2  KIDA  IV  

 

 

GUIDE TO JUDGING AT KIDA IV 2013

Written by KIDA IV 2013 CAP B P

3  KIDA  IV  

GUIDE  TO  JUDGING  AT  KIDA  IV    

Written  by  KIDA  IV  CAP  January,  2013  Seoul,  Korea  

 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  

   1.  INTRODUCTON    2.  OVERVIEW    3.  ADJUDICATION    

1)  General  Guideline  A.  Know  yourself  B.  Holistic  Adjudication    2)  Judging  Criteria  A.  Contribution  and  Engagement  B.  Relevance  C.  Role  Fulfillment    3)  Entering  the  Debate  A.  Logical  consistency  B.  Relevance    4)  Tips  A.  Knifing  B.  Whips  on  new  matter  C.  Comparing  opening  team  with  closing  team    D.  “Extension”  versus  extension  

 4.  CHAIRING    

1)  Before  the  debate  2)  Chairing  the  debate    3)  Deliberation  4)  Giving  feedback  

 5.  SPEAKER  SCORE  RANGE  CHART  

 *For   any   and   all   inquiries   or   issues   regarding   this   guide,   please   contact   KIDA   IV   CAP   via   e-­‐mail  (cap.kidaiv@gmail.com)  

 

4  KIDA  IV  

   1.  INTRODUCTON    Korea   has   a   very   short   history   of   parliamentary   debate   and   an   even   shorter   history   of   British  Parliamentary  Style  debate.  Thus  we  lack  the  necessary  experience  and  exposure  to  have  somewhat  standardized  criteria  for  BP  judging.  Because  BP  debate  is  very  dynamic  in  that  it  composes  of  four  teams  judged  by  a  number  of  adjudicators  who  confer  with  each  other  to  reach  a  final  decision,  the  same   debate   can   get   completely   different   results   depending   on   who   is   judging   in   that   room.   In  addition,  there  has  been  much  discussion  of  the  need  to  train  judges  in  BP  format.  Accordingly,  this  guide   is   a   timely   attempt   to   provide   guidelines   to   BP   adjudication   to   those   in   Korea   and   those  attending  KIDA  IV.  While  there  are  a  number  of  materials  that  are  specific  to  KIDA  IV,  this  guide  can  be  used  as  a  general  BP  training  guide  for  anyone  new  to  BP  judging.  We  do  not  intend  to  start  from  the  very  basics  and  go  over  each  speaker  role  in  this  guide,  but  focus  on  highlighting  the  essence  of  BP  judging  and  propose  a  standard  on  what  to  do  in  difficult  situations  you  will  face  when  judging.  Enjoy  reading  and  adjudicating.      2.  OVERVIEW    -­‐  BP  debate  is  based  on  a  system  of  consensus  adjudication.  During  KIDA  IV,  if  you  cannot  reach  a  consensus  by  25  minutes  after  the  debate,  adjudicators  will  vote  on  the  win/loss.  -­‐  The  team  ranking  must  be  based  on  evaluation  and  comparison  of  contribution,  engagement  and  role  fulfillment  to  the  relevant  issues  in  contention  within  the  debate.  -­‐  Reach  a  consensus  on  the  ranking  first.  Once  a  decision  is  reached  on  team  rankings,  then  determine  each  speaker  score.  Each  room  will  submit  one  ballot,  filled  out  by  the  Chair  -­‐  BP  is  different  from  AP  debate  in  that  any  combination  of  the  four  teams  can  be  the  winner  (e.g.  bench  win,  house  win,  or  diagonal).  In  other  words,  it  is  not  evaluated  in  terms  of  bench  vs.  bench.    -­‐  There  are  no  cases  that  will  give  an  ‘automatic  loss’  to  a  team.  Adjudicators  should  assess  the  debate  holistically  and  comparatively.  It  is  very  important  that  adjudicators  do  not  apply  ‘penalty  judging’  to  teams  for  technical  errors.  -­‐  In  giving  oral  feedback,  the  Chair  must  give  the  ranking,  and  then  justify  that  ranking.    -­‐  Speaker  score  range  in  KIDA  IV  is  68-­‐83.  Please  use  all  of  the  scores  within  the  range.  Refer  to  the  score  chart  for  more  detailed  description  of  the  scores.    3.  ADJUDICATION    1)  General  Guideline  A.  Know  yourself  The   first   rule   of   judging   is   that   you   must   know   yourself.   The   moment   you   step   into   the   debate  chamber  and  sit  down  in  that  seat,  consider  yourself  an  average  intelligent  person.  When  assessing  matter,   consider   whether   an   average   university   student   in   your   country   would   understand   the  materials   presented.   For   instance,   an   average   intelligent   person   would   and   should   have   general  ideas  about  issues  that  have  decorated  the  main  page  of  the  media  for  the  past  few  weeks,  but  not  specific  stats  or  expert  knowledge.  Moreover,  your  opinions,  prejudices,  and  preconceptions  about  the   world   should   not   matter   in   deciding   who   is   more   convincing.   Pretend   that   you   are   a   voter,  listening  to  four  teams  of  politicians  presenting  their  ideas.  Be  open  and  ready  to  be  convinced.  Your  job  in  that  chamber  is  precisely  that:  be  convinced.    B.  Holistic  Adjudication  Adjudicators   should   adopt   a   holistic   approach   to   judging.   Being   holistic   does   not   only   mean  

5  KIDA  IV  

considering   both   Style   (Manner)   and   Content   (Matter),   without   favoring   one   over   the   other.   It  means   that   the   whole   of   the   team’s   both   speeches   should   be   taken   into   account   when   you   are  thinking   “Am   I   convinced?”   The   team’s   rebuttals,   argumentation,   and   the   style   they   adopt  throughout   the  debate   should  be  assessed   in   sum   to  examine  whether   they  were   convincing  as  a  team.   Overtime,   failure   to   engage,   unreasonable   assumption,   or   even   a   contradiction   should   not  result  in  an  automatic  win  or  loss  any  more  than  a  superb  argument  or  an  outstanding  extension.      For  example,  when  an  opening  government  fails  to  set  up  a  concrete  case  for  the  debate  or  when  closing   teams   fail   to   convey   a   clear   and  much   differentiated   extension,   do   they   automatically   get  fourth  in  the  round?  No,  the  results  would  depend  on  a  comparative  (how  well  the  other  teams  did,  or  at  times  who  messed  up  the  debate  the   least)  and  holistic  (whether  the  extensions,  arguments,  rebuttals,  or  even  setups  were  well   incorporated  or  nuanced  although  they  were  not  explicitly   laid  out)  adjudication.      Likewise,  when  the  closing  team  knives  their  opening  team  to  the  extent  that  none  of  the  two  teams’  argumentation   can   coexist,   even   if   no   opposing   speakers   point   this   out,   you   should   take   it   into  consideration.  But  when  what  the  opposing  team  has  identified  as  a  ‘contradiction’  can  be  seen  to  coexist   as   an   even-­‐if-­‐case   or   a   mere   slight   tension   in   the   case,   you  may   choose   not   to   take   the  accusations  of  the  opposing  teams  into  consideration.      2)  Judging  Criteria  A.  Contribution  and  Engagement  Contribution  is  comparing  how  persuasive  each  of  the  teams’  arguments  are  in  terms  of  the  overall  policy  question  being  discussed  in  the  debate.  How  much  does  each  “contribute”  to  the  debate  as  it  happens?  On  the  other  hand,  engagement  is  evaluation  of  how  each  team  responded  to  the  material  being  presented.      B.  Relevance  Relevance  is  perhaps  one  of  the  most  important  as  well  as  tricky  criteria  when  it  comes  to  judging.  To  what  extent   is  a  rebuttal  or  argument  relevant  to  the  debate?  There  are  a  number  of  things  to  consider.   First,   whether   or   not   a   team   has   fulfilled   its   role   is   closely   linked   to   relevance   of   each  team’s  case  as  a  whole.  A  team’s  case  would  be  less  convincing  and  thus  the  team’s  role  would  not  be   considered   to   be   fulfilled   if   the   entire   case   is   irrelevant   to   the   debate.   Second   and   more  importantly,  the  materials  being  presented  must  be  relevant  to  the  debate  as   it  happens.  When  a  judge   determines   if   an   argument   or   an   issue   is   relevant   (important)   or   not,   the   judge   should   not  automatically   evaluate   the   importance   of   an   argument   being   presented,   but   rather   look   at   how  other   teams  are  engaging  on   the  argument.   If  an  argument  ends  up  being  discussed  a   lot  by  both  sides,   the   argument   is   relevant   in   the   debate.   Judges   cannot   disregard   an   argument   as   irrelevant  unless   the   argument   does   not   make   sense   at   all   by   common   sense   based   on   average   intelligent  person  standard.        C.  Role  Fulfillment    Role   fulfillment   is   especially   important   in   BP   as   all   four   teams   have   different   roles   to   play,   as  opposed  to  AP,  where  the  convincing  power  of  Government  and  Opposition  cases  is  compared  on  a  one   on   one   basis.   In   short,   role   fulfillment   is   the   answer   to   the   question   “How   in   the  world   do   I  compare  four  different  teams  at  the  same  time?”  The  trick  is  to  adopt  a  different  scale  to  each  and  every   team.  The   judging  question   then  becomes  “How  did  OG  perform  as  OG(setting  up   the  case,  defining   the  motion,  providing  convincing  argumentation),   in  comparison   to  OO  whose   job  was   to  engage  with   the  OG  and  come  up  with  arguments,  while  CG  and  CO  had  burdens   to  “extend”   the  debate?”  Always  beware  of  direct  comparison  across  teams.  For  instance,  it  would  be  preposterous  

6  KIDA  IV  

to  expect  the  same  amount  of  engagement  from  PM  and  OW.        3)  Entering  the  Debate  The   rule   for   every   adjudicator   would   be   to   stay   neutral.   Adopt   a   reasonable,   impartial   observer  attitude  toward  the  debate  by  asking  yourself  if  the  average,  reasonable  person  would  agree  to  the  material  rather  than  whether  you  personally  ‘buy’  it  or  not.  In  other  words,  do  not  enter  the  debate.  Even  when  it  comes  to  comparing  teams,  the  debaters  should  be  doing  this  for  you.  However,  that  is  not  always  the  case  and  from  time  to  time   it   is   inevitable  and  even  necessary  to  enter  the  debate  when  assessing  it.      A.   Logical   consistency:   When   a   speaker   or   a   team   argues   two   or   more   things   that   are   logically  inconsistent   or   cannot   be   true   at   the   same   time,   you   can   discredit   the   speaker.   Likewise,   for   the  closing  half  you  should  watch  out  for  knifing-­‐  whether  their  extensions  are  consistent  with  opening’s  setup  or  not.      B.   Relevance:   As   mentioned   above,   it   is   the   debaters’   job   to   point   out   the   significance   of   their  threads   of   arguments   and   how   they   are   relevant   in   the   debate   as   it   happened.   However,   there  seems  to  be  different  level  of  requirement  for  how  explicit  the  explanation  is,  among  judges.  This  is  because  debaters,  especially  good  and  experienced  ones,   rarely  explain,  “My  argument   is   relevant  because…”  Rather,   the   relevance  of  an  argument   is  often  evaluated  by  how  other   teams  engaged  with   that  point.  However,  how  do  you   then  award  a   speaker   for  bringing  a   case   that   is   seemingly  relevant  when  the  importance  is   implied?  There  are  a  number  of  tests.  First,  examine  whether  the  team  was   consistent   in   that   line   of   argumentation,   then   look   at   whether   the   other   teams   in   the  debate  ‘got  it’  and  rebutted  as  such.  If  both  are  positive,  you  can  award  that  argument.  However,  it  gets  tricky  when  the  team  and  you  seem  to  be  the  only  ones  who  ‘get  it’  in  the  room.  This  may  be  because  the  line  of  argumentation  is  very  sophisticated  or  requires  specific  knowledge.  In  any  case,  look   closely  at  what   the   team  explained  and  what  you  understood,  and   if   there   is   little  or  no  gap  between  the  two,  you  can  safely  credit  the  relevance  of  the  argument.      4)  Tips  A.  Knifing  One  important  reminder  about  knifing  is  that  it  by  no  means  constitutes  an  automatic  loss.  Generally,  there   are   two   kinds   of   knifing:   one   that   contradicts   a   crucial   premise,   assumption,   or   line   of  argumentation  of  the  opening  team  and  one  that  knifes  a  minor  part  of  the  case.  While  the  former  should  be  considered  as  seriously  damaging  to  the  closing’s  own  case,  the  latter  need  not  be  seen  as  one   that   is   fatal.   The   damage   of   contradiction   to   the   opening   team   must   be   considered   in  comparison  with  other  teams.  Another  point  worth  noting  here  is  that  there  is  difference  between  moving   the   debate   to   a   different   area   and   logically   contradicting   the   opening   team.   Consider   a  hypothetical   case  where   the  motion   is   about  Egypt  providing  a   security  guarantee   for  Gaza.   If  OG  doesn’t  know  the  issue  and  argues  that  Egypt  should  protect  its  own  citizens  in  a  region  called  Gaza  within  the  country,  in  other  words,  if  OG  provides  a  factually  incorrect  setup,  and  CG  comes  up  and  re-­‐focuses   the   debate   on   the   issue   intended,   CG’s   contribution   must   be   awarded,   rather   than  penalized  as   knifing.  Moving   the  debate   to   another   area,   even   if   it  means   factually   correcting   the  previous  team,  need  not  constitute  a  logical  inconsistency  with  the  previous  team.      B.  Whips  on  new  matter  The  reason  why  we  normally  prohibit  new  matter   in  a  whip’s  speech   is  because  the  whips  are  the  last  speakers  in  the  debate  and  it  is  generally  unfair  if  new  matter  springs  up  in  their  speeches  and  the  debate  ends  without  a  chance  for  other  teams  to  respond.  That  is  why  government  whips  have  relatively  more  freedom  when  it  comes  to  sounding  new,  and  if  a  whip  is  going  to  have  new  matter  

7  KIDA  IV  

it  should  preferably  in  the  beginning  of  the  speech,  not  in  the  last  fifteen  seconds  of  the  speech.  So  although  the  answer  to  whether  whips  can  have  new  matter  or  not  would  technically  be  no,  as  the  role   of   a   whip   speaker   isn’t   to   give   simple   repetitions   of   the   member’s   speech   but   rather   to  approach  the  entire  debate  from  its  team  line  and   link  the  entire  debate  with  their  extension,  this  boils  down  more  to  whether  that  piece  of  matter  is  delivered  so  that  it  sounds  new  or  not.  Even  if  it  is   the   same   piece   of   matter,   if   it   is   nuanced   as   an   extension   of   the   idea   that   appeared   in   the  member’s   speech   and   if   necessary   linkages   are   shown,   it   may   be   acceptable.   Of   course,   a   new  matter   thrown  at   the  adjudicator  without   links  would  be  new  matter   that  you  shouldn’t   take   into  account.   Further,   whips   may   bring   new   analysis   to   debate   through   rebuttal,   which   should   be  rewarded  rather  than  penalized.    C.  Comparing  opening  team  with  closing  team    Ideally,   opening   teams   should   anticipate   and   preempt   the   responses   of   other   teams   to   their  arguments.   But   this   is   not   always   easy,   expecting   all   openings   to   expect   all   and   every   possible  rebuttals  and  discrediting  them  for  not  arguing  preemptively  may  be  too  much  and  unfair  of  burden.  When  adjudicating  the  round  you  should  look  at  the  actual  dynamics  and  quality  of  argumentation  and  responses;  whether  the  closing  teams  are  actually  taking  down  the  arguments  from  the  opening  teams,  as  they  should  take  full  advantage  of  their  position.  For  example,  when  OO  has  an  argument  that  directly  counters  the  OG,  the  CG  should  be  responding  to  OO  instead  of  merely  repeating  OG’s  case  line.  In  other  words  look  at  the  content  of  engagement,  not  the  sequence  of  engagement  (An  example  was  what  not  to  do:  CG  came  after  OO  therefore  they  responded,  while  OO  did  not  have  a  chance  to  respond.  Therefore  CG  over  OO.)    D.  “Extension”  versus  extension  The   most   important   role   of   the   closing   teams   is   to   extend   or   expand   on   the   debate   that   has  happened   in   the  opening  half.   Then,  does   a   closing   team  automatically   lose   if   they  don’t  have  an  extension?  The  short  answer  would  be  no.  Again,  you  would  have   to  compare   the  contribution  of  the  team  with  other  teams,  but  more  importantly,  even  if  a  closing  team  doesn’t  have  an  argument  that  is  labeled  explicitly  as  “extension”  if  the  rebuttals  or  angle  of  approaching  the  debate,  or  even  one   piece   of   example   that   was   effectively   used   to   contextualize   the   debate   that   came   from   the  closing  team  was  unique,  this  could  be  counted  as  enough  of  contribution  for  that  team  to  win,  even  without   an   outright   “extension.”   Same   would   go   to   a   situation   where   a   team   does   have   an  “extension,”  but  there  is  a  lack  of  differentiation  or  contribution  from  the  opening  half;  in  this  case  the  closing  teams  are  not  really  doing  their  job  of  extending  or  expanding  the  debate.  So  even  with  a  technical  “extension”  they  might  not  win.    4.  CHAIRING    1)  Before  the  debate  A.  Make  sure  all  the  right  teams  and  panel/trainees  are  present  in  a  timely  manner.    B.   Before   starting   the   round,   ask   for   the   teams   to   fill   out   the   ballots   (team   names   and   speaker  names).  C.  In  case  there  is  no  time  keeper  designated  by  the  Organizing  Committee,  you  must  appoint  a  time  keeper  among  those  present  in  your  room  (preferably  one  of  the  Panelists  or  Trainees).    2)  Chairing  the  debate    A.  Calling  the  house  to  order:  “I  call  this  house  to  order.  Welcome  to  the  first  round  of  the  very  first  KIDA-­‐IV.  My  name  is  (     )  and  today  I’m  with  (names  of  panelists).”      B.  Explain  brief  rules  or  announcements:    

8  KIDA  IV  

*  Use  your  discretion  in  taking  the  time  to  announce  certain  rules.  The  following  is  a  list  of  things  you  may  decide  to  announce  before  or  after  the  debate.    -­‐  Time  keeping:  “As  you  all  know,  there  will  be  one  clap  at  the  first  and  sixth  minute,  two  claps  at  the  seventh  minute,  and  three  claps  at  seven  minutes  and  fifteen  seconds.“    -­‐  In  case  of  a  silent  round:  “This  will  be  a  silent  round,  meaning  there  won’t  be  announcement  on  the  rankings  or  oral  adjudication.  You  can  leave  the  room  after  the  debate  is  over.”    -­‐  In  case  there  is  an  iron  man  team  present:  “Please  note  that  team  (     )  is  an  ironman  team  which  means  they  would  get  a  ranking  in  this  debate  but  would  be  marked  as  fourth  in  the  tab.”      -­‐  In  case  there  is  a  team  present  that  is  swinging:  “Please  note  that  team  (     )  is  a  swing  team  which  means  they  would  get  a  proper  ranking  in  this  debate  but  would  not  break.”    C.  Begin  the  debate:  “Without  further  ado,  we  will  start  the  debate  on  the  motion  (     ).  Let’s  invite  the  prime  minister  to  open  the  debate.”    D.   Call   on   consecutive   speakers:   “Let’s   invite   the   (     )   to   the  podium.”   (Preferably   after   the  DLO’s  speech   indicate   that   the  opening   half   of   the   debate   is   over   and  open   the   closing   half.  Make   sure  after  each  speech,  your  panels  are  also  ready  to  invite  the  next  speaker.)    E.  During  speeches:   (In   the  case  a   speaker   is  out  of  order)   “You’re  out  of  order.”   (If   speakers   look  confuses,  briefly  explain  why,  for  instance,  that  they  cannot  raise  POI’s  during  the  protected  time.)   F.  Ending  the  debate:  “Thank  you  speakers,  please  cross  the  floor,  shake  hands,  and  leave  the  room  for  judge  deliberation.”    3)  Deliberation  A.   Explain   how  what  will   happen  during   the  deliberation   time   to   the  panelists   and   trainees   (Note  that  panels  have  a  say  in  deciding  the  results  but  trainees’  opinions  won’t  affect  the  results).  It  is  a  good  idea  to  individually  have  some  time  to  organize  thoughts  and  rankings,  and  then  share  them.  When  each  person  gets  a  chance  to  explain  his/her  reason  for  the  ranking,  the  Chair  should  listen  to  the  panelists  and  trainees  first,  then  speak  last.    B.  Getting  to  consensus:  The  difficulty  of  arriving  at  a  consensus  may  differ  depending  on  the  level  of  agreement  right  after  the  debate.  Here  is  a  brief  guide  to  arriving  at  consensus  in  different  scenarios  

i. All   the   Panels   agree   on   ranking:   In   this   case,   briefly   discuss   the   rationale   behind   each  ranking  and  proceed  to  the  speaker  scores.  Panels’  opinions  on  team  performance  (“OG:1st  place)  was  much  better  than  OO  (2nd  Place)”)  should  be  reflected  by  the  speaker  scores.  

ii. One  or  two  panels  have  dissenting  opinion:  After  having  one  of  the  dissenting  judges  explain  the  rationale,  hear  from  one  of  the  majority  group.  If  the  majority  group  and  the  dissenting  group  are  not  able   to  convince  each  other,   consider  making  agreeable  concessions   (“I  am  willing  to  give  OG  2nd  but   I   think  OO  should  be  1st”).  Voting  should  be  considered  as  a   last  option.  

iii. Two  or  three  groups:  If  there  are  two  or  more  groups  with  similar  rankings,  it   is   important  for   the   Chair   to   lead   the   discussion   efficiently.   Focus   the   discussion   on   each   area   of  contention  (OG  vs.  CO),  try  to  reach  a  consensus  in  that  area,  and  move  onto  others.  If  there  is  a  consensus  already  on  a  particular  ranking  (Such  that  CO  should  get  forth),  identify  such  

9  KIDA  IV  

agreement  prior  to  discussion.    iv. There  is  no  agreement:  This  is  a  scenario  where  the  Chair’s  role  as  facilitator  of  discussion  is  

very   important.  As   in   the  previous  scenario,   identify   room  of  agreement   then  move  on   to  the  most  contentious  area.  If  there  is  a  deadlock,  ask  questions  that  may  move  the  debate  forward  (“If  we  do  not  agree  on  the  strength  of  CG’s  extension  over  CO’s,  can  we  talk  about  engagement  between  the  closing  teams?”).  

 Getting   to   consensus   is   sometimes   the   most   difficult   part   of   BP   judging,   as   well   as   its   most  meaningful.   Deliberation   is   where   judges   with   different   philosophy   and   level   of   experience   can  exchange  opinions  and  learn  from  each  other.  Don’t  be  afraid  to  speak  out  your  opinions  but  have  your  rationale  ready  for  discussion.      In  the  case  consensus  cannot  be  met  during  the  allotted  time  of  25  minutes,  vote  on  all  or  part  of  the  ranking.  (For  example,  when  you  agree  on  the  first  and  fourth  place  but  disagree  on  second  and  third,  only  vote  for  those  ranks.)    Once  the  rankings  have  been  decided,  move  to  deciding  speaker  points  for  each  speaker.   If  panels  do  not  agree  on  (some  or  all  of)  the  rankings,  give  each  person  one/two  minute(s)  to  justify  his/her  rationale.  Try  to  persuade  each  other.   C.   Fill   in   the   ballots   and   panel/trainee   feedback   forms.   After   handing   this   to   the   runner,   call   the  debaters  to  give  results  and  feedback.    4)  Giving  feedback    A.   Indicate   how   the   feedback   process   is   going   to   proceed.   Preferably   give   the   rankings   first,   give  general  comment  on  the  entire  debate,  and  then  provide  reasoning  for  the  ranking  as  it  makes  sense  the   most.   In   providing   reasons   for   the   ranking,   remember   to   compare   each   ranking   and   why   a  certain   team   got   a   higher   ranking   than   the   other.   (If   OG  was   clear   4th   and   there  was   contention  between  CG  and  CO  as  1st  and  2nd,  start  with  OG  and  work  the  way  up.)  Be  clear  on  whether  it  was  a  consensus  or  a  dissent  decision.  Tell   the  debaters   they  can  come   for   individual   feedback  after   the  round.   B.   In   giving   feedback,   reflect   the   panels   also   by   trying   to   incorporate   what   they   said   during   the  deliberation  period  rather  than  representing  only  yourself.    C.   Stay   neutral   during   the   feedback   but   in   cases   where   you   have   to   enter   the   debate,   explicitly  indicate  that  you  are  doing  so.   D.  Give  a  chance  to  the  panels  to  add  on  to  the  feedback,  especially  if  it  was  a  dissent.   E.  Give  individual  feedback  (on  what  to  work  on  as  individual  speaker).   *  Note   to   the  panels  and   trainees:  You  can  get  bumped  up  positions  based  on  chair   feedback.  The  chair  will   be   evaluating   you   in   terms   of   your   quality   of   answers   or   explanations   for   your   rankings  during  the  deliberation,  so  keep  that  in  mind.        

10  KIDA  IV  

5.  SPEAKER  SCORE  RANGE  CHART    

82-­‐83  

Nearly  Flawless,  Perfect  The  speaker  has  mostly  strengths  and  few,  if  any,  weaknesses.  Understanding  of  relevant   issues   and   fulfillment   of   speaker   role   was   very   well   demonstrated.  Ideas   are   well   and   thoroughly   explained   and   supported   with   adequate  reasoning   and   examples   and  without   assertions   or   logical   fallacies.  You  would  expect  this  person  to  be  the  top  speaker  of  the  tournament.  

79-­‐81  

Very  Good,  Excellent  The  speaker  has  clear  strengths  and  some  minor  weaknesses.  Understanding  of  relevant   issues   and   fulfillment   of   speaker   role   was   fairly   well   demonstrated.  Ideas   are   generally   fairly   explained   and   supported   with   minor   assertions   or  logical   fallacies.   The   speaker   could   work   on   more   sophisticated   delivery   of  reasoning  and  examples.  You  would  expect  to  see  this  person  in  the  semi-­‐final  or  final  level  round  of  this  tournament.  

76-­‐78  

Above  Average.  Good  The   speaker   identified   the   relevant   issues   in   the   debate   and   has   fulfilled   his  basic  speaker  roles,  although  he  needs  improvement  in  the  depth  of  his  analysis  or  a  better  understanding  of  BP  dynamics  and  speaker  roles.  You  would  expect  to  see  this  person  in  the  elimination  rounds  of  this  tournament.  

75  

Average  This  would  be  the  average  speaker  you  would  expect  to  see  at  this  tournament.  The   speaker   has   strengths   and   weaknesses   at   roughly   equal   proportions.  Arguments   and   rebuttals   are   mostly   relevant   but   some   ideas   were   shallowly  explained   or   ended   at   assertion   level.   The   speaker   fulfilled   most   of   his   basic  speaker  roles,  although  he  missed  out  some  parts.  

72-­‐74  

Slightly  Below  Average.    Although   the   speaker   did   identify  most   of   the   relevant   issues,   they   were   not  elaborated.   Most   of   the   arguments   and   rebuttals   were   not   supported   with  necessary   reasoning   or   examples   or   ended   at   assertion   level.   Attempts   were  shown  to  fulfill  his  speaker  role,  albeit  insufficient.  

69-­‐71  Needs  improvement  The  speaker  missed  out  on  some  very  relevant  and  most  important  issues  of  the  debate.  The  speaker  also  failed  to  fulfill  some  of  his  speaker  role.  However  there  were  ideas  or  parts  of  the  speech  to  give  credit  to  the  speaker.  

67-­‐68  Poor  The   speaker   has   fundamental   weaknesses,   and   few,   if   any,   strengths.   The  speaker   has   little   or   no   understanding   of   the   issues   of   the   debate   and   most  basic  speaker  roles  were  not  fulfilled  in  the  debate.  

*For   any   and   all   inquiries   or   issues   regarding   this   guide,   please   contact   KIDA   IV   CAP   via   e-­‐mail  (cap.kidaiv@gmail.com)