debaters briefing. organising committee lynne roach eleanor winton andy hume

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