Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Judge Adaptation GDI 2014 Nancy Green. Debaters’ Roles & Responsibilities From the NCFL description of Public Forum Debate: “PF Debate is a team event.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Judge Adaptation GDI 2014 Nancy Green. Debaters’ Roles & Responsibilities From the NCFL description of Public Forum Debate: “PF Debate is a team event."— Presentation transcript:

1 Judge Adaptation GDI 2014 Nancy Green

2

3 Debaters’ Roles & Responsibilities From the NCFL description of Public Forum Debate: “PF Debate is a team event that advocates or rejects a position posed by the resolution. The focus of the debate is a clash of ideas in a persuasive manner that can be understood by a “lay” judge. Good debaters should display logic and analysis. They should use evidence when needed. They should win their case and refute that of their opponents. They should communicate effectively, using the fundamentals of good speaking. There are no burdens on either side.”

4 Debaters’ Roles & Responsibilities From the NSDA description of Public Forum Debate: “Both of these debaters have the primary burden of refuting the other team’s arguments by analyzing and explaining flaws in the opponent’s position. The debater should identify the opposition’s key arguments and attack their legitimacy by: - turning the analysis to the other side - presenting evidence that destroys or reduces the opposing position - presenting alternate causes that are not accounted for by the opposition arguments - exposing argument inconsistencies between the speakers or between the opponents and their statements during crossfire “

5 Debaters’ Roles & Responsibilities - Obligation to understand and know local rules and expectations - To persuade the judge, both teams bear the responsibility to support their positions * Burden of Proof, * Burden of Refutation - Must provide a method of weighing the issues - If you argue it, you better be able to support it

6 What Do You Do To Adapt To Your Judge? Basic Audience Analysis 1. Seek Information a. Use direct observation b. Assess demographic information c. Talk with the judge d. Talk with other competitors e. Watch their body language f. Watch when they write things down

7 Basic Audience Analysis 2. Relating To A Judge/Audience Level of Understanding - 1. Being oblivious to the audience (poor understanding) 2. Adapting to the audience’s traits (better understanding) 3. Understanding and respecting how the audience interprets the topic (best understanding) Analysis - 1. “Here’s how I see the issue - You should, too.” 2. “B/c you’re male, you’re probably competitive and would respond to statements about being a winner. B/c you’re older, you may be conservative or skeptical about change.” 3. “B/c of your experiences, you have this set of values of way of defining yourself. I can see how your worldview makes sense to you, and here is how my position overlaps and resonates with what is most meaningful to you.”

8 3. Initial perceptions of a non-debate judge -Probably not going to flow, so slow down -Use less debate lingo -Be specific with voters all through the round -Explain why/how they should weigh the round -Big mistake to assume a woman is just a “mom judge” Basic Audience Analysis

9 4. Judges are Human a. May have pre-conceived notions b. Look for different things in a debate round – have certain preferences c. Can be scared or tired d. Can make mistakes, can be subjective e. They want to help you

10 Argumentation Strategies 1. Understand the Toulmin Model a. Claim - the proposition or assertion an arguer wants another to accept. Answers the question: “So, what’s your point?” b. Data/Grounds/Evidence - the proof or evidence an arguer offers. Answers the questions: “What is your proof?” or “How come?” or “Why?”

11 Argumentation Strategies 1. Understand the Toulmin Model c. Warrant - the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds. The warrant is typically implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the underlying reasoning that makes sense of the claim in light of the grounds. The warrant performs a “linking” function by establishing a mental connections between the grounds and the claim. d. Impact - why the argument is significant

12 Argumentation Strategies 2. Using Evidence Strategically a. What does evidence do for you? b. How do you differentiate good (strong) from bad (weak) evidence for the judge? c. How can you use evidence strategically?

13 Argumentation Strategies 3. Strategically Building & Using AT’s and Blocks a. Write the tag (claim) followed by the warrant b. Even if you don’t read the warrant in the round, it can be useful in prepping and for other members of your team. c. Then include data/support: evidence card, example, analogy, narrative, testimony d. Write out logical (non-evidenced) answers

14 Argumentation Strategies 4. Approach Crossfire Strategically a. Don’t just ask open-ended questions b. Frame a question to highlight one of the strategies

15 Types of Judges -Lay Judges: Parents/family members or random members of the community. People with little to no experience with debate -”Flay” Judges: People with some debate/public speaking experience that are passively taking notes, but aren’t flowing -Flow Judges: Extremely knowledgeable judges who know debate very well. Take very detailed notes.

16 Lay Judges: Part 1 Likes: -Clear speaking -A lot of impressive-sounding evidence -Strong delivery -A lot of activity in the round -Politeness -Cute/funny/clever introductions

17 Lay Judges: Part 2 Dislikes: -Extremely brisk speaking pace -Over-aggressiveness -Attitude of superiority -A disheveled demeanor -Crazy arguments

18 “Flay” Judges: Part 1 Likes: -Everything a lay judge likes -Basic warranting -More sophisticated analysis -More aggressive behavior -Can handle more speed than lay judges, but less than flow judges -Heavy refutation

19 “Flay” Judges: Part 2 Dislikes: -Everything lay judges dislike -Empty claims -Excessive rhetoric

20 Flow Judges: Part 1 Likes: -Everything lay and flay judges like -Sophisticated warranting -Clear and concise structure -Extremely reputable sources (quality over quantity) -Creative arguments

21 Flow Judges: Part 2 Dislikes: -Everything lay and flay judges dislike -No warrants -Weak evidence -No refutation -Overused arguments

22 Judge Demographics: Gender -Female judges are most likely to care about women’s rights and increased social equality (CNN, 2012) -Male judges are more likely to care about the economy and war (CNN, 2012)

23 Judge Demographics: Age -Older judges require slower speaking and stronger organization -Most important issues for the 55+ demographic are Healthcare, Social Security, and Medicare (CNN, 2012)

24 Judge Demographics: Race Across the board, the biggest political issue amongst voters of all races for the 2012 election was a stronger economy (Smith, 2012)

25 Verbal Communication Strategies - Speak loudly enough, but don’t yell - Speak at an appropriate rate - Enunciate clearly - Use vocal variety (pitch, rate, volume) - Eliminate distracting vocal characteristics

26 Nonverbal Communication Strategies - Appearance matters - Eliminate distracting mannerisms - Have good posture - Gesture and move naturally and purposefully - Maintain consistent and effective eye contact - Use appropriate facial expressions - Demonstrate passion and enjoyment

27 Final Thoughts: - Don’t be a ditz or arrogant when entering the room or setting up - Don’t be late! Find your room early and sit outside the door. Don’t be loud or distracting - Be honest! Don’t say your opponent has done or not done things if they haven’t - Keep road maps short - Be confident! Don’t over apologize - Bring your own timer! Keep track of prep and speeches


Download ppt "Judge Adaptation GDI 2014 Nancy Green. Debaters’ Roles & Responsibilities From the NCFL description of Public Forum Debate: “PF Debate is a team event."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google