adjudication briefing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 42
About This Presentation
Title:

adjudication briefing

Description:

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 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:137
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: millenniu6
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: adjudication briefing


1
adjudication briefing
2
adjudication briefing
  • format of tournament
  • rules
  • practicalities

3
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

4
points to note
  • judging conflicts (e.g. will not judge own team)
  • consensus decisions among the panel
  • oral adjudications in rounds 1-6
  • closed adjudications rounds 7-9
  • adjudicator accreditation (tests, feedback
    experience)
  • adjudicator break (judges for the knockouts)

5
rules
  • Judges should be familiar with the Worlds 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

6
positions in the debate
  • 1. prime minister 2. leader of
    opposition
  • 3. deputy prime 4. deputy leader of
  • minister opposition
  • 5. member of govt 6. member of opp.
  • 7. govt whip 7. opposition whip

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

8
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

9
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

10
points of information
  • may take any form the offeror wishes
  • questions, clarification, facts, challenges,
    rebuttal, even jokes
  • POIs assessed as matter

11
assessing points of information
  • effectiveness and persuasiveness
  • member offering point of information
  • speaker answering point of information
  • participation in debate as a whole

12
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

13
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

14
definitions
  • 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

15
(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

16
(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

17
(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

18
(c) time setting
  • ...its 1936. 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

19
(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

20
definitional challenges
  • the leader of the opposition may challenge the
    definition if it violates one of the four
    criteria above 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

21
assessing definitional challenges
  • the adjudicator should determine the definition
    to be unreasonable where it violates any of the
    criteria above
  • 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.

22
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.

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
assessing matter
  • matter should be persuasive
  • adopt the viewpoint of an average reasonable
    person disregard any specialist knowledge you
    may have
  • Judge should not allow bias or discrimination to
    influence their decision

27
manner
  • manner is the presentation of the speech
  • style
  • structure

28
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

29
structure
  • structure of the speech should
  • include an introduction, conclusion, and a series
    of arguments
  • use the allotted time properly
  • teamwork

30
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

31
the role of teams in the debate
  • 1st govt
  • definition
  • justification of case
  • rebuttal of 1st opp (deputy prime minister)
  • 1st opposition
  • rebuttal
  • alternative where appropriate

32
the role of teams in the debate
  • 2nd govt
  • anything which makes them stand out from the
    debate
  • job is simply to be better than 1st govt
  • how does a team do this?

33
the role of teams in the debate
  • 2nd govt
  • introduce new material consistent with 1st govt
  • e.g. new lines of argument
  • e.g. different focus to the case
  • e.g. widening / narrowing of debate
  • repetition of 1st govt isnt enough

34
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

35
ranking teams
  • rank teams from 1st to 4th
  • (Note judges MUST fill out their ballots 1st,
    2nd, 3rd, 4th and the tab system will convert
    into the 3, 2, 1, 0 point for ranking. If the
    ballot is incorrectly filled out then there is a
    danger that the wrong result will be entered)
  • teams may be placed last automatically, where
    they fail to arrive more than 5 minutes after the
    scheduled time for the debate

36
marking scheme
  • A 90-100 excellent 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 80-89 above 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.

37
marking scheme
  • C 70-79 average
  • the speaker has strengths and weaknesses in
    roughly equal proportions.
  • D 60-69 poor to below average
  • the speaker has clear problems and some minor
    strengths.
  • E 50-59 very poor
  • the speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few,
    if any, strengths.

38
practicalities
  • consensus decision making
  • speed ballot (must be filled in ASAP)
  • detail ballot (One per room not one per judge)
  • oral adjudications (given by the chair judge
    unless dissenting)

39
agreeing rankings and scores
  • agree team rankings 1st 4th
  • Fill in and return the Speed ballot to a runner
    outside your room
  • award individual speaker marks (this is done by
    concensus and ONE form is returned. This is a
    change from past Worlds and was first done in
    Toronto
  • no low point wins i.e the team that finishes
    first must get more speaker marks than the team
    in second and so on

40
agreeing rankings and scores
  • agree rankings and scores by consensus. Where
    unanimous consensus cannot be reached the judges
    vote.
  • The Chair judge does NOT have the right to
    over-ride the majority decision if he/she is
    dissenting
  • You must make a decision. Where all judges are
    deadlocked in different opinions and no majority
    can be reached then, and only then, may the chair
    make an over-riding decision

41
oral adjudications
  • ballots go in before you start
  • chair of panel (unless dissenting)
  • announce team rankings
  • reasons behind decision
  • constructive criticism
  • dont exceed 10 minutes

42
feedback and complaints
  • oral adjudication
  • queries and clarification
  • polite and non-confrontational
  • adjudicator evaluation form
  • adjudication team
  • all complaints will be followed up
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com