From debating to public speaking and performance, the core of Debate Teaching and Learning activities is "designed to develop a Student’s verbal communication (oracy), non-verbal/para-verbal skills and, generally speaking, Global Competences in a fun and innovative way." - ESU
...WHY "WORLD SCHOOL DEBATE"?
...BECAUSE..."People generally quarrel because they cannot argue." G.K. Chesterton
some basic questions ...
q. is debating important?
Debate - the logical, reasoned, 'civil' discussion - is a fundamental part of our Civilization, an element of our Culture, a pillar of that 'Planetary Civil Coexistence' that we should be able to re-think and re-build in a rapidly changing world - a "hypercomplex and hyperconnected" world...
... "The re-thinking of Democratic Citizenship closely concerns Schools and Education in a broader sense and, more generally, an overall reform of thought and, specifically, of teaching" - P. Dominici
q. what is a debate and what does ’debating' mean?
A debate is "a serious discussion of a subject in which many people take part", and to debate is "to discuss a subject in a formal way..." (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/debate)
q. what does 'judging' mean?
To judge is "to form, give, or have as an opinion, or to decide about something or someone, especially after thinking carefully..." (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/judging)
q. what does 'adjudicating' mean?
To adjudicate is "to make an official decision about something, especially about who is right in a disagreement..."
q. WHO IS THE debate JUDGE/adjudicator?
THE GOOD debate JUDGE/Adjudicator IN THE WSDF IS BASICALLY:
- anyone who can 'actively (and empathically) LISTEN' ...
- anyone who knows how to be open-minded, welcoming and available ...
- anyone who HAS 'AWARENESS' ...
- ANYONE who manages not to be misled and influenced by their own personal background - knowledge, skills, beliefs ...
- ANYONE who is able to get rid of any bias, prejudice and preconception ...
- In the WSDC Debate Format the adjudicator is anyone who is able to understand AND provide a good feedback in a neutral and objective way, and is always empathic, constructive, unconditional and able to compare and contrast postitive and less positive aspects...
- The ajudicator In the WSDC Debate Format is the one who knows, understands, EVALUATES:
- - the WS DEBATE FORMAT - according to the Proposition/Pro vs Opp/Opposition scheme
- - the ROLES of all Debaters - who are supposed to perform consistent and relevant speeches, adequate replies, appropriate POIs - appropriately requested and placed
q. WHAT DOES THE GOOD DEBATE adjudicator DO? ("dos and don'ts")
a. Ensures that RULES and protocols/ROLES are respected
c. Assign a score to the individual Debaters - albeit s/he is always aware that the overall 'holistic' performance of the Team is what really matters ...
b. Award the victory to the winning Team after carrying out a comparative/contrastive and 'unconditional', concrete, objective, impartial and 'holistic' analysis of the Teams' performances ...
d. Provides a clear "Reason for Decision"!
e. Provides clear and precise FEEDBACK to Teams and/or Debaters.
e. Explains constructively and makes all Debaters understand in the FEEDBACK the reason/s for the decision - victory and defeat - in an IMPERSONAL and SAFE way, and s/he is never doubtful of himself/herself and above all of the other Judges.
f. Does not show any personal bias or judgmental intent - of value, merit or demerit towards people: it never criticizes other judges in front of Debaters.
6. WHAT DOES A GOOD DEBATE mean for DEBATERS?
The debate adjudicator expects each Debater/SPEAKER to respect the Role envisaged by the Format
1st Speaker Pro...
1. clearly analyses and gives a precise definition of the Motion/describes the Motion with very precise, accurately selected words/vocabulary, and in a "fair", objective way - based on common sense: s/he proposes a "fair and commonsense definition" - so as to start and allow a good Debate;
2. kindly introduces and describes her/his Team (/Speaker Roles), her/his Team's model (in a Policy Motion), and her/his Team's action plan/Teamline with precision and clarity;
3. clearly and precisely introduces the (three) main arguments her/hisTeam intends to propose - to support their position in favour of the Motion;
4. develops and expands the first argument in favour of the Motion, and supports it with clear evidences (documents, figures, data, etc...);
1st Speaker opp...
1. kindly introduces and describes her/his Team (/Speaker Roles); if necessary, proposes her/his Team's model (in a Policy Motion), but in any case describes her/his Team's action plan/Teamline accurately, with precision and clarity; accepts the given definition of the Motion or challenges it;
2. clearly and precisely introduces the (three main) arguments that the Team Opp intends to use as their Teamline, and builds the first new argument against the Motion, based on common sense;
3. engages with rebuttals - answers / replies / addresses - the arguments of the first Speaker PRO with precision, refuting them
4. develops and defends the argument against the Motion described, and supports it with strong evidences.
Q.WHAT DOES A GOOD DEBATE adjudicator EXPECT FROM TEAMS OF DEBATERS?
- Teams are subject to the "Burden of Proof": therefore, the Judge expects Teams to be able to produce, display and demonstrate a large number of examples and evidence - as much as possible.
- A team can NOT win by bringing just one example or a few examples.
- Teams are subject to the “Time And Place Setting”: therefore the Judge expects the Teams to argue on general, universal and universally recognized principles - unless we discuss very particular and peculiar ethical-cultural problems.
- General rule of a good Debate: we discuss 'general principles' and 'majority of cases'.
Q. WHAT DOES A GOOD DEBATE Adjudicator EXPECT FROM <<ARGuMEnTATIONS>>?
in a good argumentation there are always some precise aspects
1. initial statement and a hint / suggestion regarding the conclusions to be reached
2. clear explanation of "why" the initial statement is true and how it will be demonstrated
3. examples, statistics, relevant and consistent 'stories' (plausible hypotheses)
4. explanation of the relevance and impact of the position.
four characteristics of a good argumentation..
q. WHAT DOES A GOOD DEBATE adjudicator EXPECT FROM REBUTTALs?
A good refutation/rebuttal has precise characteristics that the good adjudicator expects to verify
- it is a concise and quick summary of the topic in its main key points - it is NOT a repetition;
- aims exactly at the heart of the CLASH POINTS, names them one by one, without avoiding any;
- explains and gives clear reason for the disagreement;
- comes to a reasoned logical conclusion - based on the above.
A good adjudicator always checks the four characteristics of a good rebuttal.
q. WHAT DOES An adjudicator EXPECT FROM TEAMS AND DEBATERS ABOUT THE MOTION/Theme?
The adjudicator expects the Debater to analyze and recognize the type of motion and address the debate consistently:
A. The Debater who analyzes and defines a MOTION OF CHANGE/POLICY MOTION:
- will present the 'hidden / implicit issue' that requires the proposed change;
- will suggest the urgency of the action;
- will prove that the issue is real and concrete, and it needs action and change;
- the Team must always be able to show the solution to the problem posed, and demonstrate that the solution is legitimate and acceptable (morally and ethically)
B. The Debater who analyzes and DEFINES a MOTION OF VALUE:
- will present the criterion / criteria in support of the statement;
- will clearly describe CRITERIA implicit in the discussion.
EXAMPLE of MOTION OF VALUE
"THBT The Environment is more important than the Economy"
q. WHAT ARE THE adjudication CRITERIA?
a) content
the adjudicator expects...
- DEFINITION AND DEVELOPMENT of the contents brought - from the initial definition of the Motion, to the presentation / description of the Teamline. - arguments, relevant supporting examples ...
- relevance and consistency of the contents with respect to the Motion;
- actual impact of the arguments raised with respect to the Motion;
- logic in the analysis of the contents and in the discussion (use of logical linkers);
- persuasive examples: applicable, credible, relevant, impactful;
- in the REFUTATION the Judge expects a coherent structure: one that puts in the foreground / gives priority in the refutation to the main ideas and to the implicit affirmations, NOT just to the examples.
B) style
The adjudicator expects the Debaters to express themselves persuasively in front of the audience and will assess:
- VARIATIONS - in language, gestures, posture, speed of speech, volume of voice, intonation ...
- INVOLVEMENT - empathy and emotional impact on the audience, eye contact, the ability to understand and respond to the reactions of the public...
- COHERENCE AND HARMONY of the formal aspect (non-verbal / para-verbal) with the CONTENT...
- lack of aggression and personal attacks...
- clarity of the voice...
- non-verbal/body language.
c) strategy.
The adjudicator expects Debaters to respect the Rules and Roles, and will assess:
- The clarity of the choices made in terms of line of arguments, examples, times ...
- The effectiveness of the choices made in managing time and team dynamics ...
- The consistency and logic in the presentation of the chosen materials - not randomly distributed ...
- The effectiveness of team building and team work.
d) Points Of Information
The good adjudicator expects the Debaters to use the POIs during the debate and will assign a score to the single Debater and to the Team also on the basis of the << ability >> to place and manage the POIs
.. it is paramount that a good adjudicator follows the "TEAMLINEs" and the flow of the debate, grasping the general and fundamental aspects and lines of development ...
"follow the big picture!"...
+ / - / +
flowcharts..
A good adjudicator relies on precise "performance descriptors" for the evaluation of different aspects / criteria, and will use the "performance descriptors" to provide good feedback to teams and individual debaters - if necessary or requested.
the FEEDBACK...
the most highly educational/formative moment is the moment of feedback FROM the good judge / adjudicator ...
- TIPO 1 - "GENERAL FEEDBACK"
- TIPO 2 - "TEAM-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK"
- TIPO 3 - "INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK"
TYPE 1 - provides general feedback on the structure and development of the arguments to both Teams and to all Debaters: it highlights strengths and weaknesses according to a + / - / + scheme that highlights positive aspects, aspects to be improved, positive aspects. always provides a suggestion / solution applicable to the critical aspects to be improved.
TYPE 2 - provides feedback and advice on the dynamics of the individual team: highlights strengths and weaknesses (+ / - / +) and always provides a possible solution to weaknesses.
TYPE 3 - provides feedback to each debater, in terms of criticism, even negative, of the weaknesses (pattern + / - / +) but always accompanied by an applicable suggestion / solution!
.... since the good adjudicator is aware that there is no 'failure': there is a moment of error and reflection ...
... there is what People are able to learn from the error, also and above all thanks to the Feedback of the good judge.
Credits:
Creato con immagini di master1305 - "Collage made of portraits of different people of diverse age, gender and nationality smiling against multicolored background in neon light. Concept of human emotions, lifestyle, facial expression. Ad" • Hermann - "books literature knowledge" • Raul Petri - "Lost in the Darkness" • naassomz1 - "people students university" • athree23 - "thank you thank you card table". Images by 'Liceo Caterina Percoto'; 'We Debate' Italia. A special "Thank You" to Miha Andric (Head of Faculty at ESU/ Turkey - Head of Trainings at Pro et Contra Institute/Slovenia - Director of the Institute for Labour Studies). Prof.ssa Ilaria Zorino. Prof.ssa A. Filipponi (Docente e Referente Regionale per il Friuli Venezia Giulia per la ricerca, sviluppo e diffusione del DEBATE). Prof.ssa P. D'Agostini. All images from the Web have been used for Didactic/Educational purpose only.