Adjudication Seminar

1. Adjudication Seminar Sorry for the Boring Powerpoint

2. What does an adjudicator do? Decides which team, based on what they said during the debate, has overall convinced them that their side is more correct. This is the sole criteria for winning a debate. Can be simply put as ‘which team had better arguments?’

3. The Criteria for winning is not: • Adding up points gained for ticking the right boxes e.g. having an introduction, defining the moot etc. • Having better ‘strategy’ or ‘teamwork’. • Having the higher sum of 3 speakers’ scores. The result will be decided first and then the scores will be finalised. Notice that this means the team with better style (or manner) may not win.

4. Being persuasive 1: What is a Good Argument? • Starts from a premise that is very hard to argue with. This can be because the premise is widely accepted as true, or because the speaker has provided a lot of detail to establish it.

5. E.g. ‘THW pay housewives and house husbands for their work’. Starting point: Housewives and husbands provide a very valuable service. This is hard to argue with. But can be made BETTER with going into detail, by painting some kind of picture of what happens in the real world. e.g. listing all of the things they do to support people who work regular paid jobs. BUT: Don’t use personal examples to do this. Just be descriptive, or talk about famous examples.

6. Being persuasive 1: What is a Good Argument? (2) Developing an argument using logic. e.g. if we pay housewives and househusbands, more people will choose to take this option as they will be rewarded and not disadvantage their family’s income by staying at home.

7. Being persuasive 1: What is a Good Argument? (3) Explaining how this makes the motion a good idea. e.g. If we pay house wives and house husbands, we we will have more of them doing this valuable service, so people who work regular jobs will be better off as well and do their work better, benefiting everyone. Note: This was all ONE argument, not three separate ones.

8. Being Persuasive 2: Who won the most important argument? Arguments can be more important (or ‘weighty’ or just ‘bigger’) if: • Teams spend more time talking about them. This is not always the key factor though. • Other arguments depend on that argument being proven. • They are ‘high impact’ i.e. If they show that the motion will do something that harms/benefits a lot of people rather than a few people. Do say: This argument is very important because…

9. Adjudicating ‘Messy’ Debates. Debates are ‘messy’ when: • Teams disagree over the definition. • There is not much ‘clash’ i.e. teams don’t acknowledge where the points they are making collide with the other team. • Arguments aren’t clearly connected to the moot, or it isn’t clear what benefit/harm/principle underpins the arguments being made. • Speakers don’t structure their speeches.

10. ‘Messy’ Debates In these cases an adjudicator may have to: • Pick the definition they think is more appropriate. • Sift through what has been said to find the most relevant arguments, or moments where the teams have clashed. These are usually the hardest debates to adjudicate. They may be won by the team that said less or won less of the arguments made overall because they won the most relevant argument, which may not be obvious.

11. How to avoid ‘messy’ debates. Have a good definition at the start of the debate. This should NEVER involve a dictionary. It is more an explanation of what the moot is about. e.g. By this motion we mean paying partners of paid workers the equivalent wage to what their partner earns, up to a maximum of $50,000 a year. e.g. By this motion we mean paying non-working parents $20,000 a year per child on top of whatever other benefit they receive.

12. Avoiding “Messy” Debates • Signpost speeches to give them structure i.e. at the beginning of every speech each speaker should say something like “I’m going to prove the following 3 things...” and give the titles of their points. • Avoid giving separate arguments to the first, second and third speakers. Most of the arguments should be made at first and then developed in order to respond to the other team by the following speakers.

13. Speaker Scores Each speaker will receive one score, between 60 and 80. You can expect virtually all speakers to get between 65 and 78 (but 70 is still considered the average speech). This is based on methods used in national and international university tournaments.

14. What goes into the score? Essentially a miniature version of the evaluation of the debate as a whole. Things that are thought about: • Quality of the arguments. • How well-explained the arguments were. • Prioritising the most important arguments. • Engaging delivery. • Showing awareness of the rest of the debate.

15. Speaker scores are an art, not a science. There is very little difference between a 70 and a 71. With both of those scores, a speaker will have made a few reasonable, relevant points and added to the case their team is making in a meaningful way. To get lower than a 65, a speaker would have to not speak to the time limit and make points that actively harm the case their team is making. To get a 79 or 80, a speaker would have to make a flawlessly presented speech showing detailed knowledge and presenting several levels to every argument.