Course Hero Logo

Appropriately second because adjudicators care about

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 35 - 37 out of 38 pages.

appropriately; second, because adjudicators care about their own performance and success andfeedback is key to ensuring they’re appropriately recognised for their skill.There are three types of feedback that Adjudication Cores collect:teams’ feedback on the adjudicator who delivered the adjudication,Chairs’ feedback on wings and traineeswings’ and trainees’ feedback on ChairsEach type is important. The only way Adjudication Cores can effectively assess and allocateadjudicators is if everyone participates in providing feedback.Different Adjudication Cores will collect slightly different sets of information in their feedback forms.In general, you should expect feedback forms to ask for:some form of overall score for the adjudicatorsome form of qualitative assessment of the adjudicator, often in the form of specificquestions about various skill setsor characteristics an adjudicator might displaysome form of opportunity for those giving feedback to make free-form comment on theadjudicator in question, in order to ensure all important information is received by theAdjudication CoreFeedback on adjudicators is confidential, and should generally be seen only by those giving it, theAdjudication Core and the Tab Team (the latter will usually only see feedback in as much as they aremaintaining the system that receives it – they do not generally read individual feedback forms unlessthey need to be manually entered from paper). On rare occasions, the Adjudication Core may needto share aspects of feedback with the Equity Team where it relates to an equity violation – they willusually consult with those who gave the feedback prior to doing so.3.6 Some Additional Pitfalls to Avoid in Decision-Making and FeedbackWhat follows is a set of common mistakes that adjudicators may make in determining results andgiving feedback. We emphasise that many of the examples we give here aren’t examples of things anadjudicator should never in any circumstances say – some could be given as an introductorycomment for a more substantive explanation. But adjudicators should not rest satisfied with suchstatements as follow without further clarification and explanation to debaters.Dealing in generalities rather than specifics“We thought that the Third Negative really brought the case home for us, so the Negative won thedebate.”“Affirmative had some interesting things to say, but the analysis didn’t really get good until ThirdSpeaker.”It’s perfectly fine for adjudicators to use general language to introduce their reasons, provided thateach general statement is supported by examples of what actually happened. No statement of thekind we’ve listed above should ever go unsupported by specific examples of the claim being made,either during the deliberation or during feedback.Granting certain ‘classes’ of arguments undue priority“Only the Affirmative team knew the names of major Brazilian cities.”
“The Negative won because their arguments were moral rather than practical.”This judging pitfall takes a number of forms, one of which is the fetishisation of the use of specific

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 38 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
NoProfessor
Tags
Logic, Argumentation theory, Debating, World Universities Debating Championship

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture