News & Events

The Colgate debate team is competing against the best collegiate debaters at the Worlds Universities Debating Championships in Malaysia.

The site of the tournament -- Kuala Lumpur -- was not affected by the major earthquake and tsunami that struck southeast Asia on Dec. 26.

The team's participation in the tournament is a major step in the revival of debate at Colgate.  For more information about the team and the Worlds, read this article. 

Several members of the Colgate team and coach Miranda Weigler volunteered to provide special online reports from the major international competition.

• Pat Kabat's journal entry, Dec. 29
• Robert Sobelman's journal entry, Dec. 28

Here is the latest online journal entry

Dec. 30
By Miranda Weigler, debate coach

Day two of competition is over and I, like many, am already exhausted. It is almost 1 a.m. and I am sitting in the lobby of the hotel. It is very quiet here at the moment which is funny because during the day it’s a bustling hub of debaters and guests. I have just finished my day with the women’s debate, and after writing this I am really looking forward to my bed and sleep.

I actually have three jobs here which I think contributes to my fatigue. I am the coach for Colgate, I am the women’s officer for Worlds Council, and I am an adjudicator. Each has separate and significant responsibilities and I often feel like I’m running around like a chicken with my head cut off.

As the responsible party for the team I need to make sure that everyone eats, sleeps and is where they need to be, when they need to be there. As coach I am not allowed to help the teams directly before rounds so the most coaching I can do at this point is to talk to team members afterward, discussing what went well and what could have gone better.

After each round the teams and I analyze their result, the likely (or stated) reasons for the result, and the ways to approach the debates with a view to doing better. I am also trying to get an overall frame of the best way to approach next semester’s coaching, not only the things that need improvement, but the best way to learn those things.

I am a pretty highly ranked adjudicator and as such also have responsibility in that area as well. In each round I have to chair, which means I introduce the speakers and keep order, and then I facilitate the discussion afterward. British Parliamentary debate is somewhat different from most U.S.-style debates in the way that a consensus is reached. After the round the judges discuss their impressions and give one overall mark to each team and each speaker. There are no ballots returned to the teams, there is only one that is used for tabulation.

After the decision is reached the chair of the panel explains the decision -- and the reasons for it -- to the teams, and gives them feedback about their performance. I have had three rounds out of six where I didn’t have a panel (other judges), so I was all alone. This is very unusual in this kind of debate, and although it is an honor as it shows the confidence the adjudication team has in me, I have also worried about making the right decision.

After six oral adjudications I look forward to tomorrow as it becomes closed and I don’t have to tell the teams how they did. This is done to increase the excitement for break night, when we find out which teams get to the elimination rounds. The pressure isn’t just on the debaters, however, as there is competition to break as a judge as well. They only need a few judges to judge the elimination rounds and it is an honor to do so.

To that end there is the adjudication competition. After the oral adjudication the teams have the opportunity to rank the judge and say why they liked them or didn’t like them. The panelists also rate the chair and each other. The judging pool is very good this year, and although I would like to break (as I did last year) I’m not sure I will.

The third job I perform is as women’s officer to Worlds Council. The Worlds Council is the governing body that makes the ultimate decisions regarding the competition. Each country has a representative with the number of votes based on the number of its institutions represented at that round of the championship (maximum is four). It is my job, along with the equity officer (a woman named Masako from Japan), to ensure that the playing field is as even as possible, and that everyone feels comfortable participating in the competition. I have held this post for two years, and although it is demanding it is also very rewarding.

In terms of the debating itself, today has gone really well, with Colgate teams both getting better results in their debates, and also feeling like their skills are improving. The motions today were “That this house would institute positive discrimination for women in the military,” “That this house believes outsourcing is good for developing and developed nations,” and “That this house would punish celebrities more harshly then common criminals.”

Directly after the rounds ended we headed back to the hotel where I had to gather up the participants for the women’s debate, sponsored by the Australian Embassy. We had organized eight top women debaters from around the world to demonstrate different styles to debate the motion ‘This house would ban international adoption’.

Upon arrival I was informed that one of the debaters was ill and so I agreed to fill in. I was first opposition with Sumithra from Multimedia University, the tournament convener. She is very smart and very funny at the same time and I confess I was afraid I might be out of my depth with the other debaters. In the end I think I held my own quite well and the debate as a whole went brilliantly.

 I’m now headed to bed as I have to be up in four hours to repeat it all again.

Dec. 29
By Pat Kabat '06

I arrived, disoriented, in Kuala Lumpur last night. Ohio touts its auspicious heritage as "The Birthplace of Aviation," but couldn't muster a flight out on the 25th after they canceled my connection to JFK, which put me a day and a half behind schedule.  After a terrifically long series of flights and a minor baggage nightmare, I stumbled into the hotel in time to catch a few hours of shut-eye before a 6 a.m. wake-up call this morning, the first day of the Worlds Universities Debating Championships.

Jet lag had us all by the throat, but we breakfasted valiantly (not an exaggeration -- misconceived delicacies like shrimp balls, fried rice, and egg rolls were presented for our hesitant consumption) and arrived at Multimedia University, the tournament host, around 9 a.m. and checked in. 

The rest of the team had arrived the day before, in time for registration, but I had missed it on account of the flight cancellations, so the teams were switched.

Lindsay Bourne '05 filled my spot on Colgate A, so the team composition at outset was Marty Pinnes '08 and Luke Champlin '08; Dan Streim '08 and Rob Sobelman '08; and Michael (Shef) Sheflin  '08 and Lindsay.  I was to judge in the tournament, which was disappointing at first, as I was fairly pumped up for the competition.

But I had an opportunity to meet a Colgate alumnus in the judging chambers -- Rick Berger ’88 introduced himself, wearing the ubiquitous Colgate belt and smiling. He was a debater for Colgate in the '80s, and is now coaching a debate team at Kansai Gaidai University in Osaka, Japan. 

Rick had some very interesting things to say about coaching debate in Japan. Apparently it’s a challenge because the pedagogical method in Japanese universities emphasizes mass assimilation of knowledge from professors as authority figures over the spirit of critical inquiry and debate which American universities and other Western universities emphasize.

He said this background makes teaching debate challenging because the essence of the activity is to question the information and arguments presented.

We also talked for a while about the history of debate at Colgatec-- debate had been very active in the ‘70s and ‘80s, and had actually been to Worlds, but Rick tells me that after his class graduated it began to lapse.  I was thrilled to meet him and tell him that debate at Colgate was back.

Who would have thought? We show up at the Worlds in Malaysia and meet a Colgate alumnus.

Sadly, before the third round of debate Shef fell ill (he’s feeling a bit better, but needed to rest) so I dropped out of the judging pool to debate with Lindsay as Colgate A. In the third round, Lindsay and I debated teams from Australia, New Zealand, and Japan on the resolution “This House Believes that Universities should only offer Vocational Degrees.” The educational systems in our respective countries of origin are markedly different, which made for a fascinating debate.

Lindsay and I were obliged to oppose the motion, and we argued passionately for the value of a broad liberal arts education.  That was fun -- we felt rather well prepared.

Our side (opposing the motion) won, and we placed second behind the team from Sydney in opposition. Marty and Luke managed to take a first in the second round of debate, on the European Union and North Africa, which is a significant accomplishment, and Dan and Rob were ranked second in their room.

Colgate is certainly holding its own.

The Worlds consists of nine rounds of debate, followed by elimination rounds.  In each round, four teams debate. Two teams are responsible for defending the motion set by the tournament organizers, and the other two speak in opposition.

The teams are ranked first through fourth in every debate room, but the ranking has nothing to do with which side won overall -- the fourth-place team might be on the same side as the first-place team.

This makes the debate rather dynamic, as a team must simultaneously argue for or against the motion, and attempt to outdo the other team that takes the same stance on the issue.  Rankings depend entirely on how much each individual team brings to the debate.

A first-place team receives three competition points, second place receives two, and so on to fourth place at zero. If, after having completed the nine rounds, a team has received a certain number of competition points (I’ve heard that it will be 18 for this tournament), it advances to elimination rounds. 

Here's how Colgate stood after the first day of debate:

• Colgate A (Lindsay and Shef) 2nd place, 3rd place; (Lindsay and Pat) 2nd place -- 5 competition points
• Colgate B (Marty and Luke) 4th, 1st, 3rd -- 4 competition points
• Colgate C (Dan and Rob) 4th, 2nd, 4th  -- 2 competition points

The debates are fascinating, largely as a result of the incredibly diverse backgrounds of the debaters.  There is a great deal of variety in the tournament as well -- the best debaters in the world are at this tournament, as are some teams that are just out to get some international exposure. Everyone is very friendly; I think debate lends itself to that.

After a contentious round of debate, the contenders who were hurling thinly veiled analytical insults back and forth meet outside the room while the judges deliberate and chat about minor things, where everyone’s from, etc.

For example, I had a fascinating discussion with a girl from Indonesia about the earthquake and resultant tsunami that recently hit the region, and how the natural disaster affected the political situation on the coast, in which separatist violence had ensured a continuous military occupation until the disaster.  Now, she tells me, for the first time the military is directly involved in a humanitarian relief effort in the region.

Dec. 28
By Robert Sobleman '08

Today we woke around 9 a.m., and we were all almost completely adjusted to our new time zone.  We went downstairs in the hotel and had breakfast, which for us was a little odd – it was spaghetti and curry puffs.  Although this was not our typical Frank Dining Hall breakfast, we all made the best of it and enjoyed it quite a bit.  (I stuck to toast).