gcc1 seminar slides

General Comprehensive Cross-training 1

- Preparation Time - 30 minutes. (ideally), Includes Motion Selection

- 2 teams with 3 members, 4 speakers per team

- Motion Clarification - you can ask and approach the adjudication core to clarify the motion or ask for a brief explanation of the motion

-Motion Selection Process:

Each team ranks the motions in the round from 1 to 3

1 - most preferred

2 - secondary choice

3 - least preferred, vetoed motion; may no longer be played

-I1 THW ban Junk Foods 3

3 TH regrets corporal punishment 1

2 THW ban violent videogames 2

motion 3 will be played

-II3 THW ban Junk Foods 1



motion 2 will be played

-III3 THW ban Junk Foods 3



the teams will toss a coin and the winning team decides between motions 2 and 3 as to which motion will be played

-IV

WE WAIVE OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE

-the opposing team chooses the motion for the round

-"Group Preparation" is strictly prohibited and is penalized in tournaments.

-Use of electronic devices during preparation for the round is not allowed and teams caught violating this are often punished.

> Speaker Roles:a. Prime Minister (7 mins.)

-Defines the motion - defines the pertinent terms of the motion or explains the motion as a whole

-Frames or Sets the debate - Specifies and Explains what the debate is about and what both sides have to prove

-Depending on the motion -Discusses the context which the motion specifies - the scenario in which the debate willtake place in

-Provides a model or policy along with an explanation of the same - a plan of action or

-Deliver an argument or arguments to support his or her stand/side

b. Leader of the Opposition (7 mins.)

-Checks if the Definition is valid, if not he or she can issue a definitional challenge

-Definitional Challenge:

*Has to be Explicit*Specify the basis of the definitional challenge

*Specific the Grounds: (Prohibited Definitions)1. Squirrel - the definition is no longer consistent or true to the essence of the motion2. Truism - the definition is true and no longer debatable3. Time/Place Set - setting the debate in the past or in a very specific place4. Tautology - the definition of the motion is circular or self-proving

*Explains why the definition falls under one of the prohibited definitions

-Trend: even if there is a valid basis for a definitional challenge so long as the definition can still be played it is preferred not to launch a definitional challenge

-Responds to the Frame of Prime Minister - usually involves pointing out flaws, lapsesmissing discussions and the like

-Provides the Clash - the stand the opposition side which is generally against government's stand as well as what opposition will prove

-Provides a rebuttal for the case of the Prime Minister

-Presents an argument or arguments to support opposition’s stand

c. Deputy Prime Minister (7 mins.)

-Reinforce, Rebuild and Defend the Frame provided by the Prime Minister

-Evaluate and respond to the Clash of the Leader of the Opposition

-Rebut the argument or arguments of the Leader of the Opposition

-Provide an Extension:*Argument of arguments that supports the same stand as the Prime Minister*Different (different perspective or aspect with fresh analysis and/or discussions)*Should be generally connected to the discussion of the Prime Minister*Should be consistent with the stand and discussion of the Prime Minister

d. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (7 mins.)

-Reinforce, Rebuild and Defend the Clash of the Leader of the Opposition

-Rebut the argument or arguments of the Leader of the Opposition

-May also rebut the Prime Minister's case

-Provide an Extension:*Argument of arguments that supports the same stand as the Leader of the Opposition*Different (different perspective or aspect with fresh analysis and/or discussions)*Should be generally connected to the discussion of the Leader of the Opposition *Should be consistent with the stand and discussion of the Leader of the Opposition

e. Whips (7 mins.)

-Reinforce the stand of his or her entire side

-Rebuild/Reinforce the discussions of his or her constructive speakers

-Provide new analysis, examples and responses to the discussions of the opposing side

-Compare the stand and discussions of each side with emphasis on which side is better

-Summarize the Debate

*issue based whipping vs. point by point rebuttals

*new matter

f. Reply Speakers (4 mins.)

-Explain to the adjudicator (as creative and reasonably as possible) why your teamshould win

-Biased adjudication

-Public Speaking speech wherein you compare the merits of your team to that of theopposing team

-"Sales Talk" - selling your arguments and discussions to the adjudicator(s)

-Has no real bearing in the round but may persuade the adjudicator to uphold one team over the other

-Avoid using the reply speech as an added constructive or rebuttal speech

-Any member of a side can be a reply speaker except whips

> Point of Information-May be given at any time after the 1st minute and before the 6th minute of any speech

-May not be given to reply speakers

-Lasts for only 15 seconds

-May be given after an interval of 15 seconds between points of information taken or denied

-Can be a question, statement of fact, an idea or comment

-Stand up and say: Point Sir/Ma’am

-When a POI is given accept it or deny it by saying no or signaling for the person giving it to sit down

-When a POI is accepted let the person giving it finish or consume the 15 seconds before asking him or her to sit down, do not cut him or her if the 15 seconds is not over

> Other Things to Remember:- Maintain proper decorum during the round

- Be respectful to your opponents and the adjudicator(s)

-Hear! Shame!

- Converse only with your teammates during the round

-Minimize your noise so that it does not distract the adjudicator(s), your opponents or make it difficult for the adjudicator(s) to hear the person speaking

-As much as possible to do not leave the room during the match and if you need to you have to secure the adjudicator(s) permission

> Adjudicators:

-Judge debate rounds in the Asian Parliamentary Debate format

-In most cases the are either alone judging a round (solo chair) or in a panel or group which is has an odd number of members 3, 7, 9 and so on

-In the event that a room has an even number of adjudicators the chair shall have to votes when it comes in deciding a round

-Extensions of the adjudication core and essential in running a debate tournament; they run the debate match in every room in a tournament

-Also have a contest of their own apart from the debaters in a debate tournament

-The chair in the round facilitates the match, maintains order and call speakers

-An average reasonable voter*Has a grasp of common ideas *Possess general knowledge*Knowledgeable about current events and issues*Has common sense and a healthy amount of logic

> Common Misconceptions about Adjudicators:

-Not as important as debaters

-Does not know how to debate

-Have lesser burden in debate tournaments

-Do not gain much from a debate tournament

-Not as skilled or capable as debaters

-Process of Adjudication:

-Listens to each speaker in a debate match (duty-bound to listen to only 7 minutes of each speaker’s speech and 4 minutes of the reply speeches).

-The Chair, after listening to all the speakers deliver their speeches asks thedebaters to cross the house and shake hands.

-After the speakers have finished and the debaters have been asked to leave the room the adjudicators (in the case of a panel) at the initiative of the chair asks his or her panelists take around 10 minutes to come up with a decision.

-After around 10 minutes the solo chair will deliver his or her decision.

-In the case of a panel, each member of the panel will deliver his or her decision for the round individually. The chair speaks lasts. While a member of the panel is in the room discussing his or her decision the other members of the panel should not be in the room. When an adjudicator is done he or she calls in the next adjudicator. This continues until the whole panel finished delivering their verdict.

-Voting System: Majority Wins

-In case the chair is in the majority he or she fills out the form for the debaters’ speaker scores. If the chair is not the majority members of the majority chooses from among them one who will accomplish the form.

-A member of the panel is the majority if he or she shares the same decision with most members of the panel.

>Speaker Score Ranges:

*80 - 83 - virtually perfect speech

*77 - 79 - above average speech, has very strong and persuasive content and with little or minor flaws

*74 - 76 - average, the speech has strong points but has flaws that are more or less equal to the merits of the speech

*71 - 73 - below average, the speech is relevant to the debate but lacks essential discussions and has considerable flaws

*67 - 70 - said virtually nothing of relevance or value in connection to the debate

>Reply Speech Scoring:

-Can be half of the speaker’s score when or she delivered his first speaker or deputy speech.

*39 to 40 – impressive reply speech*38 – satisfactory reply speech*37 – unimpressive reply speech

-In scoring both reply speeches and ordinary speeches do not use half points like 77.5 or 38.5

> Various Potential Bases of a Decision:

-Manner, Matter, Method-Contribution, Responses, Burden Fulfillment-Speaker Role Fulfillment, Consistency & Coherence, Substantiation

*Holistic grasp of the round and the discussions therein*Did not step into the debate*Did not use his or her specialized knowledge in judging the round*Retained impartiality while evaluating the debate*Rationally looked at the discussions of both sides*Comparative in his or her assessment*Has a sensible/reasonable and explained criteria of his or her decision

> Suggested content of an Adjudicator’s Oral Adjudication:

-General Comments: Impressions about the round

-A summary of the round along with a general comparison of both sides

-Issues or main discussions that were highly disputed in the round

-Decision and Justification (often explained by explaining which team resolved in their favor issues of the round and the winner resolved most issues to their advantage

*Points for Improvement and specific comments per speaker should be reserved for personal comments after the end of the oral adjudication and the round.

>Adjudicator's Rating: Written by each team in a form after the end of the oral adjudication

5 - virtually perfect oral adjudication

4 - good oral adjudication, may have excluded some minor aspects of the debate andsecondary issues

3 - average oral adjudication, satisfactory oral adjudication but lacks depth andinsight into the debate and the interplay of discussions in the round

2 - below average oral adjudication, the oral adjudication did not properly appreciatediscussions in the round and the adjudicator failed to effective evaluate the match

1 - official complaint, the adjudicator has completely failed to properly assess the round, he or she has gravely misunderstood discussions, unfairly evaluated a team orteams and grossly failed his or her role as an adjudicator

>Adjudicator’s Ethics & Debater-Adjudicator Interaction:

-Conflicts: relationships, past disputes, etc. (needs to be declared)

-Not allowing yourself to be pressured by debaters,debaters are not supposed to pressure debaters for any reason

-Do not be to demanding on detaters and be appreciative of their efforts; do not expect too much but also do not be so lenient

-Giving personal comments when asked; do not evade giving comments

-Be fair in oral adjudication but be as nice as possible do not scold debaters

-Moral Duty of the Adjudicator to stand by his or her decision and not be persuaded by

gcc1 seminar slides

Documents