debaters briefing

organising committee

lynne roach

eleanor winton

andy hume

adjudication teamandy hume

john paul toner

meg o’sullivan

rob silver

briefing

• format of tournament

• rules

• how to debate in worlds style

• q & a

• workshop

tournament format

• 9 rounds

• round 1 is randomly drawn

• rounds 2-9 are power matched

• top 32 teams break through to knockout

rounds

• esl break – top 8 esl teams outside top 32

rules• points of information

• definitions

• matter – the content of a speech

• manner – the structure and style of a speech

• the role of different teams in the debate

• marking scheme

positions in the debate

prime minister leader of opposition

deputy prime deputy leader ofminister opposition

member of govt member of opp.

govt whip opposition whip

basic format

• 15 minutes preparation time

• printed or written material

permitted

• electronic equipment prohibited

• 7 minute speeches

points of information• 1.4.1. : first and last minutes of speech

are protected

• time signal to indicate these points

• 1.4.2. : member offering POI should stand

• 1.4.3. : speaker may accept or decline

points of information• 1.4.4. POIs should not exceed 15 seconds• 1.4.5. the speaker may ask the offering

member to sit where the offeror has had a reasonable chance to be understood

• 1.4.6. members should attempt to answer at least 2 POIs in their speech

• 1.4.8. there are no “points of order” or “points of personal privilege”

points of information

• may take any form the offeror wishes

• questions, clarification, facts, challenges, rebuttal, even jokes

• POIs assessed as “matter” – see later

how points of information are

assessed• effectiveness and persuasiveness

• member offering point of information

• speaker answering point of information

• participation in debate as a whole

motions• open motions

e.g. “this house believes the glass is half full”

• semi-closed motions

e.g. “this house would alter its genetic code”• closed motions

e.g. “this house would bomb Iraq”

definitions

• 2.1.1. : the definition should state the issue(s) for debate arising from the motion, stating the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation

• 2.1.2. : PM should provide the definition at the beginning of his/her speech

definitions

• 2.1.3: the definition must:

(a) have a clear and logical link to the motion

(b) not be self-proving /truistic

(c) not be time-set

(d) not be place-set unfairly

(a) “clear and logical link”

• average reasonable person would accept the link between motion and definition, as explained by the speaker

• semi-closed motions: treat the motion as an issue for debatee.g. “this house would alter its genetic code”

• closed motions: take stricter approache.g. “this house would bomb Iraq”

(b) self-proving definitions

• x should / should not be done, and there is no reasonable rebuttale.g. “we’re going to argue that murder should be illegal”

• x is already the case, and so there is no reasonable rebuttale.g. “we’re going to argue that the murder rate in the US is higher than in Scotland”

(b) self-proving definitions

• “status quo” cases are not necessarily unreasonable

e.g. “we’re going to argue that the european union should adopt the single currency”

• it’s a fair definition, because there is a reasonable rebuttal

(c) time setting• “...it’s 1936. You’re about to be

introduced to Adolf Hitler, you’ve got a gun in your pocket, and you’re not particularly pleased to see him. We’re going to argue that you should shoot him and save millions of lives...”

• all debates must take place in the present

(d) unfair place setting• 1.2.3. : the members should debate

the motion in the spirit of the motion and the tournament

• have regard to the issue being debated

• have regard to the teams in the debate

definitional challenges• 2.2.1.: the leader of the opposition may

challenge the definition if it violates one of the four criteria in 2.1.3., and he should clearly state that he’s doing so.

• only the leader of the opposition may challenge the definition – no-one else

• 2.2.2.: the leader of the opposition should substitute an alternative definition

definitional challenges• 2.3.2.: the onus to establish that

the definition is unreasonable is on the members challenging it.

• 2.3.3.: where the definition is unreasonable, the opposition should substitute an alternative definition that should be accepted by the adjudicator provided it is not also unreasonable.

matter• 3.1.1.: matter is the content of a

speech• 3.1.2.: matter includes arguments

and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case

• matter includes points of information

the elements of matter• 3.2.1.: matter should be:

• relevant to the debate• logical• consistent – within your speech,

with your partner, and also with the other team on your side of the debate

the elements of matter• 3.2.5.: all members (except the last

two in the debate) should present positive matter

• the govt whip may choose to do so• the opp whip may not do so

• all members (except the prime minister) should present rebuttal

manner• manner is the presentation of

the speech

• style

• structure

style• any element which affects the

overall effectiveness of your presentation

• eye contact• voice modulation• hand gestures• clarity of language and expression• use of notes

structure• structure of the speech should: • include an introduction,

conclusion, and a series of arguments

• use the allotted time properly

• teamwork

the role of teams in the debate

• 1st govt:– definition– justification of case– rebuttal of 1st opp (deputy prime

minister)

• 1st opposition:– rebuttal– alternative where appropriate

the role of teams in the debate

• 2nd govt– anything which makes you stand

out from the debate

– job is simply to “be better” than 1st govt

– how does a team do this?

the role of teams in the debate

• 2nd govt

– introduce new material consistent with 1st govt

– e.g. new lines of argument– e.g. different focus to the case– e.g. widening / narrowing of debate– repetition of 1st govt isn’t enough

summary speeches• summarise debate as a whole, with

particular emphasis on your own team• responsive to dynamics of debate -

spend more time on the more important issues

• no one correct way of doing this– speaker by speaker– issue by issue– thematic

ranking teams• 5.2.1. :

– 3 points for 1st place– 2 points for 2nd place– 1 point for 3rd place– 0 points for 4th place

• 5.2.2. : teams may receive 0 points where they fail to arrive more than 5 minutes after the scheduled time for the debate

being rude and abusive• ...don’t!

• 5.2.3. : teams may receive 0 points where the adjudicators unanimously agree that the member has harassed another debater on the basis of religion, sex, race, colour, nationality, sexual preference or disability

marking schemeA 90-100 excellent to flawless the standard of speech you would expect to see from a speaker at the semifinal / grand final level of the tournament. this speaker has few, if any, weaknesses.B 80-89 above average to very good the standard you would expect to see from a speaker in contention to make the break. this speaker has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.

marking schemeC 70-79 average the speaker has strengths and weaknesses in roughly equal proportions.D 60-69 poor to below average the speaker has clear problems and some minor strengths.E 50-59 very poor the speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any, strengths.

feedback and complaints

• oral adjudication

• queries and clarification– “polite and non-confrontational”

• adjudicator evaluation form

• adjudication team

• all complaints will be followed up

questions