Sendai (@2.1) vs Matsumoto (@3.7)

Our Prediction:

Sendai will win

Sendai – Matsumoto Match Prediction | 06-10-2019 01:00

However, to argue, for example, on whether the revenue should come from direct tax or indirect tax maybe just some small technicalities. PS: Tax burden will naturally be one of the major issues in this BI debate. If in case such deviations are observed frequently in local tournaments during the summer or fall season, definitions to restrict the finance issue may be added in the future. This focus on technicalities may be a not-so-welcome deviation from the supposed core issues of the BI debate.

(The minimum point cannot be below 1 though.) NOTE: In extreme cases, the winning team may have lower communication points but thats OK. PENALTIES: You should subtract some points for PENALTY in the following conditions: If a team or its member A) does not obey the judges/chairpersons instructions, being rude or making noise; B) was offensive or rude during the Q/As; C) not answering at all in the Q/As.; D) not cooperating to reveal the source of their evidence to the opponents. Subtract as many points as you think it deserves.

2.It is not allowed to present a plan that restricts the Definition 2) by limiting the immigrants by their native country or business. For example, granting visas to workers only in the fields of agriculture, fishery, and nursing is not allowed.

Judge the value (significance) of each issue: How important is the alleged merit? 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. 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. Write down the titles (tag-lines) Judge the probability of each issue: How convincing were the alleged merits in terms of factual probability? 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. Do the same thing to each alleged demerit too. 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. However NEG might flip the issue by arguing that the increased tourists may increase the risk or terrorism. If the value mentioned in an issue is not well explained by the debaters, dont weigh such issue as significant. Values can be sometimes flipped by good opponents. If merit outweighs the demerits then AFF wins, else the NEG wins. What is the value at stake?

Midler (Stand: High Priestess)

Only when there is some apparent accident in time measurement, such as when the Time Keepers timer broke down or the Time Keeper mishandled the timer, the main judge may refer to the debaters timer. The duration of each speech will be kept track of by each rooms official Time Keepers timer, not the timers of the debaters.

The 5thAll Japan High School Debate topic implored students to explore the issueofhow relaxing immigration can change a society. A topic such as nationalsecurity would ask students the question of how the changing of currentnational security operations would change the regional and internationalrelationships with other countries. Detailed within the guidelineswereseveral areas in which the government of Japan intends to expand currentnational defense operations from everything between increasing theeffectiveness of global peacekeeping operations to establishing a DynamicDefense Force.It is my opinion that this topic provides very good opportunities forEnglish high school debaters to debate several different aspects of futureJapanese national security issues, since it is a very timely issue. Recently, the government of Japan released its National Defense ProgramGuidelines for the year 2011 and beyond.

Needless to say, the Negative team cannot challenge the Affirmative by supporting other months, for example, arguing that October is better than September. On the other hand, the Negative team should defend the present situation where most of the schools academic year starts around April. For example, even if quite a lot of universities decided that they will start their academic year in September, the Negative position is to defend the April situation. Even if the present situation changed dramatically before the National tournament in December, this Negative position should not change.

Only when the Negative Constructive speech contains attacks to the Affirmative Advantages, the Affirmative Attack speaker is allowed to refute to the attacks in the Constructive speech. The Affirmative Attack speaker is not allowed to refute the attacks of Negative Attack speech. If such hasty rebuttals are apparently seen, Judges should ignore them. Such rebuttal should be done in the Defense speech.

Even if the judge thought the debaters arguments are incomprehensible or just ridiculous, dont warn them on the spot and treat the arguments as being so weak (or in some cases ignorable) to be counted in making the round decision. The judges can and are encouraged to give the debaters some advice on such bad arguments after the round.