 영어토론방 | Home>영어토론방 |
Notice Information of KNC
페이지 정보
본문
Copyright : club.cyworld.com/aboutkida, not acetraveler
1. SCHEDULE
(1)October 30th(Fri)
-4:00 ~ 6:00pm : Roll Call for Adjudicators and Adjudication Test
-6:00 ~ 6:40pm : Registration and Roll Call
-6:40 ~ 7:00pm : Opening Ceremony & Announcements
-7:00 ~ 9:00pm : Round 1
(2)October 31th(Sat)
-8:30am : Roll Call
-9:00 ~11:00am : Round 2
-11:00am ~ 1:00pm : Round 3
-1:00 ~ 2:00pm : Lunch(Student Cafeteria
-2:20pm : Roll Call
-2:30 ~ 4:30pm : Round 4(Silent)
-4:30 ~ 6:30pm : Round 5(Silent)
-6:30 ~ 8:00pm : Dinner(Student Cafeteria)
-8:00 ~ 11:00pm : Break Night Party 1부
-11:00 ~ : Break Night Party 2부
(3)November 30th(Sun)
-12:00pm : Roll Call
-12:30 ~ 2:30pm : Quarter Final & Rookie Finals
-3:00 ~ 5:00pm : Semi Finals & EFL Finals
-5:30 ~ 7:00pm : Grand Finals
-7:30pm : Closing Ceremony
2. Fall 2009 KNC Judging Directive
(1)Definitions
-The definition of terms in a motion, or an interpretation of the motion, should be the most obvious, most intuitive interpretation of the motion, should be the most obvious, most intuitive interpretation of the motion to an average reasonable person.
-The "average reasonable person" is considered to be someone who is pursuing his or her undergraduate studies in Korea and regularly, if not diligently, keeps in touch with current affairs as seem in the mass media, adn has the level of general knowledge to be expected from such a person.
-The definition should be clear and easily understandable.
-The definition of a term should be explained without using the word being defined. Examples may be used to supplement understanding, but are not to be used as definitions in and of themselves.
-Proposition teams should not attempt to gain an unfair advantage by defining the motion in such a way that an unreasonable burden is imposed on the Opposition.
-Proposition teams are permitted to restrict the scope of the debate, as long as the restricted scope is acceptable to a reasonable person considering the dictionary meaning of the terms being defined in the motion.
-Judges should not award debates based on semantics or technical points, arisen by a dispute over the definition of a term, unless absolutely necessary. If there have been clear clashes on issues, the debate should be awarded on the basis of the issues, with less attention to a semantic dispute of definition of terms.
-Judges should actively penalize teams found violating this directive.
(2)Negative Cases
-Opposition teams should not run on a purely negative case; they should have some positive matter of their own.
-Oppositiion teams that run a purely negative case should not, however, be given an automatic loss.
-Adjudicators should evaluate an Opposition team's case holistically, and judge if, at the end of the day, the passing of the Motion does more harm than good. For example, in a policy debate, even if the Opposition doesn't actively defend the status quo, but the Opposition proves that the Government plan would worsen the status quo, the judge may award the debate to the Opposition.
(3)Points of Clarification
-A debater may raise a Point of Information, saying "Clarification," to signal that there is a vague point in the argument of the speaker holding the floor that should be cleared up.
-The speaker holding the floor should generally accept this Point of Information, unless there is an obvious and compelling reason not to.
-POI's asked with "Clarification" signal (hereinafter informally referred to as "Point of Clarification") should be a question whose sole and only aim is to eliminate confusion. It should not be argumentative.
-Judges should use their common sense regarding Point of Clarification.
-Debaters are encouraged to use "Clarification" courteously and in good faith with good manners, recognizing their common desire to have a good debate. No team should confuse its opponents on purpose.
(4)English Proficiency
-Judges should never penalize a debater for incorrect usages of the English language, including mistakes in grammer, diction, sentence structure, pronunciation, and accents.
-However, a debater may be penalized in Manner if his/her speech is difficult to understand. Note that this difficulty may arise from any number of issues, of which the lack of English proficiency is one.
-Judges should not have to make an effort to understand what a debater has said.Except the most obvious slips of the tongue, the words of a debater should be understood as spoken. The judge should not try to fill in the gaps for the debater, compensating for the debater's lack of English proficiency.
(5)Point of Information
-POIs may be offered from 1:00 of any constructive speech until 5:59.
-All POIs are entitled to 15 seconds. The debater accepting the POI may not cut off the POI until 15 seconds have elapsed, unless the person has stopped speaking, or unless the content of the POI has been made unquestionably and absolutely clear.
-If 15 seconds have elapsed, either the debater holding the floor or the Speaker should cut off the POI.
-Debaters should not "flag" POIs. When offering a POI, they should say, "Point of Information," "Sir/Ma'am" or similar. They should not say anything that indicates or hints at the content of the POI, such as "Factually, sir,""Assumption," etc. The content indicated in violation of this rule should be ignored as if the debater simply said "Point of Information."
-A POI may begin before the 6th minute, and keep going into the protected time(e.g., if a POI begins at %:55, and keeps going until 6:05), as long as it is spoken within the 15-second limit. No one shall cut off a debater's POi for lapsing into the 6th minute, as long as it had begun before the 6th minute and is within the 15-second limit.
(6)Ad Hominem
-Personal attacks and insults (i.e., ad hominem remarks) should be penalized under Manner.
-A remark is ad hominem if it suggests or insinuates that the person, rather than his/her argument, is seriously flawed. (e.g., "Mr. So-and-so is obviously a retard."
-A remark may also be ad hominem if it attacks the person's background, associations, educatoin, cognitive ability, etc.(e.g., "I think my honourable opponent has been dropped on his head as a baby by his negligent parents.")
-A remark is not considered ad hominem if it only attacks the ideas and the arguments of the person.(e.g., "The arguments of the Opposition are misguided, and really, dumb.")
-Judges should use their common sense to determine if something is ad hominem.
-When in doubt, judges should decide in favor of not penalizing anybody.
(7)General Directive
-Judges should use the most of their common sense.
-The debate should be confined to the debaters; adjudicators should not penalize a team because the adjudicator sees the flaw in the argument that the opponents don't. Judges are strongly cautioned against being "the 7th debater."
-You as an adjudicator may have expert knowledge about the topic under discussion(for example, the motion is on FTA and you have studied international trade for several years). However, your special and expert knowledge should not affect the judging; the judgment should be made from the standpoint and perspective of an average reasonable person.
-If a debater fabricates evidence, but the opponents accept the fabrication as fact, the adjudicator should also accept it as fact in the context of that debate. However, feel free to point out fabrication in the verbal adjudication. Of course, if the opponent points out the fabrication, the false claim should be disregarded.
1. SCHEDULE
(1)October 30th(Fri)
-4:00 ~ 6:00pm : Roll Call for Adjudicators and Adjudication Test
-6:00 ~ 6:40pm : Registration and Roll Call
-6:40 ~ 7:00pm : Opening Ceremony & Announcements
-7:00 ~ 9:00pm : Round 1
(2)October 31th(Sat)
-8:30am : Roll Call
-9:00 ~11:00am : Round 2
-11:00am ~ 1:00pm : Round 3
-1:00 ~ 2:00pm : Lunch(Student Cafeteria
-2:20pm : Roll Call
-2:30 ~ 4:30pm : Round 4(Silent)
-4:30 ~ 6:30pm : Round 5(Silent)
-6:30 ~ 8:00pm : Dinner(Student Cafeteria)
-8:00 ~ 11:00pm : Break Night Party 1부
-11:00 ~ : Break Night Party 2부
(3)November 30th(Sun)
-12:00pm : Roll Call
-12:30 ~ 2:30pm : Quarter Final & Rookie Finals
-3:00 ~ 5:00pm : Semi Finals & EFL Finals
-5:30 ~ 7:00pm : Grand Finals
-7:30pm : Closing Ceremony
2. Fall 2009 KNC Judging Directive
(1)Definitions
-The definition of terms in a motion, or an interpretation of the motion, should be the most obvious, most intuitive interpretation of the motion, should be the most obvious, most intuitive interpretation of the motion to an average reasonable person.
-The "average reasonable person" is considered to be someone who is pursuing his or her undergraduate studies in Korea and regularly, if not diligently, keeps in touch with current affairs as seem in the mass media, adn has the level of general knowledge to be expected from such a person.
-The definition should be clear and easily understandable.
-The definition of a term should be explained without using the word being defined. Examples may be used to supplement understanding, but are not to be used as definitions in and of themselves.
-Proposition teams should not attempt to gain an unfair advantage by defining the motion in such a way that an unreasonable burden is imposed on the Opposition.
-Proposition teams are permitted to restrict the scope of the debate, as long as the restricted scope is acceptable to a reasonable person considering the dictionary meaning of the terms being defined in the motion.
-Judges should not award debates based on semantics or technical points, arisen by a dispute over the definition of a term, unless absolutely necessary. If there have been clear clashes on issues, the debate should be awarded on the basis of the issues, with less attention to a semantic dispute of definition of terms.
-Judges should actively penalize teams found violating this directive.
(2)Negative Cases
-Opposition teams should not run on a purely negative case; they should have some positive matter of their own.
-Oppositiion teams that run a purely negative case should not, however, be given an automatic loss.
-Adjudicators should evaluate an Opposition team's case holistically, and judge if, at the end of the day, the passing of the Motion does more harm than good. For example, in a policy debate, even if the Opposition doesn't actively defend the status quo, but the Opposition proves that the Government plan would worsen the status quo, the judge may award the debate to the Opposition.
(3)Points of Clarification
-A debater may raise a Point of Information, saying "Clarification," to signal that there is a vague point in the argument of the speaker holding the floor that should be cleared up.
-The speaker holding the floor should generally accept this Point of Information, unless there is an obvious and compelling reason not to.
-POI's asked with "Clarification" signal (hereinafter informally referred to as "Point of Clarification") should be a question whose sole and only aim is to eliminate confusion. It should not be argumentative.
-Judges should use their common sense regarding Point of Clarification.
-Debaters are encouraged to use "Clarification" courteously and in good faith with good manners, recognizing their common desire to have a good debate. No team should confuse its opponents on purpose.
(4)English Proficiency
-Judges should never penalize a debater for incorrect usages of the English language, including mistakes in grammer, diction, sentence structure, pronunciation, and accents.
-However, a debater may be penalized in Manner if his/her speech is difficult to understand. Note that this difficulty may arise from any number of issues, of which the lack of English proficiency is one.
-Judges should not have to make an effort to understand what a debater has said.Except the most obvious slips of the tongue, the words of a debater should be understood as spoken. The judge should not try to fill in the gaps for the debater, compensating for the debater's lack of English proficiency.
(5)Point of Information
-POIs may be offered from 1:00 of any constructive speech until 5:59.
-All POIs are entitled to 15 seconds. The debater accepting the POI may not cut off the POI until 15 seconds have elapsed, unless the person has stopped speaking, or unless the content of the POI has been made unquestionably and absolutely clear.
-If 15 seconds have elapsed, either the debater holding the floor or the Speaker should cut off the POI.
-Debaters should not "flag" POIs. When offering a POI, they should say, "Point of Information," "Sir/Ma'am" or similar. They should not say anything that indicates or hints at the content of the POI, such as "Factually, sir,""Assumption," etc. The content indicated in violation of this rule should be ignored as if the debater simply said "Point of Information."
-A POI may begin before the 6th minute, and keep going into the protected time(e.g., if a POI begins at %:55, and keeps going until 6:05), as long as it is spoken within the 15-second limit. No one shall cut off a debater's POi for lapsing into the 6th minute, as long as it had begun before the 6th minute and is within the 15-second limit.
(6)Ad Hominem
-Personal attacks and insults (i.e., ad hominem remarks) should be penalized under Manner.
-A remark is ad hominem if it suggests or insinuates that the person, rather than his/her argument, is seriously flawed. (e.g., "Mr. So-and-so is obviously a retard."
-A remark may also be ad hominem if it attacks the person's background, associations, educatoin, cognitive ability, etc.(e.g., "I think my honourable opponent has been dropped on his head as a baby by his negligent parents.")
-A remark is not considered ad hominem if it only attacks the ideas and the arguments of the person.(e.g., "The arguments of the Opposition are misguided, and really, dumb.")
-Judges should use their common sense to determine if something is ad hominem.
-When in doubt, judges should decide in favor of not penalizing anybody.
(7)General Directive
-Judges should use the most of their common sense.
-The debate should be confined to the debaters; adjudicators should not penalize a team because the adjudicator sees the flaw in the argument that the opponents don't. Judges are strongly cautioned against being "the 7th debater."
-You as an adjudicator may have expert knowledge about the topic under discussion(for example, the motion is on FTA and you have studied international trade for several years). However, your special and expert knowledge should not affect the judging; the judgment should be made from the standpoint and perspective of an average reasonable person.
-If a debater fabricates evidence, but the opponents accept the fabrication as fact, the adjudicator should also accept it as fact in the context of that debate. However, feel free to point out fabrication in the verbal adjudication. Of course, if the opponent points out the fabrication, the false claim should be disregarded.
관련링크
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.