We couldn’t do it without you! Style of Debate This Brief Presentation Role Of Each Team Will Cover Five Talking Points That Will Train You To Be Great Judges Role of Each Debater Your Role as a Judge Turning Point Factors Understanding the proceedings of the debate is key to understanding how to judge the debate. The basic structure of all debates remains consistent, and is very simple. Prime Minister Deputy Leader of the Opposition Minister of the Crown Leader of the Opposition PMR Debating as though in Parliament Roles (Prime minister, Member of the Crown…) Referring to other debaters by their title (Prime minister Leader of the Opposition…) Calling the Chairperson Mr./Madame Speaker Addressing all remarks to the speaker of the house Government Vs. Opposition Resolutions = Bills Debating as though in Parliament Roles (Prime minister, Member of the Crown…) Referring to other debaters by their title (Prime minister Leader of the Opposition…) Calling the Chairperson Mr./Madame Speaker Addressing all remarks to the speaker of the house Government Vs. Opposition Resolutions = Bills Types of resolutions - Policy - Values Policy resolution - A change or improvement must be made to the status quo (outline needs for change) - The Government must provide a plan for action/change Values resolution - The Government must argue for, and the Opposition must argue against You. You. You. Proposes a motion Defines the terms of the motion Impromptu Motions “THW Ban Handguns” Gives Reasons to pass the motion In Canadian National style, the proposition has a burden to extinguish Opposes the Motion If Necessary counters definitions This should only occur if the definitions are clearly wrong Gives Reasons against passing the motion In Canadian National, the opposition can theoretically win by proving the prop has not proven their case Clearly States the Definitions “We will always pursue negotiation with terrorists during terrorist atrocities” “Whenever there are discernable demands of the terrorists, we will pursue negations” Opens the Government Case which will establish either: Needs to Change Benefits to Changing 8 Minute constructive Contest definitions (if needed) Introduce and outline the Opposition’s case Proposes pragmatic/practical/philosophical arguments against Clash and refute the Governments case Clashes with all of the opposition arguments presented thus far Finishes off the case for the government Should be rewarded for striking a good balance between the two Last word from the Opposition on constructive material Presents new constructive Clashes with new arguments Then delivers the Opposition Rebuttal speech for 3 minutes Clarifies everything in the round Summarizes cases Finishes Opposition side of the debate Summarize the entirety of the debate Elevate the arguments to clashes of ideology Asks Questions which try to uncover deeper meaning Presents no new material Feedback Your role as a judge revolves around some simple, core aspects The Choice Speaker Points Your Primary Function as a Judge in this tournament is to award speaker points to each individual debater In Parliamentary Style, Range is theoretically out of 100 Technically all scores must fall within 80-95 Scores SHOULD be within 82-93 Broken down into a bunch of categories 20 - Content 20 - Organization 20 - Presentation 20 - Refutation 10 - Reasoning 10 - Debating Skills • Content and Evidence (20) • Does the debate present relevant facts, and examples? • Does the debater have strong knowledge of the subject, and does he/she back up the knowledge? • Argument and Reasoning (10) • Does the debater understand what is being debated? • Does the debater comprehend the burdens for the position he/she has taken? • Organization (20) • Does the debater present material in a clear, logical and coherent manner? • Does the debater allow the judges to follow his speech effectively? • Presentation and Delivery (20) • Is delivery of the speech comfortable and easy to comprehend? • Consider poise, posture, gestures, enunciations, use of voice, emphasis and other speaking techniques • • Refutation and Rebuttal (20) • Does the debater identify, summarize and refute the opponent’s case? • Is the debater capable of handling objections to his or her own case? • Does the debater take time to summarize both sides of the debate? Debating Skills (10) • Does the debater understand the style of debate and adapt? • Does the debater use strategical techniques like POIs? Any scores higher than 95 will be dropped to 95 95 - Best of the Seminar 94 - 90 Excellent 89 - 85 Very Good 84 - 81 Good 80 - Satisfactory Any scores lower than 80 will be raised to 80 Depends on the balance that occurs at the end of the debate. No Such thing as an automatic win, or automatic loss Weighing Comparing of Influences Cases In Canadian Parliamentary Style the team points must be aligned with the “winning team” Evaluating Arguments Constructive Clash Who pushed the ball the most? Occurs after the round has completed, after ballots have been completed, and handed to the chair for delivery Is the most valuable tool for debaters Centered around why the round was one or lost What they can do individually to make themselves better debaters Models or plans are used to determine how the team is going to take the action they are advocating Not always necessary Are useful in defining the pragmatics of the case Does not need to address Funding Timelines Legislative information Only deals with how in an ideal world the Government would follow through Points of Information, Order and Personal Privilege Heckling Signposting Impacting statements Counter cases Also a component of strategy Used to ask questions in the middle of speeches Pertinent Should illustrate a flaw in the other teams arguments, or reposition one of their own arguments Short, and Clear Used to address broken rules or a gap in parliamentary protocol Are given during an opposing debaters speech Almost NEVER used (only in extreme cases) Usually lower the level of debate (so avoid using at all costs Points of Privilege include misquoting or misrepresenting an opponent (but not misinterpreting his or her remarks), referring to a member incorrectly, and slandering a member. Given during an opposing debaters speech Often lower the level of debate (so avoid using them) Everything that can be done in a POPP can also be done within your constructive speech Witty, poignant, funny, VERY SHORT Are given during an opposing debaters speech without rising or being recognized Are infrequent (or the debater will be penalized severely) The Prime Minister’s reply is protected from heckling Should only given if it’ll make the judges pee their pants Happens in about 1 of 100 rounds Conferral Versus Consensus Versus Individual Keeping within the Scoring Range Keeping Feedback to Reasonable amounts of time Questions?