This Blog has now moved to idebate.org/worlddebating - all future posts will be made there!

24 March 1999

WUDC Manila 1999 Other Events at Worlds

Other Events...

Don't worry. We know that there can only be one. One champion, three finalists, and ten best debaters later, you wonder, "Was that all there was to Worlds?" Well, the Olympics doesn't end with the Men's 100-meter dash Gold Medal, so why should we stop handing out prizes when there are other deserving people out there? Here are:



WORLD PUBLIC SPEAKING CHAMPIONSHIPS
This extemporaneous speaking competition is open to anyone at Worlds. Speakers will be presented with a topic and have up to a minute to prepare for the speech. They will then have 5 to 7 minutes to complete it. So please, participate in two preliminary rounds and a Grand Final and find out if you are the best public speaker in the World!

WORLD STAND-UP COMEDY CHAMPIONSHIPS
Run through the routine, gear up the gag, and get ready to rumble - are you the funniest person in the World? This event is open to anyone at Worlds, so start putting your act together as soon as possible. There is no time limit - just don't get yourself booed off stage. Only the best will make it to the finals, held in a Manila nightclub. Profanity, insults, and other vulgarities are at your own embarrassment.

WORLD MASTERS DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP
The World Masters are all-star debaters representing their nations, not universities. Only the strongest survive in this three round elimination tournament (World Cup Style) to start the festivities of the week. The Finals will be held at week's end. The competition is open only to those selected by their national debating organization or (only if no such organization exists) by the university which represents the respected country at World Council. The Masters are expected to adjudicate at Worlds.

WUDC Manila 1999 Schedule

DAY 1 27-Dec-98 Sunday
Registration Opens
Hotel check-in begins
Debaters and Adjudicators
Seminar
Opening Ceremonies (Business attire)
Welcoming Dinner

DAY 2 28-Dec-98 Monday
World Masters: Round 1
World Masters: Round 2
Womens Forum

DAY 3 29-Dec-98 Tuesday
ROUND 1
ROUND 2
Public Speaking Round 1
ROUND 3
Preliminary Round of Stand Up

DAY 4 30-Dec-98 Wednesday
ROUND 4
ROUND 5
Public Speaking Round 2
ROUND 6
Dinner: Sydney Night

DAY 5 31-Dec-98 Thursday
ROUND 7
ROUND 8
ROUND 9
New Years Eve Ball (Formal)

DAY 6 1-Jan-99 Friday FREE DAY
Council Meeting As you are
Tours
World Stand-Up Finals

DAY 7 2-Jan-99 Saturday
Octos
Quaters
World Masters Final
Championship Dinner (National Dress)
Public Speaking Finals

DAY 8 3-Jan-99 Sunday
Semis
ESL Finals
Grand Final (Formal)
Awarding
Farewell Dinner (Formal)

WORLDS ATTIRE LEGEND
Formal Male: Black tie or National Dress Female:Evening Dress or National Dress
Casual  Male: Sport or T-shirt; Jeans or slacks Female: Blouse or T-shirt; Skirt, Jeans or Slacks
Business Male: Coat and tie Female: Pant suit; Business wear
As you are Male: T-shirt, shorts, and sandals Female: T-shirt, shorts, and sandals

IMPORTANT NOTE:
The dress code is a recommendation only.
Consider it as you would a definition.
You may challenge a definition, if you wish - at your own risk!

WUDC Manila 1999 Social Housing

Where is the venue and how much does it cost?
The socialized housing facilities are in the Pollock center, Ateneo de Manila. The capacity is 50 people and the accommodation includes lodging and breakfast.
The registration fee for those who would stay in the Pollock Center is $200.
All debaters and adjudicators, excluding trainee adjudicators, are eligible for application.

How do I apply for Socialized Housing?
The general requirements for application are the Letter of Intent, Certificate of Participation and the Checklist that is provided herewith. These intend to measure the urgency and the financial need of the delegate for housing subsidy which are the criteria for selection.

The Letter of Intent should include the following information:
Background Information – name, school, course and year, mailing address, contact number and email address by which applicant can be reached (please indicate if its personally owned).
The reason for applying for Socialized Housing.

* Address all correspondences to:
Karen Llagas
Director if Finance – XIXth World Debate Championships
C/o Office of Student Activities
Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, PHILIPPINES

The Certificate of Participation should indicate if that the applicant is joining as a debater or as an adjucator and should be duly signed by the applicant, the coach and/or the moderator of his/her debate organization.

What other information should I know about Socialized Housing?
The deadline for submission of application is on October 27, 1998. Failure to comply with the deadline means disqualification from screening and consequently, selection.

The results would be given at the latest 3 weeks after the deadline. They would be sent either by post or by email. The applicants will be notified even if they are not accepted for Socialized Housing.

For clarifications, please email them to Karen Llagas (etupaz@compass.com.ph).

WUDC Manila 1999 Background and Overview

A brief description of the World Championships (Also known as "WORLDS")

What is the World Debate Championship?


Background of the Championship

The World Universities Debating Championship is the largest and most prestigious academic inter-collegiate tournament in the world. It is an annual event, with the most prominent universities (such as Oxford, Harvard, Glasgow and Sydney University) regularly in attendance. There are over 200 teams from over 150 universities situated in five different continents that regularly participate. The two main goals of the tournament are:

To provide a venue for the open interaction of ideas from all over the world, and

To provide the best possible intellectual competition in the world.



THE ELEMENTS OF WORLDS

The World Championship has the following regularly scheduled events:

The Opening Ceremonies – these ceremonies highlight the start of the Championship. The President of the Philippines will be the keynote speaker, and the President of Metro Pacific will deliver the opening remarks.

The National Costume Night – this night traditionally celebrates the different cultures at Worlds by giving Worlds participants the opportunity to display their various national costumes.

Nine Preliminary Rounds of Debate – these rounds will determine who advances to the later rounds leading up to the Grand Final. All debate teams at Worlds, regardless of skill or level of experience, each get 9 rounds to prove their worth.

The World Public-Speaking Championship – this championship is open to all participants (debaters, adjudicators, official observers) at Worlds. The championship consists of two preliminary rounds and a Grand Final held during the Worlds Championship Dinner.

The World Stand-Up Comedy Championship – this championship is the same (except in theme and content) as the World Public Speaking Championship. The Grand Final of this event will also be held during the Championship Dinner.

The Women’s Forum – this is the traditional meeting of all women participants at Worlds. They discuss women’s issues that are important in the world today. The Chair of this event will be the Honorable Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The New Year’s Eve Ball – this traditionally highlights the coming of the New Year. It is a formal event and the participants are required to wear black-tie or other suitable formal eveningwear.

The Octofinal, Quarterfinal, and Semifinal Rounds – the cream of the crop of debating teams at Worlds participates in these rounds. Participant teams are determined based on their win-loss records after the nine preliminary rounds. Only 32 teams compete in the Octofinals.

The Championship Dinner – this Dinner honors all the participants at Worlds and is the venue for the World Public Speaking and Stand-Up Comedy Grand Finals.

The ESL Final – this debate is the grand final for the top "English as a second language" teams in the competition. The champion team will be honored during the Grand Finals of Worlds.

The Grand Final – this is the culminating debate of the World Championship. The winner of this debate is proclaimed over-all champion of the Metro Pacific XIXth World Universities Championship. The Grand Final will be held in the Cultural Center of the Philippines, and will be chaired by the Honorable Corazon C. Aquino, former President of the Philippines.

The Farewell Dinner – this is the last event at Worlds. All participants are treated to one last taste of Philippine hospitality through a dinner to be held at Intramuros in Manila.

What is Different about this Worlds?

Worlds this year will be held from December 27, 1998 to January 4, 1999. There are a number of differences between this year's Worlds and the previous Worlds, namely:

This will be the first time the Worlds will be held in Asia.

This is the first time the event coincides with the host country’s centennial celebrations.

This will mark the participation of the largest Asian delegation (and, correspondingly, the largest-ever Philippine delegation) ever at Worlds.

This Worlds will be the largest, and most culturally diverse, in history.

There is one new feature at Manila Worlds, namely:

THE WORLD MASTERS CHAMPIONSHIP
For the first time in Worlds’ history, there will be a separate debating championship known as "World Masters." This is similar to the World Debate Championship, except that it is an open competition participated in, not by separate universities, but rather by individual nations.

This year’s participants are the following: Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, England, Greece, India, Ireland, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, the United States of America, and Wales. These 16 nations were invited based on past participation and performance at Worlds.

The tournament will have three preliminary rounds and a Grand Final held the day before the Worlds Grand Final.

23 March 1999

Worlds Council Meeting, Manila1999

Precouncil Meeting:

Worlds Council Meeting, January 1, 1999




Attendance: Australia Canada England/Wales Ireland New Zealand Scotland US Bangladesh Greece Malaysia the Philippines South Africa Bulgaria Croatia India Israel Japan Netherlands Slovenia Turkey Thailand Jamaica



Absent: Singapore



Agenda:

1. Israeli concerns

2. Reports from org com

3. reports from worlds council

4. Bids from Sydney and others

5. Requests from Athens re: budget, etc.

6. Request from Omar re: rules

7. Irish request to extend bidding time to 3 years



I. Concerns of Israeli representative:

A. ESL : criteria for participation are vague , unfair and are neglected.

She suggests the use of the following criteria, of which a minimum of two should be met to

qualify for ESL:

• Formal language of the nation

• Language used as instruction in the university

• Language used at home

B. ESL finals only (no semifinals)

C. The reading of printed material gives advantage to closing teams



On the ESL criteria:

Greek rep: What of Deree and other schools that speak English in an ESL country? 95% of the students are native Greeks but are taught in English.

Indian rep: India has 70 languages while language spoken at home is too hard to determine.

Israeli rep: proposal is that these 3 criteria are recognized and left to a trust system

SA rep: As long as home language is English, team shouldn’t be ESL.

Chair: We may be over-specifying this. The criteria are reasonable - they are guidelines.

England+ Wales rep: The sport is dependent on honor. These are broad brushstrokes.



Motion tabled until later.



On the expansion of ESL beyond final round only:

Org Comm: ESL limited to finals only because teams may break in both competitions. Hence, they debate too many rounds in one day.

Aus: If you change the schedule, it is workable.

England + Wales: It's up to the Organizing Committee.

Greek: Last year’s ESL semifinals was to boost ESL, so as not to be seen as a sidekick of the tournament.

Israel: Motion is that the ESL competition be expanded to include semifinals.

Canada: It could result to a hectic schedule with Masters.

India: A ratio system should be established.

Netherlands: That would be difficult because they would have to revise the schedule.

Australia: It isn't the schedule really, but the Manila organizers' point on exhaustion.

Org Comm: Unless you disqualify break tams from ESL finalists, which would be unfair to a nation like Pakistan this year.

Chair: It would be unwise to use the guideline in the constitution. I suggest that the Committee works with the next university and formulate guidelines which are not part of the rules or constitution but is a separate document.

Australia: Worlds 2000 will have semifinals.



Motion tabled until next year



Discussion on the prohibition of printed material:

Australia: First of all, the efficacy of a prohibition is problematic. Also, the advantage to closing teams is overestimated. They can’t read entire articles so there's no real benefit.

England+ Wales: This is hard to define- like what about transferred material?

Indian: Closing teams must wait for opening teams' definition anyway.

Philippines: Also, there's the issue on prepared cases.

England+ Wales: This isn't workable, difficult to enforce.

Formal Motion: That the use of printed materials during debates be prohibited.



All except Ireland and Israel vote against. Motion fails.





II. Report from org com c/o Ray Aguas, Chair of the Manila Worlds Organizing Committee

Ray: Main problem before tournament was registration: i.e. completing information and fees. Problem for the tournament proper was finding appropriate venues. Ex. stand up comedy night which began after the allotted time for the venue (we’ll be holding another night) and the NYE ball where corkage was too high that we could not serve drinks.



Bangladesh Rep.: First, having verbal adjudication was really good but releasing the rankings dampens… an over-all feeling of stratification. Second, the inconsistency of adjudicators – perferences vary, some contrast what was said at briefings. (tabled for later)

Greek rep: Why were there no buses before sydney night?



Irish rep: In response to the issues that have been raised, registration has plagued every tournament, beer is not something highly considered by everyone, the organizers have to balance the corkage with the rest of the tournament… everyone has gotten the value for their money with the availability of buses, quality of accommodations, manpower involved have all been beyond expectations anyway.



England+ Wales: A complaint on tab was that there are those who win and get high speaker marks while those who win with lower speaker marks can actually move up quicker. I would like to recommend that we reconcile post and prebreak and have a folding of the bracket. (tabled for later)



Netherlands: Placing 3 persons to a room is not a problem at all with the delegates – it’s a nice hotel.



Phil rep: What’s with the increase in reg fees? At South Africa, the pre-bid was set at $200

Ray: We cleared this in Athens that our fee was not to exceed $295. In addition, the committee offered Socialized Housing at the rate of $200.



Indian rep: There’s hardly any vegetarian food.

Thailand: Why were the seminars held a day before the rounds?

Canadian rep: Some teams were split up because of triple sharing system.

Ray: Honestly, that was done by the hotel management, not us.

Irish rep: No big deal, Cork and Princeton put 4 in rooms of the same size – take the tournament as a whole.

Aus rep: We noticed that there was no Women’s officer in the organization, for future hosts, this should be kept at high profile.

Israeli rep: If there’s no Kosher food, tell us and we’ll bring our own.

Netherlands: Could we have the seminars at separate times sos that the debaters could also hear the adjudicators briefing?

Phil rep: Info dissemination about the proof of enrollment requirement was lacking.

Ray Aguas: The motion was passed in Athens within earshot of all country reps.

Indian rep: Could the grandfather clause be changed to apply to break teams only?



Irish Rep proposes that the report from org com be accepted (for purposes of closing that point on agenda)

Omar seconds the motion.

Motion passes unanimously.



Ray: Lastly, on the financials, our status really depends on how much souvenirs are bought by the delegates and the room problem as well, even last minute sponsors and maybe Pres. Estrada as well.



Hand Vote: All in favor.



Subject now returns to adjudication.

Bangladesh rep’s points: (raised earlier)

1) proposes that oral adj. be given without disclosing rankings

2) some adj’s may be inconsistent.



Omar: Feedback is useless without rankings. Oral adjudication will give away rankings anyway. Re: inconsistency, the adjudicators’ handbook has been provided…

Indian rep: Adjudicators don’t know the rules.

Peejay: John Long and Ben Richards deal with this. On every complaint, they have sourced the problem and spoken to all concerned parties. We cannot control everything but we have tried to deal with complaints fairly.

England+ Wales: No adjudication system is ever perfect. I am disheartened with the loss point: if the loss is well reasoned – it isn’t just about winning but the learning curve as well.

Jamaican rep: if an inconsistent adjudication is discovered, can rankings be changed?

Peejay: No. A decision cannot be overturned. But we do check the issue and have contacted the adjudicator in question. This affects the succeeding rounds they get as well as their chances of breaking.

Greece: For Sydney, instead of having John, Ben and Ray, you could have a box for adjudicators.

Canada rep: What about changed decisions?

Peejay: We would then be opening the floodgates…

US rep: If an adjudicator has clearly violated the rules, the system ought to allow changes.

Ray d’Cruz: A complaints system would ruin timetable and tab.

Peejay: It is also difficult when a panel is involved. It is not a policy to overturn a decision.

India rep: About the cap of adjudicators for a team, we’ve had poor oral adjudicators.

Phil rep: what has org com done to assure good local adjudication?

Peejay: The deputy chiefs have come to Manila every year. We held a national tournament late this year through the help of Omar and Ray D’Cruz and also looked at those who were coming.



Irish rep: 2 proposals: 1) that oral adjudication be continued - motion passes unanimously

2) that the oral adjudication complaints procedure be implemented without a change in the rankings.



Turkey rep: What about the last 3 rounds?

Irish rep: Amendment to the motion: That the oral adjudication system be continued on the basis that oral adjudication will be given for the first 6 rounds and written critical analysis be given for the remaining three.

India rep: When will we get the sheets?

Peejay: I’ll place them on the website. We’re still sorting them.

Ireland: This is a constitutional issue.

Peejay: for insertion into the constitution, motion requires 2/3 majority.



Omar: split up the motion

Irish rep: new wording: First, that oral adjudication be delivered for the first six rounds (mandatory) by the Chair.

Second: That in rounds 7, 8 and 9, adjudicators fill out written crit analysis sheets to be returned no earlier than the announcement of the break.

First Motion: That verbal adj. For the 1’st 6 rounds be mandatory.

All votes in favor.

Motion passes.



Second Motion:

All votes ion favor.

Motion passes.



Irish rep: Thirdly proposes that a complaints procedure for verbal adjudication proceed on the basis that decisions will not be altered.

Netherlands: But what about racism, etc.

Peejay: Still should not be able to overturn a decision.

Andy Hume agrees.

Aussie rep: I oppose the ability…

Peejay: We’ve sourced the complaints, spoken with the adjudicators and made sure that the temas never got that person again. Decisions are final upon submission of the speed ballot.



Canada, US & South Africa vote against the motion.

Bangladesh, Netherlands and Jamaica abstain.

All else vote in favor.

(Only two 4-votes nations and one 3-votes nation vote against – total of 11 votes. Four 4-votes nations, three 3-votes nations, four 2-votes nations and 2 one-vote nations vote for the motion – total of 37 votes.)

Motion passes.



Croatia: Separate the ESL rankings.



England +Wales: issues earlier raised: 1) on the way tab folds, that those with less speaker points have greater chances of moving up and 2) the formosity after the break, does pre-break change or is it the same system.

Peejay: We are not running the pre and post break system in the same manner. We will use the Swiss draw power matching system.

RdC: What we have is a true power power pairing system.

England + Wales rep: Proposal: to reconcile the philosophy of the tab via the folding of the pre-break tab via a random fashion within the bracket as decided.

Andy Hume: Another option is to randomize it within each point bracket.

Peejay: The council can come up with objectives then the Worlds Committee can work with Sydney.

England and Wales rep: Note 1) to not penalize those teams upon the basis of speaker points within a bracket and 2) Committee and Org Comm should look at bracketing and randomizing those who get elevated/raised up from a bracket.



Netherlands: What about the different positions of the teams?

Australian rep: We will trust randomization and then check.

South Africa: Give points to shadow teams.

Omar: Allow them to participate but should remain non-break teams.

Malaysian Rep: Teams ought to lose to shadow teams if they so deserve. Shadow teams do change.

Andy Hume: We should trust Sydney on this, view it from them.



Report from Sydney Uni.

Nick Purtell: Accommodations will be at our colleges and it will start on Dec. 31 til Jan 7, 2000.

Bangladesh and Israel not present , bid passes unanimously.



Worlds 2001: Bid from Glasgow.

Glasgow rep: We’ve been working on discounts on airfare, have fixed the venues, will have a lower fee for adjudicators and we won’t have a team cap.

Provisional endorsement of Glasgow’s bid to be confirmed in Sydney. - Passes unanimously.



Proposals and Election of Worlds Committee

Omar: First, we would like to adopt the rules as a attachment to the constitution, to be applied in each and every competition.

Second, we wanted to examine the constitution but was unable to get the minutes from Athens earlier. I suggest that in 1999, it is completed after Manila gets them.

Thirdly, we would like to have an affirmative action requirement which prescribes that a fixed number of participants are females (debaters and adjudicators). Where teams are of 4, one of them should be female.

India rep: At our university, the one who gets the money, gets to go.

Omar: The pre-council meeting should decide on this.

England + Wales Rep: I am against a hard and fast rule – in the British circuit, females are rare.

Ireland: 1) If there is 1 woman in 4, 1 man in 4 also. 2) Increase the representation of women in WUDC.

Croatia: We send the best people through a selection process.

Peejay: We can’t have a hard and fast rule, at least have recognition.

List of recognized institutions to Andy Hume, available from Limerick. (Australia, NZealand, S. Africa, NPDA, CUSID, Scotts, Irish, etc.) – a fairly workable list with which to proceed.

England and Wales rep: Although the list may already include bogus teams, there are regional reps not just the uni’s who can help outin this matter.

On the proof of enrolment.

Omar : Flexibility was exercised in this tournament, although there should be less next year. It should be taken more seriously at Sydney – that each debater should be a full time student.

Ireland rep: In Dublin, a barrister’s course in considered a pert-time course but they are bona fide students.



Fourth: On the Worlds webpage.

Omar: I’ve spoken with De La Salle University and Erasmus about this. It should be www.debating.net and the council should provide for its maintenance.

Pete: Two Canadians are offering to do it for free.

Nick Purtell: Ours should up and running soon.

Omar: We should accept the offer then.



Fifth: On the rules for Public Speaking

Sir Omar: What we’ve seen is a trend towards stand-up comedy speeches. It should be composed of oratory and rhetorical skills a) one on a serious topic b) and a prepared speech, motion to be given by the host university.

Netherlands rep: Sydney should inform its participants as well as the adjudicators.

England and Wales rep: LAMDA has a public speaking criteria.

Ireland: As it is, public speaking is a disaster now. Should it continue, there is a great need for rules of adjudicating it.

Omar: There should be a balance. It is in this competition that manner is emphasized rather than matter.



On financial matters.

Ireland rep: Princeton bought products of about $2000. They were supposed to be sold and the proceeds were to go to Cork.

RdC: At South Africa, we were offered $200 for being deputy chiefs by the organizers themselves. Princeton was told that they could not compete but there was still no payment.

John Williams, Princeton rep: This is a random $2000 debt of which we have no part in, this should not impede our participation.

Ireland: Both Cork and South Africa feel for the situation but an effort has to be made.

Andy Hume: This is a question of whether we feel that a university can be relieved for that – make a resolution for financial recompensation.

RdC: Forward the money to Sydney. Princeton hasn’t settled this and Council hasn’t decided that enough is enough.

Princeton rep: We apologize for this. How much is owed and to whom?

RdC: $1920.

England and Wales rep: First, we cannot allow institutions to shirk responsibilities and second, not have a random dissipation of funds like a criminal offense. We could have a censure lifted upon payment.

Omar: Princeton was allowed to register at Athens because they promised to pay.

South Africa rep: We have written to the senior administration of Princeton.

Princeton: We promise to pay, but aren’t sure if we can pay it by next year.

Ireland rep: You can pay $500 per year. I request that you pat Stellenbosch first. Upon failure on an installment, Princeton cannot compete.

Safrica Rep: The exchange was 7 rad to a pound during that time.

Peejay: So that’s about $500 per year for the next four years.

Omar: By this time next year, and then to Glasgow.

England and Wales: This should be written and ratified.

Princeton: If we fail, Princeton cannot compete and maybe more drastic measure should be taken. I am sorry and will do more in my power to pay.

Omar: Council would like to see this happen.

Peejay words the final motion Princeton University acknowledging to pay the debt that it owed Worlds Committee for the past three years, undertakes to pay 920 USD to Stellenbosch to be paid before they may register for Sydney Worlds as well as 1000 USD before registration for Glasgow.



Motion is unanimously passed.



Omar: What about the money that Macquarie should pay to Stellenbosch?

SAfrica ep: I don’t know.

Ntherlands: Conrad told me that it wasn’t paid yet.

(Tabled until Conrad of Stellenbosch is contacted.)



On Athens:

Greece rep (on the minutes of the last Worlds Council meeting): We have the receipt of the courier, sent on the 7th and 18th of September.

Ana Alano, Manila Org Comm Secretariat Director: We have been trying to contact you endlessly since early last year to no avail and haven’t heard of this action.

Ireleand rep: Could the committee members act as secretary?

Peejay: For future reference, records should be given to the Worlds Committee.

Deree / Greece rep passes around financial report: The university undertook to pay the deficit.

The report has been accepted and Deree college is thanked.



Members of the Womens’ Forum arrive and are recognized.

Meg O’ Sullivan: Worlds Council expresses its concern at the low level of female participation at Worlds and endorses all steps taken by participating debating institutions to redress this imbalance by promoting increased female participation in international debating.

Peejay: This is not a formal motion but a statement of policy to adopt in guidelines.

Malaysia: There are other oppressed groups – national minorities, races, etc.

Everyone votes in favor of the statement.



Omar’s proposal: That the rules of the Worlds Parliament Style of Debating are attached to as a schedule to the WUDC constitution, not as a part of it, but used together for a tournament.

So the Org Comm has no power to change it.



Conrad of Stellenbosch is recognized.

Conrad: I can’t officially say but from the bank and Carl Nolte, we have not received payment from Macquarie. Hart University also has an outstanding debt.

Steve Kaless of Macquarie: We paid and have assumed that that this was cleaned up already.

England and Wales: Lay down a conditional clause for Hart and Macquarie: If South Africa proves by next meeting that money is owed by them then we should have a motion for censure. (Agenda for next year.)

Conrad: We will deal with them bilaterally.



ELECTION results for Members of next year’s Worlds Committee:

Chair: Omar Salahuddin

Secretary: Andy Hume

Registrar: John Williams

Regional representatives:

the Americas – Michael Jansic from McGill

UK and Ireland – Rob Garson

Asia – Wilbert Yuque from DLSU

Continental Europe and the Middle East – Edwin Meulensteen from the Netherlands

Africa – Estelle Dehon of Witwatersrand University

Australia, New Zealand and Oceania – Meg O’ Sullivan

WUDC Manila 1999 Rules

British Parliamentary/World Championship
RULES

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION



1.1 The format of the debate



1.1.1 The debate will consist of four teams of two persons (persons will be known as "members"), a chairperson (known as "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame Speaker") and an adjudicator or panel adjudicators.



1.1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:

Opening Government: "Prime Minister" or "First Government Member" and "Deputy Prime Minister" or "Second Government Member";

Opening Opposition:

"Leader of the Opposition" or "First Opposition Member" and "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or "Second Opposition member";

Closing Government:

"Member of the Government" or "Third Government member and "Government Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member".



1.1.3 Members will speak in the following order:

(a) Prime Minister;

(b) Opposition Leader;

(c) Deputy Prime Minister;

(d) Deputy Opposition Leader;

(e) Member of the Government;

(f) Member of the Opposition;

(g) Government Whip;

(h) Opposition Whip.



1.2 The motion



1.2.1 The motion should be worded clearly.



1.2.2 The motion should reflect that the World Universities Debating Championship is an international tournament.



1.2.3 The members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament.



1.3 Preparation



1.3.1 Teams should have at least fifteen minutes to prepare for all debates.



1.3.2 Teams should arrive at their debate within five minutes of the scheduled starting time for that debate.



1.3.3 Members are permitted to use printed or written material during preparation and during the debate. Printed material includes books, journals, newspapers, and other similar materials. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during preparation and in the debate. It should be borne in mind that the use of printed material during a debate could affect a member's manner.



1.4 Points of Information



1.4.1 Points of Information (question directed to the member speaking) may be asked between the end of the first minute and the six minute mark of the speech (speeches are seven minutes in duration).



1.4.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand. The Member may place one hand on his or her head and extend the other towards the other speaking. The member may announce that they would like to ask a "Point of Information" or use other words to this effect.



1.4.3 The Member who is speaking may allow the person offering the point of information to make the point of information or may decline to take the point of information.



1.4.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.



1.4.5 The Member who is speaking may ask the person asking the point of information to sit down where the person offering the point of information has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood.



1.4.6 Members should attempt to answer at least two points ofd information during their speech. Members should also offer points of information.



1.4.7 Points of information will be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information (see Rule 3.3.4).



1.4.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.



1.5 Timing of the Speeches



1.5.1 Speeches will be seven minutes in duration (this should be signalled by two strikes of the gavel). Speeches over seven minutes and twenty seconds may be penalised.



1.5.2 Points of information may only be offered between the end of the first minute and the six minute mark of the speech (this periods should be signalled by one strike of the gavel at the first minute and one strike at the sixth minute).



1.5.3 It is the duty of the Speaker of the House to time speeches.



1.5.4 In the absence of the Speaker of the House, it is the Duty of the Chair of the Adjudication panel to ensure that speeches are timed.



1.6 The Adjudication



1.6.1 The debate should be adjudicated by a panel of at least three adjudicators, where this is possible.



1.6.2 At the convulsion of the debate, the adjudicators should confer and rank the teams, from first placed to last placed. (see Part 6, Marking and Ranking).



1.6.3 There should be no verbal adjudication of the debate and the results of the debate should not be released.





PART TWO: DEFINITIONS



2.1 The Definition



2.1.1 The definition should state the issue for debate arising out of the motion and state the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation.



2.1.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech.



2.1.3 The definition of the debate should not be self-proving (truistic or tautological). A truistic definition is self-proving when the case is that something should (or should not) be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable opposing substantive case. A tautological definition is self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists (or does not exist) and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable substantive opposition.



2.1.4 The definition should have a clear and logical link to the motion.



2.1.5 Squirreling (choosing a definition which does not have a clear logical link to the motion) is prohibited.



2.2 Challenging the definition



2.2.1 The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates Rules 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5 or 2.1.6.



2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.



2.2.3 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister.



2.3 Assessing the Definitional Challenge



2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be unreasonable where

(a) the definition is self-proving (truistic or tautological); or

(b) the definition has no clear and logical link to the motion; or

(c) the definition has been squirreled; or

(d) the definition has time or place set the debate.



2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition.



2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable.



2.3.4 Where the definition of the Opening Government is unreasonable and an alternative definition is substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing Government may introduce matter which is inconsistent with the matter presented by the Opening Government and consistent with the definition of the Opening Opposition, provided that the definition of the Opening Opposition team is not unreasonable.









PART THREE: MATTER



3.1 The Definition of Matter



3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the argument a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.



3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.



3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal. It includes points of information taken.



3.2 The duty to present matter



3.2.1 Government Members (with the exception of the Government Whip) must present positive matter. The Government Whip may choose to introduce positive matter



3.2.2 Opposition Members (with the exception of the Opposition Whip) should attempt to present positive material. The Opposition Whip may not introduce positive matter (new material).



3.2.3 All members should attempt to answer at least two points of information during their own speech and offer points of information during opposing speeches.



3.3 The elements of Matter



3.3.1 Matter should be relevant. Arguments should relate to the issues of the debate and the case being presented. The Member should appropriately prioritise and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate.



3.3.2 Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed logically in order to be clear and well-reasoned.



3.3.3 Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure that the matter they present is consistent with the speech, their team and the remainder of the members on their side of the debate (subject to Rule 2.3.4).



3.4 Assessing Matter



3.4.1 The matter presented should be persuasive. "The elements of Matter" should assist an adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness of the matter presented.



3.4.2 Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person. Adjudicators should disregard nay specialist knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate.



3.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference, age, social status or disability.



3.4.4 Points of Information should be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information.





PART FOUR: MANNER



4.1 The Definition of Manner



4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.



4.1.2 Manner includes the style of the members' presentation and the structure of their presentation.



4.2 The Elements of Style



4.2.1 Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as it is allows the member to appear more sincere.



4.2.2 Voice modulation will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as the debater may emphasise important arguments and keep the attention of the audience. This includes the pitch, tone, pace and volume of the debater and the use of pauses.



4.2.3 Hand gestures may help a member to emphasise important arguments. However, excessive hand movements may be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of the audience to the arguments.



4.2.4 Language should be clear and simple. Members who use language which is too verbose or confusing may detract from the other elements of manner.



4.2.5 The use of notes is permitted, but members should be careful that they do not rely on their notes too much and detract from the other elements of manner.



4.2.6 The use of humour is permitted and may be used by debaters to assist their presentation.



4.2.7 Any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member.



4.3 The elements of structure



4.3.1 The structure or organisation of material of the speech of each member. The member should structure or organise his or her matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation.



4.3.2 The structure or organisation of material of the team. The team should organise or structure their matter to improve their presentation's effectiveness.



4.4 Assessing manner



4.4.1 The manner of the member should be effective. 'The elements of style' and the 'The Elements of structure' should assist an adjudicator to assess the effectiveness of the member's presentation.



4.4.2 Adjudicators should be aware that at a World Championship, there are many styles which are appropriate, and that they should not discriminate against a member simply because the manner would be deemed 'inappropriate Parliamentary debating' in their own country.



4.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, language, (subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preferences, age, social status or disability.





PART FIVE: ADJUDICATION



5.1 Ranking of Teams



5.1.1. At the conclusion of the Debate, the adjudicators should rank the teams from first place to last place:

(a) first placed teams should be awarded three points;

(b) second placed teams should be awarded two points;

(c) third placard teams should be awarded one point; and

(d) fourth placed teams should be awarded zero.



5.1.2 Teams may receive zero points where they fail to arrive at the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled time for debate without reasonable cause.



5.1.3 Teams may receive zero points where the adjudicators unanimously agree that the Member has (or Members have) discriminated against another debater on the basis of religion, sex, race colour, nationality, sexual preferences, social status or disability.



5.1.4 Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings. Where a unanimous decision cannot be reached after conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the rankings. Where a majority decision cannot be reached, the Chair of the panel of adjudicators will determine the rankings.



5.2 Marking the Debate.



5.2.1 The marks awarded to members and team should reflect the adjudicators' impression of debate.



5.2.2 The marks awarded to a team should be the total of both members' marks when added together.



5.2.3 The Chair should allocate marks to members and teams in consultation with the other members of the majority. Where the Chair dissents from a majority decision, he or she will nominate another to allocate marks in consultation with the remainder of the majority.



5.2.4 Marks should be in awarded with the following interpretation:



Matter Manner Total Meaning Letter Range

50 50 100 Flawless A (100-90)

47 ½ 47 ½ 95 Excellent

45 45 90 Very good

42 ½ 42 ½ 85 Good B (89-80)

40 40 80 Above Average

37 ½ 37 ½ 75 Average C (79-70)

35 35 70 Below Average

32 ½ 32 ½ 65 Poor D (69-60)

30 30 60 Very Poor

27 ½ 27 ½ 55 Bad E (59-50)

25 25 50 Very Bad

WUDC Manila 1999 World Masters Rules (3 on 3 debate)

World Masters Debating Championship


RULES

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The format of the debate

1.1.1 The debate will consist of two teams of four persons (persons will be known as "members"), a chairperson (known as "Speaker of the House" or "Mister/Madame Speaker") and an adjudicator or panel adjudicators.



1.1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:

Government: "Prime Minister", "Deputy Prime Minister", "Member of the Government" and "Government Whip".

Opposition: "Leader of the Opposition", "Deputy Leader of the Opposition", "Member of the Opposition" and "Opposition Whip".



1.1.3 Members will speak in the following order:

(a) Prime Minister;

(b) Opposition Leader;

(c) Deputy Prime Minister;

(d) Deputy Opposition Leader;

(e) Member of the Government;

(f) Member of the Opposition;

(g) Government Whip;

(h) Opposition Whip.



1.2 The motion



1.2.1 The motion should be worded clearly.



1.2.2 The motion should reflect that the World Masters Debating Championship is an international tournament.



1.2.3 The members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament.



1.3 Preparation



1.3.1 Teams should have at least fifteen minutes to prepare for all debates.



1.3.2 Teams should arrive at their debate within five minutes of the scheduled starting time for that debate.



1.3.3 Members are permitted to use printed or written material during preparation and during the debate. Printed material includes books, journals, newspapers, and other similar materials. The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during preparation and in the debate. It should be borne in mind that the use of printed material during a debate could affect a member's manner.



1.4 Points of Information



1.4.1 Points of Information (question directed to the member speaking) may be asked between the end of the first minute and the six minute mark of the speech (speeches are seven minutes in duration).



1.4.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand. The Member may place one hand on his or her head and extend the other towards the other speaking. The member may announce that they would like to ask a "Point of Information" or use other words to this effect.



1.4.3 The Member who is speaking may allow the person offering the point of information to make the point of information or may decline to take the point of information.



1.4.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in length.



1.4.5 The Member who is speaking may ask the person asking the point of information to sit down where the person offering the point of information has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard and understood.



1.4.6 Members should attempt to answer at least two points of information during their speech. Members should also offer points of information.



1.4.7 Points of information will be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information (see Rule 3.3.4).



1.4.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not permitted.



1.5 Timing of the Speeches



1.5.1 Speeches will be seven minutes in duration (this should be signalled by two strikes of the gavel). Speeches over seven minutes and twenty seconds may be penalised.



1.5.2 Points of information may only be offered between the end of the first minute and the six minute mark of the speech (this periods should be signalled by one strike of the gavel at the first minute and one strike at the sixth minute).



1.5.3 It is the duty of the Speaker of the House to time speeches.



1.5.4 In the absence of the Speaker of the House, it is the Duty of the Chair of the Adjudication panel to ensure that speeches are timed.









1.6 The Adjudication



1.6.1 The debate should be adjudicated by a panel of at least three adjudicators, where this is possible. The panel composition will always be an odd number.



1.6.2 The panel will come to a decision, no ties allowed.



1.6.3 The results of the round and the adjudicator’s comments must be released.



1.6.4 Only experienced adjudicators (Worlds level A or B) not competing in the Masters competition may be permitted to adjudicate.







PART TWO: DEFINITIONS



2.1 The Definition



2.1.1 The definition should state the issue for debate arising out of the motion and state the meaning of any terms in the motion, which require interpretation.



2.1.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the beginning of his or her speech.



2.1.3 The definition of the debate should not be self-proving (truistic or tautological). A truistic definition is self-proving when the case is that something should (or should not) be done and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable opposing substantive case. A tautological definition is self-proving when the case is that a certain state of affairs exists (or does not exist) and there is no reasonable rebuttal and no reasonable substantive opposition.



2.1.4 The definition should have a clear and logical link to the motion.



2.1.5 Squirreling (choosing a definition which does not have a clear logical link to the motion) is prohibited.



2.2 Challenging the definition



2.2.1 Only the Leader of the Opposition may challenge the definition if it violates Rules 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5 or 2.1.6.



2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition should clearly state that he or she is challenging the definition.



2.2.3 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an alternative definition after challenging the definition of the Prime Minister.



2.3 Assessing the Definitional Challenge



2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be unreasonable where

(a) the definition is self-proving (truistic or tautological); or

(b) the definition has no clear and logical link to the motion; or

(c) the definition has been squirreled; or

(d) the definition has time or place set the debate.



2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the Opposition.



2.3.3 Where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not unreasonable.







PART THREE: MATTER



3.1 The Definition of Matter



3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the argument a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.



3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.



3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal. It includes points of information taken.



3.2 The duty to present matter



3.2.1 Government Members (with the exception of the Government Whip) must present positive matter. The Government Whip may choose to introduce positive matter



3.2.2 Opposition Members (with the exception of the Opposition Whip) should attempt to present positive material. The Opposition Whip may not introduce positive matter (new material).



3.2.3 All members should attempt to answer at least two points of information during their own speech and offer points of information during opposing speeches.



3.3 The elements of Matter



3.3.1 Matter should be relevant. Arguments should relate to the issues of the debate and the case being presented. The Member should appropriately prioritise and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the debate.



3.3.2 Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed logically in order to be clear and well-reasoned.



3.3.3 Matter should be consistent. Members should ensure that the matter they present is consistent with the speech and their team.







3.4 Assessing Matter



3.4.1 The matter presented should be persuasive. "The elements of Matter" should assist an adjudicator to assess the persuasiveness of the matter presented.

3.4.2 Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of the average reasonable person. Adjudicators should disregard nay specialist knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate.



3.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Debaters should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference, age, social status or disability.



3.4.4 Points of Information should be assessed according to the effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both the member answering the point of information and the member offering the point of information.





PART FOUR: MANNER



4.1 The Definition of Manner



4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.



4.1.2 Manner includes the style of the members' presentation and the structure of their presentation.



4.2 The Elements of Style



4.2.1 Eye contact will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as it is allows the member to appear more sincere.



4.2.2 Voice modulation will generally assist a member to persuade an audience as the debater may emphasise important arguments and keep the attention of the audience. This includes the pitch, tone, pace and volume of the debater and the use of pauses.



4.2.3 Hand gestures may help a member to emphasise important arguments. However, excessive hand movements may be distracting and reduce the attentiveness of the audience to the arguments.



4.2.4 Language should be clear and simple. Members who use language, which is too verbose or confusing, may detract from the other elements of manner.



4.2.5 The use of notes is permitted, but members should be careful that they do not rely on their notes too much and detract from the other elements of manner.



4.2.6 The use of humour is permitted and may be used by debaters to assist their presentation.



4.2.7 Any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member.

4.3 The elements of structure



4.3.1 The structure or organisation of material of the speech of each member. The member should structure or organise his or her matter to improve the effectiveness of their presentation.



4.3.2 The structure or organisation of material of the team. The team should organise or structure their matter to improve their presentation's effectiveness.



4.4 Assessing manner



4.4.1 The manner of the member should be effective. 'The elements of style' and the 'The Elements of structure' should assist an adjudicator to assess the effectiveness of the member's presentation.



4.4.2 Adjudicators should be aware that at a World Championship, there are many styles which are appropriate, and that they should not discriminate against a member simply because the manner would be deemed 'inappropriate Parliamentary debating' in their own country.



4.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their assessment. Members should not be discriminated against on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, language, (subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preferences, age, social status or disability.





PART FIVE: ADJUDICATION



5.1 Deciding on the Winner



5.1.1 At the conclusion of the debate, the adjudicators award the victory to one team.



5.1.2 Teams may receive a forfeit where they fail to arrive at the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled time for debate without reasonable cause.



5,2 Marking the Debate.



5.2.1 The marks awarded to members and team should reflect the adjudicators' impression of debate.



5.2.2 The marks awarded to a team should be the total of all members' marks when added together.



5.2.3 The decision is either split (by majority) or unanimous.



5.2.4 Marks should be in awarded with the following interpretation:



Matter

Manner Total Meaning Letter Range

50 50 100 Flawless A (100-90)

47 ½ 47 ½ 95 Excellent

45 45 90 Very good

42 ½ 42 ½ 85 Good B (89-80)

40 40 80 Above Average

37 ½ 37 ½ 75 Average C (79-70)

35 35 70 Below Average

32 ½ 32 ½ 65 Poor D (69-60)

30 30 60 Very Poor

27 ½ 27 ½ 55 Bad E (59-50)

25 25 50 Very Bad





PART SIX: PARTICIPATION



6.1 Eligibility



6.1.1 Only one team of four members is allowed per nation.



6.1.2 The following nations were invited to compete at the inaugural tournament (based on prior participation) subject to future decision by World Council:

a. Australia

b. India

c. New Zealand

d. South Africa

e. Canada

f. Japan

g. Philippines

h. United States

i. England

j. Ireland

k. Scotland

l. Thailand

m. Greece

n. Malaysia

o. Singapore

p. Wales



6.1.3 Selections to teams must be determined by a National Debating Organisation or by the institution which represents the nation in Worlds Council.



6.1.4 Masters’ delegates must adjudicate during the regular rounds at Worlds.



6.1.5 Masters’ delegates are eligible to represent a country if a citizen or if they were affiliated with a university which represented it. No other restrictions apply.

WUDC Manila 1999 Invitation

Dear Worlds Delegate,
The Ateneo de Manila University takes great pride in inviting your institution to the XIXth World Universities Debating Championships to be held on our campus from December 27, 1998 to January 3, 1999. We are confident that your stay in Manila will be a truly memorable one.

TOURNAMENT DATES: December 27, 1998 to January 3, 1999

ACCOMODATION: EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, Metro Manila

Registration fee covers accommodation from Dec. 27, 1998 to Jan. 4, 1999 (noon). The hotel charges US$105++ a night (per room) for Worlds participants who plan to arrive earlier or leave after such dates. One room accommodates three persons.

POLICIES:
TEAM CAP: There is a cap of two teams (i.e., total of four debaters) per insitution/society. Should circumstances (hotel space, etc.) signify that the Championship can accommodate more teams, you will be notified at once and slots for such additional teams will be available on a first come, first served basis.

ADJUDICATOR RULE: All universities must follow the n-1 rule, i.e., total no. of teams - 1 = total no. of adjudicators that must be sent.

PROOF OF ENROLMENT: All debaters must submit an official proof of enrolment from their institution.

REGISTRATION FEES:
Registration fee is set at US$295.00 for all adjudicators and debaters. An extra US$50 will be charged to observers. All delegates who pay after the deadline set by the Organizing Committee will be charged an additional US$20 per individual as penalty for late payment.

ALL PAYMENTS MUST BE MADE BY NOVEMBER 27,1998.

CONFIRMATION OF PARTICIPATION: The Organizing Committee requires that all societies must confirm their participation and delegation size by September 30, 1998, regardless of other details (team composition, names of delegates,etc.).

SOCIALIZED HOUSING: There are limited slots available (for about 120 individuals only). Interested universities must send the Organizing Committee information regarding their financial status, which will be used as basis for deliberation. Merely informing the Organizing Committee of one's interest will not suffice. Universities must wait for the confirmation of the Organizing Committee that they have been granted such slots. REGISTRATION FEE for those who will avail of socialized housing is set at US$200. ALL APPLICATIONS FOR SOCIALIZED HOUSING MUST BE IN BY OCTOBER 31, 1998.

HOW TO PAY:
1.. Delegates can pay through any major foreign bank with an affiliation with the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). You can try the following banks: Chase-Manhattan, Bank of America and Citibank.

2.. Send the foreign remittance to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Loyola Heights Branch to the dollar savings account name: Ateneo Debate Society, account number 3084-0151-55.

3.. The surcharge of such remittance should be shouldered by the debating society (payee).

4.. Payees MUST inform the Worlds Organizing Committee of the transfer payment via e-mail/fax, addressed to Mr. Edsel Tupaz, Deputy Finance Director of the XIXth World Universities Debating Championships at etupaz at compass.com.ph or (632)426-6080 (fax). In such letter, pls. specify the following:

1.. the name and exact location of the bank from which such transfer has been made

2.. the exact amount sent

3.. the names of delegates covered by such payment and the name of the institution/society and country of which the payment is from.

NOTE: Kindly send us your correspondence as soon as your payment has been made.

The Organizing Committee will send confirmation of the receipt of your payment within two weeks of receipt of your correspondence.



Travel Arrangements:
Flights may be difficult to come by this December. Instone Aviation may be able to help universities who are having difficulty catching flights to Manila. Instone is based in London with several branches worldwide, in almost every continent. They can be faxed at IDD+44-171-407-4258. When you fax them with your information, mention that you are with Worlds.

WORLD MASTERS DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIPS
The Worlds Masters are the all-star debaters representing their nations, not universities. Only the strongest survive in this three round elimination tournament (World Cup Style)to start the festivities of the week. The finals will be held at week's end. The competition is open only to those selected by their national debating council or (only if no such organization exists) by the university which represents the respected country at World Council.

NOTE: The Masters are required to adjudicate at Worlds.

Eligibility to participate in World Masters:
1.. Only one team of four members is allowed per nation.

2.. The following nations were invited to compete at the inaugural tournament (based on prior participation) subject to future decision by Worlds Council: Australia India New Zealand South Africa Canada Japan Philippines United States England Ireland Scotland Thailand Greece Malaysia Singapore Wales

3. Selections to teams must be determined by a National Debating Organization or by the institution which represents the nation in Worlds Council.

4. Masters' delegates are eligible to represent a country if a citizen or if they were affiliated with a university which represented it. No other restrictions apply.

More importantly

HOW TO CONTACT THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE:
Website(with on line registration!): worlds.ateneo.net
E-mail: manilaworlds at hotmail.com
Mail: XIXth World Universities Debating Championships
Ateneo Debate Society
c/o The Office of Student Activities
Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City
Philippines

WUDC Manila 1999 Financial report

Pia reported on behalf of the Ateneo Organising Committee. She reported on the success of the tournament and how everyone was very happy with how it went. They were particularly happy with the press coverage of the event including television coverage of the final. The university was also happy at all the publicity and visitors.

In financial terms a debt of $44,000 was left by the tournament which the University paid to the Hotel and the debt from using its own venues.

On the Fordham Issue. Ateneo had recently received all the outstanding funds of 1800 US dollars. On the Ben Bolger Issue Ateneo claimed that he hadn't paid.

Finally Ateneo thanked the Worlds Community for their participation in the Manila Worlds tournament.