|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 12, 2008 14:31:15 GMT 10
Your attempt to dodge an apology gets stranger and stranger.
Firstly, there is a pretty basic implication when someone mentions how something "could" be construed, it's the same reason an inexperienced schoolboy brings up how a particular action could be considered to be "at worst, like Hitler" in a debate, and it's just as ill-judged. It's equally obvious from Julian's (uninformed) reply, and the general tone of this board, that had I made the same imputation that I would have been called on it.
Secondly, it is extremely clear from what you have written in your earlier post that you are calling me a racist. Again, this requires you to read down to the level of the words written: "Your failure to respond to my analysis of why the comment was ignorant might be construed as acceptance by you of that analysis [ie, that it is racist]. Therefore i won't apologise for being right either." I encourage you to discredit yourself further by explaining how one might read this as something other than an imputation of racism at me, and suggest that even if the comment has been "poorly phrased" then in such situations one generally apologises for even appearing to impute such a remark. However the way you have written it, in conjunction with your subsequent post, makes it very clear you are accusing me of racism, albeit a bit inconsistently.
To use a hypothetical example, if I said "Your failure to respond to my analysis of why you could be a prat, might be construed as acceptance by you of that analysis. Therefore i won't apologise for being right either." I am quite clearly in this instance congratulating myself on being right about you being a prat.
But then it really gets odd. Apparently if I believe the quality of Japanese IVs is of a lower standard than certain other IVs, I am a racist. I certainly do think the "quality" or the level of competition at Japanese IVs is lower than say Sydney Mini, Melbourne Mini and IVs of this sort. I don't think the "size" of an IV is a measure of the level of competition, as people who went to WUPID can doubtless attest. I invite you to also embarass yourself with PC claims that the difficulty at making the final of say Melbourne Mini these days, exceeds the difficulty of making the final of any Japanese IV. I don't really understand how one would make that claim, given every objective measure backs up my understanding. It probably isn't terribly polite to discuss it, but since you've just based a claim of racism on my saying it I suppose we'll have to.
You then claim you will go on to the substantive merits, but in truth you barely address anything I said, you simply dispute you have to justify your remarks, because "dems da rules", and then more or less abandon poor Tom's claim that this will make things somehow more competetive. You don't even attempt to draw a causal link to justify it, and then misguidedly suggest a MMU team deservedly making the GF in 2004 somehow justifies the exclusion of a team from Sydney in 2006 not making the break. As I noted, the policy has benefited exactly 1 team out of 80 break teams over the last 5 years, and there is no real observable evidence it provided any benefit. I also don't see any correlation in looking at the % of Asian teams breaking with the total # of Asian teams attending. There is a correlation at times with where the IV is held, but none I can see which causes attendance, or which justifies this rule.
Finally you then make the same mistake I've been incorrectly accused of repeatedly, by making an off the cuff imputation of bias (unintentional of not) of the DCA cores at australs, but without being willing to specify what this bias is, which is apparently acceptable because your accusation is aimed squarely at a non-minority community. I find it fitting that you are willing to throw such slurs here, but won't post what you think a DCA needs to be qualified on my other thread.
I would like to hear some examples of this apparent bias. I don't think it exists.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jun 12, 2008 15:24:00 GMT 10
First, school boy debaters have poor logic. At least in this case I do not. So i am not subject to the comparison.
Second, my analysis (as the quote clearly states) was of why your comment was ignorant - of basic facts - which is why i asked the question of why you would make such a statement, and i suggested that there could be a variety of reasons (none flattering, but some worse than others) and that the most extreme of those is racism.
Still nothing to apologise for and i tire of your increasingly torturous attempts to salvage a point which should simply have been dropped some time ago.
Third, i still doubt you have ever been to a Japanese IV, so i can't see how you are making any assessment of them. I on the other hand have attended several over the years, so perhaps until there is further evidence to the contrary you might conceed that you are making unfounded allegations about the quality of those IVs (and then answer the question of why).
Fourth- i have apparently imputed the reputations of adj cores past. In every case (i invite you go back and check) i have always indicated that where bias exists in the system it is usually unintended. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Examples?! Examples?!" you cry. Well i've already given you one about how young adjudicators sometimes react to teams from countries like Japan, Korea, etc. But ok, you want more, here were go.
Lets take the grandfinal of Australs last year. An enjoyable debate featuring almost universally people who are close personal friends of mine. So clearly no insult is intended against any of them.
The issue of bribery of members of the IWC was discussed by both sides, and the analysis was (very crudely for the sake of brevity) "Japan buys votes to support its pro-whaling position, and thats bad" responded to by "well thats just realpolitik, and its fine".
I think the vast majority of Australians in the room would accept the premise and perhaps have different views on the strength of the reply. However, the Japanese (and others) in the room bristled because its actually the anti-whaling nations (such as Australia) that started the game of signing up nations (some of which are landlocked) to the IWC to bolster their numbers (no comment being made here about whether thats justified or not).
However the Australian media (and Western more generally) routinely cast the Japanese as the bad guys in the whaling debate and countries like Australia as virtuous - which the claims of vote buying being a common allegation made against one side, but never considered about the other.
How about the semi final? well the round i saw, in which Melbourne 1 were victorious, the topic was about the need for Japanese history textbooks to be jointly written by other nations in the region.
The debate was fierce and enjoyable, the problem lies in the premise. There is already a joint commission of academics from Japan and Korea that vet the contents of Japanese history textbooks (those used by 95% of schools - only a tiny proportion of private schools used other texts) but the debate continued as though the vast majority of Japanese kids are being taught lies (in fact the model proposed was the very commission that already exists).
I could go on and on about problems in the way we allocate judges and train judges (with respect to handling strong accents and odd turns of phrase which often accompany an ESL speaker) but i won't. I'll simply invite Mr Hat to visit the egroups he states he reads, such as AUDC, and pose the question - Does Australs have a pro-Western bias? and see what happens.
If you have trouble getting a response remind Logan of the comments he has often made, about how he debates at Australs (and Worlds) - he says that he doesn't think like a Malaysian, but he constructs cases from the point of view of a western educated, liberal-democract. That from the arguably one of the most successful Asian speakers at Australs. Or ask Melanie from UI (currently at Monash) to tell you about the experiences of Indonesians, or ask Masako to comment the challenges faced by the Japanese at Australs, or Piyanart about Thailand, etc, etc.
All of these people and dozens more have helped to educate me over the years about the bias problems in Australs. Some of which i have unfortunetely replicated, others i failed to see. The whole Monash Australs bid is predicated on the fact that there are problems of bias at Australs.
So this is the wrong place to deny the obvious my friend.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 12, 2008 15:45:33 GMT 10
First, school boy debaters have poor logic. At least in this case I do not. So i am not subject to the comparison. Second, my analysis (as the quote clearly states) was of why your comment was ignorant - of basic facts - which is why i asked the question of why you would make such a statement, and i suggested that there could be a variety of reasons (none flattering, but some worse than others) and that the most extreme of those is racism. Still nothing to apologise for and i tire of your increasingly torturous attempts to salvage a point which should simply have been dropped some time ago. Third, i still doubt you have ever been to a Japanese IV, so i can't see how you are making any assessment of them. I on the other hand have attended several over the years, so perhaps until there is further evidence to the contrary you might conceed that you are making unfounded allegations about the quality of those IVs (and then answer the question of why). Fourth- i have apparently imputed the reputations of adj cores past. In every case (i invite you go back and check) i have always indicated that where bias exists in the system it is usually unintended. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "Examples?! Examples?!" you cry. Well i've already given you one about how young adjudicators sometimes react to teams from countries like Japan, Korea, etc. But ok, you want more, here were go. Lets take the grandfinal of Australs last year. An enjoyable debate featuring almost universally people who are close personal friends of mine. So clearly no insult is intended against any of them. The issue of bribery of members of the IWC was discussed by both sides, and the analysis was (very crudely for the sake of brevity) "Japan buys votes to support its pro-whaling position, and thats bad" responded to by "well thats just realpolitik, and its fine". I think the vast majority of Australians in the room would accept the premise and perhaps have different views on the strength of the reply. However, the Japanese (and others) in the room bristled because its actually the anti-whaling nations (such as Australia) that started the game of signing up nations (some of which are landlocked) to the IWC to bolster their numbers (no comment being made here about whether thats justified or not). However the Australian media (and Western more generally) routinely cast the Japanese as the bad guys in the whaling debate and countries like Australia as virtuous - which the claims of vote buying being a common allegation made against one side, but never considered about the other. How about the semi final? well the round i saw, in which Melbourne 1 were victorious, the topic was about the need for Japanese history textbooks to be jointly written by other nations in the region. The debate was fierce and enjoyable, the problem lies in the premise. There is already a joint commission of academics from Japan and Korea that vet the contents of Japanese history textbooks (those used by 95% of schools - only a tiny proportion of private schools used other texts) but the debate continued as though the vast majority of Japanese kids are being taught lies (in fact the model proposed was the very commission that already exists). I could go on and on about problems in the way we allocate judges and train judges (with respect to handling strong accents and odd turns of phrase which often accompany an ESL speaker) but i won't. I'll simply invite Mr Hat to visit the egroups he states he reads, such as AUDC, and pose the question - Does Australs have a pro-Western bias? and see what happens. If you have trouble getting a response remind Logan of the comments he has often made, about how he debates at Australs (and Worlds) - he says that he doesn't think like a Malaysian, but he constructs cases from the point of view of a western educated, liberal-democract. That from the arguably one of the most successful Asian speakers at Australs. Or ask Melanie from UI (currently at Monash) to tell you about the experiences of Indonesians, or ask Masako to comment the challenges faced by the Japanese at Australs, or Piyanart about Thailand, etc, etc. All of these people and dozens more have helped to educate me over the years about the bias problems in Australs. Some of which i have unfortunetely replicated, others i failed to see. The whole Monash Australs bid is predicated on the fact that there are problems of bias at Australs. So this is the wrong place to deny the obvious my friend. Your logic here is no better, about racism or anything else. 1) Japanese IVs. You have once again reversed the logic. You accused me of racism if I believe x, I tell you I do believe x, and you then say it is my burden to now prove why x is not racist, without any explanation from you why it is. Given you're the one making far-fetched and baseless accusations, the burden of proof is on you, the benefit of the doubt is with me. However, that won't stop me responding. One can never know definitively the value of things, they can only make good guesses. I can't be sure there isn't a 10 team IV in Fiji right now which has the worlds greatest debaters, who simply choose not to debate at other IVs. However there are fairly obvious reasons why logic allows me to draw the following conclusion, that making the final of M.Mini or S.Mini will generally be far tougher than an equivalanet Japanese IV. There are debaters at the 2 IVs I just named who have a long list of achievements which range from making WUDC & Australs finals, etc, and so the competition is very tough. On the other hand, to my knowledge there has never been a Japanese team who has broken at either Australs or Worlds, or come even close to doing so. It is the same reason one can feel quite confident that the NBA is more competetive than the local basketball leauges in Japan, because the US achieves such disproportionately better results. This is not racist, it is simply an observation of facts. Things may be different one day, but there is no evidence to the contrary. I reject I have to have attended a Japanese IV to make that claim, in the same way that you don't have to have been to Iraq to comment on the political situation there. At any rate, the Fiji super-friends example I use above only applies where there is no basis of comparison. Japanese IVs who compete internally do compete internationally (while achieving good results at the internal Japanese competitions), so the basis of comparison is there. I assume you mean Australs 2006, not "last year", and I don't see any bias in the whaling topic, any more than the historical fiction one. Australian debaters who are religious or have a personal belief about things like whaling, animal testing, whatever, are always asked to debate such things. The US debaters at Worlds were asked to debate that S-11 was their fault. NZ debaters are asked to argue that they should merge with Australia. Harden up is my advice. If anything those Japan centric debates (which they didn't even participate in) would have provided a distinct advantage to the Japanese teams. Complaints of "style bias" are usually a cover for whiners, and that's certainly how they were responded to when the infamous Irish debaters e-mail was sent.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jun 12, 2008 16:07:29 GMT 10
my question was why you picked out Japan. The accusation you make about the quality of Japanese IVs could be equally said of minis in most countries around the world since Australia has a highly disproportionate share of Australs and Worlds finalists.
But even with that said, your assumption that english langauge tournaments are the pinnacle of debating is specious, and furthermore most Australian minis are nothing like the standard you describe - even if occassionally melbourne mini is.
as for the question of bias. the bias was not in the wording of the topic, or even the issue (neither of which i claimed) it was in the assumptions that underpinned both teams responses, which are factually inaccurate, which was unnoticed by virtually all the Australians in the room. To premise the debate on the idea that the 'problem' to be discussed is Japanese rorting of the IWC, when at best it is a problem with its genesis in the behaviour of western nations and is now pursued equally by both sides, is ignorant.
I linked that ignorance to the way the issue is described in the western media, which is the source of information relied on by both teams. if you can't see that bias, then there is really nothing further to say about it. its right in front of you.
the semi final topic is not biased because it implies historical fictions are taught - they are in fact taught and this is recognised by commentators within and outside Japan. the BIAS is that the premise of the topic is that the problem is very widespread and that little is being done about it - because thats the way its described in the western media.
You can see the bias because the topic itself called for the creation of a system that already exists. So the people setting the topic were aware of a problem - much overblown - but were obviously unaware of even the most basic steps that have been taken by the Japense government to deal with the issue. Why? because the western media don't talk bout whats being done. its not part of the story.
to yet again clarify - this isn't a critique of western media, its a critique of the dominance that western media plays in the topic selection, and general knowledge of judges/teams at Australs. the western media is probably better overall than the media in other parts of the world but its not a purely western tournament and the lack of balance in mindsets and knowledge sets manifests itself as a bias.
again i invite you to ask those people affected by it and see what they tell you.
finally, the "harden up" and "whingers" analysis is amusing. Its not just the asian debaters themselves who claim the bias, i think its there too, and i'm not someone who has anything to whine about. I simply think we need to recognise the problems and do things that mitage them in the short term and resolve them in the longer term. Incidently this is also the view of Monash, who have largely structured their Australs bid around these issues.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 12, 2008 16:13:43 GMT 10
I don’t really want to buy into this sub-debate about the level of bias against Asian teams. I agree that there’s a problem, but I probably disagree with Tim about its extent. Mostly, I feel uncomfortable having this discussion without input from any Asian debaters.
I also don’t really care about tinfoilhat’s opinions. If he’s not even prepared to put his name to them I’m certainly not going to bother responding to them. We can’t even know for sure if he actually believes any of his own rubbish or if he’s just trying to have an argument for the hell of it. Quotes like ‘Harden up, is my advice’ would suggest the latter.
But I don’t want this discussion to get lost amidst this shit fight. Phil’s last post raised some issues that I think are worth responding to.
I think everyone agrees that Sydney's proposal on changing the finals cap is a little wacky. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Lets focus on the existing rule and whether it’s a good thing.
But first Phil, you might have to explain to me how giving discretion to the hosts to set a cap ensures all universities will have an equal chance to register. My reading of it is that it allows the host to do what they like. I'm not suggesting any host university would ever attempt to abuse its position, but I think there are circumstances where it might be easier to fill their team cap earlier with stacks of teams from local unis than give proper consideration to smaller institutions from far flung places.
As far as the finals cap goes, I'm not so concerned about the development angle. I only mentioned it because it seems having a 3 team cap can develop smaller institutions whereas not having it can't. For me, its an added benefit rather than the crux of this argument. What concerns me most is the possibility of a handful of universities dominating the break.
Some institutions have a whole stack of great debaters. Some have a stack of money to send people to tournaments. Some have a strong culture of inclusiveness and nourishing talent to get the most out of what they have. Some are in locations that regularly host lots of strong tournaments. Some have all of these things. Some have none.
What university you go to plays a huge part in the opportunities you get in debating. And if your university makes up a quarter of the top sixteen teams of the Australasian Championships, chances are you’ll get a lot of opportunities. At the very least there’s obviously a big pool of talented debaters for your internal comps. So I don’t think we should get too dramatic about those poor, poor teams that miss out through this rule. They’ll have their chance.
But these great disparities between strong and weak institutions, which is really stark in Australian debating at the moment, could create a bigger problem. If a couple of particularly strong institutions between them can make up half the break or more, then the finals will not even remotely reflect the tournament. By leaving out some of these teams we stand a far better chance of a diverse, more interesting, and frankly fairer finals series.
Phil asked why it could possibly be better to have Melbourne 4 rather than Sydney 3 in the break in 2006. Well I can think of one reason. Sydney 3, along with the rest of their contingent, had all flights and registration fully paid to get to Wellington, whereas the Melbourne team had to fund themselves. One society had a huge advantage in reducing the restrictions on getting all of their most talented debaters to the tournament.
Now, I think its great that some societies can source private funding to get to tournaments. We all benefit from having the best debaters there. It’s also great when institutions can send big contingents filled with talented people. But if one society can leverage its own natural advantages to dominate the tournament then their presence has a harmful effect, and needs to be curtailed. Pat Wall’s e-mail complained that Sydney teams were being forced to compete against one another to make the break. In some ways, Sydney teams should feel like they’re competing with another, because they’re the only other teams to enjoy the same advantages over the rest of the tournament.
Restricting teams in the break is a blunt instrument, but as has been noted, it only kicks in occasionally, and only when one institution has such a big presence in the break that it becomes distortive. No, the institutions that benefit aren’t always small Asian unis starved of success, but no matter who they are it’ll always create a better reflection of the competition than including yet another team from the university that already has three finalists.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 12, 2008 16:19:12 GMT 10
Your opening few lines seems to be a grudging concession that I'm right, but without an apology for saying that I was racist for thinking it. I'm not sure how you can convince yourself you don't owe me an apology in either case, certainly this one. You've claimed balls out you want to know "[if I] think there is something inherently inferior about the quality of Japanese IVs in comparison to IVs held in other countries - which would make [me] a racist". You now seem to concede the standard at most Australian IVs and minis is higher, but for some strange reason do not feel the need to apologise.
Nor do I think the final of the last Sydney Mini does your half-hearted attempt to play down the toughness of these IVs in general any favours, given it consisted of Liz & Amit, Croke & Dom, Tim & Fiona and Paul Barnsley & Sam Greenland I believe.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jun 12, 2008 16:35:10 GMT 10
No concession made, as i said, even if melbourne mini (and sydney mini) can be very good, the vast majority of Australian IVs are not.
My point stands, you have given no justification for singling out Japan even if its IVs were always inferior to every Australian IV - believe it or not there a couple of other countries in Australasia and when you single out one for criticism the question - i have constantly asked - is WHY?
But Tom's right, getting drawn into to an argument with a polemicist is foolish, even if it is a welcome distraction from work, especially when there are real issues to discuss. Tom has made some interesting points, i'll leave it to others to consider them rather than risk totally derailing this thread.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 12, 2008 16:50:03 GMT 10
I don't understand either what sort of IVs you're talking about (does Ballarat have a Mini I don't know about?), or how it is relevant to an apology. I could "single out" other countries too, but since the one you tied the accusation of racism to is Japan, it falls to you to defend it, not to make irrelevant points. Off the top of my head I can identify the following Australian IVs- Easters, ADAM, Melbourne Mini, Sydney Mini, UTS Mini, ANU Mini, womens and Sydney's open day IV. If I've missed any, please raise them. Looking at the finalists across those comps, I feel pretty confident that the finalists and winners would be far tougher competition than Japan IVs. I can deduce this because pretty much all of the winners and finalists of those comps have broken at IVs like worlds and Australs, and to my knowledge no Japanese debater has ever come close (correct me if I am wrong). I'll be happy to look up the finalists for the last few years, if you'll be willing to give me the highest rankings for Japanese teams at Worlds and Australs. I found Tokyo A best speaker ranked at #438 last worlds. I didn't see anyone higher, but I don't know Japanese universities as well as you, so feel free to enlighten me. I won't hold my breath, because we both know you're wrong.
Even at novice centric IVs, history tells us that the finalists from those comps tend to be very tough debaters at other competitions, even if they take a year or two sometimes to make that mark. I don't see the Japan analogy. But if the argument is "Japan's best National IV would not be so very far behind Australia's novice comps" I think you've pretty much conceded my point about the relative standard of Australian comps v.s Japanese ones.
You shouldn't throw around accusations of racism lightly, and more to the point you should retract them when you concede they have no basis.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 12, 2008 17:21:18 GMT 10
People from Sydney have more money, so they should be less entitled to break than people from Melbourne. What a sophisticated argument. It strikes me individuals have economic disparity too, but that sort of "glance behind the looking glass" approach strikes me as a pretty stupid way to determine who is allowed to break. Even if Sydney had no money for IVs, the 150 plus applicants they often get for trials suggests they would have no difficulty sending a full compliment of teams anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Jun 12, 2008 17:31:37 GMT 10
I'm not sure where I stand on the finals cap issue - initially I was in favour of the 3-team rule, but surpsingly some of the discussion on the board has made me lean the other way, somewhat.
The benefits seem to be pretty minimal - at best a small chance of helping a small institution get a team in for the first time. From memory, the teams that sit just outside the break are usually mid-ranked teams from reasonably established institutions, most of which have a team in the break already (with some exceptions, of course).
I don't know that tom's scenario of one or two unis dominating the break would come about. Firstly, because I just don't think it can happen these days - sure, Sydney might have the capacity to get four teams into the top 16, but outside of that, I don't think many, if any, unis have the capability, even if they could get all of their very best. Secondly, I think the australasian community as a whole is a lot stronger - there are lots of other asian and australian unis that are in regular contention for the break. It's not just Syd/Mon/Melb - often the top teams from places like Vic, ateneo, NUS, NTU, MMU, UQ, ANU, Mac, ANU, UTS are usually in serious conention for the break. I don't see a fourth team from anywhere beating enough teams to get in, year after year. Sure, it may happen once or twice every three or four years, but in that case I reckon they've earned the right to debate in the finals.
I don't think that the finals are necessarily about representation, so much as they are about getting the best sixteen teams - and I doubt that one team from an extra institution will make that much of a difference anyway to representation. Particularly at australs, where the focus isn't on development as much as it is at Easters, for example. I think a team that has done enough to get into the top 16 shouldn't be penalised for the mere possibility of a more representative finals series.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 12, 2008 22:14:54 GMT 10
I think with Ravi's post we're getting down to the really important issue in this discussion, which is the purpose of the tournament and the finals series.
I've always believed that there's a greater purpose to debating than the competition itself. I've gotten far more out of the people I've met and the discussions I've had than any tournaments I've won (there weren't that many, to be fair). This is one of the reasons I love Australs so much, because its such an ambitious enterprise. It brings together different styles from across Asia and Oceania and tries to find a common ground to debate about. To be successful, teams have to learn how to convince judges from all kinds of diverse backgrounds. The style is geared around creating the best possible discussion with the deepest analysis, which is why it is by far the greatest learning tournament I've ever seen.
So for those reasons I think development and representation are integral to the purpose of Australs. I just don't see the point in bringing together so many great speakers from across so many cultures if they're not going to go away having learnt as much as possible across as broad as possible a perspective.
This is after all, a university tournament, and not an open event. If it was all about merit we’d allow anyone to compete, whether a student or not. Merit gets sacrificed through AA because we’ve decided that gender diversity was more important. If we wanted the best teams only we would require some kind of qualification for institutions to compete, allowing us to let in more teams from the strongest debating universities. If you think debating is competition at the exclusion of all else, then I feel sorry for you, and you should probably be arguing for a few more changes besides this one.
But the issue here is the finals series. I think a few people are asking the question ‘why shouldn’t the finals series be purely based on ability’ but I think a better question is ‘why shouldn’t the finals series embody the same values as the rest of the tournament?’. I don’t think the integrity of the break is some holy cow that must be protected at all costs. If the finals series was simply a vehicle for determining who the best team was, then we wouldn’t bother with it. In most cases, the team on top of the tab after the preliminary rounds is at least as good an indication of who champion should be. This would be even more the case if we used the time given for finals to extend the round robin. Finals mean a team can go the entire tournament without losing an adjudicator and then get done in a 5-4 split in the grand final by the 15th ranked team. How is this fair?
So if you think we should have finals you can believe one of two things. Either the round robin system produces too many vagaries and inconsistencies and we need finals to even it out, or the finals serve a purpose beyond working out who the best team are. If you believe the former, then the break can’t possibly be this sacred sixteen that shouldn’t be altered. If you believe the latter, then we should ask what the purpose is and how do we best fulfill it.
My view is that finals debates are an important learning and formative experience for novice debaters. Watching the finals at my first Australs back in 2001 didn’t just teach me a lot about debating, but the excitement of the debates truly inspired me to improve as much as I could. I actually still remember each of those debates and could tell you something about all of them. Even these days, the best debates I’ve ever seen or been a part of were almost always finals debates at Australs. That cracking semi-final against Ateneo in 2006. The Monash-Ateneo quarter in 2004. Knocking out Melbourne 1 in my first ever Australs Octo in 2003. Andrew Fitch taking on Perry Herzfeld on cultural imperialism in 2002. And of course, the greatest debate I’ve ever seen, the Monash-Monash quarter-final in 2001. From talking to others, I think this is a pretty common view. Australs finals teach and inspire. Unlike the rounds, they’re public events that debaters remember and talk about, and work to form a view about what could constitutes objectively good debating, and what is the apex of the Australs style.
This is why it is so critical that one view of debating or one institution not dominate the Australs finals. If they do they stamp their indigenous version of debating onto the rest of the tournament, then the common ground that we try and establish between Asia and Oceania, and all the little differences within those two, starts to disintegrate. Tim mentioned that Logan felt he had to adopt a liberal Western mindset to be successful. That’s because he saw people being successful debating that way, as did his opposition and the adjudicators who judged him. That’s a problem because debaters should be forced to expand their worldview rather than narrow it. This becomes even worse if the style of one particular university becomes more and more prominent in the collective, normative perception of what is ‘good’ debating.
So the question then becomes where do we draw the line? How many teams can an institution have in the break before it starts to erode diversity? Personally, I think three is plenty from one institution. Barker thinks there should be no restriction. Pat Wall, for some reason, thinks it should be 2/3rds of the biggest contingent at the tournament. If anyone has a better cutoff point I’m all ears.
Ravi, you might be skeptical that a couple of institutions could dominate a tournament at the exclusion of everyone else, but remember that societies have peaks and troughs. The balance of abilities now won’t hold for ever, or even for more than a couple of years. At my first Australs in Singapore, only three institutions made it through to the quarter finals: Monash, Melbourne and Sydney. When the convenor put up the draw for the quarters it was on a power point slide with the flags of all the countries represented that year as a border. He remarked as he read out the draw ‘Of course, only one of those flags matters now’. In the same way I was excited by that tournament, a lot of people from other parts of Australasia were probably demotivated by that. Anybody in that room at that moment (and there were hundreds of us) would have thought that if they wanted to do well at this tournament they’d have to learn to debate more like those three institutions. Anyone at break night when four, five, six teams get read out from one institution would think the same.
Of course it hurts when you miss out on the break because of this rule. It hurts when you miss out on the break when you think you were shafted in a bubble round. It hurts if you go to UTS or Putra and miss the break because it was dominated by teams from better supported societies. It hurts for Monash guys who miss out on sponsorship because of AA. It hurts for experienced Sydney debaters who miss out because of their novice rule. No, there’s no massive cost in sending seven guys rather than six, or thirteen experienced debaters rather than twelve. Yes, at the time it feels wrong to ‘punish’ debaters who’ve shown more ability. But sometimes there is a broader purpose beyond just rewarding the deserving.
In this instance, its even more justifiable. If you attend a university that can break four teams at Australs, then you obviously have some advantages over a lot of the people you’ve debated against. That could be the culture of the club, the location of the university, the quality of the coaching or the financial support. Tinfoilhat’s thundering misrepresentation of my prior remarks on this subject prove that we don’t need to know his name to know he never managed to break as a debater.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 12, 2008 23:17:59 GMT 10
While claiming not to want to respond to anything I say, Tom seems to devote a large portion of his post doing just that. I'll wait till more people have replied before covering what he says, but I am gladdened by Tom's (incorrect) closing remarks which show him for the intellectual coward he is. I'm more convinced than ever that anonymity is a good thing, and should be encouraged, especially when Tom's contempt of it is used as little more than an excuse to try and attack the individuals rather than their ideas. As I told you in reply to the message you sent me Tom, it's your perogative if your goal is to clamp down on views "that could reflect badly on Monash", but don't give us this disingenous claim that you're just dying to discuss potentially divisive issues like DCAs and Adjudication standards, but people's anonymity is holding you back.
I hope you share your views above with other debaters though, particularly from the disadvantaged groups on whose behalf you and Tim claim to be acting for. Assumedly we may discredit many of their views on the same grounds? It continues Tim's past record of wanting it 3 ways on every issue.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 12, 2008 23:36:24 GMT 10
For the record, I encourage views from everybody, no matter how experienced or how successful they've been.
I just wanted to find out something else about our friend.
But I needn't have bothered, cos I suspect he/she/it is just a common liar.
Phil, Ravi. You guys are awesome and I love talking about this stuff with you, even if I can't convince you.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 12, 2008 23:40:45 GMT 10
Yup, lying above "to find out more about me" certainly gives us good cause to believe you now... ugh There's something awesome about the way your pithy comeback is to call me a liar, mere moments after admitting you just lied.
|
|
|
Post by Chancellor of the Exchequer on Jun 12, 2008 23:43:20 GMT 10
My contributions to discussions rarely lead to an increase in civility, so I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread is (partially) back on topic. Having said that I'm still making up my mind about some of these things, so bear with me.
I agree with a lot of what Tom has said about australs - certainly I think there is a significant representative aspect; that's why I (along with most people I suspect) am in favour of some sort of initial team cap on registration to ensure that australs is truly an australasian tournament; that teams don't miss out just because sydney and monash and melbourne fill up the tournament cap.
My view on australs finals (notwithstanding my lack of participation in them, and my very limited participation in finals more generally) is one that probably agrees with a lot of what Tom said. I'm happy to concede that we shouldn't have a monolithic style; I too remember some of those finals tom spoke of and probably have similar feelings about them. I don't believe that the prelims are perfect, but they are the best way I can think of to separate the top teams from the rest.
My objection comes back to the fact that I don't see one or two unis dominating the break; if anything the trend seems to be away from the traditional powerhouses of debating. It's only been once every couple of years that a team gets capped out - and even then, the team that replaces them isn't always a "new" institution, so to speak. From memory, the teams that rank 17-20 are often from the same institutions as the ones that rank 1-16. I'm willing to concede that diversity and representation is important, but I'm not willing to concede that we should sacrifice and notionally "punish", for want of a better term, a team that makes the break for what I see as the possibility of increasing diversity.
Unis do go through peaks and troughs, but I think there have been some fundamental changes that mean that things aren't likely to revert to only three unis getting through to the quarters. The history page of the MAD website shows Monash consistently used to break 3 (or more, for all I know) teams at Australs; that hasn't happened since 2004. I think there will be tournaments in the future where Monash will break 3, but it would be very unlikely to break 4 ever again, simply because other unis have been getting better. It almost seems to me to have served its purpose of ensuring diversity; now it's just something that kicks in occassionally.
Tom's right to point out that it sucks to miss out as an experienced debater at sydney, or missing out on sponsorship as a guy at Monash (preaching to the choir there, tom) - but particularly in the case of AA, I think it's different. AA has been something of a problem in the sense that it's kicked in repeatedly for several years now, indicating that it is a significant problem, with clearer downsides. It's not something that comes into effect once every few years, it's something that seems to have been a recurring issue, indicating that the underlying problem still exists. I don't see that as happening with the finals cap - certainly when you consider the fact that the team that gets let in is likely to be from an already established institution.
Representation is important; I just don't think this measure makes much of an impact on that, and that small potentialy benefit, for me, doesn't justify pushing a team out of the break.
By the way - I must say I enjoyed your post tom, especially some of your turns of phrase ("thundering misrepresentation" - what a great line!).
|
|