adjudication briefing

Slamet Cahyono

adjudication briefing
format of tournament rules practicalities

tournament format
3 Preliminary rounds round 1 is randomly drawn rounds 2-3 are power matched top 16 teams break through to knockout rounds

points to note
judging conflicts (e.g. will not judge own team) consensus decisions among the panel oral adjudications in rounds 1-2 closed adjudications rounds 3 adjudicator accreditation (tests, feedback & experience)

Judges should be familiar with the Worlds rules points of information definitions matter the content of a speech manner the structure and style of a speech the role of different teams in the debate marking scheme

rules

positions in the debate

1. prime minister 2. leader of opposition 4. deputy leader of opposition 6. member of opp. 8. opposition whip

3. deputy prime minister 5. member of govt 7. govt whip

basic format
20 minutes preparation time printed or written material permitted electronic equipment prohibited 7 minute speeches

points of information
first and last minutes of speech are protected time signal to indicate these points member offering POI should stand speaker may accept or decline

points of information
POIs should not exceed 15 seconds the speaker may ask the offering member to sit where the offeror has had a reasonable chance to be understood members should attempt to answer at least 2 POIs in their speech there are no points of order or points of personal privilege

points of information
may take any form the offeror wishes questions, clarification, facts, challenges, rebuttal, even jokes POIs assessed as matter

assessing points of information

effectiveness and persuasiveness member offering point of information speaker answering point of information participation in debate as a whole

motions
open motions e.g. this house believes the glass is half full semi-closed motions e.g. this house would alter its genetic code closed motions e.g. this house would bomb Iraq

definitions
the definition should state the issue(s) for debate arising from the motion, stating the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation PM should provide the definition at the beginning of his/her speech

definitions
the definition must: (a) have a clear and logical link to the motion (b) not be self-proving /truistic (c) not be time-set (d) not be place-set unfairly

(a) clear and logical link

average reasonable person would accept the link between motion and definition as explained by the speaker semi-closed motions: treat the motion as an issue for debate e.g. this house would alter its genetic code closed motions: take stricter approach e.g. this house would bomb Iraq

(b) self-proving definitions

x should / should not be done, and there is no reasonable rebuttal e.g. were going to argue that murder should be illegal x is already the case, and so there is no reasonable rebuttal e.g. were going to argue that the murder rate in the US is higher than in Scotland

(b) self-proving definitions

status quo cases are not necessarily unreasonable e.g. were going to argue that the european union should adopt the single currency its a fair definition, because there is a reasonable rebuttal

(c) time setting

...its 1936. Youre about to be introduced to Adolf Hitler, youve got a gun in your pocket, and youre not particularly pleased to see him. Were going to argue that you should shoot him and save millions of lives... all debates must take place in the present

(d) unfair place setting

the members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament have regard to the issue being debated have regard to the teams in the debate

definitional challenges
the leader of the opposition may challenge the definition if it violates one of the four criteria above and he should clearly state that hes doing so. only the leader of the opposition may challenge the definition no-one else the leader of the opposition should substitute an alternative definition

assessing definitional challenges

the adjudicator should determine the definition to be unreasonable where it violates any of the criteria above the onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members challenging it. where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not also unreasonable.

assessing definitional challenges

where an alternative definition is substituted by the opening opposition, the closing government may accept that definition and introduce matter which is inconsistent with the opening governments matter.

matter
matter is the content of a speech matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case matter includes points of information

the elements of matter

matter should be: relevant to the debate logical consistent within their speech, with their partner, and also with the other team on their side of the debate

the elements of matter

all members (except the last two in the debate) should present positive matter the govt whip may choose to do so the opp whip may not do so all members (except the prime minister) should present rebuttal

assessing matter
matter should be persuasive adopt the viewpoint of an average reasonable person disregard any specialist knowledge you may have Judge should not allow bias or discrimination to influence their decision

manner
manner is the presentation of the speech style structure

style
any element which affects the overall effectiveness of the speakers presentation eye contact voice modulation hand gestures clarity of language and expression use of notes

structure
structure of the speech should: include an introduction, conclusion, and a series of arguments use the allotted time properly teamwork

assessing manner
overall effectiveness of presentation at a world championship, there are many styles which are appropriate, and you should not discriminate against a speaker simply because their manner would be considered inappropriate in your own country

the role of teams in the debate

1st govt:
definition justification of case rebuttal of 1st opp (deputy prime minister)

1st opposition:
rebuttal alternative where appropriate

the role of teams in the debate

2nd govt
anything which makes them stand out from the debate job is simply to be better than 1st govt how does a team do this?

the role of teams in the debate

2nd govt
introduce new material consistent with 1st govt e.g. new lines of argument e.g. different focus to the case e.g. widening / narrowing of debate repetition of 1st govt isnt enough

summary speeches
Summary of debate as a whole, with particular emphasis on own team responsive to dynamics of debate -spend more time on the more important issues no one correct way of doing this
speaker by speaker issue by issue thematic

ranking teams
rank teams from 1st to 4th
(Note: judges MUST fill out their ballots 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the tab system will convert into the 3, 2, 1, 0 point for ranking. If the ballot is incorrectly filled out then there is a danger that the wrong result will be entered)

teams may be placed last automatically, where they fail to arrive more than 5 minutes after the scheduled time for the debate

marking scheme
A 90-100 excellent to flawless
the standard of speech you would expect to see from a speaker at the semifinal / grand final level of the tournament. this speaker has few, if any, weaknesses.

B 80-89 good

above average to very

the standard you would expect to see from a speaker in contention to make the break. this speaker has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.

marking scheme
C 70-79 D 60-69 E 50-59 average poor to below average very poor
the speaker has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal proportions. the speaker has clear problems and some minor strengths. the speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.

practicalities
consensus decision making speed ballot (must be filled in ASAP) detail ballot (One per room not one per judge) oral adjudications (given by the chair judge unless dissenting)

agreeing rankings and scores

agree team rankings 1st 4th Fill in and return the Speed ballot to a runner outside your room award individual speaker marks (this is done by concensus and ONE form is returned. This is a change from past Worlds and was first done in Toronto no low point wins i.e the team that finishes first must
get more speaker marks than the team in second and so on

agreeing rankings and scores

agree rankings and scores by consensus. Where unanimous consensus cannot be reached the judges vote. The Chair judge does NOT have the right to over-ride the majority decision if he/she is dissenting You must make a decision. Where all judges are deadlocked in different opinions and no majority can be reached then, and only then, may the chair make an overriding decision

oral adjudications
ballots go in before you start chair of panel (unless dissenting) announce team rankings reasons behind decision constructive criticism dont exceed 10 minutes

feedback and complaints

oral adjudication queries and clarification
polite and non-confrontational

adjudicator evaluation form adjudication team all complaints will be followed up