A long time ago now, or so it seems to one becoming increasingly confounded by the affairs of a world gone deaf, dumb and blind, I wrote an article for a debating journal entitled ‘What’s the Matter with Manner’. I mention this only as a means of providing the basis for my complete withdrawal of every single plea made in the course of that misguided document – and my utter surrender to the inevitability of a trend in competitive debate – at least in Asia – that brings us ever closer to the brink of sterile, pasteurised, formless, featureless and inherently meaningless debate and speech-making.

I offer this sad and even painful commentary as the result of my participation in the very recent Malacca Debate Open, hosted by Multimedia University and the insights gained through the shared experience of our team: Dengkil Institute for the Terminally Insane, or DITI, as the organisers insisted on calling us.

Please do not imagine for one moment that this epistle represents some kind of collective ‘whinge’ on the part of DITI, or indeed, that comforting and supportive Institution that we had the honour to represent. These opinions, while shared by many of what I’d like to refer to as Malaysian debating’s alumni (given the comments received in conversation with these worthies since the MDO grand final), are entirely my own view of what has occurred, perhaps not least because I have been around long enough to actually recognise a trend when I experience its birth and progression. Age, perhaps, does have one or two things to say for it… For example, may your God grant that you live long enough to debate with your own children…
……….

During the course of the 5 preliminary rounds in which feedback was provided to us and the teams competing against us, plus the slightly more cursory and individualised feedback that we sought after the knock-out, or ‘break rounds on the third day, not one reference was made to “manner” by those that adjudicated in our rooms. Not one!

This was clearly not a problem for many teams, but it was for us. You might well ask, “Why?” Well, apart from the obvious response that Manner-based considerations are supposed to account for 40% of the total marks (or two fifths of the total allocation for any one speech), members of DITI’s debate squad have always sought to enliven their contribution to debates with the appropriate use of things like humour, wit, expressions of sincerity, the use of emphasis, and so on. Clearly, none of this was particularly important to the vast majority of adjudicators in the competition because the only category in which commentary was consistently and exclusively given was that of Matter. Thus, even Method-related items seemed to be insignificant – as things such as team dynamism, response, and shifts in the mechanisms of control didn’t feature in our feedback either. All-hail the great God Matter.

One of our adjudications was a classic: With the actual result withheld, the Chair talked very briefly about the Proposition’s positive contribution to the debate (ours) and the way in which we had passionately advocated (No, he didn’t use the term himself, but it was “passionate”) arming Burmese guerrilla groups. He then congratulated our opponents on basing their “opposition” to this in stating a preference for the status quo ante (although not actually requiring them to argue how – particularly ‘how’ it was going to solve the problems of a civil war, summary executions, genocide, and so on; our opponents being quite happy with the current levels of cruelty and not wishing to make an already untenable situation more cruel and untenable. Something we painted as having the same logic as making dead people even deader!). With no positive material on the opposition bench and an approach based entirely in negation, we momentarily sensed victory, only to be utterly floored by the next phase of the adjudication feedback, which started with a statement which went something like this… “With this kind of balance existing, I was required to analyse the material in the debate on the basis of a risk assessment framework…” Suddenly, this became a debate that no proposition could win, least of all ours. Why? Well, we had actually proposed something. Therefore, as our proposal supported a change to the existing situation in that country, it had risks – and, as the opposition supported the status quo, it had no risks associated with it, and yes, we lost.

Now, the lads from Dengkil always try to be as graceful in defeat as we are in victory and there was nothing different in this case, but in focussing entirely on the matter offered by both teams in the debate on the basis of an external framework he, himself, superimposed upon it, the adjudicator not only ignored the smug, arrogant, totally negative way in which the opposition approached the debate, but rewarded them for failing to provide any positive matter and penalised us for actually proposing something (which is what I had been taught a proposition team is actually supposed to do). He pretty much avoided ruling on the ad hominem attacks from Opp directed at me, the old guy, too, so I guess I must be a failed coach, a failed debater, and probably a failed adjudicator too…
……….

In fact, it seems that several other older hands have experienced very similar things in competitions in recent years and I have developed a theory as to why they happen. It goes like this…

A word that began to characterise adjudication feedback early in this decade, becoming quite the buzz amongst adjudicators, was “engagement”. Teams failing to ‘engage’ with the material/arguments developed on the other bench were penalised for the infraction. I have a feeling that this helped to develop the notion that, if a proposition could somehow avoid their responsibilities in terms of the potential for risk to be associated with their proposal, then they’d stand a better chance of having less to defend, confuse their opponents as to what was actually being proposed (by proposing something that wasn’t actually much different from the status quo, or so clouding the issue with ostensibly relevant ideas and clever rhetoric that their opponents wouldn’t wake up to the fact that they didn’t actually have anything to really oppose, but had probably spent the majority of their first two speeches in trying to clarify the debate before realising their error) and leave the adjudicators to sort it out for them.

This, then, was the beginning of the era of the “soft case”, and because adjudicators let some very good teams get away with running case-lines that didn’t actually propose anything – even Proposition teams that proposed the ‘status quo’, other teams started to emulate them and avoid their responsibilities too.

As this approach developed, adjudicators found themselves listening to debaters using words like ‘analysis’ and not actually developing any, feeling that the word alone was probably enough. In such an intellectual vacuum, adjudicators stopped thinking for themselves and often allowed themselves to be led by the signposting of the speaker. Why? Well, it was just easier. After all, adjudicators have always had problems with the more subjective aspects of the evaluation and assessment processes. An approach that seemed to generate a much more objective means of adjudicating debates was attractive. This is the stage at which adjudicators began to conjure with their own purely objective analysis of material: “…If they said the words, then the argument was made”, rather than, “…They said the words and threw an example in for good measure, but I’m still waiting for the reasoning.”
Eventually (and this is the preface to the point that I think we’ve reached now), debaters began to get upset when an adjudicator used his or her intellect to weigh the merits and demerits of particular arguments and determine their relevance to, and impact upon, the debate that has taken place(Remember the ‘…average, reasonable person?’ Nothing in that clause about the average, reasonable person being dumb, or an empty slate). I’m pretty sure that this happened at about the same time as accusations of adjudicators “…getting into the debate,” began to peak.

Now, it is my considered opinion that many adjudicators assume that certain arguments are a given, especially in topic areas that regularly provide the background for certain types of motions. They assume them, and completely absolve the team proposing them from the responsibility of making them; making statements without ever, actually, reasoning them through and developing concepts of relevance to and impact upon the debate.

You hear this stuff happening with horrifying regularity these days. Teams will use the phrase, “The harm principle” without working through the argument and the adjudicators seem to think that’s fine: Speakers will refer to the blanket of UN involvement, without ever feeling that they should talk about what kind of involvement, which agencies are involved, or talk about possible outcomes. Debaters will throw in the odd reference to articles, terms of reference, legal precedent and regulations in the Social Contract, without ever feeling the need to say which Social Contract they’re talking about or what the relevant articles are. Of course, this is hard when you are, in fact, referring to Rousseau’s Social Contract, because it doesn’t actually have articles or amendments – and moreover, none that I know of contain any legal or constitutional prescriptions to speak of. Maybe that’s why they provide the philosophical underpinning to things like constitutions, not items that they must contain.

The problem is that, apparently, either adjudicators don’t know this, or they’re not allowing their (perhaps) unreasonable and above-average knowledge of the world to become a factor; instead, taking everything on face value and assuming a significance that the material clearly doesn’t, itself, deserve.
What you get are virtually meaningless concoctions of banal and risk-free statements, connected as loosely as possible to the actual wording and spirit of the motion by means of insipid rhetorical devices that sound relevant, without actually having to be. In other words, bullshit. Oh yes, it’s sophisticated bullshit alright, but it still stinks and it really pisses you off if you step in it. Well I, for one, have stepped in enough of it.
……….

However, back to Manner.

DITI have always sought to debate fairly and honourably, running motions in the spirit in which they were intended to be debated by the members of the adjudication team that came up with them, but perhaps more importantly than that, we have also sought to entertain.

During the MDO, at the commencement of one of his replies, The man that even DITI’s legion of lunatic inmates call ‘hysterical’ asked the adjudicator how he felt right at that moment; how much he had enjoyed the three constructive speeches on our opposing side in comparison with ours, and then, what he would have felt like at that moment if all 8 speeches had been like those of our opponents. The adjudicator probably thought that our happy lunatic was being a bit cruel, but he was forced to agree that we had certainly brought something extra to the round in terms of levity and entertainment.

When debaters have an audience, their ability to ‘entertain’ should be an important element taken into consideration by an adjudication panel. I would also argue that this ability to engage with an audience becomes even more important to a team when they get into the break-rounds of a competition. The necessity for these essential tools should place a different kind of burden on the skills and abilities of teams and speakers to compete. This is one of the things that differentiates between the strategies and skills that are required at different stages of a competition. In any case, after all is said and done, if debating is to become a desert devoid of passion, persuasion, incisive wit, emotional appeal, strength of conviction, remonstrance and humour, why on earth would anyone want to do it – or watch it for that matter?

Oh, wait a minute, I forgot the ones that are walking around with deeply internalised “risk assessment frameworks” that are just itching to apply them to a set of 8 risk-free speeches. I should applaud them: they are the future; your future!
………..

After the longest time throwing myself headfirst into the cauldron of debate, as an adjudicator, as a trainer and, more recently as a debater, I have to admit at last that Jason Jarvis was absolutely on the button when, earlier this decade, he made a case for Asian debating in general to abandon, or at least radically reduce the portion of marks that are awarded under the various rulebooks for Manner. He’s right… JJ, good for you and I’m sorry it took me so long to realise it.

Even though many teams and institutional debate squads have been making inroads into the development of the higher level manner-based skills, like humour and the ability to develop a rapport with an audience, get them on-side and be entertaining as well as erudite, we can’t adjudicate manner. In fact, there is a deliberate and insidious effort to legislate against people who can be both funny and clever. Chief Adjudicators rarely, if ever, talk about the importance of manner-related issues in competition briefings anymore. Adjudicators are not instructed in how to adjudicate debates on this basis: They are often merely told that 40% is for this and 40% is for that.

I would stand you an adult beverage the next time we meet if you can find an adjudicator who would feel confident awarding a debate to a winning team on the basis that their manner had been substantially better than that of the mumbling almanacs on the other side. I think you’ll find that they are probably as rare now as rocking-horse droppings, and yet, given the fact that two fifths of the marks awarded for a speech are allocated to elements of manner, there is absolutely no basis on which you should not be able to do this. Indeed, I don’t even agree that you only take manner into account at the point at which your assessment of the Matter-related elements and your evaluation of the Method-related elements still leave you, the adjudicator, with an irresolvable stalemate. In instances where the strength of the manner-related elements is clearly superior, there will be attendant questions as to the ability to persuade, the ability to convince, as much as there should be an ability to interest and equip with understanding. These must also be accounted for in the general reckoning – not just in the event that your alcohol-dulled wits can’t decide.

If teams are boring to listen to; if the adjudicator’s attention keeps sliding off the speaker’s monotonous diatribe like water off a Niger Delta duck, then something should be done about that – irrespective of how many facts, figures and emphasis-free words have been crammed into seven minutes. People that speak too fast should be penalised. People that run overtime should be penalised. People that suck the life out of what should have been an interesting and entertaining debate should be penalised [Well, actually, they should probably be banned from the intellectual craft until they develop a sense of humour, or be condemned to guard geological exhibits in a Natural History museum for the rest of their lives, but I’m trying to be nice].

As there are no adjudication standards that may be applied anymore, almost anything goes. Joint adjudicator/debater briefings have been shortened over the years until they are no more than a quick garbled flash through a series of PowerPoint slides: A score on a test sheet; one that might be completely arbitrary or accidental, becomes the mainstay of adjudicator pooling and allocation.

Moreover, the mass of paperwork that teams submit in the form of feedback on the processes of their adjudication are rarely read and even more rarely taken account of. How else would you explain the fact that adjudicators who get the lowest possible marks from some teams continue to feature in the top rooms and even break. Forget the feedback form. It isn’t going to make a ha’porth of difference – and no, they won’t take you out of the tab if you fail to submit one. That might mean that they’d have to prove that they’ve read through all those forms.

And then there’s mutually preferred adjudication selection…
……….

So, what do you do? Well, for one thing, those bodies currently regulating Asian debating formats and competition types could honestly recognise the truth in what I’ve been saying for a long time now.
Many of us don’t do humour well; many of us revile it and those that can do it. After all, some tried to cut humour rounds from our main competitive frameworks very quickly after the Australs and the WUDC did it. The genre stuck around for a few years, but now it’s all about “serious debating”. Bit of a pity that the most successful speakers in both of those two competitions inevitably posses both phenomenal rhetorical skills and a wry wit.

OK, so recognise that fact and take the Manner component out altogether. That way, you could even penalise someone who tells a joke on the basis that it’s irrelevant material. Good stuff for anally retentive, manically objective adjudicators…

Of course, you’ll kill debating. You’ll emasculate speakers with the very skills that we need to emulate in Asia if we are to compete on the international stage – and by ‘international’, I mean world-level. While interesting and enjoyable, home-town tournaments that might attract a team from Thailand and another comprising a tour group of legal secretaries from Chad don’t quite move into the top category of ‘international’ for me.

Make MATTER the only category; and all those fact-gobbling ticker-tape machines with a reasonable grasp of robotic English and an ability to bore the pelt off a hibernating Grizzly can then focus on the serious stuff… the all-important facts that a debate speech and case should exclusively comprise. Exclude dynamism: after all, anything that might be construed as a levelled and relevant response might engender a risk – and let’s stop those people putting things in ways that are entertaining and interesting. We really don’t want the sounds of laughter and applause interfering with the ability of our adjudicators to apply their externally developed frameworks in the purely objective assessment of debate material – and we don’t want anybody to be persuaded. You let the adjudicators decide what’s an argument and what isn’t, even if it obviously isn’t…

After all, debating, at the end of the day, has nothing to do with entertainment.

Just don’t ask me or any of my friends to come and watch.

Room 59, Dengkil Institute for the Terminally Insane.
DITI: “Doing more with every other neurone since before any of us can remember.”

————————————

From Omar’s Facebook Note
March 10, 2010
Dr. Omar Salahuddin Abdullah

In the grand finals, debating on the opposition side, IIU Kuantan had to admit defeat as the panel of judges unanimously voted for the government side. Team UTP2 won by a clear margin on the motion defending Iran’s right to develop Nuclear Weapons.

Leading up to the finals, IIU Kuantan managed to take out Team KDU1, the number 1 breaking team of the tournament. In the other semi finals, Team UTP2 annihilated Team IIU1.

The competition saw an increase in the number of secondary schools teams competing in this year’s National Novice. Team RMC, Team SSP and Team MRSM Balik Pulau even managed to break into the octofinals, though only Team SSP was eligible to compete in the break rounds as the other two teams were composite teams.

All in all, the tournament can be considered a great success, though it wasn’t one without incident. Moments before the grand finals, a group of students were arrested by the campus security for trespassing onto the roof of the debate venue. The identity and institution of the arrested students were not disclosed.

Witnesses claim that the group of students was seen to be jumping and yelling on the roof top at around 7.30pm. The witnesses have varying opinions as to the reason behind such behavior. Some claim that the students were possessed and were being hurt by the “Maghrib Azan” (Prayer call), others speculate that they were attempting suicide for their lack of performance during the tournament. Nobody interviewed could verify the real cause this incident.

Witnesses further claim that in the midst of all the panic, SURFY was the only one that seemed to understand them. Numerous witnesses claim that they saw SURFY screaming back to the students on the roof top. SURFY, possibly the only person to know the whole story, and possibly one of the few remaining people that understands the prehistoric communication technique used; was not available for comments.

Motions

ROUND 1 : EDUCATION

THBT Having Elite Schools Would Be A Mistake
THBT Sex Education During National Service Is Too Late
THBT the government should provide free tertiary education

ROUND 2: MALAYSIA

THBT party hopping should be banned
THBT the monarchy has no place in modern Malaysia
THBT politicians have no right to privacy

ROUND 3 : SPORTS

THW limit the number of foreign footballers playing in a domestic league
THW create a category for the third gender in sports
THW ban alcohol and tobacco companies from sponsoring sporting events and teams

ROUND 4 : RIGHTS

THW allow prisoners to donate their organs in exchange for lighter sentences
THW ban the hijab (face veil)
THBT life is sacred but you can end it if it’s yours

ROUND 5 : Size Does Matter!!

THW remove the ban on whaling
THW allow airlines to charge passengers based on their weight
THW cap the salaries of CEOs of giant corporations

ROUND 6 : LAW & ORDER

THW punish poachers of endangered animals like we would punish murderers
THW legalise prostitution
THW take away the right of American citizens to own guns

Octos: Media

THW not jail bloggers for expressing their opinions
THBT universities should be free of censorship
THBT Google should pull out from China

Quarters: Immigration

THBT professional workers should be prevented from migrating to developed countries
THBT permanent residents should be allowed to vote in the country of their residence
THBT public healthcare should cover illegal immigrants

Semis: Science and Technology

THW not allow parents to create babies to save the life of an earlier child
THW abolish NASA
THW use genetically modified (GM) food to feed impoverished countries

Finals: International Affairs

TH supports Iran’s right to develop nuclear weapons
THBT ASEAN should abolish its non-intervention policy
THW allow children to be taken out of Haiti?

——

Download Tab: National Novice 2010 Speakers & Teams Ranking (open with Microsoft Excel)

* The write-ups above was written by one of our famous alumni. Reader discretion is advised.

NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS

2002

1. National Varsities Debate

Champion

2. Arau Open, UiTM Perlis

Champion & Best Speaker

2003

1. UiTM Intervarsity Debating Championship

Finalist

2. UTM Pre-Asians Intervarsity Debating Championship

Finalist

3. Perak Open Intervarsity Debating Championship

Finalist

4. Royal Malaysian IV Debating Championship

Finalist

2004

1. MUMS Intervarsity Debating Championship

Finalist

2. UPM Intervarsity Debating Championship

Finalist

3. Kuithho Intervarsity Debating Championship

Champion

4. Royals Malaysian Intervarsity Debating Championship

Finalist & Best Speaker
5. IMU Intervarsity Debating Championship

Finalist & Best speaker

6. National Health & Sciences Debate

Finalist & Best Speaker

2005
1. Malaysian Intervarsity Space Debate

Champion & Best Speaker

2. UiTM Pre-Asians IV Debating Championship
Champion & Best Speaker

3. ICRC International Humanitarian Law Debate
Champion & Best speaker

4. National Health & Sciences Debate
Finalist & Best Speaker

5. Royal Malaysian Intervarsity Debating Championship
Champion & Best Speaker

2006
1. Malaysian Women Intervarsity Debating Championship
Champion & Best Speaker

2. National Health & Science Debate
Finalist

3. MMU Pre Australs
Finalist

4. Royal Malaysian Intervarsity Debating Championship
Champion & Best Speaker

2007
1. Malaysian Debate League I (1st session)
Champion

2. Malaysian Debate League I (2nd session
Finalist

3. Malaysian Debate League I (3rd session
Finalist

4. ICRC International Humanitarian Law Debate
Finalist

5. MMU Intervarsity Debating Championship
Finalist

6. Malaysian Debate League II, – (2nd Session )
Champion & Best Speaker

7. Vice Chancellor Cup UiTM
Champion & Best Speaker

2008
1. UiTM Open Intervarsity Debating Championship
Champion & Best Speaker

2. Great Serdang Intervarsity Debating Championship
Champion & Best Speaker

3. ICRC International Humanitarian Law Debate
Finalist

4. Arau Open Intervarsity Debating Championship
Champion & Finals Best speaker

5. Occupational Health & Safety Debates (OSHA)
Champion & Finals Best Speaker

6. Vice Chancellor Cup UiTM
Champion Best Speaker

7. Royal Malaysian Intervarsity Debating Championship
Finalists & Best Speaker (Junior)

2009

1. National Novice Debating Championship
Finalist & Best Speaker

2. Malaysian Debate Open (MDO)
Finalist

3. Gombak Open Debate, IIU
Champion & Best Speaker

4. Arau Open Intervarsity Debating Championship
Finalist & Best Speaker

5. Vice Chancellor Cup UiTM Champion
Champion & Best Speaker

6. Royal Malaysian Intervarsity Debating Championship
Champion (Junior Category) & Best Speaker & Finalist (Senior Category)

7. Southern Cup Debating Championship
Finalist
8. UiTM IV
Champion & Finals Best Speaker

INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENTS

All-Asians Break – 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

All- Asians Semis -2005,2006

All-Asians Champion – 2007

Top Speaker at All-Asians Tab – 2006 – Iqbal Hafiedz, 2007- Danial Amir

Asians BP – Break (2009)

Australs – Break (2005)

WUPID – 2008 (Semifinal), 2009 (Quarterfinal)

Eventhough it had nothing to do with debate, but it was still a battle of words, logic and wits therefore counts as a debate (street style). The UT MARA Debate Society did not officially directly sent a representative but 2 of our members competed in this tournament; they were Mohd Syafiq (MC Stifler), an Engineering student and also Mohd Ashaari (MC Ash) from the Business Faculty.

Each emcees will draw numbers to decide who they will meet at the first stage. The battle will consist of two contestent,two songs(compose on the stage in their mind), each given 60 seconds alternately to put words to poems, rhyme them, and it has to be logical or you loose crowd support(it’s no easy task) escorted by HIP- HOp Genra music. There is not preparation time, the host will flip a coin to determine who goes first. Since its a Death Match you only get one shot to make it to the next round(highly competative),therefore winner of a round will proceed to meet the winner of another battle while the loosers gets abusive words and their walk of shame. The winner for each round will be determine by the crowd, base on how much  noise they make, the amount of noise equates to how amazing the emcees ryme’s was.

There were 8 emcees competing to reach to the finals as well as the 4 spot to go agains Singapore Battle Rapper. In the first round both our members manage to win their respective rounds each receiving  support from the majority of the people in the vanue. Sadly in the second round MC Ash did not manage to go through, but on the other hand Mc Stifler manage to reach the final.

In the final round he had to meet face to face with MC Afro Jam from Kelana Jaya, at the end of each contestant rhyme the host was not able to determine who was the champion of the TYGS qualifier, because both MC had almost equal amount of support, therefore they had to go to an additional round whereby in this round they will not be given any music to escort their rhyme, purely A cappella. Both contestant gave a good fight but because A cappella was MC Stifler’s specialty he emrge the Champion, therefore entitle to merchandise sponsored by TheMoveMint as well as RM300 worth of cash prize. At the end of the day both MC Ash and MC Stifler will be representing Malaysia to compete against Singapore top Battle rapper.

We hope that in the future there will be more tournaments like this, for our youth generation to speak up  their ideas may it be in a form of songs, parliamentary style debate or even Rap Battle, and UT MARA is proud to have our very own Malaysian Freestyle Rapper, MC Stiff to be with us.

MADUM National Team Ranking (Public Universities Only)

*UiTM gets a point from Branch Campus Achievement(IIU gets for Kuantan & Matriks, etc)

**Champion = 5Points, R/up: 3 Points, Semi: 2points, Quarters: 1point

Tournament & Results  Points

Royals Senior

Champion:  IIUM              5

2nd: UiTM           3

semifinals: UKM A & MMUA       2

Quarter: USM, UiTM B, UM A, IIU B         1

Royals Junior

Champion: UiTM              5

2nd: UM              3

Semifinalists: IIU B, UKM B          2

Quaterfinalists: UiTM 2, UM B, UPM, IIUA            1

Souther Cup Debating Championships (SCDC)

Champion: IIUM A           5

2nd: UiTM A       3

Semifinals: UCTI & MMUM          2

Quarters: UTM, KBM, UiTM B, IIUM B    1

After several days of vigorous advertising (spamming) all around campuses on the recruitment drive, the event was successfully held in the HEP Foyer.

The turn out was quite surprising by new debaters who wishes to know more about debating.

I am proud to inform you regarding the next meet ups for those who had already came for the recruitment drive and those who still want to join.

Next meet ups

Date: Wednesday, 20th January 2010

Time: 8.30pm

Venue: Cempaka 2 (Law Faculty building)

If you have any difficulties or enquiries regarding the next meet ups, kindly contact Auzan at 017-451 6590.

We are looking forward to meet you again very soon!

It’s specifically catered for newbie debaters to have a special platform on which to showcase their raw talent as well as make a lot of new friends on the way.

It also encourages growth through numerous rigorous preliminary rounds (we’ll probably have 6) and motivates new debaters to greater heights as everyone there will be of the same debating level; all vying for the ultimate prize of being the most awesome novice debater of 2010!

Date:

19th – 21st February 2010

Venue:

UiTM Shah Alam (specific details will be confirmed later)

Teamcap:

None

Style:

Asian Parliamentary Style (3 against 3)

Pre-requisite(s):

A debater who have NEVER debated in any international tournaments such as UADC, All-Asians, Australasian and
Worlds Debating Championships.

The n=1 rule applies but extra adjudicators are always welcomed.

Registration Details:

Registration fee: Yet to be confirmed (Estimation:  RM60 per pax/without
accommodation)

Registration opens: On Monday, 18th January 2010

Method of registration:

Level 1

Rrepresentatives from each institution will be required to register via SMS first. This is to book your teams for the tournament and for us to estimate the scale of the tournament.

SEND REG <institution> <representative name> <number of teams><email> to
0126709333 (Ain)

Level 2

After registering via sms, we will then send out the required registration forms to be filled up by each institution and the necessary invitation letters via email as well.

Level 3

Eeach institutions will then have to fill in the registration forms and send it back to us A.S.A.P to confirm their spots
for the tournament.

Registration Dateline:

5th of February 2010

For any enquires, please contact:
Ain (012-6709333)
Mai (014-2347078)

More updates will be posted soon.

Congrats’ya’ll!
Best Cameo Appearance

“I’m back!”
Heads turned. Jaw dropped. Everyone stopped and stared when he entered the room.

Is this for real? Is he really back?? That’s right, Mohd Azahari Mazlan, 20 a.k.a Ayee is back ya’ll!

After his mysterious disappearance last year (well, changing campus is hardly mysterious, but let’s make it spicy… shall we?), he casually walked into the UTMARA training room, unperturbed by the exchange of puzzled, bewildered, shocked, confused and blank (Throng) looks.
Sadly, his exit was as sudden as his entrance. His is now nowhere to be found. But rumor has it that he’s quite a tease, that one.

He’ll keep you wanting more before his next cameo. When is it? Only time will tell.

Watch this space!

Best Cameo Disappearance

“Where did everybody go?”

A trip back from Singapore turned ugly when everyone’s lovable Kulimboy cum superstar cum idol, Throng, age unknown, went missing. The entire bus watched in horror as the UTMARA contingent, who’s on the way back from the Dorothy Cheung tournament, searched hysterically for Throng (bukan nama sebenar) in/under/on top of the bus.
“I swear he was just right here… I fell asleep and when I woke up, he was gone!” said Mai Mokhsein, who was sitting next to him. Just when everyone was ready to cope with his absence and move on with life, came a phone call from… wait for it… THRONG!
Turned out that he was left at the Alor Gajah R&R, when he went down to the toilet and soon realized that he was left behind. Wasting no time crying (well that’s according to him but his eyes were suspiciously watery when he reunited with the contingent), he stopped a car and demanded the horrified driver to drive him to the bus.

Happy tears were shed by the contingent when he returned on the bus. Throng, however, remained calm and nonchalantly returned to his seat, clearly unaffected by the incident.

You’re a survivor, Throng.
Heartbreaker of the year

“You wanna say that again?”

You’ve been warned about him. You’ve heard of his fury. You KNOW better than to piss him off because ‘Hell hath no fury’ like Hafiedz’s scorn. Many have encountered him, only few came out emotionally stable.

The rest ends up in tears, heartbroken and traumatized for life after being screamed/shouted/yelled at. He makes boys cry. He makes men weep. He makes girls binge on comfort food. That’s just the beginning of it. Reports claim that he has broken 13435 hearts in the year 2009.
Some blame it on PMS others think that it’s all stress. Efforts to calm him down (chocolates, presents, avoiding eye-contact) have proven to be a failure.

Whatever it is, Iqbal Hafiedz, 30, has won the Heartbreaker of the year Award, uncontested. This is his third time winning this award. A worrying trend, we would say. What’s more worrying is the devious smile he had on when informed of the award.

“Regardless of what you’ve heard about him, he truly is a great guy and he’s only like that because he cares.” Shila, President of UT MARA Debating Society, from her vacation spot in New York.

Update:  This just in. Our body language experts have reported that the President has made her comment under extreme duress. They could tell from her frantic blinking.

Best Sabbatical Award

Qayser… Sick of the glitz and glamour of debating.
Mohd Qayser, 20, is truly missed. He’s been absent from the debating scene for 6 months.

Que opened up about his tough decision to take a break during an emotional interview. “I had to take a break…and get away from everything, you know.” said the diva, who got teary.

“It’s been too overwhelming… making it to so many finals … I just need some time for myself. Some TLC for me, myself and I. I want to understand life.”

Que has abandoned his sleek, metrosexual look for a disheveled, unshaved hippy look which he insisted is necessary for his spiritual journey. The UTMARA academy hopes for his return to debating… and sanity … soon.

The ‘I Discovered a New Skill’ Award

Trainers have long noticed something peculiar about a particular Sarawakian boy… Every sentence in his speech seems to rhyme. Adjudicators note his special skill but cannot credit him for it.

Subsequently, he suffers in various tournaments.

Mohd Syafiq, 22, soon discovered that his skills are that of a wrapper (haha). From then on, Syafiq a.k.a MC Stiff (sounds wrong, if you ask me) has been conquering the Malaysian Hip Hop scene and making his way to stardom. Some say he’s next to the next best thing in hip hop.

We’re sure he’s where he is now because of the support of UTMARA and a beautiful, caring and not-at-all controlling girlfriend… whoever she is.

All-grown Up Award

“Parental consent forms? Pffft!”
Debate changes lives. So they claimed.

Everyone has a different testimony as to how the miraculous transformations happened. As for Aerie Rahman, 19, he claimed that debating has brought out man in him. That’s right. Long gone are his baby days. Remember that time when he asked for a parental consent letter to go to Australs?

Well, that was him before. Say hello to the new Aerie. He, who is living on the edge by travelling the world without parental consent forms. Awesome,no?

If that’s not the ultimate sign of machismo, I don’t know what is.

The Ultimate Fighter Award

Spot the ultimate fighter
Hailed as Fighter, the savior of Ut MARA, Tariq Azfar Maketab, (??), has persevered through many generations of debaters. Year in and year out, batches of debaters come and go but you’ll see a familiar, slightly aged face, eager to kick some vulnerable newbie butts. No one knows how long he’s been around.

No one knows when he plans to leave give up the fight. What we know is his fighting spirit and never-say-die attitude is that of a courageous soul.

Throughout the years, many dramatic retirement announcements have been made… followed by many dramatic comebacks. Recently, he made another announcement on Facebook that he‘s ready to leave the debating world… for good.

Watch out for the next comeback.
The Braveheart Award

“The sky is the limit…”

It is no secret that a training session at UTMARA can sometimes turn hostile especially when debaters accidentally blurt out not-so intelligent things in their speeches (Exhibit A: ‘Countries like Africa’. Exhibit B : ‘Back alley IVF’ Exhibit C : ‘Abortion lady’).

The golden rule to survive the wrath of trainers if you’re ever caught in this situation is to admit you’re wrong, shut it (crying will only encourage them) and pray for the moment to past…fast! This method has been proven to work through generations.
However there is a fine young man who defies this golden rule of survival.

He cares not about the wrath of the trainers. Neither does he care if what he said does not make sense. The tight-or-loose threat (inside joke) does not work on him either. Mohd Shafiq, 23, who’s a true believer in standing up for himself, will argue till the end… even if it’s to defend Africa as a country.

He has proven himself to be a defender of what he believes in and will argue with you until you drop it, darn it! His courageous act is akin to that of a warrior therefore he truly deserves this award.

Disclaimer:

Most of the award ‘Winners’ have consented to the publication of this article. The writer cannot be liable for oversensitivity. =)

It’s a good move that we initiate campaigns to protect the environment, but should these campaigns only encompass citizens or shouldn’t it also include corporations? After all corporations pollute at a larger scale and yet enjoy profits. Realizing this, the term corporate social responsibility was coined. Corporate social responsibility or CSR is a self regulatory mechanism incorporated in the corporate decision making so as to ensure that business conducts are consistent with societal interests. Through this, corporations would embrace responsibility for the impact of their activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stakeholders and all other members of the public sphere.

Furthermore with scientific and global consensus that human activities and carbon emissions contribute significantly to climate change, corporations no longer have the choice to ignore being environmentally sensitive. In the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen a treaty is expected to be signed that would limit the amount of carbon emissions a nation can emit annually. Countries that exceed the given quota will be forced to purchase additional quota from other countries at a hefty price. It would just be a matter of time before governments pass on the bill to corporations who don’t go green which in turn would hurt their bottom line. This becomes another force which corporations will have to reckon with in order to ensure survivability.

Nevertheless, making a change for the better would not hurt corporations if changes are being made now. Green practices can be rewarding in the long run as it ensures that natural resources can be sustained as long as possible. After all, it is in the best interest of corporations to survive eternally.  The higher standard of living through a greener environment will ensure a growing consumer population with a significant purchasing power that will continue to support businesses is a benefit that all corporations must sought. Furthermore green companies are now gaining greater media publicity and consumer acceptance as they are portrayed as the more responsible business. Top 500 companies in the 2009 Newsweek Green Rankings managed to show a significant green attitude which consumers adore, consequently the publicity which these companies get will in turn translate into more customers and improve their profits ultimately.

written by Ahmed Ilyas bin Adam, a student of international business and an active member of the UiTM English Debating Society

OVERVIEW

What are the consequences of an institution’s contingent composition policy in general and Malaysian debating in particular? Since there has been no literature whatsoever on the subject of macro-policies of institutions, we can either assume that policy-makers start from scratch every time there is an upcoming debate competition, or that they rely on an ideological foundation, such as the need for financial austerity or the role of the university as a developmental institution, to guide their decisions as to who to send as well as what roles those individuals are meant to fulfill.

This may be unadvisable for two reasons. First of all, this means that these decisions are made simply for the purpose of that particular competition, without looking at the long-term implications, e.g. the bigger picture. Secondly, rigidly adhering to a set ideology risks rendering these decisions inflexible for the purposes of achieving results, not only in the short-term but also the distant future.

Hence, the concept of the meta-game is introduced. Previously used in the context of gaming tournaments, this idea is based on running a strategy that acknowledges the fact that there are many parties that wish to win, and that most would seek to use the same strategies that typically result in wins. Hence, an institution’s strategy involves not only creating a winning combination, but also nullifying rival threats. This may seem obvious, but the fact remains that this strategic view has been made implicit, and has only been realized by the elite institutions.

This does not mean that to succeed in the meta-game, an institution has to win every single tournament (though it helps in many ways such as establishing prestige and ensuring funding). In fact, a winning strategy may be to maximize the institution’s chances of winning at one tournament, and bringing back a tangible result. It may also include having speakers in the top 10, and judges qualifying for the break rounds. The best example is the National Health Science Debate, which the International Medical University hosts every year. IMU inevitably end up in the finals on merit every year, though it rarely participates in other tournaments for reasons such as lack of funding, tight academic schedules (they are studying medicine after all), etc. Their achievement should not be diminished, as they level the playing field by providing the possible motions a week beforehand, and is an excellent example of using limited resources (time, money) to achieve a specific objective.

CONTINGENT COMPOSITION CHOICES

A more general strategy utilized by most institutions is “juniors’ exposure”, which is implemented in various ways, i.e. senior-junior (SJ) and junior-junior (JJ) pairings, making them adjudicator trainees, tournament organization, etc. This is the most common, but perhaps the least-explored, in terms of empirical studies. Perhaps a later study may remedy this.

The reasons for each strategy appear obvious. SJ is used to expose the junior debater to the senior’s way of thinking, with the hope of it rubbing off or at least resulting in the junior becoming more self-confident from winning with the senior. The downside is that the speaker scores tend to heavily favor the senior, and inevitably pushes the junior’s score way down, perhaps even lower than if she was with another junior. Hence, the JJ strategy evolved as a way for the senior’s to gauge the juniors’ ability to work together as a team, develop methods and ideas that were taught in training, as well as just for fun (some seniors may have developed a trait for sadism as a result of earlier, similar treatment). Its flaws include lack of guidance and low chances of success (in terms of results), which reinforce feelings of inferiority and low self-confidence.

The common “juniors as adjudicators” strategy may have originated in the policy-maker’s desire to inculcate the importance of listening, realizing mistakes that other speakers make, and looking at debates from the bigger picture. These aims are laudable, yet it has also resulted in the current malaise of lower debating. In a competitive, results-based atmosphere of inter-varsity debate, senior debaters have established themselves in the top tier of representing the institution, with the hope of ensuring funding by winning constantly. This comes at a cost in terms of blocking teams comprised of juniors as well as less well-known institutions from making it into the break rounds, which is crucial experience.

It has also resulted in very new judges, by virtue of judge-team conflicts, becoming disproportionately represented in break rounds. While some may argue that what’s good for the junior teams is also good for the junior judges, the author believes that it shouldn’t come at the cost of lower-quality adjudication as a result of inexperience. It provides incentives for teams to simplify debates to the point of “dumbing themselves down” for the purpose of clarity. While this may be an effective (and hence reasonable) strategy, it detracts from the expectation that break round debates are meant to be of a higher level with deeper analysis. The inexperienced adjudicator, not accustomed to demagogic tactics, may be more easily fooled by the attempts at misrepresentation, reductive logic and blatant mistruths that other, more senior judges would be more likely to notice. The view the author wishes to convey is that merely having junior judges in break rounds is not in itself bad, but having them be the majority in panels is dangerous in that it provides perverse incentives for teams to employ low-ball tactics that diminish the overall quality of the debates as a whole.

The flipside of “juniors’ exposure” has been to utilize debate alumni as the adjudication core of tournaments. While this has been used with a view of making the best use of experience in adjudication and tournament organization, it has also resulted in providing incentives for other seniors to remain debaters, monopolizing the available spots for debaters, as well not giving those very same seniors the benefits of experiencing becoming a Chief Adjudicator or Deputy Chief Adjudicator. The corollary of this is that there has been a distinct lack of new tournaments, or at the very least, annual tournaments that have new faces within the adjudication core every year. This is a recurrent theme within this article because it has become the norm.

SELECTIONS STRUCTURES

The structural policies of selections affect the institutions’ progress, in the sense that there exists a discussion between implementing a purely meritocratic system or one that’s tilted more towards proportional representation. Furthermore, the question of who is in the best position to judge those deemed to be worthy crops up within this discussion.

A merit-based system of selections is usually implemented with the intention of sending only the best to these competitions and achieving positive results. This would be in line with the goal of maximizing results with minimal cost. However, it must be acknowledged that exposure to high-level and international tournaments results in an intangible improvement in those who attend. The corollary of this is that those who qualify on the basis of merit would keep on being selected for future tournaments, and those who did not manage to qualify on merit, lacking exposure, would fall behind. Hence, a purely meritocratic system would stratify the debate institution, reinforcing and widening the gap between those who attend tournaments and those who don’t. Some may say that this provides an incentive to those who miss out to try harder and catch up, and that those who go to one tournament are not guaranteed the next, but the author believes that facts on the ground vindicate this view. Just look at how the same people remain in the debate scene, regardless of it being a national or international tournament.

Some debate institutions incorporate a form of proportional representation, with some spots reserved for juniors and branch campuses. This has the effect of creating more competition for the limited spots left, but has the cost of potentially ignoring those who are neither good enough nor are they considered juniors. Another compromise is a rotational system, whereby each member of the institution may only go to a select number of selections or tournaments, which forces that member to seriously consider the opportunity costs of attending one minor tournament at the expense of a more prestigious one. A merit-based system also imposes pressure upon those normally selected to continue going to tournaments to keep their spot for future tournaments, even if it were a minor tournament and he/she may not normally wish to participate, whereas the rotational system gives them the choice to pick and choose tournaments that they are willing and able to put more effort into. This system has been used in the National Law School of India, where the author had the privilege of interviewing a certain Mr. Ramachandran during AIDC Korea in 2007. He was a junior adjudicator who managed to qualify for the break rounds. One may infer that he only received such an opportunity because others within his institution chose not to, but he also achieved such distinction in competition with adjudicators from other institutions.

The issue of who gets to become a selector is crucial. It depends on two different schools of thought regarding qualification, which I shall term the “commitment” and the “talent” philosophies. The “commitment” school view consistent attendance in training, case-file development, and contributions in other areas of the debate institution as crucial, as it shows an inherent drive to self-improve as well as recognition of the importance of internalizing certain habits. This is more common among large institutions, as they can afford to be patient and realize long-term investments. The trainers would usually be the ones conducting selections as well, and it would be similar to university subjects where the majority of marks are based on coursework. A problem that may be encountered is bias towards certain students as a result of rapport.

The “talent” philosophy is based on recognizing that tournament performance is based on an individual’s ability to cope with the pressures of competition as well as certain inherent talents such as a flair for public speaking. The selections would be one-off, and would tend to use outsiders to become selectors, unaffected by earlier perceptions. The effect of this would be that selectors’ own prejudices and assumptions would be combined with their first impression of the selectees, which one may argue is similar to tournament conditions. A peripheral effect is that it may stratify debaters who are involved in the day-to-day administration of the club from those who only come on selections. This may be seen as unfair, especially when administrative members have put a lot of effort in creating proposals for tournaments and pushed them through, only to screw up in selections and be denied the fruits of their labor.

Again, these schools of thought are rarely exclusively practiced. More often than not, there is a balance struck between the two. For example, there may be a selections for Worlds, and the selectors would be the trainers. They would take into account the performance of individual debaters as well as their attendance during training, balancing the likelihood of realization of short-term positive results and long-term commitment.

There is one exception, which has been practiced in more advanced debating countries, in which individuals decide their own teams, and go to selections as the team they chose for themselves. They are chosen as a team, and lose as a team. This is only possible in a self-sustaining funding model for debating institutions supplemented by self-funding (this works because the debaters have to put up their own money to participate). This may have the undesirable effect of being divisive within debating institutions along the lines of those who can afford it, and those who can’t. Its primary merit is that teams get to build chemistry by consistently debating with each other, without the hassle of selectors creating teams based on individual performance. The NTU team that qualified for the break rounds at Singapore Worlds, RK and Amit, operated on this model by going together to many tournaments at the international level, establishing the team’s profile as a whole, not simply as individuals.

CONCLUSION

This is a difficult issue, and in fact there is no hard and fast rule as to what is the most efficient balance between sending as many debaters as possible and preserving funding for future projects. The question of funding permeates every consideration of policy-makers, especially those considering the long-term. Whether referring to public or private institutions, the debate societies always have to justify their expenditure with results. The author’s view of this is to maximize the limited funding available by spending the most on efforts to achieve your society’s objective.

Larger institutions, with the capacity to send three or more teams to every tournament, do so to maintain presence and to signal their capability to win tournaments not only to their rivals, but to newcomers as well. The need to maintain presence and ensure the juniors’ exposure has frequently been used to justify sending teams to Worlds and Asians, even though Malaysian universities as a whole have not been particularly successful in international competitions. In fact, the author would argue that the more realistic approach, which is aimed at appeasing the sources of funding, would be to achieve dominance and success relative to other national debating institutions. Whether this can be achieved by consistently sending large contingents to the aforementioned tournaments remains to be seen. One may quote the old maxim, “Quality over quantity.”

The author realizes that smaller institutions may decrease their participation in many tournaments as a result of maximizing their chances at others, but his aim is meant to shed more light and give food for thought as to what every institution’s objectives should be, and whether their present strategy is facilitating the achievement of those very objectives within the context of the meta-game.
This article was brilliantly written by TARIQ MAKETAB[1]

[2] Tim Sonnreich, Debate Guide. Tim is simply too awesome for words. His guide is equally so.