Adjudication Briefing AdjCore of Japan BP 2014

Table of Contents ●Basic Rule ●Role of Adjudicator ●Process of Adjudication ●Criteria of Adjudication ●Speaker’s Point ●Evaluation of Adjudicator ●Evaluation Point

Basic Rule

●British Parliamentary style ●Preparation time: 15 min ●Speech: 7 min (Do not take notes after 7:10) ●POIs are allowed between 1 and 6 min.

Basic Rule ●Main Break: 24 teams / Novice Break: 4 teams ※ Teams consisting of two freshmen are eligible for ※ Teams consisting of two freshmen are eligible for Novice Break. Novice Break. ●Main Speaker Award: 10 individuals (tentative) ●Novice Speaker Award: 3 individuals (tentative) ●Adjudicator Award: 10 individuals (tentative)

Basic Rule ●Judging-in-English policy ・ All adjudicators are highly encouraged to write their adjudication tests, discuss with other adjudicators, and provide oral adjudication in English. ・ All adjudicators are highly encouraged to write their adjudication tests, discuss with other adjudicators, and provide oral adjudication in English. ・ If circumstantially inappropriate and/or impossible, use Japanese as well as English. (Ex. freshmen in the rounds, impossible to conclude the discussion) ・ If circumstantially inappropriate and/or impossible, use Japanese as well as English. (Ex. freshmen in the rounds, impossible to conclude the discussion)

Basic Rule ●Judging-in-English policy ・ Do not underevaluate those who are just not good at speaking English (e.g., in terms of pronunciation, grammar). Evaluate what they say. ・ Do not underevaluate those who are just not good at speaking English (e.g., in terms of pronunciation, grammar). Evaluate what they say. ・ Personal feedback can be made in any language after rounds. ・ Personal feedback can be made in any language after rounds.

Basic Rule ●Mandatory POI rule ・ Each speaker is obliged to accept at least one POI if more than three POIs in total are offered by an entire opponent bench. ・ Each speaker is obliged to accept at least one POI if more than three POIs in total are offered by an entire opponent bench. ・ The chair should remind speakers to take POI at six minute of the speech in the case that the speaker continues to refuse to do so. ・ The chair should remind speakers to take POI at six minute of the speech in the case that the speaker continues to refuse to do so.

Basic Rule ●Conflict ・ For institutional teams ・ For institutional teams - Adjudicators from or representing the institution - Adjudicators from or representing the institution - Adjudicators with the personal conflict - Adjudicators with the personal conflict ・ For composite teams ・ For composite teams - Adjudicators representing the team - Adjudicators representing the team - Adjudicators with the personal conflict - Adjudicators with the personal conflict

Role of Adjudicator

(1) Decide a ranking individually (Chair/Panel/Trainee) (2) Discuss with other adjudicators (Chair/Panel) (3) Provide oral adjudication (Chair) (4) Provide personal feedback (Chair/Panel/Trainee) ※ (1) and (2) will be evaluated among judges. ※ (1) and (2) will be evaluated among judges. ※ (3) will be evaluated by debaters. ※ (3) will be evaluated by debaters.

Role of Adjudicator (1) Decide a ranking individually (Chair/Panel/Trainee) ・ As an Average Intelligent Voter: who is logical and holistic without any bias and specific knowledge. ・ As an Average Intelligent Voter: who is logical and holistic without any bias and specific knowledge. ・ Consider how the particular team was more or less persuasive than other three teams in terms of contribution for the bench-winning. ・ Consider how the particular team was more or less persuasive than other three teams in terms of contribution for the bench-winning.

Role of Adjudicator (2) Discuss with other adjudicators (Chair/Panel) ・ Be active and considerate of other adjudicators. ・ Be active and considerate of other adjudicators. ・ The aim of discussion is not only to share and conclude the ranking and speaker’s points, but also to prepare a convincing reason for decision for subsequent oral adjudication. ・ The aim of discussion is not only to share and conclude the ranking and speaker’s points, but also to prepare a convincing reason for decision for subsequent oral adjudication.

Role of Adjudicator (3) Provide oral adjudication (Chair) ・ Be logical and holistic. ・ Be logical and holistic. ・ Organize oral adjudication for debaters to understand it as easily as possible. ・ Organize oral adjudication for debaters to understand it as easily as possible. ・ Kindly answer questions asked by debaters. ・ Kindly answer questions asked by debaters.

Role of Adjudicator (4) Provide personal feedback (Chair/Panel/Trainee) ・ Be friendly and kindly. ・ Be friendly and kindly. ・ Breaking adjudicators are required to provide personal feedback to debaters as soon as the each result of break rounds is announced and until the next round starts (within 10 min). ・ Breaking adjudicators are required to provide personal feedback to debaters as soon as the each result of break rounds is announced and until the next round starts (within 10 min).

Process of Adjudication

●0min- (1) Decide a ranking individually ●5min- (2) Discuss with other adjudicators ●15min- Score and vote (if necessary) ●20min- (3) Provide oral adjudication ●30min- Leave the round room (4) Provide personal feedback (4) Provide personal feedback

Process of Adjudication ●Vote if impossible to reach a consensus. ●The chair has two votes when the total number of adjudicators is even. ●If the chair becomes minority in voting, one of the panels has to provide oral adjudication. ●However, it does not affect the evaluation procedure among adjudicators.

Criteria of Adjudication

(A) Matter (B) Manner (C) Role fulfillment (D) Technicalities ※ Consider these criteria holistically. ※ Consider these criteria holistically.

Criteria of Adjudication (A) Matter: Argument/ Reasoning / Example/ Relevancy / Rebuttal / POI ・ Do not ignore POIs as contribution. ・ Do not ignore POIs as contribution. (B) Manner: Framing / Structure / Word choice / Time management / Body language ・ Speeches exceeding 7:30 can lower the speaker’s point (not automatically). ・ Speeches exceeding 7:30 can lower the speaker’s point (not automatically).

Criteria of Adjudication (C) Role fulfillment – the violation of ・ The violation of role fulfillment can lower the ranking as well as speaker’s point (not automatically). ・ The violation of role fulfillment can lower the ranking as well as speaker’s point (not automatically). ・ Explain how and to what extent the violation of role fulfillment influenced the entire ranking. ・ Explain how and to what extent the violation of role fulfillment influenced the entire ranking.

Criteria of Adjudication (C) Role fulfillment – Extension ・ Necessary analysis for bench-winning that Opening half has not explained. ・ Necessary analysis for bench-winning that Opening half has not explained. ・ Broader concept of arguments, which does not necessarily require the set of SQ/AP/ Impact or Abstraction/Analogy/Applicability. ・ Broader concept of arguments, which does not necessarily require the set of SQ/AP/ Impact or Abstraction/Analogy/Applicability.

Criteria of Adjudication (C) Role fulfillment – Extension ・ Evaluate extensions by considering how they changed the entire debate and contributed to bench- winning. ・ Evaluate extensions by considering how they changed the entire debate and contributed to bench- winning. ・ Completely new but irrelevant extensions should not be evaluated. Vice versa, relevant but similar extensions should be. ・ Completely new but irrelevant extensions should not be evaluated. Vice versa, relevant but similar extensions should be.

Criteria of Adjudication (C) Role fulfillment – Whip speech ・ Summarize the round. ・ Summarize the round. ・ Highlight the extensions by showing their importance. ・ Highlight the extensions by showing their importance. ・ Offer rebuttal to the opponents. ・ Offer rebuttal to the opponents.

Criteria of Adjudication (C) Role fulfillment – Whip speech ・ Evaluate new framing, examples, and rebuttals unless they are substantially new. ・ Evaluate new framing, examples, and rebuttals unless they are substantially new. ・ Gov Whip is highly discouraged to provide new substantive arguments. ・ Gov Whip is highly discouraged to provide new substantive arguments. ・ Opp Whip is prohibited to provide new substantive arguments. ・ Opp Whip is prohibited to provide new substantive arguments.

Criteria of Adjudication (D) Technicalities – Dynamics ・ Take the order of speakers and POI into account. ・ Take the order of speakers and POI into account. (Ex. even if CO refuted OG well, it does not (Ex. even if CO refuted OG well, it does not automatically mean CO will be evaluated over OG.) automatically mean CO will be evaluated over OG.)

Criteria of Adjudication (D) Technicalities – Knifing ・ Knifing is the situation where closing team is significantly contradictory to opening. ・ Knifing is the situation where closing team is significantly contradictory to opening. ・ Knifing can lower the ranking (not automatically). ・ Knifing can lower the ranking (not automatically). ・ Consider the gravity of knifing. ・ Consider the gravity of knifing.

Speaker’s Point

●Range: (no 0.5 point) ●No low win and tie win. ●Criteria of speaker’s point: (A) Matter/ (B) Manner/ (C) Role fulfillment (A) Matter/ (B) Manner/ (C) Role fulfillment ※ Consider these criteria holistically. ※ Consider these criteria holistically.

Speaker’s Point ●Extremely poor: ●Deserve the 4th place constantly. (A) Completely irrelevant. No argumentation and rebuttal. (A) Completely irrelevant. No argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Impossible to follow the speech. (B) Impossible to follow the speech. (C) Not try to fulfill the role. (C) Not try to fulfill the role.

Speaker’s Point ●Poor: ●Deserve the 3rd or 4th place constantly. (A) Mostly irreverent. Severe lack of argumentation and rebuttal. (A) Mostly irreverent. Severe lack of argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Possible but still hard to follow the speech. (B) Possible but still hard to follow the speech. (C) Try to but fail to fulfill the role. (C) Try to but fail to fulfill the role.

Speaker’s Point ●Below average: ●Deserve the 3rd place constantly. (A) Somehow relevant but still lack of argumentation and rebuttal. (A) Somehow relevant but still lack of argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Not persuasive enough. (B) Not persuasive enough. (C) Not enough fulfillment of the role. (C) Not enough fulfillment of the role.

Speaker’s Point ●Average: ●Deserve the 2nd or 3rd place constantly. (A) Mostly relevant. Enough argumentation and rebuttal. (A) Mostly relevant. Enough argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Somehow persuasive. (B) Somehow persuasive. (C) Somehow fulfill the role. (C) Somehow fulfill the role.

Speaker’s Point ●Above average: (possibly break) ●Deserve the 2nd place constantly. (A) Everything relevant. Some strong argumentation and rebuttal. (A) Everything relevant. Some strong argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Persuasive enough. (B) Persuasive enough. (C) Fairly fulfill the role. (C) Fairly fulfill the role.

Speaker’s Point ●Good: (definitely break) ●Deserve the 1st and 2nd place constantly. (A) Mostly strong argumentation and rebuttal. (A) Mostly strong argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Very persuasive. Some outstanding framing and word choice. (B) Very persuasive. Some outstanding framing and word choice. (C) Effectively utilize the role for the speech. (C) Effectively utilize the role for the speech.

Speaker’s Point ●Brilliant: (possibly proceed to GF) ●Deserve the 1st place constantly. (A) All strong argumentation and rebuttal. (A) All strong argumentation and rebuttal. (B) Mostly outstanding framing and word choice. (B) Mostly outstanding framing and word choice. (C) Perfectly utilize the role for the speech. (C) Perfectly utilize the role for the speech.

Evaluation of Adjudicator

●Breaking adjudicators and Adjudicator Award ・ The selection of breaking adjudicators are mostly based on total evaluation points, with consideration of comments on evaluation sheets (if necessary). ・ The selection of breaking adjudicators are mostly based on total evaluation points, with consideration of comments on evaluation sheets (if necessary). ・ Institutional diversity never affect the selection. ・ Institutional diversity never affect the selection. ・ The number of breaking adjudicators depends on the distribution of the total evaluation points. ・ The number of breaking adjudicators depends on the distribution of the total evaluation points.

Evaluation of Adjudicator ●Breaking adjudicators and Adjudicator Award ・ The nomination of Adjudicator Award is solely based on evaluation points in preliminary rounds and not those of break rounds. ・ The nomination of Adjudicator Award is solely based on evaluation points in preliminary rounds and not those of break rounds. ※ Evaluation of adjudicator is also conducted in break rounds, which can be used for deciding subsequent allocation (Chair Panel only). ※ Evaluation of adjudicator is also conducted in break rounds, which can be used for deciding subsequent allocation (Chair Panel only).

Evaluation of Adjudicator ●Components of total evaluation points ・ Those who were exempted from the adjudication test ・ Those who were exempted from the adjudication test - Evaluation in rounds: 100% (25% for each) - Evaluation in rounds: 100% (25% for each) ・ Those who submitted the adjudication test ・ Those who submitted the adjudication test - The adjudication test: 20% - The adjudication test: 20% - Evaluation in rounds: 80% (20% for each) - Evaluation in rounds: 80% (20% for each)

Evaluation of Adjudicator ●Components of evaluation in open rounds (Round 1 - Round 3) ・ Chair (or Panel who provides oral adjudication) ・ Chair (or Panel who provides oral adjudication) - By adjudicators: 50% - By adjudicators: 50% - By debaters: 50% - By debaters: 50% ・ Panel / Trainee ・ Panel / Trainee - By a chair: 100% - By a chair: 100%

Evaluation of Adjudicator ●Components of evaluation in silent rounds (Round 4 and Break Rounds) ・ Chair ・ Chair - By panels: 100% - By panels: 100% ・ Panel / Trainee ・ Panel / Trainee - By a chair: 100% - By a chair: 100%

Evaluation of Adjudicator ●What to evaluate in rounds ・ Chair Panel (two questions) ・ Chair Panel (two questions) - (1) Ability of deciding the ranking individually - (1) Ability of deciding the ranking individually “Was his/her initial decision logical, holistic, and “Was his/her initial decision logical, holistic, and understandable?” understandable?” - (2) Ability of discussing with other adjudicators - (2) Ability of discussing with other adjudicators “Did he/she contribute to the discussion?” “Did he/she contribute to the discussion?”

Evaluation of Adjudicator ●What to evaluate in rounds ・ Chair => Trainee (one question) ・ Chair => Trainee (one question) - (1) Ability of deciding the ranking individually - (1) Ability of deciding the ranking individually “Was his/her initial decision logical, holistic, and “Was his/her initial decision logical, holistic, and understandable?” understandable?” ※ Trainees are not able to evaluate chairs and ※ Trainees are not able to evaluate chairs and participate in the discussion. participate in the discussion.

Evaluation of Adjudicator ●What to evaluate in rounds ・ Debater => Chair (one question) ・ Debater => Chair (one question) - (3) Ability of providing oral adjudication - (3) Ability of providing oral adjudication “Was his/her oral adjudication logical, holistic, and “Was his/her oral adjudication logical, holistic, and understandable?” understandable?”

Evaluation Point

●Range: 1-10 (no 0.5 point) ●Write a comment regardless of points you give. ●Ask questions if something unclear. ●Give points you think appropriate. (AdjCore will only publicize the individual average evaluation points and not those of each round.) (AdjCore will only publicize the individual average evaluation points and not those of each round.)

Evaluation Point ●Should be a trainee: 1-2 (1)/(3) The explanation is completely not logical, holistic nor understandable at all. Should not have a vote in any round. (1)/(3) The explanation is completely not logical, holistic nor understandable at all. Should not have a vote in any round. (2) Extremely passive or not considerate to other adjudicators in the discussion. Do not want to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds. (2) Extremely passive or not considerate to other adjudicators in the discussion. Do not want to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds.

Evaluation Point ●Should be a panel: 3-4 (1)/(3) The explanation is not logical, holistic, or understandable enough. Can have a vote in easy- judging rounds but cannot in important rounds. (1)/(3) The explanation is not logical, holistic, or understandable enough. Can have a vote in easy- judging rounds but cannot in important rounds. (2) Participate in but not contribute to the discussion. Still passive or not considerate. (2) Participate in but not contribute to the discussion. Still passive or not considerate.

Evaluation Point ●Can be a chair: 5-6 (1)/(3) The explanation is somehow logical and holistic, but not understandable in all of its details. Can have a vote in important rounds but cannot in break rounds. (1)/(3) The explanation is somehow logical and holistic, but not understandable in all of its details. Can have a vote in important rounds but cannot in break rounds. (2) Somehow contribute to the discussion but still room for improvement. (2) Somehow contribute to the discussion but still room for improvement.

Evaluation Point ●Should be a chair: 7-8 (possibly break) (1)/(3) The explanation is logical and holistic enough, and understandable in most of its details. Should have a vote in important rounds and possibly in break rounds. (1)/(3) The explanation is logical and holistic enough, and understandable in most of its details. Should have a vote in important rounds and possibly in break rounds. (2) Contribute to the discussion well. Want to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds. (2) Contribute to the discussion well. Want to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds.

Evaluation Point ●Must be a chair: 9-10 (definitely break) (1)/(3) The explanation is very logical and holistic, and understandable in all of its details. Should have a vote in important rounds as well as break rounds. (1)/(3) The explanation is very logical and holistic, and understandable in all of its details. Should have a vote in important rounds as well as break rounds. (2) Contribute to the discussion very well. Definitely necessary to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds. (2) Contribute to the discussion very well. Definitely necessary to have him/her in the discussion of future rounds.

Any Question?