Monash

Australasians
2020
Adj Core Briefing
Format Overview
Australasian debating format

Affirmative Team Negative Team

Persuade the adjudicator to Persuade the adjudicator to
support the motion. reject the motion.
Speaking order

3 1 2 4
5 6
Speaking time
8 minutes (two bells)
Warning bell at 6 minutes
No Points of Information (POI)
Reply speeches

2 1
Negative begins
4 minutes (two bells)
Warning bell at 3 minutes
Cannot be delivered by 3rd speaker
Speaker roles

1 1
1st speakers
Establish context
Specify model/stance/definition
Provide arguments
Rebut (1st Neg)
Speaker roles

2 2
2nd speakers
Rebut
Advance your case
Speaker roles

3 3rd speakers 3
Identify clashes
Defend your team’s claims
Refute the other team
No new arguments
Speaker roles

3 “No new arguments” 3

New rebuttal, new framing, new examples, & defending
arguments is OK.
Do not credit new material to the extent that it was
substantially different from existing material.
Speaker roles

Reply speakers
“Biased adjudication”
Past tense
No new material or rebuttal
Types of Motions
● Value Judgment (That we oppose MUN; That MUN has done more harm than good)
○ Burden: prove why the motion is true/not; no required follow-up action; does not require
an assessment of the counterfactual
● Policy (That we should ban MUN)
○ Burden: prove why the action is necessary, morally right, and bring more benefits than
harms
● Actor (That, as retired debaters, we would migrate to MUN)
○ Burden: prove that the action is within the best interest of the actor and that it is morally
correct for them to do
● Empirical (That we regret the prominence of MUN)
○ Burden: prove motion’s benefits/harms compared to a counterfactual/alternative
conception
● Comparative (That we prefer a world where debaters can also do MUN)
○ Burden: prove that this world is more preferable than the existing world
Types of Motions
A few additional things to note:

● That X should do Y (e.g. That ex-debaters should join MUN)

○ This is not an actor debate, so the debate is about whether, from a neutral
third-party perspective, it would be good for X to do Y.
○ So for instance, arguments about how it would be personally beneficial/harmful for
ex-debaters to join MUN do not hold much weight, unless a team gives a reason to
care about their interests
● That we should do X instead of Y (e.g. That we should ban debating instead of
MUN)
○ Affirmative must support doing X (i.e. banning debating), and Negative must
support doing Y (i.e. banning MUN).
○ Neither team can support doing both.
Burdens and Models
● Negative teams must support an alternative policy position. This may be
reflected in them choosing to defend the Status Quo or advocating for a
counter-policy that is not inclusive of the motion.
● Proposition Fiat grants Affirmative teams the ability to presume their
policy will pass/happen. This means they're allowed to presume they have
the political capital and resources necessary to carry out the motion.
● Negative team, if choosing to support a counter-policy, must ensure that
theirs uses the same (if not less) political capital and resources as the
Affirmative.
Feedback Forms, Technical Disasters and
Other Logistics
Tournament Flow
● Draw for each round will be released 30 minutes prior to motion release
● Teams should jump into their designated Zoom building calls at 20 minutes
before motion release, where Tab will do a quick roll call to check your
presence
● Teams must revise their names on Zoom according to Tab guidelines
● Right after motion release, prep time will start immediately for 30 minutes.
Teams should conduct their motion veto either in their designated
breakout rooms or via Discord
● Team should prep on their own, with no assistance from other individuals
and without consulting to other means of electronics. We know this is
difficult to enforce but we have faith that you have sportsmanlike conduct.
Judges Flow
● Once all the teams are present, the Chair will moderate the flow of the debate. Before starting, Chairs
should inquire the speaking order of debaters and allow them to introduce their pronouns should
they wish to do so.
● When the debate ends, Chairs should instruct teams to Leave Breakout Room (NOT Leave Meeting!).
Judges should make their individual decisions, fill in the personal Google Forms ballot link sent to
them, and then deliberate with the other judges.
● The priority is to have all ballots submitted within 10 minutes after the round ends. Before you discuss
any further, Chair judges should input the ballots from themselves and their panellists into Tabbycat.
Only, and only, when you've inputted the ballots then you may proceed with deliberations.
● In the discussions, Chairs should allow each member of the panels (including trainees) to speak their
reasoning uninterrupted for a few minutes before finally concluding and calling the teams back.
● You have approximately 10 minutes to deliver your oral adjudication to the teams. When you're
finished, instruct teams to seek for feedback either via personal chat or through Discord. Remind them
and fellow panellists to fill in Judge Feedback.
Handling Glitches and Dropouts
● If a speaker drops out or becomes inaudible:
○ Treat it like a person with an extremely loud leafblower outside the window, or a fire
alarm
○ Stop your timer for 30 seconds or so, to check whether the situation can be resolved
○ Exercise discretion beyond that - if you’re in contact with the speaker having technical
difficulties, you might leave it longer to resolve, if you’re unable to contact them, you may
need to move the debate along
○ We will have swing speakers available if an entire team is unable to connect to the call
Handling Glitches and Dropouts
● If a judge drops out or is unable to hear:
○ As above, pause the timer for 30 seconds or so to check if they can reconnect
○ If they are unable to reconnect:
■ If they are a panellist or trainee, continue the debate
■ If they are a chair, wait at least 5 minutes before continuing the debate
○ We will try to ensure that all 2 person panels contain a 2 judges we trust to adjudicate the
debate on their own if necessary
Motion Veto Mechanism
● Topics are selected by teams *ranking* the motions, NOT by rearranging
the order (some circuits do this)
● Example:
○ 1) That debating is fun
○ 2) That retirement is a myth
○ 3) That we regret the elitism in debating
● Rearranging (the one we’re NOT doing): If you prefer the second motion the most, the third
motion the second most, and the first motion the least:
○ 231
● Ranking (the one we’re doing): If you prefer the second motion the most, the third motion the
second most, and the first motion the least, then your motion preference should be as follows:
○ 312
Judge Feedback
● Judge Feedback will be done in two ways: Judge on Judge & Team on Judge. Chairs will assess
their panellists and trainees (vice versa); teams will assess the Chair judge (or whoever is giving
the OA).
● The Judge Feedback form is accessible through your individual Tabbycat links that the Tab
Team has sent to your e-mail (please contact them if you have not received it yet!)
● The scale is 1-10:
○ 1 - they should be a trainee, I’m not optimistic that will change
○ 2 - they should be a trainee, I’m optimistic that could change
○ 3 - they should be a panelist, but it’s borderline
○ 4 - they should definitely be a panelist
○ 5 - they should be at least a panelist, and maybe a chair
○ 6 - they should be a chair, but it’s borderline
○ 7 - they should definitely be a chair
○ 8 - you should consider this chair for the break
○ 9 - I would be surprised if this chair didn’t break
○ 10 - I look forward to watching this chair judge a Grand Final
Judge Test
 How we scored your entries
● Double blind-marked by Adj Core, a third assessor steps in if there’s a
disagreement between the two scores

● Scoring Proportions:
○ CV = 20%
○ True/False = 10%
○ Speaker Scores = 10%
○ Reason for Decision = 40%
○ Best Speaker Question = 10%
○ Prop Fiat Question = 10%
 True/False Section
● If a speaker commits an equity violation in a debate, that speaker’s team should
automatically lose the debate. (False)
● A speech which is extremely stylish but contains relatively little analysis is unlikely
to be persuasive. (True)
● When a judge has difficulties understanding a speaker’s accent, they are allowed to
consult with other judges after the round before making their call. (False)
● A chair who is rolled (i.e. in the minority) should still give the oral adjudication.
(False)
● Material which is not explicitly labelled ‘rebuttal’ can still be counted as a response
to the other team’s case. (True)
 True/False Section
● Unless a team states otherwise, adjudicators should assume a utilitarian
framework (i.e. that practical outcomes matter more than principled/moral claims).
(False)
● Judges cannot decide the winning team based on Reply Speeches. (False)
● Judges may change their decisions after hearing the explanation from fellow
panelists. (False)
● Contradictory points can only be taken into account as diminishing the
persuasiveness of a team’s case when the opposing team points the contradiction
out. (False)
● The winning team must be the one that wins the most clashes/areas of discussion
in the round. (False)
 Test Debate Result
Winner: NEGATIVE (unanimous call)

Speaker Scores

1A 76 1N 78

2A 75-76 2N 77-78

3A 77 3N 78

AR 37.5-38 NR 38.5-39

TOTAL 265.5 - 267 TOTAL 271.5 - 273

 Reason for Decision
1) Is there an urgent necessity to establish an ASEAN Human Rights Court?

Aff argued: SEA as a region has issues with human rights and ICC uses “Western” standards of Human Rights which are
incompatible with SEA nations

Why this wasn’t persuasive:

- Aff did not provide a coherent explanation on what relativism/localities they were referring to that separates “Western” and
“ASEAN” standards (individualism v. collectivism was insufficient) and why it matters in adjudicating human rights abuses

- Neg was able to provide a characterization that ASEAN countries lacked of understanding how critical human rights trials are,
which meant that the approach should be educational and done through constructive diplomatic engagement (Case study:
Myanmar with Indonesia and Thailand).

- Neg demonstrated that internal courts & international tribunals can also deal with the urgency (Case study: Khmer Rouge)

- Neg sufficiently responded that universalism of human rights is the standard we need and that uniting localities would not only
be impossible but also blur the protection afforded to individuals
 Reason for Decision
2) Is a Human Rights Court principally consistent with ASEAN values?

Aff argued: ASEAN's function is to develop economies of its members and human rights is deeply tied to it

Neg argued: ASEAN has a Non-Interference Policy to separate economic trade & cultural exchanges with politics & governance

Why Aff wasn't persuasive:

- Aff was unable to demonstrate in what way is human rights correlated with economics. Neg managed to respond by pointing
out case studies like Singapore and Malaysia which are more economically developed and yet still commit human rights abuses,
proving that the link is tenuous.

- Neg's argument on NIP establishes the uniqueness of ASEAN, of its commitment to ensure all member nations are positioned
equally and not to judge each other. This was then tied as a prerequisite to good economic cooperation (muddying it with
politics will harm existing relationship), which serves as another response to Aff's material.

- There was no engagement on Aff to any of Neg’s NIP material (on why it’s valid to be sidestepped, or on why it’s less relevant to
consider).
 Reason for Decision
3) Would an ASEAN Human Rights Court be effective?
Aff argues that ASEAN HRC will be effective because richer nations will have incentive to enforce the court on others

Neg argues that the court will not function properly because of conspiracy theories/conflicts of interest that disables them to do
investigation properly.

Why Aff wasn't persuasive:

- Neg responded that the incentive only works on rich nations, but they would be 'immune' from enforcement given no other
countries have leverage upon them. Aff had no defense to this. Neg also added that economic incentive isn’t exclusive -- that Western
nations can impose them sanctions too.

- Neg brought a critical characterizations of human right issues in ASEAN: that the violators are typically the state themselves or
powerful politicians that are closely associated with the regime. This proved 2 things: it would be difficult for investigators to be
approved entry and even if they did, the court's outcome will be perceived as questionable given the lack of impartiality from judges.
Aff did try to respond that judges will be elected and trained, but it doesn't disprove the concerns of bias that Neg brought forth

- Neg did fail in proving why ICC would be favored more by ASEAN nations, however it was not the burden of Neg to provide a
solution. Them proving that ASEAN HRC will be bad was sufficient to win this clash.
 Best Speaker Question
● We believe that any speaker of the Negative team would be an acceptable answer
for this section. We believe that each speaker had something new and unique to
contribute leading to the win of their team (1st Neg on characterization of ASEAN
member nations and the geopolitics of the region; 2nd Neg on variety of responses
to Aff case as well as comparatives with ICC; 3rd Neg on crystallizing the debate
and solid responses to Aff).
● We would also accept 3rd Affirmative as an answer, given they were the strongest
speaker in their team by providing the most clarity on how this court will function,
effectively responding to Neg’s concerns.
● We find it difficult to credit either 1st Aff or 2nd Aff as an answer, given that their
speeches left many questions hanging (what does their relativism standard mean!?)
and were also generally non-responsive to Neg’s substantive material.
 Proposition Fiat Question
● Proposition Fiat, by definition, grants Affirmative teams the ability to
presume that their policy will pass/happen. In this debate, that meant
ASEAN as a collective *will* establish a Human Rights Court. However,
how nations will react or respond to the policy (in this case, will they join
or not) is not under the purview of Fiat.
● As such, this was a valid approach for Negative to take, given that it was
not intended to question the feasibility of "will a Human Rights Court exist?"
but rather "will it be effective?". This was demonstrated with Neg pointing
out that international treaties aren’t binding and elaborating on the
likelihood of un-cooperativeness by member states.
 Notes on Patterns in the Judge Test
● Judges are primarily undermarking the speakers. This was an above average debate and many
test-takers thought otherwise. Be cognizant of your subconscious biases! The speakers may
have accents and spoke slower, but their content is solid.
● Negative teams do NOT have a burden to solve the problem in a policy debate. Their duty is to
simply negate the topic. If they can demonstrate why it's morally wrong to do or why there
would be more harms compared to the Status Quo, that is sufficient. Many judges who gave
the win to Aff based their call on this which we find concerning.
● Reply Speeches -- it's 4 minutes, which is half of 8 minutes, and so the scoring should be HALF
of what a substantive would. Do not subtract 40 from whatever substantive score you
would give them. An average quality reply speech would be 37.5 (half of 75) and NOT 35 (75
minus 40). Yes, maths is hard, but thanks to technology not only are we able to have this
tournament online, we can actually have a machine count for us when we are doubtful!
● Role Fulfillment -- many judges answered the Best Speaker question by basing on who fulfilled
their roles. While roles are necessary to fulfill, they're not sufficient conditions for a good
speech.
A Note on IA Application Questions
At the IA application stage, we asked applicants:

The Australasians circuit is a diverse one, with participants from a wide range of
backgrounds with a wide range of personal characteristics. One impact of that is
that all participants can have internalised biases that affect how they assess the
performance of other participants. What do you personally do to identify your own
internalised biases, train yourself out of them, and correct for them when judging
debates?
A Note on IA Application Questions
● This was not answered particularly well
● We were looking for:
○ Clear identification that combatting internalised biases is an ongoing process, not a task that can be
considered complete at some point
○ Clear identification of at least one form of internalised bias they know themselves to be vulnerable to
○ At least one identified and plausibly effective approach to training against that bias
○ At least one example of where the applicant has in practice stopped and corrected for an impact of
internalised bias while judging
● Potential negative points:
○ an explicit suggestion that the applicant lacks any internalised biases
○ a rejection of the need to combat internalised biases when judging
○ an approach to correcting for internalised biases that demonstrates a total lack of insight or thought
about how to do so