JPP Cup Debate Championship Field Is Set

I had always imagined that the seeding of so many JPP posters at once, by PMP and Grind, would have taken place in a Vegas hotel room at the inaugural JPP get-together and involve liberal amounts of alcohol, sedatives and decades of flashbacks.
 
charver said:
I had always imagined that the seeding of so many JPP posters at once, by PMP and Grind, would have taken place in a Vegas hotel room at the inaugural JPP get-together and involve liberal amounts of alcohol, sedatives and decades of flashbacks.
Click to expand...

Funniest post of the summer!
 
charver said:
I had always imagined that the seeding of so many JPP posters at once, by PMP and Grind, would have taken place in a Vegas hotel room at the inaugural JPP get-together and involve liberal amounts of alcohol, sedatives and decades of flashbacks.
Click to expand...

we both offered to take Thorn to Vegas.....she hasn't responded to either of us yet.....(not to mention, Damo hasn't told us what our expense account is yet).......
 
charver said:
I had always imagined that the seeding of so many JPP posters at once, by PMP and Grind, would have taken place in a Vegas hotel room at the inaugural JPP get-together and involve liberal amounts of alcohol, sedatives and decades of flashbacks.
Click to expand...
This post is full of win.
 
I'm going to be gone, from this coming Thursday till Monday, and my access to a computer is going to be severly restricted.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'm going to be gone, from this coming Thursday till Monday, and my access to a computer is going to be severly restricted.
Click to expand...

considering the fact that Thorne hasn't even logged in with her opinions about seeding and nobody has responded to me yet about suggestions for rules and judging criteria, I doubt we will be ready to begin by Thursday.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
considering the fact that Thorne hasn't even logged in with her opinions about seeding and nobody has responded to me yet about suggestions for rules and judging criteria, I doubt we will be ready to begin by Thursday.....
Click to expand...

I figured that all the kinks would be worked out, by ths weekend, and I didn't want to get dropped into something, when I wasn't around.
 
not much happening....not sure where Thorn is.....

ran across this, suggesting we use it for judging
Judging

One basic principle underlies debate judging:

Rule 9a. The team doing the better debating is the winner.

Conceivably, more than one process might be employed to determine which team does the better debating. Indeed, since the beginning of intercollegiate debating a number of such methods have been proposed and utilized. Probably the most universally acceptable criterion would be this:

Rule 9b. The team doing what the proposition requires is the winner.

Debate topics are worded so that one team must succeed and one team must fail in meeting the requirements of the proposition. The successful team, having done the better debating, is declared victorious.

When the topic is expressed in the usual form as a proposition of policy, the judge's criterion for determining the winning team may be expressed in this form:

Rule 9c. The decision is given to the affirmative if it succeeds in showing that the proposed plan should be adopted. The decision is given to the negative if the affirmative fails to show that the proposal should be adopted.

The judge must remain strictly neutral and impartial with regard to the subject matter for debate. He cannot aid one team or the other by injecting his own personal opinions into the decision. This principle is applied in several ways:

Rule 9d. The judge must base his decision entirely on the material presented, without regard for other material which he may happen to possess.

Arguments or evidence which occur to the judge, but which are not employed in the debate, have no place in the decision. However, if the judge happens to possess some significant facts not employed in the debate, it would be helpful for him to mention them after his decision, as a suggestion for future use.

Rule 9e. The judge is required to accept as true all arguments backed by reasonable proof (as defined above) until such arguments are overthrown by the opposing team.

The judge has no right to consider an argument weak unless the opposing team shows that it is, or unless the team making the argument badly asserts it and fails to support it with adequate evidence or reasoning.

Rule 9f. The judge must not accept ideas which are not backed by reasonable proof.

Unsupported assertions and purely emotional appeals must not be considered. The use of emotion is legitimate in driving home a point, and is to be encouraged in many instances, but the point must also be supported by evidence or logic if it is to be considered.

Impartiality also applies to the judgment of the debate techniques employed. Harlan puts it this way:

"The danger of using coaches for judges is that they have their own ideas about how best to prove each side, and, regardless of how good your proof might be, if you do not prove it as they would, there will be a tendency to discount your arguments."

Perhaps this does not apply to the majority of coaches who serve as judges. But in those instances where the coach-judge does swerve from impartiality, the criticism is valid. Each team has the right to make use of whatever arguments it desires, and the judge may not penalize a team for failing to make use of an argument or type of case he considers good. The entire decision must be based on what the teams accomplish, not on what the judge personally believes a good debate case on that subject to be.
Violations

Rules of debate exist to define the procedure and the playing field. They are similar to rules of football in that violation means a penalty of some sort but not necessarily loss of the game. Of course, in a tight situation the penalty could, in either game, mean the difference between victory and defeat.

Rules of debate are designed so that the teams suffer the natural consequences of their actions. There is no parallel in debate to football's five-yard penalty, but there is a close parallel to an out-of-bounds run in football: If the runner goes out of bounds, the play is stopped at that point; any gain made off the playing field is disallowed. In debate, any gain made outside of the established procedure is disallowed.

Suppose, for example, that a team brings up new constructive arguments in rebuttal. Since there is a rule against it, the judge would be required to disregard such arguments. This means that the offending team has wasted some of its time, which is the natural penalty one would expect. No additional penalty is placed on top of this natural one.

Again, suppose that a team makes assertions without proof. Since there is a rule which says that he who asserts must prove, the judge will decline to accept unsupported assertions. This is the natural penalty for violation of the rule. No additional penalty is inflicted.

This may be summarized as follows:

Rule 10. Any gains made outside of the established procedure are disallowed.
Click to expand...
 
and there's this...obviously deleting the points for time keeping and teamwork, leaving us with 40 possible points per match
Sample Judging Criteria


These are adjudication Criteria as posted on the Leeds University web page. They are very Rigid and do not allow for much discretion on the part of Adjudicators. However while this may resented by experienced adjudicators it is probalbly better to give inxeperienced adjudicators as much guidance as possible and these rules certainly do that.
The categories for judging shall be:

* Content - 10 marks
* Delivery - 10 marks
* Points Offered - 5 marks
* Points Taken - 5 marks
* Teamwork - 5 marks
* Time Keeping - 5 marks
* Overall Impression - 10 marks

Total - 50 marks

CONTENT
0-2 marks Weak or irrelevant argument, poorly structured. Inconsistent with previous speakers' definition or an unreasonable attempt to define or redefine the motion. Fails to adequately explore the subject.

3-5 marks Below average argument. Perhaps coherent but clumsy; mainly consistent but stale and lacking in imagination or originality. Has little evidence to support case.

6-7 marks Sound argument. Relevant, reasonable and consistent with a defined structure and coherent points. Introduces some evidence to support argument but fails to reach beyond stereotype formula debate for the topic.

8-9 marks High quality argument, imaginative and coherent. Good points backed up by examples or evidence. Deals fully with the subject and is challenging forthe other side to respond to.

10 marks A rare occurence. A debate winning argument which the other side cannot respond to. Original, well structured and convincing. Only to be awarded to a very high quality debater.

Delivery
0-2 marks Hesitant, floundering; has little idea of what to say; inarticulate, incoheent and obviously lacking in any confidence. Would struggle to make him/herself heard in a larger venue.

3-6 marks Varying degrees of weak to average delivery. Does the speaker appear confident?; can he or she be easily bullied by the other debaters?; does the speaker often lose his/her place? especially when interrupted; can he/she fend off opponents who are trying to make a point?; does the speaker speak clearly and do they have a good standard of grammar?; do they speak too quickly, too slowly, too loud or too quiet?; do they speak to their audience or to the ceiling?; are they reading or using their notes too much?

7-9 marks This is a good quality performance in which the speaker only uses brief notes occasionally, only uses wild hand actions where appropriate and has a confident air which is rarely put off by the acrobatics of other competitors. The speaker speaks clearly and makes eye contact with the panel and the competitors and does not appear to be rushing or dragging out their speech. A speaker who loses his/her way once but manages to recover effectively can still achieve as high a score as seven or eight.

10 marks Again a rare mark to give; to achieve a perfect ten, the speaker must have no notes, must speak confidently at the perfect tempo and must be able to deal with heckling and requests to give way effectively. He/She must never lose his/her place and appear to have the entire debate under his/her control.

Points Offered
0-1 marks Offers few points or only stands up when someone else is already standing. Anyone who attempts to offer a point for their own side should receive no higher than one mark.

2-3 marks Offers points throughout the debate but not good points; or offers one or two good points but appears not to participate for much of the debate. Sadly, anyone who offers points but is not accepted even once cannot receive higher than two marks. If the judges feel they deserve it, they can be compensated in the overall impression section.

4-5 marks Offers salient and effective points where accepted and remains interested and involved throughout the debate.

Points Received
0-1 marks Refuses to take any points or seems unable to either answer points or regain thread of the speech.

2-3 marks Attempts to answer points but finds it difficult to answer them. Perhaps takes too many points or too few. Does not always regain flow of the speech.

4-5 marks Confident and effective dealing with points; either answers the point succesfully or succesfully dismisses it without losing any fluency. Does not take too many points and does not refuse to take them.

Teamwork
0-1 marks Fails to maintain consistency of argument within team. Shows little awareness that he/she is part of a two man team. Fails to introduce or develop any of the team-mate's arguments.

2-3 marks Mentions team partner and introduces or refers to forthcoming/previous arguments but appears to do so in a rigid and stunted way which hampers the fluency of the speech.

4-5 marks Good quality teamwork which shows clear evidence of team preparation with each member aware of the topics he/she is to cover to avoid excessive repetition of the partner's arguments. References to partner's arguments appear natural and unscripted.

Time Keeping
All speakers in the opening rounds will have five minutes to speak. Speaking too long or too short will cost them marks roughly as follows:

5 minutes exactly - gains 5 marks
up to 15 seconds out - gains 4 marks
between 15 seconds and 45 seconds out - gains 3 marks
between 45 seconds and 1 minute early or late - gains 2 marks
between 1 minute and 1 minute 30 seconds early or late - gains 1 mark
over 1 minute 30 seconds early or late - gains no marks.

Overall Impression
This is a fairly subjective section which allows for the judges' discretion. It basically represents a rough average of the other marks but judges can increase or decrease marks taking into account:

* The difficulty of the motion
* The position in which they are speaking. (first prop. is hard on a difficult motion; first opp is hard on an ill defined motion; fourth opp and prop can be difficult on a motion with little subject matter.)
* Whether the speaker received disproportionate barracking from the other competitors.
* Whether the speaker was particularly witty or entertaining.

Of course, these notes are general guidelines and it is impossible to score competitors too accurately. If any query arises, however, a judge should always be able to justify the decisions made.
Click to expand...
 
Grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind grind
 
out of curiosity, would the participants post a few general ideas about the types of issues they would LIKE to debate.....so we can make sure to avoid them all......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top