from our Editor... - International Debate Education Association

Transcription

I D E B A T E
/
V O L U M E
6
-
I S S U E
2
from our Editor...
Patrick Blanchfield
Welcome to a whole new year of IDEBATE!
What changes the winter has brought! IDEA
has a new website, a unique new resource
for the debate community (DebateTracker
- you’ll read about it in this issue!), new
network friends in China, Africa, and elsewhere, a new office, and new staff - in short,
we’re bursting with new plans to make international debating better than ever. This issue
of idebate recaps only a fraction of what has
happened this winter - read on for news
about developments in Kosovo, Egypt, and
Nigeria, and for a summary of The People
Speak initiative. In this issue, you’ll also find
articles on debate education contributed by
IDEA’s partners at Claremont-McKenna’s
Middle School Debate Program. The new
year promises to be quite an exciting one!
A new year can welcome many beginnings, but may also mark endings as well.
After five successful years, the South Eastern European Youth Leadership Initiative
(SEEYLI) has finally come to a close. Four
five years, SEEYLI has touched countless
lives, both through its hundreds of alumni
and the thousands of people who benefited
from their follow-ons. SEEYLI has formed
a fundamental part of IDEA’s work, and, to
celebrate it, we have begun to publish the
reminiscences of SEEYLI participants, and
to feature some notable-follow-ons. The
volume of feedback from SEEYLI alums
has been huge, so expect this reflection on
SEEYLI to extend to future issues.
On that note, I wanted to personally thank everyone
in the IDEA network for submitting content for the
magazine. We’ve definitely received a lot of articles - so
many, in fact, that a lot of things originally intended for
this issue have had to be pushed back for future ones!
Look forward to the next (April) issue for news about
IDEA’s recent activities in China, and a substantial section dedicated to IDEA’s participation in the European
Union’s ‘Decade of the Roma’ initiative. Also, for all of
you eager to learn more about the upcoming Forum
resolution, we’ll be including a feature on the issues
raised by the world’s water resources. This section will
give you ample background on the many sides of the
‘Commons’ debate, ranging from contemporary policy
to classical philosophy. Of course, expect the normal
range of teaching articles and news updates as well keep sending those in!
I hope you like the direction idebate is going, and
enjoy the new sections and design changes. Let me
know what you think, and send me ideas as to what
kinds of topics or articles you want to appear in the
future by emailing me at pblanchfi[email protected].
As always, we’re eager for your submissions: the deadline for submissions for the next issue is March the
15th. Send us your testimonials, curriculum insights,
member reports, poetry or even artwork! Don’t be shy
– we’re eager to collaborate, and I’ll be glad to help
you in the writing or editing process if you’d like.
Idebate belongs to all of us, and we want to see your
hand in it!
Enjoy the new year, and a new idebate!
Patrick
International Debate Education Association |3
IDEA Press books can be purchased from online booksellers such as Amazon (www.amazon.
com) and Barnes & Noble (www.bn.com). For
institutional and bulk orders or queries about IDEA
Press books please contac Martin Greenwald
[[email protected]]
IDEBATE PRES
& BACKLIST
TEACHING AND LEARNING STRATEGIES FOR THE THINKING CLASSROOM
Alan Crawford, E. Wendy Saul, Samuel Mathews, and James Makinster - Price $29.95 / ISBN 978-1-932716-11-5
Teaching and Learning Strategies for the Thinking Classroom is a practical guide to lively teaching that results in
reading and writing for critical thinking. It explains and demonstrates a well-organized set of strategies for teaching
that invites and supports learning. At the same time it helps educators form judgments about teaching so that they
can adjust their practices to subjects they teach and the needs of their students. A series of core lessons explains and
demonstrates teaching methods in action and shows educators how they can use related teaching methods to achieve
similar goals.
Teaching and Learning also includes general ideas about assessment and lesson planning as well as classroom management techniques and assessment rubrics. Strategies can be used from upper primary school through secondary school
and across the curriculum.
DISCOVERING THE WORLD THROUGH DEBATE:
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO EDUCATIONAL DEBATE FOR DEBATERS, COACHES &
JUDGES / Third Edition
Robert Trapp, Joseph Zompetti, Jurate Motiejunaite and William Driscoll - Price $29.95/ ISBN 0-932716-06-8
The book features a completely new section on argumentation for debaters, promoting a more complete examination of the process of argument construction, a new classification of debate propositions, and a thorough discussion
of constructing arguments for and against each of the kinds of debate propositions. These additions are made while
maintaining the first two editions’ practical discussion of Debate using the Karl Popper format in an international setting. As on previous editions, the book includes 50 exercises to be used in the classroom or debate club.
SPEAK OUT!
A Guide to Middle School Debate
By Kate Shuster and John Meany - Price $22.95 / ISBN1-932716-02-5
Speak Out! is a primer for beginning and intermediate students participating in class and contest debates.
Designed to support the Middle School Public Debate Program (MSPDP), the largest and fastest growing middle
school debate program in the world, it offers students clear, concise information on public speaking and debating.
Combining the practical and theoretical, the text teaches students about verbal and nonverbal communication, how
to research and present an argument, how to answer arguments, how to develop debate strategies and how to conduct
a formal debate. Exercises following each section give students hands-on experience with each topic.
4| International Debate Education Association
SS NEW BOOKS
Fall/Winter ‘05
IDEA BACKLIST
Influencing Through Argument
By Robert B. Huber and Alfred C. Snider
Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-932716-07-6
Environment and Our Global Community
Susan G. Shapiro, editor
Price $27.95 / ISBN 978-1-932716-12-2
Speaking Across the Curriculum
Practical Ideas for Incorporating Listening and Speaking
into the Classroom
By The California High School Speech Association’s Curriculum Committee
Price $24.95 / ISBN 1-932716-00-9
The Debatabase Book:
A Must-Have Guide for Successful Debate
By the Editors of DEBATABASE - Price $25.95 / ISBN 0-9702130-8-5
Argument and Audience:
Presenting Debates in Public Settings
Ken Broda-Bahm and Daniela Kempf
Price $24.95/ISBN 0-9720541-2-X
Art, Argument and Advocacy:
Mastering Parliamentary Debate
John Meany and Kate Shuster - Price $24.95/ ISBN 0-9702130-7-7
Conflict and Communication:
A Guide Through The Labyrinth of Conflict Management
Daniel Shapiro Price $29.95/ ISBN 0-9720541-9-7
On That Point!: An Introduction to Parliamentary
Debate
John Meany and Kate Shuster
Price $25.95/ ISBN 0-9720541-1-1
Transforming Debate: The Best of the International
Journal of Forensics
Jack E. Rogers (Editor) Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9702130-1-8
Perspectives in Controversy: Selected Essays from
Contemporary Argumentation
Kenneth Broda Bahm (Editor)
Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9702130-5-0
SOURCEBOOKS ON CONTEMPORARY
CONTROVERSIES
Women’s Rights: The Public/Private Dichotomy
Jurate Motiejunaite (Editor)
Price $24.95 / ISBN 1-932716-10-6
Aids, Drugs and Society - Revised Edition
Anna Alexandrova (Editor)
Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9702130-2-6
Globalization and the Poor: Exploitation or
Equalizer?
William Driscoll and Julie Clark (Editors)
Price $24.95/ ISBN 0-9720541-0-3
Roma Rights: Race, Justice and Strategies for
Equality
Claude Cahn (Editor) Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9702130-6-9
The Democracy Reader
Sondra Myers (Editor) - Foreword by Benjamin Barber
Price $25.95 / ISBN 0-9702130-3-4
The Drug Dilemma: Responding to a Growing Crisis
Jason Stone and Andrea Stone (Editors)
Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9720541-2-X
In Search of Red Buddha - Higher Education in China
after Mao Zedong, 1985-1990
Nancy Lynch Street - Price: $24.95 / ISBN 1-932716-03-3
The International Criminal Court:
Global Politics and the Quest for Justice
Joseph P. Zompetti and Suzette W. Zompetti (Editors)
Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9720541-4-6
The Interdependence Handbook
Looking Back, living the Present, choosing the Future
Sondra Myers and Benjamin Barber
Price: $24.95 / ISBN 1-932716-01-7
European Union: Challenges and Promises of a new
Enlargement
Anca Pusca (Editor) Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9720541-5-4
Many Sides : Debate Across the Curriculum
Alfred C. Snider and Maxwell Schnurer
Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9702130-4-2
War on Drugs, HIV/ AIDS and Human Rights
Kasia Malinowska- Sempruch and Richard Elovich (Editors)
Price $24.95 / ISBN 0-9720541-7-0
INN
LITHUANIA
IDEA NETWORK NEWS
UNITED STATES
MEMBERS
REPORTS
on this issue...
EGYPT
HAITI
RWANDA
EGYPT
SUMMER YOUTH CAMP IN FAYED
By Marcin Zaleski, IDEA Director of Training
In August 2005, IDEA was invited
by Association for the Advancement
of Education of Egypt to provide
debate workshops to participants
in the organization’s annual Youth
Camp.
The Association for the Advancement of Education was founded
by Dr. Mona Makram Ebeid, a
professor of Political Science at
the American University in Cairo
and a former parliamentarian and
political activist who is currently
the President of the Association.
The mission of the Association is
to promote access to education and
high educational standards and to
assist in bringing up a future generation of Egyptians who would
be ready to take active part in the
political, social, and economic life
of their country. The Association
focuses its efforts on disadvantaged
areas and works closely with teachers and students to introduce innovative civic education programs to
primary and preparatory schools.
The Association organizes trainings
for teachers and workshops for students, and develops curricula and
networks with other NGOs in the
area of civic education.
IDEA representatives Noel Selegzi
and Marcin Zaleski met with Dr.
Mona Makram Ebeid in Cairo in
May 2005 and discussed possible
venues for cooperation between
IDEA and the Association for the
Advancement of Education. One of
the outcomes of the discussion was
an invitation to the annual youth
camp organized by the Association in August. IDEA volunteered
to send two trainers to the camp
who would work with student
participants as well as trainers and
teachers and present the concept of
debating.
After preparatory work and many
e-mail contacts with the organizers of the camp, two IDEA trainers,
Marcin Zaleski and Eric DiMichele
came to Cairo on the 19th of August
to later travel to Fayed on the Suez
Canal (about a two hour drive from
Cairo) to join the around 130 students, 20 teachers, and 10 trainers
who had been invited to participate
in the Camp. All the participants
and trainers were accommodated
in the beautiful Shamousa Village
Resort on the banks of the Suez
Canal.
The main objective of the Camps
organized by the Association for
the Advancement of Education is
to provide young people (aged 1215) from different social and religious backgrounds with the opportunity to discuss issues related to
democracy, tolerance, citizenship,
and acceptance of each other.
During the camp the student
participants were divided into
five working groups with a
trainer-supervisor in charge of
each group. Each working group
met eight times during the five
days (for about two hours each
session). The groups focused on
a number of issues: including the
constitution, identity, respect
for each other, and multicultural
and multi-religious coexistence.
All the trainers used interactive
methods of education and provided an opportunity for students to interact with each other
and trainers.
Another element of the camp’s
program includes creativity sessions. These sessions provided
a lot of choices for students:
drama, painting, sculpture,
sewing, and music. Each evening, students, teachers and
trainers had a chance to participate
in evening activities which are comprised of cultural and artistic programs prepared by students.
Eric and Marcin were very excited
about the prospect of working with
young Egyptians and their teachers.
Based on the experience of the communication prior to the camp, they
were also looking forward to meeting
the organizers of the event and the
trainers. On Saturday morning (the
20th August), they met the some
participants from the camp in Cairo
and together travelled on small bus
across the Fayed. Soon upon arrival
they were surrounded by other participants of the camp, who spared no
effort to make them feel welcomed
and appreciated -- a pattern which
would continue unchanged till the
end of the camp.
Eric and Marcin met with all the
students from five working groups
during the first five sessions (Days
one through three of the camp), and
introduced debate as well as conducted a number of debate exercises
for students and teachers. IDEA
trainers also conducted two creativity groups with students choosing
debate as an elective session. Both
sessions had a very good turnout and
students and teachers participated in
debates on a variety of issues. Topics
for debates were chosen by the participants themselves and ranged
from cultural and social issues (e.g.
co-education in Egyptian schools)
to regional politics, for example the
ongoing tensions in the Middle East.
The organizers of the camp appreciated the fact that IDEA trainers did
not steer away from difficult topics
and engaged students in debates,
making sure that the environment
for these discussions was friendly
and conducive to the exchange
of views and ideas. In the evenings throughout the camp, Eric
and Marcin met with the trainers to discuss each day’s sessions
and to plan for the next day. The
impression that the IDEA trainers had of the Egyptian trainers
and organizers was very positive
- they all were very professional,
dedicated and full of enthusiasm.
IDEA is hoping to continue its
cooperation with the Association
for the Advancement of Education and plans organize another
debate workshop for teachers
and trainers this winter. IDEA
would also like to invite Egyptian debaters to its future Youth
Forums and would be eager to
welcome their invaluable contribution to international debate
community. IDEA and its trainers, Eric and Marcin would also like
to thank the Association for the
Advancement of Education and in
particular Dr. Mona Makram Ebeid
for inviting them to the camp. Eric
and Marcin would also like to thank
Yousry Elkomy, the Director of the
Camp, and all the trainers, teachers,
and student participants for their
warm welcome and the unforgettable memories they shared!
NETWORK NEWS ..... IDEA NETWORK NEWS ......... IDEA NETWORK NEWS ..... IDEA NET
jeunes du secondaire à partir de la
classe de troisième, et l’autre aux
universitaires. Ses objectifs doivent leur permettre de discuter
des sujets qui affectent leur vie et
leur communauté dans une atmosphère de tolérance, de rationalité
et de rigueur intellectuelle. Ainsi, ils
apprennent non seulement à exercer
leur jugement par la construction
de raisonnements logiques mais
encore et surtout à structurer leur
pensée pour jeter un regard critique
sur le monde par des débats contradictoires. Ils s’ouvrent aux autres et
_____________________________
HAITI
d’un débat. C’est ainsi qu’à
la suite de cette rencontre
des clubs ont été implantés dans ces différents
établissements pour lancer
ce programme de débat.
Le situation en Haïti continue
d’être grave. Néanmoins, cette
correspondance du parte d’une
ami d’IDEA nous fait souvenir
que le débat a eu, et continuera
d’avoir, une place en Haïti.
LAISSEZ LES DEBATS CONTINUER! / LET
THE DEBATES CONTINUE!
The situation in Haiti continues
By Jacob Gateau, Directeur du programme
to be difficult; nonetheless, this
des debates, FOKAL, Haïti
Ce programme est initié
letter from a long-time IDEA
dans le réseau des FondaEn 1996, des jeunes en classes tions Soros basées dans
affiliate reminds us that debate
humanitaires des différentes écoles une trentaine de pays et
has had, and will continue to play,
du pays, telles le Collège Notre coordonné en Haïti par la
a crucial role in Haiti.
Dame et le collège Régina Assumpta FOKAL dont la mission est
du Cap, le Centre Culturel Alcibi- de promouvoir les structures
ade Pommayrac de Jacmel, le Petit nécessaires à l’établissement
Séminaire Saint-Martial et le Col- d’une société démocraau monde au cours des rencontres
lège de l’Etoile de Port-au-Prince, tique en favorisant l’autonomie de inter club, des tournois nationaux
ainsi que les professeurs de leurs l’individu, l’esprit critique, le juge- et des compétitions internationales
classes respectives ont été invités à ment, le sens de la responsabilité, qui se font le plus souvent dans cerune grande rencontre à l’hôtel Xara- l’initiative, la créativité et la libre coo- tains pays de l’Europe de l’Est et aux
gua pour jeter les jalons d’un pro- pération par l’éducation, la formation Etats-Unis. Aujourd’hui, il s’étend à
gramme qui allait se révéler d’une et la communication dans un con- d’autres écoles comme le Collège
très grande utilité à leur formation texte de partage et de confrontation Canado Haïtien, le Collège Cœur
intellectuelle. Ce séminaire réalisé des savoirs et des savoir-faire en vue Immaculé de Marie, le Collège
par la FONDASYON KONESANS d’une participation active et effective Saint–Louis de Bourdon, le Collège
AK LIBETE (FOKAL) avait pour à la gestion démocratique de la chose de Cote –Plage et l’Ecole Secondaire
but d’inculquer aux jeunes élèves publique et l’épanouissement de la Louverture Cleary.
haïtiens des outils conceptuels et vie associative, sociale et culturelle.
méthodologiques devant leur servir
Ce survol historique rapide étant
à construire une logique argumen- Ce programme comprend deux fait, nous précisons dans un souci
tée dans le cadre formel et précis types de débat, l’un destiné aux de définition des modalités et de
TWO RK NEWS .... IDEA NETWORK NEWS ......... IDEA NETWORK NEWS ..... IDEA NET
l’essence même du programme que
notre débat oratoire formel est un
jeu conçu à l’intention des jeunes
regroupés en équipes et dont l’objet
est de convaincre une tierce personne
communément appelé juge de la
pertinence des différentes argumentations. Il s’agit, à partir d’un énoncé
c’est-à-dire d’un sujet à controverse
de former deux équipes, l’une affirmative soutenant l’approbation du
thème et l’autre négative qui récuse
son bien fondé, de tenir un discours
cohérent en présentant, les deux, des
vérités à la fois contraires et complémentaires. Vous pouvez ainsi comprendre, chers lecteurs avisés, que
l’essentiel ce n’est pas d’avoir raison
mais plutôt d’argumenter juste
pour le pur plaisir intellectuel afin
de dégager une synthèse, c’est-à-dire
une sorte de vérité supérieure surgissant de la confrontation des idées.
De ce cadre conceptuel, nous
définissons le débat comme « une
confrontation d’idées, planifiée,
documentée et organisée, se déroulant en direct, sous forme d’une
joute intellectuelle dans le cadre
d’un format précis».C’est donc un
jeu dialectique reposant à la fois sur
la réfutation de l’argumentation et
l’argumentation de la réfutation et,
sous-tendue par une mûre réflexion
découlant d’un examen rigoureux
du problème à analyser. Aussi, cette
organisation de la pensée suppose apriori la consultation, la sélection,
et le classement d’un ensemble de
documents à caractère scientifique,
relatifs à l’énoncé de telle sorte à
faire prédominer l’objectivité, la précision et la rationalité au détriment
de toute propension à la subjectivité,
à l’intuition, à l’opinion et à tous les
réflexes instinctifs. Ainsi, le débat
n’est pas le résultat de l’expression
spontanée de la pensée, mais un
projet soigneusement élaboré avant
sa réalisation.
Les grands principes du débat se
résument d’abord à l’acquisition
des savoirs et des savoir-faire, les
deux, devant aboutir à une forme de
savoir-être, tout en enrichissant son
esprit et en avançant dans la connaissance de ses ignorances. Cette
démarche qui conduit vers une nouvelle forme de relation à la vérité
permet aussi de cultiver l’ honnêteté
intellectuelle et d’entretenir de nouvelles relations aux autres basées sur
le respect dans le sens le plus intégral, c’est-à-dire, respect de l’autre
avec ses convictions, sa vision du
monde, ses manières de penser. Cela
développe des habiletés essentielles
et fondamentales à la construction
de toute société démocratique, telles
l’écoute et le dialogue. L’écoute,
la clé de toute efficacité en tant
qu’elle requiert la concentration
et la capacité de réfléchir sur le vif
à ce que l’on entend; le dialogue, le
fait de pouvoir entamer une discussion en acceptant la réfutation de sa
propre thèse avec tout le calme que
cela exige.
A ce niveau de notre présentation, il
est une nuance fondamentale dont
la compréhension est importante
pour cerner le niveau d’abstraction
de notre programme et sa valeur en
tant qu’activité intellectuelle. Certains nous reprochent de donner
dans le sophisme pour la simple et
bonne raison que les débatteurs traitent tour à tour des cas affirmatif et
négatif pour un même énoncé. Nous
rappelons, et ceci pour être clair une
fois pour toutes, que le fait de pouvoir argumenter les deux cas d’une
résolution permet de prendre conscience et de juger de la complexité
des thèmes en discussion. Cela nous
fait comprendre que les choses sont
toujours nuancées et, nous apprend
à nous méfier de surcroît, des pièges
de la pensée unique dont les fruits
ont produit les pires monstruosités
de l’histoire de l’humanité. Ainsi,
nous pouvons réaliser aisément que
la connaissance est interprétative
et que l’interprétation elle même
est toujours plurielle. De plus cela
développe l’attitude intellectuelle
qui consiste à n’émettre aucun jugement tant que tous les arguments
n’aient été entendus et jugés scrupuleusement. En ce sens la connaissance pour les débatteurs se contente d’être un minutieux et patient
déchiffrage, sous la forme d’un essai
procédant sur la base d’hypothèses
régulatrices ». Ces notions de neutralités et d’impersonnalité qu’ils
cultivent font d’eux des hommes
de l’essai, réfractaires à toute ambition dogmatique, lesquels scrutent
constamment les différents points
de vue. Ils voient le monde dans
sa complexité et cherchent à cerner
l’unité des contraires. Et pour cela
c’est donc une nouvelle manière
d’être qu’ils intègrent.
Cette nouvelle manière d’être face
au monde consiste précisément à
prendre du recul par rapport à tout
ce qui est tenu pour vrai en apportant le trouble au sein des certitudes
pour provoquer la réflexion. De
plus, elle amène à s’engager dans
une nouvelle voie où les règles de
la tolérance sont prioritaires. Et
quand nous parlons de tolérance,
nous voulons surtout faire allusion à la valeur du consensus qui,
reposant sur la force du dialogue,
produit une stimulation dynamique
du mouvement des idées, fait de
conflictualité et de l’antagonisme
des thèses. Perçue comme l’élément
régulateur par excellence des rap-
ports interpersonnels et intercommunautaires, la tolérance devient
pour eux cet impératif qui oriente
leur vie sociale. C’est donc en ce
sens précis que notre programme
de débat insinue la justesse, la force
et l’amplitude d’esprit des jeunes.
Par ailleurs, nous soulignons en
dernier lieu qu’au travers de ce
programme, les jeunes font déjà
l’expérience des principes démocratiques en vue de l’apprentissage de
la citoyenneté, et ceci, pour prendre à l’avenir des décisions avisées,
résoudre des conflits, rechercher
des terrains d ‘entente et affirmer
leurs droits et leurs responsabilités.
Ils acquièrent déjà une maturité
morale fondée sur la volonté
d’accepter la diversité comme un
enrichissement et comme une
forme valable de participation.
Et par la même, ils préparent la
société à venir de vertus intégratrices, d’un haut niveau de discipline
personnelle et sociale, de capacités
résultant de la volonté individuelle
d’œuvrer au nom d’un sentiment
élargi d’identité et de motivation.
En conclusion, nous pouvons dire
que la FOKAL, au travers de son
programme de débat, donne aux
jeunes de meilleures chances et la
possibilité de participer à l’avenir
aux prises de décision, comme
pour répondre à l’urgence de ce
que Georges SOROS appelle « la
société ouverte » qui comprend la
liberté de parole et d’expression,
d’association et de réunion et de
participation, des sauvegardes
contre l’arbitraire des décisions
de l’Etat dans l’administration du
droit, et des protections destinées
à préserver la vie privée, la conscience individuelle, la religion et
le culte.
EN LEURS MOTS
PRÔPRES : Des
débateurs haïtiens
se réfléchissent sur
l’activité
IN THEIR OWN
WORDS : Haitian
Debaters Reflect
Nikenson Fafre
Je suis Fabre Nikenson du Collège les
Normaliens Réunis. Avant d’intégrer
le club de débat de la FOKAL
j’étais intolérant à un point tel que
je ne voulais pas discuter mes opinions, ni partager mes idées de peur
qu’elles ne soient rejetées. Je ne disposais pas d’informations pertinentes parce que les travaux de recherche ne m’intéressaient pas. Mais
aujourd’hui, le programme de débat
m’a beaucoup changé. Pour cela, je
vous recommande vous autres jeunes
à faire partie de ce programme. Vous
apprendrez à dialoguer et à discuter
dans le respect mutuel. Vous prendrez
goût de la recherche pour augmenter
vos connaissances. Avec l’habitude,
vous organiserez vos idées. Bref! Vous
deviendrez plus sociable et plus
tolérant
y a notre dose d’adrénaline qui augmente, notre tension artérielle qui
s’accélère, notre force intellectuelle
qui s’améliore. Ce qui me séduit le
plus, c’est la possibilité de développer en soi un certain équilibre et une
maîtrise de l’expression de sa pensée
Marie France Louis
Club de débat du Collège de Cote –Plage
A mon avis, le débat peut se définir
par ses trois « D ».
La déclaration qui nous permet
d’affirmer notre point de vue et
d’exprimer le fond de notre pensée
en exposant nos arguments.
La dévotion, la capacité de supporter
notre thèse jusqu’à bout, de garder
notre sang-froid et de prouver la
valeur de notre argumentation.
La destination est le point d’arrivée
de la course, ce désir de chaque débatteur de faire corps avec la vérité afin
de convaincre une autre personne et
l’amène à trouver les chemins qui
mènent à la lumière de la vérité.
Rolex L. JOSEPH
Ancien débatteur du club du Collège Notre
Dame (CAP)
C’était un après-midi de mars, j’étais
en classe de troisième. A la fin d’un
cours, j’ai eu une fameuse discussion
avec un camarade au cours de laquelle
j’ai fait de mon mieux pour soutenir
mon point de vue. J’ai même haussé le
ton à certains moments pour impressionner mon interlocuteur; mais lui,
avec un calme tout à fait exaspérant,
il réfutait mes preuves avec une dextérité que je n’avais jamais vue auparavant. Face à la pertinence de ses arguments, et vu l’aisance avec laquelle il
démontait les miens, j’ai du m’avouer
vaincu et lui donner raison.
Marie France Louis
Club de débat du Collège de Cote –Plage
Laissez–moi vous avouer un petit
secret : ce qui est intéressant dans
un débat c’est de voir le public suspendu à mes lèvres et les membres de
l’équipe adverse frémir sous le poids
de mon argumentation. A cause
de la pression du jeu, on sent que Peu de temps après cette triste méstoute sa personne se transforme, il aventure, lui et moi sommes deve-
nus amis. Il m’invita alors un jour à
participer avec lui à un débat public
qu’organisait le club de débat de notre
collège. Et après cette expérience
enrichissante, j’ai décidé de m’intégrer
au sein du club. Aujourd’hui encore,
après plus de deux ans, je puis
témoigner honnêtement de l’intérêt
d’une telle activité.
Le débat n’est pas seulement une
joute oratoire où deux individus
d’idéologie différente essaient de justifier leurs points de vue. Il est aussi et
surtout un mode de vie .
plutôt un exercice de la pensée au
cours duquel on s’entraîne à comprendre la complexité des choses, à
cesser de se fier aux apparences et aux
idées toutes faites. En bref, c’est une
pratique susceptible de stimuler la
réflexion et de susciter chez les jeunes
la culture de l’esprit critique.
_____________________________
LITHUANIA
My Fundamental Rights in the EU
Pour ma part, le débat a changé ma IDEA‘s Lithuanian Member Organizes
vie. Il m’a aidé à respecter les opin- a Creative Educational Opportunity for
ions d’autrui, à supporter mes sem- Orphans - By Virginija Paksienie
blables en dépit de nos différences
idéologiques. Il m ‘a aussi appris, lors This September, the Lithuanian
d’une discussion à ne pas combat- Debate Center began an innovative
tre la personne mais de préférence project to engage children living in
orphanages. Working out of
the “Dainava” Center in Druskininkai, Lithuanian, IDEALe débat n’est pas seulement
affiliated debaters and staff proune joute oratoire où deux
vided orphans with a unique
individus d’idéologie différente
opportunity for self-expression
essaient de justifier leurs points while simultaneously teaching
them their rights and duties as
de vue. Il est aussi et surtout un
new citizens of the EU. All told,
mode de vie .
the “My Fundamental Rights
in the EU” project involved
twenty-five children from 13
l’idée qu’elle émet. Aussi, j’ai fini par to 17 years of age from seven differvaincre ma timidité en surmontant ent orphanages, and was facilitated
cette peur que j’avais au moment by three university students, two
de prendre la parole en public. En teachers, and an arts teacher.
outre, il m’a permis d’améliorer mon
expression et d’apprendre à organiser The workshop consisted of two parts
mes idées. En débattant, j’ai appris à – an introduction and discussion of
argumenter, à prouver le bien fondé the EU Charter of Fundamental
de mes opinions et à défendre mes Rights and a creative workshop. In
points de vue.
the creative workshop, participants
tried to express their new underContrairement à ce qu’on pourrait standing of those rights by depicting
penser, le débat n’est pas une activ- them through drawings. Thirteen of
ité où l’on apprend à mentir. C’est the best drawings were later selected
as the images adorning a 2006 Calendar entitled “My Fundamental
Rights in the EU.” In the calendar,
the images, drawn by the orphans,
will be accompanied by explanations
and reflections written by university
students.
The vision behind this program
was highly developed. This initiative enabled young people to have
input while developing politically
aware and socially active networks
in their home country. At the same
time, the program helped to develop
a sense of EU citizenship through
disseminating European values and
presenting the European concept of
human rights. In addition, the activity combined the efforts of university students and youth in secondary
schools, thus building up a solidarity
between generations of Lithuanian
youth including socially vulnerable
groups (in this case, children from
orphanages).
The Workshops in Detail
The workshop began with teambuilding activities in order to help
the participants get to know one
another and insure their cooperation
during the future work. After getting
familiar, the children started working. They were introduced to the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights and
divided into six groups. Each group
was assigned a chapter of the Charter
and had to choose from one to three
rights which they found to be the
most important. After discussions
and preparation, representatives of
each group presented their chosen
rights to the rest of the audience. The
presentations were highly creative, as
most groups had prepared posters
portraying the rights. For example,
‘justice’ featured a pair of imagina-
has been an eye-opening experience.
Below, Danielle Stevens, a sophomore
at Willamette University, describes the
program and reflects on her personal
experiences in the prison program.
tively drawn handcuffs, and ‘freedom of movement’ was portrayed as
a butterfly flying above a globe.
The following day, the participants
had four additional hours for selfexpression and the process of creation. With the help of a teacher of
fine arts, the children tried to portray
one right from the Charter that they
found particularly important. The
rights pictured varied from leisure
and self-expression to the freedom
of thought and conscience to gender
equality. At the end of the day the
children had created 25 original
drawings, representing their different ideas and viewpoints.
During the relaxation time the participants were taken to various art
galleries and museums in Druskininkai in order to learn more about
fine art and improve their own
imagination.
The workshop ended with a closing ceremony where all the drawings were exhibited and the children
were able to present their creations
themselves and get the commentary
from the teacher. All the participants
were invited to the future exhibition
of their works and presentation of
the calendar, thus hoping to continue engagement with Lithuanian
orphanages. The calendar, now
printed, looks fabulous!
__________
UNITED STATES
PERSUASION IN THE PRISON
By Danielle Stevens, Willamette University
For the past two years, the Department of Forensics at Willamette University in the state of Oregon, USA,
has undertaken several trips to a local
Maximum Security. There, in collaboration with a group of prisoners (the
prison’s chapter of Toastmaster’s International, a public speaking association), Willamette students have staged
a series of public debates and poetry
events. Willamette’s work in the prison
community has not only been an act
of public service, but has resulted in
fine debating both from prisoners and
students alike, and, as students testify,
Currently, there is much debate in
the US parliamentary debate community about a recent shift of parliamentary debate from a more
public-sphere oriented activity to a
more technical and specialized activity. The conflict is very perceptible
at Willamette University due to the
way our program operates. Professor Robert Trapp, the director of the
program, is an advocate of debate
as a public-sphere activity, while
the assistant director Robert Layne
and a majority of students are, in
my opinion, swaying much more
towards the technical side of things.
In order to provide an alternative for
students who are interested in something more than technical debate,
we have created an additional focus
for our program. We call it “public
track” and it is a small group of
students who create venues where
non-debaters can discuss issues that
are important both on campus, in
the Salem area (where Willamette’s
campus is located), as well as the
nation and the globe.
One facet of the program involves
debating and doing speaking contests in the Oregon State Penitentiary (Prison). We have had six events
in the past year—three debates, two
poetry contests, and one speech contest. All has gone very well, and the
entire team has been pleased with
the outcome.
I have taken part in two of the events
that we have done at the prison. The
very first event we did was a debate
on then-US-Presidential candidates
George W. Bush vs. John Kerry, and
I was one of the lucky four who got
to share ideas with the inmates. The
second event that I did was the most
recent one, a poetry contest. Most of
the prisoners read poems they had
written themselves, and a few used
outside material. Sharing such personal thoughts with people so different from myself was an amazing
experience.
I believe that this program of entering the prison has been very beneficial for both debaters and inmates.
I am basing this conclusion on my
personal experiences going into the
prison and participating in speaking events with them. In this essay, I
will present narratives about the two
events in which I participated and
will follow those narratives with my
conclusions about the advantages
for both debaters and inmates.
Narratives
The following are two of my personal stories about participating
in persuasive events in the Oregon
State Penitentiary. The first is a story
about a debate on the Bush – Kerry
presidential election and the second
is a story about a poetry contest.
Debating in the Oregon State Penitentiary
Some random Tuesday in September
my coach, Rob Layne, was prattling
on about something random and
debatery. Just as my attention span
was stretched to its limit and my
interest waning, I perked up to hear
something about prisons. Prisons?
I wondered. Was this a new felony
voter case? With difficulty, I pulled
myself out of my haze and paid full
attention long enough to hear that
we as a team were going into the
State Penitentiary to debate some
prisoners. The rules of entering the
prison were explained to us: (1) no
tight or revealing clothing, (2) no
blue jeans, (3) no blue shirts, and
(4) no under-wire bras. The fourth
rule provoked laughter (and even
misunderstanding as one of our
debaters thought Rob had said “no
underwear”), but the importance of
that rule would become clear to us
later.
replied, “Well, nobody in here really
likes Bush, so I guess we’d better go
with Kerry.” I guess!
The weeks passed and The People
Speaks ensued, the election debates
dragged on, and the fact that I
was to be supporting Bush (even if
only for seven minutes) and trying
to persuade people to do the same
(even if only to play this game we
call debate) loomed ominously in
my future.
Beyond the dress code, it all turned On the night of the debate we drove
out, this talk about prisons had little to the prison and were directed to a
to do with the type of debate I was waiting room. As I entered the room
accustomed to. First, the teams were where we all were to wait for nearly a
to consist of five people, four com- half-hour, I fidgeted nervously with
petitors (each giving one speech) my clothes, hoping that what I was
and a “team captain.” American wearing would be appropriate and
Parli consists of two teams of two wouldn’t elicit inappropriate remarks
that debate one another, with the or actions. Were my pants too tight?
“leaders” speaking twice—introduc- Would my shoes work? Upon noticing the case and rebutting for it. Sec- ing another set of visitors, a couple
ondly, the resolution was such that from the community who looked
there was to be no sneaking out of kind and a little haggard, I quit
its true intentions and coming away fidgeting and watched them and
with a canned win. Finally, the Wil- their reactions. They seemed fine, so
lamette team, a group of
largely liberal students at a
liberal arts university were
Then I stopped being fine at
opposing, and thus put on
all when the guard read the
what I felt was the wrong
following warning: “We must
side of a tough resolution—
warn you that being taken
“Vote Kerry!”.
hostage is always a possibility.
We do not negotiate for hostages
but we will come in to get you.”
Interestingly enough, the
resolution was also geared
to reflect on US-UN relations on foreign policy (it
was also a The People Speak
event), with the focus centered on
the differences in Bush and Kerry’s policies. Professor Trapp (our
team’s advisor) gave the inmates the
choice of either supporting Kerry or
Bush, and Kyle (the president of the
Capitol Gavel Toastmasters Club)
I decided that I was fine too. I was
fine because I noticed that everyone
else was fidgeting just as much as I
was, and no one could keep their
eyes or their attention focused in
one place. We shifted nervously,
making silly jokes and talking about
neutral topics until the guards called
us up to check IDs and brief us on
the situation. I stopped being completely fine when I was told that it
was possible that we could be used
as a hostages if any problems were
to arise. Then I stopped being fine at
all when the guard read the following warning: “We must warn you
that being taken hostage is always
a possibility. We do not negotiate
for hostages but we will come in to
get you.” My tummy flipped up and
down and my eyes rounded, but
other than that the nervousness quieted down.
Then the prison guards sent us
through the metal detection devices,
led us through a light grey sloped
hallway, and directed us to stay in
one line, single file, moving ten at
a time. I hid, childlike, behind my
advisor and hoped that the “boogeymen” wouldn’t decide to take me
hostage. I handed my ID to a security guard behind a barred counter
and in return he gave me a red clip
on badge that said VISITOR and an
invisible stamp that said something
silly. I giggled, hoping that, as usual,
my goofiness would ease the tension
in the room. Well, no such luck. At
least the stern faced guards smiled. I
can only try so hard, right?
After being carded, badged, and
stamped, we were moved into
another room that had tables and
chairs and a fake wood paneled wall.
We were greeted by yet another
guard and the president of the Capital Gavel Toastmasters Club. He
eagerly shook our hands and welcomed us, ushering us to refreshments and seats. There were a few
others in the room, and we moved
around to talk to them. A few minutes later, the rest of the group came
into the room.
The couple from the community
looked happy to see some people
whom they obviously had met
before, but I could no longer pay
attention to this couple. There were
happy smiling faces everywhere!
They all wanted to shake hands,
laugh, play, and joke. I wished I
had enough time to meet them all
and attach to their faces concrete
names in my mind. One man made
the comment that he was pleased
to be able to exchange ideas with
a woman, because, he wisecracked
with a wink, “There ain’t a whole
lotta them in here.”
I was struck by the idea that this
person was cut off from members of
the opposite sex—I had never experienced that. I was also interested in
the idea that he said “in here.” They
were in an enclosed space, with
boundaries and walls—no thoughts
of being at a place, ever. Only IN a
place. Wow.
I was also interested
in the idea that he said
“in here.” They were in
an enclosed space, with
boundaries and walls—no
thoughts of being at a
place, ever. Only IN a place.
A large African-American man
called “Bear” was a baker in the
prison and had made a huge tray
of pastries. I complemented Bear
on his delicious cinnamon rolls.
He beamed like a child praised for
his effort. (That is, if a 6-foot-plus
burly black man with a voice comparable to Barry White’s can be likened to a child in any way.) Then, a
few more snatches of conversations,
and the debate began.
Fortunately for me and unfortunately for you, I don’t recall much
of what was said between the groups
except for some good-natured
trash-talk egging the other on. The
reason I say that my memory failure is fortunate is because through
its absence, I was able to focus
mainly on my reactions and of
those around me. I remember nervous shuffles and throat clearings
(coming from both sides), intense
needs to please and prove, and
anxious movements that showed
me that hours of research had been
spent on the issue. One man’s face
reminded me of my father, and so
I remember his expressions most
of all. He approached his speech
logically, trying to use the facts he
had to present something cohesive. The structure was not great,
but the passion was there, and that
is most likely what won the debate
for them (in addition to the fact
that they were lucky enough not to
have to argue in favor of anyone
named Bush.)
Afterwards, we again were allowed
to mingle and partake in the glorious cinnamon rolls for just a little
while longer. Again and again I was
asked why I supported Bush, and
I giggled and said that I didn’t, “I
was just doin’ my job.” The prisoners seemed awestruck by the idea
that we could still be persuasive
even when supporting someone
(or something) that they abhorred.
I liked the idea that I had been a
part of helping someone learn
a new valuable skill. It made the
butterflies in my tummy turn into
a warm fuzzy feeling in my chest.
The room was filled with smiles—
every Willamette person looked
to be glad that they had come,
and every prisoner was ecstatic to
have had some outside intellectual
stimulation. Some of us (including
prisoners) just looked plain relived
to see that all had gone well.
Then the time came for the event
to end. We helped rearrange the
chairs then they shook hands with
us and were led into a hallway while
we waited and watched, imagining
– only imagining – the kind of life
to which they were returning. We
returned to our beautiful college
campus and our comfortable rooms
having been changed by our interaction by people who we knew had
done horrible things but whom we
now understood were people just
like us.
We returned to our
beautiful college campus
and our comfortable
rooms having been
changed by our interaction
by people who we knew
had done horrible things
but whom we now
understood were people
just like us.
Poetry in the Oregon State Penitentiary
But debating was not our only prison
experience. Twice we were invited
to present poetry interpretations.
“Hey, Rob! Will you cut this for
me?” I ask my coach across the hall. I
had about an hour to get something
ready to read for this year’s Poetry
Slam in the Oregon State Peniten-
tiary. I had been playing around will
oddball pieces all day and had finally
settled on “How to Write a Political
Poem” and “Voice of an American
Voiceover” by Taylor Mali. Both
were energetic, politically charged,
and most of all, fun to perform. As
I practiced the piece, timing it and
perfecting gestures and rhythms, it
dawned on me that tonight, I was
going to jail.
It had been a while since I had gone
on a prison trip, and I was ready to
see everyone again. I smoothed my
hair and thought about them. Nice
folks, all with big smiles and hopes
to please. I liked going there, even if
it took a lot of energy.
My advisor, Robert Trapp, and a
fellow teammate Alexandra (participating as a spectator) and I piled into
the van and headed off. I was more
comfortable this time than I had been
the last two times. Debate is always so
formal, and I was excited to be able
to escape the adversarial atmosphere
and just play with words.
This time the wait in the holding
room wasn’t so long. We walked in,
showed IDs, and were briefed about
warnings and cautions. Then it was
time for the metal detector. Mr.
Trapp went first, then Alex, and then
me. Well, it was supposed to have
been me. To my horror, I had just
realized that I was wearing an under
wire bra, something strictly prohibited. I informed the guard, and
he asked me to try to pass through
anyway. No such luck. Thankfully,
I also happened to be wearing a
camisole with a built in bra, which I
showed to the guard as modestly as I
could. We discussed my options for
about three minutes, and eventually
he allowed me to remove the under
wire strapless and pass with only the
built-in on. I buttoned my jacket
as high as it could go, and called it
good.
Next we were off the hallway, easing
ourselves down the slope. A man
with a thick leather jacket and the
suspicious air of a biker was accompanying us, along with his Bible. We
were ushered to the room with bars
and the security guard behind the
barred counter again gave us badges
and silly invisible stamps in exchange
for our IDs. Not hearing nervous
chatter was pleasant—the three of
us knew what we were doing, and
that was good.
The room we were put into was
interesting. Both sides were lined
with square “offices” made out of
chain-link fence. On the back wall,
starting at about ¾ of the way up,
a large, intricate mural of a large
mountain and surrounding forest.
I’m told some of the prisoners
themselves painted it. In random
places there are silly things—like old
broken pickups, caves that resembled skulls and deer that looked like
Bambi.
We had to wait a bit for the main
group to arrive so we passed the
ten minutes or so with the three or
four club members who had been
brought in to help with setup. One
man talked to me about Bend and
his life as a basketball player for the
local Community College. Another
came up and asked Alex if she would
like to read some of his poetry. She
agreed, and the plans to print it off
were made.
The others shuffled in, and we
enjoyed some refreshments. I saw
some familiar faces, and greeted
them with smiles. I felt awkward
because they all seemed to remember
me by name. I wished I knew theirs,
but there are so many! We joked
around, and I challenged them all to
try to win the contest, because, I said
playfully, my poetry was unbeatable.
They answered back with silly things
and a good time was had by all. I
think for them being able to trash
talk with someone new and in a safe
way was refreshing.
We were called to order, and the
contest began. The first speaker
was a smallish man, who had the
look of having seen and done some
tough things. He had written two of
the poems himself. These two were
about his experiences with drugs
and how grateful he was to be in the
penitentiary. For him, it was the only
way of cleaning up his act enough to
see the sunset through sober eyes.
His last poem had been sent to him
by his mother, and as he introduced
it, tears welled up in his eyes. The
poem was about fallen angels, and
it obviously hit home to everyone in
the room.
For him, it was the only
way of cleaning up his act
enough to see the sunset
through sober eyes. His
last poem had been sent
to him by his mother, and
as he introduced it, tears
welled up in his eyes. The
poem was about fallen
angels, and it obviously hit
home to everyone in the
room.
The next speaker was an older man
who definitely had been here a
while. There was a sort of respect
given him as he passed or spoke. His
poetry recital was the Book of Job
in the Bible. He did the entire thing
from memory, using the space to
bend and kneel as a servant would.
It was an interesting speech, and I’m
sure he did it to give a message to
the younger men in the crowd, but I
don’t know how effective it was.
I was the third speaker, and as I
was called up, an amused hush fell
over the room. I could tell that
they wanted to see what the little
girl with the big voice had brought
them. I smiled as I centered myself
to speak.
The performance went wonderfully—and it was made particularly
sweet by the last part. At
the beginning, I get to
beat box a little bit, and
the only four Black men in
the place happened to be
sitting right in front, very
close to me. As I started
the beat, the men giggled
and whispered taunts. At
the end, as I accepted the
first place trophy, I continued the game by teasing
them for not helping me.
Another man came from
the back and said, “Go,
white girl!”
Then he began one of the
most interesting poems I
had heard in a while. He
called it “Time.” It was a
commentary on how Time
is different for someone
in jail. He mixed rhythms
with deep inner thoughts,
and I really enjoyed the
performance.
The fourth speaker was a man I had
met before. He debated a resolution involving the No Child Left
Behind educational policy last year.
I remembered that his speech, while
not very organized, had been very
passionate. I had liked that. He
stood at the podium and cleared his
throat. Then he began one of the
most interesting poems I had heard
in a while. He called it “Time.” It
was a commentary on how Time
is different for someone in jail. He
mixed rhythms with deep inner
thoughts, and I really enjoyed the
performance.
The fifth speaker was a very young
man—he seemed no more than
a few years older than me. He
was also very well spoken, and
his normal talk had an enviable
rhythm and eloquence. His poems
were all about different aspects of
prison life, but from the view of
birds and poets. All in all, a very
good performance. I couldn’t help
wondering what had happened to
get a man like that in a place like
this.
Alex ended the show by reading
one of the inmate’s poems. She
wasn’t comfortable, but I know
that she did it to be sweet and to
try to make the inmate feel good by
doing a good job with his poetry.
The man was certainly touched.
The master of ceremonies awarded
the winners and everyone laughed
and joked one last time. The last
cookie was eaten, and I congratulated the men sitting up front near
me on their amazing poetry. I asked
them if they would allow me to perform it on the competitive circuit,
and they told me they would. I am
still very excited to do that.
Then they were called away to the
“pill line.” The man that had given
Alex his poetry complained, “They
ain’t gonna make me take my pills if
I don’t wanna.” I felt sorry for him,
but I also wondered if not taking the
pills were what had landed him here
in the first place.
At the night’s close, I reflected again
on how fulfilling it was to go to the
prison and see those people and treat
them like people, not criminals. I
wished that life didn’t have to be so
hard, and hoped that by going in
there again we had made someone’s
day. I think we did, and that is why
I will continue to go back.
Speaking at the prison is much
more than just speaking and hoping
to win the ballot and go home. It
provides a release for the inmates, a
way for them to get back a little bit
of humanity. I think it is also a way
for debaters and speech-students
to fully understand that communications skills are much more than
tournaments.
IDEA LAUNCHES
NEW IDEBATE.ORG
IDEA’s Web Presence is Re-Vamped, Re-Done, and Ready to Go!
This Winter, IDEA launch a totally brand-new version of its website, www.
idebate.org! Two years in the drafting, the new site is more attractive, jampacked with vital information, and more fun to use than ever before!
In the past, idebate.org has boasted regular updates on IDEA events, calendars of events in IDEA member countries, discussion boards, and backissues
of idebate magazine; idebate.org is also home to the ‘Debateabase’ a compilation of debater-oriented takes on all sides of three-hundred-plus issues,
with that number ever growing. The new idebate takes all these strengths
to the next level by, augmenting discussion boards with a nifty messaging
system, which allows logged-in websurfers to communicate with each other
in real-time. The new website is powered by a newly designed backend interface, which allows event organizers to publicize their events more easily than
ever before – and websurfers can register and pay for events (as well as pay
their dues online) too!
IDEA Embraces Cyberspace
The centerpiece of the new site is the Debatetracker system. Debatetracker is
an online, multi-user database which will allow all members of the forensics
community – from coaches to NGO officers to teachers to debaters themselves – to keep a dynamic record of their involvement in debating. Through
Debatetracker, students and their coaches can input records of wins and
losses, program administrators can note their organization’s activity, and
debaters can note their engagement in community service and debate outreach activities. But the goal of Debatetracker is not simply to create a transparent publicity of IDEA’s member’s achievements, but to create a system
of unique awards for participation! Indeed, after achieving specific levels of
participation, coaches and debaters will be able to print certificates which
can serve as signs of distinction within the IDEA community. Through such
awards, we can recognize true achievement, and help everyone feel committed to debating with excellence! The specifics of the accreditation system are
available online. Thus far, teams from the Czech Republic have appeared to
dominate Debatracker Rankings – but will this trend hold? Czech Coach
René Brinda has issued a challenge to other debaters to up their DebateTracker usage, but only time will tell whose scores will stay on top.
But revamping idebate.org was not the only way IDEA grew virtually late this
fall! A totally new IDEA venture, the Internet Debate Website (IDW) was
launched this November at http://idw.idebate.org. The brainchild of IDEA’s
web guru Marjan Stojnev, the IDW is a online bulletin board where students, judges, and coaches can meet to coordinate their own online debates,
scheduling debate sessions across time zones and continents via instant messaging clients! Debaters just need to long on, fire up any of numerous free
chat clients available on the web, and find a partner and judge to debate
– what’s more, debates coordinated via IDW can earn participants DebateTracker points! Online debates can occur in IDEA’s own new Online Debate
Format, a format approved and standardized by IDEA’s General Assembly
this past November. Get online and join the frenzy!
Advantages of the Prison Persuasion
Program
Advantages for Inmates
The persuasion and poetry programs offer
certain advantages for inmates in general and
others that are specific to who will be released
and for those who will not. The overarching
advantages for all prisoners include building
communication skills, and giving them an
opportunity for stimuli from people outside
which they ordinarily do not get.
Advantages for Inmates Who Will Eventually
be Released
Participating in debates with college students
gives inmates an opportunity to learn in a
relaxed atmosphere with people in whom they
have confidence. I have seen their speeches
consistently improve as they hear more of our
speeches, see more of the styles that are most
effective persuasively, and have more opportunities to do research. Although we have yet to
contact anyone who has gone from the inside to
the outside, we have seen that membership has
increased since we have started our program.
Top Debate Tracker Scorers,
Winter 2005-2006
1. Martin Rožnovský, Czech Republic
2. Ondrej Krasny, Czech Republic
3. Sylvie Kristalasova, Czech Republic
4. Štěpán Chovanec, Czech Republic
5. Petr Jalůvka, Czech Republic
Advantages for “Lifers”
When a person is convicted, their life and
their attitude toward life changes dramatically
and out of necessity. Once they are sentenced
for life without parole, they must reorient
their dreams and ambitions. For
the inmates, debating, through
helping them learn to think critically, express themselves, and
relate positively to others, can help
them better cope with their situation. Another benefit to the program is that it gives these inmates
more contacts in the outside world
that can help them while they are
on the inside. Oregon’s funding
for the prison system is so under
budgeted that, in some cases, education is beyond the reach of the
inmates. The problem has gotten
so bad that for one inmate, the
only thing standing between him
and his degree are a few exams that
need proctoring. Our advisor has
offered to help him, and plans are
in the works.
Advantages for University Students
and Conclusion
The advantages for university students who participate in the prison
program are substantial. Not only
is the work an act of public service, it is a unique test of speaking to an audience and debating
outside the closed confines of
competitive debate between students. Debating at the prison also
helps youth grow personally, and
goes a long way towards breaking
down stereotypes about people
and crime. Debating at prison
truly is an eye-opening experience.
Indeed, competitive debate and
speech are excellent activities that
provide students with enormous
skills. However, there are drawbacks to participating in a primarily competitive atmosphere. Many
public debate programs, and this
prison program is just one, provide tremendous supplements to
the traditional competitive debate
and speech programs. Debating
in prison was a richly rewarding
experience for me, and I encourage other programs to experiment
with such work themselves.
___________________________
AN
INTRODUCTION
TO INTERNET
DEBATES
The Internet Debate format is
meant to allow debaters to engage
in short debates using instant messaging software. These debates will
have one debater representing the
affirmative and another debater presenting the negative. While Internet
debates are not meant to replace
face-to-face communication, they
are a way to bridge geographic distances and to allow for discussions
between people who might not otherwise have a chance to meet. IDEA
expects the opportunities for debating on the Internet to improve as
technology improves and believes
this format will be dynamic and
open to change. Internet Debate is
intended to help students:
• practice and prepare for face-to
face debates
• develop a broad and diverse
knowledge base
• improve argumentative abilities
• debate with students across
wide distances
Documentation on the technical,
software aspects of Internet Debating is available at http://idw.idebate.
org. Internet Debates are ideally to
be conducted over a Voice-Over-IP
/ Videolink connection, and must
be scheduled using the bulletinboard-style calendar on the Internet
Debate Website. As IDEA is committed to maximum access to Internet Debates, it encourages students
to pursue open-source or freeware
software IM clients and browsers!
General Internet Debate Rules
Motions and Preparation
The debaters and judge should,
in advance of the debate, agree on
topics and motions. The topic may
be drawn either from the IDEA
Debatabase (available at www.idebate.org) or may be proposed by the
debaters or judge. If the debaters or
judge wish to use a topic not already
in the IDEA Debatabase, they are
encouraged to submit the topic for
inclusion in advance of their debate.
A debate topic that is not in the
IDEA Debatabase will be subject to
review by the IDEA Internet Debate
Committee before it will receive
credit in DebateTracker. If an Internet Debate is taking place as part of
an IDEA sponsored or sanctioned
Internet Debate Tournament, the
Tournament Director will supply
the topic.
Motions should be general enough
to be debated by a well-educated
high school or college student, and
should identify two features that
will define the debate:
1. An issue of substance on which
the debate should focus, concern-
ing a public, social, or philosophical
topic of current interest.
2. The stance that the affirmative
must take toward the issue. The
stance identified by the motion may
be one of fact (i.e. correct or incorrect, true or false), of value (i.e.
right or wrong, moral or immoral),
of relationship (i.e. one thing does
or does not cause another; one thing
is or is not similar to another), or of
policy (i.e. some policy should or
should not be adopted).
Interpretation of the Motion
1. The debaters may interpret and
define the motion as they see fit, provided that they do so in a reasonable
fashion.
The affirmative should interpret
the topic as it would reasonably be
interpreted in the public sphere.
The affirmative is not required to
provide a literal interpretation of
the motion, and may instead create
a metaphorical interpretation. The
affirmative’s objective is to make
an adequate case for its interpretation of the motion. To this end,
the team must introduce one or
more arguments in support of the
motion as they have interpreted it,
and sustain their case throughout
the debate.
2. The opposition team argues against
the motion.
The opposition may counter the
government team’s interpretation
of the proposition if they believe it
is not reasonable (i.e. if the government team has misidentified some
substantive issue, or taken a stance
toward the issue that is contrary
to the resolution). The opposition
team may also challenge any aspect
of the government team’s case. For
instance, it may challenge the interpretation of the resolution, the factual and analytical foundations of
the case, the underlying assumptions
of the claims, or any costs associated
with the arguments. The opposition team should also offer its own
arguments against the government
team’s claims.
Rules During the Debate
Research should not take place
during the round. Since different
students will have different levels of
Internet access, topic research must
be completed prior to the beginning
of the debate. During the debate,
debaters may consult only the notes
made during the preparation time,
and a copy of these rules of debating
and judging. Judges should, if they
feel a debater is violating this rule
text message them immediately to
stop. Penalty for violating this rule
is left to the discretion of the judge
but may include forfeiture of the
debate.
No outside assistance is permitted. During the debate, no outside
person(s) may provide research,
directly or indirectly, to the debater.
Debaters may use information that
a knowledgeable individual could
reasonably be expected to know.
Debaters may refer to any public
information, and may request that
their opponent explain specific
information with which they are
unfamiliar.
The Debate Format
The debate will consist of six
speeches, which proceed as follows:
Affirmative Constructive 3 minutes
Negative Constructive 4 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal 2 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal 1 minute
Second Negative Rebuttal 1 minute
There is no preparation time in
between speeches. Debaters may
text message questions or comments to one another during the
speeches.
Each speech has a specific
purpose.
In the Affirmative Constructive,
the affirmative makes a case for the
motion by demonstrating that the
motion is more probably true than
false. The affirmative interprets
the motion for debate, defines any
ambiguous terms, and otherwise
clarifies the foundation for the argument. The speaker may also establish
decision-making criteria, or other
evaluative tools to assist the judge.
The affirmative may also choose to
offer a history of the issue in contention. This approach can assist the
judge’s appreciation of subsequent
argument claims from the government team.
After providing a clear foundation for the debate, the affirmative
presents a case. This will consist of
an exposition of arguments in support of debater’s interpretation of
the motion. The case will typically
consists of two or three main arguments, with corresponding examples or other forms of contemporary
or historical evidence. The speaker
should draw on sound reasoning
and sufficient examples to make
concise, complete, and compelling
arguments on each point of the
case. A succinct interpretation of
the motion is known as a case statement.
In the Negative Constructive, the
negative uses tactics of direct and
indirect refutation to counter the
affirmative’s case. The negative
may challenge the definition of the
motion, the affirmative’s decision
framework for the debate, and/or
the main arguments of the case. The
speaker might also offer counters to
the examples presented in
the affirmative case. The
negative may also argue
indirectly against the
affirmative’s case. Indirect
argumentation involves
issues that are not formally
included in the affirmative
constructive, but which
are related to consideration of the issue. These
arguments include disadvantages, counter-plans,
and critiques. The optimal
negative strategy in this
speech is to present some
combination of direct and
indirect refutation, carefully selecting from among
all available negative arguments the more effective
ones. The negative is not
obliged to disagree with every argument of the affirmative’s case. Agreement may focus the discussion on
those points in genuine controversy,
or may support a different and more
powerful position for the negative.
The First Affirmative Rebuttal presents the affirmative speaker with
two tasks. First, he or she must outline their refutations of the negative
arguments. Second, he or she must
respond to the refutations made by
the negative (that is, the negative’s
objections to the affirmative case).
If the affirmative does not refute a
given point in the negative case,
then the point stands; if the affirmative speaker does not respond to a
particular negative objection, then
the objection is conceded. New evidence for existing arguments may be
presented.
As with the affirmative rebuttal described above, the negative
speaker in the First Negative Rebut-
tal has a dual task: first, he or she
must respond to the refutations
made by the affirmative, and second,
he or she should continue to attack
the affirmative case. At this point in
the debate, the negative speaker may
start to draw the judge’s attention
to points that have been dropped.
That is, he or she will indicate items
to which the affirmative has not
responded. Such a dropped point
is treated as a concession made by
the affirmative team. New evidence
for existing arguments may be presented.
In the Second Affirmative Rebuttal,
the task of the affirmative is reactive.
He or she should renew refutations
that have not been addressed adequately. Usually, this means pointing
out flaws in the negative rebuttal. At
this point, most good debaters will
deliberately let some points drop
and will focus the judge’s attention
on the key issues in the round. The
speaker may or may not instruct
the judge; that is, the speaker may
or may not articulate a standard of
judgment for the round. New evidence for existing arguments may be
presented.
The Second Negative Rebuttal is a
similarly crucial speech. In essence,
the second negative rebuttal is similar to the second affirmative rebuttal. Judges should be especially wary
of speakers introducing new arguments at this point since the affirma-
tive team has no chance to respond,
so a new argument is especially
unfair. The judge should ignore any
new arguments that are introduced.
Debaters may speak only during
their assigned speeches, though they
may text message questions or comments during the speeches. It is up
to the speaker to decide whether
to respond to text
messages.
the quality of Internet connections
will vary widely, the judge should
be careful not to mistake a good
Internet connection with a good
argument.
During the round, the judge
should mark the passage of time
for debaters by sending text messages to the debaters indicating
Judging Internet
Debates
Extensive
information on judging procedures is
available at the
Internet Debates
website. In short,
however, an Internet Debat judge’s
decision should be
based on the content of the debate,
including the substantive arguments
presented and the
evidence used to
support them. A
speaker’s ability to
clearly communicate ideas is of primary importance,
although the style of speaking will
inevitably affect his or her ability
to persuade. For example, while
extemporaneous speeches may be
more persuasive, speakers should
not be heavily marked down for
reading a speech, unless it impinges
on their ability to convey arguments
clearly and persuasively. Structure
is generally more important than
communication style, as it determines whether the speaker has presented clear arguments. Given that
when a minute has gone by. The
judge should not speak or text
message the debaters during the
debate other than to discuss any
technological issues relating to the
debate (e.g. Asking a debater to
speak into the microphone or to
tell a debater that the sounds quality of their connection is too poor
for the debate to continue). In the
event that Internet problems prevent the debate from concluding,
the judge should work with the
debaters to reschedule the debate.
If the affirmative has already presented his or her case, the debaters may agree, if appropriate, to
debate a new topic. If a debate is
taking place as part of an IDEA
sponsored or sanctioned Internet
Debate Tournament, the judge
should consult with the Tournament Director before rescheduling the debate. Due
to delays caused
by Internet traffic
and poor connections, judges should
refrain from assessing penalties on
debaters for going
over time in all but
the most egregious
instances.
When adjudicating
Internet
Debates,
the quality of questions and comments
asked during the
speeches may be
taken into account
by the judge. However, given the difficulties some debaters may have with
their Internet connections, debaters
should not be penalized for refraining from engaging in
text message exchanges during the
debate. When adjudicating Internet Debates, the quality of questions and comments asked during
the speeches may be taken into
account by the judge. However,
given the difficulties some debaters may have with their Internet
connections, debaters should not
be penalized for refraining from
engaging in text message exchanges
during the debate.
RWANDA
explained the many things to consider in preparation of the Peace
Camp, including issues of Vision,
Audience
Needs,
Objectives,
Methods, Activities, Deadlines and
More.
and other neighboring countries.
Secondly, the organizers hoped to
raise AIDS awareness through dispelling common myths and helping youth cultivate productive and
safe relationships with their peers.
camp – Empowering Youth to Build
a Lasting Peace in the Great Lakes
Region – and settled on a basic structure for each camp day, consisting
of learning sessions in the morning, implementation and creativity
meetings in the afternoon, and evenings marked by films and fun. The
overall message of the camp was
also decided on: through the camp,
the organizers hope to sensitize the
region’s children at an early age so
that they grow up to be responsible
youth and adults, adults who will
embrace co-existence between them
stop the wars of our region,” said
Assumpter Wanjiku from Kenya.
Musafiri Addock from Rwanda
added: “We must help provide a culture of peace and peaceful cohabitation – organizing this camp is the
first step towards bringing peace to
our region!”
IDEA Helps Organize First-Ever
Rwandan ‘Peace Camp’
By Jean-Paul Mbonimana
Jean-Paul is an affiliate of the Kigali Chapter As the participants brainstormed, As Marcin left, the other organizers
their ideas gained clarity. The par- were eager to share their thoughts.
of Rwanda’s ‘Never Again’ organization.
ticipants decided on a slogan for the “It is our role as youth to help
On the 13th October 2005,
Marcin Zaleski, IDEA’s Director of Training, accompanied
by his newlywed wife, Melissa,
came to Rwanda, the land of
a thousand hills. Marcin had
made the long trip to the
Butare province in south-west
Rwanda in order to help plan a
historic event: Rwanda’s firstever ‘Peace Camp.’
The Rwandan ‘Peace Camp’ is
a vision driven by many objectives. Simply put, organizers
in the region hope to create a
network of conflict management-trained youth and to
introduce conflict resolution
through debate all over Great
Lakes region of West Africa.
To this end, representatives
of different youth organizations from Uganda, Kenya,
the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Burundi, and, of course,
Rwanda, had all gathered together
to share their experiences and plan
the upcoming Peace Camp, which
would be held that December in
Gikongoro province.
Through Marcin’s hard work, IDEA
played a crucial role in helping plan
the Peace Camp. The planning
workshop opened with attendees
sharing their expectations for the
Peace Camp. After dividing those
present into two groups, Marcin
___________________________
Editor’s note: The organizer’s work
paid off - the Peace Camp was a
terrific success!
It will be covered in the next issue of
IDEBATE
KOSOVO
Debating in Kosovo Grows Grass-roots
By Drilon Shala
After attending an IDEA summer
camp, Kosovar Drilon Shala went
home and spread the word about
debate, creating a brand- new, student-run program. Read all about
Drilon’s experiences in his own
words!
The Kosovo debate organization
SFERA selected me and a friend,
Jeta, to represent Kosovo at the
Summer Speech and Debate Institute in Duino, Italy, in 2005. Duino
was a once-in-a-life-time experience
for me. During those two weeks, I
had the chance to meet new people,
learn a lot of things about debate,
and visit two wonderful cities: Venice
and Trieste. I was part of the LincolnDouglas debate format group, and it
was the first time I had the chance
to debate in this format. I thought
it was an interesting format and my
coaches were excellent! What I especially liked about this format was
that in it there are only two persons
debating with each other.
Duino inspired me to continue
working and debating. Since there
aren’t many people that know about
Lincoln-Douglas debating in my
town, I decided to organize a project
and train them. Although I know
that my knowledge is still limited
on the issue, I thought it would be
a nice initiative to teach the others
what I knew. And thus came the
idea of organizing a project with the
Human Rights Club “The Future”
(I am the director of this informal
group). We named the debate project “Argue Your Opinion.”
“Argue Your Opinion” is a project
which included a training and a
competition between high-school
students. The project was supported
by the Forum of NGOs in Gjakova, which provided us with a hall
and printing materials. There were
twenty-four students who participated in the project. I trained them
for three days in a row and then,
together with my friends from the
HRC, organized the competition.
The person that most helped me
throughout the project is my friend
Vullnesa Doli – a very driven young
activist. Some of the resolutions that
were debated during the competition were: “The Government should
provide more scholarships for the
students studying out of the country
than for those studying in Kosovo”,
“The Government should prohibit
high-school seniors from excursions
in Albania”, “The only official language in Kosovo should be Albanian”, “The University of Prishtina
should enroll lesser students each
academic year”, “Drugs should be
prohibited by law”, and “Juveniles
charged with violent crimes should
be treated and punished the same as
adults”, and more.
The finalists in this competition
were, in the affirmative side. Enisa
Serhati and, on the negative side,
Agnesa Hasimja, who debated
about the resolution “Abortion
should be prohibited by law”. The
winner was Enisa Serhati. The best
speaker was Veton Krelani, and
the best cross-examiner was Agon
Nixha . All the students who participated in the project were given a
certificate for their participation in
the project.
Additionally, many of the participants will be part of the Debate
Club “Speak and Respect” that has
existed in our school since March
of this year.
As a trainer, I felt proud and satisfied with my debaters’ success.
I thought they understood the
format of debating very well and I
believe they’ll be successful debaters in the future.
___________________________
IDEA’s Kosovo Network
Expands
By Aaron Fishbone, Project Manager, IDEA
From December 1-5, 2005, alumni
from all of the different Southeast
Europe Youth Leadership Institutes
(SEEYLI) descended upon the Bulgarian ski town of Borovez for a long
demanded reunion. The days were
filled with workshops and the evenings with all sorts of revelry. It was
a short time, but enough to reunite
old friends from different countries.
In the spirit of SEEYLI and its
follow-on projects, IDEA had been
asked by a young woman from the
Kosovan city of Gjakova named Jeta
Rudi if someone would be able to
come to talk to the members of the
debate society that she had started
as her own follow-on project, and
to provide some coaching advice. I
was asked and I agreed.
I traveled to Kosovo from Borovez
by bus with the members of the
Kosovar SEEYLI delegation who
were returning home. When the
bus prepared to cross an international border, my buddy Arben
and I got out and walked across
on foot, because we were not on
the official list. And when the bus
finally arrived in Prishtine, I followed my other buddy Valon to his
home where I would live for the
next week.
I was primarily in Kosovo at the
request of the Gjakova debate society to work with them, but also
ended up working with the local
IDEA member NGO, Sfera Institute for Social and Policy Studies,
to develop their programming and
outreach.
After meeting everyone from Sfera,
(and having many cups of coffee
and tea with new and old friends
too!) we got to work. The first two
main projects were profile raising
activities, organized by Sfera to
utilize me in reaching a larger audience. The first project was to give a
lecture to the students in a comparative politics class at the American
University in Kosovo (AUK). This
lecture was designed to strengthen
the connections between Sfera and
AUK, and to impart some knowledge about debate and its role in
civil society activism to a group of
engaged local students. The lecture
went well, and turned out to be a
learning experience for all, as it was
a very dialogic session, and I heard
from many of the students their lay
opinions about this thing called
‘debate’ and more generally, about
life and politics in Kosovo.
The next morning the “King of
Kosovo” debate, Arber Domi, and
I went to the studios of one of the
local television stations, KTV, to be
interviewed on a morning talk show
for youth. The objective of this was
very simply to raise the profile of
Sfera and debate in Prishtine, by
reaching out to more youth (if that
was possible-it seemed as though
every second person I met was a
SEEYLI alumni…!). The interviewer asked Arber the questions
and he would either respond himself or translate them to me, and
then translate my responses back.
What would normally have been a
short interview took twice as long
when it had to be translated, but
miraculously they kept us on the
air for just over ten minutes. The
next day I heard positive feedback
on our interview; that apparently it
was a very popular show watched
by many and Arber and I had represented ourselves and Sfera well.
The following day Arber and I took
a public bus to Gjakova, to meet
Jeta and work with the Gjakova
debate society. It had also been
arranged that I would give a version of the AUK lecture to a group
of high school students from the
Gjakova network of youth NGO’s,
to teach them how to use debate in
their campaigns.
We arrived in cold and windy
Gjakova an hour and a half later
than expected, but were immediately warmed by the welcome we
received. Three members of the
debate society were there to greet
us, and we had a little time left for
hamburger, Fanta, and coffee before
the lecture.
Although the turnout was smaller
than Jeta had hoped, the lecture
was a success, especially for the
members of the debate society, who
were not very familiar with public
oriented debate. After the lecture
we went to a smaller room where
we could work just with the members of the debate society, and had
an extremely lengthy lesson and
discussion about cross examination (thanks to Bill Sheffield for his
lesson plan!). Arber and I co-led the
session, and the students were the
better off for getting his local parliamentary perspective on debate,
and my American/international
Karl Popper perspective. When all
the laughing died down, all seemed
to agree that the session had been
very valuable, especially Jeta, who
after inviting me to come, and
being dejected by the small turnout in the morning, was relieved
that things had gone so well in the
afternoon. And, in addition to the
sense of a job well done, Arber and
I were rewarded for our efforts with
a fabulous home-cooked meal in
Jeta’s family’s cozy home.
The final activity I engaged in while
in Kosovo was to lead a parliamentary debate workshop for the parliamentary debaters in Kosovo. They
came from all over the country to
participate in this half-day long
training and were rewarded with
an uproarious exhibition debate
between Arber, myself, and our two
partners. After that we had some
of the participants themselves participate in a debate, while the rest
of us watched and provided comments, which led to a larger discussion about do’s and don’ts in such
a format.
In the end, I spent eight days as
a guest in Kosovo, engaging in a
variety of different activities there
to promote debate and follow-on
the SEEYLI project. I was honored
to be there and so thankful to the
many friends and colleagues who
helped take care of me make sure
I had a great time. I look forward
to returning and seeing them all
again.
DEBATETRACKER:
The Debate Community’s
Online Brain
Debate Tracker is the world’s most extensive debate tracking resource for student debaters. From your Debate
Tracker home page, you can view and edit your member
profile, view your points and awards.
IDEA has created DebateTracker to allow students, coaches,
judges and trainers to track their achievements in speech,
debate and community service. DebateTracker will also
allow clubs and debate associations to track their members.
As individuals and organizations accumulate more points
they become eligible for seals of excellence and certificates
which can be printed directly from your computer. DebateTracker also has a function called ideaFinder which also
allows members to see where they and their club rank in the
global debate community.
I. HOW DO YOU GET STARTED IN
DEBATETRACKER?
Step 1: Create a login
Under the Log In button, click Register Now and fill out
the form. Note, we are asking for your date of birth so that
we can distinguish between under 18 year-old students and
over 18 as well as identify you in the event that you forget
your password and or login.
Step 2: Check your email
You will be sent an email with a link in it, follow this link
to set up your account. You will be asked questions at this
point but don.t worry, you can always change your answers
later.
Step 3: Login in to DebateTracker
Log into your account! If you have signed up as a coach,
judge or a trainer you will need to be approved the association that you are a member of (or by IDEA if you registered
as unaffiliated).
If you are a coach who wants to enter in a club you may do
so as soon as your coach status is approved by the association you are affiliated with or by IDEA if you are applying
to be an unaffiliated club.
DebateTracker is intended to grow with students
throughout their debate career. A student may
start as a high school debater, then move onto
University debate and then become a coach. It is
possible for one person to maintain many roles
within the system. For example, someone can be
a student, coach, judge and trainer all at the same
time. It is also possible for a coach to coach more
than one team.
II. HOW DO DEBATETRACKER POINTS
WORK?
DebateTracker’s points system is innovative for the
world of debate. Points are assigned to students when
they debate, participate in speech events or do community service. Coaches receive points based on the
number of points their students get. Clubs receive
points based on the number of points their coaches
get. Judges receive points based on the number of
rounds they judge and trainers receive points based
on the number of hours they train. Clubs receive
points from their affiliated coaches and judges.
Associations receive points from their affiliated
clubs and trainers. When students participate in an
event they will go on-line, login to DebateTracker
and enter their points and information about the
event. Once they submit their points they will get
a message that says: “Your new points will show up
once they are approved by your coach.” The next
time the coach logs onto DebateTracker there will
be a section that says ”Students Awaiting Approval.”
The coach should then click on each student, review
their points, and approve or reject them as necessary. If the student has made a mistake and coach
chooses to reject their points, the coach will have
an opportunity to write them a message explaining
why they were rejected. Judges and Trainers receive
points instantly when they enter in the amount of
rounds they judged our hours they trained. Coaches
receive points
Seals of Excellence
Students can receive points from participating in
judged events (that includes sanctioned events and
non-sanctioned events) and community service.
To have an event sanctioned, go to the Events section of the website and submit your event . your
event will be reviewed by IDEA and will either be
approved for sanctioning or not sanctioned. You
should enter ALL events into the events calendar
whether or not you choose to apply for sanctioning. To receive a seal of excellence, students must
secure points in both categories of judged events
and community service. A seal of excellence can
only be awarded if no more than 60% of the DebateTracker points come from judged events. Thus,
for the 100 points required for a bronze seal of
excellence, at least 40 should be from community
service. Community service is voluntary (unpaid)
work or services that benefit a school, club or wider
community. The purpose of community service is
two fold: to widen perspectives and knowledge and
to provide stronger ties with the environment in
which the debate club is functioning as well as in
society at large. Community service that is mandated (by the school, for example) is not considered
community service is DebateTracker.
Individual Events 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Other
Original Speeches 4 3 2 1 1
Interpretation 3 2 1 1 1
Other Contests 4 3 2 1 1 1
____________________________________________
3. For Community Service, 3 points will be awarded per
hour of activity.
Community service can include: working for the
school, working for the club, participating in noncompetitive and public speech and debate events
that occur outside tournaments and working in
the community by volunteering with community
organizations or other institutions. Students get 3
points per hour of community service. Students
may input up to 300 community service hours a
year (which would be 900 points).
III. AFFILIATION
The breakdown of the three types of activities is as
follows:
1. For sanctioned tournaments, event organizers
should enter points per the following schema:
______________________________________
Debate 6 points for each debate win; 3 points for
each loss
______________________________________
Individual Events 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Other
Original Speeches 6 5 4 3 2 1
Interpretation 5 4 3 2 1 1
Other Contests 4 3 2 1 1 1
______________________________________
2. For non-sanctioned tournaments, event organizers should enter points per the following
schema:
_____________________________________
Debate 4 points for each debate win; 2 points for
each loss
Seals of Excellence (for students, coaches, judges, trainers,
clubs and associations)
100 points = bronze seal
250 points = silver seal
500 points = gold seal
1,000 points = double gold seal
1,500 points = triple gold seal
Anyone can create a login on DebateTracker. However,
to receive points for your activity, you must be affiliated
or request to be unaffiliated to an association. IDEA staff
will enter in all Associations, both voting, non voting and
other debate associations that are not members of IDEA.
Coaches will enter in their club and request to affiliate with
an Association. The Association will then get a message to
approve the club as a member of its Association. Finally,
debaters enter in their own information and request to
become members of a club. Coaches will then get a message to approve the debater in their club.
Unaffiliated Clubs and Students
IDEA recognizes that there may be clubs in countries that
do not have Associations.
Coaches of these clubs should enter in their information
and request to become a club that is not affiliated with
any Association. Points for these clubs will be reviewed by
IDEA. Students can also request to join as an unaffiliated
student however it is not possible for these students to
receive points.
Affiliating with several organizations
Clubs may affiliate with more than one organization
though must select one organization as their primary affiliation. The primary affiliation is the only organization that
will get points based on that club.

from our Editor... - International Debate Education Association

Transcription

Documents pareils

Tales L Anglais Approfondi 2013-2014 Mythes et héros / Lieux et

course outline - communication skills 2

David Parry Dissecting Private Health Care in - St

Les vêtements/La Mode un collant un gilet un haut un jean un

Skin Cancer Awareness Day 2013

les 10 principes fondamentaux de notre projet éducatif the 10 basic

Avec ces chaussures, il ne manque plus aux enfants qu`une

Heat Wave in the US

Unité 7 : On fait les magasins Vocabulaire Leçon A faire les

harwood plaza- ajax - aug 3-16