The handicaps we experience results from our being Asians who come from Asian institutions that do not have resounding names in the white community. Arguably, because they think we have not proven ourselves in white-dominated universities, we’re probably not good enough to be their peers (This is an explanation for non-white success stories who debated for predominantly white institutions.). Or maybe because our accents are far different from theirs, they don’t bother to hear through our accents and understand the material we bring to the table (even if WE listen through THEIR accents).

I agree with some of the posters. Most of the time, these heuristics are probably not even conscious. But bigotry is almost often unconscious, and conscious efforts must be made to counter them.

In order to counter bigotry, people must accept it exists. But herein lies the rub: how do we PROVE that bigotry does exist in Worlds?

Maybe the sheer volume of anecdotes we all have to share about our experiences in Worlds are enough to convince us victims of bigotry, but it will hardly be good enough to convince the bigots.

This means that the problem is no longer the ability to understand or communicate. God knows even Asians have to put up with American, British and Australian accents, and be forced to parse through all the mish-mash. But is the same rigor also applied to Asians? Is there really true prioritization of arguments over inflections? How do we really know this is unintentional? Does intent even matter when subsequent results are unchangable, set in stone?

People go to the Worlds each and every time hoping that things would change. It is, after all, the most liberal community created. That’s why people want to win it. A competition that tags itself as a World Championship, despite all its misgivings, has the prestige that other people of the non-debating community would also understand. Even track and field events in the Olympics, marred by doping scandals, hold the same prestige as they did.

Something is definitely wrong. And a Worlds is not a Worlds when ASIA, the biggest contributor of teams in the tournament, has been disenfranchised and is left to compete for non-”main” break awards.

Adjudicators judge debates and they can decide to favor any team without any consequence. ERGO, your whole claim that “you can’t keep a good team down” doesn’t hold much water.

Ateneo A was screwed by an Australian judge by giving them 69s (scores 6 points below the absolute mean for this tournament).I can’t imagine how two of the best speakers in Asia could deserved such low scores.

But having read the motions, I would agree with Jojo, the topics are skewed toward concerns more at home with the winning countries.

And finally, please don’t assume too much about my ignorance. It’s overrated.

cheers,
nash

It was probably unintentional, but at the same time efforts could (and should!) have been made towards attenuating a bias that only becomes felt during rounds, and only by teams unlucky enough to be coming from the wrong countries.

Peace.

This does not mean I don’t believe racism does not exist in these tournaments. I know racism when i see one. I live in a country where it pervades in society but pretends it does not exist. But that is another issue altogether.

I may have been gone in the debate world that long that I don’t feel it a passionate issue as you do. But I’m sure you know also that training and mastery of language are key aspects in debate. :))

I thought I’d never hear this.

And this:

“think that no matter how skewed (racism/bias) a competition is, a very good participant will always win out in the end.”

Both the cynic and the optimist have very distinct views that I do not share.

And don’t get me wrong, I am for Asians winning a Worlds title. A few yrs back RK almost brought it home. But as I say, it’s tough competition. besides, we have to admit we are not native english speakers. no matter how fluent we are (and believe me we are one of the best!), we cannot match their mastery of their own language. that matters a looooot in debate and argumentation

Cheers,

Jojo of UPD

I think that no matter how skewed (racism/bias) a competition is, a very good participant will always win out in the end.

cheers,
nash

Lewis Iwu is black. Samir Deger Sen is Asian. (Oxford Team A) The universities maybe be ‘caucasian’, but the competitors are from different backgrounds and races. Otherwise, if it was a foregone conclusion that only “caucasian” universities will go to the finals, why join at all?