All Asians Debate Tournament: Part 3 ~Accidental Adjudicator
The students of the FLTRP team were not the only first timers to arrive on the scene of an international debate competition. I too was experiencing, for the first time, the twists and turns of parliamentary debate. However, I was not a debater, but was enlisted to be an adjudicator for the tournament. Suddenly in my hands was the power to decide the winners from the losers. To be honest, it made me terribly nervous. Being unfamiliar with parliamentary rules and culture, I was sure I would make blunders, giving wins to those undeserving and cutting off the chances of better teams. My experience in debate was more or less limited to High School debate team, and even then in a uniquely American style (Lincoln Douglas).
Although scary at first, with time I found a rhythm. With each passing round I found myself more familiar with the process, able to identify good clashes, bad definitions, strong arguments. I found myself able to give more concrete feedback, and slowly became more and more confident in my decisions. Like the FLTRP students, I had to pick up a new way of thinking quickly. For me it was an exercise in critical listening, and boy was it tiring. I had the privilege of judging a good many high level debates between extremely talented students who had my head spinning with their prowess and skill. I did my best to make sure that with every decision I gave I could articulate the reasons for that decision logically and clearly. Only then would the students I judged respect me.
It would appear all the effort paid off. Though unexpected, I cannot deny I was honored to be selected as one of the nine panelists for the final debate.Here I want to offer some of my perspectives as an adjudicator in hopes of giving students a window into what judges may be thinking while they are debating. After all, debate and public speaking are audience centered activities. When it comes to the context of debate competition, your audience is not your opponent, but the judge. It will prove you wise to cater your speeches and arguments to what your judge is looking for rather than to stumping your opponents.
1 Listen, Listen, Listen!!: What frustrates adjudicators most is when teams don’t really listen to one another. Why? Because if they don’t really listen they usually aren’t arguing the same case. Different assumptions lead to different arguments and eventually to a clash-less, empty, debate. So as much as debate is about speaking, I submit it is even more so about good listening. Let me say, your judges will be more impressed by your ability to understand and attack your opponents arguments through good listening than by the articulation of your own.
2 Show Some Respect: In the heat of debate, teams would often lose themselves in the competition. The result would often be rudeness in interaction. Teams would gasp and mumble, twist in their seats angrily and scoff. Typically it is nothing too extreme, but here I want to say that judges take note of team behavior, even if off the stage. Presentation and impressions add an extra something to the table, and a composed and respectful team in all circumstances usually receives a judge’s good respect.
3 Please speak to the adjudicator: This is a minor item, but I mention it here so students will be aware early on. It is tempting to argue with the opposing team directly and address them in your arguments, but the fact is that in formal debate, you should always address the adjudicator and the opposing team in the third person. For example: “Mr. Speaker, the government team is making an irresponsible statement here” as opposed to “You are making an irresponsible statement here.”
4 Clarity over Complexity: In some cases, there will appear a motion that you may know a plethora of expert information on. For example, if the motion happens to be an issue in your major field of study or thesis writing. If so, keep your language simple, even when describing complicate concepts. An effective and simple explanation for a concept that is typically complicated usually impresses judges.
5 Fairness of Definitions: This last piece of advice is directed at teams who will hold the position of government. Creativity in defining a motion is a good thing, but in my personal opinion, there are government teams who depend too much on borderline definitions that limit the scope of the debate in context. This often comes in the form of specific countries or organizations that hold direct relevancy to the motion. If one chooses such a context for debate, I believe it is also the government’s obligation to explain the reasons for choosing that context. This effectively shows the judge that the definition is not limiting and biased but is in fact thoughtfully chosen to reflect a more important concept at large.
For example: if the motion is about family planning and the house is defined as China in order to provide a context for the debate, than the government side, out of courtesy, should also make clear the reasons for choosing China. Obviously, the one-child policy is an interesting but very specific issue. A government can avoid accusations of place or time setting if they disclaim immediately the value of debating this context in view of the whole. In this case it can be said “We believe China is a good context for this debate because it explores the issues of direct and complete government control over family planning” If a chosen definitional context cannot be explained in a bigger picture, than I believe you will inevitably face issues of definitional challenge, direct or indirect.
All in all, what an honor and great experience it was to participate so actively in such a tournament as this. I know for a fact that I have grown in my thinking and listening skills through the process. God willing, I look forward to using this knowledge again in the future whether it be in debate adjudication or life itself and its many complicated issues.
posted by Unknown @ 4:55 PM
<< Home