NEAO 2013 Judging Guide

2"SolBridge*NEAO*2013*

*

**

*

��

�!)��,�� *��*%��%!�#��!�+!) ��,�+&%�� &��#�'!� %)!%�� (�!��& �!��'�"�+�� !�$��!$�

1

B ��2


*GUIDE*TO*JUDGING*AT*NEAO*2013*

"Edited"by"NEAO"CAP"

November,"2013"Daejeon,"Korea*

*TABLE*OF*CONTENTS*

**1.*FOREWORD****2.*OVERVIEW*"""3.*PART*ONE:*DEBATERS*"""4.*PART*TWO:*JUDGES*"""5.*PART*THREE:*TIPS*

*************For%any%and%all% inquiries%or% issues% regarding% this%guide,%please%contact%NEAO%2013%CAP%via%eAmail%

([email protected])%


**1.*Foreword"""A"very"warm"welcome"to"the"Northeast"Asian"Debate"Open"2013!" "NEAO"is"the"most"representative"tournament"in"Northeast"Asia"and"an"annual"event"bridging"more"than"30"debate"societies"across"the"region.""In"addition"to"the"basic"information"most"tournament"briefings"contain,"this"guide"also"contains"the"adjudication"team’s"views"on"various"matters"that"have"different"interpretations"across"circuits."We"are" heavily" indebted" to" the" adjudication" teams" of" Koc" Worlds" and" Berlin" Worlds," the" Philippine"Debate"Open,"and"1st"KIDA"IV"whose"judging"guides"are"extensively"quoted"in"this"one."It*is*imperative*that*all#debaters#and#adjudicators*participating*in*NEAO*2013*are*familiar*with*the*contents*of*this*guide.""If"you"have"any"objections"to"or"require"any"clarifications"regarding"anything"contained"in"this"brief,"there"are"two"forums"you"can"utilize:"

1)"Write"in"to"the"adjudication"core"2)"Discuss"during"the"adjudication"briefing"of"the"tournament"or"the"tournament"briefing"in"

the"morning."We"highly"recommend"using"Option"1."We"are"more"than"happy"to"accept"feedback"regarding"this"guide"and"address"those"questions"on"the"first"morning"of"the"tournament.""In"addition,"please"keep"in"mind"that"the"adjudication"team"and"organizing"committee"intend"to"stick"firmly"to"the"final"schedule"of"the"tournament."In"case"you"have"any"concerns"regarding"the"schedule,"please"contact"the"Org."Comm"at"the"earliest."There*shall*be*a*zeroStolerance*policy*towards*delays,*and*lateScomers*will*be*dropped*from*the*tab*S*No#Excuses,#No#Exceptions,#No#Amnesty.""We" look" forward" to" seeing" you" all" and"making"NEAO" 2013" a" platform" for" everyone" to" grow" as" a"better"debater."""Cheers,"Adjudication"Team"–"NEAO"2013"""""""""""""""


2.*Overview"""S*BP*debate*is*based*on*a*system*of*consensus#adjudication.*During*NEAO*2013,*if*you*cannot*reach*a*consensus*by*20*minutes*after*the*debate,*adjudicators*will*vote*on*the*win/loss.*"S*The*team*ranking*must*be*based*on*evaluation*and*comparison*of*contribution,*engagement*and*role*fulfillment*to*the*relevant*issues*in*contention*within*the*debate.*"S*Reach*a*consensus*on*the*ranking*first.*Once*a*decision*is*reached*on*team*rankings,*then*determine*each*speaker*score.*Each*room*will*submit*one*ballot,*filled*out*by*the*Chair.*"S*BP*is*different*from*AP*debate*in*that*any*combination*of*the*four*teams*can*be*the*winner*(e.g.*bench*win,*house*win,*or*diagonal).*In*other*words,*it*is*not*evaluated*in*terms*of*bench*vs.*bench.*"S*There*are*no*cases*that*will*give*an*‘automatic*loss’*to*a*team.*Adjudicators*should*assess*the*debate*holistically*and*comparatively.*It*is*very*important*that*adjudicators*do*not*apply*‘penalty*judging’*to*teams*for*technical*errors.*"S*In*giving*oral*feedback,*the*Chair*must*give*the*ranking,*and*then*justify*that*ranking.*"S*Speaker*score*range*in*NEAO*2013*is*67S83.*Please*use*all*of*the*scores*within*the*range.*Refer*to*the*score*chart*for*more*detailed*description*of*the*scores."""""3.*Part*One:*Debaters"""General*Issues*""How*long*is*prep*time?*15"minutes.""Am*I*allowed*to*prep*with*anyone*other*than*my*teammate?*No."Report"all"suspicions"of"cheating"to"the"adjudication"core."Cheater"will"be"punished"with"point"deductions/disqualification.""How*should*I*offer*a*point*of*information?*Stand%up%and%say,%“on%that%point”,%or%“point%of%information”.%Do%not%advertise%your%point%before%you’ve%been%accepted.%If%your%point%is%accepted,%you%

should%ask%a%question%or%make%a%comment%which%should%last%no%longer%than%15%seconds.%This%NEAO%

also%applies%Euro%POI%rule.""What*is*a*new*POI*rule*(from*Euros)?*A%speaker%is%REQUIRED%to%take%at%least%1%POI.%If%she/he%doesn’t%take%a%POI%within%the%allowable%period%of%time%and%there%were%an%ample%amount%of%POIs%raised%(like%

at%least%1%per%minute),%any%debater%from%the%opposing%bench%can%stand%up%at%the%6%minute%mark%and%

give%a%POI.%The%judge%is%supposed%to%make%the%speaker%stop%the%speech%and%allow%the%POI%to%be%

delivered%and%answered.""


Can*I*make*a*point*of*information*to*my*partner,*or*to*the*other*team*on*my*side*of*the*House?*No.""Can*I*speak*for*more*than*7*minutes?"Your%judges%are%required%to%disregard%anything%you%say%after%seven%minutes.%Going%over%a%bit%(i.e.%fifteen%seconds)%is%fine.%Going%beyond%that%is%useless%for%everyone." ""Can*I*speak*for*less*than*7*minutes?"You%can%–%but%it%suggests%not%having%enough%material,%which%

usually%works%against%you.""What*if*I*do*not*understand*the*motion?"You%are%permitted%(even%encouraged)%to%ask%one%of%the%

adjudication%team%members%if%you%want%an%explanation%of%the%meaning%of%words." ""Do*I*get*an*automatic*fourth*for*squirreling/counterSpropping/challenging*the*definition/barracking/knifing/etc?"No.%There%is%no%such%thing%as%an%automatic%fourth.%For%any%given%

stupid%thing%you%could%do,%there%could%be%another%team%somewhere%doing%something%worse."""Rebuttal"""Do*I*need*to*rebut*every*single*thing*the*other*side*says?"No.%British%Parliamentary%debating%

requires%only%that%you%engage%with#the#important#issues.%You%are%allowed%to%pick%your%battles,%and%make%tactical%concessions%(i.e.%‘We%agree%that%the%proposition's%mechanism%will%work,%but%we%say%it%

remains%unjust').%The%point%of%rebuttal%is%to%give%sufficient%grounds%for%rejecting%the%case%of%the%other%

side,%not%hit%every%single%tiny%point." """Do*I*have*to*‘flag*up’*my*rebuttal*(i.e.*indicate*that*what*I*am*saying*is*a*specific*response*to*something*said*earlier)?*No,%judges%are%expected%to%spot%responses%whenever%you%make%them.%

However,%it%is%always%a%good%idea%to%present%things%in%a%clear%and%efficient%manner.% ""Does*rebuttal*have*to*be*at*the*beginning/end*of*my*speech?"No.%If%you%do%decide%to%‘weave’%rebuttal%and%constructive,%however,%‘flagging’%it%becomes%more%important."Note:*There%is%no%real%difference%between%‘rebuttal’%and%‘constructive’.%They%are%both%meant%to%be%

comparative.%All%the%rules%require%is%that%you%adequately%respond%to,%and%defeat,%the%case%of%the%

opposite%bench."""TEAMS"""Opening#Government""Can*we*squirrel?"No.""What*is*a*squirrel?"It’s%when%OG%defines%the%motion%in%such%a%way%as%to%depart%entirely%from%what%

the%adjudication%team%intended%in%setting%the%motion.%So:%“THW%condone%prostitution”%should%be%

about%not%punishing%the%exchange%of%sex%for%money,%not%a%figurative%understanding%of%prostitution%as%

‘politicians%who%switch%political%parties’.%Motions%have%been%set%with%a%particular%debate%in%mind,%and%

you%should%have%that%debate,%even%if%you%think%it%is%silly,%boring,%or%undebatable.%The%test%for%whether%


or%not%something%is%a%squirrel%is%this:%is%your%definition%something%that%could%reasonably%be%

anticipated%by%an%intelligent%OO?""Do*we*always*have*to*have*a*model?"No.#Not#all#debates#require#an#explicit#policy!%For%example:%

THBT%multiculturalism%has%failed,%THBT%cosmetic%surgery%hurts%the%feminist%movement.""Can*we*placeSset?"There%are%two%issues%here:%[1]%What%is%‘this%House’?%[2]%Where%is%the%policy%being%

enacted?%In%some%motions,%both%are%fixed%(i.e.%‘THBT%the%United%States%should%lift%sanctions%on%Cuba’).%

In%other%cases,%OG%has%considerable%freedom%in%deciding%the%scope%of%the%debate.%For%example,%in%the%

debate%‘THW%invade%Zimbabwe’,%the%house%could%quite%legitimately%be%the%United%Nations,%the%USA,%

South%Africa,%the%African%Union,%etc.%The%debate%‘THW%use%abstinence%to%fight%HIV’%could%quite%

legitimately%be%place%set%to%everywhere,%the%developing%world,%developed%liberal%democracies,%etc.%

However,%neither%the%place%nor%the%House%can%be%fictional%(i.e%‘Middle%Earth’,%‘The%Star%Wars%Universe’%

or%other%such%things).%PlaceAsetting%is%illegitimate%if%it%gives%OG%an%unfair%advantage.%This%includes%

behavior%like%placeAsetting%to%some%obscure%location%which%you%have%in%your%caseAfile.%Once%again,%the%

test%for%whether%or%not%placeAsetting%is%legitimate%is%this:%is%it%something%that%could%reasonably%be%

anticipated%by%an%intelligent%OO?""Should*the*“House”*always*be*the*state?*NOT#ALL#DEBATES#HAVE#TO#BE#SET#FROM#THE#PERSPECTIVE#OF#A#COERCIVE#STATE!%Ex.%THBT%violence%in%the%name%of%the%environment%is%justified,%

THW%not%publish%racist%images%or%texts.""Can*we*timeSset?*No.%The%House%is%always%in%the%present,%and%cannot%move%forward%or%backwards%in%

time,%unless%specified%in%the%motion.""How*long*should*a*definition*be?"The%rules%do%not%give%a%formal%limit.%The%length%of%an%appropriate%

definition%will%depend%upon%the%motion.%Banning%things%tends%to%be%quite%simple.%Invading%places%is%

not.%But%remember%A%definitions%do%not%win%debates.%Arguments%do." ""Where*should*the*definition*be?"In%the%beginning%of%the%OG%speech.""Can*I*add*stuff*to*the*definition*later?"No.%However,%if%you%are%challenged%on%a%nonAobvious%aspect%of%the%mechanism%by%the%opposition,%you%can%explicate,%as%long%as%you%are%making%reasonable%

inferences%from%common%practice,%rather%than%radically%changing%the%scope%of%the%policy%(i.e.%in%the%

debate%about%invading%Zimbabwe,%a%quite%legitimate%definition%might%not%include%a%specification%of%

precise%details%of%strategy;%if%challenged%on%such%matters,%it%would%not%be%breaking%the%rules%to%fill%in%

such%gaps)."DEFINITIONS#SHOULD#BE#CONSTRUCTED#IN#A#WAY#THAT#ALLOWS#FOR#DEBATE#TO#HAPPEN.#THEY#ARE#NOT#MEANT#TO#KILL#DEBATES.""Opening#Opposition#"What*do*we*do*when*OG*squirrels/placeSsets/timeSsets/proposes*a*truism?*Call%them%out%on%their%

bad%debating,%but%try%to%debate%it!%If%that%is%too%difficult,%you%may%challenge%the%definition.%This%means%

contending%that%the%proposition%interpreted%the%motion%not%as%it%should%have%been%interpreted,%giving%

a%new%definition%(and%maybe%even%a%model),%and%going%on%to%talk%about%what%you%think%the%debate%

should%have%been%about.%On%a%strategic%level,%this%is%a%last%resort%–%try%to%avoid%it.""Should*we*always*have*a*counterSprop?*No.%The%default%position%is%that%the%opposition%defends%the%status%quo%against%what%has%been%advocated%by%proposition.%Note:%there%is%no%‘universal%status%quo’.%


It%is%best%to%clarify%the%key%elements%of%the%status%quo%you%are%defending.%If%you%believe%that%it%is%

strategically%sensible,%you%could%also%counterAprop.%A%counterAprop%is%an%alternate%(allegedly%superior)%

model%to%the%proposition.%The%proposition's%model%and%the%counterAprop%should%be%mutually%exclusive.%

It%is%not%enough%to%point%out%some%other%thing%you%could%do%at%the%same%time,%it%must%be%something%

you%could%do%instead.%Otherwise%you%look%like%you%are%agreeing%with%the%proposition,%and%fail%to%fulfill%

your%function.%Narrowing%the%debate%such%that%all%that%is%being%argued%about%are%one%or%two%

extraordinarily%minor%considerations,%whilst%not%explicitly%banned%in%the%rules,%is%not%usually%strategic.%

You%look%like%a%coward,%the%debate%becomes%boring,%devoid%of%intellectual%content%and%you%will%–%

rightfully%–%be%held%responsible%for%this.#General%tests%for%whether%or%not%a%counterAprop%is%advisable%might%include%these:%does%the%debate%remain%substantively%about%the%issues%intended%by%the%

Adjudication%Team%in%setting%the%motion?%Am%I%wrecking%this%debate,%or%making%it%better?"""Closing#teams"""If*OO*accepts*OG’s*definition,*can*we*still*challenge*it?*No.""If*OO*challenges*the*definition,*what*should*we*do?*Choose%one.%You%are%not%required%to%follow%the%definition%of%your%Opening%team.%In%the%very%unlikely%event%that%OO’s%definition%is%also%bad,%CG%can%

propose%another%definition.%Otherwise,%JUST%CHOOSE,%please.% ""Should*we*have*an*extension?"Yes.""What*is*an*extension?"An%extension%is%a%new%and%important%contribution%to%the%debate.%Extensions%

may%take%many#forms.% %Examples%include:"A%new%justification%for%why%an%argument%asserted%by%their%opening%team%is%true%(i.e.%deeper%and%more%

compelling%analysis)"Identification%of%a%distinct%impact%of%an%argument%made%by%their%opening%team"A%new%rebuttal%of%a%key%argument%from%the%other%side"A%new%framework%for%looking%at%the%issues"A%new%way%to%weight%the%respective%claims%of%the%opening"An%entirely%new%argument"The% extension% does% not% always% have% to% be% a% completely% new% argument.% It% simply% needs% to% be% a%

substantial%contribution%to%the%debate,%which%clearly%distinguishes%you%from%the%team%that%preceded%

you.%It%could%include%several%small,%but%vital%arguments.%Rebuttal%can%count%as%new%material,%and%may%

be%sufficiently%important%to%be%credited%as%extension.%

"Should*I*‘signpost’*my*extension*(i.e.*indicate*that*I*regard*a*specific*part*of*my*speech*as*‘extension’)?*Probably.%Your"judges%will%be%trying%to%assess%you%on%the%content%and%quality%of%what%you%said,%and%should%not%penalize%you%for%failing%to%label%what%is%actually%substantial%new%argument%

as%such.%Nonetheless,%there%is%no%harm%in%making%their%life%easier%by%highlighting%the%importance%and%

novelty%of%your%contribution.%Conversely,%if%you%signpost%as%extension%that%is%in%reality%just%rehashing%

an%argument%which%has%already%been%made,%without%substantively%improving%the%quality%of%the%

argument,%it%doesn’t%count%as%an%extension.""Note:*MO*should*respond*to*MG’s*extension.""Can*I*change*the*model*given*by*my*Opening*team?*No.% ""


Even*if*they*were*really*stupid?*Still,%no.%Do%remember,%however,%that%you%will%get%credit%for%rescuing%

a%bad%case%and%that%you%do%not%have%to%defend%every%single%aspect%of%the%Opening’s%case.% ""What*should*I*do*in*the*Whip*Speech?*Summarize%the%debate.%This%is%not%a%chronicle%of%everything%

that%happened%in%the%debate.%Rather,%it%is%supposed%to%be%an%identification%of%the%significant%points%of%

contention%around%which%the%debate%has%occurred,%and%an%explanation%of%why%your%side%won%in%those%

areas.%Respond%to%the%new%material%brought%out%by%the%other%closing%team%as%well.%New%examples,%

deepening%arguments,%drawing%out%the%logic%of%a%particular%point%in%already%given%arguments%are%

allowed,%but%new%arguments%indicate%that%you%have%not%planned%your%team’s%approach%to%the%debate.%

GW%is%allowed%but%highly%discouraged%from%introducing%new%arguments.%OW%is%not%allowed%to,%and%

any%new%argument%must%be%disregarded.%Your%selection%of%material%in%the%Whip%speech%should%be%

guided%by%considering%what%it%is%that%is%hurting%you%at%that%moment.%For%example,%if%you%are%OW,%in%

some%debates,%the%Government%extension%will%add%nothing%to%a%brilliant%OG.%In%such%a%debate,%it%

would%probably%be%sensible%to%focus%your%energies%on%destroying%the%case%of%OG.%In%some%debates%the%

Government%teams%may%be%weak,%such%that%that%you%will%probably%have%to%focus%on%distinguishing%

yourself%from%OO.""In*general:*what*are*the*stupid*things*you*should*not*do?"Squirrel%–%There%are%no%open%motions"Prioritize%swing%over%substance%–%don’t%be%rude"Interject%–%respect%the%speaker"Abuse%adjudicators"Fail%to%give%adjudicator%feedback%if%you%feel%there%is%something%we%should%know"Be%late/not%turn%up%for%rounds""""4.*Part*Two:*Judges"""The"guidance"we"have"here"is"a"set"of"guidelines"toward"reaching"that"goal."These"rules"can’t"cater"for"every"eventuality."Judges"should"use"common*sense*in"applying"these"guidelines"to"fulfill"the"overall"objective"above.""What*is*the*aim*of*any*judgment?*The"team"who"wins"is"the"team"who"would"most"persuade*an"average*reasonable*voter*of"the"merits"of"their"side,"through"making"logical*and"relevant*arguments""Why*do*we*have*rules?"A%small%set%of%rules%exists%to%facilitate%fair%debate.#Sometimes%teams%can%

seem%more%persuasive%by%doing%sneaky%things.%Rules%exist%to%make%sure%we%don’t%give%teams%credit%

for%that.%The%general%penalty%is%simply%no#credit.%This%is%a%minimum%standard.%As%a%refresher,%the%most%

important%ones%to%keep%in%mind%are:"A%OG%should%explain%what%they’re%doing%to%a%sufficient%extent%that%others%can%make%arguments%about%

it."A%OO%should%provide%a%“clash”%and%disagree%with%OG%on%some%level,%in%order%for%a%debate%to%happen."A%Both%closing%teams%must%stay%consistent%with%their%opening%teams."A%Closing%teams%can%only%gain%significant%credit%for%the%new#things#they%bring%to%the%debate"]"Each%speaker%should%take%at%least%one%POI%(unless%few%or%none%are%offered).%Not%doing%so%is%as%damaging%as%conceding%a%fairly%significant%point,%especially%across%diagonals.%Otherwise,%there%would%

be%no%clear%way%to%compare%teams%across%benches%and%halves."


A%Opposition%Whip%may%not%raise%new#lines#of#substantive#argumentation,#while%Government%Whip%is%

discouraged%from%doing%so.#This%does%not%prohibit%new%rebuttal%points,%new%analysis%of%existing%arguments,%or%new%examples…%unless%these%change%the%argument%so%much%that%it%is%clearly%not%still%

the%same%argument.%This%is%because%no%one%else%in%the%debate%has%an%opportunity%to%respond%to%OW%

and%only%OW%can%respond%to%GW.%What%happens%if%this%rule%is%violated?%OW%receives%no%credit%for%

arguments%that%are%substantively%new.%GW%receives%diminished%credit.""The%set%of%technical%rules%is%fairly%small,%and%largely%a%matter%of%fairness.%Teams%should%be%penalized%

to%the%extent%(and%only%to%the%extent)%to%which%any%violation%of%rules%is%unfair%on%other%teams."Normally,%the%penalty%is%simply%taking%away%undeserved%credit%from%otherwise%persuasive%matter%(e.g.%

new%OW%arguments%simply%get%discounted).%

"Good#judging#is#not#about#simply#counting#violations#of#rules,#but#assessing#issues.# #Judges#should#avoid#a#‘penaltyVbased’#judging#mentality.#"Is*the*Opposition*side*allowed*to*ONLY*criticize*the*Government’s*case?"No.%Teams%have%equal%and%

opposite% burdens% If% the% debate% is% about% a% policy,% opposition% must% say% something# is% better/less%harmful%than%this%policy%(or%that%the%Government’s%policy%is%worse%than%no%policy%or%the%status%quo,%or%

that% another% policy% is% better).% Opposition’s% position% be%mutually# exclusive% in% its% totality# (i.e.# they%need% to% be% defending% something% different% from% and% contradictory% to% what% the% Government% is%

defending).%Government#does#not#have#to#‘solve’#every#problem#or#the#entire#problem/root#of#the#problem.#On#balance,#which#policy#leads#to#better/less#harmful#outcomes?"How*do*judges*identify*extensions?"New%contributions%may%occur%in%hidden#and#unexpected#places,#and%take%many%different%forms.%While%it%may%be%more%persuasive%for%teams%to%signpost%these%

contributions%and%structure%them%clearly,%it%is%the%adjudicator’s#responsibility#to#recognize#them.#Review#debater#notes#on#‘what#is#an#extension’#above."How*do*we*evaluate*extensions?"Simply%providing%new%material%is%not%a%reason%in%and%of%itself%for%

teams%to%place%well%in%a%debate.%What%does%matter%is%how%persuasive%–%i.e.%how%logical%and%how%

relevant%–%their%new%material%is%in%the%debate,%relative%to%the%contributions%of%other%teams%in%the%

debate.%

"What*is*a*‘knife’*or*a*contradiction?"

Strategic%clarification%is%not%a%knife"Emphasizing%different%priorities/stakeholders%is%not%a%knife"Undermining%material%of%the%opening%team%by%prioritizing%something%else%is%different%to%

knifing"A%contradiction%is%a%direct%negation%of%something%that%was%said%by%the%opening%team%on%the%

same%side"Don’t%hold%too%high%a%standard%for%consistency%

"What*happens*when*closing*teams*contradict*their*opening*teams?"Contradictory%material%should%

not%be%credited%to%the%extent%that%the%impact%of%the%argument%relies%on%the%contradiction.%However,%

they%have%no%“rulesAlevel”%obligation%to%defend%every%particular%argument%made%by%their%opening%

team.""What*happens*when*a*speaker*contradicts*himself/herself*or*his/her*teammate?*Be%sure%it%really%is%a%contradiction!%You%cannot%credit%them%for%mutually%exclusive%arguments/ideas,%so%you’ll%have%to%

credit%the%weaker%one.""


How*should*we*treat*POIs?%Judges#should%treat%POIs%like%matter,%in%terms%of%persuasiveness%and%

engagement%–%good%and%bad%POIs%help%and%hurt%teams,%and%taking%more%than%one%each%can%be%a%

good%way%to%demonstrate%engagement%in%the%debate.%

"What*perspective*should*judges*come*from?*Do*we*use*our*own*backgrounds*and*biases*when*judging?*What*if*I*disagree*with*the*motion?*Judges%are%the%average%reasonable%voter.%They%care%about%the%outcome%and%are%open%minded%as%to%the%issue%(and%virtually%all%issues).%If%they%have%any%

personal%opinions%or%biases,%they%set%these%aside%and%try%to"judge%the%debate%as%objectively%as%possible.% %They%are%intelligent%citizens,%not%specialists%(they%read%newspapers,%not%technical%journals).#They%come%from%nowhere%and%don’t%know%the%jargon%or%‘common%arguments’%of%any%particular%

debating%circuit.# "Even%if%judges%know%‘what%the%debaters%are%getting%at’%or%are%familiar%with%certain%arguments%or%

personally%agree%with%them,%we%should%not%build%or%complete%arguments%or%rebut%arguments%for%

debaters%in%our%heads.%We%have%to%apply%the%same%standard%of%criticism%and%skepticism%to%every%

single%argument%in%the%debate.""What*if*debaters*are*lying*or*disagree*on*the*facts?*What*if*an*argument*is*‘terrible’*on*its*own?"You%are%allowed%to%display%enough%intelligence%and%worldAawareness%to%question%logical%links%and%

gaps%in%substantiation%and%not%accept%arguments%at%face%value%(i.e.%ARV%is%NOT%a%stupid%person)."A%judge%can%only%‘rule%out’%material%that%an%ARV%would%find%obviously,%empirically%false.%A%judge%may%

also%consider%the%degree%of%substantiation%in%relative%terms:%wellAsubstantiated%arguments%are%those%

that%start%with%plausible%premises%and%make%logical%and%wellAexplained%links%to%reasonable%

conclusions%(i.e.%an%argument%premised%on%a%lie%may%still%be%beaten%not%because%it%was%a%lie%but%

because%it%was%also%poorly%constructed)."To%help%decide%what%is%expert%info,%use%your%panel%A%if%all%the%judges%know%the%same%thing%(and%they%

are%all%not%experts%in%the%same%field),%then%it's%probably%not%expert%information."In%‘matter%battles’,%ask:"Which%team%ran%a%case%that%is%applicable%in%either%scenario?"Which%team%made%the%best%effort%to%demonstrate%that%their%facts%were%most%plausible?"Are%there%other%issues%to%base%the%decision%on?%

"How*to*evaluate*examples?% %Examples%are%helpful%in%grounding%arguments,%but%they%need%to%be%

relevant,%representative,%and%well%explained.%Judges%should%weigh%examples%against%all%other%types%of%

substantiation%offered%(i.e.%teams%that%have%many%underAexplained%examples%vs.%a%team%with%no/few%

examples%but%provided%logical%analysis).%

"How*do*judges*decide*what*is*‘important’*in*the*debate?"Short%answer:% %Judges%should%be%openAminded%and%should%avoid%imposing%what%they%think%is%important%on%the%debate.%Judge#the#debate#that#happened,#not#the#debate#you#thought#should#happen.""Also,%it%doesn’t%matter%how%many%arguments%a%team%makes,%or%how%

sexy/sophisticated/brave/interesting/novel%an%argument%is%in%the%abstract.%It%matters%how%important%

it%was%in%the%debate%you%are%watching%(i.e.%how%it%was%explained,%how%relevant%the%conclusions%are,%

how%‘robust’%it%was%against%attack)."%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "Judges%should%insist%that%teams%‘engage’%with%each%other’s%arguments%as%much%as%possible:"Often%times,%teams%will%not%simply%disagree%about%what%is%true;%they%will%dispute%what%is%relevant.%

Judges%should%decide%what’s%relevant%on%the%following%basis:"What%teams%agree%is%true%and%important."What%teams%implicitly%agree%is%true%and%important."


What%one%side%has%successfully%proven%to%be%important."Where%1A3%do%not%apply,%what%the%Average%Reasonable%Voter%would%take%to%be%important."Remember,%importance%is%relative."There%is%no%absolute%duty%to%respond%to%every%argument%from%the%other%side,%but%major%claims%that%go%

unchallenged%should%be%counted%as%conceded%by%the%team%that%has%passed%up%the%opportunity%to%

respond."Judges%may%consider%claims%as%responsive,%even%if%not%explicitly%labeled%‘rebuttal’,%if%these%claims%

address%the%arguments%of%the%other%side.%

"How*do*we*decide*who*wins?"Teams%win%the%debate%by%abiding%by%the%small%set%of%rules%and%

furnishing%arguments%that%are%the%most%logical%and%relevant%in%the%debate.%Sometimes%this%judgment%

is%fairly%easy,%especially%with%teams%directly%across%from%each%other.%The%judge%compares%the%claims%

and%responses%from%each%side%and%establishes%what%has%been%proven.%Other%times,%this%is%a%difficult%

judgment.% %Here%are%some%guidelines%for%determining%which%team%has%won%when%the%comparison%

between%arguments%is%indirect:"For*example,*teams*on*the*same*bench:% %It%is%not%enough%that%a%closing%team%‘had%an%

extension’%to%win%over%the%team%ahead%of%them%on%the%bench.% %Nor%is%it%enough%that%the%

opening%team%‘set%up%a%good%debate’.%Their%total%contribution%(both%speakers),%must%have%

been%more%successful%at%persuading.%Closing%teams%do%not%win%through%minimal%additions%to%

already%wellAsubstantiated%points,%but%to%the%extent%to%which%their%contribution%(including%the%

summary)%is%meaningfully%better%than%what%has%come%before."Sometimes*teams*are*in*close*contention*with*other*teams*that*are*on*the*opposite*side*but*diagonally*across*from*each*other."Judges%may%take%into%account%the%fact%that%topAhalf%

teams%cannot%respond%directly%to%bottomAhalf%teams,%but%they%are%entitled%to%consider:"Most%obviously,%points%of%information%and%the%willingness%of%teams%to%offer%and%accept%them."The%quality%of%engagement%by%the%bottom%half."The%‘robustness’%of%the%opening%case%to%potential%challenges:%Judges%may%credit%material%in%

opening%speeches%which%are%implicitly%responsive%to%new%material%from%the%closing%half.%The%

judge%must%not%make%new%arguments%for%topAhalf%teams;%they%may%reasonably%interpret%and%

apply%existing%contributions"

Hold*teams*to*fair*and*equal*burdens:"It%is%reasonable%to%expect%opening%teams%to%develop%material%

enough%to%win%the%opening%half%and%that%‘sticks’/stays%relevant%throughout%the%debate%and%to%display%

some%sense%of%preemption%of%how%the%material%will%evolve.%They%should%provide%some%material%that%

implicitly%dealt%with%other%side’s%extension%(ideally%pointed%out%in%POIs)%and%provide%some%direct%

engagement%through%POIs.%If%an%opening%team%is%shut%out,%ask%if%it%is%their%fault.%Did%they%fail%to%

provide%sufficient%material%on%what%became%the%central%issue%of%the%debate?%Or%were%they%simply%

ignored%and%not%taken%for%POIs?%They%should%not%be%required%to%always%have%the%best%rebuttal,%cover%

every%issue%in%the%debate,%and%provide%the%clearest/more%eloquent%framing%of%the%issues/arguments."

It%is%reasonable%to%expect%closing%teams%to%engage%with%opening%teams%through%points%of%information%

and%direct%rebuttal.%They%need%to%be%responsive%to%the%28%minutes%of%debate%that%occurred%before%

them.%They%should%also%be%expected%to%move%the%debate%forward%by%adding%depth%in%terms%of%new%

ideas/analysis/frameworks/rebuttal.%Did%they%contribute%something%identifiable%to%the%debate?%They%

are%not%required%to%deal%with%all%the%issues%of%the%opening%half,%have%wholly%new%rebuttal,%or%provide%

something%revolutionary%to%the%debate.%

%

How*should*we*assess*manner?"Manner%is%a%mechanism%for%persuasion,%but%it%should%not%be%counted%

separately.% %ARVs%don’t%say:%‘This%is%a%bad%idea,%but%OG%sounded%nice,%so%I’ll%vote%for%them.’%Good%

manner%contributes%effectively%to%persuasion%by%ensuring%that%logical%and%relevant%material%is%


presented%clearly%and%effectively.%There%are%many%acceptable%forms%of%effective%manner.%Judges%

should%be%open%to%unfamiliar%forms%and%be%careful%not%to%privilege%certain%forms%of%manner%which%do%

not%contribute%to%the%argument%(mere%packaging).%Language%should%be%carefully%chosen,%but%manner%

does%not%refer%to%EnglishAspeaking%proficiency%or%accent.%Rudeness,%aggression,%inappropriate%tones,%

and%very%high%speed%of%delivery%are%forms%of%manner%that%may%hinder%persuasion.%Judges%may%wish%to%

comment%on%particularly%effective%or%ineffective%uses%of%manner%in%their%decision"*What*is*the*role*of*the*Chair?*If*you*are*judging*by*yourself,*you*should*also*take*note.* "The%Chair%should%introduce%themselves%and%fellow%judges.%Be%sure%to%ask%each%team%which%speaker%

listed%on%the%ballot%is%speaking%first.% %After%the%debate,%you%and%your%panel%should%go%through%the%

following%steps%in%20%minutes%or%less:""Step*1*S*Notes*review*(3*minutes*or*less)."Review"your"notes"and"decide"what"your"rough"read"on"the"debate"was."As"far"as"possible,"this"should"be"directed"toward"coming"up"with"team"rankings."This"is"not"absolutely"essential,"but"desirable.""Step*2*S*Deliberation*and*consensus:*(20*minutes*or*less)"A."Explain"how"what"will"happen"during"the"deliberation"time"to"the"panelists"and"trainees"(Note"that"panels"have"a"say"in"deciding"the"results"but"trainees’"opinions"won’t"affect"the"results)."It"is"a"good"idea"to"individually"have"some"time"to"organize"thoughts"and"rankings,"and"then"share"them."When"each"person"gets"a"chance"to"explain"his/her"reason"for"the"ranking,"the"Chair"should"listen"to"the"panelists"and"trainees"first,"then"speak"last."B."Getting"to"consensus:"The"difficulty"of"arriving"at"a"consensus"may"differ"depending"on"the"level"of"agreement"right"after"the"debate."Here"is"a"brief"guide"to"arriving"at"consensus"in"different"scenarios""""""""""i." """""""""""All"the"Panels"agree"on"ranking:"In"this"case,"briefly"discuss"the"rationale"behind"each"

ranking"and"proceed"to"the"speaker"scores."Panels’"opinions"on"team"performance"(“OG:1st"place)"was"much"better"than"OO(2nd"Place)”)"should"be"reflected"by"the"speaker"scores."

""""""""ii." """""""""""One"or"two"panels"have"dissenting"opinion:"After"having"one"of"the"dissenting"judges"explain"the"rationale,"hear"from"one"of"the"majority"group."If"the"majority"group"and"the"dissenting"group"are"not"able"to"convince"each"other,"consider"making"agreeable"concessions"(“I"am"willing"to"give"OG"2nd"but"I"think"OO"should"be"1st”)."Voting"should"be"considered"as"a"last"option."

""""""iii." """""""""""Two"or"three"groups:"If"there"are"two"or"more"groups"with"similar"rankings,"it"is"important"for"the"Chair"to"lead"the"discussion"efficiently."Focus"the"discussion"on"each"area"of"contention"(OG"vs."CO),"try"to"reach"a"consensus"in"that"area,"and"move"onto"others."If"there"is"a"consensus"already"on"a"particular"ranking"(Such"that"CO"should"get"forth),"identify"such"agreement"prior"to"discussion."

""""""iv." """""""""""There"is"no"agreement:"This"is"a"scenario"where"the"Chair’s"role"as"facilitator"of"discussion"is"very"important."As"in"the"previous"scenario,"identify"room"of"agreement"then"move"on"to"the"most"contentious"area."If"there"is"a"deadlock,"ask"questions"that"may"move"the"debate"forward"(“If"we"do"not"agree"on"the"strength"of"CG’s"extension"over"CO’s,"can"we"talk"about"engagement"between"the"closing"teams?”)."

Getting"to"consensus"is"sometimes"the"most"difficult"part"of"BP"judging,"as"well"as"its"most"meaningful."Deliberation"is"where"judges"with"different"philosophy"and"level"of"experience"can"exchange"opinions"and"learn"from"each"other."Don’t"be"afraid"to"speak"out"your"opinions"but"have"your"rationale"ready"for"discussion."""


Step*3:*Finalize*your*decision*(2*minutes)"Broadly"speaking,"team"points"are"more"important"than"speaker"points"in"terms"of"distributing"scarce"time."Arrive"at"the"scores"together."DOUBLE]CHECK"THE"MATH."In"the"case"consensus"cannot"be"met"during"the"allotted"time"of"20"minutes,"vote"on"all"or"part"of"the"ranking."(For"example,"when"you"agree"on"the"first"and"fourth"place"but"disagree"on"second"and"third,"only"vote"for"those"ranks.)"Once"the"rankings"have"been"decided,"move"to"deciding"speaker"points"for"each"speaker."If"panels"do"not"agree"on"(some"or"all"of)"the"rankings,"give"each"person"one/two"minute(s)"to"justify"his/her"rationale."Try"to"persuade"each"other.""USE*THE*SPEAKER*SCORE*RANGE:"*

82S83*

Nearly*Flawless,*Perfect*The"speaker"has"mostly"strengths"and"few,"if"any,"weaknesses."Understanding"of"relevant" issues" and" fulfillment" of" speaker" role" was" very" well" demonstrated."Ideas" are" well" and" thoroughly" explained" and" supported" with" adequate"reasoning" and" examples" and"without" assertions" or" logical" fallacies."You%would%expect%this%person%to%be%the%top%speaker%of%the%tournament."

79S81*

Very*Good,*Excellent*The"speaker"has"clear"strengths"and"some"minor"weaknesses."Understanding"of"relevant" issues" and" fulfillment" of" speaker" role" was" fairly" well" demonstrated."Ideas" are" generally" fairly" explained" and" supported" with" minor" assertions" or"logical" fallacies." The" speaker" could" work" on" more" sophisticated" delivery" of"reasoning"and"examples."You%would%expect%to%see%this%person%in%the%semiAfinal%or%

final%level%round%of%this%tournament."

76S78*

Above*Average.*Good*The" speaker" identified" the" relevant" issues" in" the" debate" and" has" fulfilled" his"basic"speaker"roles,"although"he"needs"improvement"in"the"depth"of"his"analysis"or"a"better"understanding"of"BP"dynamics"and"speaker"roles."You%would%expect%to%see%this%person%in%the%elimination%rounds%of%this%tournament."

75*

Average*This%would%be%the%average%speaker%you%would%expect%to%see%at%this%tournament."The" speaker" has" strengths" and" weaknesses" at" roughly" equal" proportions."Arguments" and" rebuttals" are" mostly" relevant" but" some" ideas" were" shallowly"explained" or" ended" at" assertion" level." The" speaker" fulfilled" most" of" his" basic"speaker"roles,"although"he"missed"out"some"parts."

72S74*

Slightly*Below*Average.* *Although" the" speaker" did" identify"most" of" the" relevant" issues," they" were" not"elaborated." Most" of" the" arguments" and" rebuttals" were" not" supported" with"necessary" reasoning" or" examples" or" ended" at" assertion" level." Attempts" were"shown"to"fulfill"his"speaker"role,"albeit"insufficient."

69S71*

Needs*improvement*The"speaker"missed"out"on"some"very"relevant"and"most"important"issues"of"the"debate."The"speaker"also"failed"to"fulfill"some"of"his"speaker"role."However"there"were"ideas"or"parts"of"the"speech"to"give"credit"to"the"speaker."

67S68*

Poor*The" speaker" has" fundamental" weaknesses," and" few," if" any," strengths." The"speaker" has" little" or" no" understanding" of" the" issues" of" the" debate" and" most"basic"speaker"roles"were"not"fulfilled"in"the"debate."


*%Note:%67%usually%means%the%speaker%used%the%medium%of%dance%to%express%his/her%speech%so%it%is%

rarely%given,%the%same%way%that%83%is%probably%Obama%on%a%very%good%day.%Most%of%the%tournament%

grades%are%expected%to%hover%around%the%75%area.%

""STEP*FOUR:*Hand*your*ballot*to*a*runner"Please"be"nice"and"friendly"to"them." ""STEP*FIVE:*Give*Decision*(15*minutes*or*less)"Call"your"teams"back"into"the"room"and"give"a"decision."The"chair"delivers"the"oral"adjudication."If"the"chair"lost"the"vote,"he/she"may"choose"to"appoint"one"of"the"judges"in"the"majority"to"deliver"the"decision."The"chair"may"still"opt"to"deliver"the"decision"even"if"he/she"was"in"the"minority,"but"the"decision"delivered"must"be"the"majority"decision,"and"the"chair"must"make"clear"that"he/she"dissented."Prescribed"structure"of"oral"feedback:"1)"Announce"team"rankings"–"the"‘suspense’"approach"is"highly"discouraged:"teams"will"be"too"busy"trying"to"infer"decisions"to"properly"absorb"feedback,"and"feedback"is"likely"to"be"less"precise"if"you’re"trying"to"be"mysterious"about"rankings!"2)"Choose"an"order"that"is"appropriate"for"the"round"and"allows"you"to"effectively"compare"teams"(1st]2nd]3rd]4th"or"compare"teams"directly"across"from"each"other"or"teams"on"the"same"bench);"make"sure"to"explain"why"one"team"beat"another."Explain"the"interactions"between"the"teams"being"compared."For"example,"If"OG"was"clear"4th"and"there"was"contention"between"CG"and"CO"as"1st"and"2nd,"start"with"OG"and"work"the"way"up."Be"clear"on"whether"it"was"a"consensus"or"a"dissent"decision.""When"explaining"the"decision,"make"sure"to"distinguish"between"the"‘reasons"for"the"decision’"and"constructive"criticism."The"primary"purpose"of"the"decision"is"to"explain"why"teams"were"ranked"a"certain"way"based"on"what"happened"in"the"debate."Constructive"criticism"(suggestions"on"how"to"improve,"alternative"ways"of"approaching"the"case,"etc.)"is"less"necessary"–"it"is"NOT"the"reason"for"the"decision,"and"can"be"discussed"privately"with"teams"after"the"oral"adjudication." "Decisions"should"be"comparative"and"detailed"–"do"not"use"generic"terms"such"as"‘good"analysis’,"‘strong"argument’,"‘lacked"responsiveness’"without"elaborating!"Make"references"to"specific"arguments,"track"responses,"and"analyze"their"impact"on"the"debate."Explain"why"a"specific"team"is"being"given"credit"for"certain"arguments/rebuttal."Also,"In"giving"feedback,"reflect"the"panels"also"by"trying"to"incorporate"what"they"said"during"the"deliberation"period"rather"than"representing"only"yourself."Stay"neutral"during"the"feedback"but"in"cases"where"you"have"to"enter"the"debate,"explicitly"indicate"that"you"are"doing"so."Teams"should"remain"silent"during"feedback,"but"judges"should"allow"teams"to"privately"ask"questions"about"the"decision"after"it"is"finished."Judges"should"be"available"for"questions"when"possible.""*%Note%to%the%panels%and%trainees:%You%can%get%bumped%up%positions%based%on%chair%feedback.%The%

chair%will%be%evaluating%you%in%terms%of%your%quality%of%answers%or%explanations%for%your%rankings%

during%the%deliberation,%so%keep%that%in%mind.% %

"""""""


""""5.*Part*Three:*Tips**"A.*Knifing*One"important"reminder"about"knifing"is"that"it"by"no"means"constitutes"an"automatic"loss."Generally,"there"are"two"kinds"of"knifing:"one"that"contradicts"a"crucial"premise,"assumption,"or"line"of"argumentation"of"the"opening"team"and"one"that"knifes"a"minor"part"of"the"case."While"the"former"should"be"considered"as"seriously"damaging"to"the"closing’s"own"case,"the"latter"need"not"be"seen"as"one"that"is"fatal."The"damage"of"contradiction"to"the"opening"team"must"be"considered"in"comparison"with"other"teams."Another"point"worth"noting"here"is"that"there"is"difference"between"moving"the"debate"to"a"different"area"and"logically"contradicting"the"opening"team."Consider"a"hypothetical"case"where"the"motion"is"about"Egypt"providing"a"security"guarantee"for"Gaza."If"OG"doesn’t"know"the"issue"and"argues"that"Egypt"should"protect"its"own"citizens"in"a"region"called"Gaza"within"the"country,"in"other"words,"if"OG"provides"a"factually"incorrect"setup,"and"CG"comes"up"and"re]focuses"the"debate"on"the"issue"intended,"CG’s"contribution"must"be"awarded,"rather"than"penalized"as"knifing."Moving"the"debate"to"another"area,"even"if"it"means"factually"correcting"the"previous"team,"need"not"constitute"a"logical"inconsistency"with"the"previous"team.""B.*Whips*on*new*matter*The"reason"why"we"normally"prohibit"new"matter"in"a"whip’s"speech"is"because"the"whips"are"the"last"speakers"in"the"debate"and"it"is"generally"unfair"if"new"matter"springs"up"in"their"speeches"and"the"debate"ends"without"a"chance"for"other"teams"to"respond."That"is"why"government"whips"have"relatively"more"freedom"when"it"comes"to"sounding"new,"and"if"a"whip"is"going"to"have"new"matter"it"should"preferably"in"the"beginning"of"the"speech,"not"in"the"last"fifteen"seconds"of"the"speech."So"although"the"answer"to"whether"whips"can"have"new"matter"or"not"would"technically"be"no,"as"the"role"of"a"whip"speaker"isn’t"to"give"simple"repetitions"of"the"member’s"speech"but"rather"to"approach"the"entire"debate"from"its"team"line"and"link"the"entire"debate"with"their"extension,"this"boils"down"more"to"whether"that"piece"of"matter"is"delivered"so"that"it"sounds"new"or"not."Even"if"it"is"the"same"piece"of"matter,"if"it"is"nuanced"as"an"extension"of"the"idea"that"appeared"in"the"member’s"speech"and"if"necessary"linkages"are"shown,"it"may"be"acceptable."Of"course,"a"new"matter"thrown"at"the"adjudicator"without"links"would"be"new"matter"that"you"shouldn’t"take"into"account."Further,"whips"may"bring"new"analysis"to"debate"through"rebuttal,"which"should"be"rewarded"rather"than"penalized.""C.*Comparing*opening*team*with*closing*team*Ideally,"opening"teams"should"anticipate"and"preempt"the"responses"of"other"teams"to"their"arguments."But"this"is"not"always"easy,"expecting"all"openings"to"expect"all"and"every"possible"rebuttals"and"discrediting"them"for"not"arguing"preemptively"may"be"too"much"and"unfair"of"burden."When"adjudicating"the"round"you"should"look"at"the"actual"dynamics"and"quality"of"argumentation"and"responses;"whether"the"closing"teams"are"actually"taking"down"the"arguments"from"the"opening"teams,"as"they"should"take"full"advantage"of"their"position."For"example,"when"OO"has"an"argument"that"directly"counters"the"OG,"the"CG"should"be"responding"to"OO"instead"of"merely"repeating"OG’s"case"line."In"other"words"look"at"the"content"of"engagement,"not"the"sequence"of"engagement"(An"example"was"what"not"to"do:"CG"came"after"OO"therefore"they"responded,"while"OO"did"not"have"a"chance"to"respond."Therefore"CG"over"OO.)""


D.*“Extension”*versus*extension*The"most"important"role"of"the"closing"teams"is"to"extend"or"expand"on"the"debate"that"has"happened"in"the"opening"half."Then,"does"a"closing"team"automatically"lose"if"they"don’t"have"an"extension?"The"short"answer"would"be"no."Again,"you"would"have"to"compare"the"contribution"of"the"team"with"other"teams,"but"more"importantly,"even"if"a"closing"team"doesn’t"have"an"argument"that"is"labeled"explicitly"as"“extension”"if"the"rebuttals"or"angle"of"approaching"the"debate,"or"even"one"piece"of"example"that"was"effectively"used"to"contextualize"the"debate"that"came"from"the"closing"team"was"unique,"this"could"be"counted"as"enough"of"contribution"for"that"team"to"win,"even"without"an"outright"“extension.”"Same"would"go"to"a"situation"where"a"team"does"have"an"“extension,”"but"there"is"a"lack"of"differentiation"or"contribution"from"the"opening"half;"in"this"case"the"closing"teams"are"not"really"doing"their"job"of"extending"or"expanding"the"debate."So"even"with"a"technical"“extension”"they"might"not"win.""""*For%any%and%all% inquiries%or% issues% regarding% this%guide,%please%contact%NEAO%2013%CAP%via%eAmail%

([email protected])%

NEAO 2013 Judging Guide

Documents

berlin worlds

editedbynea inquiries