Adjudication briefing. adjudication team andy hume john paul toner meg osullivan rob silver.

adjudication briefing

adjudication team

andy hume

john paul toner

meg o’sullivan

rob silver

adjudication briefing

• format of tournament

• rules

• practicalities

• q & a

• accreditation video

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

points to note

• judging conflicts

• consensus decisions

• oral adjudications in rounds 1-6

• closed adjudications rounds 7-9

• adjudicator accreditation

• adjudicator break

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

positions in the debate

prime minister leader of opposition

deputy prime deputy leader ofminister opposition

member of govt member of opp.

govt whip opposition whip

basic format

• 15 minutes preparation time

• printed or written material

permitted

• electronic equipment prohibited

• 7 minute speeches

points of information

• 1.4.1. : first and last minutes of speech are protected

• time signal to indicate these points

• 1.4.2. : member offering POI should stand

• 1.4.3. : speaker may accept or decline

points of information

• 1.4.4. POIs should not exceed 15 seconds

• 1.4.5. the speaker may ask the offering member to sit where the offeror has had a reasonable chance to be understood

• 1.4.6. members should attempt to answer at least 2 POIs in their speech

• 1.4.8. there are no “points of order” or “points of personal privilege”

points of information

• may take any form the offeror wishes

• questions, clarification, facts, challenges, rebuttal, even jokes

• POIs assessed as “matter”

assessing points of information

• effectiveness and persuasiveness

• member offering point of information

• speaker answering point of information

• participation in debate as a whole

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”

definitions

• 2.1.1. : 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

• 2.1.2. : PM should provide the definition

at the beginning of his/her speech

definitions

• 2.1.3: 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

(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”

(b) self-proving definitions

• x should / should not be done, and there is no reasonable rebuttale.g. “we’re going to argue that murder should be illegal”

• x is already the case, and so there is no reasonable rebuttale.g. “we’re going to argue that the murder rate in the US is higher than in Scotland”

(b) self-proving definitions

• “status quo” cases are not necessarily unreasonable

e.g. “we’re going to argue that the european union should adopt the single currency”

• it’s a fair definition, because there is a reasonable rebuttal

(c) time setting

• “...it’s 1936. You’re about to be introduced to Adolf Hitler, you’ve got a gun in your pocket, and you’re not particularly pleased to see him. We’re going to argue that you should shoot him and save millions of lives...”

• all debates must take place in the present

(d) unfair place setting

• 1.2.3. : 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

definitional challenges

• 2.2.1.: the leader of the opposition may challenge the definition if it violates one of the four criteria in 2.1.3., and he should clearly state that he’s doing so.

• only the leader of the opposition may challenge the definition – no-one else

• 2.2.2.: the leader of the opposition should substitute an alternative definition

assessing definitional challenges

• 2.3.1.: the adjudicator should determine the definition to be “unreasonable” where it violates any of the criteria in clause 2.1.3.

• 2.3.2.: the onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members challenging it.

• 2.3.3.: 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.

assessing definitional challenges

• 2.3.4.: 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 government’s matter.

matter

• 3.1.1.: matter is the content of a

speech

• 3.1.2.: matter includes arguments

and reasoning, examples, case

studies, facts and any other material

that attempts to further the case

• matter includes points of information

the elements of matter

• 3.2.1.: 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

the elements of matter

• 3.2.5.: 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

assessing matter

• matter should be persuasive

• adopt the viewpoint of an “average reasonable person” – disregard any specialist knowledge you may have

• 3.3.3.: bias and discrimination

manner

• manner is the presentation of the speech

• style

• structure

style

• any element which affects the overall effectiveness of the speaker’s presentation

• eye contact• voice modulation• hand gestures• clarity of language and expression• use of notes

structure

• structure of the speech should:

• include an introduction, conclusion, and a series of arguments

• use the allotted time properly

• teamwork

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

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

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?

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 isn’t enough

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

ranking teams

• rank teams from 1st to 4th

• 5.2.2. : teams may be placed last automatically, where they fail to arrive more than 5 minutes after the scheduled time for the debate

marking schemeA 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.

marking schemeC 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.

practicalities

• agreeing rankings and scores

• speed ballot

• individual ballot

• oral adjudications

agreeing rankings and scores

• agree team rankings 1st – 4th

• agree grade for each speaker A – E

• award individual speaker marks

• adjudicators may differ on precise

individual marks, but they must

– (a) remain within that grade

– (b) not be low-point wins

speed ballot

individual ballot

oral adjudications

• speed ballot goes in before you start

• chair of panel (unless dissenting)

• announce team rankings

• reasons behind decision

• constructive criticism

• don’t exceed 10 minutes

feedback and complaints

• oral adjudication

• queries and clarification

– “polite and non-confrontational”

• adjudicator evaluation form

• adjudication team

• all complaints will be followed up

questions

accreditation and ranking of judges

• experience• video• national or regional accreditation• adjudicator evaluation forms

• objectivity, fairness, and flexibility