JUDGING PHILOSOPHY for Policy Debate in English
last revised: November 13, 2001
Narahiko INOUE, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Kyushu University
Email: inouen@rc.kyushu-u.ac.jp
I. Overall Philosophy.
I will judge a debate round both as a decision-maker of the debate and as
an educator of oral argumentation in English. I will vote for the affirmative
if its proposal is inherently more advantageous than the negative option
(the present system or the counterplan). As an educator, I will critically
evaluate debaters' reasoning, evidence, refutation, communication skills,
etc. to choose the better team.
II. Proof and Refutation.
Arguments must be supported by logical reasoning and good evidence. Debaters'
explanation is more important than conclusionary quotations both in substantive
issues and debate theories. If you think a war will happen, you should explain
step by step with facts and theories rather than quote a conclusion of somebody
that you have never read. Exposing fallacies in the opponent's arguments
is often better than "counter-evidence".
III. Evidence.
Evidence includes commonly known facts, other arguments in the debate, statements
made in a cross-examination, and quotations. When you use a quotation, you
must be careful in documentation. Ellipses must be indicated as this . .
. shows. Words and letters not in the original must be included in square
brackets as in [this]. Paraphrases are encouraged but must not be presented
as direct quotations. You must not misrepresent what the author says. You
must be able to show detailed information of the source of evidence. Debaters
are responsible for the accuracy of translation. If an argument is supported
only by unqualified evidence, I will throw away the argument even if the
opponent does not have a "counter-analysis". In a cross-examination, ask
for the qualification of the author, the title of the book, the date of publication,
and so on.
IV. Issues.
Below is my interpretation of potential issues in a policy debate. I will
follow any other interpretation if it is successfully defended in the round.
A. Presumption.
It is proportional to the unknown risk of a policy. A more unfamiliar policy
has more risk. Unknown risk is different from known disadvantages.
B. Topicality.
The affirmative plan must be topical (=resolutional). The negative counterplan
must be non-topical. Reasonability is the standard. The effect of the (counter)plan
is irrelevant.
C. Significance.
I will accept both qualitative and quantitative significance. The probability
of occurrence is as important as the magnitude of the impact.
D. Inherency/Uniqueness.
A problem is inherent if it cannot be solved without adopting the affirmative
plan. An advantage is unique if it cannot be gained without adopting the
affirmative plan. As in many other issues, this is not an independent voting
issue but this concept must be taken into account in calculating the net
advantage of the affirmative plan over the negative option.
E. Solvency.
The affirmative must show how its plan, if adopted, would solve the problem
or gain the advantage. It must show the availability of technology, personnel,
and other resources. "Fiat'' is a convention that we assume that the plan
will be adopted through normal political procedures as long as it is desirable.
F. Disadvantages.
Proving a disadvantage requires the same burden as proving an advantage.
G. Counterplan.
It must be non-topical, competitive with the affirmative plan, and superior
to the affirmative plan. In proving its advantages, it must satisfy the similar
requirements as the affirmative plan.
H. Counterwarrant.
I am against the idea since it does not promote focused debate. The negative
must directly argue against the affirmative plan.
V. Delivery.
All the arguments must be presented orally in English understandable to any
relatively well-informed debate judge. If I don't understand an argument on
the spot, it will permanently be lost. If you speak too fast, I cannot write
down all of your arguments.
VI. Ethics.
Unethical practices such as fabricating and distorting evidence will result
in an automatic loss of the team. You may not disturb other debaters during
the debate, especially in speeches and cross-examination periods.
VII. Academic and Debate Career.
1980. B.A. (British Literature) Kyoto University
1986. M.Ed. (Teaching English) University of Tsukuba
1994. Ph.D. (Linguistics) University of Hawaii
1976-1979. Debating in tournaments (KIDL, KUEL, All-Japan, etc.), Kyoto
University E.S.S.
1984-1985. Coaching debate, University of Tsukuba E.S.S.
1986-1994. Coaching debate, Fukuoka University of Education E.S.S.
1994-2000. President, Japan Debate Association
1978-present. Judging at various debate tournaments
1986-present. Director, Japan Debate Association
1994-present. Teaching various Argumentation & Debate courses at Kyushu
University