Keita Takayanagi

Table of Contents

 • Before the Debate

 • During the Debate

 • After the Debate

 o Decide vote & RFDo Explain to the chair / Panelistso Explain to Debaters

 

• Decide who won + why• Clearly convey to judges / debaters• Give constructive feedback to teams /

debaters

• Know the ruleso Eg. Definition Challenge, Counter proposal,

POO

• 紙、書くもの、２時間分の体力を用意

• Briefly think about… o Spirit of the motiono Clash

• DO NOT affect the way you listen / RFD o Eg 1. THW privatize watero Eg 2. THW ban tobacco

• Be an Average Reasonable Person  

o Follows news o No Specialityo Doesn’t understand Japanese

During the Debate

 • Take notes

 o # of POIo Content of POIo In debater's words ( 翻訳 ×, Diff. words×)

 

During the Debate

 • Evaluate issues as you go

 o eg. このポイントは立っているかo eg. この Refute はどこまで効果的かo eg. ＬＯの時点でどちらが優勢か

 

• Give points after the speech (in range)

After the Debate （流れ）

 • Decide who won + why (5 ~ 10min.)

 • Explain to chair / panelists (around 10 min.)

 • Explain to debaters (10 ~ 15 min.)

 • Fill in feedback sheet

• No automatic wino eg. このスピーカー嫌いだから、このポイントまじ好

き • Decide based on main issues in debate

 • Never decide based on...

o Mannero Authorityo # of arguments remaining

  

After the Debate (vote & RFD)

After the Debate (ジャッジ間の説明 )

 • Panelist A → Panelist B → Chair

 • Explain your vote + RFD

 o from what aspect 　 (eg) クライテリアo why from that aspect 　 (eg) 3rd arg. は説明 1 分o process of your decision: 議論を追う

 

After the Debate

 • NEVER EVER change your vote / RFD / Speaker

Scores • Make sure Winning Team has more Speaker

Scores in total  

After the Debate (ディベーターに説明 )

• Explain the overview of the round • Explain your vote + RFD

o from what aspecto why from that aspecto process of your decision

 • Accept questions

 • Constructive Feedback

o a. Team ( 主にプレパの段階からできたこと )o b. Individual speakers ( 各スピーチ )

After the Debate

 • Evaluate chair / panelists based on...

 o Vote + RFD = Reasonable?o ラウンド全体を見られている ?o 細かい議論についていけている？o 説明は Clear?

  • DO NOT mark down b/c vote + RFD are different

Questions?

 

• 何故コントラについて扱う ?• b/c ディベーターはよくコントラする

eg. Stance と Case Set, Refutation, Alternative &

• b/c どこまで RFD に反映させるかめっちゃ悩む

• １番悩むとき：相手からの指摘がないとき

o Type A: RFD には常に反映させない b/c Judgeの介入になる

o Type B: RFD には常に反映させる b/c 矛盾をしているということはどこかでチームの説得性を弱めている

• A と B の間：o 指摘がなくても RFD の判断材料として考慮す

るo どこまで考慮するかは Case by Case

• 相手からの指摘があった場合：o 考慮すべき度合いが増すo 相手チームを評価する

• Case 1: 自分たちの Stance と Case Set がコントラ (Soft Case)o Eg. THW ban abortion Gov. Stance: Fetal Right to Life overwhelms the

women’s claim to her autonomy, similarly in the cases of already born baby.

Gov. Case Set: Ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy, except for the cases where women is suffering from traumatic experience or economic constraints.

• Case 2: 自分たちの Stance と Refute がコントラo Eg. THW introduce organ transplant for profit. Gov. Stance: Only way to solve the organ

shortage is to incentivize prople by money. MG’s refutation: Irrational Choices will never

occur b/c money does not change how people thinks that much.

• Case 3: 自分たちの Stance と Alternativeがコントラo Eg. THW allow police officer to enter

households w/o a search warrant in the cases of suspected DV

Opp. Stance: It is states’ excessive intervention to people’s right to privacy.

Opp. Alt: Let’s set up camera or wiretap

but...

  • Don't be too sensitive about contradiction

• Type A: Principle < Practical• Type B: Principle > Practical• Type C: Principle = Practical

• Type a: Principle & Practical = separate • Type b: Principle & Practical = Connected

• Type C: あくまで内容であって、 Argument の属性では差をつけない

• Type b: そもそも Principle と Practical は分けられないo Eg. Sovereignty, Self defense, etc.

• Case 1: THW invade DPRKo PM: “Sovereignty is an idea which is there to

protect people. Therefore, Kim Jong Il, who is intentionally infringing people’s rights & putting people to death, can no longer claim its sovereignty”

o の前提： Existence of massive HR Infringement by Kim (practical)

• Case 2: THW ban abortion.o LO: “We all have a right to self defense.

Therefore, women should have a right to defend herself from babies threatening her life”

o の前提：赤ちゃんが女性の人生に相当な悪影響を及ぼす (practical)

• それでも分かれるo  eg. Nature of Choice Usage of hard drugs① ②

 

• あらゆる要素で判断 ( 順不同 ) o Reasoningo Exampleo Uniquenesso Dynamicso Consistency

 Case Study:  THBT ICC should prosecute for the crimes against the democratic process 

 

 

• A. Role of ICC: Gov > Opp• B. Effect to democratic process Gov < Opp

 1. Gov: Opp の decreasing support for democratic institution が not unique 2. Opp: Role of ICC  の議論はお互い 3rd point3. Opp: Role of ICC の applicability がない

Questions?