PROGRAM

BOOK
NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY
DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP
(NUDC)

SRIWIJAYA STATE POLYTECHNIC,

25 31 AUGUST 2013

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF LEARNING AND STUDENT AFFAIRS
2013
Remark from the Director for Learning and Student
Affairs of DIKTI
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

Assalamualaikum warahmatullahiwabarakatuh,
Dear debaters,
I am delighted to extend my warmest welcome and to
congratulate you all for participating in this very inspiring
event. The National University Debating Championship
(NUDC) has had a prestigious and successful history and, this
year we are delighted to once again continue that tradition in
Palembang where people can taste the nicest blend of tradition
and international touch. In the past five years, the NUDC has
enabled thousands of university students to get involved in a
unique and rewarding competition. This year sees the NUDC
advancing in more ways than one. With the constant backing of
the Ministry of Education and Culture, we are once again
running the well-prepared competition, with debaters being
selected of their rounds through twelve regional selections.
With seven preliminary rounds, this year NUDC keeps
challenging debaters to show their endurance of intellectuality.
More than a mere verbal or performance skill, the NUDC
embodies the ideals of reasoned argument, tolerance for
divergent points of view, and rigorous self-examination. This is
the best way to gear up students critical thinking as well as to
maintain democracy the government mostly concerns on.
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

Therefore, I strongly believe that this competitive debate needs

to take place immediately in the world of education to be the
safeguard of the future generations.
A special thank goes to all parties involved. Although much
work remains ahead of us, we have on our side strong
collective desire to work together for the competitiveness of our
country where brilliant creativity nowhere to be seen but here
in our very own country. Have a nice debate!
Wassalamualikum warahmatullahiwabarakatuh.
Jakarta, August 2013
Illah Sailah

Remark from the Vice Director for Students Affair of POLSRI

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

Remark from the Convener from DIKTI

Dear Debaters,
On behalf of all those involved we wish you a very
warm welcome to this year's NUDC. As the biggest and best
competition of its kind in Indonesia (with over 1000 students
participating in regional selections this year) we are sure that
every one of its debates will be an enjoyable experience that
will test and improve your debating skills. Debating is not
simply about natural ability; it is about experience, preparation
and practice. We hope this competition will help you achieve
all of these things. Remember, there are valuable lessons to be
learned even in defeat, often from your competitors: after all,
some of the best student speakers in Indonesia participate in
this competition. Never be too critical of yourself after a
debate; and instead enjoy the experience and remember to stay
involved by attending later rounds even if you are no longer in
the competition.
Believing how hard your preparation for this national
scale event, we appreciate how difficult and demanding the
competition is. You are developing your rhetoric skills and

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

increasing your knowledge of a broad range of important issues

at the same time.
We hope that this year NUDC gives you valuable skills
on how to construct cases and helps develop your selfconfidence in your debating ability. We have come to show our
two thumbs up to Politeknik Negeri Sriwijaya for energizing its
squads to succeed this competition.
We also would be very thankful to Ministry of Education and
Culture through its Learning and Student Affairs Directorate
(Belmawa Dikti) which organizes the competition. Direktorat
Belmawa Dikti has long and impressive histories in the
approaches of empowerment and has, in recent years, showed
strongest desire to develop quality of debaters in Indonesia.
We wish all this year's entrants the best of luck.
Enjoy!
Rachmat Nurcahyo
Dora Aruang Angelina
Tiur Simanjuntak
Nur Rifai Akhsan

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

Table of Contents
Remark from the Director for Learning
and Students Affair of DIKTI
Remark from the Vice Rector for
Students Affair of POLSRI
Remark from the Convener from DIKTI

. i

Table of Contents
I.
7th NUDC AT 2013 GLANCE
II.
RULE OF CONDUCT OF
THE TOURNAMENT
III.
FORMAT OF THE
TOURNAMENT
A.
Overview of the Format
B.
Preliminary Rounds
C.
Selection of Teams for
the elimination rounds
D.
The Main Competition
elimination rounds
IV.
NUDC SCHEDULE
V.
ADJUDICATION BOARD
VI.
PARTICIPANTS
VII. INTRODUCTION TO
BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY
SYSTEM
VIII. POLSRI AT GLANCE

. vi
. 1
. 2

. iii
. iv

. 3
. 3
. 3
. 4
. 5
.
.
.
.

5
8
9
22

. 37

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

I.

7th NUDC AT 2013 GLANCE

Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of
Education and Culture conducted the first Indonesia-wide
debate tournament for university level in 2008. This
national level debating competition becomes an annual
national program. It is the National University English
Debating Championship! Using British Parliamentary
style, what makes the tournament unique is its fast-paced
and high dynamic atmosphere.
This year of 2013 hits the 7th NUDC, used to be NUEDC
that is projected to join together approximately 300 of the
most brilliant debaters and adjudicators in Indonesia.
Through the years, Directorate General of Higher
Education, Ministry of Education and Culture has granted
12 KOPERTIS (Offices for Private Higher Education) in
Indonesia to Conduct BP debating championship as part
of regional selection joined by both state and private
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

varsities in the region. This year NUDC would gather 96

teams from 12 regions in Indonesia. For sure this will be a
tournament that convenes the best and brightest Indonesia
Varsities debate teams.
Stepping to its 7th years, the NUDC used to be NUEDC
consistently maintains its high quality of debate by
involving the best adjudicators Indonesia ever has. The
high-spirited

level of fierce competition

will be

accompanied by the opportunity to build golden bridges

with individuals of mixed ethnics from vast arrays of
Indonesia

culture.

The

harmony

of

intellectual

atmosphere and warm welcome from State Polytechnic of

Sriwijaya as the host is the eyewitness of this year
prestigious debating championship.

II.

RULE OF CONDUCT OF THE TOURNAMENT

1. Participants must sign the attendance list
2. Formal-casual

dressing

is

allowed.

However

institution uniforms are compulsory during the debate.

3. Electronic recording of debaters is allowed by official
participants and observers affiliated with a university
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

attending the NUDC and by other individuals

authorized by the NUDC committee or the tournament
host.
4. Decision confidentiality. It is up to the discretion of
judges to decide they wish to reveal their decisions
must wait until all white copies of that debate are
delivered to a bona-fide representative of the
Tournament Director. Adjudicators must still provide
a written ballot for preliminary rounds.
5. No Smoking Policy. The campus areas, in which
NUDC competition takes place, shall be declared No
Smoking Areas, where smoking shall be prohibited.
Host University shall post signs announcing this rule.
6. Alcohol and controlled Substances Policy. The use of
controlled substances and alcohol shall be prohibited
in rooms in which the NUDC competition takes place.
7. Debaters and adjudicators must attend debating and
adjudicating seminars,
8. All registration related to lodging is under hotel
management.
III. FORMAT OF THE TOURNAMENT
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

A. Overview of the Format

1. There shall be five preliminary rounds of debate,
involving all teams eligible to debate in the
Championships.
2. Following the five preliminary rounds, there
shall be an elimination round consisting of the
top 32 teams from the preliminary round.
B. The Preliminary Rounds
1. All teams eligible to debate at the Championships
compete in the preliminary rounds
2. Composite or swing teams must be added by the
tournament Director to under the following
circumstances:
a. if the number of teams eligible to debate in
the preliminary rounds is equal to a number
divisible by four, no compete teams are
allowed; or
b. if this is not the case, then composite teams
may be added until the number of teams in
the preliminary round is equal to a number
divisible by four.
3. If a team withdraws from competition before or
during the preliminary rounds then they shall be
removed from the draw and either
a. replaced with a composite team; or
b. the number of composite team is reduced to
ensure that the number of teams in the
competition is still equal to a number
divisible by four.
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

4. Following each round, teams shall be ranked by the

adjudication panel and awarded points ( Team
Points) as follows:
a. 1st ranked team: 3 points;
b. 2nd ranked team: 2 points;
c. 3rd ranked team: 1 point;
d. 4th ranked team: 0 point.
C. Selection of Teams for the elimination rounds
1. At the conclusion of the three preliminary rounds,
teams are to ranked in consecutive order ( from
highest to lowest) as follows:
a. Total aggregate Team Points accumulated
by the team; and
b. Where teams have an equal number of
aggregate team points on the basis of
aggregate Team Scores accumulated by the
team; and
c. Where this is also equal, on a count-back
of the number of times that each team has
ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd, with a team ranking
higher if it has been ranked 1st more often,
and so on; and
d. Where the teams still cannot be
distinguished, by drawing lots
2. The highest 32 ranking teams will participate in
the Main Competition elimination rounds, and
shall be ranked from 1st to 32nd.
D. The Main Competition elimination rounds
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

1. At the conclusion of each of the Octo-Finals,

Quarter Finals, and Semi Finals, the adjudication
panel shall select two winning teams from each
debate. These two teams shall progress to the next
elimination round.
2. In the Final, the adjudication panel shall select the
one winning team and the three runners-up.

IV. NUDC SCHEDULE

RUNDOWN NUDC 2013 PALEMBANG

Day 01/ Aug 25
-

10.00-12.00
12.00-13.00
13.00-14.00
Seminar
14.00-16.00
Accreditation
16.00-16.30
16.30-18.00
18.00- 20.00
20.00-

: Registration and Check-in

: ISHOMA
: Debating Seminar and Adjudicator
: Exhibition and Adjudicator
: Break
: Opening Ceremony
: Dinner
: Back to Hotel

Day 02/ Aug 26

-

05.30-06.30
06.30-07.00
Sriwijaya
07.00-07.30
07.30-07.45
07.45-09.45
09.45-10.15
10.15-10.45

: Breakfast
: Leaving for State Polytechnic of
: Roll Call
: Match up and Motion Release
: Preliminary Round 1
: Tabulation and Coffee Break
: Roll Call

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

10.45-11.00
11.00-13.00
13.00-14.00
14.00-14.30
14.30-14.45
14.45-16.45
16.45-17.00
17.00-19.00
19.00

: Match up and Motion Release

: Preliminary Round 2
: ISHOMA
: Roll Call
: Match up and Motion Release
: Preliminary Round 3
: Back to Hotel
: Free Time
: Dinner

Day 03/ Aug 27

-

05.30-06.30
06.30-07.00
Sriwijaya
07.00-07.30
07.30-07.45
07.45-09.45
09.45-10.15
10.15-10.45
10.45-11.00
11.00-13.00
13.00-14.00
14.00-14.30
14.30-14.45
14.45-16.45
16.45-17.15
17.15-17.45
17.45-19.00
19.00

: Breakfast
: Leaving for State Polytechnic of
: Roll Call
: Match up and Motion Release
: Preliminary Round 4
: Tabulation and Coffee Break
: Roll Call
: Match up and Motion Release
: Preliminary Round 5
: ISHOMA
: Roll Call
: Match up and Motion Release
: Preliminary Round 6
: Tabulation and Coffee Break
: Back to Hotel
: Free Time
: Dinner

Day 04/28
-

05.30-06.30
06.30-07.00
Sriwijaya
07.00-07.30

: Breakfast
: Leaving for State Polytechnic of
: Roll Call

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

07.30-07.45
07.45-09.45
09.45-11.00
11.00-12.00
12.00-13.00
13.00-13.15
13.15-15.00

: Match up and Motion Release

: Preliminary Round 7
: Coffee Break and Tabulation
: Breaking Teams Announcement
: ISHOMA
: Roll Call and Motion Release
: Main Draw Octofinals/Novice

Quarterfinals

15.00-15.30
15.30-15.45
15.45-17.45
17.45-18.15
18.15-19.00
19.00

: Coffee Break and Tabulation

: Roll Call and Motion Release
: Main Draw Quarterfinals
: Back to Hotel
: Free Time
: Dinner

Day 05/ Aug29

-

06.00-07.30
07.30-08.00
08.00-15.00
15.00 15.45
Sriwijaya
15.45 16.00
16.00- 17.00
17.00 - 17.30
17.30-19.00
19.00-

: Breakfast
: Leaving for BKB
: Musi Tour and City Tour
: Leaving for State Polytechnic of
: Preparation for Novice Semifinals
: Novice Semifinals
: Back to hotel
: Free time
: Dinner

Day 06 / Aug 30
-

05.30-07.00
07.00-07.30
Sriwijaya
07.30-08.00
08.00- 10.00
10.00- 10.30

: Breakfast
: Leaving for State Polytechnic of
: Roll Call and Motion Release
: Main Draw Semifinals
: Break

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

10.30 -11.00
FINAL
11.00-13.00
13.00-14.00
14.00-14.15
14.15-15.15
15.15-15.30
15.30-16.00
18.00-18.30
Sriwijaya
18.30-19.30
19.30 21.00

: Preparation for NOVICE GRAND

: NOVICE GRAND FINAL
: ISHOMA
: Preparation for GRAND FINAL
: GRAND FINAL
: Break and Tabulation
: Back to Hotel
: Leaving for State Polytechnic of
: Dinner
: Closing Ceremony

Day 7/ Aug 31
-

V.

07.00 12.00

: Check Out

ADJUDICATION BOARD

Patron

: Director General of Higher

Education

Program Director

: - Dr. Illah Sailah, M.S. (Director of

Chairmen

: Widyo Winarso (Deputy Director of

Learning and Student Affairs of

DIKTI)
- R.D. Kusumanto,S.T., MT (Polsri
Director)
- Prof. Dr. Badia Perizade., M.BA.
(Rektor Universitas Sriwijaya)
- dr. Syarif Husyin, M. Si. (Purek
III UNSRI)
Student Affairs, DGHE)
Irawan Rusnadi
Firdaus
Suhairi

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

A.Taqwa

Secretaries

: Syahril

Treasurers

: Maslina Sembiring (Dikti)

Convener

: Rachmat Nurcahyo

Tournament Directors

: Dora Angelina Aruan

Material and Meetings

: Alam Nasrah Ikhlas (Dikti)

Nofiansyah

Secretariats

: Heneria Thyar (Dikti)

Azizah (Dikti)
Marliana (Dikti)
Eviliana
Verinna Rizki Utami

Logistics and
accommodation

: Iwan Setyawan (Dikti)

Sudirman (Dikti)
Yusup (Dikti)
Beben (Dikti)
Bram
Suwarti
Lina
A, Nanang Taufik

Firdaus
Munaja Rahma
Yusri
Zulkifli
Solfanaria

Tiur Simanjuntak
Nur Rifai Aksan

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

Medical help

: Tim Dokter

Tour coordinator

: Darminiyanti

LO

: M. Hasanuddin Cs

Equipments
Transportation
Publication
Security
Venues

:
:
:
:
:

Suyanto
Rusli, M. Yusuf
Adi Syakdani
Prandoko
Sugiyanto

VI. PARTICIPANTS
Region I
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Name
Elsyam Maulana
Frederick Samuel
Yudha Syahputra
Muhammad Rafii
Selamat Husni
Hasibuan
Ayu Wulan Sari
Tampubolon
Widopo Hanly
Christ Jordan
Siagian
Iriance
Elisa Pramono
Heriyanto
Meinny Rizky
Elnoviamy

College

Adjudicator/Debater

Universitas
Sumatera Utara
Politeknik Unggul
LP3M

Politeknik Negeri
Medan
STIE Informasi
Teknologi &
Bisnis
Universitas Negeri

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

14. Fitri Mardiana

Siregar
15. Sukma Septian
Nasution
16. Amsal Irmalis
17. M. Safnan
Mardhatillah
18. Yuliana
Anggreini SF
19. Irma Ade
20. Ramadhani
Syahputra
21. Rizki Hardiyanti
22. Rocky Pardede
23. Swardi Hutajulu
24. Jastrawan

Medan

Universitas Syiah
Kuala
Universitas
Muhammadiyah
Sumatera Utara
Universitas
Dharma Agung

Region II
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

Name
M. Niko Ginanto
Hari Saputra
M. Chasogi Alam
Hesti Setya Wati
Vianna Maria
Ursula
Elok Waspadany
Kgs. M. Aditia
Rasilia Palmi
Meisa Nazthasia
Rassela Malinda
Novi Sylvia
Eko Saputra
Devinta Fulvia A
Verta Suarna

College
STBA Teknokrat
Universitas
Lampung
Universitas
Sriwijaya
Universitas
Bengkulu
STIE Musi

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater I
Debater II
Adjudicator
Debater I
Debater II
Adjudicator
Debater I
Debater II
Adjudicator
Debater I
Debater II
Adjudicator
Debater I
Debater II

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

15. Dewi Sri, SE, M.Si

16. Reksa Alviona
17. Vennytha
Virgocha
18. Muamar Erza
19. Esti Martiani
20. Defi Arisandi
21. Eko Sumakiono
22. Eka Imama Novita
Sari
23. Fangki Adetia
24. Eka Wahyuni
Kartika

Palembang
Politeknik
Negeri Sriwijaya
Universitas
Islam OKI
Universitas
Bandar
Lampung

Adjudicator
Debater I
Debater II
Adjudicator
Debater I
Debater II
Adjudicator
Debater I
Debater II
Adjudicator

Region III
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Name
Yosifebi
Ramadhani
Jaran Walia
Invi Atmanegara
Elfia Sumayasta
Roderick Jonathan
M Sibarani
Egalita Irfan
Hendi Jawan
Saagar
Teckchandani
V. Ciarissa Wijaya
Muchammad Esa
Putra
Devi Fitri Yani
Muhammad Iqbal
Maulana
Mueriece Bagoes

College
Universitas Bina
Nusantara
Universitas
Indonesia

Adjudicator/Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Pelita Harapan

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

Institut
Pertanian Bogor

Debater
Debater

Universitas

Adjudicator

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

W
Rezza Dwi
Brammadita
Firdha Malik
Maharani Rotua
Silvia
Kario Teguh
Chandra
Andrew Prasatya
Raden Aryo
Moedanton
Alifia Firliani
Putu Lumina
Aliefah Saras
Gema Ramadhan

Sultan Ageng
Tirtayasa
Universitas
Katolik
Indonesia Atma
Jaya

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Bakrie
Universitas
Paramadina

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater

Region IV
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Name
Vicario Reinaldo
Fauzan Reza
Muhammad Lutfi
Arief Nugraha
Deny Hermansyah
Anggiawan
Nugraha
7. Magnalia Felly
8. Ranna Artha
9. Arief Herbudi
Fanaela
10. Tubagus M.
Septian

College
Institut
Teknologi
Bandung
Universitas
Siliwangi
Institut
Manajemen
Telkom
Universitas
Pendidikan

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

Dena Ambar Sary

Restu Wibowo
Westra Tanribali
Ratu Istihajar
Ibnu Haykal
Theo Yohanes P. H
Tengku Ahmad
Wira
Nuraini Fitriyah
Galih Prihartanto
Muhammad Rofi
Arofah
Riko Briatna
Wawan Setiawan
Upi Anggraeni
Susaendi

Indonesia
Universitas
Padjajaran
Institut
Teknologi
Telkom
Politeknik
Telkom
Universitas
Wiralodra

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

Region V
No
1.
2.

Name
Amir Abdul Aziz
Nabila Agniarizqa
Olivia
3. Dianty Widyowati
Ningrum
4. Irene Anindyaputri
5. Tethy Cahyati
Pesoa
6. Sekartiyasa
Kusumastuti
7. Rr. Gratsia
Kencanamaya
8. Sydney Samba
9. Ignatia Alfa Gloria
10. Edi Irawan

College
Universitas
Gadjah Mada

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas
Sanata Dharma

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Atma Jaya
Yogyakarta
Universitas

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

Karjongko
Nurvia Alfi Rizqi
Arif Burhanudin
Tika Destiratri
Setiawan
Rasman
Citra Sandy
Anastasia
Indra Kusuma
Wardani
Riskhi Bestari
Jaya Addin
Linando
Nafiatul
Munawaroh
Putri Nurdina
Utami Dwi Lestari
Yuni Riski Isanjaya
Valentina Andatin
F.

Ahmad Dahlan
Universitas
Negeri
Yogyakarta
Institut Seni
Indonesia
Yogyakarta

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas
Islam Indonesia

STBA LIA
Yogyakarta

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

Region VI
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Name
Rio Giovano S
Kethryne Rothe
S
Dewi Ratoja
Marta Widyastuti
Djojowiyono
Hestiana Larasati
Haekal
Muhammad
Siti Rosidah
Jefri Dian

College
Universitas
Kristen Satya
Wicana Salatiga
Universitas
Diponegoro
Semarang
Universitas Negeri

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Andika
Indri Giriyanti
Muh. Satya
Irfananda
Fajar Bayu
Setiawan
Juli Novianto
Sunarno
Algi Rahmat A
Yunas Pamatda
Nida Agniya S

16. Akbar Prabowo

17. Laela Ratna Uma
P
18. Rudy Realitanto
19. Dellaros
Demansha
20. Astrid Herera
Mutiara Firdaus
21. Eko Prasetyo
22. Enricco Adi
Pakarti
23. Adhe Bagus
Suleiman
24. Octa Wahyu
Pradhana

Semarang

Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas Negeri
Sebelas Maret
Surakarta

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Jenderal
Soedirman
Purwokerto

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Politeknik Negeri
Semarang

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Muhammadiyah
Purworejo

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

STIE Widya
Manggala
Semarang

Debater
Adjudicator

Region VII
No
1.
2.

Name
Bahram Naderil
Meilia Shofi
Khasanah

College
Universitas Jember

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater
Debater

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.

Yusnan Hadi
Mochtar
Aditya Janu
Perdana
M. Nur Rizki
O.P
Fatimah
Ricky
Kurniawan
Stella
Hanamiasari K.
Kartika Restu
Anggara
Ci Hadi
Purnomo
Raga Driyan
Pratama
David Dwi
Setyawan
Septian
Wijayanti
Fauzi Akbar
Rahmawan
Ade Panca
Rizkiawan
Anastazia N.
Wattimena
Bangun
Mulyatani
Richard Firman
H. P
Natasha
Christina

Adjudicator
Debater
Universitas
Brawijaya

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas
Airlangga

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas Negeri
Surabaya

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Politeknik Negeri
Malang

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas
Muhammadiyah
Malang

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Surabaya

Debater

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

20. Jorgy Allen

Purnomo
21. Kevin Susanto
Goly
22. Fungky Maramis
23. Pek Albert
Christianto P.
24. I Ketut Purba
Widayana

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Unika. Widya
Mandala Surabaya

Debater
Adjudicator

Region VIII
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Name
Ni Nyoman Diah P.
Jayantari
Dwi Juni Ardianti
Ni Made Kencana
Maharani
Ida Ayu Anom
Rastiti
Komang Rosa Tri
Anggraeni
Ni Wayan Mia
Jayanthi Sari
Sam
M. Zurhalki
Drs. Nur Ahmadi ,
M.Hum
Steven Yohanes K.
Evan Max Ray
Yustina Sri Rejeki
Fitri Adji Rarasati
Ria Rarasati
Luh Melin

College

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater

Universitas
Udayana

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

STIKES Bali

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Mataram
Universitas
Dyana Pura
Undhiksa
Singaraja

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

22.
23.
24.

Udayanti
Ni Made Ariani
Hilarius Landuk
Delly Elim
Muharis
Tris Shakti Permata
Zainudin
Abdussamad,
M.Hum
Erwin Suhendra
Sopian Saupi
Irawan
L. Irawan
Kurniawan

STIBA
Saraswati
Denpasar
ABA Bumigora
Mataram

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

IKIP Mataram

Debater
Adjudicator

Region IX
No
1.
2.
3.

Name
Muhammad Fahmi
Masda
Andi Rahmatullah
Ayu Anastasya R

College
Universitas
Hasanuddin

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

Region X
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Name
Jeanet
Christianty
Evans
Erna Permata
Sari
Fitri Ali
Neddawati
Saidil Akhyar
Happy

College
Politeknik Negeri
Batam

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater
Debater

Politeknik Negeri
Padang
Universitas Islam

Debater
Debater
Debater
Debater

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

7.
8.
9.

Eka Utami Putri

Akzir Fitri Afiani
Kristie Onasis

10. Ivone
11.
12.
13.
14.

Puri Awanda
Muryati
Nindya Soraya
Yoan Benedheta
Afnesha
15.
Noveriana Chang
16. Widya Febrina

Riau
Universitas
Lancang Kuning
Universitas
Internasional
Batam
Universitas Riau
Universitas Jambi
Universitas Negeri
Padang

Debater
Debater
Debater
Debater
Debater
Debater
Debater
Debater
Debater
Debater

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

Region XI
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.

Name
Jeffrey Hartanto
Irvan Andrian
William
Ardi Meisa
Muhammad Arif
Royyan Zein
Riska Rizana
F.A
Pandji Winata
Nurikhwan
Amanda Auliya
Apriliani
Novita Triana
Nurliana Fitri
Alfisyahrin
Fitriani
Mita Farani Azis
Shafira Husna
Rizqan
Ibnu Sidik
Citra Fithriya
Juni wahyu
Ningsih
Shinta Listya. W
Irma Fitriani
Metta Aquarista
Emi Yuni
Pratiwi
Alan Hernandi
Yogi Setyo
Widodo

College
Politeknik
Tonggak Equator
Pontianak
Politeknik Negeri
Banjarmasin
Universitas
Lambung
Mangkurat

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas
Mulawarman

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Muhammadiyah
Banjarmasin
Universitas
Tanjungpura
Universitas
Palangkaraya
Universitas
Balikpapan

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

23. Nindia Maysarah

24. Erna Yuli Yanti

Debater
Adjudicator

Region XII
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Name
Indry Widyastuti
Anwar
Jasmal Martora
Sutrisno Adam,
S.S, M.Hum
Fitiandin T.
Bantam
Febriyanthi S.M.
Apituley
Denny. J.S.
Syauta
Sherly Gasparesz
Lulu Uktolseja
Martje Holle,
S.Pd, MM
Risnawaty
Djauhar
Risno Labami
Syamsia, S.S,
M.Pd
Denilo
Hokhumala
Richard Mebri
Hengki Mofu
S.Pd, M.A
Murti Bandung
Fitri Muhammad
Erwin Gay, S.Pd,

College

Adjudicator/Debater
Debater

Universitas
Khairun Ternate

Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas
Pattimura

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Victory Sorong
STKIP Kie Raha
Ternate

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater
Debater
Adjudicator
Debater

Universitas Papua
Manokwari

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Muhammadiyah
Ternate

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

19.
20.
21.

22.
23.
24.

M.Ed. CS
Ficha Pradiana
Marta
Paskalis
Kaipman
Martha
Betaubun, S.Pd,
M.Hum
Erpin Said
Rina Handayani
Hayat M.
Ohorella,
M.Hum

Debater
Universitas
Musamus Merauke

Debater
Adjudicator

Universitas
Muhammdiyah
Sorong

Debater
Debater
Adjudicator

VII. INTRODUCTION TO BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY

SYSTEM
Part 1 - Introduction
1.1 The format of the debate
1.1.1 The debate will consist of four teams of two
persons (persons will be known as "members"), a
chairperson (known as the "Speaker of the House" or
"Mister/Madam Speaker" and an adjudicator or panel of
adjudicators.
1.1.2 Teams will consist of the following members:
1.1.3 Members will deliver substantive speeches in the
following order:
(1) Prime Minister;
(2) Opposition Leader;
(3) Deputy Prime Minister;
(4) Deputy Opposition Leader;
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Member for the Government;

Member for the Opposition;
Government Whip;
Opposition Whip.

Opening Government:
" Prime Minister" or "First Government member" and
" Deputy Prime Minister" or "Second Government
member";
Opening Opposition:
" Leader of the Opposition" or "First Opposition member"
and
" Deputy Leader of the Opposition" or "Second Opposition
member";
Closing Government:
" Member for the Government" or "Third Government
member" and
" Government Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member";
Closing Opposition:
" Member for the Opposition" or "Third Opposition
member" and
" Opposition Whip" or "Fourth Opposition member".
1.2

Members will deliver a substantive speech of seven

minutes duration and should offer points of
information while members of the opposing teams are
speaking.

1.3 The motion

1.3.1 The motion should be unambiguously worded.
1.3.2 The motion should reflect that the National
University Debating Championship is a national level
tournament.
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

1.3.3 The members should debate the motion in the spirit of

the motion and the tournament.
1.4 Preparation
1.4.1 The debate should commence 15 minutes after the
motion is announced.
1.4.2 Teams should arrive at their debate within five
minutes of the
scheduled starting time for that
debate.
1.4.3 Members are permitted to use printed or written
material during preparation
and
during
the
debate.
Printed
material
includes
books,
journals,
newspapers and other similar materials.
The use of electronic equipment is prohibited during
preparation and in the debate.
1.5 Points of Information
1.5.1 Points of Information (questions directed to the member
speaking) may be asked between first minute mark and
the six-minute mark of the members
speeches
(speeches are of seven minutes duration).
1.5.2 To ask a Point of Information, a member should stand,
place one hand on
his or her head and extend
the other towards the member speaking. The
member may announce that they would like to ask a
"Point of Information" or use other words to this effect.
1.5.3 The member who is speaking may accept or decline to
answer the Point of Information.
1.5.4 Points of Information should not exceed 15 seconds in
length.
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

1.5.5 The member who is speaking may ask the person

offering the Point of Information to sit down where
the offer or has had a reasonable opportunity
to be
heard and understood.
1.5.6 Members
should attempt to answer at least
two Points
of Information during their speech.
Members should also offer Points of Information.
1.5.7 Points of Information should be assessed in accordance
with clause 3.3.4 of these rules.
1.5.8 Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege are not
permitted.
1.6

Timing of the speeches

1.6.1 Speeches should be seven minutes in duration (this should

be signaled by two strikes of the gavel). Speeches over
seven minutes and 15 seconds may be penalized.
1.6.2 Points of Information may only be offered between
the first-minute mark and the six-minute mark of the
speech (this period should be signaled by one strike
of the gavel at the first minute and one strike at the sixth
minute).
1.6.3 It is the duty of the Speaker of the House to time
speeches.
1.6.4 In the absence of the Speaker of the House, it is the duty
of the Chair of the Adjudication panel to ensure that
speeches are timed.

1.7

The adjudication

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

1.7.1 The debate should be adjudicated by a panel of at least

three adjudicators, where this is possible.
1.7.2 At the conclusion of the debate, the adjudicators should
confer and rank the teams, from first place to last place.
(see Part 5: The Adjudication).
1.7.3 There will be verbal adjudication of the debate after the
first six preliminary rounds of the tournament. The verbal
adjudication should be delivered in accordance with
clause 5.5 of these rules.
Part 2 - Definitions
2.1

The definition

2.1.1 The definition should state the issue (or issues) for debate
arising out of the motion and state the meaning of
any terms in the motion which require
interpretation.
2.1.2 The Prime Minister should provide the definition at the
beginning of his or
her speech.
2.1.3 The definition must:
(a) have a clear and logical link to the motion - this means
that an average
reasonable person would accept
the link made by the member between the motion and
the definition (where there is no such link the definition
is sometimes referred to as a "squirrel");
(b) not be self-proving - a definition is self-proving when
the case is that something should or should not be
done and there is no reasonable rebuttal. A
definition is may also be self-proving when the case is
that a certain state of affairs exists or does not exist and
there is no reasonable rebuttal (these definitions are
sometimes referred to as "truisms").
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

(c) not be time set - this means that the debate

must take place in the present and that the definition
cannot set the debate in the past or the future; and
(d) not be place set unfairly - this means that the definition
cannot restrict the debate so narrowly to a particular
geographical or political location that a participant of
the tournament could not reasonably be expected to
have knowledge of the place.
2.2

Challenging the definition

2.2.1 The Leader of the Opposition may challenge the

definition if it violates clause of these rules.
2.2.2 The Leader of the Opposition
should clearly state
that he or she is challenging the definition.
2.2.3 The Leader of the Opposition should substitute an
alternative definition after challenging the definition of
the Prime Minister.
2.3

Assessing the definitional challenge

2.3.1 The adjudicator should determine the definition to be

unreasonable where
it violates clause 2.1.3 of these
rules.
2.3.2 The onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is
on the members asserting that the definition is
unreasonable.
2.3.3 Where
the
definition
is
unreasonable,
the
opposition should substitute an alternative definition
that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is
not unreasonable.
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

2.3.4 Where the definition of the Opening Government is

unreasonable and an
alternative definition is
substituted by the Opening Opposition, the Closing
Government may introduce matter which is
inconsistent with the matter
presented by the
Opening Government and consistent with the definition of
the Opening Opposition.
2.3.5 If the Opening
Opposition
has substituted a
definition that is also
unreasonable, the Closing
Government may challenge the definition of the
Opening Opposition and substitute an alternative
definition.
2.3.6 If the Closing Government
has substituted a
definition that is also unreasonable (in addition to
the unreasonable definitions of the Opening
Government
and Opening
Opposition,
the
Closing Opposition
may challenge the definition
of the Closing Government
and substitute an
alternative definition.
Part 3 - Matter
3.1

The definition of matter

3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the

arguments a debater uses to further his or her case
and persuade the audience.
3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case
studies, facts and
any other material that attempts to
further the case.
3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material
and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes

Points of Information.
3.2

The elements of matter

3.2.1 Matter should be relevant, logical and consistent.

3.2.2 Matter
should be relevant. It should relate to
the issues of the debate: positive material should
support the case being presented
and rebuttal
should refute the material being presented by the
opposing team(s). The Member should appropriately
prioritize and apportion time to the dynamic issues of the
debate.
3.2.3 Matter should be logical. Arguments should be developed
logically in order
to be clear and well-reasoned and
therefore plausible. The conclusion of all arguments
should support the members case.
3.2.4 Matter should be consistent. Members should
ensure that the matter they present is consistent
within their speech, their team and the remainder of the
members on their side of the debate (subject to clauses
2.3.4, 2.3.5 or 2.3.6 of these rules).
3.2.5 All Members should present positive matter (except the
final two members in the debate) and all members
should present rebuttal (except the first member
in the debate). The Government
Whip may
choose to present positive matter.
3.2.6 All Members should attempt to answer at least
two points of information during their own speech
and offer points of information during opposing
speeches.
3.3

Assessing matter
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

3.3.1 The matter presented should be persuasive. The elements

of matter should assist an adjudicator to assess the
persuasiveness and credibility of the
matter
presented.
3.3.2 Matter should be assessed from the viewpoint of
the average reasonable person. Adjudicators should
analyze the matter presented and assess its
persuasiveness, while disregarding any specialist
knowledge they may have on the issue of the debate.
Members should not be discriminated against on the
basis of religion, sex, race, color, nationality,
sexual preference, age, social status or disability.
3.3.3 Points of information should be assessed according to the
effect they have on the persuasiveness of the cases of both
the member answering the point of information and the
member offering the point of information.
Part 4 - Manner
4.1

The definition of manner

4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is

the style and structure a member uses to further his
or her case and persuade the audience.
4.1.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Some,
but not all, of these elements are listed below.
4.2

The elements of style

4.2.1 The elements of style include eye contact, voice

modulation, hand gestures, language, the use of notes
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

and any other element which may affect the

effectiveness of the presentation of the member.
4.2.2 Eye contact will generally assist a member to
persuade an audience as it allows the member to
appear more sincere.
4.2.3 Voice modulation will generally assist a member to
persuade an audience as
the debater may emphasize
important arguments and keep the attention of the
audience. This includes the pitch, tone, and volume
of the members oice and the use of pauses.
4.2.4 Hand
gestures will generally assist a member
to emphasize important arguments. Excessive hand
movements may however be distracting and reduce
the attentiveness of the audience to the arguments.
4.2.5 Language should be clear and simple. Members who use
language which is too verbose or confusing may
detract from the argument if they lose the
attention of the audience.
4.2.6 The use of notes is permitted, but members should be
careful that they do not rely on their notes too much
and
detract
from
the
other
elements
of
manner.
4.3

The elements of structure

4.3.1 The elements of structure include the structure of the

speech of the member and the structure of the speech of
the team.
4.3.2 The matter of the speech of each member must be
structured. The member should organize his or her
matter to improve the effectiveness of their
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

presentation. The substantive speech of each member

should:
4.3.3 The matter of the team must be structured. The team
should organize their matter to improve the effectiveness
of their presentation. The team should:
(a) contain a consistent approach to the issues being
debated; and
(b) allocate positive matter to each member where
both members of the team are introducing positive
matter; and
(c) include: an introduction, conclusion and a series of
arguments; and
(d) be well-timed in accordance with the time
limitations and the need to prioritize and apportion
time to matter.
4.4

Assessing manner

4.4.1 Adjudicators should assess the elements of manner

together in order to determine the overall effectiveness
of the members presentation. Adjudicators should
assess whether the members presentation is assisted or
diminished by their manner.
4.4.2 Adjudicators should be aware that at a World
Championship, there are many styles which are
appropriate, and that they should not discriminate
against a member simply because the manner
would
be deemed inappropriate Parliamentary debating in their
own country.
4.4.3 Adjudicators should not allow bias to influence their
assessment. Members should not be discriminated against
on the basis of religion, sex, race, color, nationality,
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

language (subject to Rule 4.2.4), sexual preference, age,

social status or disability.
Part 5 - The Adjudication
5.1

The role of the adjudicator

5.1.1 The adjudicator must:

(a) Confer upon and discuss the debate with the other
adjudicators;
(b) Determine the rankings of the teams;
(c) Determine the team grades;
(d) Determine the speaker marks;
(e) Provide a verbal adjudication to the members; and
(f) Complete any documentation required by the
tournament.
5.1.2 The adjudication panel should attempt to agree on the
adjudication of the debate. Adjudicators should therefore
confer in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect
5.1.3 Adjudicators should acknowledge that adjudicators
on a panel may form different or opposite views
of the debate. Adjudicators should therefore attempt
to base their conclusions on these rules in order to
limit subjectivity and to provide a consistent approach
to the assessment of debates.
5.2

Ranking teams

5.2.1 Teams should be ranked from first place to last

place. First placed teams should be awarded three
points, second placed teams should be awarded
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

two points, third placed teams should be awarded

one point and fourth placed teams should be awarded
zero points.
5.2.2 Teams may receive zero points where they fail to arrive at
the debate more than five minutes after the scheduled
time for debate.
5.2.3 Teams may receive zero points where the adjudicators
unanimously agree that
the
Member
has
(or
Members have) harassed another debater on the
basis of religion, sex, race, color, nationality,
sexual preference or disability.
5.2.4 Adjudicators should confer upon team rankings.
Where
a unanimous decision cannot be reached after
conferral, the decision of the majority will determine the
rankings. Where a majority decision cannot be reached,
the Chair of the panel of adjudicators will determine the
rankings.
5.3 Grading and marking the teams
5.3.1 The panel of adjudicators should agree upon the grade
that each team is to be awarded. Each adjudicator may
then mark the teams at their discretion but within the
agreed grade. Where there is a member of the panel who
has dissented in the ranking of the teams, that adjudicator
will not need to agree upon the team grades and
may complete their score sheet at their own
discretion.
5.3.2 Team grades and marks should be given the following
interpretation:
Grade
A

Marks
180 - 200

Meaning
Excellent to flawless. The

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

160 179

140 - 159

120 - 139

100 - 119

standard you would expect to

see from a team at the Semi
Final/Grand
Final level of the
tournament. The team has much
strength and few, if any,
weaknesses.
Above average to very good. The
standard you would expect to see from
a team at the finals level or in
contention to make to the finals. The
team has clear strengths and
some minor weaknesses.
Average. The team has strengths and
weaknesses in roughly equal
proportions.
Poor to below average. The team
has clear problems and some
minor strength.
Very poor. The team has fundamental
weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.

5.3.3 Marking
the
members
5.4.1
After
the
adjudicators have agreed upon the grade that
each team is to be awarded, each adjudicator
may mark the individual members at their
discretion but must ensure that the aggregate
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

points of the team members is within the agreed grade

for that team.
5.3.4 Individual members marks should be given the
following interpretation:
Grade
Marks
Meaning
A
90-100
Excellent to flawless. The standard
of speech you would expect to see
from a speaker at the Semi
Final/Grand Final level of the
tournament. This speaker has much
strength and few, if any, weaknesses.
B
80-89
Above average to very good. The
standard you would expect to see
from a speaker at the finals level
or in contention to make to the
finals. This speaker has clear strengths
and some minor weaknesses.
C
70-79
Average. The speaker has
strengths and weaknesses and
roughly equal proportions.
D
60-69
Poor to below average. The team
has clear problems and some minor
strength.
E
50-59
Very poor. This speaker has
fundamental weaknesses and few,
if any, strengths.
5.4 Verbal adjudications
5.4.1 At the conclusion of the conferral, the adjudication
panel should provide a verbal adjudication of the
debate.
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

5.4.2 The verbal adjudication should be delivered by the

Chair of the adjudication panel, or where the Chair
dissents, by a member of the adjudication panel
nominated by the Chair of the panel.
5.4.3 The verbal adjudication should:
5.4.4 The verbal adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes.
5.4.5 The members
must not harass the
adjudicators following the verbal adjudication.
5.4.6 The members
may approach an adjudicator
for further clarification following the verbal
adjudication; these inquiries must at all times be polite
and non-confrontational.
(a) identify the order in which the teams were ranked
(b) explain the reasons for the rankings of team, ensuring
that each team is referred to in this explanation; and
(c)
provide constructive comments
to individual members
where the adjudication
panel believes this is necessary.
5.4.7 The verbal adjudication should not exceed 10 minutes.
5.4.8 The members must not harass the adjudicators
following the verbal adjudication.
5.4.9 The members may approach an adjudicator
for
further clarification following the verbal
adjudication; these inquiries must at all times be polite
and non-confrontational.
VIII. POLSRI AT GLANCE
STATE POLYTECHNIC OF SRIWIJAYA
VISION
To become a leading vocational institution
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

MISSION
1. Fostering qualified education in the fields of
engineering and non engineering based on quality
assurance system;
2. Developing, disseminating, and applying science,
technology, and art as well as the quality of applied
research results to be used in productive activities and
improving the quality of community life.
3. Developing organization and improving the quality of
human resource management to achieve effective,
efficient, and sustainable performance;
4. Enhancing mutual partnerships with other parties in
order to improve the quality of Tri Dharma.
State Polytechnic of Sriwijaya was formerly called Polytechnic
of Sriwijaya University officially opened on 20 September
1982. In the first phase, Polytechnic had only 2 (two)
Departments-Civil Engineering and Mechanical Engineering
Department- with a maximum capacity of 576 students. The
employed human resource and curriculum were assembled
nationally and centered at the Polytechnic Education
Development
Center
(PEDC)
in
Bandung.
In 1987, Polytechnic expanded the field of Engineering and
spawned a new field of study Business Administration. The
new fields of Engineering were Electrical, Electronics,
Telecommunications, and Industrial Chemical Engineering
whereas Business field consists of Accounting Department
started in the academic year 1986. Then in 1992, Business field
developed into two departments, namely Department of
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING
CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

Accounting and Business Administration. Experts who helped

in the development of engineering field were from Swiss
Contact, while experts for Business field were from Australia.
In the year 2002/2003 two new departments- Computer
Engineering and Information Management were established.
This establishment was set by the Director General of Higher
Education letter No. 2800/D/T/2001. In the academic year
2002/2003 many educational developments were undertaken by
the Polytechnic, such as the opening of the Diploma III
affiliation program. Electrical Engineering and Mechanical
Engineering were affiliated with PT. Bukit Asam and Diploma
Program IV Road and Bridge Planning were affiliated with
Kimpraswil Department.
In the academic year 2004/2005, State Polytechnic of Sriwijaya
developed English Department of Business Tourism and
hospitality industry concentration based on the permission of
the Director General of Higher Education No. 3818/D/T/2003.
In the effort to improve the quality and competence of
graduates, various efforts have been undertaken including the
success of several departments at State Polytechnic of
Sriwijaya in getting TPSDP Program Project Batch I, II and III
and the Polytechnic Due like Batch II and IV as well as SP 4.
State Polytechnic of Sriwijaya in the academic year 2011/2012
has eleven courses with 4241 students.

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013

IMPORTANT CONTACTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Convener, Mr. Rachmat Nurcahyo: 0856 2874 702

Tournament Directors:
Ms. Dora: 0812 8580 686
Mr. Ahmad Rifai: 085713308020
Transportation, Mr. Bram: 0813 6944 4441
SPPD, Ms. Munaja Rahma: 0813 6836 5403
Health Division, Ms. Sukma: 0711- 8498891
LO Coordinator, Ms. Darminiyanti: 0821 7511 0283

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY DEBATING

CHAMPIONSHIP-2013