Have you checked the indodebate blog out?

Check http://indodebate.blogspot.com out!

Some very up-to-date news on our debating scene, plus some great comments from its author, Ahmad Sukarsono (a.k.a Bubu), onee of EDS-UI's founders.

NDC-NES 2011 Results

SEF ITB sent 2 teams to NDC-NES 2011 at UnPad.

Team A (Muhammad Pandu, Luthfi Abdurrahman, Melliza Pretty Utami) won the tournament.
Team B (Rifan Ibnu Rahman, Fathir Ramadhan, Farah Fitriana) placed 2nd.

Pandu was 1st best speaker
Uphie 2nd best
Rifan & Farah tied for 3rd
Mel placed 5th
Dani was 6th

In the last four years we have always been in the finals, winning 3 out of 4. Let's hope we can achieve the same with upcoming tournaments like ALSA UI.

Australs Recording

On 2008, there were only two Indonesian teams at Ateneo Australs. On 2009, there were only three Indonesian teams at Monash Australs. I was there in Manila, and it was only recently I remember that I have some audio recordings from the Australs 2008 knock off rounds. If you are interested, I have them at my other page in Google Sites.

The available recordings are from the following rounds:

- ESL Semi Final, Assumption U. vs U. Indonesia, That industrialized nations should be forced to accept climate change refugees.

- ESL Final, U. Indonesia vs. IIU Malaysia, That the price of petrol should be determined entirely by the market.

- Quarter Final, Sydney (?) vs Vic (?), That low-income ethnic neighborhoods should be protected from gentrification.

- Semi Final, Monash 1 vs AdMU 1, That we would abolish the crime of statutory rape.

- Grand Final, U. of Sydney Union 1 vs Monash 1, That gun ownership should be restricted to law enforcement agencies.

Several notes on the file: there are 8 files for each debate, one for each speech. The numbering starts from Recording 0 for PM speech, to Recording 8 for Govt Reply. The files are in .AMR format (I recorded them with my SonyEricsson phone at that time), but here's a free nifty program to convert the audio files to .WAV format. The uncommon format, however, made the overall size of the files small enough and it therefore should save you a couple minutes in downloading them.

On another note, I saw that there are Semi Final, Final and ESL Final videos from Monash Australs 2009 at http://loganimal.blip.tv/ you might want to check that out.

I hope the people involved in the debates do not mind me sharing the files.

Worlds 2010 Results

Here's a repost of what Uphie sent to indodebaters mailing list, on the Indonesian teams result of Worlds Koc 2010. I say, congratulation is in order nonetheless, particularly to Pandu and Uphie!

Hi!

Just arrived home from Koc Worlds 2010 and would like to inform all of you the brief final results of Indonesian contingent's performance the tournament.

ATMA JAYA A - Denny Firmanto Halim & Joan Wicitra

Final Rank: 343rd (24th on the EFL tab) with 9 points and 1308 scores.

BANDUNG A - Muhammad Pandu & Luthfi Abdurrahman

Final Rank: 166th (17TH on the ESL tab: a fact for which I had a good, 3AM-in-the-morning cry) with 14 points and 1373 scores.

BINA NUSANTARA A - Rajkumar Narendra & Christian Leonardo

Final Rank: 181st (20th on the ESL tab) with 14 points and 1346 scores.

BINA NUSANTARA B - Bryan Gunawan & Winardi Christian

Final Rank: 283rd (11th on the EFL tab) with 11 points and 1317 scores.

Bryan Gunawan was 441st on the open speaker tab (6th on the EFL tab) with 667 scores. Bryan is the only Indonesian debater to snatch an award as top ten speaker in Koc Worlds 2010. Congratulations Bryan!!

DIKTI A - Prima Wikaningtyas & Aprilia Surya Kusuma Dewi

Final Rank: 350th (101st on the ESL tab) with 9 points and 1270 scores.

INDONESIA A - Tirza Reinata & Dewi Wijayanti

Final Rank: 176th (19th on the ESL tab) with 14 points and 1354 scores.

INDONESIA B - Astari Damia Ghassani & Freida Chaidir Kalang Siregar

Final Rank: 177th with 14 points and 1353 scores.

INDONESIA C - Angga Kho Meidy & Jonathan Marpaung

Final Rank: 260th (46th on the ESL tab) with 12 points and 1307 scores.

IU INDONESIA A - Widya Adi Nugroho & Heru Pamungkas

Final rank: 368th (33rd on the EFL tab) with 8 points and 1247 scores.

YOGYAKARTA A - Vitri Sekar Sari & Teddy Hendra

Final rank: 323rd (84th on the ESL tab) with 9 points 10 points and 1286 scores.

General results of the tournament are as follows. University of Sydney Union (Christopher Croke & Steve Hind) won the competition, while the crown of Worlds Best Speaker this year goes to Mr. Shengwu Li from the Oxford Union. ESL champion is Tel Aviv (Yoni Cohen and Uri Merhav) with Manos Moschopoulos from Athens as ESL best speaker. EFL Champion is MGIMO (Mikhail Sazonov & Maria Savostyanova with Filip Dobranic (who is also the ESL 3rd best speaker) from Ljubljana as the EFL best speaker.

The Masters Debate (with its finals turning ill) unfolds,
former World Champion the Canadians Joanna Nairn and Michael Kotrly
team Vanuatu (Derek Lande and Jason Rogers) as champion, perhaps due to their least controversial performance in a grand final that can be described as acrid; Josh from Griffiths won the best stand-up comedy, while Riva Gold from McGill snatched the trophy for World's Best Public Speaker.

Such are the results. Definitely a bit disappointing, but there's no use in overmourning it. It's new year's anyway, so everything's actually a boost-up to fuel better Indonesian performances (and constant attendances) in upcoming Worlds. Philippines' De La Salle University won the 2012 bid so it's worth our effort to plan Indonesian institutions' grand entry to one of the cheapest worlds ever (and a very close one, too).

For full tab (and speaker scores) please check out http:// worlddebating. blogspot. com. You can find the google-spreadsheet there.

Tab junkie,

Uphie

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

P.S.: Errata corrected per thread on the list.

Elaborating and Finding Philosophical Principles

I have gained this through philosophy; that I do without being commanded what others do only from the fear of law

-Aristotle

Four Elements of a Philosophical Point

Okay, disclaimer first. This guideline is not rigid. I’m not saying that you should always, all the time, 100%, adhere to these elements. This is something that you need to learn, yes. Something you may need to understand before you find a more flexible way, yes. You have to read this, yes. But in the end you decide. This method is, in my opinion, already flexible enough. In any way you want to deliver your principle, be it a linear explanation, be it a branchy one, be it a diverging or converging one, you can put these four elements into it.

Oh and this guide is something I design from watching gazillions of hours of WUDC, AUDC, EUDC and APDA debates. So it shouldn’t be that bad.

1.            Contextualization

This is where you pull a particular motion/debate/stance to a philosophical concept. You can’t, for example, just talk about freedom of speech or freedom of religion without explaining why your side has anything to do with those concepts.

Example:

“THW force Catholic adoption agencies to accept homosexual couples” [WUDC 08 Quarters]

You’re, for instance, posing as the opposition. You want to advocate for freedom of religion. You can’t just talk about freedom of religion without explaining which part of the motion harms freedom of religion.

You may firstly say:

“Homosexuals are believed as sinful by the Catholics. If you want to force Catholic agencies to accept homosexual couples, that means you’re forcing them to contradict with the values their own religious teachings believe.”

Only then can you move on to explaining why religion is something extremely important to people.

This is best done through practices and examples. But the bottom line is that if you directly talk about freedom of religion without explaining why you’re talking about it, it’s going to reduce the relevance and thus the strength of your philosophical principle.

2.            Importance for Subjects

This one is simple. Explain why the principle that you’re talking about is needed by individuals and the main subjects of the debate.

Let’s take the motion above.

You’re still negative. You’re explaining about freedom of religion.

“We can’t easily harm people’s rights to embrace their religious beliefs. Religion is something extremely important because it is a guidance, a purpose of life, it gives them peace of mind, religion is how people actualize themselves. The quality of life to most people isn’t just determined by worldly riches, but also the assurance that they gain virtue from God and go to heaven in the afterlife.”

This part is probably the most important part of a philosophical principle, although that depends a lot to what principle you’re trying to explain.

NOTE:   The subject is usually individuals and the people of one government. But in some cases like in international conflict motions, the subject may be a nation. Thus, you need to explain why one principle is important for nations.

3.            Importance for Governing Body

This part is quite similar to #2, but here you explain why one principle is important for a governing body to uphold and realize.

“By not upholding this principle, the government is being inconsistent with its own constitution which states that…”

“This is fundamental for a government because it is always the government’s duty to…”

“This principle cannot be interfered by the government because it’s in the private sphere of the people. The government can only intervene when it’s in public sphere…”

Link the principle to the constitution of one government, the laws that it adheres to, its aims and purposes, etc.

NOTE:   In international conflict motions, the governing body may be the United Nations. Nations may be the subjects instead of a governing body.

4.            Precedence

Consistency is the ground which all nations stand upon (well, almost always), so an example of a previous policy that is similar to the policy you’re proposing always helps your case a lot.

What precedence show:

-          This has been done before, thus it is CONSISTENT if we do a similar policy and otherwise inconsistent if we don’t

-          This has been done before, thus we CAN do it resource and approval wise

-          You’re smart and knowledgeable, thus what you say next would be listened more. Not to mention you might be able to intimidate your opponent and wow the crowd if your delivery on the precedence is strong. Okay, a bit of an exaggeration there

Example:

Let’s say you’re explaining about secularism.

“Some states in the United States have banned animal slaughter in the name of religion because of public health concerns. Some other states have banned the existence of religious schools for reasons of security and integration. Not to mention that religious laws are overridden by state laws in other secular countries. These precedence showed us that we can limit religious rights for the sake of public concern.”

Though you need to be careful not to implicitly say that “we want to do this just because other states have done so too.” Delivery matters and the previous three elements may need to be fulfilled first so that it doesn’t sound as if precedence is the only thing that you have without any supporting logic behind them.

 

Finding Philosophical Points

Now that you have a slight idea of how to deliver the point, let’s skim through some ways on how you can find a philosophical point.

Read. Yeah, read.

But anyway.

1.            Find out whether a proposal is in line or not in line with the principle and aim of one institution.

                - What are the purposes and duties of a democratic government? Is a particular proposal consistent or in line with them?

- What is the purpose of a public school, and is it in line with a particular proposal?

- Is the idea of voting in line with the purpose and function of the army?

- What are the purposes of a criminal punishment or a prison? Is a debated policy aimed to inmates in line with them?

- What are the ideologies that a nation believes in? Is it unregulated free market?  Is it a secular state? Does the corresponding policy contradict to one of them?

Once you’ve found one of them, you can analyze the logic behind that principle or aim that the particular institution upholds, and then explain them. Then get an 80 speaker score and bask in glory. Another exaggeration.

2.            Find out whether or not a policy is fair. Almost everything in a democratic government’s context is based on take and give; well at least that’s how a particular Sydney Union debater that took a doctorate degree in Social Contract said. Everyone that contributes in the same way to the state should be given back something that is equal to each other.

                But fairness may not stop at taking and giving. Sometimes you need to analyze who’s to blame for a particular damage done, and make the correct perpetrator/doer the one who would take full responsibility, not other subjects.

 

 

ITB IVED 2010

If you were around during the last IVED at UMY, then you must probably know already that ITB won the right to host IVED for next year. We're currently cooking up our plans precisely for this, but you'll still see us around.

Until we have a tournament website, watch this space!

Ah ha!