Chief Adjudicator’s Panel

Muhammad Haikal Satria Gabriel Charlotte Wajong

Boby Andika Ruitang Stephanie Elizabeth Purwanto

 Questions and Answers
Access the slides at:
http://gg.gg/NSDCSEMINAR19

Direct all your questions to:

https://pigeonhole.at/NSDC2019
 1. Profile of a “model” judge
2. The WSDC format
3. Judging Criteria
Agenda - Content
- Style
- Strategy

4. Scoring Criteria
5. After the round
 Profile of a “model” judge
● Impartial: doesn’t judge teams they have a personal bond with (region of affiliation, teams they
have coached, etc.)
● Unbiased: has no prior idea who is going to win the debate. Their own opinion is put aside during
the debate.
● Observant: listens carefully to what debaters bring to the table and doesn’t construct ideas that
haven’t been explained well.
● Aware of current affairs: takes on the role of an average, intelligent listener, without letting
specialist knowledge interfere with the debate.
● Constructive: gives debaters constructive and concrete feedback after the result of the debate is
announced.
● Expert on the rules: knows WSDC debating rules inside out.
 What a “model” judge does in rounds
● Is courteous and respectful to the teams and coaches
● Does not allow coaches to make signs or signals to debaters beyond time signals, and maintains room
decorum.
● Always makes themselves available for feedback
● Pays attention in round:
➢ No being on your phones (unless absolutely necessary)
➢ Takes notes
 On Motions
● All judges should write down and have the exact phrasing of the motion!
➢ Necessary to judge “reasonable” definition
➢ Teams might not say the motion during their speeches, but they assume the room knows!

● INFO-SLIDES ARE PART OF THE MOTION!

➢ Teams and judges should use them
➢ They are there to “upgrade” the reasonable informed individual with specific knowledge
The WSDC
Format
 General Outline of the Format
● 2 teams: Proposition (Government) and Opposition
➢ 3 members on a team
➢ 3 speakers per team in a debate
➢ 3 substantive speeches + 1 reply speech (per team)
■ Substantive speeches: 8 min
■ Reply Speeches: 4 min → Only the 1st or 2nd speaker can give the reply speech for their team
➢ The opposing team may raise “Points of Information” a.k.a POIs during substantive
speeches

● No low-point wins or draws!

 Roles of the Teams
Proposition:
● It has the burden of proof: has to win significant majority of cases.
● It has to define the motion. Must be clear and fair to both sides.
● Should describe their characterisation of the status quo and present substantive arguments in
favour of their case.
● Where appropriate, presents a solution to the identified problem(s).
 Roles of the Teams
Opposition:
● Should oppose the Gov.’s motion: has to win significant minority of cases.
● It can set up its case purely on rebuttal of Gov., but this is strategically risky.
● It can have substantive arguments of its own, including proposing a ‘counter-model’
● Strategic choices an Opposition can make in response to the Definition:
○ accept the issue as given by the Gov. and debate
○ challenge the definition and propose another one
○ broaden the definition
○ present an “even if” case (strongly recommended!)
 Roles of the Speakers
Order of speaking → First Prop, First Opp; Second Prop, Second Opp; Third Prop, Third
Opp and then Opp Reply, Prop Reply.
Who can introduce new constructive material?
Government (Proposition) Opposition
⦿ First – of course! ⦿ First – yes
⦿ Second – yes ⦿ Second – yes
⦿ Third – yes, but* ⦿ Third – yes, but*
⦿ Reply – no ⦿ Reply – no
 On New Material
What is new material?
● For 3rd Speeches: Balancing Act
- New material can be introduced in the form of some lines of analysis, new examples, new ways
of balancing/comparative. Has to be derivative of previous material. Even then, less time for the
other side to respond = less engagement = bad strategic choice to bring so late.
● For Reply Speeches: Significantly stricter
○ Even if derivative of previous material, should be considered very late.
○ Some leeway: better late than never OR if Opp Whip/Reply brings substantially new material,
prop should have opportunity to note this for the judge.
EPIPHANIES AND
NEW IDEAS ARE
GREAT, BUT YOU
SHOULD HAVE
THEM EARLIER
Judging Criteria
 Style
Deals with HOW the content is presented.
● Not judging their command of English language
● Includes:
✓ Body language, pace of speech, loud/silent
✓ Choice of vocabulary (too technical or too lay?)
✓ Eye contact or fixated on notes?
● How engaging and persuasive is the speaker?
● There are plenty of good styles.
 Why is Style important in a debate?
1. Good style makes a speech:
● Easy to follow
● Clear
● Non-repetitive
● Interesting
● Persuasive
2. There is no single “correct style”
3. A good style makes debaters be effective communicators: a speech is not just about presenting information,
but also about getting the information through to the audience
 Style - Best Practices
- VISUAL STYLE -
Eye Contact: Makes the audience feel that the debater is speaking to them. Speakers should
address the entire audience. When using notes, speakers should read through them, not read them
out loud.
Gestures: when speaking everyone uses gesturing; however, excessive gesturing or repetitive
movements could be distracting, so they should be avoided.
Use of props: this would include lecterns, microphones, desks, stopwatches, etc. Speakers should
not repeatedly direct attention to them.
Stance: Speakers should face the audience and avoid turning their backs to it or speaking directly
to their opponents in the debate. Their posture should reflect calm and confidence, so it’s best to
avoid moving around too much.
 Style - Best Practices
- ORAL STYLE -
Accent: This element should not impact the score a speaker receives, neither positively nor negatively.
However, a speaker should try to be as clear as possible during their speech.
Speed: Debaters should speak in a way that gives the audience enough time to understand and
evaluate what’s been said. Debaters can make emphasis on the most relevant things via speed
variation.
Voice modulation: Varying the volume of their voice during a speech allows debaters to be clearer by
putting emphasis over the content that is more relevant, same way as we all do when speaking.
Volume: This also depends on the context of the speech, as the two previous points, and debaters
should apply variations to it. Best speakers adjust their volume and oral style based on the properties
of the room they are speaking in (is it a small classroom with an echo or a large auditorium, etc.).
 Style - Best Practices
- ORAL STYLE -
Distracting gestures: Tend to distract the listeners from the speech, so debaters should avoid them
when possible.
Pauses: Used to add emphasis to a certain idea or point and are good transition makers.
 Content
● Deals with WHAT is being presented.
● Evaluates the quality of content as if they were written down.
● Covers both arguments AND rebuttal.
● If an argument is weak / poorly developed, it is generally a content weakness
● NEVER step in to complete the analysis / argument for the other team
● Includes:
- Quality of analysis (missing logical links or nicely logically structured? → claim, explanation,
example, conclusion)
- Quality of examples (broadly applicable or cherry-picked? generalised or personal anecdotes?)
→ Responses to Points of Information are included here as well
 Content - Best Practices
Arguments
When the debaters talk about a consequence of the motion, do they actually explain why the
consequence will happen or do they merely state it?
Examples
Do the debaters use relevant examples that make their arguments more persuasive or do they use
irrelevant (or overly specific) examples?
Rebuttal
When rebutting their opponent, do they attack the actual argument the opponent made or do they
misrepresent the argument to make it easier for themselves (strawman)? Do they use logical steps
of analysis or do they simply claim that the argument is false?
 Good Analysis
● What is good analysis?
○ Rigorous Logic: Links made, conclusion cleanly derives from assumptions
○ Relevance: Decided on by the teams, and what they make relevant to the debate
○ Relative Importance: Why is this argument important in the world/in the debate?
○ Tracking Evolution: Responding to responses, adding new illustrations/language
 Good Analysis
Why does this matter?
○ A good judge never takes what teams say they have proven at face value; always check if they
actually did so! Be wary of a team that brandishes claims.
○ Labels can be misleading.
○ Saying why something is important is not the same as proving that it happens.
○ Bad analysis that has not been rebutted still stands, but it is STILL POOR CONTENT and should
be judged accordingly.
○ Bad rebuttal to a well-constructed point signifies engagement, but is STILL POOR CONTENT and
should be judged accordingly
 Strategy
● Deals with WHY and HOW content is said
● It’s the sum of choices that a team makes in order to win a debate.
● Includes:
✓ Interpretation and relevance of the motion
✓ Time allocation
✓ Structuring of the speech (prioritization)
✓ Consistency between arguments and speeches
✓ Points of Information
 Why is Strategy important?
Reflects the decision that teams make on:
● how to define the motion
● what arguments to present
● whether or not to attack the
● when to present each argument definition, and to which extent
● how much time to allocate to each argument ● how to present summaries at the end
● when to refute a topic or offer a POI of the speeches

● how to answer to a POI from the opposing ● when to use examples (to sustain
team (whether they dodge it or address it; how their arguments)
well they address it is also a matter of Content) ● what examples to use in each case
 Strategy - Best Practices
Whether the speaker understood the issues of the debate: the crucial topics of the debate have all been
answered by the team, and that its members have not wasted time in dealing only with the details.
ISSUES
For example: a speaker who answers the critical issues with weak responses would not have a good level
of Content but a good level of Strategy.
Good strategy helps teams present consistent arguments and refutation.

A well structured speech should: A well timed speech should:

● include a clear beginning, middle and end; ● last no more than the allowed time limit;
ORGANIZATION
● contain signposts along the way to allow the ● give an appropriate amount of time to the issues in
audience to see where the speaker is going. the speech.
 --- Points of Information ---
● Short, brief comments or questions addressing what the speaker is immediately saying
How many should be offered:
● Enough to demonstrate opposing team’s speakers’ engagement with the arguments made in the
given speech.
● POIs should be offered in a way that doesn’t obstruct the speaker from delivering the speech (i.e.
no “barracking”)
How many should be accepted:
● Ideally, 2 per speech
● Cumulative sum should be noted
 --- Points of Information ---
Useful way to think of POI adjustment column:
● Everything that happens within the 8 minutes of a speech is marked within the 3 categories of
Style, Content and Strategy.
● Everything that happens outside is marked within POI adjustment column
(if necessary).
● Can grant or take away up to 2 further points
Scoring Criteria
 Marking Criteria - Suggestion from CAP
Please note that debates should be judged HOLISTICALLY
● Content, Style and Strategy are the criteria used to assess scores to each speaker.
● These are all connected, since it’s the combination of the three areas that determines how
persuasive a speech is.
● Write down indicative scores in your notes after each speech. However...
● ...never judge a debate as two clashing sums right after the round. Think Holistically
 Marking Criteria
● Style: 40% (40 points) → 24 – 32 pts.
● Content: 40% (40 points) → 24 – 32 pts.
● Strategy: 20% (20 points) → 12 – 16 pts.
● SUM: 100 points ⇒ 60-80 pts.
➢ Marks for reply speeches are halved.
➢ Points of Information – a modifier of up to +/- 2.
• Can not push the Total Score outside the 60-80 points range
➢ Half marks are the lowest fraction allowed.
➢ Average speech is 70 (28, 28, 14)
➢ No low-point wins, no draws
 Marking Scores
● Fill out the heading of your ballot completely
It needs to be complete for the purpose of tabbing

● Fill out your ballot before you start giving feedback

● Margins between teams

0-2 pts – very close debate
3-5 pts – close but rather clear
5-10 pts – one team clearly better
Substantive Speeches (out of 100)
Reply Speeches (out of 50)
Marking the Style of Speeches (from 24 to 32)
Marking the Content of Speeches (from 24 to 32)
Marking the Strategy of Speeches (from 12 to 16)
Substantive Speeches (out of 100)
Substantive Speeches (out of 100)
After the
Round
 Deliberation
● 5 minutes to come to a decision on your own and fill out the ballot
● 5-10 minutes to discuss decision with panel
● You can’t change your decision after discussion among the judges begins
 Reason for Decision vs. Feedback
Reason for decision (chair judge):
● Usually given by the Chair Judge to the teams after the debate has ended
● Only mention what happened in the debate and how you weighed this.
● Don’t mention other arguments they could have brought or other ways they could have refuted
their opponents
Feedback (all judges):
● Given by all judges to the teams after the debate: concrete tips on how to be better in the next
debate
 How to deliver the Reason for Decision
● Keep it short - don’t spend longer than 5-6 minutes giving your reason for decision.
● Address the key issues and explain why these were the key issues.
● Clearly explain what both sides contributed to these issues.
● Tell the teams how you weighed these different contributions and why that lead to which winner.
● If style and strategy were relevant to the determination of the result, mention them!
● Always announce who won first. Added suspense only distracts from careful listening to your oral
adjudication! Also makes for weird commentary (one team *winks* did X better)
 How to deliver Feedback
● Be empathetic
● Be structured and specific
● Dedicate time equally
● This is an educational activity!
● Celebrate successes
● Be positive but constructive
● You are less important than the speakers

○ DO NOT be arrogant, rude, or condescending

 Judge to Judge Feedback
● Procedural Notes: ■ Be specific
○ WE CONSIDER FEEDBACK MANDATORY ■ Be unbiased
○ A link will be shared ■ Be punctual
○ If this doesn’t work/you do not have a device, come find us! ● Receiving feedback
○ Paper copies may be available if the wifi doesn’t work
○ Apply all your judging skills!

We welcome adjudicators to ask the CAP for feedback.

Please come see us :)
 Notes on the break
● There is a judges break
○ The CAP will select judges to adjudicate the out round - the announced ‘judges break’
● The judge break is:
○ Competitive - we will break judges to recognise strong performance at the tournament
● Not all judges who break will be required to judge