Irish Times: Information for Competitors

The Irish Times Debate by Rossa Fanning

Convenor 2000-2001,
Introduction
Whether you are an experienced Irish Times speaker, or a novice, you are likely to have questions about the competition’s format and timetable, the difference between the Irish Times and other competitions, the way to approach Irish Times motions, and the way in which debates are adjudicated.

Even if you feel that you have seen it all before, there are some important changes to this year’s competition, most fundamentally, the addition of a new second round and the introduction of criteria governing eligibility of adjudicators, all of which are detailed here.

This guide should provide you with all the information that you need. It may be helpful to retain a copy throughout the duration of the competition for reference. This guide, and other information about the competition, is available at http://www.debating.net/flynn

Competition Structure
This year sees an important change to the structure of the competition. There are more first round debates than before, and more speakers will qualify out of every first round debate. Every speaker participating has a better chance of progressing to the next round, the new second round. This will hopefully be viewed as an improvement in the format.

There are 16 first round debates, each including around 8-10 teams of two speakers.

2 teams and 2 individual speakers will qualify from each debate for the second round. The 32 teams and 32 individuals who qualify for the second round will be divided into 8 second round debates, each with 4 teams and 4 individuals.

From each second round debate, 2 teams and 2 individuals will qualify for the semi-finals.

At the semi-final stage, the 16 teams and 16 individuals will be divided into 4 semi-finals, each containing 4 teams and 4 individuals. From each semi-final, 1 team and 1 individual qualify for the final.

At the final, the winning team and winning individual speaker are chosen, The prize for the winners is an all-expenses-paid debating tour of U.S. Universities.

Logistics
q The only information that you need to compete is an order paper. At the first round stage, you will be selected by your union or society to compete in a particular debate, as DIT C, UCC Philosoph F, TCD Hist A or something similar. The number has no significance, and will be replaced by your names, at the first round debate.
q The order paper will detail the motion, your speaking position, and the time and place of the debate. On each order paper, a meeting point will be specified (sometimes a reception venue, sometimes the actual debate venue) for 30 minutes prior to the scheduled commencement of the debate. The debate will start punctually, and without you, so be there at the specified time. Allow margin for error if it is your first time travelling to the venue.
q Each debate is hosted by a particular society or union in the relevant college. They are responsible for providing you with directions, and information on travel and accommodation in the location where the debate is taking place. A contact person and a contact telephone number in the host college are supplied on each order paper, if you need any help.
q Notwithstanding this, it is your own responsibility to arrange transport and accommodation for each debate. The college or society that you represent will often make some arrangement with you about defraying your costs. Discuss the matter with them.
q Once the competition starts, details of results, and the draw for subsequent rounds will be available on the website, as soon as they are available -
q The order papers for the subsequent rounds will not be posted to speakers, but to the society or union that you are representing. If you qualify for a subsequent round, your society or union is responsible for passing on the details to you, though you can access them yourself on the website.

Format of Debates
There is a necessary distinction in format between first round debates, and all subsequent debates.

The First Round
In a first round debate with 8 teams (an average number), 4 teams will propose the motion, and 4 teams will oppose the motion, beginning with the proposition, and speaking alternately, one member of a team at a time. Thus, at the half-way point, the first speaker from each team will have spoken. The second half of the debate follows the same order, with the second member of each team speaking in the same sequence. Thus, in a debate with 8 teams, the order of speaking would be as follows:-

(1) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 1 (2) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 1
(3) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 2 (4) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 2
(5) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 3 (6) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 3
(7) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 4 (8) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 4
(9) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 1 (10) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 1
(11) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 2 (12) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 2
(13) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 3 (14) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 3
(15) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 4 (16) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 4

Subsequent Rounds
Each of these debates will feature 4 teams, and 4 individual speakers. 2 teams and 2 individuals are on each side of the motion. The first member of each team speaks first, then the four individuals, then the second member of the four teams. The order paper will thus be:

(1) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 1 (2) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 1
(3) Speaker 1, Proposition Team 2 (4) Speaker 1, Opposition Team 2
(5) Proposition Individual 1 (6) Opposition Individual 1
(7) Proposition Individual 2 (8) Opposition Individual 2
(9) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 1 (10) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 1
(11) Speaker 2, Proposition Team 2 (12) Speaker 2, Opposition Team 2


Competition Rules
Speeches are of 7 minutes duration. A bell is rung after 1 minute, after 6 minutes, and after 7 minutes, when there is a double bell. Speakers who continue for longer than 30 seconds after this point will be penalised.

Points of Information may be offered from the end of the first minute (when the first bell rings) and until the sixth minute elapses (when the second bell rings). They may only be offered by participating speakers on the opposing side of the debate. To offer a point of information, a speaker should stand up and clearly say “Point of Information” in such a way as to attract the attention of the speaker. A point of information should be no more than 10 seconds in length, and should either take the form of a question, or a brief statement of fact that undermines the speaker’s current point. Accepting points of information is entirely a matter of the speaker’s discretion.

Speakers must be current registered students in the College which they are representing. Any third level educational institution can participate.

Entry fees must be paid in full for the institution before any team is permitted to speak. If you are in doubt as to whether these have been paid, check with your sociey or union.

Debates will start punctually. If you are not there at the commencement of the debate, the order paper will be re-organized and the debate will begin. At that stage it may be impossible for you to participate if you arrive late.

Dress Code
Informal for the first and second round. Formal (black tie) for both semi-finals and final.

Who are the Adjudicators ?
A debating competition is only as good as the persons judging it. Competitors have a legitimate concern about the quality of the judges. Adjudicators of the competition will only be persons of demonstrated ability and experience in competitive debating.

Specifically, this means that first and second round adjudicators will have:
ü reached a National Final (Times/Mace), or
ü reached the final of a major International Intervarsity Competition (Oxford, Glasgow, Strathclyde, Cambridge), or
ü reached the knock-out stages in the World Universities Debating Championships, or
ü acquired extensive chief-adjudicating experience at International Intervarsity and World Championship Debate level.

Adjudicators at semi-final and final stages:
ü will have done at least two of the above, and
ü will have won a National Title, a major International Intervarsity Competition, or reached at least the quarter-finals of the World Championships.

Each adjudication panel will contain graduates from at least two different colleges
· This is the first year that criteria for choosing adjudicators have been made explicit prior to the competition. The idea is that having strict criteria, and making them public at the outset of the competition is in the best interests of the stature and credibility of the competition. If, on any occasion a competitor feels that the adjudicating panel at an Irish Times debate falls short of these criteria, please speak to the Convenor about it. You are entitled to an explanation.


Adjudication Criteria
Adjudicating debates is an inexact science. Experience shows that the only protection against irrationality or subjectivity is an experienced and qualified panel of adjudicators.

Whilst no specific marking scheme is used, and many adjudicators will legitimately disagree on what wins debates, some points are so commonly understood and accepted that they verge on the axiomatic, and are offered here as general guidelines.

Cardinal Rules

Ø Every aspect of your participation in a debate should be directed towards persuading the audience and adjudicators to either support or reject the motion, according to what side you are on.

Ø Always try and present your argument as being more reasonable than that of your opponent. (“The-always-compare-the-opposition-to-Hitler-rule”) Even if you really are in favour of assasinating Tony Blair, this isn’t likely to be a winning argument in a debate on New Labour.


10 Vital Components of a Sucessful Speech
1. Argument
The basis of every successful speech is a coherent argument. A successful speaker will always have a clear argument which is continuously impressed upon the adjudicators in a convincing fashion. The ability to address earlier contributions while remaining original is an important balance to strike in the presentation of an argument. An argument must make an impact while remaining logical. A chain of thought and clear progression is important to avoid losing the audience. This is best done by having a clear structure.

2. Content
Content distinguishes a good argument from an array of unsupported assertions. Content should be relevant, interesting and ideally, innovative. In a debate on an ethical or moral issue, little research may be required, but on a specific economic or political topic, extensive reading may be necessary unless you are particularly well-informed in that area. “Specialist” arguments based on knowledge acquired in your particular academic discipline are not welcome (and probably not very interesting if you are a neurophysics PhD) - the content that you use in any debate should be available in popularly read quality current affairs material, from The Irish Times to The Economist.

3. Fluency
A good speech must be delivered fluently with minimal use of notes. A fluent speaker will be more persuasive as he/she will appear to be more convinced of the truth of what they are saying. Never forget that a debate is an argument with rules, not an exchange of position papers. Reading is not debating and will be penalised by any adjudication panel.

4. Refutation/Rebuttal
This is the ability to effectively attack the critical point of an opponents position, while retaining your own argument and structure. It is critical to undermine the arguments of opposing speakers and this should be incorporated into your own speech. If you deliver a pre-prepared speech for five minutes, and then say “now for some rebuttal” you are missing the point. The whole point of your participation is to undermine the stance taken by the opposite side - as you are making your own points you should refer to the weaknesses that they expose in the opposition’s case.

5. Humour
Humour can help you to win over an audience and can make your speech stand out from the rest. Frequently, the most effective use of humour is as a tool to ridicule the position of your opponents. Remember though, that while a successful stand-up routine might persuade an audience or adjudication panel that a speaker has a great sense of humour, unless there is a point to it, it is irrelevant and a waste of time.

6. Style and Presentation
This is a general heading incorporating a speaker’s general competence as an orator. It includes conviction, humour, presence, gesture, tone, eye contact, a clear and audible delivery, and freedom from notes. Many of the best speakers have quite a quite a distinctive style. Obvious stylistic weaknesses, such as speaking too softly or loudly, too quickly or in monotone will detract from an otherwise strong performance.

7. Points of Information
A speaker is not obliged to accept points of information but it is recommended that speakers accept 2 or 3 points during a speech. They should be accepted at an appropriate time, - never in the middle of outlining a particular argument or example - and answered decisively. Refusal to accept any points, or failure to answer them undermines your argument, as you appear unwilling or unable to defend it from attack. Accepting 4 or more points of information is generally regarded as unwise, as it will excessively distract you from the central purpose of offering your own argument. Your speech is not a question-and-answer session.

Each speaker should offer points of information throughout the duration of the debate. They should be short and directly relevant to the point that the speaker is currently making. Abuse of this facility so as to upset or distract a speaker, by continually offering points at short intervals (“barracking”), or by offering points at an inappropriate time - when a speaker is patently only introducing or outlining the basis of his argument - will be heavily penalised.

8. Teamwork
A team speaker will be judged as such. A successful team will have a coherent argument which unifies both of their speeches. The first speaker in a team should set out the argument of the team with supporting examples and the second speaker should defend it, by showing how the arguments that have been offered in the intervening time have not effectively undermined the team line, as set out by the first speaker. If the second speaker for a team departs from his/her partner’s argument, he/she will be heavily penalised.

9. Individual Speakers
In the subsequent rounds of the Irish Times there are individual speakers as well as teams. The individual speakers are “sandwiched” in the middle of the debate, and the principal arguments will typically have been made by the first speaker on each of the teams. Because they have no team-mate to reiterate their argument, it is often the case that successful individuals will in some way add a novel dimension or perspective to the debate. There is an important distinction between novelty and irrelevance - an individual will not be rewarded for introducing completely different subject matter, but a new argument, or a reworked version of an existing argument, used to prove the same point, will be welcome.


10. Order of Speaking
Different responsibilities attach to different positions on the order paper.

The first proposition speaker has the specific responsibility of defining the motion, and explaining what he/she believes is at issue in the debate.

The first opposition speaker may respond to this definition, but should in almost every case, accept it and work with it. Only in the very rare situation of a “squirrel” (where the proposition have defined the motion in such an unreasonable fashion that their definition bears no relation to any meaning that could reasonably be ascribed to the text of the motion) is the opposition entitled to disregard the definition offered by the proposition, and substitute their own definition.

Thereafter, the first speaker from each team should clearly state what that team will seek to argue. Although what is at issue in the debate should now be apparent, each team is free to adopt its own different arguments, different structure and different examples to argue their side of the motion.

As a general rule, the later a speaker is on an order paper, the greater the responsibility to refute arguments already made, and the lesser the responsibility to introduce new material. Indeed, the last speakers for the proposition and the opposition should sum up the arguments made by all of the speakers on their side of the motion and rebut the arguments of the opposing teams. They should not introduce new arguments - rather, they should confine themselves to reiterating the arguments advanced by their teammate.

Types of Debate
All debates in the Competition are “prepared” - speakers will have notice of the motion, usually for over a week.

Because of this it is generally regarded as inappropriate to have “vague” motions that have no apparent meaning, and could be interpreted as any one of an infinite number of possibilities by the first proposition team. Thus, there are no motions such as “That This House would look before it leaps” or “That This House believes the glass is half-empty” which are so beloved of impromptu-style competitions. The reason is that this practice defeats the object of having preparation time, and also offers the first proposition team a large advantage, as they are the only team going into the debate who know what the issue to be discussed is.

Irish Times motions normally posit a relatively clear issue. For example, to take a hackneyed topic that will certainly not be part of this year’s competition, “That This House would Ban Boxing”, it can readily be seen that the issues, and the arguments are straightforward and apparent. That is the tradition of Irish Times motions. Adopting an unusual definition - in the above case defining the debate as being concerned with banning the boxing of fruit - perhaps because of damage to rainforests caused by the demand for wood to make the boxes - impresses nobody and will almost certainly backfire. The first opposition team, in an Irish Times debate would be entitled to disregard this definition, and substitute their more conventional understanding of the motion.

To the extent that there is any ambigouity at all in the motion “That this House would Ban Boxing”, that ambigouity is contrived. The motions chosen for the competition seek to avoid cases of genuine ambigouity which might be caused by a motion such as “This House supports the right to strike”, which could be legitimately defined in the very different settings of labour relations, corporal punishment, or military initiatives.

If you are in any doubt, the best tactic in any Irish Times debate is to tackle the most obvious and straightforward meaning of the motion. That way, you are certain to be in the thick of the debate, and not on the sidelines.

Motions usually deal with a particular political, moral, religious, economic or international issue. The quid pro quo for having time to prepare, is an expectation that you will be well-informed on the topic.


Conclusion
I hope these notes are of some use in helping you to prepare for your participation. I would like to acknowledge a number of people who have generously offered me their advice and assistance, in particular, Colm Flynn, Caoilfhionn Gallagher, Ian Walsh, Bernadette Quigley and Adrian Langan. I hope you enjoy the experience of competing as much as I did, and I wish you the very best of luck.

Qatar Debate Academy

QatarDebate, a member of the Qatar Foundation, will be hosting the Qatar  Debate Academy in Doha, Qatar from October 29-November 6 2009. The program is organized in cooperation with Za in Proti Slovenia and the World Debate Institute of the University of Vermont. The program will focus on the development of debate in new countries, creating a meaningful international exchange and paving the way towards the World Schools Debating Championship in Qatar in February 2010.


"Southwest Asia is a prime candidate for the expansion of debating,"  said Alfred Snider of the World Debate Institute, "and Qatar is the ideal site and host for such an event. Their determination to promote debating and open civil discourse in this region is impressive and groundbreaking. I am inspired by Dr. Hayat Maarafi's vision of expanded debating in this part of the world. I hope that we can really spark some important debate development in these countries as well as expose them to more established debating trainers, nations and teams. We are expecting over 240 people at this event."


GOALS

The goals of the Qatar Debate Academy include:

* Preparing students and trainers from new debating countries for future participation in WSDC Qatar 2010 and in their home countries.
* Preparing Qatar students and teachers for involvement in debating in Qatar and internationally.
* Preparing judges for future debate competitions, especially WSDC Qatar 2010.
* Preparing teachers to be able to form debate clubs, train students and host tournaments.
* Demonstrating Qatar's ability to host a major debate event.
* Prepare Qatar schools for the experience of hosting debates as part of WSDC Qatar 2010.

DATES

Arrival 29-30 October 2009
Instruction and competition 31 October-5 November 2009
Departure 6 November 2009

FACULTY AND STAFF

Planning and Implementation
Dr. Hayat Maarafi, convener
Dr. Alfred Snider, program planning & tournament administration
Bojana Skrt, curriculum planning
Kelley Bieringer, implementation planning

Adjudication Core
This group will work with teachers and others on judging skills and prepare them for judging at WSDC Qatar and at the tournament at the end of this program. They will meet with judges after judging experiences to properly process their learning. They will also come up with approximately 20 prepared and impromptu motions for use in the tournament, practice debates and exercises.

Chris Erskine, Australia
Simon Quinn, Oxford University, UK

Faculty
Alex Campbell, USA
Piyanart Faktangporn, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
Loke Wing Fatt, SAID, Singapore
Sam Greenland, University of Sydney, Australia
Rhydian Morgan, Stylus Communications, UK
Sam Nelson, Cornell University, USA
Debbie Newman, UK
Erin O'Brien, University of Queensland, Australia
Omar Salahuddin bin Abdullah, MultiMedia University, Malaysia
Bilal Siddiqi, Pakistan
Bojana Skrt, ZIP, Slovenia
Alfred Snider, University of Vermont, USA
Miranda Weigler, St. Andrews University, Scotland

CURRICULUM

There will be several tracks at the event:

* For students from debating countries new and old
* For teachers and trainers from new debating countries
* For judges preparing for WSDC 2010
* For Qatari students and teachers

The curriculum will use the training model previously used at the International Debate Academy, the World Schools Debate Academy and the World Debate Institute. Features of this model include:

* Intense preparation and work environment
* Limited lectures on essential topics
* Active exercises and drills to teach debate skills in small group settings
* Repetition of activities to promote skill development
* Practice debates with lengthy and specific critiques
 
Watch for more information as we get closer to the event.

Contacts:
Kelley Bieringer kbieringer@qf.org.qa
Alfred Snider alfred.snider@uvm.edu
Bojana Skrt bojana.skrt@siol.net

Videos from Australs

Logan (from Korea) and Alfred "Tuna" Snider have published some videos from the recent Austral Asian Debating Championships.

To view them (and many other debating videos) visit http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/

WSDC Sponsored Adjudicators

Hi everyone,

We have, in consultation with the Chief Adjudicators' Panel, now decided the 30 adjudicators who will receive sponsored positions at next year's World Schools Championships. We attach the list.

Principles for the decision

We would like to thank everyone for applying for these positions. We received 141 applications from 38 countries, and the standard of applications was generally outstanding. Of the 141 applicants, 65 have adjudicated previously at WSDC, of whom two have served as Chief Adjudicator, five have been members of the Chief Adjudicators' Panel and more than a dozen have judged grand finals or semi-finals of the championship. The final decision was therefore a very difficult one.

You will recall that we earlier circulated a summary of the "principles for assessing applications for sponsored adjudication positions", which we attach again now. That document set out a three-step procedure for selecting the 30 adjudicators, designed to balance two criteria: choosing the most experienced and competent judges, and choosing judges to reflect cultural and other diversity within the championships. The three-step procedure was: (i) we decided whether an applicant was likely to be assessed as suitable to judge from Round One; (ii) we ranked adjudicators according to proven adjudication experience and demonstrated competence, and selected the first 10 on that list; and (iii) we assigned the remaining 20 places on the basis of the same list, but so that no applicant was selected from a country already represented in the list. This procedure was followed without exception.

In assessing "proven adjudication experience and demonstrated competence", we were closely guided by objective measures of adjudication experience --- for example, experience as a Chief Adjudicator of WSDC, experience as a member of the Chief Adjudicators' Panel of WSDC, experience in judging finals rounds at WSDC, other experience at WSDC, outstanding experience at other debating tournaments, etc.

In the case of applicants eligible to be associated with more than one country, we took an applicant's own preferred affiliation as the relevant affiliation unless the applicant's background showed a significant affiliation with another nation as well as, or instead of, the applicant's preferred affiliation. This approach was already set out in the selection principles. In applying this principle, we decided that (i) an applicant would be entitled to claim affiliation with his or her country of nationality, and (ii) an applicant would also be considered eligible for a different country only if the applicant had a significant and ongoing relationship with debating in that country. Several applicants listed countries of affiliation that, in our opinion, did not meet this second test; in that case, we nonetheless considered the application, under the applicant's country of nationality. Several applicants were eligible for affiliation with more than one country.

Should a sponsored adjudicator withdraw before the tournament, we intend -- with the Chief Adjudicators' Panel -- to apply similar criteria, as far as possible, in order to select a replacement.

An invitation to Qatar

Even though we were not able to select everybody who applied, almost all applicants were assessed as likely to be able to judge from Round One in Qatar. We would, therefore, like to encourage everybody to come to Qatar as adjudicators for national delegations. Please remember that QatarDebate intends to pay for the full registrations of eight people from each country, which will include debaters, coaches and adjudicators. In addition, QatarDebate intends that any unused registrations from a country will be pooled and made available to additional adjudicators from other countries. If you are eligible for free registration, you will therefore need only to pay the airfare.

We were particularly impressed by the large number of applications from recent participants who were keen to return to the championship and to continue their contribution to it. While many of these applicants may not currently have the proven experience of some applicants who were selected, we would like particularly to encourage them to adjudicate in the championship in future years, including in Qatar.

Next steps

The 30 adjudicators chosen for sponsored positions will be contacted in due course by QatarDebate to organise details for flights, etc. Please let us know as soon as possible if you have been chosen for a sponsored position but are unable to attend; please also let us know if you change your e-mail address.

General registration for the tournament -- including registration for adjudicators --will open soon, once the tournament website is launched. We will look forward to contacting you again once this is ready.

And, most importantly, we look forward to seeing you in Qatar!

Regards,
Simon Quinn and Chris Erskine (Chief Adjudicators, WSDC 2010)

World Online Debating Championships Round 2

Round 2 of the World Online Debating Championships is currently ongoing.  I have to judge one debate later today.  If you are interested in reading the debates you can find them below.

(USA V RSA) http://www.debatewise.com/debates/1047


(England V India) http://www.debatewise.com/debates/1048

(Bulgaria V Latvia) http://www.debatewise.com/debates/1049

(South Korea V Bangladesh) http://www.debatewise.com/debates/1050

(Pakistan V Estonia) http://www.debatewise.com/debates/1051

(Lithuania V Canada) http://www.debatewise.com/debates/1052

(Indonesia V Mexico) http://www.debatewise.com/debates/1053

(Scotland V Venezuela) http://www.debatewise.com/debates/1054

Results from NZ Universities' Prepared Debating Champs

Here are the results from the 107th annual New Zealand Universities' Prepared Debating Champs for the Joynt Scroll, held over the weekend of 28-31 August and hosted by Otago University.

Winners of the Joynt Scroll: Victoria University of Wellington One (Seb Templeton, Stephen Whittington, Ella Edginton)

Runners-Up: Auckland University One (Akif Malik, Max Harris, Glenn Riddell)

President's Cup for Best Speaker: Stephen Whittington (Victoria One)

NZ Universities' Prepared Debating Team: Stephen Whittington, Kathy Scott Dowell (Victoria University Two), Max Harris (Captain)

Reserves to the NZ Universities' Prepared Debating Team: Ella Edginton, Richard D'Ath (Victoria University Two)

Highly Commended speakers: Seb Templeton, Stephanie Thompson (Auckland University Two), Glenn Riddell

Russell McVeagh Cup for Most Promising Speaker: Udayan Mukherjee (Victoria University Four)

Centennial Cup for Best Adjudicator: Simon Connell (Otago University)

Bledisloe Prize for Oratory: Briony Bennett (Auckland University)

1st Asian BP Tournament

This is the first informal public announcement about the 1st Asian BP Intervarsity Debating Championships 2009. As Chulalongkorn IV 2009 Debating Championship has just been over, we are now clearing the budget. The website of the tournament will be set up soon and the formal invitation letter will be sent to you all.

It is our honour to welcome you to Chulalongkorn. We wish you all can make it.

Initiators: Tate, Logan, Sharm, Tj and Piyanart
Host: Chulalongkorn University
Advisor: Assistant Professor Piyanart Faktorngpan
Convener: Pacharaporn Panomwon Na Ayutthaya [Paeng]
Date: November 20 - 23, 2009
Venue: Chulalongkorn University
Phayathai Road Bangkok, Thailand

Adjudication Core:
CA: Tj [Asian rep for WUDC, CA UADC]
DCA: Tate [DCA Worlds 2011]
Logan [CA Worlds 2011]
Sharmila [DCA Austral 2010]
Julia Bowles [DCA Austral 2010
Will Jones [DCA Worlds 2010]
*More invited DCA and adjudicators to be announced

Registration Fee: USD 85 per team [N1] / Online registration/ *Free registration fee and free accommodation for invited adjudicators
Team Cap: 100 teams

Three teams per university
*Non-Asian teams are welcome as non-breaking teams

Tournament Details: 1 mock round, 6 prelims, Octos, Quarters/EFL Semis, EFL Final, Grand Final
[Tentative] 3 lunches and Break Night

Accommodation: Bangkok Centre Hotel [recommended, special deal offered]
*In the heart of Bangkok, only one MRT station from Chula
Online registration [first come first served]
500 baht/person/night with breakfast
[1,000 baht for a double room, 1,500 baht for a triple room]

BANGKOK CENTRE HOTEL
328 Rama IV Road, Bangkok, Thailand, 10500
Tel. : (662) 238-4848-57 # 266
Fax : (662) 639-0794
Email : info@bangkokcentrehotel.com
http://www.bangkokcentrehotel.com/


FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Pacharaporn: panomwonp@gmail.com
Please visit the official website: http://www.debate.chula.ac.th/ for registration and detials

Kyiv Open Update

From Facebook:

Dear friends,



I'd like to remind you there's not much time left to register. And not so many places left (for humans, at least).


http://debate.org.ua/category/KYIV-OPEN/


Hope to see you all in Kiev,
Co-convenor
Kira Shymanska