Chennai Worlds 2014
Independent Adjudicators
Submission Deadline: 22 July
To apply to be an independent adjudicator at Chennai Worlds 2014, please fill out this form. Email the form
to both michael.baer@chennaiworlds.com and harish.natarajan@chennaiworlds.com. You can also fill out
this form online at http://goo.gl/vgWUH
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Personal Information
Name:
Nationality:
Email Address:
Telephone Number:
Institution(s) Attended and Years Attended:
Subsidy Request
Are you requesting a registration waiver? (Y/N):
Are you requesting a travel subsidy? (Y/N):
Travel Information
You only need to fill this in if you are applying for a travel subsidy
Where will you be flying from?
What do you estimate is the maximum amount of personal contribution that you are able to make toward
your traveling expenses?
Please specify the amount in EUROS
Is there any other information which you would like us to be aware of when considering your application for
funding?
Debating and Adjudication CV
Please list below up to 5 of your most significant accomplishments as a speaker.
Please place an emphasis on BP related achievements, particularly Worlds and other international
competitions. Include your team and individual ranking as well as how far you progressed through the
tournament.
Please list up to 10 of your most significant achievements as an adjudicator. *
If possible, please try to keep your answers to the past 3 years. Please try to focus on experience in the BP
format.
Multiple Choice Questions
For each of the multiple choice questions below, please select one answer.
If you feel would like to provide a brief comment to clarify your answer, you may do so below each question.
Please do NOT feel obligated to provide an explanation; an inaccurate explanation will be counted against
you.
1) You are a wing judge in Round 5 of WUDC 2014. After a discussion over the rankings of two
teams, all judges agree that while Opening Government gave speeches with more stylistic flare,
Closing Government had better argumentation. Your chair suggests that while Closing
Government should be ranked above Opening Government, it may be a good idea to give the
speakers from Opening Government higher speaker points than the Closing Government
speakers, as a way to recognize their impressive speaking style.
You...
a) Agree - speaker points are a good way to give credit to teams that have good style.
b) Disagree with the chair and argue that Opening Government should be ranked above Closing
Government, as style should be weighed at least as heavily as argumentation.
c) Point out to the chair that this would mean that the team with lower speaker point would win (a ‘low point
win’), which is not allowed.
d) Agree, but make sure that the speaker points of the Closing Government are also high as speaker points
should reflect both style and content.
e) Say nothing. Speaker points are up to the chair to decide.
If you would like to explain your previous answer, you may do so.
2) You are judging the debate ‘This House Would Ban Smoking’. The main Opening Opposition line
of argument is that the legislature would never pass a ban on cigarettes.
How much merit would you give this line of argumentation?
a) Not much. It is untrue that legislatures would not pass a smoking ban, as it is illegal in Bhutan.
b) I would credit Opening Opposition with making a strong argument - they noticed that
Opening Government did not explain how the ban would be passed, which undermines all of Opening
Government's analysis.
c) It depends on how the government teams respond. Unless a government team tackles the issue, the
Opening Opposition should get full credit for the argument.
d) No credit at all. Opening Government is entitled to assume that the legislature would pass the ban
because Opening Government teams are generally allowed to assume that the policies they propose will
be enacted.
e) It depends on how well the argument is made. If the argument is fully explained, Opening Opposition
should get full credit for the argument.
If you would like to explain your previous answer, you may do so here.
3) You are the chair judge in Round 3 at WUDC 2014. After what you thought was a very good
Opening Opposition, Closing Opposition were not able to add persuasive new material to the
debate. In fact, Opening Opposition were so good, that you are having trouble thinking of what
you could have added in Closing Opposition.
Which of the following is true?
a) While Closing Opposition were, in some respects, unlucky to have to speak after a good team, a judge
should not credit them for anything that wasn't said.
b) A judge should remember that debating is a game of skill, not luck. Closing Opposition were unlucky in
this debate, and the judge should treat them as if they had added new material to the debate, on the
assumption that they would have come up with a good extension if they had been after a weaker Opening
Opposition team.
c) The motion is flawed because in a fair debate the Closing Opposition would have had material to add. I
would rank Closing Opposition as one of the top two teams in the round to compensate for the fact that
the motion was unfair.
d) Closing Opposition automatically must come fourth if they did not provide an extension.
e) Closing Opposition should be ranked 2nd, behind Opening Opposition. While Closing Opposition did not
add persuasive new material to the debate, they were on the bench that won.
If you would like to explain your previous answer, you may do so here.
Open Questions
Keep your answers to under 200 words
4) Please describe how you would generally structure and deliver a typical oral adjudication. What things do
you talk about and in what order?
5) What criterion do you use to determine which team wins a debate?
6) The debate is ‘This house opposes organized religion’. Opening Opposition argues: Religion
teaches strong values and increases a society’s sense of community. People who are religious
tend to donate more money to charities and be more helpful to strangers. Religion thus helps
significantly reduce poverty and hardship, which in turn provides substantial benefits to all
members of society, not just religious people.
In your opinion, which of the following best responds to this argument if made by the Government? For this
question, please provide an explanation of your choice.
a) The speaker failed to prove that religious people actually donate more to charities or are more helpful to
strangers.
b) The speaker viewed religion through a very narrow prism and failed to see that, on the whole, religion has
created much hardship as well. This can be seen through the crusades, the Jewish-Arab Conflict and
many other cases where religion sparked animosity and tensions.
c) The speaker claimed that religion "helps significantly reduce poverty and hardship, which in turn provides
substantial benefits to all members of society, not just religious people." Oh come on!
d) It isn't at all clear that those people who are religious don't have a greater sense of community to begin
with. They are just the kind who like to help other human beings, and would do so with or without religion.
e) Marx clearly stated that religion is opium to the masses. Obviously, the previous speaker has never heard
of Karl Marx's theories on false consciousness.
Please explain your answer to question 6:
7)
What, if anything, is wrong with the ballot above?
Thank you for your application. Email the form to both michael.baer@chennaiworlds.com and
harish.natarajan@chennaiworlds.com.