2015 judges training final

The 2015 POLY Debate Competition

Judge TrainingMeagan Kowaleski

Overview

• Introduction to Debate • Judging Skills• Ballots• The 4 Debate Formats • Day of Protocol

The 2015 POLY Debate Competition

When: Saturday, November 7th, 2015

Where: Ansan Hanyang UniversityERICA Campus

Time: Junior High: 9:30 a.m. – 3:50 p.m.(Apex, Pinnacle, Summit, Peak)

Elementary: 2:10 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.(MGT4, MAG4, Apex, Pinnacle)

Introduction

• Goals of Competition• Debate Philosophy• Essential Vocabulary• Judging Standards

Debate Education Philosophy

Goals of the Competition

• Show off what they’ve learned

• Encourage teamwork and build friendships

• Promote a healthy competitive environment

Essential Vocabulary

• Resolution: The Pro side must prove the resolution true or they lose.

• Words in the resolution make a difference!

• Your default is always CON/OPP

• should s/• not X never• is better than • <, >, =, ≠, ≤, ≥• more important

than ( everything else comes 2nd)

• have a responsibility (required)

• is a good way to x only way

Resolutions for the Competition

MGT4: 1. Children should not watch cartoons on television.2. The subway is better than the bus.

MAG4: 3. Schools have a responsibility to prevent bullying.4. Parents must limit the amount of TV that their children

watch.

*Procedure on how the resolutions for each round will be de-termined will be explained at the end of the training.


Apex (PAS F):1. Time and money spent on appearance is a waste.2. English will be an official language of Korea.

Pinnacle (PAS 6): 3. Character education is not important.4. Hosting the 2018 Olympics is good for Korea.


Summit (PAS 7): 1. Gender equality in the workplace should be a social prior-

ity.2. The South Korean government response to MERS was

appropriate.

Peak (PAS 8):3. Internet free-speech should be protected as a human right.4. South Korea should develop an education system that pre-

pares students for the 21st century. ( out with the old in with the new! What new are they Advocating and what are the foreseeable benefits)

Essential Vocabulary (cont’d)

• Arguments: ARE(I)’s• (Impact): Why s/ we care? How it effects our lives

• Life ↓↑≠• Death ↓↑≠• Quality of life (QOL)

• Health• Wealth• Economy • Equality

BE SPECIFIC

• Arguments: ARE(I)’s• (Impact): Why s/ we care? How it effects our lives

• Life ↓↑≠• Death ↓↑≠• Quality of life (QOL)

• Health• Wealth• Economy • Equality

BE SPECIFIC


1st Speaker Introduction Vocab:

• Team line: thesis, slogan, or concept that their ar-guments will prove. • All levels if no value is provided


1st Speaker Introduction Vocab:

• Value: The philosophical reason that teams AREI’s are the best and what both teams must weight in the debate

• Justice • Equality• Health

• Teams must have a clear thesis they are proving true. If not then you s/ dock points in clarity.

WHY DOES THE JUDGE CARE ABOUT THIS?

1. STATE THE VALUE2. DEFINE IT3. JUSTIFY

Example AREI

Resolution: “Video games can be educational”

• Assertion:• Video games teach teamwork

• Reasoning:• Because in the game you must use critical thinking

skills to determine how to beat a level or defeat opponents

Example AREI

Resolution: “Video games can be educational”

• Evidence:• … In games like League of Legends and StarCraft you

must work in teams to advance in the game or you will be destroyed.

• Impact • The problem solving you do as a team in the

videogames helps students to work together in school and ultimately work better in their future careers which improves their quality of life.


• Refutation: The attack – this s/ be clear! • Their arg. was …

• It’s wrong/ not important

• Because (b/c) example or evidence

• Therefore- why this RF matters aka judge they should lose!


Example: They said VG ↑ teamwork but that’s not important b/c the addictive quality of these games actually inhibits you from building relationships outside of the virtual world. @ to videogameaddiction.org “Addicted gamers spend so much time playing that their personal relationships get neglected and sometimes disappear altogether. Among addicted gamers who are married, up to 50 percent report a strain in their marriage as a result of their addiction.” Therefore the teamwork skills learned in games rarely transfers to their real social network.


• Rebuttal (RB): defend your teams args. • Our arg. was …

• They RF

• But we are still right/ its not important/ even if that’s true we outweigh … b/c

• Therefore: We are super amazing, vote for us!


Example: We said videogames build teamwork, their RF was that this skill actually damages relationship. Even if that is true our evidence still proves that “multiplayer games such as LEGO Universe and Lord of the Rings further offer added depth, atmosphere and enjoyment by allowing players to band together and work as a team in order to complete certain quests or defeat especially tricky opponents. Therefore our arg is still right and teamwork is achieved through videogames along with many other skills.


• Voters: The specific reasons why a team wins. • Each team s/ show you where they are winning the

debate (AREI-RF-RB)• You cannot do this for them! • “We win because of these 3 reasons …”

• POI’s ( Point of information)• questions/ statements• A speaker from the other team may interject a speech

to ask a Q but it is up to the speaker to accept or reject it. X follow up questions.

• “even if that true/ don’t you think/ do you know

Judging Ethics

1. Your opinions, beliefs, bias, don’t matter. Not even if you’re the president!

• You’re a blank slate even if you know the claim is ab-surd if the other team does not state it, you can’t vote on it!

• Yep, that means this is true:• Americans are ALL fat. • Koreans are ALL good at math, etc.

• Unless the other team tells you differently you can’t vote on it!

Judging Ethics

• You can: critique poor argumentation/ evidence/ rea-soning in your comments as a missed opportunity but not as a reason for the team to W/L

• Ding them on speaker points not on W/L

Judging Ethics

2. Remain impartial. • You may be asked to judge your own kids. Do not ac-

knowledge them as such when you enter the room. • Don’t let campus affiliation dictate your sound judg-

ment.

3. Your notes are essential! • You wont remember everything, PLEASE take notes.• This is the best way to remain objective.

4. Be specific in your reason for decision (RFD)• Cite the argument that swayed you, voter, impacts, what

had the most weight in your decision

Ballots

• In Round Note-taking• Rubric• Reason for Decision (RFD)• Do’s and Don’t

• Judges• Debaters

Note-taking

• Write notes, not sentences.• First write the title/main idea, then evidence (e),

then more• Symbols, x vowels, abbreviations are your friend!

• Developed = dvlpd • International = intl• Quality of life = QoL• Plastic Surgery= PS• Anonymous = anon• Should = s/

Note-taking

• Not / isn’t / won’t / can’t / couldn’t / don’t / [insert negative word here] = Ø

• Use 2 different colors: Pro and Con/Opp.

Flow SheetPro 1 Con/Opp 1 Pro 2 Con/Opp 2 Con/Opp 3 Pro 3

1. A R E (I)

Refutation Rebuttal Refutation

Explanation of why the

CON/OPP team wins

(summary and comparison of

arguments)

Explanation of why the PRO

team wins (summary and comparison of

arguments)

2. A R E (I)

Refutation Rebuttal Refutation

3. A R E (I)

Refutation

1. A R E (I)

Refutation Rebuttal

2. A R E (I)

Refutation Rebuttal

3. A R E (I)

Excellent Flow

Judge Ballot

•

Please re-member to circle the winning team.

Double-check all information on the ballot.

If you award a low-point win, please explain un-der here.

Judge Rubric

Judge Rubric Explained

• 30 available points.

• Almost all debaters will earn scores of 21 or higher.

• Scores below 21 usually indicate something beyond just poor debating, like verbal abuse, bullying, or arguments that were clearly not written by the student. (RF, RB, and POI responses will indicate this)

Judge Rubric Explained

AT THIS TOURNMAENT DO NOT GIVE LOW POINT WINS!!! Winning team must have the higher points!!!!

• Points are tie-breakers.• Half points are allowed for speaker points.• All speakers must have different speaker points• 1 on 1 debates = 2 different speaker points• 3 on 3 debates = 6 different speaker points

Speaker Points

• 29-30 = Almost perfect speech. The team will probably win the tournament.

• 27-28 = Excellent. Will probably have a winning record.

• 25-26 = Average to good.

Speaker Points

• 22-24 = Below average. The debater forgets ar-guments and likely has lots of unused speech time.

• 21 or BELOW = arguments were clearly not writ-ten by the student and/or just read through the script or he/she was mean

Judge Roles

• “Speaker of the House.” Control the room.

• Watch timekeeper signals and track speech times.

• Keep the round moving smoothly. All speeches begin promptly after each other.

Judge Roles

• Prevent any interruptions or distractions

• Allow students to answer POIs as they arise and control the time during their own speeches

• No POI’s • during protected time ( 30 sec start/ finish)• in the last two speeches of the debate

• The only time you interrupt is if a questioner is going beyond 15sec to ask a question- say “order and wave him/her down”

Judge Roles

• Determine the winning team.• Keep the tournament on time by turning in your ballot

promptly after the round.

RFD’s (Reason for Decision)

BAD!

• X specific

• X helpful feedback

• X clear what they

are saying

RFD’s (Reason for Decision)DELIVERY S/ X BE THE ONLY VOTER!

Just b/c you write a lot does X mean your feedback is good. Why?


EXCELLENT! B/C……..• Details prove the judge was listening!• Show the clear contradiction that was voted on! “ First

the opp said…then they said_____. Not a consistent position.

• Clear areas where opp lost: “GW is not man-made was completely RF X RB


Why is this one good, too?

RFD Judge: Are they good or bad?

• “The Pro team had good refutation, evidence, and was well spoken.”

• “I voted Pro b/c the Con/Opp never told me how development would impact our lives but the con team refuted that economic development in China is the reason why people are dying at higher rates in lung cancer.”

RFD Judge: Are they good or bad?

• “The Con/Opp team had better evidence”

• “It’s common sense that beauty is not the most important thing.”

• What does it mean to be specific? • Argument titles• Stated RF/RB• Voter titles• Anything they said to prove you listened

Judge Do’s and Don’tsDo Don’t

Provide constructive, educational feedback—on the ballot—for individual debaters and their teams.

Make only negative or overly personal comments. Instead of “Johnny was too quiet,” try, “Johnny’s arguments are good, but I can barely hear them.”

Provide clear reasons for your decision on the ballot.• Something like “The Pro team explains

why their first impact is more important than any other argument, and the Con/Opp team doesn’t answer that explanation, so I vote for the Pro” works really well.

• So does “I vote Con/Opp because they show that even if Pro’s arguments are correct, their impacts are smaller and affect fewer people than Con/Opp’s.”

Generalize your decision. Avoid explanations like:• “I like the Pro arguments better,”• “Pro is more convincing,”• “The Con/Opp spoke more fluently,” or

“I couldn’t understand the Pro team.”We need to know why their arguments were better or more convincing. Fluency says nothing about the quality of the arguments, and the team can’t know how to get better if you don’t explain what made them difficult to understand.

Judge Do’s and Don’ts

Do Don’tBe objective. Assume every argument is right until the other team tells you it’s wrong.

Use your own opinion or knowledge of the topic to judge argument quality.

Be impartial. Be guided by what the stu-dents say, the effort they show, and their engagement in the debate.

Prefer one debater or team over another for any reasons except their arguments and speaking ability.

Allow debaters to ask POIs. Let debaters ask you questions or sug-gest arguments to them they wouldn’t have made on their own.

Consider low-point wins. Use speaker points to penalize rude debaters, teams who bully, or teams who clearly don’t un-derstand their arguments and didn’t write them themselves.

Vote against a team that won the debate, even if they did it rudely.

Assign speaker points carefully—they’ll be used to break ties.

Deviate far from the 21-30 point range.

Debater Do’s and Don’tsDo Don’t

Speak politely and confidently. (Even try to) bully or intimidate other debaters.

Use any student-prepared paper materials.

Use anything not paper or not prepared by the student. Cell phones, MP3 players (why would that even be an issue?), almanacs, and encyclopedias are all out.

Whisper or pass notes to teammates to prepare during the other team’s speeches.

Talk any louder than a whisper while preparing during the other team’s speeches.Don’t take more than 10-15 sec preparation time between speeches.

Use a stopwatch or timer. Interrupt or talk over the debater to alert them that time has expired (or for any other reason). That’s your job, judge.

Raise hands and stand up to ask POIs to the debaters.

Ask for help from the judge or audience.

Debate Formats & Rules

• 1-on-1 Debate: MGT4• 3 on 3 Debate: MAG4, Apex, Pinnacle• 3 on 3 Debate: Summit• 3 on 3 Debate: Peak

1-on-1 Debate Format and Practicum

MGT4

1-on-1 Debate: Order of Speakers

Pro 1(CX)

Con 1(CX)

2: Pro asks ques-tions to Con.(2 minutes)

2: Con asks ques-tions to Pro.(2 minutes)

1-on-1 Debate: Speaker Responsibilities

1. Pro Speaker (3 mins.) Contains an Introduction, three-point body, and conclusion. Uses A.R.E. format. Refutation is not required but is allowed. Students will have notes but should not read it word-for-word.

2. Con Speaker (3 mins.) Contains an Introduction, three-point body, and conclusion. Uses A.R.E. format. Refutation is not required but is allowed. Students will have notes but should not read it word-for-word.


3. Pro Speaker (2 mins.) Cross-examination May only ask questions. Con answers the questions.

4. Con Speaker (2 mins.) Cross-examination May only ask questions. Pro answers the questions.

1-on-1 Debate Video

Resolution: Academies are better than public schools in Korea.

1-on-1 Judge Decision

1. Pair off in to teams of 4

2. Discuss the debate- Be specific (10 min) • What were the arguments?• Did the speakers miss any RF’ or RB’s?• Was the evidence explained or just stated?• How were they during POI questions?• What were the major clashpoints? • Did they prove why they won?

• Voters?• Clear examples?

3. Share with all of us


RFD: Your ability to think on your feet and be respectful to each other is unmatched. I especially like that the pro speaker conceded that con team had valid points on peer to peer teaching but was able to show that smaller class sizes will always outweigh PS classes. Con teams focus on inequality for economics is right on too. This is a close well-paired match unfortunately I have to vote for one. I vote pro because Academies provide a better environment and create better quality competitions. Yes, they are expensive and yes some teacher do not have teaching degrees but there is so many good reasons to vote for academes.

In the world of the con the only reason to vote for public schools is because there is peer teaching and they are cheap. As pro team proved in crossfire peer teaching is not as important as all the other benefits of academies.

Con team next time focus more on the benefits of public schools for your arguments and save the expensive and unqualified teachers for crossfire.

Look up what OECD stands for.

Speaker Points

Pro Con

1st Speaker 29.5 2nd Speaker 29


MAG4/Apex/Pinnacle


1. Pro 1st Speaker (3 mins.) Begins the debate and introduces the resolution. Introduces the Pro summary/team line and previews the

three arguments. Develops the first two Pro arguments. Responds to any POI made by the Opp team (can choose to

accept or reject).

2. Opp 1st Speaker (3 mins.) Introduces the Opp summary/team line and previews the

three arguments. Attack (refute) the Pro 1st speaker's two arguments. Develops the first two Opp arguments. Responds to POI made by the Pro team (can choose to

accept or reject).


3. Pro 2nd Speaker (3 mins.) Reviews the Pro team line. Attacks (refutes) the Opp 1st speaker's two arguments. Defends/rebuilds (rebuts) the Pro arguments that were

attacked by the Opp speaker (if no attack, explains why the argument is correct).

Develops the third Pro argument. Responds to POI made by the Opp team (can choose to

accept or reject).


4. Opp 2nd Speaker (3 mins.) Reviews the Opp team line. Attacks (refutes) the Pro 2nd speaker's argument (Pro team’s

third). Defends/rebuilds (rebuts) the Opp arguments that were

attacked by the Pro speaker (if no attack, explains why the argument is correct).

Develops the third Opp argument. Responds to POI made by the Pro team (can choose to

accept or reject).


5. Opp 3rd Speaker) (3 mins.) Attacks (refutes) the Pro 2nd speaker's argument (Pro team’s

third argument). Summarizes the debate. Identifies which arguments are the most important and

explain why they prove the resolution to be true. Explains to the judge why the Opp team should win the

debate.


6. Pro 3rd Speaker (3 mins.) Summarizes the debate. Responds to the key arguments identified by the Opp team’s

third speaker, explains why the arguments don’t matter to the debate.

Identifies the arguments that the Pro team believes to be the most important and explains why they prove the resolution is not true.

Explains to the judge why the Pro team should win the debate.

3-on-3 Debate Video (MAG4)

Resolution: Public transportation is better than pri-vate transportation.


1. Pair off in to a new team of 4

2. Discuss the debate- Be specific (15 min) • What were the arguments?• Did the speakers miss any RF’ or RB’s?• Was the evidence explained or just stated?• How were they during POI questions?• What were the major clashpoints? • Did they prove why they won?



3-on-3 Judge Decision (MAG4)

RFD: I vote pro because public transportation saves lives by eliminating drunk drivers on the road as well as decreasing stressed drivers that many cause accidents. I am willing to give up some of my freedom if it means I save a lot of lives. I think good strategies that could have pushed the debate in cons side would have been to state that driving private cars save more lives from being attacked or followed by strangers. This was by far your strongest argument but did not have as much weight in the round compared to drunk drivers.

Speaker Points

Pro Opp

1st Speaker 26.5 2nd Speaker 27

2nd Speaker 27 2nd Speaker 26.5

3rd Speaker 26 3rd Speaker 26

3-on-3 Debate Video (PAS 6)

Resolution: Studying science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is more important than learning a foreign language.


1. Pair off into a new team of 4

2. Discuss the debate - Be specific (15 min) • What were the arguments?• Did the speakers miss any RF’ or RB’s?• Was the evidence explained or just stated?• How were they during POI questions?• What were the major clashpoints? • Did they prove why they won?



If we look to the resolution neither team is proving it true or false. There needs to be a comparison that happens between STEM and foreign language. That never really happens. Here is what went wrong:

Pro team had no reasoning for their first and third argument. They relied on lots of evidence but never tell us why it’s important. Additionally none of the arguments link to why there is a trade off between it and a foreign language. Their second argument is strongest because its easily understood in the students words. All arguments are related to innovation, money, and jobs- functionally this is the same argument repeated 3 times so I am not convinced that they are winning the debate because they don fulfill their burden which as you remember means we vote con….BUT

Con team does try to build comparison in the first speech about why a lack of focus on language we results in decreased trade effectively making all STEM jobs worthless. It’s a great start and after the 1st speech I’m leaning that way by default.

Here is the error: They never tell why the jobs on either side are more valuable and therefor makes the discipline more important or equal to each other. The biggest error on con is no note taking and teamwork.

The second speaker gets up and it sounds like he says “without stem we cannot cure things like Ebola because we can’t build technology to cure people and save lives. “ …..um, dude you’re suppose to be arguing for a foreign language and you just scored big for the other team. The debate was relatively equal in terms of role fulfillment prior to this arg.

In a world where both sides argued that economy will be better with their emphasis BUT NEVER SHOW THE TRADE OFF WITH THE ALTERNATIVE no one wins that argument. It no longer important. All the sudden pro team is given an argument that they save lives because they stop Ebola….party foul.

Neither 3rd speaker does a good job at comparing the round or even highlight on this issue. At this point its clear that STEM saves lives. Con can do jobs better because “culture.”

Meagan, you wrote this in the PPT, are these notes for yourself to remember? Or do you want to keep it in the PPT and go over

it? I want to go over it with them but it does not have to be in the ppt it can be in a handout that I attached. We can pull it. Really want to emphasis this debate

3-on-3 Judge Decision (PAS 6)Speaker Points

Pro Opp

1st Speaker 25 2nd Speaker 25

2nd Speaker 24.5 2nd Speaker 24.5

3rd Speaker 24 3rd Speaker 24

RFD: A few things to remember: In this debate we are comparing STEM education and foreign language. Your end goal in the really world would be to get schools to focus more on your skill. That means you have to compare, always! Every argument should clearly show how an emphasis on STEM would always outweigh an emphasis on FL. The pro team can even say that an emphasis on FL actually will hurt students. Con team then can do 1 of 2 strategies: they can say FL emphasis outweighs STEM and therefore should be taught more or they can say that with out knowing the FL of CODING STEM education is worthless.

continued…

Both teams focused on jobs and money but never really tell the audiences why more money and jobs are more favorable in FL verse STEM. This means neither team is winning this point. You are equal.

My number one piece of feedback is take good note of the entire debate and help your partners because people make errors or don’t fully explain their ideas when they don’t have support. A team that does not work together loses together.

The con teams final argument was that “STEM education leads to solving medical problems like ebola.” I think what you meant to say was “ without language we cannot use the technology to solve the world medical problems that STEM innovation creates which makes stem pointless.” (scapegoat)

As a team you should remember to clearly state that foreign language is how we spread technology and save lives. Without that part of the argument your team just told me if I don’t increase STEM education I will kill millions of people. Be careful, take good notes.

I vote pro not because they are wining or they are better but because the Ebolo argument is the only unique position for why STEM is better than FL. Big lesson: WORK TOGETHER! This is not a speech contest; it’s a team contest


Summit


1. Pro 1st Speaker (5 mins.) Begins the debate. Introduces the resolution. Introduces the Pro team line and previews the three

arguments. Develops the first two Pro arguments. Respond to any POI made by the Opp team (can choose to

accept or reject).

2. Opp 1st Speaker (5 mins.) Introduces the Opp team line and previews the three

arguments. Attack (refute) the Pro 1st speaker's two arguments. Develops the first two Opp arguments. Respond to POI made by the Pro team (can choose to

accept or reject).


3. Pro 2nd Speaker (5 mins.) Reviews the Pro team line. Attacks (refutes) the Opp 1st speaker's AREIs. Defends/rebuilds (rebuts) the Pro arguments that were

attacked by the Opp speaker. (If no attack, points this out to the judge.)

Develops the third Pro argument. Responds to POI made by the Opp team (can choose to

accept or reject).


4. Opp 2nd Speaker (5 mins.) Reviews the Opp team line. Attacks (refutes) the Pro 2nd speaker's argument (Pro team’s

third). Defends/rebuilds (rebuts) the Opp arguments that were

attacked by the Pro speaker. (If no attack, points this out to the judge.)

Develops the third Opp argument. Responds to POI made by the Pro team (can choose to

accept or reject).


5. Opp Rebuttal Speaker (3 mins.) Last speech of the opposition. Should summarize the debate. Compares the major arguments of both teams and explains

to the judge why the Opp team should win. Speech must show how the impacts of the opposition

arguments outweigh the impacts of the proposition. Very difficult speech: needs to select the most

important arguments that stick out in the debate. Speech must not merely repeat their partners’ arguments,

but extend and impact them. No new arguments can be introduced in this speech. Persuasive delivery is a must!


6. Pro Rebuttal Speaker (3 mins.) Last speech of the debate. Should summarize the entire debate.

Needs to extend the Pro’s most effective argument(s). Refutes the opposition’s previous speech and explains why

the Opp team can’t win. Explains why Pro should be the winning team.

3-on-3 Debate Video (PAS7)

Resolution: Relative grading system is better than an absolute grading system.

3-on-3 Judge Decision (PAS 7)

1. Now, it’s your turn to write your RFT by yourself!• Remember these questions:

• What were the arguments?• Did the speakers miss any RF’ or RB’s?• Was the evidence explained or just stated?• How were they during POI questions?• What were the major clashpoints? • Did they prove why they won?



3-on-3 Judge Decision (PAS 7)Speaker Points

Pro Opp

1st Speaker 26 2nd Speaker 24.5

2nd Speaker 27 2nd Speaker 28

3rd Speaker 27.5 3rd Speaker 25

RFD: At the end of the debate I vote pro because comparing scores between schools and time periods is essential for evaluating the “smarts” of the students. Also they gave clear evidence on the LSAT, Harvard class scores, and AP courses that justify why relative systems decrease the inflation that harms students and teachers. Con team in order to win you need consistent evidence relating to test score for students and so more showing of how your arguments work rather than assuming we know what efficiency means and why it's important.

Team comments continued….

Harvard evidence on comparing average A scores spot on showing the problem with absolute standard.

2nd pro excellent link to the main thesis in every rebuttal and argument. Organize your speech by attacking opp args then rebuttal your teams and deliver your arguments so the judges don’t have to jump around on the flowsheet.

Con 1st speaker I like that you were trying to challenge the definition and that you provided the value of efficiency but in both cases you forgot to show how it works. You lack detail in explaining the reason we should care about efficiency. Your assertions are great. Never assume the audience knows what you are talking about. Always be as detailed as possible. In prep ask “How does it increase bullying” and “why does it do this.” If you can answer those two questions you’ll be sure to make you point clear.

2nd speaker on both teams did an outstanding job attacking arguments. Con second links to the main theme of the debate were the clearest and he took the time to fully explain each point.

Summary speakers. Great clash points. Con speaker remember to talk about the other teams points and how they relate to you arguments. Great impact calculus- explains why that impact matters. What is your goal for me to do? Why does magnitude matter?Pro 3 superb conclusions and analysis drawn from the grade inflation and trustworthy arguments. You showed clear links to why your arguments outweighed and how a vote for a relative system decreases manipulation

3-on-3 Debate for PAS 8

• The basics are exactly the same as PAS 7:• Speech times• Speaking order• Speaker responsibilities

3-on-3 Debate for PAS 8• But the vocabulary is different.

• Advocate a plan to solve the problem • Provide Benefits and disadvantages • The Opp team will argue for the Status Quo

• (A.K.A. “right now”). • They’ll use Disadvantages to show that the Plan makes the

world a worse place.• Con can also argue a counterplan ( alternative)

• Aka pro does not solve root cause- they make the world worse by address the wrong problm or their focus creates a trade off that is more harmful.

• Counterplan cannot be mutually exclusive

• If the Benefits of the Plan are bigger than the Disadvantages, the Pro team wins. If the Disadvantages are bigger, the Opp team wins.

Q & A

• PLEASE ASK. Don’t assume.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: How do I regulate the debate? A: 1) Remember that you’re in charge. They’re 12. You can probably win. 2) If one team prevents the other team from controlling their speech, let them know what they’re doing and ask them to stop. If that doesn’t work, tell them to stop. In severe cases, allow the debate to finish, tell the students you’ve disqualified them from the round, and let the tournament administrators know when you turn in your ballot.


Q: What if I think the debate is a tie? A: It’s not. But if you think it is, break the tie by speaker points. If that doesn’t work, take a step back, think about which team’s arguments make a world you’d prefer to live in, and vote for that team.

Q: What is a low-point win? A: Sometimes one team clearly is the better debaters, but behave rudely or make a major strategic error. They may forget to do refutation or rebuttal, be un-topical, or be overwhelmed by counter-factual evidence.

Frequently Asked QuestionsQ: What if a student is absent or becomes ill during the debate? A: Excuse an ill student and allow the remaining debaters to complete the debate. The team who is a teammate short will still be required to complete all speeches.

Q. If students do not ask any POI, will they be docked points? If students do not accept any POI, should I dock points?A: Students are not required to ask POI even though it is strategically beneficial to do so. If students do not accept any offered POI’s during the speech and does not ask during other speeches you may dock point here. 2 POI questions = good , 2< means you are not in control of your speech, asking 2< means you are an active debater.


Q. If students speak too fast, can I ask them to slow down?A: The judge should not interfere with the delivery of the students. Judges are expected to be able to keep up with students. However, the opponents of a fast speaker may ask POI for the student to repeat.

Q. Can students have preparation time in between speeches?A: No. Students should take no more than 10-15 seconds to gather and organize their materials to begin their speech.


Q. If students go over their time limit, do I dock points? If so how many?A: No, you ask them to stop speaking. Let them finish their sentence and ask them to sit down. If they don’t, just put your pen down and stare at them. They’ll figure it out.

Q. Should I dock points if speakers just read off their notes? If so, how many?A: Yes, eye contact and hand gestures are important aspects of speaking style. If they’re just reading notes, they are not likely to make eye contact with the audience nor are they likely to make hand gestures. Read the descriptions for each point value and figure out what score is appropriate.


Q: What if the debater clearly has a script that is not their own work? Coaches write scripts for their students b/c of the pressure to perform. It happens everywhere. It’s not fair but it’s reality!

1. Coaches: YOU SHOULD AVOID DOING THAT! It’s very obvious!

2. Judges: the only thing you can do is decrease their speaker points. This must be stated in the RFD and at the end of the round mention that it hurt their team.


Q: What if the debater clearly has a script that is not their own work?

3. Students who are very obviously reading directly from a script get an automatic -3 points. This must be stated in the RFD as: • 3 point deduction applied for clear scripted work.• Student clearly was using vocab or content that is above even

the most gifted students ability.• Student had a large script board and could not/ would not an-

swer POI questions. • It must be blatantly clear that the student is not using their own

material and you must be very detailed in your explanation. If you provide no justification you are not allowed to subtract 3 points from the speaker.

Procedures

• Duties• Schedule

Procedures – Judge Duties

• Before Debate: Be at the assigned rooms prior to scheduled start time for each round.

• Judges will be provided with a short script to follow for each round.

• Script includes an introduction and procedure on how to choose the resolution for each round.

• Determine which resolution will be debated for each round.• Each team will select a representative to play rock-

paper-scissors against a member of the opposing team.

• The team that wins rock-paper-scissors will get to choose heads or tails. (Can only be done once.)

• The judge will then do a coin toss.• The team that wins the coin toss will choose the

resolution for that round.• The judge will announce the resolution for the round

before it begins.• Give teams 2-3 minutes to prepare.


• Teams will know if they are PRO or CON/OPP before going into the round.

• The timekeeper will have the coin that will be used in the coin toss and a copy of the resolutions.


• During Debate: Write down the order of speakers for each team on the ballots. Write the students full English names (no campus names).

• Please make sure that students do not identify which campus they are from. Tell the timekeepers when you are ready and the timekeeper will signal for the debate to commence.


• After Debate: Once you have completely filled out your ballots, deliver it to hall messengers located outside of your room. After every round, report back to room 307. You will wait until you’re assigned the next round of debate.


• After Round 3: You will be giving students participation awards.

• Start on the right side, have the whole team stand up.

• Put the medal on the student.

• Give them their gift. (timekeeper will hand you the medal and gift)

• End with a handshake / words of encouragement.


• Ballots: Receive ballot for your assigned round in room 307. After you have completed the ballot, give your ballot to the hall monitors. You may leave your assigned room after you have completed filling out the ballot.

• Assignments: You may or may not be assigned as a judge. Please stay in room 307. If you must leave to go to the bathroom, please let the room attendant know.


• Registration: All judges should check in upon arrival in room 307, in the morning and after lunch.

• Judge’s Meeting: Every judge should attend the Judge’s meeting. This time will be spent on going over the day’s procedures and answer additional questions and concerns. • One in the morning • One in the afternoon• All-day judges must attend both meetings



• Junior High Division• 2nd – 5th floors• Take stairs, reserve elevator for judges on the

5th floor

• Elementary Division• 1st – 5th floors• Take stairs, reserve elevator for judges on 1st

and 5th floor

Schedule

• Note: Your schedule may not coincide with your students’ schedules

Judges Campus

Morning Judges Bundang, Mokdong MAGNET, Seodaemun, Songpa, Suji, Sungdong

Afternoon Judges Bundang MPOLY, Daejeon,, Gangseo, Ilsan, Ilsan MPOLY, Jeongbal, Mokdong MPOLY

All-Day Judges Daejeon MPOLY, Dongtan, Gwanak, Hwajung, Pyeongchon, Songdo, Sungbuk, Suwon,

Schedule – Morning Time Details

9:00~9:30 Registration in room 307

9:30~10:00 Judge’s Meeting in room 307 (receive round 1 ballot)

10:00~10:05 Report to assigned rooms

10:20~10:55 Round 1 (hand in ballot, report back to room 307, and re-ceive round 2 ballot)

11:10~11:45 Round 2 (hand in ballot, report back to room 307)

11:45~12:25 Break (receive round 3 ballot)


1:00~1:10 Participation Awards

1:10 – 2:10 Lunch* (available in room 307)

2:10~3:50 Final PAS 8 Round, Awards Ceremony for PAS

*Lunch is only provided for all-day judges.

Schedule – AfternoonTime Details

1:30~2:10 Registration in room 307

2:00~2:40 Judge’s Meeting in room 307 (receive round 1 ballot)

2:40~2:45 Report to assigned rooms

3:00~3:25 Round 1 (hand in ballot, report back to room 307, and re-ceive round 2 ballot)


4:05~4:45 Break (receive round 3 ballot)

4:45~5:10 Round 3 (upon finishing, report back to room 307)

5:10~5:20 Participation Awards

5:20~6:00 Awards Ceremony for Elementary

Address: 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan Gyeonggi-do, 426-791 (Hanyang University ERICA Campus)경기도 안산시 상록수 한양대학교 55 한양대학교 에리카캠퍼스

POLY Debate Competition (final round for PAS 8 &

awards ceremony )

Conference Hall

Science & Technology Building II

P

P

Hanyang Univ. Main Gate intersection

Engineering Building I

Hanyang Univ. Entrance Intersection

Seongan High School Intersection

POLY Debate Competition (registration, rounds 1-3)

HanyangGuest House Parking

Parking

College of Economics and Busi-ness Administration

International Culture Building

Seongan High School

Sa-dong Welfare Center

• Line 4, Jungang Station ( 중앙역 )

• Come out of exit 1• Take bus 10 or 21 (green bus)• Get off at Hanyang University

Guest House ( 한양대게스트하우스 에서 )

Compensation

• Please email a copy (front and back) of your ARC and bank account information to [email protected] to receive payment. Please send your information by Friday, November 6th, 2015.

Compensation

Reminders

1. Dress professionally.2. Register as soon as you arrive. 3. Do not greet your students if you see them in the

halls. They are not allowed to speak to any of the judges.

4. Double check your ballots to make sure that all the information you wrote is correct.

5. Write comments on ballots in neat handwriting.

Reminders

6. Hand in your ballot! (Make sure it’s legible.)7. If you are not assigned to a round, this does not

mean you have free time. Please remain in the Judge’s Room.

8. Be on time! Make sure that you are in your assigned rooms before each round begins!

Resources

• Judges training PPT• Judges script• Sample videos• Flow sheet• Ballot

All available on KIS Teacher’s Resource site.

Search fields:Learning Year Semester Level Subject Week

2015 02 PAS i Debate 26

Thank You

Questions, feedback, concerns?

[email protected]

2015 judges training final

Documents