Nagoya (@1.95) vs Oita (@3.7)
06-10-2019

Our Prediction:

Nagoya will win

Nagoya – Oita Match Prediction | 06-10-2019 01:00

3. Process of Judging In sum, judging a policy debate is like policy making itself. The following 5 steps might help you to make fairer and more objective decisions. Just imagine yourself as a rational voter for a national policy referendum, and you are going to vote according to, and only according to the issues that are raised by each opposing party.

The debate should focus on the general trend of the Japanese Universities academic year. Even if there are strong arguments supporting that some limited number of special universities (or some special students) should definitely start their academic year in April (or September), these arguments are just talking about exceptions, so these are not themselves enough reason to negate or affirm the topic. Also, even if there are strong arguments supporting that some particular schools should admit their entrance both in April and in September, these arguments by themselves favor neither the Affirmative nor the Negative side.

Fixed Matches HT FT

The question of the agriculturalsector being key to the economic future of Japan is not the focus ofagricultural topics but rather the Agricultural industry is the backbone ofevery society. In most countries, agricultural imports and exports aredebated a lot within parliaments and congresses because the topic concernsthe quintessential working person, the farmer. On January 6th, 2011, Bloomberg reported that according to JapansForeign Minister Seiji Maehara, Japans 778 percent tariff on rice importsis holding back its agriculture sector and hampering government efforts torevitalize trade and economic growth. Japans government islookingto liberalize its trade and open its economy as its position as the secondlargest economic power in the world is declining.

In that case, a judge should compare the ADs and the DAs rationally, using ones own value judgments. If the ADs outweigh the DAs then AFF wins, else the NEG wins. (For example, AFF insisted that each child should have enough math ability but NEG argued that childrens individuality should have priority. If a team has explained the value criteria for deciding whether the ADs outweigh the DAs, such debaters criteria should be used to determine the winner. Try to avoid your own point of view coming in. Recollect the latter stage speeches (summary) of the debaters. Which is more important? Such comparison should be done by the debatersthemselves. In some debates, neither team is able to present such value criterion effectively. If the NEG can not present a counter-criterion, a judge should decide in favor of the AFF). 5.Compare the net sum of the issues:Sum up the strength of the ADs and consider if it outweighs the strength of the summed-up DAs. A good AFF summary may present a value criterion insisting that their plan can meet the necessary civil minimum concerning math ability, and the value of such necessary ability outweighs the vague individuality value.

Happy travels! We recommend you to check our 10 days in Japan: Travel itinerary for our best tips on how to make the most out of 10 days in Japan. Hi Annie! Should you want to make it coincide with the cherry blossom we recommend you to check this article for the lastest forecasts; however please note it is not exact science and that best viewing dates cannot be predicted.

4.2 Judging

If the value mentioned in an issue is not well explained by the debaters, dont weigh such issue as significant. Judge the value (significance) of each issue: How important is the alleged merit? How much impact will the demerit bring in terms of quantity and quality? List the issues that were extended: How many merits (advantages) and demerits (disadvantages) were presented, and how many of them were defended and mentioned in the final stage. Values can be sometimes flipped by good opponents. Weigh them lightly if the opponents attack was successful, or the defense was poor, or there wasnt much explanation even in the Constructive speech on why the plan can really gain such merits. Write down the titles (tag-lines) Judge the probability of each issue: How convincing were the alleged merits in terms of factual probability? If merit outweighs the demerits then AFF wins, else the NEG wins. However NEG might flip the issue by arguing that the increased tourists may increase the risk or terrorism. Weigh the strength of AFF and NEG issues on a scale: Sum up the strength of the AFF plans merits and consider if it outweighs the strength of the summed-up demerits. Judge the strength(=multiply probability and value) of each issue: Multiply the above probability and value for each remaining merits and demerits. (In debate jargons, turnarounds: For example, AFF might argue that the plan brings in a lot of tourists from abroad and its good. Do the same thing to each alleged demerit too. What is the value at stake?

In this speech, it is not allowed to add arguments equivalent to new Disadvantages. Moreover, it is not allowed to re-counter-refute against the Affirmative Defense speech which comes directly before this speech. Also, it is not allowed to add new attacks against the Negative Constructive speech. Such new Disadvantages, attacks, or re-counter-refutations should be ignored by the judges as New Arguments.

If the NEG summary cannot present a counter-criterion, a judge should decide by the AFF in favor of the AFF. For example, AFF insists that their plan has some merit on international trade, but NEG pointed out that it might increase domestic jobless rate. There is no absolute scale that can measure such value comparison. Which issue is more important? So, such comparison should be done by debaters themselves. A good AFF summary speech may present a value criterion insisting that a good policy should ignore short term jobless increase and long term merits outweighs such demerits.

Constructive speeches

It goes without saying that, the Affirmative team has the burden to prove that such education or welfare plan is effective. However, it is not allowed to present plans that provide education or welfare only to certain immigrants with certain jobs. 5.It is allowed to present plans on Japanese education, administration, and welfare concerning the immigrants, as stated in Definition 3).