Two Weeks League

Students watching thier team in debate during debate championship

REPORT FOR TWO WEEKS DEBATE LEAGUE ORGANIZED BY DEBATE AND DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE CENTRE NIGERIA
6th-21st November 2007

The debate league started with one week orientation session for all the teachers and students from the participating schools. DEDERC trainers led by the Coordinator; Jerry Nwigwe, Franklin Ubi and Patrick Dodeye provided the participants with information on Karl Popper formats and role of speakers, Debate rules, Judging debates and other debate techniques and methodologies. This training was necessitated because so many schools don’t have debate clubs or they are not strong enough to participate in the tournament. Mock debates were later used to assess the readiness of the teachers and students to participate in the 2 weeks long exercise. The debate commenced with the preliminaries of which 16 schools were organized into groups of four each. And the topic for the first round was ‘Resolved that term limits for political office holders should be included in the Nigerian Constitution’. The winners and best runner –up progressed to the next round of eight. After the Second round draw was made, there were great excitement in the process because some strong debating schools were grouped against each other and they were set for battle royal; meaning one school will definitely go at the end of the day. Some schools like Hillcrest High School that had never lost debate contest in Cross River State were grouped with another powerful school; Unical International Secondary School. The debated on the topic Resolved that Immunity clause should be allowed in Nigeria constitution. All these topics tends to address local issues that is been debated by the general public looking at that moment. The winners of this knock out stage later went into another round, and this time on global debate topics/ issues. The first topics were on the best effective way to combat terrorism and also on global warming. On declaring the event open; the Coordinator of Debate And Development Resource Center Nigeria, Mr. Jerry Nwigwe welcomed all the participating schools and urged them to use this great opportunity to learn and interact with other students in a good atmosphere of debate. He later gave some insights on the benefits of debate to students, communities and the nation.
Following the debates there were several floor speeches when the motion was put to the floor;; the students’ audiences were allowed to discuss the topic and also to vote for the side that has done the best job. The students displayed an overwhelming enthusiasm for more events to be hosted in their school and also promised to carry on with the efforts to develop debating in their school. They also requested for education/ cultural exchange between Nigeria students and other students from all around the world.

The Finals of this debate has been shifted to next February, 2008 when the schools will resume. There was an imposition of one month vacation to students by Cross River State Government from 1st of December.

The Objectives for organizing this public debate are as follows:
· To strengthen debates in schools and public life
· To increase issue awareness on the minds of the youths
· To identify and prepare Nigerian representatives in International debate tournaments
· To strengthen existing teachers debate networks so as to recruit more teachers/members
· To introduce debates in schools that doesn’t have debate clubs
· To participate in the global debate on climatic changes

2nd International Debate Workshop in Nigeria

The Debate And Development Resource Centre- Nigeria, which coordinates Nigeria Debate Movement, a network of debate clubs across Nigeria in collaboration with International Debate Education Association organized the 2ndedition of international debate workshop in Calabar- Nigeria from May 29th - 1st June 2006.
The event started with the arrival of the participant from several states of Nigeria on the 28th May, 2006
DAY 1:
On the 29th
May 2006 the training commenced with arrivals and registration of delegates, which was facilitated by a volunteer with DEDERC, Mr. Kunle Odeyemi. Followed closely was welcome address by the host organization. Mr. Jerry Nwigwe; the coordinator of DEDERC. He welcome all the participants to the workshop, he explained that the workshop was a follow up of the 1stworkshop, which was held in Lagos in May 2005. Speaking further he said DEDERC is a youth led not -for- profit voluntary association that operates through its Project Nigeria Debate Movement to allow student to participate in an education based activities that promotes communication, interpersonal and leadership skills through active engagement in discussion and participation in community development.
Speaking further, he introduced some of his partners present: Mr. Ayi Ita Ayi the Special Assistant to the Governor on Job Creation and Mr. Marcin Zaleski the facilitator of the workshop as well as the representative from IDEA The next address presented was by Ayi Ita Ayi, who explained that he has been following the activities of the organization with interest. He commended the organizers for their wonderful initiative and for the timely focus on Debating now that the standard of education is falling. He explained that the introduction of debates into schools would help increase the quality of graduates which the university system would produce because debating would help enhance the confidence of the students and this would in turn enhance their thinking and behavior and at the end there would be a better citizenry. Speaking further, he admonished the organizers to partner with secondary school board and the commissioner of Education in other that the initiative would be a sustainable one.
After his Address, Mr. Marcin Zaleski, the IDEA Director of Training talked on the history and mission of IDEA. He also discussed further the programs of IDEA.Marcin Zaleski later introduced the course and proposed the agenda followed by a discussion of the expectations of the participants.
The trainees were then introduced with a film on American parliamentary debate. After the film, the participants were asked to comment on their observation.. The facilitator later explained that the format is used by University student
in America and the student are only informed about the topic 15 minutes before a debate tournament. He went further to reveal the importance of the format, which enables students to move from shyness to boldness and the ability to think on their feet. He explained that the student exhibited skills, intelligence, critical thinking, analytical skills and public speaking.
The next session explored all the debate components, types of resolution, debate formats and roles of speakers. He said that resolution also known, as motion is a statement that reasonable people can argue and can disagree. Marcin Zaleski gave an illustrated PowerPoint introduction on types of resolution, which includes; Resolution of fact, Resolution of values, and resolution of policies. The facilitator also illustrated the components of Debate.
During the feedback session participants and trainers reviewed all the components. The participants were meant to understand the difference between rebuttal and rebuttal. The facilitator answered more questions that were asked by the participants.
After the lunch break, the facilitator introduced the next session, which were Debate formats and Affirmative strategies. He explained the elements that make up a format, which includes number of speakers, time per speaker, order of speaking, cross examination, intervals and preparation time. He explained that equal timing for affirmative and negative is used in developing a format to create a point for balance. He also introduced kinds of formats which includes Karl Popper, British parliamentary, and American parliamentary. He said that Karl popper formats is designed for secondary school student which is made up with two teams and six speakers,. He went further to highlight all the elements of Karl Popper. Mr. Marcin further explained that the strategies for the affirmative depends on the resolution, thus in dealing with different types of resolution, the following must be done; define terms of resolutions, set parameter for debate, present 3-4 argument in support of the resolution. He also went further to explain how to present a plan if it is a policy topic, and the strategies includes;
Present the status quo
Identify the problem
Outline the impact of the problem
Outline the impact of the problem
Introduce the policy designed to solve the problem
Provide some justification for implementation
Explain the benefit of success.
The participants were later divided into five groups to develop cases following affirmative strategies on the topic
’The Nigeria federal government would put an end to Niger Delta crises. Each group was asked to reconvene the next day for the review / presentation of their various task.
DAY 2
The session commenced the 2ndday with a continuation of the group work exercise. Participants were asked to brainstorm on possible negative strategies, which the negative side could use to attack the affirmative side. The responses rose where;
Validate the status quo.
Deal with every single argument.
Strike a balance.
Look out for a deficiency in the affirmative plan.
Address the case.
Use counter plan and criticize.
At 11am there was a tea break session, when participants reconvened at 11:15am .The facilitator elaborated on the strategies mentioned. He explained the need for participants to address a narrow issue, he also revealed that the choice of the issue or the problem is called significance .He unraveled that the strategies could become stalls which could be used in real life situations to solve the problems in business plan.
He explained the need for debaters to tell their audience what there would hear. He used examples of some resolutions to draw up analogies. The facilitator introduced the topic after the lunch break: Developing persuasive skills to the end, the group was divided into five groups to discuss on the essential elements of persuasive skill.
The responses which ensued from the second group work where as follows: Logical thinking, choice of language, style, clarity, targeted audience, use of wake up calls such as silence rhetorical questions, eye contact, innovative, cohesive development, tone of the person, mastery of the topic. Hereafter, the facilitator engaged participants in another group work to unravel how to make children participate and become good speakers. The responses were thus:
Use Motivation/ Correction, comic relieve, expose the students to good and bad models and have them criticize each model. Use Socrates dialogue by asking questions, make the students practice, make the children speak individually. At the end of the group work, the facilitator Mr. Marcin introduced the topic. On structure of Argument, he spoke on the model, which was propounded by Prof. Steven Toulmin and explained that the model fits communication rather than mathematics and that the Americans appreciated the model.The model he said was based on 3 element; Claim, Data, and Warrant. He later explained the relationships existing amongst t
he three elements. The facilitator also spoke on types of reasoning which includes; Reasoning by example, Analogy, Cause and effect, Reasoning from sign and from authority. He also spoke on the advantages and disadvantages of different types of reasoning.
He urged the debate coaches to ensure that their students take note of all these before attempting to use them. Assignments were later given to the teachers to cut an article from Newspapers and let the students criticize them.
DAY 3
The session started at 9.05am with brief recap of Day two training after which the facilitator,
Mr. Marcin introduced Debate program into three; competitive Debate, public Debate and outreach debate. He explained that each type has its own benefit. Furthermore, he divided the participant into 3 groups to Brainstorm on the following:
COMPONENTS
Desired outcome
Steps to be taken to achieve this outcome, their role to get this going after one hour group work deliberations. Participants came up with various responses and Marcin added value to each group
Competitive Debate. Under Competitive Debate, he explained the need to choose one format that has been tested. He listed the following to be taken note of. Which includes ;
Train judges
Develop a guide, which would be 10-20 pages for the students
Make room for proper logistics
Choose a topic
Sell a topic to a funder
Contact colleagues in different schools with a team of 6 students make the students excited and offer them assistance e.t.c.
He went further to explain the pubic debate. He stressed on the need to involve media and the audience during the debate physically or through phoning in programs. He explained the venue
of the debate must be constant to enhance public participation. After highlighting all about public debate; went ahead to talk about outreach debate here he explained the need for participants to take advantage of the following; the methodology, Format, Training content. Note for facilitators also go beyond debates and thus use the Debating skills to train people on communication and conflict management issues
The lunch Break lasted for an hour when participants reconvened, the facilitator introduced to them ways in which they could use to gain support.
He divided the participants into 3 session viz institution or policy issues, civil society or community group Grassroots or people. After this process the participants were divided into their regions to identify different stakeholders who might assist them in developing their programs. It is also worthy to reveal that the state Ministry of Education sent in delegate to observed the workshop and send recommendation to the commissioner for Education. The name of the observer from the ministry is Mr. Oyeyemi
.
At the end of the day session, participants were taken to a local internet café where they were introduced
to IDEA website http://www.idebate.org/ as part of the training activities.

DAY 4
The day four programme began with an introduction of the schools that will participate in the show debate. The facilitator started the days session with judging debate. The participants were asked to discuss qualities of a good debate judge. They responded as thus; a good judge should have the following qualities; objectivity , good listener, poise and calm, assertive, understand the rules, sense of humor, honesty, stay awake.
He stated that the quality of a debate topic results in the quality of judging. He then analyzed some sampled resolutions and how they affect what a judge would decide. He gave examples like: resolved that too much knowledge is harmful, resolved that child labour should be abolished
It was analyzed that resolutions such as these can really put debaters and judges in tight corners of trying to define too many issues and may end up not arguing constructively. He encouraged everyone to consider critically what sorts of resolutions are selected and how effective they can be judged.
After the break, there was a show debate between Hillcrest High School and International school University of Calabar. When the debate was over, the facilitator Marcin Zaleski analyzed the debate and later gives
adviceto the debaters on how to improve on their skills. The session ended with issuance of certificates and CD-ROMs to the participants by Jerry Nwigwe and Marcin Zaleski. The local Television station Nigeria Television Authority (NTA) also had an interview session with Marcin, which was later Broadcasted live during the evening news. Marcin had also granted an interview to another Television station, CRBC on the first day of the training which was broadcasted.
Evaluation forms were also administered to the participants at the end of the sessions