3. We couldn’t do it without you!

4. This Brief Presentation Will Cover Five Talking Points That Will Train You To Be Great Judges Style of Debate Role Of Each Team Role of Each Debater Important Aspects of Debate Your Role as a Judge

7.  The rules of this style of debate were established at the Nationals in 2003. The objectives were to blend Canadian Parliamentary Style and the style at the World Schools Debating Championship. It is a unique blend of rules.  Issues do not need to have a Canadian theme  The level of debate can be brought up to an international level.

8. Understanding the proceedings of the debate is key to understanding how to judge the debate. The basic structure of all debates remains consistent, and is very simple. 1 st Proposition 8 Minutes 1 st Proposition 8 Minutes 1 st Opposition 8 Minutes 1 st Opposition 8 Minutes 2 nd Proposition 8 Minutes 2 nd Proposition 8 Minutes 2 nd Opposition 8 Minutes. 2 nd Opposition 8 Minutes. Reply Speeches 4min. Each side Reply Speeches 4min. Each side

9.  First two rounds will be debated on the prepared topic is: This house believes that capitalism is beneficial to the world.  The next 4 rounds as well as the quarter and semi finals will be impromptu resolutions.  Those impromptu resolutions have been picked by a motion committee composed of University debaters from across Canada.

10. Judge1 Judge 2 Judge 3

12.  Proposes a motion  Defines the terms of the motion  “THBT terrorism can be justified”  “THS genetic screening by health insurance companies”  Watch out for slanted definitions, or possible definitional debates  Gives Reasons to pass the motion  In Canadian National style, the proposition has a burden of proof  (But unlike previous styles… So does the opposition!)

13.  Opposes the Motion  If Necessary counters definitions  This should only occur if the definitions are clearly wrong or give a very unfair advantage to the Prop  Themed Resolutions give room for open definitions  Gives Reasons against passing the motion (opposition should focus on moving their own case as well)

15.  1. Introduction  2. Clearly states the definitions  3. Model (If used)  4. Theme/Case line (“what we will prove to you is…”}  5. Proposition Arguments  6. Conclusion  Example of the 2008 (Carbon Tax)  http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/17/x2leRfdEs24 http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/17/x2leRfdEs24  (notes: sounds if off for the first 27 seconds of the speech, the sounds starts at 1:42)

16. 1. Introduction 2. Counter Model (if they wish) 3. Outline “the split” 4. If necessary, attack definitions  Most teams will accept the terms as defined (no time, place, set)  Can challenge the terms if unreasonable  If this happens, judges decide which terms are more reasonable (still possible for Prop. to win) 5. Opposition team’s these/caseline 6. Clash with Proposition arguments 7. Explain arguments for opposing the resolution 8. Conclusion Example: http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/16/ek4A60_spfM

17.  Clashes with all of the opposition arguments presented thus far  Finishes off the case for the government  Example:  http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/15/ZShKf7OtQM0 http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/15/ZShKf7OtQM0

18.  Last word from the Opposition on constructive material  1. Introduction  2. Continue attack on Proposition  3. Outline team’s case approach  4. Further arguments against resolution  5. Conclusion  Example:  http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/14/YwH9IhphD7k http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/14/YwH9IhphD7k

19.  Both teams:  Take a step back and summarize the debate  Distill the debate into themes and clash on the major ideas of the debate  Leave the judges with a clear reason for your side winning the debate  Approach should be thematic rather then systematic.  Example (both side have 4 min each)  http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/13/GPeiZiJEcyI http://www.youtube.com/user/MartinPoirier1#p/u/13/GPeiZiJEcyI

22. Points of information are an IMPORTANT aspect of this debate During unprotected time debaters from the other team can rise to propose a question (POI) The speaker can choose to accept or reject the POI. Once accepted the floor is opened up for one short question. Questions should be kept short, to the point and relevant to the debate!

23. The golden rule is give 2 POIs and take 2 POIs per speech. However POIs should be reflective of the pace of speech. If a speech is fast then giving more POIs is acceptable. If a speech is slow then too many POIs can become harassing. POIs should be used to puncture holes in the other team’s case and support their own. POIs are part of strategy points.

24.  Models or plans are used to determine how the team is going to take the action they are advocating  Not always necessary  Can be useful in defining the pragmatics of the case  Does not need to address  Funding  Timelines  Legislative information  Only deals with how in an ideal world the Government would follow through (as the example in the video)

25.  Provides a clear and concise road map of their case for the judges (and other debaters)  Helps reinforce their points (because the judges can write down what these points are)  Should be done at the beginning, the middle and the end of every speech  Tell the judges what they are going to say, say it then remind the judges what you just said

26. S tatement E xample E explanation  A basic construction of arguments

28. Your role as a judge revolves around some simple, core aspects Speaker Points The Choice Feedback

29.  Your Primary Function as a Judge in this tournament is to award speaker points to each individual debater  Scores will be on a Point Scale  70-90  An arbitrary scale, due to tradition set by the British and Australians… Seriously!

30.  Manner (28-36)  How the debater delivered his address Persuasiveness Style  Matter (28-36)  What the debater brought to the round Content Analysis  Strategy (14-18)  How the debater used content, order of arguments structured arguments, and used Points of Information

31.  Manner + Matter  28 Work Needed  30 OK  32 Average  34 Excellent  36 Exceptional  Strategy  14 Work Needed  15 OK  16 Average  17 Excellent  18 Exceptional Scores Should Be Within 70 - 90 28 + 28 + 14 = 70 32 + 32 + 16 = 80 36 + 36 + 18 = 90

32.  Total Scores (Half-points are allowed)  70 Incredibly Poor (Any Scores Lower than 70 will be raised to 70) this is the Nationals! Debaters went through a selection process to get here!  72 – Poor  75 – Below average, Work Needed  78 - Average  81 – Bench mark for the tournament: Good  83 – Excellent  87 – Exceptional  90 – Flawless, Perfect (Any Scores Higher than 90 will be dropped to 90)  This scale will be at the back of the ballot.

33. The statistician will only look at the individual score and the team score The statistician will not look at each criteria, those boxes are there for your own use only.

34.  Depends on the balance that occurs at the end of the debate.  No Such thing as an automatic win, or automatic loss  Holistically comparing cases  In Canadian National Style the team points must be aligned with the “winning team” (No low point wins)  Who had the best manner (40%)  Who had the best matter (40%)  Who had the best strategy (20%)

35.  Occurs after the round has completed, after ballots have been completed, and handed to the chair for delivery  Is the most valuable tool for debaters  Centered around why the round was one or lost  What they can do individually to make themselves better debaters  Keep it short! We are on a very tight schedule!

36. Questions?