Introduction

Several weeks ago, I hosted Bowen Cup II and there were a lot of issues, part of them is due to my lack of mental capacity of dealing with the complex and cumbersome stuffs, some of them are just the nature of here, making it hard to host the tournament.

Now under the assistance of medical intervention and having gotten rid of most of the things that’s been bothering me, I’m recovering from the burn out state and have a clearer view of what happened and how to deal with them.

To make sure the knowledge and experience from my last host pass on to the next and following generations, I’m writing this blog post.

The first half before the SOP is written by me, as I needed to summarize my own experience, the problems I encountered, and the solutions I considered. The SOP section was drafted with the assistance of ChatGPT after a detailed conversation about Bowen Cup II. It provides a calmer and more systematic version of the lessons that should be passed on to future hosts.

Issue 1: Lack of Participants

We had a rather large scale of promotion on this event, merely form what only I can see, we have covered at least 200 people, 50 of which had went to the official signup channel on our website, 10 of which joint our group chat, none of which actually signed up or participated in debate.

I tried my best to advertise in the channels I have access to, and set up 4 pre-tournament training. In the end, we did not have enough participants to host a complete debate.

Root Problem

Technically, this is a structural problem: without enough participants, it is difficult to invite qualified adjudicators; without credible adjudicators, it is also difficult to attract participants.

Another problem we face is lack of debate culture in WZBC, that is, the small number of people interested in BP debate and English, or there are not enough people who can speak English. On top of that, even we can reach people who has fluent English, they won’t necessarily participate as for two reasons: One is that they are afraid to step out of the comfort zone, another is that we did not give them enough incentives.

Solution

The introduction of cross-campus recruitment and exchange students partially solved the problem, at least we had the opening half.

Next time we can invite people privately to ensure enough participants, which allows more communication and less chance of rejection. After the minimal viable number of people for tournament is gathered, can we stared the public recruitment.

Issue 2: Negativity

We had 11 people joint the Bowen Cup II Tournament Group, none of whom has registered for the tournament, none of whom has responded to any of the messages or pre-tournament trainings.

Being interested != Joining the group

Joining the group != Participation

There are a lot of things in the middle that keeps people away from registering a formal BP debate tournament, fear, self-doubt, etc., I personally believe there in this case, no matter if anyone wanted to encourage them or not, we need a very clear and accurate participation list. To do so, we believe that only those who has registered via our official channel are trustable and are most certainly to come. In contrast, those who have not registered are defaulted not to come, as they are not sure themselves.

Other Minor Issues

There are other potential issues, for example the pre-tournament trainings. I set them up because I wanted people to have a chance of learning something which helps them on stage, and to make this tournament really novice friendly. However, some people said that if a tournament suggests pre-tournament trainings, it hints that the tournament is actually a bit challenging, which keeps people away. There are also people saying that we introduced the tournament in a way too formal. We had official website, posts, professional panelists, all of which makes people think it is a rather formal tournament, which creates fear to people.

SOP

Based on the experience of Bowen Cup II, the following SOP is suggested for the future hosts of Bowen Cup or similar BP debate tournaments.

1. Decide the Tournament Scale

Before public recruitment begins, the organizing team should decide three possible versions of the tournament:

Full Version:
8 or more debaters, 2–3 adjudicators, 2 or more volunteers. This allows a relatively complete BP tournament.

Mini Version:
4–7 debaters, 1–2 adjudicators. This can be held as a mini tournament, showcase debate, training tournament, or closed practice tournament.

Workshop Version:
Fewer than 4 debaters. The event should be changed into a workshop, demo debate, motion analysis session, or public speaking training.

The tournament should not be cancelled easily. Instead, it should be downgraded according to the actual number of confirmed participants.

2. Secure the Minimum Viable Participants First

The organizing team should not rely only on public advertisement.

Before launching large-scale public recruitment, the host should privately contact potential debaters, including:

• current active BPDU members;
• former members;
• exchange students;
• students with strong English ability;
• students from other universities or English-speaking communities;
• people who have participated in previous BPDU activities.

Only after the minimum viable number of debaters is secured should the event be publicly advertised.

For a BP tournament, the ideal minimum is 8 debaters.
For a mini version, the minimum is 4 debaters.

3. Treat Registration as the Only Reliable Confirmation

Joining a group chat, clicking the website, or saying “I am interested” should not be treated as participation.

Only people who have completed the official registration form should be counted as confirmed participants.

The participation list should be divided into three categories:

Confirmed: registered through the official channel and replied to confirmation messages.
Potential: joined the group chat or showed interest but has not registered.
Not counted: people who only clicked the link, asked casually, or remained silent.

When calculating the tournament scale, only confirmed participants should be counted.

4. Set Confirmation Checkpoints

To avoid uncertainty, the organizing team should set several confirmation checkpoints.

Suggested timeline:

7 days before the tournament:
Check the number of registered participants and decide whether the tournament is likely to be full, mini, or workshop version.

3 days before the tournament:
Send a confirmation message to all registered participants and adjudicators.

1 day before the tournament:
Confirm attendance, arrival time, role, and contact method.

On the morning of the tournament:
Send the final reminder and ask participants to reply.

If a participant does not reply to confirmation messages, they should be treated as uncertain and should not be placed in essential plans.

5. Communicate with Adjudicators Early

Adjudicators are usually the most valuable and time-sensitive resources in the tournament. The organizing team should not invite too many adjudicators before the participant number is stable.

A suggested order is:

1. Secure minimum participants privately.
2. Estimate the possible tournament scale.
3. Invite adjudicators based on the realistic scale.
4. Inform adjudicators clearly if the tournament may be downgraded.

If the participant number is uncertain, the host should honestly tell adjudicators that the tournament may become a smaller training tournament or showcase debate. This avoids embarrassment and protects trust.

6. Use Pre-Tournament Training Carefully

Pre-tournament training is useful, especially for novice debaters. However, it should be framed carefully.

Instead of making it sound like a requirement for a difficult tournament, it should be introduced as:

• a beginner-friendly preparation session;
• an optional confidence-building workshop;
• a chance to understand BP format before the tournament;
• a way to make the tournament less scary.

The language should avoid making people feel that the tournament is too professional or too difficult.

For example, instead of saying:

“You are strongly recommended to attend the training before the tournament.”

It may be better to say:

“No prior debate experience is required. We will provide optional beginner-friendly training to help you understand the format and feel more comfortable before the tournament.”

7. Balance Professionalism and Accessibility

A formal website, professional adjudicators, and structured posts are important because they give the tournament credibility. However, for novice participants, too much formality may also create pressure.

Therefore, future promotion should have two layers:

Official layer:
Used on the website, formal posts, and communication with teachers or external partners. It should show that the tournament is serious and well-organized.

Friendly layer:
Used in group chats, posters, and direct messages. It should emphasize that beginners are welcome, mistakes are acceptable, and the tournament is a learning experience.

The tournament should look credible to adjudicators and institutions, but approachable to novice debaters.

8. Prepare a Downgrade Plan in Advance

The host should prepare a downgrade plan before the tournament begins.

If there are 8 or more debaters, hold the full BP tournament.
If there are 4–7 debaters, hold a mini tournament or showcase.
If there are fewer than 4 debaters, hold a workshop or demo debate.

This rule should be decided internally before public promotion. It prevents the host from making emotional decisions under pressure.

The key principle is:

The event should continue in a suitable form, even if the original scale cannot be reached.

9. Keep Records for Future Generations

After the tournament, the organizing team should archive the following materials:

• registration data;
• promotion channels and results;
• number of people reached;
• number of website visitors;
• number of group chat members;
• final participant list;
• adjudicator list;
• motions;
• schedule;
• photos;
• problems encountered;
• solutions and suggestions;
• final event review.

These records should be stored on the BPDU website or internal documentation platform, so that future hosts do not have to start from zero again.

10. Protect the Host’s Mental Capacity

Hosting a tournament is mentally demanding. The host should not assume that they can handle everything alone.

The organizing team should divide tasks clearly, including:

• participant recruitment;
• adjudicator communication;
• room booking;
• schedule design;
• promotion;
• group chat management;
• photography;
• check-in;
• tabulation;
• post-event review.

The host should focus on core decisions instead of doing every minor task personally.

If the host is already under academic, personal, or mental pressure, the tournament scale should be reduced accordingly. A smaller but stable event is better than a larger event that relies on one person burning out.

11. Final Principle

Bowen Cup should not depend on one person’s personal ability, mental capacity, or temporary passion.

It should become a system.

The goal of Bowen Cup is not only to host one successful tournament, but also to preserve a debate tradition, create real academic experience, and leave future BPDU members a clearer path to continue.

Even if the scale is small, as long as people debate, receive feedback, think seriously, and leave with something meaningful, the tournament has its value.

The most important lesson from Bowen Cup II is:

Do not trust interest. Trust confirmation.
Do not rely on scale. Build a fallback plan.
Do not let one host carry the whole tournament. Build a system.