Transcript Adjudicator's Functions

ADJUDICATORS’ FUNCTIONS
• Decide which team has won.
• Decide the best speaker.
• State the reasons for the decision (oral
adjudication).
• Provide constructive criticism and advice to the
debaters.
• Sometimes chair and time-keep the debate as
well.
Notes
•Keep detailed notes during the debate (including POIs)
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
A DEBATE IS JUDGED ON
THE BASIS OF:
1. Matter:
What the teams/ speakers
present (i.e. the content)
2. Manner:
How they present (i.e. the style)
3. Method:
Organisation/ structure of their
presentation
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
JUDGING MATTER
Elements:
1. Definition:
4. Rebuttals
abide by the rules
of definition
Logic
Relevance
Promptness
2. Arguments:
Logic
Relevance
3. Evidences:
Relevance
Strength of the
Evidence
Notes:
•
•
•
•
Matter in a humour debate.
Pre-conceived notion.
Average reasonable person.
Expert Knowledge.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
GOOD DEFINITION
• Explains the key-words in the topic.
• Identifies the burden of proof and the stand of
the team. This is called the theme of the team.
• If there is a measurement involved, sets up the
yardstick or criteria for such measurement.
RULES OF DEFINITION
•
•
•
•
It must bear a close relation to the motion.
It must not be truistic.
It must not employ time or place setting.
It must not be based on overly specific knowledge
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
CHALLENGE OF DEFINITION
Grounds for Challenge:
• The opposition can only challenge (reject) a
definition if it violates any of the rules stated earlier.
Frequently used terms in challenging definitions are:
wholly unreasonable, squirrel, time-place set,
truistic.
• The opposition cannot challenge a definition simply
because you have a more reasonable or better
definition.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
CHALLENGE OF DEFINITION
• Challenge must come from the leader of the opposition,
not later.
• Leader of the opposition must provide an alternative
definition.
• In most of the cases, the teams must introduce an 'even if’
argument.
• `Even if' argument is not possible in some cases. (e.g.
truistic definition & definition running counter to the
resolution i.e. where govt. has taken the opposition’s
case).
• In a definition debate, all the speakers except the PM
argue the following:
• Why challenge?
• Validity/ invalidity of the two definitions.
• Even if we are to accept the other side's definition, these are the
weaknesses of their case.
• Positive case under their own definition.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
JUDGING A DEFINITION DEBATE
Consider the following:
• Does the definition meet the characteristics? Or, Is there
an acceptable ground for the challenge?
• What about the alternative definition. Is it reasonable or
equally unreasonable?
• How the teams argue about the definitions?
• Are they able to prove the case under their own
definition?
• How effective are the 'even if' arguments of the teams?
• Consider matter, manner, method as usual.
Notes:
• Often in a definition debate two topics are debated
simultaneously.
• Usually the team that argues better under both the topics and
the definition, wins the debate.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
JUDGING MANNER/STYLE
Assessing the Elements:
• Assessment of manner is very subjective.
• Following are elements of manner:
– Respectable attitude towards the judges and the other
team.
– Vocal style: volume, clarity, pace, intonation etc.
– Use of notes: not to read a written text.
– Eye contact.
– Body language: hand gestures, pacing, standing etc.
– Impression of sincerity.
– Humour, wit, appropriate and healthy sarcasm.
• Adjudicate manner according to whether an
average reasonable person will find a
particular speaker’s manner attractive.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
JUDGING METHOD
- Team structure
-
Continuity of team’s theme in all the speeches.
Consistency among all the speakers (no contradictions)
Reinforcement of team members' arguments
Clear & logical separation between arguments.
- Individual Structure
-
Attractive opening/ outline of the speech.
Proper organisation & priority of the arguments.
Organisation of rebuttals.
Appropriate timing of the speech
Summary of the speech.
- Responses to the dynamics of the debate
- Right thing at the right time.
- Ability to follow the progression of and changes in the
debate, and to re-act accordingly.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
JUDGING METHOD
- Team structure
- Assess whether all speakers in the team adequately
fulfilled their expected roles.
- Whether the team’s over all oraganisation of arguments
effective to prove the case in contention.
- Assess the following elements:
-
Continuity of team’s theme in all the speeches.
Consistency among all the speakers (no contradictions)
Reinforcement of team members' arguments
Clear & logical separation between arguments.
- Individual Structure
- Assess the following elements:
-
Attractive opening/ outline of the speech.
Proper organisation & priority of the arguments.
Organisation of rebuttals.
Appropriate timing of the speech
Summary of the speech.
- Responses
to the dynamics
of the debate
Prepared
by the Speech & Interpersonal
Communication Enhancement
Unit, IIUM
POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI)
• A POI can be in a question or statement form and should
not take more than 15 seconds.
• A debater should accept at least two POIs.
• All three members of the team should try to give POIs,
but they must not be disruptive.
• Adjudicators should keep record of:
– how many times a debater tries to offer POI.
– how many POI a debater accepts during his speech.
• POIs are judged on the basis of:
- the threat they pose to the strength of the argument of the
debater.
- value of its wit & humour.
• Responses to the POIs are judged on the basis of:
– promptness, confidence in answering.
– strength of the response.
– value of wit & humour in the response.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
MARKING SCHEME
Individual Speeches:Total
Matter 40
Manner 40
Method 20
Over all 100
Margin:
Min-Max
27-33
27-33
13-17
67-83
Av.
30
30
15
75
Category Points Description
Close/
0.5-4 A very close debate; only minor differences separating the
Marginal
two teams.
Clear
5-8
A relatively clear decision, with one team having an
obvious advantage.
Thrashing 9-12 A very clear win, with the loosing team failing on one or
more fundamental aspects of the debate.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
MARKING SCHEME
How to Assign Marks:
• Decide the scores of the PM according to his
performance vis-à-vis the expected standard in the
competition.
• Using the PM as the benchmark award scores to
the subsequent speakers.
• Do not write the score on the score sheet until the
end of the debate.
• Balance between the subjective & objective
judgement.
– The scores should not dictate your decision.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
ORAL ADJUDICATION
Guidelines:
• Usually the chief Adjudicator delivers the judgement and
oral adjudication.
• Be confident in giving your reasons.
• Do not enter into argumentation with the debaters.
• Do not replay the whole debate.
• Highlight the differences between the teams:
- Technical strengths & weaknesses.
- Strength & weaknesses of the cases.
- Differences in matter, manner, method.
Notes:
• Make sure that your oral adjudication reflects the actual judgement
(i.e. do not criticise the winning team more than the loosig team).
• Be motivating & encouraging.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
NEW MATTER RULE
Rules:
• Third speakers and the reply speakers cannot introduce
a new matter in the debate.
• The following are not new matter:
- further illustration, examples or evidences of an existing
argument.
- anything introduced in response to the other team's case
Notes:
Australasian Debate: 3rd Prop not encouraged to bring new matter.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM
NEW MATTER RULE
Example 1:
1st Prop : Political arguments
1st Opp : Economic arguments.
2nd Prop: Economic arguments
2nd Opp : Political arguments.
3rd Prop: Social arguments
3rd Opp : Rebuttals
Here the 3rd Prop is bringing new matter.
Example 2:
1st Prop : Political Arguments
1st Opp : Social arguments
2nd Prop: Economic Arguments
2nd Opp : Political argument.
3rd Prop: Social Arguments
3rd Opp : Rebuttals
Here the 3rd prop is not bringing a new matter if he puts his social
arguments as rebuttal to the 1st Opp's arguments.
Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM