This year’s AUDC drew participants from
many countries, mostly South-East Asia, for example,Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines,Malaysia. There are even people coming from Bangladesh and Kazathstan!! So overall it was really an eye-opening
experience. At least I could see meet many foreigners, although not much
chances to interact with many of them. It was great to see so many people with
diverse backgrounds united with one language under one tournament.
The Host
This year is the third year of AUDC, the
first was hosted by NUS, second by Antenio De Manila University (ADMU). This
year it was organised by Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB). A small campus as
they called it, it actually had quite a big compound and it was one of the
oldest universities in Indonesia. Believe me, many buildings in the university campus are made of
lots of woods. They are not just bricks!! Look at the picture. On the left is
the entrance of ITB. The picture on the right was taken at one of the walkway. 

& another seem unbelievable fact –
almost no building in the campus has got an air-conditioner!!! (I said almost
coz I didn’t go into each classroom to check…hehe) You know why?? Because Bandung itself is
situated in the uplands of West Jawa, and I heard the area we were staying was about 1km above sea
level. So the weather was always cool and not humid. Even day time, you wont sweat
much even if you walk under the sun, unlike in Malaysia. Meanwhile at night, the temperature could reach about 18-21 degree Celcius,
comparable to that in our Genting Highlands. With that, I had no need to switch
on the air-cond in my hotel room at all at night, although I still
did…haha…
The Adjudication Test
In AUDC, IMU sent two teams and two
adjudicators. Prasad, Hai Liang, Yih Seong, Ben, Deborah, Jesse
made up two
teams whereas Yu Jeat and I went as adjudicators. Different from many other
debate competitions, in AUDC the adjudicators need to go through a test to
gauge their competencies. We had to observe a live debate staged by selected
debaters and adjudicate the debate, ie give the win and explain the reasons for
your decision, in paper. In most other debate competitions, adjudicators were
registered according to their seniority instead of going through a test. (Left: My Adjudicator Tag..Haven’t written my name yet..hehe)
Being a newbie in debate with less than
one-year experience, I actually didn’t expect much, yet I was rather confident.
When the result was released, guess what, my test score was only 1….haha..*sob*…The
highest was 5, which made the person eligible to become a single chair in
debate. Getting a test score of 1 means I could only be a trainee and my
decision would not affect the decision made by the rest of the panels. Duh, of
course I was disappointed.
Nevertheless, the system was such that all
adjudicators in one round can have discussions and then evaluate each other
(evaluation form provided) and the scores will be accumulated as s/he went
through each debate round. Hence, a trainee who obtained a score of 1 in the
Adjudication Test could get an accumulated score of 2 or 3 and hence be
promoted after several rounds of debate. On the contrary, an adjudicator with a
test score of 5 could have a lesser accumulated score after several rounds and
hence be “down-graded”.
Adjudicators is the term used for judges in
debate. In a round of debate, there will normally be a panel of adjudicators,
made up of a Chair, and 2 or 4 panellists (note the odd numbers). Some debate
rounds can have only a single Chair with no panellists. Trainees would be
assigned to any of the panels in any debate. Their decisions will not be taken
into account but they will be evaluated just like all other adjudicators.