ADS DEBATE CAMP

MAY 24, 2008

|:: holistic ADJUDICATION

 Down with checklist adjudicators!

 Issues before technicalities
 Teams should not lose on the basis of
technicalities alone;
 Explanation needed on how technical flaw
weakened team’s contribution
 Look at a speech in its entirety
 Matter, Manner, Method
 Converse burden – always comparative
|:: adjudication CRITERIA
Contribution
 Substantiation
 Breadth and Depth
Dynamism/Responsiveness
Consistency
Fulfillment of Roles
Know the issue and rules, but don’t
impose arguments
|:: proposal DEBATES
 Same rigor for PM and LO
 No full negative cases
 Defend status quo / make a counterproposal
 Don’t expect to win if you want to run a
negative case
 What’s the real status quo?
 OG portrays a “twisted” status quo
 OO can defend the “real” status quo
 Adjudicators should decide
 Counterproposals
 Not everything has to be mutually exclusive! (if the
debate is on the non-mut-ex part)
|:: rebuttals VS. constructive
 Constructive speaker took too long rebutting?
(4 mins and up)
 Did it forward the case w/ positive material?
 Was amount of negative material justified?
 “Adjudication through signposting”
 Penalize for sloppy structure
 Consider in relation to entire speech and
flow of debate
|:: analysis VS. examples
 Examples are highly encouraged
 Helps ground the analysis
 Parallel models, case studies, hypothetical
scenarios acceptable
 Debaters CANNOT lose by giving wrong
or no examples
 Penalize them in terms of contribution
 Adjs must contextualize this against all
substantiation offered
|:: whip SPEECHES
 Role of whip speakers
 Recap and filter the debate
 Rebut the relevant issues
 New matter
 “Whips can lose debates but can’t win it!”
 Adjs should assess team as a unit
(extension is still most impt role)
 Member and Whip contributions are equal
and essential