bw-medium

 

modelUN

 

 

POLI 4402.2

2011-2012

 

 

 

Professor: Marc Doucet

Office: McNally North 403

Telephone: 491-8604

Email: marc.doucet@smu.ca

Office hours: Tuesdays & Thursdays

9:00am to 12:00pm

Class Time and location: AT 306

Mondays & Wednesdays

2:30pm to 3:45pm

 

 

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION

The objective of this course is to foster a greater understanding of the United Nations (UN) and its role within world politics. The course will revolve around the possible participation in a Model UN Conference either within Canada or abroad. Students will be given an opportunity to gain in-depth knowledge of the UN’s activities and procedures. Students will be required to engage in activities outside of the classroom. The pedagogical base of this course is experiential learning.

 

COURSE OBJECTIVES

a.       Understand how the UN works in practice (what are the constraints, pressures, and possibilities);

b.      Understand UN protocol and diplomacy;

c.       Engage in drafting UN style resolutions and position papers;

d.      Provide an opportunity to build negotiation, leadership, and communication skills;

e.       Reflect on the limits and potential of the current international system;

f.        Engage in experiential learning.

 

EVALUATION

1)      Topics, Committee, Country, and Rules of Procedure “Binder”: 15%.Each student will prepare a binder containing all the information regarding topics, committee, country, rules of procedure and any other relevant information that has been gathered over the course of the semester. This binder will accompany students to the NMUN conference and serve as a valuable source of information over the course of the conference. An in-class session describing the main sections of your binder will be held on Monday, January 9th. In addition, students will present their binders in class in conjunction with their co-committee member on Wednesday, March 7th.

 

2)      Formal Position Paper: 25%. (maximum 2 pages, single space with 10 pt Times Roman font). An example of a Position Paper can be found in your background guides. You will note from the background guide instructions that formatting MUST BE strictly followed. 

a)      Final Draft 20 % (DUE DATE, Friday, February 17th. Graded copy returned to the students via email no later than Friday, February 24th).

b)      Final Formal Copy 5% (DUE DATE, March 1st). The final copy will be sent to the NMUN conference organizers. Please note: NMUN organizers will not consider late position papers for awards. It is therefore absolutely essential that position papers be sent no later than March 1st.

c)      Committees with two delegates will submit one joint position paper. The mark for joint position papers will be assigned to both delegates.

 

3)      In-class debates: 20% for individual speeches and 5% for delegation awards: The description of the debates and delegation awards is found below. Attendance will be taken at each class. Each student must sign the attendance sheet before leaving class. Given the unique nature of this course, it is absolutely vital that every student attend all course sessions in order to be properly prepare for the NMUN conference.

 

4)      Rules of procedure quiz: 10%: A multiple choice and true or false quiz in order to test your knowledge of the Conference Rules of Procedure. The complete rules of procedure are found in your Committee Background Guide and the Delegate Preparation Guide.

 

5)      Full Mock Simulation 5%: See description in the detail schedule below.

 

6)      Attendance and participation while at the conference (20%): Attendance and participation while at the conference is mandatory. This means that you must attend your committee sessions from beginning to end without exceptions. The ultimate objective of this course is to provide an opportunity for students to actively participate in a large scale university level model UN conference. To this end, active student participation is considered essential. Moreover, the possibility of winning awards at the NMUN conference depends on the active participation of all delegates in all committee sessions.  

 

7)      PLEASE READ CAREFULLY:

a.       Registration in poli 4402.2 does not guarantee that you will attend a Model UN conference. In the event that, for whatever reason, you are unable to attend, your final mark, if necessary, will be based on work performed under sections 1 through 5 above. Under exceptional circumstances, the Professor reserves the right to bar a student from attending the conference as a delegate from poli 4402.2. Such exceptional circumstances can include, but are not limited to, repeated absences from the course and/or lack of preparation.

b.      In addition to maintaining a passing grade, ALL components of the course evaluation listed above must be completed in order to pass this course and attend the NMUN conference (with the exception noted in 7 (a)).

c.       Additional student responsibilities:

·         Travel and related expenses;

·         Membership in Saint Mary’s University Model UN Society (SMUMUNS)

·         Executive for SMUMUNS: positions to be filled (President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer);

·         Weekly meetings beginning in September;

·         Fundraising activities;

·         Constructive dialogue with others. Respect for the opinions of others;

·         Group work.

 

 

ACADEMIC FRAUD AND PLAGIARISM

Students found to have committed an act of fraud or plagiarism will automatically, and without consultation, receive an ‘F’ on the assignment. A copy of an Incident Report Form will be sent to the student, the chairperson of the department, the Dean and the Registrar as per University regulations. Each student must be aware of what constitutes academic offenses under the University’s regulations. The 2011-2012 Academic Calendar provides the following definitions of plagiarism, cheating, falsification and tampering under ‘Academic Integrity and Student Responsibility’ on pages 21 and 22.

Plagiarism

Cheating

Falsification

Tampering

“The presentation of words, ideas or techniques of another as one’s own. Plagiarism is not restricted to literary works and applies to all forms of information or ideas that belong to another (e.g., computer programs, mathematical solutions, scientific experiments, graphical images, or data)”.

 

Examples of plagiarism include:

·         quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing text without proper acknowledgment;

·         paraphrasing too closely (e.g., changing only a few words or simply rearranging the text);

·         downloading all or part of a paper, journal article, or book from the Internet or a library database and presenting it as one’s own work;

·         purchasing documentation and presenting it as one’s own work;

·         sharing papers including the selling of essays, tests, or other assignments.

“The attempt to secure a grade by unethical means. Knowingly assisting someone to cheat is itself cheating”.

 

Examples of cheating include:

·         impersonating someone during a test or exam;

·         copying or sharing information during a test or exam;

·         using or possessing unauthorized materials (e.g., notes, books, calculators) during a test or exam;

·         obtaining or looking at a copy of a test or exam before it is administered;.

·         improper use of technology (e.g., Personal Digital Assistants to store and retrieve information during an exam);

·         unauthorized use of communication technology (eg: cell phones, pagers, Blackberries, etc);

·         unauthorized collaboration between students when individual work is required.

·         submitting the same work for credit in more than one course without the permission of the instructors involved;

 

“It is an offence to falsify any academic record or to use a falsified record”.

 

Examples of falsification include:

·         submitting a false excuse for missing a class, exam, etc. (e.g., forging a medical or death certificate);

·         falsifying course work (e.g., altering or making up data, using fake citations in a bibliography);

·         changing the answers on a returned assignment and resubmitting it to be reevaluated;

·         submitting false information on a university admission form or other documentation;

·         misrepresentation of knowledge of a language by providing inaccurate or incomplete information about one’s linguistic educational history;

·         non-disclosure of previous post-secondary enrolment; presentation of another’s credentials as one’s own.

 

“It is an offence to tamper with University library materials or computer system resources in any way which would deprive others of their use”.

 

Examples of tampering include:

·         destroying, hiding, or stealing library materials;

·         altering or destroying university computer programs or files without authorization;

·         accessing and altering official records without authorization.

 

“Assisting someone in the commission of dishonest behavior is an offence subject to penalty”, Academic Calendar, 2011-2012, p.22.

 

AWARDS CRITERIA

 

1.       DELEGATION AWARDS

The National Model United Nations Conference has established criteria for evaluating delegate performance.  Each element is equally important to the overall awards determination process. All committees are weighted equally, and delegations are rated on a mathematical formula in relation to the total number of committees represented by the individual Member State.

Following the conclusion of sessions, NMUN volunteer staff members recommend 10% of the delegations in their respective committees for awards, based on performance throughout the course of each session. Each staff member has received training in evaluating delegate performance using these standards, and all staff decisions related to awards determinations are final.  A delegation’s overall score is the number of times it receives recognition for a session divided by the number of opportunities for recognition.  There are eight sessions (1 on Tuesday; 2 on Wednesday; 3 on Thursday; and 2 on Friday).  A country on five committees like Liechtenstein has forty possible opportunities for recognition (i.e. 8 sessions X 5 committees= 40) in the top ten percent of delegations in that session.  If that country is noted for outstanding performance in ten various committee sessions during the week, e.g., GA Plenary on Tuesday, GA Fourth on Tuesday and Wednesday, etc., that member state would score 10 / 40 = .25 or 25%.

Just as a faculty member might assign letter grades based on natural clusters of scores, NMUN awards recognize Outstanding, Distinguished and Honorable Mention delegations.  It is the overall delegation performance across all committees that is recognized by this system – not the outstanding performance in any one committee.  Just as with grades on quizzes in a class, it is possible to have one poor score and still do well if all the other scores are good, but it is unlikely one outstanding grade can significantly raise the overall average. In other words, it is the delegation as a whole that is evaluated rather than just individual delegates. This means that everyone must contribute at a top level in order for the delegation to be in contention for awards.

 

Areas of evaluation are:

• Remaining ‘in character’ – defined as advocating your assigned country’s position in a manner consistent with economic, social and geopolitical constraints. Although being ‘in character’ involves the accurate presentation of your country’s diplomatic style, delegates should not model inappropriate stereotypes or character traits. Any undiplomatic behavior is inherently out of character for United Nations delegates.  In addition, delegates must remember that any observation, comment or complaint regarding another delegate’s portrayal of his/her national or organizational ‘character’ is highly inappropriate, and such comments are themselves inherently ‘out of character’ for a diplomat. Yelling, standing on chairs and other examples of unprofessional behavior are not characteristics of model diplomats.  Remaining ‘in character’ includes consistent and accurate diplomacy and caucusing in a manner consistent with the country’s position and power, i.e., behind-the-scenes negotiator vs. in-the-forefront debater. Well-prepared delegates are typically committee leaders, whether or not such leadership is consistent with relevant foreign policy. Delegates will not be punished for natural leadership tendencies; however, delegates must recognize that there are limits to what is acceptable in this situation.

 

• Participating in committee – evaluated both during formal sessions and caucusing. The NMUN recognizes that a country’s position on any issue may require opposition to the majority, as opposed to active consensus-building. The conference staff expects delegates to support committee action and address issues in accordance with relevant national or organizational policies, whatever those may be. No priority is given to active participation in formal session over caucus activities. Delegates who provide leadership through assistance to the committee are provided special consideration. Chairs and Rapporteurs are provided equal consideration for awards, depending on their contributions as committee officials.  Individual effort as well as ability is considered, particularly for delegates who use English as a second language. Caucusing should be in English as the common language of the conference. 

 

• Proper use of the rules of procedure – The NMUN uses the rules of procedure to facilitate the effective workings of the committee and debate. Consideration will be given to delegates’ knowledge and proper use of the NMUN rules, which differ from rules at other MUN conferences, and delegates’ use of rules to further the work of the committee, not to impede it. Staff is patient with new delegates who may not be completely familiar with the NMUN Rules of Procedure, particularly in the early sessions of the conference and during voting procedure. Delegates will not be permitted to interrupt the committee’s progress through the introduction of disruptive or inappropriate motions. Delegates with questions or concerns relating to the NMUN Rules of Procedure will be advised to informally approach the dais for explanation.

 

DELEGATION AWARDS METHODOLOGY

Each session will be evaluated separately.  An awards sheet recognizing delegations will be submitted to the departmental USG and eventually to the NMUN Director-General. Members of the NCCA Board are responsible for all score calculations.  The number of votes for each delegation is totaled and divided by the product of the number of committees in which that delegation is represented times the number of sessions (e.g. 5 committees * 8 sessions = 40 opportunities to be recognized as a top delegation in a session).  While the total number of delegations that receive awards changes slightly from year to year, it is approximately 20%.  That 20% is distributed between three categories of awards: Honorable Mention, Distinguished Delegation, and Outstanding Delegation.

 

Hypothetical Example:

·         Liechtenstein- 29 votes/ (5 committees * 8 sessions)= total score of 72%= Outstanding Delegation ☺

·         Australia – 31 votes / (8 committees * 8 sessions) =    total score of 49% = Outstanding Delegation          

·         Cameroon – 20 votes / (5 committees * 8 sessions) =  total score of 50% = Outstanding Delegation

·         Chile – 19 votes / (8 committees * 8 sessions) =  total score of 30% = Distinguished Delegation

·         Japan – 31 votes / (10 committees * 8 sessions) = total score of 39% = Distinguished Delegation

·         Switzerland – 2 votes / (3 committees * 8 sessions) =  total score of 8% 

·         United States – 20 votes / (10 committees * 8 sessions) = total score of 25% = Honorable Mention

 

The total awards scores are listed, without school or country names, by the NCCA Executive Director and from that list, the Director-General determines the cutoff for each awards category.  School names are then matched with their scores and certificates are printed.  All awards are distributed during closing ceremonies. On each of the awards sheets, the Director and AD will list 10% of the total committee attendance or three delegations, (whichever number is greater) for awards recognition.  For example, the number of delegates compromising 10% of the General Assembly is 19.

 

2.      COMMITTEE AWARDS

A majority of faculty surveyed in Fall 2005 indicated a desire for individual committee awards in addition to overall delegation awards.  The survey results favored balloting by delegate peers.  A pilot project with a handful of committees in 2006 successfully demonstrated a mechanism for collection and tabulation.  Comparing with tabulation sheets of the dais, the results were essentially identical to delegations selected by the Secretariat.  NMUN offers between two and five committee awards in each committee selected by popular vote of committee delegates (number based on size of committee).  When voting for their peers, NMUN asks delegates to keep in mind that the conference believes outstanding delegates are those who cooperate and stay in the policy/character of their assigned member state.  Yelling, standing on chairs and other examples of unprofessional behavior are not characteristics of model diplomats.  Recipients are announced at the final committee session.

 

3.      POSITION PAPER AWARDS

Position papers are a critical part of delegate preparation. They require delegates to illustrate their knowledge of the agenda topics at hand, affirm the positions their country takes on these topics, and recommend courses of action to effectively address contemporary global problems. For the Conference Staff, position papers provide the best indication of which issues capture delegates’ interest, and help Directors and Assistant Directors design a strategy for the facilitation of committee debate.  In addition, position papers often identify which delegates are best prepared for the Conference and are most likely to take a strong leadership role in committee sessions.

Additionally, the National Collegiate Conference Association Board of Directors will grant separate Position Paper Awards in recognition of outstanding pre-conference preparation.

In order to be considered for a Position Paper Award, delegations must have met the published e-mail / postmark deadline.  

 

The following criteria are used by the conference staff to evaluate Position Papers:

• Overall quality of writing, proper style, grammar, etc.

• Citation of relevant resolutions/documents

• General consistency with bloc/geopolitical constraints

• Consistency with the constraints of the United Nations

• Analysis of issues, rather than reiteration of the Committee Background Guide

 

 

 

LIST OF COMMITTEES and DELEGATES

 

General Assembly First Committee (GA1st)

1. Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in Africa

2. Measures to Prevent and Deter Cyberwarfare

3. Implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention

 

Allie Baldwin and Jody Brenton

General Assembly Second Committee (GA2nd)

1. The Role of Intellectual Property in Facilitating Trade and Attracting

Foreign Direct Investment

2. The Role of Microcredit in Promoting Economic Development

3. Fresh Water Management and Economic Development

 

Jason Rondeau and Imanga Kayama

General Assembly Third Committee (GA3rd)

1. Combating Human trafficking

2. Development and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

3. Transnational Organized Crime

 

Jarrad Sitland and Vicki Versteeg

Conference on Sustainable Development - Rio+20 (CSustD)

1. The Green Economy in the Context of Sustainable Development and

Poverty Eradication

2. Keeping the Green Economy Blue: Protecting Oceans and Fisheries for

Future Generations

3. Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development

 

Alanna Taylor and Katie Grant

Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) *writes treaty*

1. Scope

2. Parameters / Criteria

3. International Cooperation and Assistance

4. Victims’ Assistance

5. Implementation

6. Verification

7. Final Provisions

 

Rebeca Espirito Santo and Can Esen

 

STRUCTURE OF DEBATES

Speaker’s time: set at 1 minute and 30 seconds.

 

Delegate responsibilities: Delegates are responsible for reading the assigned text and gathering additional information on the topic in order to prepare a list of key points that will structure their 1:30 minute speech. All delegates will have an opportunity to speak on the topic for each debate. Students are encouraged to meet outside regular class time in order to prepare for the debates. The debates are designed as group activities.  

 

Debates (20%): There are 4 debates over the course of the semester; 2 for each delegate formation. Each debate consists of 5 rounds with 6 minutes of formal debate (90 seconds ‘for’; 90 seconds ‘against’; 90 seconds ‘for’; 90 seconds ‘against’). Each delegate will prepare two 90 second speeches for each debate. A 4 minute caucus separates each formal debate. Delegates will be evaluated on their performance based on clarity, delivery, originality, and demonstrated knowledge of the topic (see evaluation scheme at the end of the course outline).

·         A+ Outstanding;

·         A- Distinguished;

·         B+ Honorable; and

·         B Certificate of Participation

·         F Absence (please note: refer to section 7 above).

 

Delegation awards: (5%): At the end of a debate section (January 23 and February 6), delegations will be ranked according to the cumulative combined marks of each delegate. The top delegation will be awarded Outstanding Delegation and the second Delegation will awarded Distinguished Delegation.  5% of the final mark will be allocated to this ranking with:

·         A+ Outstanding;

·         A- Distinguished;

·         B+ Honorable; and

·         B Certificate of Participation.

 

 

 

Structure of debates:

10 minute caucus

2:30-2:40pm

Organization, preparation and coordination

Round 1

2:40-2:47

for and against

1 minute break

for and against

4 minute caucus

2:47-2:51

 

Round 2

2:51-2:58

for and against

1 minute break

for and against

4 minute caucus

2:58-3:02

 

Round 3

3:02-3:09

for and against

1 minute break

for and against

4 minute caucus

3:09-3:13

 

Round 4

3:13-3:20

for and against

1 minute break

for and against

4 minute caucus

3:20-3:24

 

Round 5

3:24-3:31

for and against

1 minute break

for and against

 

 

DATES

SCHEDULE OF IN-CLASS ACTIVITIES

January 4, Wednesday

Classes begin. Distribution of course outlines, description of the course evaluation, expectations and schedules.

 

January 9,

Monday

Lecture I: “Binder” (15%): Topics, Committee, Country, and Rules of Procedure “Binder”: Each student will prepare a binder containing all the information regarding topics, committee, country, rules of procedure and any other relevant information that has been gathered over the course of the semester. This binder will accompany students to the NMUN conference and serve as a valuable source of information over the course of the conference.

 

January 11,

Wednesday

Lecture II: Review of public speaking techniques: A review of public speaking techniques in preparation for the first debate.

 

Required readings:

1.       “Public Speaking Model UN Preparation Guide”, UN Association of the USA: http://www.unausa.org/munpreparation/publicspeaking

 

2.       “Flow of Debate Model UN Preparation Guide”, UN Association of the USA: http://www.unausa.org/munpreparation/flowofdebate

 

January 16,

Monday

Debate I: Abolishing the Veto Power and Permanency of the P5 (for or against)

 

Required Reading: David M. Malone, ‘Security Council’ in Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws, The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.117-135.

 

DELEGATE FORMATION A

FOR

AGAINST

1.       Allie Baldwin

2.       Jason Rondeau

3.       Jarrad Sitland

4.       Vicki Versteeg

5.       Rebeca Espirito Santo

1.       Can Esen

2.       Katie Grant

3.       Jody Brenton

4.       Imanga Kayama

5.       Alanna Taylor

 

January 18,

Wednesday,

Lecture III: Position Papers and position paper research. This lecture will examine the structure, formatting and content of position papers. It will also describe the process of conducting research on position paper topics by using as an example a specific topic from this year’s list of committee topics. The first draft of the position paper is due Friday, February 17th.  Graded copy returned to the students via email no later than Friday, February 24th. Final position papers must be sent to the NMUN committees on March 1st. Please note: NMUN organizers will not consider late position papers for awards. It is therefore absolutely essential that position papers be sent no later than March 1st.

 

Resources:

1.       Documentation guide for the UN: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/

2.       UN database : http://www.un.org/en/databases/

 

January 23, Monday,

Debate II: Responsibility to Protect and humanitarian interventions (for or against)

 

Required Reading: Ramesh Thakur, ‘Humanitarian Internvetion’, in Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws, The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.117-135.

 

DELEGATE FORMATION A

FOR

AGAINST

1.       Can Esen

2.       Katie Grant

3.       Jody Brenton

4.       Imanga Kayama

5.       Alanna Taylor

 

1.       Allie Baldwin

2.       Jason Rondeau

3.       Jarrad Sitland

4.       Vicki Versteeg

5.       Rebeca Espirito Santo

 

January 25, Wednesday,

Lecture IV: Position Papers and position paper research. This second lecture will continue to examine the structure, formatting and content of position papers. It will also describe the process of conducting research on position paper topics by using as an example a specific topic from this year’s list of committee topics.

 

January 30,

Monday,

 

Debate III: UN sponsored sanctions (for or against)

 

Required Reading: David Cortright, George A. Lopez and Linda Gerber-Stellingwerf, ‘Sanctions’, in Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws, The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.349-369.

 

DELEGATE FORMATION B

FOR

AGAINST

1.       Jason Rondeau

2.       Imanga Kayama

3.       Alanna Taylor

4.       Katie Grant

5.       Jody Brenton

 

1.       Can Esen

2.       Jarrad Sitland

3.       Vicki Versteeg

4.       Rebeca Espirito Santo

5.       Allie Baldwin

 

February 1,

Wednesday

2. Lecture V: Position Papers and position paper research. This third lecture will continue to examine the structure, formatting and content of position papers. It will also describe the process of conducting research on position paper topics by using as an example a specific topic from this year’s list of committee topics.

 

February 6, Monday

Debate IV: UN Financial reform (for or against)

 

Reading: Jeffrey Laurenti, ‘Financing’, in Thomas G. Weiss and Sam Daws, The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.675-700.

 

DELEGATE FORMATION B

FOR

AGAINST

1.       Can Esen

2.       Jarrad Sitland

3.       Vicki Versteeg

4.       Rebeca Espirito Santo

5.       Allie Baldwin

1.       Jason Rondeau

2.       Imanga Kayama

3.       Alanna Taylor

4.       Katie Grant

5.       Jody Brenton

 

February 8, Wednesday

 

 

Lecture VI: Position Papers and position paper research. This fourth lecture will conclude the examination of the structure, formatting and content of position papers.

February 13, Monday

POSITION PAPERS: Informal group discussion of position papers. Students will be asked to discuss their committee topics and the research they have completed for their position papers thus far.

February 15, Wednesday

 

POSITION PAPERS: Continuation of the discussion from February 13th. NOTE: first draft of position paper is due Friday, February 17th.

February 20-24

READING WEEK. No classes. NOTE: Graded position papers returned electronically on Friday, February 24th.

 

February 27, Monday

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES BRIEFING SESSION (to be confirmed). This is a mandatory session. All students must attend this briefing session in order to attend the NMUN conference.

 

February 29,

Wednesday

Lecture VII: NMUN Rules of Procedure. An in-class review of the rules of procedure for NMUN for all delegates.

 

March 1,

Thursday

POSITION PAPERS ARE DUE. Final copy of position papers must be sent to the NMUN conference and to Ashley. The procedure for sending position papers is found in your committee background guide.

 

March 5,

Monday

Rules of procedure quiz (5%): Multiple choice, true or false quiz on the rules of procedure.

 

March 7,

Wednesday

 

In-class presentation of binders: each committee will present a summary of their binders with a focus on their committee’s three topics.

 

March 12, Monday

Caucusing and resolution writing: Review of the techniques for caucusing and resolution writing.

 

Required Readings: “Caucusing Model UN Preparation Guide”, UN Association of the USA: http://www.unausa.org/munpreparation/caucusing

 

March 14- 26

 

1. FULL MOCK SIMULATION (5%): formal debate using rules of procedure, caucusing, working papers, draft resolutions, resolutions, and formal voting procedure. The top three of the five delegations will be ranked as Outstanding, Distinguished and Honorable.  5% of the final mark will be allocated to this ranking with:

·         A+ Outstanding;

·         A- Distinguished;

·         B+ Honorable; and

·         B   Certificate of Participation.

 

TWO TOPICS WILL BE SELECTED FROM THE FOUR DEBATES HELD EARLIER IN THE SEMESTER.

 

FIVE REGIONS RECOGNIZED BY THE UN

WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHER

AFRICAN

ASIAN

EASTERN EUROPE

LATIN AMERICAN AND THE CARIBBEAN

Allie Baldwin Jody Brenton

 

Jason Rondeau

Imanga Kayama

 

Alanna Taylor Katie Grant

 

Rebeca Espirito Santo

Can Esen

Jarrad Sitland

Vicki Versteeg

 

March 28,

Wednesday

FINAL DAY OF CLASSES: Review of awards criteria, guidelines for caucusing, resolution writing, and other information.

 

April 3-7

NMUN Conference, New York Marriott Marquis

 

 

 

 

EVALUATION SCHEME FOR DEBATES:

NAME:                                                                     TIME: short, long, on time

Clarity

1.        Are the points made clearly?

2.        Is there continuity between ideas?

3.        Is the content well organized?

4.        Is there a clear introduction, middle, and conclusion?

High A+ (10/10)

COMMENTS:

 

Mid A+  (9.5/10)

Low A+  (9.0/10)

 

High A- (8.4/10)

Mid A-  (8.2/10)

Low A-  (8.0/10)

 

High B+ (7.9/10)

Mid B+ (7.8/10)

Low B+ (7.7/10)

 

High B (7.6/10)

Mid B (7.5/10)

Low B (7.3/10)

Delivery

1.        Pace of the speech

2.        Posture

3.        Pauses

4.        Filler words

5.        Get to the point

6.        Gesture

7.        Presence

8.        Use of time

High A+ (10/10)

COMMENTS:

Mid A+  (9.5/10)

Low A+  (9.0/10)

 

High A- (8.4/10)

Mid A-  (8.2/10)

Low A-  (8.0/10)

 

High B+ (7.9/10)

Mid B+ (7.8/10)

Low B+ (7.7/10)

 

High B (7.6/10)

Mid B (7.5/10)

Low B (7.3/10)

Originality

1.        Innovativeness

2.        Humour

3.        Gravitas

4.        Passion

5.        Analogies

6.        Notable quotes

 

High A+ (10/10)

COMMENTS:

Mid A+  (9.5/10)

Low A+  (9.0/10)

 

High A- (8.4/10)

Mid A-  (8.2/10)

Low A-  (8.0/10)

 

High B+ (7.9/10)

Mid B+ (7.8/10)

Low B+ (7.7/10)

 

High B (7.6/10)

Mid B (7.5/10)

Low B (7.3/10)

demonstrated knowledge of the topic

1.        Factually correct

2.        Good knowledge of the topic

3.        Relevant sources

4.        Informative content

 

 

High A+ (10/10)

COMMENTS:

Mid A+  (9.5/10)

Low A+  (9.0/10)

 

High A- (8.4/10)

Mid A-  (8.2/10)

Low A-  (8.0/10)

 

High B+ (7.9/10)

Mid B+ (7.8/10)

Low B+ (7.7/10)

 

High B (7.6/10)

Mid B (7.5/10)

Low B (7.3/10)