Add Contribution Agreement Byline with airSlate SignNow

Add Contribution Agreement byline

kyoto everyone my name is daniel i'm one of the uh chief adjudicators of uhuda worlds uh and i'm here to give you a judge briefing it'll be useful both if you've never done much judging before or if you're quite experienced i will go through both the basics and some of the more advanced techniques to help you develop as judges and by the end hopefully of this quick quick presentation you'll be feeling fully competent and capable of judging at the hooter worlds so i will quickly s share my screen so you can see the judge briefing outstanding [Music] so the first thing to know about um judging is essentially what you're doing is assessing each of the four teams contributions uh the ranking then is a weighing of those different contributions depending on how much you think uh a particular team has convinced you to move towards believing their side of the motion so that is the essential metric that we use to decide whether a team has won or lost or has done very well or is done poorly within the debate your contribution can be both rebuttal or constructive so make sure you're being fully open to contributions no matter what formalistic structure or style there they are given in and how you weigh a contribution will have two aspects uh so firstly you look at how important the claimed conclusion is and teams will do this explicit to you to explain to you how important they think what they're saying is uh and say for example if they prove that there will be immense suffering that's likely something that you will uh believe is going to be quite important and the second aspect of the contribution is how much they have proven that conclusion so have they shown that they've proven to you that the thing that they've claimed is going to happen does actually happen and sometimes this contribution will be marginal they won't be able to fully convince you of the thing they set out to do so but that doesn't mean it's not a useful contribution to the debate uh so if you were not convinced that they were able to claim their whole harm but they were able to prove there was a lesser harm or harm it applied to a particular group that's still something that is meaningful within this debate do you just weigh it uh less than the overall claim that they wanted wanted to claim within the debate so what we are looking when we are seeing whether something has been proven as we look for the logical links between arguments seeing that everything makes sense seeing that uh a connects uh cleanly to be uh looking at the plausibility of their characterization do you think the average reasonable person uh is something he's going to believe the types of claims that are made that are the baseline of those arguments and when teams sufficiently explain why something is important to you obviously some things will be intuitively very important but some other things will require more work done and teams that explicitly do that weighing for you will likely reflect well on them when it comes to the rankings so all of this material is most effective when done in a comparative sense so teams are comparing two different worlds version one uh of what the affirming world has to stand for version two what the negating world is going to look like and teams should engage with each other's arguments uh were relevant and failing to engage uh say for example when a closing team refuses to accept a poi from their opening will likely weaken that team's uh contributions won't be fatal to them uh within the debate but it means that they have missed an opportunity to contribute in a way uh that is full and meaningful so one of the metrics that i've already brought up is this idea of the average reasonable voter and that's essentially the construction that we use to attempt to lift ourselves as judges out of this incredibly subjective uh level of understanding that naturally as human beings we inhabit towards something that can be standardized and will be useful to allowing teens to know what types of arguments they should run so that they become better at debating in a productive and clear way and so the mindset that we use is asking yourself is this something the average reasonable voter is going to be find persuasive towards contributing towards pulling them towards one side or other side of the motion which is obviously the basis of a contribution and there are four uh key things that you need to know about the average reasonable voter three which are quite standard and the fourth is one that i think everyone just needs to be reminded of the first is that they're willing to be persuaded so they're not prejudiced they're not coming in with any particular mindset they believe that the motion is something that can be debated and all of the motions within this tournament we think can be debated um and so they have an open mindset they're willing to be persuaded by different arguments if those arguments are put to them in a clean uh cohesive way and if those arguments aren't sufficiently undermined by the other team they have incredibly strong logic and reasoning skills which is the second aspect so the average reasonable voter is potentially not someone who could go to the top room of this tournament and suddenly understand all of the arguments incredibly clearly but luckily you have much stronger logic and reasoning skills uh than the average reasonable voter and so you use those logic and reasoning skills to their fullest extent and finally they're not limited to a particular context they are a global citizen uh they're they're knowledgeable of things all around the world if people from those particular contexts would be aware of of of the particular arguments uh that are being brought such that it can be claimed that an a a well-informed global citizen who reads the newspapers roughly from around the world is familiar with their headlines and some of the bylines and stuff that is used will likely believe that this is a claim that can be made within the debate the final important aspect is they have a very good memory uh and this is something that i think a lot of judge briefings potentially overlook it is important to note that teams cannot fall out of the debate uh simply because other teams choose not to engage with them the average reasonable voter in this context is able to remember what the government what the opening teams say such that it's not completely crowded up merely by the immediacy about the closing team's run so you need to ensure there is that engagement you're not just rewarding the last thing that is said within the debate so extensions uh an extension i think is actually incredibly simple we put a lot of time and effort in explaining to what it is but realistically it's any contribution that doesn't fall afoul of two rules and that first rule is that it can't be contradictory uh which is otherwise described as knifing and then secondly it can't be derivative and this is not actually even a rule because a contribution is something that is new it moves you farther than what has already contributed to the debate so contradictory we mean uh any argument that cannot be true at the same time as an earlier claim and this can be both within teams so say for example a later team wants to the second speaker wants to reverse on an earlier position in a way that helps helps their team or can be across teams your opening says something that the later team disagrees with and they decide to say something that cannot be true at the same time as the arguments that have been run by their opening you are not penalized for knifing in any way it does not hurt you as a team but merely you cannot benefit from any of the impacts that flow from the latter claim being true it says if you didn't make that claim as if there was a blank space in your speech uh that that harms your ability uh to do then claim any material that flows off from that material be careful you are not penalizing teams up for knifing it is it is wrong to say you lost this debate because you knifed it is more accurate to say because you knife the material that you then built from this material could not be credited to you this is the stuff you did have within this debate but weighing it against the other teams that is not a sufficient contribution to rank you high so it just means you can't benefit from that material it doesn't mean you are penalized in a way that that can hurt you if you have other good material within the debate second rule is being not derivative and essentially being derivatives is when you don't extend on an earlier argument you just repeat it with different words and this is different to being marginal sometimes claims are like slight adjustments that do to some degree increase your willingness to believe a claim uh from opening that's not inherently derivative because it is a like an addition to that argument although the time is just not a particularly strong or convincing it might move you a little bit but relative to the way that you were moved by the original argument is going to be quite marginal derivative is essentially any material that repeats the earlier arguments that came before and doesn't add to them in a way uh that that helps uh contribute to your understanding of the debate so reminder contributions can be marginal if you add new analysis or new impacts to existing arguments that does have a lot of value as long as you assess how important the additional material is to proving or weighing the argument just like you would if it was claims from the second speaker of a team so once you have figured out the um broad baseline rules of judging then we have some feedback processes uh to help you uh both score other judges uh and then also to score the speakers which is obviously very important to their break chances or their position on the tab so firstly scoring a judge this is also of course useful for any of the teams who may be watching this to get an inside view of how judges will be judging this tournament so when you're scoring your judge you're looking for accuracy and you're looking for the justification and these are the two elements that i think are important someone can be accurate as you agree with them you think they have said things that were clear within the debate uh and happened within the debate they weren't making things up and their justification is how they're able then to use that accurate uh view of the debate in a way that is able to convince you of the way that they have done the rankings they've walked you through um this is how this team made an argument proven argument here's how they told me it was important it beats this argument for these these reasons uh it is not just about whether you agree uh with their decision you are asking yourself whether it's a reasonable decision and whether it is a thorough well-explained decision so if you give a one to a three you would not trust this person with a vote going forward they did not weigh the material they missed significant sections of the debate in a way that made their adjudication incoherent i apologize if you have to give anyone a one to a three at this tournament um sometimes judges uh are simply not up to the task in a particular debate so don't be afraid of giving out those scores because it's good information for us but be sure this is not someone who you'd want judging or voting as a panelist in any debate uh going forward unless they show significant signs of improvement with a score of four to a six you are recommending this person to panel which means that you want them to have a vote but you're not necessarily comfortable with them being the only person having a vote because they can get some things wrong and you wouldn't really be comfortable with them fully explaining to teams and tight calls why one team had one on one team i hadn't in the way that a chair might be able to do so that means they have described and weighed all the relevant arguments appropriately but there were problems with the clarity of the oral adjudication with number seven uh you recommend them to chair they judge wealth they give a clear adjudication and when you're giving an eight plus you recommend them to break high quality adjudication that importantly makes a sophisticated understanding of the debate so they've got high accuracy great justification accessible to all those involved because we are unfortunately simply not interested in judges who uh may be much smarter than and much more experienced than all of the other teams within the debate uh but simply use that as an opportunity to demonstrate their significant understanding of the way that debating operator could be improved without explaining what actually happened within the debate in a way that makes sense within the context of that particular room scoring your speakers benchmark is a 75 that should be the average score probably given out at this tournament and it is a very large tournament so you'll also have a variation significant variation on either side of that 75 mark with a 50 to 60 this means that they did not speak or gave a speech of extremely little relevance um i don't think i've ever given out a score between 50 to 60 beyond people who literally weren't present in the debate or didn't give a speech it is of course uh possible for people who are incredibly new to the style but if anyone is putting together arguments that are vaguely related to the topic and do even anything to improve your understanding is unlikely you'll be giving them a 50 to a 60. 60 to 70 uh is is relatively common and that's where people have attempted to engage with the argument but have really missed the mark they make mostly irrelevant contributions there are flaws within those arguments that mean that there are major deficiencies in your ability to credit them so that's they've really attempted to make arguments very few of those arguments have moved you at any degree towards understanding or or believing their side of the motion to 75 is where we're getting into better speeches so this is essentially roughly like um maybe a quarter of the speech of the determinant will hopefully fall between 70 to 75 if people are following the mathematics quite clearly and this is mostly relevant contributions that do have some serious deficiencies uh but but are still mostly relevant uh and do help you to some degree believe their side of the motion even if there were problems within those arguments that maybe decrease their ability to prove the claims that they wanted to make when you get up to a 78 75 to 78 those are good speeches um above the average quality uh for this tournament 79 so from a 79 to 82 is likely a high level speaker uh at a major and these are these are scores that is someone getting an 82 if they get 82's consistently drop determined they could potentially be best speakers of of woodick or or of abp um so if someone is consistently turning out high level scores they're likely one of the top level speakers at this major if you're giving an 83 or a plus it is likely one of the best speeches of the tournament it'll be given out relatively infrequently so uh please do not be enormously trigger happy with your 83s uh uh and above but it is a truly breathtaking speech that has done an incredible amount uh to convince you uh and in like a top room and in round six for example you would potentially maybe be seeing 83s uh and above but once again i would stress that they are quite rare and they need to do something quite extraordinary to be able to get those types of scores types of motions we will roughly be using three types of motions at this tournament and most of you will be familiar uh with emotions there may be some slight variation in form and style but essentially part of the job of the debater is really to take the motion as it is stated and do your best job to explain it and interpret it in a way that makes sense to the adjudicator so just memorizing the slide is not sufficient to overcome your job within the debate which is really to try and understand this material and understand the motion and make make all of your arguments specific and particular to the exact motion that's put before you policy motions uh and this is uh this house supports x that we should do x um governments must prove a course of action and can provide a model that specifies how they will do that thing so they will explain this is what we our burden within the debate is we have to stand by this thing this is exactly the type of way that we are going to do it there are some rules as to how you can set up the model that the judge is supposed to um suppose supposed to regulate so if they do something unreasonable with the model that a forza of the rules that i'll explain here that is something that can be challenged within the debate or discounted by a judge if it is particularly an unreasonable way to see the debate so the model can exclude anomalous examples uh and so those are basically like the debate breaking uh examples that don't really apply to the rest of debate say for example uh if there's debate this house would ban plastic surgery it could have a specific exemption say for like burn victims or something that falls without those falls out of the broad ambit of the type of people that'll most likely be hit by a bit by the model but it can't be overly restrictive so you couldn't say for example in a debate about banning plastic surgery say that this debate is only limited to plastic surgery for children and adults should be able to get it so that that is an overly restrictive interpretation that isn't about anomalous examples but actually gets to the heart of what we think the burden needs to be within the space and you need to use your good sense and sense of reasonableness to interpret these motions uh the opposition may but are not in any means required to they could just stand for the status quo uh propose a mutually exclusive counter model which must be comparable in scope to the government model so you can't uh devote four percent of the global gdp towards solving x problems this enormously expensive solution you have to look at the ambits of solutions that are equally on the table explain why one solution is equivalent uh to the other solution uh and then explain why your solution is one that is better and that'll either happen through the lens of saying this is how much money it's likely to cost this is how politically unpopular each policy is going to be so you will actually get a bit of discussion about what are the likely alternatives um of a particular policy that is suggested um but sometimes of course opposition will bound by a particular comparative in the motion and that's normally when emotion is like that we prefer we do x thing rather than doing x things so it'll explain what are the two worlds the teams need to stand behind actors motions uh are essentially a policy motion viewed through the self-defined interests of an actor this house as vladimir putin would do x y and z and the way i like to think about actors motions is how would you convince this person or this actor to support this motion if you if you had a uh very uh open-minded and um uh willing to willing to listen and high-level reasoning skills vladimir putin sitting in front of you who really wants to hear your thoughts on on whether he should engage in ex-policy with his life try and think out what are the arguments that would be persuasive to this person because it's all through the self-defined interests of that particular actor rather than what you think is good for the world um overall so be very careful is this an actor motion or is it a general policy motion do i need to be making arguments to the global informed citizens or do i need to be making arguments that are targeted towards the the interests or how this person sees their obligations uh and then finally we have retrospective motions and that's essentially just where teams do not have the fiat to dictate how the issue uh is approached rather they must explain what happened and what would have happened had the regretted events not happen so say um we regret uh american independence we can't say what we would have preferred to happen uh would be um britain ruling for like for forever and ever and ever and no evolution of the american political system or political life at all because the opposing team could stand up and be like you can't just propose that vision of the world you have to explain to me why that is the likely alternative then you have to explain why it's why it's a better alternative so with regrets motions figure out what would have happened had that other thing that happened explain to me why that is true because you are unlike in any policy debate can't specifically model exactly what you would have stood for otherwise have to explain why that is a thing that is going to be likely before and during the debate this is getting to more of the technical requirements for your judges check all of the teams are there if a team is missing message the judge chat message the adjudication core secondly audio check every participant by getting them to introduce themselves uh personally thirdly take all of their names positions and gender pronouns if applicable and make sure you write it down uh so that when you are coming to writing up the ballot and putting in all of the names you're not suddenly like oh goodness which way around do those two names go make sure you're actually taking adequate records uh four please check whether everyone consents to being streamed or recorded uh there may be some more specific requirements here but the convening team will get in touch with you if you are one of the rooms that is going to be recorded uh or streaming uh and then you will likely inform the dutch chat with your full room consents uh and wait for them to confirm whether you are not going to be uh streamed uh and so but that i i would stress that this is uh particularly run by the convening team so the convening team will make sure that you are fully up to date on what exactly the protocol is if your room is going to be the one that is recorded if a speaker drops out pause the timer and attempt to get in contact uh and if unsuccessful send a message out to the judge chat and we will come up with solution via the swing speaker or or um or or one of the other solutions that we could possibly get say for example playing the debate making sure that that person is able uh to to get back in contact with you through some of the other channels that we have um this is a tournament that's online there will be some tech difficulties so just your flexibility and your patience are greatly appreciated from everyone who's involved in running this tournament deliberation be swift this is a enormous tournament and we need things to run to time so 15 minutes only if you have reached 14 minutes and as the chair you should be keeping a timer next to you and you have not come to a consensus decision you need to vote at 14 minutes um and then make sure that you get onto scoring teams as quickly as possible ask your panelists at the beginning of the deliberation once they have finished having a little bit of a think uh to send you the rankings via private message and then include your trainees and everything uh but voting they are there to have a role within those discussions even if they're unable to have a vote all voting must be conducted comparison by comparison uh so explain why one team beat another team beat another team meet another team making sure that all of those links make sense and you don't have any oh we just don't know how these goes we think they beat this one but it'll be this one like like push together ranking so make sure you can justify each of the each of the positions within the call relative to the teams on either side of them uh and sometimes um you will be at a rush to discuss scores so please leave yourself enough time so you can discuss the scores once you have come together with your rankings and then your score should obviously reflect how close or far apart at the margins between the teams were role of the chair is to moderate the discussion keep it quick keep it uh firing because if everyone is just talking about what they found interesting within the debate uh you could have a 45 minute adjudication deliberation rather than a 15 minute one so sometimes the chair will unfortunately be a little bit brisk a little bit uh direct in terms of making sure the conversation happens where it needs to be and so if you are a panelist and your chair asks you a question try to answer the question as directly as possible that'll be what is valuable uh for your chair in terms of helping the the decision come together this is a very collaborative process if you're not convinced by another judge ranking please feel free uh sorry if you are convinced feel free to change your rankings but if you're not convinced please do not change your rankings uh splitting is entirely okay what we are interested in is you being able to justify uh and explain why you disagreed with with the other judges and it is only fair to the teams that if you are not convinced by what the other judges have said you are still using your independent judgment and that you split so to reflect to the teams where the disagreement may may lie because that's the the honest thing to do with your position if a judge be at the chair be at the trainee uh be it the the panelists well maybe not the trainee because i'm allowed to vote anyway you are simply not uh allowed to vote you can take part in discussion to the degree that you are able to hear things but when it comes to the final decision that needs to be made with uh the votes only of those who have heard the entire debate and that is the end of the um that is the end of the judge's briefing um i i hope that you enjoyed it we are very much looking forward to having this tournament and you have any of any questions please get in touch with any of the members of the adjudication corps thank you