Download
1 / 18
380 likes | 1.07k Vues
China Debate Education Network: . Judging British Parliamentary Debate. Robert Trapp, Willamette University. A good judge is a good teacher, not necessarily a good debater Transitioning from to debater to judge Role of judge to help students improve
E N D
China Debate Education Network: Judging British Parliamentary Debate Robert Trapp, Willamette University
A good judge is a good teacher, not necessarily a good debater Transitioning from to debater to judge Role of judge to help students improve Role of judge to encourage students, especially beginners Judge as Educator
Practical Elements of Judging Conducting the Debate Do not start the debate until all debaters and judges are present Introduce the debate Introduce each speaker in turn Be prepared to keep time After the debate, temporarily dismiss the debaters After the decision is reached, reconvene the debaters, announce the rankings and provide oral feedback
Keeping Good Notes Good notes are necessary in order to keep track of arguments constructed by all debaters A variety of methods of taking notes are possible Examine your notes in order to reach a decision and to discuss the decision with other judges on your judging panel
Reaching a Decision Most tournaments will use a form of “consensus judging” In consensus judging, all judges will have to agree on one set of rankings and speaker points for the teams In the rare instances where consensus is not possible, the decisions about final rankings are put to a vote with the chair’s vote serving as the tiebreaker
Responsibilities of the Chair Provide all the adjudicators a few minutes to look over their notes and independently decide their initial rankings NOT to bully the other judges into accepting the chair’s rankings Lead the post-debate discussion Explain the rankings and give constructive suggestions to each debater
Completing the Ballot Rank the teams 1st to 4th (1st is the best, 4th is the lowest) Assign speaker points Technically range from 0-100 75 points is generally considered the average To rank a speaker 85 points or higher the debater should have strong points, be well organized and very persuasive To rank lower than 65 the debater is totally disorganized or demonstrates poor argumentation skills
Providing Oral Feedback Does the feedback encourage debaters, especially beginners, to improve? Does it clearly provide suggestions for improvement to each debater? Does it clearly explain the reasons the panel reached its decision?
Judging as Reasonable and Impartial Judge with respect to the topic at hand Do not judge what was NOT presented if another team also did not present the issue Do not judge on preconceived view of the arguments or motion Judge as a “Reasonable and impartial observer”
Judging Role Fulfillment Fulfillment of a role is secondary It comes after judging of constructing cogent arguments and engaging in sound refutation Sometimes debaters are rewarded for creatively departing from their role when circumstances dictate Debaters roles are presented in the lesson entitled “Introduction to British Parliamentary Debate”
Judging Effective Argumentation Evaluate the content for both reasoning and its impact on the debate How well do debaters argue their positions? Who does the best job on key issues? Who explains not only the claims bur the reasons and evidence? Who best crafts their arguments? Who maintains logical consistency? How relevant are the arguments to the debate and motion?
Judging Points of Information Every speaker should raise points, even if those points are refused One way to keep track of this is to draw ticks next to the debater’s name each time they raise a point and circling the tick when their point is accepted
Judging Agenda Setting Does the debater create and contribute to the overall agenda of the debate? Does the debater work to ensure that the threads of argument he or she has introduced are discusses throughout the entire debate?
