DEBATE AND ADJUDICATION BRIEFING

Visayas-Mindanao Championship July 31, 2008

THE BASICS

Format
There are 4 teams per round, with 2 teams per side

(Government and Opposition) Each team is composed of 2 speakers Each speech lasts for about 7 minutes, with the first and last minute uninterrupted In the remaining 5 minutes, members from the opposing teams can raise POINTS OF INFORMATION A point of information lasts for a maximum of 15 seconds

Structure
Opening Govt
Prime Minister Deputy Prime Minister

Opening Oppn
Leader of Oppn Deputy Leader of Oppn

Closing Govt
Member of Govt Govt Whip

Closing Oppn
Member of Oppn Oppn Whip

Motions and Definitions

The motion is the proposition which the Government

side is supposed to defend Motions are given 15 minutes prior to the round Motions must be defined by the Prime Minister
Each definition MUST:
Have a direct link to the motion Be fair and debatable

Identify the issues to be debated and the scope of the

debate (criteria or standard) Include parameters when necessary

Illegal Definitions
Truism
Squirrel Time/Place set Tautology
Illegal definitions can be challenged!

Definitional challenges (USE WITH EXTREME CAUTION)

How to Run a challenge
State that you are challenging Give EXPLICIT grounds for the challenge Set up a new debate:

Offer substitute definition Justify substitute definition Argue against new definition

Definitional Challenges
Who can challenge?
Only LO can challenge

Challenges highly DISCOURAGED Challenges cannot be withdrawn or conceded!!! Closing teams can choose which definition to

debate No automatic losses!

SPEAKER ROLES

Prime Minister
introduce the definition and provide a link to the motion
introduce the case of the OG

introduce substantive material to support his/her side of the split

Important Questions that should be answered at the PM speech

There are no strictly proposal or value-judgment debates. All debates

are a combination of both. However, some debates require you to discuss more extensively certain policy mechanisms compared to others (ex. THW grant citizenship to illegal immigrants vs. THBT cosmetic surgery hurts the womens movement).

Therefore, it has to be clear whether you are proposing anything new in

the debate, rejecting status quo, or assessing some broad, commonly understood policy

What are the goals of the debate? Note that the level of abstraction of the policy affects your case and

adjust accordingly.

Imagine if you insisted on debating THW grant affirmative action for women in

parliament as a strictly value-judgment debate!

Leader of Opposition
accept or reject the definition and provide a link to the motion
rebut the points of the PM introduce the case of the OO

introduce substantive material to support his/her side of the split

Some things to keep in mind for Leader of Opposition

What is the debate about and NOT about?
Do you accept that the debate is a VJ or a proposal? Do you have questions/clarifications about the policy? Are you left to

assume certain things?

Do you agree with governments standards and goals?
Do you agree with their characterization of the problem and the

status quo?
What are you defending?

OUTLINE these things to forward a clear clash

The Deputies
rebut the points of the speakers before them
defend the first speakers forward positive material

The Members
rebut the points of the speakers before them
EXTENSION: Develop a new case line (which must still be consistent with the original points of their opening teams) introduce substantive material to support their teams new case lines

The Whips
summarize the debate

reiterate and support the points of their side

introduce fresh examples to support/rebut previously mentioned arguments HIGHLIGHT THE EXTENSION reference rebuttals: you have to respond to both teams on the other side positive matter is allowed, but discouraged for govt whip and not allowed for oppn whip

 New matter does not refer to new examples and analogies to reinforce previously discussed arguments or new rebuttals New matter refers to an entirely new line of argumentation not alluded to or developed in the speeches of constructive speakers

Holistic Adjudication
Down with checklist adjudicators!

Issues before technicalities

Teams should not lose on the basis of technicalities alone; Explanation needed on how technical flaw weakened

teams contribution
Look at a speech in its entirety Matter, Manner, Method (if speakers have excellent

manner, reward them for it; but it shouldnt win the debate)
Converse burden always comparative

Adjudication Criteria
Contribution
Substantiation

Breadth and Depth

Dynamism/Responsiveness Consistency

Fulfillment of roles
Know the issue and rules, but dont impose arguments

Clashes
Expanding the definition even when a clear context was

provided is not acceptable

Challenging the standards of the debate is acceptable, as

long as an explanation is given Ex. TH regrets the feminization of overseas labor PM we want to assess the debate based on the effects on the families of these women LO we want to also talk about the effects to these women themselves

 Clash with the motion AND definition

Problem doesnt exist, therefore SQ is better Problem exists, but SQ/CP is better Outline what is mutually exclusive

Motion can have different points of clash Ex. THBT Pop culture is the Wests best weapon
Clash1: Pop culture is not a weapon of the West Clash2: Trade and Aid are the Wests best weapons, not pop culture

Proposal Debates
Same rigor for PM and LO No full negative cases
Defend status quo / make a counterproposal Dont expect to win if you want to run a negative case

Whats the real status quo?

OG portrays a twisted status quo OO can defend the real status quo Adjudicators should decide

 Counterproposals
Not everything has to be mutually exclusive! (if

the debate is on the non-mut-ex part)

Rebuttals vs. constructive

Constructive speaker took too long rebutting? (4 mins and up) Did it forward the case w/ positive material?
Was amount of negative material justified?

Adjudication through signposting

Penalize for sloppy structure Consider in relation to entire speech and flow of

debate

Assessing Examples
Examples are highly encouraged
Help ground the analysis Parallel models, case studies, hypothetical scenarios

acceptable Argumentation by example should not be given full credit, if not, should not be given credit Debaters CANNOT lose by giving wrong or no examples Penalize them in terms of contribution Adjs must contextualize this against all substantiation offered ex. One team had rigorous analysis but no examples vs. a team that had many examples but no analysis

Other Issues
Box out
Matter battle Shafts Conflicts (romantic, institutional, etc.)

Scoring Range
70-71 Finished speech with minimal contribution/gross technical violations; speech had fundamental flaws

72-74 Finished speech with acceptable contribution/some technical violations; speech had minor flaws
75 Fulfilled minimum speaker expectations, sound analysis and manner 76-77 Exceeded speaker requirements, exemplary analysis & manner 78-80 Superior speaker performance, excellent analysis and manner

Preparation Time

15 minutes No group preparation No coaching No electronic devices (i.e. laptops) Cheaters will be punished
Report to runners before the round Report to Adj Core after the round

Panel Discussion
Begin with CONFERRAL 15 mins for discussion and arrival at consensus decision
Make sure each panelist is allowed to speak

Initial decisions can be changed during conferral

Submit full ballot before oral adj 10-15 mins for oral adjudication

Grading
Scores must match results Speaker scores by panel consensus Average scores if no consensus Half-marks are allowed

Oral Adjudication
If unanimous/split (with chair in the majority) chair
If dissenting chair one of the panelists

Dissenter must also give oral adj

Decision, General Comments, Issues

Adjudication Break
Minimum requirements
Need to take adj exam Need to adj 5 prelim rounds

Adjudicator marking
5-pt scale in adj exam 5-pt scale on adj feedback Final score: 20% test, 80% feedback

Feedback
Mandatory
1 is an automatic complaint Debaters rate the person delivering oral adj. If there

is a dissenter, debaters should give feedback for both the person who delivered the final decision and the dissenter Chairs give feedback to their panelists In the case of dissenting chairs, the panelist who delivers oral adj and the chair rate the other panelist