The most prestigious English competition in Central Java, especially in eks-karesidenan Banyumas is English Debating Championship. It's held annually, by both of Diknas and sometimes by another institution such as university. And, to more socialize debate tournament system, Student English Forum (SEF) from Universitas Jenderal Soedirman held ADJUDICATION SEMINAR in SMA N 1 Purbalingga, February 21st 2008.
Actually, it was held as exercise for the candidats of adjudicator that would be the adjudicator in English Debating Championship held by Teacher Association, February 23rd-24th 2008. But, besides ADJUDICATION SEMINAR, the candidats of the adjudicator also got socialization about debating technique in order to be socialized to their students.
Not only to be socialized, the socialization, hopefully can be the begining of debate as culture at school, especially for the schools which haven't already have debater team. Because, until present days, still there are many schools have no fix debater team. So, when they would face debating championship, they should look for the debaters. And, in a hurry.
So, hopefully, debate will be one of extracurriculars that held at school.
And, here are the summary of the seminar:
Introduction to Debate Tournament System
Three debate systems commonly used in competition:
1. Australasian Parliamentary
2. Asian Parliamentary
3. British Parliamentary
1). Australasian Parliamentary
- Two teams (Affirmative/ Government and Negative/ Opposition) consisting of three speakers each
- No Point of Information (statement to rebut opponent's case while a speaker is delivering a speech)
2). Asian Parliamentary
- Two teams (Affirmative and Negative) consisting of three speakers each
- Point of Information is allowed in the debate
3). British Parliamentary
- Four teams consisting two members in a debate which are divided into: Opening Government, Opening Opposition, Closing Government, Closing Opposition
- Point of Information is allowed
- Adjudicator will make a discussion to determine the rank of each team. Mark of the debate is based on the point of the rank
FORMAT OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP
There will be two phases:
1. The Preliminary Phase
2. The Elimination Phase
1). Preliminary Rounds
- Minimum round is three, maximum is seven
- Standing team for 1st preliminary round: decided by lottery. The next round is graded by these criteria:
* Victory Points (Win-Loss Record; 1 point for a win 0 for a loss)
* Cumulative Margin (Difference of cumulative marks in favor of and against the team)
* Cumulative Total Team Score
- Preliminary Phase adopt the half competition system (the upper standing position will meet the lower standing position)
- For more than three preliminary rounds debate, a team, which has been three times in either affirmative or negative position, will be switched to its opposite position.
2). Elimination Rounds
- There are Octo-Final (16 best teams), Quarter Final (8 best teams), the Semi Finals (4 best teams) and Grand Final (2 best teams)
- It adopts "True power matching" (best meets worst i.e. Team I at the end of five preliminary rounds meets Team 16, Team 2 meets Team 15 and so on). The winner of a round proceeds to the next round
- The position (Affirmative/ Negative) will be determined by toss coin
- Margin and team score is not considered in this round
Notes For Adjudicators:
1). The Assessment made of any debate is a subjective exercise.
2). It is possible that this personal judgment differ from that of another adjudicators.
3). Adjudicators must make judgments within a framework of procedural rules and guidelines to limit the subjectivity.
4). Adjudicators' judgment are not influenced by their personal likes or dislikes and prejudice.
5). The adjudicators adopt the role of an average reasonable person, who has the average reasonable person's knowledge of the topic but has expert knowledge of the rules of debate.
6). The average reasonable person is assumed to be intelligent and capable of assessing flaws in arguments; the adjudicator is invested with these qualities.
The adjudicator has three functions:
1. To decide which team has won the debate (win or lose, no tie!)
An adjudicator asks "which team better performed the process of persuasion, in accordance with the rules of debate?"
2. To provide an explanation of the reasons for the decision
In delivering the adjudication, adjudicators should highlight the critical differences between the teams rather than replay the whole debate. Most complaints arise because adjudicators are not able to clearly identify the reasons for the result
3. To provide constructive feedback to the debaters.
An overly sarcastic or negative adjudication may undermine the confidence of novice debaters to the point where they are fearful of speaking in public again. Feedback should be couched in constructive terms.
Assesment points of debate:
1). Matter
- Matter is the content of the speech.
- Matter includes arguments, evidence presented to support those arguments, examples and analysis.
- Matter includes substantive matter, rebuttal and points of information.
The elements of matter are:
a. Logic (An argument is logical if its conclusion follows from the premise)
b. Relevance (bring the right issue)
2). Manner
- Manner is concerned with the mechanics of public speaking and presentation of the debating case:
a. Vocal Style
b. Use of Language (Diction)
c. Use of Notes
d. Use of Eyes
e. Gesture
f. Dress
g. Personal Attack on opponents
3). Method
- Method includes the fulfillment of speaker roles
- The management of speaking times
- The allocation of arguments between speakers and the cohesion of the team.
Issues related to Method:
a. Under-time and over-time speeches
b. New matter from third negative speakers ( A third negative speaker is not permitted to introduce any new matter. If any new matter is introduced, it does not score any matter marks and it will usually attract a method penalty)
Case Study:
A. FOCUS
Focus is the point where the debate should go to. Focus will direct the debate onto something.
Example:
THW Treat Illegal Immigrants as victim not as criminal
What is expected from this motion is that both Affirmative and Negative team will make comparison on why and how they treat the illegal immigrants as victim or as criminal.
The Affirmative team must show that illegal immigrants should not be punished even though they break the law since they have been cheated by the illegal agency. It will be better if we send them back home without further court process.
Meanwhile the Negative Team believed that Illegal immigrants should however be punished and considered as criminal since they entered a country without any legal permission. There'll be no excuse for those who break the rules.
Both Second Speakers from Affirmative and Negative team should deliver further implications after the illegal immigrants have been treated as victim or criminal.
Example 2:
THBT Junk Food Promotion Targeting Children should be Restricted
The debate should concern more on whether or not we will limit the using of Junk Food Promotion/ advertisement that are used to endorse children's desire for Junk food. It will be not focus, if both teams only argue about the danger of junk food without further elaboration about junk food advertisement and how the advertisement have the power to attract children to eat junk food.
Invalid Case
Happens when the team does not prove what are required by the topic to prove.
Example:
THW Allow Transvestites to Enter Miss World
Affirmative Team defines Transvestites as someone who's naturally born as a man and at certain age change the sexual organs in to a woman (should not join beauty pageant where many countries in the world take part in it).
What are the assessments?
B. ARGUMENT
Assess any arguments that still stand until the end of the debate or have been crumbled down by the opponents. Identify the strength and the weaknesses of both competing team.
1. Hung Case
Happens when the first speaker doesn't affirm or negate the topic in itself or when the second speaker has the same arguments with the first speaker.
Example:
THW Implement Universal Health Care
The First Affirmative Team proposes the implementation of Universal health Care in USA, where the number of uninsured people is high. This speaker explains complete mechanism of implementing UHC in USA, fact and the background of the debate.
The Second Speaker explains the effectiveness of these proposals.
What are the assessments?
2. New Matter From third negative or Reply speeches
The third speaker of negative team or reply speaker are not allowed to introduce new arguments which haven't been deliver in the 1st&2nd speaker.
Example:
THBT Indonesian Movies Bring More Harm than Good
The First Affirmative speaker concerned with the condition of Indonesian teenager who have been influenced by the negative impact of Indonesian Movies (sexual content). Affirmative Team divided the cases into Producers Point of View and Teenagers Point of View. At the end of the debate, the third speaker delivers the argument of Censor Board failure in censoring inappropriate scenes, and thus gives the solution to create more strict regulations.
What are the assessments?
3. Irrelevant Argument
Happens when the speakers deliver arguments which are not connected with the issues of the debate
Example:
THW Force Private Commercial Bank to Operate Branches in Rural Areas.
The First affirmative team states the urgency of operating new private commercial branches in rural area since the villagers still have traditional habit of saving the money in the piggy bank or under the pillow and to avoid those villagers to loan the credit from illegal creditor. They believed that it will stimulate better economic condition both for the rural area and the country.
What are the assessments?
4. Gradual Cases
Happens when the 1st speaker have proposals or mechanism that are gradually delivered by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd speakers.
C. RESPONSE
In order to create dynamic of the debate, rebuttal and response should be indicated by all the substantive speakers, except the 1st speaker.
Good rebuttal is not a questioned rebuttal, but it's supposed to crumble down the opponent's cases.
Good rebuttal shows that the opposing argument is based on error fact
Good rebuttal shows that the opposing argument is illogical
Team Slides
Happens when a team starts off arguing a theme in order to claim the matter being used by the opponents.
Example:
THW Increase its airlines regulations
The Affirmative team believed that Indonesian Airlines Company already implement the International Standard Operating Procedures in every airlines performances, thus in order to eliminate airline accidents, The Government of Indonesia only need to control the implementation of the code of conduct. In the other side.
Meanwhile the Negative team simply said that the case of controlling the running of International Standard Operating Procedures is their case and the Affirmative team supposed to bring the debate into making or adding the new law/ regulations in order to eliminate airlines accidents. Until the end of the debate, both teams were arguing the same arguments.
Actually, it was held as exercise for the candidats of adjudicator that would be the adjudicator in English Debating Championship held by Teacher Association, February 23rd-24th 2008. But, besides ADJUDICATION SEMINAR, the candidats of the adjudicator also got socialization about debating technique in order to be socialized to their students.
Not only to be socialized, the socialization, hopefully can be the begining of debate as culture at school, especially for the schools which haven't already have debater team. Because, until present days, still there are many schools have no fix debater team. So, when they would face debating championship, they should look for the debaters. And, in a hurry.
So, hopefully, debate will be one of extracurriculars that held at school.
And, here are the summary of the seminar:
Introduction to Debate Tournament System
Three debate systems commonly used in competition:
1. Australasian Parliamentary
2. Asian Parliamentary
3. British Parliamentary
1). Australasian Parliamentary
- Two teams (Affirmative/ Government and Negative/ Opposition) consisting of three speakers each
- No Point of Information (statement to rebut opponent's case while a speaker is delivering a speech)
2). Asian Parliamentary
- Two teams (Affirmative and Negative) consisting of three speakers each
- Point of Information is allowed in the debate
3). British Parliamentary
- Four teams consisting two members in a debate which are divided into: Opening Government, Opening Opposition, Closing Government, Closing Opposition
- Point of Information is allowed
- Adjudicator will make a discussion to determine the rank of each team. Mark of the debate is based on the point of the rank
FORMAT OF THE CHAMPIONSHIP
There will be two phases:
1. The Preliminary Phase
2. The Elimination Phase
1). Preliminary Rounds
- Minimum round is three, maximum is seven
- Standing team for 1st preliminary round: decided by lottery. The next round is graded by these criteria:
* Victory Points (Win-Loss Record; 1 point for a win 0 for a loss)
* Cumulative Margin (Difference of cumulative marks in favor of and against the team)
* Cumulative Total Team Score
- Preliminary Phase adopt the half competition system (the upper standing position will meet the lower standing position)
- For more than three preliminary rounds debate, a team, which has been three times in either affirmative or negative position, will be switched to its opposite position.
2). Elimination Rounds
- There are Octo-Final (16 best teams), Quarter Final (8 best teams), the Semi Finals (4 best teams) and Grand Final (2 best teams)
- It adopts "True power matching" (best meets worst i.e. Team I at the end of five preliminary rounds meets Team 16, Team 2 meets Team 15 and so on). The winner of a round proceeds to the next round
- The position (Affirmative/ Negative) will be determined by toss coin
- Margin and team score is not considered in this round
Notes For Adjudicators:
1). The Assessment made of any debate is a subjective exercise.
2). It is possible that this personal judgment differ from that of another adjudicators.
3). Adjudicators must make judgments within a framework of procedural rules and guidelines to limit the subjectivity.
4). Adjudicators' judgment are not influenced by their personal likes or dislikes and prejudice.
5). The adjudicators adopt the role of an average reasonable person, who has the average reasonable person's knowledge of the topic but has expert knowledge of the rules of debate.
6). The average reasonable person is assumed to be intelligent and capable of assessing flaws in arguments; the adjudicator is invested with these qualities.
The adjudicator has three functions:
1. To decide which team has won the debate (win or lose, no tie!)
An adjudicator asks "which team better performed the process of persuasion, in accordance with the rules of debate?"
2. To provide an explanation of the reasons for the decision
In delivering the adjudication, adjudicators should highlight the critical differences between the teams rather than replay the whole debate. Most complaints arise because adjudicators are not able to clearly identify the reasons for the result
3. To provide constructive feedback to the debaters.
An overly sarcastic or negative adjudication may undermine the confidence of novice debaters to the point where they are fearful of speaking in public again. Feedback should be couched in constructive terms.
Assesment points of debate:
1). Matter
- Matter is the content of the speech.
- Matter includes arguments, evidence presented to support those arguments, examples and analysis.
- Matter includes substantive matter, rebuttal and points of information.
The elements of matter are:
a. Logic (An argument is logical if its conclusion follows from the premise)
b. Relevance (bring the right issue)
2). Manner
- Manner is concerned with the mechanics of public speaking and presentation of the debating case:
a. Vocal Style
b. Use of Language (Diction)
c. Use of Notes
d. Use of Eyes
e. Gesture
f. Dress
g. Personal Attack on opponents
3). Method
- Method includes the fulfillment of speaker roles
- The management of speaking times
- The allocation of arguments between speakers and the cohesion of the team.
Issues related to Method:
a. Under-time and over-time speeches
b. New matter from third negative speakers ( A third negative speaker is not permitted to introduce any new matter. If any new matter is introduced, it does not score any matter marks and it will usually attract a method penalty)
Case Study:
A. FOCUS
Focus is the point where the debate should go to. Focus will direct the debate onto something.
Example:
THW Treat Illegal Immigrants as victim not as criminal
What is expected from this motion is that both Affirmative and Negative team will make comparison on why and how they treat the illegal immigrants as victim or as criminal.
The Affirmative team must show that illegal immigrants should not be punished even though they break the law since they have been cheated by the illegal agency. It will be better if we send them back home without further court process.
Meanwhile the Negative Team believed that Illegal immigrants should however be punished and considered as criminal since they entered a country without any legal permission. There'll be no excuse for those who break the rules.
Both Second Speakers from Affirmative and Negative team should deliver further implications after the illegal immigrants have been treated as victim or criminal.
Example 2:
THBT Junk Food Promotion Targeting Children should be Restricted
The debate should concern more on whether or not we will limit the using of Junk Food Promotion/ advertisement that are used to endorse children's desire for Junk food. It will be not focus, if both teams only argue about the danger of junk food without further elaboration about junk food advertisement and how the advertisement have the power to attract children to eat junk food.
Invalid Case
Happens when the team does not prove what are required by the topic to prove.
Example:
THW Allow Transvestites to Enter Miss World
Affirmative Team defines Transvestites as someone who's naturally born as a man and at certain age change the sexual organs in to a woman (should not join beauty pageant where many countries in the world take part in it).
What are the assessments?
B. ARGUMENT
Assess any arguments that still stand until the end of the debate or have been crumbled down by the opponents. Identify the strength and the weaknesses of both competing team.
1. Hung Case
Happens when the first speaker doesn't affirm or negate the topic in itself or when the second speaker has the same arguments with the first speaker.
Example:
THW Implement Universal Health Care
The First Affirmative Team proposes the implementation of Universal health Care in USA, where the number of uninsured people is high. This speaker explains complete mechanism of implementing UHC in USA, fact and the background of the debate.
The Second Speaker explains the effectiveness of these proposals.
What are the assessments?
2. New Matter From third negative or Reply speeches
The third speaker of negative team or reply speaker are not allowed to introduce new arguments which haven't been deliver in the 1st&2nd speaker.
Example:
THBT Indonesian Movies Bring More Harm than Good
The First Affirmative speaker concerned with the condition of Indonesian teenager who have been influenced by the negative impact of Indonesian Movies (sexual content). Affirmative Team divided the cases into Producers Point of View and Teenagers Point of View. At the end of the debate, the third speaker delivers the argument of Censor Board failure in censoring inappropriate scenes, and thus gives the solution to create more strict regulations.
What are the assessments?
3. Irrelevant Argument
Happens when the speakers deliver arguments which are not connected with the issues of the debate
Example:
THW Force Private Commercial Bank to Operate Branches in Rural Areas.
The First affirmative team states the urgency of operating new private commercial branches in rural area since the villagers still have traditional habit of saving the money in the piggy bank or under the pillow and to avoid those villagers to loan the credit from illegal creditor. They believed that it will stimulate better economic condition both for the rural area and the country.
What are the assessments?
4. Gradual Cases
Happens when the 1st speaker have proposals or mechanism that are gradually delivered by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd speakers.
C. RESPONSE
In order to create dynamic of the debate, rebuttal and response should be indicated by all the substantive speakers, except the 1st speaker.
Good rebuttal is not a questioned rebuttal, but it's supposed to crumble down the opponent's cases.
Good rebuttal shows that the opposing argument is based on error fact
Good rebuttal shows that the opposing argument is illogical
Team Slides
Happens when a team starts off arguing a theme in order to claim the matter being used by the opponents.
Example:
THW Increase its airlines regulations
The Affirmative team believed that Indonesian Airlines Company already implement the International Standard Operating Procedures in every airlines performances, thus in order to eliminate airline accidents, The Government of Indonesia only need to control the implementation of the code of conduct. In the other side.
Meanwhile the Negative team simply said that the case of controlling the running of International Standard Operating Procedures is their case and the Affirmative team supposed to bring the debate into making or adding the new law/ regulations in order to eliminate airlines accidents. Until the end of the debate, both teams were arguing the same arguments.
No comments:
Post a Comment