Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

ADJUDICATION MANUAL

Prepared by the Adjudication Core of the

Philippine Inter-Collegiate Debating Championship 2016


1. Tournament Rules

PIDC is an Asians format tournament. Asian Parliamentary mimics the American


Parliamentary debate in which two teams match. A side is composed of 3 members and
each team gives 4 speeches. The Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition, Deputies, and
Whips deliver a 7-minute speech while Reply Speakers deliver 4-minute speeches. The
format is a limited preparation format meaning the topic is announced 30 minutes before the
start of the debate.

General Rules:

1. Ironman teams: Speakers that are present for the round can be scored based on
their speech. Should they win the round, their team point(s) will be deducted after the
preliminary rounds.
2. There will be no use of electronic devices.
3. Printed materials are allowed during preparation time but not during the speech.
4. No group prepping. You may only prep with your partner. To err on the side of
caution, please do not stay with any alumnus/alumni/orgmates in your car while
preparing. Please get an impartial third party to drive you around should the need
arise. If no one is available, the orgcomm will be providing jeepneys to take you to
and from the convening room to the debate rooms.
5. If you have any questions regarding the motions, please ask the adjudication core
only.

a. Points of Information (POI) → Taken from Chennai Worlds Briefing


When can I take a Point of Information?
• Points of Information may be offered and accepted from the end of the first minute of
a speech (1:00), until the start of the last minute of the speech (6:00).
• The latest that the speaker can accept a POI is immediately at the six-minute bang
(i.e. the start of protected time). A POI cannot be accepted at a later point.
• Judges may not, however, intervene to require the speaker to take a POI at six
minutes.
How long should a Point of Information last?
• A POI can last for up to 15 seconds.
• If the speaker offering the POI has clearly made his/her point before 15 seconds
have elapsed, the speaker answering the POI may wave the speaker offering the
POI down or begin responding to the POI.
• Cutting off the speaker offering the POI before the point could reasonably be
understood, however, should be treated by the judges as the equivalent of not having
taken the POI.
What happens if I do not take a Point of Information?
• A speaker that fails to take a POI (or a point of clarification) during their speech,
should be punished by judges if they were offered several in the last minute of
unprotected time (between 5.00-6.00mins).
• Failure to take a POI generally indicates a reduced level of engagement. While this
does NOT mean that a team will take an automatic loss for failing to take a POI, it
can (and should) be an important factor in close calls.
• Thus in a very close debate, if the judge is deciding between two comparably
matched teams, we would generally expect the team that failed to take a POI to
place behind the team where each speaker accepted at least one POI.
• If a team has clearly won a debate, however, the failure to take a POI should NOT
change the team rankings. However, it may reduce the margin of victory.
Things to avoid during a POI → Taken from the Malaysia WUDC Handbook
• Badgering is highly discouraged. After a POI has been offered to a speaker and
rejected by them, another POI should not be offered within the next ten seconds by
any debater. Persistently breaching this rule, i.e. continuously offering points of
information to a speaker in quick succession, is known as barracking or badgering.
This greatly discouraged, as it is disruptive to the debate and unfair to the speaker.
• POIs do not initiate a dialogue. Once the POI has been made/cut off, the debater
making it sits down. They must offer a new POI if they wish to interrupt the current
speaker again.
b. Conflicts
• Conflicts are implemented to ensure objective debate results. Institutional conflicts
(same institution) are automatically detected by the tab. Sexual, romantic, and
financial relationships are grounds for conflict as well. Please declare these things to
the adjudication core and we assure you that these will main confidential.
• We understand that some conflicts may arise during the duration of the tournament.
If so, please feel free to approach the adjudication core so that we may add it to the
list of conflicts.

c. Fiat → Taken from Chennai Worlds Briefing


• The government teams are allowed to assume that the policy will pass. It is NOT a
valid opposition line to argue that a parliament will not pass the policy.
• A government team however CANNOT stipulate the way that other actors will react.
• For example, with the motion THBT Russia should make a credible public offer to the
United States for joint decommissioning of their entire nuclear arsenal, the
government can assume that Russia will make the offer. The government team
cannot assume that the United States will accept the offer.
d. Ballots
• Debaters will rate the judges using the adj feedback form. The range that will be
used is from 1-5

Score Meaning

1 Complaint. Did not understand the debate or does not know how to judge fairly. You
disagree with the decision and he/she was not able to justify the decision. He/she should
be a trainee.

2 The judge needs improvement. He/she is able to give an explanation but critical points of
the debate were missing in the justification. He/she should be a panelist in low rounds

3 Average. Adequate points are raised during the oral adjudication. Could have been more
comprehensive but has enough skill to chair a middle room.

4 Good. Pertinent issues are discussed. Could have been explained better but has enough
skill to panel a high round.

5 Comprehensive and clear in explaining the decision. Should chair a high round.
e. How to Veto

• What is unique about the Asian Parliamentary format is that each team has a veto on
the motions. The adjudication core will give teams 3 motions to potentially debate on.
Both teams will rank the motions from 1-3 and the motion that is ranked 3 will not be
debated.

GOV OPP

Motion 1 1 3

Motion 2 2 2

Motion 3 3 1

• In this scenario, Motion 1 was cancelled by Opposition while Motion 3 was cancelled
by government, the motion which will be debated is Motion 2.

GOV OPP

Motion 1 1 1

Motion 2 2 2

Motion 3 3 3

• In this scenario, Motion 3 was cancelled by Opposition and Government. Both teams
ranked Motion 1 as their first choice hence, Motion 1 will be debated.

GOV OPP

Motion 1 2 1

Motion 2 1 2

Motion 3 3 3

• In this scenario, Motion 3 was cancelled by Opposition and Government.


Government team ranked Motion 2 as their first choice while Motion 1 was ranked by
opposition as their first choice. In order to break the deadlock, a coin toss must be
done to determine which team’s motion choice will be debated.
ADJUDICATION MANUAL

We as judges assess debates based on which team best job at persuading us that the
motion ought to be affirmed or rejected. We do this, as an informed global citizen, and
consider the strength of arguments and rebuttals presented. While doing so, we apply a very
small set of technical rules. While judges have the liberty to deliver their feedback and
explanation, we want to make sure that we are on the same page.

I. Judging as an informed reasonable individual (with some excerpts from WUDC


Chennai 2014)

There is obviously a need for judges to abstract themselves from their personal positions
when in debates. If we judged as ourselves then the result would depend strongly on what
we know, how we think, and what opinions we hold. We would be making personal
judgments about how compelling we find particular arguments.

Therefore, we attempt to judge as an abstract ‘informed reasonable individual’ and minimise


the impact that our knowledge and opinions have on the result. This is a difficult process,
and something that bears thinking about.

It is important, however, to remember that thinking ‘as’ an ‘informed reasonable individual’


does not absolve us from our responsibilities to actually judge the debate – that is to
evaluate the logical flow of arguments and determine the extent to which teams have
seemed to win them.

An informed reasonable individual:


• Attempts to evaluate logically what the best thing to do is,
• Uses as inputs the arguments made by the teams,
• Has the sort of knowledge of someone who reads the front pages and world section of
a high quality newspaper regularly,
• Has a grounding in world history,
• Is NOT a specialist in any subject, and thus will not be familiar with technical
vocabulary or specialist literature,
• Comes from nowhere in particular. There are no ‘domestic examples’ requiring less
explanation, even where everyone in the room comes from that country. Wherever you
are from, assume your audience is from somewhere else.

The informed reasonable individual is, in short, a smart person who has a good deal of
knowledge that is broad rather than deep. Imagine a bright and well-read university student
who is studying a subject completely alien to the one that is being debated.

II. Judging definitional challenges

In normal cases of definitional challenge, you can remind yourself of the following standards
of a valid definitional challenge:

Squirrel – “A squirrel is when you define a debate a way it was obviously not meant to be
done. Don’t do this; it isn’t fair, it isn’t what the CA team set, and it’s a dirty trick. It also
gives the impression that you are unable to debate a fair topic. You can be clever with a
topic, you can’t rewrite it.” (UCU Speaker Manual)
Tautology and Truism – “A truistic definition is one that doesn’t give the opposition room
to argue. A tautology renders the motion basically true and undebatable. For example, in
the debate “THBT the Barack Obama has failed the US”, defining “failed” as “did not carry
through all his campaign points” is clearly not something one can argue against. “ (UCU
Speaker Manual)
Time and Place Set – “It is also forbidden to set the parameters of a debate around a
certain time or place that make it impossible to argue against. For example, setting “THBT
civil disobedience is a legitimate form of protest” only in countries with illegitimate and
discriminatory regimes is clearly unfairly restrictive. The general rule is that, unless
specified in the motion, all debates should be applicable to modern day Western liberal
democracies.” (UCU Speaker Manual)

Remember that a valid challenge on the definition does not automatically cost the
Government side a loss. It does however, set the ground for where and what is the debate.
Usually, the team who captures the right definition wins the round because they set up a
fairer battleground but setting it up isn’t enough to win a debate.

Judges also cannot assume that a team is launching a definitional challenge, hence teams
must clearly express that they are launching a definitional challenge.

As much as possible, the motions in the tournament would more likely lead debaters in the
intended debate. If the definition provided by the government is illegitimate then it can be
challenged. This must be done during the Leader of Opposition speech, or in a POI to the
Prime Minister speech. The leader of opposition must: (1) explicitly challenge the definition
and explain why; and (2) provide an alternative definition.

In deciding which definition is valid, we would advise asking the following questions:

a. Is the definition fair? The definition must give room for your opponents to argue, and
argue reasonably.
b. Is the definition true?
From the informed global citizen perspective, you must be able to discern
conventional truths from imagined interpretations.

As a judge, it is not your role to attack the definition. Only worry about the definition when
teams do.

III. Assessing Policies

Most likely, policy debates would require government to push for a new solution or a
framework that is already working somewhere in the world. The policy being status quo
somewhere in the world is acceptable, as long as the debate exists. There can be motions
which are in defense of status quo, so we should not be trapped with the mindset that all
policy motions are solutions to problems. Sometimes, they are just there to make the world a
better place.

There are instances wherein opposition will not present a new policy, and this is fine. As long
as they provide reasons not to do the policy, then a point of disagreement is still made.
These usually come in the form of proving that having the policy will make the situation
worse or by proving that there is a solution already present and this new proposal will just
jeopardize the situation.
IV. Assessing and Appreciating Arguments

The results of the debate should depend on what teams do and don’t say. Judges are not
allowed to enter and intervene in the debate. This means that we ought not to create and
invent arguments for teams, complete them, nor rebut them.

An argument therefore is not invalid, just because we do not agree in them. Arguments stand
as ‘true’ once they are made and substantiated until they are responded to.

However, it is important to note that not all arguments stand as important. It is valid for
opposing teams to dedicate their time responding elsewhere. The judges must assess
substantiated arguments and rebuttals and must not penalize speakers for not refuting
everything their opponent said.

As a judge, you also have the duty to see through responses that are not explicitly labeled as
such. There are instances when ideas clash and speakers respond to their opponents
through the constructive material later. This in the same way applies to constructive
materials that appear head on from the rebuttals.

Your appreciation of the speeches must value rebuttals and arguments equally. Rebuttals
count as contributions and arguments can be responsive.

Certain things do not matter (in themselves) in debating:


• The number of arguments a team makes,
• How clever or sophisticated the argument was,
• How interesting the argument was.

None of the factors above should affect where a team places in a debate.

While it is true that debates must be appreciated the way they are and as a judge you are not
allowed to enter and intervene, remember that you are an informed global citizen. This
means that you are not ‘tabula rasa’ or a kid just learning about the world. This means that
you have a particular standard of when to accept something as a reality. What the teams

V. Assessing Whip Speeches (WUDC Berlin 2013)

Whip speeches should summarise the debate from the perspective of their side. A good whip
speech will note the major disagreements in the debate (points of clash) between the two
sides and will make use of the best arguments from each team on their side to make their
case that the motion ought to be affirmed or rejected.

Debating is unfair if teams can make new arguments in the last speech (opposition whip), to
which no one can respond. So they aren't allowed to do that. Government whip speakers are
permitted to make new arguments, but should receive diminished credit for new arguments
they raise, as these should really have been in the extension.

What do we mean by a 'new argument'? Debates are about doing things, or arguing that
things are true. Therefore, we mean new reasons to do things, claims that new things will
happen, or claims that new moral truths are the case.
We do not mean:
• New defences of arguments already made.
• New explanations of previously-made arguments.
• Rebuttal
• New examples to support existing arguments
• Anything the other side can reasonably be expected to understand that team intends
from the 3rd speech.

At times, it's often difficult to assess the difference between new rebuttals and analysis
(which are permitted) and new arguments (which are not). The good judge will consider
whether or not the making of the claim raises a new issue, to which the other side has no
ability to respond.

Assessing new material in whip speeches

If a team makes a new argument in the whip case, ignore it. That is all you should do. Don't
penalise it, don't make them lose. Just ignore it.

New material in the whip speech is just bringing material in such a way that it can't be
credited. Therefore, teams are advised to avoid wasting their time by doing so.

VI. Some Pitfalls to Avoid in Decision-Making and Feedback → Taken from Chennai
Worlds Briefing 2014

What follows is a common set of mistakes that judges may make in determining results and
giving feedback.

Dealing in generalities rather than specifics


• ‘’We thought that second opposition really brought the case home for us, so they
won the debate.’’
• ‘’Proposition talked about rights, but I really didn’t find it persuasive.’’
• ‘Opposition had some interesting things to say, but proposition was able to respond to
say.’’

It’s perfectly fine for adjudicators to use general language to introduce their reasons,
provided that each general statement is supported by examples of what actually happened.
No statement of the sorts that we’ve listed above should ever go unsupported by specific
examples of the claim being made, either during the deliberation or during feedback.

Failing to judge the debate as it happened


• ‘’Proposition never talked about rights in this debate.’’
• ‘’It took until the summation speaker until we heard anything about rights.’’
• ‘’I really wouldn’t have propped it like that.’’

Judges may have their own opinion as to what the best arguments for each side in the
debate will be, but these are not the criteria on which the debate is to be judged. Judges may
advise teams that there were interesting avenues of analysis left unexplored, but they may
not penalise teams for their approach to the motion, or the things that each team decided to
emphasize.
Granting certain ‘’classes’’ of arguments undue priority
• “Opposition was the only team who told us about the importance of
principles.”
• “Only Proposition knew the names of major Brazilian cities.”
• “Prop won because their arguments were moral rather than practical.”

This judging pitfall takes a number of forms. One of which is the fetishisation of the use of
specific knowledge in the making of arguments. Teams which make strong arguments
buttressed by good knowledge should be rewarded, but not because of the total amount of
facts they named, but because of the strength of the arguments which those facts were
marshaled in support of. A clever use of facts makes an argument stronger and better; it
does not make an argument.

A second form of this pitfall is according improper priority to arguments that are of various
types (moral/philosophical/economic/practical). A ‘principled’ argument, for example, is not
necessarily better or worse than a practical one. It depends what each argument seeks to
prove and how well it does so.

‘Penalty judging’
• “Your last point came after six minutes in your speech, so that really hurt your
team.”
• “We had questions about the mechanism, so you lost the round.”

A good judge isn’t one who tries to find as many reasons as possible to exclude
consideration of a team’s arguments and speak instead about the form- rather than the
content- of their contribution. If a team violates the duties of role fulfillment, they should be
penalised only up to the point of removing any harm they caused to the debate through
failure to fulfill their role. The one exception is a failure to take a point of information, which is
discussed above.

Some Examples:
• Beginning a point after six minutes probably means a speaker will have less time to
develop it, but a judge should still evaluate how substantial the argument’s contribution is
to the round. A one-minute argument can be just as persuasive in the last minute of a
speech as it can somewhere in the middle.
• Not taking any POIs means that a speaker’s material is to be viewed as less persuasive,
not excluded from consideration.
• Lack of clarity in a mechanism should be resolved by allowing the opposition teams to
make any reasonable assumptions of their own and letting the debate carry on from
there. It may also make Opening Government’s case less persuasive if the lack of clarity
in the mechanism makes it seem less plausible that the policy could be carried out or if
the ambiguity calls into question some of the policy’s benefits.
• If a speaker introduces new arguments in an opposition summation speech, these are to
be discounted, as though the speaker had said absolutely nothing.

To put it a different way, a lot of mistakes that judges “penalise” in debates are really just
instances where the speaker’s decisions have created an opportunity cost. The speaker
could have used her time more effectively, perhaps by establishing a clearer mechanism, but
her failure to do so will make her speech less persuasive already; there is no need to add an
additional “penalty” by double counting the mistake.
Judging on Format Rather than Content
• “You only spoke for one minute about the effect of this policy on Wales”
• “You should have put your argument about rights first.”
• “Your team was unbalanced- all the good points came from the first speaker.”
• “You only spoke for five minutes.”

Speaking for a certain length of time or placing arguments in a certain order is irrelevant (in
and of itself) to which team won the debate. Naturally, speakers and teams who spend all
their time on good arguments and spend more time explaining more important and more
complex arguments will do better at being persuasive, but they succeed because they have
made good arguments and have explained those arguments well, not because they ‘spent
time on them.’ A speaker can win a debate with a one minute speech (but it’s very, very hard
to do so). Similarly, sometimes it will make a speech more persuasive to discuss arguments
in a particular order because a later claim builds on the analysis of an earlier claim. But if two
arguments are genuinely independent, it should not matter in what order a speaker chose to
deliver them.

Вам также может понравиться