1 / 44

Adjudicating BP Debates

Adjudicating BP Debates. Steve Johnson University of Alaska. Argumentation. Argument is movement. move an audience advance positions sway opponents redirect questioning follow lines of argument take logical leaps retreat from claims push issues drive points home

niveditha
Download Presentation

Adjudicating BP Debates

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Adjudicating BP Debates Steve Johnson University of Alaska

  2. Argumentation

  3. Argument is movement • move an audience • advance positions • sway opponents • redirect questioning • follow lines of argument • take logical leaps • retreat from claims • push issues • drive points home • come to conclusions • arrive at a decision

  4. Points of Stasis • Predictable places at which arguments pause • A point of clash between competing arguments. • Useful to evaluate opposing arguments

  5. Points of Stasis 2 Types: PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Opposition’s ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree

  6. Propositions PROPOSITIONS: The general point in the debate at which the Proposition’s arguments clash with the Oppositions • Propositions identify the relevant territory for the debate (and exclude the irrelevant territory) • Propositions divide the Prop territory from the Opp territory

  7. PROP OPP The Proposition

  8. Propositions “China should ban smoking” Proposition: China should ban smoking Opposition: China should not ban smoking

  9. China should ban smoking Dragon Appropriate? West Misunderstood? Historical Meaning? Practical costs? OPP: China should not ban smoking GOV OPP PROP: China should ban smoking

  10. Issues ISSUES: The specific points within the proposition over which the Prop and the Opp disagree • Issues focus the points of clash within the proposition • Emerge as a result of the arguments advanced by the Prop and Opp sides • May or may not be acknowledged by the teams

  11. Proposition Issue #1 Issue #2 Issue #3

  12. Issues “China should ban smoking” Proposition: • Smoking creates a significant public health hazard Opposition: • Banning smoking will have significant economic consequences for producers and retailers • Banning smoking infringes on the rights of smokers.

  13. China should ban smoking Is smoking detrimental to public health? PROP OPP What will be the economic consequences? PROP OPP Do smokers have a right to smoke in public? PROP OPP

  14. Argumentation and Movement Debating (argumentation) is a contest of efforts to gain ground on particular issues and, by so doing, on the proposition. Ground may be gained by advancing (horizontally) against opponents or by expanding (vertically) against other issues.

  15. Issues and Movement Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction)

  16. Issue #2 Issue #3 PROP PROP OPP OPP Proposition Issue #1 PROP OPP

  17. Issues and Movement Distribution: Horizontal movement within issues The contest between arguments made (construction) and arguments engaged (deconstruction) Prop: Smoking poses a public health risk Opp: Smoking poses little public health risk

  18. China should ban smoking Is smoking detrimental to public health? PROP OPP What will be the economic consequences? PROP OPP Do smokers have a right to smoke in public? PROP OPP

  19. Issues and Movement Expansion: vertical movement between issues Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing).

  20. Proposition Issue #1 PROP OPP Issue #2 PROP OPP Issue #3 PROP OPP

  21. Issues and Movement Expansion: vertical movement between issues Comparing and contesting the relative importance of issues (framing). Prop: Smokers’ rights are less important than public health Opp: The economic consequences of this policy far outweigh the minimal gains in public health, particularly when less intrusive means to control smoking exist.

  22. China should ban smoking Public Health? PROP OPP Economic Consequences? PROP OPP Smokers’ Rights? PROP OPP

  23. The Process of Adjudication

  24. Tabula Rasa: the “blank slate” Education: participants should be encouraged to improve and develop Non-intervention: let the debaters debate, don’t make their efforts irrelevant or do their jobs for them Priorities and Guiding Values

  25. 3 standards and a model • The Standards: • Matter and Manner • Role Fulfillment • Better Debate • The Model: • The movement model

  26. Matter & Manner • Matter • 3.1.1 Matter is the content of the speech. It is the arguments a debater uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience. • 3.1.2 Matter includes arguments and reasoning, examples, case studies, facts and any other material that attempts to further the case. • 3.1.3 Matter includes positive (or substantive) material and rebuttal (arguments specifically aimed to refute the arguments of the opposing team(s)). Matter includes Points of Information. • Manner • 4.1.1 Manner is the presentation of the speech. It is the style and structure a member uses to further his or her case and persuade the audience. • 4.1.2 Manner is comprised of many separate elements. Primarily, manner may be assessed by examining the speakers’ style (delivery) and structure (organization).

  27. Role Fulfillment Do the teams & speakers do their jobs? • Opening Prop • Clear Model and Case • Refutation and Rebuttal • Opening Opp • Clear team line • Refutation and Rebuttal • Member Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp) • Extensions • Whip Speakers (Closing Prop & Opp) • Holistic Summary

  28. The “Better Debate” Standard • Who contributed most to (or detracted most from) the quality of this debate? • Guiding principles: • Inquiry: Are the most germane issues interrogated? • Advancement: Does each speech/speaker move the debate forward? • Engagement: Do the debaters test the arguments of the opposing side? • Performance: Who delivers the most compelling oratorical effort?

  29. A model of adjudication Model: A perspective from which to consider the debate A framework to guide your consideration of the round Debate is a contest of ideas: the best ideas should win

  30. “Truth of motion” model Question: at the end of the debate, is the motion true or false? Risk: the bias of the judge may make the debaters’ efforts irrelevant “Skill of debaters” model Question: which team did the better job of arguing their position? Risk: the debaters may be eloquent, but their arguments may be untrue. Less Practical Adjudication Models

  31. Before the round, the judge thought the motion was: After the round, the judge thought the motion was: Opposition wins, because they moved the judge the farthest. The Movement Model Which team moved the judges the furthest? True False True False

  32. Adjudicating the Debate • Identify the proposition • Identify the issues • Determine the winner of each issues • Determine the importance of each issue • Assess each team’s efforts relative to the issues • Report the decision

  33. Steps 1 & 2 • Identify the Proposition: What is the question of the motion? • Identify the Issues: Over which specific points do the teams contest the proposition?

  34. China should ban smoking in public places Is smoking detrimental to public health? PROP OPP What will be the economic consequences? PROP OPP Do smokers have a right to smoke in public? PROP OPP

  35. Steps 3 & 4 • Determine the winner of each issue: Which side occupies the most ground for each issue? (Distribution) • Determine the relative importance of issues: What is the relative importance of each issue? (Expansion)

  36. Evaluating competing lines of argument Truth: does the argument correspond to fact or reality? Fidelity (External Consistency)? Coherence (Internal Consistency)? Validity: is the argument well-constructed and well-executed? Effective expression? Strategically deployed?

  37. Step 5 • Determine each team’s effort relative to each issue: Who did what to win or rank each issue?

  38. Step 6 • Justify and report the decision

  39. Oral Adjudication • Constraints • Between 10-20 minutes • Delivered by the Chair • Wing adjudicators may contribute at the Chair’s discretion • Should not reveal speaker points • Procedure • Reveal Rankings • Provide Reason for Rank for each team • Provide constructive criticism • Answer questions

  40. Panel Adjudication • Achieving consensus • Many perspectives can make for better judging • Led to consensus by the Chair • Avoid bullying • Avoid laissez-faire leadership • Active participation by Wing Judges • Critical to quality decisions and adjudicator development • Don’t capitulate; don’t calcify • Isolate the difficult decision • Bench win? • Top or bottom half debate? • Agree on First? Fourth? • Decision between 1st & 2nd? 2nd & 3rd? • Can default to majority decision

  41. Assigning Points • Scale • 1-100; 75 average • Point inflation strongly opposed • Functional range: 60 - 90 • Determining Points • Points are based on consensus • Start with agreement on highest or lowest for best or worst speaker • Individual points totaled for team points • No low-point wins

More Related