【Article】感性的評価の何が悪い? What's the matter with Manner?

【雑誌記事】サラフディーン，オーマー．2003．「感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』．2巻．57-64頁．モナッシュ・アソシエーション・オブ・ディベーターズ．

論争の火種になったオーマーの記事。
この記事はいかに近年の審査が理性面に偏っているかとその偏向による弊害について述べている。

【Article】 Salahuddin, Omar. 2003. What's the matter with Manner?. Monash Debating Review. Vol.2 pp.57-64. Melbourne: Monash Association of Debaters.

This is THE article that fired up the controversy over the balance of Matter and Manner in adjudication.

The followings are quotations from the article.
--------------------------------
We have forgotten the importance of Manner in debating and no longer understand how to adjudicate Manner. Moreover, the value of Matter - relative to values normally ascribed to Manner, and to a lesser extent, Method - has grown to the point at which it totally dominates the way in which we observe, adjudicate, discuss and assess competitive debates. In my opinion, the system is operating unfairly now and to the detriment of something which is at least as important to the intellectural art of debating as the material being developed; the Manner of speakers.
--------------------------------
The Australasian system was the first of the three to gain general acceptance. This system provided three major criterion for adjudication: Matter, Manner and Method. Each was given a notional value for the purpose of adjudication, Matter and Manner accounting for 40% each of the total marks for a single speech, with Method the remaining 20%.
--------------------------------