Have your students listen to a debate and have them take notes, teach them how to take notes, walk through the debate and examine their notes. Common errors are there is no template before they start. For example, you know for the PM speech, the format is background, definitions, harms, model/principle, and advantages. Divide the paper in half so they can take notes and have an area to write a short reply.
Secondary issues are they take notes trying to write down every word and get bogged down and cannot complete the note taking. Teach them to do shorthand. Finally, they must write down notes on the POI's. The POI's don't enter the debate until they're brought up by the next speaker.
After you examine their notes, teach them to write down quick replies in the sidebars on their sheets to help them get ready for their speeches.
this sample debate pm speech is excellent as it's very slow and clear along with good structure.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Three levels to a rebuttal
What are the three levels to a rebuttal? The first level is cannot. The second level is should not. The third level is even if. What does this mean? The first level is the practical level, you cannot do this because it's not feasible, it's not cost effective, or it's not possible due to money. The second level is the principle level, you should not do this because it's not a good thing, not a moral thing, or it's goes against the society/culture. The final level the even if--these are the disadvantages that occur because of the model or principle. Whenever you are opposition, you have an advantage because there normally are reasons why something has not been done. Keep the structure and run the three level of argumentation in the rebuttal.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Team Prepping
One of the most important elements for debaters is current events and a working knowledge of the world. This is to address the impromptu motions. Highly encourage your students to read the www.bangkokpost.com, bbc.com, or cnn.com. These websites have highlights, but the language although difficult is very consistent and helps improve their vocabulary.
Secondly, have them get used to using http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_index.php for background information. Some coaches disagree with this, but to be fair, it's a good resource with pros and cons allowing the students to have self-expression and to build on it. The topics don't have to match exactly. For example, if the topic is to invade Korea, but the closest topic to it is to invade Afghanistan--the issues are still the same--sovereignty, economic impact, political repercussions, and significance. This is only a starting point. You use Google to finalize your information and get your statistics. This is easier than having your student come up with their own ideas initially.
Thirdly, after the students have written the shell of the case--harm, principle/model, and advantages. The team brainstorms and addresses it. This is huge because with the greater circle of viewpoints, the case can become more well-rounded.
Finally, the team must debate it to see how the debate flows. After the debate, you go through and outline the key players, the issues, how the arguments evolve, and then, discuss how you want to make the debate go. Lastly, the students then go through and write out their speeches. The PM speech will be rock solid and set. The LO will write down his possible arguments and the tie-ins with the DLO while the whip will have an idea of the possible issues to be discussed, the clashes. The DPM will have their arguments and expansions of the model or principle with a list of possible rebuttals. This preparation allows for the students to practice the delivery on their speeches.
If you do not pre-write and debate the motions before hand, you will not beat a well-prepared team.
Secondly, have them get used to using http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_index.php for background information. Some coaches disagree with this, but to be fair, it's a good resource with pros and cons allowing the students to have self-expression and to build on it. The topics don't have to match exactly. For example, if the topic is to invade Korea, but the closest topic to it is to invade Afghanistan--the issues are still the same--sovereignty, economic impact, political repercussions, and significance. This is only a starting point. You use Google to finalize your information and get your statistics. This is easier than having your student come up with their own ideas initially.
Thirdly, after the students have written the shell of the case--harm, principle/model, and advantages. The team brainstorms and addresses it. This is huge because with the greater circle of viewpoints, the case can become more well-rounded.
Finally, the team must debate it to see how the debate flows. After the debate, you go through and outline the key players, the issues, how the arguments evolve, and then, discuss how you want to make the debate go. Lastly, the students then go through and write out their speeches. The PM speech will be rock solid and set. The LO will write down his possible arguments and the tie-ins with the DLO while the whip will have an idea of the possible issues to be discussed, the clashes. The DPM will have their arguments and expansions of the model or principle with a list of possible rebuttals. This preparation allows for the students to practice the delivery on their speeches.
If you do not pre-write and debate the motions before hand, you will not beat a well-prepared team.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Legendary Pon Tangkrisanakajorn Adjudication method
Pon, who is shy, is the undisputed number one adjudicator in Thailand based on EU-Thailand and the 6THSDC--where in 11 rounds of debates, she has only received perfect 5's scores. So we asked her for her method, here it is in its simplicity.
1. How did I judge the debate. Did that debate purely boil down to characterization of the actors....i.e. THW legalize corporal punishment in schools...obviously I had to look for the characterization of children and at the end, who really convinced me that the kids will learn with their method of teaching and who would make them rebel less.
or if the debate has analysis that is really good from both sides, the key to judging that debate includes how appropriate the responses from both sides were. If one team used the same rebuttals from first speaker to last speaker whereas the other team came up with new levels of analysis, you have to point that out.
That's the first part of the adjudication, but for personal feedback you can ask me after the round.
2. Issues in the debate.
What are the clashes?
3. Technical suggestion
How the debate was in terms of level. If I felt something was missing, I will suggest it.
In here I tell them about what went wrong in that debate.
i.e.
- the mutually exclusive rebuttals cannot be the biggest thing you use against the opponent....even if you do, dont forget that you have to rebut them as well.
then, I just point out the technical flaws for both sides.
Perhaps they misrepresented the other team, it's better to rebut the real argument than to make up an argument and rebut that.
and thats my 7-min feed back to the team.
We sincerely, thank Pon for her input.
1. How did I judge the debate. Did that debate purely boil down to characterization of the actors....i.e. THW legalize corporal punishment in schools...obviously I had to look for the characterization of children and at the end, who really convinced me that the kids will learn with their method of teaching and who would make them rebel less.
or if the debate has analysis that is really good from both sides, the key to judging that debate includes how appropriate the responses from both sides were. If one team used the same rebuttals from first speaker to last speaker whereas the other team came up with new levels of analysis, you have to point that out.
That's the first part of the adjudication, but for personal feedback you can ask me after the round.
2. Issues in the debate.
What are the clashes?
3. Technical suggestion
How the debate was in terms of level. If I felt something was missing, I will suggest it.
In here I tell them about what went wrong in that debate.
i.e.
- the mutually exclusive rebuttals cannot be the biggest thing you use against the opponent....even if you do, dont forget that you have to rebut them as well.
then, I just point out the technical flaws for both sides.
Perhaps they misrepresented the other team, it's better to rebut the real argument than to make up an argument and rebut that.
and thats my 7-min feed back to the team.
We sincerely, thank Pon for her input.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Adj test Answers Question 11-14
1.
What is
the main job of the Prime Minister?
background, define terms, scope--or tell me what the debate is about, harm, model/principle, advantages.
2.
What is
the main job of the Leader of Opposition?
bstance, background, question or confirm terms, tell me what the debate is about, discuss the harm--either there is no harm, there is a harm and the gov isn't solving it, or there is a harm but we're solving it better, attack model, offer countermodel/principle, and refute advantages then present negative arguments
3.
During the debate on Abortion, the Government
team makes up facts that the Judge knows is incorrect because the Judge works
for the Ministry of Birth Control. Thus,
he gives the case to the Opposition.
This is fine or not fine? Why or
why not? What is the rule?
NOT FINE, judge has entered the debate. the judge must stay in line with the average and reasonable person, and must give credit for what is on the table, what arguments are being said.
4.
What is
the lowest score you can give and the highest score for the constructive
rounds? The reply?
lowest score is 67, high is 77 reply is half of that 33.5 and high is 38.5
these questions are worth 5 each and the first two gets you level two while the next two takes you to level 3
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
National Thailand Adjudication Program
We have started our rating system for judges. These are guidelines and may be used by the tournaments for allocations. However, the Adj Core makes the finals decisions.
The future NTRP ratings will be based on the test score and the performance. The scores above are based on their prior test score and their performance at the 6th THSDC. NTAP will rate the judges based on two things--test score on an approved adjudication test and performance at a National Tournament.
For example, a judge on this list does not have a perfect 5 on his adjudication test thus he can improve his overall rating by re-taking the adjudication test. We will mandate you must have a four week window between Adjudication tests.
The ratings will have for this year four levels: Chair Grand Finals (4.5 and above), Chair Prelims (4.0 and above), Panelist (3.0 and above) , and Trainee . There is no distinction between high school or university adjudicators nor a distinction for National or International tournaments. Moreover, the rating is for All Asians, World Schools, and not for British Parliamentary system which follows consensus judging. For now, if you have a Chair Grand Finals rating--4.5 and above, you can chair High School or University, but this rating is strictly a guideline for the tournament, the tournament has the option to allocate judges accordingly.
complete NTAP based on 6th THSDC.
Here are our National Thailand Adjudication Program (NTAP): Chair Grand Final Judges
All Judges above are rated 4.8 and above.
The following are our Chair Preliminary Judges
12 Usjima Vittayaamnuaykoon
13 Zaw Htun Lat
14 Suhail Prasathong
15 Pimvipa Kunanusorn
15 Pitchaporn Leelaarporn
17 New Petch-vra
18 Siravich Sincharoenkul
19 Wilmore Hingert
19 Motoki Luxmiwattana
21 Gary Saisangkagomon
21 Kavindra Tiamsai
21 Patricia Rath
24 Nuttanun Thanomvajamun
25 Palita Likidpongpaisarn
25 Kriangkrai Pipatvilaikul
27 Adrian Baker
28 Naroomol Anandhwanlert
The following are our Panelists:
29 Phat Aphiwatanakoon
30 Paul Freda
31 Peeratat Nganthavee
32 Kittee Boonsongkroh
33 Aim Kusuwan
34 Carmel Chamberlain
35 Jeffrey Kershaw
36 Wan Thabkrajang
37 Vichitpol Patanaporn
38 John Jr. Cork
39 Araya Engpornsyn
40 Patharapong Bhuripanyo
40 Kaisara
42 Tantham Rungvithu
43 Joon Young Lee
44 Mothusi Kemorwale
45 Kasama Kowin
46 Ratdara Wicharn
39 Krissadee Pheunghansaporn
48 Mary Losmithgul
49 Sajal Pradhan
50 Ruby Karki
The following are designated Trainees:
51 Urasaya Pongpiyapaivoob
52 Prompong Pakawanwong
53 Stephen Gibbons
54 Taritsorn Sornprohm
55 Thanyalak Pongchalermporn
56 Stephen Cheek
57 Thunpimol Ekandprach
58 Natthapatch Ratanachaijaroen
59 Zi Qian Wang
60 Napaon Withayasai
The future NTRP ratings will be based on the test score and the performance. The scores above are based on their prior test score and their performance at the 6th THSDC. NTAP will rate the judges based on two things--test score on an approved adjudication test and performance at a National Tournament.
For example, a judge on this list does not have a perfect 5 on his adjudication test thus he can improve his overall rating by re-taking the adjudication test. We will mandate you must have a four week window between Adjudication tests.
The ratings will have for this year four levels: Chair Grand Finals (4.5 and above), Chair Prelims (4.0 and above), Panelist (3.0 and above) , and Trainee . There is no distinction between high school or university adjudicators nor a distinction for National or International tournaments. Moreover, the rating is for All Asians, World Schools, and not for British Parliamentary system which follows consensus judging. For now, if you have a Chair Grand Finals rating--4.5 and above, you can chair High School or University, but this rating is strictly a guideline for the tournament, the tournament has the option to allocate judges accordingly.
complete NTAP based on 6th THSDC.
Here are our National Thailand Adjudication Program (NTAP): Chair Grand Final Judges
| Rank | Name | ||
| 1 | Arpaporn Tangkrisanakajorn | ||
| 2 | Kanyanat Piticharoen | ||
| 3 | Sirin Tangpornpaiboon | ||
| 3 | Panyarak Roque | ||
| 3 | Panisa Thongma | ||
| 6 | Gary Sakuma | ||
| 6 | Daphne Hingert | ||
| 8 | Apitha Srivicharnkul | ||
| 9 | Narongpol Sathorn | ||
| 10 | Suwitcha Jogthong | ||
| 10 | TJ |
All Judges above are rated 4.8 and above.
The following are our Chair Preliminary Judges
12 Usjima Vittayaamnuaykoon
13 Zaw Htun Lat
14 Suhail Prasathong
15 Pimvipa Kunanusorn
15 Pitchaporn Leelaarporn
17 New Petch-vra
18 Siravich Sincharoenkul
19 Wilmore Hingert
19 Motoki Luxmiwattana
21 Gary Saisangkagomon
21 Kavindra Tiamsai
21 Patricia Rath
24 Nuttanun Thanomvajamun
25 Palita Likidpongpaisarn
25 Kriangkrai Pipatvilaikul
27 Adrian Baker
28 Naroomol Anandhwanlert
The following are our Panelists:
29 Phat Aphiwatanakoon
30 Paul Freda
31 Peeratat Nganthavee
32 Kittee Boonsongkroh
33 Aim Kusuwan
34 Carmel Chamberlain
35 Jeffrey Kershaw
36 Wan Thabkrajang
37 Vichitpol Patanaporn
38 John Jr. Cork
39 Araya Engpornsyn
40 Patharapong Bhuripanyo
40 Kaisara
42 Tantham Rungvithu
43 Joon Young Lee
44 Mothusi Kemorwale
45 Kasama Kowin
46 Ratdara Wicharn
39 Krissadee Pheunghansaporn
48 Mary Losmithgul
49 Sajal Pradhan
50 Ruby Karki
The following are designated Trainees:
51 Urasaya Pongpiyapaivoob
52 Prompong Pakawanwong
53 Stephen Gibbons
54 Taritsorn Sornprohm
55 Thanyalak Pongchalermporn
56 Stephen Cheek
57 Thunpimol Ekandprach
58 Natthapatch Ratanachaijaroen
59 Zi Qian Wang
60 Napaon Withayasai
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Adjudication Test Sample and Answers
1..
_____ During
the PM speech, the Government team does not give a model so it’s an automatic
loss.
2
_____ In
the LO speech, the PM of the Government team asks a Point of information during
the first thirty seconds. He is allowed
to do this.
3
_____
During the round, the Leader of Opposition gives a great first speech,
but fails to take any POI’s. He gets a
score of 71.5. This is fine.
4
_____
The team from the University of State gets up to do his speech. He reads from a type-written, printed
sheet. This is unacceptable so he is
disqualified.
5
_____
The team from the University of State hears the three motions but
doesn’t understand a word so he goes to ask his coach for the definition. This is fine.
6
_____
During the Theme of Entertainment, the University of State debates the
value of celebrities in the real world and economics. The focus is on the celebrity issues. This is not in line with the theme so they
lose.
7
_____ In
a definitional challenge, there are three reasons on how to challenge the
definition, one of them is a truism; an argument that is considered to be true
by the vast majority of people.
_____ The
debate team from University of State gives their speech and the PM gives the
model but runs out of time so the DPM gives the rest of the model with changes
in the next speech. They lose points for
this.
9
_____ It
is perfectly fine for the Government whip to give new matter and arguments in
their speech.
10.
_____ The
LO has the job of challenging the definition.
These ten questions are basic rules questions. In question one, there is never an automatic loss in debate. The teams involved must discuss the issue--you are not to give a team a loss based on one thing or a win based on one thing--unless it's five issues, and they push on 4 of them, the last issue pushes the debate to the other team. In question one, you can have a principle debate so no model is given.
In question two, this is not allowed. The first minute is protected.
In question three, there are no scores of 71.5 in the constructive, you may only give a half point in the reply. You would reduce his score somewhat for not taking a POI.
In question four, in the rules he would be disqualified.
In question five, this is a rules violation. The team can only talk to the Adjudication core.
In question six, this is false. Celebrities are in line with the theme of entertainment so it's fine. Moreover, if it was not in line, they would lose points based on the importance of the issue or insignificance of the issues.
In question seven, there are four reasons to challenge, but the heart of the question lies in the fact a truism is one of them.
in question eight, this is not fair. the pm must give the entire model in his opening speech. also, the use of the word rest of the model with changes--means the arguments from the LO have been taken into account so the DPM adjusted the model thus rendering the LO speech unimportant. That's why this is not fair.
in question nine, it is against the rules for the Government whip to give new matter and arguments in his speech. However, in the war of words, he is allowed to rebutt the DLO, but that is a rebuttal and not a new argument caseside.
In question ten, the LO has the job of challenging the definition.
Any questions please ask
Our goal for the coaches for the National team is to make debate as standard as possible both to improve our performance, our adjudicating, and our teaching of the sport of debate. Our first mission will be the creation of the National database of adjudicators. The rating will be based on the test score from the adjudication test and performance at any National tournament. The adjudication test portion can be re-taken and that score used in conjunction with the National result. This certification will be dynamic meaning any tournament performance will supersede the prior rating.
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at gary@panyarathighschool.ac.th
If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to email me at gary@panyarathighschool.ac.th
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Focus this week on Sixth Thailand High School Debate Championships
Assumption College is hosting the 6th THSDC championships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
For US$29.99 How to Play SIngles
Nearly every page has clear diagrams and pictures to help with your understanding. Difficult topics have a video link for added understanding. Hawaii Tennis Pro Tennis for everyone. Covers mental toughness, match preparation, practice techniques to work on the shot and shot selections