9/8/2018 Worlds Style Briefing Prepared by Jason Hong, David Miko and the University of Calgary Debate Society

Tournament Notes 3 Rounds – Straight Draw Worlds Style (3 debaters per team)

So you want to do Worlds style? This Brief Presentation Will Cover Five Talking Points That Will Train You To Be Great Judges Style of Debate Role Of Each Team Role of Each Debater Your Role as a Judge Turning Point Factors Prepared by the CA Panel of the 2008 CSDF National Seminar

9/8/2018 Style of The Debate

9/8/2018 Worlds Style

9/8/2018 The Order of The Debate Understanding the proceedings of the debate is key to understanding how to judge the debate. The basic structure of all debates remains consistent, and is very simple. First Proposition First Opposition Second Proposition Second Opposition Third Proposition Third Opposition Proposition Reply Opposition Reply

A Bit About Worlds Style Style Intended to adopt an international flavor All Resolutions can apply to one of three scopes Entire World Western Liberal Democracies Developing Nations Debaters should be rewarded for bringing this debate to the global level, taking it beyond Canada

A Bit about Worlds Style Speech Length 8 minute constructive 4 minute reply Differing Roles Speeches are all eight minute for the first six of them, followed by 4 minutes for the replies, resulting in 56 minute rounds. 30 seconds grace, or extra time, is also alotted Each speaker has a distinct roles that they fulfill as a component of their scores

The Room You. You. You.

Procedure When you get to the room, there should (eventually) be an odd number of judges, and an even number of debaters (six). If the room isn’t set up, please set it up!

9/8/2018 Role of Each Team

Proposition Proposes a motion Defines the terms of the motion “This House would suspend direct foreign aid” Gives Reasons to pass the motion In Worlds Style, whoever proposes the most compelling case wins the debate Burden is most equally distributed in comparison to other styles of debate

Opposition Opposes the Motion If Necessary counters definitions This should only occur if the definitions are clearly wrong Gives Reasons against passing the motion Possibility of Giving a “Counter-Case” In Worlds Style the concept of “reasonable doubt” does not apply. It is not sufficient for the opposition to destroy the prop case. Counter-Case - Explain The Opposition must push the ball forward

9/8/2018 Role of Each Debater

First Proposition Clearly States the Definitions “All Direct Foreign aid given between countries should cease” “It would be a good thing if Foreign Aid stopped” Opens the Proposition Case which will establish either: Needs to Change Benefits to Changing Definitions don’t have to be term by term, they can be holistic. Something Like… Needs/Benefits, or a combination of Both

First Opposition Starts to deconstruct the proposition case through a series of clash Realistically can not clash with everything; First opposition should be rewarded for addressing the big ideas of the props case without giving away more than two minutes of his time to clash Presents a Case that opposes the concept of suspending direct foreign aid Philosophically Pragmatically Clash – Key to any debate, and will make or break a debater, because clash is how they manage to engage the topic Establish a balance of concerns that shifts the debate in their favor

Second Proposition Opens the line of Clash for the proposition Like 1st opp needs to keep time for constructive; 3 minutes of clash is ideal Rebuilding any of the proposition arguments that are faltering Offers the final arguments to be presented from the proposition

Second Opposition Continues the Clash of the opposition (4 minutes ideal) Evolves the clash Rebuilds Opposition arguments Completes the Opposition case

Third Speakers Has no role in presenting new constructive arguments Presents and clashes with all of the material on the opposition, and frames it against all of the arguments on the proposition Clashes with everything Brings up all arguments on both sides of the debate

Third Speakers - Structure Machine Gun Style Thematic Style Three Questions Three Themes Three Concepts Three “Areas of Clash”

Reply Speeches REPLY SPEAKERS MUST BE INDICATED BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS Summarize the entirety of the debate Asks Questions which try to uncover deeper meaning Presents no new material Presents minimum examples Does not really debate Presents a Homily Homily – Tone Shift

Points of Information Used to ask questions in the middle of speeches Pertinent Should illustrate a flaw in the other teams arguments, or reposition one of their own arguments Short, and Clear

9/8/2018 Judging Criteria

Speaker Points Your Primary Function as a Judge in this tournament is to award speaker points to each individual debater Average is therefore 72 In Context, at Worlds, the averages for the highest ranking speakers of the tournament typically floated around 75 for the past four years 68-70 Needs Improvement 71-72 Did Well 73-74 Exceeded Standards 75-76 Exceptionally well, 76 It means you thought they were the best speaker of the tournament, will need to justify to a CA

Speaker Points Manner Matter Strategy How the debater delivered his address Persuasiveness Style Matter What the debater brought to the round Content Analysis Strategy How the debater used content, structured arguments, and used Points of Information Manner

Please refer to the backside of your ballot Scoring Please refer to the backside of your ballot Minimum Score : 67 Average Score : 70 Maximum Score : 73 67 – Poor 68 – Work Needed 69 – Satisfactory 70 – Average 71 – Good 72 – Excellent 73 – Exceptional Matter 27-29 The content of the debate including: argumentation, examples, logic, clash and reasoning. 28 Average   Manner 27-29 How the debater presented the speech – the verbal and non verbal communication that made the speech effective or not effective. 28 Average Strategy 13-15 Use of the style, points of information, structure of speeches including time, strategic placements of clash and arguments. 14 Average Totals have to match rankings. It’s helpful to start with either the top or bottom speaker, place them relative to average, and work down or up from there, respectively. The reason the range is restricted is due to the fact that we’re using human individuals to judge and each one has their own take on what scores are deserved – by restricting the range we protect the debaters from the extremes of that subjectivity.

The Choice Depends on the balance that occurs at the end of the debate. In Worlds Style, it is determined by adding up the speaker points of each speech The Winning Team Must Have the Most Points Unlike other styles, there is no opportunity for “low point wins” So the choice should be pretty intuitive If the choice you end up with seems wrong, review the points you have awarded.