Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Adjudication Seminar - Asian Parliamentary Format

A presentation used in MaHalTa Cup 2012 (Saint Augustine Seminary, Calapan, Oriental Mindoro) Made by: Danice Bermas

Danice Bermas

on 17 February 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Adjudication Seminar - Asian Parliamentary Format

Open Motions Semi-open Motions Closed Motions Motions that are open for interpretation.

THBT all is fair in love and war. Motions that are haply open for interpretation.

THBT dictatorship should be
kicked-out of the UN Motions that cannot be reinterpreted in any way for its parameters are already defined/suggested by the motion itself.

THBT it's high time for the U.S. to leave Iraq Value Assessment Debate Policy Debate Motions which suggest an assessment of values, i.e. rights versus national security THBT... Motions which suggest a proposal of a policy which would best achieve the goals, i.e. banning junk foods TH would, TH supports, TH celebrates, TH regrets, THBT there is a need to stop drugs Prime Minister Introduce the Topic of the Debate

Giving the Motion

Giving a proper Definition for the Motion

Giving the Theme for his/her team

Provide working Standards

Provide the Split for his/her team

Give at least 2 Arguments Leader of Opposition Deputy PM Deputy LO Government Whip Opposition Whip Government Reply Opposition Reply Give a Definitional Challenge ONLY IF NECESSARY

Rebut the Prime Minister

Giving the Clash for his/her team

Provide the Split for his/her team

Give at least 2 Arguments Reiterate the stand of the Government side

Rebut the Leader of the Opposition

Give at least 2 Arguments Reiterate the stand of stand of the Opposition side

Rebut the Deputy Prime Minister

Give at least 2 Arguments Reiterate the stand of the Government

Rebut exhaustively the Leader of the Opposition and Deputy Leader of the Opposition

Discuss issues that transpired in the debate and provide a comparative analysis of paradigms

Reiterate and Summarize the Arguments of the Government side Reiterate the stand of the Opposition

Rebut exhaustively the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Government Whip

Discuss issues that transpired in the debate and provide a comparative analysis of paradigms

Reiterate and Summarize the Arguments of the Opposition side definitional challenge A Squirrel is a definition that is not reflective of the essence of the issue and/or the motion given. This likely reduces the motion to something which is ridiculous or absurd.

Example of a Squirrel:
Motion – THBT corporal punishment in disciplining children is needed
Definition – That the death penalty be used in punishing juveniles A Truism is a definition that no longer may be argued since it is true and there can be no argument for the truth thus making the debate unfair to the opposing team.

Example of a Truism:
Motion – THBT losing the elections is not the end
Definition – That the senatorial candidates who did not win in the 2007 elections still have a chance at a political career. A Time/Place Set is when the debate by its definition is placed in a remote, unknown or a very specific place or set in the past. This is prohibited since it unfairly restricts the ability of the opposing team to argue and unduly limits the debate as a whole.

Example of a Time Set:
Motion – THBT Death Penalty works
Definition – That the Punishment of Death for Crimes was effective in reducing crime in the Philippines during the Martial Law period A Tautology is a definition that is circular and self proving. The definition by reason of its explanation proves itself and is prohibited since it removes the potential to have a debate.

Example of Tautology:
Motion – THBT Killing is bad
Definition – The Killing a person is immoral because and what is immoral is bad making a definitional challenge (LO) 1.As much as possible Do Not Perform a Definitional Challenge if you can still argue with the given definition. 2.In a definitional challenge the LO must state the grounds for the challenge from among the Prohibited Definitions in debate. 3.Briefly explain why the given definition is a manifestation of one of the Prohibited Definitions 4.Give a new and more debatable definition.

5.Argue against the new definition you provided. Solo Chair Chair of the panel Panelist Trainee Assumed to have biases which he/she perfectly controls

Has almost flawless justification of decisions

Mastery of the technicalities of debate and well interprets rules as manifested by his/her decisions

One of the best adjudicators in the tournament

Can control/facilitate the room without help from panelist Mastery of the techniques though needs help from co-adjudicators in the panel.

Facilitates speakers, initiates the deliberation of judges, gives the Oral Adjudication.

Rating will solely be from debaters. Rates the panel. Is able to adjudicate debate rounds though needs further improvement in facilitating debate rooms.

Helps Chair adjudicator in finding objective criteria which fit the debate.

Rating would be from the Chair. Needs continuing education in adjudication.

Handled by the Shadow Adjudication Core Members or the Chief Adjudicator

Decisions don't factor in Average Reasonable Person Somebody who has general knowledge on current events, has mastery on debate technicalities and strategies and is able to assess debates based on such knowledge without stepping in the debate round. MATCH-UPS








PERSONAL ASSESSMENTS 30 MINUTES -Adj is with the same institution

-Adj is in an official relationship with a debater in the round

-Adj had a past relationship with a debater in the round (anything that is official/became official is something that is sort of absolute… we protect objectivity of adjes..)

-Adj is the mentor of the debate team (except the adj core)

-Adj was previously complained by the debate team in the round (to be determined by the adj core) CONFLICT NON-CONFLICT -Adj has a crush on a debater in the round

-Adj has a personal bias with the debater in the round
(good or bad, bias is still controllable… that’s why
we have the panel)

**Chairs must exercise accountability by voluntarily informing the Adj Core of conflicts overseen. :) GRADING SPEECHES 80 - godly
79 - Break-worthy team
78-77 - Above Average
75-76 - Average
74-73 - Below Average Speech
72 - Weak Speech
70-71 -Has points but has more flaws
69 - non-contributive speech DECISIONS Unanimous


Split If the Chair is part of the minority, he would choose who among the panel would give the oral adjudication. Debaters would then rate the NEW chair… and the NEW chair would give a rating to his OLD chair.
Full transcript