https://docs.google.

com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfDPRyVlX39IYTINu5j7m2-Itn8fbGeiEz-
opXFttZdrwBBEQ/formResponse

TRUE/FALSE SECTION
A

You are a the only panelist judging alongside a chair. The chair only starts the discussion in the
final 2-3 minutes before the 15-minute mark, leaving you no time to properly explain or justify
your initial decision, which was different than the chair's. The chair then decides to proceed with
their decision without voting. What do you do in this situation? *

Since the conferral is an exchange of thoughts not another debating arena, i may ask the chair for
more time to explain my points since he also breaking the rules by cutting my time to explain my
points clearly. Besides, the point of the conferral is to make sure we do the assessment fairly in a
right manner. We need to reach an agreement in the conferral.

B
You are judging a debate with the topic: This House would make tertiary education free. PM
argues that the government should make tertiary education free because tertiary education is very
crucial for the nation's development. However, due to high tuition fees, many of those in the
middle to lower class society are not able to access tertiary education. LO argues that it's not
necessary to make tertiary education free because many opportunities of scholarships are
available in the status quo. Do you think LO's response is adequate? Please explain your answer.

It is not adequate, by stating many opportunities does not explain clearly does the scholarships
that are mentioned is accessible by all society. LO must prove that the scholarships can cover
those middle to lower society who wants to continue their study to tertiary education, LO have to
prove that the status quo is enough to solve the problem.

C
In a debate about the motion "This House would allow abortions", OG would only allow
abortions when the mother's life is at risk. CG then argued that they would allow abortions in
general, with far lesser restrictions or conditions than OG's. How would you value the CG in this
debate?

I will reduce the CG's scores since they opposing their own side, stray away from the opening
debate by bringing in a brand new set of models. The OG already giving a stance (solution) that
they will allow abortion only at the stage that risking the mother's life, so in here the CG should
strengthen the stance (solution) not brings up another stance (solution). They may bring
additional mechanism to perfect the solution, provide distinct arguments, or giving rebuttal to the
opposition.

D
You are judging a debate about whether the education system in developed nations should teach
children that they are personally liable for the suffering in developing countries. OG argued that
many kinds of suffering seen in developing countries are resulted from colonization, and that
colonization is bad. OO agrees that colonization is bad, but other problems in developed
countries, much closer to these children such as racism and sexism, are more important to teach.
How do you evaluate this exchange?

From what I see in here, OG are most likely understand the motion which the OO doesn't. OG
came with the reason of the suffering in developing countries is caused by the colonization, but
the OO came with another point but stray away from the motion which most likely talk about the
problem in developed countries. By mentioning the problem in developed countries such as
racism and sexism doesn't not help to explain the real problem in this motion which is the
suffering in developing countries.

E
On the motion THBT we should create a matriarchal (female-only) state for women, OO rejects
the motion because (1) the new state will not be stable because gender support is a spectrum,
thus not all women are supportive of each other; and (2) status quo's trends show massive
improvements, for example, many gender-friendly cabinets (Canada) and legislatures (Rwanda),
and many global feminism movements, such as #metoo and Lean In, among others, are very
powerful. CO's reasons to reject the motion are (1) the new state will not be stable because
human beings have the inherent tendency to create hierarchies, thus in a place where all gender is
the same, they will subjugate using other traits such as race or religion. Also, (2) status quo isn't
that bad because nowadays corporations require creativity (which is gender-blind), social media
allows strong and active criticism for politics and calling-out, and that the young kids are taught
in education to see gender-blind. How do you evaluate OO versus CO?

They both are in the right track, which the OO brought up the stance and the CO perfecting the
stance by bringing up new argument but still under the same premise/framework as the OO. But
for those who is better, I have to listen more explanation from each Opposition team, since
judges have to weigh how valuable each argument is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PbnYKDoLks&feature=youtu.be

RANGKING ama giving scores wkwkkwkwwk