Adjudicator test

12th KIDA National Championship

*

TIME DETAILS

Phase 1 7:00 PM – 7:15 PM Roll call & announcements

7:15 PM – 7:30 PM Written test (Quiz)

7:30 PM – 8:45 PM Test debate & preparation

of oral adjudication

Phase 2 8:45 PM – 10:00 PM Interview

*

*

1. Basic rules

2. Scoring range

3. Ballot sheets

4. Decision making

5. Oral adjudication

Prime Minister: Open up the contention of the debate, provide a fair and

clear set up and open the cases for Government team.

Leader of Opposition: assess the set up provided by the PM, refute to

PM and open the counter arguments for Opposition team.

Deputy speakers: refute the previous speaker, rebuild own team’s case

and continue on the case.

Whip speakers: break the deadlocks of the debate in forms of clash and

refutations. Should not provide new matter (additional analysis to arguments

that have already been provided is not considered as new matter)

Reply speakers: provide biased adjudication of why their team won the

round.

*WHO ARE YOU?

*Average Knowledgeable person

*No preconceptions

*Different Status of Adjudicators

- Chair: Head of Adjudicators, Lead the debate (dissenting chair)

- Panel: Make decisions and also able to dissent the chair

- Shadow: Able to Adjudicate but not participate in decision making

Three Criteria

*Matter - substance of the debate, the arguments and evidence presented, and the logical reasoning and presentation of said arguments. Average: 30

*Manner - the style of delivery, the persuasion skills, and the conduct of the debaters. Average: 30

*Method - the response to the dynamics of the debate, and the observance of the rules of debate. Average 15

Grade Marks Meaning

A

79-80

Excellent to flawless. The standard of speech you would expect to se

e from a speaker at the Grand Finals level of international-level tour

naments. This speaker has many strengths and very few, if any, weak

nesses. Give an 80 if you are ready to convert to his/her religion.

B

77-78

Above average to very good. The standard you would expect to see f

rom a speaker at the finals level or in contention to make to the fina

ls. This speaker has clear strengths and some minor weaknesses.

C 74-76 Average. The speaker has strengths and weaknesses and roughly equ

al proportions.

D 72-73 Poor to below average. The speaker has clear problems and some mi

nor strengths.

E 70-71 Very poor. This speaker has fundamental weaknesses and few, if any,

strengths.

Manner Matter Method Manner Matter Method

30

30

30

30

30

30

15 30

30

31

30

30

30

15

15

15

15

15

75

75

76

75

75

75

15 15 7.5 37.5 15 15 7 37

Minimum Point Average Point Maximum Point

Speaker: 70 75 80

BE CORRECT IN THE CALCUATIONS AND ESPECIALLY ON THE WIN/LOSS

THE WINNING TEAM CAN NOT HAVE SAME OR HIGHER POINTS THAN THE LOSING TEAM

Fill out ALL parts of the ballot!!

홍길동

THW love adjing

EDIS HYDS

이한양

김한양

삼한양

김한양

최에디스

박에디스

홍에디스

최에디스

262.5 263

EDIS

X 2

304

X 0.5

*

* Use FLOW CHARTS – complete record of debate &

immediate keeping responses to the dynamics of the

debate

*Identify key issues of the debate, provide a balanced,

comparative and analytical feedback

*Reach decision independently

*

What things to look for?

*Quality assessments of:

- Substantive matter/ construction of case

- Engagement – dynamics of discussion/ progressive responses

- Role fulfillment: to what extent?

*Good quality?

- Well defined & fulfilled Burden of proof:

- Relevance & significance to case/ spirit of the motion

- Depth of analysis

*

*Describe the debate/ repeat what the strongest

speaker said/ describe the AP rules rather than

evaluating the substantives

*Enter the debate

*Be distracted during the debate

*Use your mobile phones except for stop watch purposes

*Talk among the judges during the debate/ before an

independent decision is reached

*

NEVER enter into the debate.

*Adjudicators enter the debate by;

- Providing a missing link for a team,

- Pointing out a flaw (contradiction, inconsistency) of a team’s case when no other team has done so

- Finishing an incomplete argument or analysis for a team

- Having unfair/narrow expectations from a team (extra burden of proof)

- Filtering out comments made by the debater.

STRUCTURE

1. Impression of the debate

2. Highlight the difference between the teams

3. Identify the issues each team won/lost on

= main reasons for the decision.

*At the end of your adjudication, debaters should have a clear understanding of why they lost/won: give specific reference to speakers.

*NEVER base your decision on instinct & English fluency alone.

*

*Did I apply my standards equally to both teams?

*What was the basis of my understanding/interpretation of this argument? Would others understand/interpret it the same way?

*Has my personal knowledge or beliefs in the issue influenced my decisions?

*Was a team’s manner a major reason why the team won/lost the debate?

*Were the team’s rebuttals for and criticism of the other team reasonable? Does the criticism/rebuttal apply to them too?

*Will this argument work in the real world?

*How did this argument/issue become irrelevant?

Adjudication is also a speech! It has to be just as well organised and well

reasoned!

PRACTICE your adj-ing !