Adjudicating BP Debates Steve Johnson University of Alaska Steve Johnson University of Alaska

Argumentation

Argument is movement  move an audience  advance positions  sway opponents  redirect questioning  follow lines of argument  take logical leaps  retreat from claims  push issues  drive points home  come to conclusions  arrive at a decision  move an audience  advance positions  sway opponents  redirect questioning  follow lines of argument  take logical leaps  retreat from claims  push issues  drive points home  come to conclusions  arrive at a decision

Points of Stasis  Predictable places at which arguments pause  A point of clash between competing arguments.  Useful to evaluate opposing arguments  Predictable places at which arguments pause  A point of clash between competing arguments.  Useful to evaluate opposing arguments

Points of Stasis 2 Types: PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Opposition’s ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree 2 Types: PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Opposition’s ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree

Propositions PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Oppositions 1.Propositions identify the relevant territory for the debate (and exclude the irrelevant territory) 2.Propositions divide the Prop territory from the Opp territory PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Oppositions 1.Propositions identify the relevant territory for the debate (and exclude the irrelevant territory) 2.Propositions divide the Prop territory from the Opp territory

The Proposition PROPOPP

Propositions “China should ban smoking” Proposition: China should ban smoking Opposition: China should not ban smoking “China should ban smoking” Proposition: China should ban smoking Opposition: China should not ban smoking

Dragon Appropriate? West Misunderstood? Historical Meaning? Practical costs? Dragon Appropriate? West Misunderstood? Historical Meaning? Practical costs? GOVOPP China should ban smoking PROP: China should ban smoking OPP: China should not ban smoking

Issues ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree 1.Issues focus the points of clash within the proposition 2.Emerge as a result of the arguments advanced by the Prop and Opp sides 3.May or may not be acknowledged by the teams ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree 1.Issues focus the points of clash within the proposition 2.Emerge as a result of the arguments advanced by the Prop and Opp sides 3.May or may not be acknowledged by the teams

Issue #1 Issue #2 Issue #3 Proposition

Issues “China should ban smoking” Proposition: 1.Smoking creates a significant public health hazard Opposition: 1.Banning smoking will have significant economic consequences for producers and retailers 2.Banning smoking infringes on the rights of smokers. “China should ban smoking” Proposition: 1.Smoking creates a significant public health hazard Opposition: 1.Banning smoking will have significant economic consequences for producers and retailers 2.Banning smoking infringes on the rights of smokers.

Is smoking detrimental to public health? What will be the economic consequences? Do smokers have a right to smoke in public? China should ban smoking PROPOPP PROPOPP PROPOPP

Debating (argumentation) is a contest of efforts to gain ground on particular issues and, by so doing, on the proposition. Ground may be gained by advancing (horizontally) against opponents or by expanding (vertically) against other issues. Debating (argumentation) is a contest of efforts to gain ground on particular issues and, by so doing, on the proposition. Ground may be gained by advancing (horizontally) against opponents or by expanding (vertically) against other issues. Argumentation and Movement

Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction) Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction) Issues and Movement

PROPOPP Issue #1 PROPOPP Issue #2 PROPOPP Issue #3 Proposition

Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction) 1.Prop: Smoking poses a public health risk 2.Opp: Smoking poses little public health risk Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction) 1.Prop: Smoking poses a public health risk 2.Opp: Smoking poses little public health risk Issues and Movement

PROPOPP PROPOPP PROPOPP Do smokers have a right to smoke in public? China should ban smoking What will be the economic consequences? Is smoking detrimental to public health?

Expansion: vertical movement between issues Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing). Expansion: vertical movement between issues Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing). Issues and Movement

PROPOPP Issue #1 PROPOPP Issue #2 PROPOPP Issue #3 Proposition

Expansion: vertical movement between issues Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing). 1.Prop: Smokers’ rights are less important than public health 2.Opp: The economic consequences of this policy far outweigh the minimal gains in public health, particularly when less intrusive means to control smoking exist. Expansion: vertical movement between issues Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing). 1.Prop: Smokers’ rights are less important than public health 2.Opp: The economic consequences of this policy far outweigh the minimal gains in public health, particularly when less intrusive means to control smoking exist. Issues and Movement

China should ban smoking PROPOPP Smokers’ Rights? PROPOPP Economic Consequences? Public Health? PROPOPP

The Process of Adjudication

Priorities and Guiding Values  Tabula Rasa: the “blank slate”  Education: participants should be encouraged to improve and develop  Non-intervention: let the debaters debate, don’t make their efforts irrelevant or do their jobs for them  Tabula Rasa: the “blank slate”  Education: participants should be encouraged to improve and develop  Non-intervention: let the debaters debate, don’t make their efforts irrelevant or do their jobs for them

3 standards and a model  The Standards:  Matter and Manner  Role Fulfillment  Better Debate  The Model:  The movement model  The Standards:  Matter and Manner  Role Fulfillment  Better Debate  The Model:  The movement model

Matter & Manner  Matter  Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.  Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.  Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information.  Manner  Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.  Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Primarily, manner may be assessed by examining the speakers’ style (delivery) and structure (organization).  Matter  Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.  Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.  Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information.  Manner  Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.  Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Primarily, manner may be assessed by examining the speakers’ style (delivery) and structure (organization).

Role Fulfillment  Opening Prop  Clear Model and Case  Refutation and Rebuttal  Opening Opp  Clear team line  Refutation and Rebuttal  Member Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp)  Extensions  Whip Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp)  Holistic Summary  Opening Prop  Clear Model and Case  Refutation and Rebuttal  Opening Opp  Clear team line  Refutation and Rebuttal  Member Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp)  Extensions  Whip Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp)  Holistic Summary Do the teams & speakers do their jobs?

The “Better Debate” Standard  Who contributed most to (or detracted most from) the quality of this debate?  Guiding principles:  Inquiry: Are the most germane issues interrogated?  Advancement: Does each speech/speaker move the debate forward?  Engagement: Do the debaters test the arguments of the opposing side?  Performance: Who delivers the most compelling oratorical effort?  Who contributed most to (or detracted most from) the quality of this debate?  Guiding principles:  Inquiry: Are the most germane issues interrogated?  Advancement: Does each speech/speaker move the debate forward?  Engagement: Do the debaters test the arguments of the opposing side?  Performance: Who delivers the most compelling oratorical effort?

A model of adjudication Model: A perspective from which to consider the debate A framework to guide your consideration of the round Debate is a contest of ideas: the best ideas should win Model: A perspective from which to consider the debate A framework to guide your consideration of the round Debate is a contest of ideas: the best ideas should win

Less Practical Adjudication Models “Truth of motion” model  Question: at the end of the debate, is the motion true or false?  Risk: the bias of the judge may make the debaters’ efforts irrelevant “Truth of motion” model  Question: at the end of the debate, is the motion true or false?  Risk: the bias of the judge may make the debaters’ efforts irrelevant “Skill of debaters” model  Question: which team did the better job of arguing their position?  Risk: the debaters may be eloquent, but their arguments may be untrue.

The Movement Model Before the round, the judge thought the motion was: After the round, the judge thought the motion was: Opposition wins, because they moved the judge the farthest. Before the round, the judge thought the motion was: After the round, the judge thought the motion was: Opposition wins, because they moved the judge the farthest. True False Which team moved the judges the furthest?

Adjudicating the Debate 1.Identify the proposition 2.Identify the issues 3.Determine the winner of each issues 4.Determine the importance of each issue 5.Assess each team’s efforts relative to the issues 6.Report the decision 1.Identify the proposition 2.Identify the issues 3.Determine the winner of each issues 4.Determine the importance of each issue 5.Assess each team’s efforts relative to the issues 6.Report the decision

Steps 1 & 2 1.Identify the Proposition: What is the question of the motion? 2.Identify the Issues: Over which specific points do the teams contest the proposition? 1.Identify the Proposition: What is the question of the motion? 2.Identify the Issues: Over which specific points do the teams contest the proposition?

China should ban smoking in public places PROPOPP Do smokers have a right to smoke in public? PROPOPP Is smoking detrimental to public health? PROPOPP What will be the economic consequences?

Steps 3 & 4 3.Determine the winner of each issue: Which side occupies the most ground for each issue? (Distribution) 4.Determine the relative importance of issues: What is the relative importance of each issue? (Expansion) 3.Determine the winner of each issue: Which side occupies the most ground for each issue? (Distribution) 4.Determine the relative importance of issues: What is the relative importance of each issue? (Expansion)

1.Truth: does the argument correspond to fact or reality? a.Fidelity (External Consistency)? b.Coherence (Internal Consistency)? 2.Validity: is the argument well-constructed and well-executed? a.Effective expression? b.Strategically deployed? 1.Truth: does the argument correspond to fact or reality? a.Fidelity (External Consistency)? b.Coherence (Internal Consistency)? 2.Validity: is the argument well-constructed and well-executed? a.Effective expression? b.Strategically deployed? Evaluating competing lines of argument

Step 5 5.Determine each team’s effort relative to each issue: Who did what to win or rank each issue?

Step 6 6.Justify and report the decision

Oral Adjudication  Constraints  Between minutes  Delivered by the Chair  Wing adjudicators may contribute at the Chair’s discretion  Should not reveal speaker points  Procedure  Reveal Rankings  Provide Reason for Rank for each team  Provide constructive criticism  Answer questions  Constraints  Between minutes  Delivered by the Chair  Wing adjudicators may contribute at the Chair’s discretion  Should not reveal speaker points  Procedure  Reveal Rankings  Provide Reason for Rank for each team  Provide constructive criticism  Answer questions

Panel Adjudication  Achieving consensus  Many perspectives can make for better judging  Led to consensus by the Chair  Avoid bullying  Avoid laissez-faire leadership  Active participation by Wing Judges  Critical to quality decisions and adjudicator development  Don’t capitulate; don’t calcify  Isolate the difficult decision  Bench win?  Top or bottom half debate?  Agree on First? Fourth?  Decision between 1st & 2nd? 2nd & 3rd?  Can default to majority decision  Achieving consensus  Many perspectives can make for better judging  Led to consensus by the Chair  Avoid bullying  Avoid laissez-faire leadership  Active participation by Wing Judges  Critical to quality decisions and adjudicator development  Don’t capitulate; don’t calcify  Isolate the difficult decision  Bench win?  Top or bottom half debate?  Agree on First? Fourth?  Decision between 1st & 2nd? 2nd & 3rd?  Can default to majority decision

Assigning Points  Scale  1-100; 75 average  Point inflation strongly opposed  Functional range:  Determining Points  Points are based on consensus  Start with agreement on highest or lowest for best or worst speaker  Individual points totaled for team points  No low-point wins  Scale  1-100; 75 average  Point inflation strongly opposed  Functional range:  Determining Points  Points are based on consensus  Start with agreement on highest or lowest for best or worst speaker  Individual points totaled for team points  No low-point wins