I. Background
Humorously speaking, for the debate, the biggest dilemma and charm comes from the subjectivity of evaluation criteria.
What is subjective? As we all know, the debate is not measured by one point like football and basketball, nor is there a clear winning or losing standard like DOTA. Therefore, no matter how objective the judges are, it is impossible to judge the competition without their own evidence. This subjectivity has brought great pain to all debaters. Because there is no objective and unified standard, people often lose or win inexplicably.
But on the other hand, this subjectivity has brought about the diversification of debate development. Because I don't know which aspect the judges focus on, I have to give consideration to both aspects. Different styles of contests have also brought many famous competitions to the debate.
But in a relatively small range, the judges' tastes can be guessed, so in order to win the competition, debaters usually "cater" to this taste. For example, in the first few rounds of the full debate in 2002, teams found that the judges did not dislike sophistry, and even regarded sophistry as a "strategy", so various wonderful debates appeared later. Generally speaking, the style of a school debate team will be influenced by the judges in the school competition. If the judges of the school competition are the first in the debate, then the school must put the main preparation time on the running-in of the debate; If the judges of the school competition are watching the attack and defense on the field, then the operation will be mentioned in a more important position than the argument.
But that's the problem. The concept of debate in a school is largely dominated by judges (or teachers or students), but this influenced and dominant concept is not necessarily the correct concept (most school debate concepts are narrow). More importantly, once these debaters get into the psychological habit and think that they can win the game by doing one thing (for example, the argument is well done or the scene is one-sided), it is not far from losing the game.
Before talking about how to judge the debate, let's talk about some history. The Chinese Debate Competition that we are familiar with first started in 1986, and was carried forward in the first national debate competition in 1993. The earliest purpose of the Chinese Debate Competition was to promote Putonghua, which is also the reason why Fudan won the championship with gorgeous rhetoric. But by the end of the last century, this empty splendor began to bore the audience, and the "logical debate" was pushed onto the historical stage. In addition to the debate, the failure of Wuda 200 1 was also due to the change of public taste for the debate at that time. It must be mentioned that the concept of debating competition is constantly changing and developing with the times, which requires debaters to constantly seek innovation and change. Of course, I personally object to using the present concept to criticize the previous team.
After 2005, debaters in Chinese mainland seriously reflected on the debate contest, because the so-called "logical skills" were played by debate teams such as Electronic Science and Technology University of China (it should be said that this was a common phenomenon at that time, and one team could not be blamed). This mainly includes three aspects: 1, the return to the requirement of debating beauty, which is simply a counterattack against the requirement of language ability; 2. Policy debates and current political debates have begun to replace traditional pure philosophical propositions and become the mainstream of debate competitions; 3. The pursuit of value judgment in debate has been elevated to the highest position beyond language, logic and facts (this is the result of the combination of debates in Chinese mainland and Taiwan Province Province).
Today, although the debate has not attracted as much attention as it did in the last century, the concept of the debate has gradually matured in the constant debate. From a big perspective, debaters all over the country have gradually accepted the concept that the key to judging the debate competition lies in the word "persuasion". In other words, judges no longer judge by simple elements (such as arguments, scenes, language, logic) ...), but compare the two competing parties as a whole to see who can convince themselves better.
For example, everyone has seen that "the advantages of college students' entrepreneurship outweigh the disadvantages". At that time, Huang Zhizhong was not as popular as when he first debuted. On the contrary, at that time, all mainland debaters were voicing: "Such an illogical debater can only grandstanding, why can he win?" ? But the judges honestly said, "No way, I really think what Huang Zhizhong said is more reasonable than those mainland debaters who only talk about logic! "Of course, different debates have different emphases. For some empirical debates, if we use the general style of play, the result will be, hehe (~ o ~) ~ zz.
Second, misunderstanding of judgment.
Let's take a look at several common misunderstandings:
1, argument centrism, this kind of judge thinks that argument is the only judgment of debate.
Is argument the core of the debate? This statement is different, but it is absolutely wrong to demonstrate centralism. Quite simply, debate is "rebuttal+argument". Regardless, arguments and arguments are not the same thing. If we can only judge the result through debate, then what is the need for debate? As long as the two teams are prepared to submit reports within a certain period of time. Unfortunately, debate is not an academic discussion, and "confrontation" is an indispensable element of debate.
Let me add here that statement and argument are not the same concept. When I was a judge before, I was often blocked by the losing team and asked me, "Senior, you yourself said that our debate draft was better. Why did you say that our debate was not good?" How can I put it? Didn't your senior tell you that the debate is a system, a complete framework for the whole team to play, and a vision of the debate team in the eyes of the judges? But the debate draft is only a draft, just a basic summary. For example, an argument was put forward in a debate draft, but it was not developed later. Naturally, I acquiesced that this argument was invalid.
Therefore, debate centralism ignores the significance and charm of "debate", which is not desirable. But I never deny the significance of argument. Personally, I always put the argument first.
2. The judge of logic centrism thinks that the most important thing in the debate is logic. Even if a team's scene is one-sided, the evidence is detailed. As long as it is blocked by the other party's logic, it should be judged as negative.
Is logic the core of the argument? In my opinion, this view is too nonsense, but it happened that this idea spread widely. Logic, like language, is the basic element of debate and the basic skill of debaters. Why do we advocate that debaters should talk about logic, not because logic itself is the core of the debate, but because the logic of most debaters is really poor. If you look at Weibo and everyone, you will find that many rumors that are completely nonsense and illogical will be widely reproduced, including many debaters. This lack of basic logical skills has led to various circular arguments and double standards on the field. Some people even advertised "defending arguments" as a brilliant skill on Chinese homepages.
Here's an analogy. It's easier to understand. The topic is the network real name registration system.
Counterparty: "The online real-name registration system will cause great costs, and it is a great burden for any website to update hundreds of billions of sets of data every day."
Positive: "This is because the technology is not perfect, as long as it is perfect, it will be OK."
Counterparty: "The online real-name registration system may bring more serious security problems. Hacking attacks in South Korea have caused data leakage of millions of users. "
Positive: "This is because the technology is not perfect, as long as it is perfect, it will be OK."
Counterparty: "But the technical ability of hackers is also improving. Your technology is perfect, hackers will study more advanced methods to remove ... "
Positive: "this is still caused by imperfect technology. As long as it is perfect, it is OK. "
Reverse: "…"
This is a game I saw with my own eyes. The opposing side was one-sided, with more detailed evidence and better cooperation, but the positive side won. After the game, the judges said, "You can't do anything about each other's logic!"
Yes, if I want to prove that you are not a man, no matter what evidence you produce, I will say that these are all forgeries, and you have nothing to do with me.
Logic is really the bone of debate, and one can't support it without a skeleton. But when you look at the beauty of a girl, do you just look at her skeleton photos under the X-ray? Obviously not!
3. Deep centralism This is the derivative of argument centralism. This part of the judges believe that the evil forces generally believe that "since the debater wants to pursue the truth, then the debate must be deep, and even if it is deep, it will be judged as negative, because the debater should not be superficial." The concept of debate in the minds of these judges is "debate is for the pursuit of truth". I won't expand this concept, just discuss this kind of judgment.
So we can see that under some wonderful debates, many teams can be eliminated by drawing lots, because many positions are doomed to be impossible to dig out much depth.
Example: It is more difficult to laugh than to cry/cry than to laugh (this is not an entertainment competition, it is the topic of a formal competition).
In fact, after a little experience, we will know that a positive position can suddenly reveal that we should be optimistic and open-minded, rather than passively avoiding it; Naturally, the opposition can only say that there is great pressure to vent in today's society, but out of sophistication, it is impossible to vent, so we can only swallow it.
After the opponent crushed the square to the point where he couldn't speak, several judges said: "The value of the opponent is too deep, just talk about crying itself. The square has excavated an open-minded attitude from laughter, which reflects a positive attitude and is deeper, so it should be the square that wins. "
The mistake of deep centralism is that the strategies that the debate team can choose are different because of different debates and positions, and cannot be measured by the same standard. It's like when we shoot a war theme, it's easy to shoot a humanistic height, but if we want to shoot a documentary about dormitory life, it's usually about friendship. I'm afraid it would be disgusting to shoot only one human height.
The essence of the debate is to convince people that if a team can easily convince everyone of its position, please don't veto their efforts for a week because they are "not deep".
4. Operation concentration This often appears in some sophomore judges. They have some ideas about the debate, but they are not profound. They have a certain mastery of skills, but they are not skilled, so they pay more attention to operation and attack and defense. It should be noted that there is nothing wrong with this in itself, but the problem is to take operation as the center.
Corresponding to argument centralism, many debaters and judges are superstitious in operation when judging. Even if a team is full of nonsense, as long as it is skilled in asking questions and the battlefield is smooth enough, it can win under these judges. However, I will show my attitude before criticizing. I have always attached great importance to surgery. I think it is equally important to run in with a perfect argument for the development and demonstration of the argument. If you work hard for a week, but in the end you only make 10% preparation and finally lose, who can you blame? However, just because operation is very important, it should not be considered as the center. ....
Of course, if it is really one-sided, I tend to win even if the content of this team is flawed. Except for digressive arguments). But it doesn't matter if you have one or two games. In the long run, an operation-oriented jury will lead debaters to pay less attention to the excavation of arguments, which is very dangerous.
There is also a team, which was widely called "technical flow" by mainland debaters a few years ago. It pays attention to "it doesn't matter if you make an argument, as long as you can operate it." Therefore, we often see all kinds of unreasonable avoidance and pushing in the competitions of these teams, even at the expense of sophistry and perjury, but such teams can often gain the advantage in the scene. Personally, I think the judges should nip such a team without sincere communication in the bud.
Ignoring the imbalance of the debate, we all know that diving and other sports have difficulty coefficients. If an action is simple, the difficulty coefficient is 2, you get 10, and the final total score is 20. If an action is difficult, the difficulty coefficient is 3, you get 8 points, and the final total score is 24.
Otherwise, Fu Mingxia, will they choose the most difficult action to do everything?
So is the debate. Due to the negligence of the organizers, many obviously unbalanced debates can often be encountered. If the judges still use the same standard to measure the two sides on the court, it will cause de facto unfairness. However, many junior judges usually ignore the different topics, and when asked afterwards, they will say with emotion: "Who asked you to draw this position?"
Everyone should be deeply touched by this and will not start.
6. Other most disgusting judges I have ever met all entered the judgment with their own opinions. They will think that the pros should fight like this, and the opponents should fight like that, and then make a judgment.
Of course, there are other wonderful things, such as:
Some judges only look at whether the scene is lively or not ... some judges only look at the sound. ....
Some judges only look at the attitude of both sides. ....
Some judges only look at whether a girl is beautiful or not. ....
Third, the ethics of judgment.
Debate contest is the most comprehensive activity to cultivate ability in university activities I have ever seen. What it shows is the overall excavation and display of a topic by a team (including members of the preparation team and sparring team). Everyone knows the hardships of preparation and the tears after losing the game, so as judges, we should be more cautious and serious.
So as a judge, what is the most basic ethics?
1, please listen carefully. In order to prepare for a game, you can read dozens of books and look up millions of words. I could hardly sleep for more than a week, thinking and practicing day and night. ...
But the judges only need to pay more than 30 minutes, take notes and vote. Of course, I know that the judges are very tired in these thirty minutes, even more tired than the debater. They need to synthesize the arguments of both sides, sort out the offensive and defensive of both sides, think and understand the topic by themselves, and understand some unclear points mentioned by both sides. ...
But since you are the judge of the competition, please be serious. Don't chat with the beautiful woman next to you, don't chat with others about QQ, send text messages and make phone calls, and don't let the audience wander and finally give a result. As a judge, regardless of the level, you should at least record the performance of both sides and try to understand the meaning of both sides.
This is respect for the debate, but also for yourself.
2. Don't judge the victory or defeat alone. In the second part just now, I was actually demonstrating a point: don't use a single standard to measure the game.
I value argument, yes, but I won't just look at argument; I value operation, yes, but I won't just look at operation; I value logic, language expression, manners and scenes, and whether a girl is beautiful or not, but I won't judge only one of them.
Debate is comprehensive, depending on both language and logic; It depends not only on cooperation, but also on personal standards; It depends on both argument and operation. Any element is an important part of the charm of debate, which cannot be missing or ignored.
Every referee should think carefully about his own judgment and think carefully before the game. What should I do when there is a conflict between argument and operation? When logic and language have their own advantages, how should I choose? Am I doing the right thing? Why are all those games in history this result, which are reasonable and which are unreasonable? What do the judges think of the game that is very confused about the result? ....
I think, if these are all figured out, there will be no misunderstanding listed in the second part.
Don't think of yourself as a debater on the court. I hate a referee who will bring himself into the game regardless of the specific attack and defense on the court. For example, the pro put forward a flawed argument, but the opponent did not attack it. At this time, of course, it is necessary to set up a pro. But these judges said, "I found a loophole in the square, so the square doesn't seem to be established!" " "
If this is an Oregon game, it's understandable. After all, some rules are untenable at first. But if it's a traditional debate, let the judges die.
The most important thing for the judges is to remain objective and neutral. Debate is a confrontation between the two teams, and the judges should carefully record the arguments and confrontation of both sides, and finally give the scores that both sides deserve. Instead of turning yourself into a positive or negative side, not a debater on the field to argue.
4. Don't expose with prejudice. It is normal for judges to have their own opinions on a debate. Generally, each side puts forward an argument, and the jury will measure the effectiveness. But I think that this kind of judgment and measurement of arguments should be based on "common sense" rather than "personal views".
What do you mean? For example, in a competition, Pro put forward a view that "more roads should be built to solve the congestion problem". There is nothing wrong with this statement, and the opposing side has no objection, but it is not the fundamental solution. However, the judge of this competition is an angry young man. He firmly believes that building roads is corruption, so it is not valid to directly judge the positive statement. This kind of judge is crazy, even if the road is really built, it usually brings corruption, and there is nothing wrong with the argument itself.
There is also the pure heart-to-heart argument I mentioned at the end of the second part. I often see some old professors think, "If you are positive, you should say Scientific Outlook on Development! The opposing side should say people-oriented! Why don't you say it! " Debaters are usually helpless when they meet such judges, but if we cry roast meat, we must avoid this situation.
5, don't blow the black whistle, this does not need to be unfolded.
6. On the ugliness of debate, if you see the foundation of a team, it is obvious perjury. ...
If you see a team not always answering questions, but always planting. ...
If you see a team that knowingly commits a crime, it is still extremely arrogant. ...
If you find that one team deliberately digress to catch another team off guard. ...
No problem, seeing this kind of team, I support the judges to judge directly, and even ignore the on-site advantages obtained by these unreasonable means. Because I think judges should have their own ethics, but debaters should also have their own bottom line.
Debate is utilitarian. If a team wins the championship in this way, it is conceivable that the style of the whole school will change next year. Maintaining the right path should be the bounden duty of a judge. Of course, the maintenance of the right path here does not include the "negative judgment because there is no depth" mentioned just now.
Four. conclusion
You are welcome to search Mr. Huang Zhizhong's criteria for judging the debate. He wrote in detail, including how to avoid questions and deduct points. I always hope to promote such a model: the judges will make their own evaluation criteria public before the competition, so that teams can be prepared; After the game, the judges should try to write some brief comments to let each team know where they played well and where they didn't play well, and help them grow up.
Many schools have special competition scoring tables. Senior Blue Star of Zhejiang University also designed a special scoring table for the debate, and CCTV's national debate also has a special sub-table. You can download and compare them online.
My personal judgment is not so detailed, it is a very simple multiplication formula, that is, the score of a team = the argument played * the degree of implementation. If the debate is obviously unbalanced, I will multiply it by a less difficult factor. If a team gets 80 points for putting forward a good argument, but only 50% of it is done under the interference of the other side, then the final score of the team is 40 points; If a team generally has only 60 points, but 80% of them have been achieved, then the team's final score is 48 points. As for which one to score, it depends on experience. Then this formula also reflects my taste: I am a judge who tends to argue.
Debate is subjective and there is no unified objective standard to judge it. However, as long as every judge can adhere to fairness and objectivity and strictly observe his own ethics, the development of the debate will certainly be benign. As a debater, no matter winning or losing, only by actively participating in the interaction and communication with opponents and judges can we make better and faster progress.
So, this is it.
Related articles:
1. How to be a good judge in the debate?
2. How should the judges comment on this debate?
3. How did the judges comment on this debate?
4. Debate skills
5. Skills of preparing materials for the debate.