. While they will find it hard to hide being tense and nervous they will be prepped well enough not to wipe their brow when asked a difficult question as Nixon did in the debate with Kennedy. If anything their fear of making an inadvertent gesture will make them appear more rigid and nervous at the beginning. As they settle into the debate and get more comfortable then an adequately prepared debater will become more natural in their body language. If they continue to appear rigid then they may have been over coached on avoiding a particular gesture that their support team may feel comes across badly to the audience. At the same time if there is a repeated gesture that comes across as unnatural (e.g. thumping the podium) then it may be that they have been asked to incorporate a new, alien, gesture into their body language which is never a good idea. Natural is almost always most convincing.
2. Watch for the same phrase over and over. Political debaters are sometimes briefed to use a party slogan as often as possible. The success of slogans like “Yes we can” means political handlers now think they need to have a similar catchy slogan to summarise the tone and content of their campaign. It rarely happens with the success of “Yes we can” but even Obama didn’t use “yes we can” in the debates. A poorly prepared political debater may think they should use the party slogan repeatedly (especially if they get a good reaction the first time) but they can easily use it to the point where it will become annoying and counterproductive. Slogans are best left to the posters and the party rallies.
3. Watch their eye contact but bear in mind that an issue here may be a fault of the candidate or the TV director. If the debate is happening in front of a live audience then the tendency will be to speak to the audience. However if the TV director may have set up his cameras at an angle to avoid blocking the view of the audience which in turn means the debater is on TV from the side and never makes eye contact with the TV audience (as I recall this happened to one of the candidates in the first UK general election debate). However, to the other extreme, an over coached debater may address the camera at all times and will appear to be staring out of the TV at the audience. The best approach will be a balance of addressing the camera, the audience, the moderator and the opponent depending on which approach is most natural at the time. Separate to that their support team should have worked with the TV director in advance to make sure there is a good camera angle for each of those options.
4. Watch out for the leader failing to answer the question asked. You might say it is easier to count the questions that are answered. This is because political debaters are often briefed to avoid difficult questions by going back to the party line. Most voters are aware of this tactic and hate it. Most interviewers or moderators will also pick up on it and may highlight it with a follow up question. The more questions the debater fails to address the more votes he/she is losing. It may be that the debater wants to address an issue that they didn’t get to mention before the last area of the debate was closed off. Then they should deal with it in 10 to 15 seconds and get immediately onto the current topic. However the overriding instinct should be to address the question asked.
5. Watch for a pause (or waffle) accompanied by a distant stare or squint as they try to recall a difficult fact that they clearly have been told but not understood. Here they are trying to remember one of the pages of facts and talking points they have been given by an assistant. They may well get it but this is a sign that it is not something they really understand. The best debaters will understand the issue first and then the facts to back it up will be much easier to recall. The best debaters will also recognise this in their opponent and may pursue the issue seeking to expose their rival’s lack of knowledge.
6. Watch out for them discussing issues at a high theoretical level. They should be aiming to engage with the individual average voter but too often they will address topics with a language and tone that is best suited to addressing a meeting of the economists and academics that have spent the last couple of weeks briefing them. Political parties often draft in leading figures in an area to prepare their debaters. However being an expert in an issue does not mean you are the best person to lead on that issue. Addressing topics with a theoretical or academic approach will not come across well to the voters who may not understand the nuanced detail of the issue but will understand how it impacts on them in day to day life. The person who wins the debate will be the person who persuades most of the floating average voters that they best understand their situation. That person may not be the one the highly educated academics and journalists declare to be the winner. I think the best way to sum this up is: Don’t tell them what is wrong and why it is wrong. Tell them what is wrong and how you are going to fix it.
7. Outgoing government party leaders are rarely popular in times of economic hardship. Everyone expects them to be torn apart on their performance in government. Therefore they will often resort to the philosophy that attack is the often the best form of defence. They will accuse the opposition of having poorly defined policies. They will accuse them of being ill informed or nor seeing the whole picture. They will accuse them of making populist promises which are not practical in reality. All of this is predictable. However instead of expecting this many opposition leaders seem shocked that they are the ones being attacked. They may have spent the past 4-5 years on the attack and defence does not come naturally to them. They find themselves on the back foot and become defensive both in outlook and body language (e.g. tightly clasped hands). The default position in their debate prep should be that they will be attacked. They should have a couple of brief defences prepared and then plan to go back on the attack just as hard.
8. Leading on from the previous point about being on the back foot, leaders shouldn’t worry about their mistakes in the debate. If they are looking back at what has already happened in the debate instead of forward to the current/next topic then they are more likely to run into further trouble. It is natural to be self critical but only they know exactly what they intended to say. If the message was delivered but not in the way they had designed they should not worry about it. If they have been absolutely destroyed on a topic (and that is rare) then they must put it behind them and focus on performing well on the remaining topics.
For more information on Election debating visig http://www.electiondebates.org/ which is a website set up to give independent analysis of TV leaders debates.
2. Watch for the same phrase over and over. Political debaters are sometimes briefed to use a party slogan as often as possible. The success of slogans like “Yes we can” means political handlers now think they need to have a similar catchy slogan to summarise the tone and content of their campaign. It rarely happens with the success of “Yes we can” but even Obama didn’t use “yes we can” in the debates. A poorly prepared political debater may think they should use the party slogan repeatedly (especially if they get a good reaction the first time) but they can easily use it to the point where it will become annoying and counterproductive. Slogans are best left to the posters and the party rallies.
3. Watch their eye contact but bear in mind that an issue here may be a fault of the candidate or the TV director. If the debate is happening in front of a live audience then the tendency will be to speak to the audience. However if the TV director may have set up his cameras at an angle to avoid blocking the view of the audience which in turn means the debater is on TV from the side and never makes eye contact with the TV audience (as I recall this happened to one of the candidates in the first UK general election debate). However, to the other extreme, an over coached debater may address the camera at all times and will appear to be staring out of the TV at the audience. The best approach will be a balance of addressing the camera, the audience, the moderator and the opponent depending on which approach is most natural at the time. Separate to that their support team should have worked with the TV director in advance to make sure there is a good camera angle for each of those options.
4. Watch out for the leader failing to answer the question asked. You might say it is easier to count the questions that are answered. This is because political debaters are often briefed to avoid difficult questions by going back to the party line. Most voters are aware of this tactic and hate it. Most interviewers or moderators will also pick up on it and may highlight it with a follow up question. The more questions the debater fails to address the more votes he/she is losing. It may be that the debater wants to address an issue that they didn’t get to mention before the last area of the debate was closed off. Then they should deal with it in 10 to 15 seconds and get immediately onto the current topic. However the overriding instinct should be to address the question asked.
5. Watch for a pause (or waffle) accompanied by a distant stare or squint as they try to recall a difficult fact that they clearly have been told but not understood. Here they are trying to remember one of the pages of facts and talking points they have been given by an assistant. They may well get it but this is a sign that it is not something they really understand. The best debaters will understand the issue first and then the facts to back it up will be much easier to recall. The best debaters will also recognise this in their opponent and may pursue the issue seeking to expose their rival’s lack of knowledge.
6. Watch out for them discussing issues at a high theoretical level. They should be aiming to engage with the individual average voter but too often they will address topics with a language and tone that is best suited to addressing a meeting of the economists and academics that have spent the last couple of weeks briefing them. Political parties often draft in leading figures in an area to prepare their debaters. However being an expert in an issue does not mean you are the best person to lead on that issue. Addressing topics with a theoretical or academic approach will not come across well to the voters who may not understand the nuanced detail of the issue but will understand how it impacts on them in day to day life. The person who wins the debate will be the person who persuades most of the floating average voters that they best understand their situation. That person may not be the one the highly educated academics and journalists declare to be the winner. I think the best way to sum this up is: Don’t tell them what is wrong and why it is wrong. Tell them what is wrong and how you are going to fix it.
7. Outgoing government party leaders are rarely popular in times of economic hardship. Everyone expects them to be torn apart on their performance in government. Therefore they will often resort to the philosophy that attack is the often the best form of defence. They will accuse the opposition of having poorly defined policies. They will accuse them of being ill informed or nor seeing the whole picture. They will accuse them of making populist promises which are not practical in reality. All of this is predictable. However instead of expecting this many opposition leaders seem shocked that they are the ones being attacked. They may have spent the past 4-5 years on the attack and defence does not come naturally to them. They find themselves on the back foot and become defensive both in outlook and body language (e.g. tightly clasped hands). The default position in their debate prep should be that they will be attacked. They should have a couple of brief defences prepared and then plan to go back on the attack just as hard.
8. Leading on from the previous point about being on the back foot, leaders shouldn’t worry about their mistakes in the debate. If they are looking back at what has already happened in the debate instead of forward to the current/next topic then they are more likely to run into further trouble. It is natural to be self critical but only they know exactly what they intended to say. If the message was delivered but not in the way they had designed they should not worry about it. If they have been absolutely destroyed on a topic (and that is rare) then they must put it behind them and focus on performing well on the remaining topics.
For more information on Election debating visig http://www.electiondebates.org/ which is a website set up to give independent analysis of TV leaders debates.
Rabu, 16 Februari 2011
Job: Lecturer & Debate Trainer at University of Vermont
There is a job available as a debate lecturer and trainer at the University of Vermont. UCC Graduate Stephen Boyle has just finished his contract there so it is an opportunity that is open to candidates outside the US and the head of debating Alfred Snider is a good guy to work with.
Stephen Boyle has had a wonderful two years with us, but now he is moving on to the next phase of his life.
So, we seek a replacement. The position is composed of two half-time positions, both of which will be filled by the same person. The position begins Sept. 1 and formal duties end May 15.
-Half-time lecturing at the University of Vermont, mostly teaching classes in basic communication skills like public speaking, although debating is a part of most of our courses. Each class is worth about $4500 each, with two in the Fall and two in the Spring. These are pending sufficient enrollment, but all classes we have offered have made that enrollment limit.
-Half-time coaching and training with our WUDC debate program. This includes several trainings a week and travel to tournaments with our teams. $12,000. Our program has seen a lot of success of late, breaking a team at Worlds, a team in the Yale final, and winning several regional tournaments. We want somebody to help us continue this growth.
There might also be one or two opportunities to teach (each worth $4500) this summer as well, but you would have to be here in Burlington.
You also would have a very nice office in a quaint Tudor mansion where the Lawrence Debate Union is located.
To be eligible for these opportunities, you need:
A degree at the Master's level in some subject we can relate to communication. Let's talk about this if you have questions.
Substantial experience in WUDC debating as a debater, judge, trainer. We aim to perform at the highest levels of WUDC debating and have many talented and enthusiastic students.
We hope to make a decision before the middle of March.
The Lawrence Debate Union has existed since 1899. It is a fully endowed program, meaning we operate off the interest on our endowment, and it has allowed us to have a global program. We are also about to expand our endowment because of generous donations from alumni.
http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/The_Team.html
Please send me a letter of intent, a CV and a list of references if you are interested.
I can answer normal questions, but to get an inside look at what the job is like, contact Stephen Boyle at stephenboyle87@gmail.com.
Thanks,
Alfred Snider
Stephen Boyle has had a wonderful two years with us, but now he is moving on to the next phase of his life.
So, we seek a replacement. The position is composed of two half-time positions, both of which will be filled by the same person. The position begins Sept. 1 and formal duties end May 15.
-Half-time lecturing at the University of Vermont, mostly teaching classes in basic communication skills like public speaking, although debating is a part of most of our courses. Each class is worth about $4500 each, with two in the Fall and two in the Spring. These are pending sufficient enrollment, but all classes we have offered have made that enrollment limit.
-Half-time coaching and training with our WUDC debate program. This includes several trainings a week and travel to tournaments with our teams. $12,000. Our program has seen a lot of success of late, breaking a team at Worlds, a team in the Yale final, and winning several regional tournaments. We want somebody to help us continue this growth.
There might also be one or two opportunities to teach (each worth $4500) this summer as well, but you would have to be here in Burlington.
You also would have a very nice office in a quaint Tudor mansion where the Lawrence Debate Union is located.
To be eligible for these opportunities, you need:
A degree at the Master's level in some subject we can relate to communication. Let's talk about this if you have questions.
Substantial experience in WUDC debating as a debater, judge, trainer. We aim to perform at the highest levels of WUDC debating and have many talented and enthusiastic students.
We hope to make a decision before the middle of March.
The Lawrence Debate Union has existed since 1899. It is a fully endowed program, meaning we operate off the interest on our endowment, and it has allowed us to have a global program. We are also about to expand our endowment because of generous donations from alumni.
http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/The_Team.html
Please send me a letter of intent, a CV and a list of references if you are interested.
I can answer normal questions, but to get an inside look at what the job is like, contact Stephen Boyle at stephenboyle87@gmail.com.
Thanks,
Alfred Snider
Selasa, 15 Februari 2011
Leeds Euros Bid Website
Leeds University Debating Society have launched their official bid website for the 2012 European Debating Championships. You will find it at http://www.eudc2012.eu/, Belgrade are also bidding to host the championships. The winning bid will be selected at the the European Debating Council meeting in Galway in July.
Here is the official announcement:
Dear Debaters of Europe (and the World!)
Leeds is bidding to host Euros in 2012 and as the Chief Adjudicator of the bid I am very happy to launch our website http://eudc2012.eu/?x=main. At Leeds you will get nine preliminary rounds breaking to quarters judged by some of the finest talent the European debating circuit has to offer. As well as being a historic city set in the heart of Yorkshire, Leeds has some of finest student night life in the country meaning that this Euros will have amazing and affordable socials. Two for one drinks deals at all socials and double en-suite rooms bedrooms for all debaters are just some of the fantastic things we have lined up for you all.
I am proud to be at the head of an incredible adjudication team that reflects the depth and breadth of the Euros. Joining me to make up a truly amazing adjudication team are
Maria Kesa (Tallinn)
Harish Natarajan (Cambridge)
Catherine Murphy (TCD Hist)
Rob Honig (Leiden)
Many more announcements are set to follow and on top of this we will be at as many tournaments as we can in the run up to Galway Euros 2011. Over the past decade Euros has grown in reach and quality and we want Leeds to be better and bigger than ever before. This is just the first of many videos and announcements you will be seeing from us as there is much, much more this bid team and this city can offer.
Best wishes
Fred Cowell
Chief Adjudicator
Leeds Euros Bid 2012
Here is the official announcement:
Dear Debaters of Europe (and the World!)
Leeds is bidding to host Euros in 2012 and as the Chief Adjudicator of the bid I am very happy to launch our website http://eudc2012.eu/?x=main. At Leeds you will get nine preliminary rounds breaking to quarters judged by some of the finest talent the European debating circuit has to offer. As well as being a historic city set in the heart of Yorkshire, Leeds has some of finest student night life in the country meaning that this Euros will have amazing and affordable socials. Two for one drinks deals at all socials and double en-suite rooms bedrooms for all debaters are just some of the fantastic things we have lined up for you all.
I am proud to be at the head of an incredible adjudication team that reflects the depth and breadth of the Euros. Joining me to make up a truly amazing adjudication team are
Maria Kesa (Tallinn)
Harish Natarajan (Cambridge)
Catherine Murphy (TCD Hist)
Rob Honig (Leiden)
Many more announcements are set to follow and on top of this we will be at as many tournaments as we can in the run up to Galway Euros 2011. Over the past decade Euros has grown in reach and quality and we want Leeds to be better and bigger than ever before. This is just the first of many videos and announcements you will be seeing from us as there is much, much more this bid team and this city can offer.
Best wishes
Fred Cowell
Chief Adjudicator
Leeds Euros Bid 2012
Irish Leaders Debate 2: Enda Kenny Wins
Here is the adjudication of the Second Irish election leaders debate I submitted to http://electiondebates.wordpress.com/.
To me the format was a problem. The questions at times were not clearly thought out and the result was that the moderator Pat Kenny had to guide the debate more than I would have liked. There really were no stand out performances and the speaker points are less than last week’s debate. But that is mainly due to the disjointed nature of a five way debate. It is further complicated in that each speaker will have gone into the debate seeing to achieve different things and so will have had different approaches. For example Enda Kenny will have wanted to avoid serious trouble while Michael Martin will have wanted to remain on the offensive to keep the focus away from the failings of the outgoing government. Eamon Gilmore will have wanted to show that he can compete with the two bigger parties (or at least historically bigger). Gerry Adams and John Gormley will both have wanted to shore up their core support and won’t have minded if their arguments alienate more voters than they attract.
So to look at the individual speakers as I ranked them and giving them points based on the Worlds format.
1. Enda Kenny 75 - He needed to look like a Taoiseach in waiting and in that respect he probably carried the debate. He stayed out of some of the conflicts and left the others fight it out while he looked on. When he did allow himself to get drawn into a conflict it seemed to be only on areas where he knew he would be strong. Given this tactic he rarely looked under pressure, other than when Gilmore challenged him on his growth figures, and certainly there were very fewer punches landed on him than on the others. He sort of glided through the middle to win the debate.
2. Michael Martin: 73 - Continuing on from last week he was the most combative of the five speakers. He tried to go on the offensive at times but this format was not as suitable for aggression as last week. He attacked Adams repeatedly and was instrumental in undermining Adam’s arguments. Later he was ganged up on by the others over his history in health department. However he did well in defending his vision of a health system where the focus is on survival rates. That said he simply was not able to answer the charge of being in government for 14 years and achieving very little. On balance when comparing Martin, Gilmore and Gormley his combative style nudges him to the head of this small pack.
3. John Gormley: 72 - He came across as honest about the failings in government and committed to the green agenda. He worked the carbon levy, wind power, wave power etc into his argument at every possible opportunity. In this respect he will have appealed to his green base but I felt it sometimes had the effect of putting his arguments out on a tangent from the others. At times this worked to differentiate him in the minds of the audience but at other times it isolated him and some of his key points didn’t engage with any of the others. As one of the two smaller parties he seemed to get less time than the leaders of the main parties. I get the feeling that had Gormley been allowed more time to speak then his honest approach and clear green policies may have had to be dealt with more by the others but we have to judge it based on what did happen not what might have been.
4. Eamon Gilmore: 71 - He didn’t look very assured in the debate. He was more combative than last week but he also seemed to suffer most from the short time to speak as he was not always getting into his full stride before being cut off. Of all the leaders I am less informed about what he is proposing than any of the others. He seemed to be arguing on vague sound bites (balance between cuts and increased revenue, “passionate for reform”) but was lacking in specifics. You can blame the format but throughout the debate I had more of an idea of what the other parties stood for. His high point was the conflict with Kenny over Fine Gael’s growth figures but after that he faded badly.
5. Gerry Adams: 69 - He had a clear “team line” on his vision for a Real Republic. He had a couple of lines prepared to work into every possible topic but when you went beyond the sound bite there were holes in his figures. While I criticised Gilmore for being vague Adams was too specific for his own good at times. He could not answer how he would take 7 billion from 4.9 billion. His biggest proposal for savings seemed to be by cutting politicians salaries which really doesn’t seem to add up to the half a billion he claimed. At times he went back to his old stock and trade of beating the republican drum at times and calling on the memory of “our patriot dead”. He allowed himself to get rattled on the allegations of fraud and he suffered in that his figures were the most picked apart by the others. In this respect he came clearly last.
So that’s Kenny winning the debate with Martin in second, Gormley in 3rd, Gilmore 4th and Adams 5th. Given the messy format of the debate I don’t know if it will translate into any more votes for the parties but certainly it sets up for an interesting final English Language debate next week.
To me the format was a problem. The questions at times were not clearly thought out and the result was that the moderator Pat Kenny had to guide the debate more than I would have liked. There really were no stand out performances and the speaker points are less than last week’s debate. But that is mainly due to the disjointed nature of a five way debate. It is further complicated in that each speaker will have gone into the debate seeing to achieve different things and so will have had different approaches. For example Enda Kenny will have wanted to avoid serious trouble while Michael Martin will have wanted to remain on the offensive to keep the focus away from the failings of the outgoing government. Eamon Gilmore will have wanted to show that he can compete with the two bigger parties (or at least historically bigger). Gerry Adams and John Gormley will both have wanted to shore up their core support and won’t have minded if their arguments alienate more voters than they attract.
So to look at the individual speakers as I ranked them and giving them points based on the Worlds format.
1. Enda Kenny 75 - He needed to look like a Taoiseach in waiting and in that respect he probably carried the debate. He stayed out of some of the conflicts and left the others fight it out while he looked on. When he did allow himself to get drawn into a conflict it seemed to be only on areas where he knew he would be strong. Given this tactic he rarely looked under pressure, other than when Gilmore challenged him on his growth figures, and certainly there were very fewer punches landed on him than on the others. He sort of glided through the middle to win the debate.
2. Michael Martin: 73 - Continuing on from last week he was the most combative of the five speakers. He tried to go on the offensive at times but this format was not as suitable for aggression as last week. He attacked Adams repeatedly and was instrumental in undermining Adam’s arguments. Later he was ganged up on by the others over his history in health department. However he did well in defending his vision of a health system where the focus is on survival rates. That said he simply was not able to answer the charge of being in government for 14 years and achieving very little. On balance when comparing Martin, Gilmore and Gormley his combative style nudges him to the head of this small pack.
3. John Gormley: 72 - He came across as honest about the failings in government and committed to the green agenda. He worked the carbon levy, wind power, wave power etc into his argument at every possible opportunity. In this respect he will have appealed to his green base but I felt it sometimes had the effect of putting his arguments out on a tangent from the others. At times this worked to differentiate him in the minds of the audience but at other times it isolated him and some of his key points didn’t engage with any of the others. As one of the two smaller parties he seemed to get less time than the leaders of the main parties. I get the feeling that had Gormley been allowed more time to speak then his honest approach and clear green policies may have had to be dealt with more by the others but we have to judge it based on what did happen not what might have been.
4. Eamon Gilmore: 71 - He didn’t look very assured in the debate. He was more combative than last week but he also seemed to suffer most from the short time to speak as he was not always getting into his full stride before being cut off. Of all the leaders I am less informed about what he is proposing than any of the others. He seemed to be arguing on vague sound bites (balance between cuts and increased revenue, “passionate for reform”) but was lacking in specifics. You can blame the format but throughout the debate I had more of an idea of what the other parties stood for. His high point was the conflict with Kenny over Fine Gael’s growth figures but after that he faded badly.
5. Gerry Adams: 69 - He had a clear “team line” on his vision for a Real Republic. He had a couple of lines prepared to work into every possible topic but when you went beyond the sound bite there were holes in his figures. While I criticised Gilmore for being vague Adams was too specific for his own good at times. He could not answer how he would take 7 billion from 4.9 billion. His biggest proposal for savings seemed to be by cutting politicians salaries which really doesn’t seem to add up to the half a billion he claimed. At times he went back to his old stock and trade of beating the republican drum at times and calling on the memory of “our patriot dead”. He allowed himself to get rattled on the allegations of fraud and he suffered in that his figures were the most picked apart by the others. In this respect he came clearly last.
So that’s Kenny winning the debate with Martin in second, Gormley in 3rd, Gilmore 4th and Adams 5th. Given the messy format of the debate I don’t know if it will translate into any more votes for the parties but certainly it sets up for an interesting final English Language debate next week.
Minggu, 13 Februari 2011
Election debates cover the 2nd Irish leaders debate
The election debates blog (http://electiondebates.wordpress.com/) will be covering the second Irish election leaders debate on the Frontline tonight at 9:35pm on
RTE
Last week Michael Martin (Fianna Fail) was deemed the winner of the two way debate against Eamon Gilmore (Labour). Tonight we have a five way debate with Enda Kenny (Fine Gael), John Gormley (Greens) and Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein) joining the debate.
Everyone seems to have written off this five way format (and the upcoming Irish Language debate) with the focus on the next 3 way debate next week. That said it will be interesting to watch it tonight.
The Frontline is a live show in front of an audience and they normally have panel discussions. Hopefully this will be a debate rather than a panel discussion. The host is Pat Kenny. He is best known as a former host of the Late Late Show but you could see that he really was not interested in the light entertainment aspect of hosting a chat show. His real strength is in current affairs and he has been doing well on the Fontline for the last couple of years.
For our international viewers the debate should be on live http://www.rte.ie/. The frontline takes e-mails, tweets, texts etc and often international ones come in so this should also be accessable online for people (Irish emigrants or just those with an interest) based outside Ireland.
The leaders will be standing behind podiums. In the centre will be the three main parties (Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour) with positions drawn by lots. The two smaller parties (Greens & Sinn Fein) will be in the end positions again with positions drawn by lots.
The result of that draw was a standing order on stage of (Left to Right) Adams (SF), Martin (FF), Kenny (FG), Gilmore (Lab), Gormley (Gr)
There will be no opening statements. They will start immediately with questions.
The audience will ask the questions. They have been selected by Milward Brown an independent polling company. They are meant to be reflective of the general population profile. As of 10am the host, Pat Kenny, said he did not know what the questions were. The leaders won’t know the questions until they are asked.
The questions can be general (in which Pat Kenny will decide who answers first) or specifically for one leader (after which the other leaders will also have time to answer). After asking the question the audience will not be permitted to come back in or to heckle in any way.
The debate will last an hour. Hopefully the questions will be allowed to be fully debated and there won't be the same rush to get through 10 questions as there was last week.
 |
| Last week's TV3 debate |
Last week Michael Martin (Fianna Fail) was deemed the winner of the two way debate against Eamon Gilmore (Labour). Tonight we have a five way debate with Enda Kenny (Fine Gael), John Gormley (Greens) and Gerry Adams (Sinn Fein) joining the debate.
Everyone seems to have written off this five way format (and the upcoming Irish Language debate) with the focus on the next 3 way debate next week. That said it will be interesting to watch it tonight.
The Frontline is a live show in front of an audience and they normally have panel discussions. Hopefully this will be a debate rather than a panel discussion. The host is Pat Kenny. He is best known as a former host of the Late Late Show but you could see that he really was not interested in the light entertainment aspect of hosting a chat show. His real strength is in current affairs and he has been doing well on the Fontline for the last couple of years.
For our international viewers the debate should be on live http://www.rte.ie/. The frontline takes e-mails, tweets, texts etc and often international ones come in so this should also be accessable online for people (Irish emigrants or just those with an interest) based outside Ireland.
The leaders will be standing behind podiums. In the centre will be the three main parties (Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour) with positions drawn by lots. The two smaller parties (Greens & Sinn Fein) will be in the end positions again with positions drawn by lots.
The result of that draw was a standing order on stage of (Left to Right) Adams (SF), Martin (FF), Kenny (FG), Gilmore (Lab), Gormley (Gr)
There will be no opening statements. They will start immediately with questions.
The audience will ask the questions. They have been selected by Milward Brown an independent polling company. They are meant to be reflective of the general population profile. As of 10am the host, Pat Kenny, said he did not know what the questions were. The leaders won’t know the questions until they are asked.
The questions can be general (in which Pat Kenny will decide who answers first) or specifically for one leader (after which the other leaders will also have time to answer). After asking the question the audience will not be permitted to come back in or to heckle in any way.
The debate will last an hour. Hopefully the questions will be allowed to be fully debated and there won't be the same rush to get through 10 questions as there was last week.
6th IIT Delhi Parliamentary Debate
The English Debating and Literary Club of the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, in keeping with our institute's aim of pursuing and nurturing excellence in every field, will be hosting The 6th IIT Delhi Parliamentary Debate, from 3rd to 6th March, 2011.
Since its inception, the IIT Delhi Parliamentary Debate has grown bigger each year. In its fifth year, the debate was a grand success with participation from around 50 colleges, highly acclaimed innovations in motions and an extremely high level of debating. The IIT Delhi Parliamentary Debate is now in its sixth year and, in our endeavor to uphold it as a one of the most prestigious debating competitions of South-East Asia, we would like to cordially invite you to participate in this event being held at one of India's leading colleges, IIT Delhi.
We request you to send a preliminary mail of confirmation to iitdebate@gmail.com as soon a possible. Once your team composition has been finalized please fill the registration form given below. Please feel free to contact us for any further information. We hope to host your institution in the 6th IIT Delhi Parliamentary Debate.
Nidhish Mundra
Secretary
English Debating and Literary Club
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
Since its inception, the IIT Delhi Parliamentary Debate has grown bigger each year. In its fifth year, the debate was a grand success with participation from around 50 colleges, highly acclaimed innovations in motions and an extremely high level of debating. The IIT Delhi Parliamentary Debate is now in its sixth year and, in our endeavor to uphold it as a one of the most prestigious debating competitions of South-East Asia, we would like to cordially invite you to participate in this event being held at one of India's leading colleges, IIT Delhi.
We request you to send a preliminary mail of confirmation to iitdebate@gmail.com as soon a possible. Once your team composition has been finalized please fill the registration form given below. Please feel free to contact us for any further information. We hope to host your institution in the 6th IIT Delhi Parliamentary Debate.
Nidhish Mundra
Secretary
English Debating and Literary Club
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
Sabtu, 12 Februari 2011
Portland State Nationals Warm-Up: Demonstration Debate and Updates on Teams
We are two weeks away from the close of registration, and we are at the halfway point to our team cap! The teams that have so far registered with us are:
Seattle University
Mt. Hood Community College
University of LaVerne
Loyola Marymount
Regis University
Rocky Mountain College
Bard College
Adelphi University
Willamette University
University of Pennsylvania
University of California, Davis
University of Michigan-Flint
And, of course, several of our own Portland State University debaters will be in the competition as well. Furthermore, several other schools, national and international, have expressed interest in coming, so we would urge them to get their registration in as soon as possible as it becomes all the more likely we will reach our team cap.
In other exciting news, we have determined the teams that will be participating in our Demonstration Debate for the tournament on Friday, March 4th at 7:00 PM in the Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 298.
Resolution: This House Believes That Eco-Terrorism is a Legitimate Form of Political Expression
Positions (drawn at random):
Opening Government: Emily Ravenscroft and Courtney Pickard, Loyola Marymount University
Opening Opposition: Aaron Baker and Lindsay Bing, Portland State University
Closing Government: Kaleb Brooks and Jon Denzler, Regis University
Closing Opposition: Chase Parker and Benn Watts, Seattle University
We believe this will be a fantastic debate, and the only regret we have is that we couldn't accept more debaters from across the country who had expressed interest in participating in this event.
Please let us know if you have any questions. The link to the invitation again is: http://psudebate.blogspot.com/2011/01/portland-state-university-nationals.html
We'll see you in March!
Kelly Welch
Director of Forensics
Portland State University
Seattle University
Mt. Hood Community College
University of LaVerne
Loyola Marymount
Regis University
Rocky Mountain College
Bard College
Adelphi University
Willamette University
University of Pennsylvania
University of California, Davis
University of Michigan-Flint
And, of course, several of our own Portland State University debaters will be in the competition as well. Furthermore, several other schools, national and international, have expressed interest in coming, so we would urge them to get their registration in as soon as possible as it becomes all the more likely we will reach our team cap.
In other exciting news, we have determined the teams that will be participating in our Demonstration Debate for the tournament on Friday, March 4th at 7:00 PM in the Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 298.
Resolution: This House Believes That Eco-Terrorism is a Legitimate Form of Political Expression
Positions (drawn at random):
Opening Government: Emily Ravenscroft and Courtney Pickard, Loyola Marymount University
Opening Opposition: Aaron Baker and Lindsay Bing, Portland State University
Closing Government: Kaleb Brooks and Jon Denzler, Regis University
Closing Opposition: Chase Parker and Benn Watts, Seattle University
We believe this will be a fantastic debate, and the only regret we have is that we couldn't accept more debaters from across the country who had expressed interest in participating in this event.
Please let us know if you have any questions. The link to the invitation again is: http://psudebate.blogspot.com/2011/01/portland-state-university-nationals.html
We'll see you in March!
Kelly Welch
Director of Forensics
Portland State University
Kamis, 10 Februari 2011
Ankara Open 2011 International debating Championship
In March 2011 we will be organizing the 3rd Ankara Open International Debate Tournament. The tournament will be held between 25-27 March in Ankara, Turkey. As those who attended Ankara Open 2008 and 2009 can testify, we do our best to offer a high quality tournament with debaters from different geographies.
We're proud to announce that our chief adjudicator will be Fiona Prowse (2011 WUDC Champion)
Our DCAs;
Chris Croke
Simone Van Elk
Engin Arikan
From our debating and organization experiences we know debating is not the end of the story, so we will provide 5-star accommodation (In Ankara Hilton Hotels), high quality food and the best: socials with free beers! The venues will be announced soon.
Registration fee is €75 per person. Registration is now open!
You can visit http://debate.metu.edu.tr/ankara-open-2011/index.html for registration & further information.
Best wishes
METU Debating Society
We're proud to announce that our chief adjudicator will be Fiona Prowse (2011 WUDC Champion)
Our DCAs;
Chris Croke
Simone Van Elk
Engin Arikan
From our debating and organization experiences we know debating is not the end of the story, so we will provide 5-star accommodation (In Ankara Hilton Hotels), high quality food and the best: socials with free beers! The venues will be announced soon.
Registration fee is €75 per person. Registration is now open!
You can visit http://debate.metu.edu.tr/ankara-open-2011/index.html for registration & further information.
Best wishes
METU Debating Society
Martin wins the first round of leaders debates
Here is the adjudication of the fist Leaders debate in the Irish General Election campaign that I submitted to http://electiondebates.wordpress.com/.
This was a debate of two halfs. The first half was surprisingly bruising and enjoyable as two of the best debaters in Irish politics went head to head. The second half in contrast seemed very disjointed as they raced to cover all 10 topics on the list having only got through 3 in the first half. I believe the fault for this lies with the format of the debate and the determination of the moderator, Vincent Brown, to check every box on his list. It needed to be 4 topics shorter or 40 minutes longer.
Michael Martin (Fianna Fail) opened up with a speech talking about moving from politics as usual and the need for radical change. This was interesting coming from someone who was a minister in the government for the past 13 years. He appeared slightly nervous but got into his stride. Eamon Gilmore (Labour) spoke about a “lousy government”, a broken government and a vision of a people of equals. So from these opening statements you would think that we were listening to two leaders from the opposition rather than a government and opposition and this approach was to set the tone for the rest of the debate.
I dislike debates like this where the participants are sitting down and would have preferred to see them at podiums where there is nowhere to hide. Allowing for that Martin’s body language was fluid and aggressive. Gilmore looked shocked at times and kept his hands defensively clasped in front of him for much of the time as he seemed to wonder how he was the one being attacked.
Gilmore referred to Martin as “Minister” repeatedly even though he is no longer a minister. This was an attempt to cement the link between Martin and the unpopular outgoing government and perhaps a glimpse of the line of attack Gilmore was sent in with. But beyond that Gilmore rarely got a chance to go on the offensive.
After the opening statements they then turned to a wide range of topics. These topics were so different and disjointed that they could almost be considered individual stand alone debates. There was a lack of a theme (or team line for want of a better description) from either side that could be seen as tying their various overall proposals into a single vision. There were nuggets of it in Martin talking about moving away from “politics as usual” and Gilmore stating that “the Labour party is the party of work”. Had they developed these more and linked it to each segment then perhaps we would have had a more coherent overall argument and vision from each side. Instead we got 10 different debates of varying standard. They were so different they are worth briefly addressing as almost stand alone debates:
1. The Budget Deficit: Martin opened with a brief speech that was heavy on figures and facts. Gimore was more vague on specifics and this allowed Martin to go on the offensive accusing Gilmore of chopping and changing and wanting to increase taxes and cut spending. Gilmore tried to respond but Martin kept attacking. Clearly Martin was better prepped on the facts and figures. It was also interesting that straight away it was the popular opposition that was on the defensive in the face of attacks by the unpopular government. 10 minutes in and Martin looked determined and forceful while Gilmore looked shell shocked under the assault.
2. IMF EU deal: Gilmore wanted the deal to be renegotiated on three areas. Martin responded by bringing the bailout down to paying for wages for teachers, police etc. He then rebutted the points made by Gilmore so straight away we were back to Martin on the offensive and Gilmore defending his policies. Every argument Gilmore made was immediately attacked by Martin and again he looked utterly surprised that he was the one on the back foot.
3. Disowning the 50 billion bank debt. Martin spoke first and his aggressive style emerged straight away with him asking Brown to repeat the question and then starting his response with “No Vincent”. This little interaction was typical of an approach that made it seem like his response was off the cuff and not canned. In contrast Gilmore’s responses to questions generally sounded scripted and prepared in advance. After the opening statements Martin went straight on the offensive attacking Gilmore’s policies and defending government policies by bringing the issue back to the impact on ordinary people with “chaos on the streets” had the decision not been taken. Gilmore was also on the offensive but in contrast was speaking about the opinions of professors. This was a better performance by Gilmore who finally seemed to be getting into his stride but on balance again this round went to Martin
At this pont we had an ad break and it seemed to suck the momentum out of what had been an enjoyable debate up to now.
4. Job Creation. Gilmore spoke about labour being the party of work and outlined proposals to boost job creation. Martin opened by talking about meeting ordinary people worried about their children and outlined a number of areas where he would boost job creation. There was no real clash here and they broadly agreed on many policies so Brown quickly moved on to another topic.
5. Health system: Martin opened by talking about targeting certain diseases and making the HSE more efficient. Gilmore spoke about overhauling the whole health system with universal health insurance. Martin immediately attacked this talking accusing Labour and Fine Gael of privatising healthcare and in response Gilmore attacked Martin’s record in government and in particular in health. Gilmore repeatedly referred to Martin as Minister so that no one would be in doubt that he was part of the government.. Martin looked rattled and under pressure for the first time in this segment. This was a clear clash of alternative policies and this was Gilmore’s best segment so far.
6. Education: Specifically the “motion” was should the government continue to fund private schools. Gilmore opened this segment talking about bringing private schools back into the public system but it felt like he was waffling through a question he was not prepared for. Martin put the focus on his track record in special needs education and expansion of third level and resulting innovation. It sounded good but was not related to the motion on private schools. Gilmore responded by saying he agreed and would add that the issue of literacy problems at the bottom of the education system should be availed of. So the actual topic for discussion was largely ignored by both candidates. Brown quickly saw that this segment was going nowhere and moved on.
7. Ministerial pensions: Martin defended his severance pay as minister by outlining how he was actually out of pocked by remaining in politics while other ministers are retiring. He pointed out that Gilmore, and Enda Kenny, both benefitted from similar payments when they were voted out of office in the past and that seemed to take the wind out of any attack Gilmore was planning. Instead Gilmore advocated independent review of politicians pay and pensions. Brown never gave the debate a chance to develop.
8. Parliamentary reform: Gilmore outlined changes to make the parliament work longer and produce more legislation. He also advocated abolishing the Senate. Martin proposed a single seat system backed up by a list system. He also proposed that Ministers should not be members of parliament and should be opened up to external experts. Brown yet again tried to move on without discussion but was stopped by Martin. Gilmore jumped at the chance to go on the attack on Martin’s policies and why he had not done anything after 13 years in government. Martin responded strongly about Gilmore’s lack of reform after 30 years in parliament and that his proposals were marginal at best. This seemed to surprise Gilmore who now ended up on the back foot defending his proposals and Labour’s record of reform.
9. Public service reform: Martin supported the Croke Park agreement and the flexibility that gives. Gilmore spoke about bringing service back into public service and also supporting the Croke Park agreemend. Brown ended this before it could go beyond opening statements so there was no clash and the round was at best a draw if even that.
10. Coalition partners: Martin produced a canned response about Fianna Fail’s focus in the next Dail being about implementing policies and how that would determine what they would do. Gilmore spoke about having the objective of Labour being the largest party for the first time in the history of the state. The only party he ruled out going into power with was Fianna Fail. Martin responded that the people were sick of this politics of power. Gilmore fought back accusing Martin of wanting to forget that Fianna Fail was in power for the last 13 years and did Martin know the damage done to ordinary people. This was the best clash of the second half and Gilmore finally seemed to be getting into his stride just as the debate was ending.
This debate could have been Hamlet without the prince with Enda Kenny fleeing to the other side of the country to avoid it. Certainly whatever concerns Enda Kenny had about Brown as moderator did not materialise as if anything Brown was bullied by the two candidates which actually made for a better debate in the first half. Kenny’s presence would only have detracted from this debate.
So on balance after reviewing this debate in both style and substance I have to say Martin is the clear winner with a score of 82. He was better on the facts and figures. He seemed to have a better understanding of the plight of ordinary people. And he was stylistically aggressive throughout. Gilmore never really got going in the first half and the second half was very fragmented. I score him 73.
This was a debate of two halfs. The first half was surprisingly bruising and enjoyable as two of the best debaters in Irish politics went head to head. The second half in contrast seemed very disjointed as they raced to cover all 10 topics on the list having only got through 3 in the first half. I believe the fault for this lies with the format of the debate and the determination of the moderator, Vincent Brown, to check every box on his list. It needed to be 4 topics shorter or 40 minutes longer.
Michael Martin (Fianna Fail) opened up with a speech talking about moving from politics as usual and the need for radical change. This was interesting coming from someone who was a minister in the government for the past 13 years. He appeared slightly nervous but got into his stride. Eamon Gilmore (Labour) spoke about a “lousy government”, a broken government and a vision of a people of equals. So from these opening statements you would think that we were listening to two leaders from the opposition rather than a government and opposition and this approach was to set the tone for the rest of the debate.
I dislike debates like this where the participants are sitting down and would have preferred to see them at podiums where there is nowhere to hide. Allowing for that Martin’s body language was fluid and aggressive. Gilmore looked shocked at times and kept his hands defensively clasped in front of him for much of the time as he seemed to wonder how he was the one being attacked.
Gilmore referred to Martin as “Minister” repeatedly even though he is no longer a minister. This was an attempt to cement the link between Martin and the unpopular outgoing government and perhaps a glimpse of the line of attack Gilmore was sent in with. But beyond that Gilmore rarely got a chance to go on the offensive.
After the opening statements they then turned to a wide range of topics. These topics were so different and disjointed that they could almost be considered individual stand alone debates. There was a lack of a theme (or team line for want of a better description) from either side that could be seen as tying their various overall proposals into a single vision. There were nuggets of it in Martin talking about moving away from “politics as usual” and Gilmore stating that “the Labour party is the party of work”. Had they developed these more and linked it to each segment then perhaps we would have had a more coherent overall argument and vision from each side. Instead we got 10 different debates of varying standard. They were so different they are worth briefly addressing as almost stand alone debates:
1. The Budget Deficit: Martin opened with a brief speech that was heavy on figures and facts. Gimore was more vague on specifics and this allowed Martin to go on the offensive accusing Gilmore of chopping and changing and wanting to increase taxes and cut spending. Gilmore tried to respond but Martin kept attacking. Clearly Martin was better prepped on the facts and figures. It was also interesting that straight away it was the popular opposition that was on the defensive in the face of attacks by the unpopular government. 10 minutes in and Martin looked determined and forceful while Gilmore looked shell shocked under the assault.
2. IMF EU deal: Gilmore wanted the deal to be renegotiated on three areas. Martin responded by bringing the bailout down to paying for wages for teachers, police etc. He then rebutted the points made by Gilmore so straight away we were back to Martin on the offensive and Gilmore defending his policies. Every argument Gilmore made was immediately attacked by Martin and again he looked utterly surprised that he was the one on the back foot.
3. Disowning the 50 billion bank debt. Martin spoke first and his aggressive style emerged straight away with him asking Brown to repeat the question and then starting his response with “No Vincent”. This little interaction was typical of an approach that made it seem like his response was off the cuff and not canned. In contrast Gilmore’s responses to questions generally sounded scripted and prepared in advance. After the opening statements Martin went straight on the offensive attacking Gilmore’s policies and defending government policies by bringing the issue back to the impact on ordinary people with “chaos on the streets” had the decision not been taken. Gilmore was also on the offensive but in contrast was speaking about the opinions of professors. This was a better performance by Gilmore who finally seemed to be getting into his stride but on balance again this round went to Martin
At this pont we had an ad break and it seemed to suck the momentum out of what had been an enjoyable debate up to now.
4. Job Creation. Gilmore spoke about labour being the party of work and outlined proposals to boost job creation. Martin opened by talking about meeting ordinary people worried about their children and outlined a number of areas where he would boost job creation. There was no real clash here and they broadly agreed on many policies so Brown quickly moved on to another topic.
5. Health system: Martin opened by talking about targeting certain diseases and making the HSE more efficient. Gilmore spoke about overhauling the whole health system with universal health insurance. Martin immediately attacked this talking accusing Labour and Fine Gael of privatising healthcare and in response Gilmore attacked Martin’s record in government and in particular in health. Gilmore repeatedly referred to Martin as Minister so that no one would be in doubt that he was part of the government.. Martin looked rattled and under pressure for the first time in this segment. This was a clear clash of alternative policies and this was Gilmore’s best segment so far.
6. Education: Specifically the “motion” was should the government continue to fund private schools. Gilmore opened this segment talking about bringing private schools back into the public system but it felt like he was waffling through a question he was not prepared for. Martin put the focus on his track record in special needs education and expansion of third level and resulting innovation. It sounded good but was not related to the motion on private schools. Gilmore responded by saying he agreed and would add that the issue of literacy problems at the bottom of the education system should be availed of. So the actual topic for discussion was largely ignored by both candidates. Brown quickly saw that this segment was going nowhere and moved on.
7. Ministerial pensions: Martin defended his severance pay as minister by outlining how he was actually out of pocked by remaining in politics while other ministers are retiring. He pointed out that Gilmore, and Enda Kenny, both benefitted from similar payments when they were voted out of office in the past and that seemed to take the wind out of any attack Gilmore was planning. Instead Gilmore advocated independent review of politicians pay and pensions. Brown never gave the debate a chance to develop.
8. Parliamentary reform: Gilmore outlined changes to make the parliament work longer and produce more legislation. He also advocated abolishing the Senate. Martin proposed a single seat system backed up by a list system. He also proposed that Ministers should not be members of parliament and should be opened up to external experts. Brown yet again tried to move on without discussion but was stopped by Martin. Gilmore jumped at the chance to go on the attack on Martin’s policies and why he had not done anything after 13 years in government. Martin responded strongly about Gilmore’s lack of reform after 30 years in parliament and that his proposals were marginal at best. This seemed to surprise Gilmore who now ended up on the back foot defending his proposals and Labour’s record of reform.
9. Public service reform: Martin supported the Croke Park agreement and the flexibility that gives. Gilmore spoke about bringing service back into public service and also supporting the Croke Park agreemend. Brown ended this before it could go beyond opening statements so there was no clash and the round was at best a draw if even that.
10. Coalition partners: Martin produced a canned response about Fianna Fail’s focus in the next Dail being about implementing policies and how that would determine what they would do. Gilmore spoke about having the objective of Labour being the largest party for the first time in the history of the state. The only party he ruled out going into power with was Fianna Fail. Martin responded that the people were sick of this politics of power. Gilmore fought back accusing Martin of wanting to forget that Fianna Fail was in power for the last 13 years and did Martin know the damage done to ordinary people. This was the best clash of the second half and Gilmore finally seemed to be getting into his stride just as the debate was ending.
This debate could have been Hamlet without the prince with Enda Kenny fleeing to the other side of the country to avoid it. Certainly whatever concerns Enda Kenny had about Brown as moderator did not materialise as if anything Brown was bullied by the two candidates which actually made for a better debate in the first half. Kenny’s presence would only have detracted from this debate.
So on balance after reviewing this debate in both style and substance I have to say Martin is the clear winner with a score of 82. He was better on the facts and figures. He seemed to have a better understanding of the plight of ordinary people. And he was stylistically aggressive throughout. Gilmore never really got going in the first half and the second half was very fragmented. I score him 73.
Rabu, 09 Februari 2011
PIDC 2011
Hello everyone!
The University of the Philippines Debate Society and the Philippine Daily Inquirer is hosting the Philippine Inter-collegiate Debating Championship 2011 on April 6-11, 2011 here in UP Diliman Campus, Philippines. Around 300+ students from all over the Philippines including some Southeast Asian affiliates are coming to the largest Asians Parliamentary tournament in the country. We are glad to announce that we have slots for international teams interested in coming to Manila to debate with us.
You may check our tournament profile through this link: http://issuu.com/pidc2011/
Yours truly,
Alistair Zosa
Communications Director
PIDC 2011
The University of the Philippines Debate Society and the Philippine Daily Inquirer is hosting the Philippine Inter-collegiate Debating Championship 2011 on April 6-11, 2011 here in UP Diliman Campus, Philippines. Around 300+ students from all over the Philippines including some Southeast Asian affiliates are coming to the largest Asians Parliamentary tournament in the country. We are glad to announce that we have slots for international teams interested in coming to Manila to debate with us.
You may check our tournament profile through this link: http://issuu.com/pidc2011/
Yours truly,
Alistair Zosa
Communications Director
PIDC 2011
ESU Debate Academy 2011
The ESU is pleased to invite you to the 2011 Debate Academy. Registration is now open, and places are going fast! Go to www.esu.org/debateacademy/ for more information and to register online. Please do not hesitate to email kallina.basli@esu.org with any enquiries.
I hope to see you at Debate Academy this summer!
Kallina
ESU DEBATE ACADEMY
Debate Academy brings over 100 students - aged 14 to 18 - from across the world together for a residential summer course. The programme offers coaching in debate to all ability levels delivered by some of the best coaches and debaters in the world. Whether you have little or no experience or are gearing up for the trials for your national debating team, Debate Academy has something to offer you.
ESU World Schools Academy 2011
Dates: 20th – 25th July 2011
Venue: Oakham School, Rutland, UK
Registration Fee: £350 per student (includes 5 nights full-board accommodation)
What to expect:
- six days of intense training in the World Schools format;
- beginner, intermediate and advanced streams;
- training delivered by our expert faculty, including former WSDC winners and coaches of national teams. See the website for more information!
Ten reasons why you should come to the ESU Debate Academy 2011:
- A range of workshops tailored to your level.
- Coaching by exceptional faculty – check the website to see who will be teaching you!
- A range of debate resources developed by the ESU that you can take away with you.
- Learn about successful competitive debating strategies.
- Attend cutting edge lectures on key topics that every debater should know about. Talk to, debate with and question students from some of the best universities in the UK.
- Take part in at least 5 debates and receive in depth feedback from the judges.
- Practice communication and personal skills, including critical thinking skills and developing the confidence to speak in public - useful no matter where you find yourself later in life.
- Accommodation in the beautiful and safe environment of the Oakham School, all meals and snacks, and all teaching resources are included in your registration fee.
- A range of social activities where students can meet, hang out, and have fun with other debaters from across the world.
- It’s a lot of fun! Don’t take our word for it, read through the testimonials on the website and make up your own mind!
Go to www.esu.org/debateacademy/ now!
Selasa, 08 Februari 2011
NUI Galway EUDC 2011 - Registration Information
We are delighted to announce the countdown to NUI Galway EUDC 2011 has well and truly begun. The eagerly awaited first phase of registration will open on Wednesday the 23rd of February which is just over 2 weeks away. As we all know, the team cap will fill up very quickly therefore we are quite clear that registration will open at exactly 12 noon GMT. (12pm Galway, London, Lisbon. 1pm Paris, Amsterdam Berlin. 2pm Athens, Ankara, Tallinn. 3pm Moscow, Doha) Registration will remain open for 1 week from the 23rd.
Only institutions need register in this first phase as independent judges will be asked to register 2 weeks later on the 9th of March.
As we are conscious of the time factor the details that you will be required to submit have been reduced to 5 so as to make the process as quick as possible. Those details are
- Institution Name
- Country
- Delegate Leaders Name
- Contact Email
- Number of teams and judges registering.
As announced, the team cap will be 200 and 3 teams per institution. Requests for extra teams must be made by email before the 9th of March and will be dealt with after the waiting list has been exhausted. As in previous years, while registration places will be allocated on the basis of the order in which they registered, one team spot will be reserved per eligible country.
Once institutions have successfully registered they will then have 4 weeks to transfer a deposit of €50 per person. This will be a non-refundable mandatory payment and must be made before the 23rd of March. Failure to pay this deposit on time will result in removal from the registration list and waiting teams will be given the opportunity to take the vacant places. Institutions may opt to pay the full amount of €265 at this stage if they please. The balance will otherwise need to be paid by the 27th of April.
The registration programme can be accessed through our website http://www.galwayeudc2011.ie/ and any further details or questions can be addressed to registration@galwayeudc2011.ie
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Registration Team
Galway EUDC 2011
Only institutions need register in this first phase as independent judges will be asked to register 2 weeks later on the 9th of March.
As we are conscious of the time factor the details that you will be required to submit have been reduced to 5 so as to make the process as quick as possible. Those details are
- Institution Name
- Country
- Delegate Leaders Name
- Contact Email
- Number of teams and judges registering.
As announced, the team cap will be 200 and 3 teams per institution. Requests for extra teams must be made by email before the 9th of March and will be dealt with after the waiting list has been exhausted. As in previous years, while registration places will be allocated on the basis of the order in which they registered, one team spot will be reserved per eligible country.
Once institutions have successfully registered they will then have 4 weeks to transfer a deposit of €50 per person. This will be a non-refundable mandatory payment and must be made before the 23rd of March. Failure to pay this deposit on time will result in removal from the registration list and waiting teams will be given the opportunity to take the vacant places. Institutions may opt to pay the full amount of €265 at this stage if they please. The balance will otherwise need to be paid by the 27th of April.
The registration programme can be accessed through our website http://www.galwayeudc2011.ie/ and any further details or questions can be addressed to registration@galwayeudc2011.ie
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Registration Team
Galway EUDC 2011
Round Robin Invitations Announced
The field of competitors for the 2011 HWS / IDEA Round Robin:
Edinburgh
Hart House
Leiden
Manila
McGill
MIT
Oxford Univ.
National Univ. of Singapore
Stanford
UCD Law
Univ. of New South Wales
UVM
Wits
Yale (2 teams)
Leiden
Manila
McGill
MIT
Oxford Univ.
National Univ. of Singapore
Stanford
UCD Law
Univ. of New South Wales
UVM
Wits
Yale (2 teams)
Applications to adjudicate are due on February 14.
Contact Eric Barnes (barnes@hws.edu)
La Salle IV 2011
I am very honoured to announce that the *La Salle Debate Society *will be hosting the the 2nd La Salle IV from April 29 to May 1, 2011.
*This is the pre-UADC tournament you do not want to miss!*
The La Salle IV will be contested in the Asians Parliamentary Debate Format , with 5 preliminary rounds, and break rounds from the Quarter Finals to the Grand Final round.
The Chief Adjudicator of the La Salle IV is none other than our very own, Lucinda David! DCAs of the tournament will be announced as soon as we receive their confirmation.
We have a tournament cap of 70 teams, and we are strictly enforcing the n-1 rule. Institutions may send as many teams as they want granted that they follow this rule.
Aside from flying-in an international adj core, we are waiving registration fees for 9 qualified
adjudicators. Our CA will be announcing details regarding this matter in the coming weeks.
Registration fee costs 1,500 Philippine Pesos per individual. That is less than 35 US Dollars! Registration fee covers lunch and PM snacks for three days, the Breaknight Party and the Championship Dinner. We are working with our partner hotels to give us a good rate for participants requiring accommodations during the tournament.
Registration opens on February 15, 2011, Tuesday at 10 AM, GMT +8. We encourage teams to register early as slots are limited. For more information, please visit www.dlsuworlds.com. You may also join the La Salle IV group on facebook for quick updates, or you may e-mail me at gabriel.pavico@dlsuworlds.com for queries or if you want to go surfing with us after the tournament ;)
See you soon!
Gabriel Romeo Ferriols Pavico
Convenor
La Salle IV 2011
+63.917.592.5592
+63.2.524.4611 local 376
*This is the pre-UADC tournament you do not want to miss!*
The La Salle IV will be contested in the Asians Parliamentary Debate Format , with 5 preliminary rounds, and break rounds from the Quarter Finals to the Grand Final round.
The Chief Adjudicator of the La Salle IV is none other than our very own, Lucinda David! DCAs of the tournament will be announced as soon as we receive their confirmation.
We have a tournament cap of 70 teams, and we are strictly enforcing the n-1 rule. Institutions may send as many teams as they want granted that they follow this rule.
Aside from flying-in an international adj core, we are waiving registration fees for 9 qualified
adjudicators. Our CA will be announcing details regarding this matter in the coming weeks.
Registration fee costs 1,500 Philippine Pesos per individual. That is less than 35 US Dollars! Registration fee covers lunch and PM snacks for three days, the Breaknight Party and the Championship Dinner. We are working with our partner hotels to give us a good rate for participants requiring accommodations during the tournament.
Registration opens on February 15, 2011, Tuesday at 10 AM, GMT +8. We encourage teams to register early as slots are limited. For more information, please visit www.dlsuworlds.com. You may also join the La Salle IV group on facebook for quick updates, or you may e-mail me at gabriel.pavico@dlsuworlds.com for queries or if you want to go surfing with us after the tournament ;)
See you soon!
Gabriel Romeo Ferriols Pavico
Convenor
La Salle IV 2011
+63.917.592.5592
+63.2.524.4611 local 376
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)