MUIC-Chula Adjudication Workshop

MUIC and Chula are co-hosting the very first THAILAND ADJUDICATION WORKSHOP.
It's during 30th June - 1st July, 2012.
It is an Adjudication workshop, but really, debaters should also come as well. Training in adj-ing broadens your view in a round, and would in turn help your own speech!

Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/events/382190765162801/
Contact Email: muic.debate@gmail.com
Invitation Letter: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?33n56dcd3cccb7t

 

 

Judging and Case Creating essentials

The Prime Minister's job is to define the terms, outline the scope of the discussion, present a dire need or harm that isn't being addressed by the status quo, present a model or principle to address this, and advantages. Too often, when I watch debates two things are missing; a dire need and a feasible model. What does this entail? In the simplest terms, you have to have a reason for change. People hate change as change can equal failure, costs, or unforeseen disadvantages. For example, the BRT along Narathiwat is a good example. I live along the side sois of Narathiwat my whole time in Bangkok, before and after the BRT. Previously, Narathiwat was a bad road full of traffic only during the prime times of the day 4-7 p.m. and 7-8:30 a.m. The construction of the BRT took away a lane from the four lanes of Narathiwat. Now traffic is terrible all the time--from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. What was the harm being addressed with the BRT? There were previously buses along Narathiwat, and moreover, there still are buses along Narathiwat. Was there too much traffic? Now there's more. In looking at this, if the motion was THW build a mass transportation system along Narathiwhat. The harm would/should have been traffic. But is that a dire need? and the end result fails to solve the harm, moreover, it creates more harm. This is what we mean. When you propose a mechanism, be sure there is a valid reason. Secondly, the value of the model must solve the harm and outweigh the disadvantages.
The secondary element of models is it's okay for a model to be vague. You don't have to tell the judge the exact specifications of the plan, but you do/should have enforcement, funding, supervision, implementation, and be feasible. There is strength in being vague to a certain degree. For example, funding can be simply a combination of private industry and government support. Most judges will accept that. The issue only becomes one when there just seems to be enormous cost factors. For example, you want to give everyone in the country, land to use to their own desires. Instantly, you see the implications and costs. You divide the land up but some of the land is already being used by the govt, so thus you now have to pay rent? You have land owned by people, does the govt buy it and give it away? these questions are part of the debate.
Simply, when you're the PM--make a dire need, be very clear about the reason why it's important to change, and address the disadvantages. Finally, if you present a model, keep it simple.

Adjudications tips and rants from Sharmila

Since adjudication-related FB notes are in vogue ... :)

by Sharmila Parmanand on Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 3:53pm ·

So maybe I have been to too many tournaments or I just have a massive procrastination problem, but I experienced an irresistible urge to rant about adjudication-related pet peeves and the sandtraps adjudicators fall into, and I figure these voices in my head will not go away until I indulge them. Obviously, if these things seem like common sense to you, then pat yourself on the back and go do something else. Here goes:

1. The status quo is not an argument. Saying X should happen because that is how it's done in the status quo is not an argument. The status quo isn't an adequate defense of ... the status quo! This is purely descriptive, not analytical, material. Debates are about reimagining the world, and that includes an assessment of why the status quo is right.

2. Liberal-sounding arguments are not trump cards. Given the liberal bias of most debaters, our cognitive scripts may be more immediately compatible with ideas such as 'the right to free speech' or 'the right to know', but in debates, these rights themselves are up for discussion. The burden is not only on one side to demonstrate that the right to free speech/to know does not exist/should be curtailed in a particular situation; a converse burden exists on the other side as well to demonstrate why such rights need to be upheld in the same situation.

3. Quality over quantity. There will never be a perfect policy or a perfect ethical position (duh, that's why it's a debate!), but teams should be evaluated on how they engaged with the best arguments/rebuttals in the debate, not on how many arguments or rebuttals they raised per se.  If a team launches a large number of (mostly nitpicky) rebuttals, but does not address the strongest material of the other side, they may still be in trouble. Also, different teams may win different issues in the debate (especially in BP) - which issues were the most important, and by how much did they win/lose the issues they did?

4. Role fulfillment and technicalities matter.  Duh. Obviously, they do. Otherwise, we'd just sit around and have a nice conversation over coffee. Teams have to be evaluated based on how well they worked within the a given structure and given 'rules of the game' (which is why we dislike Opposition Whips who raise new arguments, closing teams that shaft their opening teams, or speakers who speak for ten minutes). Technical flaws, however, should be viewed relative to each other in a debate, and not entirely distinct from the quality of arguments and issues raised.

5. No one has to solve the root of the problem. There is almost never a single root of the problem for any problem. Besides, a model cannot be expected be expected to solve everything (especially in a seven-minute speech and with limited prep time!). Teams just have to prove that the situation is better/not as bad in their world/under their model. Hold all teams to those equal burdens.

6. Pay attention to mutually exclusive ideas. Teams don't have to disagree on every single thing in the debate. Where they agree on common goals, or the need for a certain degree of punishment or protection for certain actors, or share mechanisms in their policies, the debate should shift to more mutually exclusive grounds. For example, both teams in a debate about requiring parental consent for minors undergoing an abortion are likely to want to protect minors, and hence, arguments about why the protection of minors is important become less relevant, while arguments about which policy better protects them become the decisive issues of the debate.

7. Don't ignore points of information! POIs are not there for decoration. They are an integral part of the BP and Asians formats because they increase dynamism in debates. Pay attention to them when comparing teams (especially diagonals in BP), or when assessing team strategy. Refer to good/bad POIs/responses to POIs in your feedback.

8. Generic comments are meaningless. Shortcuts such as "this argument was better-analysed" or "this rebuttal was more persuasive" are meaningless unless you explain why or how.

9. Team feedback on judges is a double-edged sword. Feedback on adjudicators by debaters is an essential source of information for adjudication cores to assess their judging pool. It must definitely be taken seriously by all parties. The flip side, however (yes, I am going to name the elephant in the room!), is that when judges are evaluated on and compete against each other purely on the basis of adjudicator feedback, a variety of perverse incentives are created. Teams start thinking they need to be convinced BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that they lost debates, when in fact judges and teams need to meet each other halfway. The feedback system becomes a straitjacket on judges who now opt to sugarcoat their comments to avoid pissing off teams. Instead of saying, "this is a ridiculous argument for X, Y, and Z reasons", a judge is now forced to call it "promising" or "slightly underdeveloped". Unfortunately, teams need to hear the harsh truth to get better. Debate is a competition, not a mutual admiration society.10. You are an average reasonable college student, not a monkey. Even if arguments are not responded to, you do not automatically believe them, hook, line, and sinker. You are meant to subject them to a reasonability test - i.e. are there logical links, no glaring factual errors, plausible evidence, analysis, etc., etc. This is not unacceptable intervention. This is using your brain.

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. 

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

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.