Scribd
Upload
138 views

Adjudication Seminar

This document provides guidance for adjudicating debates. It discusses that adjudicators should take the role of an average reasonable person with expert debating knowledge. Adjudicators must decide who wins, justify their decision, and provide constructive criticism. When verbally delivering decisions, adjudicators should highlight critical differences between teams and be specific in their analysis. Adjudicators assess the content, delivery, and structure of arguments based on factors like logic, evidence, public speaking skills, and time management. They must also address any issues around definitions, new arguments, or errors made by the teams.

Uploaded by

wahyu nurcahyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
138 views

Adjudication Seminar

This document provides guidance for adjudicating debates. It discusses that adjudicators should take the role of an average reasonable person with expert debating knowledge. Adjudicators must decide who wins, justify their decision, and provide constructive criticism. When verbally delivering decisions, adjudicators should highlight critical differences between teams and be specific in their analysis. Adjudicators assess the content, delivery, and structure of arguments based on factors like logic, evidence, public speaking skills, and time management. They must also address any issues around definitions, new arguments, or errors made by the teams.

Uploaded by

wahyu nurcahyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 18

ADJUDICATION SEMINAR

Arief Imanudin
[email protected]
Introduction

 Adjudication : inherently subjective


 Limited by some artificial constraints

 Role : an average reasonable person


 With expert knowledge of debatingrules
 Without preconceived opinions on issues

 Function : decide – justify – criticize


 Marks awarded should reflect adjudicator’s
decision, not vice versa
Verbal Adjudication
 Explain your decision
 Highlight critical differences between teams
 Don’t debate the debaters
 Be specific in weighing crucial elements

 Give constructive criticism


 Adapt to the level of experience of the debaters
 Be constructive, use constructive terms

 Should be 5 to 7 minutes in total


Debating : Basics
 Format : Australasian Parliamentary
 Affirmative/Government vs. Negative/opposition
 Led by a chairperson; no interreution allowed
 Motion : full propositional statement
 Speech duration and order :
 1st affirmative 5’ 1st negative 5’
 2nd affirmative 5’ 2nd negative 5’
 3rd affirmative 5’ 3rd negative 5’
 Reply affirmative 3’ Reply negative 3’
Debating : Cases
 Case : set of argument supported by
evidences

 Anatomy of a case :
 Definition : limits scope of the debate
 Theme line: core argument/basic idea
 Team split : distribution of arguments
 Arguments and rebuttals
Assessing Matter
 Content (arguments, evidences) – 40%

 Keywords : logic and relevance


 Logic : chain of reasoning
 Relevance : link to the motion/theme line

 Distinguish strong and weak arguments

 Examples only support argument; they


cannot substitute the argument itself
Matter : Argument
 Good argument should have A-R-E-L

 Assertion : statement of the argument


 Reasoning : explanation of the argument
 Evidence : facts, statistics, etc.
 Link back : linked back to the motion /
theme line
Matter : Rebuttal
 Argument attacking the opposing
team’s argument, e.g. by showing
that it :
 is based on an error of fact
 is irrelevant to the proof of the topic
 is illogical
 involves unacceptable implications
 should be accorded little weight
Assessing Manner
 Delivery (public speaking skills) – 40%
 Key question : ‘Was it effective ?’
 Elements of manner :
 Vocal style stance
 Use of language dress
 Use of notes impression of sincerity
 Eye contacts humor
 Gesture personal attack on
opponents
Assessing Method
 Structure and organization – 20%
 Includes :
 Structure of individual speech
 Time management (under/overtime)

 Structure of the team’s case (fulfilment


of the roles of the speakers)

 Response to the dynamics of the debate


Other Issues : Definitions
 Affirmative’s definition must be reasonable
 Clear, logical link to the motion
 debatable
 Negative may only challenge it based on
 Truistic / tautological/ not debatablesquirreking
(no logical link to the motion)
 Time and place setting (specific knowledge)
Other Issues : Reply Speech
 Overview of the debate :
 Showing the clash/point of contention
 What their side has given
 What the other side has tried to give
 Why they should win (biased adjudication)

 Reply speech is not rebuttal

 Rule : no new matter in Reply Speech


Other Issues : Other Errors
 Rule : no new matter from 3rd Neg
 New examples in rebuttal is not new matter
 New matter from 3rd aff is also discouraged

 Misrepresentations :
 Incorrect/disproportional reiteration of opposing
argument

 Team slides :
 Change in theme between speakers
Other Issues : Miscellaneous
 Distinguish Matter, Manner and Method
 Rule : no ties shall be awarded
 Brief interjections are tolerated, but
heckling is not allowed
 Best speaker is chosen among substantive
speakers
 Humor round :
 Funny is appreciated, but logic is still a must
Marking Scale : Substantive
Matter/Manner Method Meaning

27 13 Very Poor

28 – 29 14 Poor – Below Average

30 15 Average

31 – 32 16 Good – Very Good

33 17 Excellent
Marking Scale : Reply
Matter/Manner Method Meaning

13,5 6,5 Very Poor

14 – 14,5 7 Poor – Below Average

15 7,5 Average

15,5 – 16 8 Good – Very Good

16,5 8,5 Excellent


Marking Scale : Margin
Margin Meaning
1 – 4 A very close debate with only minor
differences separating both teams

5 – 9 A relatively clear decision with one


team having an obvious advantage

10 – 12 A very clear win with the losing team


probably having failed in one or more
fundamental aspects of its argument
or presentation
That’s all for this chapter.

 Thank you and Good Luck


Adjudicating !

You might also like