I usually describe it as Worlds-style debate or Worlds but when I'm
introducing it to someone who may not be familiar, I usually add an "a.k.a.
BP" to the designation. Yeah, it's a mouthful.
I'm not quite as concerned as Tuna and some others about using the word
"British" in the title. To me, it seems to acknowledge the format's roots in
Parliament, rather than possession by a particular nation or people.
Besides, if we call it BP, won't it be that much more satisfying when the
USA starts to dominate the circuit?
Ultimately, we should agree on one name and that name should probably be the
same as whatever the rest of the world calls it.
From: USA Debating in the WUDC Format [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Robert Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: What do we call our activity - BP?
I'm sensing another topic at our coaches meeting at USU NATS. Keep the
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 7, 2013, at 12:30 AM, "Alfred Charles Snider" <[log in to unmask]>
> What we call ourselves and what we do is important.
> We have a few moments and limited attention from administration,
supporters, and alumni. We need to make those moments count.
> The name we use does create a reality.
> I do not want to keep explaining things to everyone.
> BP? British don't own it. They do not run the tournament. Tell that to the
Australians and the Irish. British may be damn good at it but it stops
> In my evangelical efforts I try to communicate to people that this is the
"world's" format. It is the most international and most popular debating
format in the world. I think this is quite an accurate name.
> My opinion - Call it worlds or WUDC but please do not call it BP. Of
course, you have freedom of speech, so do what you like. My point is that if
we want to grow it and promote it we need to have a name that is accurate
and communicates what we do.
> My opinion.
> PS: I create a mysterious reality with my nickname for a reason. I do not
want to do that with our debate format.