DLSU Worlds Bid Website
To the World Debating Community,
We are happy to announce the launching of the bid website of De La Salle Worlds!
We have been working hard for this bid for the last three years. As DLSU is celebrating its 100 years of existence as an academic institution in School Year 2011-2012, we will be very happy to host everyone in Manila.
Should you have questions, feel free to e-mail me. Please forward this e-mail to your own regional mailing lists. 
Thank you very much and we hope to see you in Manila for De La Salle Worlds 2012!
Visit the website at www.dlsuworlds.com
Regards,
Dino de Leon
Convenor, De La Salle Worlds
3rd International Conference On Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate And The Pedagogy Of Empowerment
Website: http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/better/Welcome.html
THIRD International conference on argumentation, rhetoric, debate and the pedagogy of empowerment – thinking and speaking a better world.
The World Debate Institute at the University of Vermont USA and ZIP, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga/ Pro et contra Institute for culture of dialogue Slovenia invite all scholars and practitioners of argumentation, rhetoric, debate, and educators using deliberative education methodologies to the Third International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment – THINKING AND SPEAKING A BETTER WORLD.
Two conferences have been held, one in Koper and the other in Ljubljana Slovenia. The next conference is planned for October 28-29-30 2010. The conference will be hosted by The University of Maribor, Faculty of Pedagogy, Department of Philosophy. Both previous conferences attracted over 85 scholars from around the world.
The conference will welcome scholars and educators from diverse fields for vigorous dialog and exchange. This conference will unite scholars of argumentation and rhetoric, teachers, and organizers of local, national and international debating networks to discuss critical thinking and advocacy discourse through pedagogy. We intend for the conference to welcome all who are involved in public discussions and debates about different issues.
This conference is extremely timely. A global information society which seeks reasoned solutions to problems through broad citizen involvement needs to develop and refine techniques for criticizing and validating ideas through discourse and then impart these to new generations of citizens if we are to create a better future and avoid looming crises. This conference represents a unique opportunity to share ideas, network and cross-fertilize with global critical thinkers.
The program for the conference will have three themes. Submissions are encouraged to center their work on one of the three themes and to submit proposals to the appropriate conference division. Interdisciplinary work that might fit into more than one category is welcome.
•Argumentation and rhetoric. The use of logic and reason to criticize and analyze ideas through communication. Those interested in research on argumentation theory, criticisms of communication acts and scholarship on argumentation practice are encouraged to submit to this division.
•Debate. The use of formal argumentation forums to educate and empower citizens. Those interested in work on the practice and theory of debate competition, public debates, research on the impact of debate for participants, and theorizing about debate paradigms are encouraged to submit to this division.
•Critical thinking/pedagogy. Teaching and the methodology of teaching in the active classroom. Those interested in using debate, discussion and argumentation in classrooms, discussion of experiences and teaching lessons relating to communication and critical thinking are encouraged to submit to this division.
A committee of conference organizers and scholars will examine submissions to each division. Deadlines and committees will be announced soon.
Those wishing to attend the conference without submitting a paper are very welcome but must register.
Organizing committee:
Bojana Skrt, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga, Slovenia
Alfred C. Snider, World Debate Institute, University of Vermont, USA
2010 in Maribor
See our blog for news and updates at
http://betterworldconference.blogspot.com/
Our previous website was http://debate.uvm.edu/betterworld.htm
World Debate Institute http://worlddebateinstitute.blogspot.com/
University of Maribor http://www.uni-mb.si/
–
Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna
Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics
University of Vermont
Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/LDU/
Global Debate Blog http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com
Debate Central http://debate.uvm.edu
802-656-0097 office telephone
802-656-4275 office fax
Luck And Practice
I was fortunate to be able to join the debate fraternity.I never have really been out of it for a good part of 19 years. I would be first to admit that practice and Saiful are two words that would have serious worldly repercussions if combined too often but I did practice, albeit, sporadically and specifically. Nonetheless, divine interventions helped my limited practice to be specifically on what was needed at that time to win or do well in the few tournaments that I entered.
Here’s the list.
1. 1990 UPM Inter-College Tourney
- three beautiful teammates, so I was inspired to do all sorts of research to get to the final
2. 1991 UPM Inter College Tourney
- Our team was conned or Shanghaied into losing the finals the previous year so in 1991, I was pissed and thus ever willing to get the most potent of data.It was here that I developed my unique squirelling approach. We won and I was best speaker.
3. 1992 – kicked out of the UPM for purportedly having a short tongue and thus inable to pronounce words correctly. Insane, took me out of debate for a year but UPM lost all they could have lost (probably would have lost even if I was around) but my reputation was intact and called back in 1993 and I met OMAR SALLAHUDDIN.
4. Perfected my art of multiple definitions and parameters and got to the finals of the Battle of Wits. Lucky because Omar’s team in a mindboggling decision lost in the semis. Ha ha, easy path for us in the finals. (My first prize money even though we lost the finals)
5. Went to the AllAsians (the first one) got to define 4 out of 5 times in the prelims and thus we won all four. Got to the octos but cannot define as we were the opps. Lost but reputation still okay as breaking then, means, you’re good.
6. Went to the first royals in 95. Perfected the art of coin flipping so that we will get the ‘Affirmative’ position all the time. Got 4 out 5 and won 4 out of 5. Got through to the semis and the coin did not favour us and we were on the wrong side. Thus we lost.
Really not bad considering we only practiced defining and defending our parameters. Tough luck as by 96 people just simply got better and our way was not in style anymore (not that it was ever in style anyway)
Ideology In Debate
Talk is an interesting concept as it is not ever singular in formation. There are various influential variables that leads to the formation of the text of the talk. They would involve belief, culture, rules,level of education, economic backgroud, etc.
Thus, I would focus on one issue, Idealogy or belief. New debaters will be indoctrinated into the debate society with various show of beliefs, from the debaters talk, to the way they think, to the way they discuss, to whom they would listen to,etc. You can choose to ignore these belief charateristics and choose to do you it your own way but you will be frustrated and isolated. Debaters, happy and gay though most of them would be, religiously follow a set of belief that denotes the way they should act from the thinking, to the production of thoughts in discussion or debate speeches.
Hence, it would be wise for newer debaters to follow the cues and advice of senior members so as not to go against the conventions (hidden or clear) of the community.
The Day I Met Daniel
Well, it was one of those days when you’re pushed to the front to lead or choose a leader for your group. I of course pretended not wanting to lead or nominate an able leader until a few more girls coaxed me into going to the front and be their hero, end the meting and allow them to go back to their lipstics, books and of course the shared pertinent need to have lunch.
I went to the front of the congregation of 118 TESL students and diplomatically got a big bloke, now famous, by the name of Karam (Sinking) Singh. He was certainly huge enough, with a booming voice and with lucnh beckoning ever closer the whole class decided on Karam’s not so good looks but charming personality that he was the leader we need to end the crisis of ending the meeting so that lunch can be sought after soon.
He sensed that lunch was probably the reason of his election too and thus boomingly announced that he will only need 3 to 4 minutes to address al of us and then we could go and do what men and women were delivered this earth to do, eat, buy and use lipstic, read and figure out the next best time to do all of these.
Karam shouted,”Could we all just settle down and sit down please?”. And… Daniel, well then just a bloke to me, stood up with a hideous red shirt and unseen before hair style. He shouted back, “What if I want to stand?”. The crowd hissed, sensing that lunch and lipstick will be delayed further.
Karam, thinking that his authority is being challenged on the first two minutes of being in power was about to answer when Daniel as he would do many times later in his life started eagerly jumping up and down with his backpack and Karam sensing that this monster is from a different timezone inteligently let us go and informed us that some decisons will be discussed later.
