-assessment of the debate, in general -assessment of the teams weaknesses, strengths, arguments, manner, etc.

GOVERNMENT -support the motion -define the motion -construct a positive case in favour of the motion -providing substantive materials and arguments in support of the case -responding to any challenges made to that case by the Opposition

OPPOSITION -negate the motion -responding to the Government's definition -constructing a case in opposition to the motion -providing substantive materials and arguments in support of the case -responding to the arguments delivered by the Government

decide the winner 2. reason out the decision; and 3. provide constructive criticism for the teams/speakers
1.

SOLO-automatic chair -the only one to kill :D

PANEL-in odd numbers (3 or more) -adjudicators decide the winner individually and each panel will give his/her decision and they deliberate as necessary -winner is decided by majority

-should be able to rerun the debate through his/her mind -tip: remarks at the end of each speech

-a fairly well-informed citizen of the globe with an average understanding of global and regional issues -a basic understanding of popular disciplines and logic -set aside his/her exceptional personal preferences, experiences, opinions or expert knowledge

-jack-of-all-trades and master of none -expert in terms of the rules of debate

-grave sin as an adjudicator -bringing in expert knowledge or preferences into the debate -building arguments for the teams

-let the teams fight out what is right or more convincing and for the adjudicators not to bring issues unless the teams themselves pick it up -do not mark faults unless it was made obvious

Assess matter Assess manner Assess method

MATTER INCLUDES: 1. Definition - set up of the case, burden of proof etc. 2. Arguments - Key statement, explanation, analogy, examples, evidences etc. 3. Rebuttals - Key statement, explanation, analogy, examples, evidences etc.

DEFINITION 1. Reasonable-clear and logical link between the motion and the definition -should not incorporate overly specific knowledge -should not run counter to resolution

2. Not truistic or tautological -cannot be rationally opposed -no reasonable person can or should be expected to advocate otherwise

3. Not a time/place set-can not narrow down the scope of the debate in terms of time and place in such a way that an average reasonable person is not expected to know or be able to debate the motion as defined

GOOD DEFINITION -explains the key words of the topic, irons out the issues/contentions of the debate and identifies the burden of proof

ARGUMENT Anatomy: L-abel A-nalysis E-xample T-ieback

-did the debater discharge his burden of proof? -did the arguments logically prove his contention? -did he demonstrate good understanding of the major issues and relate smaller points to them?

-assess the strength of an argument regardless of whether the opposing team addresses it or not

REBUTTALS -similar to arguments -aim to disprove the validity of an argument -have a basic statement, explanation, analysis and supporting evidences -they should rebut the fundamental logic of the argument or the case and raise possible objections to the proposal (if any)

-respectable attitude towards the judges and the other team, -vocal style: volume, clarity, pace, intonation etc -appropriate use of notes -eye contact -body language, hand gestures, -impression of sincerity, humour, wit, appropriate sarcasm

-there is no one best way to debate -there is no difference between an aggressive and forceful debater and one who is calm and understated if both are able to demonstrate the ability to persuade and hold the attention of the adjudicators -debaters should not be racist, sexist or plainly offensive to person, or make derogatory remarks about other debaters in the debate

-is the speech persuasive? -is he/she able to maintain the audiences attention? -is his/her speech clear?

1. Organization of a teams case-effective to prove the case in contention -continuity of the teams theme in all speeches -consistency among all debaters (no contradictions), -reinforcement of team members' arguments -clear & logical separation between arguments

2. Organization of individual speeches a) Statements regarding definition/ theme/ burden of proof / quick overview b) Rebuttals: rebuttals of the arguments as well as rebuttals of the rebuttals, c) Presentation of arguments, and d) Concluding summary
-

speaker performs the role expected of him/her effectively

3. Responses of the team to the dynamics of the debate

-

debaters should understand these progresses and dynamics and respond accordingly and not just go ahead and speak as they planned during their preparation time ignores the most important arguments of the earlier speaker and does not rebut them he lacks dynamics and should thus score low in method

DONTs - debater uses long and loud sentences just to get the attention towards his/her attempt to give POIs
-

say if a debater stands up on a POI within few seconds after he has been rejected (20 second waiting period)

-assessed on the basis of the threat they pose to the strength of the argument of the debater and the value of its wit and humour -responses to the POIs are judged on the basis of its logical and intellectual strength, promptness and confidence in answering, and value of its wit and humour.

-a biased adjudication -summarises the major contentions of both the teams and provides a summary of argumentation that took place during the course of the debate proving that one team has substantial edge over the other -only half the truth

-is the definitional challenge necessary? -does not settle the whole debate - consider how both teams argue out the case under each definition, or argue out the validity or otherwise of the definitions

-credit the one who has explained it effectively -deductions in speaker points

Case 1: pointed out Case 2: not pointed out

-new issue -whips are generally not allowed -GW is tolerable, but high discouraged; OW not at all allowed Relevant: Penalize Irrelevant: Disregard

-skip to other arguments -there are other measuring sticks for the win

0.5-2 Close/Marginal: A very close debate; only minor differences separating the two teams 3-8 Clear: A relatively clear decision, with one team having an obvious advantage 9-12 Thrashing: A very clear win, with the losing team failing on one or more fundamental aspects of the debate

69-71 72-74

<insert cricket sounds here> Below average; More weaknesses than strengths Average; Weaknesses and strengths cancel out Above Average; More strengths than weaknesses OBAMA! You make me cry.

75
76-77 78-80

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Thou shall not undermine your own credibility. Thou shall not ramble on for too long. Thou shall not balk from crediting style as a decision-tipping factor. Thou shall not disregard rebuttals for being late. Thou shall not utter meaningless jargon as a substitute for genuine justification.

6. Thou shall not condemn. Instead, recommend. 7. Thou shall not respond inappropriately to excessively aggressive disputes against the decision. 8. Thou shall not have aggressive disputes against decisions other judges take. 9. Thou shall not act like youre too busy to give advice. 10. Thou shall not socialize excessively with the coaches.

1. General
2. Decision

comments

3. Justification

1. Judge the debate holistically. 2. No to checklist adjudicators. 3. Keep the audience in mind. 4. Be precise. 5. Be concise.

SCORE
5 4 Adj God/Goddess Demi-god

3
2 1

Chair (Mortal :D)

Panel Complaint

Rank

the motions based on your preference:

1-totally like! 2-like! 3-dislike!

Your

adjudicator will facilitate a toss coin. The preferred motion of the winner of the toss coin will be the motion that will be debated upon.

THW

legalize prostitution THW legalize child labor THW legalize abortion