Guideline the 15th Ifdc 2014
-
Upload
umairohsetengahtiga -
Category
Documents
-
view
19 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Guideline the 15th Ifdc 2014
RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE 15th INTER FACULTY DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP
I. GENERAL
1. These set of rules and regulations govern The 15th Inter Faculty Debating
Championship (The 15th IFDC) to be hosted by Student English Forum
Universitas Jenderal Soedirman.
2. The 15th IFDC committee has full authority to interpret and modify, if
necessary of these rules. The decision of the committee with respect to
these rules will be final and binding.
3. All debates will be conducted in English
II. ELIGIBILITY
1. Each faculty may only send maximally five teams (team caps 40 teams).
With N1 Adjudicators; N is the total of the team, so each team should
send 1 adjudicator.
2. All students of Unsoed are eligible to participate in the 15th IFDC that
proven by student card.
3. Students who ever join national and international competition (e.g.
JOVED, IVED, NNDC, AEO, ALSA E-Comp, ALSA 8.0 UGM, ALSA E-
Challenge, ATMA IV, English Parade, UADC, NUDC, HBD, MDO) are not
allowed to join The 15th IFDC.
4. Each team in The 15th IFDC consists of three members. With the
requirement:
- All members of a team must be enrolled in the same faculty.
- The 15th IFDC committee would not permit the competitors from
different faculty to participate, even in preliminary round.
- If one member can’t join on the preliminary round, the team can’t be
eligible to break. If one member can’t join on the eliminary round, the
team is counted as Walk Out and automatically loose.
5. N1 Adjudicator is from the same faculty with the team.
6. The Chief of Adjudicator reserves the right to investigate the legitimacy
of any person participating in the 15th IFDC and reserves the right to
expel any team or person who cannot be established to this satisfaction.
If there’s any question shall contact the CA (085624231191)
III. FORMAT OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP
1. The 15th IFDC uses Asian Parliamentary System. The system will be
conducted in two phases:
- The Preliminary Phase
- The Elimination Phase
2. In the preliminary phase of The 15th IFDC, there will be (4) four rounds of
debates and it will be adjusted with the team caps. This phase will adopt
“the break and slide system” and for the elimination phase will adopt
“true power matching”.
3. All teams will start on an equal placing with the pairing for the first round
being done randomly by lottery. For the subsequent rounds, the teams
will be graded on the basis of the results of all the preceding rounds of
the phase. The following grading criteria will be considered in decreasing
order of priority.
- Victory Points (Win-Loss Record; 1 point for a win 0 for a loss).
- Cumulative Total Team Score.
- Cumulative Margin (Difference of cumulative marks in favor of and
against the team)
4. The break and slide is a system in debating competition which is at the
end of the grading for each round, the teams that have same VPs will be
gathered and they will meet each other.
For Example:
The Standing Team:
No. Team VP Total Team
Score
Margin
1. A 1 262 3
2. B 1 261 4
3. C 1 260 3
4. D 1 259 1
5 E 1 258 1
6. F 1 257 2
The Matches would be:
1. A VS 4. D
2. B VS 5. E
3. C VS 6. F
The rest teams that have same VPs will gather on the next group and
they will meet each other.
5. The top of sixteen teams at the end of rounds of the preliminary phase
will qualify for the elimination phase of The 15th IFDC.
6. Four elimination rounds namely the Octo Final, Quarter Final, the Semi
Final and the Grand Final, will decide the winner of The 15th IFDC. True
power matching is the highest rank meets the lowest one, based on the
result of all preliminary rounds. For example: team who get the 1st rank
will meet team who get the 16th rank, 2nd rank meet 15th rank and so on.
The winner of each round proceeds to the next round.
7. There would be no additional time for motion preference and case
building for those who are late.
8. No electronic devices which can be used by debater during the case
building and debate session, example: cell phone, electronic dictionary, I-
Pad, Tab, and laptop.
9. Each debater will deliver a substantive speech of seven (7) minutes
duration. After three of them have come forward, reply speaker of both
sides will deliver their reply speech for four (4) minutes. The first or the
second speaker from both sides can be the position of reply speaker.
10. There would be no replacement of debater in case one member of a
team can not join the match. The uncompleted team may only compete
in preliminary round and automatically not eligible to join the elimination
round.
11. A team will get walked out (WO) for the absence in maximally 15 minutes
lateness after debate session opened.
12. Debater is not allowed to leave debate room during the match.
13. N1 Adjudicator should join all preliminary rounds, unless the team is not
eligible to break.
14. N1 Adjudicator should join the accreditation test.
15. Every participant should wear formal and polite outfit with no t-shirt and
slipper.
16. The 15th IFDC will use half motion release. Half of motions will be
launched at April 30th 2014 on 00.00 am. Visit on
http://sef.unsoed.ac.id/?p=947. The rest would be impromptu motion.
IV. REGISTRATION METHOD
1. Registration will be started on April 24th 2014 until May 20th 2014.
Registration fee is Rp. 130.000,- per person
(debater/adjudicator/manager/observer).
The registration fee includes facilities, such as: meals, certificate,
merchandise, and best services from committee.
2. Payment should reach directly to treasurer of the 15th IFDC Rara Ayu
Rengganis at House of Student English Forum (HOS). Mention name of
the faculty and fill registration form consisting:
3 x 4 size color photographs
Photocopy of a valid student card
Position (debater/adjudicator/manager/observer)
Contact person
3. At the first day, all participants (debaters/ adjudicators/ managers) are
required to bring the original of valid student card and original of
payment slip.
4. The quota of participant is only 40 teams. If the quota is fulfilled, the
registration will be closed.
5. This year there is trading system. Trading system is if the maximum slot
of one faculty do not fulfilled yet, other faculty that willing to send more
than maximum slot is eligible to fill the slots. The trading team will in
waiting list first until the time of registration is closed. The
announcement of the eligibility of the trading team is right after the
registration is closed.
6. The changing of position (debaters/ managers) should be confirmed to
the committee of the 15th IFDC before May 15th 2014.
7. The registered team that do not come on the day without any
confirmation, will be counted as Walk Out team and deserve to get
punishment:
- The faculty is not eligible to join IFDC in the next year.
8. For those who are not legally registered, they will not get the facilities.
9. The update of main list and waiting list team will be announced once in
three days in the 15th IFDC website.
V. BOOKING METHOD
1. Booking participants can be accepted if they have fulfilled 50% of total
payment. When participants do not pay 50% of total payment, they are
considered as waiting list participant and possible to be rejected.
2. When the quota has been fulfilled, the registration will be closed.
Booking participants who haven’t paid the rest of 50% yet are directly
rejected and booking payment will not be returned.
3. If the quota has not been fulfilled, the registration will be prolonged 3
days after
VI. INFORMATION
For further information can be reached by contacting:
- Project Officer of the 15th IFDC
Ira Fitria 0857 1533 9939
- Public Relation
Baynuri Ikhya 0878 2888 0955
Student English Forum Soemardjito Area, Purwokerto 53122 Phone number 0281-635 292 ext 231 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.sefunsoed.org
GUIDELINE FOR DEBATERS
OF THE 15th INTER FACULTY DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP
- INTRODUCTION -
Debating is all about:
1. Developing your communication skills
2. Assembling and organizing effective arguments
3. Persuading and entertaining the adjudicator and audience
4. Using your voice and gestures to convince an adjudicator that your
arguments are upper hand than your oppositions. Debating is not
about personal abuse, irrational attacks or pure emotional appeals.
- THE BASICS OF DEBATING –
I. The Format of the Debate
A debate is held between two teams of three members each. They are:
1. Government, the members of Government side are:
a) Prime Minister
b) Deputy Prime Minister
c) Government Whip
2. Opposition, the members of Opposition side are:
a) Leader of Opposition
b) Deputy Leader of Opposition
c) Opposition Whip
What must both sides do? In general:
• Government
The Government team must define the motion and support this by
giving constructive arguments. The right to define first resides with the
Government team, who is expected to give a reasonable definition for
the motion.
• Opposition
The Opposition team must oppose the motion as defined by the
Government, and build a counter-case against the Government. In the
event the Opposition team feels that the definition is invalid, they may
challenge the definition and propose an alternative definition. However,
the Opposition team cannot raise a challenge simply on the basis that
their definition is more reasonable.
II. Preparation
1. The debate should commence 30 minutes after the motion is
announced.
2. Members are permitted to use printed or written material during
preparation and during the debate. Printed material includes books,
journal, newspapers and other similar materials. The use of electronic
is prohibited during preparation and in the debate.
III. Points of Information (POI)
1. Questions or arguments directed to the member speaking may be
asked between 1st minute and 6th minute of each member’s
substantive speeches.
2. To ask Point of Interruption, a member should stand and raise one
hand towards the member speaking. The member may announce
that they would like to ask a “Point of Interruption” or use other
polite words to this effect.
3. The member who is speaking may accept or decline the Point of
Interruption.
4. Point of Interruption should not exceed 15 seconds in length.
5. Members should attempt to answer at least two Points of
Interruption during their speech. Members should also offer Points
of Interruption.
6. Points of order and points of personal privilege are not permitted.
IV. Timing of the Speeches
1. Each of the speakers will deliver a substantive speech for seven (7)
minutes duration and either the 1st or the 2nd speaker on both sides
will deliver the reply speeches for their teams. Reply speeches will
spend four (4) minutes.
2.
2. Points of Interruption allowed between 1st minute and 6th minute
(this period should be signaled by one knock at the first minute and
at the sixth minute).
- MOTION -
1. Known as topics, are full propositional statements that determine
what a debate shall be about.
2. For each debate, motions are given.
3. The affirmative team has to support the motion and the negative
team has to oppose it.
4. Here are some examples of motions that can be debated:
• THW human organ selling
• THBT internet brings more harm than good
• THS pedofille love
These motions lead us to combine philosophical and policy debate:
1. Philosophical debate
In this debate we have to emphasize that we will bring the motion into
philosophical basic, so there would be no obligation related to the mechanism,
feasibility, and urgency. Example: “THBT underage women should not need
parental consent to undergo abortion” In this debate, the opposition has to
justify how the abortion should not involve parental agreement.
2. Policy Debate
In this debate we will make a proposal and we will convince the
adjudicators that our proposal is effective. Example: “THBT underage women
should not need parental consent to undergo abortion” Things that we have to
remember in proposal debate are:
• Urgency: The main reason why we have to implement the proposal
and the recent issue that becomes the background of problem.
• Mechanism: How we will implement this proposal
• Feasibility: Is the mechanism of the proposal feasible enough to be
implemented?
• Solvency: this will answer if the proposal can solve the problem. We
will say that the proposal would be effective to control the gambling
activity in our society.
In the whole debate, Government and Opposition must justify the
debate and add the policy to give solution to particular problem being
debated.
Remember! The first speaker both team should early and clearly
explain these. Most debate using Asian parliamentary system are
emphasizing on philosophical ground and explain the policy in clear-brief
way.
- BACKGROUND -
When you are debating, as an affirmative, do not just go straight toward
the definition of the motion. Use the background as a brainstorming of your
case. Background is very important to know what actually the recent issue is or
the urgency that we would bring, so that w e agree/ disagree with the motion.
- DEFINITION -
Before a debate ensues, the motion that is given must first be defined
by the Government team. A definition clarifies the motion. A definition gives a
clear description of boundaries to the motion, thereby limiting what the
debate will be about into a focused area of discussion. This prevents the
debate from turning into a vague and confusing show of unrelated arguments
and different interpretations from both teams of what is actually being
debated among them.
The above example shows that in most situations, the actual issue of
the debate is unknown until the Government delivers their definition of the
motion. Only then does it become clear. Always keep in mind that a definition
must be reasonable. This is to say that:
• It must be debatable (i.e. have two sides to it), and
• It must not be a bizarre distortion of the motion.
This is not to say that a Government team may not choose an unusual
interpretation of the motion, but they must be prepared to justify it.
The Opposition in general, must accept the definition made by the
Government, but the Opposition shall have the right of challenging the
definition if it does not conform to either of the two requirements set out
above. However, an Opposition team cannot raise a challenge simply on the
basis that their definition seems more reasonable. They can only challenge a
definition if they can prove it to be either Truistic, Tautological, Squirreling, or
Time and place setting (see below).
If an Opposition team accepts the definition, they only need to say so,
and it is unnecessary to restate it. If they challenge it, their justification for
doing so must be clearly stated, and an alternative definition must be put
forward. The Opposition must adjust their case to that definition, and the
adjudicator's views on its reasonableness become irrelevant. The following
definitions are strictly prohibited at the tournament, and should be challenged
by the Opposition team:
• Truistic definitions: These are definitions which are ‘true’ by nature
and thus make the proposed arguments unarguable and therefore
unreasonable in the content of the debate. If a team defines the
debate truistically, they seek to win the debate by the truth of their
definition rather than by the strength of their arguments and
supporting evidence.
• Tautological or circular definitions: This happens when a definition is
given in such a way that it is logically impossible to negate it. An
example would be if the motion “that technology is killing our work
ethic” were defined as follows: the Government team decides to
define the term ‘technology’ as meaning “all scientific advancements
that make life easier and therefore kills our work ethic”. This would
result in the whole definition “that all scientific advancements that
make life easier and therefore kill our work ethic”. This cannot be
logically proven false.
• Squirreling: Definitions that are not tied down to the spirit of the
motion and do not have a proper logical link to the motion will
constitute squirreling. For instance, when given the motion “that
Kyoto is moving nowhere”, an Government team could try and define
Kyoto as a city in Japan, and moving nowhere is keep stay in that
place. This is definitely squirreling, as anyone would agree that the
spirit of the motion is about the Kyoto Protocol that doesn’t bring
betterment in solving the global warming.
• Time and Place-setting: The subject matter of the debate cannot be
confined to a particular time and place. For instance, trying to limit
the subject matter to only the economic development of Japan
during the specific period of the Meiji restoration or other example,
the motion is "that smoking is prohibited". The Government team
defines the motion "that healing cigarettes in a flammable place is
not allowed". This definition is called an invalid definition because the
Opposition will not be able to debate upon the definition given (or
we can say that the Government team asks the Opposition team to
blow themselves).
A note on definitional challenges: be very careful about challenging
definitions -only do so if you are absolutely certain that the Government's
definition is unfair. It is better to be brave and dump your prepared case in
favor of tackling the Government on their own terms than to issue an
unjustified definition challenge. By the same token, Government teams should
try to ensure that their definition is fair.
- STANCE -
Stance is best defined as what a debate should argue about. For
instance, upon the motion “THW ban advertisement aimed to children”. The
stance of the debate is going to revolve around whether we will forbid any kind
of junk food advertisement in TV dedicated to children less than 13 ages or not.
In case that the proposition just talks over how bad junk food advertisements
for children, without clarifying why we should blame any junk food, this is
when the adjudicators will point out that the Proposition team doesn’t stand
on the debate’s stance.
- THEME LINE -
The theme line is the underlying logic of a team’s case. It is the main
instrument of argumentation that is used to prove a team’s stand on the
motion. A theme line can be viewed as a ‘Case In A Nutshell’, because it
concisely explains a team’s strategy in defending or negating the
motion.
The theme line of a team must heavily imbue each speech of every team
member. It is the main idea that links together the first, second, and third
speakers, ensuring consistency among all speeches.
In formulating a theme line, it is often helpful to ask the question: Why
is the propositional statement given by the definition of the motion true (or
false, for the Opposition team)? Without further explanation, this propositional
statement is a mere assertion, or a statement which is logically unproven to be
true. The answer to this question must be an argument which proves the
assertion given by the motion. This argument is the theme line.
A theme line should be kept short, and it may take a form of a single
sentence, an arrangement of several statements into a logical syllogism, etc.
Whatever it is, it must by itself prove the motion (as it is defined) and all
arguments brought forward should be based on this theme line.
Example:
“This House believes that saving the planet begins at home”
Theme line : Why do we agree with the motion?
The reason is: because it is justifiable and brings benefit for
environment
- THEME SPLIT -
Debating is a team activity. One person cannot take all the arguments
and become the sole defender of the team's case. Therefore, there is a need to
decide on how the arguments should be distributed among speakers. This is
called the team split. Simply put, the team split is the distribution of arguments
to the first, second, and third speaker. Consequently, the third Opposition will
not have any part of the case due to his major task of rebuttal and the
prohibition of new matters from the third Opposition. But the third Proposition
may bring on new matter; he or she is entitled a share of case. Be careful,
though, that each individual speech by itself must already prove the motion.
You should not create what is called a hung case. A hung case is when an
individual speech fails to prove the motion by itself, but instead requires
coupling it with other speeches to be able to finally prove the motion.
Example:
“This House believes that saving the planet begins at home”
Theme line : because it is justifiable and brings benefit for environment
Theme Split :
1. saving the planet begins at home is justifiable
2. Further impact for the environment if saving planet for family first
- ARGUMENTS -
Argumentation is the process of explaining why a point of view should
be accepted. It concerns the logic and the evidence supporting a particular
conclusion. Use evidence (i.e. examples, facts, statistics, quotations of
expert/public opinion etc.) to back up each point you make in your argument.
Show how each piece of evidence is relevant and how it advances your
argument. Make a point, give the reason for that point, and supply evidence to
back it up.
Arguments are not assertions. Assertions are statements that have yet
to be proven to be logically true. On the other hand, arguments must have
supporting logic and facts that can show its validity. What adjudicators look for
in a good argument?
• Relevance
• Organization
• Consistency and internal logic -i.e. don't contradict yourself or your
teammates
• Clarity (remember, debating is about persuading your audience and
adjudicator that you're right -so make sure they can understand what
you're saying!)
• Effective use of evidence
- Preparing a Reasonable Argument -
One skill of good debating is being able to construct, and to
understand, a reasoned argument and – especially important – to recognize a
fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the
conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the
conclusion follows from the premises and whether those premises are true.
When developing your argument, consider the following factors:
• Wherever possible offer independent confirmation of the "facts."
• Prepare for substantive debate on the evidence by considering all
points of view.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight – "authorities" have
made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.
Perhaps a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at
most, there are experts.
• Prepare more than one case. If there's something to be defined, think
of all the different ways in which it could be defined. Then think of
arguments by which you might systematically rebut each of the
cases.
• Try not to get overly attached to an idea just because it's yours. It's
only a way station in the pursuit of a winning argument. Ask yourself
why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if
you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.
• Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some
numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to
defend it against generalized rebuttal. What is vague and qualitative
is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought
in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding
them is more challenging.
• If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work
(including the premise) – not just most of them.
• Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced
with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the
simpler.
• Always ask whether the case can be, at least in principle, falsified.
Propositions that are unfalsifiable are called "truisms" and are not in
the spirit of debating. You run a good chance of losing a debate,
especially if the opposition correctly identifies that your arguments
cannot be rebutted.
- REBUTTAL -
Rebuttal is the process of proving that the opposing team's arguments
should be accorded less weight than is claimed for them. It may consist of:
• showing that the opposing argument is based on an error of factor an
erroneous interpretation of fact
• showing that the opposing argument is irrelevant to the proof of the
topic
• showing that the opposing argument is illogical
• showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, involves
unacceptable implications
• showing that the opposing argument, while itself correct, should be
accorded little weight. As with arguments, assertions do not equal
rebuttals. Just as teams must show how and why their own
arguments are valid, so they must show how and why the
opposition's arguments are invalid.
• An argument may be wrong in fact or logic -if so, say how and why
• An argument may contradict their team line, or something else a
speaker on that team has said – if so, point it out
• An argument may be true but completely irrelevant – these are often
called “red herrings”.
- ROLES OF SPEAKER -
The six speakers in an Asian Parliamentary debate each have different
roles to play and adjudicators should take account of how well a speaker fulfills
his/her obligations. The first speakers establish the fundamentals of their
team's cases
Prime Minister’s duties:
• Defines the motion of the debate. The Prime Minister should ensure
that no important points of definition are left out.
• Presents the Government’s theme line. This is normally presented in
one or several lines of analysis, explaining why the Government’s
case is logically correct.
• Outlines the Government’s team split.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“Prime Minister’s part of the split”).
After establishing the definition, theme line, and team split, the Prime
Minister should then deal with the arguments/points that have been
assigned to him/her in the team split.
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech. The Prime Minister may
spend some time on the definition and on establishing the theme line
and showing how it is going to develop, but it is important to leave
time to present some substantive arguments.
Leader of Opposition’s duties:
• Provide a response to the definition (accepts or challenges the
definition).
• Rebuts Prime Minister, delivers a part of the Opposition's substantive
case.
• Presents the Opposition’s theme line and team split.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“Leader of Opposition’s part of the
split”).
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech. After the first speakers
have spoken the main direction of each team’s case should be
apparent.
The second speakers deal with the bulk of the substantive argument.
Deputy Prime Minister’s duties:
• Rebutting the Leader of Opposition’s major arguments.
• Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Government’s team
case.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“Deputy Prime Minister’s part of the
split”). Most of 2nd the Government's time should be spent dealing
with new substantial material/arguments. He or she has the duty to
present the bulk of the Government's case in an attempt to further
argue in favor of the Government.
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.
Deputy Leader of Opposition’s duties:
• Rebuttal of the Deputy Prime Minister speakers.
• Briefly restates/reiterates in general terms the Opposition’s team
case.
• Delivers substantial arguments (“Deputy Leader of opposition’s part
of the split”).
• Provide a brief summary/recap of the speech.
Government Whip’s duties:
• Rebutting the points raised by the Leader of Opposition and Deputy
Leader of Opposition speakers. The Government Whip is mainly
entrusted with the duty of responding to the arguments of the
Opposition that were not previously dealt with by the first two
Government speakers. The Government Whip may also reinforce
rebuttals that have already been stated by teammates.
• Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and first two
speakers’ arguments).
• Summarize the issues of the debate.
Opposition Whip’s duties:
• Rebutting the points raised by all three Government speakers.
• Rebuild team’s case (briefly reiterate theme line and Prime Minister
and Deputy Prime Minister speakers’ arguments).
• Identify the points of contention / the clash of the debate
• Summarize the issues of the debate.
The role of the third speakers is simply this: Attack! Most of a third
speaker's time must be spent rebutting the preceding speakers.
Generally at least three quarters of a third speech should be rebuttal.
Reply speakers give a recap of the debate and a convincing biased
adjudication.
Reply speakers duties (both sides):
• Provide a summary or overview of the debate
• Identify the issues raised by both sides
• Provide a biased adjudication of the debate
Either the first or the second speaker of each side may deliver the reply
speech. The Opposition team delivers the first reply speech.
A reply speech is a review of both your own and the opposition's case.
It represents a chance for the teams to show their arguments in the best light
and to summarize the flaws in the opposition's case. The aim is to emphasize
the major points made by your own team and to show how these contributed
to a logical progression of argument in support of your theme line. At the same
time the flaws in the opposition's argument must be outlined. This can be done
point-by-point, or by taking a more global approach to the arguments. Both are
effective if well done, so find the summary style that suits you best. However,
the latter style is often more effective in light of the limited time frame.
GUIDELINE FOR ADJUDICATORS OF THE 15th INTER FACULTY DEBATING CHAMPIONSHIP
- Introduction -
Adjudicating debates is inherently a subjective exercise. Unlike many
sports, in debates there is no clear method of proving a team’s score.
Adjudicators, quite often, are equally divided as to the winner of a debate,
particularly in very close ones. The adjudicator forms a personal judgment
regarding the argument, style, organization and impact of a debate, which in
many cases, could differ from that of another adjudicator’s. The main objective
in providing these guidelines is to ensure, as much as is possible, that the
adjudicators make judgments within a framework of procedural rules and
guidelines that direct attention to specific issues and thus help limit
subjectivity.
The adjudicator enters the debate chamber as an ‘average reasonable
person’ with an average reasonable knowledge of the subject under debate,
but with expert knowledge of the rules of debating. An average reasonable
person is a fairly well-informed citizen of the globe with an average
understanding of global and regional issues, and a basic understanding of
popular disciplines and logic. The adjudicator must set aside his/her exceptional
personal preferences, experiences, opinions or expert knowledge, which will
not be shared by an average reasonable person.
It should be noted that the task of an adjudicator is not to decide
whether his or her views coincided with those expressed by one of the teams.
The adjudicator has artificial constraints that influence his decision – including
the proportional worth of the elements of matter, manner and method, and
the weight of each individual speech to the overall case of the team. The
adjudicator is assessing a process that consists of every single speech and his
final judgment is a function of the contribution of each individual in the debate.
There are three important functions of adjudicator:
To decide which team has won the debate,
To provide an explanation of the reasons for that decision, and
To provide constructive criticism and advice to the debaters
- FRAMEWORKS TO ASSES A DEBATE -
Clash
What is clash?
A clash is literally the point of contention in a debate. It can be easily spotted
by identifying issues that both benches argue in opposition in one another. So
for example in the debate with the motion “This house would let homosexual
to get married” one of the clashes would be the impact for children,
affirmative argues that by getting homosexual marriage, it can show that
marriage is individual’s right without forcing for everyone to life as
heterosexual as they have different sex orientation, because they will reach
their happiness. And negative team argues that live in marriage institution will
crumble the nature of marriage institution down, because the core of marriage
institution is uniting men and women and fostering new generation.
Affirmative argues that marriage should as individual right, while negative
argues it should goes to institutional, and that is we call as ‘clash’.
To make it easier, you can write down a clash in a form of a question.
In the case of the above example the clash can also be written as “would
homosexual couple should get marriage to persue their happiness? “With
this form, we can see clearly where the clash is.
Clashes are rather smaller than a stance but they can be bigger than
an argument. In another word, clashes are rather like a summary of the
debate, those several points in which the debate boils down to.
Let us take another motion for example:
This house would criminalize littering
The clashes in that debate may look somewhat like this:
Government Opposition
1st clash: does criminalize littering action is justifiable or not
Arg 1: littering is violate another
people rights.
Littering action contribute to
make the environment in bad
condition, can make society will
feel unsafe because the impact
of littering, so this is the failure
of advertisement that exist in
statusquo.
Arg 1: government have already
provide advertisement,
socialization and trash to solve
the problem of littering, means
they still in progressing to make
condition of environment
better.
2nd clash: does criminalize littering action will give advantages or
not?
Arg 1: decrasing awareness from
society to keep clan their
environment will bring more
harm than good.
Arg 1: society who have
awareness is come from
theirselves, not forcing by
government because everyone
have responsibility to ther
action in environment.
How to use clashes in determining a winning
First of all, adjudicator need to identify the clashes that exist in a
debate, somewhat like presented in the example above. Then, each clash
should be weighed, whether it is affirmative or the opposition that better
argued that particular point. With that, adjudicator can see clearer which
side has upper hand in that debate. Yet, simply weighing the clash is not
enough. Adjudicator also needs to prioritize those clashes. Somehow some
clashes are more important than others. In criminalize littering example
above for instance, the 1st clash certainly weigh more value than the 2nd , for
that 1st one is what the debate is all about, the core of the debate. So a
bench that better argued the 1st class (based on the priority). Ideally,
adjudicator minimally has 2 classes in a debate.
Summary
Therefore in using clash to determine the winning of a debate, adjudicator
needs to do two things:
(1) weigh each clash to know which sides has the upper hand in that
clash
(2) consider the value of the clashes at hand, which clash is more
important
Notice that one clash can contain several arguments. So in a way, that clash
is something that the arguments under it is trying to prove. Adjudicators are
only given maximally 5 MINUTES for their tributary comments and no
additional time.
MATTER
How to assess matter
In assessing matter, adjudicators must see on what happen to the
debate and matter presented by a speaker is logical and relevant to the topic
under debate or not. Logic is the chain of reasoning used to prove an
argument; this involves stating, explaining and illustrating the argument (A-R-E-
L: Assertion, Reasoning, Evidence, and Link back). Relevance is established by
tying the argument into the topic under debate.
Many arguments will rise up in order to defense and support each case.
Therefore, the adjudicator need to distinguish a strong argument from a weak
argument, and don’t forget to classify and prioritize the argument. You should
not wait to see whether the opposition attacks an argument before judging
whether it is weak or strong. Taking on the role of an average reasonable
person does not prevent you from being critical and intelligent in your analysis
of the matter presented to you.
Assessing matter can be seen also from the example given. But the
things that should be noted, the example can’t substitute the argument itself;
it’s just supporting the arguments.
Invalid case
An invalid case is where the team does not prove what they are required
by the topic to prove. For instance, on the topic ‘That littering action should be
criminalize’, if the affirmative team argues that littering is harmful, they have
not addressed the fundamental issue of the debate – criminalize littering. Such
an approach should be penalized heavily.
Hung case
Sometimes, the structure of the argument is such that at the end of the
first speaker’s case, it is not possible to draw any conclusion. This is known as
the ‘hung’ case. It occurs when the first speaker doesn’t affirm or negate the
topic in itself. The speech is left ‘hanging’ until the second speaker completes
the case (1st and 2nd speech are combined).
New matter
New matter consists of an entirely new argument that has not been
canvassed in the debate before. Fresh evidence to support or further extend
an argument is not considered as new matter. It is a firm rule of debating that
the third opposition speaker in the debate may not introduce any new matter.
It is to prevent unfairness because an issue raised at this stage does not allow
the opposing team to respond to it or comment on it sufficiently.
The other important thing is link back. Tie the argument back into the
topic. Adjudicator may see the link back from the presented debate, it used to
see whether the presented argument is suitable or not.
METHOD
Method of an individual speech
An effectively structured speech will have the following features (neither
compulsory nor exhaustive):
1. an interesting opening which captures the attention of the audience or
helps it to warm to the speaker
2. a reasonably clear statement of the purpose and general direction of the
speech
3. a logical sequence of ideas which shows a clear development of the
speaker’s argument
4. a proportional allocation of time to the speech as a whole, and to each
major point, which enables the objective of the speech to be
accomplished
5. a conclusion or summary of the major points made in the speech
Over-time and under-time speeches
Speakers should quickly finish the point they are making after the time limit
and conclude. A small leeway of no more than half a minute may be allowed.
Matter delivered after the time limit does not attract matter marks. The speech
will incur a severe penalty in method for continuing significantly after the time
limit.
MANNER
Manner is concerning with the mechanics of public speaking and
presentation of the debating case. Good manner will enhance the argument;
bad manner will distract or detract the audience from the argument. The most
important thing to remember when you assess manner is to ask the question
“Was it effective?”
The elements of manner
1. Vocal style: Volume of delivery should be audible; enunciation should be
clear and plain; pace of delivery should be neither too slow nor fast, etc.
2. Use of language: Speakers should not vary from normal conversational
language; they should beware of the use of slang or jargon of some field
of specialty unfamiliar to the audience.
3. Use of notes: Notes should be unobtrusive, small enough to be held in
one hand and contain only key words or headlines.
4. Use of eyes: Debaters should attempt to make eye contact with the
audience.
5. Gesture: Gestures should be natural and appropriate and not laborious or
distracting; mannerisms should be avoided.
6. Stance: Speakers may move around or stand still and you should assess
the effectiveness of the stance by whether it aided the argument or
distracted you from the argument.
7. Dress: Dress may only be taken into account in the assessment of
manner where it is so incongruous that it affects the credibility of the
speaker.
8. Impression of sincerity: A more sincere approach will make the speaker
more believable and effective.
9. Personal attacks on opponents: Derogatory comments will not be
tolerated and will suffer manner penalty as such remarks distracts the
audience from the argument and also make the speaker lose the
sympathetic ear of the audience.
10. Humor: may even be used at a crucial time in a serious debate and it’s
suitable.
Adjudicators must note that manner is assessed as the total impact of all its
various elements – not as some aggregation of fixed categories according to
rigid weightings
Burden of proof
What is burden of proof? One of the most crucial aspects is given
debate is about what and where burden of proof lies. Which side needs to
prove their point, and does the other side simply get to argue against that
point, or do they have to prove their own position?
The burden of proof always rest on those making an assertion about
the world. The justification for this burden is that statements about reality
must be based on reason and evidence. This is not simply a requirement in
debates; it’s actually an epistemological requirement for correct reasoning.
Response and Dynamic of the debate
Responding to the other’s team case, both teams are expected to
respond appropriately to each other’s case on every single major issue brought
up in the debate(refer back to “points of clash).
a rebuttal (negative argument) countering the other team’s
argument(s) on a particular issue
1. other team’s case (or model, or status quo) would not reach the
desired objectives and perhaps make even things worse, or
2. other team’s case (or model, or status quo) would indeed reach
the objectives as alleged, but said objectives are irrelevant to the
debate or are not desired objectives of the debate(the team is
then of course expected to show what the desired objectives of
the debate really are)
a positive argument showing that on that particular issue, the team’s
case stands
1. team’s case (or model, or status quo) would reach the agreed
goals more effectively, or
2. team’s case (or model, or status quo) would lead to a more
desirable outcome.
POI (Point of Information)
POIs: give POI and take POI! (1-2)
1. Has he/she accepted and attempted sufficient number of POIs?
2. Note down the POI, it helps.
3. POIs are judged on the basis of:
the threat they pose to
the strength of the argument of the debater
value of its wit and humor.
4. Responses to the POIs are judged on the basis of:
promptness and confidence in answering.
strength of the response.
value of wit and humor in the response.
Content of POI
Generally the content of POI is divided into some points: question to
opponent’s case and clarifying statement. Specifically it can be positive
or negative statement. Positive: offering new argument or example for
your opponent, highlighting an argument already delivered by your team
that your opponent has ignored. Negative: Displaying inconsistency
between speeches, giving fact or precedent that stand against their
argument, pointing out something that they have got wrong.
Bad responses:
not responding at all
only questioning the other team’s argument but do not necessarily
elaborate why it should fall
rebut the other team’s argument but do not necessarily show why own
team’s case(or model, or the status quo) stands
Following the Dynamics of the debate
The term” following the dynamics of the debate” is heard and said often but
quite seldom explained very clearly.
In general, debaters are expected to always take into account every argument,
every concession, and every rebuttal from the other team and either counter it
or to revise the team’s strategy, if necessary
FAIRNESS
The idea of debate is have two teams engaging with each others and
debating rules are in place to ensure that. Therefore, if a team tries to beat its
opponent by preventing it from properly engaging with the team, a good
adjudicator should take that into consideration, there are two most common
strategic stunts that debaters in Indonesia pull to put their opponents at an
unfair disadvantage.
In defining a motion
The proposition is expected to define a motion in such a way that
there would actually be a debate. The proposition is meant to define the
motion to clarify the debate, and not to win the debate. Some proposition
teams have been known to make their cases foolproof to the extent of virtually
non-debatable.
In delivering arguments
Aside from delivering arguments, teams are expected to also give
time for their opponents to respond to those arguments. The debating rules
that discourage the government whip and completely forbid the opposition
whip from delivering new matter are meant to ensure that both teams have
the opportunity to respond to each other’s arguments. An adjudicator is also
expected to take into account if a team revises or put some adds-on to their
proposal during the second speaker’s speech; this is, of course, unfair for the
other team and may make the debate confusing.
INCONSISTENCY AND CONTRADICTION
Inconsistency and contradiction are both errors in a team dynamic
when a speaker is not in the line with the team’s case, whether it is a point
made by previous speaker, the team’s problem acknowledgement or premise,
or even the speaker’s own argument.
Contradiction is a direct negotiation to a previous argument in a
team’s case or problem acknowledgement, but does not necessarily negate it
directly.
A word of caution, though: do not get trapped in confusion of distinguishing
between inconsistency and contradiction! What is important is that you know
these two errors, understand why they are errors, are able to spot them in a
debate, and know how to asses them in your adjudication.
These are the questions you should consider when you want to deduct or add
a margin or speaker score due to an inconsistency/ contradiction:
- How severe was the contradiction/ inconsistency for team’s case?
- Was it addressed or responded by the opponent?
- Did the opposing team acknowledge that it is a contradiction/
inconsistency?
- how well it was responded
- did they explain why it is inconsistent/ contradictory? Did they
elaborate on why the inconsistency / contradiction is detrimental for
the team’s case? Or did they only mention that there is an
consistency/ contradiction without further explanation?
- who responded to it?
- Was it responded by the immediate speaker after the contradiction/
inconsistency was made? Was it made by a late speaker?
- how did the contradictory/ inconsistent team respond to the
accusation?
- Did they respond at all? Was it responded immediately by the next
speaker? Did they merely deny the accusation? Did they explain why it
- is not a contradiction/ inconsistency? Did they admit that it is a
contradiction/ inconsistency?
The above questions also apply when a team accuses its opponent of
making a contradiction/ inconsistency. The only difference is that you need to
ask this question first: was it really a contradiction or inconsistency? Go back to
your notes and verify this. Many false accusations on contradiction/
inconsistency are made because the team don’t fully grasp the argument of
their opponent and only take a portion of the speech to make it sound like the
two errors. If you scrutinize your notes, you may find that the accusations are
not true at all!
Marking Scale
Assigned score
Meaning
69 Greeting only
70-73 Weak analysis, minimal to no elaboration, and/or hardly understandable, and/or hardly structured
74-76 Arguments that make sense with attempts to elaborate, and/or pretty clear, and/or adequately structured
77-80 Relevant arguments with successful to compelling elaboration, and/or very clear, and/or very neat
81 Divine intervention
reply speeches are scored exactly half of a substantive speech
margin in points between teams must be between 1 and 12:
Margin Meaning
1-4 A very close debate with only minor differences separating both
teams
5-9 A relatively clear decision with one team having an obvious
advantage
10-12 A very clear win with the losing team probably having failed in one
or more fundamental aspects of its argument or presentation
Adjudication commission of the 15th IFDC
REGISTRATION FORM
Name : …………………………………………………….
Gender : …………………………………………………….
Faculty/Majoring : …………………………………………………….
Batch : …………………………………………………….
Student Number : …………………………………………………….
E-mail/twitter/ FB : …………………………………………………….
Phone Number : ……………………………………………………..
Date of Birth : ……………………………………………………..
Allergic Food : ……………………………………………………..
Disease : ……………………………………………………..
Position : (Debater, Adjudicator, Observer, Manager). Circle one
Debate Experience : ……………………………………………………..
3x4