1. Adjudicator Briefing

2. Introduction In a micro-perspective, they are people who assesses debate rounds. In a broader perspective, they are the backbone of the tournament. The quality of adjudicators directly supports the fairness and competitiveness of the tournament. As such, it is very important that the adjudicators follow the same standard/guideline as much as possible.

3. Adjudicator’s Role Assess the debate, and come up with the decision of who wins Give speaker score to debaters Give explanation as to why one team won and one team lost Provide constructive feedback – some comments to debaters on how to improve further

4. Adjudication Process Individually assess the debate, come up with the decision, give speaker scores. Fill in the ballot sheet, and hand it to the runner. (If the room has a trainee) The chair listens to the trainee(s)’ feedback, and assess them. Call the debaters back, and the adjudicator(s) provide feedback

5. Assessing Debates You will need to be alert and focused throughout the debate. Always take notes. You will most likely need them for reference when coming up with a decision and/or explaining the result. Assume the role of an Average Reasonable Voter/Person. Assess speeches in a holistic way, not treating certain things as being separate criteria.

6. Assessing Debates (2) Average Reasonable Voter (ARV) – It is an artificial perspective created to prevent judges from having bias in terms of the knowledge they possess. – They are intelligent citizens who are generally open- minded to issues around them, and can be taught various things. – They possess reasonable skepticism. They DO NOT take an assertion (a claim) at its face value. They will ALWAYS be critically looking for additional justification for claims made. – They are reasonably informed. They read reputable international newspaper, but do not attempt to memorize all the issues.

7. Assessing Debates (3) Average Reasonable Voter (2) – What do ARVs know? Common, major facts you can find in newspapers. Such as Bin Laden is dead, a Civil War is happening in Syria, A “shutdown” of some sort happened in the US. – You can discredit/ignore claims of “Syria is perfectly peaceful with rich, thriving culture”. – What do ARVs NOT know? Expert knowledge, jargon of certain field of studies. – As an ARV, you can ignore jargon or technical talks that are unexplained by the speaker. “Common arguments” of any debating circuit – You MUST NOT credit/discredit an argument just because you know the complete version of that argument. Always listen to the analysis and elaboration made by the speaker.

8. Assessing Debates (4) Holistic Assessment – The Matter (logical argumentation), Manner (language style, word choices), and Method (structure/organization) should be treated as different mechanisms for the overall persuasion, not as separate criteria. i.e. avoid the “he had a good point but his language was poor” line of thought. – In assessing each of the 3Ms, consider how the good Matter, Manner, and Method helped in making the speaker/team more persuasive.

9. Assessing Debates (5) How to assess Matter – What is considered as a good logical argument? – Substantiation/Analysis Good arguments are well-substantiated and analyzed In short, “claims” made are explained with logical reasoning by the debater, not just left there, hoping the judge would buy into it. Logical reasoning are NOT examples and statistics. – Examples and statistics help in showing the plausibility and reasonability of arguments. – The relevance of arguments The debater should also show why and how the materials they brought up are important in the debate.

10. Assessing Debates (6) How to assess Manner – There is no single right or wrong “style” or speech. – There is, however, a reasonable threshold: Racist, sexist, offensive, insulting personal remark to fellow debaters in the room should be “bad styles”. – Other than that, the adjudicator should be open and accommodating to various styles of speech. What you personally think to be a good style is not necessarily a good style for an ARV. – Consider Manner as a component of speech that helps in conveying the arguments with clarity, and makes the speech more persuasive. Never adopt the “their idea is bad, but they have good language, so they win” line-of-thought. If they had a bad idea, then they are not persuasive.

11. Assessing Debates (7) How to assess Method – Method is about structure, timing, and overall presentation Structure: was the speaker’s speech structure clear and easy to follow? (e.g. the transition from rebuttals to arguments were clear, the speech did not go all over the place) Timing: did the speaker give enough time to all of his/her important points? Overall presentation: allocation of arguments, team dynamics

12. Assessing Debates (8) How to decide who wins – Weigh the materials both sides have presented Who wins on what issue? Look at the arguments they presented, how arguments were rebutted, defended, etc. Weigh the relevance of each issue. How important is certain issues, and how did the debaters show that to you? – Some technicalities – did the team analyze their points well? Did they have good engagement (rebuttals, POIs – dealing with an opposing material)? It does not mean that no engagement means automatic loss. However, if they fail to engage, they are bound to be less persuasive.

13. Assessing Debates (9) How to decide who wins (2) – Certain things to keep in mind: Matter Battle – a scenario where Gov. says A is true, and Opp. says it is not. – Think what an ARV would say. – Assess the debate/argument independent of the matter battle: which side’s point still holds true regardless of the example, since good arguments do not derive from good example only. There is no “automatic loss” in a debate. Always look at the logical reasoning both teams are making.

14. Scoring The score range of this tournament is 69-81 The substantive speaker’s (PM, LO, DPM, DLO, GW, OW) score range is only in whole number. – NO DECIMAL POINTS. 69 to 81 only. The Reply speech’s score is substantive speaker’s speech divided by two. – If you thought the speech deserves a 75 had it been a substantive speech, that Reply speech gets 37.5.

15. Scoring (2) MeaningScore Godlike80-81 Excellent79 Very Good78 Good76-77 Average75 Decent73-74 Good Effort72 Inexperienced71 Is not familiar with this style of debate70 Hello, Thank you, Goodbye69

16. Scoring (3) Ultimately, the score range is a loose guideline to calibrate the tournament score. We understand that in the end, there is slight deviation based on some subjectivity. To make sure that your score is aligned with the tournament standard, compare it to the speech given in the tournament’s adjudication test round. Those speech are the most accurate representation of each score given to them.

17. Oral Adjudication The process of justifying your decision to the debaters. No established way to do it. Panelists and Chairs give OA to debaters, while Trainees give OA to the Chair in the room. What you should keep in mind is: – It should be prepared, and not lengthy. Keep it concise! – You are not arguing with the debaters, but giving your perception of the debate Do take this seriously. The debaters will give you a score based on your OA, just like how you gave them scores based on their speech.

18. Oral Adjudication (2) Sample Structure: – Declare who won – General comments to the debate, perhaps some on the technicalities – Issues you perceived in the debate Justify why and how did one side win on certain issues Explain the relevance of each issues to the debate – Constructive feedback

19. Judging Ethics General conducts – Write down notes, unless you have a super-human memory – Refrain from heckling and distracting the speaker – Please turn your phone to silent mode and refrain from picking up phone calls – Do not fall asleep In adjudicating – Do not “jump” in the debate Using personal knowledge in assessing the merit of arguments Being biased in general Giving the “you could have said this argument but you did not so you lose” line of result. – There is no “automatic loss” or “automatic deduction” towards a speech.

20. Q & A Session

21. Thank you for your attention!