lizzie
Watched Regressive
Posts: 14
|
Post by lizzie on Jun 13, 2008 0:47:21 GMT 10
I'm still deciding my opinion on the POI and team cap issues (but I have to say that the discussion has provided some excellent food for though, and a lot of amusment).
But I did want to say one thing in support of Tom's memories of past Australs finals:
"Andrew Fitch taking on Perry Herzfeld on cultural imperialism in 2002." - that is also still one of my favorite debating moments. Fitch's analysis of Bangladeshi women not being able to use tractors provided by the World Bank because, as he put it, the couldn't "spread their legs" - priceless.
As a question on the team cap issue, has anyone ever compiled any stats on how many teams get capped out, where they are from, and where the teams that get let in are from? What is the size of the problem/benefit? If a lot of this debate seems to hinge on giving smaller and newer institutions a chance, it would be good to know how often taht is the result of the team cap policy.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jun 13, 2008 11:19:48 GMT 10
Ah Liz, firstly its nice to hear from you, secondly, don't get me started on classic Fitch-isms! We'll need a whole new thread. However in an uncharacteristically charitable move by me, i will point out that while the tractor comment was hilarious, and his description of 'sustainable development' as "a process that has two important parts, being sustainable and developing" at a previous worlds was another great moment, it should be said that the internecine Australs quarterfinal which Tom remebers so fondly (it certain was an extremely excellent and unbelieveably close debate - i Lucia was one of the adjudicators that awarded the debate by a half-point!) included a fine speech from the garrulous Mr Fitch. So if you're reading this Andrew, rest assured that we remember the good bits too
|
|
|
Post by n on Jun 13, 2008 16:22:13 GMT 10
Dear All
Good to see this conversation up and running, although I think we'd all agree the quality of the tenor has its ups and downs...! I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to respond to the comments about me sooner - but I was trying to be disciplined and knuckle down for my exam this morning!
So...
1. Generally I don't mind anonymous posts but I would side with Tom after experiencing such criticism from tinfoilhat. I put my name on my email and it was clear that it was my opinion, and I think that it would be polite to do the same when criticising people personally.
2. In response to the things said about my initial email... Revered debating personalities was not an official categorisation but merely a recognition that they are old people who have been around for a long long time. The tone of the sentence was light, the intent was to draw attention to the previous debate over POIs which raised some excellent issues. I was surprised that that drew any attention. Further, I find it weird that it was reemphasised that I was not representing MUDS when I clearly wrote that myself in my email. I mean MUDS is the best debating society in Australia, and clearly the way MUDS votes holds a lot of weight for everyone else at AIDA.... but really.... I thought it was clear anyway!
3. I think that it is interesting that someone who is so adament that they know who represents who and has support from who in Asia at the same time seems to have absolutely no understanding of the barriers facing ESL and EFL speakers. Perhaps you are right that no Japanese team has made the MAIN break of Australs or Worlds, they have made the ESL and EFL breaks which is a fantastic achievment. I think it is offensive to imply that just because a particular country hasn't broken in the main break of an english speaking tournament that it means the quality of their debating culture is weaker. Tom is right in saying that a discussion about barriers for ESL speakers isnt necessarily central to this discussion, but I think tinfoilhat seriously needs to think about the difficulty of debating in a second (or third) language about topics written largely from people who read a completely different set of media that talks about a different set of issues than your local media. I for one could bearly make 30 seconds when I had to do a debate in arabic after 3 years of intensive university language study! Debating in another language is frustrating on top of being difficult and any criticisms of ESL speakers is arrogant and unfair.
4. Analogies to AA. I am going to take it as a given that the vast majority of the people on this board understand why AA is important and support it as a policy. I think the distinction about AA being about participation and not finals is not as strong as it sounds. Although Tim has already mentioned the fact that there is an AA rule for breaking judges, the way AA is constructed also goes beyond participation. 1/3 of the top three teams (the ones that are most likely to break) must also be female. This means that women access funding (at least in the societies I know about) but also means that AA ensures women are debating in the top teams sent by a contingent to ensure that they access finals and finals experience. This means that who gets to debate in the finals is affected by this rule.
5. I agree that Australs is not a novice competition and I also agree that it is a pinnacle of debating tournaments. I personally think the quality of Australs is generally better than Worlds (in large part due to the style). However, it is not a novice competition because there is no novice rule - teams can be all experienced speakers. I don't think that having rules about the break changes that. And I think Tom was very persuasive in his argument about finals recognising that the break isn't perfect to start with. Hence, I don't think the team cap is changing the quality of the finals or the tournament. I think that the finals of Australs are (mostly) cracking debates with the current rule in operation. Arguing that the 17th ranked team is going to be hugely less derving than the 16th (or 10th) is spurious as they probably have the same amount of team points and only a couple of speaker points differentiating them.
6. I think recognition of disadvantage is important. Maybe it's because I'm a bleeding heart lefty, but I genuinely believe that it creates creater legitimacy for the tournament, greater enjoyment for participants and a better tournament in the long run. I have experienced sexism in BP adjudication at worlds, and as a female debater I recognise the risks of bias that female speakers face (for example, coming across as "hysterical" or as a "bimbo" or many others) and I am conscious of those things when I speak and I counsel young female debaters to modify their manner in recognition of these facts. But in the long term I want a tournament that doesn't have that bias. The same goes for ESL speakers, the same goes for recognising that the uni you go to largely determines how well you will do as a speaker. If you can afford to go to every Australs because you get sponsorship then you will be far ahead of someone who takes three years to save up for their first. And if you have people in your society who have finals experience then they can debate with you and train with you and do to some extent influence other people in their society.
7. Now many people have raised the fact that the team cap doesn't have a large enough effect to do anything about this. That if it's only one team every couple of years that its not really going to have an impact. Well maybe we should make the cap 1 team then and it would afford a greater impact (JOKE!!). In all seriousness though, I think that this means that there largely is a balance in favour of merit. Most institutions in most years don't break more than three teams because Australs is very high quality. But it is a safeguard against the possibility of one institution dominating which could easily happen again in the future. And it is a recognition that Australs values diversity and I think the symbolic value of that has a lot of merit.
Anyway, there's my two cents for yesterday and two cents for today. Oooo it's so annoying jumping into a fight that's already cooking... so hard to catch up!
Cheers all
Nic(ole!)
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 13, 2008 16:37:34 GMT 10
Having lived in Japan, and studied Japanese, I feel quite confident I would be terrible debating in Japanese. However, I never claimed the contrary. Tim on the other hand said that if I believe the standard of competition in Australian IVs was higher than the standard of Japanese IVs, I was a racist. Since debating competitions take place in English, that's clearly what we're measuring this "competition" by. It may be impolite to discuss it, but Tim was the one who insisted on making that accusation. I'd like a retraction for it if he's not going to defend the statement.
|
|
|
Post by n on Jun 13, 2008 16:51:15 GMT 10
Enough with the he said/I said/he said I said/I said he said I said racism issue. Pleeeeease can we just forget about it, make (anonymous) friends and talk about something else?
Or challenge Tim to a duel. In a seperate thread.
|
|
lizzie
Watched Regressive
Posts: 14
|
Post by lizzie on Jun 14, 2008 1:34:55 GMT 10
"Ah Liz, firstly its nice to hear from you, secondly, don't get me started on classic Fitch-isms! We'll need a whole new thread. However in an uncharacteristically charitable move by me, i will point out that while the tractor comment was hilarious, and his description of 'sustainable development' as "a process that has two important parts, being sustainable and developing" at a previous worlds was another great moment, it should be said that the internecine Australs quarterfinal which Tom remebers so fondly (it certain was an extremely excellent and unbelieveably close debate - i Lucia was one of the adjudicators that awarded the debate by a half-point!) included a fine speech from the garrulous Mr Fitch. So if you're reading this Andrew, rest assured that we remember the good bits too" Just to be clear Tim, I meant that Fitchy's speech in that 2002 debate was amazing, I wasn't trying to degrade it. I mean, I remember it 6 years later, I remember thinking he was right (as well as being hilarious), and isn't that the essence of persuasion? I also agree that is speech in the quarter the year before was amazing. Actually that whole quarter rocked my world (yes, I am sad and was attending finals of IVs while I was still as school)! Well that is my effort for the day to contribute to this thread remaining light hearted and steering clear of personal attacks
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 14, 2008 9:01:12 GMT 10
Yeah I totally agree with Liz. Fitch was one of those great debaters who was entertaining and interesting at the same time as being convincing. Its a pretty good sign that there's a whole bunch of us who remember the Bangladeshi women on tractors point and the argument he was making. Personally I'd struggle to remember a single argument from Worlds six months ago with as much clarity.
|
|
|
Post by smartarse on Jun 14, 2008 17:10:09 GMT 10
Liz, in all the years i've known you i've never heard you degrade anyone. But yes, you are sad for having attended IVs as a school kiddie
|
|
|
Post by Old Man Sashi on Jun 15, 2008 13:10:29 GMT 10
hello all
first of all, glad to see this has provoked some serious discussion. whilst im personally opposed to the POI idea, im unsure where i stand on the team cap (and am yet to formulate a position).
however, i just thought id reference something TS mentioned earlier. For those of you who are unaware, when the POI issue was raised a couple of years back, the MDR featured some articles on the issue from both sides. Im planning to make these articles available online in the next couple of days (once exams are done..) and ill post a link here.
and whilst we're talking about fitch's speech about bangladeshi women and tractors - i wasnt even at uni at the time and it feels like i was there, such is the precision with which the story has been recounted to me. says something for the lasting impression the great man left.
|
|
patwall
Watched Regressive
Posts: 11
|
Post by patwall on Jun 17, 2008 23:41:58 GMT 10
Hi guys, Pat Wall form Sydney here. This thread has been brought to my attention and it was suggested that there should be an 'official' Sydney response to some of the issues raised. I'm one of two Intervarsity Directors at Sydney this year, so I guess that means me. There have been a few things that have been asked about our proposal (and forgive me if I miss anything - there's a lot of vitriolic slander between people that I don't know to wade through in the preceding pages). Most of it has, I think, been addressed in our submission to Council ( groups.yahoo.com/group/australs/message/1573 ). A couple of things weren't addressed in that document, though. First, why the 2/3 formulation and not a simple up-and-down abolishment of the team cap? Well, trying to avoid sounding like I'm Matt Santos talking health policy, that's what we considered was passable at Council. At Easters (where we floated a similar idea and were roundly thrashed), we learnt that you have to compromise on these things. It seemed that many institutions place more importance on the team cap than us, so incrementalism was the order of the day. If there is support for abolishing the team cap lock stock, we'd be thrilled to support it. Second, there has been quite a bit of chat about access to tournaments and the amount of access that people do or do not have. First of all, how much funding an institution gets is not really an issue here. There have been a number of mistruths about what we get from our Union and why, but this discussion isn't about that. Second, it is not true that debaters who are disadvantaged by the team cap or the maximum contingent size will necessarily "get their chance". There are a number of very good debaters who, at other universities, would be able to attend any worlds or australs they like. However, because of our size, they will never debate at either of those tournaments. But they're side issues. The proposal about letting the organisers choose what the maximum team cap is should be judged on its own merit, not on the basis of who is proposing it. We appreciate that Australs should have a wide range of participants, but we don't think that an artificial number effectively achieves it. As we mentioned in our proposal, we feel that the current practice of registering three teams and allowing expressions of interest for further teams adequately ensures that the tournament isn't dominated by a few institutions. I'm sorry if this hasn't addressed all questions about the proposals. It's great that people are discussing this stuff at length, and I'm happy to provide any further information you need. All the best, Pat
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 18, 2008 9:13:36 GMT 10
Thanks for your contribution Pat.
If I've misrepresented how much money you guys get, then I apologise. But I don't think I'm mistaken in saying that as an aggregate Sydney would have received vastly more money from its union and alumni than Melbourne University did for the 2006 tournament, and every subsequent international tournament. I think its a bit misleading to say that debaters at other universities could go to as many tournaments as they like. They can go to as many tournaments as they can afford. There's a whole stack of societies not sending anyone to Australs because they don't have the money.
I don't believe that societies should be penalised because they're richer, or larger, or have better debaters. I do believe there's a limit to how much those society should be allowed to dominate the tournament. And I think its having three teams in the break.
I don't want to pick on Sydney in this discussion. I think their contribution to Australian debating is enormous. The question was asked by Phil Barker why Sydney 3 were less deserving than Melbourne 4 at 2006 Australs. I pointed out that there wasn't exactly a level playing field between those unis in getting their best teams to the tournament, and I stand by that.
Pat, I take your point with the contingent cap, but I still believe that debaters at strong institutions have far more opportunities to succeed at tournaments than smaller clubs. Moreover, if someone is good enough to make the break at Australs, then they should be good enough to make a team at their institution. Its up to individual societies to run selection systems that produce the best possible teams.
On the specifics of your proposal, I think you're probably mistaken that what you've suggested is more passable at council. I'd have thought if you wanted to make this more palatable you'd have proposed expanding the break.
Addendum: For the sake of fairness, I should point out that the other year I can remember Sydney being capped out was 2002, and I'm pretty sure it was another Melbourne team that took their place. They didn't have any impediments to being at the tournament. They were hosting it.
So I am prepared to concede that its a blunt instrument. I still maintain that its better (and fairer) not to have one institution make up a quarter of the break.
|
|
patwall
Watched Regressive
Posts: 11
|
Post by patwall on Jun 18, 2008 10:38:53 GMT 10
Look I'm happy to discuss why we get funding (it has quite a bit to do with how much money we make for the Union through membership fees and our training days for 300+ school kids), I just don't think it forms a part of this discussion. Some unis have problems of access because of money, some have problems of access because they have 40 people trialling for 18 spots.
As for "if someone is good enough to make the break at Australs, then they should be good enough to make a team at their institution", that's probably fair enough (bearing in mind, though, that our most recent worlds champions didn't initially make a team). But, further to that, I'm sure you'd agree that debating tournaments aren't all about breaking. They're a great experience for people who have no hope in hell of breaking - and those people at Sydney will never get to go under the current arrangements. Strong debaters from strong institutions may have more opportunity to succeed at tournaments (as you say), but weaker debaters don't even have a chance to show up (even as adjudicators - we had 15 people trial as adjudicators for six spots this year)
You might be right about what's passable. There's nothing in the constitution that says that the amendments themselves can't be amended in Council, so if there's support for a different change along the same lines, I think it's arguable that fair notice has been given.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 18, 2008 13:53:46 GMT 10
Possibly a slight case of crossed wires here.
I wasn't addressing the six team cap in my last post. I generally agree that a hard and fast limit on teams per institution is a bad idea. I don't agree that the current practice you talk about is enough to ensure everyone gets a fair shot at registering. There's absolutely no responsibility for organisers to abide by current practice, unlike the constitution. Hosts have an incentive to adopt a first come first serve system because that's how they'll get paid fastest, so I think there needs to be something to stop nervous organisers opening up registration to all-comers too soon. Does anyone have any suggestions?
On what you can and can't pass, I think (I hope) you can probably give up on POIs. Its only been three years since council resoundingly rejected that proposal and the only thing that's changed in that time is there are now even more tournaments in the region in BP and Royal Malaysian style.
|
|
patwall
Watched Regressive
Posts: 11
|
Post by patwall on Jun 18, 2008 16:38:11 GMT 10
I don't see why, if that was a concern, you couldn't write the current practice into the amendments.
POIs may not pass, but that doesn't mean we'll be giving up on them. I know that it was raised 3 years ago, but in uni debating that's a pretty long time. Your garden variety uni degree only lasts three years - in that amount of time the membership of the debating community changes pretty substantially (with a number of very notable exceptions, of course). Only three members of our committee were at uni last time POIs were raised (and they were all in first year).
So this isn't same old Sydney proposing the same old thing. This is a completely new set of people proposing something because they genuinely feel that it's a good idea (when I first started talking to people about this, I wasn't even aware that we had already proposed it). And the debating community is substantially different from the one to whom this was proposed last time. The majority of them weren't in a position to have their say last time, so I don't really see the problem in raising it again.
|
|
|
Post by tinfoilhat on Jun 18, 2008 17:48:28 GMT 10
The changes are good, and worth fighting for. Those remarks were really uncalled for and, given the call for good conduct by some people here, a bit hypocritical. The last time Sydney raised them was 3 years ago, and they were defeated. Monash only bid last year and lost decisively too, yet you still seem to feel bidding again is still worthwhile. I suspect both parties hope to do better this time around.
|
|