Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 41 views

    For Adjes PDF

    Uploaded by

    Fayzah Inshirah Cosna Ala
    An adjudicator is meant to evaluate debates logically based on the arguments presented by the teams, using the perspective of an average, reasonable person with a general knowledge of current events and history. They are not meant to insert their own views or expertise. Judges should assess debates based solely on what is said during the debate, not other factors like number of arguments or style of delivery. Rebuttals are particularly important. Whip speeches should summarize their side's perspective rather than introduce new arguments. Judges must avoid generalizations and assumptions not grounded in the debate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    For Adjes PDF

    Uploaded by

    Fayzah Inshirah Cosna Ala
    41 views16 pages
    An adjudicator is meant to evaluate debates logically based on the arguments presented by the teams, using the perspective of an average, reasonable person with a general knowledge of current events and history. They are not meant to insert their own views or expertise. Judges should assess debates based solely on what is said during the debate, not other factors like number of arguments or style of delivery. Rebuttals are particularly important. Whip speeches should summarize their side's perspective rather than introduce new arguments. Judges must avoid generalizations and assumptions not grounded in the debate.

    Original Title

    For Adjes.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    An adjudicator is meant to evaluate debates logically based on the arguments presented by the teams, using the perspective of an average, reasonable person with a general knowledge of current events and history. They are not meant to insert their own views or expertise. Judges should assess debates based solely on what is said during the debate, not other factors like number of arguments or style of delivery. Rebuttals are particularly important. Whip speeches should summarize their side's perspective rather than introduce new arguments. Judges must avoid generalizations and assumptions not grounded in the debate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    41 views16 pages

    For Adjes PDF

    Uploaded by

    Fayzah Inshirah Cosna Ala
    An adjudicator is meant to evaluate debates logically based on the arguments presented by the teams, using the perspective of an average, reasonable person with a general knowledge of current events and history. They are not meant to insert their own views or expertise. Judges should assess debates based solely on what is said during the debate, not other factors like number of arguments or style of delivery. Rebuttals are particularly important. Whip speeches should summarize their side's perspective rather than introduce new arguments. Judges must avoid generalizations and assumptions not grounded in the debate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 16

    ADJUDICATION

    AN APPROACH FOR BUDDING JUDGES


    WHO IS AN ADJUDICATOR?

    YOUARE LIKE A
    JUDGE! NO, INSTEAD
    YOU ARE THE JUDGE!
    YOU ARE AN AVERAGE
    REASONABLE PERSON
    WAIT, WHAT? I’m just
    average?
    THIS DOESN’T MEAN
     YOU are AUDIO RECORDING!
     you use that intelligence to impose a
    win or a lose even if YOU maybe or
    should be the smartest person in the
    room.
     You are a ghost.
     You are not Trump.
    THIS MEANS
     Attempts to evaluate logically what the best thing to do
     Uses as inputs the arguments made by the teams
     Has the sort of knowledge of someone who reads the front
    pages and world section of a high quality newspaper
    regularly
     Has a grounding of world history
     Is not a specialist in ay subject, and thus will not be
    familiar with technical vocabulary or specialist literature
    THE BIGGER PERSPECTIVE
    IN THE DEBATE

    INNOCENT UNTIL
    PROVEN GUILTY
    JUDGING DEFITIONAL CHALLENGES:

    SQUIRREL
    TAUTOLOGY AND
    TRUISM
    TIME AND PLACE SET
    ASSESSING POLICIES
    Most likely, policy debates would require government to push for
    a new solution or a framework that is already working somewhere in
    the world. The policy being status quo somewhere in the world is
    acceptable, as long as the debate exists. There can be motions which
    are in defense of status quo, so we should not be trapped with the
    mindset that all policy motions are solutions to problems.
    Sometimes, they are just thereto make the world a better place.
    There are instances wherein opposition will not present a new
    policy, and this is fine. As long as they provide reasons not to do the
    policy, then a point of disagreement is still made. These usually come
    in the form of proving that having the policy will make the situation
    worse or by proving that there is a solution already present and this
    new proposal will just jeopardize the situation.
    Sample
    Sample motion: THBT the US should withdraw military aid from Israel
    GOV: Withdrawing military aid decreases Israel’s aggression towards Palestine;
    makes them think twice of their current actions (i.e. settlements, etc.)
    Examples where opposition does not create a point of disagreement:
    A. If OPP agrees with the problem (Israel’s aggression towards Palestine) but does
    NOT provide a comparative of why the situation now (or their counter-policy, if
    ever) is better/less worse. Only rebuttals and responses that the policy is
    ineffective. In this situation, there is no point of disagreement because there
    is no comparison of worlds (i.e. a world where the US withdraws military aid
    vs. a world that it does not).
    B. If OPP disagrees with the problem (Israel’s aggression towards Palestine), says
    there is actually a different problem to solve(hypothetical problem: dealing with
    Israel’s insecurity), but does NOT say why this problem is more important. In this
    situation, there is no point of disagreement because there is no comparison of
    priority (i.e. which problem should we be dealing with first, in relation to the
    withdrawal of aid).
    ASSESSING AND APPRECIATING
    ARGUMENTS
     The results of the debate should depend on what
    teams do and don’t say. Judges are not allowed to
    enter and intervene in the debate.
     However, it is important to note that not all
    arguments stand as important.
     Your appreciation of the speeches must value
    rebuttals and arguments equally.
    CERTAIN THINGS THAT DOESN’T MATTER
     Certain
    things do not matter (in
    themselves) in debating:
    • The number of arguments a team
    makes,
    • How clever or sophisticated the
    argument was,
    • How interesting the argument was.
    ASSESSING WHIP SPEECHES

     WHIPSSUMMARIZE AND SHOULD SUMMARIZE


    THE DEBATE IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF THEIR
    SIDE.
     WHIPSARE CRYSTALLIZATION AGENTS, NOT
    CARPENTERS.
     DO NOT PENALIZE NEW MATERIAL.JUSRT
    IGNORE IT.
    SOME PITFALLS TO AVOID IN DECISION-
    MAKING AND FEEDBACK
     Dealing in generalities rather than specifics
     Failing to judge the debate as it happened
     Granting certain ‘’classes’’ of arguments undue
    priority
     ‘Penalty judging’
     Judging on Format Rather than Content
    Types of Motions

    This House would (do x)


    This House would, as (A), do (x)
    This House would that (x)
    This House supports/regrets(x)
    Scoring a debater
    Score Meaning
    81 – 83 - All of the speech was relevant to the debate, the responses were
    damaging to the other teams, and the substantiation was quite rigorous and
    concretized
    77-80 - All of the speech was relevant to the debate, the responses were
    generally strong, and the substantiation was generally rigorous and concretized
    74-76 - All or most of the speech was relevant to the debate, the responses were
    generally sound and logical, and the substantiation was generally sound and
    logical
    70-73 - Majority of the speech was relevant to the debate but the responses were
    generally dismissive or weak and/or the substantiation was generally illogical
    67-69 - All or most of the speech was irrelevant to the debate, absolutely or
    mostly not responsive, absolutely or mostly no substantiation
    How debaters score you?
    Score Meaning
    1 - Automatic complaint and conflict. The judge did not talk at all and never even attempted to justify
    his/her decision, or did attempt to justify his/her decision but used standards that are irrelevant to the
    rules of debate (such as personal beliefs, personal opinion, and ideas that did not come out in the
    debate INSTEAD of logic, believability of examples, responsiveness, and level of substantiation) or used
    arguments and ideas that did not come out in the debate (stepping in).
    2 - 3 - The judge spoke but could not articulate a coherent logical reasoning of his/her justification;
    grossly misapplied the standards in assessing a debate (such as blatantly considering wrongly an idea as a
    new matter); did not listen to a substantial portion of the debate and could not recall or discuss such
    portions.
    4-6 - The judge articulated a coherent logical reasoning of his/her justification but was neither
    comprehensive nor detailed, or definitely misapplied some standards in assessing a debate, or definitely
    misunderstood some parts of the debate, or was vague and ambiguous in discussing some parts of the
    debate.
    7-8 - The judge articulated a clear and coherent reasoning of his/her justification but was only either
    comprehensive or detailed, or arguably misapplied some standards in assessing a debate, or arguably
    misunderstood some parts of the debate.
    9-10 - The judge articulated a clear, coherent, comprehensive, and detailed reasoning of his/her
    justification, correctly applied the standards in assessing a debate, and did not misunderstand any part
    of the debate.

    You might also like