Tournament Review - 7th NUJS PD 2014.

By -

The NUJS PD has always been a highly rated event, with quality debating its USP, and a long list of stalwarts having won the prestigious tournament over the past few editions. A part of the Tier I PDs in India as per the INDC tournament rating system in 2013, lets analyse how the 2014 edition of the tournament fared.

(This review is written on the basis of the data collected via feedback forms given out to debaters after the tournament, and aims to reflect their opinions.)

Quality of Teams - 4.5 /5

The team quality seemed well above average, with multiple strong teams breaking to the out rounds, resulting in numerous brilliant match-ups. Being an open-tournament, the presence of multiple cross teams increased the average standard of debating by a mile, so much that three out of the four semi-finalist teams were non-institutional.

A separate novice break allowed freshers a chance to progress in the tournament, and get a taste of post break debating at high quality tournaments.

Quality of Adjudicators - 2.71 /5

Quality of judging seemed to be a spoil sport in an otherwise well run tournament. With over 70 teams, the tournament saw a lot of dependance on the internal judge pool, which was criticised openly. Debaters went on to term the same as “very very shady”, and accusations of adjudicators who were “unaware of the technicalities behind judging PDs” flew throughout the campus. Speaker score marking was another area where the judge pool was seen as incompetent, with no real uniformity.

Running of the Tournament - 3 /5

The OC was helpful and friendly across the “LONG” waits in the auditorium for tabs and matchups. The issue of not sticking to the pre mentioned schedule by quite a margin meant rounds stretching into the night, and most post debate plans had to take a backseat. The post breaks ran comparatively on schedule, with four rounds not extending beyond the 7 PM mark.

Accommodation and Hospitality - 3.2 / 5

The accommodation was a minor issue throughout the tournament - with certain contingents being put up in reception hallways, and other shady halls. The debate venues ranged from average to amazingly comfortable (Moot Court and Lecture Halls - Check), and the After Party was an absolute hit, with everything a debater needed post 4 days of endless debating. Minor issues like the availability of water bottles and chairs during prep time were reported, and could be looked into for future editions.

Prizes and Subsidies provided - 3.57 /5

The organisers paid the winners in cash at the end of the debate, a step much appreciated by the entire debating circuit. The awards seemed generally satisfactory, and were not an issue. There were suggestions of a better split of the amount used to subsidise adjudicators though, to accommodate numerically more adjudicators and help with the problem of judging in the preliminary rounds of such a big tournament.

To provide feedback for other tournaments, click here.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is the ultimate self-esteem corrector sarkari naukri Thank you for your post; it is a very important distinction 
December 29, 2015 at 10:37 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THW completely ban smoking.

By -
Image
Motion :- THW completely ban smoking. House :- Western Liberal Democracies. Opposition Case: [Courtesy - Vishakha Wijenayake ] Each and every individual has a right to decide those matters that are most intimately connected one’s well-being, including the duration and quality of one’s life and the circumstances of one’s death. According to this view, the right to smoke, or engage in any kind of self harm stems from a deeper right to self-determination, a right to shape the circumstances of our lives so long as we do not harm or imperil others. The State as an external party lacks sufficient knowledge of an individual’s own chosen structure of values and preferences to make an informed decision to coerce an individual to comply with the values of the Government. An influence can be categorized as undue only in circumstances where it is deceptive, and where it is aggressive to the extent that it blocks out contradictory sources of information, making it impossible for an individual
Read more

INDC 2013 Prize Money

By -
The Prize Money structure for INDC 2013: The Indian National Debate Champions walk away with a cool INR 45,000 , whereas the runners up bag INR 30,000 . Furthermore, we will have a 'Best Adjudication Institution' award with a cash prize of INR 15,000 (to be used for defraying travel costs of adjudicators from the winning institution; while adjudicating at future tournaments).
Read more

The Case of Speluncean Explorers (In a nutshell)

By -
Image
HYPOTHETICAL: THE CASE OF THE SPELUNCEAN EXPLORERS FACTS: Five cave explorers got trapped underground, whilst on an expedition, following the collapse of a cave wall. Any scope of rescue was at least 10 days away and the last radio transmission received by them was from a doctor (following which the radio; their only means of communicating with the outside world ran out of battery), conveyed to them that the only manner in which they could survive till the arrival of the rescue team would be if they were to consume one of their own, given that they had run out of food and water supplies. One of the explorers, Whetmore, suggested that they throw dice to determine (i.e. random probability) who amongst them should be the sacrifice. This was held as reasonable by everyone after which, they all agreed to follow through with the plan of action. However, just before the dice was thrown, Whetmore backed out of the agreement. He was outvoted, and a dice was thrown on his behalf.
Read more