View
227
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
debaters briefing
organising committee
lynne roach
eleanor winton
andy hume
adjudication team
andy hume
john paul toner
meg o’sullivan
rob silver
briefing
• format of tournament
• rules
• how to debate in worlds style
• q & a
• workshop
tournament format
• 9 rounds
• round 1 is randomly drawn
• rounds 2-9 are power matched
• top 32 teams break through to knockout
rounds
• esl break – top 8 esl teams outside top 32
rules
• points of information
• definitions
• matter – the content of a speech
• manner – the structure and style of a
speech
• the role of different teams in the debate
• marking scheme
positions in the debate
prime minister leader of opposition
deputy prime deputy leader ofminister opposition
member of govt member of opp.
govt whip opposition whip
basic format
• 15 minutes preparation time
• printed or written material
permitted
• electronic equipment prohibited
• 7 minute speeches
points of information
• 1.4.1. : first and last minutes of speech are protected
• time signal to indicate these points
• 1.4.2. : member offering POI should stand
• 1.4.3. : speaker may accept or decline
points of information
• 1.4.4. POIs should not exceed 15 seconds
• 1.4.5. the speaker may ask the offering member to sit where the offeror has had a reasonable chance to be understood
• 1.4.6. members should attempt to answer at least 2 POIs in their speech
• 1.4.8. there are no “points of order” or “points of personal privilege”
points of information
• may take any form the offeror wishes
• questions, clarification, facts, challenges, rebuttal, even jokes
• POIs assessed as “matter” – see later
how points of information are
assessed• effectiveness and persuasiveness
• member offering point of information
• speaker answering point of information
• participation in debate as a whole
motions
• open motions
e.g. “this house believes the glass is half full”
• semi-closed motions
e.g. “this house would alter its genetic code”
• closed motions
e.g. “this house would bomb Iraq”
definitions
• 2.1.1. : the definition should state the
issue(s) for debate arising from the
motion, stating the meaning of any terms
in the motion which require
interpretation
• 2.1.2. : PM should provide the definition
at the beginning of his/her speech
definitions
• 2.1.3: the definition must:
(a) have a clear and logical link to
the motion
(b) not be self-proving /truistic
(c) not be time-set
(d) not be place-set unfairly
(a) “clear and logical link”
• average reasonable person would accept the link between motion and definition, as explained by the speaker
• semi-closed motions: treat the motion as an issue for debate
e.g. “this house would alter its genetic code”
• closed motions: take stricter approach
e.g. “this house would bomb Iraq”
(b) self-proving definitions
• x should / should not be done, and there is no reasonable rebuttale.g. “we’re going to argue that murder should be illegal”
• x is already the case, and so there is no reasonable rebuttale.g. “we’re going to argue that the murder rate in the US is higher than in Scotland”
(b) self-proving definitions
• “status quo” cases are not necessarily unreasonable
e.g. “we’re going to argue that the european union should adopt the single currency”
• it’s a fair definition, because there is a reasonable rebuttal
(c) time setting
• “...it’s 1936. You’re about to be introduced to Adolf Hitler, you’ve got a gun in your pocket, and you’re not particularly pleased to see him. We’re going to argue that you should shoot him and save millions of lives...”
• all debates must take place in the present
(d) unfair place setting
• 1.2.3. : the members should debate the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament
• have regard to the issue being debated
• have regard to the teams in the debate
definitional challenges
• 2.2.1.: the leader of the opposition may challenge the definition if it violates one of the four criteria in 2.1.3., and he should clearly state that he’s doing so.
• only the leader of the opposition may challenge the definition – no-one else
• 2.2.2.: the leader of the opposition should substitute an alternative definition
definitional challenges
• 2.3.2.: the onus to establish that the definition is unreasonable is on the members challenging it.
• 2.3.3.: where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not also unreasonable.
matter
• 3.1.1.: matter is the content of a
speech
• 3.1.2.: matter includes arguments
and reasoning, examples, case
studies, facts and any other material
that attempts to further the case
• matter includes points of information
the elements of matter
• 3.2.1.: matter should be:
• relevant to the debate• logical• consistent – within your speech,
with your partner, and also with the other team on your side of the debate
the elements of matter
• 3.2.5.: all members (except the last two in the debate) should present positive matter
• the govt whip may choose to do so• the opp whip may not do so
• all members (except the prime minister) should present rebuttal
manner
• manner is the presentation of the speech
• style
• structure
style
• any element which affects the overall effectiveness of your presentation
• eye contact• voice modulation• hand gestures• clarity of language and expression• use of notes
structure
• structure of the speech should:
• include an introduction, conclusion, and a series of arguments
• use the allotted time properly
• teamwork
the role of teams in the debate
• 1st govt:– definition– justification of case– rebuttal of 1st opp (deputy prime
minister)
• 1st opposition:– rebuttal– alternative where appropriate
the role of teams in the debate
• 2nd govt– anything which makes you stand
out from the debate
– job is simply to “be better” than 1st govt
– how does a team do this?
the role of teams in the debate
• 2nd govt
– introduce new material consistent with 1st govt
– e.g. new lines of argument– e.g. different focus to the case– e.g. widening / narrowing of debate– repetition of 1st govt isn’t enough
summary speeches
• summarise debate as a whole, with particular emphasis on your own team
• responsive to dynamics of debate -spend more time on the more important issues
• no one correct way of doing this– speaker by speaker– issue by issue– thematic
ranking teams• 5.2.1. :
– 3 points for 1st place– 2 points for 2nd place– 1 point for 3rd place– 0 points for 4th place
• 5.2.2. : teams may receive 0 points where they fail to arrive more than 5 minutes after the scheduled time for the debate
being rude and abusive
• ...don’t!
• 5.2.3. : teams may receive 0 points where the adjudicators unanimously agree that the member has harassed another debater on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference or disability
marking schemeA 90-100 excellent to flawless the standard of speech you would expect to see from a speaker at the semifinal / grand final level of the tournament. this speaker has few, if any, weaknesses.
B 80-89 above average to very good the standard you would expect to see from a speaker in contention to make the break. this speaker has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.
marking schemeC 70-79 average the speaker has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal proportions.D 60-69 poor to below average the speaker has clear problems and some minor strengths.E 50-59 very poor the speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.
feedback and complaints
• oral adjudication
• queries and clarification
– “polite and non-confrontational”
• adjudicator evaluation form
• adjudication team
• all complaints will be followed up
questions
Recommended