Aaqibs take on the show debate

1. JUDGING A
DEBATE

2. MOTION
THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A BLACK SECESSIONARY STATE WITHIN THE
TERRITORY OF THE US, THE FOUNDING OF
WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT

3. RANKINGS
1ST Opening Gov
2nd Closing Opp
3rd Closing Gov
4th Opening Opp

4. Speaker Scores
1st speaker 2nd speaker Total
OG 85 84 169
CO 84 83 167
CG 80 82 162
OO 77 78 155

5. Breaking
Down the
Debate

6. - Context, definition and Model
- Principal reasons behind the motion
- Benefits of enacting the motion
- Harms of continuing the status quo
OG Role Fullfillment

7. OO Role Fullfillment or lack there
off
- Only provided mechanistic refutation
- Did not disprove OG principle
- Attacked OG examples but not the Analysis

8. What OO should have done
- Given alternate solutions to OG problems or
a stronger defense of why status quo will work
- Should have spent more time either attacking
OG principle or creating an equally strong
opposing principle

9. CG Role Fullfillment
- Smooth transition of OG premise ( did not
knife or contradict)
- Relatively Original Extension Material
- Quality of extension not as high as OG
material
- Strong response to OO but weaker response
to CO
- OO was already well responded by OG. CO
needed to be responded to

10. CO Role Fullfillment
- Took advantage of OO’s failures to be the first
to establish a strong opposition principle.
- Prioritized OG as the primary threat and
focused their rebuttals at OG arguments
- Provided alternate solutions and analyzed
them well

11. Comparatives
- Why context is important?
Policies involve a lot of shift in resources and
opportunity costs, so proper justification is required.
(The justification is provided by showing that there is
a current injustice or harm occurring that is even
greater than the injustice caused by the policy)

12. Comparatives
• Context, Definition and Model
-Who are the actors and what are their roles
-Who are the stakeholders and how are they
impacted
-What should a judge expect from a model?

13. Comparatives
• Evaluating Strength of an argument
- Relevance to the motion
- Positive impact created/ harms avoided
- Best result for the largest amount of
stakeholoders
- Lowest opportunity cost incurred

14. Comparatives
• Evaluating Strength of a Rebuttal
- Does it attack the core part of the opponent’s
case
- What does it disprove?
- Does it make the opponent less persuasive in the
eyes of the judge
- (How much damage control does it require from
the oppositions side)

15. Comparatives
Whip speeches
• How well does it frame the clashes
• Does it convince the judges to view the debate
differently
• Does it make your ideas and contribution
seem more important

16. THANK
YOU!