1705138170

1705138171 3. First Government, Speaker 2 (Deputy Prime Minister) – 7 minutes

1705138172

1705138173 4. First Opposition, Speaker 2 (Deputy Opposition Leader) – 7 minutes

1705138174

1705138175 5. Second Government, Speaker 1 (Member for the Government) – 7 minutes

1705138176

1705138177 6. Second Opposition, Speaker 1 (Member for the Opposition) – 7 minutes

1705138178

1705138179 7. Second Government, Speaker 2 (Government Whip) – 7 minutes

1705138180

1705138181 8. Second Opposition, Speaker 2 (Opposition Whip) – 7 minutes

1705138182

1705138183 Speakers have no time for preparation during the debate. Thus, when their turn to speak is announced, the next speaker should rise and immediately follow the previous speaker.

1705138184

1705138185 Points of Information

1705138186

1705138187 During any of the eight speeches (after the first minute of a speech and before the last minute of a speech), an opposing team may offer a point of information to the current speaker. Example: The Prime Minister is giving their speech. The Opposition stands and has 15 seconds to ask a question, make an observation, or present an argument. The Prime Minister has the option to address or ignore the point of information from the Opposition, but replying immediately to the point is the preferred method. Points of information cannot be raised during the first and last minute of a speaker’s speech (This is considered “protected time”).

1705138188

1705138189 Basic Tips for Judges

1705138190

1705138191 Conducting the Debate

1705138192

1705138193 The judge who is the Chair of the round is normally addressed as “Mr. Speaker” or “Madam Speaker,” and that judge also calls each of the debaters up to the front of the room when it is their turn to speak (i.e., “The Chair now recognizes the Deputy Prime Minister for a speech not to exceed 7 minutes”). At the conclusion of the debate (after the “Opposition Whip” speech), the Chair typically will invite the participants to “cross the aisle and congratulate one another and then exit the room so that the adjudicators can deliberate.”

1705138194

1705138195 Consensus Judging

1705138196

1705138197 If the tournament is using a “consensus judging” approach (where all judges have to agree on one set of rankings and speaker points for the teams), the Chair should lead the post-debate discussion among the judges. Normally, the Chair should provide a few minutes at the conclusion of the debate to allow all the adjudicators to look over their notes and independently decide on their initial rankings for the teams. When all the judges are ready to discuss the rankings, the Chair can start the discussion by simply asking the judges to announce their initial rankings without discussing specifics about the round. In situations where there are great differences between the judges’ initial rankings, the Chair should lead a productive discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the teams with the goal of reaching some consensus about the rankings. The Chair may also want to take some notes during this discussion in order to offer productive feedback to the teams. In the rare instances where consensus is not possible, the decisions about final rankings can be put to a vote with the Chair’s vote serving as the final tiebreaker. Note that many tournaments have strict time limits for the deliberation period for judges.

1705138198

1705138199 Criteria for Ranking Teams

1705138200

1705138201 Judges should consider the following criteria when making decisions about how to rank teams in the rounds:

1705138202

1705138203 · Quality of arguments or “matter” (Were the arguments presented by the teams/speakers clearly explained, well supported, and relevant to the topic being debated?)

1705138204

1705138205 · Quality of delivery/rhetorical skills or “manner” (Did the speakers organize and deliver their speeches in a persuasive manner?)

1705138206

1705138207 · Role fulfillment (Did the teams/speakers meet their responsibilities in the debate round?) by teams and individual speakers is considered less important than the matter and manner of debaters’ presentations.

1705138208

1705138209 No Automatic “1” or “4” in a Round

1705138210

1705138211 While judges need to consider the quality of arguments presented during the debate round, they should also understand that no one argument can result in an automatic “1” in the debate round. Individual teams and speakers should be given credit for bringing convincing arguments into the debate, but adjudicators must consider the body of a team’s work when ranking the teams. In addition, no arguments or actions in a debate (short of sexual or personal abuse) should result in an automatic “4” in a debate. Some approaches can and should hurt a team’s final ranking (e.g., a First Government or team that sets up an unclear debate or a second half team that “knifes,” contradicts, or otherwise does not support the opening team on their side), but the judges must still consider the body of a team’s work when deciding on final rankings.

1705138212

1705138213

1705138214

1705138215

1705138216 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132571]

1705138217 思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Appendix E—SAMPLE TOURNAMENT ENTRY FORM TOURNAMENT ENTRY FORM

1705138218

1705138219 DIRECTIONS:

[ 上一页 ]  [ :1.70513817e+09 ]  [ 下一页 ]