Judging Debate (also) Makes
Friends!
HEnDA Judging Seminar
25 Oct 2020

YOSHIRO YANO

矢野 善郎

The 1st All Japan High School English Debate
Tournament (Gifu, 16-17 Dec 2006)
一般社団法人 全国高校英語ディベート連盟
All Japan High School English Debate
Association (HEnDA)1. WHAT IS DEBATE?
ディベートとはどのような議論か
2.a Contention in argument; dispute, controversy;
discussion; esp. the discussion of questions ofpublic interest in Parliament or in any assembly.
― Oxford English Dictionary 2nd Ed.

① Public questions公共の問題について，② Opposing viewpoints対立する複数の立場③ Third party (judges, juries, audience)
中立の第三者

①DEBATES HAVE TOPICS
1. Academic debates (Policy debate,Parliamentary debates) have
explicitly-announced topics.
2. “Topics” are also called “Resolutions”,“Propositions”, “Motions”.
Resolved: That the Japanese Government
should ban production and sales of fossilfueled cars, including hybrid cars, by 2035.

②DEBATES HAVE

CLASHES“clash” = 意見などの衝突
ちなみに“crash” = 暴落・暴走, “crush” = 粉砕・べたぼれ

Debate Skills＝How to make CLASHES•
Sufficient number of Clashes•
on Meaningful issues•
in a Productive （friendly） way

③ DEBATES HAVE JUDGES
JUDGEAcademic debates teach also thestudents how to judge objectively
Affirmative
肯定Negative否定2. ACADEMIC DEBATES IN THE
WORLD TODAY
教育のためのディベートの世界の流れ
事前準備型（policy debate アメリカ式）
Evidence, Preparation
即興型（parliamentary debate 英国式）
Rhetorical, Impromptu

Fundamental goals of HEnDA
Debate format design.
1. Teach how to make meaningful,productive clashes in friendly manner
Respect opponents’ arguments
Respect facts, logic
2. Teach 4 English skills:
Listening, reading, writing, speaking
3. Importance of teamwork

Features of the HEnDA Format
Features

PolicyP.F.

Parli.

PurposeTopic: Previously
Announced

Yes

Yes

No

Even ESL beginners can say
something. Improvement by
repeating the same topic.

Speech Roles: Clear

No/
Yes

Yes

No

Increase effective Clashes.

Speech Order: Fixed

Yes

No

No/
Yes

Least confusion

Speech Interruptions:
Prohibited

Yes

Yes

No

Teach importance oflistening to others.

Use of Evidence

Yes

Yes

No

Teach “Informationliteracy”

Limits of Issue types

No

Yes

Yes

Avoid over heatedcompetitions

Team of 4 (out of 6)
members

NoNo

No/
Yes

Teach teamwork
Open to non-elitesIssue-oriented Judging(not Speech points)

Yes

Yes

No

Teach fair, objective decision
makings. Effective feedbacks.

HEnDA Format limits the kind ofissues: 議論の種類の制限
0. “Meta Theories” (“Kritik”, “Counter-warrants”)
そもそもディベートとは何か，
1. Topicality (Definition/Interpretation of thetopic)
政策論題の定義・解釈
2. Plan / Counter-plan (or “Models”)
政策の具体例，想定例
3. Advantage, Disadvantage
政策のもたらす利点・弊害

3. WHY DEBATE?

JUDICIAL DEBATES
司法論争
JUDGE
Judges, Jury 裁判官，裁判員AFF.
Plaintiff 原告

NEG.
Defendant 被告

SCIENTIFIC DEBATES
科学論争
JUDGE
Scientists‘ society 学界

AFF.
New Paradigm
新説NEG.
Current
Paradigm 通説

MANAGEMENT DEBATES
経営論争
JUDGE
Board 取締役会

AFF.
New businessideas 新企画

NEG.
business as usual
従来のやり方MANAGEMENT DEBATES
経営論争
JUDGE
Board 取締役会

AFF.
New businessideas 新企画

NEG.
business as usual
従来のやり方POLICY (ADMINISTRATIVE: NOT
POLITICAL) DEBATES
政策論争
JUDGE
Policy Maker

AFF.
New Policy

NEG.
Policy as usual
従来のやり方WHY DEBATE HEnDA?
WHY JUDGE?
1. Debate opens up your future!
Law, Science, Management Administration
2. Debate makes Friends (Globally)!
Why Judge?
3. To make Judge Friends (again)!
4. To train yourself as a rational Decision Maker
5. To know more about Japan and the World

HENDA MAKEFRIENDS PLEDGE
As a member of the HEnDA High School
Debate Tournament, I hereby declare that I
will strive to develop my integrity as I workwith others to inquire into the wisdom andskills of debate. I also pledge to collaborate,
in a spirit of fair play, in order to make thetournament a success. Most important of all,I pledge to respect and make friends withfellow members.

BREAK

Let’s start again from 3:25PM

6. BASICS OF HEnDA
DEBATE JUDGING

WINNER: IT’S JUST ABOUT
FOUR ISSUES
Advantage 1
AD2
Disadvantage 1
DA2
Decision is based on how well theteams’ attacks/defends these fourissues.
All other elements are Noise!

HEnDA Policy Debate JUDGING (1)• Clashes are important.
• It’s all about ADs/DAs… Just those• Speeches are just the means, not thedecisive ends.
• Deciding the winner is not adding individual
speech points.
• Evidence/Facts/Causality/Evaluation areimportant:• Eloquence, cheap rhetoric, speech style…
not so much

HEnDA Policy Debate JUDGING (2)• It’s not political debate• Affirmative side is not the “Government”• Rather think of Policy debate judges as an
Ideal administrative policy maker thatrationally weighs pros/cons presented by thedebaters (= policy consultants).

HEnDA Policy Debate JUDGING (3)• Team debate. Team’s effort.
• Ignoring opponent’s cases/attacks
should be crucial.
• Interruption of opponents are prohibited.
Civility! (Exceptions are Q&As, but thatshould also be minimal)
Penalties can be given to rude debaters.
But winning or losing aren’t decided bycivility

JUDICIAL DEBATES
司法論争
JUDGE
Judges, Jury 裁判官，裁判員

Similarities: Evidence
Burden of Proof
Impartiality
Difference:
AFF.
NEG.
Few/NoPlaintiff
原告 interventions.
Defendant 被告

SCIENTIFIC DEBATES
科学論争
JUDGE
Scientists‘ society 学界

Similarities: Evidence,
Facts, Reasoning
Difference:
AFF.
NEG.
You are not a truth-seeker.
New Paradigm
Current
新説Paradigm 通説

POLICY (ADMINISTRATIVE: NOT
POLITICAL) DEBATES
政策論争
JUDGE
Policy Maker

Decision just by AD, DA for thepeople(Not by political interests)
AFF.
New PolicyNEG.
Policy as usual
従来のやり方JUDGING AD/DASTRENGTH

Follow the “3 sup-pointstheory”
A)Present situation
B)EffectC)ImportanceAffirmative Constructive Speech
Advantage:

Possible Attacks
否定側からの反論

a) Present Situation
現状のままでは，良くない問題がおきる（または成長などがある程度でとまってしまう）

On a) 本当にプランがないといけないのか必要性（固有性uniqueness）への疑問

b) Effect
プランを取ると，現状の問題を解決Solveする効果がある

On b) 本当にプランには効果があるのか 効果への疑問c) Importance
こうした問題を解決することは重要である（価値Value）/原則論Principles

On c) そもそも本当に重要な問題なのか

Negative Constructive Speech
Disadvantage:a) Present Situation
現状のままなら，あまり問題はおきていないPossible Attacks
肯定側からの反論
On a) どちらにしろ問
題は起きるのではないか。固有性
uniquenessへの疑問

b) EffectOn b)本当に悪くなるプランを行うことで，悪い効果があり，問題 のか。悪くなると言うが起きる効果への疑問
On c) 問題と言えるほc) Importance
この問題をふせぐことは，たいへん重要だ どの問題なのか
重要性への疑問Affirmative Constructive Speech

Advantage: Paris Agreementa) Present Situation
To keep Paris Agreement
CO2 should be drastically decreased.
f.f. cars are causing massive CO2

Possible Attacks
否定側からの反論
On a) Gov. is coping
to meet theAgreementb) EffectOn b) EV will not be
Japan produces huge amount of new efficient as electricity
cars. Plan action will replace them non will still be made by f.f.
emission vehicles.
c) ImportanceOn c) ParisGovｓ should keep the Paris Agreement. Agreement is not
It is the only future for the whole planet important in itself.

Negative Constructive Speech

Disadvantage: Massive
Unemployment, Bankruptcya) Present Situation
Japan has a huge car industry.
Car-parts industry.

b) Effect
Plan will cause massive
unemployment and bankruptcy.

c) ImportanceCore part of Japanese economy
will be harmed. This is serious.

Possible Attacks
肯定側からの反論
On a) Japanese car
industry is alreadyshrinking. It will losecompetition further if we
don’t start now.
On b) 15 years will beenough to shift to thenew car market.

On c) Out of dateindustries often goes.
Pain is relatively shortterm

Affirmative Constructive Speech

Advantage: Paris Agreementa) Present Situation
To keep Paris Agreement
be drastically
CO2 shouldThe
presenting
sidedecreased.
has thef.f. cars are causing massive CO2stronger Burden of Proof

Possible Attacks
否定側からの反論

NEG AttackOn a) Gov. is coping
should deny
to meet theeither ONE ofAgreement
the 3 sub-pointsa) or b) or c) inanwillADOn b) EVnot beb) EffectJapan produces hugeamountof new efficient as electricity
AFF
mustcars. Plan action will replace them non will still
NEG
Attacks
be madeby f.f.
defendALL3emission vehicles.

don’t
sub-pointsc) ImportancenecessarilyOnc)
Parisa)andb)
andc)
Govｓ should keep the Paris Agreement. Agreement
is notneedevidence
anwholeAD planet important in itself.
It is the only future forinthe
to disprove ADsNegative Constructive Speech

Disadvantage: Massive
Unemployment, Bankruptcy

Possible Attacks
肯定側からの反論

AFF Attacka) Present Situation
On a) shouldJapanesedenycar
Japan has a huge car industry.
industry is alreadyeitherONEThe
presenting
Car-parts
industry. side has the shrinking.
It willlose ofthe 3 sub-points
further if westronger Burden of Proof competition
don’ta)startornow.
b) or c) inOn b) 15 years will beb) Effecta DAenoughtoshiftto thePlan will cause massiveNEG
must
new car market.
unemployment and bankruptcy.
AFF Attacksdefend ALL 3
don’t
sub-pointsc) ImportancenecessarilyOnc)
Outof datea)
andb)
andc)
Core part of Japanese economy
industries
oftengoes.
needevidence
a DA
will be harmed. This isinserious.
Pain is relatively shortterm to disprove DAs

BURDEN OF PROOF 証明の責任
AFF has the Burden of Proof in terms of ADs:
AFF has to defend ALL 3 sub-pointsa), b), and c) in an AD. (Each, at least partially)
NEG has to deny just ONE of these 3 sub-points,
and the AD is gone.
NEG has the BoP in terms of DAs:
NEG has to defend ALL 3 sub-points a), b), and c)in an DA. (Each, at least partially)
AFF has to deny just ONE: a) or b) or c) and theDA is gone.

1. List of issues＝ 4. Strength

2. Probability

× 3. Value (Impact)

Hi / Lo.

Large / Small

Strong / Weak / None

Advantage 2

Hi / Lo

Large / Small

Strong / Weak / None

Disadvantage 1

Hi / Lo

Large / Small

Strong / Weak / None

Disadvantage 2

Hi / Lo

Large / Small

Strong / Weak / None

Advantage 1
だ5. Compare the net sum of the issues:

AFF won:If AD 1 + AD 2

＞ DA 1 + DA 2

NEG won:If DA 1 + DA 2

≧ AD 1 + AD 2

Your VOTING ISSUE was:

1. List of issues＝ 4. Strength

2. Probability

× 3. Value (Impact)

Advantage 1

Hi / Lo

Large / Small

Strong / Weak / None

Advantage 2

Hi / Lo

Large / Small

Strong / Weak / None

Disadvantage 1

Hi / Lo

Large / Small

Strong / Weak / None

Hi / Lo

Large / Small

Strong / Weak / Nonea)Present
situationでなくb)Effectがもたらされる可能性【証拠・事実】Climatec)Importance(b-a)×(c)どれだけ重要な問題な 【事実と価値を掛けのか合わせたものが，議【価値】
論の強さ】

Unemploy.
Disadvantage 2
5. Compare the net sum of the issues:✔

AFF won:If AD 1 + AD 2＞ DA 1 + DA 2

NEG won:If DA 1 + DA 2

≧ AD 1 + AD 2

Your VOTING ISSUE was:

DA1 Unemployment

JUDGING DEBATES “NO TIES”
AD, DA = Probability (factual evidence)
× Importance (value)
AFF win: If AD 1 + AD 2 ＞ DA 1 + DA 2
NEG win: If DA 1 + DA 2 ＞ AD 1 + AD 2

Disregard “New Arguments”

7. TYPICAL BAD JUDGES
1.
Style-Judge スタイル・ジャッジ
Subjective judging by speech styles
You should be issue-based judges, not speech basedjudges
2.

Cherry-pickers つまみ食いジャッジ

You should always take notes, and try considering allthe interactions.
3.

Judge-Debaters

You are not debaters, leave the debates to thedebaters!

8. JUDGES’ ANNOUNCEMENTS OF
WINNERS AND COMMENTS
判定理由とコメント(1) 褒め言葉 Praise(2) アドバイス Advices(3) 各争点の判定 Outcomes of Each
Issue (Advantages, Disadvantages)(4) 試合の勝ち負け Comparison ofAD/DA - Decision

9. Specific HEnDA rules

ISSUES SHOULD ONLY HAVE A
SINGLE IMPACT: NO CRAMMING
Bad example:
AD: Decreasing Gas cars will prevent
global warming and also air pollution
Judge should just take one “mostimportant" portion of the issue(Try not to be unfair for the other team, takethe part that was attacked most, ignore theother parts)

EVIDENCE
Judges can check the evidence (andits source) after the roundIGNORE NEW ARGUMENTS
後出し禁止！

BEST DEBATERS
Each Judge Pick One debater that Contributed
most to the round outcome.
Not (necessarily) the most fluent English
speaker. Contribution is measured by“Clashes”.
Nearly always picked from the Winning TeamYou can pick from the Losing Team
(Exceptional cases; when the round is very
close, and her/his speech made the round a
toss-up, even though losing in the end.)

COMMUNICATIONPOINTS
各ジャッジは，各チームに5点満点・最低点１点のコミュニケーション点をつけることにします。（小数点はなし，整数のみ）。コミュニケーション点は，各チームがどれだけ効果的に聴衆・ジャッジとコミュニケーションをとることに成功したかで採点することにします。基準は，反則などの減点がない限り，次のようなスケールで採点することにします。
（平均が３となるようにします。５や１は例外的な点数とします）

ONLINE DEBATESANY DIFFERENCE?
エビデンスの貸し借りくらい？

10. THIS YEAR’S DEBATE TOPIC
Resolved: That the Japanese
Government should ban production andsales of fossil-fueled cars, includinghybrid cars, by 2035.
日本政府は，（ハイブリッド車も含む）化石燃料車の製造と販売を2035年までに禁止すべきである。

DEFINITIONS
1. “Fossil-fueled cars” assumes all passenger
cars which use fossil fuel. “Fossil fuel” in thissense includes petroleum (or its derivations
such as gasoline, diesel fuel, etc.), natural-gas,and coal (and their derivations as well). “Hybridcars”, should also be the target of the ban aslong as it has fossil-fueled engines. (Technically,so called “plug-in hybrids” are more like electriccars, but to make things simple, they should becounted as “hybrids” and should be part of theban, as long as they also have gas engines.)

DEFINITIONS

2. Alternatives for “fossil-fueled”
passenger cars are not defined here.
They should not be limited by plans.
(Meaning, it is up to predictions using
evidence: Electric cars, hydrogen cars,etc. may be the front runners.)

DEFINITIONS

3. “Production and sales” should mean
production and sales in Japan. The usageof fossil-fueled cars is not automaticallybanned at the moment of 2035.

DEFINITIONS

4. Production and sales of fossil-fueled(non-passenger) trucks, special vehicles
are not included in the ban (thus out of
this debate topic).

NO OTHER PLANS WILL BE
ALLOWED, SUCH AS:•Banning the usage of gas cars.

•Heavily taxing the gas cars. Adding new subsidies
to ban usage.

•Regulating electric power plants (like banningthermal plants).

•

Banning the sales of USED cars abroad.

•Subsidies to help out the gas car/car-parts industry

However, debaters can argue as a “prediction” in theirADs or DAs that some of these will happen in thefuture (if they can somehow prove it with evidence).

DEFINITIONS

他のプランの付け足しは，基本的にダメ×ガソリン車の使用禁止
×ガソリン車の重税化，補助金の付け足し
×火力発電所の廃止・禁止
×中古車の輸入・輸出禁止
×旧ガソリン車産業を救う補助金
ただし，こうしたことを将来の日本が行うようになるという予想（エビデンス付）で論じることはもちろんOK！

JUDGING TIPS 1
Detect good Attack speech
Number 6: On b) effect. They said car parts industry will collapse.
However[第１要素，反論点を具体的に指示：どこのどのような議論に反論するのか]
But No proof. This is just speculation without evidence. Actuallyaccording to xxx in 2019, most of the industry already plans to shift toEV parts … unquote[第2要素，相手の議論の欠陥：具体的にどんな欠陥があるのか]
Unless there is clear evidence that car parts industry will actuallycollapse there is no DA.
[第3要素，議論の証明責任・小括。相手は具体的に何を証明すべきなのかそしてそれが証明されないとジャッジはどう判定すべきなのか。]

JUDGING TIPS 2
Roughly speaking:Quite a lot of debates are finished by the endof the Defense speech.
Dropping a good attack should be treated fatal.

TAKING FLOWS 議論のフロー（flow, 流れ）を紙に記録する（紙に書かないと議論の流れを忘れてしまうことが多い。大切なことを言い忘れるか否かは，メモの有無で決まることが多い）a) 肯定・否定で別の色のペンを使う
b) 紙を縦列に分けて，その縦列の中にメモを取る。横いっぱいに書かず，常に後でメモが右側に書けるような余白を作っておくc) 論争点を対応させる。例えば左端1列目に立論を書く。次に反対側から反駁されたら，その真右にメモを取る。（これにより議論が集中している箇所と，反論し忘れている箇所などが見やすくなる）
d) 短く，主張の要点やデータの有無，骨子のみを書く。省略記号などを使うe) 紙の無駄遣いを恐れない。大きな争点となりそうなら別の紙に書く（メリット・デメリットごとに紙を代える）

Make Friends!
Let’s join in the gang of
debate judges that inspire thestudents all over Japan!