One Page Summary Tips

Tips: One page Summary
Submitted by Colm Flynn on 22 September 2007

Training

World Debating News
This is a one page summary of the previous tips posts. It's also known as "I don't have time to read all that ****!!!!!!! What do I do?"

The Basics

7 Min Speech use all of it but not longer than 7:30

1st & last min no Points of information allowed

Accept 2-3 POI no more.

Stay in the debate. Offer lots of POI but at the same time don't overdo it.

No props, No bad language, No abusive behaviour
Be Prepared
Have a broad general knowledge of events issues (watch the news, read the paper) etc. If possible gather a "case book" of knowledge (must be on paper as the
Worlds don't allow electronic aids). You can also prepare 3 or 4 cases in detail for when you are defining Open motions at IVs (not Worlds).

Have an argument.
Dont base your case on loads of facts and try to work towards an argument. Think of the argument/Core-team-line first, then 3 main points to back it up and
then the facts to back those up. This will help give more structure to your speech particularly if you are just starting out in Debating.

Analyse yourself & others
This is one way to give structure to a government speech. It is also a highly effective method for the opposition to look at the Government case and say it falls
down for any of the above four reasons.

Gov Case (4 Steps)
Problem: There is a problem
Cause: This is the Cause
Solution: Here is our solution
Effect: And this is it's effect

Opp Case (Pick one & Attack)

Problem: The problem doesn't exist

Cause: That's not the right cause

Solution: The Solution isn't workable

Effect: It won't have those effects

Know your role
4 team debate, 2 people in each team, 2 teams on each side
1st Gov: Define & Outline
1st Opp: Rebut, Alternative, (Re-Define)
2nd Gov: Defend, Explain & Rebut
2nd Opp: Rebut & Defend
3rd Gov: Backup, Extend, & Rebut
3rd Opp: Rebut, Backup &
4th Gov: Explain, Sum up & Rebut
4th Opp: Rebut, Rebut, sum up

Tips: Points of Info.
Submitted by Colm Flynn on 12 September 2007
Training

World Debating News
Points of Information are a vital part of any debate and should not be underestimated. Before and after your speech you can't just sit quietly and enjoy the other
speeches. You must keep the adjudicators aware of your presence, ideas and argument. Also P.O.I. can be used as a weapon to undermine, and even destroy, an
opponents speech. Also Points of Order and Points of Personal Privilege which are used in some debating formats are not permitted at Worlds/BP

Presentation:
When giving a point of information you are expected to stand up, hold your left hand out (place your right hand on your head, honestly!) and say "On a point of
information sir". Different people use slight variations on this but this is the basic one. Often speed is important to get in first, but that is no guarantee that you
will be accepted. So you should make sure that you have enough space to stand up quickly and at a split second's notice (without sending your notes flying
towards the podium). If you can do without a bench for writing, then a front row seat is ideal. If however you can't then use a seat at the end of a row so that
you need only stand out to the side. Once you have been accepted stand facing the speaker at the podium but also try to half face the chair and audience, if
possible.

Keep your P.O.I. short and to the point. The max. time allowed is 15sec but you should try for between 5 and 10 sec. Remember that many speakers like to take
a P.O.I. and then use the time to check what they will say next while half listening to the person offering the point. Once they know what the next part of their
speech is they work out an answer to your point. If your point is only about 5 sec. in duration it doesn't give them enough time and is more likely to catch them
(especially if the point is weak and wouldn't work well if they had time to think about it). It looks bad if they have to stop to think what to say, especially if they
have to ask you to repeat it.
Timing is important. If a speaker is in full stride and knows exactly where they are going for the next few seconds, he/she is unlikely to accept a point. Wait for a
pause, for breath etc. by the speaker and then offer the point. Obviously you have to be quick and good reflexes are needed to be on your feet literally within a
split second. I've found that a point is more likely to be accepted in this type of case but you can't wait for too long as the point could then be out of place.

Styles:
Different people have different styles when it comes to Points of Information. Some people (no names) like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point
which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If
you decide to use this type of style be very careful. It has been known to annoy adjudicators if taken too far and there IS a precedence for having speakers
disqualified.

Different people have different styles when it comes to Points of Information. Some people (no names) like to virtually barrage opposing speakers with every point
which pops into their head. This can be very difficult to deal with and takes some getting used to. The trick is to just ignore it if possible and make your speech. If
you decide to use this type of style be very careful. It has been known to annoy adjudicators if taken too far and there IS a precedence for having speakers
disqualified.

Most speakers prefer to just wait and see how a speech develops. This involves leaving weak points go and use just one or two attacking the central core of the
speech once it has developed a bit.

Accepting:
When you are speaking you should accept 2-3 points. Watch out for good speakers. If someone has killed off every other speaker on your side be careful and
don't assume that you can handle them. Points should not be longer than 15 sec. but you can cut that person off before this if they are making a very poor point
and particularly if you have a good put-down to use on them.

Always deal with the point that is offered. Never accept a point as true, unless the offerer has made a mistake and it backs up your argument. Always try to
dismiss a point as incorrect or irrelevant. A point ignored is allowed to stand and will go against you in adjudication.

The Most common mistake I see as a judge is people accepting the first POI they are offered right on one minute. You haven't said anything yet. Don't take a
point unless you have developed a point first.

The second most common mistake is taking two points back to back. This is like having a conversation and destroys your ability to properly develop your
argument. Just because someone offers you a point you DON'T have to take it if you don't want to.

Preparing for Worlds 3 (First Principles)
Submitted by Colm Flynn on 10 December 2005
Training

World Debating News
Preparing for Worlds Post 3: Debating on First Principles

This comes from the same handout I took the "debating on first principles" post from. I used it for a quick prep with some worlds teams a couple of years ago but now I am not sure where I pulled all the info
from. I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments
and e-mails I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

Arguing on first Principles
Dont be overwhelmed by the number of issues, organisations, nations and topics there are to prepare for. As Kim Little (World Champion, Australasian Champion, Australasian Best Speaker 2000) says, there are
only really half a dozen debates - they just have different actors. The issues stay the same.

For example Napster, Hate Speech and Porn are separate debates with their own distinctive matter requirements (which you could be an expert on) but the issue is still the role of government regulation and the
merits of censorship. Learn the theory and then all you need is a little specific jargon to add credibility and youre all set.

Don't be daunted and frightened by a motion on a specific topic you know little or nothing about. EVERY debate will have an underlining principle at its heart and the rest is packaging. Look at the general
principles expressed in the original motion. What is the basic argument here

When the motion is announced at Worlds ask yourself don't panic: What is this debate really about. You will have debated the subject many times before. Just step back and don't get lost in the initial detail.
Ask yourself some questions during the debate:
What is this Debate really about
What is usually required to win this debate
What can we add to the debate that hasnt already been said?
Are our arguments convincing? Are our examples good & getting to the heart of the issue or simply taking up time.
Examples of motions and some basic arguments are:
This house supports domestic content quotas in broadcasting
This house would bail out failing industries.
Basic Principle: Role of the government regulation & spending public money

This house believes that making Yassar Arrafat a partner in peace was a mistake
Basic Principle: Democracy and Negotiating with terrorists.

This house believes that the west should treat state sponsored sexism as apartheid
Basic Principle: Western culture versus other cultures. Western Imperialism

This house believes that civil liberties must be restricted in the interests of security
This house would force feed anorexics
Basic Principle: Rights of the individual versus responsibility of state/society

This house believes that the sexual history of rape victims should be admissible in court
Basic Principle: Rights of the individual versus responsibility of state/society and balancing rights between individuals.
Preparing for Worlds 4: POI
Training

World Debating News
Preparing for Worlds: Post 4 Points of Information

from. I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments and e-mails
I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

Tomorrow: Roles in a debate

Receiving
Don't be afraid of Points of Info. They are an attempt to attack you but they are also an opportunity for you to deflect the attack back.

When to accept points
- Accept two or three in a seven minute speech. Never accept more or less than this.
- Dont keep accepting points from the same speaker, particularly if theyre strong. On the other hand, dont cut out and ignore speakers you are worried about - its normally quite transparent when people do this.
- Obviously, if you think youre on flimsy ground with an argument, then dont accept any points until youre back to safer territory.
- If your opponents are sitting quietly and youve got an argument for which youre sure they cant answer, a neat tactic is to say And Ill take a point of information from them now if they can explain why....... Whether they choose to sit tight, evade or attempt to
answer you should have the better of it. A bonus to this is that it safely uses up one of the two points youre obliged to take. Its particularly useful in summations, where you can press for answers to points that have been ignored by all the previous opposing
speakers.

Answering the point
- Dont ignore a point. It wont go away by itself. Lines like I will get to that later irritate judges, even if they are true. I have already dealt with that is similarly unsatisfactory. By all means say you have made, or will make the point - but at least summarise it in a
short response.
- Dont get distracted by a point. Spend a few lines responding, and revert to your structure.
- Ideally you will have a proper response to the point. Should words fail you, be prepared to fall back on a standard dodge such as:
i) Witty put downs. My most memorable and effective witty put downs come to me two days later in the shower. Some less scrupulous debaters come to competitions armed with lists of pre-prepared spontaneous quips.
ii) If confronted with an uncomfortable fact/statistic, damn its source (or the lack of one).
iii) Answer another (easier) point thats close enough to the question for no-one to notice.
iv) Agree with the point, and say it either makes your argument or is completely irrelevant.
v) Be patronising (Weve made this point half a dozen times by now. Let me make it slower and in words of fewer syllables.) and hope you think of an answer before you get to the end of your spiel.

Giving
- Keep the flow of points of information constant - although always be careful not to descend into intimidation (badgering).
- Never let a point become a speech - if it cant be put into two short sentences, its not a point of information. Plan what youre going to say, and hone it down to the short est and most succinct form possible. That said, dont gabble - pause for a couple of seconds
to get everyones attention and then make the point slower than you would a normal speech. A controlled delivery will also help to break up a speakers momentum.
- Work with your partner - never compete against each other to make different points. As either of you thinks of a point, write it down so you have an agreed list of points you will both make. Dont waste the few chances you will get. Resist the temptation to
prioritise a spontaneous rebuttal (satisfying but better in a speech) above one of your pre-planned points.
- If youve got a superb argument that will be the centrepiece of your speech, never flag it in a point of information. You may well lessen the impact of the point when you come to make it - and run the risk of giving your opponents advance warning of what
youre going to say.
- Carefully note down responses to your points. Often a speaker will say something unplanned that will contradict or hinder their case.

There are probably four types of points of information:

i) Genuine points - i.e. responses to a point the speaker makes. The general rule should be not to make points like this: the speaker has the last word, so your best result may be a stalemate. Rebuttals are best
kept in speeches. Only make rebuttal points of information if you have a reply you think is unanswerable to a central point of your opponents speech.

ii) Repetition of points from your (previous) speech that the speaker is ignoring/misunderstanding. Be especially quick if you think you are being misrepresented - here its particularly effective if your partner
corrects the speaker (as in My partner never said X... his point was Y.).

iii) Pre-prepared points and statistics you have designed in advance to throw a speaker.

iv) Killer facts (see below).

Killer facts
Much in fashion amongst spin-doctors, a killer fact or argument is one to which there is no rebuttal. In some debates, there may be points from either side that simply have no answer. If you can identify one,
then use it in your speech and keep on pressing it - in as many different ways as you can.

The classic use is for the first speaker in a team to make the point, and challenge the opposition to answer it. The second speaker then slams the opposition for not answering it. Throughout each subsequent
opposition speech, they are then regaled by points of information along the lines of But you have still not said how....

Some common killer arguments are no alternative where a team defends their proposed solution by demanding an alternative from the opposition (e.g. Northern Ireland, welfare reform) or causal link where a proposition is repeatedly challenged to provide a
causal link when its clear that the link is unprovable (e.g. movie violence and crime, pornography and violence, monetarism and growth).
Preparing for Worlds 5: Roles
Training

World Debating News
Preparing for Worlds Post 5: Roles in a debate

This comes from the same handout I took the "debating on first principles" post from. I used it for a quick prep with some worlds teams a couple of years ago but now I am not sure where I pulled all the info from.
I'm sure I didn't write most of it but I don't know where it came from. Probably a mailing list somewhere. Apologies to the person who did write it for not crediting them. UPDATE: After some comments and e-mails
I think the bulk of this came from Dan Neidle's guide from the British Debate mailing list. Dan was a Worlds finalist so he knows what he is talking about.

Tomorrow: Arguments

Prime Minister (Opening Speaker);
Defines the topic.
Outlines his/her teams case
Develops positive matter in support of his/her case

Defining the motion
Be as tough on your opponents as possible, without ever being unfair. The test is: can you think of a way to oppose your definition of the motion? If you cant, its an unfair definition.
i) Define onto home ground - so you are as comfortable as possible with the material.

ii) The proposition should avoid the status quo - proposing that Britain should not introduce capital punishment, for example, is deeply uninteresting. A proposition doing so is effectively shifting the burden of
definition onto the opposition, who - in the previous example - would have to say under what circumstances capital punishment should be introduced.

iii) If any words in the motion are uncertain, define carefully how they fit into the debate. Bear in mind that you are merely defining the scope of debate - you cannot redefine the words themselves. For example, in
a debate about feminism, it is unacceptable for the proposition to try to fix the definition of feminism - this is clearly a matter of debate and not something that can be settled via definition.

iv) If you are worried about particular examples or arguments, see if you can exclude them from your definition. For example, a debate about the success (or not) of feminism could be fixed to feminism in the 90s.

It is the duty of the Prime Minister to define the topic of the debate BUT it must be clearly linked to the Motion. In some cases the motion will be worded in such a way as to permit a wide variety of Definitions
(e.g. This house believes that the Glass is half full, Worlds 98.) Others will be tighter motions, which allow little flexibility for Definition (e.g. This house believes that Northern Nationalists have nothing to fear
from a United Kingdom Irish Times 96). As 1st Government you should look for a twist to the motion. For example This house would rebuild the Berlin Wall (Worlds 96) is often defined as repartitioning of
Germany and a return to Communism. This is, in my experience, a very difficult line to win from. Two more successful definitions which I have seen run are that the Berlin Wall represented a division between
East and west and that (a) the EU should not allow Eastern Bloc countries membership until they have fulfilled certain Social and Economic Criteria. Or (b) that Nato should not expand membership eastward.

When Defining make sure that you have an argument. You have to propose something. Saying that something is wrong and this is how it should be is not enough. You must say that something is wrong and THIS
is what you are going to do about it. What you are going to do is the debatable part of the definition.

Example This house favours Positive Discrimination. Poor Defn: People have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and they shouldnt be in the future therefore well use something called
Positive Discrimination. Better Definition: People have been discriminated against because of their sex/race/etc and to correct that we are going to take actions X, Y, and Z under the umbrella name of Positive
Discrimination. You must then fully outline what actions X, Y, and Z are and how they will work.
The first speaker should take perhaps three quarters of the content. The second will then be largely free to rebut the opposition case.

Opposition Leader;
Clarifies any definitional problems
Rebuts the Prime Ministers arguments
Outlines his teams case
Develops positive matter in support of his case
Generally, the propositions definition must always be accepted. The following are generally accepted as being exceptions:

i) No definition offered
ii) Definition is a squirrel- ludicrously at odds with the wording of the motion
iii) Truistic or platitudinous definition
In these cases, the first opposition speaker only may reject the definition and supply his own. All subsequent opposition speakers must follow his lead.

During the first proposition speech, the first opposition team should allocate their case between them. A good first speaker should lay down the framework for the entire opposition case. Its often useful for the first
of the two to set out the general ideological opposition case, and the second to deal with specifics.

It is your role to set out the opposition to the Governments case. You have only 7min (or less) to come up with your opposition case but provided that the Government have presented a debatable case you will be
expected to handle the limited time for preparation. Outline and develop your case. Then deal with the points made by the government and link back the reason for them being flawed to whatever your teams
central case is. Remember the role of last Opp is to rebut all four Government speakers in his/her 7 min and sum up the entire opposition case.

You have only seen one speaker so you cant make a Last Opp Speech Look at it in terms of proportions. Youve only seen a quarter of the Government therefore at most a quarter of your speech should be
rebuttal. The rest should involve outlining a substantive opposition case.
It is also your duty to decide if the case is debatable. If it isnt (and be very, very certain that it isnt) then you must submit an alternative definition. You cannot simply say Thats a Truistic/self proving argument,
spend seven minutes outlining why and sit down. If you do that then you will have failed to do your duty as 1st opposition. If you have the ability to spot a truistic argument then you should have the ability to
redefine, or at least to modify the Governments case to make it debatable. If in the slightest doubt DO NOT re-define

Deputy Prime Minister;
Rebuts the arguments of the Opposition
Develops positive matter in support of her case

You must further develop your teams argument. Rebut what the first opposition speaker has said but dont spend all your time rebutting. Your teams case cant have been fully outlined and developed so to
spend 7 min attacking one opposition speaker is no win tactic.

You must back up your team-mate. If he/she has been torn apart then dont jump ship. CLARIFY what your team-mate said. Dont abandon your case because you realise that it is flawed. Judges will look out for
that and will penalise a Dump severely. You will gain more marks for bailing your team-mate out than for jumping ship and engaging the opposition on their ground leaving your team-mate behind.

Deputy Opposition Leader;
Rebuts the arguments of the Government

As with the second government speaker you must back up your teammate. Dont abandon your case because you realise that it is flawed. Fix it but dont get an entirely new one. A good guideline is that you
should spend double the amount of time rebutting that your teammate and therefore the rest of your speech is reserved for YOUR teams case.

Remember that your teams case should be set up in such a way that it in itself rebuts the government case. Therefore simply by developing it you are rebutting the government. If you remember this it should help
you avoid the trap that a lot of Opp speakers fall into of 100% point-by-point rebuttal. There is a misconception that the opposition just have to oppose and dont have to lend any constructive argument or matter
to the debate. People will get away with this from time to time but the recent trend in adjudication is to frown on that. It is an easy way out and doesnt really lend anything to the debate. Constructive opposition
always looks better than mere opposition for oppositions sake. This applies in debating as well as most things in life.

Member for the Government (3rd Gov Speaker);
Outlines her teams case, including their new lines of argument
Develops positive matter in support of her case

You are the first speaker in the second half of the debate. Now you have options to consider
If there has been a redefinition, and IF it was a valid redefinition then you must decide if you are going to follow the Government line or switch to the definition which the Opposition as offered and take them on at
that. Be careful. It is also possible to take a combination of both but you will have to be careful not to tangle your argument up in trying to tie the two definitions together.

If the Government presented a case, which was debatable but weak and has been thorn apart you cannot simply stab them in the back. You may however bring in an extension this allows you to bring in a new
point of view while still roughly following the Government line. Again just, as with 1st government, you must present a debatable definition.

Your role is to develop your team line. As with all government speakers you cannot spend all you 7 min rebutting the opposition. Outline and fully develop YOUR team line, showing how it links to AND backs up
the original government case. As you develop your case use it to rebut the opposition. Also remember that a sizable amount of your teammates speech will involve summing up the entire Government case and
rebutting the opposition. He/She will have little time to further develop your teams case so you must do a good job on your team line. You are almost in an individual debate against 3rd Opp speaker and your
argument must be fully developed or he/she will destroy you, and there will be no come back from your teammate. If your teammate has to spend all his/her time bailing you out then you have failed and have
dragged him/her down with you.

Member for the Opposition (3rd Opposition Speaker);
Outlines his teams case, including their new lines of argument
Rebuts the arguments of the Government

In my experience this is a difficult position in terms of strategy. You cant give a 100% rebuttal speech and you also are limited in that your teammate will not be in a position to spend a lot of time developing your
case (see Opposition Whips role). It is up to you to set out AND fully develop your teams case. Remember you have to provide matter of your teams argument in such a way that it stands out from the other
teams. You should concentrate on the third Government speaker in your rebuttal. You must rebut what the 1st Gov team said but it is primarily your duty to take on the extension provided by the 2nd Gov team. If
first opposition have done their job then the time you spend rebutting the 1st Gov team will in effect be going over what they have done and impinging on your teammates role.

Government Whip; (last Gov speaker)
Maydevelop positive matter in support of her case
Summarises her teams case and the debate as a whole

Both Whips will be penalised if you do not Sum up your side and rebut the opposition. You can develop your team line a little but the vast majority of your time must be spent summing up the ENTIRE government
case and rebutting the Opposition arguments. Remember as well that the 3rd opposition speaker has probably spent a sizable amount of time attacking your teammate so you should spend some time on your
team line and counteracting the attack on it. In short you must do 3 distinct things: (1) Sum up your team line. (2) Sum up the first Governments arguments (3) Rebut the Opposition. Remember that while you
cannot stab the 1st government in the back you should really reinforce your team line and then sum up the rest of the Government argument.

Opposition Whip. (Last speaker of the debate)
Maydevelop positive matter in support of her case
Summarises her teams case and the debate as a whole

Rebut, Rebut, Rebut, Rebut, oh and sum up. You are in pole position. You have had almost an hour to develop your speech and this is a huge advantage. You should not bring new information into the debate but
remember that by new information we mean new core arguments and examples. In your rebuttal you may bring in new examples, which relate directly to the points you are rebutting but you cannot make them the
central plank on which your entire argument is based. A lot of last Opp speakers will deal with the Government speakers almost one at a time and this generally works quite well and lends a structure to your
speech.

A lot of last Opp speakers make the mistake of just rebutting and not summing up. Ideally you should use a summary of what has been said by the opposition up to now as your rebuttal. However you should also
try to have a clearly defined period of summation. Dont get carried away with your rebuttal and leave your sum up for the last 30 seconds. Remember that there are a lot of inexperienced judges out there who
may not recognise that you have mixed summation and rebuttal in your speech and will, unfairly, penalise you for only spending a few seconds on sum up. Ideally aim to start your sum up of the Opp case with
about 1.5 to 2 minutes left. You can use your last protected minute to sum up the entire debate and not just your speech, it may go against the textbook structure of a speech but it is accepted practice.
Preparing for Worlds 6: Arguments
Training

World Debating News
Preparing for Worlds Post 6: Arguments
- Must be logical
- Must be relevant
- First, identify what you have to prove under the topic.
- Then, identify what helps you to prove it. Put them in the format of an argument or a set of arguments.
- Not everything that you know on the subject is relevant.
- Anticipate the questions that may be raised against your arguments and see if you have good answers to them.
- Block the opportunity for those questions to be raised by addressing them briefly as you explain the argument.
- Present the arguments in order of their strength.
- Avoid empty rhetoric and emotionalism - be rational.
Preparing for Worlds 7: Rebuttal
Training

World Debating News
Preparing for Worlds Post 7: Rebuttal
Tomorrow: Extensions
Rebuttal
- Must be logical
- Must be relevant
- Must be prompt
Do not rebut the example, attack the very premise of the argument of the other side. Only then contrary examples can be supplemented.
It is advisable to provide multiple rebuttals to each argument of the other side.
Rebuttals should also be in conformity with your case.
Rebut the rebuttals of your case by the other side in order to defend your case.
Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed, they may be misinterpretations and they may also be unimportant or irrelevant. A team may also contradict one another or fail to
complete the tasks they set themselves

1. Ask yourself how the other side have approached the case, is their methodology flawed (this will mainly be the case in the debates like example 3 in 5.2.2).
2. Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact addressed these.
3. Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes, try to refute these.
4. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a piece of rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument
has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You wont have time and your aim is to show the other sides case to be flawed in the key areas, not to be a smarty-pants.
It may be useful to think about how you would start rebutting the cases outlined in 5.2.2.
Tips: Adjudicating & judges
Submitted by Colm Flynn on 5 October 2007
Training

World Debating News
There are pages and pages of rules and guidelines on how to adjudicate. The best guide is available at : - Guide to chairing and adjudicating a Worlds Debate

However to highlight some key general points of the adjudication process

1. Take time to review your notes if you wish so that you are able to participate in the discussion. Some people can go straight into a discussion. However in a
tight debate it is well worth taking a few minutes to go over your notes. If your chair wants to push straight into a discussion don't be afraid to ask for a couple of
minutes to review what was said especially by the early speakers who you saw almost an hour ago.

2. Panels come to a consensus (not necessarily unanimous) decision. If it is clear that a majority of the judges are firm on one result then there is nothing wrong
on returning a split decision. There is no need to hold up the entire competition trying to come to a unanimous decision. However that does not mean you can
simply vote at the start and accept that as the decision. There should be adequate time given to discussing and evaluating the debate as a whole.

3. All members of the panel have the right to have their opinion considered. Chair judges cannot override their panel. Panels are constructed with more than one
judge because people will put different strengths on different arguments. It is only fair that all those opinions are considered.

There have been cases where chair judges have overruled their panels. This has even happened in some high profile cases at Worlds. The judges in question were
generally severely dealt with and did not chair again.

It is trusted that the chair judge will have the ability to win their panel over their way of thinking or if not then they can explain to the adjudication team that they
were out voted and why they think it was wrong thus potentially impacting on the ranking of judges that made the incorrect call. However that is not to say that
chair judges should be vindictive. The chair should be mature enough to know the difference between a valid result which they can understand but disagree with
and a completely incorrect result. I have been out voted (it doesn't happen often as generally I can talk the judges over to my side) however in these cases I can
see the reasons behind the result even if I found other arguments more believable.

4. The Chair of the panel has to fill in ONE speed ballot and ONE detailed form. More on this in a later post.

5. Finally I'm going to focus on something that isn't mentioned in official guides but is on the minds of many judges. The concept of judge "ranking" and
"breaking". I've been through the process from both sides. I broke to judge the final of my first Europeans but I went to 3 worlds before I broke. I was also DCA
at worlds in Stellenbosch and a key role of the adjudication team is to manage the rankings of hundreds of judges. Therefore I know how it feels to be in the
scramble to break and I know how difficult it is to manage that scramble.

If you are just starting off as a judge and feel you have no chance of breaking don't forget that your performance and feedback at one worlds could stand you in
good stead at the next worlds. Rankings and notes on judges are generally passed from one worlds to the next. We had a profile and history of over half our
judges at worlds in Stellenbosch before they even set foot in South Africa. We didn't rely entirely on it because judges can improve (or not) over time. At worlds
judges will be asked to fill in their experience (don't lie, detailed records are available and may be checked), sit a test on the rules and judge a video. All this
information combines to give an initial ranking.

During the tournament the debaters give feedback on the chair judges and the chair judges give feedback on the panellists. A good adjudication team will read
every feedback form and use these to adjust rankings.

In some cases judges rise in ranking and can do from panellist to chair to breaking. One judge did that at Worlds in Stellenbosch. We had an initial ranking from
him based on feedback from other IVs. Between the video and constant good feedback from chairs and debaters he rose to be the first reserve judge in the
break. When another judge didn't turn up he made it onto a panel.

In another case a judge who considered himself a top judge in his country could not understand why he was not rising up the rankings. In this case the feedback
from a previous worlds was average, video adjudication he did was terrible and the feedback from chair judges was not good. Finally in another example we had a
series of complaints from a number of debaters about unacceptable conduct of a chair judge. Once we verified what happened the judge went from certain break
to effectively a 3rd panellist.

The best way to rise through the rankings is to participate in the adjudication process to the best of your ability. State how you see the result and crucially be able
to explain and back it up. Remember that as a panellist you are being ranked by the chair judge and the best chair judges (who have most influence with the
adjudication team) aren't looking for "yes men" they are looking for people who can give well reasoned adjudications.

If you go from being a chair judge to being a panellist this does not automatically mean your ranking has fallen. It could mean you are being "watched" by the
chair judge. The most experienced judges are often given specific people on a panel with the aim of assessing them with a view to breaking. Also for round 9 of
Worlds the critical "bubble" rounds are generally filled with strong panels. Being demoted to panellist along side a well known judge for round 9 means you are
being trusted with one of the critical break rooms.

Complaining to the adjudication team about your "demotion" or the quality of the teams you are seeing (or the food, accomodation, entertainment and such like)
isn't going to do your chances of breaking any favours. The adjudication team at worlds are suriving on around 3 hours sleep a night and managing a very
stressful event. If you add further misery to their lives then remember one of the few things they can completely control is your ranking and after 9 hours sleep
over the previous 4 days they are perfectly within their rights to become vindictive.

I hope that clarifies some of the mystery around how judges break. There are some judges who will go into a tournament certain to break based on their
experience and proven ability (Ian Lising is one prime example). But there are more slots available than people generally realise. Factors such as regional
representation do play a part BUT the main factor is performance during the tournament.
Preparing for Worlds 8: Extensions
Training

World Debating News
Preparing for Worlds Post 8: Extensions

Tomorrow: Good and bad things in debating

What are extensions?
The job of teams at the bottom of the table, simply put, is to be better than what has gone before, to find something new in the topic which allows them to make an invaluable - a more
valuable - contribution to the debate, without being inconsistent with the definition provided by their colleagues.

Extensions are one way for the 2nd government team to distinguish itself from the 1st government team. Look at the government side as a coalition. 1st government is the senior government
party and 2nd government as the junior government party, both supporting a particular piece of legislation. They both support the bill but for different yet complimentary reasons and the
junior government party must make this difference clear in order to attract the publics (i.e. the judges) attention and survive.

Extensions arent always necessary. The 2nd Government simply need to be better than 1st government. They can do that with or without a full blown extension but extensions are often seen
as an easy way to achieve this. A 2nd Government who just repeats 1st government will struggle to win the debate.

Here is Neill Harvey Smiths excellent review of extensions:
Don'ts
1) Do not add a more convenient definition (We would abolish hunting with hounds AND battery farming)
2) You do not have to say the word "extension" but you may if it pleases you.

Dos
1) You do have to provide new arguments for the proposal:
a) with a broad definition, these are usually additional or narrower arguments (disarming Iraq will also benefit the region)
b) sometimes, after a narrow definition, they are broader arguments (what general principles are at stake in the particular case of Iraqi disarmament?)
c) exceptionally, you can make the same arguments but better and win, looking at the consequences of the proposition in depth and developing a couple of Durham's 9 points from 1st Prop in
depth.

2) If 1st Prop does not provide a definition, you can still win. Find a fair and debatable definition that emerges from the top half and argue it well (you cannot simply insert your own definition
it has to come from somewhere in the top half), addressing 1st Opp's points. You will be rewarded for thinking on your feet and thanked for producing a debate.

In general, you will score higher for arguing new material well, addressing any new points from 3rd opposition and summarising the entire debate effectively, stressing the importance of your
material.

One way of adding an extension that is not quite an extension but still differentiates you from 1st Government is to find an argument 1st government said they would make but didnt. Make
a note of the arguments they said they were going to cover and pick the ones they didnt get around to (dont rely completely on this as they may well cover all their points).

See also the presentations on Preparing for Worlds Post 1.
Preparing for Worlds 9: Good & Bad
Training

World Debating News
Preparing for Worlds Post 9: Good & Bad things in debating.

Good Things
i) Judges love teamwork. Work out a neat way to divide your content between the two of you. Then ensure the first speaker says what the second will do, and the second refers to what the
first has said.
ii) Finish memorably - i.e. with a prepared peroration.
iii) Offer as many points of information as you can. Accept only two yourself
iv) Be aware of your position in the debate
v) Picking up contradictions in your opponents arguments

Bad things
Some great ways to lose marks are:
i) Reading from a prepared script
ii) Blatant contradictions with a previous speaker or yourself
iii) Use of ludicrously untrue facts
iv) Incomprehensible delivery
v) Ignore your partner completely
vi) Finish more than thirty seconds late or early
vii) Offer no points of information. Accept none at all, or every one thats offered.
Judges should not take into account the relative difficulty of a teams arguments. If the tournament organisers think the legalisation of assault weapons is a good debate then thats their call -
its not for judges to start creating a handicap system.

One Page Summary Tips

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

One Page Summary Tips

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tips: One page Summary

Submitted by Colm Flynn on 22 September 2007

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen