basics of adjudication
TRANSCRIPT
Keita Takayanagi
Table of Contents
• Before the Debate
• During the Debate
• After the Debate
o Decide vote & RFDo Explain to the chair / Panelistso Explain to Debaters
• Decide who won + why• Clearly convey to judges / debaters• Give constructive feedback to teams /
debaters
• Know the ruleso Eg. Definition Challenge, Counter proposal,
POO
• 紙、書くもの、2時間分の体力を用意
• Briefly think about… o Spirit of the motiono Clash
• DO NOT affect the way you listen / RFD o Eg 1. THW privatize watero Eg 2. THW ban tobacco
• Be an Average Reasonable Person
o Follows news o No Specialityo Doesn’t understand Japanese
During the Debate
• Take notes
o # of POIo Content of POIo In debater's words ( 翻訳 ×, Diff. words×)
During the Debate
• Evaluate issues as you go
o eg. このポイントは立っているかo eg. この Refute はどこまで効果的かo eg. LOの時点でどちらが優勢か
• Give points after the speech (in range)
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
• No automatic wino 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...
o Mannero Authorityo # of arguments remaining
After the Debate (vote & RFD)
After the Debate (ジャッジ間の説明 )
• Panelist A → Panelist B → Chair
• Explain your vote + RFD
o from what aspect (eg) クライテリアo why from that aspect (eg) 3rd arg. は説明 1 分o process of your decision: 議論を追う
After the Debate
• NEVER EVER change your vote / RFD / Speaker
Scores • Make sure Winning Team has more Speaker
Scores in total
After the Debate (ディベーターに説明 )
• Explain the overview of the round • Explain your vote + RFD
o from what aspecto why from that aspecto process of your decision
• Accept questions
• Constructive Feedback
o a. Team ( 主にプレパの段階からできたこと )o b. Individual speakers ( 各スピーチ )
After the Debate
• Evaluate chair / panelists based on...
o Vote + RFD = Reasonable?o ラウンド全体を見られている ?o 細かい議論についていけている?o 説明は Clear?
• DO NOT mark down b/c vote + RFD are different
Questions?
• 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
• 1番悩むとき:相手からの指摘がないとき
o Type A: RFD には常に反映させない b/c Judgeの介入になる
o 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
• A と B の間:o 指摘がなくても RFD の判断材料として考慮す
るo 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:o 考慮すべき度合いが増すo 相手チームを評価する
• Case 1: 自分たちの Stance と Case Set がコントラ (Soft Case)o 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.
• Case 2: 自分たちの Stance と Refute がコントラo 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.
• Case 3: 自分たちの Stance と Alternativeがコントラo 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
but...
• Don't be too sensitive about contradiction
• Type A: Principle < Practical• Type B: Principle > Practical• Type C: Principle = Practical
• Type a: Principle & Practical = separate • Type b: Principle & Practical = Connected
• 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o Eg. Sovereignty, Self defense, etc.
• Case 1: THW invade DPRKo 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”
o の前提: Existence of massive HR Infringement by Kim (practical)
• Case 2: THW ban abortion.o LO: “We all have a right to self defense.
Therefore, women should have a right to defend herself from babies threatening her life”
o 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)
• それでも分かれるo eg. Nature of Choice Usage of hard drugs① ②
• あらゆる要素で判断 ( 順不同 ) o Reasoningo Exampleo Uniquenesso Dynamicso Consistency
Case Study: THBT ICC should prosecute for the crimes against the democratic process
• 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 point3. Opp: Role of ICC の applicability がない
Questions?