Transcript WORKSHOP JURI DEBAT BAHASA INGGRIS PROVINSI JAWA BARATHOTEL BUMI ASIH JAYA, BANDUNG 26 – 28 APRIL 2010

WORKSHOP JURI DEBAT BAHASA
INGGRIS PROVINSI JAWA BARAT
2010
HOTEL BUMI ASIH JAYA, BANDUNG
26 – 28 APRIL 2010
1
WSDC SYSTEM
2
DEBATE IN GENERAL
• Debate is a clash of arguments
• Debate is about speaking, listening, and
respect differences
• Debate is to give your opinion about
several issues, pros-cons
• Debate is using a system, unless it will be
“debat kusir”
3
WSDC FORMAT
• There are 2 teams, Government/Affirmative and
Opposition/Negative with 3 debaters each
• Substantial speech: 8 min, reply speech: 4 min
• 1st Aff  1st Neg  2nd Aff  2nd Neg  3rd Aff
 3rd Neg  Reply Neg  Reply Aff
• The opposing team may give Points of
Information (POI) to the speaker.
– POIs allowed between the 1st and 7th.
– No POIs in a reply speech.
– The speaker has authority to accept or reject
4
• A time keeper shall signal the time.
– One knock at the 1st and 7th minute, to signal
time for POI.
– Two knocks at the 8th minute to signal that
delivery time for the speech has ended.
– Speaking before 7 minutes: undertime
– Speaking after 8 minutes 20 seconds: overtime
– Both case, his/her points could be reduced
• Reply speeches, one knock at the 3rd minute, and
two knocks at the 4th minute
5
• Every team is given 30 minutes preparation
time (casebuild) after the motion is released
and before the debate begins
• During this time, teams are not allowed to
get help from anybody (e.g: coaches,
teachers, parents or friends) or using laptop,
PDA, or any communication devices
• Printed materials are allowed in casebuilding
time, but not allowed during the speech
6
• Debate is judged by an odd number of
judges
• There is no draw in the result of a debate
• Tabulation:
1. Victory Points
2. Judges Points
3. Team Scores
7
RANK TEAM NAME VP JUDGES POINT TEAM SCORE
1 ISDC JABAR
4
12
1118
2 ISDC NAD
4
9
1004
3 ISDC JKT
4
8
1109
4 ISDC JATIM
3
9
1027
5 ISDC SUMBAR 3
9
983
6 ISDC KALTIM
3
8
1090
7 ISDC NTT
3
6
1106
8 ISDC SULSEL
2
6
954
9 ISDC BALI
2
4
871
10 ISDC RIAU
1
2
1003
8
ROLE OF SPEAKER
Government/Affirmative
First Speaker:
1. Give the definition of the
motion
2. Outline the team’s case:
- Present the team line
- Present the team split
1. Explain the arguments that
are the 1st speaker’s split
2. Give a brief summary/recap
of the speech
Opposition/Negative
First Speaker:
1. Respond to the definition
2. Rebut 1st Government
speaker
3. Outline the team’s case:
- Present the team line
- Present the team split
1. Explain the arguments that
are the 1st speaker’s split
2. Give a brief summary/recap
of the speech
9
Government/Affirmative
Second Speaker:
1. Rebut the Opposition’s main
arguments
2. Briefly restate/reiterate in
general the Government’s
team case
3. Explain the arguments that
are the 2nd speaker’s split
4. Give a brief summary/recap
of the speech
Opposition/Negative
Second Speaker:
1. Rebut the Government’s
main arguments
2. Briefly restate/reiterate in
general the Opposition’s
team case
3. Explain the arguments that
are the 2nd speaker’s split
4. Give a brief summary/recap
of the speech
10
Government/Affirmative
Third Speaker:
1. Rebut Opposition’s
arguments, prioritizing the
strong/important ones
2. Rebuild the team’s case
3. Summarize the issues of the
debate
Note:
It is not advisable for 3rd
Government to bring new
arguments
Opposition/Negative
Third Speaker:
1. Rebut Government’s
arguments, prioritizing the
strong/important ones
2. Rebuild the team’s case
3. Summarize the issues of the
debate
Note:
It is forbidden for 3rd
Opposition to bring new
arguments
11
Government/Affirmative
Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker:
1. Provide a summary or
overview of the debate
2. Identify the issues raised by
both teams
3. Explain why the
Government’s case and
response are better than the
Opposition’s
Note:
Reply speakers are prohibited
to bring new arguments and
give rebuttals
Opposition/Negative
Reply (1st or 2nd) Speaker:
1. Provide a summary or
overview of the debate
2. Identify the issues raised by
both teams
3. Explain why the
Opposition’s case and
response are better than the
Government’s
Note:
Reply speakers are prohibited
to bring new arguments and
give rebuttals
12
MOTION & DEFINITION
• Motions a.k.a topics, are a statements that
determine what a debate shall be about
• Government team must defend/support the
motion, Opposition team must oppose it
• Every motion must be define, to have a clear
understanding of what the motion means
• The right to give a definition belongs to the
Government team (in the 1st speaker)
13
• Unreasonable Definition:
1. Truistic (True by nature)
2. Tautological (Self-proving)
3. Squirreling (No logic and clear link)
4. Time and Place Set Unfairly
•
Such case, negative may challenge it.
•
Definitional Challenge is highly discouraged,
Only if it’s Undebateable (Truistic and
Tautological), or Unfair Time and Place Setting
14
CASE
• Case is the whole arguments brought by the
Government or Opposition team
• Case has to touch the issue and spirit of the
motion
• Has bold stance
• Opposition has own stance that in line with
their rebuttals (negate the idea of
Government). Rebuttals and arguments
should be distinct.
15
ARGUMENTS
• Good arguments are logical and relevant to
the point being proven
• Structure of argument:
1.Assertion – the statement which should be
proved
2.Reasoning – the reason why that statement is
logical
3.Evidence – examples/data that support the
assertion and reasoning above
4.Link Back – the explanation of the relevance
of this argument to the motion
16
• Arguments also show in form of
rebuttals. Rebuttals are responses
towards the other team’s arguments
• Philosophical or Practical argument??
In WSDC system, Philosophical
arguments are more favorable
E.g: THW Ban Demonstration
Traffic Jam vs. Freedom of Speech
17
Point of Information (POI)
• Stand up and say “On that point,
Sir/Mam..”
• Content of POIs: Fact, Data, Question,
Argument, etc.
• Done in maximum 15 seconds
• Be polite, no barraging
• Not given or accept any POI, do barraging
will be penalized
18
ADJUDICATION
SEMINAR
19
WHO’S ADJUDICATOR?
• Adjudicator is an average reasonable
person, with:
1. Average reasonable knowledge (read
newspaper everyday)
2. Average Intellectual logic
3. Expert knowledge of debating rules
20
FUNCTION OF ADJUDICATOR
1. To evaluate and assess the debate from the
beginning until the end,
2. To decide which team has won the debate,
3. To reflect their assessment in the
adjudicator’s sheet,
4. To provide reasoning for the decision they
have reached,
5. To give constructive criticism and advice to
the debaters.
21
DON’Ts
• Use your personal right or expert knowledge
(Step in into the debate)
• Has preconceived opinions on issues
• Judging based on personal likes/dislikes
• Award victory to a team because they have
same belief/opinion with you
• Act as if you know nothing and accept any
illogical arguments and wrong general facts
22
HOW DO YOU ASSESS A DEBATE
1. Clashes (in relations to which clash is
prioritized)
2. Burden of proof
3. Which teams manage to grasp the center
issue of the motion
4. Responses (including POIs)
5. Minor things : time management, minor
contradictions, inconsistencies, gradual
explanations
23
• Clashes
– The idea that negated each other
– Usually found in form of rebuttal
– E.g: THW Legalize All Drugs
• Aff: Right of self determination
• Neg:Government’s obligation to protect
Society’s health
– See how the debate goes, weight which
arguments is more proven, more important,
more significant to the issue
24
• Burden of Proof
– Things that both team has to proof to
achieve their goal
– E.g: THW Ban Smoking
• Smoking give significant harm to the
Society (Issue)
• Government has right to regulate the
people’s consumption (Justification)
• Ban will solve the problem (Solvency)
25
• Grasp the issue means that the team know
what’s the motion should be about, and
provide arguments that significant to the issue
• Responses show that one team disagree with
the opponent’s idea, it shows from rebuttals
and POIs
• Time management, minor contradictions,
inconsistencies, gradual explanations are
problems regarding with their strategy.
• Fatal inconsistencies might make them lose
26
IMPORTANT NOTIFICATIONS
•
•
•
•
One liner argument
Jumping logic
Wrong facts
You may do penalized if :
– New matter in third speaker and reply
– Undertime or overtime
– Not accept or give POI
– Barraging
27
• Give penalized doesn’t mean the opposing
team win, just affect to scoring
• There’s No automatic winning or losing, judge
the debate on overall aspect, do not decide
based only on one factor
• Adjudicator musn’t have any relation with any
debaters within both teams to prevent conflict
of interest (e.g: family, teacher-student)
• Make decision only from what happens in the
debate, assess as it is
28
SCORING
Matter– marked 40 out of 100 (40%)
Manner– marked 40 out of 100 (40%)
Method- marked 20 out of 100 (20%)
Penalized will slightly reduce their score from
what they should have, especially affect
Method’s mark
29
• Matter/Content:
– The arguments that are used
– Assess the weight of the arguments without
being influenced by the magnificence of the
orator that presented them
– Also include an assessment of the weight of
rebuttal or clash
– If a team introduces a weak argument, it
will not score highly in content even if the
other team doesn't t refute it
– Elaboration to proof the arguments
30
• Manner/Style:
– The way the speakers speak
– Clarity, fluency is important
– Intonation, speed, volume, accent may
differ
• Method/Strategy:
– Structure (remember the role) and timing
– Understanding the issues > different with
content (argument is analysis to the issue)
– Answer and give POIs, politeness
31
MARKING SCALE
Overall
(100)
Godlike
Exceptional
Excellent
80
76-79
74-75
Matter
(40)
32
31
30
Very Good
Good
Competent
71-73
70
67-69
29
28
27
29
28
27
14-15
14
13-14
Pass
Improvement
Needed
No Speech
65-66
61-64
26
25
26
25
13
12-13
60
24
24
12
Standard
Manner
(40)
32
31
30
Method
(20)
16
15-16
15
32
MATTER/CONTENT (40%)
Score
Criteria
80
He/she simply knows everything, all proven
76-79
Arguments comparable with doctrine from experts
74-75
Highly logical arguments with effective elaboration and
supported by highly trusted evidence
71-73
Strong arguments with good attempt to elaborate and
provide good example, data, etc
70
Average arguments with good attempt to elaborate, average
example
67-69
Acceptable arguments with weak attempt to elaborate, minor
example (not really significant with the argument)
65-66
Weak arguments with a very weak attempt to elaborate
(mostly one liner), no example given
61-64
Dummy ideas, full of repetition
60
Have nothing to say
33
MANNER/STYLE (40%)
Score Criteria
80
76-79
74-75
71-73
He/she is able to make you follow his/her new religion
Can be compared with President Soekarno’s oration
Really persuasive, very exciting, as fluent as native
Persuasive, exciting, fluent
70
Understandable, clear, confident
67-69 Somehow understandable, still many hesitation
65-66 Barely understanable, boring, lack of confidence
61-64 Shame performance, barely able to speak in english,
almost all audience are sleep except adjudicators
60
An open mouth statute
34
METHOD/STRATEGY (20%)
Score
80
76-79
74-75
71-73
70
67-69
65-66
61-64
60
Criteria
The one who makes the WSDC system
The new Napoleon Bonaparte, master of strategy
Trendsetter, others can only try to follow their strategy
Well structurized, good time management, well
engagement
Easy to follow, know the proper issue of the debate
Know how to deliver argument and the issue to
engange
Complicated structure, scatter, undertime
Can’t be understood
Simply knows nothing about the system
35
• Practically, there’ll be no score 60 and 80
given to any debater
• Usually the score will be within the range
of 65-75
• The score for Reply speech is half from
substantive speech
–Range 30-40, with average 35
36
ADJUDICATOR’S CODE OF CONDUCT
• Appreciate the debaters
– E.g : No texting, answering phone, chatting,
sleeping, make disturbing expression and
sound
• Take a note
• Be polite, respect differences
• Go past grammar, accent, style
• Adjudicate holistically
37
VERBAL ADJUDICATION
38
STRUCTURE OF VERBAL
1. Tell the decision
2. Explain the justifications or reasons
behind the decision
3. Give feedback
• To the point
• Don’t just repeat what the debaters say,
do analyze the clashes, burden, etc
39
DEBATE EXHIBITION
• Try to analyze the debate exhibition,
understand the clashes, burden of both
teams, etc
• You have 10-15 minutes to make decision and
structurise your verbal before you deliver it
• The ideal verbal time is 5 minutes
40
DESIGNING
TOURNAMENT
41
WHAT DO WE NEED?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Debate System
Rules and Regulation
Commitee
A-Team and Adjudicators
Participants
42
DEBATE SYSTEM
•
•
•
•
World School’s System (WSDC)
Asian Parliamentary System
Australian Parliamentary System
British Parliamentary System
43
RULES AND REGULATION
• Rules about the technicalities to conduct a
debate tournament, besides the system
• General and specific rules, guideline for
commitee, participants, and adjudicators
• Cover every aspects
– E.g: Forfeit, In case of sick, latency, punishment
that may be given if break the rules, chances to be
government and negative, match up system, etc.
• Adapt with your demand
44
MATCH-UP SYSTEM
• To determine the Government and
Opposition Team for every room, there’re
two systems:
1. Power Match
2. Break and Slide
45
1. Power Match
– 1st rank meet 2nd rank
– 3d rank meet 4th rank
– Odd number: Government
– Even number: Opposition
RANK
TEAM
VP
1
ISDC JABAR 3
2
ISDC NAD
3
3
ISDC JKT
3
4
ISDC
YOGYA
3
5
ISDC
SULSEL
3
6
ISDC NTB
3
RANK
GOV
RANK
OPP
1
ISDC JABAR
2
ISDC NAD
3
ISDC JKT
4
ISDC YOGYA
5
ISDC SULSEL
6
ISDC NTB
46
2. Break and slide
– Make bracket of the same VP
– Break it into two, slide it
– If odd, take one from the top of next VP’s bracket
RANK
TEAM
VP
1
ISDC JABAR 3
2
ISDC NAD
3
3
ISDC JKT
3
4
ISDC
YOGYA
3
5
ISDC
SULSEL
3
6
ISDC NTB
3
RANK
GOV
RANK
OPP
1
ISDC JABAR
4
ISDC YOGYA
2
ISDC NAD
5
ISDC SULSEL
3
ISDC JKT
6
ISDC NTB
47
COMMITEE
• Convenor / Project Officer
• Tounament Director, focus on tournament,
make rules and regulation
• Liason Officer, 1 for every team
– Gov: chairperson
– Opp: timekeeper
• Tabulation
– Handle the whole tabulation as result of every
rounds, match up for the next round
– Make the tabulation system
48
A-TEAM & ADJUDICATORS
• A-Team consists of Chief Adjudicator, and
Deputi Chief Adjudicators, at least one person
(one Chief Adjudicator with no Deputi Chief
Adjudicator)
• Their job is
– to gather adjudicator, allocate them in the room
for every rounds
– To make the motions for every round
49
PARTICIPANTS
•
•
•
•
•
3 Persons each teams
Total teams has to be in even number
If not even, make one swing team
Pre-eliminary rounds, eliminary rounds
Number of room needed is half of total
participants
50
SEKIAN DAN TERIMA KASIH
DISUSUN OLEH:
DANNY TANUWIJAYA
JUNAIDI
HARRIS SUBHAN RIPAREV
WORKSHOP JURI DEBAT BAHASA INGGRIS PROVINSI
JAWA BARAT 2010
HOTEL BUMI ASIH JAYA, BANDUNG
26 – 28 APRIL 2010
51