【Article】理性的評価の何が悪い？(1) What's the matter with Matter? (1)

【雑誌記事】マシー，ケヴィン．2005．「理性的評価の何が悪い？」．『モナッシュ・ディベーティング・レビュー』．4巻．42-43頁．モナッシュ・アソシエーション・オブ・ディベーターズ．

オーマーの記事への反論記事。
著者は第27回世界大会の審査員長。

【Article】Massie, Kevin. 2005. What's the matter with Matter?. Monash Debating Review. Vol.4 pp.42-43. Melbourne: Monash Association of Debaters.

A rebuttal article to the Omar's article in 2003.
The author is the Chief Adjudicator for the 27th Worlds.

The followings are quotations from the Kevin's article.
-----------------------------------------
It is true that most debating guides, adjudication guides and even some rulebooks indicate that matter and manner should be considered equally by judges, often as separate categories on a score sheet, or at least as separately described categories during briefings from Adjudication Cores. The growing trend towards matter-heavy adjudication is however a positive step towards more consistent, reliable and objective adjudication. Assessment of manner as a separate category only reinforces debating community. subjectivity in adjudication, and propagates some of the worst stereotypes that exist in the world debating community. I am certainly not advocating for debates with no style and no verbal artistry, however there is a gap between encouraging style among debaters and actually adjudicating it on some sort of objective scale.
--------------------------------------
The first question that needs to be answered in order to justify the adjudication of style is “what makes good style?” Is it being loud? Is it having a good grasp of sound-bytes? Is it being witty or spending the first half of your speech cracking jokes elaborately crafted hours before the round. Most experienced adjudicators have no problem accepting that there are a multitude of ways to give a good speech. In particular, at a tournament as regionally diverse as the World University Debating Championships, we need to embrace a broad range of speaking styles.
---------------------------------------