LSE Open 2007 – What it is, what it shall be, what it was

[Sorry about the no-posting yesterday - afternoon got crazy, then had an RSA lecture to run off to.]

First, a protected minute

Before I get too controversial/inflammatory, and mainly for the debating readers (a tragically large portion of my friends, if facebook is any measure of my life), here is all the more objective data:

• the Burges Salmon LSE Open 2007 (Open meaning Independent and Composite teams could attend)
• was free (ie- £0)
• had 94 teams.
• Beck and I, as Team Kath & Kim, broke (even my Mum knows what this means now) 4th, with rather low speaker scores. (A number of teams on lower team points had higher speaker points – see the tab.)
• We were Semi-Finalists (before crashing out fairly spectacularly.)

The motions were:

Round 1: This house would Directly Elect the British Prime Minister.
Round 2: This house would Admit Taiwan to NATO.
Round 3: This house would provide tax breaks to married couples with children.
Round 4: This house would criminalise smoking and drinking while pregnant.
Round 5: This house would allow individual British people to sell their citizenship.
Quarter-final: This house would introduce a 28% flat rate of tax on any income above £9000 per year.
Semi-final: This house believes those suspected of crimes against humanity should be tried in British courts irrespective of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the defendants or victims
Final: This house would leave the European Union.

What we were expecting – The good

I did get a little homesick for Bubbles, Jimbo and Rock (indeed all of UNSW with their nicknaming prowess/appreciation) when we saw all the regular stereotypes you see at any Uni debating tournament: the Jesus Pirate, the Frodo, the Pisswreck, etc. (Yes, this post is now deeply in-jokey, normal people may want to return later.)

There was also the same high-stress individuals who get freaked if anyone moves across the screen during the tab, who move to the door when they’re OG and who laugh obediently at all the Convenors and CAs gags (which were, naturally, hilarious.) As one would expect, lots of nerdy types, law students, debating t-shirts, etc.

Another thing that goes under ‘Good’ was a chance to see D-Loh (chief cheerleader and grateful recipient of Aussie debating new) and Fitch, mostly because he’s Australian, even if he’s still Fitch.

What I wasn’t expecting / The bad

I think Beck & I both thought it would be a fun, safe thing to try – with lots of Australasian tournaments under out belts, what was there to know? Somewhat akin to eating at McD’s every time you go somewhere new, just to see what the differences are. We had no idea that British debaters are making an effort with their own style at Worlds – turns out 2 PoIs and not misrepresenting people is only for International tournaments (in some cases…)

Also, it turns out that two random Australian sheilas (sure, with some anti-Pom humour, better described as Pom-baiting/bashing at times, sure) weren’t all that welcome. We did make a few good friends, but I think if I go to another IV, I’ll judge to get to know some more people. I don’t really mind over-hearing teams referring to a loss to us, even with the DCA or CA as the judge, as inexplicable, but you’d think after 7 debates in 2 days we’d have come across a few more friendly faces. To be fair, the tournament was probably less friendly because there was no tournament accommodation and not much food, so none of the interaction that drives. So it was unlike any tournament we have ‘back home’ – but we did have lots of laughs between us about how leper-ish we were.

What was really strange was the number of people who asked where we were from, the followed our responses (UNSW & USyd) with a mention of someone famous from there (usually Fetherston, sometimes Ivan) but then always walked away. Yikes! I presume they googled us later and decided we were OK, but hard to say. Also, the people pulling faces in the Semi, which was not that friendly or helpful (we were exhausted and needed help – do not have 4-debates-in-a-day-stamina.) I’d like to think that any visiting/raiding Britons wouldn’t find any Aussie tournament so hostile.

In the end though, the final was a bit of a boozey, blokey ego-fest in a pub. As not all 8 members of the debate were that funny, it mostly was just tosh – we were soooo relieved to have crashed out when we did!

What I wasn’t too impressed by/The ugly

[Firstly, Fitch is a celebrity in the UK - in a good, generally non-infamous way. Think Neighbours star in a pantomime. Odd. ]

I would have thought a group of debaters would consider lack of female participation to be more of a thing – although the “Equity Officer” Willard was pretty funny, the lack of women was not. Sometimes all the PC-politics of AIDA etc does drive me crazy, but it is easy to forget we’ve got it pretty sunny, diverse and tolerant Down Under. An interesting insight into some of the more misogynistic adjudicators Kate & I had at Worlds.

So quite a negative entry – did actually have lots of fun with Beck, who was my ‘crash’ as well. Just the whole thing was odd, the debating was not what I expected, and it really was another planet!