Only a fool would describe 2010, the year that has just expired, as an eventful one. Perhaps the most notable thing about it was that there was not a month gone without a debate tournament (in Malaysia).
Nevertheless, some events did occur and was worth noticing. It’s not for me to comment on serious matters – the sudden disappearance of any news or sightings of the sasquatch or the pointless 3D version of Tron: The Legacy – but, as we limp out of one stagnant year into the next, I’ll take this moment to write a lighter piece of epic that made quite the news:
NUS Wins GEMS WUPID 2010
There’s a great deal in the news (Read it here. And don’t forget to read the comments) about the recent Grand Finals of the World Universities Peace Invitational Debate (WUPID), in which an incoherent Anonymous with a disclosed identity that is suspiciously useless is up against a group of annoyed readers. Why? Aren’t we already treated to enough pointless updates from WikiLeaks regarding Lesser Micronesia, or Singapore? So why are we inundated with every last utterance from these particular super-buffoons?
When notified by a friend of mine, I first suspected this would be a long and painful read and would send me back to the Dark Ages, but do you know what? Like most middle-class Malays, we don’t seem to care when we tread on a social land-mine. In fact, I have an even bigger reason to love it – publicity. The Debate-God works in such mysterious ways. I wouldn’t have done it better, even if I had any part in ‘rigging’ the results.
WUPID have recently been accused of having lost the interest in bringing in good adjudicators and having a qualification for invitees that is a joke. There was even some suggestions that WUPID is to collapse in 5 years due to the struggles to maintain sponsorships. And that is why I shall devote this entire entry to a serious response rather than tagging it on to the end of a rant about rotten eggs. And it’s why I’m choosing the words for the intro for even more care than usual. So here goes: The comments made in the article is crap.
WUPIDs intent and aspiration has always been about quality, which includes bringing in the best debaters and adjudicators to the tournament. Since 2009 (during the economic meltdown), realization of this intent seem to be far more challenging than previous years (2007 and 2008). Having said so, WUPID is extremely grateful for the continued support and care that many elite debate societies and individuals have shown. Unlike the early previous years, WUPID is now receiving the due attention and support that it has always dreamt of since it’s inception, from the government. The governments involvement, especially from our Patron, has rescued WUPID from the sudden impact of the recession of 2009 that saw it’s previous major corporate sponsor (CIMB) pulling out. Last year, the government’s financial contribution has been even more generous and we foresee that sponsorship in 2011 would be a lot more promising as the growing interest from the government will be complemented with the sponsorship opportunities from the recovering corporate sector.
It was also pointed out that the theme is a joke. So what about the theme – peace? Why can’t we include motions on Euros in a peace debate? Al Gore won the God-damn Noble Peace Prize in 2007 for something a lot more bizarre.
What’s more, I would actually love to continue this rant by pointing out the intrinsic qualities in the adjudication panel at the GF – the likes of Dr. Omar Salahuddin and Praba Ganesan, whom legendary debating and adjudication qualities would not need any introduction. These two beasts, would likely be the two alpha-male cows responsible for the existent of the ‘herd-mentality’ mentioned, which finally resulted in a GF verdict that our super-buffoons and a half is so agitated of.
But you know what? I simply don’t care anymore. The remarks are as fabulous as an epic piece of weather – a huge thunderstorm or a hurricane, perhaps. Technically ignorant and beautifully daft. The anonymous comments is like Bruce Dickinson and the Iron Maiden: loud, proud and bad to the bones. Keep it up and thank you for having such a huge interest. Happy New Year!
Can’t help myself from pointing out: Tron looks very much like a remake of The Matrix.
The Debating News 
Aizuddin Danian
January 3, 2011
Is there any chance to see a recording of the GF, i missed the live online broadcast.
Moe
January 4, 2011
If the decision is so fair, why not put the video of the GF up as in previous years? It’s little effort for a significant benefit. But I see reasoning with you will be pointless… I mean, you describe Praba & Omar as living legends with a straight face, and no understanding of why anyone would be incredulous. It’s almost as though you live in a bubble, where these guys weren’t widely discredited in most of the debating world (especially Praba).
Muhammad Yunus
January 5, 2011
There were two bodies that were recording the debates – UPM (the host university) and RTM (the national TV station). I have already requested for the recordings to both the institutions. I hope putting up the video of the GF would make things fairer.
Perhaps, I do live in a bubble. I was aware that these two individuals were discredited here and there but mostly for their moral judgements, glitches and mistakes – things that any living legend like Paul McCartney, Diego Maradona would have done somewhere, sometime in their life. I would have never thought that in any way these were reflective of their ability to debate or adjudicate.
Well, I’m not really interested in defending anyone. But I’m doing so in the hope that you can view me as someone that you are able to reason. As mentioned earlier, I may very well be in a bubble. Hence, it would be very nice if you could shed some light with the claims that you’re making.
I wrote the entry because I was hurt by the sinister wishes of the commentor. And to inform the individual the true intent of WUPID. What bothers me, is if the result of the GF was really a farce, why should WUPID cease to exist in the next 5 years?
On a personal note, I would have definitely been in the minority as well. But then again, different people are persuaded differently.
Cheers!
Moe
January 5, 2011
Look, I want to reply, but you’re embarassing yourself here doing things like putting Omar and Praba in the same sentence as Maradonna and McCartney (unless the comparison is for substance abuse and jealousy respectively). They were not judged on trivial errors, rather people believed they were severely lacking in talent, fairness, professionalism, etc. Praba was called out in public, by his peers and others (ranging from world champions to women’s reps) as being racist, sexist, incompetent, etc, and corrupt. His non-answer to the last charge was particularly damning. These accusations were put into the public domain (on mailing lists, at pre-worlds in 2005, at womens meetings, and as the winning comedy entry/song for the worlds at which he was a DCA), and in fact the support for these 2 was the trigger/final straw for the Asian debating split. To this day those who have seen Praba debate remain mystified as to how he was awarded best speaker at Australs 15 years ago, and are one of the reasons people are skeptical of results from back then, and today CA’s take a much more careful look at the tab and adjudicator results. If he was a good debater at one stage (I’ve been told not) he certainly hasn’t been for a long time.
I will await the video going up again so I can provide a lengthy and notated response, and so the incentive to put the debate up isn’t removed, but I will say that while there is a spectrum along which people can see debates differently, that should not distract people from the fact that there are wrong and right decisions too. This was one of the former.
WUPID, like most IV’s, needs a purpose to exist. If WUPID continues at this rate, the purpose for which it exists, as well as the size of the IV, will be somewhat moot. It’s already abandoned the core theme for the topics, and it seems any effort to bring in top notch adjudicators has been abandoned. It is already an IV with a very shallow talent pool. It can hardly maintain the illusion of being any sort of world championship for the best IV if it is unwilling to provide the same standard of adjudicator, and that’s going to hurt sponsorship too eventually (it’s already a problem). Why should top teams go if they’re going to be cheated in the GF? It’s not like they’re even getting the best Asian adjudicators, and that’s the smallest and empirically least successful pool for them to tap.
Muhammad Yunus
January 6, 2011
Thank you. My self-embarrassment was meant to amuse people. I’m sorry if I had disgusted you.
I believe we see things differently. I am very well aware of all the charges mentioned in the first paragraph. In fact, in many instances, I felt that debaters from my institutions were victims. But I guess I chose not to be bitter and be a more forgiving type of person – I always think that peace is sometimes about giving people second chance(s).
Regarding you second paragraph, I see matters differently I suppose. Debating and being involved in debating for nearly ten years, has nurtured in me a sense of tolerance (if that’s the right expression). I don’t see right or wrong. I just see that different people, prioritize, value and make judgements differently due to their set of value systems. The way they value and put priority may be different but not necessarily wrong. But I agree that there may be instances that when a speech is riled with equity violations it needs to be addressed. At the GF, my patriotic sense did feel offended. But then again, the feeling of being offended is quite arbitrary.
And thank you for your gentle reminder of the things that WUPID should consider in the future. Your input is of great value. I sincerely hope that we could know each other more personally. I believe that you must have more that could be of value to the debating domain. Thank you, again.
Moe
January 6, 2011
Forgiveness requires remorse, reparation and an actual concession of wrongdoing. Since none of that was expressed by parties involved (the closest it got was stuff like “why you got to be harping on that man?”) it’s far, far too charitable to wash the slate clean.
If you don’t believe there are “right” and “wrong” decisions, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your knowledge of debating, from the ground up. It is a ridiculous perspective, and at the risk of paraphrasing a rather inarticulate right wing author, people shouldn’t be so subjective their brains fall out. By that logic I could get up and utter a completely incomprehensive speech, with terrible material, non-existent structure, and hideous delivery, while my opponent could be a world champion giving the speech of their life, and it would apparently be justified for me to be adjudicated as having the better speech. Just because there is a gray area, it shouldn’t distract attention from the fact that there are non-gray areas too. Your next response confirms my worst fears, namely that you are a deluded member of the PC brigade, since apparently the only grounds on which you’re willing to bend this “it’s all subjective” philosophy is on the grounds of equity violations (which are themselves subjective anyway).
Be sure to post a link when the WUPID GF is put up.
Alvin Tan
January 6, 2011
Dear ‘Moe’,
You’re not in any position to place any demands upon Yunus, who has thus far politely indulged you in your views. Understand this, the better man that decides to reveal the slate to all for objective scrutiny does not owe you any favors, nor is he in any sense obliged to entertain your demands that were phrased in rather bad taste.
Before we even consider the basis & justification of your claims for ‘remorse’, could you kindly clarify what kind of ‘remorse’ are you expecting, and from whom are you expecting this from?
I would like to engage in more fruitful discussions with you, but find it rather pointless to do so with one who refuses to shed light on his/her identity. If you would be willing to do that, so as to provide some basis to ground the merit of your points of views, then I believe we’d be able to come to some greater constructive discussions.
Until then, it’d be rather redundant to carry this discussion any further, don’t you think? :]
– Alvin Tan
Outgoing Chairperson
NUS English Debate Club
Muhammad Yunus
January 6, 2011
Yes, maybe I should do exactly that, re-evaluate my knowledge on debating. I do feel I am rather incompetent with regards to adjudicating. In all actuality, I am very pleased that we are having this discussion. Maybe I should write something and we could start a discussion there.
In my limited experience of adjudicating, I sometimes see debating differently, which results in me being in the dissenting minority. This makes me wonder … are people in the dissenting minority wrong? Are they deriving a wrong judgement if the CA or the DCAs gives a verdict which is absolutely opposite?
Equity violation is not the only thing, of course. I do believe that the approach of questioning the feasibility, and highlighting the intrinsic flaw within the implementation of the government and the poor enforcement of regulations is persuasively poor and highly speculative in nature. But I would have to look at the video as well – I was busy running around and had only the chance to hear bits and pieces of the entire debate – so I will surely get the WUPID GF up.
I know this may sound silly, but what’s a “PC brigade”?
Moe
January 6, 2011
I really don’t think this is the forum to explain the mechanics of adjudicating. If you want to improve your own skills and the general quality of the tournament, my advice is to go to seminars run by people who have actual success as debaters (and recent success), and not a bunch of old has-beens or never-even-have-beens who hold them out as self appointed authorities. I’d particularly aim at Australian and Europeans from good backgrounds, mainly because those are the 2 most successful regions (though Australia is alot closer and more practical). There were almost no notable adjudicators from those regions at WUPID this time around, and Naomi (who was assumedly there to provide some quality assurances) was unable to adjudicate the GF anyway.
Asia has talented debaters and adjudicators of course, but they only break about 1 team at worlds per year (or less), compared to the dozen or so that is usual from either Europe or Australia. And even then, where were the reputable names in the Asian circuit? What has been done to encourage a better quality of adjudicators at WUPID, either from Asia, or from the much larger pool of credentialled adjudicators in Australia? Are there subsidies being given, and to who? What sort of encouragement could be given?
The Politically Correct (PC) brigade is the growing movement in debating to not speak sordid truths, because it hurts feelings. It is a convenient cover to ignore merit when it is convenient. For example; an adjudicator doesn’t have credentials as a debater? It doesn’t matter, they “know what they’re doing”/”come from a disadvantaged region”/whatever, as though we’re supposed to pretend that they’re a better selection that [ridiculously qualified debater X] as an adjudicator, just by virtue of having stuck around a long time. Obviously we shouldn’t take an overly rigid approach to this, sometimes an adjudicator hasn’t attended many IV’s competitively and so on, they may still be worthy of breaking, but there really have to be limits. Appointing Masako as DCA is a recent example. She may be a lovely person, but she looks ridiculous next to the other Worlds DCA’s.
I guess the first thing I’d advise is to stop involving people like Omar or Praba on any sort of official level at least (and at all if possible), and start getting people who aren’t tainted, and have real credibility, to be DCA’s and to be senior adjudicators present. It’s not like there aren’t old hands who are (assumedly) around who can adjudicate, and who have real credibility. People on teams who have broken at worlds in the last 10 years. People who have ranked in the top 10 speakers at Australs and Worlds in the last 10 years. Australs GF’ists (in the last 10 years). People who have done things for themselves, not those who teach because they cannot do.
Moe
January 6, 2011
Just for your future reference, here is a list of all the Asian speakers who have been in the top 10 at Australs or Worlds in the last 10 years:
* Charisse, Sharmilla, Leloy, Tate, Suthen, Logan, Rajesh Krishnan, Will Panlilio, Bobby Benedicto, Annie Harriharan & Amit Bhatia (Australs)
* Rajesh Krishnan, Amit Bhatia & I forget who from Ateneo in 2002.
Add to that the list of people who have done things like made the Australs GF, or made it to, say, a Quarter/Semi-final at Worlds in the last 5-10 years. That’s the sort of Asian debater you should be trying to get to come, along with the new talented kids of course, and some ringers from Australia. When people see world champion debaters with a rep in front of them, they know that (even if they dislike them) they can expect a certain standard and that these adjudicators carry (and risk) a certain amount of credibility. What credibility does some self-appointed never has been risk? Especially when his philosophy is “it’s all subjective, there is no correct decision”.
Omes
January 6, 2011
I can find few statements in your postings, Moe, that are not incredibly hurtful. You seem determined to pour scorn upon everything and everyone who has been associated with WUPID during it’s short but successful history and have calculated your insults and vitriol to be as personally insulting as possible. Indeed, you are the first real argument that I have seen for equity violations.
The organisers of the World Universities Invitational Peace Debate are already engaged in running another competition later this year and will doubtless be inviting judges from across the region and debaters from the best universities in the world as participants, as per their established policies. The fact that they have been battling for funding that is extremely difficult to find and even more difficult to spend wisely, given the conditions that are often imposed, has often meant that hard decisions have to be made as to where that funding goes. Somewhat inevitably, people that do not look for the subsidies you would allocate differently are asked to help at such times.
The support WUPID now receives from well-established organisations in this country, including the Ministry of Education, seems to suggest that there is an increasing degree of comfort and appreciation in the establishment with the way that WUPID does things. This developing relationship is something that should be nurtured – not threatened by self-styled exorcists such as yourself.
I would suggest that if these policies do not appeal to you, you should organise your own competition in line with your own principles and invite whoever you want. Then, you could judge the finals yourself – a “neverwas” amongst a legion of current superstars – and make your own, inevitably contentious decisions. Good luck with that…
For me, if you were half the debater that Praba IS – and one tenth the adjudicator, you’d not be hiding behind the veil of anonymity that you think protects you because you would possess a sense of ethics and morality that you clearly lack. Why, you might even warrant an invitation to WUPID next year.
Moe
January 6, 2011
Only just noticed your comment “Alvin” (if that is your real name). I’ll never understand this “tell me who you are and where you come from” argument. I’m not a public figure, and as such my identity isn’t relevant to this discussion. You sure you want me to link you to stuff in the public domain big A?
Moe
January 6, 2011
I’m glad WUPID’s funding is going well. Hopefully this continues. Money going to debating is almost always good. Not especially relevant to what I said though.
Your opinion of Praba’s adjudicating and debating is at odds with the wider debating communities. I’ll take the opinion of people world champions over yours. In fact, I’ll take the opinion of the people on the All-Asian Yahoo mailing list over yours, especially when the sorts of characters defending you 2 were shady (and just painfully inarticulate) individuals like Wilbert, and the people criticising were among the finest debaters in Asia (do I need to give you names?). I can go into names if you like. And while guys like Logan felt obliged to show solidarity, at best they offered a kind of muted “let’s not be too hasty here” and “I’m not sure this is the time to discuss this”. There’s a reason the Asian split looked like it did, with so many of the people I named above going over to the new tournament, fed up with the nepotism and corruption.
If you want to continue devoting time and energy to organising funding for IV’s, have at it, there’s a place in debating for tapping people’s enthusiasm in this way. But adjudicators like Praba and yourself, whose are severely tainted, should not be the public face of an IV, and probably shouldn’t be adjudicating either.
Lastly, you say resources are hard to come by, but at the same time that the money is better than ever. Which is it? I have some more pertinent questions, namely:
a) were any adjudicators subsidised?
b) who? and
c) what were the grounds for subsidising them?
What efforts were made to bring in the best adjudicators and debaters?
Moe
January 6, 2011
I mean, here’s your GF panel:
1) Iqbal Hafiedz
2) Faisal Moideen
3) Ian William Howell
4) Omar Salahuddin
5) Raj Sangtani
6) Mabroor Wassey
7) Paul Bingham
Could you just explain to me these people’s debating credentials to be adjudicating what is supposedly a tournament to determine the best University in the World?
Moe
January 6, 2011
I mean, just look over their performance at Worlds:
* Wassey, ranked 596th individually at Worlds in 2005, and followed that up by ranking 604th individually in 2008.
* Paul Bingham ranked 297th in 2002 as a speaker, and 181st in 2008.
* Moideen was on a team that tabbed 139th in Sydney, and followed this stirring effort up with an individual ranking of 268th at 2003 Worlds.
* Howell and Sangtani (adjudicating his first ever GF at any IV) haven’t ever spoken at Worlds as far as I know, and if you did Omar you success, or lack thereof, is lost to the mists of time.
* Hafiedz was ranked 380th individually in 2004 at worlds, and 204th in 06. I guess he’s broken (once I think) as a debater at Australs (in a different style) on the 14th ranked team, though he’s also failed to break, and his best showing is what, 46th overall? The guy didn’t even break at Australs 2003 (a tournament who was scheduled so badly that only 11/64 teams were Australian (the rest couldn’t make it), while zero NZ teams were able to make it, possibly the most shallow depth pool at that IV ever… heck, even you broke there didn’t you). Still, at least it’s something.
I mean, these are people who have never done anything for themselves as speakers at a serious forum for this style of debate, what does it say when this is the composition of the GF panel is composed of such people, instead of people like Naomi who have actually done things? I’m sure some of them are nice people, I don’t know them well enough, but you ought to have done a heck of alot more than that to be adjudicating the GF of an IV of any note.
Mehdi
January 6, 2011
I thought an adjudicator had to be a AN ORDINARY REASONABLE PERSON, FREE FROM ANY PERSONAL BIAS…of course knowing the rules and format of the debating style involved…(I don’t remember them having to be world champs/top speakers etc etc etc) 🙂
Sorry if I sounded too dumb….
Cheers… 🙂 🙂
M Hasanul Kaisar
January 6, 2011
On an absolutely completely different, can anyone please please please upload not only the video of the Grand Final (which unfortunately I could not stream in USA), but also the videos of the top rooms, quarter and semi final? An earnest request from a debater who was a part of the Asian debating circuit as recently as six months ago.
It was difficult for us in USA to watch the debates live for two reasons: first the time difference is a bit too much, and second the debate tournament clashes with the finals of most colleges.
Sincerely Yours,
M Hasanul Kaisar
Moe
January 7, 2011
Maybe in future Mehdi, we should just round up 9 people off the street to adjudicate the GF? It’s not like they’re trying very hard now anyway…
Moe's friend
January 7, 2011
Dude…deal with it!! You never did make it for WUPID and possibly never will. Your debating experience is laughable and you rant is really stale! You might as well, join a club for old prunes and bitch about how bad the world is! Grow up, move on….progress…Oh yes…And if you can..get some balls dude!!
Mehdi
January 8, 2011
LOL!!! Moe, these people were not brought from the streets after all and you do know that very well, dont you??
Its just that I think you don’t need world champions, finalists etc etc to adjudicate people who are potentially world champions..
I think all the people you mentioned have been CAs, DCAs, breaking debaters, top ranked debaters from WUDC, Australs…
Now the point is, I highly doubt any qualified judges didn’t break and I think brother Yunus made every reasonable attempt to get the very best of teams a judges… If sufficient people doesn’t (of acceptable quality, in your opinion) doesn’t show up, I don’t know how to blame the WUPID organizer for that..
Besides, there are slump years for tournaments when good enough number of quality team/ajd does not show up, it happens sometimes due to poor management, sometimes due to extenuating circumstances beyond the organisers control..
Like this time, I think many good teams esp. from the US didnt show up because the worlds was being held at Botswana…making the location difficult…just a hunch…
Anyways, I really don’t think this nadir would spell the end for WUPID… 🙂 It’s just was another year when our expectations might not have been met..
Cheers..
Moe
January 8, 2011
Well, the organisers haven’t really given us any evidence to show why they made a decent effort to get credible adjudicators, and my guess would be they didn’t. I asked about it above, and received a deafening silence. By the logic you expressed above, we shouldn’t even bother about qualifications, and the ordinary man on the street, given a quick run down of the rules, would be just as good a judge.
Ah Kee Laa
January 10, 2011
Dear Moe,
1st I say Sorry, I English not very good but I try to improve myself with reading Blogs such like yourself. My mother tell me, to improve I English, so I know debate can fix my English. Everyday I debate, I so scared to talk sometime, I talk, people laugh me. I not very clever, primary six also I cannot do lorrr. My mother tell me, “Ah kee aaah, no need study, you speak English, your oyster is the world”. She dunno I no like oyster, very smelly waa aar. But I listen mother, everyday I practice with my mirror. I start debate but very difficult to finish wan, because the opposition look so good, distraction one, he also handsome like me, maaah. Every year, I watch WUPID, I hope to improvise my english. Actually, I write because I very angry also. I agree you. I watch WUPID GF stream, How can Singapore win? It must be conspiracy theory. I not CLEVER but I also not STUPID like you. How can ASIAN team win debate? Very anticlimaxs one you know. I watch debate to see gwailo win maa, white people must win, just like the movies laa. Ceih, I also upset,meh. Just like pretty girl ask you to touch her bobo but tell you to close your eyes, got fun like that one meh?
Moe, I read you blog, I also wan to complain. I agree you. We like brother sister…I brother, you sister laa. We same mentally. I like your English, so good one. I read your blog everyday, I also memory your blog. You write like you from down under. Very impression one your writing. I like you, you can get me visa or not? We open Chicken Rice Shop. We become rich lorr. Sorry again, When I angry I also get lost in MY BUBBLE, like Yunus also like YOU. You like bubbles right, I know who you are, you West Ham Fan right? I know, I also watch premier league, my house also got StarSports.
Moe, going backside to your point, I agree with you. Judge not good laa for WUPID. How can like that? Who is Omar? From what I hear, he actually Sheep in Wolf clothing’s. Like Eminem maah but a lot taller, somemore got DR. in front of his name. If I sick, I tell you I dowan go to him one. Praba, also who? Only writer who got win World Cup once. He think he so good writer and act like he write for the Daily Telegraph. I also don’t like him. Why ahh, he win the World Cup? I think before also referee got corrupt wan. But what I don’t understand…why you call him sexy arr? Shady, I know,because of his skin color… right or not? but SEXY? Come on la friend! I also know, He look like a burnt chameleon…where got sexy one. Somemore his eyes ahh, not center one, eee yerr, how to be judge like that. No one can tell where he is looking.
Moe, I tell you one secret about Praba, you wan or not? I know you want wan meeh! You can use as weapon later.In Malaysian language “Praba” also mean molester. I got Google meaning just now.BTW, He got touch you right! That is why you so angry wan meeh. No need to shy la… when I small my neighbor also got touch me, me so sad, if you want, we go counseling together. I also help you go to Police station to write report. We must act together, solidarity, people like that must catch fast now, not like before. How can all accusation before never brought to Public? How can he win before? CORRUPTION & NEPOTISM got never die from before wan meh? That means from BEFORE till NOW all judges got corrupt. My mother always tell me accusation is accusations until you caught. Then if caught, you must migrate. I got your back sister, we go make police report.
Moe, I agree with you on many points but some I CANNOT AGREE. I also FAIR person, not SHADY like that Praba. If you say must only reputable people and winner can judge debate? What happen to people like me? My English not so good, I got no name, I never has been but I like debate. I think to improvise myself with debate. I not very clever but not STUPID like YOU. I also got world view, even, I only go Local Primary School. You mean, I English not good, and grammar poor, so I cannot think, and also must follow your judgement. How can laa like that? Then debate only controlled by people from WEST issit? We become like drones of the west issit? You funny, laa Moe. Communist people also say same thing, they say normal people must follow the elite few.. So maybe West not too PC after all. I not so smarting like you but I also got brain, I also can also make my own conclude. If you say we must listen to the best only, I ask you why ahh? Then no need to listen to YOU or ME? I said like that because you and me like brother-sister, we nobody, we no public figure , we no name, we are but GHOSTS WITh NO FACE.
Moe, but I a bit BETTER than YOU laa! At least I honest and put my name. Out one hand you say people who nobody cannot JUDGE, but you OFFER , a lengthy notated response to the WUPID GF to show people how good you are but you cannot be good if you a nobody. If your logic is laidet? People dowan to listen laaa. Me, Ah Kee offer a lengthy no hated response (hehe, I oso can use anology maa) on WUPID GF,that better still, sure got people want to hear my comments.
Moe, We Asian’s not speak as fluent as you, or as well but we also got brain. You want debate me in my mother tongue, sure you lose wan maa. We Asian not speaky in prose as you but we try, we work hard, double hard. You got watch Stallon’s Expendables or not? Jet Li said “Everything is harder for me. When I’m hurt, wound is bigger, ’cause I’m smaller. When I travel I need to go farther.” Haha, Good quote right. Same for debates. You want to take away our win, you comeback next year and win it YOURSELF laaa.
Ok, lorr I must go prepare Chicken Rice Shop, I cook very good wan, can get me VISA or NOT?
P.S. I am no debater and have never broke in my life but have been broke on numerous occasions and at least, Moe, I am not SPENT like YOU!
Ah Kee
Chicken Rice Shop,
49, SS19/1
Moe
January 11, 2011
I guess we can just take that as a comment. I certainly doubt think I could improve on it.
It’s really little wonder that people like myself post anonymously, when some lame personal attacks from people I don’t know are the best respondents can do. Imagine for a moment that those criticisms were true, and I was a terrible debater, etc. It would have no relevance to the subject, because I wasn’t a GF adjudicator for WUPID, and I am not a DCA for Worlds. When you put yourself forward, or are chosen, for a public position, like DCA or GF adjudicator at a major IV, people are well within their rights to question your credentials and performance as a public figure. I could be the worst debater in the world, and it would mean nothing, because I’m not a public figure, and the people criticised above are.
Now of course, if I actually directly slandered someone, or accused them, it would be very important for me to say who I was. But I’m just referencing and repeating material and accusations that are part of the public domain, and on the record. Criticisms that have for the most part never been answered.
That said, it would be hard to credit that I, or others who have posted anonymously here and on Colm’s page, are worse debaters than some of those listed above. I mean, guys like Wassey ranked 604th at their last Worlds, just how many worse speakers can there be?
Sherrie R.D
January 11, 2011
Dear Moe,
After following the lengthy discussion and bitching from you, it is interesting to note that it is much easier to critisize other people rather than doing it yourself, or put yourself in Yunus’s situation or probably at the very least having all the facts with you before condemning about other people’s event.
I agree WUPID could have a better adjudications panel. The word is “could”. Maybe this year. But in this case they had a fair adjudication panel by which decision was made by not 1 person alone but by 9 panelist at the GF. To the very least, the argument would be the rest of the GF teams who didnt win, didnt manage to convince the rest of the GF panelist. If the teams are obviously the winning team, then it shouldnt be difficult to have a unanimous decision aint it? But apparently they weren’t. So, basically they had their own faults as well and somewhat have themselves to be blamed.
I was there at the Grand Finals that night. The arguments raised was very rhetorical by the other 3 teams without applying the current social-political scenario which was happening in Malaysia and non of the 3 teams responded to that by which is the main crux and facts of the debate. Probably the NUS teams presented their speech quite simple without sophisticated analogy or phrases or words but they delivered the points quite clear.
And MOE, your identity is definitely relevant in this situation especially when you start to personally attack the credibility of specific individuals to a certain extent defamatory (this come without tangible proof and convictions but merely hearsay from your end re: accusations about Praba). It is simply convenient for you to remain anonymous and escape from the fact others will also be able to question your credibility and standing.
Moe
January 11, 2011
Um, it tells me a majority of 9 adjudicators weren’t good enough to see an obvious result? Likewise, as I noted above, look at these people’s qualifications, they’ve done little to nothing of significance as debaters in their own right at serious IV’s.
The GF video should be up soon, so I invite people to watch it.
As I’ve noted above, it’s clearly not relevant, and just asserting otherwise isn’t much of an argument. You obviously don’t know what hearsay even is (not that hearsay is necessarily without value anyway, either in a courtroom or otherwise). Public figures have come out in public and levelled serious accusations at people like Praba and Omar, and (especially in Praba’s case) they have not offered much of a reply. The accusations were put in the public domain, most notably on the All-Asians mailing list. Hearsay would be if I told you that I knew a friend who heard from another friend that Praba made racist remarks about other teams. Completely dis-analogous to the current situation.
Ah Kee Laa
January 11, 2011
Dear Moe,
Waa, suddenly got big issue wan meh. I apologize, if I hurt your feelings. Like I say, You like my sister, I your brother. I got your back lorr.No need to worry. I kow-tim for you. Ok, 1st who is this poster Omes, Alvin Tan, Omes, Mehdi, Moe’s friend(I think he not really your friend laaa Moe) and Sherrie RD. I think they more like poser wan. cannot believe their names, sure got bluff. They think they know everything but they never broke in their life, sure must got a lot of money wan meeeh. Ranking also we dunno. you got no ranking, you keep quite laa. But I wonder when they drive car they got brake wan meh? Must be fast fast wan lorr. Hehe. Talk, talk and talk only. Why they support this Praba, Omar and Yunus, I oso dunno.. no need support wan. They bad, bad people. their names also sure got bluff wan, no credentials lorr. Somemore this Sherrie RD who laa, I read, read he confuse me more. Heresay, theresay..I also dunno who say what? But I read read blog, he got mention defamation, fuu-yoh, sound like lawyer dat fella. I also sked laidet, somemore I blog my address. After Praba sue me, How? So, I follow my mother say, she say “You bitch-bitch-bitch can, but if they know your address, you is the bitch”. So, now I so sked maaa, only chicken Rice seller lorrr. I change my mind I apologise to everyone, especially Praba. You no look like burnt chameleoon, only joking wan, fun-fun maaa. you handsome boy. sorry, again my english not so good, but I try to improvise. You all talk- talk I also confuse laaa. But only got 1 question for you la Moe? If all accusation this while..why ahh nobody in the debating community got do anything? NOW, only want to act/ please explain? You sure lawyer wan right, you protect me, i protect you, laa friend.
Ps: eeey, my chicken rice very nice wan. Pssst, you can get VISA for me or not? Never answer also?
Ah Kee,
(SS19/1. Go straight after Subang Parade. After Wisma Tractors. Then 1st turning turn left. you can see Ah kee Chiken Rice Stall)
*say you read this blog i give you discount.
Sherrie R.D
January 11, 2011
and Moe, one more thing, did you know it was a split decision in the GF. Still believe it wasnt a fair decision by all the adjudicators and that they were all incompetent and questionable adjudicators?
Ah Kee Laa
January 11, 2011
Moe, fasta reply. Afta you and me shy laaa! How to do business laidet? Must pay loan installment lorr!!!
Good adjudicator
January 11, 2011
Hi Moe, can someone tell me what makes you a good adjudicator? Debating well, big CV or passing a test and enough experience? This Moe guy must define what he means a good, qualified judge. Did you check if these people broke as adjudicators at worlds? Try that…it might surprise you…
Moe
January 11, 2011
I’m currently listening to the Semi final (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H32GGNWmdNU) and am appalled by the outcome. ANU clearly should have gotten through.
Other things worth noting.
1) The OO had terrible manner, alot of words they said were inaudible, and it’s not the fault of the recording. They also provided a terrible analysis, which saw pretty much all of OG’s material remain uncontested. Among the absurd claims were that Greece’s economic crisis was primarily caused by the sub-prime crisis, and that China is an example for why devaluation is bad (and that countries will devalue). Terrible assertions abounded.
2) For the PC crowd, I can only ask how they would respond if some of the jabs at the accents of the other teams had been levelled at non-white speakers. If ANU or Oxford had said anything along those lines people here would be calling for an equity violation.
3) CO’s case was pure assertion, ignoring almost all the nuance of the CG and OG (“The EU has been one of the greatest success stories of the last 50 years”… who cares? It has little bearing on the arguments involving the Euro). In terms of role fulfilment the OG set the debate well, had most of their material wholly uncontested, and walked all over OO, while CO clearly got shot down by CG, and didn’t have a real extension (“small counries” which had almost no time or analysis spent on it, and was ridiculed in great depth by the following speaker), didn’t have better analysis, cut off POI’s from the other team before they could say them, and brushed aside with aplomb whole arguments from the Govt teams). Not as bad as the GF, but also a bad decision. CO either misunderstands or misrepresents the specialisation argument, along with most of the others. The terrible Yuan argument is repeated too. They asked for a false burden from Govt (they must supposedly prove that there is no other solution), they focused on benefits that are part of the EU, not the Euro, and failed to established the casual connection between the harms they identified, and the Euro being scrapped. Even their “counter examples” like Ireland (cheered by the crowd) missed the point completely. Ireland is indeed voting against the status quo party, but doing so will not achieve the result they desire, because the Irish Govt doesn’t control Euro policy. That’s the accountability problem. That this was passed off as a contradiction was amazing.
There’s a repeated assertion at the final Opp speaker that the Euro is the only thing holding the EU together, but this had already been answered, was a minor point in the debate, and is basically an assertion. At this point it’s too late for Govt to reply to it further anyway. The claim that you can’t trust the economy to politicians also misunderstands the Govt line on this, since that’s not necessarily the choice at all. It’s a choice between the financial institutions of your own country v.s the financial institution of a supranational organisation who applies a one size fits all policy. There’s a POI on this from ANU in his speech (that the SQ has failed), and he has no answer to it except to assert they haven’t shown how their model would be better (strange since I thought OG spent 14 minutes explaining this in depth). This is followed by another assertion that small countries will be crushed (ignoring yet again the repeated Govt explanations, for example, how if a countries interested are suited by a stable currency, they can just peg it like Ireland did before the Euro). 30 seconds of assertion about capital flight “analysis” from out of nowhere to round out the CO case.
Ah Kee Laa
January 11, 2011
Yeay, moe, you tell them fasta
Moe
January 11, 2011
I’m confused as to why a split decision, or some of these adjudicators breaking at Worlds, in any way affect what I said about the decision, especially when I’ve spent some time above complaining that adjudicating breaks and DCA’s have become completely politicised.
Ah Kee Laa
January 11, 2011
Fuu-yooh, Moe. You da-woman lahhh. Nevermind I also confused. we same-same. Let them explain to us. I also dont understand Politics. But that day ahh my fingernail got break. Don’t worry now all ok
SKY
January 14, 2011
Being a chinese, i find ah kee laa very offensive. we chinese do not speak like that. maybe only jackie chan. and to moe, all i have to say to you is, moooooo.
Moe's father.
January 14, 2011
Son, its way past your bedtime. go to bed this instant or you will be grounded.
Moe
January 17, 2011
Wow. What awesome comebacks. Do you guys debate and adjudicate equally well? Because I believe I might have figured out why you think NUS won… the thing is, debates take place in English, and we judge people on what they actually said in the debate, not what their ESL friends decide they intended to say. Any response to the actual arguments?
An ESL debater
January 18, 2011
Moe, you Europeans lost. Just accept the fact and stop being childish.
Y.F.
January 18, 2011
Moe: As someone who actually debated against the team that you lambasted for having bad manner, I can assure you that during the debates themselves no team had much trouble following the speeches. Sure, the team had a typical Singaporean accent, but the existence of different accents is very much guaranteed at any international tournament.
As for the adjudication, I would like to point out that, like at Worlds, WUPID had an adjudication feedback system and the adjudicators that judged the finals got there because they were able to break. Now, while this feedback system was not perfect, it does show that the adjudicators you are condemning were deemed to be at least reasonable by the participants in the tournament. Concerning the final itself, indeed, there was no rational person in the finals venue – I was there myself – who were surprised when NUS were announced as the winner of the debate. It seemed to be generally agreed that it was a closing house debate and there could be reasons for either a Monash or NUS win. I am not sure whether you watched the debate in its entirety, but they managed to ground the debate in the Malaysian context and explain the perception in neighbouring countries – how they would think that Malaysia is trying to become a nuclear state.
Moe
January 19, 2011
There’s something refreshing about hearing how I am not to trust my own senses, but to trust someone elses. I can HEAR them and SEE them on the video, and their manner is very poor, often jumping whole words, or speaking too quickly to be easily understood. I don’t know if it’s a language thing, the CO in that Semi had decent manner (that wasn’t why they should have lost), but to tell me that OO in the Semi link I provided had good manner is simply false. I don’t care if such manner is “common”, it’s still bad.
On the subject of manner, I reiterate my question. What would the ESL lobby’s reaction be if the remarks of the CO about the Govt benches accents had been directed towards speakers from ESL countries? You can’t answer, because the PC crowd is unwilling to be consistent on this.
As for the GF, I watched it live, and the view of all those I’ve spoken to has been that it was clear NUS was dead last in that debate. Perhaps when WUPID has the courage to put the video back up we can let people judge for themselves.
Moe
January 27, 2011
The video of the whole GF isn’t up yet for some reason, but some of the speeches are up:
I’m again surprised at how impressive the opening teams are.
Muhammad Yunus
January 28, 2011
Moe (or whoever or whatever you actually are),
The videos of the GF of GEMS WUPID 2010 is already up. The videos are independent speeches of each of the speakers. But I think you’re brainy enough to sort them out accordingly. Enjoy and blow your brains out!
The link for all the videos are here: http://www.youtube.com/user/soulbear89#p/u
Moe
January 28, 2011
I linked to that, so obviously I’m aware they were being added, but when I checked earlier (and after I posted as well), only the first 4 were up.
Moe
January 28, 2011
Watching the debate again really makes me want to have a long cold shower to wash the sense of shame off. NUS was the worst team in the debate by a long way, and I can only marvel at how anyone who watches this is going to defend such an absurd decision. I promised a more in depth critique once people had equal access to the recording, so here it goes.
The first thing to note is that the opening speakers were just awesome, on a totally different level of NUS, and indeed that was true of every speaker in the debate to varying degrees. NUS took and gave few POIs, but when they gave one it was invariably smacked down (trying to downplay Malaysia’s ability to regulate Nuclear power because “5 buses crashed last week” may have been one of the stupidest points of the tournament) and on the rare chance they took a point, they then thoroughly ignored it.
The NUS team opened by mentioning the “argument” that it would annoy Malaysia’s neighbours. I hesitate to call this an argument, because neither at the start of the first speaker’s speech, at the end of his speech when he came back to it, nor in the second speaker’s speech, was anything approaching an intelligent argument advanced about it. There was no analysis when it was initially raised, just that allies are important and this would somehow be unacceptable to them. Later it was alluded to in a different (but equally bad) argument about OPEC, and it was “discussed” again late in the first speaker’s speech with little more than the allusion that people were “suspicious of their competence” and would suspect they would “militarise it somehow”. No explanation as to how this would be possible was forthcoming, and the point about allies and militariastion were thoroughly shut down by the following speaker, particularly with the standard 101 example for this (which had been noted earlier by Amit). Namely, the current technology is so safe that the US gave it to North Korea, and that it’s easy to monitor this. There was at no stage a response to any of this by NUS. The final attempt at this argument at 2nd speaker was also terribly argued, and literally amounted to the argument that Malaysia’s neighbours (not specified) are “paranoid” and so the facts don’t matter. There was no in depth analysis as to why this was so, or why this couldn’t be overcome, etc.
The second “argument” NUS advanced was that this would lead to “oil reliance” (I assumed initially this was hinting at some sort of dutch disease style argument). This started off with a mere assertion and no analysis or facts at first speaker, but by 2nd speaker we were told being over-reliant was bad, and the example was Saudi Arabia. This was a poor and irrelevant argument, especially as both opening teams and the closing had talked about Malaysia as being distinct from Saudi Arabia, and having a more sophisticated economy and technology, and how it could best develop these. A large section of Amit’s speech in particular argued that the reason baseload power was so essential was because of the Western technical investment that Malaysia serviced. The argument here needed far more than a mere assertion to add value to the debate.
The third argument was a reference to OPEC, with no real analysis, fringe relevance (they won’t want them to sell more… but that doesn’t preclude nuclear power, does it), and was again, a very brief assertion that they already lack a “loving” relationship.
The fourth argument was the suggestion terrorism would endanger these plants, with the 2nd speaker invoking the UK and France as dis-analogous countries, even though the Govt bench actual examples had been places like Pakistan and North Korea (which the NUS team never responded to either). There was no in depth or meaningful analysis of the nature of Malaysia terrorism (other than to name the groups involved), or which would lead one to believe that they are any serious threat to the Government’s ability to manage/regulate the industry. I personally know nothing in depth about Malaysia’s terrorist groups structural capacity, but since NUS never told us anything either (other than that they exist, much like in Pakistan, etc) it was unclear why it was a problem.
The next “argument” was that the public sector changes all the time, and is politicised. Again, this is true of other nuclear power countries given by the Govt bench, and it is wholly unclear why this would provide an inability to have a nuclear industry that is regulated. There is cronyism… ok, and? They have unfinished buildings… they also have very impressive world class ones, and as the Govt team explained, nuclear power is obviously going to get more priority than the (often privately funded) building projects… you need to give me alot more to go on here for this to have legs as an argument.
Alot of the second speaker’s stuff was particularly irrelevant, saying there was “no energy crisis” (ignoring flat out the in depth analysis and benefits discussed earlier in the debate), and regurgitating earlier points from the OO, like throwaway references to “the congo” and “energy supply being sensitive to the needs of the area”, both of which were explained much better by OO.
The only thing I took from the debate is that an appeal to racism will work wonders at WUPID, even when you’re hopelessly outmatched by the other teams. This was done very varying degrees of subtlety. As per the Semi, both speakers repeatedly made references to the backgrounds of the other teams as being “british and Australian”, usually pre-empting a claim that “they don’t understand local issues”, claiming to be “truly Singaporean” and constantly claiming “only they had truly grounded the debate in a Malaysian context” (as I ask above, how would people react to white speakers making some of the remarks NUs made in the Semi and GF?). As I’ve made clear above, I’m at a loss as to how they achieved this, since their arguments were far worse than all the other teams, poorly analysed, and were clearly shot down. The material from the Govt teams was largely untouched by NUS, and compared to the awesome and matter heavy analysis of OO, they should be embarrassed by the victory. OO presented the superior material better too.