1. Adjudicating Schools Debating Christopher Bishop Treasurer, Wellington Speaking Union February 18, 2014

2. The three roles of an adjudicator… 1.Ensure the debate runs smoothly 2.Call the debate correctly 3.Provide a useful and considered adjudication speech that: –Will help the teams improve –Explains why the team that won the debate won

3. 1. Managing the debate Be organised –Have a mark-sheet, notepad and pens –Know the motion, the sides, the rules eg speaking times –Have a stopwatch and bell Chair the debate if necessary - but try and get a student to do it for you. Watch out for –Loud discussions during speeches –Heckling –Points of order –Coaching from the floor The adjudicator controls the debate, not the chair.

4. 2. How to Adjudicate The Golden Rule: Debating is about persuasion Winning team = most persuasive team –Not the ‘team with the most marks’ –Marksheet should always reflect what you think about the debate, not the other way around Most persuasive team = team that best fulfils its role –Affirmative – constructive role: have they constructed a case that still stands at the end of the debate? –Negative – destructive role: have they deconstructed the affirmative’s case so that it does not stand at the end of the debate? Persuasion is a matter of substance, style, and strategy

5. The Marksheet 40 marks for content/matter (substance) 40 marks for style/manner 20 marks for strategy

6. Assessing substance: onus’ Onus: what do teams need to prove to win? “Change” debates: affirmative proposes a change –E.g “That we should legalise marijuana” –Job of affirmative is to show that change proposed will address a problem, provide benefits  “make the world a better place” –Job of negative is to show that proposal will be ineffective, exacerbate a problem, has costs that outweigh benefits  “make the world worse” –These are useful metrics to use when assessing teams: viewed in a global sense, has the affirmative proven the case for change? “Judgement” debates: affirmative tries to prove that a particular statement is largely correct –e.g “That the media is too powerful” –Job of affirmative is to mount arguments as to why the statement is correct –Job of negative is to disprove those arguments (rebuttal) and mount constructive arguments as to why the statement is wrong Don’t get too hung up on these labels

7. Assessing substance: Evidence Reasoned and supported argument is more persuasive than assertion POINT – REASON – EXAMPLE Examples should be relevant They should not be Role plays References to films or songs Quotes from Shakespeare Metaphors Personal anecdotes

8. Assessing substance: Arguments Giving credit for arguments involves assessing: How persuasive is the argument on its own merits? Was the argument rebutted/disproved by the other team? Adjudicators can and should engage in analysis of how persuasive an argument is… Logical and consistent reasoning Relevant and good examples Presented in a compelling manner …But also how persuasive the rebuttal is Challenge the assumptions underlying the argument? Challenged veracity of examples? Provided counter-examples Picked up faulty logic or poor reasoning. Arguments that go unrebutted gain credit. The better the argument, the more credit gained

9. Assessing Style Look for overall effectiveness – are they persuasive? Many different styles, can be equally effective Don’t nit pick eg use / size of cue-cards Always ask the question: Is the style persuasive? How much weight to give style 50 / 50 split Teams can win on style But substance and style generally go hand in hand

10. Assessing Strategy Two concepts: Does speaker understand issues of the debate? Structure/timing of a speech Understanding the issues – what do I need to do at this point to advance my team’s position in the debate? Rebutting the most important/damaging points = good strategy Ignoring best points of opponent/focusing on small points only = poor strategy Highlighting only the worst points of your own team = poor strategy Structure/timing Good speeches have a beginning, middle and end Signposting throughout speech helps logical flow Prioritisation of material within in a speech (start with rebuttal, most important points first, picking right issues to rebut, etc) Keeping to time

11. Speaker Roles Each speaker has a few specific jobs to do in the debate First affirmative: define key terms in topic, context for topic, outline model, outline team line and key arguments, provide team split, develop 2-3 substantive arguments First negative: outline negative stance in the debate, team line and key arguments, provide team split, rebut arguments of first affirmative, develop substantive arguments for own case. Second affirmative: rebut attacks on first speaker’s material, rebut arguments made by first negative, develop more substantive arguments for affirmative team Second negative: rebut arguments made by second affirmative, continue rebuttal of first affirmative, develop more substantive arguments for negative Third affirmative: rebuttal of first two negative speakers, MAY provide more substantial material for affirmative (not required) Third negative: pure rebuttal speech – no new material allowed. Summaries: Recap major issues and arguments in the debate, “spin” the debate for each side, “biased adjudication”. Speakers that fail to fulfill their role harm their team (and themselves)

12. Some guidelines for judging 1.Definitional issues 2.No knockout blows 3.Analysis should reflect the debate as a whole

13. Some guidelines 1.Definitional issues Shouldn’t generally arise in schools debating Topics are fairly clear and indicate what the debate is meant to be about Golden rule is: what would an ordinary reasonable person think the debate was about if they saw the topic? Affirmative’s job is to define the terms and set up context of the debate If the definition is reasonable then the negative team shouldn’t challenge Times to definitely challenge (very rare) Truisms: Self-proving (e.g “genocide is bad”) Tautologies For definitions that are just outside the spirit of the motion (squirreling), teams should get on with the debate and rely on the adjudicator to take it into account in the decision Leeway given to negative teams who are forced to deal with a motion that has been “squirreled” by the affirmative Adjudicators should punish teams who squirrel: NOT an automatic loss – all depends on CONTEXT (like all adjudicating).

14. Some guidelines 2. No knockout blows - either technical or substantive Key principle Technical failures (eg timing, no conclusion, poor case split) matter, but are not decisive to the result They go towards persuasiveness Significance Teams need not ‘hit’ every point in rebuttal Prioritisation is to be encouraged – most important points Not an exercise in box ticking Initiative Teams shouldn’t win “against the run of play” Late arguments are less persuasive e.g an argument at 3 rd affirmative

15. Some guidelines 3. Your analysis should reflect the flow of the debate Weighting of issues should reflect the focus of the teams Always be open minded Exercise of judgment can and must be independent of your own opinions Exercise of judgment can and must be independent of your own knowledge What would reasonable person know about this topic going into the debate? Mustn’t compensate for ‘difficult’ cases Let the teams do the persuading

16. Common problems 1.Examples case 2.Ships passing case 3.Shrinking onus 4.The low onus case 5.The Bridge or the hung case

17. Common problems 1.“Examples” case Case is merely a connection of examples E.g “That we support sanctions as a tool of foreign policy” 1 st aff talks about South Africa and Burma, 2 nd speaker talks about North Korea, 3 rd speaker talks about Libya. Relevance / connection not explained to the motion, or the overall case of either team Failure To advance and present an argument Analyse Can come from either the aff, the neg or even both Team with the most analysis generally wins

18. Common problems 2.“Ships passing” case Little if any substantive clash between the teams Teams talk past each other and don’t clash with arguments, examples, or analysis. Failure Negative team does not engage with affirmative material Fails to fulfill its fundamental role of negating the affirmative argument Negative teams generally lose (on substance)

19. Common problems 3.“Shrinking onus” Team back-pedals what they have to prove from speaker to speaker E.g “That should implement a work for the dole scheme” 1 st Aff says will prove it will be good for unemployed, good for the economy, morally correct and financially possible 2 nd aff concedes not feasible, not good for economy 3 rd aff concedes the above and also that not good for unemployed, says all Aff has to prove is that is morally correct thing to do and if they prove that they win. Can happen to either the aff or the neg Generally seen in aff cases Usually an indication of the opposition disproving the case Usually lose with a shrinking onus

20. Common problems 4. “Low onus” case Team starts off by not proving particularly much E.g “That we support sanctions as a tool of foreign policy” Affirmative says all they have to prove is that sanctions should be considered as a tool, not necessarily ruled out etc, rather than that they are effective and useful tool. Usually a definitional problem Can happen to either the aff or the neg Generally seen in aff cases Negatives should force the affirmative to prove something more and run all their material as normal Not a killer blow

21. Common problems 5. The Bridge or the “hung case” Teams split material based on structure of the case, rather than by arguments, eg 1 st speaker outlines problem 2 nd speaker deals with solution (model) 3 rd speaker links the two together On the above example, 1 st speaker from negative could agree with everything 1 st affirmative speaker said Can certainly build upon other arguments and other speeches, but each speech should contain arguments that prove the case in and of themselves

22. Calling the debate – summary Adjudication requires a holistic approach Ask –Which team has been most persuasive? –Which team best fulfilled its role? Guidelines / common problems, are just guidelines Each debate is different

23. Calling the debate – summary Guidelines 1.No knockout blows – this is central. Mistakes weighed in context 2.Analysis should reflect the flow of the round – weighting of issues should reflect weighting by teams. Don’t over-analyse. 3.Evidence – examples should be relevant. 4.Style – look for overall effectiveness. 50/50 split. 5.Definitional issues Common problems 1.Examples case 2.Ships passing case 3.Shrinking onus 4.Low onus 5.Bridge/Hung case.

24. The adjudication speech Clearly explaining the result is as important as reaching the right result Debaters have a right to know why they lost (and why they won) Speech should clearly explain that Best opportunity for debaters to develop Try and give constructive feedback

25. The “Five Golden Rules” Rule 1: Think through what you’re going to say –Plan what you are going to say after the debate finishes –If necessary write brief notes Rule 2: Be aware of the time –Debaters have short attention spans after a debate –Less is more (don’t give a blow by blow) Rule 3: Be intelligible –Pitch your message to the debaters’ level Rule 4: Be enthusiastic and constructive Students generally know when they have preformed poorly As adjudicators we need to encourage debaters Rule 5: Be prepared to give individual feedback Best done individually after the debate Don’t get involved in a debate about your decision

26. Some very common hints/tips Advice for debaters: Work hard on introductions and conclusions – they are important Lack of engagement with the other team (not listening, not rebutting) Too little rebuttal / too much (usually the former) Be more confident and engaging, don’t read word-for-word Adjudicating – summary Three functions for the adjudicator: 1.Ensure the debate runs smoothly 2.Call the debate correctly 3.Provide a useful and considered adjudication speech Experience is the key to successful adjudication For more information, contact me – cjsbishop@gmail.com