View
6.695
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
For: Continuing members of MAD with university debating experience. Adjudication experience not necessary. What: The session will start by covering the fundamentals of adjudication and then move onto discussing some of the more challenging concepts in adjudication, including how to assess manner, judging debates holistically and how to give constructive feedback. This session aims to prepare members for success as adjudicators at internal and intervarsity competitions throughout the year, and is a great kick off for adjudicating Freshers. Presenter: Amit Golder, Best Speaker and Winner at the 2009 Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships.
Citation preview
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Your Job:
1. Decide who won the debate + why
2. Convey this to the teams clearly
3. Provide constructive feedback to teams/speakers
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Who are you?
• You are the average reasonable debater
• You do not have specialist knowledge
• You do have a good sense of logic
• You may not enter the debate
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Who wins?
• The most persuasive team?
• The highest scoring team?
• The team that wins on ‘matter’ ie the issues in the debate?
Answer: All of the above, to different extents
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Matter
• Logic (why?)– Does one thing follow from another?– Can this be reasonably inferred?
• Relevance (why should I care?)– Do the premises support the conclusions?– Does the conclusion support that side of the topic?
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Manner
• Vocal– Volume, pace, tone, clarity– Word choice (precision)– Humour?
• Non-Vocal– Gesture, eye contact, stance/body
• Language/understanding?
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
ScoringEach speech is out of 100 (40+40+20)
Average is 75 (30+30+15) average is contextual, not constant
Margins:- 1-3 points = close decision- 4-7 points = clear decision- 8 points and above = very clear decision
Priority should be: decision > margin > individual scores
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
How to Adj:
• The ‘third speech for the whole debate’ style:– Pick 2-4 themes that encapsulate the debate.– Analyse all the matter in the debate through those
themes– Balance the contributions of each team, across the 6
speakers of the debate, decide which team won– When critically evaluating the matter, refer to
manner and method• Ie. Good method/manner can increase the persuasive effect
of arguments/rebuttal
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
How to Adj:
• Using the criteria as your guide:– Who wins on matter, manner and method? How much do
they win by? Who wins the debate?
• Other methods (Ravi? Meredith?)
• Note-taking– Format– Analysis – as you go or at the end?– Dangers – don’t finish arguments or keep incomplete
notes
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
How to Adj:
• Scoring:– As you go: most people note an indication of the
range of speech they saw, ie 76/7. – Be willing to change/re-evaluate preliminary scores.
• Your ‘instincts’– Find ways to justify a debate without resorting to
instinct!– Does not mean instincts about a decision are
incorrect, just means they are not sufficient to justify a result.
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
How to Oral:
In our opinion, your oral decision should proceed like so:
1. The decision – who won?
2. The reasons for that, as clearly presented as possible!
3. Your feedback to the teams – about the whole debate (whole-of-debate matter, common issues) and each team (cases/tactics)
4. Individual feedback, privately, after the debate, in a sexy way.
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Feedback:
• Constructive feedback is feedback that can be used again! ‘You are dumb’ is not as constructive as you think!
• The compliment sandwich is useful with younger debaters – acknowledging strengths doesn’t make you a bad adjudicator!
• Give examples from the debate, people like to see that you are paying attention, but try to make the feedback more generally useful than just that topic!
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Potential Issues:
Definitions:• Only invalid if undebatable, but if not that
reasonable, keep this in mind.• Reward the negative team that tries.
3rd Speakers + New Matter:• Remember the rules, but be reasonable.• Penalise, but almost never totally ignore.
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Potential Issues:
Burdens:• Teams can say they have whatever burden they
want, and can claim burdens of other teams – only YOU may decide whether something must be proved/shown to win the debate.
• Do not enter the debate and presume one side is harder to win than the other. Presume the topic is balanced and give decision accordingly – too dangerous otherwise!
• Whilst in reality, not always the case, fairness means not trying to correct the difficulty of the topic.
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Potential Issues:
Negative Cases:• Can’t run a ‘pure negation’ – but this is
actually quite rare! Mostly there’s an implicit defence of the status quo.
• Make sure they are negating the topic not just the Aff!
www.monashdebaters.com | [email protected]
Potential Issues:
False Facts:• Remember, you are average reasonable
person, can only dismiss false facts if they are obvious, or another team calls them on it.
• Be wary of entering the debate – but you can use your normal logic skillz if the logic of an argument is missing/crappy.