Touted as the warm-up to the WUDCs in Chennai, the IIT Bombay Parliamentary Debate turned out to be a mixed experience for most participants. 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 - 5/5 This was a no brainer. With quality participation from most debating institutions in the country, competition in the tournament was excellent. The presence of multiple international participants as competitive debaters added to the “Pre-WUDC” image of the tournament, and ensured the out rounds were high quality match ups. Quality of Adjudicators - 4.3 /5 Multiple subsidised adjudicators from across the world ensured good decision making in most rounds. A high quality core meant debaters were largely satisfied with the feedback and constructive, and had lots to learn. The internal adj pool however, did not match the tournament standards. Some debaters believed
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.
Over a period of experimentation, I have identified certain approaches to prep time that have yielded good returns for me. Let it be a standing disclaimer for all my posts henceforth on such matters that I do not claim my observations to be the rule by any yardstick and one might feel free to experiment for oneself. In the course of my growth as a debater, I started off with the primate's approach towards prep time. Beat every neuron in your head and thrash out as many arguments you have heard of or can think of. Try to stitch together a case from these independent scraps of wisdom and head out to battle. Every now and then there would be a moment of genius and there would be a well calculated stratagem deployed in the form of a delicately twisted definition or restriction to tilt the odds. There was even a phase when I was made to believe by a certain peach of a senior that a "good definition" was half the debate won. Hence a large chunk of the prep time went into