Ramblings of a Hokkien Beng/Debating Champ wannabe

SMU BP IVs

2006-11-13T11:02:00.000+08:00

Round 1: TH should learn to stop worrying and love the North Korean bomb
Round 2: THW criminalize genocide denial
Round 3: THW ensure that World of Warcraft players rejoin the real world
Round 4: THW tie development aid to the establishment of microcredit financing

Semis: THBT ASEAN should use sanctions to control cross-border pollution

Final: THW support the use of shame as punishment

John Smith Memorial Mace Scottish Championship

2006-11-13T11:01:00.000+08:00

Round 1: This House Would Privatise Education

John Smith Memorial Debate 2006 Motion

2006-11-13T10:59:00.000+08:00

This House Believes New Labour Are Barley Labour

Bristol IV motions

2006-11-13T10:56:00.001+08:00

1 TH Would Only Release Prisoners Who Have Secured an Offer of Employment.
2 TH Would Compensate Mothers for a Portion of the Income Lost to Motherhood.
3 TH Would Legalise Bestiality.
4 TH Would Institute a Mandatory 1 Year Period of Non-Military Civil Service
5 TH Would Invite Israel to Sign the North Atlantic Treaty

SF: TH Would Create a "Watch List" of Countries from which Immigration is not Permitted.
GF: TH Would Remove the Ban on Sympathy Strikes.

Durham IV motions (Nov 06)

2006-11-13T10:56:00.000+08:00

Round One: THB in a three state solution for Iraq
Round Two: THB that criminals sentenced to life imprisonment should have the right to choose the death penalty instead.
Round Three: THW scrap the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Round Four: THW tie developmental aid to progress in women's rights

Semi: THB media facilities are legitimate military targets.

Final: THW make prostitutes available to the disabled on the NHS

Back with a vengeance - ESU John Smith Memorial

2006-11-13T10:53:00.000+08:00

Prelim: This House welcomes the rise of Latin American socialism.

Final: THBT England needs a Parliament.

Motions from recent IVs across the World

2005-03-25T14:46:00.000+08:00

Here are some motions which are fairly interesting, largely from British IVs.

Aberdeen IVs 2005
Final: THB everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

ESU John Smith Memorial Welsh Mace 2005
Final (26th Feb 2005): This House Believes That Free Trade means freedom from Global Poverty.

Scottish Mace 2005
Semi-Final (12th Feb 2005): This House Rejects The Use Of Private Money To Fund Public Services.
Final (26th Feb 2005): THBT Africa is a Lost Cause.

Strathclyde IVs 2005
Final: This House Would allow Turkey into the EU.

Edinburg IVs 2005
Final: This House Would Use Torture to Fight Terrorism.

Exeter IVs 2005
Final: THBT there is no such thing as universal human rights.

UCL IV 2005
Final: THW Institute Public Flogging as a Voluntary Alternative to Imprisonment.

Irish National Maidens 2005
Round 1: This House Would Legalise Soft Drugs.
Round 2: This House Would Share With It's Peers (Yeah, WTF, I know).
Round 3: This House Believes P O Neill and Sinn Fein
Final: This House Would Compel HIV Positive Patients to disclose their condition to any sexual partner.

Inner Temple IVs 2005
Final: This House Would Abolish Anti-Social Behaviour Orders.

Motions from Cork Europeans 2005

2005-03-23T00:18:00.000+08:00

1. THW make the post-mortem donation of organs compulsory without exception

2. THW support the right of Chechnya to secede

3. THBT popular referenda should not be used to ratify the EU constitution.

4. THW prosecute the perpetrators of domestic violence without the consent of the victim

5. THW grant immunity from prosecution to dictators who step down.

6. THBT the state should assist healthy people commit suicide.

ESL Semi: TTHW remove the Arms Embargo on China

ESL Final TTHW make failure to render reasonable assistance to a person in distress a criminal offence

QTR: THW condemn companies that seek to avoid first world regulations on human drug testing by conducting their trials in the developing world.

Semi: THW withdraw from the Ottawa convention banning the sale of land mines.

Final: TTHW allow the use of racial profiling by police forces.

Motions from the Oxford Union Society Schools' Debating Championships 2005

2005-03-14T13:53:00.000+08:00

Round 1: THW not allow countries with poor human rights records to host the Olympics
Round 2: THBT the state should not subsidise the arts
Round 3: THW allow surrogate mothers to pay for their services
Semi-final: THW vote yes to the EU constitution in the UK referendum
Final: THBT control orders are an unwarranted violation of civil liberties

Motions from the Tilbury House IV

2005-03-08T08:53:00.000+08:00

Round 1: This House would introduce a national DNA database.
Round 2: This House would have a men's rights ministry.
Round 3: This House would expel the UK from the EU.
Round 4: This House would ban religious symbols at schools.

Semis: This House would lift the arms embargo on China.

Final: This House would allow torture.

IEEE Technical Debates

2005-03-03T17:14:00.000+08:00

This is a list of suggested motions from the upcoming IEEE debates held by NTU. Interested parties can contact Prathamesh at pratham_karkal at yahoo.com.sg

1. This house believes that we do not have a right to enslave an artificial but intelligent being.
2. This house believes that when fossil fuels run out by 2060, mankind shall return back to the stone-age.
3. This house believes that we do not have a right to colonize other planets in future.
4. This house believes that the hydrogen-engine is more cost effective than the petrol-engine.
5. This house believes that cloning shall help us find a cure to cancer.
6. This house believes that Singapore should invest more money in general research rather than in only applied research for economy growth.
7. This house believes in the power of technology to overcome poverty.
8. This house believes that science and religion will meet eventually.
9. This house believes that mishaps due to engineering failures must be treated as crimes, and the engineers responsible as criminals.
10. This house believes that technology is invading our privacy.
11. This house believes that too money is being wasted on space exploration.
12. This house believes that all vaccinations should be made mandatory by the state.
13. This house supports the Kyoto agreement despite USA and Australia not signing it.
14. This house believes that robotic research should be stopped as in the near future we will be able to build robots that are as intelligent and powerful as humans, and will therefore have the ability to revolt against humans.
15. This house believes that hackers do a public service by finding and publicizing computer security weaknesses
16. This house believes that unregulated distribution of copyrighted works
over Internet should not be allowed
17. This house believes that the pharmaceutical patenting system be liberalized
18. This house believes that computer manufacturers like Dell, IBM, HP etc must concentrate on mobile phones too as mobile phones integrated with computers are the future.
19. This house believes that products which compromise the privacy of an individual must be banned.
20. This house is against the trademarking of common names (egs. Neem, Basmati, Turmeric) as it sets a bad precedent for future scientific breakthroughs and inventions.
21. This house condones the free flow of nuclear technology between the
developed and developing nations.
22. This house supports cloning of humans.
23. This house objects patenting in the pharmaceutical industry.

Motions from World Schools Debating Championships '05 (12-18 Feb 2005)

2005-02-22T14:35:00.000+08:00

Round 0: THW ban the use of human embryos in scientific research.
Round 1: THBT the costs of space exploration outweigh the benefits.
Round 2: THBT political parties should be funded by the state.
Round 3: THBT censorship does more harm than good.
Round 4: THBT civil marriage should be open to same-sex couples.
Round 5: THW use affirmative action to compensate for historical injustices.
Round 6: THBT education policy should be the responsibility of local authorities.
Round 7:
Round 8:

Quarter-Finals: THBT the first priority of criminal justice is rehabilitation, not retribution.
Semi-Finals: THBT regional trading blocs are preferable to global free trade.
Grand Final: THBT the permanent members of the UN Security Council should not have veto power.

Australia won this competition, beating England 5-2 in the final (sounds like a football match). Singapore broke 10th and reached the octo-finals, losing to England then. I'd be glad to post the other motions once I find out about them (if I find out about them).

Motions from the Glasgow Ancients (19-20 Feb 2005)

2005-02-22T14:26:00.000+08:00

Round 1: This House Would Ban Factory Farming.
Round 2: This House Believes That The West Should Take Action to Safeguard Russian Democracy.
Round 3: This House Believes That Gay Prides Comes Before A Fall.
Round 4: This House Would Give Rural Communities The Right to Compulsorily Purchase Land.
Final: This House Would Ban Late-Term Abortions on Grounds of Disability for the Foetus.

Site of the day

2005-02-13T18:08:00.000+08:00

This, without a doubt, has got to be the most ridiculous blog I've come across thus far. Amusing, though.

Click here.

Hungry

2005-02-09T14:13:00.000+08:00

I want to eat bak kwa.

Debating Videos

2005-02-01T01:55:00.000+08:00

There have been some good debating videos made available by Ashok of SAID. He will be hosting this for about a week, after which the videos will be removed, and any person who is interested will be most welcome to do hosting duties. Here is the link, fyi:

http://ashok123.servebeer.com/

The SAID site is available on the left panel.

UT Mara No Frills Tournament

2005-01-25T23:13:00.000+08:00

Some one-day tournament for those who are interested.
---------------
Dear People,

The tournament would be held on the 19th of February 2005.

We encourage as much participation as possible. Grab this chance to send in as many teams as humanly possible. Good development platform for junior-senior combination. Composite teams are more than welcome.

For institutions/individuals coming from Klang Valley please be in UiTM Shah Alam by 0915hrs. Runners would be at main guard post to guide you to the venue. Attached together with the e-mail are UTMARA campus map and routes to UTMARA Shah Alam.

For teams coming from far south and far north (that includes teams from Thailand and Singapore) we need your reply no later than 31st January 2005 in order for us to sort logistic arrangement.

Pre-packed breakfast and lunch, bottled mineral water and canned drinks would be available for purchase throughout tournament.

Tournament Schedule
0930hrs - Common briefing and Roll Call
0945hrs - Release motion round 1
1130hrs - Release motion round 2
1300hrs - Lunch break
1400hrs - Release motion round 3
1600hrs - Announcement for teams breaking to final
1615hrs - Release motion for final
1745hrs - Final results
1800hrs - Tournament end

Please confirm your institution participation by sending details to sharoffs@yahoo.com as such:

- Institutions
- Institutions Rep (Name, Contact number and e-mail)
- Number of teams and adjudicator
- Accommodation (on Friday night and Saturday night)
- Transportation (Arrival details if any)

See you in Shah Alam!

Cheers,
Shamaredza Sharoff
Convenor
+6012 358 4790

All-Asians

2005-01-24T01:03:00.000+08:00

The dates and website for registration for the All-Asians are out. Do check out for the link on the left. I'm a bit curious, though - wasn't the Chief Adjudicator supposed to be Chandran?

Dare to Dream

2005-01-23T04:14:00.000+08:00

I've placed up some new links on the left for upcoming tournaments. The most juicy one has got to be the Europeans, but it being held in Cork and all, is a little too expensive for me. Sigh. Bloody debating tournaments in Europe.

Interestingly, I think this was the tournament that began the run of the Singapore team that reached the Worlds Final.

Being jobless and bored stiff out of my mind (and not to forget that I'm procrastinating from doing real work), it's nice to see that on Flynn's site, the weird ranking system he uses for universities places SMU in at 41. That's not too shabby for 3 years of Worlds.

Finally, the theme for Westers 2005 (see left) is "Dare to Dream". That's Renhua's favourite mantra, wonder what he would have to say about this?

Banks

2005-01-21T20:50:00.000+08:00

Hardly the most creative titling of a blog entry but then, creativity isn't my forte.

On the debating front, we've had a number of guests over the last 2 days, and it's actually quite interesting. Well, actually it's been some rather nice sessions. We've had guests on both debating and adjudicating fronts and besides the positive learning experiences, it also is quite amusing to see the level of bad humour that circulates around in the Singapore debating scene.

Incidentally, it's almost a given that just about half the world wants to work in a bank. We've had NMK and Amit, and we've got Divya and Sushil wanting to work in a bank. Then there's half of the SMU Debating squad, of course. And if you go generations back there's Rahul Ghosh and Mirza (if I'm not wrong). What's with debaters and banks?!

Of Worlds and NUS Exhibition Debates

2005-01-14T23:54:00.000+08:00

Despite the fact that I'm on fairly decent terms with a number of debaters from the other two local institutions, I can't claim to have that much interaction with them outside of debate tournaments. So it was really a rather pleasant surprise to hang out with a whole bunch of them today (albeit for debating purposes).

Now, since most of these peeps are likely to be surfers of this weblog, it would be particularly impolite to start slamming them here (not that I really do care - being politically incorrect is a debating thing). But oddly enough, despite gathering a bunch of people with potentially a huge pool of idiosyncrasies, the 'meet-up session' (in preparation for an exhibition debate - can you believe me that yours truly is supposed to set an example for younger debaters?) turned out quite brilliant, surprisingly - it had the usual recipe for a fun time: a dash of intellectual talk, lots of insults, jibes, some semblance of humour and Shaun speaking more Econs than I could understand.

Just an odd observation - it seems that NTU debaters embrace Singlish much more readily than SMU debaters. Which reminds me, I was supposed to talk to people about that upcoming article for the ST. Shit.

Rotterdam Open

2005-01-13T16:51:00.000+08:00

I've pasted a link on the left for the Rotterdam Open. It's in the BP style, and to be quite honest, with a whole term of Asians coming up, I'm really going to miss the dynamism that comes with BP debating. Not to diss Asians or Asian debating but it's just so much less fun.

Incidentally, Renhua, the mad Singaporean who speaks at 200 words per minute, suggested that if I ever start a bank/hedge fund and call it Song & Partners, my motto could be "The New S&P 500". It's true - you can take the Singaporean out of Singapore but you can't take the bad jokes out of him.

UT Mara Pre-Asians Tournament

2005-01-11T13:59:00.000+08:00

As received on the All-Asians Mailing List.
-------------------------------------------
Greetings to All Asian Debaters,

As UM has yet to announce their final dates for The 12th All Asian, we think it is best to make this announcement now;

UTMARA Malaysia plan to host Pre-Asians Debating Championship on 12th -14th May 2005 (assuming UM All Asian would only begin on May 15th). It’s a great warm up session right before the 12th All Asian and furthermore UTMARA is just 30 minutes away from UM.

We promise you competent adjudication, 4 rounds of competitive debates, plenty of edible food, bottled water, decent accommodation, free transportation and our very own halal social!

A perfect BP detoxification program after MMU Worlds!

A great warm up on All Asian 3 on 3 format!

Vital details of the tournament are as such:

Adjudication
Chief Adjudicator – Suresh Gnasegarah (a.k.a. Tubby) from Multimedia Malacca

Rego fee
RM 30.00 per person* (flat rate apply across the board)
Rego would basically cover meals and drink on 13th and 14th
*debaters, adjudicators, observer

Accommodation
For those who’ll require accommodation, 2 options available;
A- Hotel UiTM (Run by UTMARA very own Tourism Faculty) for RM80.00 per night per room. (Double sharing basis, inclusive of breakfast)
B- Student residence for RM 15.00 per person for entire tournament.

Transportation
We would provide for gratis:
A- Airport and railway transfer from KLIA and KLSentral to UTMARA Shah Alam
B- Dedicated buses from KTM Komuter station Shah Alam to UTMARA campus on registration day
C- Transportation from UTMARA Shah Alam to Universiti Malaya on 15th May
D- Transportation from hotel to tournament venue

Schedule
12th May 2005 (Thursday)
1400-1800hrs – Registration

13th May 2005 (Friday)
0800hrs – Late registration
1000hrs – Round 1 starts
1200hrs – Lunch break
1315hrs – Round 2 starts
1515hrs – Round 3 starts
1730hrs - Dinner

14th May 2005 (Saturday)
0900hrs – Round 4
1200hrs – Lunch break
1300hrs – Breaking announcement Semi final
1330hrs – Semifinals begin
1530hrs – Final starts
1730hrs – Barbeque dinner and result announcement

15th May 2005
0900hrs – Check out
0930hrs – Depart to UM

We’ll put up more updates soon with regards to confirmation. Grab the chance by reschedule your institution arrival to 12th May and we’ll be happy to accommodate you!

Any inquiry, please direct them to preasians2005@yahoo.com
Or call me at +6012-3584790.

Kind regards,
Shamaredza Sharoff
Communication and registration
UTMARA Pre-Asians 2005 Debating Championship

I need a job

2005-01-11T09:56:00.000+08:00

The title is rather self-explanatory, but tell me, does anybody know any school which needs coaching? Let's see now, I've, erm, reached the ESL semis? Lame, I know, but it IS some form of credentials...

NTU Pre-Worlds Day 1

2004-12-18T01:39:00.000+08:00

Despite only surviving one round of debating today, the NTU Pre-Worlds was surprisingly draining. After arriving unbelievably (and ridiculously) early today, we spent the rest of the day bumming, and discussing why vegetarians don't deserve to live, for not fulfilling their roles in the food chain. This was, of course, the usual preamble to any NTU tournament - decent chaps but tournaments that don't start on time.

Anyway, we had this spectacular motion to kick off the First Round.

"This House Would put Humpty-Dumpty back together again."

Amazingly, we survived after defining the motion as one about integrating Turkey into Europe (and subsequently being named by the Chief Adjudicator as having been able to squirrel the motion in the only possible way). After the most horrific case-set in the history of mankind, we survived with a 2nd. I swear, this tournament is about the NTU Adjudicators wrecking havoc on their juniors.

Motions from the Birmingham IVs (held in Dec 2004)

2004-12-17T02:11:00.000+08:00

Round 1: THW allow women to sell their eggs.
Round 2: THW invade North Korea.
Round 3: THW allow compulsory drug testing in the workplace.
Round 4: THBT trepassers forego the right to legal protection.
Round 5: THW stop the media showing pictures of hostages.
Semi-Final: THW provide a voice for the Kashmiri people.
Final: THW give an extra vote to the politically aware in a general election.

Motions from the Cork IVs (held in Dec 2004)

2004-12-17T02:06:00.000+08:00

Round 1: THW expand the UN Security Council.
Round 2: THW make parents responsible for their children's anti-social behaviour.
Round 3: THW use sporting sanctions to bring about political change.
Round 4: THW remove the option to home school your children.
Round 5: TH supports Taiwanese independence.

Novice Final: THW give parents complete access to their children's medical records.
Semi-Final: THBT entrapment is a legitimate tool in police investigations.
Final: THW negotiate with terrorists.

Motions from the Ateneo de Manila University IVs (held from 10-12 December)

2004-12-13T21:23:00.000+08:00

Round 1: This House Believes That Speaking A National Language As A Requirement For Citizenship Is Unjust.
Round 2: This House Would Allow Corporal Punishment In Schools.
Round 3: This House Would Lift The Moratorium On Whaling.
Round 4: This House Would Use Sports To Build Communities.
Round 5: This House Believes That Israel Should Regret Arafat's Death
Quarters: This House Believes That The State Should Pay for Sex-Change Operations
Semis: This House Believes That ICJ Advisory Opinions Should Be Made Binding On States.
Final: This House Believes That Queer Eye Has Done More For The Straight Guy At The Expense of the Queer Guy.

ADMU IVs

2004-11-30T03:47:00.000+08:00

Well, after much contesting back and forth, it does appear that my university will be represented at the upcoming ADMU IVs (see link on left). It's one hell of a hassle, though, trying to secure tix and all but the chance to spar against M'sian and Filipino teams proved irresistible. Until we get our asses kicked.

Just a note to all those in the ASEAN - get your bloody free trade agreements sorted out fast. For a start, get some bloody open skies agreement - it costs $700 to fly to Manila. WTF?!?!?!?! The flight's less than 4 hours! #@%#%@%@%#@ (Hokkien swearing available upon request).

Celebrity Debaters Feature #1

2004-11-28T13:45:00.000+08:00

See where debating can get you in life? Haha. According to somebody, this character playing Championship Manager is a lie though. This is what they mean by you not being able to trust the media. :)

THE E-MAIL INTERVIEW: PAUL TAN
Who says we shouldn't talk about sex

By Wong Kim Hoh

HOMOSEXUALS were put in the spotlight recently when Dr Balaji Sadasivan said that Singapore might face an 'alarming Aids epidemic' if increasing HIV infection rates were not checked.

The Senior Minister of State For Health singled out homosexuals and straight men who have casual sex in other countries as two key groups that need attention.

He also criticised Action For Aids (AFA), a non-governmental organisation dedicated to fighting the disease, for not being tough enough in educating gay men about the dangers of casual sex.

The number of new infections has hit a record high, with 257 cases reported in the first 10 months of this year, compared to 242 new cases reported for all of last year.

The debate that ensued prompted National University of Singapore law student Paul Tan to write to The Straits Times.

The frequent Forum page contributor argued that the fight against Aids was failing because of 'our refusal to break down the attitude of Singaporeans that sex is a deep, dark, sinful affair better kept in the shadows of one's bedroom than embraced openly as part and parcel of everyday life'.

Mr Tan, who says he has had 20 letters published in the Forum pages, is a debater who has represented his school, university and Singapore in many regional and international competitions. He spent two terms at New York University's Law School as an exchange student. While there, he served as associate editor for the International Journal Of Constitutional Law.

His parents used to be teachers and he has a younger brother who is studying law at Cambridge University.

Asked why he is so outspoken and passionate about his views, he says: 'I love Singapore immensely and that is why I take a keen interest in what happens.'

Whether he's straight or gay, he says, should not affect the way his arguments are viewed.

'In the last eight years, I've had more than 40 articles and letters published in different newspapers and magazines. I've consistently argued for the rights of women, the elderly, racial and religious minorities, and persons accused of crimes. I've even written about soccer and obesity.

'I'm a 24-year-old Chinese male of Catholic faith who only plays Championship Manager, hasn't seen the inside of jail and weighs less than 50kg. If we seek change only because we are personally affected, then we are not a gracious society. It should concern all of us even if it's one poor, uneducated, lonely HDB dweller dying from the disease.'

Q : What's happening in the gay community that the number of HIV infections is on the rise?

A : First, let's not confuse the increase in detections with an increase in infections. The statistics probably reflect the twofold increase in the number of homosexuals being tested in the last three years. Let's think positive. It's good that people are being tested. I suspect this is due to the greater liberalisation allowed under former prime minister Goh Chok Tong. Homosexuals don't feel as persecuted, so they're more willing to identify themselves. The last thing we should do is use these statistics to justify suppression of the gay community. Then we close off any connection and trust we have with them. The problem goes underground. That's when it becomes an epidemic.

Q : Would you say that men who are promiscuous and engage in unsafe sexual practices are giving the gay community a bad name?

A : Promiscuity always carries emotional resonance with socially and religiously conservative segments in society, so homosexuals who are promiscuous make themselves an easy target. The perception that Aids is a 'gay disease' comes from society's own stereotyped perceptions because, clearly, not all homosexuals behave the same way. But I do think homosexuals owe it to themselves to be socially responsible.

Q : How do we reach out to them?

A : You can't tar everyone with the same brush. Individuals differ as to why they don't practise safe sex. Some think they won't get it; others don't know about HIV and how it is passed on. Generally though, there has to be a concerted educational effort.

Q : Do you agree with Dr Balaji's statement that Action For Aids has not done too well in educating gay people on the dangers of casual sex?

A : I spoke with my friend, an AFA volunteer. He tells me they do a lot of good work. They organise educational campaigns. They go online to IRC chatrooms to offer safe-sex advice.

They have over 100 volunteers. They also run the only clinic to offer anonymity to those who visit for HIV testing and counselling. For an NGO with no government support - and which often faces obstacles in propagating safe-sex messages to homosexuals - they do really amazing work.

Q : What is the most important hurdle that we have to cross so that we can tackle the problem?

A : The biggest hurdle is in seeing the problem for what it really is. Until we do, our proposals are going to be superficial. HIV is not just like any other infectious disease you can tackle by 'contact tracing' or immigration control. It is symptomatic of deeper structural flaws in the makeup of our society.

Q : You say diseases are symptomatic of larger socio-economic and political forces. Why?

A : Recently, Dr Balaji spoke of homosexuals and blue-collar bachelors as those forming the most 'at risk' groups. The common denominator is that these are groups marginalised by society and governmental policies.

Studies show that those most likely to take high risks sexually are those who feel they have no stake in society or who are not in an otherwise meaningful long-term relationship.

Q : The authorities have a lot of reservations about promoting condom use for fear of offending 'conservative people'. What is your take?

A : Any government would be wrong not to stress that abstinence is the best way to avoid spreading Aids. But that cannot be the only message when you know some people are not going to abstain. I ask these conservatives: Is it more offensive to talk about condoms or is it more offensive to have a young man robbed of his life because we refused to tell him about condoms?

There is a difference between talking about morality and doing things that produce morally just outcomes. Public policy should be based firmly on the latter.

Q : Do you think Singaporeans are pathetic in their knowledge of current affairs and apathetic about the world around them?

A : Obviously an overstatement, but true to some extent. I see two problems. One is that we're very suspicious of people who appear to undermine our assumptions about life - those who propose anything from casinos to safe sex.

The second problem is that I think we have a misplaced sense of nationalism that automatically rejects anything 'foreign'. I spent a year at New York University and found that a lot of the issues we face in Singapore are also issues Americans struggle with. We blind ourselves to a lot of insights when we dismiss ideas as being 'liberal' or 'Western'.

Q : You say you're often labelled a 'left winger'. You seem to suggest that you're misunderstood.

A : I think liberalism is misunderstood. Liberals are not amoral just because we believe in individual choice. We believe in family and religion as much as conservatives do. I know I do.

Labels are misleading and people spend too many words arguing about them and too little time thinking about how their policies affect people. I think the only question a policymaker should ask is this: Would you, if you were the target of that piece of legislation, accept it as fair, just and respectful of your worth as a morally responsible adult? The touchstone is equality, and not liberalism or conservatism.

Q : Would you accept if you were 'invited to tea'?

A : Public service has always appealed to me. If the opportunity presents itself, I will consider it. I think the most important criterion for me would be whether, by then, the party and its people share my fundamental concerns.

Motions from the Oxford IVs (12-13 November, 2004)

2004-11-28T03:32:00.000+08:00

Updated 28th November.

Round 1: THW exempt from prosecution armed police in the line of fire.
(Here are some links which help to indicate the issue that appears to be driving this:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/stan-n08.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3976939.stm)

Round 2: THBT the developing world should not be held at the same environmental standards as the developed world.

Round 3: THW abolish state pensions.

Round 4: TH supports the use of truth and reconciliation commissions instead of war crimes tribunals in Iraq.

http://www.debatabase.org/details.asp?topicID=295

Round 5: THBT the systematic harassment of individuals is a legitimate means of protest.

Novice Final: THW criminalise smoking when pregnant.

Quarters: THW give the Palestinian Authority a vote in the UN General Assembly

Semis: THW privatise the BBC.

Final: THW ban reporting of hostage taking in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3702574.stm

Things not to do less than 12 hours before your exams

2004-11-21T20:38:00.000+08:00

I'm so jobless. Here's a forum for everyone to bitch about what they want to.

Debate Ramblings

Thought of the Day

2004-11-21T15:21:00.000+08:00

This is one of the occasional good articles that comes out of the Straits Times. I'm not sure if it can be linked to debate per se but it does make for some good reading and background information on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It doesn't appear to have any typical slant that has been associated with the Government (yes, capital G!) too!

-------------------
Nov 21, 2004
Yasser Arafat
Master tactician, failed strategist He succeeded in creating the Palestinian nation against all enemies but failed to define its goal
By George Friedman

THAT Mr Yasser Arafat's death marks the end of an era is so obvious that it hardly bears saying. The nature of the era that is ending and the nature of the era that is coming, on the other hand, do bear discussing. That speaks not only to the Arab-Israeli conflict but to the evolution of the Arab world in general.

In order to understand Mr Arafat's life, it is essential to understand the concept 'Arab', and to understand its tension with the concept 'Muslim', at least as Mr Arafat lived it out.

Ethnic Arabs populate North Africa and the area between the Mediterranean and Iran, and between Yemen and Turkey. This is the Arab world. It is a world that is generally - but far from exclusively - Muslim, although the Muslim world stretches far beyond the Arab world.

To understand Mr Arafat's life, it is more important to understand the Arab impulse rather than the Muslim impulse. Mr Arafat belonged to that generation of Arabs who visualised the emergence of a single Arab nation, encapsulating all of the religious groups in the Arab world, and one that was secular in nature.

This vision did not originate with Mr Arafat but with his primary patron, Mr Gamal Abdul Nasser, the founder of modern Egypt and of the idea of a United Arab Republic.
Mr Nasser was born into an Egypt ruled by a weak and corrupt monarchy and effectively dominated by Britain. He dreamt of uniting the Arabs in a single entity, whose capital would be Cairo. He believed that until there was a United Arab Republic, the Arabs would remain the victims of foreign imperialism.

Mr Nasser saw his prime antagonists as the traditional monarchies of the Arab world. Throughout his rule, he tried to foment revolutions, led by the military, that would topple these monarchies.

Nasserite or near-Nasserite revolutions toppled Iraqi, Syrian and Libyan monarchies. Throughout his rule, he tried to bring down the Jordanian, Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes. This was the conflict that overlaid the Arab world from the 1950s until the death of Mr Nasser and the rise of Mr Anwar Sadat.

It is important to understand that for Mr Nasser, Israel was not a Palestinian problem but an Arab problem.

In his view, the particular Arab nationalisms were the problem, not the solution. Adding another Arab nationalism - Palestinian - to the mix was not in his interest. The Zionist injustice was against the Arab nation and not against the Palestinians as a particular nation. Mr Nasser was not alone in this view.

The Syrians saw Palestine as a district of Syria, stolen by the British and French. They saw the Zionists as oppressors, but against the Syrian nation.

The Jordanians, who held the West Bank, saw the West Bank as part of the Jordanian nation and, by extension, the rest of Palestine as a district of Jordan.

Until the 1967 war, the Arab world was publicly and formally united in opposing the existence of Israel, but much less united on what would replace Israel after it was destroyed. The least likely candidate was an independent Palestinian state.

Prior to 1967, Mr Nasser sponsored the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) under the leadership of Mr Ahmed al Shukairi.

It was an ineffective organisation that created a unit that fought under Egyptian command. The PLO was kept under tight control, carefully avoiding the question of nationhood and focusing on the destruction of Israel.

After the 1967 war, the young leader of the PLO's Fatah faction took control of the organisation.
Mr Arafat was a creature of Mr Nasser, politically and intellectually. He was an Arabist. He was a moderniser. He was a secularist. He was aligned with the Soviets. He was anti-American.

Mr Arafat faced two disparate questions in 1967. First, it was clear that the Arabs would not defeat Israel in a war, probably not in his lifetime; what, therefore, was to be done to destroy Israel?

Second, if the only goal was to destroy the Israelis, and if that was not to happen anytime soon, then what was to become of the Palestinians?

Mr Arafat posed the question more radically: Granted that Palestinians were part of the Arab revolution, did they have a separate identity of their own, as did Egyptians or Libyans? Were they simply Syrians or Jordanians? Who were they?

Asserting Palestinian nationalism was not easy in 1967, because of the Arabs themselves.

The Syrians did not easily recognise their independence and sponsored their own Palestinian group, loyal to Syria.

The Jordanians could not recognise the Palestinians as separate, as their own claim to power even east of the Jordan would be questionable, let alone their claims to the West Bank. The Egyptians were uneasy with another Arab nationalism.

The growth of a radical and homeless Palestinian movement terrified the monarchies.
Mr Arafat knew no war would defeat the Israelis. His view was that a two-tiered approach was best.

On one level, the PLO would make the claim on behalf of the Palestinian people, for the right to statehood on the world stage. On the other hand, the Palestinians would use small-scale paramilitary operations against soft targets - terrorism - to increase the cost throughout the world of ignoring the Palestinians.

The Soviets were delighted with this strategy. Their national intelligence services moved to facilitate it by providing training and logistics. A terror campaign against Israel's supporters would be a terror campaign against Europe and the United States. Mr Arafat became a revolutionary aligned with the Soviets.

There were two operational principles. The first was Mr Arafat himself should appear as the political wing of the movement, able to serve as an untainted spokesman for Palestinian rights.
The second was the groups that carried out the covert operations should remain complex and murky. Plausible deniability combined with unpredictability was the key.

Mr Arafat created an independent covert capability that allowed him to make a radical assertion: that there was an independent Palestinian people as distinct as any other Arab nation. Terrorist operations gave Mr Arafat the leverage to assert that Palestine should take its place in the Arab world in its own right.

If Palestine was a separate nation, then what was Jordan? The Hashemite kingdom's people were Bedouins driven out of Arabia. The majority of the population were not Bedouin, but had their roots in the west - hence, they were Palestinians.

If there was a Palestinian nation, then why were they being ruled by Bedouins from Arabia? In September 1970, Mr Arafat made his move. Combining a series of hijackings of Western airliners with a Palestinian uprising in Jordan, he attempted to seize control of Jordan. He failed, and thousands of Palestinians were slaughtered by Hashemite and Pakistani mercenaries.
Mr Arafat's logic was impeccable. His military capability was less than perfect. He created a new group - Black September - that was assigned the task of waging a covert war against the Israelis and the West.

The greatest action, the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972, defined the next generation. Israel launched a counter-operation to destroy Black September, and the pattern of terrorism and counter-terrorism swirling around the globe was set. Neither could score a definitive victory.

But Mr Arafat won the major victory. Nations are born of battle, and the battles that began in 1970 and raged until the mid-1990s established a principle - there is now, if there was not before, a nation called Palestine.

This was critical, because as Mr Nasser died and his heritage was discarded by Mr Sadat, the principle of the Arab nation was lost. It was only through the autonomous concept of Palestinian nationalism that Mr Arafat and the PLO could survive.

This was Mr Arafat's crisis. He had established the principle of Palestine, but he had failed to define what that Palestinian nation meant and what it wanted.

The latter was the critical point. Mr Arafat's strategy was to appear the statesman restraining uncontrollable radicals. He understood that he needed Western support to get a state, and he used this role superbly. He appeared moderate and malleable in English, radical and intractable in Arabic. This was his dilemma.

Mr Arafat led a nation that had no common understanding of their goal. There were those who wanted to recover a part of Palestine and be content. There were those who wanted to recover part of Palestine and use it as a base of operations to retake the rest. There were those who would accept no intermediate deal but wanted to destroy Israel.

Mr Arafat's fatal problem was that in the course of creating the Palestinian nation, he had convinced all three factions that he stood with them.

Like many politicians, Mr Arafat had made too many deals.

He successfully persuaded the West that he genuinely wanted a compromise and that he could restrain terrorism. But he also persuaded Palestinians that any deal was temporary, and others that he wouldn't accept any deal.

By the time of the Oslo accords, he was so tied up in knots that he could not longer speak for the nation he created. More precisely, the Palestinians were so divided that no one could negotiate on their behalf, confident in his authority. Mr Arafat kept his position by sacrificing his power.

By the 1990s, the space left by the demise of pan-Arabism had been taken by the rise of Islamist religiosity.

Hamas, representing the view that there is a Palestinian nation but that it should be understood as part of the Islamic world under Islamic law, had become the most vibrant part of the Palestinian polity. Nothing was more alien from Mr Arafat's thinking than Hamas. It ran counter to everything he learnt from Mr Nasser.

However - and this is Mr Arafat's tragedy - by the time Hamas emerged as a power, he had lost the ability to believe in anything but the concept of the Palestinians and his place as its leader.
As Hamas rose, Mr Arafat became entirely tactical. His goal was to retain position if not power, and towards that end, he would do what was needed. A lifetime of tactics had destroyed all strategy.

His death in Paris was a farce of family and courtiers. It fitted the end he created, because his last years were lived in a round of manoeuvres leading nowhere.

The Palestinians are left now without strategy, only tactics. There is no one who can speak for the Palestinians and be listened to as authoritative.

Mr Arafat created the Palestinian nation and utterly disrupted the Palestinian state. He left a clear concept on the one hand, a chaos on the other.

He succeeded in one thing, and perhaps that is enough - he created the Palestinian nation against all enemies, Arab and non-Arab. The rest was the failure of pure improvisation.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, for something a little different

2004-11-21T05:03:00.000+08:00

This motion is from the Singapore Police Force. Really.

"Singapore needs stronger opposition parties."

Source: Random Inspector-to-be.

Motions from the SMU IVs (2-3 October 2004)

2004-11-19T17:34:00.000+08:00

I remember we had lots of other institutions screaming about the motions. You gotta give it to the adjudication team for setting some motions that really messed everyone (folks from SMU inclusive) up.

Round 1: THW welcome Turkey into the EU.

My team-mate ended his speech by saying that "and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why Turkey should remain a Thanksgiving dish."

Round 2: THBT eugenics is justified.

Round 3: THW allow all residents in the country to vote.

Round 4: THW choose economic growth over social stability.

Semis: THBT the right to privacy in death overrides the right to free press.

Final: THBT democracy is self-defeating.

Motions from the Northeast Asian Championship (Held sometime in Nov 2004, I think)

2004-11-19T16:56:00.000+08:00

This tournament followed the Asians format - 3 motions per round, the teams decide on the motion to be debated. The Northeast Asian Championships is targeted mainly at Korean and Japanese universities (I think). Given the shortness of debating history in that region, it's quite no surprise that these are very classic motions, it seems (at least to me).

Round: Practice
1. THW allow condom vending machines in schools.
2. THS minimum quotas for women in Asian politics.
3. THW cancel 3rd world debt.

Round 1: China
1. THW not support internet censorship in China.
2. THBT we need another military superpower.
3. TH supports the 3 Gorges Dam (I am quite clueless about this).

Round 2: Sports
1. THW permit performance enhancing drugs at the Olympics.
2. THW ban all fighting sports.
3. THW equalize prize money for male and female athletes.

Round 3: Law and Order
1. THW legalize prostitution.
2. THW punish government corruption with the death penalty.
3. THW protect whistleblowers.

Round 4: Science
1. THW ban genetically modified food.
2. THB that space exploration is a waste.
3. THW prohibit human cloning.

Round 5: Terrorism
1. THBT the US led War on Terror has made the world less safe.
2. THB that Putin should talk not shoot.
3. THW grant immediate statehood to Palestine.

Round 6: Human Rights
1. THB that child labour is justified.
2. THW legalize gay marriage.
3. THBT pharmaceutical patents should not be enforced in Africa.

Round 7: Religion
1. THB that China should not restrict religious freedom.
2. THBT the churches should allow gay clergy.
3. THW include religious teaching in public schools.

Quarters: Energy
1. THBT the Kyoto protocol needs US ratification.
2. THW build nuclear power plants.
3. THW provide public transportation for free.

Semis: Northeast Asia - Economics
1. THW protect local film industries through screenquotas.
2. THW relocate the capital of Korea.
3. THW support a free trade zone in Northeast Asia.

Finals: Northeast Asia - Military
1. THW withdraw South Korean troops from Iraq.
2. THB that North Korea has the right to develop nuclear weapons.
3. THB that US bases should get out of Northeast Asia.

Source: YahooGroups E-mail from Jason Jarvis, Lecturer at Kyung Hee University.

Motions from the Philippines 6th National Debating Championship (Oct 24-29, 2004)

2004-11-19T16:45:00.000+08:00

Round 1: That an effective population management program must include the 2-child policy.
Round 2: TH would exchange cash for disarmament by the Iraqi insurgents.
Round 3: TH would grant access to racist literature on campus.
Round 4: That a true European identity can only be formed through Turkey's accession into the EU.
Round 5: That fast food companies should be held liable for the problem of obesity.
Round 6: That Darfur justifies a Western presence in Africa.
Round 7: TH supports the re-regulation of the Philippine oil industry.
Octos: TH would grant asylum to US army deserters.
Quarters: That the UN should hire PMCs (Private Military Companies) for peacekeeping.
Semis: That secularism has failed to accommodate religious tradition.
Final: TH regrets the feminization of the Overseas Filipino Worker (OFW).

Jesus Christ, these Filipinos are insane. Cash for disarmament?!?!?! Yeah, I'm sure that's why Al-Zarqawi hasn't been turned in by his friends, despite the US$25 million on his head...

hello

2004-11-19T16:33:00.000+08:00

In the tradition of debaters with over-inflated egos and who want to reach out to an audience other than the sad souls that have to put up with their garbage on the debate floor (or perhaps not so sad since everyone else has an over-inflated ego there too), yours truly has decided to create a blog devoted to his debating adventures. Ho hum.

Actually I thought I'd keep a blog here to maintain a list of interesting motions and other comments about debates, so that I don't forget them. This is mainly to help my research for future debates (I think). Once in a while, I think I'd comment on issues to appear pseudo-intellectual (as is the case with all debaters, really).

Erm, that's all. What were you expecting?

Oh yeah, with exams in 3-4 days, this is really not a very bright idea, actually. Hmmm.