Initial Accreditation Test for JOVED 2019

This document will consist of the questions for the Initial Accreditation Test for JOVED 2019.
The Adjudication Core is releasing this document so that all judges may be given enough time
to prepare and study for the Accreditation Test. The Initial Accreditation Test will be reviewed
using a blind system. For this system to work, judges will receive a unique code from the
tabulation team. The unique code is your only identifier, to ensure that the Adjudication Core
remains unbiased throughout the scoring process. You should receive your unique codes from
the Tabulation Team around 8 June 2019.
Once you have your unique code and have prepared your answers for the Initial Accreditation
Test you MUST SUBMIT IT THROUGH THIS FORM USING YOUR UNIQUE CODE:
http://bit.ly/JOVEDInitialAccreTest . The deadline for submitting the form is 12 June 2019
23.59 WIB. We will not tolerate late submissions.
The test consists of two parts. The first part consists of submitting a verbal adjudication towards
a debate video. The second part consist of 7 open-ended essay questions. For both parts, judges
are expected to answer all questions comprehensively, explaining their decisions, though
process, and reasoning.
As study material, the Adjudication Core has compiled questions and answers from IVED 2019
and ALSA UI 2019 initial accreditation test. This compilation is meant as additional reading
material for debaters and judges. The Adjudication Core of JOVED 2019 does not
guarantee the accuracy nor endorse the answers of previous Adjudication Cores. You can
find that here http://bit.ly/PrevAccreQnA

Part One: Verbal Adjudication

Please watch the following debate. The video is divided into two parts.
Part 1/2: https://youtu.be/yqyzQPRlYl0
Part 2/2: https://youtu.be/9zqv1WY6XMc
1. Who won the debate?
2. What is the score of the First Proposition Speaker?
3. What is the score of the First Opposition Speaker?
4. What is the score of the Second Proposition Speaker?
5. What is the score of the Second Opposition Speaker?
6. What is the score of the Third Proposition Speaker?
7. What is the score of the Third Opposition Speaker?
8. What is the score of the Opposition Reply Speaker?
9. What is the score of the Proposition Reply Speaker?
10. Write a verbatim of a verbal adjudication you’d deliver for this debate!
Part Two: Questions
1. How would you value a second speaker that only brings rebuttals and a second speaker
that only brings arguments?
2. In the motion “As western states, THW stop all efforts in democratizing dictatorial
regimes through military intervention”, Proposition team in their setup claims that the
debate needs to assume that the parliament will agree to withdraw all military
operations made to democratize dictatorial regimes. Later in their argumentation the
explain that in the status quo that western countries currently do not have sufficient
budget, troops, and weaponry to effectively transform dictatorial regimes into
democracies. The Opposition responds by saying that their fiat includes the ability to
increase the military budget and troops to transform dictatorial regimes into
democracies. Can both Proposition and Opposition assume the feasibility of their
setups/mechanisms?
3. In a motion on “THBT canonization in the Roman Catholic Church should be
conducted through a process of direct voting by the congregation”, the Proposition and
Opposition submit the follows. If the Opposition had only delivered their First
Argument, how would you judge the debate? With the inclusion of the Opposition’s
Second Argument, how would you judge the debate?

Proposition Opposition

The current composition of canonized [First Argument]

people is not relatable to the Catholic Canonization is a sacred process
congregation. divinely ordained as a duty bestowed
onto the Catholic Church. A democratic
vote would tarnish that sacredness

Allowing the Catholic congregation to [Second Argument]

democratically decide who is canonized The purpose of canonization is not to
will create a composition that is more provide a composition of relatable
reflective of the values and identities of canonized people. Instead, it is meant as
the Catholic congregation. a standard for people to aspire to be and
as people who ask as intermediaries to
be closer to God.
4. In a debate, the first speaker of the Proposition and Opposition team fails to deliver
argumentation that rigorous and comprehensive, instead of relying on assertions and
one-liners. Both second speakers are repetitive and do not add any new analysis. The
Third Speaker of the Proposition delivers a new deep analysis of the motion. The
analyses are convincing, strong, and touches the main burden of proofs for the
Proposition. The Opposition Team ignores the material delivered by the previous
speaker and delivers strong rebuttals towards the First and Second Speaker of
Proposition. Those rebuttals successfully tackle the argumentation delivered at First
and Second Proposition.
5. How do you judge a team that fails to prove their burden of proof in a debate?
6. After the Third Opposition Speaker, you believe that Opposition has a clear upper hand
in the debate. The debate was average with sufficiently elaborated arguments clashing
nicely with good rebuttals. The Reply Speaker of the Opposition was mediocre and
 simply listed the arguments delivered by the Opposition. The Reply Speaker of the
Proposition, however, delivered a strong reply speech, framing at length how the debate
should be weighed, providing convincing tipping points for why their case should win,
explaining the questions that each team should have answered and how successful they
were at answering them, all without delivering any new materials. You are convinced
by the framing, tipping points, and burdens explained by the Reply Speaker of
Proposition. How should you judge the debate?
7. Explain the difference between the following motions;
a. This House Would
b. This House Believe That
c. This House Supports or This House Opposes
d. This House Prefers a world in which
e. This House Prefers X over Y
f. This House Regrets
g. This House Believes that X should
h. This House, as X, Would

GOOD LUCK! Much Love, Syagung, Alif, Livina, Felicia