Rule Britannia!
New Zealand 4 v England 5
Final judging panel: Aaron Maniam (Singapore), Chris Erskine (Australia), Janet Webster (Canada), Taimur Bandey (Pakistan), Jumin Lee (Republic of Korea), Simona Mazilu (Romania), Branislav Fecko-Cegin(Slovakia), Liana Miholic (Slovenia), Beth James (Wales),
England wins the championships! So I guess I won't be singing......except the praises of a great debate between Team NZ (Jen Savage, Ben Kornfeld and Maria English with great support from Holly Jenkins and Tom Chen) against Team England (Ben Woolgar, Seb Farquhar and James Fox ably supported by Emily Pearce), worthy winners England and gracious losers NZ.
Congratulations to England, a team that lost no rounds throughout the entire competition, who were clever, sophisticated and witty.
The final banquet awaits.....love to you all and I'll be back later with some photos and final thoughts.
posted by Kiwi Claire @ 11:25 pm
30 Comments
30 Comments:
right so who split and who was the majority?
It was a 5-4 split but that is all I know
Congratulations to England. Looks like it was a humdinger of debate!
Does it matter who split on a 5-4? Just shows that it was damned close!
Commiserations to NZ. I am sure you sang anyway, Clare!
andrew k
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Whereas some look at the results and say, "Oh, so and so dissented and so the result must be wrong." Or "it must be the right result because such and such were in the majority."
Yeh, that's about right. Sure, it stings if you're the "loser", but when the Grand Final panel features say 7 adjudicators, and the 3 who split for you are World Champions, and the 4 against comprise say 2 career adjudicators, a token foriegn judge and some other random, you'd be pretty stupid to not at least raise an eye brow. Depending on how the debate went down you might well feel robbed, and with justice. "It's all subjective" is obviously true in one sense, it's also a really stupid thing to say in another.
Hmmm, I can think of more than a few World Champions who I wouldn't trust to that level as judges, and more than a few teachers or other non-debaters who I would. As for the phrase "a token foreign judge", erm...
Sorry, I meant real World Champions... you know, WUDC winners.
I totally agree with the comments about the suitability of some judges. Frankly, to include your token foreign judge in the final adjudication panel precisely because they're foreign and haven't the first clue about debating is an absolute insult to the kids who have worked so hard in achieveing the feat of reaching final.
For that reason, I think its extremely important to know who split where.
Which countries don't count as foreign?
I'd be disappointed and surprised if some of the anonymous people here, who haven't provided their names to their comments, seriously think there were any "token foreign judges" in the final. Given that I've provided the names of the judges, I'm not sure who they have in mind as qualifying for that unfortunate epithet and on what criteria such cultural imperialism is based.Such anonymous people obviously can't have been at this year's championships in which there were some exceptionally good judges, especially amoung the ESL and EFL contingent. That there were so many in the final should come as no surprise to those who were there. Perhaps it's about time as a community some of us got over the "native English speaking judges good, foreign judges bad" mindset. I am a New Zealander. I saw the debate. I'm delighted that 4 judges awarded the debate to New Zealand but I accept the final result. It was a close and hard fought debate. England should be congratulated for a great and well-earned victory as should all the teams in a competition that was over all closer, more competitive and of a higher standard than many others I have seen.Let's forget the negative comments about judges which (a) appear unfounded in the context of this final and (b) risk tarnishing England's victory . There are many, many things we can celebrate about this tournament.
It is sad that these people who don't have the balls to sign their comments have clearly got no clue about what this tournament is all about. It is, after all genuinely a World Championships, where debaters have to convince INTERNATIONAL panels of judges, who, by the time the final comes around, have been narrowed down based upon competence and consensus. It is absolutely right that an international SCHOOLS competition should not have a finals panel made up purely of UNIVERSITY debaters, some of whom make great judges, but not by dint of their university debating experience, rather because they have experience of judging at WSDC competitions.
It is nothing to with political correctness, just intelligence!
Russell (ex coach of Greece...not an ex- WUDC champion so obviously I am in no place to comment or know anything about debating).
By the way, who split against Greece in the semi?! ;)
Thanks Russell - so true - and what a sensational performance from Greece. Bring on Athens.
(Don't know about the split in the semi, sorry, as I was watching the other one!!!)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The amount of 'debating-snobbery' that is evident here is quite appalling.
At least have the decency to post your names when you vent. Hurling vituperative elf-bolts from behind the wall of anonymity is despicable.
Hope to see you in Athens.
Thanks again Clare.
Andrew K
Congrats NZ for making it so far, and making top 10 on the speaker list. From an ex-nz team debater studying in the States, your victory against the US gave me a rare moment where I could claim NZ dominated the US. I wish I could have got off classes to be there!
Thanks for the posts Claire.
- Elliott O'Brien
People should probably have to put their name to it if they defame others by name. This sort of generalistic discussion of adjudication and panels doesn't do that, so I don't see what their names would add to the discussion.
I agree that in general a hypothetical discussion does not need people to signh their input, but the implication of the first, fourth, fifth and sixth posts is absolutely clear and as direct attacks on the integrity of the competition are not hypothetical and therefore it is cowardly not to sign the posts.
I know (as an ex coach) that we do all look at the judges and take comfort when someone we regard as a top judge splits for us, but the implication that the nationality of the judge matters and that there would be 'token' judges in the final of the world championships is offensive enough to warrant annoyance.
I am happy to continue the discussion over an ouzo in February (although no one drinks ouzo in February...maybe a nice cup of tea!)
You lost me at the part where you suggest the 1st post is an attack on the competition. Asking "right so who split and who was the majority?" is not an attack, and if people think it is then the PC attitude around here has gotten out of control. I didn't make that post btw, I just think it's absurd to suggest it is somehow improper, and nor are the other posts made here. Nobody openly questioned the decision made, except for one post that I read as sarcastic. Nobody said there were token judges, only that if the panel featured them then you'd rightly question the result. The fact you keep reading in these general remarks as more than they are seems overly defensive at the least.
I was the first poster. I'm just curious - I didn't mean to imply anything. Sometimes it's funny if the chair splits, if all the splits are male/female, etc... I just wanted to know.
I never thought that the decision was being questioned, only that it is offensive to suggest that the nationality of the judges is relevant in anyway.
"when the Grand Final panel features say 7 adjudicators, and the 3 who split for you are World Champions, and the 4 against comprise say 2 career adjudicators, a token foriegn judge and some other random, you'd be pretty stupid to not at least raise an eye brow"
How is this not an attack on the competition? You can hide behind the idea that it is "hypothetical" but it isn't
Anyway, sorry if the other posters were innocent in wanting to know, but your intentions were distorted by the sentiments of the other post. Although I still think that the wording suggests that you wanted to know for less noble reasons (which is a problem with this type of 'debate' I suppose.
I'm done now, I actually have to get some work done today!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
As we're not discussing the WSDC final at all, perhaps we could move this thread to a university debating forum? Hopefully all contributors there would be more intelligent and cleaner and have broken at an IV.
I have been lurking and reading this 'debate' with interest. I have to say I agree that the implication of some of the early posts was offensive. The implication being that WSDC would use 'token' foreign judges in the final is offensive. However, I can buy the claim that the discussion was intended to be hypothetical even though it was inspired by final itself.
As for the previous post. As someone who has broken, and more at several tournaments, it is just dumb to think that judges who haven't have no worth. Come on, we're supposed to be the intelligent ones people!
This debate over adjudicators is sad but so much has been said that is true. One cannot escape the fact that some adjudicators are excellent and unbiased whereas others are found wanting. I guess it is frustrating when a result is questionable and I am not sure how this can be properly addressed. Having said that, I am certainly not suggesting that this final was in any way mis-judged! I would just like to think that all debates could be judged to a high standard and with no bias. Congrats to all teams and especially England, New Zealand, Scotland and Greece.
I personally feel obliged to point out that sometimes, it's a native token judge versus unbiased foreigners.
And, just as personally... having watched the debate, I think that there shouldn't have been any split at all. But that's the nature of international adjudicators - you never know.
Go England!!!!
All very nice that people posting here want us to know their intelligent and are WUDC champions and should be judging and all that and know about hypathetics and the judges at WSDC are not good and can't be trusted but at the end of the day wotever you say you cant take it away -
ENGERLANNNND
ENGERLANNNND
ENGERLANNNND
and a lovely red phone box
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home