Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
