Transcript BP Briefing - Judges as used at High School U of C

Prepared by Jason Hong, David Miko and
the University of Calgary Debate Society
We couldn’t do it without you!



Name of Tournament
# of Rounds
Open/Closed Adjudication
So, how about BP?
Style of Debate
This Brief Presentation
Role Of Each Team
Will Cover Five Talking
Points That Will Train
You To Be Great.
Role of Each Debater
Role of Judges
Other Important Stuff
Prepared by the CA Panel of the 2008 CSDF National Seminar
Edited by the CA of the UCDS HS BP Tournament, 2010 & 2011



There are 4 teams in one round
Teams are Ranked 1 through 4
Decisions Are Made by Consensus
Understanding the
proceedings of
the debate is key
to understanding
BP debate. The
basic structure of
all debates
remains consistent
and is very
simple.
Opening Proposition
Opening Opposition
Prime
1st Speaker
Minister
Leader
1st of
Speaker
Opposition
nd Speaker
2Deputy
PM
nd Speaker
2Deputy
LO
Closing Proposition
Closing Opposition
Member
1st Speaker
of Crown
Member
1st Speaker
of Opp
Proposition
2nd Speaker
Whip
Opposition
2nd Speaker
Whip

Defines the Terms of the Debate

If necessary introduce a model

Opens the Case for the Government

Opposes the case of the Opening Opposition
when it is presented

Opposes the case of the Opening
Government

Opens the Case for the Opposition

(Definition Challenge)



Extends the Government Case
Opposes the cases of the Opening and
Closing Opposition teams
Summarizes the debate



Extends the Opposition Case
Opposes the cases of the Opening and
Closing Opposition teams
Summarizes the debate



Defines the Resolution
Presents a Model
Introduces the Government Case




Models or plans are used to determine how the
team is going to take the action they are
advocating
Not always necessary
Are useful in defining the pragmatics of the case
Does not need to address
 Funding
 Timelines
 Legislative

information
Only deals with how in an ideal world the
Government would follow through



Refutes what PM said
Introduces the Opposition Case
Possible Definitional Challenge



Refutes what LO Said
Continues the Government Case
Sums up the Debate thus far



Refute what the DPM said
Continues the Opposition Case
Summarizes the debate thus far




Refutes the DLO / Opening Opposition (limited)
Introduces the Government Extension
Refutes Government Extension
Introduces Opposition Extension






New or Distinct Material
Not Contradictory (knifing)
New Argumentation
New Analysis
Detailed – Stand-alone Case
Can Be Radical and Change the tone of the debate



Refutes the Opposition Extension
Summarizes the Debate
(New contentions may be introduced, but not
recommended)



Refutes the Closing Government (GW)
Summarizes the debate
(No new contentions may be introduced)

Primary goal of a Whip is to summarize the round
 Should
 “He
not be a chronological summary of the debate
said, she said” etc
 Summary
should focus on themes, questions, or actors
 Highlight the overarching concepts of the round
 Does
not need to cover everything, but must cover
everything that is important
 Strong
Whips will prove the extension to be the
winning point in the round
Feedback
The role of
the judge
revolves
around
some simple,
core aspects
The
Choice
Speaker Points

Role Fulfillment

Argumentation

Clash

Manner
Prime Minister
Opening Proposition
Personally Responsible for Definitions
Case
Construction
Provides
a Clear and Fair Model
Deputy
Minister
Is Responsible
forPrime
Messiness
of Debate
Staying Relevant
Personally Responsible for Laying out Clash
Case Completion
Member of the Crown
Closing Proposition
Leader of the Opposition
Opening Opposition
Personally Responsible Introducing Case
Responsible
Firstwith
Line Proposition
of Clash
Effectively for
Deals
Case
Deputy
Prime Minister
Puts Forwards
Important
Arguments
Staying Relevant
Personally Responsible for Doing All Clash
Case Completion
Member of the Opposition
Closing Opposition
Personally Responsible for Extension
Proper
Clash
Provides
a Strong, Distinct Extension
Proposition Whip
Effectively Clashes
Personally Responsible for Extension
Proper
Clash
Provides
a Strong, Distinct Extension
Opposition Whip
Effectively Clashes
Planting Flag
Personally Responsible for the Quality of
Summation Speech
Planting Flag
Personally Responsible for the Quality of
Summation Speech
Summation Speech
Summation Speech
When judging teams on argumentation there
are two criteria:
 Structure of arguments
 Clear, concise, easy to understand, logical
 Content of the arguments
 Factually strong, well supported with
evidence, valid arguments

When judging teams on clash the criteria is the
same as arguments:
 Structure of clash

 Clear,

concise, easy to understand, logical
Content of the clash
 Factually
strong, well supported with evidence,
valid clash



Least important in BP in regards to the Rankings
Should be used as a last resort for deciding winners
Manner is the way in which debaters spoke

Relevant for their Individual Speaker Points
 Well
organized, well spoken, and well presented





At the end of the round everyone but the judges
leave the room
Judges take a minute or two to review notes and
form your own initial impression of rankings.
Take five minutes to discuss with each other and
finalize rankings, and agree on a clear reason for
decision.
Fill out ballots with rankings.
Take two minutes to fill in your own speaker scores.
Please refer to the backside of your ballot
Matter 27-29
Minimum Score : 67
The content of the debate including:
Average Score : 70
argumentation, examples, logic, clash and
reasoning. 28 Average
Maximum Score : 73
Manner 27-29
67 – Poor
How the debater presented the speech – the
68 – Work Needed
verbal and non verbal communication that
69 – Satisfactory
made the speech effective or not effective.
28 Average
70 – Average
71 – Good
Strategy 13-15
Use of the style, points of information, structure
72 – Excellent
of speeches including time, strategic placements
of clash and arguments. 14 Average
73 – Exceptional



End of the Round
Focus on why teams were ranked where they were
ranked
Individual comments can occur at a later time (unless
time permits)


Also a component of strategy
Used to ask questions in the middle of speeches
 Pertinent
 Should
illustrate a flaw in the other teams arguments, or
reposition one of their own arguments
 Short, and Clear




May be asked near the beginning of the Prime
Minister’s speech.
A non-partisan question seeking clarification of the
definitions, model, or other context-providing point.
Should be short and to the point as it’s being
accepted as a courtesy.
Should be accepted if offered.



Important that you ignore this as best you can.
Judges should be a blank, neutral slate.
If you know something is wrong, you basically have
to accept it anyway if it goes unchallenged.
S tatement
E xample
E xplanation




Substantiates arguments
Provides more evidence for the judges
Makes your points harder to bring down
Wins debates
Questions?