tournament briefing

Visayas-Mindanao Debating Championships 2007 University of the Philippines -Cebu and University of San Carlos July 26-29, 2007

Speaker Roles
Prime Minister Leader of opposition The Deputies The Members The Whips

Definitional Challenges
Squirrel Truism Time/Place Set Tautology

Definitional challenges (USE WITH EXTREME CAUTION)

How to Run a challenge
State that you are challenging Give EXPLICIT grounds for the challenge Offer substitute definition Justify substitute definition Argue Opposition to substitute definition

|:: definitional CHALLENGES

Who can challenge?
Only OO can challenge CG and CO need to pick one

What if wrong grounds for challenging?

Closing teams can modify basis for challenge but not the definition Least bad option for the debate

Challenges highly DISCOURAGED

|:: holistic ADJUDICATION

Down with checklist adjudicators! Issues before technicalities Teams should not lose on the basis of technicalities alone; Explanation needed on how technical flaw weakened teams contribution Look at a speech in its entirety Matter, Manner, Method Converse burden always comparative

|:: adjudication CRITERIA

Contribution
Substantiation Breadth and Depth

Dynamism/Responsiveness Consistency Fulfillment of Roles Know the issue and rules, but dont impose arguments - ARP

|:: proposal DEBATES

Same rigor for PM and LO No full negative cases
Defend status quo / make a counterproposal Dont expect to win if you want to run a negative case

Whats the real status quo?

OG portrays a twisted status quo OO can defend the real status quo Adjudicators should decide

Counterproposals
Not everything has to be mutually exclusive! (if the debate is on the nonmut-ex part)
Federalism example

|:: rebuttals VS. constructive

Constructive speaker took too long rebutting? (4 mins and up) Did it forward the case w/ positive material? Was amount of negative material justified? Adjudication through signposting Penalize for sloppy structure Consider in relation to entire speech and flow of debate

|:: analysis VS. examples

Examples are highly encouraged
Helps ground the analysis Parallel models, case studies, hypothetical scenarios acceptable

Debaters CANNOT lose by giving wrong or no examples

Penalize them in terms of contribution Adjs must contextualize this against all substantiation offered

|:: whip SPEECHES

Role of whip speakers
Recap and filter the debate Rebut the relevant issues New matter

Whips can lose debates but cant win it!

Adjs should assess team as a unit (extension is still most impt role) Member and Whip contributions are equal and essential

Other Issues
Box out Matter battle Shafts Conflicts (romantic, institutional, etc.)

|:: grading RANGE

69 No substantive contribution to the debate 70-71 Finished speech with minimal contribution/gross technical violations; speech had fundamental flaws 72-74 Finished speech with acceptable contribution/some technical violations; speech had minor flaws 75 Fulfilled minimum speaker expectations, sound analysis and manner 76-77 Exceeded speaker requirements, exemplary analysis & manner 78-80 Superior speaker performance, excellent analysis and manner

|:: preparation TIME

15 minutes No group preparation No coaching No electronic devices (i.e. laptops) Cheaters will be punished
Report to runners before the round Report to Adj Core after the round 3-point deduction for teams caught

|:: panel DISCUSSIONS

Time limits 20 mins for discussion, then vote per ranking Submit speed ballot and full ballot before oral adj 10-15 mins for oral adjudication Grading Scores must match results Speaker scores by panel consensus Average scores if no consensus No decimals for consensus scores

|:: oral ADJUDICATION

If unanimous/split (with chair in the majority) chair If dissenting chair one of the panelists
Ranking, General Comments, Issues

|:: adjudication BREAK

Minimum requirements
Need to take adj exam Need to adj 5 prelim rounds

Adjudicator marking
4-pt scale in adj exam 5-pt scale on adj feedback Final score: 50% test, 50% feedback

Feedback
Mandatory 1 is an automatic complaint