You are chairing a debate in the top room at Worlds and are absolutely convinced that

first opposition have won. You discuss the matter with your three wing judges, one of

whom thinks that first opposition are second and another of whom thinks that first

opposition are third. A third wing judge agrees with you that first opposition have won, but

for reasons which you think are completely ridiculous. You feel that the case made by the

other two wings is well-argued, but ultimately misguided.

After an intense discussion, the time that the CA team have allotted for discussion has

come to an end. You’ve all made your case for the team you want to place first but nobody

has changed their mind. The third wing judge agrees with you, but still does so for reasons

that you entirely disagree with.

The CA team have said in their briefing that, in the event of a ‘tied vote’, the chair’s

decision takes precedence.

It’s time to make a decision, what do you do?

a. Call a vote to see who wins and vote for first opposition. Assuming that nobody

changes their mind at the last minute, this will mean that first opposition wins.

b. Compromise. As second place is the best approximation to the actual opinion of

the panel, this is where first opposition should finish. Explain this to your wings.

c. Disqualify the opinion of the wing who agreed with you for the wrong reasons and

decide amongst the three remaining judges where to place first opposition.

d. Angrily berate the volunteer asking for your ballot and take another fifteen minutes

to finalise your decision. The runner has less information than you do about how

important this debate is.

6. Which of these statements is true?

a. Speakers who do not have English as their first language should be penalised if

their accent is unfamiliar.

b. A debater’s speech should have three major arguments. Having fewer arguments

does not mean that the speaker loses the debate, but it should count against them

in close calls.

c. Judges can only interrupt each speech once to ask a point of information or ‘POI’.

Judges should ask more difficult POIs to stronger teams and should commend

teams, which responded well in their oral adjudications.

d. If an argument is ‘principled’, that does not necessarily mean it is better than one

that is ‘practical’. It depends what the argument is trying to prove and how well it

does so.

7. Which of these statements about opposition summations is false?

a. They are allowed to contain new rebuttals.

b. They are allowed to contain new examples.

c. They are the only speech, which the judge is allowed to assess using her own spe-

cific values, knowledge, and opinions as it is the last speech in the debate.

d. They must not present entirely new arguments.

  • Анализ психолого-педагогической организации об разовательной среды. 3 страница
  • Глава X. Наташа Ростова
  • Взлет и падение Римской империи
  • Еще о мерах безопасности в сновидении
  • Глава 18. Двигаться вперед стоит
  • От « 03 » июля 2012 г.Санкт-Петербург № 175
  • Случай 22
  • Практичне завдання.
  • Исторический аспект проблемы подготовки объектов экономики к устойчивому функционированию
  • Инструкция. Раздел III. Портфолио работ
  • Введение в общую психологию 6 страница
  • Узкий таз. Классификация. Течение беременности и ведение родов при узком тазе
  • Обнаружение и объяснение диалектической видимости во всех трансцендентальных доказательствах существования необходимой сущности
  • Чтобы применить урок Джона на практике... Забудьте об ошибках человека в прошлом и сконцентрируйтесь на его потенциале.
  • МУЖЧИНА и ЖЕНЩИНА. 1 часть.
  • Сведения о пропущенных лабораторных занятиях
  • Как происходит создание «памятного бриллианта».
  • Крок 2. Медична психологія 2013 рік 7 страница