[dipetik dengan kebenaran dari Blog "The Naked Truth"]

Written By: Muhammad Yunus  - www.muhammadyunus.wordpress.com

Two years ago, I went to the inaugural Asian Universities Debating Championship (AUDC) at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. The organizers are champions of an improved adjudication system - free of prejudice and unfairness – which they felt was absent in the All-Asians Debating Championship. They introduced a whole lot of new system within the tournament: The adjudication test (which I will reserve for future installment), the adjudicator’s ranking system, etc. Quaintly enough, I was not impressed – especially when a bizzare phenomenon happened to someone who has been active in competitive debating for no less than 7 years. Nevertheless, I admire their hard work and applaud their intentions.

I feel that there should be thorough research in these systems before it is installed in a tournament. I am not claiming that the existing systems practised in All-Asians or in fact the Worlds are better, I am merely exclaiming that there is a need for reliable and ethical study before anyone could maturely assert that another system is blemished or flawed.

Anyway, what I would like to share in this piece of blog is with regards to my views on the current adjudication system practised in all debating tournaments.

Adjudication in competitive debating looks into two primary components of the speech: Manner and matter - which is an adjudication perspective that evaluates the performance of the debater. These two components practically explains itself – but does it? 

The delicate issue is this: How do you exactly evaluate and review matter and manner? Some would answer that the evaluation or assessment is a matter of perception thus there should not be any restrictions or constraints on how an adjudicator should evaluate. The spectrum or continuum of matter and manner is so vast and dependent on discernment of different people that any constriction may lead to an unfair or bias valuation towards someones communication oreintation or style. Silly isn’t it, especially when the same people who propagate this wonderful concern proliferates the importance of adjudication briefings and tests prior to the tournament that inculcate and educate people on how to adjudicate. Disturbingly enough, this also projects that adjudication is a tough thing to do. No it’s not.

Anyone can adjudicate. What anyone needs to equip themselves with, is just the knowledge on the technicalities and mechanics of the debate. Once you have that at the back of your head, you’re good to go as an adjudicator. Beyond the working of a debate, every adjudicator should be independent and not be restricted to a particular way of coming up with a verdict.

Competitive debating, like instructional communication, is a process where values and ideals are transmitted from the debater to the adjudicator. A succesful transmission would certainly put the debater as favourites of the adjudicator. Matter and manner combined, is naught but a mere vector that transmits these values into the system of belief of an adjudicator – like a mosquito transmitting malaria to a victim. Hence, what adjudicators need to diagnose is themselves, not the performance of the debater, seeing that the success rate which a  transmission of values occur would definitely rest within the adjudicator themselves.

Verdict: Adjudicator’s affective learning is an antecedent to debaters level of performance. The answer rests inside.