adjudication briefing

1
adjudication briefing
2
adjudication team

• andy hume
• john paul toner
• meg osullivan
• rob silver

3
adjudication briefing

• format of tournament
• rules
• practicalities
• q a
• accreditation video

4
tournament format

• 9 rounds
• round 1 is randomly drawn
• rounds 2-9 are power matched
• top 32 teams break through to knockout rounds
• esl break top 8 esl teams outside top 32

5
points to note

• judging conflicts
• consensus decisions
• oral adjudications in rounds 1-6
• closed adjudications rounds 7-9
• adjudicator accreditation
• adjudicator break

6
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

7
positions in the debate

• prime minister leader of opposition
• deputy prime deputy leader of
• minister opposition
• member of govt member of opp.
• govt whip opposition whip

8
basic format

• 15 minutes preparation time
• printed or written material permitted
• electronic equipment prohibited
• 7 minute speeches

9
points of information

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

10
points of information

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

11
points of information

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

12
assessing points of information

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

13
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

14
definitions

• 2.1.1. 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
• 2.1.2. PM should provide the definition at the
  beginning of his/her speech

15
definitions

• 2.1.3 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

16
(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

17
(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

18
(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

19
(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

20
(d) unfair place setting

• 1.2.3. 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

21
definitional challenges

• 2.2.1. the leader of the opposition may
  challenge the definition if it violates one of
  the four criteria in 2.1.3., and he should
  clearly state that hes doing so.
• only the leader of the opposition may challenge
  the definition no-one else
• 2.2.2. the leader of the opposition should
  substitute an alternative definition

22
assessing definitional challenges

• 2.3.1. the adjudicator should determine the
  definition to be unreasonable where it violates
  any of the criteria in clause 2.1.3.
• 2.3.2. the onus to establish that the definition
  is unreasonable is on the members challenging it.
• 2.3.3. 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.

23
assessing definitional challenges

• 2.3.4. 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.

24
matter

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

25
the elements of matter

• 3.2.1. 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

26
the elements of matter

• 3.2.5. 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

27
assessing matter

• matter should be persuasive
• adopt the viewpoint of an average reasonable
  person disregard any specialist knowledge you
  may have
• 3.3.3. bias and discrimination

28
manner

• manner is the presentation of the speech
• style
• structure

29
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

30
structure

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

31
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

32
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

33
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?

34
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

35
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

36
ranking teams

• rank teams from 1st to 4th
• 5.2.2. teams may be placed last automatically,
  where they fail to arrive more than 5 minutes
  after the scheduled time for the debate

37
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 above average to very good
• 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.

38
marking scheme

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

39
practicalities

• agreeing rankings and scores
• speed ballot
• individual ballot
• oral adjudications

40
agreeing rankings and scores

• agree team rankings 1st 4th
• agree grade for each speaker A E
• award individual speaker marks
• adjudicators may differ on precise individual
  marks, but they must
• (a) remain within that grade
• (b) not be low-point wins

41
speed ballot
42
individual ballot
43
oral adjudications

• speed ballot goes in before you start
• chair of panel (unless dissenting)
• announce team rankings
• reasons behind decision
• constructive criticism
• dont exceed 10 minutes

44
feedback and complaints

• oral adjudication
• queries and clarification
• polite and non-confrontational
• adjudicator evaluation form
• adjudication team
• all complaints will be followed up

45
questions
46
accreditation and ranking of judges

• experience
• video
• national or regional accreditation
• adjudicator evaluation forms
• objectivity, fairness, and flexibility