Dolžnosti koordinatorja.

Zavzemam se, da se koordinatorju formalno (s spiskom...) JASNO določi TEM MANJ DOLŽNOSTI in se računa na njegovo proaktivno vlogo (če ima čas in voljo vse naštete ideje uresničuje na lastno iniciativo).
Tako se:
1. motivira koordinatorja k skrbnemu delu, ker ni preobremenjen z enajstimi "političnimi" alineami. Hkrati se na ta način pusti tudi bolj odprta vrata za aktivizem drugih debaterjev - če ni dolžnost koordinatorja je večja možnost, da se projekta loti sam.
2. vzpostavi jasen, neformalen nadzor - vsi vedo kaj mora delati in zato takoj vedo kdaj so dolžnosti zanemarjene.
3. zmanjša možnost sporov glede dolžnosti, odgovornosti.
4. prepreči nepotrebno poseganje v klube same (glej Helenin mail).

PREDLOG DOLŽNOSTI KOORDINBATORJA:

1. Koordiniranje prijav na turnirje. Obsega:
A.Obveščanje o turnirjih. Koordinator aktivno spremlja informacije o debatnih turnirjih in v najkrajšem možnem času, ko izve za turnir, poskrbi, da se informacije o turnirju objavijo na mailing listah študentske debate in na internetni strani ter morebitnih blogih študentske debate. Objavi doda morebitne informacije o turnirju (kako kvaliteten je, kakšne so razmere kjer se izvaja, kakšni so morebitni potni stroški...) in pozove zainteresirane debaterje in debatne sodnike, da temprej oddajo prijavo. (Zaradi jasnosti še enkrat opozarjam, da je koordinatorjeva dolžnost, da to stori, ko dobi informacije oz. ko izve, da se bo turnir organiziral, ne takrat, ko se že odprejo prijave pri organizatorju turnirja!)
B. Prijavljanje na turnirje. Koordinator poskrbi, da v najkrajšem možnem času po odprtju prijav na turnir prijavi vse dogovorjene debaterje in sodnike. V primeru prevelikega števila prijav debaterjev oz. premajhnega števila prijavljenih sodnikov koordinator nemudoma pozove vse zainteresirane, naj v najkrajšem možnem času predlagajo seznam prijav institucije, ki je skladen z zahtevami organizatorja. Koordinator vodi morebitne sestanke in dogovarjanja glede prijav, na katerih se določi kateri debaterji in sodniki se bodo udeležili turnirja. Koordinator posebej skrbno pazi na to, da na noben način ne krši pravila prijavljanja na turnir. Morebitne posebne dogovore z organizatorji se posebej dogovori z vsemi morebiti prizadetimi debaterji in sodniki in sicer tako, da se glede teh odločitev doseže konsenz.

2. Koordiniranje dejavnosti študentskih klubov, Zip-a in drugih debatnih aktivnosti. (informiranje in podajanje mnenj)
A.Dostopnost. Koordinator je glede problemov klubov in drugih problemov študentske debate, po najboljših močeh, dostopen vodjam debatnih klubov, direktorju Zip in drugim debaterjem ter jim podaja mnenja glede vprašanj povezanih z debato.
B. Informiranje glede potreb po sodnikih, učiteljih debate in pomoči pri soorganizaciji. Koordinator v dogovoru z debaterji in (po potrebi) direktorjem Zip skrbi, da se zagotavlja največja možna udeležba zainteresiranih sodnikov debaterjev na osnovnošolskih, srednješolskih in televizijskih debatah ter na morebitnih akademijah in izobraževanjih. To dosega predvsem z rednim in pravočasnim obveščanjem o teh dogodkih in pri tem sodeluje z direktorjem Zip. Koordinator na željo in po dogovoru z vodji debatnih klubov skrbi, da se za učenje debate pozove izkušene debaterje k sodelovanju. Koordinator po dogovoru in na željo direktorja Zip oz. vodje kluba pomaga organizirati debatne dogodke (akademija, debatni maraton, javne debate...). Glede organizacije, v skladu z dogovorom, pomaga najmanj tako, da pravočasno obvešča vse potencialne pomočnike o teh dogodkih in potrebah po pomoči.
C. Organiziranje in vodenje mesečnih sestankov. Koordinator za vsak mesec po dogovoru in na željo direktorja Zip oz. vodij klubov skliče in vodi sestanek vodij debatnih klubov in (po potrebi in dogovoru) predsednika Zip.

3. Priprava letnega poročila in izvedba volitev novega koordinatorja.
A. Koordinator ob koncu svojega mandata pripravi poročilo o delu in stanju študentskega programa. V poročilu navede najmanj: koliko je klubov, koliko članov so imeli, uspehe na mednarodnih tekmovanjih in kratek opis vseh dogodkov, kjer so študentje sodelovali.
B. Koordinator ob koncu svojega mandata poskrbi, da se izvedejo volitve za novega koordinatorja studentske debate.




Dolžnosti koordinatorja so v besedilu poudarjene, vendarle pa vas prosim, da natančno berete ves tekst, kjer so bolj natančno razložene ( omejene). Osebno menim, da je to največji sprejemljiv obseg dolžnosti, ki še zagotavlja JASNOST, KONTROLO in NE PREOBREMENJUJE BODOČEGA KOORDINATORJA. Morda bi bilo smiselno, še bolj omejiti dolžnosti koordinatorja in jih še bolj jasno zapisati. Vsi pozitivni prispevki v tej smeri so zelo dobrodošli.

Kot rečeno, predlagam, da se glede ustanovitve društva in drugih idej o razvoju študentske debate, ki trenutno, niso tako urgentna kot izvolitev koordinatorja odpre ločena debata.

Writing it down.

Po današnji debati, sem tokrat kot poslušalec za gostilniškim omizjem, bil deležen še ene debate. V osnovi je šlo za mešanico prihodnosti slovenske debate, situaciji glede prijav na evropsko prvenstvo in bolj ali manj povezanih variacij teh dveh tem.

Kot pri vseh poštenih gostilniških diskurzih, ni šlo brez preseganja glasovne jakosti, obveznih ponavljanj že izrečenega, poseganja v besedo, dvigovanja rok, rdečih lic in razburjenih pogledov. Po zgledu vseh zaresnih debat smo kmalu prišli do vprašanja denarja, bolj natančno sponzorstva. Po dveh primerih o tem kako težko je pridobiti sredstva, če nimaš transparentnega računa in organizacije smo prišli do meni najbolj zanimive teme - ustanovitve društva študentskih debaterjev.

Ker je obseg in kompleksnost argumentov za in proti prevelika za moje skromne sposobnosti se bom omejil na zapis in kratek opis argumentov, kot so bili izrečeni in sem jih jaz razumel. Brez globlje razlage ali opredelitve. Torej:

Ta zbor verjame, da študentska debata ne potrebujejo društva

Vlada:
1. Takeover in možnost finančnih zlorab. Kot pri klubu (društvu!) Celjskih študentov obstaja možnost, da se izgubi nadzor nad društvom, da torej pride to t.i. hijackinga drugih študentov. Poleg tega se lahko tudi na drug način društvo finančno zlorabi za osebne namene.
2. Vprašlivost finančne transparentnosti na dolgi rok. Kam se bodo stekala sredstva in kdo jih bo kontroliral čez 5 ali 10 let, ko bomo mi diplomirali.
3. Možnost razkola, razprtij in osebnih zamer. Če se samovoljno odločimo za ustanovitev društva, se lahko zgodi, da bodo nekateri to razumeli kot osebni napad in bodo temu primerno odreagirali. Možni spill over učinki ( užaljenost, nekomunikacija, nagajanje...) so lahko tako neugodni, da popolnoma zasenčijo morebitne prednosti društva.
4. Konkuriranje pri razpisih. Pri potegovanju za finančna sredstva lahko pride do situacije, ko se več subjektov poteguje za ista sredstva in si drug drugemu blokirata pot do teh sredstev.
5. Nezmožnost uskladitve različnih interesov vseh študentov in ostalih oseb udeleženih v slovenski debati. Nekateri si želijo predvsem priprav na mednarodne turnirje, nekateri krepitve debatne kulture, nekateri žlahtenja slovenskega jezika, nekateri izobraževanja novih članov...
6. Pomankanje volje in časa. Komu se bo zares dalo ukvarjati s sestavljanjem in dopolnjevanjem statuta, bitkami z upravnimi organi pri registraciji, hoditi na skupščine...

Opozicija:
1. Finančna transparentnost. Društvo omogoča, da se na podlagi enega računa vedno točno vidi, s kje so sredstva prišla, koliko jih je in za kaj se jih je namenilo. S tem se prepreči nejasnosti glede tega koliko denarja je kdo dobil od kje, koliko ga je in kako naj se ga deli.
2. Večja možnost pridobivanja sredstev iz gospodarstva. Na dveh primerih (zavrnitev sponzorstva, ker ni transparentnosit; motivacija glede pridobivanja sponzorjev v primeru, da se ne ve točno kam in za kaj se sredstva rabijo je manjša) smo slišali, da je podjetjem težko nakazati denar, če se ne vidi točno komu gre in za kakšen namen, ker se sicer bojijo davčne inšekcije oz. sumov kaznivih dejanj. Zato bi se možnost pridobivanja sredstev od zasebnega sektorja povečala, če bi obstajal en račun društva, ki bi jasno definiral za kaj se sredstva namenjajo. Pravtako bi se povečala zasebna iniciativa za pridobivanje sponzorjev, ker bi se točno vedelo za kaj bodo pridobljena sredstva porabljena.
3. Dolgoročna, bolj trdna ureditev(institucionalizacija) odnosov med študenti debaterji. S statutom, bi se lahko uredilo pravila glede obeznosti sojenja, prijavljanja na turnir, vlog koordinatorja in drugih oseb udeleženih v slovenski debati. Pravtako, bi se z jasno določitvijo odgovornosti verjetno zagotovilo bolj zavzeto opravljanje nalog in vlog. Na ta način bi lažje in bolj jasno vključil izkušene člane, ki so že diplomirali.
4. Zapisana politika promocije debate in izobraževanja novih debaterjev. V okviru društva, bi se na podlagi statuta lažje oblikovale politike "trženja" debate med bruciin organiziralo bolj odmevne dogodke.
5. Večja prepoznavnost (goodwill) študentske debate in debate na splošno v slovenski javnosti. Obstoj društva in jasnost njegovega imena, bi predstavljalo dobro referenčno točko (asociacijo) za vsakega člana javnosti in morebitnega sponzorja. Sčasoma bi tako izraz debata lažje dobil pomen kot si ga zasluži in ga ima naprimer v VB.


Ko bom imel čas bom razmislil o točkah, ki sem jih slišal ob temnem pivu. Ponosen pa sem, da me je ravno debata naučila poslušati in strukturirati vse izjave, ki so bile razmetane v pogovor, strukturirati na zgoraj opisan način. Tako se bom gotovo lažje odločil (make sense of it all) kakšno je moje stališče. Upam, da se bo tudi veliko drugih bodočih in sedanjih študentov imelo možnost naučiti se teh veščin.

PS: Vsi komentarji in predlogi dopolnitev so zelo dobrodošli.

Effective public speaking - manner

In this post I am going to discuss what public speaking is, outline the most important aspects of public speaking for debates, elaborate on speaking anxiety, and then give some basic speaking style tips about: Dynamism, Voice, Gestures, Face expressions and eye contact and Body movement.

• So to get cracking: Public speaking is the process of speaking to a group of people in a structured, deliberate manner intended to inform, influence, or entertain the listeners. In public speaking, as in any form of communication, there are five basic elements, often expressed as "who is saying what to whom using what medium with what effects?"

• For debate purposes I am going to try and focus on persuasiveness and clarity of a speech, which are most often described in debate books. To achieve that you mustn't be:

1. BORING
2. CRAZY- Get so over the speaking boarders that, the audience ask themselves: What is wrong with him?
3. FRIGHTENED - being to anxious.

• Because anxiety often leads to either crossing the lines - CRAZY, or trying to control yourself too much and consequently being BORING lets deal with the deep inside, emotional issues first.In this way we get rid of the bad extremes in speeches. Wikihow has many hilarious and debate useless tips on this topic, but check them out anyway because they really are funny. Personally I think that your frame of mind is the most important, whenever emotions must be controlled. So, every time you feel that you are getting too anxious, I recommend asking yourself: Why am I debating? Is anyone in the public going to laugh out loud if I screw up? How many good speeches have I had so far? The answers to these questions should calm you down to a desirable level of pre debate excitement.

• Dynamism is the result of your eagerness and excitement about debating. To be the most persuasive you should sound just enough into it, enough active for the audience to feel you actively believe in what you are saying. Too excited, means hard to listen to - CRAZY and too controlled means BORING. So to find right balance. Concerning dynamism Dr. Tuna recommends:

1. Changing the way you speak, by having enough variation in your speech itself and your voice tone and making sure your gestures adjust to what you are saying. For example it is recommendable to be very calm and self confident when refuting other sides arguments and more zealous when explaining your crucial points.

2. Emphasizing things that are important, using your voice and gestures. So if you are moving on to next point of your speech emphasize it. I believe the same logic should be applied whenever you mention your underlying principles or ideas.

3. Always stay within your normal speaking range. Don't start jelling or waving your hands like you just ran out of a mental institution. On the other hand, don't start speaking as if you were in a tomb. If debate is like Tightrope walking then make sure you don't lean to one side too much!

• Voice is very important for persuasiveness and ability to be listened to. And although you probably don't have as smooth and sexy voice as Barry White, here are some tips to make the most of your speaking apparatus:

1. Be very clear. It is logically impossible to persuade someone if he doesn't understand you, so make sure you pronounce words clearly. Avoid too long and too complex words that might confuse your audience. That is why even the WUDC tutorial puts clarity on the 1. place.

2.Volume. Make sure you asses the acoustic space correctly or your yelling will make you intolerably loud. So if you are speaking in a small room make sure your eagerness doesn't shatter windows. But after achieving a normal volume, don't be afraid to be a bit louder or quieter in order to emphasize things you are saying. If they use this phenomena in music, why shouldn't you? And of course if someone listening can't hear you, he won't understand you.

3. Speed. Can become a major issue for "English first language- EFL" and especially American policy debaters, because they want to say too much in too little time. That makes them almost impossible to follow. And they can become boring too, because they don't make any pauses which would break the monotony of their machine gun fire.. So it is advisable to use pauses and variations of your speaking speed in order to emphasize things and avoid monotony of your speech.

4. Tone / pitch. You want to look confident and powerful, to be persuasive, so use a tone of a superhero instead of a small cartoon character. It is far easier to listen to deep voices instead of squeaking high pitched ones. This means you should try and lower your tone a notch or two, but at the same time make sure you audience doesn't start asking themselves the question: What is wrong with him?. When explaining the really important stuff, I believe it is acceptable to tighten your chords and show your energy. But overall you should be the cool one, who is so confident about his case that he speaks with a powerful voice of energy.

• Gestures. Are a very important part of body language. Psychologist say that body language makes more than 3/4 of the whole communication, so this part shouldn't be neglected. Always try to stand upright ( a good tip for that is to raise your chest), with relaxed, confident and deliberate movements. So at all costs avoid nervous movements. For example never touch yourself or your face, kick with your legs, or make aggressive rapid movements. You should also avoid movements that seem funny to the audience as for example moving your hands in dorky way. The gestures themselves depend much on personal style, but I believe that the most effective gestures are "squeezing a bug" in one of your hands, which is slightly elevated, counting and making a pyramid with all of your fingers... It is important that these gestures are natural and are never inconsistent with the ideas you are presenting. You should always try to mix your effective gestures to avoid using one and the same gesture over and over again and become BORING.
• Face expressions should always follow your emotions. So you shouldn't laugh when you are talking about starving children in Africa. The most important thing about face expression is the correct use of your eyes. Looking someone into the eyes is very powerful and persuasive. So never forget to establish powerful eye connection with your audience. Especially the part that decides on your rankings.
• Body movement is important to give your speech an aura of commanding the speaking floor. So by gliding withing your speaking space you leave a more self confident and powerful impression. You look in command and that is a good thing, because people usually follow people with the look of power on them. But make sure you don't go outside your speaking space. It is just odd. Odd means CRAZY. So don't go and check the adjudicators flows! The second important thing that you shouldn't do is sway. Unless you want your audience to get seasick, anyway. Which again is CRAZY. Thirdly, staying as put as a soldier won't do either, because it is BORING. Move within your speaking space to show who is in command.

So, to effectively speak in a debate you must strike the correct balance between two extremes of being too CRAZY or being BORING. You must make sure to make sure you aren't over anxious about debating, are dynamic enough throuoght your speech, use your voice in such a way that it is easy and pleasant to listen to, make sure your points are supported by your gestures and face expressions and that you show everyone who has the command of the floor by body movement.

"According to most studies, people's number one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. Death is number two. Does that seem right? That means to the average person, if you have to go to a funeral, you're better off in the casket than doing the eulogy."- Jerry Seinfeld

The five types of BP debates.

All motions as for example: This house believes abortion is murder or This house would accept Turkey in EU or This house believes that police should search houses to prevent terrorism, have something in common. They can basically be arranged into five basic types of debates. (Thanks to guys from Oxford for explaining them to us):

1. Ends vs. Means
2. Isolation vs. Integration
3. Security vs. Civil liberties
4. Freedom vs. Preventing 3rd party harm
5. Long term vs. Short term

The first example falls into the principles of the Freedom vs. Preventing 3rd party harm debate type. The second motion example fits the principles of Isolation vs. Integration and third motion under the Security vs. Civil liberties type.

If you look at almost any random debate motion, you will see that it "fits" into the principles of these five debate types. Some motions may include a mix of two or even three types of principle debates, but still almost every debate is about these basic ideas. And knowing how to qualify any motion under these basic principle debates is a skill I have observed in many experienced British parliamentary debaters. So why is that such an important skill? Well, because these debaters then always know exactly in which principle spheres the debate is and the understanding of these ideas makes it far easier for them to come up with arguments, examples and underlying logic.

But understanding that all debates are basically about five basic principle debates is also important for your scores, because good adjudicators are also very familiars with these types of debates and if they hear a concept they are familiar with, they know you really understand what you are debating about. That means they are more likely to understand your argumentation in the way you want to present it and therefore consider your speech as having more weight in a debate as such.

Every time you see a motion it is important that you:

1. Qualify it under one or maybe two "Five BP debates" .
2. Ask yourself what is the problem and what principles I can use to explain it in favour of my side.
3. Ask yourself what do I have to prove to tip the scale onto my side of these principles behind five basic debates? So for example if you are the opposition in the this house would invade Iran debate, you should prove that isolation is a better idea (principle) then intervention in this case.
4. Use appropriate argument names (tag names) in the debate itself. These make it easier for the adjudicators to understand the ideas you are presenting under the underlying principle.

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them. - Henry David Thoreau.

The begining.

Debate is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

Many Slovenians like to debate. Many of them are very good debaters. Many of them have a lot of experience. Many of them have a lot of knowledge...

But many of us are still on the way to get there. Practice can only get you that far, so we need more knowledge and knowledge is perhaps too widely spread and therefore too difficult to access.

So this blog is going to focus on accumulating as much knowledge as Slovenian (and guest) debaters can accumulate. So how are we going to do that?

1. Getting many people involved. The idea is that anyone who has the time and the energy, can add a piece of debating knowledge...a useful link, a link to a debate movie, useful research, notes from an academy lecture... Remember, together we are strong, so if you would like to add something just contact me or any other member of this blog and you will soon be able to contribute to this humble cause.
2. By making sure that all the accumulated information is systematised in such a way that it is most easily accessed. So we are going to support a search option and are going to use the following labels: Theory, Research, Useful link, Motion analyse, Debate analyse, Debate video...
3. By commenting and adding perspectives and ideas to the issues brought up in the post.

Debating knowledge is important for both experienced and little less experienced debaters. We should make sure that this knowledge is more easily accessible to all and that it accumulates instead of gets lost. So if you feel like you would like to add your piece of debate wisedom, contact me via email or just write a comment.