2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 1/20

tournament briefing

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 2/20

Speaker Roles

Prime Minister 

Leader of opposition

The DeputiesThe Whips

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 3/20

Definitional Challenges

Squirrel

Tautology

TruismTime/Place Set

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 4/20

How to Run a challenge

State that you are challenging

Give EXPLICIT grounds for thechallenge

Offer substitute definition

Justify substitute definition

Definitional challenges (USE

WITH EXTREME CAUTION)

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 5/20

|:: definitional CHALLENGES

Who can challenge?Only OO can challenge

Challenges highly 

DISCOURAGED

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 6/20

|:: 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 team¶s

contribution

Look at a speech in its entirety Matter, Manner, Method 

Converse burden ± always

comparative

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 7/20

|:: adjudication CRITERIA

ContributionSubstantiation

Breadth and Depth

Dynamism/ResponsivenessConsistency 

Fulfillment of Roles

NO AUTOMATIC LOSSESKnow the issue and rules, but 

don¶t impose arguments - ARP 

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 8/20

Clashes

Clash with the motion AND definition

Problem doesn¶t exist, therefore SQ is

better 

 Another problem exists, therefore

SQ/CP is better 

Problem exists, but SQ/CP is better 

Outline what is mutually exclusiveMotion can have different points of clash

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 9/20

|:: proposal DEBATES

Same rigor for PM and LONo full negative cases

Defend status quo / make a

counterproposal What¶s the real status quo?

OG portrays a ³twisted´ status quo

OO can defend the ³real´ status quo Adjudicators should decide

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 10/20

Counterproposals

Not everything has to be mutually 

exclusive! (if the debate is on the non-

mut-ex part)

Federalism example

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 11/20

|:: 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?

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 12/20

|:: analysis VS. examples

Examples are highly encouraged Helps ground the analysis

Parallel models, case studies,

hypothetical scenarios acceptable

Debaters CANNOT lose by giving 

wrong or no examples

Penalize them in terms of 

contribution

 Adjs must contextualize this against 

all substantiation offered 

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 13/20

|:: whip SPEECHES

Role of whip speakersRecap and filter the debate

Rebut the relevant issues

New matter 

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 14/20

Other Issues

Box out

Matter battle

ShaftsConflicts (romantic, institutional, etc.)

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 15/20

|:: grading RANGE

69 No substantive contribution to the debate

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 

7 6 -77  Exceeded speaker requirements, exemplary 

analysis & manner 

78-80  Superior speaker performance, excellent 

analysis and manner 

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 16/20

|:: preparation TIME

30 minutesNo 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 

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 17/20

|:: panel DISCUSSIONSVOTE BEFORE CONFERRAL

Conferral/Discussion is simply in

preparation for oral adj

10 mins for discussion

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

Grading 

Scores must match resultsSpeaker scores by panel consensus

 Average scores if no consensus

No decimals for consensus scores

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 18/20

|:: oral ADJUDICATION

If unanimous/split (with chair in the

majority) ± chair 

If dissenting chair ± one of thepanelists

Decision, General Comments, Issues

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 19/20

|:: adjudication BREAK

Minimum requirements

Need to take adj exam

Need to adj 3 prelim rounds

 Adjudicator marking 5 -pt scale in adj exam

5 -pt scale on adj feedback 

Final score: 2 0% test, 8 0% feedback 

8/9/2019 2 Adjudication Sem 2003 Version

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2-adjudication-sem-2003-version 20/20

Feedback

Mandatory

1 is an automatic complaint