Adjudication Seminar

English Debating Society

Universitas Indonesia
Depok, 1999

Prepared by:

Permata Harahap
<permataharahap@gmail.com>
Adjudication Seminar

●Introduction
●Basics of Debating
●Assessing Matter
●Assessing Method
●Assessing Manner
●Other Issues
●Marking Scale
●Concluding Note
Introduction

●adjudication: inherently subjective

olimited by some artificial constraints
●role: an average reasonable person
owith expert knowledge of debating rules
owithout preconceived opinions on issues
●function: decide - justify - criticize
omarks awarded should reflect adjudicator’s
decision, not vice versa
Verbal Adjudication

●explaining your decision:

ohighlight critical differences between teams
odon’t debate the debaters
obe specific in weighing crucial elements
●giving constructive criticism:
oadapt to the level of experience of debaters
obe constructive, use constructive terms
●should be 5 to 7 minutes in total
Debating: Basics

●format: Australasian Parliamentary

o Affirmative/Government vs. Negative/Opposition
o led by a Chairperson; no interruptions allowed
o motion: full propositional statement
o speech duration and order:
● 1st Affirmative (7 min) ● 1st Negative (7 min)

● 2nd Affirmative (7 min) ● 2nd Negative (7 min)

● 3rd Affirmative (7 min) ● 3rd Negative (7 min)

● Reply Affirmative (5 min) ● Reply Negative (5 min)

Debating: Roles of Speakers

● 1st speakers: ● 3rd speakers:

o Aff: define the motion o rebutt opponent
o Neg: accept/reject o summarize case
definition, rebutt ● Reply speakers:
o outline team structure
o overview of the debate
o deliver 1st part of case
● 2nd speakers:
● in brief:
o rebutt opponent
o 1st: (define), outline, part of case
o deliver 2nd part of case
o 2nd: rebutt, bulk of case
o 3rd: rebutt, summarize
o Reply: overview
Debating: Cases (1)

●case: set of arguments supported by evidences

●anatomy of a case:
odefinition: limits scope of the debate
oteam split: distribution of arguments
oarguments and rebuttals
Debating: Cases (2)
● must be reasonable:
motion o clear and logical link to motion
clear and
o debatable
logical link
● may contain:
definition o def. of key lexical units
answers o parameters
“why?” ● required: definition as a whole
args/rebs ● proves motion as it is defined

1st
argument
● each speaker must prove case, watch:
argument
o invalid case (arguing besides the
team split
argument point, not proving the case)
o hung case (case proven only after
2nd
argument 1st and 2nd speech combined)

rebuttals
Assessing Matter

●content (arguments, evidences) - 40%

●keywords: logic and relevance
ologic: chain of reasoning
orelevance: link to motion/theme line
●distinguish strong vs. weak arguments
●examples only support argument; they
cannot substitute the argument itself
Matter: Argument

●a good argument should have A-R-E:

oAssertion - statement of the argument
oReasoning - explanation of the argument
oEvidence - facts, statistics, etc.
●a good argument should be linked back
into the motion/theme line
Matter: Rebuttal

●argument attacking the opposing team’s

argument, e.g. by showing that:
oIt is based on an error of fact
oIt is irrelevant to the proof of the topic
oIt is illogical
oIt involves unacceptable implications
oIt should be accorded little weight
Assessing Method

●structure and organization - 20%

●includes:
ostructure of individual speech (incl. time
management, i.e. overtime/undertime)
ostructure of the team’s case (incl. fulfillment of
roles of speakers)
oresponse to the dynamics of the debate
Assessing Manner

●delivery (public-speaking skills) - 40%

●key question: “was it effective?”
●elements of manner:
● vocal style ● stance
● use of language ● dress
● use of notes ● impression of sincerity
● eye contacts ● humor
● gesture ● personal attacks on
opponents
Other Issues: Definitions

●affirmative’s definition must be reasonable

oclear, logical link to the (spirit of the) motion
odebatable (a reasonable opposition exists)
●negative may only challenge it based on:
otruistic/tautological (not debatable)
osquirreling (no logical link to motion)
otime and place setting (specific knowledge)
●expect “even-if” in definitional challenge
Other Issues: Reply Speech

●overview of the debate:

oshowing the clash/point of contention
owhat their side has given
owhat the other side has tried to give
owhy they should win (biased adjudication)
●reply speech is not rebuttal
●rule: no new matter in Reply speech
Other Issues: Other Errors

●rule: no new matter from 3rd Neg

onew examples in rebuttal is not new matter
onew matter from 3rd Aff is also discouraged
●misrepresentations:
oincorrect/disproportional reiteration of
opposing argument
●team slides:
ochange in theme between speakers
Other Issues: Miscellaneous

●distinguish Matter, Manner, and Method

●rule: no ties shall be awarded
●brief interjections are tolerated, but
heckling is not allowed
●a Best Speaker is chosen between
substantive speakers
●humor round:
ofunny is appreciated, but logic is still a must
Marking Scale: Substantive
Marking Scale: Reply
Marking Scale: Margin
Concluding Note

●please follow the marking scale, including

margins (chairpersons will help you)
●please make use of the Guidelines
●please consult the Chief Adjudicator
●please attend adjudicators’ meetings

Thank You and Good Luck Adjudicating!