On Debating - Pieter Koornhof

7/29/2019 On Debating - Pieter Koornhof

1/33

On Debating

Observations and advice on best practices and sustainabledevelopment in the art of intellectual pugilism

by Pieter Koornhof

Debate Dinosaur-at-large


2/33

On Debating Pieter Koornhof Page 1

Introduction

You were only killing time, it can kill you right back

- Jim Steinman, Out of the Frying Pan And Into The Fire

For any young speaker trying to make time, or an established speaker trying to reduce his content to fitwithin it, or for any adjudicator who has had to make a tough call quickly, the above quote will holdsome significance. For me, its simply a cool line out of a kick-ass song that I like to use. So there.

To many of the individuals who participate in it, debating is something that tends to be a pervasiveaspect of their lives. As a result of it, I have seen both this country and other parts of the world, met life-long friends, engaged in heated discussions, and suffered my fair share of late nights and earlymornings. It is not far-fetched to say that as both an attorney and later as a lecturer, it continues to inpart define what I do and who I am to this very day. Furthermore, I believe that I am not the only personwho feels this way about it. Because debating has given me a lot, I feel it is also necessary to givesomething back, hence my decision to write this contribution.

Let me start with what this is not. It is not a how-to guide, it will not make you the best speaker oradjudicator, and it will not guarantee that your next tournament will be the best one ever. For thosethings, you need to a bit more than simply read. Rather, this is a collection of thoughts and experienceson a variety of aspects related to debating which I have been involved with over the course of more thana decade. As this is most likely my last year of actively being involved, I thought it best to put pen to

paper and share my successes and failures in the hopes that those who read this will maybe replicatethe former while learning from my mistakes and avoiding the latter. The advice contained herein ismainly my own, although it contains a wealth of contributions from debaters, both former and current,who I have lived and laughed with.

I have structured this document in three over-arching chapters, namely discussions on aspects of debatedevelopment for individual speakers and adjudicators, on the setting up of societies and promotingsustainable development therein, and last (but definitely not least) on the organisation of tournaments.Within each of these chapters, you will find practical advice, arguments, and anecdotes, some of whichare specific and some general. Not all of it may be applicable, and to some all of this will simply soundlike a restatement of common sense, while others might not agree with some or all of it. That being said,I hope that it will at least make you think about these things, and maybe one day put pen to paperyourself in order to share your knowledge and experiences with the next generation.


3/33


Part 1: On debate development (for speakers and adjudicators)

This section deals with my experiences in attempting to improve myself both as a speaker andadjudicator. On both these journeys, I have hit speed bumps, and the road to (even moderate) successcan be a hard one. Firstly, I shall elaborate on best practices for speakers, where after I shall discuss theposition with regard to adjudicators.

Advice for speakers

Practice makes perfect

As a point of departure, the only sure-fire way to improve as a speaker is to engage in regular debatingin as varied a manner as possible. I have found that the best way of doing this is through constantly

engaging in debate, be it through formal or informal structures, rather than in concentrated bursts. Withthe exception of the first couple of rounds at a tournament where most speakers shake off the rust, itis rare to see an individual grow between rounds. Rather I find that gradual development is muchclearer, and firmly cemented, on a week-to-week or tournament-to-tournament basis. I shall expand onthis observation, and how best to maximise its effect, throughout the next couple of points.

Research, integrate and synthesise

In an activity where persuasiveness is paramount, the notion that knowledge is power cannot beemphasised enough. It is therefore of the utmost importance that speakers seeking to improve shouldaddress this aspect. This entails keeping abreast of current events through reading newspapers,websites and magazines (The Economist being a particular favourite of debaters, as it contains bothnews and analysis). I would advocate the importance of also reading as broadly as possible. Debating isoften about current events, but more and more we see a gradual shift (or rather, if youve been aroundas long as I have, a return) to the use of thought experiments. In this regard, the ability to think laterallyand argue outside of the standard lines becomes a very important skill. Many national and worldchampions I know have never limited themselves to only reading news and books on logic, but devoureverything in their path (with many of them being unashamed RPG, videogame or comic book fans).Heck, Ive used my knowledge of 1980s hair metal music as an example in debates which Ive won.

An important proviso to the above is that is not just about exposure to knowledge. So many times I haveheard assertions from people about the value of watching debating videos or reading certain types of material (the aforementioned books on logic and The Economist being prime examples), and thencomplaining that they do not do as well as their knowledge would seem to indicate that they should.


4/33


This is because simply reading or watching videos does not help. I have often seen people simply takearguments that theyve read and/or heard from other speakers who then seek to slavishly copy saidargument, and who dont understand why they dont get the same result. This is because no argumentwill generally be convincing if you dont understand it yourself and if you dont make it your own. After Ihave heard or read something, the first thing I do is seek to understand the theory and underlying

principles behind an argument. These days, thanks to sources such as Wikipedia, this has becomesubstantially easier. When I feel comfortable in my knowledge and understanding of an argument, I tryto make it my own by adding my own analysis, examples and spin on it. This is where integration andsynthesis comes in, and ultimately this leads to unique and persuasive arguments.

Keep a record

Most successful speakers I have come across have maintained some kind of record of their knowledge,examples and arguments. This can take on many forms: Some create full-fledged prep files where theysystematically build arguments for potential debates given current events and motions they may haveheard of (the year we won nationals, my partner had to pay extra baggage fees for the three tog bagsfull she was taking to tournaments); others simply keep a notebook of things theyve read and of thecases they run during debates. This practice has many benefits, the most notable of which is the abilityto significantly ease and improve preparation for debates when there is a narrow time-frame. To me anintrinsic benefit of this is the ability to gauge your own growth as a speaker by looking back at how yourarguments become more analytical, nuanced and ultimately more convincing.

Advocate for intellectual osmosis

Maybe its just because I never had a fixed speaking partner for longer than a year (and that in itself wasexceptional) but personally I feel it is important to mix it up in this regard. This is vital in exposingspeakers to not only different arguments, but also completely different styles and approaches, whichensures that people do not get stuck in a particular pattern and end up using the same arguments,examples and points of analysis. It is also one of the best ways in transferring knowledge to youngerspeakers. I have often found, through my own way of approaching debates being challenged, that I haverefined my style and broadened my focus, which has had a definite impact in my debate results andspeaker scores over the years. Its also led to my briefly speaking with a world champion before hebecame one (though Id never be so presumptuous as to say I taught him all he knows)

Discuss your arguments

Historically, I found that people are quite guarded when it comes to discussing their own cases andarguments either before or after debates. I for one am glad that this is changing. A forum wherearguments and knowledge can be shared ultimately lifts the intellectual standard of debating in a union


5/33


or country, and also helps a speaker to be able to improve their own arguments by having others helpthem look for gaps in their logic or analysis, or by being given relevant examples. It used to be a traditionat my old union that we would have such discussion forums in preparation for large tournaments, wherepeople would raise motions both old and new, and they would be discussed. Other unions that I havebeen involved with have fixed dates where members will address a particular point of interest for them,

present their arguments, and then have it be discussed by all in attendance. No matter what form ittakes, I believe that speakers should seek to test the mettle of their arguments as much and as broadlyas possible, and the marketplace of ideas is probably the best way of doing so.

Listen to oral feedback (or rather, dont believe your own hype)

One of the greatest problems in debating is speaker ego, namely that some debaters develop a sense of entitlement and cannot accept when the call of an adjudicator does not correlate with their own view of the debate. Whereas adjudicators are only human, and you may not always agree with the outcome of adebate, it is important to acknowledge that there is a reason why we have them, and that you might notalways be right. Always bear in mind that you as a speaker have a vested interest in the outcome of adebate, whereas adjudicators do not, and often as a result they may have a wholly legitimate way of viewing the debate differently to you. The most consistent improvement I have had as a speaker (andhave seen in others), is when I decided to swallow my pride and write down every piece of criticism,both positive and negative, that I received from adjudicators. What I would then do is evaluate them acouple of days later (more on this aspect below), and actively focus on ensuring that these points of criticism are addressed the next time I speak.

Analyse debates after the fact

This point ties in somewhat with the one above. In the drive for improvement, I find introspection to bea key component. Notwithstanding the result of a debate, I used to meet up with my partner (normallyover a beer or lunch) a couple of days after the fact to discuss our case, what others ran in the debate,and what the feedback was that we received. This helped us to evaluate our performance without theimmediate emotion which tends to be attached when trying to do this immediately after a debate. If wefound any valid or insightful criticism, arguments or examples, we made sure to incorporate them intoour case and in our preparation. This fosters the ability to learn and adapt: the cost of humility andbeing considerate is nothing, but the rewards can be immense.

Avoid uncontrolled reductionism

In competitive British Parliamentary debating, unlike real life, we are faced with time constraints whenboth preparing and speaking. In this regard, it is important to remember two things: Firstly, you cannever outright prove or disprove a case, and should not have this be your focus, and secondly, you dont


6/33


have to do that to win a debate. I have often seen teams trying to make as many points as possible in adebate, or try to rebut everything being said, often to their detriment. Remember, there is a differencebetween making a good point and making a good argument. Rather fully analyse and develop two orthree of your points into convincing arguments, and attack the most central argument of the precedingcase, rather than stretching yourself too thin.

Practice the art of comparative/positive rebuttal

One of the tricks taught to me by some of the more advanced speakers I have come across is, ratherthan spending a tonne of time developing rebuttal to specific arguments, to use links to show you howyour positive case matter specifically relates to and can be used to refute aspects raised by thepreceding team or speaker. This affords you the opportunity to focus on building your own case, whilethrough the use of examples and tailored analysis still breaking down arguments raised by others.

Move out of your comfort zone

I will come right out and say it: I am a terrible whip speaker, so much so that first years without anyexperience would wipe the floor with me. Im still pretty bad at it to this day (ironic for someoneconsidered to be a decent adjudicator, I know). Many speakers have particular positions where they feelmore comfortable and confident in. However, it is important to force yourself from time to time (such asduring league or informal debate gatherings) to speak in those positions where you do not traditionallyexcel in. By putting yourself in different positions, you are more able to empathetically analyse and pre-empt what is necessary from these speakers, which will definitely assist in team cohesion andpreparation. Even if, like me, you still remain relatively terrible at it.

Adjudicate from time to time

I cannot stress the importance of cross-disciplinary participation in debating. When speakers adjudicate,a multitude of things happen: Firstly, they learn that adjudicators are predominantly not malicious orrandom when making their calls, but often simply see debates differently to that of speakers; Secondly,it helps speakers identify aspects of their case and style which they can improve on to show toadjudicators how and why their matter is most directly relevant to a debate; lastly, it is one of the bestways of learning to listen to and analyse argumentation, something which is an invaluable skill when itcomes to deepening analysis and rebuttal.


7/33


Advice for adjudicators

Speak from time to time

It is no mere coincidence that my first piece of advice for adjudicators relates to my last piece of advicefor speakers, and it is something which I actively and consistently advocate for. It is quite common ininternational debating circles for adjudicators to come from the ranks of established, senior speakers,and we have often seen people being appointed to the position of Chief Adjudicator of Deputy Chief Adjudicator to major tournaments despite them not having adjudicated all that much beforehand. Thisis because the abilities of a speaker and that of an adjudicator are (or, at the very least, should be)intrinsically linked. Both disciplines require the ability to listen, analyse, criticise, engage and ultimatelyto convince an audience of a particular point of view. Furthermore, the ability to formulate argumentsbecomes even more relevant when having to determine whether motions are being set in a balancedway. Through speaking, one is able to hone these skills. Furthermore, when an adjudicator speaks,he/she is also exposed to the process that a speaker goes through, which can assist in providing specificand detailed feedback. This is due to the fact that an adjudicator can then experience, on a first-handbasis, the value of receiving a well-justified call with constructive advice or the distinct displeasure of receiving a bad call without any proper reasoning.

Listen closely and critically

The most important skill that an adjudicator can possess is the ability to hear what is being said when anargument is being made. This relates to many ancillary required skills for an adjudicator, namely theability to distinguish between when a speaker makes a point and makes an argument. In doing so, it is

important to note the depth of analysis. This is different from simply noting the amount of time spenton something, which can serve as a good rule of thumb, though is never an indicator of quality. A betterway of looking at it is to seek to distinguish between what is new and what has already been said. Lastly,an adjudicator should listen carefully so as to avoid a situation where you fill in the blanks or apply yourown knowledge to a speakers case simply because you werent paying enough attention. Not doing thisbecomes painfully clear to more established speakers and adjudicators when you try and then justify apoint during deliberation or feedback.

There is a way of honing the above skill, and it is very similar to how one should seek to improve as a

speaker, namely by doing as much of it as you can, but allowing for time for experience, criticism andbest practices to sink in. Here, debating videos could possibly play a role in improvement. By listening tothe cases of a particular debate and then making your own call and discussing that with others, you cansee how they viewed things differently, or may picked up on aspects that you did not. It is important tonote that if you conduct this exercise, you should do it with a video that neither you nor others havewatched before or know the outcome of.


8/33


Develop a method of notation

In order to refresh your memory, it is important to develop a style of notation as an adjudicator. In thisregard, I can say that there is no particular right way of doing this. Normally, notes should cover pointsraised, comments on the quality of matter, relevance of examples, ways in which Points of Information

are addressed, as well as any aspects of a speakers manner that detracts from their persuasiveness. Ihave seen people try to write down speeches verbatim, whereas I have seen others who only writedown a sentence or so and then rather focus on comments relating to the quality of arguments andkeep track of things such as relevant examples. Personally, I tend to fall more toward the latter category,and rather focus on getting the right stuff down than trying to get everything down, mainly because Ihave horribly messy and slow handwriting. That being said, adopt a style that you are comfortable with,but dont be afraid to change it if you notice that your notes may not capture pertinent aspects whichother adjudicators have picked up on.

Be honest with others and yourself

Adjudicators are not analytical robots, and it is best to be mindful of your own biases and weaknesses.First and foremost, if you feel that you are unable to be objective with regards to a particular team orspeaker, or if there is a reigning perception that you would be unable to, for any reason whatsoever, it isbetter to report a clash of interest so as to not have your judgment, skills or reputation be tainted bythis.

In addition to the above ethical guideline, honesty serves a much more pervasive role in adjudication. Iam always upfront with my fellow adjudicators (irrespective of whether I am chairing or simply on apanel) as to when I may have specialist knowledge: it is important to keep yourself in check and there isnothing wrong with others helping you with that. Also, I have no qualms about professing that theremay have been a particular point I did not quite pick up on: this helps one to see if it was a (hopefullyrare) instance where your focus was lacking, or whether the point was simply nonsensical and the otheradjudicators felt the same way. There is also nothing wrong saying that you are not 100% sure about aparticularly close call. I have at times stated all of these things during deliberation (though never at thesame time), and I have never been called a bad adjudicator as a result of this. Being honest about theseaspects to yourself is also vital, as it means you will hopefully be willing to listen to the feedback andanalysis of others so as to either strengthen the way in which you saw the debate, or enable you to beswayed on issues where you were uncertain without feeling like youve betrayed your own principles.Also, if you still disagree with a call, you may dissent. If you do so with valid reasons, it can and nevershould be held against you.


9/33


On a related aspect, it is important to be honest to speakers. Dont say a debate was close when itwasnt, or vice versa . Sadly, I have often overheard adjudicators after a debate tell a speaker or teamthat their initial call was different, or that they would have placed them differently if they were chair,even when these aspects/feelings were never raised in deliberation. I reject this notion of trying to saveface or pander by telling a white lie. As a speaker, you should too, because if someone truly did not

agree, they could have dissented (as already mentioned), and if there really was an instance of bullying,a person can be outvoted. Saying something which did not happen only creates confusion and damagesthe reputation of adjudicators in general.

Be nice (mostly)

There is no reason to approach either deliberation or feedback in an antagonistic manner, as it will onlycost time and may affect your reputation in the end. Perceptions of bias or being unable to work withare just as bad as the real thing. This is especially important for chairs, as so often people are labelled asbullies for not affording (especially younger) panellists a chance to state their call and the reasoning forit. Remember, a bully can be outvoted if it is clear that their call does not make any sense and if theysimply try to browbeat everyone into agreeing with them. However, when deliberating this does notmean that you should be a pushover, or cant be honest or aggressive, but rather that you should seekto understand where other adjudicators are coming from, and then engage them on their analysis of aparticular issue rather than simply belittling or side-lining their point of view. It is always better to focuson where adjudicators agree before moving on to issues that are in contention. Also, when deliveringfeedback to speakers, it serves no purpose to tell a team or speaker that they were bad, when you canrather provide constructive criticism highlighting good points which werent properly analysed, or faultsin analysis and approach, rather than simply putting these aspects down and telling people to go back tothe drawing board.

Dont be afraid to engage with speakers

An unfortunate reality of being an adjudicator is that you will almost never be able to satisfy all speakersin a room, and this is not what is expected either. That being said, I would still advocate thatadjudicators should engage with speakers after a debate, and not shy away from this. The ability todefend your call is a vital skill, and having your depth of analysis tested in this manner can actually serveto develop it. Also, dont be afraid in those instances where it was a close call and it may have gonedifferently had there been different adjudicators: This happens, it doesnt help to deny it, and it is betterto be upfront about any such doubts when indicating why you and the panel ultimately called thedebate in a particular manner.


10/33


On Oral Feedback

Before giving oral feedback, it is important to discuss with your panel what and how you will beaddressing the debate. This ensures that a broad consistency is established between the variousmembers of an adjudication panel, and that no particular aspect of relevance is left out. As a panellist, it

is good practice to listen closely to how a chair gives feedback. This is pertinent for a couple of reasons:Firstly, you will not always be a panellist necessarily, and it is good to start paying attention indeveloping your own style of feedback; secondly, by listening to others critically, you can identify bothstrong and weak points, and ask yourself whether or not you do the same thing when deliveringfeedback (and adapt your style should you feel the need).

Advice for Adjudication Tests

There are various types of adjudication tests out there, but they all seek to assess one thing, namely

how you viewed a debate, and whether you are able to justify your positions in light of that. In thisregard, an adjudication test should be approached in the exact same manner as oral feedback. Be asclear, detailed and convincing as you can, providing as much detail as possible on why you viewed somearguments as more or less convincing and/or relevant, and why you believe teams should be positionedin the way they are. Do not fall into the trap of glossing over certain aspects even if you feel there was aclear winner. I have seen so many supposedly good adjudicators do horribly in tests simply because theytook for granted the fact that they should have provided as much information and analysis as possiblenotwithstanding the ease of determining the outcome of the debate. Also, bear in mind that anadjudication test is very rarely about whether you get the right call or the same one as others, butrather in how well you are able to justify why you believe your ranking is valid.

The value and importance of introspection

The ability to critically self-evaluate your strengths and weaknesses as an adjudicator is of the utmostimportance if you wish to improve. Also, it is a key to identifying what is you do as an adjudicator inorder for you to try and instil particular skills and qualities when training younger adjudicators. It is forthis reason that recently a trend has emerged for senior adjudicators (especially when they are involvedwith running tournaments) to develop and publish adjudication philosophies. An adjudicationphilosophy is a personal statement as to how you as an adjudicator approach aspects of adjudication,

notably when making a decision, but also with regard to how you view such things such as the roles of and inter-relationship between chairs and panellists, and the setting and balancing of motions. Mostimportantly, an adjudication philosophy seeks to justify both to yourself and others why your method isa valid way of approaching these aspects. It is important to note that there may be different yet equallyvalid ways of doing this. To give you an idea of how such a statement can look, here is a condensedversion on my adjudication philosophy as it specifically relates to calling a debate:


11/33


It is important to note the interrelationship between matter and manner. Timing andstructure is vital in order for a speaker's arguments to come across as coherent, andgeneral enthusiasm (without being overly bombastic) aids in the ability to convince anaudience and/or panel. This notwithstanding, I generally tend to focus more on matterthan manner. When looking at opening teams, I tend to focus on a speaker's ability toanalyse a motion and identify the individual issues which may be addressed, and then justifying which are most pertinent to the debate and should be addressed. When lookingat a closing team, I focus on the ability to put forward new and relevant matter, whilebeing able to justify the importance of such to the debate. With regard to both openingand closing teams therefore, the focus is generally on the positioning of and justificationfor matter in the debate. Using this as a point of departure, the ability of an individualspeaker to then flesh out these issues by making points and using examples (which do notconstitute specific knowledge, naturally, but rather an acceptable general knowledge of the fields relevant to the debate) in order to construct a logical, coherent and accessibleargument is key. A good speaker should also be able to utilise these skills in order todeliver a critical yet succinct rebuttal which attacks a contrasting theme or line of reasoning rather than nit-picking. Ultimately, however, a debate should not ideally be

decided on the strengths of an individual speaker, but rather the ability of a team to putforward a cogent and consistent line of argumentation. Lastly, due regard should be givento the fulfilment of individual and team roles, while guarding against a situation where thetechnicality of role fulfilment is being used as a crutch by a judge.

Individual judges should be upfront about any potential bias and specific knowledge thatthey might possess which can influence their decision in the debate (for example, you area former speaker who studied law, and the debate is a particularly tricky legal topic).Through open communication in a panel of judges beforehand, one would be able todownplay any such aspects, and also foster an environment for greater objectivity byhaving judges discuss the content of arguments, rather than simply giving their own views

on those arguments. More practically, judges (both panellists and chairs) should also bemore candid and detailed, while still attempting to maintain objectivity and a modicum of politeness, when providing feedback regarding one another, so that sufficient informationin order to grade and place judges in future rounds is received (simply giving numbers ona feedback form is rarely if ever actually useful).

When looking at the potential failings of an adjudicator, the thing I am most mindful of isthe tendency to sometimes make arguments on behalf of teams when they didn't do itproperly themselves, or to mark a team down for not arguing the motion in the manner inwhich the adjudicator would have done it (this is especially prevalent when it is anargument you used to run often and, possibly, better). This not only relates to the contentof a speaker or team's argument, but also in the manner in which it is presented. It is notuncommon for judges to have their own opinions or "favourite arguments," as many of them were speakers themselves. This situation should be avoided at all costs, and anysuch bias should accordingly be communicated amongst panel members. On a morepractical level, I often find that a panel sometimes tends to spend overly lengthy timesdiscussing aspects which are moot to the debate, which then ends up wasting preciousdeliberation time (especially when there is a maximum allotted time). This is human, as judges are also debaters at the end of the day, but one should be self-aware as todownplay this aspect.


12/33


When providing feedback, the majority of time should be spent analysing and justifyingyour decision with regards to placement in the debate. It is best to start off with a generaloverview of the debate as to how the panel perceived it, including an analysis of the mostpertinent issues to the debate, as well as a justification as to why the panel felt they weremost pertinent. At this point placings in the debate should be given. From there on in,lines of argumentation should be critically evaluated, in order of importance to the issuesas already stated. In this regard, comparison with contrasting themes or arguments, if any, should be done. Any relevant technical issues should also be dealt with as and whenthey arise. If these are done properly, such techniques should enable you to naturally andfully deal with the differences (albeit sometimes quite marginal) between respective teamplacings. If necessary, after justifying your placing, a brief feedback regarding every teamshould be given, along with any speaker-specific feedback, only highlighting any aspectswhich you did not address up until that point, but which you feel should be conveyed.Overly specific speaker feedback should be left for after the debate and at the speaker'srequest. I regard oral feedback to be successful if the presentation leaves teams after thedebate feeling that, despite their placing, the panel applied their minds objectively andthe justification for the placings was cogent, logical and took all arguments in and aspects

of the debate into account (even though some speakers might not agree with theoutcome!). Speakers should also feel comfortable to approach you to discuss the debateafterward and ask for more specific feedback, while not feeling the need to argue withyour outcome.

As you can see, this quote touches upon several aspects which I have already discussed. However, Iknow not everyone will necessarily view the debate in the same way I do, and I both accept and respectthat. This is, ultimately, why you have more than one member in an adjudication panel, as well asseveral members of a Core Adjudication Panel at a tournament, so as to ensure a wide variety of approaches are all catered for and reflected when it comes to the drafting of adjudication policy and theenforcement of adjudication standards. Nevertheless, I hope that this section has helped you gain someinsight as to what are best practices in the road to improving yourself as adjudicator.

Part 2: On sustainability within a debating society

One of the best ways of developing debating in various regions is to set up societies that are able toassist with training, administration, and the running of competitive debating. This section shares myobservations on how to set up and organically grow a society into a sustainable entity. Given that mostsocieties I have dealt with have been affiliated to universities in some manner or form, the advice hasbeen somewhat tailored, though many aspects are still of general application.


13/33


Society Structure

When setting up a debating society, I have always advocated function over form, so as to ensure thatthere is never a situation where a society becomes bogged down by its own inner workings. Accordingly,the first thing to be mindful of is the realities that face your university and its students. At some

universities, student societies are given vast funding and institutional support, whereas at others thereis practically none to speak of; some lend themselves out to a more flexible extra-curricular schedule,whereas others have to deal with the fact that their students will mostly only be on campus betweenthe hours of 08:00 and 17:00. As a result, when laying the foundations for your own society, it is notalways the best idea to attempt to slavishly reproduce the methods or workings of other societies.

Keep your administrative and executive structures relevant and fluid

When starting a society up for the first time, there is no point in having various committees or

officeholders. Often this may create a ridiculous situation where you have 8 or 10 executive committeepositions, with roughly the same amount of active members, and where you dont even have aguarantee that everyone will be interested in helping. Instead, ask yourself how many people will benecessary for the regular activities of the society given the size and stated outcomes of the society. Atfirst, all you really need is two or three people to communicate to and recruit members, do general andfinancial administration, and to be in charge of competitive debating aspects such as league and thesetting of motions. As membership grows, it becomes more possible and relevant to have peoplespecifically tasked with marketing, strategic development, training, and value-added aspects such asschools debating and exhibition events. Later on, there may even be a need to form sub-committees toassist in some of these aspects. That being said, it is better to rather start small, but always keep the end

goal in sight.

Seek to keep your principles and approaches apolitical

Very often, student party politics create massive ideological rifts between students who are similar forall other intents and purposes. Due to the fact that debating seeks to promote different points of view, adebating society should seek to be apolitical in the broadest sense of the word. Any affiliation to politicaland/or religious societies or overt stances on such subjects will also have a direct effect of alienatingpotential members. Generally, an inclusive and critical approach is best. Bear in mind that being

apolitical does not mean that the structures within the society should not be democratic, or that thesociety should discipline or discourage members who publicly profess a particular point of view.


14/33


Formalising your society

Depending on how societies at your university are administered, it may be necessary to draft aconstitution from the start, whereas for others it is perfectly fine to initially operate on a loose set of principles and best practices. However, at some point in time, it does become necessary to put pen to

paper. In this regard, it is important to bear certain principles in mind:

i. When drafting use plain, clear language

Not all of us are lawyers, but fortunately you also dont have be one when drafting a societyconstitution. The best practice is to clearly set out your vision, principles, practices and proposedstructures using plain, unambiguous language. I am a great proponent of the principle that one shouldkeep things straight and simple, as you want future generations to be able to deal with a documentwhich you drafted and not be confused or overly bound by provisions, creating a situation where

redrafting or (even worse) a side-lining of the constitution occurs.

If you are struggling, or want to make sure there arent any obvious loopholes in your document, itsnever a bad idea to ask a law student or two to be involved, they are after all taught things likeinterpretation and constitutionalism. If you are at an institution which does not offer law, or have no lawstudents in your society, you can always ask for assistance from outside, a lot of debaters tend to bemore than willing to provide precedents or advice if its for a good cause.

ii. The three Ms: Membership, Meetings and Management

The most important aspects to cover in a constitution relates to the above three things. When drafting,ask yourself the following things:

o Who are allowed to be members? How do they become members? What are the rightsand/or duties of members?

o How long does membership last? Can or should membership be terminated?o How often should all members of the society formally meet? What should be discussed

and/or done at formal meetings? What about when a member requests a formal

meeting?o Who should manage the society? How should they do so? How are they appointed?o What should be the duties of various office holders in the society?o How do we hold office holders accountable?


15/33


Depending on how the above questions are approached, the answer may be simple or complex, and willinvariably lead to more questions. That being said, if you are able to at least cover these general aspects,then you are well on your way to having a holistic, fluid and relevant constitution.

Society Growth

When attempting to grow a society, its important to note that its not always about size, but also indepth. In order to achieve organic and sustainable growth, I have found that it is much better to focuson improving the number of active members and on member retention rather than spending time andmoney on broad marketing which may not be successful. In addition, broad marketing campaigns arenot always possible when a society is in its starting phases, as the manpower required for suchendeavours will probably not be available to you.

Getting new members

When attempting to recruit new members, targeted marketing tends to work substantially better ingetting people who are interested in debating. These days people are inundated with in-your-facemarketing on all facets, and unless you have the money to drown out all the others, things like postershave very little impact, whereas emails and social media invitations are ignored unless the individual hassome kind of interest or context already. By far the best (and cheapest) tactic I have ever seen utilised isto talk to various lecturers or heads of department in various fields and to ask them to assist you bygiving 5 minutes of a lecture to talk about debating. Many debaters have some kind of background orinterest in law, philosophy, politics, economics and history; these are the types of groups where youcould easily convince academics to part with some time, while also being able to pique the interest of some students. Dont kick yourself if you cant get a slot everywhere or in every year, remember its alearning curve! When marketing to students in such a context, it is important to emphasise both the funand the value of debating and encourage them to bring friends along.

One of the ways in growing an interested potential membership base for the future is by marketing toschools in and around your area. More established societies tend to forgo this practice, as they willpresumably be involved with (or be outright running) some kind of school debating league. I for one

think that, even then, this should not be the case. Some schools have open content periods where theyinvite guest speakers or have enrichment sessions, and talking to a school to see if you cant run anexhibition debate to show learners the value of debating is always a great idea. Go have a fun debate,not an overly serious one, and get them to both laugh and think. Afterwards invite questions from thefloor and talk to senior learners about what their plans for university are. This exposes people to the funand different styles of debating, and will also assist in branding yourself to school debaters (who mighthave been considering going somewhere else or simply quitting debating after school). You can even


16/33


encourage and assist them with setting up debate societies within their schools. I probably would neverhave even started debating if I didnt have the (admittedly unique) experience of seeing four nationalchampions on one stage way back in Grade 8 (or Standard 6, as they called it then).

Retention of members

Once you have started getting a steady stream of members, it is important to ensure that they stayinvolved. There is no point in bragging about having high numbers when people who participate andattend events only amount to a handful. In fact, this shows that while you might be good at marketing,you still need to work on retaining members and growing your active membership pool. There arevarious ways of doing this. Constant communication with members about events, successes andactivities of members (perhaps even having a weekly member profile) can work very well. These days itsquite simple to make a short, eye-catching newsletter which can be sent out weekly via email. Over andabove this, bear in mind that not all people who join a debating society may be interested (or at leastnot initially) in competitive debating, and by broadening your range of activities you can also encouragemembership retention. Things such as inviting guest speakers and arranging public speaking contests,forum discussions or philosophical groups will also get people involved and help them stay involved.When determining what to do, its best to talk to your members, to find out what theyd like toparticipate in, and who would possibly like to help organise such events. Lastly, bear in mind that youare always a SOCIETY, and that social interaction outside of your normal activities can help buildfriendships and networks. Grabbing a weekly drink together after your formal activities can do wondersin getting to know new people, and for swopping war stories and building a buzz. From time to time,having an outright party should not only be permitted, but encouraged.

Competitive Debating

Whereas it is not (nor should be) the only focus of a debating society, competitive debating is most likelygoing to be the primary one. In order to run a successful league, you only need a handful of very basicthings, namely:

o Someone to arrange a venue: The more central the better. Normally its a good idea tokeep it at the same time and same place in order to be consistent and make schedulingeasier

o Someone to set motions: This can either be done by a Chief Adjudicator, or by acommittee, or it (at first) be done by simply randomly selecting motions from a range of online databases

o Someone to keep track and communicate: Its a good idea to draft a list of speakers andadjudicators in order to know who tends to come to debates and to even (if possible)confirm their attendance. Over and above this, its also important to keep track of anyfeedback and results so as to track speaker and adjudicator development.


17/33


Regarding the nature of competitive debating leagues, it is always important to be mindful of therealities of your campus (as already noted). For some, league sessions are weekly occurrenceshappening at night or over lunch, whereas for others it consists of a concentrated session of multiplerounds every now and again over weekends. The best way to determine what would be best is to askyour members about their schedules, and to (most importantly) plan and communicate well in advance.

Furthermore, it doesnt help to be rigid in your decision: I have also been involved with someuniversities that will have different league structures at different points in the year, with some timesbeing no formal competitive debating at all, and where this variety made it possible for individuals whowould normally not be able to be actively involved to in fact do so.

Something that I noticed from my involved with and visits to societies abroad, is that they are not shyfrom hosting specialist debating events such as law, science or historical debates, where specificknowledge is not only welcomed, but often necessary to compete effectively. This is both a good way tointrigue, retain and develop members knowledgeable or interested in particular fields of study whilealso serving as a gateway, exposing new individuals interested in particular fields to the art of debating.

Fundraising

As we all know, money makes the world go round, and without it even the best intentions and plans cannever come to their full fruition. Some societies are fortunate in that they receive funding and assistancefrom within the university, but for many this is either not the case, or simply not enough to do whatneeds to be done. One of the easiest and most direct ways of establishing a cash flow is to charge a

membership fee. For most societies, this is standard practice, though others tend to shy away from it,presumably for fear of scaring off members. In this regard, I would advocate setting your fees in such amanner that it both relates to the realities of your campus, as well as with regard to how manymembers you want or are traditionally able to recruit. To me, charging a membership fee, howeversmall it may be, serves to create some kind of form of bond and incentive for a person to be involved inorder to ensure that they get as much bang for their buck as humanly possible. However, this by itself isoften not enough. Accordingly, lets look at some alternate fundraising methods.

A method of fundraising that is particularly popular with older societies is to ask donations from their

old members who have since started working. Whereas some individuals are able to give relatively largedonations, I have found that a far more sustainable model is to ask for small amounts, which then addup to quite a sizable contribution as time goes by and the number of former debaters increase. Settingup such a funding model is relatively easy, as it only requires a database of members so that they can bekept in contact with, and to arrange a function (maybe once a year) where you invite former membersto address the society, network, and reminisce. Communication in this manner also has ancillarybenefits, such as the ability to retain institutional memory, as some of those members may come back


18/33


from time to time for other events, and be able to provide stories and advice. Should you wish to startsuch a programme and dont have a database of old members, this is also not a problem, as mostuniversities normally have an alumni relations programme. In this regard, it is as simple as making anappointment, explaining what you wish to do, and asking whether a message can be sent out to formerstudents to get in touch with yourselves should they wish to donate or get involved.

Last but not least, societies can approach companies for sponsorship. When doing so, here are a fewtips:

o Do your homework: It doesnt help to approach companies blind or at random. Bylooking at a companys corporate profile on their website, you will easily be able toglean whether or not they will be likely to assist, and who you should contact. If youcant find out this information, give them a courtesy call, and explain to them who youare and why you are contacting them. This type of initial engagement may help in

opening up doors and ensure you send your proposal to the right individuals, ratherthan to a general email account. Talking to friends and former members who may knowindividuals at companies could also help you get a foot in the door. That being said, thiscan and never will guarantee anything unless you follow up and engage in a proper andrelevant manner.

o Tailor-make your proposal: Some people want a tonne of information upfront, whereasothers simply want to know who you are and what you need at first. Also, public fundingand corporate funding often have different ways of being applied for, and they havedifferent things they want to know about. If you are able to contact individualsbeforehand, you will be able to find out what is required, and provide them with theinformation that is most pertinent.

o Be specific rather than general: Most companies like to know exactly what you want andwhat you plan to use money for. In this regard, it is best to approach a company and askfor money for a specific event or project rather than with a general request. For largerprojects, such as tournaments, you can even compartmentalise your request by askingthat a specific day/function/aspect be funded. Often companies have specific mandateswhen it comes to providing sponsorship, and it helps if you are able to show a companythat your particular project somehow relates to their goals in this regard.

o Show a sponsor what the benefits are: Sponsorship is not about asking for a hand-out,but rather showing what value can be derived from investing into your society. It istherefore important to highlight both the potential direct and indirect benefits. Directbenefits tend to include things like tax-deductibility (most university donations are seento be charitable and therefore deductible) and access/exposure to students for thepurposes of marketing and/or recruitment, whereas indirect benefits normally relate tothe fact that involvement with debating can be reflected as positive Corporate SocialInvestment. A further potential benefit, especially with regard to certain projects suchas township or schools debating, or if your society is affiliated with a formerly


19/33


disadvantaged university, is that investment could be reflected at socio-economicdevelopment expenditure in terms of Broad-based Black Economic Empowermentlegislation (this is obviously only relevant to South Africa).

o Maintain a relationship: If you are able to secure funding, make sure to stay in touchwith the people. Send an email thanking them for their contribution and inviting them

to future events. Report back on the successes of the project which they helped fund.Inform them about upcoming or proposed projects which they may be interested in.This information will often be put to good use by the sponsor, and will help ensure thatthey are willing and able to fund you again. It may even lead to more sponsorship in thefuture.

o Dont be greedy or take things for granted: In the past, companies were willing toprovide large amounts of money for debating. I have seen this phenomenon severaltimes, where a society or tournament receives a large single donation, only for it to betaken away a year or so later. Firstly, it is important to note that these types of sponsorships are the exception rather than the rule, and they are often influenced by amyriad of factors, including changes in the economy, legislation, company policy,corporate governance codes, to name a few. Normally, companies are more willing tosponsor smaller amounts than larger ones, as they have a limited budget and want touse it to support as many different events as possible. Even in the instance where youare successful in securing a large sponsor, it is still best to maintain the relationship, butalso to carry on looking for alternate funding in the event where situations change andthe money is lost again.

o Dont get disillusioned: It is common for you to spend time and money on a sponsorshipproposal, only to get outright rejected. This is a reality of life, and it shouldnt get youdown. The more you ask, the higher the likelihood that you will receive.

Building support structures

As you grow and become more involved in competitive debating, it is only natural that you want toexpand and improve your societys competitive edge. It is at this stage that it becomes important to putin place support structures in order to facilitate these aspects. With regards to debate development, Ihave already talked about the value and importance of adopting training programmes and discussiongroups in order to improve your speakers and adjudicators. These days a tonne of training material isavailable online, and there are several individuals who will gladly devote their time (often for free) inorder to assist with training. Even in those instances where there arent established debaters in yourarea, this is not a crisis. These days it is more than possible to bridge such gaps by asking for individualsto videotape training sessions (a variety of them are available online), or to ask someone to lead anonline workshop (where all you need is a venue, a microphone and a webcam).


20/33


Over and above setting up training programmes, a way of expanding both your pool of experience andpotential membership is by either getting involved with or setting up a schools programme. This exposeslearners to competitive debating at an early age, and is a way for you to identify and develop talentbefore even getting to university, while also actively marketing to individuals who would, in alllikelihood, be willing to join your society when reaching university. The best way to start off with schools

debating is to contact local schools in your area to find out whether they would be interested in yourassistance, and whether they are already part of any endeavours to promote competitive debating atschools level. Yet again, here you should not be afraid to ask for the assistance of members from othersocieties for advice or insight.

Just like you approach sponsors, consider doing the same within your university. One of the best ways inwhich you can both expand the reach of the above endeavours and also cement them is by building andmaintaining relationships with various departments, units or management structures by advocating forthe way in which debating can help assist with particular stated outcomes of the university. Doing somay provide you with administrative and/or financial assistance, and most importantly will serve togenerate and promote goodwill, continuity and consistency.

Retaining institutional memory

It is sad when societies forget their past, because (to paraphrase the old saying) it is important to learnfrom it and ensure that the same mistakes dont get made over and over again. As a corollary to this, itsalso important not to have to reinvent the wheel, and therefore the preservation of documentation

such as training manuals, preparation materials, constitutions, committee decisions and strategicpolicies is very important. Over and above this, a list of results or, at least, past achievements bymembers should be developed. Lastly, as mentioned above, a database of old members can also reapmassive rewards. Ideally it should be the specific duty of a member of the society to start and maintainthese databases. These days with online tools such as SkyDrive, Google Drive and Dropbox, it hasbecome increasingly easier to set up, convert and maintain such resources in a manner that is easy totrack and transfer.

Inter-societal participation

No man is an island, and similar things can be said for debating societies. One of the best ways of expanding your influence is to forge strategic alliances and engage in inter-societal participation. In thisregard, we can distinguish between the benefits and methods of participation with othersocieties/entities with the university (intra-institutional), and when participating with debating societiesat other universities (inter-institutional).


21/33


The benefits of intra-institutional participation is that you can instantly expand your potentialmembership pool by exposing yourself to the members of other societies, and also potentially saveprecious funds by being able to pool resources for certain types of projects. When choosing societies topair with, it is important to abide by the principle of neutrality: as potentially rewarding as it might lookon paper to pair with a campus church or political party, it may potentially alienate members, and it

might backfire when it transpires the ideals of that particular society arent always advocated for oraligned with yours. Neutral and obvious choices include societies which also have critical outlooks or tryto stimulate dialogue, such as law/moot societies, language societies, and historical and philosophicalsocieties. When approaching such societies, identify things they have in common with you, and showhow your skills or members may be of value. Ask them about what their activities and goals are, and seehow and where there might be scope for cooperation (even if its just running an exhibition debate fortheir members about a particular topic). Be careful to overly formalise things though, it is important thatyou and your members dont land up in a situation where youve signed up for more than youbargained.

Inter-institutional participation helps in building relationships and a reputation within the greaterdebating community. It helps you gauge the strength of your members in a competitive environment,and can also expose them to new methods of preparation and argumentation. I believe that the bestway of exploiting this is through the use of mini-tournaments, where you invite local universities for anintense day of debating (with say three rounds and a final) and then all go out for drinks afterwards. Dueto having few logistical implications, organising such an event can be done quickly and with little to nocost involved. It also leads to greater communication between societies, which may enable you to run joint programmes for mutual benefit. Often societies will have ideas for projects that they are not able

to run on their own due to a lack of funds or manpower, and partnering up can serve to overcome theseobstacles.

Part 3: On organising tournaments

Being involved in the organisation of tournaments is one of the most personally rewarding and thankless jobs that you can do in debating. It is a test of patience, resolve, and it both requires and develops theability to adapt, work with others and handle criticism. Thankfully, you can be safe in the knowledgethat there are a tonne of people who have done it before who you can talk to. This section contains the

advice given to me through conversations with convenors and chief adjudicators of various local andinternational tournaments over the years, as well as my own experiences from being involved with therunning of them.


22/33


Follow the golden rule

There is nothing worse than an overhyped tournament which fails to meet its own expectation. I wasonce taught by a very wise man that the golden rule when it comes to service delivery is to under-promise and over-deliver. Basically, there is no point in grandstanding or making promises about your

tournament which you may not be able to keep, which may put you in a position where you have toapologise or compromise (or even worse, rationalise). Rather guarantee the things you know you candeliver, and have the rest be a value-added surprise. If people dont expect everything, they will respecteverything extra and be much less prone to criticism. This is especially true when hosting your firsttournament or when working with relatively inexperienced individuals, as it does not place unduepressure on anyone involved.

Start small

If you have never organised tournaments before, it is important to be both honest and aware of yourown limitations. It is necessary to build experience, and part of that process is to learn from yourmistakes, but it should never come at the expense of a tournament. The larger an event, the moreerrors and delays are exacerbated. Therefore, never set your sights too high at first. In order to get a feelfor what a tournament requires, and to build some capacity, rather run a couple of mini-tournaments oran invitational tournament where you limit the amount of participants. Its important not to succumb topressure, or to tell yourself you are ready for more if you are not. Ultimately, you should do your ownthing, because nobody else will run your tournament for you. In this regard, gradual increases will allowyou to establish a pool of capable people, which you will need if you ever decide to run something largerlike an open or a national tournament.

Pre-plan

Before you make the decision to run a tournament, it is vital to do a bit of homework beforehand. Firstoff, find out which dates are available within your university, as well as which of those dates clash withany other major events (not just other debating tournaments). It is a good idea to identify at least one ortwo dates initially, as things might change with planning. After (or even during) this phase, you will haveto start thinking about setting up an organising committee. In this regard, here are a few tips:

o Advocate efficiency and excellence over friendship: Running any tournament can bestressful and potentially damage relationships. This is not the environment you wantto be working with buddies if you know they are not the best people for the job.Both you and the tournament might suffer as a result of you not involving (orlistening to) people with experience.

o Too many cooks spoil the broth: There is no set amount of members that anorganising committee needs. Rather, the number should reflect the nature, size and


23/33


potential complexities that the tournament has to offer. A smaller tournamentgenerally only needs someone to handle finances and registration, catering andsocials (if they are being offered), someone to handle tournament logistics (venuesand tab), and someone for adjudication.

What is also important during the pre-planning phase is to get an initial idea of your major costs. Forsmall tournaments, this generally only relates to the use of venues (which, if you are lucky, might befree), and food. For larger tournaments, it will normally include the costs of transport, security,ambulances and accommodation.

Keep roles separate

The best-run tournaments I have attended have always managed to abide by the above principle. Theskillset required to organise a debating tournament is fundamentally different from that required todevelop and enforce adjudication policy and standards, and it is important to acknowledge and respectthese differences. While the left hand should know what the right one does, they should also balanceeach other out, rather than try to constantly tell the other what to do or how to do it. The more peopleare able to focus on their specific roles without having to get bogged down in politics or what-have-you,the more likely the tournament can be organised and run smoothly. At larger tournaments, it can evenhelp to further compartmentalise organisational roles, such as having some focus exclusively on whatneeds to happen and be arranged in the run-up to a tournament, while others plan the specifics of whatneeds to happen during it (this was done at Manila Worlds 2012, probably the most smooth-run

tournament I have ever had the privilege of attending).

Contingency

The one thing that you can be certain of any event that you organise is that things can and will gowrong. The mark of a truly well-run tournament is whether or not the organising committee has spentsome time identifying the things that commonly go wrong at tournaments and have developed plans todeal with them. This is not really a very difficult process, simply get as many people together whoveattended tournaments in the past and brainstorm about every single thing that they can remember that

either caused delays or were an issue. Helping identify these things will also give you a very good idea of the complexities and challenges of a tournament, and will allow you to deal with these issues eitherbefore they become a problem, or to have a solution should they arise. Heres a good point to start, asthey are by far and large the most common things to go wrong: Make sure there is always enough toiletpaper, and that vegetarian meals are actually vegetarian.


24/33


Ethical Aspects

Things go wrong at tournaments, and the effects tend to be worse the bigger the tournament. For thisreason, its important to have ethical guidelines so that people know how a situation will be handled asand when it happens. A code of conduct shouldnt be expansive or overly limiting, but you need to make

people understand that you mean business and wont allow trouble. Similarly, it is important to draftand stick to policies relating to things like registration and how clashes of interest at a tournamentshould be handled. Without having a set system, the risk for favouritism or discrimination (even if its just the perception thereof) is increased. Furthermore, ensure that these policies are well-communicated both before and during the tournament.

Budgeting

I have noticed that a lot of people are quick to forget (or deny) how much money it costs to host a

tournament. Having been involved in quite a few tournaments, and having been privy to the budget of others, it is common cause that larger debating tournaments are heavily subsidised, normally at greatcost (in all senses of the word) to the organisers, who are then still criticised for not having it be ascheap as previous years. Lets do a quick breakdown of tournament costs:

o Costs of accommodation: If you bear in mind that a backpackers hostel can cost youbetween R100 and R200 a night these days, and a guest house substantially more, it isno surprise that this aspect is one of the largest budget items. The average cost at thelast couple of tournaments (assuming no subsidy or waiver is granted, which fortunatelydoes sometimes occur) has been R200 per person per night. Given the average length of

a major tournament, thats about R1400.o Costs of catering: Basic meal packs cost between R25-40 a pop. Given that people

always complain about the amount or quality of food, this is something which is a badidea to skimp on. Using an average of R32,50 per meal, the average cost per person at amajor tournament is roughly R682.50.

o Costs of functions: Most major tournaments have at least opening and closing functionsas well as a break party. For a catered two to three-course meal, expect to pay aboutR150-200 per person at least (surprisingly, finger food platters dont work out muchcheaper). A drinkable bottle of wine costs about R30-40, and most caterers will tell youto budget a bottle of wine for every two or three people. As for the costs of a yakka

party, thats at least R60 per person if you use the cheapest, foulest stuff available.Without even factoring in costs of dcor, venue hire, or a bar service (much less a drinkstab), thats another R480 at least.

As you can see, from just the three major costs alone, we are talking about needing over R2500 perperson. That still doesnt factor in costs relating to smaller socials, transport, security, cleaning, audio-visual equipment, etc. Its important to be honest about these costs. Fortunately, a lot of these costs aretied to the university itself, who may be willing to assist you by providing discounts or outright waiving


25/33


such fees. However, you should always err on the side of caution and not assume that you will receivesuch assistance (Ive known of at least two tournaments in the past that did so, at great expense to thetournament, the society, its members, and the university). When drawing up a budget, be mindful of thelarge costs, but also remember that smaller aspects do add up, and be sure to find out beforehand if there might not be any hidden or additional costs which you have not factored in (for instance, there

might be by-laws requiring the need for security, ambulances or liquor licences for certain types of events). Having a specific budget may also assist when approaching sponsors to help you fund a specificaspect or event.

Determining the amount of rounds

This is a controversial aspect. I know a lot of people advocate for having as much rounds at a

tournament as humanly possible. To me, ultimately the choice should be determined by the outcome of your tournament, and whether it should be more developmental in nature, or advocate for truecompetitiveness. People who advocate for the former state that the more rounds there are, the moreexposure and the higher the likelihood of growth will be for speakers. Whereas this argument does holdsome merit, I have always held that more growth happens between tournaments than at tournaments(although I am more than willing to concede that this is from my own experience and not necessarily thecase for other people). I do however still feel that a tournament should be about excellence, andtherefore would argue that the number of rounds must facilitate this. This relates to both the amount of rounds before and after the break. Furthermore, there are ways of objectively determining this aspect. Iasked Kevin Massie (who apart from being former CA of Worlds, Euros, and every major North American

tournament, was also a breaking speaker at practically every tournament hes ever attended) to explainwhy this is so, and Ive included his reasoning here:

We accept as a rule that speaker points are somewhat random. Even with an incrediblydeep judging pool, an 80 in one room will be a 75 in another room. However, weexpect, to a certain degree that win/loss would be the same with any judge (and this ismostly true with a few outlying exceptions). Basically, if I gave a team a first place with75 as their speaker scores, you may have given those same speakers an 80, but wouldstill likely have given them a first. With that in mind, we design the brackets in order toensure that teams break based on their win/loss record, rather than on their speaker

points (or breaking on speaks as its called). We do this so that teams do not feelcheated if some/most of the teams on the same points as they have are in the break,while they are left out. Its not usually possible to prevent all breaking on speaks, butwe design the brackets to minimize it.

When we design the break, we work backwards. It is generally accepted that the breakthreshold is set at 10-15% of tournament attendance, or rather that we break the teamsat the top who are closely bunched together and have a shot at winning the


26/33


tournament. At Worlds, octo-finals were established once the team total reached 250teams, as breaking to quarters at that number seemed silly. This is also why, recently, asthe tournament grew, provision had to be made for more knock-out rounds. If you have120 teams or lower (being the average amount of teams at SA nationals over the pastfew years), you should break to quarter-finals only, as Octos will taint your results

statistically by having more than a quarter of the tournament in the break (a lot of whose points will drastically diverge from the top teams, and wont have a highlikelihood of victory). After you have determined your number of knock-out rounds, youneed to find the number of pre-break rounds that will give you a clean team breakwithout too many cases of breaking on speaks. Assuming 120 teams (or 30 rooms), hereis what the point distribution will look like as rounds progress:

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7

20 1

19 1

18 1 2

17 1 3

16 2 4

15 1 3 6 14 1 4 10

13 3 7 14

12 1 6 10 14

11 2 8 14 14

10 6 13 17 15

9 2 11 17 17 13

8 6 15 18 15 10

7 13 20 19 13 6

6 8 20 21 15 8 4

5 14 23 18 10 4 1

4 23 23 14 6 2 1

3 30 29 17 5 2 1 0

2 30 22 10 4 0 0 0

1 30 16 4 2 0 0 0

0 30 8 2 1 1 1 1

Number of rounds

N u m

b e r o

f p o t e n t i a

l p o i n t s t h a t t e a m

s c a n

b e o n


27/33


120 120 120 120 120 120 120

As you can see, after 5 rounds, youll have 19 teams potentially on 11 points orbetter. Assuming a 16-team break, this already means 3 teams will miss the break onspeaks and you will need significantly better than 2 points per round to make the break.After 6 rounds youll have 18 teams on 13 points or better. After 7 rounds youll have 17teams on 15 points or better. At this point, brackets start getting very, very thin, andteams will risk not breaking simply due to bubbling. If you have more rounds, youincrease the likelihood of having brackets collapse because of bubbling teamswinning/losing (whichever the case may be, depending on how you decide to bubble),and in all probability, youll just have the same teams hitting each other in 3 straight

rounds because of how thin the brackets are at that level (e.g. you take a fourth, but youend up in the same room because youre the only team in that bracket, so you hit thesame teams and just trade points with them all day). Most tournaments model theirbreaks after the WUDC break, but that doesnt mean that they have to break to Octosand have 9 rounds, but rather it means that they should apply the WUDC formula as setout above to ensure that they break the correct number of teams for the level of attendance and that they have the correct number of in-rounds to ensure a statisticallyfair break. Creating a situation where a large amount of teams dont break because theyarent able to get the right amount of speaker points is subjective and silly.

As debaters, it is surprising how few people are rational about this aspect. Over and above what hasbeen stated, bear in mind that every additional day that gets tacked on to a tournament makes it moreexpensive to run and to attend. This is why I have always advocated for having more, yet smaller andcheaper, tournaments.

Scheduling

When drafting a schedule, there are only two principles which you should adhere to, namely

that you should be mindful of what causes delays and plan accordingly, and be realistic whendoing so. As a rule of thumb, the less a situation is under your control, the more time you shouldallocate for it. There is no point in budgeting only an hour to transport people to and fromevents if you know this will not be likely. The same thing applies to scheduling rounds at atournament. Preparation, speeches and deliberation of a debate take at least 90 minutes, andone still then requires a buffer for feedback and results from ballots to be entered into the tab,

Distribution of points between teams


28/33


and for them to be verified. Also, telling people to show up earlier in the morning is also notalways a solution.

Socials

Just like with the above section, I believe that two (clichd) principles are key, namely Keep it straightand simple, and Make it cheap and cheerful. When your tournament is centrally hosted at a relativelyremote place, I would discourage having off-campus socials, as transport causes delays and drives up thecosts of events. Rather find cheap and novel ways to have parties on campus where people are able tosocialise without constant delay or the need to dress up. The most fun socials I remember tended to nothave too much frills or fuss, but rather was relaxed, accessible, affordable and also didnt involve mehaving to get on a bus before I wanted to leave, or even worse having to find my way home in a town Idont know because I missed the bus.

The Tab (aka Defense of the Dark Arts)

I have often been puzzled by how many people claim that they dont understand a tab, what it does andhow it works. So lets quickly deal with this.

What is a tab?

Simply put, the tab refers to any system/method by which information (including results, feedback andpositions that teams have already spoken in) regarding competitive debating at a tournament istabulated so as to produce an order in which speakers participate (i.e. in what room and in whatposition they will be speaking). Depending on the size or type of tournament you are running, this entirefunction can be done by hand, or on a spread sheet, whereas larger tournaments normally usespecialised systems that have been developed for that very purpose.

How does a tab work?

Considering the fact that a tab is simply about sorting sets of data, there are various ways in which a tabcan work. At British Parliamentary tournaments, the two most common ways of running a tab is eitheras a round robin (whereby the tab pairs teams that havent seen each other while ensuring that teamsalso speak in different positions in the debate), or most commonly as a power-paired model. In power-pairing, one uses results to ensure that teams debating against one another are on the same or similaramounts of points. The reason why this is done is so one can rank rooms and determine which teamsare likely in the running for making it to the knock-out rounds. Power-pairing strives to always putpeople with the same amount of points in the same room, although (from the table on Page 25 above),


29/33


one can see that this is not always possible, as the points brackets are not always divisible by four (beingthe amount of positions in a debate). Accordingly, it is necessary to sometimes pull a couple of teams upor down into different brackets in order for a room to be filled. When this is done, it is called bubbling.The choice of teams to bubble up or down is sometimes random, although some systems are designedto bubble up the teams in a bracket with the highest speaker points, while bubbling down teams with

the lowest speaker points. I have even seen one system which attempted to combine and equitablyspread two different brackets so that all rooms were equally affected (although it seemed silly to me).Given the innate subjectivity and tendency for speaker points to differ from adjudicator to adjudicator, Iprefer a system where bubbling occurs randomly, and where the effect is limited to as few debates aspossible.

The Adjudicators Tab

One of the most controversial things in South African debating of late seems to be the adjudicators tab.One of the common points of criticism that is levelled at an adjudicators tab is this: I chaired everyround, and didnt break, but some guy who was only a panellist did. Clearly, the tab is broken, because itdoesnt make sense otherwise. Lets clear this up first. In one sense, the adjudicators tab is just like aspeakers tab, in that it tracks data and sorts adjudicators into particular categories. In this regard, anadjudicators tab will sort adjudicators into categories of chairs and panellists, and then furthermoresubdivide these categories into levels of relevance (in correlation with the levels of various rooms atthe tournament). Let me use some examples of how this then applies when determining theadjudicators break:

o Just like a team can come last in the debate at the top room and still break, a panellist in

the top room has the same chance.o A team in the mid-level may have a shot at breaking if he finishes first in his last couple

of rounds, but it is not a guarantee. Similarly, an adjudicator who is chairing in the mid-tier of relevance may see relatively decent debates, but does not have a guaranteedshot at breaking.

Where the adjudicator and speaker tabs do diverge, is with regards to how rankings occur. For thespeakers tab, it is always determined by placings in the debate, whereas the system of adjudicatorranking is slightly more nuanced. Initial rankings are determined through the results of adjudicationtests, and sometimes with the addition of aspects such as interviews and judge statements. Subsequent

adjustments to this ranking are then made through data acquired by feedback forms. With regard tohow feedback is used to adjust this, there is no set metric. However, here are a couple of principles thatI apply to the process:

o It is important to bear in mind that there are teams in a debate who will leave the roomhappier or more critical as a result of their placing, and their emotions tend to reflect onthe feedback form. To counteract this, I place a heavier weighting on the feedback of the teams who placed second and third than I do on the teams who placed first and last.


30/33


o The feedback received from chairs ranked on a higher level of relevance tend to have agreater impact on determining whether their panellists should move up in the ranksand/or become chairs. This is because, presumably, a higher level of reliance can beplaced on the impression of a higher-ranked individual.

o Just like speakers hate feedback without any proper reasons, a CAP cannot makereliable adjustments without critical, relevant information on a feedback form.Accordingly, forms which have actual and useful written comments tend to weigh moreheavily than forms that are simply hastily filled out with barely any information.

What some CAPs also sometimes do to evaluate new and/or borderline cases is to put themselves onpanels with such individuals, in order to determine whether a candidate should be upgraded and togauge whether the feedback system is giving useful results. At first glance, the whole system mayappear quite subjective, but it is important to note that debating in itself has an innate element of subjectivity, but where we strive to balance this with a reasoned approach through the use of standardsand metrics. It is one the roles of the Core Adjudication Panel to ensure that the process of adjudicator

feedback and ranking is done in a manner that is as objective as possible (more on the other functions of the CAP later).

What goes wrong with a tab?

Sadly, in recent tournaments there have been delays caused by certain things going wrong with thetab. Bear in mind, all a tab does, as stated above, is simply sort data in the manner that it is told. Withthe exception of random bugs, more often than not the reason for a tab not functioning properly is dueto human error. Lets look at some of the most common causes of mistakes in a tab:

o Inaccurate registration info: A tab can and will only draw the teams which it hasregistered in its database. If a team is not registered, or is registered more than once,this will affect the tab. Often tabs are set up with the provisional registrationinformation of a tournament, but this should always be verified prior to the start of thetournament.

o Inaccurate data capture: The accuracy of a tab is only as good as the results that are fedinto it. Sometimes mistakes creep in when people complete ballots, or when they arefed into the system. One of the most common errors on a ballot is when the speakerscores of individuals do not match up with the placing of teams. Logically, the team with

the highest combined speaker scores will also be the winners, and the tab will reflectthis, irrespective of the outcome. Best practice therefore dictates reminding individualsof the importance of filling in ballots correctly, and having a volunteer check ballots toensure that the results and speaker scores are aligned.

o Not having a back-up: In the rare instance where something does go wrong with tabsoftware, it is always good to have some kind of a back-up where the raw data is fedinto. Some tab-masters will run a full shadow tab to verify that the results and draws


31/33


of the main tab are accurate, and to ensure that there is an alternate draw shouldsomething go wrong. At the very least, all information should be kept in a spread sheetwhere it may be analysed and verified after the fact.

o Not planning a dry run: Generally, it is a very good idea, if there is time, to actually drawthe first round of a tournament well in advance. This allows you to test whether the

system you have in place is at least working at first, and will afford you time to manageany crises should you discover that something has gone wrong.

Who should be running a tab?

Some people seem to think that to run a tab requires a degree in computer science, or for you to besome kind of maths genius. Whereas these things probably will assist you when first getting involved intabbing, or if you plan to write your own tab, it is definitely not a prerequisite. Rather, any person who ismeticulous and has a decent grasp of the concepts and principles set out hereinabove should be able tosuccessfully do so. If youve never done it before, ask someone who has, or play around with so

Documents

On Debating - Pieter Koornhof