adjudicating bp debates

1. Adjudicating BP Debates Steve Johnson University of Alaska

3. Argument is movement move an audience advance positions sway opponents redirect questioning follow lines of argument take logical leaps retreat from claims push issues drive points home come to conclusions arrive at a decision

4. Points of Stasis Predictable places at which arguments pause A point of clash between competing arguments. Useful to evaluate opposing arguments

5. Points of Stasis 2 Types: PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition�s arguments clash with the Opposition�s ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree

6. Propositions PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition�s arguments clash with the Oppositions Propositions identify the relevant territory for the debate (and exclude the irrelevant territory) Propositions divide the Prop territory from the Opp territory

7. The Proposition

8. Propositions �China should ban smoking� Proposition: China should ban smoking Opposition: China should not ban smoking

9. Dragon Appropriate? West Misunderstood? Historical Meaning? Practical costs?

10. Issues ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree Issues focus the points of clash within the proposition Emerge as a result of the arguments advanced by the Prop and Opp sides May or may not be acknowledged by the teams

12. Issues �China should ban smoking� Proposition: Smoking creates a significant public health hazard Opposition: Banning smoking will have significant economic consequences for producers and retailers Banning smoking infringes on the rights of smokers.

14. Debating (argumentation) is a contest of efforts to gain ground on particular issues and, by so doing, on the proposition. Ground may be gained by advancing (horizontally) against opponents or by expanding (vertically) against other issues.

15. Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction)

17. Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction) Prop: Smoking poses a public health risk Opp: Smoking poses little public health risk

19. Expansion: vertical movement between issues Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing).

21. Expansion: vertical movement between issues Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing). Prop: Smokers� rights are less important than public health Opp: The economic consequences of this policy far outweigh the minimal gains in public health, particularly when less intrusive means to control smoking exist.

23. The Process of Adjudication

24. Priorities and Guiding Values Tabula Rasa: the �blank slate� Education: participants should be encouraged to improve and develop Non-intervention: let the debaters debate, don�t make their efforts irrelevant or do their jobs for them

25. 3 standards and a model The Standards: Matter and Manner Role Fulfillment Better Debate The Model: The movement model

26. Matter & Manner Matter 3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience. 3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case. 3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information. Manner 4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience. 4.1.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Primarily, manner may be assessed by examining the speakers� style (delivery) and structure (organization).

27. Role Fulfillment Opening Prop Clear Model and Case Refutation and Rebuttal Opening Opp Clear team line Refutation and Rebuttal Member Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp) Extensions Whip Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp) Holistic Summary

28. The �Better Debate� Standard Who contributed most to (or detracted most from) the quality of this debate? Guiding principles: Inquiry: Are the most germane issues interrogated? Advancement: Does each speech/speaker move the debate forward? Engagement: Do the debaters test the arguments of the opposing side? Performance: Who delivers the most compelling oratorical effort?

29. A model of adjudication Model: A perspective from which to consider the debate A framework to guide your consideration of the round Debate is a contest of ideas: the best ideas should win

30. Less Practical Adjudication Models �Truth of motion� model Question: at the end of the debate, is the motion true or false? Risk: the bias of the judge may make the debaters� efforts irrelevant �Skill of debaters� model Question: which team did the better job of arguing their position? Risk: the debaters may be eloquent, but their arguments may be untrue.

31. The Movement Model Before the round, the judge thought the motion was: After the round, the judge thought the motion was: Opposition wins, because they moved the judge the farthest.

32. Adjudicating the Debate Identify the proposition Identify the issues Determine the winner of each issues Determine the importance of each issue Assess each team�s efforts relative to the issues Report the decision

33. Steps 1 & 2 Identify the Proposition: What is the question of the motion? Identify the Issues: Over which specific points do the teams contest the proposition?

35. Steps 3 & 4 Determine the winner of each issue: Which side occupies the most ground for each issue? (Distribution) Determine the relative importance of issues: What is the relative importance of each issue? (Expansion)

36. Truth: does the argument correspond to fact or reality? Fidelity (External Consistency)? Coherence (Internal Consistency)? Validity: is the argument well-constructed and well-executed? Effective expression? Strategically deployed?

38. Step 5 Determine each team�s effort relative to each issue: Who did what to win or rank each issue?

40. Step 6 Justify and report the decision

41. Oral Adjudication Constraints Between 10-20 minutes Delivered by the Chair Wing adjudicators may contribute at the Chair�s discretion Should not reveal speaker points Procedure Reveal Rankings Provide Reason for Rank for each team Provide constructive criticism Answer questions

42. Panel Adjudication Achieving consensus Many perspectives can make for better judging Led to consensus by the Chair Avoid bullying Avoid laissez-faire leadership Active participation by Wing Judges Critical to quality decisions and adjudicator development Don�t capitulate; don�t calcify Isolate the difficult decision Bench win? Top or bottom half debate? Agree on First? Fourth? Decision between 1st & 2nd? 2nd & 3rd? Can default to majority decision

43. Assigning Points Scale 1-100; 75 average Point inflation strongly opposed Functional range: 60 - 90 Determining Points Points are based on consensus Start with agreement on highest or lowest for best or worst speaker Individual points totaled for team points No low-point wins