Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 145 views

    Adjudication Considerations For British Parliamentary Debate PDF

    Uploaded by

    Acbel Rnuco

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Adjudication Considerations For British Parliamentary Debate PDF

    Uploaded by

    Acbel Rnuco
    145 views20 pages

    Original Title

    Adjudication Considerations for British Parliamentary Debate.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    145 views20 pages

    Adjudication Considerations For British Parliamentary Debate PDF

    Uploaded by

    Acbel Rnuco

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 20

    ADJUDICATION

    STANDARDS FOR
    BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
    A DEBATE IS JUDGED ON THE BASIS OF:

    1. Matter:
    What you present (i.e. the content)

    2. Manner:
    How you present (i.e. the style)

    3. Method:
    Organisation/ structure of your presentation
    ELEMENTS OF MATTER
    1. Definitions: 4. Rebuttals:
    - Set up of the debate Must be logical
    2. Arguments: Must be relevant
    -Must be logical Must be prompt
    -Must be relevant
    3. Evidences:
    -Must be relevant
    - Evidential value
    (strength)
    DEFINING A TOPIC

    Explain the key-words in the topic.


    Identify what you want to prove
    and what is your stand. This is
    called the theme of your team.
    If there is a measurement
    involved, set up the yardstick or
    criteria for such measurement.
    RULES OF DEFINITION
    Characteristics of a Proper Definition:

    It must bear a close relation to the motion.

    It must not be truistic.


    It must not employ time or place setting.
    It must not be based on overly specific knowledge
    CHALLENGING A DEFINITION
    Grounds for Challenge:
    You can only challenge a definition if it
    violates any of the criteria stated earlier.
    Frequently used terms in challenging
    definitions are: wholly unreasonable,
    squirrel, time-place set, truistic.

    You cannot challenge a definition simply


    because you have a more reasonable or
    better definition.
    CHALLENGING A DEFINITION
    Challenge must come from the
    leader of the opposition, not later.
    Leader of the opposition must
    provide an alternative definition.
    In most of the cases, the teams must
    introduce an 'even ifargument.
    CHALLENGING A DEFINITION
    An `Even if' argument is not possible in some
    cases. (e.g. truistic definition & definition
    running counter to the resolution i.e. where
    govt. has taken the oppositions case).

    In a definition debate, all the speakers except


    the PM argue the following:
    Why challenge?
    Validity/ invalidity of the two definitions.
    Even if we are to accept the other side's definition,
    these are the weaknesses of their case.
    Positive case under their own definition.
    GETTING THE RIGHT ARGUMENTS
    First,
    identify what you have to prove
    under the topic.
    Then, identify what helps you to prove it.
    Put them in the format of an argument or
    a set of arguments.
    Not everything that you know on the
    subject is relevant.
    Anticipate the questions that may be
    raised against your arguments and see if
    you have good answers to them.
    GETTING THE RIGHT ARGUMENTS
    Block the opportunity for those
    questions to be raised by addressing
    them briefly as you explain the argument.
    Present the arguments in order of
    their strength.
    Avoid empty rhetoric and
    emotionalism - be rational.
    ESTABLISHING AN ARGUMENT
    Basic statement

    Logical explanations of why and


    how the basic statement stands

    Proofs/ evidences/ examples that


    factually establish your basic statement

    Conclusion / how it proves


    your teams theme
    EFFECTIVE REBUTTALS

    Rebuttals

    Attacks Defence
    (Rebut the Arguments) (Rebut the Rebuttals)
    EFFECTIVE REBUTTALS
    Do not rebut the example, attack the very premise of
    the argument of the other side. Only then
    contrary examples can be supplemented.

    Itis advisable to provide multiple rebuttals to


    each argument of the other side.

    Rebuttals should also be in conformity with your case.

    Rebut the rebuttals of your case by the other


    side in order to defend your case.
    ELEMENTS OF MANNER/STYLE
    Respectableattitude towards the judges
    and the other team.
    Vocal style: volume, clarity, pace, intonation etc.

    Use of notes: not to read a written text.

    Eye contact.
    Bodylanguage: hand gestures, pacing,
    standing etc.
    Impression of sincerity.
    Humour, wit, appropriate and healthy sarcasm.
    ELEMENTS OF METHOD
    Team Structure
    - Continuity of teams theme in all the speeches.
    - Consistency among all the speakers (no contradictions)
    - Reinforcement of team members' arguments
    - Clear & logical separation between arguments.

    Individual Structure
    - Attractive opening/outline of the speech.
    - Proper organisation & priority of the arguments.
    - Organisation of rebuttals.
    - Appropriate timing of the speech
    - Summary of the speech.
    ELEMENTS OF METHOD

    Responses to the dynamics of the debate

    - Right thing at the right time.

    - Ability to follow the progression of


    and changes in the debate, and to re-act
    accordingly.
    TEAM ROLES
    OPENING GOV. OPENING OPP.
    - Defines
    - Responds to the
    - Builds a positive case to governments case
    support the motion
    - Builds a case to oppose
    - Responds to the Opp.s case. the motion

    CLOSING GOV. CLOSING OPP.


    -SupportstheOpeningGov.s case,
    - Adds new dimensions, -Supports the Opening
    arguments to further Oppositions case
    substantiate the - Adds new dimension,
    governments case. arguments in Opp.s case
    - Responds to the Opp.s case - Respondstogovernmentscase
    POINTS OF INFORMATION (POIs)
    A POI can be in a question or
    statement form and should not
    take more than 15 seconds.

    Each speaker should accept at


    least two POIs.

    Allthree members of the team


    should try to give POIs, but they
    must not be disruptive.
    POINTS OF INFORMATION (POIs)
    POIs are judged on the basis of:
    the threat they pose to the strength of
    the argument of the debater.
    value of its wit and humour.

    Responses to the POIs are judged on the basis of:


    promptness and confidence in answering.
    strength of the response.
    value of wit and humour in the response.
    THE
    END

    You might also like