Basics of adjudication
- 2. Table of Contents Before the Debate During the Debate After the Debate Decide vote & RFD Explain to the chair / Panelists Explain to Debaters
- 3. Decide who won + why Clearly convey to judges / debaters Give constructive feedback to teams / debaters
- 4. Know the rules Eg. Definition Challenge, Counter proposal, POO 紙、書くもの、２時間分の体力を用意
- 5. Briefly think about… Spirit of the motion Clash DO NOT affect the way you listen / RFD Eg 1. THW privatize water Eg 2. THW ban tobacco
- 6. Be an Average Reasonable Person Follows news No Speciality Doesn’t understand Japanese
- 7. During the Debate Take notes # of POI Content of POI In debater's words ( 翻訳 ×, Diff. words×)
- 8. During the Debate Evaluate issues as you go eg. このポイントは立っているか eg. この Refute はどこまで効果的か eg. ＬＯの時点でどちらが優勢か Give points after the speech (in range)
- 9. After the Debate （流れ） Decide who won + why (5 ~ 10min.) Explain to chair / panelists (around 10 min.) Explain to debaters (10 ~ 15 min.) Fill in feedback sheet
- 10. No automatic win eg. この スピーカー嫌いだから、このポイントまじ好き Decide based on main issues in debate Never decide based on... Manner Authority # of arguments remaining After the Debate (vote & RFD)
- 11. After the Debate ( ジャッジ間の説明 ) Panelist A -> Panelist B -> Chair Explain your vote + RFD from what aspect (eg) クライテリア why from that aspect (eg) 3rd arg. は説明 1 分 process of your decision: 議論を追う
- 12. After the Debate NEVER EVER change your vote / RFD / Speaker Scores Make sure Winning Team has more Speaker Scores in total
- 13. After the Debate ( ディベーターに説明 ) Explain the overview of the round Explain your vote + RFD from what aspect why from that aspect process of your decision Accept questions Constructive Feedback a. Team ( 主にプレパの段階からできたこと ) b. Individual speakers ( 各スピーチ )
- 14. After the Debate Evaluate chair / panelists based on... Vote + RFD = Reasonable? ラウンド全体を見られている ? 細かい議論についていけている？ 説明は Clear? DO NOT mark down b/c vote + RFD are different
- 15. Questions?
- 16. 何故コントラについて扱う ? b/c ディベーターはよくコントラする eg. Stance と Case Set, Refutation, Alternative & b/c どこまで RFD に反映させるかめっちゃ悩む
- 17. １番悩むとき：相手からの指摘がないとき Type A: RFD には常に反映させない b/c Judge の介入になる Type B: RFD には常に反映させる b/c 矛盾をしているということはどこかでチームの説得性を弱めている
- 18. A と B の間： 指摘がなくても RFD の判断材料として考慮する どこまで考慮するかは Case by Case 相手からの指摘があった場合： 考慮すべき度合いが増す 相手チームを評価する
- 19. Case 1: 自分たちの Stance と Case Set がコントラ (Soft Case) Eg. THW ban abortion Gov. Stance: Fetal Right to Life overwhelms the women’s claim to her autonomy, similarly in the cases of already born baby. Gov. Case Set: Ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, except for the cases where women is suffering from traumatic experience or economic constraints.
- 20. Case 2: 自分たちの Stance と Refute がコントラ Eg. THW introduce organ transplant for profit. Gov. Stance: Only way to solve the organ shortage is to incentivize prople by money. MG’s refutation: Irrational Choices will never occur b/c money does not change how people thinks that much.
- 21. Case 3: 自分たちの Stance と Alternative がコントラ Eg. THW allow police officer to enter households w/o a search warrant in the cases of suspected DV Opp. Stance: It is states’ excessive intervention to people’s right to privacy. Opp. Alt: Let’s set up camera or wiretap
- 22. but... Don't be too sensitive about contradiction
- 23. Type A: Principle < Practical Type B: Principle > Practical Type C: Principle = Practical Type a: Principle & Practical = separate Type b: Principle & Practical = Connected
- 24. Type C: あくまで内容であって、 Argument の属性では差をつけない Type b: そもそも Principle と Practical は分けられない Eg. Sovereignty, Self defense, etc.
- 25. Case 1: THW invade DPRK PM: “Sovereignty is an idea which is there to protect people. Therefore, Kim Jong Il, who is intentionally infringing people’s rights & putting people to death, can no longer claim its sovereignty” の前提： Existence of massive HR Infringement by Kim (practical)
- 26. Case 2: THW ban abortion. LO: “We all have a right to self defense. Therefore, women should have a right to defend herself from babies threatening her life” の前提：赤ちゃんが女性の人生に相当な悪影響を及ぼす (practical)
- 27. それでも分かれる eg. ①Nature of Choice ②Usage of hard drugs あらゆる要素で判断 ( 順不同 ) Reasoning Example Uniqueness Dynamics Consistency
- 28. Case Study: THBT ICC should prosecute for the crimes against the democratic process
- 29. A. Role of ICC: Gov > Opp B. Effect to democratic process Gov < Opp 1. Gov: Opp の decreasing support for democratic institution が not unique 2. Opp: Role of ICC の議論はお互い 3rd point 3. Opp: Role of ICC の applicability がない
- 30. Questions?