Judge training- Warwick IV What did that person just say?

On the day Turn up to Humanities for 8.30AM or as early as you’re capable of getting there You’ll be assigned a room which you’ll be managing and judging in for the day If it’s not set up already please help us put the rooms in order ready for a day of debating

When the tab rolls Wait outside the announcement room with a sign indicating the room you’re going to Gather teams that are in your room – they’ll rush at you prepping in a panicked manner you shouldn’t have to look far Take them to the room If you have time go back to the announcement room and jot down the teamnames in your room and the chair judge

How to judge Offer to time if you can – it’s just hitting a table Divide page down the middle into either 2 or 4 boxes As speeches are given write down everything important you think is said – as much detail as possible Highlight/star/write exciting comments next to anything you think important at the end of each speech

How to judge 2 As the debate goes on think about what teams are beating what other teams and for what reasons Think about things like was the rebuttal to the point that was actually made or was it irrelevant – if you think irrelevant jot down a reminder Was the point made relevant to the debate or just talking about a similar issue – did the logical justifications flow from uncontroversial premises?

How to judge 3 After the debate is over the chair judge will give you a few minutes to think about your call Eventually the judge will ask you to give a call – if you don’t have a 1 st -4 th straight away that’s fine, just give some idea of what teams beat what teams Be specific about what issues you’re referring to and be holistic in justifying Don’t just say “that point was good” say “that point was better/more important than this one” and why

After the debate Once the chair has filled in the ballot they are needed to give feedback Given this and that Warwick people are those who know their way around the uni they’ll ask you to run it back to the tab room I will take it from you and enter it into the software – you’re then free to return to the room and listen to the rest of the feedback

Some terms Rolling – If the panel is not in agreement the chair will call a vote on positions. If the chair is outvoted it is called rolling – they may or may not ask a wing to give the feedback if they don’t feel they can defend the call Knifing – When a team contradicts another team on their own bench. The team knifing generally has that argument (note not their whole speech) rendered invalid.

Some more terms Ordinary Intelligent Voter/ Informed Global Citizen – the standard of knowledge by which to judge debates. No specific knowledge of any issue and a front page knowledge of the news You have no principled assumptions – even if something you know to be false is said if this is not pointed out in the debate it stands Role fulfillment – Whether or not a speaker fulfilled the duty of what they do in a debate (did the PM provide a mech, did the summary add material or not)