Judges Briefing Will Take Place Here - CSDF

Download Report

Transcript Judges Briefing Will Take Place Here - CSDF

We couldn’t do it without you!
Style of Debate
This Brief Presentation
Role Of Each Team
Will Cover Five Talking
Points That Will Train
You To Be Great Judges
Role of Each Debater
Important Aspects of
Your Role as a Judge
The rules of this style of debate were established
at the Nationals in 2003. The objectives were to
blend Canadian Parliamentary Style and the style
at the World Schools Debating Championship. It is a
unique blend of rules.
 Issues
do not need to have a Canadian
 The level of debate can be brought up to
an international level.
Understanding the
proceedings of the
debate is key to
understanding how to
judge the debate.
The basic structure of
all debates remains
consistent, and is
very simple.
1st Proposition
8 Minutes
1st Opposition
8 Minutes
2nd Proposition
8 Minutes
2nd Opposition
8 Minutes.
Reply Speeches
4min. Each side
First two rounds will be debated on the prepared
topic is: This house believes that capitalism is
beneficial to the world.
The next 4 rounds as well as the quarter and semi finals will be
impromptu resolutions.
Those impromptu resolutions have been picked by a motion committee
composed of University debaters from across Canada.
Judge 3
Judge 2
Proposes a motion
Defines the terms of the motion
terrorism can be justified”
 “THS genetic screening by health insurance
 Watch out for slanted definitions, or possible
definitional debates
Gives Reasons to pass the motion
In Canadian National style, the proposition has a
burden of proof
(But unlike previous styles… So does the
Opposes the Motion
If Necessary counters definitions
 This
should only occur if the definitions are clearly
wrong or give a very unfair advantage to the Prop
 Themed Resolutions give room for open definitions
Gives Reasons against passing the motion
(opposition should focus on moving their own
case as well)
1. Introduction
2. Clearly states the definitions
3. Model (If used)
4. Theme/Case line (“what we will prove to you is…”}
5. Proposition Arguments
6. Conclusion
Example of the 2008 (Carbon Tax)
(notes: sounds if off for the first 27 seconds of the speech, the sounds
starts at 1:42)
1. Introduction
2. Counter Model (if they wish)
3. Outline “the split”
4. If necessary, attack definitions
Most teams will accept the terms as defined (no time, place, set)
Can challenge the terms if unreasonable
If this happens, judges decide which terms are more reasonable (still
possible for Prop. to win)
5. Opposition team’s these/caseline
6. Clash with Proposition arguments
7. Explain arguments for opposing the resolution
8. Conclusion
Clashes with all of the opposition arguments
presented thus far
Finishes off the case for the government
Last word from the Opposition on constructive
1. Introduction
2. Continue attack on Proposition
3. Outline team’s case approach
4. Further arguments against resolution
5. Conclusion
Both teams:
Take a step back and summarize the debate
Distill the debate into themes and clash on the major ideas of the
Leave the judges with a clear reason for your side winning the debate
Approach should be thematic rather then systematic.
Example (both side have 4 min each)
•Points of information are an IMPORTANT aspect of
this debate
•During unprotected time debaters from the other
team can rise to propose a question (POI)
•The speaker can choose to accept or reject the
POI. Once accepted the floor is opened up for one
short question.
•Questions should be kept short, to the point and
relevant to the debate!
•The golden rule is give 2 POIs and take 2 POIs per
•However POIs should be reflective of the pace of
speech. If a speech is fast then giving more POIs is
acceptable. If a speech is slow then too many POIs
can become harassing.
•POIs should be used to puncture holes in the other
team’s case and support their own.
•POIs are part of strategy points.
Models or plans are used to determine how the
team is going to take the action they are
Not always necessary
Can be useful in defining the pragmatics of the case
Does not need to address
 Funding
 Timelines
 Legislative
Only deals with how in an ideal world the
Government would follow through (as the example
in the video)
Provides a clear and concise road map of their
case for the judges (and other debaters)
 Helps reinforce their points (because the judges
can write down what these points are)
 Should be done at the beginning, the middle and
the end of every speech
 Tell the judges what they are going to say, say it
then remind the judges what you just said
S tatement
E xample
E explanation
A basic construction of arguments
Your role as
a judge
some simple,
core aspects
Speaker Points
Your Primary Function as a Judge in this tournament
is to award speaker points to each individual
Scores will be on a Point Scale
An arbitrary scale, due to tradition set by the British
and Australians… Seriously!
Manner (28-36)
 How
the debater delivered his address
 Persuasiveness
 Style
Matter (28-36)
 What
the debater brought to the round
 Content
 Analysis
Strategy (14-18)
 How
the debater used content, order of arguments
structured arguments, and used Points of Information
Manner + Matter
 28 Work Needed
 30 OK
 32 Average
 34 Excellent
 36 Exceptional
 14 Work Needed
 15 OK
 16 Average
 17 Excellent
 18 Exceptional
Scores Should Be Within 70 - 90
28 + 28 + 14 = 70
32 + 32 + 16 = 80
36 + 36 + 18 = 90
Total Scores (Half-points are allowed)
 70 Incredibly Poor (Any Scores Lower than 70 will be
raised to 70) this is the Nationals! Debaters went
through a selection process to get here!
 72 – Poor
 75 – Below average, Work Needed
 78 - Average
 81 – Bench mark for the tournament: Good
 83 – Excellent
 87 – Exceptional
 90 – Flawless, Perfect (Any Scores Higher than 90
will be dropped to 90)
 This scale will be at the back of the ballot.
Canadian National Debate Ballot
Adjudicator name: _________________________________
Resolution: ____________________________________________________________
Round: ________
Room: __________________
Proposition Team: ___________________________________________________
Style /40
Content /40
Strategy /20
Grand Total
Total /100
Opposition Team: ___________________________________________________
Style /40
Content /40
Strategy /20
Grand Total
Total /100
The winner is: ________________________________________
The statistician will only look at the individual score and the team score
The statistician will not look at each criteria, those boxes are there for your
own use only.
Depends on the balance that occurs at the end of
the debate.
 No
Such thing as an automatic win, or automatic loss
 Holistically comparing cases
In Canadian National Style the team points must be
aligned with the “winning team” (No low point wins)
 Who
had the best manner (40%)
 Who had the best matter (40%)
 Who had the best strategy (20%)
Occurs after the round has completed, after ballots
have been completed, and handed to the chair for
Is the most valuable tool for debaters
 Centered
around why the round was one or lost
 What they can do individually to make themselves
better debaters
 Keep it short! We are on a very tight schedule!