XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010. Workshop: Judging Debates! April 29, 2010 Universidad Casa Grande. Today’s Tasks. #1 (45 min.) Reflect on IDGE debate issues Debate type Judges Case development criteria and ballot
XIX Interscholastic Debate Tournament 2010
Workshop: Judging Debates!
April 29, 2010
Universidad Casa Grande
#1 (45 min.) Reflect on IDGE debate issues
#2 (60 min) Mini-Debate: Practice using case development criteria
#3 (60 min) Judging a debate or attend IDGE meeting
Debate is the foundation of democracy. The purpose is to persuade.
In an IDGE debate two sides (negative and affirmative) speak alternately for and against a resolution based on an issue.
There are many types of judges, but the most common types of judges in Missouri are…
With policy debate, the foundation for the affirmative team is the affirmative case. If debating on the affirmative side, you must have a strong, well-developed case with evidence to support your claims. You must fulfill ALL of the following 5 criteria to win.
Affirmative has the burden of the proof. It must prove ALL of the following.
Negative has to prove ONE of the following (or argue convincing against ONE THISS)
Same groups – Draw for negative and affirmative positions
Debate - Raffle for who debates
Discuss judging criteria using THISS
Write debate resolution
Ss sneak cell phones to school
Should students bring cell phones to school?
Individual good (like it, useful) versus common good (courteous, focused class)
Schools should permit students to bring
Schools should permit students to bring cell phones to school.
Define term: permit
List 2 Aff arguments
Defend Arg 1 using evidence
Present Arg 2
Summarize Aff position indicating why it is better than the Neg case
State negative position
Definition: agree or disagree?
List 2 Neg arguments
Defend arg 1 with evidence and sources
Restate negative postion and arguments
Defend Arg 2 with evidence and sources
Closes stating why neg position is better than aff postion.
Summarize own case and arguments
Address 1 weakness of opponents’ arguments and/or evidence in order to prove own case is better.
Poor evidence = no evidence, unreliable source, outdated
Address another weakness
Repeat strongest arguments
Closing statement indicating why public should support case
Aff 1 Constructive speech (90 sec)
Cross exam by Neg 2 (60 sec)
Neg 1 Constructive speech (90 sec)
Cross exam by Aff 2 (60 sec)
Aff 2 Constructive speech (90 sec)
Cross exam by Neg 1 (60 sec)
Neg 2 Constructive speech (90 sec)
Cross exam by Aff 1 (60 sec)
Neg 1 Rebuttal (60 sec)
Aff 1 Rebuttal (60 sec)
Neg 2 Rebuttal (60 sec)
Aff 2 Rebuttal (60 sec)