Transcript for:
Effective Debate Judging

foreign yeah okay I hope I am Audible and visible could somebody just confirm yeah you are okay thank you I'm just gonna share my screen once again okay welcome to uh the Bookshop judging effectively um so I'm gonna just briefly outline what we are going to cover today um and then we can look at details of the things so um the first thing I'm going to cover is determining clashes um how to adjust to that what is it that they should look at um the second thing is oral adjudication um and how to make it more effective um and what are the sort of things that you should look at while giving you know a and lastly very briefly on how should you take notes and what should that entail for each individual okay let's start with the for the first aspect of the workshop um identifying and awarding clashes uh just as you note at any point if you have any questions um or don't understand anything feel free to unmute yourself I'm not looking at the chat so feel free to unmute yourself and just stop me I have no issues with that okay so what are clashes um I think there's something more people know but just to be clear it's sort of a question and disagreement that is Meaningful for the debate that his teams are going to content on certain issues and are going to be points of contention that uh both sides try to claim and win uh for them to win the debate they're obviously neutral nature that is to say that clashes never favor each side teams ought to analyze the content and explain why I said that even a particular Clash right so this could be winning um a clash on which stakeholder uh what in on whose side of the world is the stakeholder uh more benefited or why is it that a stakeholder is harmed on either side of the house or something like is the policy effective what the harm of that is obviously we will go into detail on how to resolve these caches um in a bit teams can also flame this as a question um so it's not necessarily has to be a word or X versus why it could be something as simply as on whose side of the house is life likely to be better or on whose side of the house is economic development more stable and stuff like that right um the more important bit rather though is that a clash is not an argument but includes within itself multiple sub-arguments so let's take for example um a motion saying this house would legalize prostitution under this gov can argue a host of things in terms of why women should have the right to bodily autonomy and allowing prostitution enables that while the state ought to legalize therefore uh this bodily autonomy the second argument can be on how this allows him to escape for male hegemony and what this looks like uh in that they can re-assert the narrative and re-control what decisions that they want to make about their lives um opposition can talk about objectification of women they can talk about why this is likely to increase violence gendered violence um or other things of what kind of messaging this gives to society what does the state want to prioritize for women um and stuff like that all of these are separate issues and separate arguments but fall largely under the broad umbrella of what the implication is on status of women and how is this essentially going to um change things for women but uh multiple subclashes obviously teams can win the more crucial ones and do that being for you uh lastly I mean it's quite clear you need clashes because you can't judge debates in a vacuum most often if not teams have to do that job for you um and explain to you on how the material interacts with each other that doesn't mean judges uh don't take into account preemptive material and other things that I will cover later okay um let's now move on to the next bit about dashes in terms of what the examples essentially are so I'm going to very briefly go through this um let's say the first example of this house will adopt the jury system so clashes under this would look like what the fairness of the system is with subclashes of um are there biases of the judges versus the Judy's bias which do we prefer selection process and what this looks like um the other issue could be representing what Society wants um or on the motion of this house police that governments should force all religious Charities to strictly avoid religious messaging in their charity activities um questions could be of clashes could be what are the goals of religious Charities where is society help better through these organizations um and does people's perception of Charity become good or bad when you know religious messaging involved I mean what the implication of this is likely to be this is how clashable broadly look like uh this is obviously very basic stuff so that you were able to actually identify and understand to what degree uh should teams prioritize a material how to charges evaluate that okay so the more important bit on how you want to determine who has won The Clash the first sort of most important bit here is going to be looking at the analysis that people and teams provide and speakers provide so to see whether the material is mechanized in that is there enough processes do they prove to you how X um decision leads to Y outcome and has all logical links uh in terms of proving why are you likely to achieve X outcome um and why why is it likely that these things are going to occur and which is why they should be awarded that Clash um obviously impacting is an important part of this in that teams should spend enough time in impacting and explaining to you on what is it that they achieve as a result of the decisions that they make and why is it that they ought to be awarded um that material but you obviously do not look at this in a vacuum but are actively comparing material that you get from the other side of the house what does this look like right the first thing is obviously rebuttals the first thing is they act as mitigating the scale of impact um and scope of the argumentation that exists so you want to properly probably evaluate on either side of the houses let's say response from opposition has reduced the scale of impact now a reduction in scale of the impact doesn't necessarily mean that let's say government would have lost the Clash but probably has typically weakened argument judges then need to look at to what degrees the argument weakened to what extent has opposition cast enough doubt to ensure that they get the clash and what this will look like obviously these are subjective things that judges have to make a call on while they are in the debate um the second thing rebuttals do is they prove that claims made by the opposing team are incorrect and harmful um in that proving that all of the XYZ arguments that government claims are less likely to be achieved or opposition claiming that their world is better off is unlikely to occur uh given uh of the given reasons that either teams will have and lastly rebuttals are obviously used to flip arguments and provide competing Frameworks and that reframing the debate and teams oftentimes and as judges we want to be careful because teams oftentimes use this to sort of reclaim the clash in The Clash sort of slightly changes on the way in which you are leaning an important tip here although is to ensure that you don't make up your mind with like within just first speeches are done often time judges are limited or limit themselves just by looking at pm and lo speech and say that if these are the issues that speakers have spoken about these are likely to be the more contentious issues in the debate surely but uh it's completely possible in second speaker and onwards for clashes to develop over time or a specific part of a larger Clash to become more important and you want to be wary of how those things happen via the battles and engagement or pois that will happen on either side of the house please do not count reasons and arguments um under a particular issue just because somebody has one three out of four sub clashes or has three arguments supporting their Clash over one solid strong argument from the other side is not reason enough for you to give them the win um unless and until those three are compelling robust reasons that take out other like material that you've gotten from the other sides so obviously material and Analysis is the sort of Bedrock on which you sort of Judge um the other things you want to look at though is um and this is a repeat from what was earlier but this is slightly different in the sense that you're not just looking at the robustness and depth of the analysis and processes that teams have provided but you also want to check if the reasons that they have provided lead to their logical conclusion um oftentimes teams make certain claims but it's not likely that the impact is going to be something that they achieve um and you want to constantly check on what this looks like the second thing is is this material that teams give you sufficient now what does this mean obviously most times teams aren't able to prove a particular argument to the maximum extreme of achieving a particular impact and there's a lot of like gray between that black and white in terms of minimal versus maximum um analysis of an argument you want to look at on a scale to what extent is a team proven argument X and to what degree is that enough for them to be winning that cash right and what helps in this is looking at the weighing the teams provide is that being sufficient uh what are the stakeholders that they are prioritizing what is it that they are actively prioritizing in terms of let's say um looking at the assessment or the other assessing the best case worst case that teams give on either side of the house or analyzing other like material that you have in terms of principal Frameworks the teams think that they win and clean I mean these are all material that you want to take into account uh while determining who has won The Clash okay let's look at an example uh I'm just going to give you all one minute to go through this uh and you can type in the chat on how would who would you give the win to so the motion is this house believes that the UK should pay reparations to the Nations it colonized proposition proves that this would be extremely helpful for many postcolonial countries that struggle with poverty illness lack of decent infrastructure they add that it can Aid in fixing the exact harms of colonialism that were directly responsible for many of the prevailing issues today opposition proves that the UK and its living citizens today are not at fault for their ancestors crimes and shouldn't be required to pay for them they analyze What the residents of Britain today neither condone nor benefit from any of the atrocities of colonialism people should never be punished for their ancestral clients the same baby never punished the child of a criminal um just go through it for a minute and feel free to write in the chat on who would you give the window okay uh unless others are not writing I'm gonna wait for 15 more seconds okay um here Aryan is correct um opposition ring uh and the reason is The Clash here first of all is about obligation right so while proposition is able to prove better utility in terms of how those funds will be used um they never explain to us on why the citizens have a responsibility to pay for that benefits um and therefore the cash on obligation that gov sets out to win they are unable to because opposition is able to prove that not just that citizens because God doesn't prove that they have a responsibility to pay but also because gov never moves Beyond explaining that this money will be helpful so gov claims that this money is going to help people and this might be true that a lot of this money will go into developing those Nations uh but they don't have the principal claim of why there's an obligation that exists I mean I think the government has an obligation um or a responsibility to prove that obligation exists uh given that that's the underlying assumption that they make to build the argument um so this is what you want to do as judges you want to look at and critically analyze the degree to which a team has analyzed the Assumption and claims that they have unnecessarily made um and how essentially is this Clash uh going to either side of the house okay how do you decide which caches are debate many are there going to be multiple cash in a debate but most often if not it will be certain clashes that will tip you to either side oftentimes in closed rooms anyway DC is obviously extremely competitive tournament you will have um like extremely tight and close debates and in those debates one or two issues will be the more crucial issues that will force you to lean on either side of the house so the first criteria therefore is an explicit agreement on what the metric of the debate is uh things will be very clear in terms of saying this is why we think that we win the debate or this is the most important issue or judges you need to judge based on X particular issue I'm just really quite clear the second um in the in the events that they don't do this you will have to look at implicit agreement that teams have on the arguments that they forward what does this look like right for example uh let's say the emotion is about this house it gets the this has the feminist movement regrets the glorification of motherhood um and a lot of arguments are going to be about what does this do for women why does the feminist movement have to take particular stance what the implication of this is in career choices that women make does this course them or not um and while things might not have explicitly said that we have to look at the interest of the feminist movement and the messaging that they are sending um I think it's quite implicitly clear that this is something that teams are going to prioritize um and therefore they judge you have to look at that implicit agreement that they have forwarded through their arguments um oftentimes the reply speech will also be a crucial uh sort of issue uh Speech to look at to understand crucial issues that teams want to win in the debate um and in as much as we might think sometimes that road passages are not important in these issues uh to determine which issue is something that teams are prioritizing reply speeches become particularly important um in the case there is no explicit or implicit agreement um and if teams have different views of what the most important clash in the debate is and this is likely to happen um then you want to look at what and how much material is present in terms of explaining why X Clash comes y clash and why that particular class should be given more importance uh over the other um and this will be done through these thing and the arguments that teams themselves forward a lot of being that they do a lot of tubing in terms of the impact uh of X argument or proving why this Clash should should let's say um an emotion about should the United States um relax sanctions on China uh probably government is spend enough time explaining the economic ramifications Trump the international uh and other concerns that your international relations concerns that you have and in those cases you want to probably look at to what degree have they analyzed by the economic interests of the United States um outrank its diplomatic interests uh and the other stance that it takes as a West and those kinds of um will become crucial for you to determine because teams might have different priorities and versions of What the debate is uh as a judge you don't want to make a random value judgment and say that yeah the economic benefits matter more even the nature of the economy concrete unless until the team has actually proven why that's likely to be the case um and I say last resort if neither of the above are done and this happens very rarely but it's quite frequent though in because teams refuse to explain to you why particular Clash is important then you want to look at it as an average reasonable voter and you want to be very careful of not um inserting yourself and your beliefs into the debate here but still to what the average decimal water we all know is somebody who reads and keeps up with international news but doesn't know detailed specifics of a particular region um and and things like that so this is something that you want to prioritize but obviously uh in most cases team will have some extra set or implicit agreement on what they think is the most uh important clash in the debate okay um let's now look at how do we decide what is the most important Clash so the motion here is this house will allow political parties to make binding electoral promises that once token would trigger immediate uh would immediately trigger re-election government does three things explains why representation is more important than governability since it's harmful to pass laws that go against the population they argue but don't sufficiently prove why better representation is achieved and lastly well made arguments on why you get better governance opposition is in has insufficient responses to the governability argument uh but they clearly analyze and prove that representation will be harmed on government's side uh obviously please take use the chat and I hope there's more than one response this time okay um op is likely to win because government prioritizes and proves that Clash of representation is more important um that's the first claim that they made but they don't prove why this substitution gets better so there is some implicit agreement here that that's the Clash that's most important uh an opposition is able to clearly show to you why representation is harmed so you can award the issue of governability to government um and credit them for that uh but as a judge you want to be careful and spend time in actually explaining why I said that you prioritize the classroom representation Over The Clash on governability and make sure that you do this very clearly sometimes teams will get upset but you want to uh we'll cover that on how to deal that more clearly in oral adjudications in terms of fixing those materials so uh this is the decision opposition is going to win because of that okay uh so that's the first bit of clashes um I had it I had received a question that I want to um answer um about the Doom thread that is going mad on Goldilocks intervention um and stuff like that okay so I'm just going to jump off the question so the question is how do you evaluate when to resolve a clash where both teams have equal weighing with the Goldilocks intervention or discard it as a wash um the first thing about Goldilocks intervention is just a fancy term but judges will apply that or intervene in deciding when weighing is not when being is not done properly in most cases uh being is unequal and that's when you have to look at interveniency to what possible extent can I buy the argument that teams have made so there is no uh absolute objective answer to say no just discard everything that as they wash but you want to look at the robustness analysis the processes that teams provide to receive a particular argument uh the level of intervention will be limited to number one what the what the burdens are that either sides of the house uh take up um through material but that is either implicit in the motion or the arguments and other material that they push forward um you want to be very wary of not being interventionist to the degree that you are making Arguments for the team or saying ah this is probably very very implicit uh when it is not um and that's something you want to take care of so no it won't be a washable credit material to the degree that um it has been provided but you'll have to do that way up and that's where you intervene and use that sort of Goldilocks principle but don't over intervene um to to the degree that you are making the argument for the team okay uh oral adjudication please stick to seven minutes um do not go on for 15 minutes and explain a whole bunch of details uh the second bit is very important um I think oftentimes we doubt our own abilities but once the ballot is gone um I think you need to have a little faith in yourself and your abilities to justify your reason you sat there for 58 minutes or an hour and made that call and you should have faith in the call that you have made um based on holistically judging the debate uh keeping your biases in check um so don't lose con like having confidence is really important because if you don't believe you've gotten the right call or have that a little bit of faith in yourself it's unlikely that you're going to be able to persuade teams um and lastly be concise clear and comparative um and this is something we'll go into detail ahead okay um and you issue people's face is that there is too much to do and there is not enough time and that is the reality of trying to condense a 58 minute debate um into seven minutes of poet uh but before we go to that let's look at what the ideal OA structure should be so people start with General comments uh on what the quality was above average uh what the engagement looked like uh this has to be short and precise I have seen people give General comments for five to seven minutes teams are honestly not interested they want to know who has given the call um and why have you decided the call in a particular way so please do not spend anything more than 45 seconds on General comments and try to ensure that you are not giving constructive feedback here to Team sets it's just a general overview which applies to both teams which is something that they should probably keep in mind or something that both teams made a lapse on and overall quality of the debate suffer from the second is the reasons for the call uh this is going to include a short overview of the case and Clash comparison we've already covered how do you determine caches and what are the sort of reasons that you take into account and lastly questions of the team and the reason of this is it's not just because teams are probably doubting your decision sometimes that could be the reason sometimes it is that there is a language barrier and teams aren't able to understand and want Clarity or at times there is questions to be asked on probably a particular explanation that we did was not as clear and teens want to get more clarity on that sometimes questions are in good faith sometimes in bad faith uh but we always have to answer them into our job okay so the first important thing is time management right as I said General comments cannot be too when it's long five minutes long please try to ensure that you keep it condensed learn to prioritize you will have to prioritize which crashes you want to cover you will not be able to do 58 minutes worth of speeches in seven minutes and therefore you want to ensure that you are very very uh precise and effective in delivering that and ensure that you keep time yourself have keep looking at the clock in terms of saying am I spending disproportionate time on a particular Clash uh do I need to move on and sort of that helps you uh keep in check and not exceed beyond the seven minute limit okay the first thing is keep in mind that you're not here for a synopsis of the debate oftentimes judges just say gov said X offset by uh God responded by a there was no response from um that's how the debate went uh there are at least going to be three judges at times or more than one judge at times at uadc um or even if not teams have themselves been in the debate and they're aware about what arguments happen uh you just want to the reason why we summarize is to explain to teams to what extent they analyze a particular argument uh and to most often if not teams think that they've analyzed something to X level but they might not have and just to just to convey to what extent we understood what they've analyzed right um because they just want to know how you reach your call so they're not interested in a snoozefest where you go on for long explaining what the debate was uh they know that while explaining clashes um please don't just mention X argument on one side and buy on the other you want to actively compare and this comparison looks like why is it that material from opposition mitigates the claim index or why is it that analysis that team gave was not enough for you to buy the claims that they forwarded and therefore the limited um rebuttal that came from opposition was able to take over that those are the reasons that you want to um incorporating your OA and explaining how you decided the call the way you did uh why you do this comparison to the best of your abilities try to use similar framing in words that teams have used the reason this is important is teens are able to immediately connect uh what material that they presented and how you actually viewed it um sometimes when you use your own words and this this happens though uh teams might not immediately get uh what you're trying to say and might think that you have misconstrued them obviously uh we must take into account language barriers that are there or understanding accents and difficulties of that sort uh but to your best ability and this is why we take notes to your best friendly try to ensure that you use the same sort of uh terminology teams have used um and this is a trick that sort of allows teams to immediately get to the issue that you are presenting again as I said earlier when you're doing the comparison explain what reasons were so as we discussed earlier when you determine clashes you want to note down somewhere or keep in mind what these involves are tipped you in a particular way um or what would be the reason that you would not award a clash to a particular site and this is important in explaining to teams on why that Clash was something that they didn't win when you are doing this comparisons um and explaining and condensing that argument in short judges oftentimes slip into explaining uh and competing that argument for the team this is something you want to actually check on in that are you actively while explaining and condensing that argument in short making claims that teams didn't forward um and this is why you should not be afraid to refer to your notes or have a look and glance once in a while while giving the OA so that you are giving a perfect overview of what happened in the debate and how you viewed that particular Clash but spend more time in explaining how you viewed that Clash than in explaining how teams presented uh that cache right because persuasiveness will apply to you as well you also have to give a seven minute speech and it is about convincing teams um the way in which you viewed the debate in the arguments um learn to prioritize so don't get caught up in irrelevant details multiple times there will be multiple clashes in a debate but if you want to spend time in two to three key issues the team should have forwarded or took more air time in the debate than other issues did right in some debates that are messy debates teams have a different view of what the Clash is and we earlier covered on how do you determine which is the most important clash in the debate um so it's possible in reply or in whip when they are doing a summary they explain some other clashes which you don't think are as important that is completely fine and there could be other reasons that force you to decide in a particular way what you want to do is spend time to explain why you found X reason more persuasive or why why was it that that reason uh was something you think is more crucial this could be because of an implicit burden that's present in the motion or because burdens are teams took on upon themselves right um and these are important reasons because sometimes teams will not be happy uh in why you viewed a particular way but that's completely fine as long as you are clear in explaining what was the sort of factor that influenced your decision obviously as I said earlier be fair don't be overly charitable while explaining um and you want to be critical of both teams so it's completely like many times debate was very close um and I think both sides made lapses you want to point out on why you don't buy um an argument uh X from site government because they didn't prove that prove a lot of mechanization and impacting to achieve that but other molecules that they have is significantly important and good for you to give them the win in this debate um and you want to because judging and giving OA is not just about explaining which team won but teams should be able to move from that explanation take something valuable to the next round so that they can Implement that and learn forward um in terms of the mistakes that they made um and this is how they use those General comments and comments that you made while giving the OA in improving their uh argumentation for the next so in children you're not just focusing on the team that lost but uh fair and charitable in terms of explaining to the team that has also won errors or lapses that they might have made uh in their debate uh and you want to be wary that this is not constructive feedback but it's feedback um that sort of let's say weakens The Clash or didn't help them achieve the conclusion that they wanted to achieve for themselves um answering questions uh many a times you might run out of time and there is no um like because you want to ensure that the competition runs on time there isn't enough time to take questions from teams uh at that point I would say it's good to tell teams to reach out to you why Discord Facebook WhatsApp whatever medium you prefer for questions because many times teams have multiple questions uh but they're not able to ask you and I think it's important for you as a judge uh to be accountable um and respond to feedback from teams uh this is your job this is why you're here and you should take that very seriously obviously we are caught up with multiple things but don't ignore teams uh personal feedback is really important for them sort of gross you want to ensure that you are responding to that but many times teams ask very specific questions like asking for metrics that didn't become as important in the debate or uh very briefly then in in answering questions about metrics that teams thought were important explain uh why you think that metric is not important or why is it that you were persuaded by other material all of material that I've covered before so these are things that you want to sort of quickly answer to um don't start rehashing the debate but rather explain very critically precisely on what those tipping points were um don't be afraid to say that this question is constructive feedback and I will take this later uh that's completely okay to do so um because teams want to are very impatient and want to know immediately but you can ask them to reach out to you later this doesn't reflect badly on you it's just that there is a Time shortage um that you want to sort of stick on and there are other judges who might want to give away or the ash core is waiting to start the next round so you want to stick to the point and only evaluate the debate that happened in front of you and not sort of start analyzing and giving answers to questions or in your way incorporate things on what you thought the debate should have been right um there are times where there are certain sort of comments that you make that might bear towards constructive feedback that is um I think if you would have added impact in this argument you would have won The Clash but this was not there in that you want to probably frame it more clearly um in terms of saying number one uh this is what the argument was lacking this is why the argument is something that I can't afford to you and these are the reasons uh why you lose it lose out don't start giving oh you should have said like X Y and Z and then I would have given probably given you the Clash you don't know what would have happened you don't know what the response from the other side would have been so don't try to make those sort of uh judgments while giving OA you want to reserve that for constructive feedback in terms of explaining what was missing uh in what the teams analyzed okay uh are there any questions so far on clashes or taking OA okay um okay let's go back to the obligation example okay um so how do we determine this I think the first thing you want to look at is what is it that teams have analyzed so um you can look at what gov has argued right I think the first thing that they argue that this will be very very helpful to those countries the second thing that they add is it can Aid in fixing exact harms of criminalism that were directly responsible for many of the issues prevailing today the underlying assumption that they make here is an obligation to fix the harms of colonialism that exists op response to this by talking about why you should not follow today's citizens to pay uh for clients committed by their ancestors so there's an implicit mention in Duff's case when they say that individuals are directly responsible for many of the prevailing issues that are there today um and that implicit concession leads you to sort of decide that these Clash is about obligation um or why is it that you oh you owed reparations to people because analyze why it's going to be helpful and I don't think that thing be disputed that money that will come from uh Colonial like colonizers to nations were colonized will obviously be helpful given that they are economically weaker or are not as developed as their colonial uh their colonists were um and that's not something that is going to be disputed um but just because this money is helpful is they don't prove and given that it's a thpt motion they don't prove what this obligation is or why this ought to be done um and I think op can therefore Get Away by saying that the obligation doesn't exist so number one an underlying sort of concession in terms of why the harms of conclusion that were directly responsible for are something that you want to do and number two um given the fact that op spends enough time in explaining why this obligation doesn't exist uh although it caveat I want to give the nature like these kinds of questions uh the assumption that you always have to make is that whatever is given in the question is what has been analyzed to the best degree uh and there's nothing beyond that um simply because it's just impossible for us to cramp in a lot of material on the question uh and you want to and we want to obviously test judges on how this has been done but to answer your question uh there's an implicit concession uh through that when they argue okay so I'm a little confused uh the word should implied obligation um okay let's assume that the word should does not imply obligation uh but up gov's claim that it can Aid in fixing exact harms that they were directly responsible for for many of the prevailing issues today is an implicit concession on the obligation to pay exists um but also should obviously implies an obligation because what is the other reason that uh the reparations ought to be paid and both teams are obviously going to talk about the nature of obligation that exists so it's not just that oh you should randomly pay money but there is some sort of Duty and responsibility towards Nations that you colonized um is implicitly that motion asking you to explain it gov on what the obligation exists so um yeah uh should probably does um actually imply obligation to pay back those uh to to those you got organized does that answer your question okay Aryan has asked me some are you it's just better if you ask these questions directly on the group or like which everybody can view but Aryan specialist sometimes teams give multiple analysis to a certain clash and want them to be included while comparing caches how do we include how do we accommodate multiple analysis and also compare them uh okay uh I think everybody is a different style the way I do it is um I say this is The Clash these are the multiple layers of argumentation that we get from um let's say government um this is why reason A and B are persuasive and Y Regency is not persuasive and then you want to come so what was what was material that you appreciated under that Clash what was material that you don't think was well done or was material that you don't think was analyzed or think was lacking something um and compare that to responses and positive material that you got from the other side uh you don't want to go into extreme detail of what was analyzed but start actually analyzing or explaining to teams on how you viewed particular analysis so let's say on a um On Emotion about let's see the glorification of motherhood example again or let's say we're legalizing prostitution example again uh government let's say argues um a large you know government argumentation is about obligation a bodily autonomy that women have and the obligation of the state to allow them to reach that autonomy uh the responses that we get from opposition is this enables objectification uh this legitimizes violence um and it sends a negative message to people I will just explain that these are the three claims we got but I would say opposition never proves uh to me why a negative message to people is being sent about uh the reason why this is not persuasive is because material at government in terms of uh State enabling bodily autonomy is more important um they Analyze This by going into whatever specifics that they have in their speech this is why this material trumps the three bits of analysis that you have um and that's how you go forward so you want to pick up more important bits from that analysis that influenced your decision uh rather than covering all of the material that is present uh in that um obviously teams will ask you and want you to analyze in detail uh material that they covered but tell themes that you can take an approach you later for in that view of that you ought to give a sort of limited concise view of clashes that teams have the teams have provided teams can be unreasonable in questions but you have to ask them to be reasonable okay um is there any other question um so just to deal with seven minutes uh that's been usually the norm at uadc to have seven minutes um teams like can you exceed that sure probably but you will get yelled at by The Edge code uh but also more importantly what you want to ensure is that teams are also listening to many judges they've been in that debate they have two rounds three rounds ahead of debating or whatever or are exhausted by the end of the day so you can't keep going on endlessly for 10 to 12 minutes yes it's fine to exceed by a minute or two sometimes uh if that if the material that you add is going to add significant value to the way in which you viewed the debate um so difficult rooms or easy rooms um uh it's it's hard to determine that because uh actually rooms which have a lot of analysis and quality will be much easier to judge because you actually have material to compare against um and material to weigh against and a lot of being will be done by teams versus um a room that doesn't have a lot of analysis and robustness because then you have to make sort of calls in term and look at the extent of analysis explain why it was not enough so uh most often if not seven to ten minutes should be enough for you to do that analysis and explain why you view one thing in a particular way um or not um lastly like this is again very subjective to say that some good judges take x amount of time this depends from Judge to judge uh so uh I won't comment on that I'll just say that try to be as concise crisp possible uh and limit yourself to the time that the adjective determines and OA should take and don't exceed that time limit because uh teams sometimes in comments while giving you score do write comments that say that and don't give you a high score because this OA was unusually long um and therefore um we can't give it a high score because the judge exceeded the amount of time just like speakers have to stick to seven minutes it's also your job to stick to time that is allotted okay uh I'm gonna move to note taking and you can keep writing questions um in the chat okay um used what method you are most comfortable with different people have different uh like ways of writing notes I personally write them because I I'm just too slow at typing but a lot of people are able to keep up with that pace uh so try to do what you um are most comfortable with but I think what you want to essentially take notes for and why we take notes is to track the debate more clearly is that after debate is over you're able to get sort of a bird's eye view of the debate and able to replay it in your mind um and so prioritize sort of ensuring and writing though that kind of material that helps you in replaying the debate in your head most sort of common method is to have two kinds of notes one is speech by speech nodes it's your PM hello uh dpmdlo onwards um and the one thing I do there is on my margins I use short forms for the battle or a Delta sign for impact um and I'm constantly scribbling uh using different colors or if you're on the laptop with bold or underlined in terms of what was missing in the debate or in that argument sorry uh why is it that this is important or what is it that the speaker is trying to prove um and I think that becomes you're judging the debate as it happens so it helps you to uh evaluate caches much more easier and you're able to follow through and through what's happening in the debate the other um kind of notes people take is a summary sheet um and what you do there is essentially write down brief important crucial Parts in the debate or issues that you think are unanswered or issues that you want to cover in your OE um and this summary sheet becomes important during the OAS because oftentimes rather than scrolling through eight six to eight speeches you can just look at that summary sheet and address issues that you want to in the OE uh this is obviously not a hard and fast rule that is written in stone but something that you can develop your own style over time um as long as it allows you to give an effective OA and allows you to replay the debate um in your head then that's excellent um obviously annotate a lot more um just in your quest to writing notes please don't miss out what speakers are saying uh it's okay to write in shorthand um as long as you're able to explain to speakers how they um argue their particular Point draw arrows and stuff like that uh the reason this is important is because you want to write down the flow of the debate as it occurred so keep taking notes taking notes is very important you will not be able to understand um the debate without taking notes uh and make an active effort in writing down uh to the best possible ability what teams are actually covering uh in their speeches and in their um debate um lastly always remember um check your biases a good argument is a good argument no doesn't matter where the team is from a uadc is a international major it's going to have people with efl um ESL sort of language status and different accents so everybody except you as a funny accent make an active effort to understand what they are saying and write down what they are saying just because somebody doesn't have the same accent as you doesn't mean that the quality of the argument is any different um and that's something that you want to evaluate um and please ensure that you are checking biases of your own circuit right because approaches to debating are very different and that's the beauty of this activity um as a judge you want to ensure that you don't limit yourself to oh this is how you would have run it in our society or we would have done it um we would have run X case um that's not important what is important is looking at and noting what teams essentially uh from the argumentation um again this is subjective uh you want to write down what the speaker is saying about at the same time ensure that uh whatever this speaker is actually trying to imply on the end sort of goal that they want to achieve is something that they're actively arguing proving and saying so you want to probably write down in the same way that speakers are saying and by verbatim I don't mean right word for word but like it's like an extra short explanation of what the argument is so that you don't over credit teams or undercorrect teams for claims that they may or may not have made and you're able to properly evaluate material that they have presented so when I say try to note down what the speaker is saying uh it it's yeah a best understanding of what the speaker is saying but also ensuring that you don't uh tend to just write down impact um that the speak up said but miss out the material that the speaker actively proved and didn't have any of that material so you don't end up crediting that so that's something that we want to be very off okay there's a follow-up question on the Goldilocks one yeah this is this is the question I think uh rajui had asked for on the form as well um the is quite the Doom the first thing I think you want to look at is looking at to what extent teams proved the likelihood and unlikelyhood happening um have they given enough material in weighing to prove by the likelihood is happening or not um if that's not the case you want to probably then um did and it's not like you don't discard argumentation as you watch the Goldilocks principle is that you intervene and make sort of subjective way in decisions based on what teams didn't do so it's not that weighing is completely equal and then you start intervening no there are some missing parts for you to credit the team that's when you intervene and do the sort of boldly loss intervention to determine uh you don't discard it obviously wash uh like if weighing is equal you probably want to look at is something teams of app teams actually agreed on this material uh have teams made some sort of concessions internally uh within their debate so you just don't completely discuss it simply because the Goldilocks intervention you think makes you too intense interventionist sorry uh in the way in which you're evaluating uh this uh Clash um I just want to give quick um credit and shout out to these uh people and the materials that they provided with a lot of the debating that we uh and the material that I covered today was based on from what I learned from them or got from material that they created so clashes by Haddad and seller sashes and practicing by anything uh how to be a good and useful Wing judge uh is a document by anything in nick uh judging Fundamentals by shouldito for last year's Workshop uh and the WDC manual I can share this PPT with you uh for sure uh the other materials are either on YouTube uh or present elsewhere uh so this PPT can definitely be shared with you guys uh for sure um we still have five to seven minutes if there are more questions if you want to unmute or uh want me to cover other sort of aspects of judging um feel free to ask now uh I don't have any issues uh if you want to do that um any tips or beginner level judges um everything that we covered um but also just be confident um make sure that uh the beauty about uadc is that chairs panelists trainees everybody gives OA um ensure that um when you give away you are clearly not inserting yourself or overvaluing arguments on one side of the house um a lot of times novice judges sort of tend to struggle with that uh over crediting material because that's something that's close to them or something that they think is more persuasive no you want to check logical links you want to check analysis um that's my tip for beginner level judges is have faith in yourself and try to learn as much as possible um if you are judging um teams that are experienced and debate well after oaf like approach those teams for feedback and see what you can learn from them how do you walk the line between being diplomatic and being critical as an edge um this is a subjective question so it depends on Person to Person um I personally don't think a job here is to be diplomatic your job here is to tell the team why you decided the call in a particular way so you have to be honest um to teams um so when you're being critical you're not being critical to the degree that you are making a team feel incompetent but are just merely pointing out things that they did in a debate were either not correct or things that they missed out on um and that's just that's something that you want to keep in mind and prioritize so there's nothing uh like I don't know how you can be diplomatic and that's my personal opinion without actually because of the moment that you say that uh you have lost the debate uh for that team diplomacy is out of the window like they really want to know why they uh lost the debate so I I think you have to be critical in the sense that using materials that they presented and explaining why uh they they fell short of winning that for that day how do you deal with over crediting arguments and rooms with novices so very proof anything in your step in um I think you want to look at over crediting to a degree that as long as number one you don't make those Arguments for them you don't apply your specific knowledge to say this is true because I know about it and you don't actively over penalize the other team for things that they didn't engage on um in novice rooms um there will still be material that you have to take into account so uh yeah there will be some leaps that you will have to make and some links that you'll have to make and you have to rely more on implicit argumentation but you want to be sure of over current to the degree that you don't um that you don't actively over credit them on materials that they didn't make so the thing about over crediting is judges tend to start making the argument and I'm repeating this too many times because this happens many times you do you want to ensure that you don't start making the argument uh for the team um okay there are no clear clashes between teams is it true that government will bend because I'm uh no that's not the case uh if there are no clear caches between teams government will there are no automatic wins government doesn't automatically win um is there are no clear clashes you have to look at what metric the teams push forward so if gov said uh X and Ops and Y then you want to look at what is X or Y more important which teams have proven that in the event let's say parallel debate that both sides are arguing something completely opposite um number one I think that's really unlike like is less likely to happen simply because there are some points of Engagement that the motion forces you to defend that you have to get into but even if that that's not the case then you look at uh who has proven and fulfilled their burden that the motion implicitly puts on them what is the level of Engagement that they have with the other side these are factors you want to take into account if there are nuclear crashes first of all Please block this XYZ institution and XYZ person is in that team like that should really not be a consideration for you your responsibilities towards the competition and your duty as a judge is to ensure that you give the correct debate like call based on the arguments that were in the day uh in the room in that moment at that day uh so giving a persuasive away to a repeat team is no different than giving a persuasive way to a team that is not well known uh I personally don't think there should be any difference in the way in which you uh mince your words or present your way because you're giving it to one particular team yes is it more strategic probably probably not but in fact teams appreciate and particularly good Debaters appreciate when you are honest with them and actively point out things that they didn't miss because obviously there's some degree of self-reflection that they have as well so please don't keep that in your mind uh on you know this recipe team they're gonna get pinned uh and also you can't please everyone as long as you did the correcting um you gave the correct on and that you thought then I think you can sort of explain that well and then take that one if they give you one don't be bothered by who is in the room uh because you can't please everybody uh if you have debating on your if you have debating on a weak topic um if this question is uh as a debater how you should uh approach it um I I would suggest you look at the other workshops that your common care have sort of um planned particularly the one by Taha on adapting in debates that's important uh if there are issues that you didn't know and how to deal with those debates but I would personally say is you want to respond to material you want to look at the reasons that the average reasonable voter would know judges would be persuaded most by those reasons that something as a beginner that you want to take into account besides practicing or partition debates is there any way to practice the speed of comprehension during a debate since that is a vital part of judging um no honestly but I would also say it's the nature of practices that you do uh try to practice in different circuits visit competitions in different parts of the world which are on like online debating has really helped that that will help you in developing your skills if you are unable to access those competitions use YouTube to um you know judge debates by different speakers ESL efl with different accents that will significantly help you um improve your comprehension uh of what's happening in a debate uh yeah you can unmute for a question but I'll answer the next question first how much do roles of debated and adjudicator overlap are pro Debaters generally better edges and the other around this question because I have strong thoughts on this uh but more specifically roles of debater and judicator overlapping it's only competition perspective they have completely different roles completely different jobs teams I have to win and the crown Asian Champions judges are here to give the correct call um and do the duty in terms of explaining to teams how they decided a particular debate and reasons for that your job is to be accountable to give the correct call um in terms of our Debaters generally better edges but the other way around I'll resolve my thoughts on that one uh Raju you can unmute if you want yeah yeah yeah oh sorry for like asking the same question it was like a bit more specific uh on like the intervention thing basically like uh like I'll just illustrate with an example like in a debate for example say there are like three clashes of different importance like the first most important second most important third most important in that like while I'm like looking at the second most important Clash uh I've already seen like you know both teams like to what extent both teams have tried to prove the argument and ultimately come to come to the conclusion that you know like neither of them like were more persuasive than the other like they both proved it to the same extent so should I sit and like like try and resolve that clash with some sort of intervention or like move on to a more important Clash like because this is like not really the most important clash in the debate um I think you've asked the question and answered it so you said that not both you've already looked at the extent of analysis that both sides are given and you're able to see that neither side has proved the argument uh to the best spot like to win that Clash um then I think you tell that to the teams that these are the arguments that you've provided under the second most important Clash the reason why I kind of what this cash to either side is because Dove misses out on these fronts of Mrs ozondiet's friends um and this and I think that is what you've already made the intervention in trying to look at the best possible extent um has a team analyzed the argument so you can't do anything more than that that will require you to either apply some specific knowledge to say oh gov is probably true on this or ex because if both have weighed to the same degree then we are probably being overly charitable while making an intervention and making the argument for a team that it didn't mean that's something you don't want to do so you tell the team that this is not the uh like teams that this is not the Clash that you avoiding to either side and this is why God doesn't mean the clash and optimism in The Clash and by the first a question uh yeah yeah it does but like if they're like uh if they are unable to like prove it to like any extent then there's also like the option of like uh trying to use the what the average person may think it would like actually resolve all that fine yeah yeah so okay to be clear um I felt you had been through those steps already and determined that the weighing is not enough uh look these are really subjective sort of uh situations that will occur and there is no one strict answer to that uh yeah probably in one instance it's quite clear what the average reasonable person understands uh but in that case I think the weighing sort of will then be installed uh and it it won't be equally weird uh but also just as a point uh I don't think usually in my experience uh there are very few instances where both arguments are weighed at the equal level and you just can't decide um like one of those average reasonable implicit and explicit agreements will resolve that being for you um so yeah all right thank you so much sorry for this no no worries I don't apologize okay um it's already a three I'm gonna wait for two more minutes if there are any questions um but if not uh you can and if you don't want to ask now or think of questions later feel free to reach out to me via Facebook um if you have any thoughts on uh judging or if you have any queries in the coming days um all the best for you ADC and I hope you have a good time and learn a lot more and I hope this Workshop was helpful uh yes I will send the slides to our com they can uh post it um if you have no questions feel free to leave uh if you have any questions or want to have a chat you can stay uh uh no I'll send the PPT to our com they will post it up I just need to make some changes as in like I need to put it make the link and all of that so foreign