Sendai (@2.1) vs Matsumoto (@3.7)
06-10-2019

Our Prediction:

Sendai will win

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

The excellent debater awards are awarded to the debaters with the highest number of accumulated votes from the judges. If the votes are equal, the debater from the team with better final result will be awarded. Judges should pick a debater that has contributed most to her/his team, not the lone player type who just shows off without contributing to the team. Judges may choose from either the winning or losing team. In every preliminary and the final rounds, each judge must (independently, without discussing with other judges) vote for one debater as the candidate of the best debater award in that specific round. All votes from the preliminaries to the Final round are counted.

The systems adopted in the Netherlands and Belgium legally allow active euthanasia and/or assisted-suicide to unrecoverable, suffering patients (hereafter The Dutch system, see for example: Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act in the Netherlands). The other systems adopted in Oregon and some other states in the U.S.A.

Governmental regulations should be kept as it is. Plans are irrelevant in this debate for this reason also. Considering that there is actually no governing body for the Japanese Universities, it is unrealistic for plans to be even mentioned. There is no governing body other than the Ministry of Education (MEXT) that can regulate some aspects of the 700 or more universities in Japan, but in this debate, governmental actions are not the focus. Japanese Universities each have vast freedom to make the curriculum and their way of education independently.

Also known as Storm

New attacks using evidence on the opponents Advantage or Disadvantage are also treated as New Arguments. Apparent New Arguments are new plans, new Advantages, new Disadvantages or their equivalents, which are first to appear in the Defense or Summary speeches. Especially for instance, the judge should absolutely ignore New Arguments in the Summary speeches, which the opponents have unfairly limited opportunity to refute.

Which means, the questioner can move on to the next question if the answerer is taking too much time to answer, or the answers does not correspond to the question. The questioner must ask questions on the opponents last speech, using interrogative sentences. In the Questions and Answers section, the questioner team has the right to proceed. In the Questions and Answers sections, the questioner directly converse with the answerer. The answerer is expected to give speedy and precise answers. The questions can either be 1) confirmations on ambiguous point, or 2) examinations of arguments or evidence.

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

5. Instructions / Interruptions during the round Basically, judges should leave the debate to the debaters and not intervene in it. However, for educational purposes, do interrupt the speeches in the following exceptional cases: A) SPEECHES are unintelligible (too fast, not loud enough, etc.) B) QUESTIONS and ANSWERS are anomalous.

all Statistics to help you decide, H2H, Prediction, Betting Tips, all game Previews.

So the 3-member teams, which had been exceptionally able to enter the tournament until last year, cannot enter this year. The purpose of this rule change is to enhance fairness, to have more students participate, and to prevent 3- elite- debater teams. In this years tournament every team should have 4 members in every debate match.

Teams will lose communication points when the advice was in a loud voice. During the speech, the debaters are allowed to give some advice to a teammate as long as it is written down on a memo or spoken by word of mouth in as small a voice as possible so the judges and opponents cant hear what the advice is being said.