Judging Guidelines II

Here is a copy of a set of judging guidelines that I drew up based on experience:

Judge in the following order:

1. Role fulfilment: were there any reasonably significant screw ups? (think of why we have roles (to make the debate better and fairer), a significant screw up is where the lack of role fulfilment impacted negatively on the debate.)
2. Quality of argument. (e.g. Analysis)
3. Content (e.g. Examples)
4. Strategy and teamwork
5. Style

The most important bit of the order is that a person who fails to fulfil their role really should be penalised. There is no automatic fourth, just things that take a speaker much, much closer to it.

Mark	Description
90> Phenomenal	A combination of Jesus, Churchill and Henry V. If they had just said white was black, you would have believed them. Unlikely.
80-90 Very good	A very good speech. Almost no flaws. You probably enjoyed listening to it and/or learned something from it. This is a break round speech.
75-80 High Average	Generally a good speech. Few flaws. This is where analysis etc really come in.
75	An average speech at a normal IV.
70-75 Low Average	Not a bad speech. 5 minutes or more, generally structured, generally had teamwork, no major flaws. You were just left wanting a bit more from the speech.
60-70 Not bad	The speaker probably spoke for over 4 minutes but had one or more of the following flaws: no analysis, really bad analysis, no structure, possibly slight internal contradictions, but not enough to be massively bad, no examples/knowledge.
50-60 Poor Speech	You probably fell asleep. Possibly more than once. If you didn’t fall asleep it was because you were writing humorous notes to your co-judges. They probably spoke for less than 4 minutes AND stabbed, repeated their partner verbatim, just didn’t make sense etc etc
<50 Actively bad	They did any, or all, of the following: vomited, cried, left the room saying ‘I just can’t do this’, made rape jokes in a debate about the EU, spoke in a language other than English, would be part of a great debating story if only anyone else had seen it. Bluntly, these marks are rare. A person is required to be actively bad. This mark usually requires justification to the CA or is simply banned outright.

General

· Each speaker must bring in new information (except summary)

· Summary speakers should not be penalised for not summarising thematically

· Analysis motions exist as a statement, and teams have to argue whether the statement is either true or not.

· To argue whether a statement is true the proposition should provide criteria for which the motion should be judged on. The opposition need to argue that those criteria are either irrelevant or not strong enough.

Judging Guidelines I

Here are the judging guidelines based on what Rita gave me of this year's guidelines at Euros:

Rita’s version of the Euros judging brief

The order of criteria on which you judge

1. Role fulfilment

2. Quality of argument

3. Content

4. Strategy and teamwork

5. Style

Adjudication must be done in this sequence. A team cannot win a debate if they have failed to fulfil their role on the table.

Positions

First Prop

· No squirreling

· Clear definition

· For analysis motions a model is not required

First Opp

· Must oppose the case stated, even if it is messy

· Does not have to rebut everything mentioned by prop

· Should bring up key issues of the opposition side

Second Prop

· Must provide new substantative matter

· Summary speech may include some new material

· Summary speech should include rebuttal of previous speaker

Second Opp

· New matter brought in summary must not be considered

General

· Each speaker must bring in new information

· Summary speakers should not be penalised for not summarising thematically

· Analysis motions exist as a statement, and teams have to argue whether the statement is either true or not.

· To argue whether a statement is true the proposition should provide criteria for which the motion should be judged on. The opposition need to argue that those criteria are either irrelevant or not strong enough.

Speaker points

Lowest mark: 50

Highest mark : 90

75 is the average for the competition.

These are guide marks but to go above or below these marks the CA would have to be consulted.

50 – 60 poor speech

60- 70 average speech but with some large flaws

70-75 good speech with some problems

75-80 good speech

80-90 great speech – expect to get to break rounds.

90 exceptional, to be seen in a World’s final

Pakistan backgrounder

Courtesy of Usama Rehman.

Pakistan

Internal

1. Politics in Pakistan

There are three main players in current Pakistani political scenario

President Mushraff:

• Came to power after overthrowing Nawaz Sharif’s government. A strong Western ally because of the support offered in the ‘war against terror’. Mushraff although still very popular in the West has been loosing popularity within the country because of the deteriorating law and order situations , and laws seen as increasing his own powers and curbing the media.

Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP):

• PPP has been a very influential party since the country’s independence in 1947. Benazir Bhutto the leader of the PPP was recently assassinated while campaigning for upcoming elections. Benazir Bhutto twice served as prime minister of the country, each time her government was sacked on corruption charges. The Party’s new co-chairmen are Benazir’s husband Asif Ali Zardari, also know as ‘Mr. Ten Percent’ for the alleged kickbacks from deals he received while his wife served as prime minister. The other co-chairman is Benazir’s 19 year old son Billawal, who is currently a student at the oxford university. The party although accused of mass corruption during power is favoured by the west because of its liberal approach to all aspects of life.

Nawaz Sharif:

• Leader of another of Pakistan’s most important political party. He has twice served as prime minister, the first time his government was dismissed on corruption charges whereas the second time he was overthrown by Musharaff in a military coup. Lived about 8 years in self exile in Saudi Arabia after the military coup.

MMA :

• Alliance of religious parties in Pakistan. The MMA is considered by the West as a threat to moderate Islam. The party is supposed to support strict religious laws enforcement in the country.

2. Religious Extremism:

Taliban

· One of the major concerns for the West. Pakistan is thought to be a haven for the Taliban and other religious extremists, especially the border regions with Afghanistan.

Madrassahs

· Efforts are being made to bring the ‘madrassahs’ (religious schools) in line with the national schools, with their curriculum monitored. Some madrassahs, usually in the area bordering Afghanistan, promote religious extremism.

Women

· The regions along the Afghan border face another issue of abuse of women’s rights. These border regions tend to follow a strict code of conduct for life leading to women not being granted rights and freedom they enjoy in the developed cities and most parts of the country. In many of these areas, the customs which are followed, as regards to women, are the same as those in Afghanistan.

3. Military Dictatorships:

Military dictators have ruled the country as long as if not more than the elected governments. Whilst the usual caveats of dictatorships being bad apply, military dictators in Pakistan have tended to bring stability in the country, improve the economy and improve law and order. The periods of military rule have usually had high levels of development and progress.

External:

1. Relations with India

Relations with India have mostly been strained since independence. The biggest thorn in the relations is the dispute of Kashmir. Kashmir stands to be a flash point for the two nations. Pakistan supports the UN resolution in regards to Kashmir (i.e. hold a plebiscite and let the Kashmiris decide their own fate). India, on the other hand, claims that it has rights over Kashmir because it was ruled by a Hindu dynasty at the time of independence.

Both nations, although struggling to cope with poverty, continue to increase defence budgets each year to maintain the military along the borders especially across the regions in Kashmir.

Recently, the train service between Pakistan and India has been resumed as a result of a thaw in relations between the two powers.

2. Relations with Afghanistan

The border regions with Afghanistan seem to be the biggest problem for Pakistan at the moment. Taliban are thought to use the mountainous border to promote religious extremisms and terror activities within the country. The border is very hard to patrol because of the terrain but efforts are being made in conjunction with the US military now to increase surveillance on the border.

3. Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)

Ever since Independence Pakistan and India have traded allegations blaming the other nations intelligence service for the terrorist activities happening in their countries. These accusations are often a cause of bad relations between the two nuclear nations.

4. Nuclear Power

Pakistan is the only Islamic nuclear power of the world. It is not a signatory to the NPT. The West has some concern over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal – less because it has one than other factors such as India and extremism etc. However Pakistan claims that its nuclear arsenal is safe from threats such as extremists.

Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist was accused of proliferating the technology. Pakistan maintains, and international enquiry concluded that this was an act of an individual.

A (very, very brief) guide to English law…

Criminal cases

Where a person is accused of a crime, they are not taken to court by their victim but by the Crown on behalf of society. Thus, if Smith is accused of raping Jones, the court case would be R v Smith (the ‘R’ stands for Rex or Regina and when spoken is “Crown”). The reason for this is that the crimes that are being tried are so bad that they offend the whole of society and society is therefore taking action against them.

The ‘leviathan’ of the state interferes in people’s rights to do what they want (like theft) in order to protect the majority. As everyone, even criminals, benefit when there is less crime in society, when a person commits a crime they are breaking an unwritten contract between them and the state and as such the state has the right to punish them accordingly.

Juries

Juries are the arbiter of facts in English criminal law. Juries do not award sentences for crimes, they merely rule whether a person, on the basis of the facts put to the jury, is guilty or not guilty.

A jury consists of 12 people drawn randomly from society (now, this also includes lawyers and judges). A jury sits for ten working days. In England, Barristers are not permitted to routinely ‘strike’ members of the jury before the trial unless there is an exceptional reason (such as the juror already knowing the defendant well).

Pros of keeping trial by jury

1. Fundamental to our concept of justice as a society
2. Shows society’s disapproval of the action as the defendant is being judged by his peers
3. More representative than magistrates and judges (who tend to be white, male and middle-class)

Problems with trial by jury

1. Juries are more likely to return a ‘not guilty’ verdict than judges/magistrates are
2. Defendants are abusing the system. Of the 70% who elect for a jury trial (over a trial in the magistrates), 90% plead guilty before the end of the trial.
3. Juries are unable to understand complex matters such as the issues which appear fraud trials.

Innocence and Guilt

A person is completely innocent until proven guilty. A person in prison awaiting trial or a person who has been arrested and has not yet been charged is not at all guilty at that point.

If a person has been taken to court and charged with a crime, if he is found ‘not guilty’ then that is an absolute ‘not guilty’, he is as innocent of the crime as he would be if he had never been charged in the first place.

In criminal cases, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove to the jury or judge that the defendant is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (90%+).

Damages

Damages are awarded in civil law, especially tort law. Tort law is basically ‘compensation’ law. If you were in a car accident, tripped over a paving stone, given bad advice by a doctor or given unsafe equipment at work, you could sue the person who committed the bad act for negligence (a subcategory of tort). The purpose of damages in English law is to put the claimant back in the position they would have been in had the tort never been committed. English law (generally) does not have ‘punitive damages’ where the aim is to punish the wrongdoer. In the USA, punitive damages are often awarded (eg: Erin Brockovich).

Tort law is a form of civil law. The cases are therefore brought between one individual and another, not by the Crown. With the exception of libel, juries do not sit on civil cases in England. In the USA, many civil cases are still in front of juries.

How to assassinate someone...

A 'count-by-numbers' guide to assassinating foreign leaders...

1.Who are you and who are you assassinating?

2 .How are you going to assassinate them? Black ops/covert or go in with the US flag on your back and a CNN helicopter in the sky above you?

3. Why is one method better than the other in this situation? (are you merely trying to remove a malicious influence without starting a war (in which case, black ops) or are you trying to send a message to dictators everywhere (Stars and Stripes and CNN)?

4. Why do we need to assassinate the person in question?
4a: Why are they a bad person?
4b: Why are they worse than all the other bad people?
4c: Do they hold a special place in te destruction of their country or would someone easily replace them?Is it because there is a 'cult of the leader' (eg: Kim Jong Il
4d: Why will the country not descend into chaos with their death?

5. Is their country likely to retaliate either against you or their neighbours?

6. Why don't we traditionally assassinate someone and why is this situation different enough from the norm to merit breaching this convention?


Hope it helps. Enjoy ridding the world of murderous dictators and remember, real world and debate world are a universe apart!

African Union fact sheet

(This is, on the whole, a edited version of the old wikipedia page)

AU

What is it?

The African Union (AU) is an organisation consisting of fifty-three African states. Established in 2001, the AU was formed as a successor to the amalgamated African Economic Community (AEC) and the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). Eventually, the AU aims to have a single currency and a single integrated defence force, as well as other institutions of state, including a cabinet for the AU Head of State. The purpose of the union is to help secure Africa's democracy, human rights, and a sustainable economy, especially by bringing an end to intra-African conflict and creating an effective common market.

Who’s in it?

All African nations except Morocco (who withdrew itself) and Mauritius (after a coup d’etat)

How does it work and what does it do?

Overview

The AU is governed by the AU Assembly of Heads of State and the Pan-African Parliament, which are both assisted by the AU Commission which constitutes one of the secretariats of the Pan African Parliament.

The AU's first military intervention in a member state was the May 2003 deployment of a peacekeeping force of soldiers from South Africa, Ethiopia, and Mozambique to Burundi to oversee the implementation of the various agreements. AU troops are also deployed in Sudan for peacekeeping in the Darfur conflict. In 1994 the OAU wasn't aware of the situation of the country and only provided some humanitarian help to the conflict.

History of the African Union

The historical foundations of the African Union originated in the Union of African States. Critics argued that the OAU in particular did little to protect the rights and liberties of African citizens from their own political leaders, often dubbing it the "Dictators' Club".

The idea of creating the AU was revived in the mid-1990s as a result of the efforts of the African Unification Front. At Lomé in 2000, the Constitutive Act of the African Union was adopted, and at Lusaka in 2001, the plan for the implementation of the African Union was adopted.

The African Union was launched in Durban on July 9, 2002.

Its Constitutive Act declares that it shall "invite and encourage the full participation of the African diaspora as an important part of our Continent, in the building of the African Union". The African Union Government has defined the African diaspora as "[consisting] of people of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union".

Current issues

The AU faces many challenges, including health issues such as combating malaria and the AIDS/HIV epidemic; political issues such as confronting undemocratic regimes and mediating in the many civil wars; economic issues such as improving the standard of living of millions of impoverished, uneducated Africans; ecological issues such as dealing with recurring famines, desertification, and lack of ecological sustainability; as well as the legal issue of the still-unfinished decolonization of Western Sahara.

Sudan

See: here

AIDS

The HIV/AIDS epidemic has affected over 25% of the population of southern Africa, with South Africa, Botswana, Kenya, Namibia, and Zimbabwe all expected to have a decrease in life expectancy by an average of 6.5 years. The effects on South Africa, which composes 30% of the AU's economy, threatens to significantly stunt GDP growth, and thus internal and external trade for the continent.

Zimbabwe

The political crisis in Zimbabwe has been debated both by the African Union and in particular by the Southern African Development Community. At African Union level, the situation in Zimbabwe has been a controversial focus of discussions in the Executive Council of the activity reports of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in which human rights abuses in Zimbabwe have been a leading subject since the early 2000s.

Analysis motions

Analysis motions/debates

An analysis motion is a motion in which no mechanism is required. The first prop team, instead, sets the perimeters of the debate and teams work within that framework.

For example:

THBT, with hindsight, the state of Israel should never have been created.

First prop is not required to give a mechanism for dismantling Israel, the debate is simply whether the last 50 odd years would have been better or worse has Israel never been set up. In this debate, first prop should look at the people affected. For example, the impact of the state of Israel on Jews in Israel, Jews as a group around the world, the Palestinians, the wider Middle East and the World as a whole.

Another analysis motion might be:

THBT feminism has failed.

In this situation, 1st prop looks at what feminism tried to achieve (formal equality, social equality, freedom of choice, autonomy for women etc) and the debate is the extent to which feminism has achieved its goals.

Just as in a normal debate, the model that first prop introduces can make or break the debater in terms of quality, so the definition and narrowing down in an analysis debate is of equal importance.

If first prop does not narrow the scope the debate, all that happens is teams spend forty minutes swapping examples without actually engaging with each other at all.

The opposition should be looking at directly tackling the issues identified by first prop. If first prop have said “We will win this debate on points 1, 2 and 3”, this is the primary context in which the opposition should work. If op tries to expand the debate it could become messy.

Be aware, analysis motions are becoming increasingly popular on the circuit again. At the moment, if a debate is to be an analysis debate, it is virtually always explicitly flagged as such. If you are not sure whether a debate is an analysis debate or not, you should run it in the normal manner (ie: mechanism)

In short

1. An analysis motion does not require a mechanism.
2. First prop should define the areas upon which the debate will be focussed
3. Opposition should, generally, work within these boundaries
1. The only exception to this is if prop have framed the debate in deliberately prop heavy terms that ignore the core of the debate. E.g. that the third Reich should be judged solely on the performance of the public transport system. The op should then expand the frame of reference by adding ‘regional peace’ or ‘human rights’.

First Opposition

First Opposition

1. What is the purpose of first opposition?
1. The primary purpose of first opposition is to undermine what first proposition have said.
2. First prop will have suggested a problem, a solution and an outcome (for what to do if they haven’t, see below). The job of first op is to attack one or more of these elements (problem, solution, outcome) or the links that they have made between them.
3. Try not to nitpick at a proposal. Look at th big issue reasons why the proposition will fail. That “it costs money” is less convincing than an argument that money isn’t an incentive in the case they are talking about F
4. For example: THW offer financial incentives to career women for having children. The strong opposition to make is to undermine the link made between paying women to have children and those women actually wanting and having more children. A weak point to make is that this costs money and so is bad.
2. What do judges look for when assessing first op?
1. Structure, teamwork, analysis, style etc
2. Teamwork is especially impressive in this position
3. Don’t do a whole speech of rebuttal. Some constructive argumentation is needed too.
4. Judges want constructive points on why there isn’t a problem. Why, if there is a problem, the solution won’t solve it. Or why, if there is a problem and the solution would solve it, it would cause more problems than the initial status quo. Or why the links between these are wrong and don’t work
5. This position sets up the clash in the debate. A good first op team will see their points used throughout the rest of the debate.
3. Common problems in first opposition
1. What the proposition has proposed is different from the motion (a.k.a Squirrel[*])

i. If it is a squirrel, complain but still run with what first prop has said

ii. If there is a difference between the motion and what first prop proposes, you must run with what first prop proposes not what you think they should have said. Even if the new proposition is nothing like the original motion. If this means your original prep has been wasted and is no longer relevant, you still have five and fifteen minutes (depending where you are sitting) to write a new speech. A lot of your old material may still be useful, but just in a different way.

2. First proposition hasn’t defined/explained a problem/offered a solution

i. Find something very reasonable that they could have propped. Tell the judge they failed to say anything so you are assuming they would have said [insert reasonable thing here]. Run from there. What is crucial in this situation is to be reasonable. If you are not, then it will ruin the rest of the debate and whilst first prop might come last, you will almost certainly not get first or second.

ii. Ideally, complain that first prop didn’t do their job and then spend the constructive part of your speech saying why they are wrong in principle.

3. Counter-propping

i. Don’t do it.

ii. If you have conceded that the problem identified by the proposition exists and is a problem, it can be tempting to provide an alternative solution. You don’t have to and should not do so. Your job is to defend the status quo and simply explain that whilst there are problems in it, the proposition will either not solve them or, in solving them, will cause many more problems.

iii. If challenged by proposition to give a different solution, remind them that your role on the table is not to explain an alternative but simply to explain why their proposition is wrong and makes the world a worse place.

iv. If you saw the Israel debate at the beginning of the year, opposition conceded the area was a mess. They conceded life in Palestine wasn’t nice. They conceded that life in Israel for Arab-Israelis was imperfect. They did not offer any solution to these problems, they merely pointed out that the two state solution would not solve many of the problems and even if it solved some, it would exacerbate others.

4. In short
1. Deny any or all of the propositions problems, solutions or outcomes
2. Deny the links between the three
3. Don’t solely rebutt, add constructive material as well
4. Counter propping is a bed idea
5. Attack the strongest parts of the proposition, not just the weakest
6. Argue the motion as defined by proposition, no matter what it is, not the motion you thought they should have run based on what you were given twenty minutes before.

---

[*] A squirrel is where a first prop team have gone significantly beyond what the motion could mean in defining their proposition. In a closed motion, the link between the motion and what proposition says should be very, very clear. A squirrel is so called because it’s hairy and runs away fast.

Extensions, assertions and analysis

Extensions, Assertions and Analysis

Extensions

The job of the second half of the table, as a whole, is to be better than what has gone before without contradicting what has gone before (unless the other side said it!). Think of it like a coalition government; both parties in government support a certain proposition, but for very different reasons.

An extension speech has to contain significant new material. This can be an entirely new angle (for example, discussing economics if only politics and morality has already come up) or much deeper analysis of something which has only been covered very superficially previously.

The question a judge will ask themselves when looking at an extension speech is “Did this person add value to the debate?”

It is quite usual to worry what you are going to say and be worried that all the points will have been taken by the top half. Don’t let this panic you into taking the first new point that comes into your head in order to provide new material. Sit back and look at the debate and see what areas haven’t been properly covered and then decide what your speech will be. Two ways of looking for new material are:

Look at the different areas which are normally covered in a debate (politics, economics, society, legal, moral, religious, environment…) and see if you can find something from that.

Look at the stakeholders in a debate. A stakeholder is anyone at all who is affected by the policy. For example, in THW support the two state solution the stakeholders include the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, Arab Israeli women, Arab Israeli men, Israeli Jews, Muslims in general, other minorities in the area (gays, religious minorities etc)… and so on.

Assertion and Analysis

An assertion is a statement made which is not backed up. For example, “You can’t ban trade unions because it infringes on unionists’ human rights”.

Every time a statement is made in a debate, it should be backed up with analysis.

Assertion is bad.

So what is analysis? Every time you make a statement you need to ask afterwards “How?”, “Why?” and “So What?”. You then need to answer it.

To continue the example above.

“You can’t ban trade unions because it infringes on unionists’ human rights”.

[How?]

“Because people have the right to free association”

[So What?]

“Because human rights are important”

[Why?]

“Because we say that human rights are rights common to all humanity”

[So What?]

“Because when we deny a person a right, we deny part of their humanity and this is a dangerous road to go down.”

[Why?]

“Because….”

The aim is that by the end of this series of questioning, you end up with a statement which cannot seriously be disputed (“Murder is a bad thing”).

So to analyse something, keep asking questions, keep saying ‘because, because, because’.

Another model is REAL and Now-Action-Then.

Reason: Banning trade unions is bad because it may lead to a lower standard of health and safety

Example: For example, London tube drivers striking because the ‘dead man’s handle’ didn’t work

Analysis: Now, people are allowed to strike so they can bring health and safety issues to attention when other methods have failed. If we take this Action, tube drivers will not be able to bring this to the public’s attentions so Then the world will be a more dangerous place.

Link: Make sure all the points above are linked. Causal links (or their lack of existence) make or break an argument.

In Summary

• If you are extension, don’t just grab the first point to come into your head. Think about areas missed or only superficially covered and look at them
• Stakeholder analysis is a useful way of finding relevant arguments
• An area commonly missed is the link between actions and their results – the Causal Link
• Ask yourself “Why?”, “How?” and “So What?” and then answer ‘because, because, because’ until you end up with a statement which it’s virtually impossible to disprove
• Use REAL and Now-Action-Then