LW 305 REVISED ASSESSMENTS

I have read the comments so far on topic 1. Some of you wanted clarification on the debates and the topic
postings.

You have also seen that with the large number of online students I cannot keep up with the social, political and
legal news & developments assessment discussion forum too well.

This document contains:

 Revised instructions – topic postings

 Revised instructions – social, political and legal news & developments posting
 Revised instructions - debates

1
305 DISCUSSION FORUM – REVISED INSTRUCTIONS

OVERVIEW
There are two assessed discussion forums:

 Topic discussions
 Social, political and legal news & developments

Topic discussions

This forum should be used for discussing the course content. You may want to post commentary on study tasks,
readings or lectures. You may also want to ask questions.

You may also want to start your own new thread posting commentary on study tasks, readings or lectures. You
may also want to ask questions.

If you are starting a new thread you should clearly identify the topic and subject you are discussing (ie: Topic 3:
More cases on infanticide; Topic 8: Cooray reading question’ Topic 5: Study task 3 comment …)

EDITED TO ADD:

 So far this is working well

 I will post one or more questions every week. You may want to answer these. There will be initial
questions and then follow up questions after I have read the first round of student commentary.

 Check the marking criteria, which state: ‘I expect at least one post a week on any topic of your
choosing (you can post in either forum, on anything at all. You are not expected to post on every
single thread – this is likely to lead to a bunch of low quality commentary).’

 You do not have to answer every single one of my questions in order to get an A.

 Posting on 1 of my topic related questions each week (so in week 1 post something on topic 1, week 2
post something on topic 2, week 3 post something on topic 3 et cetera) along with one additional
comment on one of the news items each week is likely to get you a good mark – just so long as you
meet the other quality requirements of the marking criteria. You are welcome to post more, but make
sure posts are of good quality

2
Social, political and legal news & developments

As being aware of the news and the broader context is a really important part of being able to contribute to
developments in your country this forum is used for discussing anything you would like to in relation to social,
political and legal news and developments in the South Pacific region.

If you are starting a new thread please make your title descriptive.

EDITED TO ADD:

 Given the number of students I am unable to keep up with this effectively – well done to those of you
who are already posting interesting material.

 I am therefore assigning each student with a week to start a new post. In the week that you are
assigned you must find a link to a current social, political or legal news item or development (such as a
new law or proposed Bill) from your country, summarise it and discuss why it is particularly
interesting or significant.

 You should try to post on the Monday of the week that you are assigned to.

 If you are not assigned to create a post in any given week then you should be commenting on what
others have said. For instance I am assigned to make a news item post in week 4 – in weeks 5 to 14 I
should be commenting on other peoples’ posts.

 In order to make the group manageable I will delete any posts started by students who are not
assigned to post in that week.

 Existing posts, up to the end of week 3, will be taken into account in my marking and will be left up for
students to comment on.

3
Social, political and legal news & developments: POSTING SCHEDULE

Week Name Week Name

4 Emmitt Deeyarn 9 Maharaj Emalaini
Starting Taupili Dawn 10/9 Tone Elizabeth
30/7 Moala'eu Mele'ana Rimoni Ianeta
a Baleilevuka Laisiasa
Veibuli Rusiate Soriano Eggo
Tano'A Lily Lalama Tevita
Babanisi Edwin Thaggard Estein
Moce Etonia Cibavakalolo Vulaono
Prasad Gajendra ma
Nand Atish Siuru Greenville
5 Motokaina 10 Maesugea Robinson
Starting va Adi Elenoa 17/9 Ene Eddie
6/8 Kisiani Loise Dolson Rosemary
Turaganival Tuaci Mere
u Lauvili Volavola Elizabeth
Tonga Sustina Vuniwawa Peni
Bule Richly Matai Orisi
Lomaloma William Moceinava
Liku Sovaia ga Selina
Rose Gregory Nair Subanjal
Kolaoi Patricia
6 Davo Esther 11 Sialaoa Fuamata
13/8 Niuga Ramo 24/9 Rusaqoli Iosefo
Seru Virokanu Hill Mathew
Collinson Jason Leaupepe Faafou
Tafirobo David Sale Reyna
Cati Loqi Atanteora Benateta
Tuivuya Ratu Livai Waikiru Shoghi
Kumar Payal Tafolo Losimani
Cagilaba Seremaia Tetea James
7 Salaahudde 12 Lal Tanisha
20/8 en Huzaifah 1/10 Prasad Sarvesh
Pranesh Peter Gonekalo
Puloka Kalolaine u Seini
Lagonilakeb Yee Dzoshua
a Viliame Chand Rahul
Sharma Kajol Silatolu Lavenia
Vunise Josephine Qica Joana
Tuva Kelera Ali Zeba
Raiviko Ratu Peni Sami Roxanna
Ali Alisha
Mid Alasia Diana 13 Mulo Lusiana
semester Daveta Filimoni 8/10 Sanau Lyndellar
27/8 Goneyali Sekaia Singh Vinita
Khan Haizel Faka Rominah

4
 Manoa Veronika Soaika Jillian
Cyrel Anita Chandra Shivneel
Leweni Arieta Lincoln Jay
Raselala Jovilisi Kumar Avikash
Sharma Maneesh
8 Ram Pream 14 Lata Artika
3/9 Tumalevu Makelesi 15/10 Ali Sheegufa
Lomalom Singh Shyna
a Michelle Sagaitu Stephanie
Rafiq Muhammed Tilatila Tokasa
Liga Ana Narayan Rayveen
Devi Shyleen Chand Kunal
Nand Shayal Prasad Shivanjali
Luvu Lilyan Kolia Fa'au'u Uliulilekea
Ali Farhat

5
MARKING CRITERIA

 Regularity of postings – I expect at least 1 post a week, on any topic of your choosing (you can post in
either forum, on anything at all. You are not expected to post on every single thread – this is likely to
lead to a bunch of low quality commentary)
 Clarity of expression –I expect close to perfect English
 References where appropriate – I do not want to see unsupported assertions
 Evidence that you are reading other postings – I want to see you making a mixture of new posts and
comments on other posts. I will be ruthless about deleting/archiving posts that repeat what others have
already said, or posts that should have been a reply to an existing thread and instead were made into a
new thread. Posts that get archived do not get marked. If you have a post that gets archived and you
want it to count for assessment, then read what has already been posted in forums and copy/paste the
content of your archived post into a reply under the existing thread on the same topic.
 Quality of postings – I want to see your thinking and engagement with the material. I do not need
answers to things, asking thoughtful questions is very valuable.

EDITED TO ADD:

 Some posts so far have very poor English. Check the marking criteria and edit before posting.

 Posting on 1 of my topic related questions each week (so in week 1 post something on topic 1, week 2
post something on topic 2, week 3 post something on topic 3 et cetera) along with one additional
comment on one of the news items each week is likely to get you a good mark – just so long as you
meet the other quality requirements of the marking criteria. You are welcome to post more – I am
really enjoying seeing the level of engagement from some of you - but make sure posts are of good
quality

6
305 ONLINE – DEBATE REVISED INSTRUCTIONS

I have 74 students at Laucala, 6 at Lautoka and 6 at Labasa

I am having to travel to Fiji for other work and am seeking to stay an extra couple of days so that all of the Fiji
based students can do face to face debate assessments. Watch this space! Once I know about flight bookings I
will confirm debate times, debate groups, and also debate training.

For those of you who get to do face to face debates, the assessment regime is below.

For other students to debate assessment does not change – once the Emalus face to face students start doing
their debates you will be assigned to

 comment on their debates

 Do online debates on parallel topics

Additional instructions will come out once the Emalus debates commence.

7
Debates

Debate
Worth: 10% (group mark, unless performance indicates otherwise)
Due: To be announced
Written outline of argument
Worth: 5%
Due: The day of your debate
Length: Approximately 2 – 5 pages, including references
Peer evaluation
Worth: 0, but must be submitted along with the written outline of argument in
order for you to receive a mark for the debate
Due: The day of your debate

DEBATE

This information has been adapted from material written for the Indonesian Varsities English Debates.

Organisation of the debates

1. You will be assigned to teams of 3 or 4 people.
2. Two randomly selected teams will debate a resolution assigned by me. The sides (affirmative and negative)
shall also be determined randomly.
3. The resolutions shall be announced 1 week prior to the teams' scheduled debate. The resolutions will be
related to recent classes.
4. Your team will usually be given a single mark for the debate performance (you are marked as a group).
5. Students will be called upon to be debate judges. The comments of the student judges will help the
coordinator in giving feedback, but the decision of student judges will not affect your mark.

The format of the debates

Each team will have three or four speakers and each speaker will deliver a substantive speech of the time
duration specified below. If the team only has three speakers then either the first or the second speaker from each
team will deliver a reply speech. The order of the speeches will be as follows: 
 First Affirmative         5 Minutes
 First Negative            5 Minutes
 Second Affirmative    5 Minutes
 Second Negative       5 Minutes
 Third Affirmative       5 Minutes
 Third Negative          5 Minutes
 Reply Negative          3 Minutes

8
  Reply Affirmative       3 Minutes

A warning bell will be sounded 20 seconds before the end of each speech. The speaker is expected to complete
his/ her speech in the allotted time. After 20 seconds the bell will start ringing continuously and the speaker shall
be penalised for any further continuance of the speech.

Only the Chairperson or any person he/ she calls upon will have the right to speak during the debates.

The Roles of the Teams

The first speaker of the affirmative team must define the resolution and support this by giving constructive
arguments. The affirmative team is expected to give a reasonable definition for the resolution. Definitions must
be reasonable. There must be clear logical link between the definition and the resolution. The basis of any
successful challenge to the definition will only be on the grounds that the given definition is truistic, tautological,
circular, or wholly unreasonable.

The Opposition must oppose the proposition and build a counter case against them. In the event that the
Opposition feels that the proposed definition is invalid, it may challenge the definition and propose an alternative
definition. 

Marking criteria for debates

 The following criteria are taken from the Guidelines for the Royal Malaysian Intervarsity Debating
Championship

The whole exercise of debating revolves around the persuasiveness of the speakers in convincing the
adjudicators. Your team will be marked on the following:

Matter: Matter consists of three main elements; arguments, examples and rebuttals. Arguments and examples
will be judged based on their relevance, explanatory and interest value, their development in advancement of the
team's case, and the clash they provide against the case of the opposing team. Arguments and examples that are
developed in a logical analysis are marked favourably than those based heavily on assertion (i.e. arguments
without proper substantiation) or emotion.

Marks will also be awarded for effective rebuttals. Debaters are not, strictly speaking, obliged to make a detailed
refutation of every argument of their opponents. There are however, expected to forward effective and
convincing rebuttals of the main contentions of the other side by confronting those contentions head-on.
Rebuttals should not get bogged down in unnecessary details.

Manner: Manner is the style in which a debater presents arguments. This is just as important to the debate as the
arguments themselves. Manner includes persuasion, the ability to demonstrate a polished and confident speaking
technique and to hold the attention of the audience and adjudicators.

The style employed through the use of emotion, tone, gestures and rhetorical techniques should also be
appropriate to the material presented and assist the argument being made. For example, the use of humour and
wit in terms of appropriate sarcasm and amusing examples or anecdotes is appreciated but will score few marks
if it does not advance the argument. Examples of humour not appreciated in the debate are inappropriate jokes,
personal insults and mere stand-up comedy.

9
One important thing that debaters should remember is that there is no one best way to debate; there is no
difference between an aggressive and forceful debater and one who is calm and understated if both are able to
demonstrate the ability to persuade and hold the attention of the adjudicators. Notwithstanding this, there is
however a limit to the degree of acceptable "manner" - neither an overly aggressive nor a too understated debater
will score many points.

Method: The structure of individual arguments and a team's case as a whole constitutes method. Clear
distinction between points and the existence of a logical flow between them will be marked favourably. There
should not be any contradiction of analysis within a particular argument or between arguments presented by
speakers on the same team (The opposing team that points out such contradictions stands to be marked
favourably).

As with written articles or books that begin with a clear introduction, then proceed with a thorough and
systematic analysis of the substance central to the article and end with a concise conclusion, debaters should also
be able to structure their speeches into separate categories with appropriate headings. Debaters should not lump
different arguments together without clear separation and expect the adjudicators to figure out for themselves
when a particular individual arguments ends and the next one begins.

Debaters must give attention to the logical and systematic flow of their elaborations on the arguments. They
should guide the adjudicators through their analysis and make them feel as though they are reading an
authoritative book on the issue presented. Needless to say, a debater who achieves this shall be marked
favourably by the adjudicators.

10
WRITTEN OUTLINE OF ARGUMENT

Your team must submit a written outline of your debate argument and key points that demonstrates your research
on your topic.

In debates you might end up using rhetoric more than reason to win, so the outline is your opportunity to
demonstrate your reasoning, and the research that your reasoning is built on. You might also end up having to
leave out arguments, so the outline gives you the opportunity to demonstrate that.

I do not want a written essay. Instead I want bullet points that:

 highlights your key points/arguments;

 indicates any other arguments that you think are valid, but that did not make it into the oral presentation
during the debate;
 indicate what you think the opposing team’s arguments might be and how you would counter these
arguments; and
 contain (in footnotes) correct references to any sources that you use.

Marking criteria

Structure
 Is the argument logically ordered

Content
 Is all of the content relevant
 Is the reasoning sufficiently supported with other material
 Is the reasoning appropriate (does it make sense, avoids an overly emotive or aggressive tone)
 Does the reasoning take into account other possible views/counter arguments
 Are theoretical issues addressed, as appropriate
 Are all conclusions well supported with reasoning

Language
 Is the English correct (including spelling, grammar, non sexist language)
 Is the expression clear/easy to understand (do you have to guess at the meaning in places)
 Is the expression appropriate for an academic work (no contractions, slang, language pitched
appropriately. First person statements are fine)

Referencing
 Is the referencing in the footnotes/endnotes in conformity with the USP School of Law Referencing
Guidebook (including references between notes)
 Are the footnotes/endnotes appropriate (placing and content, all things referenced)
 Are the sources used appropriate to support the points

11
PEER EVALUATION: DEBATES

You must also individually submit this peer evaluation in order for your mark to be released.

Peer evaluation _____________________________ (your name)

USING THE SCALE BELOW, INDIVIDUALLY RATE EACH MEMBER OF YOUR LEARNING TEAM, INCLUDING YOURSELF.

1 = Poor 2 = Adequate 3 = Very good 4 = Excellent

Name of Team Member:

Preparation
Research, reading,

Attendance
Attended all team
meetings

Participation
Contributed best
academic ability

Interpersonal Relations
Positive and productive

Communication
Initiated and responded
appropriately

Overall Contribution
score:
1, excellent
2 very good
3 ok
4 poor
5 very poor

12