Keita Takayanagi

Table of Contents

• Before the Debate

• During the Debate

• After the Debate

o Decide vote & RFDo Explain to the chair / Panelistso Explain to Debaters

• Decide who won + why• Clearly convey to judges / debaters• Give constructive feedback to teams /

debaters

• Know the ruleso Eg. Definition Challenge, Counter proposal,

POO

• 紙、書くもの、２時間分の体力を用意

• Briefly think about… o Spirit of the motiono Clash

• DO NOT affect the way you listen / RFD o Eg 1. THW privatize watero Eg 2. THW ban tobacco

• Be an Average Reasonable Person

o Follows news o No Specialityo Doesn’t understand Japanese

During the Debate

• Take notes

o # of POIo Content of POIo In debater's words (翻訳 ×, Diff. words×)

During the Debate

• Evaluate issues as you go

o eg. このポイントは立っているかo eg. この Refuteはどこまで効果的かo eg. ＬＯの時点でどちらが優勢か

• Give points after the speech (in range)

After the Debate （流れ）

• Decide who won + why (5 ~ 10min.)

• Explain to chair / panelists (around 10 min.)

• Explain to debaters (10 ~ 15 min.)

• Fill in feedback sheet

• No automatic wino eg. このスピーカー嫌いだから、このポイントまじ好き

• Decide based on main issues in debate

• Never decide based on...

o Mannero Authorityo # of arguments remaining

After the Debate (vote & RFD)

After the Debate (ジャッジ間の説明 )

• Panelist A → Panelist B → Chair

• Explain your vote + RFD

o from what aspect　 (eg)クライテリアo why from that aspect　 (eg) 3rd arg.は説明 1分o process of your decision: 議論を追う

After the Debate

• NEVER EVER change your vote / RFD / Speaker

Scores • Make sure Winning Team has more Speaker

Scores in total

After the Debate (ディベーターに説明 )• Explain the overview of the round

• Explain your vote + RFD

o from what aspecto why from that aspecto process of your decision

• Accept questions

• Constructive Feedback

o a. Team (主にプレパの段階からできたこと )o b. Individual speakers (各スピーチ )

After the Debate

• Evaluate chair / panelists based on...

o Vote + RFD = Reasonable?oラウンド全体を見られている ?o細かい議論についていけている？o説明は Clear?

• DO NOT mark down b/c vote + RFD are different

Questions?

• 何故コントラについて扱う ?• b/c ディベーターはよくコントラする

eg. Stanceと Case Set, Refutation, Alternative &

• b/c どこまで RFDに反映させるかめっちゃ悩む

• １番悩むとき：相手からの指摘がないとき

o Type A: RFD には常に反映させない b/c Judgeの介入になる

o Type B: RFD には常に反映させる b/c 矛盾をしているということはどこかでチームの説得性を弱めている

• A と B の間：o指摘がなくても RFDの判断材料として考慮する

oどこまで考慮するかは Case by Case

• 相手からの指摘があった場合：o考慮すべき度合いが増すo相手チームを評価する

• Case 1: 自分たちの Stanceと Case Setがコ ントラ (Soft Case)

o Eg. THW ban abortion Gov. Stance: Fetal Right to Life overwhelms the

women’s claim to her autonomy, similarly in the cases of already born baby.

Gov. Case Set: Ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, except for the cases where women is suffering from traumatic experience or economic constraints.

• Case 2: 自分たちの Stanceと Refuteがコントラo Eg. THW introduce organ transplant for profit. Gov. Stance: Only way to solve the organ

shortage is to incentivize prople by money. MG’s refutation: Irrational Choices will never

occur b/c money does not change how people thinks that much.

• Case 3: 自分たちの Stanceと Alternativeがコントラo Eg. THW allow police officer to enter

households w/o a search warrant in the cases of suspected DV

Opp. Stance: It is states’ excessive intervention to people’s right to privacy.

Opp. Alt: Let’s set up camera or wiretap

but...

• Don't be too sensitive about contradiction

• Type A: Principle < Practical• Type B: Principle > Practical• Type C: Principle = Practical

• Type a: Principle & Practical = separate • Type b: Principle & Practical = Connected

• Type C: あくまで内容であって、 Argumentの属性では差をつけない

• Type b: そもそも Principleと Practicalは分けられないo Eg. Sovereignty, Self defense, etc.

• Case 1: THW invade DPRKo PM: “Sovereignty is an idea which is there to

protect people. Therefore, Kim Jong Il, who is intentionally infringing people’s rights & putting people to death, can no longer claim its sovereignty”

oの前提： Existence of massive HR Infringement by Kim (practical)

• Case 2: THW ban abortion.o LO: “We all have a right to self defense.

Therefore, women should have a right to defend herself from babies threatening her life”

oの前提：赤ちゃんが女性の人生に相当な悪影響を及ぼす (practical)

• それでも分かれるo eg. Nature of Choice Usage of hard drugs① ②

• あらゆる要素で判断 (順不同 )

o Reasoningo Exampleo Uniquenesso Dynamicso Consistency

Case Study: THBT ICC should prosecute for the crimes against the democratic process

• A. Role of ICC: Gov > Opp• B. Effect to democratic process Gov < Opp

1. Gov: Oppの decreasing support for democratic institutionが not unique 2. Opp: Role of ICC の議論はお互い 3rd point3. Opp: Role of ICCの applicabilityがない

Questions?