On WUDC28
Not so much an issue of "racism" as it is an issue of differences in expectations perhaps. What I’d like to see is an explanation for why Asian standards and measures for "good debate" are not part of the World standards and measures for "good debate". Why should American, Australian and European debate be considered as predominant (in the sense that it’s used as the World standard) to Asian standards?
All I want is an explanation, everyone deserves that.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Hi RJ! I heard WUDC Thailand was really bad for Asian teams (and adjes). These statements of yours certainly piqued my interest. How would you define all these standards? What are the salient characteristics for each? How different is the Asian standard from the European, Australian, or North American standard?
January 21st, 2008 at 3:43 am
What I’m looking at is the apparent difficulty Asian teams have in breaking and making it to through the final series of the World’s tournament. Now, let’s put aside assertions of bias, because I don’t think that will lead to constructive discussion.
Something must be wrong (in the sense of its compatibility with World’s debate) with the Asian style of debate that we’re upholding and teaching. If ADMU and NTU style of debating, for example, is not good for World’s, what is?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that we place premium on the use of models, the analysis of these models with nuanced argumentation, and the contextualizing of these models within the framework of the debate. We (Asians) applaud clear and sophisticated arguments that delve into the issues and show deep understanding of the dynamics of between theory and reality.
Now, are these standards wrong? What is it about Joshua Bone’s debate technique that makes him a top World’s debater, and in turn, has not been matched by our debaters in Asia?
I don’t know how debate is taught in the US or in England, and that’s why I’m looking for an explanation.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:38 am
I would very much agree that the Asian standards are pretty good when it comes to evaluating debates. And it just confuses me on why these aren’t valued that much in Worlds (if that’s what you’re saying). You’ve seen rounds with European/Australian/American teams, you’ve worked with adjes from these countries. What particular things do they look for in debates that differ from what Asian debaters/adjes value? And is the difference in appreciation really that polar?
It really is a shame, what happened in WUDC 2008. In an Asian “home house” nonetheless. Just when I thought Asians were making progress in the WUDC, then came Vancouver Worlds, and now this. There were 2 or 3 motions that downright sucked too. Just what was wrong with the adj core?
P.S. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of Joshua Bone. Who is he again?
January 21st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Josh Bone is a a WUDC 07 Semifinalist and WUDC 06 Grand Finalist from Yale. He was second on the tabs of the Thailand WUDC next to Sam Bloch.
I’m not really asserting anything yet as being “wrong” with the adj core or the adjudication; what I’m trying to point out is discrepancy. I can’t explain why this discrepancy exists, but I do hope there are adjes and debaters out there who can engage the question.
The Chairs I had were from the US and the Europe, and during the discussions, they seemed to be pretty clear that they gave weight to analysis and examples. They looked for substantiation, but this amounted to judging who talked about something comprehensively, which doesn’t seem to differ much from our debate in Asia.
What then happened in the upper rounds with the Ateneo teams? It’s a touchy question, but what’s at stake is the claim of this tournament to call itself The World’s.