KIDA Guide_Official Guide to Parliamentary

Transcription

KIDA Guide
: Official Guide to
Parliamentary Debate
in Korea
age KIDA
Intro and History Disprove it Let the
Sit down you have done enough
life Win by a huge margin Why is this so
n you have done enough damage
rnament
ers
mage
4th
Disprove it Debate
Sit down you have done enough damage
Dare to Challenge
Mind Blowing 80P Speech
Automatic 4th
At the End of the Day
I promise this is my last tournament Get a life
You are out of the debate Stop dating debaters
ebaters
Automatic 4th
Tournament
End of the Day
ate
Mind Blowing 80P Speech
Sit down you have done enough damage
In KIDA World Why
is this so
esome Motions
gin
Blow their mind with your argumen
Why is this so At the End of the Day
In KIDA World
Why is t
it
Stop dating debaters Too l
Research Aw
At the End of the Day
e
Adjudication
ions
KNC Results and Motions St
KP Publisher, Inc. publishes works that further KP’s mission of ‘Education for a Better World’.
7th Floor of Nobel Building, 891-44 Daechi-4-dong, Kangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea
Tel. 82-2-2051-1775 / Fax 82-2-2052-1738
www.KPpublisher.com
KP Publisher, Inc. Reg. No. 322-2008-000054 (March 12, 2008)
Copyright © KIDA 2013
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of KIDA.
Please contact KIDA ([email protected]) for any clarification of content
or other issues regarding this book.
ISBN:
CO-EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
(IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)
JaeHyun Albert Lee
Albert is a graduate of College of International Studies at Kyung Hee University,
majoring in International Studies, and now a Graduate student of International
Relations at Seoul National University. He was Chief Adjudicator of Northeast Asian
Open 2012 and DCA of the Spring KNC in 2008, and is DCA of KIDA IV. His debate
achievements include KNC 6th Best Speaker, Semi-finalist, Quarter-finalist, and Octofinalist. He has served as Director of Division of Public Information in KIDA during
2012 and was a co-editor of KNC Hosting Manual. He believes that debate empowers
individuals in the most profound way and is passionate about sharing that
experience through online and offline publication.
JuSeung Daniel Yi
Daniel recently graduated from SolBridge International School of Business with a
Bachelor of Business Administration. He is a founder of SolBridge Debate Society,
where he spent more time than in his college classes. Daniel was Chief Adjudicator of
2012 Fall Korean National Championship, and is Chief Adjudicator of KIDA IV, as well
as Northeast Asian Open 2013. His debate achievements include ESL Semi-finalist in
Australian Debating Championship, Semi-finalist in NEAO, and Quarter-finalist in KNC
as well as the achievements at other regional tournaments. He believes that debate
is a powerful tool in many aspects of life, and is passionate about spreading it.
EDITORS’ FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION TO PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE IN KOREA
It has been six years since Korean debate community was formed with the
creation of Korea Intervarsity Debate Association (KIDA). Since then, Korean
debate community saw rapid growth, and has played an active role in
international debate arena. Domestically, the community consists of 17
university debate societies at the intervarsity level. This new yet vibrant
community, despite a short history, has brought to Korea major international
tournaments such as Australasian Debating Championship (Australs), All-Asian
Intervarsity Debating Championship, and Asian Schools Debating Championship.
The past years have also witnessed Korean teams winning a championship at
regional tournaments such as Northeast Asian Open, and breaking (advancing to
the main league as one of the top teams of the tournament) at the World’s
largest tournaments such as World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC),
United Asian Debating Championship (UADC), and Australs, which were once
deemed a remote possibility for many Korean teams.
However, it has come to our attention that much of the knowledge remains in
individuals, and the knowledge in hosting and debating needs transferring to
carry on this success, as well as to expand the Korean debate community further.
As a result, ‘KIDA Official Guide to Parliamentary Debate in Korea’ has come to
see the light. An expanded edition of ‘KNC Hosting Guide’ published in May 2012,
this guide was designed to help debaters and individuals interested in debate
access debate easily, and to serve as a comprehensive guidebook from running a
tournament to enhancing debating skills. This guide is a first attempt of its kind,
initiated by KIDA to promote debate across Korea with the help of some of the
best debaters and adjudicators in Korea.
In addition to the ‘Guide’ element of this book, there are a number of sections
that have been added. The first chapter, “Introduction to Korea Debate
Intervarsity Association,” is one that briefly explains the role of KIDA in the
debate scene. The chapter has a record of KIDA’s past Presidents and
Secretariats, as well as list of all the eleven KIDA National Championships (KNC)
that took place so far and the Champions who have been crowned so far.
Moreover, Appendix 1 has a list of motions for all the KNCs.
Hence the title KIDA Guide: Introduction to Parliamentary Debate in Korea. This
book is not only a guide and an introduction, but a pioneer of its kind. Not only
those who are already engaged in Parliamentary Debate, but also students of all
levels with interests in Parliamentary Debate will benefit from this volume.
Korea is a country with rather disappointing culture of debate, especially in the
Congress, where members of National Assembly often resort to violence to get
their voices heard. We hope this Guide will be a cornerstone for Korean debate
culture, and help take Korean debate community a step further, not just in
records but also in terms of quality of debate, hosting tournaments, and
adjudication.
Lastly, we wish to thank all those who have helped us put together this volume.
Those who have contributed their articles or helped us gather information are
credited in the Acknowledgment section at the end of this book. While we tried
to make sure that the information in this book is correct, errors or mistakes that
may be found in this book are the co-editors’ responsibility.
Sincerely,
JaeHyun Albert Lee
JuSeung Daniel Yi
Co-Editors-in-Chief
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Editors’ Foreword: Introduction to Parliamentary Debate in Korea
Chapter 1: Introduction to Korea Intervarsity Debate Association  1
1.1 KIDA  1
1.2 Council  2
1.3 Secretariat  5
1.4 KIDA National Championship  11
1.5 List of Debate Tournaments  13
Chapter 2: Guide to Hosting Tournaments  16
2.1 Organizing Committee  18
2.2 Tournament Directing  27
2.3 Chief Adjudication Panel  31
2.4 Tabulation  53
Chapter 3: Guide to Judging  58
3.1 Introduction  58
3.2 Guide to AP Judging  59
3.3 Guide to BP Judging  67
3.4 Hands-on Guide to BP Judging  72
Chapter 4: Guide to Researching for debate  79
4.1 Why Research Matters  79
4.2 Organize Your Research  80
4.3 Online Resources  82
4.4 How to Build Debate Case files  85
Acknowledgements  88
Appendix 1: Past KNC Motions  89
Appendix 2: Adjudicator Questionnaire  110
Appendix 3: Ballot Form  113
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION TO
KOREA INTERVARSITY DEBATE ASSOCIATION
1.1 KIDA
1.2 Council
1.3 Secretariat
1.4 KIDA National Championship
1.5 List of Debate Tournaments
1.1 KOREA INTERVARSITY DEBATE ASSOCIATION
KIDA (Korea Intervarsity Debate Association), established in 2006, is currently
the sole representative body of the Korean university students who engage in
parliamentary style debate in English. It is a non-profit organization with the
mission of promoting interaction and productive discussion among member
institutions. We seek to promote English debate within Korea in order to raise
awareness about important global issues of the day.
KIDA consists of more than 17 member institutions from more than 13
universities in Korea. It operates through KIDA Council and KIDA Secretariat. The
Council is a decision-making body made up of representatives of each member
institution, while the Secretariat (KIDA President, Vice President, Treasury, and
Secretary) facilitates the discussion among the Council in monthly KIDA Council
Meetings (KCM). The Secretariat at large, divided into a number of departments,
also provides institutional management from keeping the records and budget to
running its website and blog.
Annually, we conduct a number of projects including debate tournaments,
workshops, debate league and social events while supervising projects carried
out by member institutions.
Please contact via the following:
Homepage: www.korea-debate.com
KIDA Blog: kidatalks.blogspot.kr/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/groups/295556537170672/
KIDA Video Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/kidavideo
E-mail: [email protected]
1
1.2 KIDA COUNCIL
KIDA Council consists of 17 institutions from more than 13 universities in Korea.
It is a decision-making body that decides upon issues pertaining to debate. KIDA
Council Meeting (KCM) is held regularly once every month in a university that
proposes to host it.
KIDA COUNCIL MEMBERS (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER)
FULL NAME
DESCRIPTION
ADS
Albatross Debate Society is the official parliamentary debate club
in Sogang University. ADS was founded in 2009 and currently
holds 12∼20 members each semester.
(Albatross
Debate Society)
CANDO
(CAU Ansung
Campus Debate
Organization)
CANDO is the debate society in Chung-Ang University Ansung
campus.
CUDS
CUDS is the debate society positioned in Chung-Ang University
Seoul campus. Having been founded in 2004, with the help of
passionate members and Professors such as Logan and Jan, it has
evolved into one of the most active members of KIDA.
(Chung-Ang
University
Debate Society)
DAE
(Debate
Association of
Ewha)
EDiS
(Ewha Debating
Society)
HDS
(HUFS Debate
Society)
DAE, being one of the societies who have made great
achievements in North East Asia, is the debate society in Ewha
that excludes DIS students. Having been founded in 2005 under
the guidance of Professor Peter Kipp, it remains an active
member of KIDA.
EDiS prides itself in being the first debate society in the history of
Korea. Founded in 2002, the activities range from workshops to
hosting high-school tournaments and also achieving excellent
results.
HUFS (Hankuk University of Foreign Studies) is not only
distinguished in recruiting diverse people from diverse nations,
but also organizes the HUFS-YTN debate tournament which is
well known as a highly competitive debate competition that
fosters young debaters.
2
HYDS
(Hanyang Debate
Society)
HYM
(Hanyang
Master)
IDS
(International
Debate Society)
KACDS
(Keimyung
Adams College
Debate Society)
KDS
(Kyunghee
Debate Society)
KU
(Korea University
Debate Club)
SDS
(SolBridge
Debate Society)
SKEDA
(Sung Kyun
English Debate
Association)
HYDS founded in 2004 consists of students in the Division of
International Studies department. Having won three nationals
and boasting consistent membership of more than 50 students, it
is widely regarded as one of the strongest debate clubs in Korea.
HYM is a debate club which is in Hanyang University and consists
of members that are not part of the DIS Department. HYM is
active in promoting debate and welcomes all students within the
University who wish to come and enjoy debate,
IDS is a debate society of Kyung Hee University located in Seoul.
Founded in 2002, IDS boasts of a highly diverse group of students
from five different departments.
KACDS is a society that is unique on the aspect of not being part
of the Seoul region. Under the guidance of Professor Henley and
despite the fact of not being in the Seoul region, it has still
achieved outstanding performances in the Nationals going to the
Rookie finals.
KDS is an English Debating club of Kyunghee University Global
Campus. Apart from active participation in debating and judging,
KDS has been active in hosting not only KNC but also regional
tournaments such as Northeast Asian Open. Two of past KIDA
Presidents and one Director were from KDS.
Established in 2005, KU is the only English Parliamentary debate
society within Korea University. KU is also a powerhouse not only
in achievements but also in allowing more opportunity in
debating opportunity by hosting tournaments such as the Korea
University Debate Championship for high school students.
SDS, founded by JuSeung Yi in 2009, is a debate team officially
recognized by the school. It is also a structured organization with
coaches and various departments under it. Not only is SDS
showing outstanding performance despite its short history, but
also the team is active in promoting debate to non-Seoul
metropolitan areas through various out-reach programs.
SKEDA has been and still is the one and only English debating
club of Sungkyunkwan University. Founded in 2008, it has
contributed greatly to SKKU students by recruiting, training and
providing regular debate sessions to SSKU students.
3
SNUDA
(Seoul National
University
Debate
Association)
SWDS
(Seoul
Women’s
Debate
Society)
UU
(Underwood
Union)
SNUDA is the debate society of Seoul National University,
founded in 2007.
SWDS, starting in 2004 with the English language and literature
students, was established to improve logical thoughts as well as
to learn general knowledge about social issues. It is currently the
most competitive club in Seoul Women’s University.
The Underwood Union is the premier and legitimate varsity
English debating society of Yonsei University. It prides itself as a
one of the strongest societies, having been crowned champions
of Korea Nationals and Northeast Asia several times throughout
history.
4
1.3 KIDA SECRETARIAT
KIDA Secretariat is composed of President, Vice President, Treasury, Secretary,
and the Directors of each Division. KIDA President is voted by the KIDA Council at
the beginning of the year to serve one year. Upon election the President-elect
appoints the rest of the positions.
LIST OF PAST KIDA PRESIDENTS AND SECRETARIAT
NO.
YEAR
DURATION
st
2006
2 half
nd
2007
1 half
1
2
rd
3
th
4
th
5
th
6
th
7
th
8
2007
2008
2008
2009
2009
2010
nd
st
nd
2 half
st
1 half
nd
2 half
st
1 half
nd
2 half
yearround
POSITION
NAME
SOCIETY
President
Ji-eun Song
EDiS
President
Jong-min Choi
KU
Secretary
Je Sun Moon
EDiS
President
Joo-ho Kim
IDS
Secretary
HyeSoo Jang
DAE
Treasurer
Hyun Jin Kim
HYDS
President
Mi-Kyong Kim
KDS
Vice President
Damin Kim
CUDS
Secretary
Carol Park
HDS
President
Hee-jin Ahn
EDiS
Vice President
Carol Park
HDS
Secretary
Jinny Moon
UU
Treasurer
Hyunseon Noh
SangMyung
President
Jinny Moon
UU
Vice President
Da In Kim
UU
Secretary
Dohhee Roh
EDiS
President
Ahyoung Kim
EDiS
Vice President
Kang Min Lee
SKEDA
Secretary
HyunUk Ahn
SKEDA
Treasurer
Ki Wook Kim
CUDS
President
HyoungGyu Cho
HYDS
Secretary
Dohhee Roh
EDiS
Treasurer
Seulgi Jang
SNUDA
Public Relations
GwangGeol Lee
KU
5
th
9
th
10
2011
2012
yearround
st
1 half
Communications
Gang Min Lee
Education
Sun Hee Kim
President
Dohhee Roh
EDiS
Vice President
Eui Joon Kim
ADS
Secretary
Bo Kyung Kim
UU
Financial Officer
Public Relations
Director
President
Bee Shin
HDS
Yu Kyum
KDS
Eui Yun Kim
KDS
Hyewon Lee
Tae Yeong John
Kim
Eun Song Kim
EDiS
CUDS
EuiJoon Kim
ADS
Hyewon Rho
KU
Vice President
Secretary
th
11
2012
nd
2 half
Treasurer
Director,
Administration
Director, Planning
and Dev.
Director, Public
Information
President**
SKEDA
Incheon
Univ.
KU
JaeHyun Albert
Lee
Hyewon Lee
EDiS
Vice President
Hyewon Rho
KU
Treasurer
Director, Planning
and Dev.
Joonhak Choi
SNUDA
Donghee Chae
KU
KDS
* Apologies in advance in case where there are incorrect or missing information in
the above list. In that case, please contact [email protected] to correct the
information.
** Presidency for the second term in 2012 was taken by the first term Vice President,
as the first term President recused himself from the position due to personal reasons.
While majority of the Secretariat members stayed on the same position, there were
some changes. Written under the second term are only those who have been newly
appointed into office.
6
INTRODUCTION TO EACH DIVISION AND ITS PROJECTS
DIVISION OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (DPD)
Purpose
The Division of Planning and Development is the central engine in initiating,
coordinating and managing various KIDA Secretariat projects. Projects range
from the academic sphere involving debate lectures and training sessions to the
social sphere of casual get-togethers and parties. The goal of this division is
creating and maintaining the idea of community and camaraderie among various
debating societies within KIDA.
Projects
1) KIDA League: Each semester, any member society of KIDA can register for the
KIDA League, and once a week, participating societies convene and debate after
a brief lecture coordinated by the DPD. Each week, winning societies get certain
points and the points are accumulated so that at the end of the semester, top
societies break to the League Finals. The purpose of KIDA league is to foster
friendly, yet competitive debating environment and DPD coordinates the event
through creating a network between society heads.
2) KIDA Workshop: The KIDA Workshop is an official KIDA event that provides
opportunities for newbie debaters to learn and practice debate from
experienced trainers from different societies. DPD casts lecturers and provides
venue for registered debaters to come and take elective courses on specific
themes of motions, speaker roles, or adjudication. The even allows new societies
to develop training curriculums and lectures, which is within the goal of KIDA to
spread debate and increase participation among different Korean college
students.
3) KIDA Night: The KIDA Night is an official homecoming event for past debaters,
or so-called ‘dinosaurs’ who have graduated or retired. The purpose of KIDA
night is to provide an opportunity for debaters from different generations and
schools to meet, to introduce KIDA to past debaters who have shaped the
community before it became systemized and official, and to create a sense of
attachment and belonging to the Korean debating community.
4) KIDA MT: KIDA MT is a social event coordinated by the DPD, where debaters
gather and spend time. The event is purely for socializing, and any debater is
welcome to join. DPD provides programs to break the ice and bond.
7
DIVISION OF PUBLIC INFORMATION (DPI)
Purpose
The Division of Public Information brings together the different information and
communication departments of the association. Its activities aim at making
KIDA’s ideals, projects and achievements known to different audiences. It thus
contributes to spreading the knowledge generated by KIDA’s programs, raising its
profile and encouraging partnerships with public and private groups. DPI is
particularly responsible for KIDA’s publications program, the development and
coordination of the KIDA website, and the application of standards concerning
the use of KIDA’s name and logo, as well as internal communication.
Project
1) KIDA Guide: KIDA Guide is a guidebook for debaters, adjudicators, and
organizers of debate events. This guide consists of detailed information
regarding debate in Korea, KIDA, hosting tournaments, judging debates,
researching for debate, and etc.
2) KIDA Blog: KIDA Blog is the official internet blog. The purpose of the blog is
not restricted to providing articles and interesting interviews, but also plays a
role in providing tournament reports on the achievements of individual societies,
as well as motions and basic information of the tournament.
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION (DA)
Purpose
The Division of Administration provides administrative support to KIDA council
and the Secretariat. The core functions of the DA include: budgeting, fundraising,
human resources management, documentation, sorting and distributing public
information, general administration. The Administration Department also
oversees and administers long-term contracts and relations with other debate
related organizations and institutions.
Project
1) Finance & Fundraising: With the leadership of the KIDA treasurer, the DA
plans and manages the budget of KIDA. Plus there is also the conduction of
separate fundraising operations to expand the financial capacity of KIDA.
2) General Administration: The DA documents and records the overall activities
in which KIDA engages upon but also provides platform documents for KIDA’s
resource management.
8
KIDA SECRETARIAT 2012: REVIEW
For KIDA, 2012 was a year of great expansion. The organization started to
formalize its processes, while launching a number of ambitious projects. Council
membership was organized and managed with care. KNC Constitution was
amended a number of times. Most important of all, KIDA served its role as the
central organization, bringing Korean debaters together and providing leadership,
authority, and guidance. Its projects in the year of 2012 are the following, in
chronological order:
o First Half, under leadership of Eui Yun Kim
 KIDA Leadership Training
 KIDA Membership Training
 New Homepage Launched
 KIDA Mondays
 Spring Workshop
 Sponsorship by KP Global Education. Ltd.
 KIDA Talks (Offline Magazine)
 KNC Hosting Manual
o Second Half, under leadership of Hyewon Lee
 KIDA led tournament preparation sessions
 KIDA Talks Online (Online Blog)
 KIDA League
 KIDA Guide: Official Guide to Parliamentary Debate in Korea
 KIDA IV, sponsored by United Nations Development Programme Seoul
Policy Centre
 Korea Schools Debating Championship
 Winter Workshop
 KIDA Night
9
KIDA SECRETARIAT 2013
In KIDA Council Meeting on January 12th, Geonsub Shin (Hanyang University)
has been elected as the President. As of now (January 2013), he is in the process
of confirming the Secretariat members he will be working with.
PRESIDENT’S WORD
In 2009 March, I have watched a Parliamentary Style debate for the first time in
my life. At that time I saw debate as something strange, something too elite for
someone like myself.
I never thought that I would be spending my time and money to participate in
debate tournaments abroad. Yet, I am introducing myself as the next President of
Korea Intervarsity Debate Association.
For the last four years of my university life, I have seen numerous positive changes
within Korean debate community, many of which were initiated and conducted by
KIDA. Compared to the first year of KIDA in 2006, we now have a variety of
members from diverse universities of Korea. Thanks to the past Presidents' efforts,
it seems that KIDA as an organization became much more stable and
organized. Particularly, the two Presidents we had in 2012 brought significant
changes to KIDA, giving me huge pressure to do as well as they did.
Korean debate community has accomplished many things outside of Korea as well.
Since the first British Parliament Style Northeast Asian Open in 2009, all four
champions have been Korean teams. Many other tournaments and events also
prove the increased reputation of Korean debate community.
My goal as the next President of KIDA is quiet simple and clear. I plan to prioritize
more on helping members that are new to debate community. When I first started
'debate,' it was more 'difficult' than 'entertaining'. At times, it was painful to go
through the process of having to learn by making mistakes. Now that I look back, I
think that if my debate club was not stable enough to assist me, I would have
dropped out from debate long time ago. Drawing upon my own experience, I plan
to prioritize KIDA events that can help and encourage new members to actually
have fun and not be stressed out.
Finally, I want KIDA to be able to help Korean debate community maintain such
positive achievements we have had. I can say that there will not be much
significant changes from last years' KIDA events. 2013 KIDA Secretariat will focus
more on stabilizing the new events we had in 2012. There may be number of
modifications but the initial frameworks will be maintained.
10
Thank you all for electing me as the President and I look forward to serving you
throughout the year.
1.4 KIDA NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
KIDA NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
The KIDA National Championship (KNC) is an intervarsity-level debating
competition. The tournament is hosted by a bidding university in Korea,
supervised and run by KIDA while the participants consist of the member
societies of KIDA. Its purpose is to promote debate in Korea and provide an
opportunity for intervarsity-level debaters to competitively debate. KNC is
hosted twice a year; once being in the spring while the next being hosted in fall.
The spring KNC is in the Asian Parliamentary format while the fall event is
organized in British Parliamentary style.
PAST KNCS, HOSTS, AND CHAMPIONS
NO. &
FORMAT
1st
(AP)
2nd
(AP)
3rd
(AP)
4th
(AP)
5th
(AP)
YEAR
2007
Fall
2008
Spring
2008
Fall
2009
Spring
2009
Fall
HOST
CHAMPION
IDS
HYDS
(Kyung Hee
University)
(Hyung-Gyu Cho, Sumi
Park, Junsub Chun)
DAE
KU
(EwhaWoman
s University)
(Jeesoo Kang, Jaeyong
Shin, Minkyung Cho)
UU
IDS
(Yonsei
University)
(Hyo Shin Yoo, Jee Meen
Cha, Sung Hee Seo)
KDS
HYDS
(Kyung Hee
University)
(Jae-Hyun Kang, Kang-Eun
Lee, Wan-Joo Choi)
EDiS
UU
(EwhaWoman
s University)
(Wonjoon Jang, Minjae
Yoo, Nayoung Song)
11
EFL
CHAMP.
ROOKIE
CHAMP.
DAE
SNUDA
HYDS
Incheon
Univ.
SNUDA
UU
HDS
th
6
(AP)
7th
(BP)
8th
(AP)
9th
(BP)
10th
(AP)
11th
(BP)
2010
Spring
(Hankuk
University of
Foreign
Studies)
KU
(Hyewon Rho, Jinseok We,
Eunsong Kim)
SKEDA
2010
Fall
(Sungkyunkwa
n University)
2011
Spring
ADS
EDiS
(Sogang
University)
(Moonyoung Park,
Seoyoung Lee, Yirey Suh)
2011
Fall
HYDS
CUDS
(Hanyang
University)
(Nam Chul Kim, Yeeun
Kim)
(Ewha
Womans
University)
2012
Fall
(SolBridge Int’l
School of
Business)
KU
SNUDA
KDS
HDS
SNUDA
DAE
SNUDA
SDS
SNUDA
KU
(Moonyul Lee, Junbin Yun)
DAE
2012
Spring
HYM
CUDS
(Tae Yeong Kim, Mingeun
Seo, Seung-Hwan Hong)
SDS
EDiS
(Hyewon Lee, Young Cho
Lee)
* Apologies for the missing information. If you have correct information, please
contact [email protected].
12
1.5 LIST OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE TOURNAMENTS
TOURNAMENT LIST (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)
The following is a list of tournaments that Korean debaters attend. There are
many international tournaments that are not on the list. The below tournaments
are the major tournaments Korean debaters participate in. Most of the
tournaments are annually held, with only a few exceptions. While many of them
require institutional teams, some tournaments are “open,” accepting teams
consisting members of different institutions or even non-students. An open
tournament is open to everyone regardless of age or status, while an Intervarsity
(IV) tournament is open for composite teams consisting of undergraduate and
graduate students. Since tournaments are hosted by different universities every
year, websites for tournaments change. Refer to KIDA Public Forum
(http://www.facebook.com/groups/295556537170672/) or subscribe to Google
e-mail group Debate Asia (Google “Debate Asia” on Google Groups or go directly
to https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=ko&fromgroups#!forum/debateasia) to
access up-to-date information regarding tournaments.
KIDA IV (Open to teams that consist of members from different institutions)
Debate Format: British Parliamentary Format (winter)
Date: January
Venue: Korea
Size: 40 - 60 teams
Asian Debate Institute (Debate workshop that usually is a week in length)
Debate Format: Asian Parliamentary Format (winter) / British Parliamentary Format
(summer)
Date: February (winter) / August (summer)
Venue: Korea
Size: 150 - 200 participants
Malaysia Debate Open (MDO)
Debate Format: Asian Parliamentary Format
Date: March
Venue: Malaysia
Size: 120 teams
13
International Christian University Tournament (ICUT)
Debate Format: Asian Parliamentary Style
th
Date: March 16 - 18 , 2013
Venue: International Christian University, Japan
Tournament Cap: 60 teams
United Asian Debating Championship (UADC)
Debate Format: Asian Parliamentary Format
Date: May
Venue: Asian countries
Size: 100 - 150 teams
KIDA National Championship (KNC)
Debate Format: Asian Parliamentary Format (spring)/ British Parliamentary Format
(fall)
Date: May (spring) / October (fall)
Venue: Korea
Australasian Intervarsity Debating Championships (Australs)
Debate Format: Australasian Parliamentary Format
Date: July
Venue: Australia / New Zealand
Intramuros International Intervarsity (Intramuros IV)
Debate Format: British Parliamentary Format
Date: August
Venue: Philippines
Size: 100 teams
Hong Kong Debate Open (HKDO)
Debate Format: British Parliamentary Format (fall)
Date: October
Venue: Hong Kong
Size: 50 - 60 teams
Asian BP (ABP)
Date: November
Venue: Asian Countries
Size: 80 teams
14
North East Asian Open (NEAO)
Debate Format: British Parliamentary Format (fall)
Date: November
Venue: Northeast Asian countries
World Universities Debating Championship (WUDC)
Date: December - January
Venue: All around the world
Size: 400 teams
DEBATE TOURNAMENT TIMELINE
MONTH
JAN
FEB
MAR
TOURNAMENT NAME
TYPE
FORMAT
Worlds (WUDC)
Regional
(Worldwide)
BP
KIDA IV
Intervarsity
BP
ADI
Workshop
AP
MDO
Open
AP
ICUT
Open
AP
UADC
Regional(Asia)
AP
KNC
Korea National
AP
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
ADI
Regional
(Austral-Asia)
Workshop
INTRAMUROS IV
Intervarsity
BP
KNC
Korea National
BP
HKDO
Open
BP
NEAO
Regional
(Northeast Asia)
BP
ASIAN BP
Regional(Asia)
BP
Worlds (WUDC)
Regional
(Worldwide)
BP
AUSTRALS
15
Australs Style
BP
CHAPTER 2: GUIDE TO HOSTING TOURNAMENTS
2.1 Organizing Committee
2.2 Tournament Directing
2.3 Chief Adjudication Panel
2.4 Tabulation
Going to a tournament as a debater, adjudicator, or observer is always exciting.
Learning new things, making new friends, and spending a weekend that will be
remembered forever, the tournament experience is one thing that keeps people
debating and judging throughout their university life. However, hosting a
tournament and creating that tournament experience is often seen as an n
impossibly daunting task, and many hesitate to host one.
While hosting a tournament is indeed an arduous task that requires collective
effort of tens or even hundreds of staffs, it is an opportunity to show the debate
community what your institution has to offer. Debate societies with long history
and stable membership often organize tournaments to boast of their strong
presence in the community. On the other hand, relatively new societies are
encouraged to host a competition to step up as an important institution in the
community.
We hope that the following guide will be of help in many of the things that
hosting a tournament requires. Hosting a tournament is no longer a nuisance.
Rather, it is a prestige and honor to prove the presence of your institution.
16
HOSTING A TOURNAMENT: SCHEMATIC INTRODUCTION
ORGANIZING
COMMITTEE
CHIEF
ADJUDICATION
PANEL
TABULATION
TEAM
There are mainly three teams or groups of individuals required in hosting a
tournament: Organizing Committee, Chief Adjudication Panel, and Tabulation
Team (While the whole of the three is also referred to as the Org. Comm., we
specifically refer to the Convening team when we use the word Org. Comm.) It is
crucial that the duties and obligation of each division within the Organizing
Committee (often referred to as the Org. Comm.) be crystal clear. The
importance of independence of each division can never be exaggerated enough:
mingling of duties is definitely a shortcut to confusion and chaos of a
tournament while a success of the tournament depends upon completeness and
solidity of each division’s duties. Here is a brief description of what each position
requires:
Organizing Committee: Organizing Committee plans and prepares the entire
tournament. Convener, the head of the Org. Comm., oversees the organization
of the whole tournament, including but not limited to the administration,
finance, food, accommodation, transportation, and etc.
Chief Adjudicator Panel: CAP is in charge of the content of the tournament:
making motions and managing the adjudicator pool.
Tab team: Tab team runs the tab program to produce the matchups for debate
rounds and to determine breaking teams as well as top speakers of the
tournament.
17
2.1 ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
If the Organizing Committee is an orchestra, the Convener is like an orchestra
conductor, being responsible for almost every aspect of the tournament,
especially the administrative aspect. The convening work ranges from financial
management, securing the venue, preparing food for participants, making sure
the tournament runs on time, to organizing the opening and closing ceremony.
As the overall manager, the Convener should be comfortable with taking
initiative, communicating with others, and organizing events in a timely manner.
In other words, Convener is a supervisor of the whole process. It is not usually
recommended for Convener to take specific tasks. However, that does not mean
that he or she should be empty-handed. As a supervisor, the convener should be
able to plan out a big picture and allocate resources and tasks to bring out the
maximum results within limited resources and time.
* Please note that this chapter was originally written as a guide to hosting KNC
and has been edited to include tips on hosting international tournaments.
2.1.0 SELECTION OF HOST AND THE CONVENER
Many tournaments go through a bidding process where the hosting institution
proposes the organizing package, from Convener, Chief Adjudicator, registration
fee, accommodation, and etc. Likewise, hosting institution of each KNC is
selected through the bidding procedure. (Ref. Article 3, Annex A)
2.1.1 STRUCTURING THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
Once a host is determined, the host should organize the Org. Comm. with a
proposed Convener. The team is built up by a group of people with skills best
suitable for each job.
It is always important that the team understands itself well enough in terms of
working dynamics, division of roles, and goals. A convening team usually consists
of the roles shown in the diagram below. For this reason, be reminded that each
individual in the team should be aware and understand each other’s role to
enable smooth communication and cooperation. As the convening work runs like
clockwork, it is important for Convener to keep track of tasks and work progress
while making decisions and to lead the team to execute the decisions made on
time.
18
Staff Director
Meal
Tournament
Director
Transportation
Finanace Manager
Accomodation
Registration
Manager
Material
CONVENER
Public Relations
Manager
Diagrammed structure of the Organizing Committee
2.1.2 BEFORE THE TOURNAMENT
VENUE, DATE, AND SCHEDULE <Best Done 60 days before the Tournament>
Hosts secure the venue within their universities. In order to do this, the
convener must determine the size of the tournament and book the venues.
For venues, refer to the Tournament Director Chapter. The date should be
scheduled so that it does not overlap with majority of university midsemester exam periods as well as other international tournaments that are
scheduled before the release of tournament dates.
TIP: It is highly recommended to maintain favorable relationship with the
school administration and coordinate with the host society’s school in
advance to garner the maximum support to run a tournament, as it is a key
stakeholder.
19
FINANCE/ BUDGET FEE <Best Done 60 days before the Tournament>
The Convener should have an estimate of necessary allocation of
expenditures and keep a record of all tournament expenses to ensure a
financially successful and transparent tournament. The main source of
tournament budget will be the registration fee from participants. However,
the convener can take the liberty to look for sponsorships to enhance the
quality of the tournament and lighten the financial burden on participants.
And it is strongly recommended for the Organizing Committee to contact
potential sponsors with well-designed proposal from early on rather than
assuming that sponsorship is impossible. In case of KNC, previous KNC have
charged debaters between 25,000 to 45,000 Won without accommodation,
depending on the circumstances of the hosting society as well as the size of
the tournament. Majority of tournament budget have been concentrated
on meals and tournament souvenirs such as hoodies and t-shirts. Other
administrative necessities such as printing out ballots, flow charts, feedback
forms, name tags and tournament booklets must also be carefully planned
and recorded for transparent report which happens at KCM following the
end of the tournament.
When planning the tournament, consider whether it would be possible to
subsidize experienced adjudicators by exempting their registration fee or
paying for their flight ticket. The amount of available subsidy must be
carefully planned within the grand scheme of budget planning.
ORG COMM. CONTACT CHANNEL <Best Done 60 days before the Tournament>
As soon as the hosts have been decided, it is crucial to set up a
communication channel (email, website, club, Facebook page/group and so
on) separate from KIDA websites/pages/clubs to act as an independent
information bridge between the Organizing Committee and the
participants1. Through this channel, important notices regarding dates,
fees, adjudication test plans, updates, deadline for society heads to submit
certain information such as team member change, rookie/English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) status of teams and so on will be announced. This
will also act as a sole medium for participants to raise questions they have
1
Also, an Org Comm. Communication channel for effective information sharing between
the Convener, CAP and tab director is strongly advised since it is crucial that all Org. Comm.
Members are on the same page, aware of recent updates regarding different tasks of the
tournament.
20
regarding the tournament. This will also act as a guide for non-KIDA
members to seek participation, and real-time communication channel to
deal with any inquiry from participants, and convey announcements before
and during the tournament, which is useful especially for international
tournaments with participants unfamiliar with the hosting country.
REGISTRATION <Best Done 50 days before the Tournament>
When the size, venue, date and registration fee have been determined, the
convener should set up and manage the registration system: registration
process and deadline for registration phases, relevant forms and notices,
independent bank and e-mail account and etc. The Convener must also
administer the registration fee and refunds. You should create your own
system in tracking and recording all necessary updates and developments
of registration and be able to share the final registration list with the CAP
and tab director while officially releasing the registration updates to the
participants soon after the end of registration date. For registration
software, you can use either Google Docs or FastRego, online software
designed specifically for tournament management.
TIPS on FastRego
FastRego, the open-sourced online tournament registration software, is
nowadays used by a great number of debate tournaments worldwide, including
WUDC, UADC, Australs, Northeast Asian Open, and etc. Refer to its website for
more information. (http://www.fastrego.com/)
ACCOMMODATION AND TRANSPORTATION
<Best Done 40 days before the Tournament>
The Convener should secure accommodation and transportation before the
tournament. When choosing accommodation, location, capacity and room
charges should be carefully considered in relation to the venue,
tournament size, and budget. It’s recommended to contact multiple hotels
and compare their offers to reduce accommodation expenses and provide
more benefits to participants. When allocating rooms, it is strongly advised
to ask for preferred roommates on a registration form and allocate
participants accordingly. This means the Convener should have all rooms
allocated already before the tournament starts.
In addition to accommodation, planning and securing transportation is
equally important to run a smooth event. Convener should contact bus
contractor, have transportation schedule ready, and coordinate with the
21
constructor during the tournament. It is also recommended to select
accommodation near the venue to save transportation cost and travel time
between accommodation and venue.
MEAL, BANQUET, AND KNC TROPHY
The host will be providing meals and water for all fee-paying participants
throughout the preliminary rounds. The Org. Comm. may choose not to
serve meals during the break rounds, but should inform the participants
before registration in that case. The meals should be selected to fit the
budget plan as well as at a place close by the debating venues to save time.
Also be reminded of the need to provide special dietary requirements,
especially when holding international tournaments, and that you need to
ask participants of their dietary requirements during the registration
phases.
For KNCs, there is usually one formal banquet; traditionally some KNC hosts
have located this banquet as a break night party whereas others have
scheduled it after the Closing Ceremony. Break-night party follows the
norm of international tournaments whereas closing ceremony was so that
breaking participants can stay longer without having to worry about
debating and adjudicating the next day as well as a nice round up gettogether where all societies can mingle without win or loss sensitivity. The
Convener is free to host other informal banquets as long as the budget
allows them or that the participants pay extra.
KNC trophy is a tradition starting from this year (2012) with engraved
names of all past champions of KNC whom are allowed to keep their trophy
for the remaining semester until the next KNC. The Convener must collect
this trophy at least two weeks prior to the tournament and any damages or
losses of trophy must be demanded compensation of from individuals
responsible.
TOURNAMENT BOOKLET AND OTHER MATERIALS
Tournament booklet will be produced with the purpose of guiding
participants and asking cooperation from participants on various issues
ranging from rules and penalties of the tournament. It should include
institution team cap, criteria for EFL and Rookie status, information about
Org Comm., penalties for late or absent debaters and adjudicators, guide of
22
campus map, tournament schedule and so on. Posters need to be designed
for use prior to and on the day of the tournament. Upon completion,
Tournament Director will be spreading the posters around the venue.
In international tournaments, it is customary to publish the tournament
booklet few weeks before the tournament to meet the needs of
international participants. Such guides, sometimes named “Guide to
Surviving at the Tournament,” contain crucial information on transportation
from abroad, from the airport, and to the accommodation venue.
Tournament souvenirs are also at discretion of the Convener. Traditionally,
KNC hosts have distributed things such as t-shirts and hoodies with the
particular KNC logo or slogan on.
CHECK LIST
CATEGORIES
People
Venue
Schedule
Accommodation
Budget
Communication
DETAILS
Is the convening team ready to take off?
Do the members of the team know what to do?
Does the team have enough staff members?
Are there enough debate chambers?
Is there a hall big enough to be used as an assembly hall, opening
and closing ceremony?
Are there rooms for Tab, Head Quarters and other necessary tasks?
Is the heat or air-conditioning necessary?
Is there any schedule from any offices in the school or outside that
may coincide with the tournament?
Considering the most efficient schedule, when should each day
start and end?
When is the best time for debaters to arrive on the first day?
When is the best time for the debaters to leave on the last day?
Is there a place for everyone with certain quality?
Is the surrounding environment adequate?
Is the funding sufficient? If not, are there other ways to solve the
financial situation?
How much subsidy will be available?
Does the Finance Manager have the list of things needed for the
tournament?
How will the team communicate, via Facebook group, Cyworld
club, or Dropbox?
How will the team keep track of each other’s work?
23
Meals
Transportation
Material
Is there any specific type of food that needs to be served, such as
vegetarian or halal?
How many meals or snacks need to be provided?
When and how is a meal served?
Is there a place to dine for the Grand Dinner?
Is the schedule for the transportation complete with time and
location?
Is it double-checked with the transportation provider?
How much extra charge should be paid per extra trip or stop?
How long can the bus wait in case of delay?
Will there be printed materials such as guidebooks, pamphlets or
anything?
Will there be souvenirs?
Will there be hoodies?
What other things will be needed?
2.1.3 DURING THE TOURNAMENT
OPENING CEREMONY
At the beginning of the tournament, the Convener organizes an opening
ceremony to officially declare the start of the tournament. This will include:
the introduction of the host society, Organizing Committee, and other key
individuals relevant to the facilitation of the tournament (such as sponsors).
CERTIFICATES AND TROPHY
The certificates, which need to be prepared, are as follows:
1. Participant certificates to all debaters and adjudicators
2. Best speaker awards (Usually top ten for Main League, Top Five for
Rookie and EFL League)
3. Breaking awards (for all three leagues)
4. Champion award with KNC trophy.
The certificates should be prepared during the elimination rounds ideally
before the end of Grand Final round so that each society can take their
awards at the end of the closing ceremony.
CLOSING CEREMONY
Closing Ceremony is the last event of the tournament sharing the
achievements of participants as well as the tournament’s progress.
24
Members of Organizing Committee share personal remarks of the
tournament together with recognition of different members of organizing
committee. The Ceremony is conducted by the Convener, who invites the
CAP for announcement of best speakers and the Grand Champion, after
which, the tournament is officially concluded.
2.1.4 AFTER THE TOURNAMENT
PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATES
The Convener must answer to all incomplete issues of certificates as well as
any mistakes. Participants will contact you through the official
communication channel and any demands must be completed within two
weeks following the tournament.
KIDA COUNCIL MEETING REPORT
The first KCM following the tournament is a place to report to the KIDA
Council members about the tournament. Here, the convener will be
required to report about the successes of the tournaments and areas
where improvement is needed for the next hosts. Financial report is an
important part of this procedure in which the Convener must disclose, with
maximum transparency, of sources and expenditures of the finances
happening before, during and after the tournament.
25
2.1.5 CONVENING TOOLS
As noted throughout this Chapter, convening requires serious work of
collaboration with many people involved in the team. Here, we introduce some
of useful online tools to help your team collaborate easily without any
background in computer tools. Also, the tutorials for these tools are largely
available on their website, and the tools are mostly FREE.
A. Creating web site
Weebly: www.weebly.com
Wix: www.wix.com
Google Site: sites.google.com
B. File-sharing
Dropbox: www.dropbox.com
C. Documenting and collaborative work
Google Docs: www.docs.google.com
D. Registration
Google Docs: www.docs.google.com
FastRego: www.fastrego.com
E. Scheduling
Google Calendar: www.google.com/calendar
F. Online Publication
Issuu: issuu.com
G. Project Management
Project management software can be a useful tool for tracking project
milestones, keeping up with to-do lists and scheduling meetings between
team members.
Basecamp: basecamp.com
Zoho: www.zoho.com/projects
Do: www.do.com
26
2.2 TOURNAMENT DIRECTING
This section discusses more in detail the tournament element. How do you run
the tournament, from managing the Staff to preparing the venues? The
tournament element is designated to the Tournament Director, who works as
the ‘right arm’ of the Convening Team in managing the tournament internally
with responsibilities including coordinating between the Convening Team and
the CAP, managing volunteers and other staff as well as keeping the tournament
on schedule. The Tournament Director needs to be able to multi-task and
communicate well, even having to ‘boss around’ the Staff at times.
* Please note that this chapter may overlap some of the Org. Comm. section.
However, this chapter was still included to clarify division of roles between Convener
and Tournament Director.
2.2.0 Selection of Tournament Director
In KNC, the Tournament Director is also nominated by the hosting institution.
(Ref. Article 4.3, Annex A). It is our recommendation that the Convener carefully
chooses someone who is not only competent but who communicates effectively
with others.
2.2.1 Before the Tournament
STAFF RECRUITMENT <Best Done 30 days before the Tournament>
KNC is an event in which Staff in different positions, piles of paper, and all
corners of venues have to be organized smoothly in order for it to be
successful. In achieving this, the Organizing Committee composed of
directors and managers is simply too preoccupied with their tasks to help
out with small details such as delivering ballot sheets, guiding the venue
and so on. Therefore the more staff you can recruit; the better organizing
committee can coordinate different corners of the tournament. Sources of
staff range from college student volunteers (non-participants) from
members of KIDA institutions or hosting university, high school or middle
school debaters. No financial compensation is rewarded to volunteers but
they will be given meals and water throughout the tournament as well as
certificates if necessary.
TIP: Remind all volunteers, staff, and runners to be polite, respectful and
most importantly, smile. Announce to the participants in advance to
approach The Convener, not runners if there are any complaints. Also, in
27
case of any complaints tell the runners to direct the concerns to the
relevant person in charge, be it the Convener, Tournament Director, or the
CAP.
VENUES <Best Done 20 days before the Tournament>
In coordination with the Convener, the Tournament Director must secure all
rooms necessary for the tournament. Minimum necessary ones are:
-
Main gathering hall
-
Adjudicator gathering room (If necessary)
-
Debate rooms
-
Tab room
-
Staff room
-
Document storage place (in or close to tab room): Neither the
Tournament Director nor the volunteer should ever discard any
documents related to the tournament without making sure they are
not needed. These documents act as vital evidence to unfortunate
mistakes that may happen in tab or any other corner of the
tournament. Make sure you have a separate but safe space where you
can store all the papers.
When booking the venues, make sure the booking hours are sufficient
enough to accommodate any possible delays during the tournament as well
as extra rooms in case certain rooms will be inaccessible on the day of the
tournament.
MATERIALS <Best Done 7 days before the Tournament>
The Tournament director is in charge of securing papers and materials
needed. Minimum necessary requirements are:
- Main gathering hall: projector for announcement, working internet
network, microphone, bottles of water/other drinks for participants
- Adjudicator room: Adjudicator feedback forms, Flow charts, ballots
- Tab room: Computers (minimum two), Printer, White board, tournament
certificates, list of rooms booked
- Debating rooms and tournament venue: the host venue needs to be
identified as KNC venue by putting up posters on the main gate of the
building, on debating room doors as well as corridors. Tournament
directors, with help of volunteer staff, should complete this at least a day
28
before the start of the tournament.
2.2.2 DURING THE TOURNAMENT
VENUE SET-UP
Before beginning of each day and at the end of each day, the Tournament
Director is to instruct the volunteers to set up the debating room into the
following form.
He is also in charge of keeping track of the rooms booked each day, passing
on this information to the Tab Director.
STAFF ORIENTATION AND BRIEFING
In coordination with the Convener, the Tournament Director must brief the
staff with on what their duties are during the tournament. Staff members
are essential to act as runners who deliver any necessary documents such
as ballots and feedback forms, guide the participants around the venue,
help set up the venues ideal for debating (desks for three persons facing
the adjudication panel in case of AP and four in BP). Therefore all
29
volunteers must be perfectly familiar with all The Convener, CAP, tab teams
as well as the venue, schedule, which documents must be delivered to
whom and so on. CAP and tab director must also be present at the briefing
to familiarize themselves with volunteers and to add on to duties they need
to ask for.
STAFF ATTENDANCE
The Tournament director must keep track of all the positions of staff and
where they should be. When a staff is missing in a crucial moment, for
example, tracking down a ballot sheet may delay the entire tournament.
Tournament Directors must devise a walkie-talkie or any other
communication tool that will allow real-time communication between
members of Organizing committee and staff. Tournament Director’s role is
crucial to keep the tournament on time. Tournament Director should
manage the runners effectively so they could collect the ballots and bring it
to the TAB room as soon as possible. Also when the assigned time for the
discussion is over, it is Tournament Director’s role to urge for the ballot in
each room either directly or using the runners. However, when urging,
always maintain respectful, polite and patient attitude.
PHOTOGRAPHERS
Tournament directors may also appoint a photographer to visually record
the tournament. If there is an available video camera, you may also take
the initiative to record some debate rounds for publicity at the end of the
tournament.
30
2.3 CHIEF ADJUDICATION PANEL
The Chief Adjudication Panel is comprised of Chief Adjudicator and Deputy Chief
Adjudicators who assist the CA in achieving the overall task of the CAP. CAP is in
charge of the ‘content’ of the tournament including: making the motions,
recruiting and training adjudicators, running adjudicator tests, determining good
judges and allocating them in important rounds (bubble rounds2) and so forth.
The Chief Adjudicator is in charge of the CAP and can distribute the following
tasks at her/his own discretion within the CAP.
2.3.0 SELECTION OF CAP
Debate tournaments in different regions have a variety of norms of selection
processes. For example, unlike national tournaments, international tournaments
such as North East Asian Open must include CAP from different countries of the
region.
In KNC, the Chief Adjudicator (CA) is nominated by the host (ref. Article 4.3,
Annex A) who then, has the right to select his/her Deputies (DCAs) (ref. Article 5,
Annex A).
Here are a number of tips:
-
The Chief Adjudicator should be someone with a high level of experience
both in debate and especially more so, in adjudication. Being experienced
means to having at least minimum twice breaking as adjudicator in (ideally)
international tournaments, if not, in domestic tournament. The best case
scenario is where the hosting institution can nominate one of its current or
former members as the Chief Adjudicator.
-
Consider a Co-CA system of having one CA from the hosting institution and
one from outside. This arrangement makes it easier to coordinate with the
Organizing Committee, while dividing the work of CA in half.
-
There are a number of ways through which the Chief Adjudicator can recruit
his/her Deputies. The CA may decide to conduct an open call, where he/she
announces DCA selection process as well as its criteria to the relevant
debate community and selects DCAs using his/her discretion. Open call for
2
Bubble Round: Important, close debate rounds most likely the last two of preliminary
rounds (round 4 and 5) where the win/loss of that round decides whether or not a team
breaks.
31
Deputies is seen as more fair and transparent, providing a pool of more
candidates and an easier way to see a motivation.
-
A format of DCA application form should be carefully designed to reflect the
needs of CA and provide measures by which the CAP can screen candidates
(i.e. Organizing, Motion-making, and Adjudicating Skills). The CA can also
personally contact DCAs he/she trusts, but has the risk of being seen as
closed and untrustworthy. KIDA’s recommendation is that the CA utilizes
both measures, choosing one or two DCAs you can trust, and others
through an open call.
-
While selecting DCAs, be reminded that it is best to have CAP from different
institutions to represent a wide array of institutions and debate styles. In
fact, diversity of CAP is mandated by the KNC Constitution. (“5.1 As a
general principle, the Chief Adjudicator holds the right to select the Deputy
Chief Adjudicators, but all the DCAs must come from different schools.”)
2.3.1 BEFORE THE TOURNAMENT
TALK TO THE ORG. COMM.
For the tournament to run smoothly, it is imperative that the CA
communicates with the Org. Comm. frequently on issues ranging from
schedule, budget, and venue. In both AP and BP tournaments, consider the
adjudication, deliberation, feedback, and moving time between venues in
finalizing time between rounds with the Org. Comm. Communication is also
important on a personal level. As there are a number of unexpected events
unraveling before, during, and after the tournament, getting to know Org.
Comm. Members on a personal level helps the teamwork.
MOTION PREPARATION3
Never procrastinate making motions until couple of days before the
tournament; time pressure does not increase work efficiency when it
comes to making motions!
The CAP should start preparing motions at least few months before the
tournament. First, it is best to start with the list of themes and issues that
the CAP thinks are relevant, debatable, and important. While controversial
issues in Korea are recommended to be framed in debate context, motions
that require much specific knowledge demand high level of caution. The
3
Reference from the http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.com/
32
following is a list of factors to keep in mind when making motions:
1.
CAP’s expectation of debaters’ knowledge
Those who read regularly high-quality, mainstream news of
international source and has very basic concept of law, economics,
politics and so on. Even for new debaters, same standard should apply
should they continue to debate in near future. In KNCs, the CAP must
utilize its own discretion to decide whether an average Korean college
student /debater would be aware of the issue.
2.
Every motion needs to go through motions testing for balance, depth
and variety
Balance/fairness: Issue from mainstream news source, equally viable
for both proposition and opposition side and should not have a single
fact or specialty knowledge which is a huge advantage to one side only;
that is, no silver bullets that becomes an automatic win/loss factor of
the debate.
Depth: each motion has minimum five logically distinct, individually
persuasive arguments on each side, even for non-specialists of that
field (Note: good fact does not equal good argument)
Variety: Focus on important social questions from a wide range of
fields. As a person, you may have special interest in a single field that
your peers all relate you with, as a CAP, if every motion reminds
debaters of you, keep them out of the paper.
3.
Debaters are blinded for victory; there should be no arbitrary victory
conditions
Work continuously with the wording of the motion, they should be
concise and precise so that it does not give too much advantage to the
defining side. Motions should be set so that both sides agree on the
base knowledge of the debate, so that debates are not wasted to
become an example fight or battle of interpretation of the motion.
4.
CAP self-consciousness
Do not have any favorites among the motion. Many times, what
seemed like a super interesting idea turns out to produce bad debates.
Be critical and bold about which motions you will use or lose. Usually,
you will end up ditching half of the motions you initially wanted to use.
Also, CA and DCAs do not have to fulfill their ‘quotas’ (e.g. we have to
use at least eight of CA’s original motions!). Motions are a joint
responsibility regardless of who the initial ‘producer’ of the motion
was; some of you will be good at producing initial seed ideas, while
33
others better at critique or refining those initial ideas.
5.
Motions for British Parliamentary Style debate
Take extra care when making motions for British Parliamentary Style
debate. There are a number of things worth noting. Firstly, there is
only one motion per BP round, which means that it requires extra
level of fairness. Secondly, BP motions must be general enough for
there to be Closing Team arguments. Narrow motions that are perfect
for AP debates may not be suitable because the debate will be over by
the Opening half and that is unfair for the Closing Teams.
6.
New Motions vs. Classic ones with a twist
Debaters come to tournaments expecting learning experience where
they can debate about issues they have not debated before. It is
important that motions at a national or regional level tournament are
not the ones that have been used and reused in other debate
tournaments and sessions. This is why the CAP must be diligent in
researching debate motions from tournaments around the region to
make sure that your motions are fresh. On the other hand, new and
fresh motions run the risk of making it more difficult to come up with
arguments. Thus, many tournaments have a number of classic
motions with a twist to ensure fresh experience as well as
accessibility to the issue, especially during preliminary rounds. It is
best to utilize both kinds of motions in preliminary and elimination
rounds to create the best tournament experience.
7.
Setting the Bar
When considering the type of motions and the required knowledge
necessary to argue a clever case, consider the level and style of
debate in the community relevant to your tournament. As CAP of the
tournament, be reminded that motions set the tone and bar of the
tournament. If you believe that motions at KNC need to be more
difficult in the sense that you want debaters to read and study more,
then come up with motions that require more knowledge of global
affairs, rather than issues specific and familiar to Korean debaters.
The first elimination round may be a useful tool in sending the
message “If you wish to break, you must know more about these
types of issues,” while the Final round motions may grant a certain
color, voice, or hue of the tournament. Debaters will remember your
tournament as one in which they have watched the final round on
that motion.
34
* While this section has benefited largely from rich recommendations of
http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.com/, the original text has been edited to meet
the specific needs of Korean debate community.
MOTION SELECTION PROCESS <Best Finalized 5 days before the Tournament>
While there may be a number of ways of conducting motion selection
process, the following provides a general guideline in doing so.
First, discuss in general what kind of motions the CAP is looking for. It helps
in setting the general direction for motion-making. For instance, the CAP
may agree that this KNC will be the most difficult KNC Korea has ever had,
or that this KNC will cover more issues related to Korea.
Second, agree on a number of motions each CAP member is responsible for
coming up with. You may agree that each member will make up to 20 or 30
motions by a chosen time, depending on size of the tournament and the
debate format. Be sure to set a deadline and keep it, because you do not
want to rush into making motions.
Third, now the discussion begins. Go through the list by each producer or
even by thematic order and brainstorm whether the motion can be used
for the purpose of the tournament. It is important to keep an open attitude
to improve the wording rather than reject motions at first sight. Upon
discussion, there will be areas or themes that you have a lot of motions on,
and those you lack. As you continue the discussion in the next meeting,
bring in more new motions.
Forth, finalize the motions. This is perhaps the most difficult part, as you
may have to drop some of the brilliant motions because you have too many,
or because you have to come up with new motions all over again. Choose
motions that everyone agrees on. Discuss in depth what the debate and
arguments will be about. When you are done, you have finished one of the
most important and most exciting parts of serving as CAP.
* Upon completion, take extra care not to leak any motions out to the public,
even the ones CAP decided not to use, as it allows the participants to narrow
down the options for motions-guessing game.
35
MOTION SLIDES
Make sure the motions on the slides are the final ones and that one of the
CAP members keeps track of the device that has the PPT as not to expose
the motions.
SCORING RANGE
In AP style, the CAP follows the standard AP speaker score range: 70-80.
However, in BP tournaments, the CAP is given the discretion to determine
the range fit for the tournament. While WUDC uses score range of 50-100,
other tournaments uses ranges such as 70-80, 67-83, or 65-85. When
deciding the range, consider size of the tournament, the extent to which
your adjudicators are familiar with BP judging, and etc. Our
recommendation is to use 67-83, which is slightly larger than AP but not so
large that it prevents relatively weaker speakers from being punished.
th
* Please note that 11 KNC (2012 Fall) used 70-80, NEAO 2012 65-85, and KIDA
IV 67-83.
RECRUITING ADJUDICATORS <Best Finalized 14 days before the Tournament>
KNC applies the N-1 rule4 for Spring Asian Parliamentary tournament, and
N=1 rule for Fall British Parliament tournament. The convener will receive
registration of adjudicators together with their conflict5 list. Out of those
who registered, the qualified ones will be filtered out and only those will be
counted under the N=1 or N-1 calculation. The burden to send the required
number of adjudicators is NOT upon the CAP, but on each society. If
institutions fail to send the required number of judges, their teams must
not be allowed to participate according to N-1/N=1 rule. However, there
may be a number of policies that you may choose to adopt regarding
adjudicators. Policies such as exemption of Adjudication Test for qualified
4
N=1/ N-1 rule: number of required adjudicators per participating societies. KNC applies
the N-1 rule for Spring AP format, and N=1 rule for Fall British Parliament format. For
every N number of debate teams that a society sends, N=1 or N-1 number of adjudicators
are needed. E.g. Society sending 3 teams need 3 judges for N=1 rule or 2 judges for N-1
rule.
5
Conflict: Adjudicators are all obligated to remain neutral to both sides of the debate. Any
personal affiliation between adjudicators and debaters (e.g. from same society,
current/ex-lovers etc.) that may hamper neutrality of judging is called ‘conflict’. During
registration, adjudicators voluntarily submit the list to the Org. Comm.
36
judges and the criteria for them, judge fill-in policy, and options for
societies that do not meet the N rule, all need to be announced at a prior
time to registration period to allow institutions to prepare for such policies.
Consider subsidizing domestic/international judges to come to your
tournament. This improves the quality of judging, and thus the quality of
tournament greatly. Announce earlier on the amount of subsidy available,
the number of judges that you can accommodate, the application process,
deadlines, and etc.
ADJUDICATION TEST <Best Finalized 14 days before the Tournament>
In principle, all adjudicators are required to take the test 6. CAP should
design the test to filter out the highest quality of adjudicators for the
tournament and are also advised to run adjudicator trainings prior to the
test.
1.
Adjudication Test does not equal Adjudicator Training
Adjudicator training is a regular session conducted by Academics
Department of KIDA that involves practice of adjudication. An
adjudicator test is NOT a practice, but a channel to evaluate whether a
judge qualifies or not to participate as a judge during KNC, as such,
CAP are NOT obligated to teach and train judges during adj. test. Those
who fail the test will be asked to sit a retest.
2.
Scheduling the Test (Relevant to KNC only)
Make sure that you have more than one date for the test and that
those dates do not coincide with other events such as mid-terms,
other tournaments or workshops, national events, etc. Schedule the
test and announce the date as early as possible. If you have a relative
wide span of time to schedule the tests, consider failing some judges
who are need to improve, to ensure
3.
Designing the Test
There are a number of variables to utilize in designing the test. Pay
attention to the difficulty of the motion, as well as level of your test
debaters. Using a debater or adjudicator at your tournament as a test
debater is not recommended, as you may contaminate the whole
6
(Article 6.1, Annex A), criteria for exemption: breaking as a judge in international
tournaments, OR breaking as a judge twice in previous KNCs.
37
judge for the debater or lose the opportunity to test that adjudicator.
Consider the institution, debate style, accent, gender, English
proficiency, and the general level of the test debaters and try to make
the test debate as diverse and balanced as possible as to suit for the
purpose of your adjudication test.
4.
Evaluation: ability to adjudicate + adjudication quiz
Ability to adjudicate: Includes ability to make win/loss decisions,
deliver oral adjudication as well as to correctly fill out the ballot.
Adjudicators will be shown a full debate (preferably live debate, as
showing debate videos can have various variables such as quality of
sound system, already seen and knows the win/loss reasons etc.)
Given 15-20 minutes to make decision and fill out ballots and will be
allocated to interviews with CAP members. CAP will hear the oral
adjudication and give scores accordingly7.
Adjudication Quiz8: While other interviewees wait for their turn, they
will be asked to do the adj. quiz, the score of which will be reflected in
the overall pass or fail of the adjudicator.
2.3.2. DURING THE TOURNAMENT
ADJUDICATOR BRIEFING
Adjudication briefing must be done by a member of CAP prior to the start
of the tournament. The briefing must contain salient points for the
adjudicators to remember. It shall also contain some of the principles that
the CAP wants to implement during the tournament, such as particular
rules or speaker points policy at the particular tournament.
ADJUDICATOR ATTENDANCE
Roll call must be done prior to the start of EACH round of debates, to check
for available adjudicators before the round begins. Ideally, all adjudicators
should stay for the entire tournament without excuses. However, inevitable
situations happen when some adjudicators say they must leave
earlier/during the day. Make it official that the adjudicators MUST inform
you BEFORE the tournament begins, the times they are leaving early. It is
7
8
For evaluation criteria, refer to Annex B: Adjudicator evaluation criteria
Sample quiz, refer to Annex B. (update/change questions for each KNC)
38
CAP discretion to penalize9 societies when adjudicators are late or leave
without a prior notice to the CAP. Debater attendance may be taken by the
CA or the convener depending on availability.
MOTION RELEASE
The trend now is to use info/pictures/videos/songs when announcing the
motions. Be reminded that there should be absolutely no hinting of
argument that can be used in the debate no matter how interesting the
picture/video you were going to use is. Motions for each round will be
released with all words being clearly understandable.
ADJUDICATOR FEEDBACK SHEET, BALLOT, AND FLOW PAPER
The CAP is advised to print out enough copies of these sheets, and put
these sheets at front in the auditorium, or wherever easily recognizable
prior to a tournament. Inform the adjudicators to make sure that their
names are on the feedback sheet. The score from adjudicator feedback
counts towards the formula for awarding the best adjudicator.
STATUS OF ADJUDICATORS (Trainee  Panel Chair)
In both AP and BP format debates, you will have an odd number panel
comprising of the following types of adjudicators. (Note that it is possible to
have an even number panel in BP, in which case the Chair is given two votes
in case of a tie.)
1.
Types of adjudicators
-
Chair: takes charge of the room and runs the debate.
-
Panelist: shares the same one vote or the right to speak during
discussion, depending on debate format.
- Trainee: Judges who are not qualified to judge a round, determined by
the CAP. The trainee will judge the round, but his/her decision will not
count towards the decision of the panel. However, trainees shall be
allowed to justify and explain his/her decision to the Chair, which will
provide an opportunity for the chair to assess the ability of the trainee
to judge future debate rounds.
9
Spring KNC 2012: if an adjudicator was missing during roll call, CAP disqualified a debate
team from that society chosen at random through a raffle.
39
2.
Being bumped up/down:
-
Trainee and Panelist  Chair: When the chair decides this person is
capable of independent, reasonable decision and of running the debate,
the chair will express this through his/her feedback to the
panel/trainee.
-
Chair  Panelist: when the Chair dissents or has made a minority
decision compared to his/her panels, the panels will fill out feedback
about the chair express validity of that person as a chair (whether it
looks like the dissent was reasonable or that it was not understandable).
-
Panelist  Trainee: also according to feedback evaluation from the
Chair.
3.
Other tips
-
In both BP and AP format, feedback from the lost team (either lost, or
3rd or 4th place) should be taken in a lighter way, as not to punish judges
for debaters with a grudge.
-
In especially BP format, Panel to Chair feedback is very important, as
some Chairs are good at making reasonable decisions but are not
familiar with how to run a panel discussion to arrive at a consensus. For
tips in doing so, please refer to Chapter 3. Guide to Judging.
-
Consider making debater feedback optional, as you will get fewer
feedback results with more obvious results. If feedback sheets are
optional, only debaters with extraordinarily good or bad comments will
give the feedback form. If a judge gets no feedback forms from the
debaters, consider keeping his status in the next round.
ADJUDICATOR EVALUATION
The motive for selecting and recognizing breaking and top adjudicators at
tournaments is to encourage and nurture a large pool of highly qualified
adjudicators. This goal, however, is almost entirely dependent on the
debate community’s perception towards fairness and transparency of the
selection process. As in many international tournaments, KNCs still seem to
rely on the CAP’s personal and prior knowledge about the adjudicators for
judge evaluation.
There are many ways though which the CAP can learn the capabilities of
the adjudicators: prior knowledge about the adjudicators, adjudication tests,
quizzes, and feedback. It is important that the CAP discuss and arrive at an
agreement on how each method of evaluation will be used.
40
For adjudicators who are at a crossroad to break or not, consider having
them chair a room, preferably low seed rooms in the last one or two rounds,
with good panels. This way, the CAP can have a better clue on whether
he/she should break from Panel/Debater on Chair feedbacks.
It is useful to create a number scale system for each method that
eventually can be averaged out. For example, if an adjudicator did well on
the tests and quizzes but received unsatisfactory feedback from debaters,
each method using the scale of number from one to five, he will receive
four, four, and three, respectively, and the average will be 3.3. This way, the
CAP can list the judges according to the average number they have received
before they pick the breaking and best adjudicators.
ADJUDICATOR ALLOCATION
1. Usually, the tab takes care of adjudicator allocation in general (refer to
Tabulation chapter); however, the CAP manually allocates the top judges
in the bubble rounds and high seed rounds as the decisions in these
rounds are particularly important for the debaters. Keep track of the
ranking of all adjudicators including feedback from debaters as well as
records from adjudicator test or past experience (for those who were
exempt from judge test), and allocate the top adjudicators in the mid-high
seed rounds; that way, rounds that will eventually decide who break and
who don’t are judged by the best pool you have.
2. Adjudicator ranking should reflect the adjudicator feedback form from
debaters: Announce to both debaters and adjudicators that the only way
CAP finds out about the quality of the adjudicators, is through their
feedback. The score from adjudication test conducted before the
tournament and feedback sheet from debaters should be equally applied
across all adjudicators in ranking the adjudicators.
3. Consider Strengths of the Panel. When putting three to five judges in a
room, especially in BP format, think of the strengths of each judge and try
to make sure that all rooms get relatively similar average level of Panels,
while slightly prioritizing mid-high rooms, as discussed above. Tab Program
Tabbie is known to allocate judges according to the average strength of the
Panels in the room.
4. Members of the CAP should be judging, while leaving one or two in the
tab room to rest, check ballots, and look through feedback, and allocate
judges already. CAP members should go in important rounds, and go in
41
with Panelists that require further evaluation to examine whether they are
good enough to break.
5. As for break round judge allocation, make sure you pay attention to
differences in debate philosophies, regions, institutions, and etc. and to
make the Panel as diverse as possible. Most of the CAP members should
judge elimination rounds, if not all. The entire CAP, preferably the CA
unless for conflict, should chair and judge the Grand Final.
BREAK/AWARD ANNOUNCEMENTS
It is very important that the CAP communicates to Tab Director to inform
what is needed at the ceremonies. Pay attention to details such as rankings,
team numbers, team points, speaker points, and speaker names to make
sure they are correct and ready to be announced. The common way to
announce break is to announce league, seed, team points, total speaker
points, pause, and then team name in that order. (“In open break, first seed
to break, with 13 team points and 989 total speaker points…. Is… (pause) …
KIDA 1!”)
To prepare for the award announcement, Tab director should stay to make
sure he checks the above details for announcement.
ELIMINATION ROUNDS MATCHUPS
It is important for the CAP to learn how elimination rounds are matched up.
The standard for matchup is high-mid-low (one high team, two middle
teams, and one low team) for Pre-Quarter and Quarter and high-low for
Semi-Final, as used in WUDC. Refer to the following chart to see how break
rounds up to Pre-Quarter are matched up.
ROOM 1
ROOM 2
ROOM 3
1
2
3
8
7
6
9
10
11
16
15
14
17
18
19
24
23
22
*The numbers in the chart indicate breaking seed.
42
ROOM 4
4
5
12
13
20
21
In Room 1, the Pre-Quarter will take place between 9th, 16th, 17th, and 24th
seed teams and the advancing two teams in the Pre-Quarter round will
debate with 1st and 8th seed teams. Then, the winners of Quarter round in
Room 1 will debate with those of Room 4, while Room 2 debates with Room
3. The Grand Final will be between the two top teams in the round between
Room 1 vs. Room 4, as well as those from Room 2 vs. Room3.
2.3.3. AFTER THE TOURNAMENT
TOURNAMENT REPORT
The results and motions should be announced at the relevant forum as
soon as possible after the tournament. As for KNC, CAP and Org. Comm.
must file a report of the tournament and present it at monthly KIDA Council
Meeting.
43
2.3.4. ADJUDICATOR MANAGING SYSTEM FROM TWO OF PAST KNCS
This section is a summary of how two past KNCs (2012 Spring and Fall) managed
judges. We thank the CAP of both KNCs in their timely response to our request.
From adjudication test and exemption criteria to judge allocation and breaking
standards are well elaborated. CAPs of not only future KNCs but other
tournaments in and out of Korea are advised to take precedents into account
when making policies for the tournament.
2012 SPRING KNC
Written by Hyewon Rho
Chief Adjudicator, the 10th KIDA National Championship
A.
Adjudication Test
The adjudication test for Spring KNC 2012 consisted of five parts: briefing, quiz,
mock debate, ballot, and oral feedback.
The quiz was on the rules of AP format as well as a few hypothetical situations
that allowed us to see the philosophy of the adjudicator. The ballot was identical
to the one to be used at the tournament and the CAP required the adjudicator to
fill it out to see whether the adjudicator was capable of understanding how a
ballot works but more importantly to see the scoring range. (All relevant
information was given during the briefing, of course.)
The interview was primarily the adjudicator giving oral feedback on the debate –
his/her decision and the rationale behind it. One member of the CAP as well as
two debaters from the mock debate (one from government, the other from
opposition) was the interviewers. Our thought on this was that we wanted to
make sure that each oral feedback (which we would rank the adjudicators by)
was clear, relevant and understandable in the perspective of the debaters. Each
interviewer gave a score on the scale from 1 to 5. (1 = Shadow, 2 =
Shadow/Panelist, 3 = Panelist, 4 = Panelist/Chair, 5 = Chair). The three scores
were then averaged to reflect a final ranking for each adjudicator. The result of
quizzes and ballots were used to either bump up or down those who were in
between the score range of 1 to 5.
In the case of exempt adjudicators, all were given the score of 3 at the least and
some was given higher scores depending on their resume. The standard we used
was: 4 for those who consistently broke at previous KNCs and/or international
tournaments and 5 for those who have done so as well as have experience as
44
CAP in varsity-level tournaments.
B. How were these ‘scores’ used?
i. Determining qualified adjudicators & allocation for Round 1
Adjudicators who received 1s were mandated to re-take the adjudication test.
Adjudicators who received 4 or 5 were allocated as chairs (5s usually were single
chairs), and those in the range of 2 to 4 were allocated as panelists in Round 1.
Panelists were allocated manually to ensure that each room averaged ‘3’. (With a
‘strong’ chair – someone who got a 5, the pair of panelists were those who
received 2 and 4 or 3 and 3.)
ii. Determining break & best adjudicators
The CAP mandated each team to turn in adjudicator feedback sheets after every
round. The feedback sheets were on a scale of 0 to 50, asking various questions
on the quality of the feedback, fairness of the decision, professional attitude of
the adjudicator, and so on. After each round, the average of the two feedback
scores (from the government team and opposition team) were given to the
adjudicator that chaired and gave oral feedback. The CAP rotated chairs and
panelists to ensure that each adjudicator got to give feedback on an average 3 to
4 rounds.
With this, the CAP used the following formula to determine the break and best
adjudicators:
Test/Exempt score (1 to 5) + Average of feedback score (scaled down to 1 to 5
from the 0 – 50 pt. range).
Ex) Jan Galas received 5 (exempt experienced adjudicator) and received an
average of 4.5 throughout the 4 rounds he chaired in the prelims. His final ‘score’
would be 9.5.
Among the 70+ adjudicators, the CAP needed to break approximately 24
adjudicators and due to a few individuals having similar scores, we expanded the
break. The final cutline was approximately 7. And those who ranked at the top
were awarded best adjudicators.
45
2012 FALL KNC
Written by CAP of the 11th KIDA National Championship
A.
Judge Test
o Exemption Criteria
In this BP KNC, we only took into consideration the judging experience of an
individual because debating skills and adjudicating a debate are two very
different things. Also, we did not take any tournaments other than BP into
account considering the Fall KNC was run in BP format, which requires different
judging standards from AP. Below is the criteria we used to exempt judges from a
judge test.
a. Broke as an "ADJUDICATOR" in BP International Tournament where more
than five countries participated. (Ex. NEAO, ASIAN BP, WORLDS,
Intramuros IV, etc...)
b. Broke as an "ADJUDICATOR" in both BP KNCs (7thAND 9th KNC).
KNC Constitution stipulates as follows:
6.1 Adjudicators are REQUIRED to take the adjudicator test unless with
experience of breaking as a judge in international tournaments, OR breaking
as a judge twice in previous KNCs.
c. Worked as Faculty in a BP ADI program.
As you can see, we also gave a different weight to international tournaments
than a domestic tournament, and exempted faculty members in a BP ADI
program as the position requires individuals a high level of judging and debating
experience, and teaching at ADI often comes with peer-teaching of BP debate
among faculty.
o
Conducting Adjudication Test
1) Quiz: The questions should contain a variety of questions that not only
ask extremely basic questions like speaker roles and the rules of debate,
but also provide complex debate scenarios and how to react given that
situation. As there will never be a perfect answer, the CAP should be
highly encouraging the judges to write reasons upon why they gave
that answer for the CAP to consider whether if it is a valid answer or
not. Another important thing regarding the quiz is that questions
should also not be restricted to aspects only about debate, but also
46
regarding logistics. For example, if a chair has spent all of his time on
negotiating with the other panels and the runner has come to pick up
the ballot, what should the chair do? All of these skills are incorporated
in seeing whether that judge is capable of being a chair or otherwise.
2)
B.
Adjudication Interview: it is a high priority that the CAP brings debaters
to do a mock debate. The reason for this is because if it is based on a
video, the audio will always have problems and the judges have a hard
time understanding the debaters in the video. Giving a real live debate
is more effective in providing the debate environment. When selecting
debaters, the debaters should not be solely based on skills but should
also provide speakers from an EFL environment to give as much
experience to the judges. There are some judges who simply look at
the fluency of a speaker instead of the logic, which is something that an
EFL speaker can process.
After the debate, the CAP should come to a consensus on their decision
and interview every single individual on how they saw the debate.
Something that must be remembered is that just because the result of
the judge taking the test differs from the CAP, it does not mean it is an
automatic fail. As long as the judge is capable of providing sufficient
reasons on how that decision came about, it should be taken into
consideration. The questions asked during an oral interview should not
only be about how that individual saw the debate, but the CAP should
also have questions to challenge the decision made and how the judge
reacts to that challenge.
Judge Allocation
o Determining Status
As the oral interview is the more important part of the test, it should have a
bigger ratio compared to the debate quiz. For example, we reflected 30% and 70%
from a quiz and an oral interview respectively on the total test score. When the
CAP combines the scores, it would be easier to add up if there was an estimate
on what rank that chair receives. Plus it would also be easier to allocate those
judges based on which room suits the skills of that adjudicator. For example,
there can be high chair, chair, low chair etc. and based on the importance of that
round, the CAP is able to allocate them. But it would be even easier if that
classification of which judge receives which rank is done when the CAP is
combining the scores. In a word, it’s not enough to divide ranks of adjudicator
into Chair, Panel, and Trainee. Debate tournament is set in a very dynamic and
complex setting, meaning that CAP should use every means possible to put
adjudicators that can best suit dynamics of each room. For this reason, we
47
divided the ranks again into High-Low within a rank. That makes it easier for CAP
to utilize the adjudication pool in every possible scenario.
o During the Tournament: How to Reflect Judge Feedback on the System
No matter how hard CAP tries to determine level of each adjudicator; CAP
should continuously check each adjudicator throughout tournament, and bump
up or down adjudicators when necessary. When pairing judges of different status
up, many aspects should be considered. First, adjudicator feedback forms such
as ‘teams on chair’, ‘panels on chair’, and ‘chair on panels’ should be reflected on
the tab as soon as possible. This is to ensure timely reflection of feedback on
judges, and to minimize possible risk of under-qualified judges having a vote. It
can be done by having one or two of CAP members in a tab room to check all
forms of feedback in the middle of the round, or during lunch or other break
time. For this KNC, more weight was given to ‘Panel on Chair’ and ‘Chair on
Panel’ feedback than ‘Teams on Chair’ feedback. The reason was that judges
have less interest to evaluate other judges in a malevolent manner, than the
teams who are given their rankings by a chair in their room. Also, it’s CAP’s
discretion to take into account feedback on Chair given by 4th ranked team. In
Fall KNC, we didn’t give as much weight to a first low feedback on Chair by 4 th
ranked team in a round. Instead, we took ‘Panel on Chair’ feedback into more
consideration in such a round to bring a fair judgment. While continuously
keeping track of judges through judge test and feedback, composition of
adjudicators in a room is important.
o How to comprise a panel of adjudicators in a room for a fair adjudication
As we noted above, we had a total of 7 judge status – high-low Chair, high-low
Panel, and Trainee. We paired high Chair with Trainees or low Panels, and low
Chair with high Panel to make sure a fair adjudication, as well as to provide an
avenue for low judges to learn from high Chairs in KNC.
C.
Breaking Standard and Mechanism
As breaking standard is a complex issue, CAP should use every means possible to
determine breaking adjudicators in a fair and holistic manner. Breaking judges
are usually determined on the basis of following standards altogether: 1) test
result 2) debate CVs in case of exemption or subsidized judges 3) feedback from
other adjudicators and teams, and 4) other standards at CAP’s discretion. For
2012 Fall KNC, we used the above standards but with a condition of adjudicators
having to judge more than at least two third (4 rounds out of 6 in case of KNC),
to break a judge. In addition, to avoid possible prejudice on who’s considered to
be a good judge regardless of his/her judging performance, we made sure to go
through every feedback after each round in order to reflect the feedback on the
48
system in a shortest time possible.
D. Side-Note to Ensure a Pool of Good Judges
There are many ways to improve the overall quality of judging pool at a
tournament. One is to bring subsidized adjudicators. Another way often used by
CAP is to provide adjudication trainings. The former is not feasible with a tight
KNC budget while the latter often led to failure because many judges did not see
much incentive to come to adjudication training sessions. This is partly because
debate societies in Korean debate community had a tendency to send good or
experienced members as debaters while sending rookies or less-experienced
members as adjudicators to just fill the N rules. To tackle this, we initiated a chair
requirement rule mandated to each society.
With N=1 rule in place, we mandated that HALF of adjudicators from each
society should be qualified for chair status. This meant that if your society
sends six teams, at least three adjudicators should qualify as chair. For exempted
adjudicators, they were given a chair status. In case a society sent an odd
number of adjudicators, we rounded off the number to a higher single digit
number. (Ex. 6 and 5 teams => 3 chairs / 4 and 3 teams ==> 2 chairs)
In case of failure to meet this requirement, the society’s teams had to drop out
according to the rule, which did not happen fortunately with every society’s
keen effort. Of course, this rule sounds tough, and just enacting the policy would
put undue burden for other societies. For those concerns, we provided three
trainings, BP judging lecture materials, and four adjudication tests to give
enough opportunities for even inexperienced judges to practice their
adjudication skills. We also set up a liaison where newly-established could
borrow some judges from other debate societies.
With this rule in place, we had many judges turn up at multiple trainings and
tests, and witnessed many improve their adjudication skills and acquired their
status from Trainee to Chair. We think this chair requirement rule along with
judging workshop was quite effective to ensure a pool of good judges for this
KNC by bringing experienced debaters (seniors and graduates) as adjudicators
and providing a motivation for judges to improve themselves for their society.
* Please note that this rule was applied in consideration of special circumstances of
KNC and may not work in other international tournaments.
49
2.3.5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q: Debaters did not understand the motion. How far is the CAP allowed to
explain about the motion?
The CAP must keep this possibility in mind and try to make motions that the
average college students will Korea will have no problem understanding. Usually,
however, there will be a small number of inexperienced or rookie teams who do
not understand the words or issue of the motion and come to the CAP for
assistance. The CAP may explain the meaning of the words, as use of electronic
dictionaries or cell phones during prep time is prohibited at KNCs. However, it is
important to refrain from explaining the intended issue to the debaters, as it is
unfair for those teams who did not come to ask the CAP.
Q: In making motions, are principle or value motions better than issue-specific
motions?
No. Both types of motions are used in debate tournaments. However, there is a
difference between principle motions and abstract motions. Principle debates
have specific values to be debated upon, whereas abstract motions tend to
produce confusing and messy debates with little or no clash points. Some CAPs
try to convert issue specific motions into principle debates, 10 which is fine, but
bear in mind, doing so could lose sense of immediacy in the issue or become an
example fight where the winning criteria becomes “it depends” (on where or
under what context they set the debate in).
Q: Do we really need silent rounds?
The purpose of silent rounds is to add more excitement on the tournament. The
CAP shall be responsible in making silent rounds as transparent as possible. They
need to ensure that ballot sheets with comments from the adjudicators will be
given to all the debaters once the break rounds has been announced. However,
in some tournaments, CAP does prioritize exchange of feedback between the
debaters and adjudicators so choose to not have any silent rounds.
10
For example, This House Believes That Germany should ban the publication of Mein
Kampf indefinitely (issue-specific), This House Believes That Western Liberal Democracies
should ban racist texts indefinitely (more abstract).
50
Q: Can you recycle motions from previous non-KNC tournaments?
Motions used on other international or national tournaments other than KNC
will be allowed provided that the wordings will be carefully changed by the CAP.
However, motions that are either too excessively overused by various
tournaments or those from recent tournaments before the KNC are strongly
discouraged. Please refer to the list of KNC motions in Appendix section of this
booklet.
Q: What if the Chair adjudicator dissents?
During AP debates it is not unusual that the chair makes a decision that is
different from the rest of the panel. In this case, the protocol should be:
1. Chair announces the result, including the split decision.
2. One of the Panels gives an overall oral adjudication.
3. Debaters feedback to the adjudicator in this case, is not to the chair, but to the
panel adjudicator who delivered the adjudication (both, if both of them decided
to give feedback)
4. CAP may choose to bump down the particular chair to a Panel until he/she
gets a good feedback from the proceeding rounds, in which case, will be bumped
back up to the Chair status.
Q: In AP, what if the Chair dissent was because not that the chair made a
mistake, but that the panels (arguably of rookie experience), simply
outnumbered him/her?
This is where the CAP has to take extra care in terms of which panels to pair up
in the same round. Obviously, in a room with one very experienced chair, and
two less experienced panels who cannot follow the debate, but simply had been
bumped up to the panel because there were not enough number of experienced
enough panels (KNC has had many incidents where even the panel judges yet
lacked experience, but were given the status of Panel for head-count.), the Chair
will be outnumbered in a split decision (assuming the chairs decision was
justified enough). For this part, refer back to “adjudicator allocation” section.
Q: In rounds where both teams are in conflict with the adjudicator, can that
judge be allowed to adjudicate? (E.g. In a round between Team A and Team B of
the same institution, a judge who has conflict with both teams.)
While some CAPs in the past have allowed this, it is advised against because
51
he/she might award overall higher or lower score, depending on the type of
conflict, for all speakers of that round and thus is unfair.
Q: What is “Master’s round”? Must we always have them?
Masters round is an entertainment event to motivate veteran debaters who no
longer debate due to retirement, job, graduation etc., to come back to register
as adjudicators and contribute to the tournament through their talents, wit and
experienced debating skills. (Similar to “home coming events” we have at
universities). The master round debaters (on the condition they have registered
as adjudicators) will have a “show debate” in front of all participants during
waiting time of the tournament (such as before break announcement) or in the
beginning of the tournament. This debate is usually but not always a humor
round.
52
2.4 TABULATION
Main task of the tabulation team in a debate tournament is to set up and
manage the tabulation system in order to provide fair matchups for the
tournament. Given the fact that tabulation programs are to assist this task, the
mechanism of tabulation itself is not difficult. However, there are more than
enough variables and problems that can come up during a debate tournament. It
is crucial for the Tab Director to maintain calm when such problems occur. After
all, Tabulation is all about handling various problems efficiently.
2.4.0. SELECTION OF TAB DIRECTOR
In KNC, Tabulation Directors are also nominated by the host (ref. Article 4.3,
Annex A) and should have sufficient previous experience in tabbing AP/BP
tournaments. Tab Directors are also advised to nominate tab assistants in their
discretion.
2.4.1. BEFORE THE TOURNAMENT
COMMUNICATE TO THE CAP
It is very important that the Tab Director communicates to the CAP to make
sure you are all on the same page. From tab program to team list, conflict
mechanism, and etc. there are a number of things that require clear
communication between CAP and Tab team. This is especially important
during the tournament: the CAP must be clear in requesting lists and
documents with relevant information. Even when the CAP is busy taking
care of problems, Tab director must pay attention to Rookie list, EFL list,
breaking judge list, and most importantly breaking list.
TAB PROGRAM SELECTION AND PRACTICE
<Best Finalized 15 days before the Tournament>
There are different tabulation programs to assist Tab Director to smoothly
run debate tournament. The most famous software for a British
Parliamentary Debate is called Tabbie. Tabbie was first developed for World
Universities Debate Championship (WUDC) in Singapore and has been used
at a number of Worlds and major international tournaments since then.
The program is available on Google for anyone to use.
As for Asian Parliamentary style debate, the most credible tabulation
53
program would be 3Tab. This program was used in 2011 Korea Australs and
MMU United Asian Debate Championship (UADC) 2012. However, if you do
not have access to 3Tab, TRPC (Tab Room on PC) and PlusTab 2 are
recommended. Both programs are easily accessible online.
* Plus Tab 2 is not a tabulation program for Asian Parliamentary style debate. It
is useful for calculating the team scores and matchups. Therefore, when using
Plus Tab 2 as tabulation program, the tab team must keep track of individual
speaker scores separately. Also, Plus Tab 2’s initial calculating mechanism is not
appropriate for Asian parliamentary style debate. Recent updates for this
program made is easier to change the algorithm, but tab directors may have to
check the programed matchups manually.
PARTICIPANTS’ INFORMATION LIST
<Best Finalized 15 days before the Tournament>
The Tab Director should have a full list of debaters, adjudicators, and
observers by few days or weeks before the tournament. This list of
participants is mainly used to check conflicts between debaters and
adjudicators. Also it is used to locate debaters and adjudicators during
tournament if there are any problems. It is difficult to change information
once it is entered into tabulation software thus it must be checked
multiples times. In this regard, consider using FastRego, which is an online
registration platform that makes the registration process easy and smooth.
The information received utilizing FastRego can easily be transported to Tab
Programs such as Tabbie. Refer to the website for further information
(http://www.fastrego.com/)
Moreover, the participants list must be checked multiple times. This list
will indicate whether a debater is a Rookie debater, EFL speaker and etc.
This list is to be used to determine Rookie/EFL breaking teams and speakers
thus the director must check this list multiple times. This information can
be changed during the tournament, but due to the fact that a lot of other
changes might occur during tournament it is safer to have a finalized
version.
ADJUDICATOR CONFLICT <Best Finalized 10 days before the Tournament>
Other than coming from the same society, of course, long time debaters
may have many friends among various other debate societies, so we rely on
individual’s honesty on deciding which debaters he/she can neutrally judge
and to come forward with these conflicts voluntarily. It is best to have
54
adjudicators sign up for conflict list during the registration process, once
information of debate teams has been finalized. The conflicts are entered
into the program and double-checked before each round starts.
Please note that tournaments at intervarsity level usually acknowledge
conflicts based on institution and not on personal relationship, as
adjudicators are entrusted as adults to be able to carry out their duties all
the same. It is CAP discretion to accept more conflict to make the
tournament fairer.
VENUES AND DEBATE ROOMS <Best Finalized 7 days before the Tournament>
Tab Director should also have a full list of venues that will be used during
the debate tournament. It is recommended that the director prioritize
rooms that are closer to the main venue when entering the room
information in the tabulation software. Also it is highly recommended to
have several more rooms reserved to prevent any problems due to the
venues.
2.4.2. DURING THE TOURNAMENT
During the tournament, Tab Director’s role becomes much more crucial. Once a
problem occurs during tabulation the entire tournament can be delayed. Thus it
is important to keep in mind the following: information.
TAB ROOM
Tab Room is recommended to be located close to adjudicators’ room. This
is because most of the delays regarding tabulation are due to ballot
problems and you can save a lot of time by calling in adjudicators from next
door, rather than chasing them down in different buildings or floors.
It is also highly recommended that the Tab Team and other members of
Organizing Committee to establish a channel of communication, such as
walkie-talkies. From minor issues to major problems, a lot of time can be
saved by communicating through walkie-talkies rather than calling each
other every time there is a problem.
ENTERING BALLOTS
Entering the result after each round is the most important procedure in
tabulation since this is where irreversible problems can happen. Entering
55
the ballots to the tabulation software should be fast but more importantly,
accurate. To make this possible, one recommendation is to have assistants.
These people can double check any errors in the ballots, ensuring the tab
director to focus on entering data into the tabulation program. Once all the
results are entered into the program make a quick final check before
confirming the results. If there are too many ballots to check, at least try to
check random ballots just to make sure.
It is also critical that tab program and accumulated matchups are frequently
backed up. It is recommended that tabulation team save all the related files
on a designated USB flash drive or e-mail. Another suggestion is to use
multiple computers from the beginning. One can be used as the main
server or program, and the others can be used as a backup. The key to this
is to save all ballots simultaneously on both computers. In terms of backup
files, it is recommended that you don’t change any information on this file.
This allows you to find the errors more easily as you compare this file with
finalized official file.
MATCHUPS
Once you confirm data on the program, the program will give you a list of
parings. Usually, this procedure should not be a difficult task since it is done
by a computer program, but sometimes they do make mistakes. Double
check whether the pairings are perfect. Especially if your tournament does
not allow teams from a single institution to debate each other, make sure
the matchups have no problems.
Sometimes during the pairing procedure, Chief Adjudication Panel would
join the Tab Team to assign judges for each debate rooms. When you try to
do this procedure on the computer screen, you make mistakes. It is useful
to have a hard copy of judge list and conflict list. Go through this
procedure manually before confirming it on the program.
Tabulation is all about checking all the information on the program multiple
times. Once tabulation information goes wrong, the whole tournament
could lose its credibility. Although computer program is very accurate most
of the time, double check even the minor things such ‘whether matchups
are made accordingly to the team points or not’, ‘whether an adjudicator is
judging the team multiple times’.
56
ANNOUNCEMENT OF BREAKING TEAMS
Once the ballots for final preliminary round are entered, the Tab Director
should list all teams in the order of rankings to determine the breaking
teams. As there are plenty of variables the program may not recognize,
manual checking procedure is a must. For instance, there could be teams
with same points but different speaker points, teams that should be
disqualified, and the list goes on. All of these variables should be
considered before confirming the final list of breaking team.
Confirming breaking teams for Rookie and EFL league is a bit trickier task
since it is done 100% manually. The list of teams in the order of rankings
will not consider Rookie or EFL status of teams. Tab Director should
manually sort Rookie and ELF teams in their team ranking. It is highly
recommended that you do this procedure with hard copies, comparing it
with your eyes and hands. It may take some times to finish all these, but it
is much more important to have accurate.
It is recommended that tabulation director double check all the breaking
team’s and the next five teams’ ballots and their EFL/Rookie status before
releasing the result. When the list is finalized, make sure to hand multiple
copies to the CAP, with all the information included, such as breaking seed,
team name, team points, and total speaker points.
AWARD CEREMONY
It cannot be emphasized enough that the Tab Director must work
throughout the tournament, even when the break rounds are all over. Even
if the CAP does not explicitly request, make sure you get them the lists and
information they need for the award ceremony, such as break teams list,
speaker list with correct name and institution, breaking judge list with
institutions, and etc.
2.4.3. After the tournament
RELEASE FULL TAB
After the tournament, the Tab Director should have relatively more time
without pressure to finish his/her job. Many tournaments release the full
tab which includes team rankings, individual speaker scores, and possibly
the ballots. These should also be taken care of by the tabulation program,
but it’s safe to finalize after manually confirming the list.
57
CHAPTER 3:GUIDE TO JUDGING
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Guide to AP Judging
3.3 Guide to BP Judging
3.4 Hands-on Guide to BP Judging
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Korea has a very short history of parliamentary debate and lacks a strong pool of
experienced judges. There seems to be a culture embedded in our circuit to
consider debating more worthwhile and prestigious, and judging rather
secondary. Often times those who are new to the debate go to tournament as
adjudicators, without knowing a thing about how to judge a debate round. While
it may be necessary to revisit the current practices of sending judges without
training them, the editors of this Guide acknowledge that those with little
experience of judging do not have so many sources to turn when they wish to
learn how to judge. This section is a timely attempt to provide general schematic
guidelines for both AP and BP judging. We wish to convey that adjudicating at a
tournament is not sacrificing your debate career for your society. Rather, it is an
honor given to those who have learned the art of judging with patience and
diligence. When you have mastered the art, you shall be recognized as a
distinguished judge by breaking at tournaments. The co-editors thank Hyewon
Roh and Hyewon Lee for their contribution to this section.
One word of caution is due here. Through experience, adjudicators developed
what are often called “judging philosophies.” This means that any given
adjudicator will have a particular way of evaluating the debate. The writers and
editors of this guide possess their own judging philosophies and the guides may
reflect a particular view on a controversial issue among adjudicators: say, on the
importance of role fulfillment. Thus, readers of this guide are advised to learn
the art of judging while constantly asking themselves whether it is the fairest
way to judge a debate. Enjoy reading, and enjoy adjudicating!
58
3.2 GUIDE TO AP JUDGING
The Asian Parliamentary (AP) format is “simplistic” in comparison with other
formats that involve multiple teams each with a burden of its own. The format
consists of two teams with three speakers each – the government that argues for
and the opposition that argues against the motion on the floor. Adjudication is
done by a single chair or in a panel consisting of the chair, panelists and at times
shadow judges. However, despite its simplicity, judging AP format is not simple,
for it requires the judge to tread along the delicate line between analyzing the
given clashes and making his/her own analysis of the debate. With various
arguments and rebuttals being thrown back and forth between six speakers, it is
up to the adjudicator to assess what mattered and why.
A. THE ADJUDICATOR
i.
Who is an adjudicator?
An adjudicator should be an average, reasonable person. He/she should have no
preconceived ideas on the topic of a motion. However, he/she should have
expert knowledge on the rules of the debate because an adjudicator is
expected to control the flow of the debate, keep the room in order and track
speech time. Furthermore, an adjudicator should provide fair judgment, uphold
the standards set out for the tournament equally and fairly, and educate and
encourage debaters with constructive feedback. Ultimately, the adjudicator
determines the outcome of the debate and it is up to him/her to make and
deliver the final decision: who won the debate and why did they win?
ii. Chair, Panelist, and Shadow
In the AP format, adjudicators sometimes are required to play a specific role in
managing the debate, based on the result of the adjudication test. As the
tournament progresses, depending on the feedback given by debaters and/or
fellow adjudicators, adjudicators move from one “status” to another.
The Chair, within a panel with other panelists or as a single chair, is required to
act as the ‘Speaker of the House.’ He/she should call ‘order’ for loud, disruptive
speakers on the bench or for POIs given during protected time. He/she would
begin and close the debate with relevant comments – introduction of the motion,
adjudicators in a panel, rules of the debate, etcetera – as well as call out for each
speaker to come up to the podium. The Chair also gives oral feedback during
non-silent rounds as the representative of the panel. However, if the Chair
59
dissents in a panel, a panelist should deliver the oral feedback. Experienced
adjudicators are usually designated to be Chairs due to the additional
responsibility of running the debate. However, this does not mean that they
have any superiority over panelists.
A panel is consisted of an odd number of adjudicators is a common practice in
AP tournaments especially in the elimination rounds. A panelist equally
observes the debate determines the outcome as an independent adjudicator.
He/she is required to fill out a ballot. Although a panelist is not as vocal as the
chair during the debate, he/she has equal decision-making power and hence
must not take his/her responsibility lightly, for the outcome of the debate may
differ according to a single adjudicator.
A shadow adjudicator does not have a decision making power within a debate
but rather is put in a debate chamber for mainly two purposes. First, in the case
this person has not taken the adjudication test and hence, his/her capacities as
an adjudicator has not been tested, the Chair has the opportunity to evaluate
the shadow’s performance and provide feedback to the CAP accordingly. Second,
in the case this person is inexperienced in adjudication, designating this
individual as a shadow is of an educational purpose. By having this individual to
observe the debate and learn about the adjudication process, this individual may
eventually be able to develop his/her own rationale in adjudicating rounds.
a. Tab Display
The two tables below illustrate how adjudicators would be designated in
different roles in the tab display and the different responsibilities each role has.
Note that some debate chambers would have a panel (the chair and two
panelists) and some would have a single chair. The number of shadows in each
chamber would differ depending on the situation.
Room
GUK331
Government
KIDA 2
Opposition
PSY 1
Chair
Albert Lee
WDG204
Gangnam 3
Gangbuk 5
Daniel Yi
60
Panelist
Won Bin,
Donggun
Jang
Shadow
Dambi
Son
Minjung
Lee
b. “Types” of Adjudicators
Runs a debate
Decision power
Fills out ballots
Gets feedback
from
Chair
YES
YES
YES
Debaters,
Panelists
Panelist
NO
YES
YES
Chair, Debaters
Shadow
NO
NO
NO
Chair
(when the Chair dissents,
Panelist delivers oral feedback)
B. ADJUDICATION – THE PHILOSOPHIES
Although dichotomizing motions to ones that lead to “value” or “policy” debates
is perhaps foolish and a tad pointless, it is undeniable that AP format in nature
runs towards “policy” debates; debates that require both sides to defend or tear
down a certain policy that leads to a change in the status quo. Hence, in many
cases, teams will win or lose depending on how well they proved the justification
(or the lack of) and efficacy of a certain policy. However, the outcome of the
debate should not rest solely on those factors alone.
i. Burden of proof
Questions to ask: Is the burden relevant to the topic of the motion? Is it fair?
Does it assist in contextualizing, clarifying, analyzing the motion? Was it proven?
In the AP format with two teams across the floor, speakers will often push
burdens towards their opponents. The government bench would push the
opposition to deal with multiple problems in the status quo and provide a better
solution than its own policy. The opposition would either push the burden on
the government to prove why such a problem exists and to defend the efficacy
and practicality of its policy. Even if we were to step away from the idea of
policies, teams would push burdens on each other and set expectations and
goals of the debate. It is the responsibility of the adjudicator to assess such
burdens and how it alters the dynamics of the debate.
At times, certain burdens that are pushed are not relevant nor are they fair.
Burden of proof is not a mandatory component of a speaker’s debate structure
but rather should be used as tools to contextualize the debate and clarify the
line of logic that the team is about to use. Burdens that are set upon one’s own
team or on one’s opponents are only relevant if they are: a) relevant to the
actual topic of the motion at hand, b) successful in setting the parameters of the
debate, and c) helpful as a guideline to assessing the quality of arguments that
are to come.
61
ii. Quality assessment on arguments
Questions to ask: Did the argument “matter”? Was the argument well analyzed
and elaborated? Were relevant facts and statistics utilized?
This is perhaps the trickiest part in adjudicating AP debates. On one hand, you
are required to make a judgment call on which argument was important in order
to credit the team that gave it but on the other, you are barred from “entering”
the debate. Before elaborating on how you should make quality assessments,
let’s discuss what it means to “enter” a debate.
Adjudicators enter the debate by providing missing links 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
expectations from a team, filtering out comments made by a speaker and so
forth. In short, an adjudicator should never let his/her own opinion “enter” the
debate and create or omit points of the debate.
Having that said though, an adjudicator should not be an ignorant, gullible infant
who takes every point as important simply because a debater said so. As an
“average, reasonable person”, the adjudicator is given the liberty to assess and
credit (or discredit) certain points depending on how it was analyzed in the
debate. Furthermore, even if a certain point was intensely dealt with by both
sides, if it resulted in deadlock or a null situation in that it did not progress the
debate for either side, the team who brought forth the argument should not
receive credit simply for the sake of it being discussed multiple times. The
adjudicator should assess how points were brought and analyzed, whether there
were links within arguments that logically proved them to be true, how it was
dealt with when an attack was made and how it stood at the end of the debate.
iii. Engagement
Questions to ask: Was the rebuttal relevant and directly addressing the
argument? Was there a response to the rebuttal? How did the argument develop
and evolve?
Another important aspect of the AP format is assessing the level of engagement.
When speakers engage with their opponents’ arguments and rebuttals, the
debate becomes more intense and rich in quality. Parallel debates, or debates in
which both sides simply go on with their own arguments rather than responding
and rebutting to their opponents, can turn to low quality debates even with the
best of speakers. A debate is meant to be engaging, to be responsive and to
evolve.
62
Rebuttals and responses to rebuttals are equally important as arguments
because they are tests through which strength of an argument is evaluated. A
good rebuttal hits the main point of the argument and weakens it and a good
response successfully defends the argument through a further in-depth
elaboration and extension. POIs also have the strength to highlight the
importance or a flaw of an argument. Effective POIs can be critical in close
debates and may even turn the debate around. Hence, an adjudicator should not
allow a speaker to simply disregard a POI since that POI can be extended to an
effective response or rebuttal in the next speech.
iv. Role fulfillment
Questions to ask: Did the speaker play his/her role in the debate (e.g. did the PM
define and contextualize the motion, did the GW/OW clarify the clashing points
of this debate)?
Role fulfillment is another tricky aspect of adjudicating in that it easily makes the
adjudication process into a technicality game, where the adjudicator uses a
checklist of whether someone “did their job” or not. Indeed, speaker roles differ
for a reason and each speaker has a clear role to play and responsibilities to
fulfill. First speakers should clearly contextualize and set-up the case at hand.
Second speakers should respond to previous rebuttals and extend upon their
team’s line of arguments. Third speakers should clarify and assess the clashing
points of the debate. Reply speakers should deliver a final speech and persuade
the adjudicator why their team rightly deserves to win. However, role fulfillment
alone should never be the reason a team wins or loses. It should be taken in a
holistic manner that encompasses the three factors mentioned above.
C. ADJUDICATION – THE PRACTICALITIES
Aside from assessing the quality of the debate, adjudicators are also required to
quantify the debate by allocating each speaker with scores that coincide with the
strength of their speeches and the overall team on their performance. Filling out
the ballot correctly and delivering oral feedback in a clear manner are two very
important responsibilities an adjudicator cannot overlook.
i. Ballot
A ballot for the AP format requires the adjudicator to fill out the basic
information (name of adjudicator, date, round, motion, venue, team/speaker
names) as well as the outcome of the debate (speaker scores, margin, winning
team, comments). Scores should be reflective of the result – the winning team
should have higher points than the losing team. However, a speaker from the
63
losing team may have higher individual speaker points than a speaker from the
winning team. The scoring range differs from tournament to tournament, but
the average scoring range is as follows.
a. Scoring Range
This is a chart for 7-minute constructive speeches. For reply speeches, the scores
should be halved. (Decimal points may or may not be allowed depending on the
tournament tabbing system.) The average score for the AP format is 75 points.
STANDARD
Exceptional
Excellent
Extremely good
Very good
Good
Satisfactory
Competent
Pass
Improvement
needed
MANNER
(40)
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
MATTER
(40)
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
METHOD
(20)
17
16-17
16
15-16
15
14-15
14
13-14
TOTAL
(100)
85
82-84
80-81
77-79
75
72-74
70-71
66-69
26
26
13
65
Manner, which takes up 40% of the total score, refers to the speaker’s way of
speaking used to create his/her arguments more vivid or persuasive. Manner
includes pace, volume, intonation, eye contact, body language, humor, and
eloquence. Accents and dialect should be out of the equation. Speakers with
high manner scores are clear, confident, dynamic and fun to watch. Speakers
with low manner scores are vague, unsure, and overall flat and boring.
Matter, which also takes up 40% of the total score, refers to the arguments,
analysis and evidence, including rebuttals, responses and POIs. Reflected in the
matter scores are the speaker’s display of logic and the speaker’s knowledge and
use of evidence. Expect debaters to be informed of well-publicized news events
but do not penalize them for lacking specialized knowledge. Speakers with high
matter scores have clear arguments, specific evidence for their assertions and
prove that they understand the issues. Speakers with low matter scores have
vague links between points and evidence and unclear illustration and analysis of
the issues.
64
Method, which takes up the remaining 20% of the total score, refers to the
speaker’s organization and use of time. Method includes prioritization of
arguments and appropriate amount of time on each section of his/her speech.
Speakers should be penalized if they go over-time (or under-time) and do not
fulfill their roles.
ii. Feedback
A good oral adjudication should give debaters a clear understanding of why they
won or lost. It should be reflective of the thought process of how you arrived at
this particular conclusion. Just like a good debate speech, your feedback should
be well organized and clear in delivery. You also have the responsibility in
persuading the losing team why they lost! The general feedback should be the
“big picture” of each team’s case. The individual feedback should include each
person’s contribution to their team’s case as well as what improvements could
be made on an individual level.
Your oral adjudication should include the following.
1.
2.
3.
4.
iii.
General impression of the debate (e.g. clear, close, engaging, parallel,
interesting, boring…)
Highlight the difference between teams (strengths and weaknesses as a
team)
Identify the issues each team won or lost on – this should be the main
reason for your decision.
Individual feedback
Note-taking
Each adjudicator has his/her own distinct way of note-taking and there is no
absolute answer of what “good” note taking is. However, a tip from experience
would be to keep track of the “big picture” of the debate, it is useful to have a
separate sheet of paper to record the highlights of each team’s arguments,
rebuttals and responses. Also, try to score points or at least a general range of
each speech directly after the speech. This will help you compare speakers later
when the time comes to fill out ballots. Do not try to write every single word
down, only note the important parts. Feel free to use acronyms, symbols, colors
and etcetera to make this process easy and simple. Below is what a flow sheet
can look like.
65
Sample Flow Sheet
PM
SQ:
DEF:
LO
DPM
DLO
Rebut1:
GW
OW
Clash 1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
POI:
Arg.1:
Arg.1:
Rebut
Arg. 2:
Arg.2:
-Lacks eye
contact
-First
argument
needs more
analysis
Rebut
7:06
75/76
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, good adjudicators do the following. They keep a detailed note of
speeches and use them as evidence when giving feedback. Using their own
method (e.g. giving scores at the end of each speech) they are able to compare
speaker to speaker. They think about the issues of a motion before the debate
but without bias or expectations. They listen to the debaters and are able to
assess the weight of arguments holistically without “entering”. They give positive,
constructive feedback. On the other hand, bad adjudicators do the following.
They get lost in the task of writing down speeches. They get swept away solely
by fluency and pronunciation of speakers. They enter into debates by holding
biases and preconceptions. Instead of clearly presenting the rationale behind
their decision, they simply describe the entire debate and summarize it.
AP format debates flourish on the beauty of simplicity. With two teams arguing
for and against a single motion, six speakers elaborate and analyze the topic at
hand and try their earnest in persuading you, the adjudicator, in why their
principles are the ones to support and how their policy is more effective and
efficient. Debaters rebut, respond and engage in each other’s arguments in
hopes of having their own arguments standing at the end of the debate. This is
why you, the adjudicator, hold an important job. You must sift through the hay in
order to discover what matters, how it matters and why it stands.
66
3.3 GUIDE TO BP JUDGING
OVERVIEW
‐ BP debate is based on a system of consensus adjudication. Usually, if you
cannot reach a consensus by 20 minutes after the debate, adjudicators will vote
on the win/loss.
- The team ranking must be based on evaluation and comparison of contribution,
engagement and role fulfillment to the relevant issues in contention within the
debate.
‐ Reach a consensus on the ranking first. Once a decision is reached on team
rankings, then determine each speaker score. Each room will submit one ballot,
filled out by the Chair
‐ BP is different from AP debate in that any combination of the four teams can
be the winner (e.g. bench win, house win, or diagonal). In other words, it is not
evaluated in terms of bench vs. bench.
‐ There are no cases that will give an ‘automatic loss’ to a team. Adjudicators
should assess the debate holistically and comparatively. It is very important that
adjudicators do not apply ‘penalty judging’ to teams for technical errors.
- In giving oral feedback, the Chair must give the ranking, and then justify that
ranking.
- Learn the speaker score range of the tournament. Please use all of the scores
within the range. Refer to the score chart for more detailed description of the
scores.
ADJUDICATION
1) General Guideline
A. Know yourself
The first rule of judging is that you must know yourself. The moment you step
into the debate chamber and sit down in that seat, consider yourself an average
intelligent person. When assessing matter, consider whether an average
university student in your country would understand the materials presented.
For instance, an average intelligent person would and should have general ideas
about issues that have decorated the main page of the media for the past few
weeks, but not specific stats or expert knowledge. Moreover, your opinions,
prejudices, and preconceptions about the world should not matter in deciding
who is more convincing. Pretend that you are a voter, listening to four teams of
politicians presenting their ideas. Be open and ready to be convinced. Your job in
that chamber is precisely that: be convinced.
67
B. Holistic Adjudication
Adjudicators should adopt a holistic approach to judging. Being holistic does not
only mean considering both Style (Manner) and Content (Matter), without
favoring one over the other. It means that the whole of the team’s both speeches
should be taken into account when you are thinking “Am I convinced?” The
team’s rebuttals, argumentation, and the style they adopt throughout the
debate should be assessed in sum to examine whether they were convincing as a
team. Overtime, failure to engage, unreasonable assumption, or even a
contradiction should not result in an automatic win or loss any more than a
superb argument or an outstanding extension.
For example, when an opening government fails to set up a concrete case for the
debate or when closing teams fail to convey a clear and much differentiated
extension, do they automatically get fourth in the round? No, the results would
depend on a comparative (how well the other teams did, or at times who
messed up the debate the least) and holistic (whether the extensions,
arguments, rebuttals, or even setups were well incorporated or nuanced
although they were not explicitly laid out) adjudication.
Likewise, when the closing team knives their opening team to the extent that
none of the two teams’ argumentation can coexist, even if no opposing speakers
point this out, you should take it into consideration. But when what the
opposing team has identified as a ‘contradiction’ can be seen to coexist as an
even-if-case or a mere slight tension in the case, you may choose not to take the
accusations of the opposing teams into consideration.
2) Judging Criteria
A. Contribution and Engagement
Contribution is comparing how persuasive each of the teams’ arguments are in
terms of the overall policy question being discussed in the debate. How much
does each “contribute” to the debate as it happens? On the other hand,
engagement is evaluation of how each team responded to the material being
presented. Both elements are central to the team’s performance. Refer to the
previous section on AP for more detailed description.
B. Relevance
Relevance is perhaps one of the most important as well as tricky criteria when it
comes to judging. To what extent is a rebuttal or argument relevant to the
debate? There are a number of things to consider. First, whether or not a team
has fulfilled its role is closely linked to relevance of each team’s case as a whole.
A team’s case would be less convincing and thus the team’s role would not be
68
considered to be fulfilled if the entire case is irrelevant to the debate. Second
and more importantly, the materials being presented must be relevant to the
debate as it happens. When a judge determines if an argument or an issue is
relevant (important) or not, the judge should not automatically evaluate the
importance of an argument being presented, but rather look at how other teams
are engaging on the argument. If an argument ends up being discussed a lot by
both sides, the argument is relevant in the debate. Judges cannot disregard an
argument as irrelevant unless the argument does not make sense at all by
common sense based on average intelligent person standard.
C. Role Fulfillment
Role fulfillment is especially important in BP as all four teams have different roles
to play, as opposed to AP, where the convincing power of Government and
Opposition cases is compared on a one on one basis. In short, role fulfillment is
the answer to the question “How in the world do I compare four different teams
at the same time?” The trick is to adopt a different scale to each and every team.
The judging question then becomes “How did OG perform as OG(setting up the
case, defining the motion, providing convincing argumentation), in comparison
to OO whose job was to engage with the OG and come up with arguments, while
CG and CO had burdens to “extend” the debate?” Always beware of direct
comparison across teams. For instance, it would be preposterous to expect the
same amount of engagement from PM and OW.
3) Entering the Debate
The rule for every adjudicator would be to stay neutral. Adopt a reasonable,
impartial observer attitude toward the debate by asking yourself if the average,
reasonable person would agree to the material rather than whether you
personally ‘buy’ it or not. In other words, do not enter the debate. Even when it
comes to comparing teams, the debaters should be doing this for you. However,
that is not always the case and from time to time it is inevitable and even
necessary to enter the debate when assessing it.
A. Logical consistency: When a speaker or a team argues two or more things that
are logically inconsistent or cannot be true at the same time, you can discredit
the speaker. Likewise, for the closing half you should watch out for knifingwhether their extensions are consistent with opening’s setup or not.
B. Relevance: As mentioned above, it is the debaters’ job to point out the
significance of their threads of arguments and how they are relevant in the
debate as it happened. However, there seems to be different level of
requirement for how explicit the explanation is, among judges. This is because
69
debaters, especially good and experienced ones, rarely explain, “My argument is
relevant because…” Rather, the relevance of an argument is often evaluated by
how other teams engaged with that point. However, how do you then award a
speaker for bringing a case that is seemingly relevant when the importance is
implied? There are a number of tests. First, examine whether the team was
consistent in that line of argumentation, then look at whether the other teams in
the debate ‘got it’ and rebutted as such. If both are positive, you can award that
argument. However, it gets tricky when the team and you seem to be the only
ones who ‘get it’ in the room. This may be because the line of argumentation is
very sophisticated or requires specific knowledge. In any case, look closely at
what the team explained and what you understood, and if there is little or no
gap between the two, you can safely credit the relevance of the argument.
4) Tips
A. Knifing
One important reminder about knifing is that it by no means constitutes an
automatic loss. Generally, there are two kinds of knifing: one that contradicts a
crucial premise, assumption, or line of argumentation of the opening team and
one that knifes a minor part of the case. While the former should be considered
as seriously damaging to the closing’s own case, the latter need not be seen as
one that is fatal. The damage of contradiction to the opening team must be
considered in comparison with other teams. Another point worth noting here is
that there is difference between moving the debate to a different area and
logically contradicting the opening team. Consider a hypothetical case where the
motion is about Egypt providing a security guarantee for Gaza. If OG doesn’t
know the issue and argues that Egypt should protect its own citizens in a region
called Gaza within the country, in other words, if OG provides a factually
incorrect setup, and CG comes up and re-focuses the debate on the issue
intended, CG’s contribution must be awarded, rather than penalized as knifing.
Moving the debate to another area, even if it means factually correcting the
previous team, need not constitute a logical inconsistency with the previous
team.
B. Whips on new matter
The reason why we normally prohibit new matter in a whip’s speech is because
the whips are the last speakers in the debate and it is generally unfair if new
matter springs up in their speeches and the debate ends without a chance for
other teams to respond. That is why government whips have relatively more
freedom when it comes to sounding new, and if a whip is going to have new
matter it should preferably in the beginning of the speech, not in the last fifteen
seconds of the speech. So although the answer to whether whips can have new
matter or not would technically be no, as the role of a whip speaker isn’t to give
70
simple repetitions of the member’s speech but rather to approach the entire
debate from its team line and link the entire debate with their extension, this
boils down more to whether that piece of matter is delivered so that it sounds
new or not. Even if it is the same piece of matter, if it is nuanced as an extension
of the idea that appeared in the member’s speech and if necessary linkages are
shown, it may be acceptable. Of course, a new matter thrown at the adjudicator
without links would be new matter that you shouldn’t take into account. Further,
whips may bring new analysis to debate through rebuttal, which should be
rewarded rather than penalized.
C. Comparing opening team with closing team
Ideally, opening teams should anticipate and preempt the responses of other
teams to their arguments. But this is not always easy, expecting all openings to
expect all and every possible rebuttals and discrediting them for not arguing
preemptively may be too much and unfair of burden. When adjudicating the
round you should look at the actual dynamics and quality of argumentation
and responses; whether the closing teams are actually taking down the
arguments from the opening teams, as they should take full advantage of their
position. For example, when OO has an argument that directly counters the OG,
the CG should be responding to OO instead of merely repeating OG’s case line. In
other words look at the content of engagement, not the sequence of
engagement (An example was what not to do: CG came after OO therefore they
responded, while OO did not have a chance to respond. Therefore CG over OO.)
D. “Extension” versus extension
The most important role of the closing teams is to extend or expand on the
debate that has happened in the opening half. Then, does a closing team
automatically lose if they don’t have an extension? The short answer would be
no. Again, you would have to compare the contribution of the team with other
teams, but more importantly, even if a closing team doesn’t have an argument
that is labeled explicitly as “extension” if the rebuttals or angle of approaching
the debate, or even one piece of example that was effectively used to
contextualize the debate that came from the closing team was unique, this could
be counted as enough of contribution for that team to win, even without an
outright “extension.” Same would go to a situation where a team does have an
“extension,” but there is a lack of differentiation or contribution from the
opening half; in this case the closing teams are not really doing their job of
extending or expanding the debate. So even with a technical “extension” they
might not win.
71
3.4 HANDS-ON GUIDE TO BP JUDGING
This section is written for those who are familiar with the general principles of
BP judging, but have difficulties adjusting to its dynamic nature. Guidelines are
given on comparing opening teams and closing teams, getting to consensus,
scoring speeches, and giving feedback.
A. Comparing Burdens of Opening and Closing Teams
In BP debate, there is more emphasis on the role fulfillment of each team. When
you feel that all four teams have similar level of role fulfillment, the next criteria
of your adjudication should be contribution of substantive cases to the debate.
In general, the opening house has the burden to give a clear set up of the debate
as well as to define the contention or direction of that debate. Opening teams
will be penalized when their set up is vague in the sense that adjudicators do not
have a clear idea of the problem analysis or how that team is going to approach
in solving that problem.
However, a very prominent problem of BP adjudicators is to what extent, they
should reward and penalize role fulfillment (or the lack of). Two things to
consider; first, how much credit should the opening receive for ‘doing the
basics’? BP adjudicators may over-reward the opening teams for dealing with
the basic stuff – setting up their model, definition, generic and somewhat cliché
arguments. The key here is to weigh the basic arguments to the quality of
elaboration including appropriate use of examples. Some adjudicators confuse
basic cliché arguments as being the ‘right answers’ of the debate. Remember,
debate is not about getting the ‘right answers’ and in that, adjudicators should
never excessively reward teams just because they ‘had the right answer for that
motion’.
Second, how much credit should the closing receive for coming up with ‘more
arguments’? Surprisingly many BP adjudicators forget that the closing team has
had not only 15 minutes of prep but approximately 30 minutes more than the
opening team to come up with their extension. It is true that they should be
rewarded for coming up with something that their opening could not, but again,
especially for a not-so-obvious motion that involves thinking, it is normal that
the average opening team could struggle with coming up with a spot on case.
Another important issue is should the closing receive high rank for simply
solving the opening’s deadlock or engaging with closing team’s arguments?
72
One of the beauties of being a closing team is that they have the luxury of
witnessing all the mistakes of the opening including unresolved deadlocks.
Therefore, they are naturally given the opportunity to solve the deadlocks.
However, BP adjudicators must remember that they are also the ONLY ONES that
have the chance to rebut as the debate progresses, assuming that the closing
half is malicious and never takes any POIs from the opening. If the closing team
has no new case of their own, but has done an excellent job in resolving the
deadlock (rebuttals), then it cannot be said that they don’t have an independent
case of their own. However there is a fine line that divides resolving of deadlock
by making it as their extension. If the closing team runs an entirely new line of
logic to resolve the deadlock their opening could not solve, then, this could be
counted as a new line of extension.
All in all, to prevent over-rewarding or under-rewarding any teams given the
complexity of BP dynamics, it can help to ask yourself, given the capacity
displayed by the teams in this debate, could the closing also have given out
those ‘basic stuff’ had they been the opening? Could the opening have given
those new arguments had they been the closing? Over the years of my
experience, it is inevitable that sometimes, teams lose and win simply due to
their luck of draw. However, as a responsible and reliable BP adjudicator, your
duty is to minimize those ‘too bad’ or ‘they were lucky’ decisions.
Additionally, it is sometimes hard to tell whether the opening house or the
closing house did a better job. In that case the closing house gets a higher rank if
their extension:
i.
“Was new”: new perspective (extension) and logically consistent within their
team as well as the main line of their opening team.
ii. “Wasn’t new but…”: if they provided further and deeper analysis of the
argument often providing numerous new examples and elaboration that the
judge could not have understood had it not been the closing team. That is,
the closing team’s analysis was crucial in comprehending the opening team’s
case - and that closing team was a pivot point in their bench winning the
debate.
It is well known that in general, North East Asian adjudicators tend to put more
burdens on the closing bench to come up with an entirely new extension rather
than a buildup of their opening. However, do remember, that coming up with
something entirely new is possible in every debate.
73
B. How BP adjudicators talk
This part will deal with three things: how BP adjudicators run the debate, how
BP adjudicator(s) reach their decision and finally, how they deliver their decision.
i. How the BP adjudicators run the debate
STARTING a debate: “I call this house to order, the motion before the house is
(the motion for round 1 is) “THW ban dating in workshops”, I’d like to invite the
Prime Minister to open the opening case” (applause)
RUNNING a debate (Between speakers): “I’d like to thank the PM for his/her
speech, let’s now invite the LO to the podium/ to present their case”
FROM OPENING TO CLOSING: (end of DLO) “that concludes the opening half
(upper house) of the debate, I’d now like to invite the Member of Government to
start the closing half (lower house) of the debate”
“Order”: when POI is too long (15seconds+)/ when members on the bench are
too loud that it distracts others (including you!) / Conversation between
benches/podium
The Clapping: To inform protected time (once), to signal ending time (twice), to
signal overtime (three, then constantly)
ENDING a debate: “Thank you debaters for the wonderful debate, please cross
the floor and shake hands”
ii. How the BP adjudicators Reach their Decision.
In many debates, it is helpful for the adjudicator to start by comparing the
strongest team/ group of teams against the weakest teams. To simplify your
decision-making process, group teams into two groups and figure out the rest.
For example,
o ‘This debate was definitely a closing half win (first group), I just have to figure
out which bench did better than the other and who gets 4th rank among the
opening half (second group).’
o ‘This debate has clear 1stand 4th rank (first group), now I have to figure out
who wins 2nd and 3rd (second group)’
If you have more than one adjudicator in your debate room, BP adjudicators
have to reach a consensus through their own debate - yes! Adjudicators also
debate in BP adjudication. At the end of reaching your own independent
decision on rankings, adjudicators gather to debate and persuade each other as
to why their ranking should be the final consensus. But the discussion is:
74
a. NOT on the motion, nor against the debaters and their arguments but to
promote their own rankings to the final decision (consensus).
b. NOT to overrule, but in attempt to reach a consensus on team rankings.
Two things to note: first, whether you are a chair or not, you should never be
afraid to speak out! Second thing, consensus is NOT a simple majority vote.
Adjudicators must avoid voting on the result unless absolutely pushed by time.
This is because consensus is an important step to fully analyze the cases given
out by all teams. Voting on the result may also risk the rationale behind why
teams won, to become inconsistent since the result may be a mix of one
adjudicators rationale towards one team against another adjudicator.
iii. Getting to Consensus
The difficulty of arriving at a consensus may differ depending on the level of
agreement right after the debate. Here is a brief guide to arriving at a consensus
in different scenarios:
a.
b.
c.
d.
The Panels agree on ranking: In this case, briefly discuss the rationale
behind each ranking and proceed to the speaker scores. Panels’ opinions
on team performance (“OG: 1st place) was much better than OO (2nd
Place)”) should be reflected by the speaker scores.
One or two panelists have dissenting opinions: After having one of the
dissenting judges explain the rationale, hear from one of the majority
group. If the majority group and the dissenting group are not able to
convince each other, consider making agreeable concessions (“I am willing
to give OG 2nd but I think OO should be 1st”). Voting should be considered
as a last option.
Two or three groups: If there are two or more groups with similar rankings,
it is important for the Chair to lead the discussion efficiently. Focus the
discussion on each area of contention (OG vs. CO), try to reach a consensus
in that area, and move onto others. If there is a consensus already on a
particular ranking (Such that CO should get forth), identify such agreement
prior to discussion.
There is no agreement: This is a scenario where the Chair’s role as
facilitator of discussion is very important. As in the previous scenario,
identify room of agreement, and then move on to the most contentious
area. If there is a deadlock, ask questions that may move the debate
forward (“If we do not agree on the strength of CG’s extension over CO’s,
can we talk about engagement between the closing teams?”).
75
Getting to consensus is sometimes the most difficult part of BP judging, as well
as its most meaningful. Deliberation is where judges with different philosophy
and level of experience can exchange opinions and learn from each other. Don’t
be afraid to speak out your opinions but have your rationale ready for discussion.
In the case consensus cannot be met during the allotted time of 20 minutes,
vote on all or part of the ranking. (For example, when you agree on the first and
fourth place but disagree on second and third, only vote for those ranks.)
Once the rankings have been decided, move to deciding speaker points for each
speaker. If panels do not agree on (some or all of) the rankings, give each person
one/two minute(s) to justify his/her rationale. Try to persuade each other.
iv. Scoring
Now that you have reached the team rankings, you give the teams score in
accordance with the ranking. 1st rank team gets 3 points, 2nd rank team 2 points,
3rd rank team 1 point and finally, the losing 4th rank team gets 0 points. After that,
it is time to score the individual speakers. BP score range is traditionally much
bigger than AP score range. BP score differs depending on tournaments.
However, below is an example of a BP adjudication score range.
Evaluation
Matter
Manner
TOTAL
Needs improvement
32.5
32.5
65
Something’s missing
35
35
70
Average
37.5
37.5
75
Nailed it!
40
40
80
Once in a lifetime
speech
42.5
42.5
85
* Note that the above uses scoring range of WUDC. Other tournaments such as NEAO
use smaller range such as 67-83
Two things to note here: first is that unlike AP format, there is no score given for
method. In some tournaments, the CAP deliberately leaves column only for the
total score of each speaker rather than the component matter and manner parts.
76
Second is that scores are a progressive assessment of the debate, it should
reflect the impression of each speaker. The speaker with more contribution to
the team gets a higher score.
Lastly, it is crucial that the total points reflect the rankings; there are no lowerpoint wins. However, an individual speaker within a low ranking team may have
a high score if the speaker significantly contributed to the debate through
relevant examples, clear analysis and etc.
v. Delivery of BP adjudicators’ decision: oral feedback.
Oral adjudication in BP adjudication has many more protocols than AP
adjudication. But like in AP, BP adjudicators ask two fundamental questions: Who
won the debate? And why did they win? The protocol for BP adjudication is as
follows:
STEP 1: General impression of the debate
Explain your general impression, on its level (lower, higher, or average) and
the elements you liked or disliked (interesting, rather generic, engaging, etc.)
STEP 2: Type of win and team ranking
OPENING
OPENING
GOVERNMENT
OPPOSITION
CLOSING
GOVERNMENT
CLOSING
OPPOSITION
OPENING
OPENING
GOVERNMENT
OPPOSITION
CLOSING
CLOSING
OPPOSITION
GOVERNMENT
77
Bench Win
1st and 2nd rank went to either
OG/CG (government bench win)
or OO/CO (opposition bench win)
House Win
OG/OO (opening house win) or
CG/CO (closing house win)
OPENING
OPENING
GOVERNMENT
OPPOSITION
CLOSING
CLOSING
OPPOSITION
GOVERNMENT
Diagonal Win
OO/CG (Short diagonal win) or
OG/CG (Long diagonal win)
It is not uncommon for some adjudicators, in their oral feedback, announce the
team score rather than team ranking - do not get confused! The most common
in North East Asia, is to announce the ranks - from lowest to highest.
STEP 3: Team feedback - Highlight the difference between teams, in order of 4th
against 3rd ranked teams, 3rd against 2nd rank teams and so on. Identify important
issues of the debate and which team contributed the most to that issue.
STEP 4: Individual feedback upon debater’s request. Individual feedback usually
discusses each person’s contribution to their team’s case along with what they
can do to improve for the next round.
vi. Keeping track of the BP debate
In AP adjudication, usually adjudicators keep a big picture of what Government
and Opposition team's main line of logic or frame of premise is. However, since
BP debate involves four teams, a mere mental note may not be adequate. Rather,
BP adjudicators are recommended to keep a big picture on a separate sheet of
paper. More specifically, how the line of the Opening Government team
compare with that of the Closing Government and also across the bench as well.
This is an example of how you may use your flow charts to help your memory
during the discussion with other adjudicators as well as giving speaker scores.
78
CHAPTER 4: GUIDE TO RESEARCHING FOR DEBATE
4.1 Why Research Matters
4.2 Organize Your Research
4.3 Online Resources
4.4 How to Build Debate Case files
4.1 WHY RESEARCH MATTERS
* This chapter is an edited version of three texts contributed by different authors:
Junbin Yun from KU, and the two co-editors of this book. While it may not flow as
smoothly, do use this chapter for your advantage.
“Knowledge is power.”
Yes, especially for debaters, this is true. However, many debaters don’t put much
effort in researching because they think it’s just so boring and you don’t need
much specific information if you have the power to build strong arguments with
good logic. Well, partly they are right. Knowing some facts is not (and should not
be) everything in a debate. Nevertheless, facts DO help you become a smart
person and win tournaments.
So how is it, really, helpful in an actual debate? Why do we need to know the
history of Zimbabwe (THW invade Zimbabwe, Worlds 2011) and things like,
financial crisis in Europe? (THBT EU should create a common fiscal authority,
Australasians 2012) Here’s why.
A.
Researching inevitably makes your argument much more persuasive.
Quite obviously, researching about different topics expands your knowledge
level. It will provide you with fruitful ideas and proven facts. Knowing statistics
and examples is very helpful in building your arguments, because you can really
show the audience and the judges that your assertions and reasons are not
merely hypothetical but are really happening in this world.
This also works in an opposite way. You can use facts not only to build up your
arguments but also to destroy your opponents’. If you have evidence or a
counter-example demonstrating the exact opposite of your opponents’ case,
throw that fact in a POI and demand your opponent to explain why such has
empirically happened. Not so many debaters could handle such a POI.
79
B.
Researching leads to better interpretation of the motion.
When the Chief Adj. Panel prepares motions for a tournament, they inevitably
have certain intention and expectation behind the motions. This is because
parliamentary debate motions are bound to defend a value or solve an existing
problem. Therefore, knowing what’s going on in the contemporary society
makes you better understand the intentions behind such motions. You can’t
persuade other people to buy your policy if you yourself don’t have a clue on
what problem you want to solve with your motion. It’s as simple as that. For
example, you will probably lose on this motion unless you’re familiar with the
“Obamacare” controversy: THW repeal the individual mandate for healthcare in
the US, Australasians 2012. It will be also much easier for you to understand
what this motion is aiming for if you have read news about Mcdonalds and Coca
Cola sponsoring Olympics and how some people were not happy about it: THBT
companies that promote unhealthy lifestyles should be disallowed from
sponsoring sporting events, UADC 2012
C.
Researching helps you get out of your comfort zone and expand yourself.
It is important to learn about A LOT OF RANDOM things if you’re a debater. (THW
require deaf parents to send their kids to mainstream schools for their primary &
secondary education, Worlds 2012) Such things might have been unfamiliar with
you simply because you didn’t care, or more importantly, because it is something
that you do not feel comfortable with: things like sex, religion, AIDs, gay, and like,
HYMEN RECONSTRUCTION SURGERY. What the hell, yeah? (THBT liberal states
with sexually conservative communities should subsidize hymen reconstruction
surgery, UADC 2012) Anyways, because debate requires you with such
knowledge, researching for such motions is a perfect opportunity to explore
different fields and get out of comfort zone. This may also help you clear up
some misconceptions and improve your understanding and tolerance.
80
4.2. ORGANIZE YOUR RESEARCH
Generally speaking, there are two types of research: “Open-ended Research”
and “Focused Research”.
A. OPEN-ENDED RESEARCH refers to acquiring information without a specific area or
topics set in mind. Basically, everything you read, remember and later use in
debate is included in open ended research. This type of research is useful in
keeping yourself up with current affairs. The point here is that you should
incorporate your daily life into debate research.
o Journals / Newspaper / Current events
Read them every day and get to know what’s going on in the world. You don’t
have to remember every specific detail. (It would be useful if you do though.) It
doesn’t matter if the journal’s in English or Korean. Read NYT, the Economist,
Eduwill-current events, whatever. Read and organize the information that you
think might be useful. If you’re too lazy, there are even books that organize
current events for you such as Almanac
o Class material / Books
All of us debaters are students. So we take classes. Professors give us a lot of
materials for us to read and study. Those are very useful not only in expanding
your knowledge but also in many debates. This is especially true if you major in
International relations or social science. If your major is Physical education, well
then chances are lower but still we have sports motions!
B. FOCUSED RESEARCH: as opposed to open-ended research, focused research is an
active acquisition of information in specific area. Of course, you can use the
same sources listed above while looking for specific information, but here’s a
faster way.
o Internet
After getting a grasp of what information you need from reading journals and
books, internet is a perfect place to dig for more information. You can easily
access different fields of studies, articles and expert opinions. One thing that you
need to keep in mind is that internet is also a very dangerous place because
there is plenty of unverified, false information. Therefore, it is crucial that you
make sure that the information you’re about to buy comes from a credible
source. Again, CREDIBLE SOURCE is everything when you’re researching on the
internet.
81
C. Few more tips:
i. Evaluate your (and your teammates’) knowledge level on different areas.
Find out what fields you’re familiar with, what you’re not. You should fill in
the gap by researching on the fields that your team lacks knowledge on.
ii. It is useful to have division in the area of expertise among teammates while
researching. So if you’re comparatively more familiar with science articles, it
is better that you effectively read science journals and your teammate
research on IR, so that you can explain necessary info to each other.
iii. If you have no clue on what to research on, things like “Pro-Con Book” (i.e.
The Debatabase Book) will give you guidelines on what controversies there
are in our society. Gathering motions of recent debate tournaments will also
provide you with some guidelines.
iv. Make your own matter file: having a matter file itself is somewhat helpful,
but making one yourself really helps you remember the facts and all the info.
It is not the matter file itself, but the process of making it that will really help
you.
v. Organize your matter file. The best way is the way that you’re most
comfortable with. (By fields, by alphabetical order, by 5W 1H etc.)
4.3 ONLINE RESOURCES
This section provides a list of resources that may be of help for debaters.
However, one word of caution is due here. Know your level and know what you
are looking for. There is so much useful stuff online that you will definitely get
lost in the ocean of information unless you know what you need. Think of the
feedbacks you have received from trainers and adjudicators, and figure out
which area of debate you need to work on. It may be that you want to watch
some videos to improve your manner, or you may need to read up and learn
some principles (i.e. First Principles) that may guide you through debates of any
and all topics.
A.
Google it: There are surprisingly rich, various, and high-quality debaterelated information online. You will have access to videos, cases, arguments,
and debate instructions. Here is a brief list of some of the most helpful ones.
82
i.
Learndebate.net: LogandranBalavijendran, a.k.a. Logan, has put together
this website that consists not only written explanations of basic debate
information, but also videos of himself explaining them. Debate has
never been this accessible to rookies. To use all the contents on the site,
you must create a new account and log in. The site focuses on Asian
Parliamentary format but the videos can be applied across debate
formats. Perhaps the best resource online for Rookie debaters.
(www.learndebate.net). Thank you Logan!
ii.
MAD (Monash Association of Debaters): Surprisingly big number of even
experienced debaters do not even know that this website exists. If you
are looking for written material guiding you through your debate career,
you got them here. Monash Association of Debaters (MAD) is known as
one of the most successful debating societies in the world and is quite
active in sharing its expertise in debate through Journals, Guides, and etc.
On this website, you have a wide range of resources including debate
videos, lectures, debate handbooks, matter files, and etc. Here is a list of
some of the most useful resources.
a.
b.
c.
d.
iii.
MAD Website: http://monashdebaters.com/
MAD Training Handbook: Useful for both rookies and
experienced debaters.
http://www.monashdebaters.com/handbooks.php
Training Guide for University Debating: The word is, learn the
First Principles to get ahead!
http://www.monashdebaters.com/handbooks.php
Debate Videos: Contains some BP videos at Worlds
http://www.monashdebaters.com/videos.php
Miscellaneous
a.
b.
c.
Debatabase: Accessible, ready-made debate cases consisting of
background information, arguments, counter-arguments, and
links to related articles. Best for rookies and intermediate
debaters
http://idebate.org/debatabase
Debatepedia: The Wikipedia of debates! Same principle as
Debatabase but more detailed and based on written material
from online sources. Best for rookies and intermediate debaters
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Welcome_to_Deb
atepedia%21
LearnDebate.net_VIDEO: Videos, Videos, and more Videos!
83
d.
B.
Consisting a total of 326 Australs, BP, and AP videos taken in
tournaments around the world in the last few years
http://blip.tv/loganimal
DebateVideo: Provides debate videos, lectures, and other
material in a variety of debate formats. Suitable for someone
experience of debate and is used to different debate styles.
http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.kr/
Learn the Real stuff: It is one thing to watch debate videos every day and
quite another to read and learn the specific disciplines of studies that
provide the knowledge for debate. Here is a very brief list of links to nondebate resources that may help you do better.
i.
ii.
Justice: The famous book and lecture series by Michael Sandel, Professor
of Political Philosophy at Harvard University. Close look at the lectures
alone will give you an idea of how to base your arguments in certain
philosophy.
http://www.justiceharvard.org/
SNOW: Online compilation of educational videos. The current collection
amount to thousands and thousands, some of which have Korean or
English scripts. Will be of good use, only if you know what you are
looking for.
http://www.snow.or.kr/
84
4.4 HOW TO BUILD DEBATE CASE FILES
To get ahead, merely researching and having piles and piles of paper next to your
debate desk may not be the best way. You need to organize the material you
have learned in a way that you can easily review during preparation time. The
following is a number of tips in building your debate case files.
Step1: Know Thyself! Find your weak areas of topics, or areas you need to
improve on.
Step2: Choose how you want your research to be organized. There are many
ways to organize your research into a case-file, and you can build separate casefiles:
o By Themes
o By Moral theories
o By Regions
o By Topics
These are the most frequently used formats to organize a case-file. And the
format by which you organize your research depends on the areas of knowledge
you want to work on, and each format has its strengths. Using themes would be
the best if you want to build a comprehensive knowledge base on a major theme
such as Economy, Environment, Politics, Religion and so forth. If your area of
weakness lies in making principle (moral) arguments, build a case-file solely
dedicated to organizing philosophical theories and principles (i.e. social contract).
If you find yourself freaking out whenever Middle East topics come up,
organizing a case-file by regions is probably the best way. Lastly, organizing a
case file by topics is the most advanced way of building a case-file as you are
required to process your research material into a background and pros and cons.
(Refer to the section dedicated for this)
Step3: Now that you know how you want to organize your research, get yourself
a ring binder, which looks like the one below, and also colored stickers to
distinguish sub-sections and find the section easily in the big areas shown above.
85
Step4: Do your research according to the tips and guidelines given in previous
sections of this chapter.
Step5: Print them out, and organize them by each section with a colored sticker.
(I.e. Middle East, Northeast Asia, Africa, and so forth in a region case-file)
Step6: Start reading. Make sure you keep thinking of how you can use the
reading material in debate as an argument or a rebuttal, and highlight the main
points. This helps you easily go over the reading by simply reading the highlights.
Many people are mistaken to think they need to build a research case-file just to
use it for reference in tournaments. While this may be helpful to get the context
of a topic, just creating a case-file for reference during rounds is merely timeconsuming. Case-file is the most useful and helpful to your debate when you go
through reading and highlighting because the process itself helps you to be
familiar with different topics, and involves thinking by yourself.
86
87
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There have been a number of discussions on the need of written resources for
debate in Korea. As debate community is growing and there are a number of
new societies, the need for a guide of this nature is larger than ever before. The
difficulty in publishing such a guide lies in all the work of organizing the
knowledge and expertise of a number of individuals. The following individuals
and sources have hugely contributed in completion of this manual. This guide
would not have been possible without their time and effort.
THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED ARTICLES
Damin Kim, Chung-Ang University
Doori Hong, Kyung Hee University
Eui Joon Kim, Sogang University
Geonsub Shin, Hanyang University
Hyewon Lee, Ewha University
Hyewon Rho, Korea University
Jan Galas, Chung-Ang University
Junbin Yun, Korea University
Minjae Kim, SolBridge School of Business
Tae Hoon Kim, Seoul National University
Tae Yeong John Kim, Chung-Ang University
THOSE WHO HELPED GATHERING INFORMATION
Ahyoung Kim, Ewha University
Dohhee Roh, Ewha University
Hannah Jung, Ewha University
Heejin Ahn, Ewha University
JeongHwan Jung, Yonsei University
Jong Min Choi, Korea University
Mikyong Kim, Kyung Hee University
SOURCES
Guide to Judging at KIDA IV
http://trolleyproblem.blogspot.com
Korea University Debate Club Tournament Manual
88
APPENDIX 1: Past KNC Motions
1ST KNC, 2007 FALL (AP, HOSTED BY IDS)
Round 1: Korean Society
THW abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality & Family.
THBT commercial matchmaking businesses are detrimental to the Korean society.
THBT hostages should be required to pay all costs associated with their release.
Round 2: Ideologies
THBT socialism is beneficial for South America.
THBT Saudi Arabia should allow women into politics.
THBT the world should completely give up its effort to implant democracy in the
Middle East.
Round 3: The Human Body
THW ban human body exhibitions.
THW harvest organs from executed prisoners regardless of consent.
THW remove custody rights of parents who deny medical treatment to their children
on religious grounds.
Round 4: Universities
THW forbid political parties from having activities on university campuses.
THBT publishing university rankings does more harm than good.
THW prohibit corporate franchises from establishing branches on campus.
Round 5: Law and Justice
THW adopt a trial by jury for criminal cases.
THS direct election of Supreme Court judges.
THW hold parents responsible for the wrongdoings of juvenile delinquents under the
age of 14.
BREAK ROUNDS
Quarter-Final: Natives and Settlers
THW repeal all laws granting extra privileges for the Australian aborigines.
THBT only native languages, rather than European languages, should be the official
language of African nations.
THBT governments should repeal land ownership rights of its native ethnic groups.
89
Semi-Final: The Third World
THBT environmental problems of the Third World are a responsibility of the First
World.
THBT the First World nations should prohibit pharmaceutical corporations from
conducting medical experiments on humans in Africa, regardless of consent.
THBT the British Museum should return its exhibit items to the former colonial states
from which they were taken.
Grand Final: US and the World
THBT the United States should cease supporting the Pervez Musharraf regime.
THBT the US should immediately lift all sanctions against Cuba.
THBT Spanish should be the second official language of the United States.
90
2ND KNC, 2008 SPRING (AP, HOSTED BY DAE)
Round 1: Korea
THBT Korea should prioritize China over the US in diplomatic relations.
THW nationalize the telecommunications industry.
THW exclude Soju from the list of essential items announced by the Korean
government to monitor inflation.
Round 2: Social Contract
1. THBT all democratic governments should abandon laws which allow prosecution
of citizens for insulting their nations.
2. THBT government should not financially profit from its citizens’ sins.
3. THW limit civilian use of guns in America.
Round 3: Human Body
1. THW allow commercial surrogate motherhood.
2. THW give prisoners with a life sentence the right to choose the death penalty.
3. THW chemically castrate pedophiles.
Round 4: Ideology
1. THBT socialism in Latin America has done more harm than good.
2. THBT authoritarian regimes are justifiable in developing nations.
3. THBT feminism has not contributed to the well-being of women in the world.
Round 5: International Institutions
1. THW limit the number of times United Nations Security Council members can veto.
2. THBT democracy should be the condition for debt relief for African nations.
3. THBT it is legitimate to use aid to buy votes in international organizations.
BREAK ROUNDS
Rookie Final: Cute Animals
1. THW ban fur imports from developing nations. (Debated)
2. THBT zoos bring more benefits than harms to society.
3. THW allow the police to shoot poachers.
EFL Final: Celebrities on the spotlight!
1. THBT paparazzi are beneficial for celebrities.
2. TH supports celebrities entering politics.
3. THBT celebrities should not adopt children from developing nations. (Debated)
91
Quarter: Elections
1. THW repudiate the democratic election in Bhutan.
2. THW discourage women in Pakistan from casting ballots in order to protect their
lives.
3. THW place a cap on the spending of candidates during election campaigns.
Semi: Greater Asia
1. THBT China¡¯s quest for raw materials from developing nations/rogue regimes is
detrimental to the world.
2. THW pressure India to open its border to accept Tibetan exiles.
3. THBT the Kurds are better off without a Kurdish state.
Final: Law and Justice
1. THBT civil disobedience is essential to democracy. (Debated)
2. THW abolish the use of insanity as a legal defense.
3. THW require doctors to report minors with HIV to their parents regardless of
patients’ consent.
92
3RD KNC, 2008 FALL (AP, HOSTED BY UU)
Round 1: Environment
THBT biofuel does more harm than good to the world.
THW limit tourism for the sake of environment.
THW impose special taxes on sales of SUV.
Round 2: Culture
THBT idol stars create a generic culture.
THW bring back regulations on the appearances of singers.
THBT the dictionary should incorporate internet slangs..
Round 3: World Economy
THBT the U.S. is to blame for the financial crisis.
THBT luxury products will save the sinking economy.
THBT the IMF is in favor of the West.
Round 4: Media
THBT the freedom of press is no longer a priority for the society.
THW ban the reporting on details of death.
THBT media tycoons should be banned from politics.
Round 5: Korea
THW keep North Korea on the terror list.
THW rejoice the death of Kim Jong-il.
THBT South Korea should not discourage the sending of political leaflets.
BREAK ROUNDS
Rookie Final: Freedom
THW support the Defense Ministry’s ban on "seditious books.”
THW create peaceful protest zones.
THW sell alcohol on university campus
Quarter-Final: Developing Nations
THBT developing nations should nationalize their energy resources.
THBT international law should recognize the right of each African Union states to
unilaterally undertake armed humanitarian intervention.
THBT the West must be bolder in its response to Russia.
93
Semi-Final: Gender
THBT commercials should not promote gender stereo types.
THW ban the Miss Universe contest
THBT fathers should be given a mandatory paternal leave equivalent to that of the
mother.
Grand Final: Tax and Taxation
THBT politically oriented civil organizations should not receive government funding.
THW abolish synthetic real estate tax.
THBT taxing the rich harms the poor.
94
4TH KNC, 2009 SPRING (AP, HOSTED BY KDS)
Masters Round
THW allow organ trading for profit.
Round 1: Leaders
THW prosecute G.W. Bush for murder.
THBT Obama is nothing but rhetoric.
THBT Hugo Chavez exacerbates the situation in Latin America.
Round 2: Food
THW force feed anorexics.
THW illegalize genetically modified food.
THBT Vegetarianism is the way to go.
Round 3: Sports
THW not exempt any international match winners from military duties.
THW remove quotas on foreign athletes in all professional sports in Korea.
THW not allow under-aged athletes in professional sports.
Round 4: Economy
THW ban transaction fees in the banking system.
THW reduce dependence on dollar as the international reserve currency.
THBT job sharing does more harm than good.
Round 5: Integration
THW not renegotiate KOR-US FTA
THBT Australia has no place in Asia.
THBT EU is a failure.
BREAK ROUNDS
Quarter Final /Rookie Semi Final/ EFL Final: Law and Order
THW not prosecute spousal rape.
THS the jury system in Korea.
THW carry out the execution of serial killers.
Semi-Final: Religion
THBT people should give up religion in order to achieve world peace.
THW ban religious parties in politics.
THW abolish the Sharia court.
95
Rookie Final: Education
THBT colleges should only teach liberal arts.
TH regrets the implementation of the law school system in Korea.
THW give universities exclusive authorities in the admission process.
Grand Final: Rights.
THW impose military duties on Korean women.
THW disapprove dignified death. (Debated)
THBT reconstruction plans should prioritize tenants’ rights.
96
5TH KNC, 2009 FALL (AP, HOSTED BY EDIS)
Round 1: Debate
THW allow internet access during prep time.
THW allow coaching during prep time.
THW verify debaters' sources.
Round 2: Obesity
THW charges obese people more for use of ambulances.
THBT fast food restaurants should deny service to grocery obese people.
THBT "Plus-size" models do more harm than good.
Round 3: Developing countries? I think?
THBT developing countries should invest in sex tourism.
THW aid local business, not NGOs.
THW make population control a prerequisite of aid.
Round 4: Pop culture
THBT Jae-Bum, formerly of 2PM, has only himself to blame.
THW ban minors from joining pop group.
THW ban lip-syncing except in acoustically unavoidable situations.
Round 5: Society
THBT female-only parking does more harm than good.
THW forbid parents from denying medical treatment to their children on religious
ground.
THBT POSCO should pay compensation to former Korean comfort women.
BREAK ROUNDS
Rookie Final: Education
THW abolish FLHS.
Blank
Blank
EFL Final: Age... sth
THW abolish mandatory retirement age.
THW tax plastic surgery done for unnecessary cosmetic purpose.
THW raise the legal drinking age.
97
Octo-Final: 2MB
THBT Sejong city should be new administrative capital of S. Korea.
THS the 4-river restoration project.
THS the new Korean "media law".
Quarter Final: War & Conflict
THW allows gays and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces.
THW boycott goods from Israel.
THBT assassination is a legitimate tool of foreign policy.
Semi Final: Medical Ethics
THW allow deaf parents to screen embargos so they may have deaf children.
THW not provide reproductive assistance to women over 45 years of age.
THBT presidential candidates should be required to disclose their medical records.
Grand Final: Death and Taxes
THS the death penalty for sexual crimes committed against children.
THW requires churches to pay.
THW increase the "sin tax" on alcohol and tobacco in S. Korea.
98
6TH KNC, 2010 SPRING (AP, HOSTED HDS)
Round 1: Clichés
THW impose fat-tax.
THBT there is a Right to Death.
THW distribute clean needles to drug addicts.
Round 2: Sports
THW boycott the South Africa World Cup.
THW open all Olympic events to professional athletes.
THBT Tiger Woods should not have returned to golf.
Round 3: The Universe and Beyond
THW disclose all UFO related documents to the public.
THW allow private ownership of real-estates in space.
THW militarize space.
Round 4: Law and Justice
THW not allow the release of a suspect's face before prosecution.
THW give the option of the death penalty for criminals sentenced to life
imprisonment.
THW abolish all statute of limitations on criminal charges
Round 5: Telecommunication & Technology
THBT Google should have just followed the Chinese Law.
THBT smartphones are doing more harm than good.
THBT satellite imaging should not be available to the public.
BREAK ROUNDS
Octo / Rookie- Semi / EFL Semi: Gender
THW provide paternity leave in workplaces.
THBT all schools should accept students of both sexes.
THBT a woman's choice to wear the burka is no different than a woman's choice to
wear the miniskirt.
Rookie Final: Media
THBT the New Media is killing journalism.
THBT newspapers are obsolete.
THBT the Global Media escalates conflicts.
99
EFL Final: Children
THW not allow parents to choose the child in cases of adoption.
THW prosecute children as adults.
THBT we should include physical exams in the Scholastic Aptitude Test for university
entrance.
Quarter-Final: Religion
THBT the pope should step down
THBT Islam is not compatible with democracy.
THW require political neutrality from religious leaders.
Semi-Final: Environment
THW provide aid conditional to environmental policies.
THBT international environmental conferences are a waste of time.
THBT developed countries should grant permanent residency to environmental
refugees.
Grand Final: Korea
THBT Korea should make the stamina system compulsory for all online gaming and
alternate society sites.
THW regulate corporate supermarkets in Korea.
THBT Korea should be allowed to reprocess its nuclear waste.
100
7TH KNC, 2010 FALL (BP, HOSTED BY SKEDA)
Round 1
THW make internet content hosts partially liable for defamatory articles created by
others but posted on its services.
Round 2
THW ban oil companies from owning patents for technologies concerning alternative
energies.
Round 3
THW abandon all international development aid.
Round 4
THBT the WTO should force China to adopt a floating currency.
Round 5
THW not allow people to use social health insurance to treat injuries caused under
influence.
Rookie Semi-Final
THW ban all labor unions.
Rookie Final
THW actively support the DPRK for safe and smooth power transaction from Kim
Jong-Il to Kim Jong-Un.
EFL Semi-Final
THW ban G-Rated animations and movies from having depictions of death of its
villains.
EFL Final
THW tax parents who send their children overseas for educational purposes.
Quarter-Final
THW revoke the Vatican City and the Holy See's status as a sovereign state entity.
Grand Final
THBT mature Presidential Democracies should have no restrictions on how many
times a person can be re-elected into office.
101
8TH KNC, 2011 SPRING (AP, HOSTED BY ADS)
Round 1: Education
THW allow student-teacher relationships among consenting individuals in
universities.
THW financially reward students from underperforming schools who do well on
standardized exams.
THW allow selling alcohol on campus.
Round 2: Religion
THW compel priests to divulge details of confessions in criminal trials.
THW tax churches.
THW penalize parents who force their children to perform religious practices against
their will.
Round 3: You Knew It Was Coming
THW mandate a permanent shutdown of all nuclear reactors.
THBT the international community should actively support the rebel forces in Libya.
THBT Apple’s decision to sue Samsung was miscalculated.
Round 4: Women
THBT modern feminists have neglected women in developing nations.
THW make military service mandatory for women.
THW have quotas for the number of women on the board of directors.
Round 5: Forces That Change Our World
THBT China is a better ally than the US to East Asia.
THW grant voting power to NGOs in the UN.
THBT Justin Bieber has changed the music industry for the better.
Round 6: Media
THW require print media to grant criticized individuals compulsory reply space.
THBT Twitter should freeze accounts that are used to promote terrorism on it
services.
THBT media sensationalism of research breakthroughs has harmed science.
Round 7: Health & Medicine
THW not allow insurance companies to consider depression as a risk factor.
THW remove patents on AIDS drugs in the developing world.
THW allow all teenagers to purchase the morning-after pill without a prescription.
102
BREAK ROUNDS
EFL Semi: Sports
THW ban all violent sports.
THW punish sports teams whose fans misbehave.
THBT male and female athletes should receive equal pay in sports.
EFL Final: The Internet
THBT information from social networking sites should not be used as grounds for
firing or hiring.
THBT Wikipedia has done more harm than good.
THW abandon all laws against Internet piracy.
Rookie Semi: Scientific Assessment
THW support human genetic alteration for cosmetic purposes.
THBT science text books should not include religious doctrine.
THW step-up mechanisms in preparation for natural disasters.
Rookie Final: Rights
THBT suicide is an inalienable right.
THW decriminalize libel.
THW ban ex-convicts from publishing books about their lives.
Octo-Final: Borders
THW grant birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
THBT reunification of Korea should no longer be a consideration.
THW ban the selling of small arms to rogue nations.
Quarter-Final: Art, Literature, Culture
THW give out an annual award for the best pornographic novel.
THW subsidize art of minority cultures.
THBT fairy tales and fables promote stereotypical values.
Semi-Final: Energy & Environment
THW welcome the fall of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.
THW drill in the Arctic.
THBT the World Bank should make environmental record a criterion in borrowing
money.
Grand Final: Children
THBT the government has a responsibility to protect the unborn child.
103
THBT developed nations should incentivize adoption of children from developing
nations.
THW require the child’s consent for divorce.
104
9TH KNC, 2011 FALL (BP, HOSTED BY HYDS)
Round 1
THBT the mass media has forsaken the masses.
Round 2
THBT citizens have a duty to overthrow unjust governments.
Round 3
THW tear down all walls.
Round 4
THS medical/drug testing on third world patients.
Round 5
THBT intervention wars do more harm than good.
Round 6
THW ban academics from having second jobs.
BREAK ROUNDS
Rookie Semi-Final
THBT developing nations ought to prioritize education over industry.
Rookie Final
THBT children who commit violent felonies ought to be tried as adults.
EFL Semi-Final
THW criminally punish players who commit fouls that seriously injure the victim
during sports matches.
EFL Final
THW grant those with terminal illnesses the right to access experimental treatments.
Quarter-Final
THW regulate tax havens.
Semi-Final
THBT humanitarian agencies should be accountable in conflict zones.
Grand Final
THW give prisoners the right to vote.
105
10TH KNC, 2012 SPRING (AP, HOSTED BY DAE)
Round 1: Family and Relationships
THW make prenuptial contracts as a prerequisite for marriage.
THBT parents deserve a higher salary.
THW mandate counseling for family members of veterans.
Round 2: Economy
THBT Asian capitalism has failed.
THBT a bigger pie does not lead to world equality.
THW increase tax on profits made through investments and stocks.
Round 3: Korea & Asia
THBT Asia should provide unconditional refugee status to North Korean defects.
THBT international aid to Japan's natural disaster should be frozen until Japan
acknowledges their crimes against comfort women in their text books.
THW introduce Asian Common Currency.
Round 4: Fashion
THBT SPA clothing (UNIQLO, H&M, and ZARA) industry does more harm than good.
THW mandate the fashion industry to incorporate an equal number of races in
advertisement campaigns.
THW subsidize formal attires for high school seniors when they graduate.
Round 5: Religion
THW ban religious preaching in prison.
THW mandate religious schools to include LGBT education as part of their sex
education.
THBT religiously affiliated institutions such as universities and hospitals should
provide insurance plans that cover all costs for medical contraceptives for their
student and staff.
BREAK ROUNDS
Rookie Semi-Final: Medicine & Health
THW mandate blood donation.
THBT doctors should not be forced to perform medical procedures that are against
their faith.
TH regrets the sales of medicine in supermarkets.
Rookie Final: Legal System
106
THW pay members of criminal organizations to turn over their bosses.
THW ban bailing for all types of crimes.
THW not allow owning of pets for economically unprivileged households.
EFL Semi-Final: Youth
THW not allow underage parents to have custody over their children until he/she is
of legal age.
THW ban unpaid internship.
THBT the Korean government should allow double nationality as long as he served in
the military.
EFL Final: Art, Entertainment & Media
THBT all art venues should be owned by the government.
THW exclude the media from the right to strike.
THBT humor is not an excuse for profanity even in liberal democracies.
Octo-Final: Gender
THBT “Slut Walk” does more harm than good.
TH regrets media’s active promotion of gays as an alternative lifestyle.
THW mandate women planning abortion to view the sonogram before the surgery.
Quarter-Final: Security
THW punish mercenaries as legal combatants of war.
THBT UN should not endorse just war theory.
THW legalize the export of Afghanistan opium.
Semi-Final: Elections & Democracy
THW punish people who encourage others not to vote.
THBT the internet empowers democracy.
THBT western democracies should retract their recognition of Putin as the president.
Grand Final: Environment
THW make eco-labeling mandatory for cross-border trade.
THW impose sin tax on restaurants and coffee shops that use disposable containers
and utensils.
THBT governments should provide financial incentives to become vegetarian.
107
11TH KNC, 2012 FALL (BP, HOSTED BY SDS)
Round 1: Sports
THBT athletes should have the right to political expression in the Olympics.
Round 2: Religion
THBT democracies should actively punish religious hate speech.
Round 3: Past and Future
THBT if it were possible to create a time machine, humanity should use it.
Round 4: Economy
THW institute a minimum human quota in manufacturing corporations.
Round 5: International Relations
THW ban the clause in the international Court of Justice that requires the consent of
states to go to trial.
Round 6: Crime and Punishment
THW ban laws that require victims’ complaint to criminally charge sex offenders.
BREAK ROUNDS
Rookie Semi-Final: Media
THW ban celebrities who have been previously charged of criminal acts from coming
back to screen.
Rookie Final: War
THBT states should never lie to its citizens during times of war.
EFL Semi-Final: Development
THW restrict the growth of cities for better quality of life.
EFL Final: Technology
THBT Apple’s victory over Samsung will do more harm than good for society.
Quarter-Final: Health
THBT insurance companies should have the right to deny AIDS coverage to sexual
minorities.
Semi-Final: Refugee
108
THBT the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees should be
expanded to include forced environmental migrants.
Grand final: Democracy
THBT the constitutionality of controversial laws should be decided upon popular
referendum, not by the courts.
109
APPENDIX 2: ADJUDICATOR QUESTIONNAIRE
ADJUDICATOR TEST QUIZ: 2012 SPRING KNC
Adjudicator Name:
Society:
Please circle true or false in response to the following questions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
An adjudicator in AP format (such as Spring KNC) can discuss win/loss
results with his/her panels/chair and reach a decision together.
True/False
An adjudicator can award a win to a team with a lower score.
True/False
The second opposition speaker can deliver the reply speech.
True/False
The opposition team loses if they support the status quo.
True/False
Reply speeches can win debates
True/False
Rebuttal and substantive arguments must be presented separately
True/False
Debaters may not interject Points of Information during reply speeches.
True/False
There is no such thing as an automatic loss
True/False
Adjudicators should consider new information presented after 7 minutes
mark.
True/False
The third speaker of each team may never introduce new constructive
arguments.
True/False
An adjudicator should judge the debate based on what he/she thought the
arguments should have been.
True/False
Proposition teams are required to run models.
True/False
There is a restriction on the range of a victory margin.
True/False
Adjudicators can award decimal points to substantive speaker scores if
necessary.
True/False
110
2012 FALL KNC ADJUDICATION QUIZ
1.
What is the primary objective of teams?
a. To show we should or should not carry out a policy/support a
statement
b. To fulfill their role on the table
c. To be interesting and entertaining
2.
Which side has the greater burden of proof?
a. Government
b. Opposition
c.
Neither
3.
What proportion of the other side’s arguments does a team have to rebut to
stand a chance of winning?
a. All
b. A greater proportion than the other side
c. It depends on the logical impact those arguments have
4.
If an OG brings five very shallow arguments while the CG brought about a well
substantiated argument. Which team will you credit more?
a. Opening Government
b. Closing Government?
5.
A team makes an argument that is incoherent to the extent that its logic is
impossible to follow, but you know they are trying to get at a very good
argument you’ve heard before. What should you do?
a. Credit the argument as if it were made as best as it could have been
b. Give some credit for thinking of the argument at all
c. Give no credit to the argument whatsoever
6.
The motion is ‘THW fund militias who fight pirates’. OG gives a specific model
saying how they’d do this. OO lose on whether this policy would be practical.
They show, however, that on a principal level, funding militias who fight pirates
would be a bad idea. Of OG and OO, who wins?
a. OG
b.
OO
c.
It depends by how far they won/lost each of these two debates.
7.
The opposition whip speech contains a new rebuttal to a government argument.
111
What should you do?
a. Ignore the new rebuttal
b. Ignore the new rebuttal, and apply an additional penalty
c. Accept the rebuttal when determining results
8.
The member of government fails to identify which part of her speech
constitutes her extension. How much should you credit the speech?
a. As much as if she identified her extension explicitly
b. Not as much as if she identified her extension explicitly, but
somewhat
c. As if she had contributed no new material.
9.
OO clearly wins a debate by a very clear margin. OG makes more of a
contribution than the teams in the bottom half, who don’t add much new
material. Unfortunately for OG, their strong arguments are utterly destroyed by
the even stronger OO. By contrast, CG and CO’s material, which is weaker, is
largely still standing at the end of the debate because they do not fully rebut
each other. Which of these statements is most likely to be true?
a. OG comes first – it is just unfair to have to beat a team as strong as
OO
b. OG comes second – they made a bigger contribution than the bottom
half teams, and were unlucky to have OO opposite them
c. OG comes fourth – it is what is left standing at the end of the debate
that counts
st
nd
rd
th
10. You feel that the result is that OG is 1 , OO is 2 CG is 3 and CO is 4 .
Someone else on the panel disagrees, preferring the exact opposite result. You
are unconvinced by their arguments. What should you do?
a. Continue to discuss until just before time is up and then vote
b. Calculate speaker marks first, and work out which teams get the
highest scores, using this to determine the rankings
c. As first place is the most important position, do whatever you need to
get the team you want in first place to come first, even at the expense
of all the other positions
11. Judging between OG and OO, OO seemed to win the logical argument about
whether we should do the policy or not, but you found OG substantially more
stylish. Who wins?
a. OG
b. OO
c.
You should weigh up who logically persuaded you with who was
stylish when judging.
112
APPENDIX 3: BALLOT FORM
113
114
KIDA Guide
: Official Guide to
Parliamentary Debate
in Korea
Korea Intervarsity Debate Association
www.korea-debate.com
kidatalks.blogspot.kr
[email protected]
dating debaters Sit down you have done enough da
is my last tournament
are to Challenge
My Debate Partner
I promise this is my last tournament
Sir? Oops… Madam!
Mr. Speaker
ment Blow their mind with
have done enough damage
mind with your argument Dare to Challenge
your argument
Automatic 4th
this so I promise this is my last tournament
Automatic 4th
mind with your argument
My Debate Partner
One debate at a time
Mr. Speaker
Dare to Challenge
Sit
I promise this is my las
Get a life
at a time
Get
In KIDA World Awesome
You are out of the d
Disprove
Win by a huge m
Stop dating deb
Sit down you have done enou
Automatic
s is my last tournament Too little Too late You are out of the d
Blowing 80P Speech
romise this is my last tournament Mind
I promise this is my last tournament At th

KIDA Guide_Official Guide to Parliamentary

Transcription

Similar documents

Flyer for the Great Latke Hamantash Debate

How to Register Online for WSCGA Tournaments Step 1: Make sure

Sponsors of LBRA,Newsletter for Summer

This Saturday the Butler Junior High Wrestling team claimed a 2nd

2016 BASEBALL TOURNAMENT REGISTRATION FORM

FPS Golf Tournament May 15, 2012 Starts at 8 a.m., Bentwater

st Eve - Polar Palace Arena Complex

2007 HOOK LINE SINKER TOURNAMENT

to open Registration form and Print