Terkait detail teknis penyampaian verbal adjudication, sekedar untuk membantu memberikan gambaran:
Biasanya adju membagi penyampaian verbal adjudication menjadi tiga section yang judul dari ketiga section itu harus disampaikan terlebih dahulu kepada kedua team dalam pembukaan verbal adjudication. agar para debater dapat gambaran awal tentang apa saja hal2 yang akan di bahas oleh adjudicator.
I'm going to deliver my verbal adjudication under three sections; 1st) General Impression toward the debate that just happened. 2nd) Clash analysis on the argument and the rebuttal 3rd) General feedback. But if after this verbal adjudication, you feel like to ask for more personal feedback on your individual performance, you can approach me after the verbal adjudication.
I. GENERAL IMPRESSION: Move on to the first section, which about my general impression toward this debate. I believe this debate should be categorized as (below average/average/above average debate),
Because most of the time the debaters from both team (failed/managed to provide satisfactory characterization on some important keywords and stakeholders as well as some related philosophical aspect of debating first principles in the wording of the motion so that the development of the discussion (was not really/was really) in line with the spirit of the motion.
The spirit of the motion expected us to discuss about ......, (but somehow/and I believe) both teams (failed/succeeded) in directing the motion into this expectation.
That is why I categorized this debate as a (below average/average/above average) debate.
II. CLASH ANALYSIS Next, let's analyze the clash of argument and rebuttal that happened between both teams. There are 3 major clashes of argument that I identified from this debate. 1st) Whether or not it is justifiable to implement the proposal of this motion 2nd) Whether or not the motion would be effective to solve the problem in the s tatus quo
3rd) Whether or not the implementation of the motion would bring positive or negative future implication and sustainabilityfor all of the related stakeholders in this motion
pada bagian ini semua argument dan rebuttal para debater di kelompokkan ke dalam ketiga kategori di atas dan diperbandingkan, team mana yang argument dan rebuttal le bih upperhand dibanding team lainnya dilihat dari ketiga kategori diatas.
III. GENERAL FEEDBACK I believe this debate would be better if the debaters from both team managed to provide some excellent argument/rebuttal/analysis toward the justification, effectiveness, and future implication, if ..... pada bagian ini, semua kesalahan debater dalam clash analysis, harus kita sediakan saran perbaikan beserta contohnya bagaimana seharusnya argument dan rebuttalnya dibawakan supaya lebih baik lagi.
CLOSING/ANNOUNCEMENT so based on those all of point of analysis, the winner of this round goes to...... team..... (affirmative/opposotion)
nah untuk latihan silahkan dicoba, file THW BAN SMOKING yang sudah di dapatkan, di analisa dengan cara di atas, dan ditentukan team mana yang menang dan kalah, dan beri nilai untuk tia debater satu persatu, cara beri nilai, bisa dilihat di file adjudication seminar, disitu ada rubrik angka penilaiannya.
Yang pasti. Semua ketiga langkah point penilaian tersebut harus dinilai dari sudut pandang debating first principle, sejauh dan sedalam apa debating first principle di integrasikan di dalam tiap penyampaian argument dan rebuttal atau jika hal itu gagal dilakukan oleh para debater maka seharusnya bagaimana pengintegrasian debating first principle itu seharusnya dilakukan agar perkembangan the dynamic of the debate bisa lebih interesting, ini harus kita sebagai adju memberikan contoh perbaikannya, jadi sebagai adju kita bukan cuma mejelek2an saja, tapi kita juga wajib beri contoh yg benar seperti apa.
