Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Adjudicating BP Debates
Steve JohnsonUniversity of Alaska
Argumentation
Argument is movementArgument is movement move an audience advance positions sway opponents redirect questioning follow lines of argument take logical leaps retreat from claims push issues drive points home come to conclusions arrive at a decision
move an audience advance positions sway opponents redirect questioning follow lines of argument take logical leaps retreat from claims push issues drive points home come to conclusions arrive at a decision
Points of StasisPoints of Stasis
Predictable places at which arguments pause
A point of clash between competing arguments.
Useful to evaluate opposing arguments
Predictable places at which arguments pause
A point of clash between competing arguments.
Useful to evaluate opposing arguments
Points of StasisPoints of Stasis
2 Types:
PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Opposition’s
ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree
2 Types:
PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Opposition’s
ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree
PropositionsPropositions
PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Oppositions
1. Propositions identify the relevant territory for the debate (and exclude the irrelevant territory)
2. Propositions divide the Prop territory from the Opp territory
PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Oppositions
1. Propositions identify the relevant territory for the debate (and exclude the irrelevant territory)
2. Propositions divide the Prop territory from the Opp territory
The PropositionThe Proposition
PROP OPP
PropositionsPropositions
“China should ban smoking”
Proposition: China should ban smoking
Opposition: China should not ban smoking
“China should ban smoking”
Proposition: China should ban smoking
Opposition: China should not ban smoking
Dragon Appropriate?
WestMisunderstood?
Historical Meaning?
Practical costs?
Dragon Appropriate?
WestMisunderstood?
Historical Meaning?
Practical costs?
GOV OPP
China should ban smoking
PROP: China shouldban smoking
OPP: China shouldnot ban smoking
IssuesIssues
ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree
1. Issues focus the points of clash within the proposition
2. Emerge as a result of the arguments advanced by the Prop and Opp sides
3. May or may not be acknowledged by the teams
ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree
1. Issues focus the points of clash within the proposition
2. Emerge as a result of the arguments advanced by the Prop and Opp sides
3. May or may not be acknowledged by the teams
Issue #1
Issue #2
Issue #3
Proposition
IssuesIssues“China should ban smoking”
Proposition:
1. Smoking creates a significant public health hazard
Opposition:
1. Banning smoking will have significant economic consequences for producers and retailers
2. Banning smoking infringes on the rights of smokers.
“China should ban smoking”
Proposition:
1. Smoking creates a significant public health hazard
Opposition:
1. Banning smoking will have significant economic consequences for producers and retailers
2. Banning smoking infringes on the rights of smokers.
Is smoking detrimental to public health?
What will be the economic consequences?
Do smokers have a right to smoke in public?
China should ban smoking
PROP OPP
PROP OPP
PROP OPP
• Debating (argumentation) is a contest of efforts to gain ground on particular issues and, by so doing, on the proposition.
• Ground may be gained by advancing (horizontally) against opponents or by expanding (vertically) against other issues.
Argumentation and Movement
Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues
The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction)
Issues and Movement
PROP OPPIssue #1
PROP OPPIssue #2
PROP OPPIssue #3
Proposition
Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues
The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction)
1. Prop: Smoking poses a public health risk
2. Opp: Smoking poses little public health risk
Issues and Movement
PROP OPP
PROP OPP
PROP OPP
Do smokers have a right to smoke in public?
China should ban smoking
What will be the economic consequences?
Is smoking detrimental to public health?
Expansion: vertical movement between issues
Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing).
Issues and Movement
PROP OPPIssue #1
PROP OPPIssue #2
PROP OPPIssue #3
Proposition
Expansion: vertical movement between issues
Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing).
1. Prop: Smokers’ rights are less important than public health
2. Opp: The economic consequences of this policy far outweigh the minimal gains in public health, particularly when less intrusive means to control smoking exist.
Issues and Movement
China should ban smoking
PROP OPPSmokers’ Rights?
PROP OPP
Economic Consequences?
Public Health?PROP OPP
The Process of Adjudication
Priorities and Guiding Values
Priorities and Guiding Values
Tabula Rasa: the “blank slate”
Education: participants should be encouraged to improve and develop
Non-intervention: let the debaters debate, don’t make their efforts irrelevant or do their jobs for them
Tabula Rasa: the “blank slate”
Education: participants should be encouraged to improve and develop
Non-intervention: let the debaters debate, don’t make their efforts irrelevant or do their jobs for them
3 standards and a model
3 standards and a model
The Standards:
Matter and Manner
Role Fulfillment
Better Debate
The Model:
The movement model
The Standards:
Matter and Manner
Role Fulfillment
Better Debate
The Model:
The movement model
Matter & MannerMatter & Manner Matter
3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.
3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.
3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information.
Manner 4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It
is the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.
4.1.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Primarily, manner may be assessed by examining the speakers’ style (delivery) and structure (organization).
Matter 3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the
arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.
3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case.
3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information.
Manner 4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It
is the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience.
4.1.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Primarily, manner may be assessed by examining the speakers’ style (delivery) and structure (organization).
Role FulfillmentRole Fulfillment
Opening Prop Clear Model and Case Refutation and Rebuttal
Opening Opp Clear team line Refutation and Rebuttal
Member Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp) Extensions
Whip Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp) Holistic Summary
Opening Prop Clear Model and Case Refutation and Rebuttal
Opening Opp Clear team line Refutation and Rebuttal
Member Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp) Extensions
Whip Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp) Holistic Summary
Do the teams & speakers do their jobs?
The “Better Debate” Standard
The “Better Debate” Standard
Who contributed most to (or detracted most from) the quality of this debate?
Guiding principles: Inquiry: Are the most germane issues
interrogated?
Advancement: Does each speech/speaker move the debate forward?
Engagement: Do the debaters test the arguments of the opposing side?
Performance: Who delivers the most compelling oratorical effort?
Who contributed most to (or detracted most from) the quality of this debate?
Guiding principles: Inquiry: Are the most germane issues
interrogated?
Advancement: Does each speech/speaker move the debate forward?
Engagement: Do the debaters test the arguments of the opposing side?
Performance: Who delivers the most compelling oratorical effort?
A model of adjudication
Model: A perspective from which to consider the debate
A framework to guide your consideration of the round
Debate is a contest of ideas: the best ideas should win
Less Practical Adjudication Models
Less Practical Adjudication Models
“Truth of motion” model
Question: at the end of the debate, is the motion true or false?
Risk: the bias of the judge may make the debaters’ efforts irrelevant
“Truth of motion” model
Question: at the end of the debate, is the motion true or false?
Risk: the bias of the judge may make the debaters’ efforts irrelevant
“Skill of debaters” model
Question: which team did the better job of arguing their position?
Risk: the debaters may be eloquent, but their arguments may be untrue.
“Skill of debaters” model
Question: which team did the better job of arguing their position?
Risk: the debaters may be eloquent, but their arguments may be untrue.
The Movement ModelThe Movement Model
Before the round, the judge thought the motion was:
After the round, the judge thought the motion was:
Opposition wins, because they moved the judge the farthest.
Before the round, the judge thought the motion was:
After the round, the judge thought the motion was:
Opposition wins, because they moved the judge the farthest.
True False
True False
Which team moved the judges the furthest?
Adjudicating the Debate
Adjudicating the Debate
1. Identify the proposition2. Identify the issues3. Determine the winner of each
issues4. Determine the importance of each
issue5. Assess each team’s efforts
relative to the issues6. Report the decision
1. Identify the proposition2. Identify the issues3. Determine the winner of each
issues4. Determine the importance of each
issue5. Assess each team’s efforts
relative to the issues6. Report the decision
Steps 1 & 2Steps 1 & 2
1. Identify the Proposition: What is the question of the motion?
2. Identify the Issues: Over which specific points do the teams contest the proposition?
1. Identify the Proposition: What is the question of the motion?
2. Identify the Issues: Over which specific points do the teams contest the proposition?
China should ban smoking in public places
PROP OPP
Do smokers have a right to smoke in public?
PROP OPP
Is smoking detrimental to public health?
PROP OPP
What will be the economic consequences?
Steps 3 & 4Steps 3 & 4
3. Determine the winner of each issue: Which side occupies the most ground for each issue? (Distribution)
4. Determine the relative importance of issues: What is the relative importance of each issue? (Expansion)
3. Determine the winner of each issue: Which side occupies the most ground for each issue? (Distribution)
4. Determine the relative importance of issues: What is the relative importance of each issue? (Expansion)
1. Truth: does the argument correspond to fact or reality?a. Fidelity (External Consistency)?b. Coherence (Internal Consistency)?
2. Validity: is the argument well-constructed and well-executed?a. Effective expression?b. Strategically deployed?
Evaluating competing lines of argument
Step 5Step 5
5. Determine each team’s effort relative to each issue: Who did what to win or rank each issue?
5. Determine each team’s effort relative to each issue: Who did what to win or rank each issue?
Step 6Step 6
6. Justify and report the decision
6. Justify and report the decision
Oral Adjudication Oral Adjudication
Constraints Between 10-20 minutes Delivered by the Chair Wing adjudicators may contribute at the
Chair’s discretion Should not reveal speaker points
Procedure Reveal Rankings Provide Reason for Rank for each team Provide constructive criticism Answer questions
Constraints Between 10-20 minutes Delivered by the Chair Wing adjudicators may contribute at the
Chair’s discretion Should not reveal speaker points
Procedure Reveal Rankings Provide Reason for Rank for each team Provide constructive criticism Answer questions
Panel AdjudicationPanel Adjudication Achieving consensus
Many perspectives can make for better judging Led to consensus by the Chair
Avoid bullying Avoid laissez-faire leadership
Active participation by Wing Judges Critical to quality decisions and adjudicator
development Don’t capitulate; don’t calcify
Isolate the difficult decision Bench win? Top or bottom half debate? Agree on First? Fourth? Decision between 1st & 2nd? 2nd & 3rd?
Can default to majority decision
Achieving consensus Many perspectives can make for better judging Led to consensus by the Chair
Avoid bullying Avoid laissez-faire leadership
Active participation by Wing Judges Critical to quality decisions and adjudicator
development Don’t capitulate; don’t calcify
Isolate the difficult decision Bench win? Top or bottom half debate? Agree on First? Fourth? Decision between 1st & 2nd? 2nd & 3rd?
Can default to majority decision
Assigning PointsAssigning Points
Scale 1-100; 75 average Point inflation strongly opposed Functional range: 60 - 90
Determining Points Points are based on consensus Start with agreement on highest or lowest for
best or worst speaker Individual points totaled for team points No low-point wins
Scale 1-100; 75 average Point inflation strongly opposed Functional range: 60 - 90
Determining Points Points are based on consensus Start with agreement on highest or lowest for
best or worst speaker Individual points totaled for team points No low-point wins
Points Meaning
90-100
Excellent to flawless. The standard of speech you would expect to see from a speaker at the Grand Final level of the tournament. This speaker has many strengths and few, if any, weaknesses.
80-89
Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see from a speaker at the semi finals level or in contention to make to the finals. This speaker has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.
70-79 Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses and roughly equal proportions.
60-69 Poor to below average. The team has clear problems and some minor strengths.
50-59 Very poor. This speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.
