Presentation on theme: "The European Union Intervarsity Debate Championship 2011."— Presentation transcript:
The European Union Intervarsity Debate Championship 2011
Phase 1: Elimination Rounds Top 20 – each one match based on draw – 10 winners from each debate will be sorted based on scores – top 8 advances Phase 2: Knock Out Rounds Another draw to decide groups. Winner advances. (See 3.2. Tournament Bracket)
TEAM FORMAT Each team has three speakers,who each speak once. Each of round of debate has two teams: Affirmative team. Negative team. DEBATE FORMAT The affirmative team must speak for the motion. The negative team must speak against the motion.
AFFIRMATIVE Defines the motion Defines the motion Outlines a position Delivers arguments and examples.arguments NEGATIVE Challenges the definition (if it’s a problem)(if it’s a problem) Outlines the opposing position (establish the “clash” in the debate) Rebuts the affirmative team’s arguments Delivers arguments and examples
AFFIRMATIVE Defend the affirmative team’s original definition (if a definitional challenge was made by the negative team) Rebuts the negative team’s arguments. Rebuild the affirmative team’s arguments. NEGATIVE Defends the negative team’s definition (if required) Rebuts the affirmative team’s arguments. Rebuild the negative team’s arguments.
AFFIRMATIVE Offers a summation of the debate. Explain why the affirmative team is better than the negative team. NEGATIVE Offers a summation of the debate. Explain why the negative team is better than the affirmative team.
Rounds are to begin on time. It is mandatory that teams remain nearby the stage (seats are reserved for subsequent debaters) at the latest 15 minutest prior to their round. Teams failing to turn up for the debate on time, and with no valid reason, will lose the debate. Its opposing team in such a case will be given the mean average score from all higher scores of each round. A debater shall not begin to speak without first obtaining direction from the chairperson. Debaters speaking shall confine themselves to the topic of debate and avoid personalities and indecorous language. A debater shall stand during speech but debaters not ‘holding the floor’ may not rise during a round.
During a round, interjections or ‘points of order’ or ‘points of information’ from the opposing team is prohibited. The debate also features no audience participation or intervention by adjudicators. In short, no speakers shall be interrupted. Debaters may bring whatever printed materials into the debate but all kinds of electronic equipment (laptop, blackberry, etc) are not allowed. Debaters may not use props of any kind.
Each room will be adjudicated by a panel of three adjudicators The adjudicator’s job is to assess the strength of the arguments (matter 40%). The presentation and delivery style of the speakers (manner 40%) and the structure and timing of the speeches (method 20%). Score are awarded to the team as a whole (not to individual speakers). Decision will be made on collective basis. There will be a short discussion assisted by debating resource assistants (revision to 5.6 bullet 6, not individual basis)
Your own opinion on the subject should not and does not matter You should not take your own specific or expert knowledge on the issue into account as it is unfair You should take the debate as it is and does not have pre-conceived arguments nor rebuttals, e.g. creating a check-list of what has to be said by the team. You should become: a reasonable, unbiased, ordinary intelligent observer, and evaluate the persuasiveness of the arguments according to that perspective. Ordinary intelligent observer’s knowledge parameter: news appearances. Debaters should not be discriminated against on the basis of university or school affiliation, religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference, age, social status or disability.
Write down main elements of what the debaters say. Try to be as detailed as possible. Notes should reflect the most important parts of debate and should be: a) descriptive (arguments, ideas and its analysis in the debate) b) evaluative (how well arguments were made, effectiveness of responses, organization of the speech, manner, etc) TIPS: use different color of pen. Evaluation will focus on whether or not a point is proven.
Once debate ends: 1) think and decide who you think should win by yourself first.. 2) discuss with panelists, moderated by chair, facilitated by debate resource assistants (compare and evaluate teams) 3) arrive at final results. 4) decide team score. Note: do not tell teams of their scores. 5) Provide result assessment and further feedback if asked by the team (unless stated otherwise, like in the finals series) after the results announcement, as it is the responsibility of the judges. Time limitations will not permit feedback during the elimination round
Kindly respect the speaker speaking. It would not be appropriate to sleep, answer phone calls, go to the toilet in the middle of the speech, or anything that hinders your attention to the speaker speaking. Do not share results of silent round with anyone.
Judge any particular things in the context of all other things. We shall not create a check list of expectations. Judge strategy, content, and style interdependently. None is more important above the others as they are affecting each other. (example: style without decent argumentation is simply rhetoric; unclear structure might contribute to unclear argumentation, etc) EU-IDC format: judge all speakers interdependently too. (all speakers fulfill role, has a significant contribution, etc)
What is the issue that the two teams are expected to debate? What would an ordinary intelligent person reading the motion think that it is about? If the motion poses a clear issue for debate → define accordingly. If there is no obvious meaning to the motion → the range of possible meanings is limited to those that allow for a reasonable debate. This does not mean that either team is required to define formally any term of the proposition. Some debaters seem to prefer formal definitions, picking out the terms one by one ("By federal government, we mean..."). Some others, on the other hand, often prefer to define the entire proposition by explaining the plan they are supporting. Either method is, of course, appropriate.
TRUISM Something that is obviously true ‘This House believes that the sun is rising in the East’ Literal definition. Metaphor for Asia (‘the East’) becoming much more important in the world (‘the sun is rising’) seems eminently sensible. TAUTOLOGIES Something that is true by definition ‘This House believes that extremism is the catalyst for progress’. Defined ‘extremism’ in terms of positive change. The Proposition defined ‘extremism’ as radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society, so ended up arguing that radical groups that contribute to the advancement of society help cause the advancement of society (progress).
If the negative challenges the reasonableness of a definition by the affirmative, the judge must accept the definition of the team that shows better grounds for its interpretation of the term. The judge is not expected to exercise his own taste in the matter, but to listen to the evidence and logic of the teams and to support the definition shown to be more reasonable. Once the negative has accepted the affirmative's definitions, it may not later object to them, even though it later develops that they are unreasonable. Failure of the negative to object to the affirmative's definitions in the first constructive speech following the definitions is equivalent to acceptance of them by the negative.
If the negative wishes to quarrel with the affirmative's interpretation of the topic, it must do so at once. Otherwise the debate might literally be half over before the teams have decided what they are arguing about. If the negative, through oversight, accepts or fails to object to an unreasonable definition by the affirmative, it should not later be heard objecting that the definition was unreasonable.
An argument is a reason or rationale why the team’s case is right. What is wrong? To state the team case, but then descend into a series of examples, without trying to show how they are linked or the underlying reasons why they prove the team’s point. The elements of an argument, at least, should consist of: Assertion – statement of the idea Reasoning – substantive explanation in proving the assertion (why and h0w it is true) Example(s) – empower argument; no fact DOES NOT mean failing argument – evaluate substantive explanation; can be illustrations, facts, parallel examples, precedence Link - how and why it is relevant and important to the motion – the “so what” question
Philosophical and practical arguments are equally important. An argument will generally cover the A-R-E-L; absence of an element does not make automatic loss. Effective analysis should not be confused with complication. What matters is adequate substantiation. Evaluate in and of itself; not the way it is handled in the debate. A good, responded argument is still a good argument. Poor will still be poor even if not rebutted.
Essential in comparing teams Assess qualitatively instead of quantitatively (MORE arguments does not directly mean BETTER team) Value of an argument: a)how relevant to the debate (depends on topic and interpretation-definition, parameters, etc); b) how teams engage the argument (which they think more important and explanation of other factors); c) how arguments are constructed (unexplained, mere- stated IS NOT an argument; example-based is not an argument, late is hard to be credited)
ReasonNot true Not always true Not necessarily true True but not important Not relevantNot significantEasy to solve
Showing that the opponent’s argument is: Unlikely to happen in reality Based on an error of fact or an erroneous interpretation of fact Irrelevant to the proof of the topic Illogical While itself correct, involves unacceptable implications While itself correct, should be accorded little weight Rebuttals can be given before explaining arguments or incorporated into those arguments – try to put some efforts in finding the rebuttals REMEMBER: these are possibilities, kindly still assess the debate as it is.
Showing that the opponent’s rebuttals to your argument is not making sense Rebutting the rebuttals Structure your rebuilds so it is distinct and clear from rebuttals Same way like judging rebuttals
There are many ways to summarize the debate. Some speakers like to label each team with a name describing their arguments to identify questions that need to be answered at the end of the round, and say why the team’s side brings the best resolution to those questions
As a reminder: The Opposition Whip is not allowed any new arguments in their speech, and it is highly recommended that the Government Whip focus entirely on summary, as well. Assessing summary is to find whether or not the summary makes sense and analyzes the logical fallacies of the enemies and the logical advantages of their team
Manner is the presentation of the speech, the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience. No correct way to do it; jokes are NOT compulsory. Unrelated jokes should not be rewarded. Should be assessed holistically with other elements (matter and method) and other speakers style in the team. Grammar errors are not an absolute factor as long as the speech is understandable. The elements of style include the following and any other element which may affect the effectiveness of the presentation of the member: Eye contact Voice modulation Hand gestures Language The use of notes
Assessing Method is assessing the effectiveness of: structure and organization of the speech of the members; structure and organization of the team’s case; and team’s responsiveness and ability to maintain and/or their theme line throughout the debate. The team should: Be consistent in their approach to the issue; and Allocate positive matter to each member when their role calls for it; and Include an introduction, conclusion and a series of arguments; and Be well-timed in accordance with the time limitations and the need to prioritize and apportion time to matter.
We shall not impose unfair burden. Apply converse burden in all senses. Forcing burden is not an argument. It is not fair if one team is forcing the other team to prove more than what they themselves are willing or able to prove. Be comprehensive. Compare three speakers to three speakers one another. We shall not be swayed just by the strength of one argument / speaker. Holistic judging: matter (position, argument, rebuttals, summary), manner (style and persuasiveness), method (structure, consistency, role fulfillment)
There is no automatic loss. Adjudicators are to: manage a discussion to reach a consensus. Not a fight or debate, but a reasoned discussion. Debate Resource Assistants: advise whenever necessary regarding rules and judging. If consensus proves to be impossible (5 minutes – last resort), vote. Not advisable. Do not vote directly. This is a last resort.
Important: breaking determinant Steps: 1) decide standard of debate. 2) scores are reflective relative difference and holistic evaluation on each teams (as a whole, not based on individual speakers) 3) determine total score that reflects holistic performance first, then break the scores down Tips: try not to score too low or too high at beginning of tournament Bring Speaker Scale.