adjudication briefing

adjudication team andy hume john paul toner meg osullivan rob silver

adjudication briefing format of tournament rules practicalities q & a accreditation video

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

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

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

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

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

points of information : first and last minutes of speech are protected time signal to indicate these points : member offering POI should stand : speaker may accept or decline

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

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

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

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

definitions : 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 : PM should provide the definition at the beginning of his/her speech

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

(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

(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

(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

(c) time setting...its 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

(d) unfair place setting : 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

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

assessing definitional challenges : the adjudicator should determine the definition to be unreasonable where it violates any of the criteria in clause : the onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members challenging it : 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.

assessing definitional challenges : 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.

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

the elements of matter : 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

the elements of matter : 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

assessing matter matter should be persuasive adopt the viewpoint of an average reasonable person – disregard any specialist knowledge you may have : bias and discrimination

manner manner is the presentation of the speech style structure

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

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

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

the role of teams in the debate 1 st govt: –definition –justification of case –rebuttal of 1 st opp (deputy prime minister) 1 st opposition: –rebuttal –alternative where appropriate

the role of teams in the debate 2 nd govt –anything which makes them stand out from the debate –job is simply to be better than 1 st govt –how does a team do this?

the role of teams in the debate 2 nd govt –introduce new material consistent with 1 st govt –e.g. new lines of argument –e.g. different focus to the case –e.g. widening / narrowing of debate –repetition of 1 st govt isnt enough

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

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

marking scheme A90-100excellent 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 80-89above 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.

marking scheme C 70-79average the speaker has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal proportions. D 60-69poor to below average the speaker has clear problems and some minor strengths. E50-59very poor the speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.

practicalities agreeing rankings and scores speed ballot individual ballot oral adjudications

agreeing rankings and scores agree team rankings 1 st – 4 th 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

speed ballot

individual ballot

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

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

questions

accreditation and ranking of judges experience video national or regional accreditation adjudicator evaluation forms objectivity, fairness, and flexibility