Stoa Homeschool Team Policy Debate Judges' Tutorial

Views:
 
Category: Entertainment
     
 

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

WELCOME:

WELCOME Click to edit Master subtitle style Hit any key to advance to next screenJUDGES’ TEAM POLICY DEBATE TUTORIALSTOA is a Christian speech and debate league dedicated to training homeschooled youth to better communicate a Biblical worldview.Our organization’s name is taken from classical Greek architecture which often included a stoa, or covered porch with symbolic colonnades, to be used as a gathering place for the exchange of ideas.

THANK YOU:

THANK YOU Click to edit Master text styles THANK YOU Second level THANK YOU Third level THANK YOU Fourth level THANK YOU Fifth level Thank you for your willingness to judge! Your participation is vital to the ongoing success of our tournaments. If you have never seen a debate competition, get ready for a real treat! These students are polished and prepared. And we believe you will be encouraged by the level of their commitment to tackle some of the challenging global issues they will soon inherit.Your Participation Is Valuable

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Though you have years of experience participating in “communication activities,” you’ve not been asked to judge at a tournament because of your debate expertise or knowledge of this year’s topic. Rather, it is the two teams of “experts” who have the burden to convince you of their positions. One of STOA’s primary goal is to equip our students to be able to speak convincingly to the thinking man or woman “on the street,” and that’s you!So relax…This is going to be easy.RELAXNo Experience Necessary

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level HOW TO… This tutorial is strictly optional but provided to merely familiarize you with some of the procedures, terminology, and issues particular to a debate round or as a more in-depth preparation for the interested. Its intent is to put you at ease and help you cast your ballot with assurance that it was fair and thoughtful. An additional orientation is provided at the tournament. You must hit any key to advance to the next slide. You may stop and start, skip ahead, or repeat a segment at your own pace. See index of slides located at BOTTOM of screen by clicking on small screen icon in lower left corner. An icon on the bottom right corner will enlarge the viewing screen (Allow approximately twenty-five minutes to complete the presentation.) Using This Tutorial

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level THAT’S DEBATABLEIt starts with a single debatable resolution released league-wide in the spring. Team policy debaters then get to work researching relevant issues, collecting supporting evidence, and developing related cases for and against the resolution. Hundreds of debaters working on the same resolution produce a wide variety of case topics, assessments, and solutions. Judges can expect a stimulating and enlightening experience. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform its trade policy with one or more of the following nations: China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan. This Year’s Team Policy Resolution

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level THE PLAYERSTwo Sides To Every ArgumentIn Team Policy debate, there are two teams, Affirmative and Negative, and each team has two members. Both teams have the responsibility of insuring that YOU understand all of their arguments, topic information, as well as debate terminology, and theory.Negative Team1N – First Negative Speaker2N – Second Negative Speaker Argues AGAINST the Affirmative May propose a Counterplan(alternative plan to the Affirmative’s) Affirmative Team1A – First Affirmative Speaker2A – Second Affirmative Speaker Argues FOR the resolution Proposes a plan to uphold the resolution

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level A round lasts up to 74 minutes, and is divided as follows: Two types of alternating speeches made by each debater: (See Slide #9)Eight (8) minute Constructives (C)Five (5) minute Rebuttals (R) Three (3) minutes of cross-examination between Constructives by opposing teams Five (5) minutes of “Prep Time” per team used at their discretion between speechesEach round is provided a timekeeper to help debaters manage their time. It’s important that they not run over their time allotment except, perhaps, to finish a thought.Running On TimeFORMAT

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level ”Don’t Miss the First Act”The first speech of the round, the 1AC (First Affirmative Constructive), is a key speechIt provides the Affirmative Team’s reasons to change the status quo (current system), a specific planfor change that upholds the resolution, and advantages of enacting their plan. While not bound by rules of structure or content this speech commonly includes:Definitions of terms in the resolutionCriteria for weighing the round (deciding the winner)Harms in the status quo (current system)Mandates (essentials of the plan)Plan specific action step(s)Agency to administer the planFunding source for the plan Enforcement entity to insure the plan is carried outAdvantages of the plan FORMAT

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level Rebuttals Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches and are meant to clarify important arguments. They should focus on arguments made during the Constructive speeches. It is not appropriate to propose completely new lines of arguments during rebuttals as opposing teams have little time to address them fairly.PROTOCOLUsual and CustomaryCross-Examination “Cross-ex” is performed by an opposing team member between each Constructive speech. Debaters should conduct themselves confidently and with persistence but should not display rudeness or hostility. If you believe this line was crossed, you may deduct speaker points on the ballot.Constructives These first four speeches propose and construct significant arguments. First the 1AC (First Affirmative Constructive) presents the detailed plan. Then both teams focus on developing their most persuasive arguments.

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level EVIDENCETo support their arguments, debaters may cite many sources. Look for these qualities when evaluating evidence: Credibility of sources (author, publisher, etc.) Relevance to argument Relative timeliness of data and publicationDebaters may ask to review evidence read by the opposing team during the round. As the judge, you may request to see evidence after the round is completed.*In the very rare instance that evidence is fabricated or falsified, bring it to the director for review.Evaluating the Facts

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level Put your past to pasture…By temporarily retiring your own opinions, biases, and knowledge during the debate round, you will avoid what is commonly referred to as JUDGE INTERVENTION. You may note an obvious flaw in an argument that the opposing team failed to address, or perhaps you are aware of compelling arguments you believe should have been included. In cases such as these, it’s important to remember that unaddressed flaws and arguments should not be used to weigh the round. Only those arguments and evidence actually put forth by each team should be used to determine a winner. However, to assist the teams with future tournaments, you may include your suggested corrections or additions in the “Comments” section of your ballot.Before You BeginJUDGE’S ROLE

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level DO: Listen attentively Decide which team best supports their position Vote for or against the resolution Provide a written ballotDuring the RoundDON’T: Interrupt a round Extend a speaker’s time Accept written material from debaters before or during a round Allow audience response to influence your decisionJUDGE’S ROLE

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level When The Round Is OverHere’s what to do next: Don’t disclose your decision Don’t give verbal feedback to the debaters Don’t solicit opinions from other observers You may request written evidence for clarification or accuracy but be sure to return it before leaving the room Immediately following the round, take your notes and ballot to the designated area for completion Reward yourself with a tasty treat in the Judges’ Hospitality Suite, you’ve earned it!JUDGE’S ROLE

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level NOTETAKINGWhat’s Important? The right notetaking system is the one which allows you to absorb the presentation in order to adequately reach a conclusion, cast your vote, and give debaters written feedback. Here are a couple of suggestions: “FLOWING” is one tool that utilizes a flow-chart divided in eight columns, one for each speech. Arguments are recorded in appropriate columns. Responses made during subsequent speeches can be noted directly adjacent to the original argument creating a “flow” or thread across the chart as arguments progress. This is an excellent way to keep track of the viability of specific arguments. Flow-charts are provided at the tournament for your convenience. First time judges may find it most beneficial to spend the majority of the round listening to speeches with the purpose of selecting then recording a few of the more persuasive arguments. These can be simply listed by team on a blank piece of paper. Additionally, it is helpful to jot down the basic tenets of the plan as presented in the 1AC (First Affirmative Constructive). (See “Slide #8)Prior to the round, reviewing Speaker Point criteria on the ballot is a good idea.

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level Your round is likely to include a lot of discussion about the four (4) stock issues: Topicality Significance Inherency SolvencyStock issues are one assessment tool that ask real-world questions often raised when evaluating the need for a change in policy. Simply put, a case that fully and reasonably affirms the resolution can answer “yes” to each of the following stock issue questions:As in…”Taking Stock of the Issues”STOCK ISSUESXXXXYes No

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level Is the case topical?To be topical, the Affirmative Team’s entire case must fall within the boundaries of the resolution. For example: A student assigned a term paper on the topic of the Civil War would fail the assignment if they constructed their paper instead on World War II, as this would be outside the boundaries of the topic. STOCK ISSUE#1TOPICALITY

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level Is a change worth it?The answers to questions such as the following help to establish the significance of a change in policy? Is it worth it to make a change to current policy? How big are the harms (problems) in the status quo (current system) How many people are affected and how substantially?STOCK ISSUE#2SIGNIFICANCE

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level Are there barriers in the current system preventing a change? It’s the Affirmative Team’s responsibility to prove: That there are barriers in the status quo (current system) preventing change The best way to overcome the inherent barriers is to adopt their planSTOCK ISSUE#3INHERENCY

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level Will the plan work?It is not likely or necessary that a plan provide a 100% solution, but it’s effectiveness can beassessed from many angles:Do the action steps of the plan address harms or issues cited?Is it workable considering cost, personnel, enforcement agency, and logistics?Has it ever been tried before and failed?Do the advantages outweigh any raised disadvantages?STOCK ISSUE#4SOLVENCY

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level DELIVERYThe top two thirds of the ballot are dedicated to individual speaker evaluations. This is the place to reward polished presenters or make suggestions for improving organization, persuasiveness, cross-examination skills, delivery, evidence quality and quantity, or REFUTATION (ability to show false arguments). Excellent speakers often receive 25 points or more, good speakers 20 points, etc. and are entirely subjective. Additionally, you will be asked to rank the speakers 1 – 4, 1 being best. It is a good idea to review the speaker point criteria before starting the round.Please note: A round is ultimately won through a “clash of arguments” and may not necessarily be the team with the highest speaker points. Your vote for the winning team should largely be based upon whose arguments were most convincing. Speaker Points

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level Decisions should be based on: Only the issues discussed in the round Strength of arguments presentedDecisions should NOT be based on: Speaker points Personal bias or opinion Consideration for younger or less experienced teamsDouble Loss can be rendered for disciplinary reasons only Affirmative vote - Plan upholds the resolution, change is warranted. Negative vote - Change is not needed.Weighing the RoundTHE WINNER!

Click to edit Master title style:

Click to edit Master title style Click to edit Master text styles Click to edit Master title style Second level Click to edit Master title style Third level Click to edit Master title style Fourth level Click to edit Master title style Fifth level SUPER HERO!Congratulations! You are now “super” equipped to enter the debate arena and confidently select the team most worthy of your vote. On the day of the tournament, you will receive additional training. Please feel free to bring any questions you may have to the orientation provided that day. Your support is greatly appreciated and your feedback provides valuable information that helps improve each debater’s skills. Thank you once again for your willingness to judge.

authorStream Live Help