Sendai (@2.1) vs Matsumoto (@3.7)
06-10-2019

Our Prediction:

Sendai will win

Sendai – Matsumoto Match Prediction | 06-10-2019 01:00

Weigh them lightly if the causal relation between the plan (proposition) and the ADs or the DAs are not supported by evidence. Also diminish the probability, if the opponents attacks were successful, or the defenses were poor. Especially, you should look back at the strength of the proof (evidence) provided within the round. 2.Judge the probability (evidential support) of each issue: First consider how convincing the alleged ADs or DAs were in terms of factual probability.

*In case the questioner has to interrupt the opponents answer and move on to the next question, it is required for the questioner to be polite and making proper excuses to the answerer..

Specifically, since the debate is on governmental policy proposition, if the proposition has more merits than the demerits, you vote AFF and vice versa. Judging Standards In this tournament, winner of the round should be decided by comparing the outcome of the arguments of both teams. below for the difference). (If you have judged in other debate tournaments, see Section 6. No ties; always pick a winner! 2.

(Before any punishment, the Judging committee will inquire and let the member or coach make some explanation. The same applies to, for example, new arguments in the final speech. The debaters are never allowed to make a complaint or protest against the judges decision after the debate is over. If debaters or coaches do protest excessively, the team may be penalized, possibly losing the qualification for the finals, the best debaters award, or even banned from future tournaments.

Tarot Stand Users

If both teams have had equal number of past Affirmative side debates, then the student leaders of both teams will do a Janken (Rock, Scissor, Paper) in front of the officials at the designated room. The team with less Affirmative side debates will be the next Affirmative. The winner team of the Janken will debate on the Affirmative side. In the finals, the Affirmative and Negative side will be decided as follows: Both teams will count how many times they have debated on the Affirmative side so far (including both the Finals and the prelims).

Even if the judge thought the debaters arguments are incomprehensible or just ridiculous, dont warn them on the spot and treat the arguments as being so weak (or in some cases ignorable) to be counted in making the round decision. The judges can and are encouraged to give the debaters some advice on such bad arguments after the round.

This is, so to say, an indirect attack, and will contribute to the final Summary speech, hence rather recommended. *For example, it is permitted to refute like The importance of Advantages presented in the Constructive speech, outweighs that of the Disadvantages presented in the Negative Constructive speech, because this is not itself an attack to the importance of Disadvantages. Moreover, such defense provides an effective comparison.

In such case, the match assignment will not be changed, and no additional team will be qualified to take the absent teams place. Forfeiting the finals intentionally is prohibited. The assigned opposing team will just be declared the winner and the tournament procedure will proceed without any other change. After the announcement of the 8 qualified teams, if, exceptionally for any reason, a team is unable to partake in its assigned round, that team will be considered forfeited and may not continue.

In concrete, if you are more convinced by the debaters arguments that the policy that adopts the debate topic will give more Advantages than the Disadvantages, then you would vote for the Affirmative team. On the contrary, if you feel sure the Disadvantages outweigh Advantages then you would vote for the Negative team. Judges are expected to make a decision, judging rationally if the topic is affirmed or not, by fairly and objectively comparing the contents argued within the round, especially comparing the substantial arguments.

Basic Definitions of Each Phrase

Dont add any ADs/DAs or attacks yourself! New arguments are prohibited: All the ADs and DAs should be presented in the Constructive Speech. Usage of evidence is to be encouraged not discouraged. Last minute surprise attacks especially in the summary speeches should never be counted. 7.Distinguish decision making and advices: When deciding the winners, a judge shouldnt add/attack the issues themselves, nor should they weigh English fluency too much. However, advices on these points are precious. 3. Never decide winners using subjective speech points. Even if the Q/As were superb, the team can be terribly unconvincing at the end!) 5.This is not a Parliamentary Debate tournament: point of information is prohibited. Apart from the decision making, advices on the unmentioned fallacies or on English skills would be more than welcome. 2.Issues that are extended (not forgotten in the latter part of the round) should count: Constructive speeches are just written down speeches. Rational contentions should count more than just superficial eloquence. To Avoid Common Misunderstandings1.Dont add your own issues, attacks Leave the job to the debaters. You shouldnt weigh the issues too much, unless they are defended and summarized effectively afterwards. 6.This is not a Recitation contest: Dont decide the winners by English fluency, accents, intonation, eye-contacts, etc. 6. I thought the other speeches were even. (Judges should compare the finally defended ADs/DAs. 4.Dont judge the winner by comparing the speeches: A bad reason for decision typically goes like this: Ill vote NEG, as I think the NEG Q/As and Attacks were wonderful.

If you are convinced otherwise that the DAs outweigh the ADs, then you vote for the Negative side (NEG). (In extreme rare cases, neither AFF/NEG issues were convincing enough to vote for. In short, if you are convinced that supporting the proposition gives more Advantages(ADs) than Disadvantages (DAs), you vote for the Affirmative side (AFF). How to Decide the WinnerWinner of the round should be decided by comparing the outcome of the ISSUES of both teams. In such case, it is presumed that the proposition is not true, so vote for the NEG.) Each judge should decide the winner independently without consulting the other judges. 2. NO TIES; pick a winner even if you think its not possible!

When the above situation happens and the judges interruption takes place during the speeches, only in case (3) to cope with some noise occurring during the debate, the judge may order to stop counting the time accordingly, and may add some speech time for what she/he believes to be the fair compensation to the team that was being interrupted.

If you are convinced otherwise that the DAs outweigh the ADs, then you vote for the Negative side (NEG). In such case, it is presumed that the proposition is not true, so vote for the NEG.) Each judge should decide the winner independently without consulting the other judges. (In extreme rare cases, neither AFF/NEG issues were convincing enough to vote for. NO TIES; pick a winner even if you think its not possible! Winner of the round should be decided by comparing the outcome of the ISSUES of both teams. In short, if you are convinced that supporting the proposition gives more Advantages (ADs) than Disadvantages (DAs), you vote for the Affirmative side (AFF).

Only very exceptionally, when Judges can no other but consider that the Advantages and Disadvantages are perfectly equal, then the Judges should vote for the Negative team (on the majorly accepted policy debate decision rule presumption). When the remaining Advantages and Disadvantages are close, Judges should not easily consider it as a tie, and should seek even for small differences and vote for one team.