The European Union delegation in Indonesia will again hold a high-profile debate tournament after its first attempt last year triggered scorn from participants due to the shenanigans of some of its adjudicators. Similar to the 2010 edition, the EU Intervarsity Debate Championship 2011 will employ household names in the Indonesian political scene like opposition legislator Eva Kusuma Sundari and Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a top advisor to the Vice President.
Celebrity judges definitely add buzz to a competition but they can be unaccustomed to the rules and ethics of competitive debating. In last year's EU-IDC, some of them took phone calls, left the room, slept, commented and even intervened during speeches. They may also have little guidance on the scoring system and how expert knowledge can clutter fair judgment.
At the first IVED in 1998, celebrity judges varying from television anchors, newspaper editors, faculty deans to foreign diplomats were heavily used. Their presence did not spoil the competition because organizers required them to undergo several training sessions before they could adjudicate. In cases when untrained celebrities had to be used due to commitments to sponsors, they were always outnumbered in the panels by adjudicators with competitive debate experience. It seems that the EU-IDC organizers prioritize big names rather than quality adjudication.
European diplomats actually contributed to the development of Indonesian debating. WUDC 1996 Chief Adjudicator John Long became a member of the EU delegation in Indonesia in 1999 and helped the first batch of Indonesian debaters train. UK deputy chief of mission Quinton Quayle adjudicated in IVED 1998 and helped gather corporate sponsors for the first Indonesian teams to WUDC 1999. It is regrettable to notice their support and contribution have been sullied by one tournament that refused to follow internationally accepted norms.
EU-IDC 2011 will take place from November 17 to 18. It will not apply a commonly accepted competitive debating format. It will use a corrupted version of the Australasian format. Roughly, it is a 3-on-3 debate with 5-minute speeches for the 1st and 2nd speakers while the 3rd speakers act like reply speakers with only 3 minutes for summation. Contrary to Australs, the affirmative reply is before the negative's.
A selection based on essays will determine the 20 teams. There will be no simultaneous debates. There will be one preliminary round of 10 back-to-back debates. Motions are pre-determined but there will be a balloting process to decide who will debate those topics. The panel of adjudicators will be similar for the 10 debates, opening the potential of jury fatigue. Not all winners of this round can advance. Only the 8 teams with the highest scores can go to the quarterfinals. Adjudicators will not reveal results at the end of a debate and there will be no feedback system for the judges. Organizers have stressed that participation means blind acceptance to their method without any avenue for appeals.
It is unclear why EU is now using a format and a competition system that are totally different from the internationally accepted rules the European diplomats taught more than a decade ago to the first class of Indonesian debaters. Bryan Gunawan from Binus University and Teddy Triatmojo from Sekolah Tinggi Akuntansi Negara have delivered concerns from the Indonesian debating community to EU with the hope that organizers can deliver a quality competition. The guideline of this peculiar event can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment